All GOP Presidential Candidates are Four Square Behind Border Protectionism

One takeaway from last night’s presidential debate was that unskilled Mexican workers—you know, the ones who mow your lawns, build your homes, bring you X-mas trees and raise your children for wages barely enough to have lawns, homes, trees or children of their own—are the new untouchables of American society. They have a lower status than gays, the unborn, submissive women—and white males! Not a single candidate stood up for them.

Every question evoked some disagreement from some candidate—whether it was allowing civil unions, keeping abortion legal, going to war in Afghanistan or imposing sanctions on Iran. But on two questions there was so much unanimity on stage that you could almost hear the strains of kumbaya over the woofing between Michelle Bachmann and Tim Pawlenty: One, all of them said they would have walked away from any debt-ceiling deal that included any tax increases whatsoever, even one that offered $10 or so in spending cuts for $1 in tax increases. But one or more candidate was almost certainly lying about this (I’m looking at you Mitt Romney and John Huntsman). Two, they all agreed that illegal immigration was the bane of America and “securing our border” has to precede comprehensive immigration reform. And about this, unfortunately, I don’t think anyone was lying.

Herman Cain said that we have to secure our borders “by any means necessary” although, apparently, he was only joking when he said that the means ought to include a 20-foot-barbed-wire-electrified fence in addition to a moat with alligators. (Ha, ha. Funny. ROTFL. Hey, I can take a joke, America!) Mitt Romney basically agreed although, to his credit, he tried to change the subject to skilled immigration, saying that it would behoove America to staple a green card to the degree of a foreign student who, say, got a Ph.D. in Physics from an American university. But most disappointing was Ron Paul. He likes to talk in fundamentals about every other issue, but betrayed absolutely no grasp of the fundamental reasons driving illegal immigration.

So here it is for future reference, Dr. Paul et al. What's driving this "problem" is our insane, irrational, and cruel immigration system.

The way this system works right now is that the American government has imposed a blanket ban on immigration. But then it selectively relaxes this ban for certain categories of favored people among whom “unskilled” Third World workers are not included. Indeed, as this Reason Foundation chart shows, there are virtually no legal avenues for “unskilled” aliens to work and permanently live in this country.

For starters, it is literally impossible for poor aliens to get temporary work visas such as the H-2A or H-2B to lawfully enter. That’s because Uncle Sam hands out only a few thousand such visas annually when the demand—before the American economy went down the tube, that is— was in the millions.

And that’s the best part of the system. The worst is that in order to get a visa, poor people have to effectively prove they are not poor. Indeed, they have to show that they have enough assets and connections that they would return home once their job in the U.S. is done. But if they had all that, they wouldn’t really need to come to the U.S. and work for scraps in the first place, would they?  

But even if they somehow manage to get the visa, they can’t apply for a green card or permanent residency while working in the Unites States legally. "So what," one might say. What’s so wrong about having them go back to their country and applying for a green card? Nothing at all, except that Uncle Sam won’t accept green card applications from people abroad (other than in the rare instance when they have family members already in the United States willing to sponsor them)!

To recap, then, the United States hands out very few work visas to poor, unskilled aliens. When it does, it requires them to jump through hoops that are virtually impossible for them to jump through. If they somehow manage to jump through them, they are barred from actually applying for permanent residency.

Is there any surprise then that there are 11 million people illegally living in the country?

But what do our venerable candidates suggest we do to fix this system? Erect more walls and fences and barriers.

So here is my question for the candidates for the next debate: “If you were a poor, Third World immigrant, what would you need to do to legally work and live in the United States? You have one minute."

I’ll cook dinner or mow the lawn—but only up to one acre—of any candidate who answers that correctly.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • yes but||

    We give out tons of green cards to the unskilled as family members. Perhaps we should allow many more, but don't pretend the lack of work visas means we allow zero unskilled immigrants in legally. We probably get way more than other developed countries.

  • Art Vandelay||

    To recap, then, the United States hands out very few work visas to poor, unskilled aliens. ...] there are 11 million people illegally living in the country?

    You'd think the admitted presence of 11 million unskilled illegal aliens here already would obviate the (ostensibly) crushing need for millions more -- particularly during an economic friggin' recession, for Frith's sake! -- wouldn't you?

    -1,000,000,000 for the DERP.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    the admitted presence of 11 million unskilled illegal aliens here already

    ^ THIS ^. Seriously, just how many people do you need to mow your fucking lawn, Shikha?

  • Realist||

    This country can produce all the stupid, useless assholes we "need" witout importing them.

  • Realist||

    Should read....Without...

  • Federal Dog||

    Shikha Dalmia is the hack of this site.

    She cannot bring herself to use language honestly. That is why she always lies about people objecting to all "immigrants," and not just to illegals.

  • tarran||

    Hey art, if you don't want to hire Me'sicans to mow you lawn, that's your choice.

    But part of living in a free country is this crazy idea that the government has no business determining how many x of anything the people need.

  • Maxxx||

    I don't want to pay to educate the seven children of your gardner, nor pay for their medical care, asshole!

  • ||

    I dont either Maxxx. That's why forced taxation to pay for public schools if wrong.

    Imagine, if you will, a single, childless person being forced to pay for the public education of the seventy million children of his fellow countrymen, or to subsidize their Medicare, asshole.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Even worse is having a child in private school (soon to be 2), yet STILL having to pay for public schools.

  • Maxxx||

    Agreed,

    So lets focus on cutting the welfare state down to size instead of increasing the number of parasites feeding on it.

  • HermanLame||

    Agreed with Maxxx. Much like Hans Herman Hoppe's immigration argument: In a perfectly libertarian society (he says stateless, I insert libertarian) free movement of goods and people would be a highly desirable positive, but as most states hand out perks/unfair benefits in addition to welfare, those citizens forced to hand out those benefits at least should get some say in determining the who/what/when/where/how/why of those benefits. At least, in the interim until those candies are abolished.

  • ||

    I wouldn't really characterize that as "much like" Hoppe's immigration argument. Hoppe specifically cites the "immigrants use social welfare" argument as flawed and easily countered with the point Maxx made. He believes benefits for illegals should be cut in the interim, but his argument against current immigration policy is far more fundamental. He sees it as forced integration.

  • Bonnie||

    Not advocating taxpayer-funded, state controlled schools but....Did you go to private school? Someone paid for your education, right? Do you plan to never have kids? Or have them in private/home schools? Just saying, the resentment for being a single person paying for education might be a bit of an in-the-moment view.

  • ||

    I don't hate paying for the education and medical care of an immigrant gardener anymore or less then I hate paying for yours.

  • sophrosyne23||

    Even before Obama's healthcare plan, you've been paying for their healthcare indirectly as a result of increasing insurance premiums.

    As for the education, the kids are by definition poor minorities and are therefore vulnerable. Many, since they were born here, are American citizens and by law must go to school. Are you willing to penalize the children for the crime of the parents? And what do you honestly think will be the result of barring them from school? Odds are they are on the streets and we've turned a potentially productive and well-adjusted segment of society into a burden on the country.

  • Corny Ass White Boy||

    Yeah I couldn't agree more. In my city a bank robber robbed a bank and gave the money to his kids. When he was caught, the government forced them to give the money back. Why are we punishing the kids for the crimes of their parents?

  • ||

    Perhaps her point is that there wouldn't BE 12 million illegal immigrants if the immigration system gave them an avenue to get here legally.

    After all, as libertarians, I'm SURE that we can agree that government forcing anything into a black market (whether it be workers or weed) is a win-win for everyone. Right?

    -1.5 TT for the double-DERP.

  • squishua||

    Ron Paul wasn't that crazy about the border fence portion of the bill.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y3zEP75kFM

  • sailor||

    How much of Paul's immigration policy is due to the fact that he represents rural Texas in the House?

  • CaptainSmartass||

    Houston is rural? Maybe by Dallas standards, sure, but no objectively it isn't.

  • prolefeed||

    If you google his district, it is about 150 miles long and 75 miles wide, and seems to mostly exclude the urban areas (which, even in Texas, are Democratic territory).

    It sure looks like he has some rural areas in his district.

  • ||

    Probably none of it. Ron is more Rothbardian than Cosmotarian. His position on immigration is consistent with the position of Austrian Economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe. It is a complex argument, impossible to distill in a TV interview or debate, so most people aren't familiar with it. Occasionally when talking about immigration, Ron will blurt out words or phrases that clue people who are familiar with Hoppe's argument in to what he believes, but unless you know the argument, it would just sound like typical Paul incoherence (i like and support Paul, but he isn't the most articulate speaker in the world). I'm sure there are people at Reason who are familiar with Hoppe's position. I've often wondered why Paul's immigration stance is so often portrayed on this site as some inexplicable inconsistency rather than the established strand of anarcho-capitalist thinking that it is.

  • ||

    WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT SHIKIA?! H-2s are for unskilled farm labor, maybe there are not enough visas, but it is an indisputable fact, employers have to jump through an obscene amount of hoops to get approval. Forget expandingthe program there need to be massive revisions. Also there needs to be an end to inflationary monetary policy that keeps "prevailing wages" jumping by leaps and bounds year after year with no real increase in employer revenues.

  • ||

    Just like they are all bought and paid for lol.

    www.anon-vpn.it.tc

  • ||

    First, I don't have anyone mow my yard, and anyone that works on my home, is a citzen.

    Second, so what if it's hard to get in. It's our country, we get to decide who comes in, and how many.

    Just because millions want to come in, doesn't mean everyone gets to come.

    Finally, "IF" they do finally get control of the border, THEN we can figure out what to do with everyone already here.

  • Joeyjojojrshabadoo||

    No one talks about how many immigrants they want in the country though. I wish they did. Instead they say they want illegal immigrants to come legally and line up behind the legal immigrants. This shows they don't know the immigration process is like because for unskilled immigrants with no relatives in the US there is no line.

  • ||

    Because one low skilled underclass isn't enough, we need to import another.

  • db||

    Hey, here's an idea: Why not have a free market in labor, so that instead of a single, monolithic immigration policy that fails in every way, people who need labor would be able to choose freely who they hire, and people who want jobs would be able to work at the kind of work they want to, for an agreeable wage.

    This issue, among all others, puts the lie to the claim that Republicans and conservatives in general are fans of the free market. Either you support a free market in all things, because it's the right answer, in economic principle, or you lose legitimacy when you try to make a high-and-mighty supposedly principled argument on any other topic.

  • false dichotomy||

    A free market for child prostitutes? A free market for slaves?

    I think you need some more principles to apply in your little country for it to work. That person you responded to there had one such additional principle regarding immigration.

  • MWG||

    "A free market for child prostitutes? A free market for slaves?"

    Children and slaves are not consenters to either of these. Therefore, they cannot be free markets.

  • db||

    Yeah, pretty much what I would have said. Free markets require free agents. Coerced behavior cannot, by definition, result in a free market.

  • ||

    @ DB,

    Yes we have a free market in labor IN the US. That doesn't mean that you can bring anyone you want in the country. WE as a country, still get to decide on immigration laws, and who and how many get to come in.

    It's like living in a house with room mates. Many decisions you get to make on your own, but when it comes to inviting a new room mate over, you have to come to a group agreement.

  • db||

    Kroneborge:
    1. There is not, and will not be, a free market in labor in the U.S. until every state acknowledges the right of individuals to take any job without being coerced into accepting a collective bargaining agreement.

    2. Drawing an arbitrary box around a physical space and claiming a "free market" within its boundaries is silly. There's a free market in beer manufacturing within 200 yards of my house. I happen to hold a monopoly in it, because I'm the only one who makes beer there, but if anyone wants to get a license to produce beer on my property, they're welcome to submit an application along with the requisite fee. See? Free market, by your definition.

  • sophrosyne23||

    1. Everyone is free not to work at a unionized job.

  • db||

    You apparently are not aware of the labor laws in many states which require people to pay dues to and accept as their legal representative a union that has been certified in their workplace. Let me know if you think it's "freedom" to be faced with the decision of having the choice of leaving a job or paying dues to an organization you do not support that was certified as your "representative" years after you accepted a job offer from your employer.

  • sophrosyne23||

    I'm sorry but when I raise qualms I have with a libertarian, it sometimes ends with their facile dismissal of my points by saying, well, you have a choice. If I disagree with policy introduced at the city, state, or national level, they say I'm free to leave any or all three.

    As to the union stuff, it is up to corporations to provide dignified working conditions and the rest to their employees. It's funny how often the history that led to a phenomenon is not duly considered. Do unions become unwieldy and corrupt and litigious? Of course. Should that incarnation be altered or abolished? Yes. Are there genuine grievances that need answering among workers? Absolutely. Should they just leave? No.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    A "free market" is where prices are allowed fluctuate according to supply and demand. It has nothing to do with whether or not you can legally buy a green slave girl from Orion.

  • tarran||

    It's our country, we get to decide who comes in, and how many.

    Socialism boiled down to its syrupy essence.

  • Socialism?||

    I have a home on roughly an acre and a half of land. While I'm sure a lot of people could fit on it, I choose not to invite strangers to come over and stand around on it.

    Why is that "socialism"?

  • tarran||

    It's not.

    When you start deciding to whom I can rent my property or telling me how many workers I "need", on the other hand, then you are well down the collectivist road.

  • fyngyrz||

    Also, which people you can hire -- I find that particularly unpalatable. If it's my land, that's for me to decide. This merely highlights that in the US, land you own... isn't your land.

  • ||

    You can rent your property and offer employment to anyone in the world even under existing law, tarran.

  • tarran||

    No tulpa, you can't.

    If I hire a handyman to work on my house and he does not have a visa, it's agaisnt the law.

    And please spare me your whining that I can hire people to do the work in Mexico and thus our freedom for contract is not being violated.

    It's tiresome, stupid, and only causes people to laugh at you.

  • ||

    If I hire a handyman to work on my house and he does not have a visa, it's agaisnt the law.

    I'm against such laws as is Ron Paul, as he explicitly stated during the debate, though you wouldn't know it if you depended on Shikha Dalmia for your information (which thankfully few people do).

    It's tiresome, stupid, and only causes people to laugh at you.

    That happens a lot when one questions people's unspoken assumptions and they don't have any counterargument. I'll survive.

  • ||

    Here is Ron Paul's fully articulated position on immigration, which is indistinguishable from that of Heritage conservatives: Cut back on immigration (legal and illegal presumably); Patrol the borders; empower the government to deny welfare to taxpaying residents (illegals pay taxes: property through the places they rent; sales; payroll and many even income); force them to speak English out of a need to protect American culture, yada, yada, yada....This from a libertarian guy. Not a word about letting employers hire whoever they want to -- English, Spanish or Senegalese speaker. Not a word about letting Americans marry whoever they want to -- English, Spanish or Senegalese speaker. Just empower the government to protect us from hardworking, taxpaying people. Shikha's info seems to be far more accurate than yours:
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul269.html

  • ||

    He stated unequivocally at the debate that employers should not be forced to enforce immigration laws. And got ripped by other candidates for it.

  • ||

    But that was hardly the point of this post. He agreed with them that we need to increase border security and wants the government to spare no efforts to do it -- rather than fix the core of the problem driving illegal immigration: the lack of legal avenues for unskilled laborers to work and live in the country. He has no qualms about empowering the government to prevent Americans from legally hiring foreign workers. Unless he lifts the prohibition on foreign workers, the country will have to take ever more draconian steps to prevent them from coming in including going after businesses, just as is happening in the drug war. Why is this so hard for you to understand, Tulpa. Is it that you hate foreigners or love Ron Paul?

  • ||

    But that was hardly the point of this post. He agreed with them that we need to increase border security and wants the government to spare no efforts to do it -- rather than fix the core of the problem driving illegal immigration: the lack of legal avenues for unskilled laborers to work and live in the country. He has no qualms about empowering the government to prevent Americans from legally hiring foreign workers. Unless he lifts the prohibition on foreign workers, the country will have to take ever more draconian steps to prevent them from coming in including going after businesses, just as is happening in the drug war. Why is this so hard for you to understand, Tulpa. Is it that you hate foreigners or love Ron Paul?

  • prolefeed||

    You choosing to not let strangers on your property isn't statism. OTOH, you telling other people who wish to employ willing workers that they can't do so, because "we" allegedly "get to decide who comes in" -- that's the statism. That's you thinking you have to right to tell me and others we can't make voluntary, mutually beneficial exchanges.

  • ranting ranter||

    He was accused of socialism not statism.

    what if those foreigners who you want to allow in are members of a foreign army? Is there somewhere that you draw the line (e.g. national defense) or are you an anarchist? Because I doubt the poster would object to being accused of not being an anarchist, which is what you would be stretching the argument to. Perhaps anarchy is better, perhaps not. But calling someone who believes in national borders a socialist is retarded either way.

  • ||

    omg socialisms!

    Do you oppose mandating background checks for people crossing the border into the US?

  • tarran||

    I want the same background checks for people coming into New Hampshire from Quebec as are given to people coming into New Hampshire from Vermont. ;)

  • ||

    Well at least you're consistent. Consistently wrong, though.

  • MWG||

    THIS^

    It's amazing how fast 'rugged individualist' conservatives become 'raging collectivists' when you bring up 'teh immigrantz'.

  • Realist||

    YES!

  • ||

    First what right do you have in determining who gets to mow my lawn?

    Second it is my lawn and my money why does our country get to tell me who mows my lawn and how i get to spend my money?

    Finally the only problem with our borders is black markets created by our own government. Remove the restrictions to what people want to import and the black markets go away.

  • db||

    Well said. If people care so damn much who I pay to mow my lawn and for how much, why aren't they calling me up and offering to do it at a competitive price?

  • well wait||

    You can't hire a felon currently serving time in prison to mow your law either.

    You should certainly be free to give your money to anyone you want, and I'd agree you shouldn't be responsible for immigration enforcement either way. but I don't see the need for a "freedom to hire" that trumps the restrictions that may be on the other person. To paraphrase someone else, what if you want to hire the chinese army to come mow your lawn?

  • tarran||

    As long as the Chinese army behaves itself and doesn't shoot anybody, the fact your neighbor hired them to mow his lawn is, frankly, none of your business.

    That's what living in a free country means.

  • ||

    Also, if you want to keep a pack of rabid pit bulls in a flimsy cage in your yard next to the elementary school playground, go ahead. It's a free country.

    This is why libertarians aren't taken seriously.

  • MWG||

    Serious enough for you to spend you weekend posting at Reason.

  • ||

    If more of you would join the rest of us and start supporting grown-up answers to real world problems, then we could make some progress in advancing freedom.

  • MWG||

    "If more of you would join the rest of us and start supporting grown-up answers..."

    Hey look everyone! It's Tony!

  • ||

    Last I checked, the "grown-up" thing to do would be to leave people alone, and not be a sniveling little busy-body worried what private people do in their private lives.

  • sophrosyne23||

    An illegal immigrant is not somebody who has at some time in the past broken the law. Rather, they are continuously breaking the law. While they mow the lawn or whatever they are breaking the law, for at any moment they are free to turn themselves in. When your neighbor hires an illegal immigrant and knows full-well he's here illegally and recognizes that he is presently breaking the law, he is participating in that illegality. An analogue is lodging a parole violator.

  • db||

    In your world there's no such thing as an unwise or immoral law. It must be nice to have such blind certainty of your own righteousness.

  • sophrosyne23||

    I didn't mean to imply that I think the law is wise or moral.

    The point I was trying to make was that there is a legal rationale for the illegality of hiring illegal immigrants.

    (BTW, does anybody know the penalties for hiring ill. immigrants?)

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    It must be nice to have such blind certainty of your own righteousness.

    Hello, pot? Kettle on line 2!

  • Joe R.||

    We decide what the national health care system is, and who gets it, and how it's paid for.

    We decide what drugs are legal.

    We decide if your property would be better suited for a strip mall.

    We decide where your children go to school, what they're taught, and how it's paid for.

    We decide if you can get married or not.

  • ||

    With all due respect, FUCK WE.

  • hrmm let me try||

    we decide whether we should allow the king of england to dictate our laws.

    We decide to stop that serial killer.

    Yay for anarchism. Kills discussions dead.

  • Joe R.||

    Libertarianism kills victimless crimes dead. Like drug use. Or hiring immigrants.

  • Jim K||

    still waiting on that over here.

  • ||

    We have high unemployment. We have no need to import unskilled labor. Nor do we have any duty to people in other countries. We can barely afford the unskilled folks who are already here.

    I'm not sure why you guys want to burden the US with an unlimited number of poor unskilled immigrants. You think they'll be voting for freedom? Or will they vote themselves handouts?

    How can libertarians be right so often and then discredit the idea of liberty by failing to put 1 and 1 together on the question of unlimited unskilled immigration?

    Try learning to solve real world problems without creating much larger problems in the process. It's what a responsible, principled grownup might do.

  • ||

    The same situation was true for the large portions of the 19th century and even at the turn of the 20th and yet we had completely open and free immigration and that led to prosperity for the nation and the immigrants.

    All of your arguments could have easily been made by a nativist of that era and history has already proven them false. The issues around immigration wholly involve their access to the welfare state. They are not taking jobs from Americans, in fact they are filling pools that are declining as our workforce becomes more skilled and more educated. As bad as our education system is, we are actually smarter as a whole than we were 80 years ago. As we become more skilled people will become less and less willing to do these jobs at the current rates and the choices will be automation and infrastructure replacements or immigrant labor.

  • ||

    We had a frontier, beyond which was wilderness. And we didn't have a welfare state. And some arguments for some restrictions were still reasonable and prudent even then. (Others not so much.)

    Things change. Someone who can afford steak one month can sometimes only afford beans the next. He's not "against" steak, nor is he a hypocrite for making a different choice this month. His situation changed and he responded rationally.

    Youth unemployment is at a record high level right now. Drudge is running a headline today saying it's at 50% in DC. Some of those people would take those jobs, especially if the government stopped paying them to remain unemployed. The "jobs Americans won't do" argument is a reasonable argument for prosperous times. Not now though.

  • Brian E||

    My ancestors didn't come here to live in the frontier. They came here to live and work in an American city in order to escape the shithole of war and despotism that we call Europe. The qualifications were limited to a rudimentary knowledge of English - enough to answer yes or no questions only.

    The "jobs Americans won't do" argument is a reasonable argument for prosperous times. Not now though.

    We don't have a "jobs Americans won't do" problem. We have an "Americans who won't work" problem. The only near-term practical solution to this problem is to make more people who will work Americans.

  • Realist||

    There would be a shit load of Americans willing to do anything for a living if the government didn't steal money from productive people and give it use useless fucks!

  • db||

    So all those people sitting on their asses collecting 99 weeks of unemployment are just little John Galts, withholding their talents and effort from the market out of principle?

    Give. Me. A. Break.

  • BigT||

    No, they are the institutionalized unemployed. If people get more desperate they will take work. Our welfare system robs them of any motivation.

    We need a return of 'Depression values', and that will take some pain.

  • db||

    BigT: your sarcasm detector is broken. Plus, Depression nostalgia is a laughable emotion for a person like you, who up thread, indicated that upkeep costs (entitlements) are a major issue for the U.S. You do know that the Depression saw the first massive increase in entitlement spending and set the stage for the mess we're in now, right?

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    If/when I go Galt, like hell I'll take unemployment. If I have to take it, I'll donate it to a libertarian candidate.

  • ||

    Americans will work if there are jobs and if we stop paying them not to work.

  • MWG||

    ...and this has what exactly to do with immigration?

    Oh right, thell take r jobz!

  • ||

    Unemployment is a surplus of labor. Immigrants represent a source of labor. Adding immigrants increases the supply of labor when we already have a surplus.

    Is this so hard to understand? It should be clear. I think even young children could understand it if they tried.

  • MWG||

    Do you make the same argument when arguing against free trade in goods and services?

  • ||

    Domestic production of goods can be increased and cut by the producers. Inventories can be liquidated.

    Are you proposing we start liquidating excess inventories of people to resolve the labor surplus? Importing fewer people is a much more humane choice.

    I'm in favor of free trade in goods and services. People are neither goods nor services.

  • MWG||

    See my links below.

  • ||

    There really isn't free trade if all the factors of production are not taken into account. No free movement of people, there is no free trade.

  • ||

    There really isn't free trade if all the factors of production are not taken into account. No free movement of people, there is no free trade.

  • ||

    Perfection is elusive. Let's increase liberty instead of making things worse in a misguided attempt at achieving some grand vision of utopian perfection.

  • ||

    Let me know when there is a real surplus of labor in America, because there really isn't one right now.

    What we have is a society that has no incentive to find work. Employment among illegals would go down dramatically and you would see massive migrations back to their home nations if our idiotic government cut the absurd UI benefit and forced those people to decide whether they wanted either a job at a prevailing wage or a cardboard box under a bridge.

    of course, that doesn't even take into account that the employer would still employ the illegal immigrant at the same wage because they have a stronger work ethic and are more reliable than most Americns under the age of 30.

  • its jerbs||

    "...and this has what exactly to do with immigration?"

    It was a on-topic response both to the post he was responding to the article this discussion falls under. Both of which discussed the lack of americans willing to do the immigrants are needed to fill.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    We don't have a "jobs Americans won't do" problem. We have an "Americans who won't work" problem. The only near-term practical solution to this problem is to make more people who will work Americans.

    Entirely untrue.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    btw, the unemployment rate for immigrants is higher than for natives.

    But don't let the facts get in your way. Carry on, sir!

  • Butts Wagner||

    Youth unemployment is at a record high level right now. Drudge is running a headline today saying it's at 50% in DC. Some of those people would take those jobs, especially if the government stopped paying them to remain unemployed. The "jobs Americans won't do" argument is a reasonable argument for prosperous times. Not now though.

    So then you are against welfare, minimum wage laws, and things of that nature? What does any of that have to do with immigration?

  • HermanLame||

    LOL, I hope the above is sarcasm.

  • Butts Wagner||

    I was just pointing out that Ben's real problem is with the welfare state and not immigrants. His reasoning behind a super strong border is that the welfare state has created incentives for Americans to not work and also for companies to employ people under the table. How does a strong border remove these incentives?

  • RW||

    I grew up in N.W. Washington and started picking strawberries, raspberries, cucumbers, tulip bulbs, and peas, when I was 12 years old and did this every summer with all the kids from our small town until we graduated from H.S. to pay for our school clothes. Then in the early eighties, a law was enacted that children under 17 couldn't do this work. So hundreds of illegal immigrants took our jobs,along came their families, and crime, that changed this once beautiful safe community into a junky poor hellhole.

  • ||

    The US economy was growing like crazy in the late 1800s and early 1900s. We went from being an agricultural nation to an industrial giant during that period.

    Where is the massive expansion of employment going to come from now?

  • prolefeed||

    Where is the massive expansion of employment going to come from now?

    From the freedom. You allow people to freely make mutually beneficial voluntary exchanges, and they will become richer, and then spend that money on stuff they desire.

    There isn't a fixed number of jobs to go around. It isn't some fucking zero-sum game. The ratio of jobs to workers is always close to 1:1, despite the enormous expansion of population since the frontier days, because demand causes people to create supply.

  • ||

    Bzzt. New York City is a much more heavily regulated area than North Dakota, yet strangely all that freedom whippin' around in Minot and Bismarck doesn't result in the employment opportunities that NYC has.

    Freedom is a necessity for prosperity, no doubt, but there are many other necessary ingredients to prosperity.

  • ||

    Uh, you're wrong.

    ND has been a model of economic success lately.

  • ||

    It doesn't have the number of jobs that NYC does, though.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    No, it doesn't have the number of jobs that NY does. It also doesn't have the same number of people. So it's hard to argue that restricting the number of people will restrict the number of jobs available. It seems to be quite the opposite.

  • ||

    For a large part of the 20th century we had close to 0 immigration. From the 1920s up till the late 60's when the sack of shit Ted Kennedy (may he rot in hell) pushed through the Immigration Act of 1965. Since then we have been importing the Third World, leading to our destruction as a nation.

  • ||

    Yeah those East Indians who sell me my cigarettes and coffee at the "barn" (local convenience store) are destroying the nation.

    Give me a fucking break.

  • ||

    You nativist piece of shit. Immigrants destroy our nation? So you're a collectivist ("our nation"), a racist, and a fucking asshole. Got it.

  • db||

    Okay, Cheesey, unless you're a full-blooded Native American, you can STFU with that line of argument right now. Oh, wait, I forgot, according to your world view only fair skinned people with a western, Christian, Puritan background are able to have a work ethic strong enough to keep the U.S. competitive. What ignorance you display.

  • BigT||

    Ever belong to a club? Th members get to make the rules, including whom to include, and who can use the facilities. In this USA club we don't need or want new members. The costs of membership are too high and only going higher as the maintenance of the facilities have exploded.

  • db||

    So your solution is not to reduce club expenses, but to forbid new members? Something tells me that, even in the near term, this will not accomplish what you seem to think it will. Just keep ignoring that big white elephant...

  • ||

    I no longer like this club because the dues (read: TAXES) are too high and I can't get a tee time when I want to because the club has set up too many restrictions on who can play the course at various times. I won't even mention the poor quality of the food in the grill or the gear in the pro shop being horribly out of date and overpriced because it was purchased on a no-bid contract. The tennis courts are in need of painting and the pool is full of endangered frogs someone dumped in there, so I am forbidden from using it. I would like to cancel my membership. Can I have my initiation fee back because the club did not meet it's end of the contract I never signed to begin with?

    It's not a club, Big T, when the membership committee takes your dues without your consent and refuses to let you cancel your memership.

  • db||

    Even better, sloopy.

  • ||

    Now we're getting to the heart of the matter.

    During our era of industrialization, we had a _shortage_ of unskilled labor. We needed any hands we could get to lay down railroads and man the steel mills.

    During the last 30 years, ie the period of American de-industrialization, we have seen real wages for unskilled labor in this country decline, in other words, we have massive evidence that there is a SURPLUS, not a shortage, of non-agricultural low-end labor.

    To the jokers in our polite media and their tools, riddle me this: in what alternate universe does the market-clearing price for a good DECLINE in the midst of a shortage of said good? How does that work, exactly?

    Try this: we have a SURPLUS of sh*t-wage, mule-stupid low-end labor. This is largely because, at the same time our schools in poor communities, and the families in those communities, have become almost totally dysfunctional, Tweedledum and Tweedledee have been competing for the Fastest Growing Minority vote by seeing who can better flood the low-end US labor market with a second underclass imported from the south.

    So, to review, we let our schools become a wasteland, raise millions of morons without a marketable skill to speak of, and then we import a second underclass so we can double the size of our 10 million-strong native-born underclass.

    Why are we doing this to ourselves?

    More to the point, why do intelligent people who read Reason.com support such a completely asinine, self-destructive policy?

  • MWG||

    "We have high unemployment. We have no need to import unskilled labor. Nor do we have any duty to people in other countries. We can barely afford the unskilled folks who are already here."

    'We have plenty of car companies here. We don't need to import any foreign cars. We're perfectly capable of producing our own food, we don't need to import any commodities from overseas, etc, etc...'

    See? This collectivist thing is easy when you don't know shit about basic economics.

    "I'm not sure why you guys want to burden the US with an unlimited number of poor unskilled immigrants. You think they'll be voting for freedom? Or will they vote themselves handouts?"

    Immigrants can vote?

  • HermanLame||

    Motor voter?

  • ||

    When there is a surplus of cars, factories produce fewer cars. When there is a surplus of food, farmers grow less food.

    When there is a surplus of labor (too many people for the number of available jobs) how you you suggest we cut down on the number of people?

    Obviously, we should import fewer additional people.

  • BigT||

    We could trade. Two unemployed white trash for an industrious Asian or Mexican.

  • MWG||

    "When there is a surplus of food, farmers grow less food."

    LOL... you know very little about current US ag policies.

    "When there is a surplus of labor (too many people for the number of available jobs) how you you suggest we cut down on the number of people?"

    Let the market handle it.

    http://articles.cnn.com/2009-0.....s?_s=PM:US

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,409221,00.html

    Labor is no different than goods and services.

  • ||

    You want to liquidate the excess inventory of people, just like any other good?

  • HermanLame||

    At least we know for sure you want to liquidate the excess illegals, lolo.

  • MWG||

    IOW, you didn't click on the links. There has been an net outflow of illegal immigrants since the economy tanked. See how the free market works?

  • ||

    So working illegals left to get jobs, and non-working illegals stayed to use government services. And you consider this a success.

  • MWG||

    Ben, you keep talking about how much illegals use in welfare and services. I'm wondering if you'd be able to offer evidence that illegals use more in services than the value they add to the overall economy... perhaps a reliable study regarding the costs vs. the benefits.

  • ||

    I'm not interested in the average. Why should any illegal alien receive government services? Why are you advocating for illegals to come in and use government services?

    I have yet to see you, or any open immigration advocates say they support immigration "as long as the people are prohibited from using government services and receiving government transfer payments".

    Because you do not care about taxpayers' liberty.

  • ||

    "Taxpayers liberty?"

    There's no such thing as "taxpayers liberty," if a taxpayer cannot opt out. Liberty requires free association, and taxation doesn't gibe with that concept very well.

  • MWG||

    "I'm not interested in the average."

    I didn't say anything about 'averages'. I'm talking in absolutes. Do illegals generate more money in the economy than they cost.

    "Why should any illegal alien receive government services?"

    Where did anyone say they should?

    "Why are you advocating for illegals to come in and use government services?"

    Where did I advocate that?

    "I have yet to see you, or any open immigration advocates say they support immigration "as long as the people are prohibited from using government services and receiving government transfer payments"."

    Thats because that's not what I believe (I can't speak for everyone). I believe in the right to free movement and association, plain and simple. I'm against paying for the education of children of illegals, but I'm also against paying for your kids as well.

    Again, if you going to use the welfare state as an argument for trampling on individual rights I would hope you'd be able to offer some evidence that illegals cost us more in welfare than they generate in the economy.

    "Because you do not care about taxpayers' liberty."

    I care only about individual liberty. 'Taxpayer liberty' is a bullshit collectivist idea you pulled your ass.

  • ||

    I'm an individual taxpayer. My liberty is lost when immigrants come into the US and use government services at my expense.

    Is this impossible for you to understand?

  • ||

    I think the point that you're missing that he and others have been trying to make is that your argument should be with the welfare system, not so much illegal immigration. After all, the mere presence of a person, whether legal or not, natural-born citizen or immigrant, doesn't necessarily mean they're a benefit or a burden to the country. There are lots of people in this country that are giant sinkholes of taxpayer money with little-to-no return from that investment, both legal and illegal. It's easy to focus on the illegals for obvious reasons, but also keep in mind they're only illegal because the system was set up to discourage (sometimes prevent) legality...

  • ||

    Yes, my argument is with the welfare system. But the welfare system exists. It's not going away tomorrow. And increasing unskilled immigration while we have the welfare system directly lessens my individual liberty.

    And I have suggested an answer: increased unskilled immigration contingent on no welfare for the immigrants. And these guys reject that, because they want to cause me to have less liberty. They're for liberty for some, at the expense of liberty for others. They say they aren't, but given the choice to protect my liberty, they decline.

  • MWG||

    "increased unskilled immigration contingent on no welfare for the immigrants. And these guys reject that, because they want to cause me to have less liberty."

    We do?

  • Joe R.||

    How can libertarians be right so often and then discredit the idea of liberty by failing to put 1 and 1 together on the question of unlimited unskilled immigration?

    Because we mean it when we say individuals should make their own choices. This choice includes the ability to hire whomever one chooses, whether that employee is from Missouri or Mexico. If you don't want to hire an immigrant, then don't hire one.

    It is difficult to take the "it might lead to a vote to curtail liberty" argument seriously when the person proposing it is suggesting curtailing liberty.

  • Amakudari||

    "You shouldn't be allowed to hire him because he might some day vote to impose restrictions on businesses."

  • ||

    I guess I don't get your point. If free people want to allow democratic decision-making, and if they want to remain free, then they can't import huge numbers of voters who don't believe in freedom.

    Can you really not understand this? Or do you only believe in freedom for yourself, for a few years, and you're content to see it lost to everyone in the future.

  • Maxxx||

    Of course he can't understand the reality of the situation.

    Libertarian are full on retarded when it comes to immigration. You'll have more success explaining internal contradictions of the concept of the trinity to a hard core christian.

  • tarran||

    Wow, Ben, do you have so little trust in freedom that you think people experiencing it will hate it and vote to have it taken away?

    In my experience, the best way to promote freedom is to let people experience it.

    Your faith that the statists are right that people experiencing freedom will hate it is pathetic.

  • HermanLame||

    Like those elderly experiencing freedom who are just rallying in the thousands to abolish Medicare and Social Security.
    And the unemployed, assembled in number, to end welfare, marching shoulder to shoulder with the poor, itching to end Medicaid.
    And we can't forget the corporations who rail daily against subsidies and preferable tax treatment.
    All of them are such dedicated lovers of freedom.

  • MWG||

    The most powerful voice for the welfare state are not poor brown immigrants, but wealthy white senior citizens.

  • ||

    People routinely vote to steal from their neighbors. They have very, very large majorities.

    Please show us all where governments are getting smaller and less expensive because voters keep voting for freedom rather than handouts.

  • tarran||

    Voters tend to vote for more loot from the public treasury.

    People who live in free societies tend to respect those freedoms far more than people who live in unfree societies.

    If you want to live in a free society,
    1) You reduce the amount of voting
    2) You increase people's experience of the benefits of freedom.

    Guess which of those two goals refusing to interfere with the movement of nonvoting immigrants will advance?

  • BigT||

    People I met in Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary and Poland respected and appreciated freedom far more than Americans, French or Brits.

  • ||

    The point is that immigrants can't vote until they become citizens. And it is highly arrogant to assume the people who want to come here don't like freedom.

    Oh and we already have millions of people who continue to vote for congress critters that chip away at our freedoms. They're called Democrsts and Republicans

  • Joe R.||

    If free people want to allow democratic decision-making

    Well, there's the problem with your argument in a nutshell. "Free" and "democratic" are not synonymous.

    Or do you only believe in freedom for yourself, for a few years, and you're content to see it lost to everyone in the future.

    Don't you dare lecture me on this. You are the one denying freedom to others--freedom of movement to immigrants, and freedom of association to those willing to hire them. The freedom you seem to care about is the freedom to prevent someone three counties over from hiring a Spic to mow his lawn.

  • Amakudari||

    If free people want to allow democratic decision-making, and if they want to remain free, then they can't import huge numbers of voters who don't believe in freedom.

    Ridiculous. We've always obtained our immigration -- which is responsible for most of this country's growth -- from countries less amenable to freedom than the US. Or do you think Europe is freer? And the costliest proponents of the warfare/welfare state are white Americans, who have been here the longest.

    And then we're talking about the distinction between immigration and naturalization. I don't have any trouble with restrictions on who can become a citizen provided they're reasonable (minimum residency requirements, work/criminal history, etc.).

    Yet you want to dramatically restrict freedom of contract -- nullify all labor contracts except with government-approved parties -- to prevent non-voting immigration on the basis that those immigrants might be able to vote later in a way that might (but probably won't) conflict with your views.

    Also, why would your reasoning not also be an adequate basis for the states of the US to prohibit interstate migration? Former residents of NY would likely vote for higher spending in the South, thus shouldn't the South be to defend its borders and deport them? What about minorities? They tend to make more demands of social services, so shouldn't areas, if so inclined, be allow to prevent them from being allowed to acquire land there?

  • prolefeed||

    + 11 million

  • ||

    People outside the US are already free from the US government(s). They can't be liberated from the US governments any more than they already are. Immigration is not a liberty question.

    A country protects borders for the same reason a store owner locks the door to his shop at night.

  • tarran||

    No, the proper analogy is you welding bars to your neighbors store to prevent him from doing business with the customers he wants.

    Again, as long as people are renting property from willing landlords, working for willing employers, buying food from willing grocers, there is no harm to be remedied.

    It's kind of sad that you keep bringing up an analogy that actually refutes your argument rather than buttressing it.

  • Amakudari||

    A country protects borders for the same reason a store owner locks the door to his shop at night.

    thieves:store::immigrants:country

    Really?

  • Robert||

    The answer is, get married. Or adopt an American child.

  • Sean Healy||

    It just took my brother more than two years to get a green card for his European, college-educated, English-speaking wife. It was an expensive, confusing and frustrating process. The system is nearly impossible to navigate for people who have a right to be in the country (spouses or parents of American citizens/dependents); that should give everyone an idea of how lousy it must be for people seeking permission to enter.

    In economic terms, America is using red tape to deny itself cheap assets with huge future growth potential. I guess Republicans don't want to get the AAA rating back.

  • ||

    I get tired of folks endlessly trotting out "Oh, think of the poor folks just trying to make it!" as an excuse to ignore the flagrant violation of national sovereignty. If you want to have a discussion, great, but don't insult me with painfully transparent emotion ploys. Argue just the merits or your position is little better than the leftist "We must have a gargantuan government because it helps The Poor!"

    As for the substance of this article, it bugs me a little, too. The tone is decidedly of the "The solution to law-breaking is to get rid of the laws" variety. While I don't disagree that our immigration laws need an overhaul, it is utter foolishness to think anything short of throwing the gates completely open will prevent the violation of whatever laws we do maintain. Maybe some people want completely open boarders, but it really doesn't matter. There are elements, particularly violent ones, that will never be welcomed into our country but will try to gain entrance anyway. Border security is the only way to prevent that. Hence, border security is something that needs to be solid regardless of what stance our immigration policies take.

    We can, and should, have a serious reevaluation of our immigration laws. However, pretending we don't have a gigantic security risk on our borders or that we should just ignore it until after said reevaluation is idiocy. Lock things up tight, and then we can have the discussion. Wanting to leave the border as is, claiming "comprehensive immigration reform" or similar crap is the only way, is, at best, severely ignorant and, more likely, the dishonesty of someone who wants open borders and views maintaining the current state of border security as the next best thing.

  • Brian E||

    I get tired of folks endlessly trotting out "Oh, think of the poor folks just trying to make it!" as an excuse to ignore the flagrant violation of national sovereignty.

    What makes you think that the poor people just trying to make it have or should have any respect for our national sovereignty? On the big list of things to care about when trying to provide for yourself and your family, abstract concepts like sovereignty are pretty much at the bottom. Even respect for the law is pretty low if you come from a place like Mexico where the law is more likely to be corrupt than respectable.

  • ||

    If they don't already have respect for it, they need to be taught to respect it by ruthless enforcement of said sovereignty.

  • Brian E||

    All you're teaching is fear, not respect. If you want people to have respect for the law, give them a law that can be respected. A law which stands between a person and the opportunity to provide for self and family without hurting anybody else is not one which will inspire respect from anybody.

    And no, "dey took er jorbs" isn't a valid argument to show that immigrants who work here are hurting people. Wealth is created. Jobs are created. Your employment does not exist at the expense of mine.

  • Maxxx||

    What makes you think that the poor people just trying to make it have or should have any respect for our national sovereignty?

    Because it is a requirement for civilized society.

    Poor people struggling to make it often don't have respect for abstract concepts like property rights of honesty either. Why should they, what's more important feeding your children or being honest?

  • HermanLame||

    Brian, your point is also worth considering in the context of immigration and the welfare state. If they immigrants have a habit of looking at the state as a corrupt, winner-picking entity, they're highly unlikely to have the same civic ideas 'liberty voters' have. Unchecked immigration WILL PROLONG the welfare state.

  • Brian E||

    Because it is a requirement for civilized society.

    Freerepublic is over that way. This is Reason. At least half of the regulars will dispute that any government is required at all. We are an anarchistic bunch at heart.

  • MWG||

    I'd love to hear you defend 'national sovereignty' without using collectivist talking points or suggesting that countries have rights. After all, only individuals have rights.

  • ||

    "...to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

  • MWG||

    To secure what rights? The rights of government? Collective? Individual?

  • Maxxx||

    Humans evolved as social animals.

    People that feel immune to social influence are called sociopaths. Good luck making them the center of a successful society.

  • MWG||

    So you're arguing for the right of free association and movement? We are social creatures after all...

  • BakedPenguin||

    "...to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

    Emphasis added.

  • Robert||

    I think sovereignty is a distraction from the real issue, which is security. The border happens to be a convenient place to stop criminals, if the immigration laws weren't so strict as to put so many into that category.

  • MWG||

    An excellent point, but one that is totally lost on conservatives.

  • Brian E||

    Stop criminals? Are we supposed to do a thorough examination of the life history of anyone who comes across the border to see if there is some crime that they have committed but not been charged with? Should other countries do the same to US citizens? I am, after all, an unconvicted felon and in many cases an unrepentant repeat offender. Read "Three Felonies a Day" if you believe you aren't one too.

    Everyone is a criminal, more or less. This is why abstract concepts such as "respect for the law" are laughable. Trying to determine in advance whether someone might be a criminal in the US is laughable, too.

  • MWG||

    "Stop criminals? Are we supposed to do a thorough examination of the life history of anyone who comes across the border to see if there is some crime that they have committed but not been charged with?"

    Uh, we actually already do this with people going through the legal process. My wife (a foreigner) had to pass a criminal background check in order to get her visa.

    "Trying to determine in advance whether someone might be a criminal in the US is laughable, too."

    ...if it weren't for the fact that we actually do this.

  • MWG||

    Crap. I misunderstood your argument (Though I do think you misunderstood Robert's argument as well).

    My bad (I hate that phrase).

  • Robert||

    How do you understand it now?

  • MWG||

    If you're asking me, you meant to say that instead of worrying about teh illegalz, how bout we make it easier for come here easier and worry about the real criminals on the border.

    I'm not quite sure what Brian understood.

    I would also add the ending the drug war would do a lot to end real 'criminal activity' along the border.

  • ||

    Did you just stuff a rabbit into a hat and then pull it out of your ass?

  • Robert||

    No, I've pointed this out for some time. Some time in the 1990s I explained to Blay Tarnoff that allowing anyone to enter any country isn't the position most radical libertarians would take if they thought about it, because he probably would object to persons presenting a danger to others being admitted (to whichever country) -- criminals and carriers of severe easily communicable diseases. Blay said that really wasn't a prevalent enough case to care about in discussions of the issue. Well, it probably was on few people's minds before The Terror, but after it I think it's the issue on a lot of people's minds. It can't be addressed well in a country like the USA, where a lot of people want to get in, and a lot more than are legally allowed, but it could be if that were changed. It can also be addressed well by countries where not that many people want to get in, or where a greater fraction of them are allowed.

  • Joe R.||

    I get tired of folks endlessly trotting out "Oh, think of the poor folks just trying to make it!" as an excuse to ignore the flagrant violation of national sovereignty.

    You are sovereign over your property, not mine. If you are suggesting that my property belongs to the nation, then perhaps you should be reading DailyKOS or Hot Air or something instead.

  • ||

    If the state isn't sovereign over your property, they have no authority to prosecute someone who kills you on your property.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Bullshit.

  • ||

    Umm, explain? Sovereignty = jurisdiction.

  • ||

    Are you confusing sovereignty with ownership?

  • Joe R.||

    You should probably try that argument with a non-anarchist. Technically speaking, I agree with you. I would be able to authorize someone to prosecute the crime for me, though.

  • ||

    It's pointless arguing with an anarchist about border enforcement or immigration. No state means no borders.

  • 4chan||

    Why should people here in the U.S. be given a preference for a job compared to a person currently living in another country and wishing to immigrate here?

  • ||

    Because a citizen of the US has at least a little more of a duty to his fellow citizens than to aliens.

    Also because we have a big government welfare state and importing unskilled labor results in Americans being worse off because we have to support more unemployed people with government handouts. This is going to be the overriding reason we can't even have open immigration until the end of all handouts and government services to individuals.

    The argument for open immigration can start to be worth listening to the day after every government transfer payment and every means-tested government service is ended and prohibited by the Constitution.

  • Atanarjuat||

    Because a citizen of the US has at least a little more of a duty to his fellow citizens than to aliens.

    Why? How much of a duty?

    How do you make the distinction between a person you have a duty toward and one you don't? Do I have a duty once the alien becomes a citizen legally? So the Feds decide who I have a duty to?

  • ||

    So the Feds decide who I have a duty to?

    +1

  • HermanLame||

    Unless you're some form of social chameleon, there are probably some norms in our society followed by your fellow citizens that you agree with and enjoy seeing practiced. That being in mind, there's a benefit to treating those like you preferentially over those unlike you. As it as been several times, such considerations would be unnecessary in a minarchist/libertarian state, but as we're far from that, there's no sense in supporting directly suicidal laws just because they violate an perfect ideal we're likely never going to see in our lifetime. We can only move towards it, and whatever steps have to be taken should be taken.

  • tarran||

    The argument for open immigration can start to be worth listening to the day after every government transfer payment and every means-tested government service is ended and prohibited by the Constitution.

    Yesssss, by all means, let's harm innocent people in order to prop up the welfare state a little longer. ;)

  • ||

    I'm innocent. Importing unskilled labor harms me, because I have to pay for the welfare state.

    You are the one arguing for harming innocent people.

    Locking your door at night doesn't "harm" the people who want to come in your house while you're asleep.

  • MWG||

    "I'm innocent. Importing unskilled labor harms me, because I have to pay for the welfare state."

    So end the welfare state.

    "Locking your door at night doesn't "harm" the people who want to come in your house while you're asleep."

    Piss poor analogy. Immigration is more akin to a condo. We may live in the same complex, but it's none of you damn business who I have over.

  • ||

    Ok, end the welfare state. We'll talk about open immigration the day the welfare state is gone.

    Open immigration is a good idea for academic "what if" discussions. This is the real world. For cartoony, idealized fantasy worlds, open immigration is great. I'm all for it.

    I wish libertarians would come out of the idealized fantasy worlds and help the rest of us improve the real world.

  • MWG||

    I'll assume you're also against cutting taxes as doing so is also incompatible with the welfare state.

    End the welfare state, then we can talk about cutting taxes. This is after all, the 'real world'.

  • ||

    Cutting taxes helps bring about the end to the welfare state. The government eventually runs out of everyone else's money.

    Importing unskilled labor helps perpetuate and enlarge the welfare state.

  • MWG||

    "Importing unskilled labor helps perpetuate and enlarge the welfare state."

    It does? If they're such a burden on the welfare state I would think it we bring about its end sooner.

  • ||

    "This is the real world. For cartoony, idealized fantasy worlds, open immigration is great. I'm all for it."

    And yet another troll has fallen on his own sword.
    Seriously, add these phrases to the drinking game:

    "Real world"
    "Idealistic"
    "Fantasy land"

    These words ARE NOT a fucking argument; they are a dismissal. Either clarify what the "real world" consists of or fuck off.

  • ||

    I posted about 20 different posts jackass. Go back and read them.

    Specifically, the real world is here, where we live, with a huge government welfare state. The pretend world is the world where there's no welfare state.

    Here in the real world, importing an unlimited number of unskilled poor will cause more government transfer payments and more government services to be used. Counter-arguments are not grounded in reality.

    Reality needs advocates for freedom. I hope some readers of this board decide to join us in reality and try to help us get more freedom rather than selling us out to the statists in pursuit of a fantasy.

  • tarran||

    Another bufoon that thinks supporting the welfare state by limiting freedom will somehow bring about a freer country.

    For someone who talks about being grounded in reality, you seem very wedded to "solutions" that have been shown historically to work against your stated goals.

    But, hey, keep swearing at people who point out that you are pissing into the wind. It will negate the theory and the experiences that are against you. ;)

  • ||

    Reality needs advocates for freedom.

    So join us.

  • ||

    "Because a citizen of the US has at least a little more of a duty to his fellow citizens than to aliens."

    That's quickly become my number one gripe with the anti-immigrant crowd--subconsciously or otherwise--they all end up using the immigration issue to justify themselves feeding like parasites on the welfare state.

    It's like the people who send their kids to public schools on the taxpayer's dime, people whose retirement plans consist entirely of Social Security and Medicare--but somehow look down on "welfare queens" because they use food stamps?

    No, being born in the United States of America doesn't mean I have any special duty to you--to educate your children or to provide you and your elderly parents with a comfortable retirement and free healthcare?!

    I don't feel any better about parasites feeding off my paychecks just because they're American born parasites. The only thing I duty I have to you is to respect your right to liberty and justice--and I owe that same duty to everybody regardless of whether they were born in this country.

    If you think I have a duty to you--to do anything more than respect your right to liberty and justice? Then maybe you should go move to a socialist country like Sweden.

    If immigrants are helping themselves to free public schooling and programs that offer free hospital services, then that's may be a good reason to end those welfare services--but there's no good reason to imagine there's any substantive difference between foreign born and native born parasites.

  • tarran||

    You know, it strikes me that e very pre=welfare state argument for restricting immigration can be applied to the question of requiring people to get permission before having children.

    In fact, human babies born in the U.S. are far more likely to consume welfare services than an adult sneaking across the border to work.

    Yet I never hear these guys advocate for baby-licenses. Odd that...

  • ||

    Having lived in Mexico for a year, I can tell you too--that as a society, they're less confused about whose responsibility it is to take care for their elderly parents too.

    Like women whose economic opportunities are limited all over the world, they tend to have more children than we do, and they have them at younger ages than we do. Their idea of selfishness is different from ours too--where they see selfishness as refusing to share with everyone else, we tend to see selfishness as helping yourself to things that don't belong to you...

    But they don't necessarily expect the government to educate their children for them. And they don't imagine that it's the government's responsibility to provide for their elderly parents either...

    They would be about as ashamed of not providing for their own parents--as most Americans would be of not providing for their own children. Actually, I think they feel more of a responsibility to their elderly parents than they do for their children!

    The middle class has become a welfare society here in the U.S.--I tell people I worked my way through boarding school, and they look at me like I'm from Mars or something. Just because so many of us have come to imagine that the government owes us free education, and a pension and free healthcare when we hit 65, doesn't make it so...

    "Yet I never hear these guys advocate for baby-licenses."

    There's a principle I believe in, more of a hypothesis, I guess. It goes that people become increasingly less tolerant the more they're forced to pay for each other. Or, the more people are forced to pay for each other, the more picky they get about who they're willing to pay for.

    Want to have public schools? Okay, but the racists are first gonna fight for segregation. Want to have public schools, okay but first the fundies are gonna fight for prayer and intelligent design.

    Wanna have ObamaCare which is all about forcing more people to pay for each other--okay, now we're gonna pass Arizona type laws and become increasingly intolerant of immigrants. ...and we're gonna start threatening old people and single mothers because of who they hire to mow their lawn and for day care respectively.

    The more we're forced to pay for each other--the more intolerant we get. And that baby-license idea? I bet that's not too far down the line. I mean "breeder" as a slur some gay people use to bash heterosexuals has already entered into straight parlance. And I've seen progressives argue for China style one child policies--referenced right here at Hit & Run!

    I think European immigration policy is generally less tolerant than ours is. I think it's because they're forced to pay for each other more over there--and it makes them less tolerant than they would be otherwise.

    I know I don't care about how many children people have--so long as I'm not being forced to pay for them. I don't care who you hire to mow your lawn or babysit your kids or pick your crops either--so long as I don't have to pay for their healthcare, etc. Make Americans fork out for all that stuff, and they start to care a lot about not just what they're paying for--but who they're paying for. They just become increasingly intolerant.

    It makes sense that the world's most onerous one child policy developed in a country where at the time--people were supposed to pay for each other more than anyone ever had before. Want a tolerant society?

    Minimize forcing people to pay for each other.

  • ||

    My agreement with you is worth nothing but I do it anyway.

  • Sean Healy||

    Well, Europe has gone in a different direction through EU expansion - basically enlarging who 'us' is to include more of would-be immigrants. Of course, they're stopping at Turkey. And forget about Africa, which is Europe's Mexico.

  • Ree Pete||

    If you think I have a duty to you--to do anything more than respect your right to liberty and justice? Then maybe you should go move to a socialist country like Sweden.

    Well said.

    Now simply define "liberty" and "justice" in a manner that everyone will agree to.

  • ||

    Unless you're going to expel US citizens who can't find a job, you're going to have them milling around here and potentially causing trouble.

  • MWG||

    FTW!

  • ||

    Respecting and protecting our liberty is, specifically, the duty we have to each other. And that's the duty we DO NOT owe to everyone else in every country - at least not in the same way we owe it to our fellow countrymen.

    Why do you want to import more people to go on welfare and use government services? Why do you want to import labor so the unemployed guy who is already here stays on government support? I don't.

    We will be more free if we can get more people OFF of government welfare roles. That's why we shouldn't import a lot more surplus labor.

  • MWG||

    "Respecting and protecting our liberty is, specifically, the duty we have to each other."

    It is? Citation needed.

  • ||

    "And that's the duty we DO NOT owe to everyone else in every country - at least not in the same way we owe it to our fellow countrymen."

    The only right or liberty that non-citizens really don't have is the right to vote.

    Even when we deport people, we respect their rights and liberties. Foreigners within our borders are provided all the same protections if they're accused of a crime, and if they're a victim of crime? The culprits are just as guilty as if they victimized a natural born citizen.

    "Why do you want to import more people to go on welfare and use government services? Why do you want to import labor so the unemployed guy who is already here stays on government support? I don't."

    Because I don't want my government to discriminate against people because of their national origin--or any one of a dozen other things.

    Again, there's nothing about being an American citizen on welfare that makes me feel better about such people feeding on my paycheck.

    Try to think of it this way...

    You're walking down the street after cashing your paycheck one Friday night, when somebody comes up behind you and hits you with an aluminum bat. You wake up in the hospital, and the police are standing there. They tell you that they caught the guy that did it--and they recovered 75% of your money.

    ...but they just decided to let the bad guy go without pressing any charges--since he turned out to be an American citizen!

    How do you feel about that? Why are we pretending it's okay for American citizens to mug us for our paychecks? I'm not willing to pretend that's okay--not because the mugger is American!

    ...but every time you gripe about Mexicans doing the same thing--because they're Mexican? You're more or less condoning that sort of behavior so long as the welfare queens are Americans!

    It's a distinction without a difference. Lazy people on government services, taking advantage of our generous impulses? Are no better or worse for being one nationality or another. Maybe it's the misguided generous impulses that are part of the problem--but it's not the nationality of the scumbags! ...and the anti-immigrant movement can't seem to get their heads around that fact.

    If you wanted to restrict government welfare programs so that only the people who paid into them could benefit--regardless of their nationality? I might see that. If you wanted to get rid of the freebie services regardless of nationality? I could see that too!

    What I don't see is government forcing private citizens to become Border Patrol agents--by trying to threaten and intimidate them for hiring people of other nationalities to mow their lawns and babysit their children.

    What I won't accept is the government discriminating against people--only because of their nationality.

    What I don't see is restricting the free movement of otherwise law abiding people--and creating enormous suffering for millions of people to solve a nonexistent problem...

    And the problems we have in this country--have absolutely nothing to do with too many hardworking people coming here to create a better life for themselves. If hardworking people who are willing to work hard and cheap is a drag on the economy? Then China must have had the slowest growing economy on earth for the last twenty years.

  • ||

    So you basically don't care about the liberty of taxpayers. You're happy to bring in people to use government services and receive government checks, directly harming the liberty of the taxpayer.

  • MWG||

    "You're happy to bring in people to use government services and receive government checks..."

    Yea, that's what libertarians are arguing for.

  • ||

    "So you basically don't care about the liberty of taxpayers."

    Oh, the tax payers that refuse to recall their elected officials who pass absurd welfare programs and tax hikes to support the programs that you're against? And then reelect them and cry when someone else gets a bigger piece of the pie?

    Explain why there's no venomous outrage for the politicians who keep screwing you over.

  • ||

    "Explain why there's no venomous outrage for the politicians who keep screwing you over."

    I think that outrage is there--it's just misdirected towards the immigration issue.

    I suspect a lot of that's left over inertia from the flag waving that goes on during war time, regardless...

    They're mad about that stuff, and they do hold their politicians responsible--it just gets misdirected to stuff like the Arizona immigration law. Politicians are very good at deflecting blame, and when all they have to do is wave the flag around and ask people to rally around citizenship?

    That's the easiest game to play there is!

    It's not you--our fellow Americans--who are to blame--it's the auslanders! Who else are the politicians gonna blame?

    They're not gonna blame themselves, and they're not gonna blame the Americans they're asking to vote for them...

  • ||

    For one thing, emotion isn't wisdom. Nor is it a useful tool against politicians when expressed individually. For another, those politicians aren't here on this board advocating to lessen my liberty in the name of liberty for aliens.

    Also, no one will be traveling back in time to unvote for the welfare state. So focusing on the past is just a pointless distraction. You guys want to lessen my liberty in the future. I'm asking that you please stop advocating such positions and, instead, choose positions that will increase liberty for people without lessening liberty for others.

  • ||

    "You guys want to lessen my liberty in the future. I'm asking that you please stop advocating such positions and, instead, choose positions that will increase liberty for people without lessening liberty for others."

    Buried in there somewhere is that same old misconception again--the one where I owe you something other than liberty and justice?

    Other than liberty and justice, I owe you nothing.

    I might open up a business to compete with yours--to hopefully drive you out of business completely!

    If your boss hires me to compete with you? If the winner gets a Cadillac El Dorado, second prize is a set of steak knives and third prize is we're fired? I'm gonna do everything I can to make sure I win--and if that means you lose? Well that's just too bad.

    Serious word of advice: stop begging for the mercy of other people and start thinking about yourself.

    Single moms shouldn't have to think about you--when they decide to go with the only daycare option they can afford. Old people on fixed incomes shouldn't be prohibited from hiring whoever they can afford to do their yard work.

    A society where nobody can do anything unless it's in the best interest of everyone? Is not a free society.

    The good news is--you can plan, think and work for yourself in your own best interest. Stop blaming other people for your problems. Other people are not the cause of your economic problems--not long term. Immigrants are not the cause of your problems either.

    You are the solution to your problems--and the sooner you stop thinking that everyone else in society is supposed to conduct themselves with your best interest at heart? The sooner you'll start concentrating on and solving your own damn problems.

    P.S. Liberty and justice--other than that, I owe you nothing.

  • ||

    "So you basically don't care about the liberty of taxpayers. You're happy to bring in people to use government services and receive government checks, directly harming the liberty of the taxpayer."

    Hardly!

    I'm saying that the nationality of the people you're talking about isn't the issue.

    Immigration is a red herring!

    If you want to protect the liberty of taxpayers--I'm all for it!

    What does it have to do with immigration? What about the American born welfare queens--who make up the overwhelming majority of welfare queens out there?

    What you're talking about has very little to do with immigration! If you want to protect the liberty of taxpayers, then cut welfare services for everyone! Privatize school systems! Privatize the hospital system. Why are we talking about immigration within the context of protecting the liberty of taxpayers?

    It's like you're saying that there's no use in protecting the liberty of taxpayers--if that means we can't discriminate against immigrants?!

    Don't you care about the liberty of taxpayers--by itself--at all?

  • ||

    "What about the American born welfare queens--who make up the overwhelming majority of welfare queens out there?"

    I think he's already made it abundantly clear that it's perfectly okay that your fellow citizens leach off the state. In fact, his point seems to be that it's not as bad if it's "one of our own" doing it, since we owe some type of allegiance to our comrade taxpayers.

  • ||

    leach = leech

  • ||

    I care about taxpayers' liberty. I don't think you should be advocating policies that will certainly, inevitably result in taxpayers losing more liberty.

    But you can't see past your weird racial hangups and national origin concerns to understand the connection between importing an unlimited number of unskilled poor (of any race, from any nation) and increasing government poverty programs.

    I think a lot of so-called libertarians are just statists trying to trick people into increasing the size of the welfare state. Because that is the result of some of the so-called libertarian positions on these issues.

  • tarran||

    I think a lot of so-called libertarians are just statists trying to trick people into increasing the size of the welfare state.

    The fact you wrote this unironically while arguing that freedoms should be limited in order to prop up the welfare state is very funny.

  • ||

    And you are specifically lying about my position on the welfare state. I don't support it.

    I don't pretend it doesn't exist either. Neither do I pretend it may magically disappear soon. I wish it would. Wishing isn't a policy.

  • ||

    "And you are specifically lying about my position on the welfare state. I don't support it.

    I don't pretend it doesn't exist either. Neither do I pretend it may magically disappear soon. I wish it would. Wishing isn't a policy.

    One of the reasons it's so hard to do with away with the most destructive aspects of the welfare state?

    Is because people keep scapegoating non-issues like immigration.

    Their hand-waving really is meant to distract us...

    The right is over here blaming the worst of the welfare state on immigration. The left is over there blaming the worst of the welfare state on capitalism...

    We should put the blame for the worst of the welfare state right where it belongs--on the welfare state!

  • Trident||

    "Because a citizen of the US has at least a little more of a duty to his fellow citizens than to aliens."

    Nobody has a duty to anybody except when they voluntarily accept it.
    The problem with illegal immigration as it is currently is that the government forces everybody to have a "duty" to illegals, even if only because hospitals treat them on someone else's dime. Turning everything private would fix that problem.
    What goes for aliens goes just as much for non-aliens, if their behaviors are similar. But just because one bad thing is allowed, is no excuse to allow bad things to happen across the board just because to do otherwise would be "hypocritical".

  • Ecolibertarian||

    But just because one bad thing is allowed, is no excuse to allow bad things to happen across the board

    Funny, that sounds like a good argument for NOT jailing and/or killing millions of immigrants to stop your taxes from going up a smidge.

  • that is funny||

    moral hazards tend to result in more than just a "smidge" in terms of economic impact.

    Though I agree we should simply deport the illegal immigrants.

  • Maxxx||

    Because a citizen of the US has at least a little more of a duty to his fellow citizens than to aliens.

    Sorry Ben, but the sociopath wing of libertarians rejects this premise.

  • ||

    "Sorry Ben, but the sociopath wing of libertarians rejects this premise."

    I guess the good news for Ben is that the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party endorses his view wholeheartedly!

  • ||

    Because unemployed people milling around in the US are more likely to cause problems for our society than unemployed potential immigrants milling around in Mexico.

    Same reason that US embassies don't provide legal advice to all comers, only to US citizens.

  • Amakudari||

    So you're arguing that immigration creates unemployment? It certainly pushes down wages in some industries, but that also lowers the cost of goods and lessens inflation, and accounting for remittances they still spend most of their earnings in the US. And the costs are concentrated in a few states while the benefits are nationwide.

    But there's very little evidence that unskilled immigration affects the overall unemployment rate. Aside from benefiting businesses by lower the cost of goods and recycling their earnings, for many of the jobs they do, the next step isn't hiring an American, it's automation or outsourcing.

  • ||

    but that also lowers the cost of goods and lessens inflation

    Link?

    I don't see how it lowers the cost of goods more than, say, moving the factory to Mexico would. Thanks to NAFTA there are no tariff issues.

    accounting for remittances they still spend most of their earnings in the US.

    If Americans were getting paid that money, nearly all of it would be spent in the US.

  • Amakudari||

    Link? This should be obvious. Immigrants increase the supply of labor, which lowers price and increases quantity. I mean, would you assume the price of food would remain unchanged if we deported all illegals? Clearly it raises costs for producers, and those costs will pass through to consumers.

    Macroeconomic equilibrium with illegal immigration (ScienceDirect)

    Or you can look at a chart comparing immigration and unemployment, which shows the US structural unemployment trend holding steady during an explosion in immigration. It also shows that when the labor market is bad migrants don't come and take American jobs (similar to what's happening now, as our immigrant population has declined recently).

    If Americans were getting paid that money,

    That's a big if. And if the factory were moved to Mexico almost none of the wages would be spent in the US (of course, the big component remains value added).

  • BakedPenguin||

    If the job you do can be learned in a week by someone who doesn't even speak the language, perhaps you should have developed skills at some point in your life.

  • ||

    "If the job you do can be learned in a week by someone who doesn't even speak the language, perhaps you should have developed skills at some point in your life."

    I usually respond that if you can't compete for work with people who can't read or write--much less speak English? ...then you shouldn't have held up a liquor store, and you should stop doing meth.

    ...but now I prefer the way you put it!

  • ||

    ^^^

    Yup. If my employer decides that someone who doesn't even speak the same language can do my job better than me, I've got no one but myself to blame.

  • Maxxx||

    If my employer decides that someone who doesn't even speak the same language can do my job better than me, I've got no one but myself to blame.

    It's not a question of doing a better job, it's a question of working for half the price and the employer being able to ignore a ton of labor law, that jacks down productivity, because illegals are unlikely to complain.

  • ||

    You tell me: why are US citizens allowed to vote in our elections but immigrants and people living in other countries aren't?

  • ||

    I feel strongly about this issue. Both as someone who wants to preserve America's integrity and someone with a brain (at least as I fancy) who knows lots and lots of Mexican-Americans who I know have my back anytime...

    We need both a coherent physical gate (border fence, flame-throwers, moat, whatever) letting USA truly decide who comes and goes...and a system to accommodate the ones who really want to be here.

    Fact is, there are lots of Mexicans - I've met some - who are not loyal to the United States. They are loyal to Mexico...if war were to break out, their conviction to this nation would be in doubt. To me, that is unacceptable as someone who ultimately, through all my pessimism, is patriotic to this sovereign.

    So it is strategic security risk. But by same token, I feel a very powerful connection with my Mexican kinsman. They are from this hemisphere, my friends, not Spanish but Mexican (Aztecs name for themselves? Mexica), which is as 'American' as it comes. But America is an idea, not a culture or legacy, unlike Europe with their brands now dealing with such. And it supersedes all such ignorance...even if coming from down south.

    And if characters don't buy into that idea, but the outdated culture they left (even despite my own Mesoamerican affinities and chauvinism), we cannot afford such.

    Truly...Mexicans coming here is cool. But wanting to re-establish Mexico in America conquered again? Time to bust out the tanks, roll south, and end this stupid game. And once and for all declare the Winners once and for all.

  • Brian E||

    We need both a coherent physical gate (border fence, flame-throwers, moat, whatever) letting USA truly decide who comes and goes...and a system to accommodate the ones who really want to be here.

    You will never get a fence that works. You will, however, get a multibillion dollar government boondoggle that's run like a jobs program for the politically favored. How anyone who calls themselves a libertarian can support a border fence is beyond me.

  • ||

    If the fence won't work, why is the open borders crowd so dead-set against it?

    And the waste doesn't explain it. There are far more wasteful govt programs out there that you'll never hear critiqued by Reason.

  • ||

    Like what programs, Tulpa?

    (and start looking at that clock, cause it's a little over 4 hours till go time)

  • ||

    That's a trick question. Once I mention them, you've heard them critiqued on Reason.

  • ||

    Haha. I actually LOLed.

  • HermanLame||

    by Reason =\= on Reason. Lewl.

  • ||

    If the fence won't work, why is the open borders crowd so dead-set against it?

    The Tennessee Valley Authority.

    It doesn't work and I am dead set against it.

  • ||

    Bombing the Middle East into respecting us.

    It doesn't work, and I am against it.

  • ||

    Not a valid comparison; the open borders crowd is ostensibly only against things that prevent immigrants from crossing borders, which a non-working fence won't do.

    The TVA and bombing the Middle East cause grievous harms even if they don't work.

    Now, you could argue against waste an eminent domain usage, but the OBC seems to attack this one with a zeal that no other project with those issues gets attacked with. And they rarely mention those problems when arguing against the fence.

  • ||

    Can't I be against preventing immigration and against things that attempt to prevent immigration but fail to work?

    This is why i think the Tennessee power authority is a perfect example.

    It sucks even if it did work and on top of that it doesn't work.

  • prolefeed||

    If the fence won't work, why is the open borders crowd so dead-set against it?

    Wow, so much stupid packed in a single sentence. Why would someone support a government program they knew was gonna fail?

    "That helicopter design won't work. Those helicopters will crash frequently if you build them. Why are you so opposed to stealing money from people to build them?"

  • ||

    Problem is the OBers' objectives would be satisfied if the fence fails.

    And the only harms a nonworking fence would create would be (a) wasting taxpayer money and (b) EDing a bunch of property. Harmful things indeed, but fairly small compared to many other govt programs that never get mentioned here. Oh, and OBers almost never bring those up when arguing against the fence.

  • ||

    Not mentioning these government programs is not akin to supporting them. For one thing, you have to pick your battles. For another, this site tends to focus on topical issues in the blog posts, so there isn't much reason to bring up other programs if they aren't related to the topic being discussed.

    Also, even if the amount of taxpayer money wasted was relatively small compared to government expenditures as a whole or even comparably ineffective programs does not mean that the waste should be excused. Billions of dollars wasted are still billions of dollars wasted even if its from a trillion dollar budget.

  • Brian E||

    You can take your ridiculous tu quoque and shove it. We are talking about the fence. I don't believe that it will actually work. Is it any surprise that I would say that? We are not talking about any of the other ridiculous wastes of government money, which are too innumerable to mention. Bringing them up will simply drown the discussion in irrelevant nonsense, which I suspect is your actual goal.

  • BakedPenguin||

    If the fence won't work, why is the open borders crowd so dead-set against it?

    It would work like large drug busts "work". It would temporarily divert the flow until new methods could be found. It would do so expensively, and at continuing cost to civil rights.

  • Joe R.||

    The (small-r) reason that the border fence draws such immediate ire is that it is far easier to prevent a government program than to eliminate it. Once that fence is built, we'll be spending money on repairs and upgrades until the end of time, even if it demonstrably doesn't work.

  • 86emmm||

    Hundreds 0f thousands 0f Veterans & Millions 0f "American Families" are Un-employed & 0r HOMELESS in -OUR- / THEIR "OWN COUNTRY" !
    Illegal aliens "STEAL" Jobs , Affordable housing & Tax-payer funded services from -ALL- ! The U.S. LOST 150,000 + / - jobs last month & it "passes out" 125,000 work permits -EVERY MONTH- according to the "G.A.O." ! google--->" Work in the States Build a Life in Mexico " to see where some 0f that STOLEN $$$ goes !!!
    CALL -OUR- Congress @ 866 220 0044
    DEMAND -OUR- IMMIGRATION LAWS BE ENFORCED !
    E-verify -ALL- JOBS & GOV`t. PROGRAMS->Section-8 , welfare , foodstamps , wic. etc. !
    287g->NATIONWIDE TO FIND & DEPORT -ALL- illegal aliens !
    ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT !
    SEND-->"FREE FAXES" to -OUR- congress @ NumbersUSA.c 0r CapsWeb.o !
    Call I.C.E. @ 866 347 2423 to REPORT illegal aliens & THEIR EMPLOYERS !
    -ALL- illegal aliens from -ALL- COUNTRIES ARE "CRIMINALS" !
    visit-> AmericanPatrol.c - OutRagedPatriots.c - Ojjpac.o !
    thanks
    GOD BLESS THE U.S.!!!

  • ||

    ^^Hercule's retarded cousin?^^

  • HermanLame||

    Anyone noticed that the more stupid, conspiratorial, and populist a polemic is, the greater the amount of idiotically capitalized and over-emphasized words and phrases is?

  • ||

    I [KNOW], "right?"

  • Dave||

    Publicly, Ron Paul is concerned about the Welfare State - it's bad enough with only citizens applying for benefits, allowing benefits to go to non-citizens is insane.

    But perhaps he is simply trying to keep the Mexicans from making the mistake of moving to the U.S.A.

  • ||

    Mexico isn't a Third World country, Shikha Dalmia.

    GOOGLE for the CIA World Fact book. Go visit Mexico.

  • ||

    A buddy of mine paid an American woman to get married, and he divorced her a little over a year later. He got in, she got some cash. Win-win.

  • BakedPenguin||

    One year? I thought the minimum was two year for a marriage GC.

  • Some dude||

    Well, that's one thing going for them.

  • MNG||

    Caught the debate, and once again I have to say, Jesus Ron Paul is a breath of fresh air. I can't remember when I have last seen a national pol speak with such courage, speaking his mind, and a mind informed by a coherent philosophy. He's willing to say things that no other candidate would even consider, though many people in the nation are thinking it. His exchange with Santorum was, well, priceless.

    Of course the GOP acted like it did the last time he ran, attacking him and pitching a fit.

  • ||

    All the Democrats and faux-Republican shitheads bitching about him ought to be careful -- if he gains enough support to win the nomination, THE SKY WILL FALL!

  • MNG||

    Why is Gary Johnson excluded in the debates but Huntsman is invited? While I'll concede Johnson doesn't have much of a following surely Huntsman doesn't have much more.

  • Jon Huntsman||

    I'm kind of a handsome bastard, and the newsies like me.

  • sevo||

    "While I'll concede Johnson doesn't have much of a following surely Huntsman doesn't have much more."

    See:
    http://media.mcclatchydc.com/s......So.91.pdf
    "The poll finds that Governor Johnson is tied with former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty and former Georgia congressman Newt Gingrich.
    Governor Johnson also placed one point ahead of former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents."

  • ||

    The only ones who attacked him were Santorum and Gingrich, who are goners within the next month probably. The big fish (Romney, TPaw, Bachmann) kept the kid gloves on wrt RP.

  • MNG||

    OT, ESPN is reporting that Texas A&M is leaving for the SEC and Florida St., Clemson and Missouri are likely to follow.

    This sucks imo. We are going to be left with two or three giant, behemoth conferences before long.

  • Au H20||

    You've gotta be shitting me. I fucking hate the SEC, the most overrated conference in football.

  • ||

    Draft in 5 hours, Goldwater. You ready to do some drinkin?

  • Au H20||

    I've been practicing all week!

  • ||

    I was planning on autodraft but apparently Yahoo won't let me do it the way I want, the bastids. You just rank all the players in one big pile, you can't tell it to draft an RB in round 1, QB in round 2, etc.

  • ||

    Autodraft?

    You lazy fuck.

  • ||

    You should have instead invited one of those HardworkingImmigrants to join.

  • ||

    I asked my gardener if he wanted to play, but he couldn't because he was gonna be standing in the line where illegals get all the free money for their anchor babiez today.

  • Jim||

    Ok I lol'd at that.

  • ||

    Mizzou's AD is already denying the story.

    And if this is from another of Pat Forde's "sources" like those in the tOSU stories, it's accuracy should be on par with a cover story from the Weekly World News

  • ||

    Also, I can't see the Texas state legislature allowing aTm to join the SEC and leaving TT hung out to dry. UT will go independent with their new TV network and will be fine, but Texas Tech will be fucked unless the MWC steps up and fills their conference with the other castoffs. That said, I can't see KU, or Mizzou for that matter, playing basketball in the MWC. And with the Big10 not seriously considering them last go around, I don't see them joining there.

    Maybe they could also join the Big East. They only have about 24 schools there playing basketball right now. What's a few more?

    Now, let's talk about FSU. Why would they leave a conference they have mostly dominated (until recently, but are poised to dominate again) for one where they will be hard-pressed to win their division in every year? Or why would Clemson, for that matter, leave a soft BCS conference they can't win for a super-strong BCS conference where they would get smoked every year?

    No, I can't see this happening with the four schools mentioned

  • ||

    The Big 10 is seriously pissed that Nebraska got kicked out of the AAU after they let them in, from what I hear.

    The perils of being a collegiate conference that gives a shit about academics, I fear. Luckily the SEC will never have such problems.

  • Butts Wagner||

    Now, let's talk about FSU. Why would they leave a conference they have mostly dominated (until recently, but are poised to dominate again) for one where they will be hard-pressed to win their division in every year? Or why would Clemson, for that matter, leave a soft BCS conference they can't win for a super-strong BCS conference where they would get smoked every year?

    $$$$$

  • Bradley||

    Jesus Christ, did TownHall.com link to this post or something?

  • MWG||

    Anytime Reason posts about immigration, it's like an MWG family reunion. Although it's nice to see how stupid I might of sounded during my conservative days... although immigration is one of those issues the eventually turned me into a libertarian.

  • ¢||

    Mexico isn't a Third World country, Shikha Dalmia.

    Sure it is. It's not run by white people. Well, not white-white.

    You're not racist enough to get where she's coming from.

    "Mow my lawn!"

  • ||

    Japan and South Korea isn't a third world country either.

  • ||

    When did they merge?

    /snark

  • ||

    1940.

  • ||

    [golf clap]

  • Amakudari||

  • ||

    Water cannon guy is such a BADASS!!!!

  • Ted S.||

    And I thought Taiwan was interesting.

  • ||

    South Korea was a third world country not so long ago.

    Speaking of which we got a few immigrants from there while they were a third world county now that you mention it.

  • ||

    You're from Korea? Do you know how much money my country has given to your country?

    -- No, how much?

    Well, I don't know. But I'm sure it's a lot.

  • ||

    You're from Korea?

    uh i suppose it is possible to be an immigrant from Korea and have the name Joshua Corning...though i suspect it is highly unlikely...

    Why do you think i am from Korea?

  • ||

    Because you apparently can't understand English.

  • ||

    It's a movie reference, "Falling Down" with Michael Douglas. Great movie.

  • Ice Nine||

    unskilled Mexican workers—you know, the ones who mow your lawns, build your homes, bring you X-mas trees and raise your children for wages barely enough to have lawns, homes, trees or children of their own

    Were that their wages here were in fact "barely enough to have...children of their own." That is a completely fabricated "fact" that belies an actual fact quite the opposite. If though we were to pretend it to be true, we might consider cutting the wages of illegal Mexican immigrants by a third to bring their fertility rate in line with that of the country they have illegally invaded.

    Do I hear two/thirds?

  • non||

    Do I hear two/thirds?

    Are you sure you don't mean 3/5?

  • Oh, bullshit, non...||

    ...stop trying to bring up slavery. It doesn't apply here.

  • Ice Nine||

    Sure, any fraction greater than 1/3 works fine with the tongue-in-cheek notion, so why not 3/5 if you like.

  • tarran||

    ... they have illegally invaded.

    So, if a landowner rents his property to someone you don't approve of, that person is an invader? Wow!

  • Ice Nine||

    Get back to me with a question about my use of that term when you don't need the use of a really amateurish four star straw man to pose it.

  • tarran||

    Be happy to, Mr Ice Nine:

    Dismantling a ‘Libertarian’ Argument for Restricting Immigration

    The passage that addresses your point:

    This argument suffers from a critical flaw: it blurs the distinction between invasion, where someone trespasses on the property of another, and that of legitimate sales of land or rental of land. If my neighbor chooses to sell his land to a person from Mexico, it is a voluntary trade between two individuals and not a unilateral expropriation of property. A squatter who seizes the house can be dealt with as a trespasser. Where the criminal comes from – Canada, West Virginia, or from the immediate neighborhood – is absolutely irrelevant. The notion that someone should be prevented from entering a locale because they might trespass in the future or have a higher time preference than others is ridiculous.

    Enjoy!

  • Ice Nine||

    I guess I should have stipulated that red herrings would not do the trick either. I've discussed nothing re renting, squatting, private property rights. Only you have introduced these extraneous and irrelevant issues into your tangent contesting my use of the term "illegally invaded" to accurately describe the actions of people who pour into the USA against the laws of the US. It is inconceivable that you didn't understand that and clear that you were only using my comment as a vehicle for propounding your unrelated views on property rights, etc. In the unlikely event that you actually didn't understand that I can only suggest that you review the definitions of "illegal" and "invade".

  • tarran||

    Really?

    A man, without asking permission fromt he government, drives into my town, rents an apartment next door, and starts working at Radioshack.

    What makes these acts an 'invasion' when they are done by a guy from Mexico City, but not an invasion when done by a guy from Phoenix, Arizona?

  • Ice Nine||

    Yes, really. The Arizonan does not need permission from the government because the law of the land doesn't require such permission of its citzens. The Mexican does need permission from the government because the law of the land does require such permission of him.

    Was that so hard? You know this of course and you have reduced me to participating in a silly discussion for which I am mortally shamed, so - I'm out. Have a good one.

  • tarran||

    So, under your rubric, a jew sneaking out of the Warsaw ghetto would be invading Poland?

  • ||

    Can we call this thread Godwinned and start drinking now?

    Instant poll. Vote now.

  • tarran||

    I didn't call him a Nazi. I merely asked if he agreed with the Nazis on one point. ;)

    Reduction ad Absurdum: it may be childish, but it's also fun!

  • Ice Nine||

    Who could have guessed that is what you were strugglng to do? Reductio is sort of fun indeed. It is really fun, as you might discover one of these times, when your opponent is actually reduced (somewhere besides in your mind).

  • ||

    sloopyinca|8.13.11 @ 12:06PM|#
    Can we call this thread Godwinned and start drinking now?

    Way ahead of you, dude.

    hic!

  • fyngyrz||

    Your argument is idiotic. You can't use immigration law as an arbiter of what is right and wrong, because the law itself is often wrong, and deeply so.

    For instance, slavery was once the law; but it was wrong, all the same. The drug laws are wrong; and the argument here is that the immigration laws are wrong... you can't possibly expect to respond with "but it's the law" as a justification for the law itself.

    Personally, as soon as you begin to argue that someone born on one side of an imaginary line is somehow inherently superior to another, I move you directly into the clueless category.

    You would do well to remember that this entire frothing at the mouth against immigrants is quite new, and that the vast majority in the US are descendants of immigrants, very few of whom had to obtain significant government paperwork in order to be let into the country, probably, but not necessarily, to work.

    The fact is that there are very few of these border-crossers who represent any threat to Americans seeking or keeping jobs; but even if they did, the argument that person X's ability to feed their children is somehow inherently superior to person Y's ability to feed their children is the argument of a simpleminded fool.

    As for the 11 million, I'm in Montana; I find it very difficult indeed to get low priced services such as lawn, childcare, cleaning, etc. Reaching out to the undocumented community is problematic, because the government requires me to report who I employ. Yet it is a *fact* that presently, Americans don't want these jobs. The loonies that claim otherwise simply have their fingers stuck in their ears and are squealing like the little mental piggies they really are.

  • Ice Nine||

    Your argument is idiotic. You can't use immigration law as an arbiter of what is right and wrong, because the law itself is often wrong, and deeply so.

    Well then let's just use you as the arbiter of what is right and wrong. Heck, we can look to you to decide what is idiotic and what is not as well. It is so simple.

  • MWG||

    "Yes, really. The Arizonan does not need permission from the government because the law of the land doesn't require such permission of its citzens. The Mexican does need permission from the government because the law of the land does require such permission of him."

    You might feel better spewing this collectivist bullshit over at RedState.

    Do you, or do you not believe in the right of free association?

  • Ice Nine||

    I feel fine right now, right here. This "spewing of 'collectivist bullshit'" that I supposedly did was nothing more than the stating of a fact. That you don't like that fact is your problem and neither the fact nor your dislike for it has anything to do with me.

  • MWG||

    Do you, or do you not believe in the right of free association?

  • Ice Nine||

    Do you, or do you not believe in the right of free association

    Oh no! Another really sly reductio sneaking up on me! Eek, what to do, what to do? Oh that's right, ignore it since it has nothing to do with the fertility rate issue I commented on.

  • MWG||

    FIne, don't answer the question, but don't act like ideas of freedom of association and movement have nothing to do with immigration just because they don't fit with you statist beliefs.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    Do you, or do you not believe in the right of free association?

    Ding! Ding! Ding! You win today's Asperger's Award!

    Your right to free association is, and always has been, limited to associating in places you have a legal right to be in the first place. Having the right to throw a cocktail party does not necessarily mean you have the right to throw it in the middle of Walmart's cosmetics department.

    This seems to be a concept some libertarians have a problem with. You might as well be arguing that if I get arrested for breaking and entering for breaking into your house to tell you what a moron you are, that's a violation of my right to free speech. The free speech is not the issue. The breaking and entering is. Distinguish, please.

  • ||

    If you had a cocktail in WalMart, wouldn't you be trespassing without their consent?

    The US Government does not own any private property, therefore the same dynamic is not in play.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    The US Government does not own any private property, therefore the same dynamic is not in play.

    What you're leaving out is that the US government does have the authority to enforce laws in US territory. Even laws that are broken on private property.

  • MWG||

    Hey look everyone! It's slappy! The fascist/racist from A3P!

    But seriously...

    "Your right to free association is, and always has been, limited to associating in places you have a legal right to be in the first place."

    No it hasn't. The first immigration laws didn't even appear until 100 years after the country's founding. You know? Those original laws limiting immigration based purely on race?

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    Indeed?

    I'd like you to show me a single government in all of history that didn't reserve the right to expel undesirable aliens at it's pleasure, whether or not they had a formal immigration policy. You'll be looking for that example for a long, long time. Trust me on this one.

  • MWG||

    You're a fucking idiot. Immigration and Naturalization are not the same thing.

    "I'd like you to show me a single government in all of history that didn't reserve the right to expel undesirable aliens at it's pleasure, whether or not they had a formal immigration policy."

    Governments don't have rights moron. The AUTHORITY the US government has is outlined in the constitution, which says NOTHING regarding immigration. Go ahead and look. You'll be looking for long, long time. Trust me on this one.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    If it's not outlined in the constitution, then presumably, per the 10th Amendment, that power is reserved by the states. Can we put you down as a supporter of Arizona and other states that have taken the matter into their own hands?

  • MWG||

    So do states have the right to impose slavery? Do they have the right to force you to buy Amerikan?

  • ||

    The first laws against drunk driving didn't appear until traffic became congested enough that it became a problem -- decades after the first automobiles appeared on the roads.

  • MWG||

    What does this have to do with the constitutionality of immigration laws?

  • ||

    You can rent your property to anyone you want. If they can't actually come to your property to take possession, that's not my problem.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    ^This

  • tarran||

    If it isn't your problem, why are you trying to prevent them from taking possession Tulpa?

    Keep ladling out the industrial grade stupid Tulpa.

  • ||

    I'm not preventing them from taking possession. The govt is preventing them from crossing the border.

    Two different things.

  • tarran||

    A government whose policies you support. A government whose power to intervene you defend as being just and right.

    When the government uses violence to carry out policies you support, and you voice your approval, it's acting as your agent.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    Yeah? And?

  • Jim||

    And, that makes you a fucking authority-worshiping totalitarian. And if you don't "get" why many here would have a problem with that, then that's your failure, not ours.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    Considering an overwhelming majority of Americans support securing the borders, I'd say it's *your* problem.

  • MWG||

    To fascist, might always makes right.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    It's at least a step up from pulling "rights" nobody ever heard of nor recognizes our your ass, anyway.

  • tarran||

    .... and Slappy paints himself into a corner, yet again.

    Hey slappy, post the chittering squirrel youtube video! It will distract them while you make your escape from yet another losing thread!

  • Slap the Enlightened! ||

    And exactly what corner is that? He responded to my point by calling me a fascist. How am I supposed to respond to that?

    I will say this much - at least London survived the worst the fascists could throw at it. Whether it survives the asshattery your ideological kin have imposed on it remains to be seen.

  • MWG||

    "He responded to my point by calling me a fascist. How am I supposed to respond to that?"

    Your name links to A3P. One needs to spend only a few minutes on the site to realize it's nazism-lite. A3P believes in 'cultural purity'. Which culture is that? Based on the mission statement, its white culture. The site espouses a mixed economy doctrine. There's also a bit of anti-semitism mixed in to boot.

    Hitler would be proud (Not a Godwin, it's a fact).

  • Amakudari||

    And exactly what corner is that? He responded to my point by calling me a fascist. How am I supposed to respond to that?

    Embrace it? I mean, shit, A3P is white nationalist socialist, are they not? How do you figure you get there?

  • MWG||

    The right of free association and movement are rights nobodies ever heard of? Perhaps in fascist corners.

  • tarran||

    ... and the right to prevent your neighbor from hiring an employee was not pulled from the air. ;)

  • Number 2||

    It puzzles me why, on the issue of immigration, the GOP feels compelled to carry water for Big Labor, which has always wanted to exclude unskilled foreign labor as a means of keeping wages high.

  • tarran||

    Without the support of unions, in 1984, Reagan would have watched Mondale's inaugural address on TV while sitting in an easy chair in his ranch.

    In fact, to my memory, everytime Republicans have taken the presidency from the Democrats, they've needed support from unions in the rustbelt to pull it off.

    Reagan rolled back some of Carter's free marekt reforms to get the Teamsters to support him. Bush II had the USWA in his pocket by WTO treaty violating tarrifs.

    The republicans only win when they hit the sweet spot of just-right levels of retarded populism.

    Which is for all their big talk, Republicans are no friends of limited government or freedom. Those policies don't win elections.

  • Robert||

    It just means interest groups need to compromise to govern. How else could it be?

  • Fluffy||

    Once again, as usual, anyone who believes in immigration restrictions hates capitalism and anything they say in defense of the free market in any other context is a fucking lie that shows that they're either hypocritical scum or morons.

    You can certainly argue that you don't want illegal immigrants to have access to the welfare state. To which the simple solution is to ban them from the welfare state and police it, and to remove the Reagan-era law requiring hospitals to accept anyone who walks in the door even if they can't or won't pay.

    Once that is done, it's a simple matter of labor inputs. If you believe that additional labor inputs into the system harms the system, you don't believe in capitalism. Period. End of discussion. Every, and I mean every, theoretical construct supporting capitalism tells us that additional labor productivity helps everyone system-wide net. If you don't think that's true, you have no grounds for supporting the free market and should go join Democratic Underground.

  • ||

    Do you support mandatory background checks for people crossing the border, Fluffy?

    How about a bunch of guys with military-grade rifles all crossing the border at the same time. Since you believe in the right to bear arms, what possible non-capitalism-hating reason could you come up with for not letting them cross?

  • tarran||

    What do you have against duck hunters, Tulpa?

  • Bill||

    When Libertarians have eliminated the Welfare State, come back and we will talk about Open Borders. But, they are all coming here to work, right, and how long will that last once they become eligible for Welfare.

  • tarran||

    Good idea comrade! Let us all suffer to support the welfare state!

  • Trident||

    There is no such thing as Open Borders, even without a welfare state.

  • Trident||

    Shikha Dalmia is one of those that mistakenly seems to think people have a "right to free movement".

    I don't know if she fancies herself a libertarian, and i don't care, but when are these types going to get it in their head that there are two categories of property: private property, and public property. Public property is paid for with taxes by legal citizens. The conclusion can only be that illegals DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO FREE MOVEMENT on property that legals are either paying for voluntarily, or by force (taxation). However you pay for it, when you've paid for it, you have a right to it and those that don't/haven't do NOT have a right to be there. Unless someone invents a transporting machine which will enable illegals to be transported from Mexico straight onto the private property of those willing to hire them, they must at least partially be on the property of those who may NOT want them there.

    However you look at it, people in America will use owned land or paid services, including illegals, yet illegals aren't paying for them.

    If people who believe in private property feel that taxation is theft, and that nobody but them should be able to determine who gets to use or traverse their property, then there can be no defense of allowing illegals in, and ADD to the problem there already is of government allowing private property violations to occur. As long as there is no system in place in which illegals would need, and get, permission from all private property owners to use anything paid for by those owners, they will always violate *someone's* rights, and thus simply have no right to be there.

  • tarran||

    What do you mean illegal people aren't paying for the public property they use?

    The roads are paid for by taxes on gasoline. Last time I checked, people from Mexico weren't powering the cars they rode on unicorn breath.

    True, those who rent, like 'legal' renters aren't paying property taxes directly, but since the property taxes are factored into the rent, that shouldn't be a problem.

    Trhough the magic of Milton Friedman's employer withholding of income tax, they pay income taxes, and often don't get refunds.

    They pay payroll taxes for service3s they don't consume (social security pensions).

    The list goes on. In fact, I want you to imagine a guy working illegally in a chicken slaughterhouse, and tell me which tax he's 'evading'.

    Because as far as I can tell, there ain't none.

    Moreover, if it's really use of public proeprty that bother's you, what if Tyson built an airstrip and a barracks on the property where it had a factory? What if they charged $25.00 for a flight from Mexico city to their factory, and the guys lived worked and relaxed on the factory grounds? Would you be cool with that, since they weren't trespassing on any 'public' property?

  • Trident||

    "The list goes on."

    Is the list as long as it is for everyone that is there 'legally'?
    If not, they are using a service all legals are paying for except illegals. If it could be proven legitimately that whereever they pay less, it happens to be on something immoral, like war for instance, i'd actually be in favor of them paying less. The question remains for me, whether they are using either private or public property or services that they aren't paying for. I don't care how few or how little it would amount to. It would be a violation of property rights.

    "Moreover, if it's really use of public proeprty that bother's you, what if Tyson built an airstrip and a barracks on the property where it had a factory? What if they charged $25.00 for a flight from Mexico city to their factory, and the guys lived worked and relaxed on the factory grounds? Would you be cool with that, since they weren't trespassing on any 'public' property?"

    Yes i would.
    The reason this point is important to me is principles. Being a do-gooder is not what those principles are about; this being a do-gooder should come naturally from nothing but voluntary actions. Adding behaviors from illegals to the already existing pantheon of intrusions of private property rights that *should* be existing, is therefor something i reject. Just because something bad exists, does not mean we may as well apply it both legals and illegals just to evade being "hypocrites" about it.

    Whatever the reason is someone may reject passage of his property, is part of private property rights. Therefor i reject that adding to the number of people using a coercive system is not making things worse. It is.

    And quite frankly, any immigrant legal OR illegal that would vote for government coercion (and many more are obviously statists than they are libertarians), is basically tantamount to importing more rope to hang yourself with. That's another reason why i find the whining about the deportation or stopping of illegals to be stupid. What do 'open immigration' libertarians want anyway? More stupid voting cattle for the political establishment?

    So let me round my side of this debate off this way:
    Immigrants who believe in respecting private property rights welcome.
    Immigrants who believe in violation of them, and supporting the furtherance of it through voting for government that also believes in violation of them, NOT welcome.

  • tarran||

    This has to be one of the most bizarre posts I have read in a while where someone is trying to persuade me.

    First, I asked you if you could point to any tax that illegal aliens were evading, and you basically said that if there were one, it would be a violation of property rights.

    That's one heck of a non-sequitur.

    1) If you don't know of any just say it. IF you have something in mind, out with it.

    2) Taxes, being levied by force regardless of ones desire to consume the services they are to pay for, have nothing to do with property rights. If I pay a lower income tax than my neighbor, but file the same lawsuit that he did, I am not stealing from the courts.

    Second, your reaction to my Tyson Chicken thought experiment was simmilarly incoherent. Principles? Protecting private property rights from intrusion? The thing you are opposing was based entirely on private property rights. In that scenario there was not respassing whatsoever! The illegal immigrant paid for a ticket on an airplane owned by his employer, flew onto his employers property, rented a place on it, and worked there. All of these transactions took place on private property with the consent of the owner. Yet, you claim that the principle of supporting private property rights requires you to interfere with this arrangement? And how are you going to stop them? Are you going to invade the factory to grab these people and forcibly void the employment and rental contracts?

    Third, we should keep people out because you do't like the way they vote? Never mind that most immigrants who get a taste of freedom are its biggest evangelists. So what! Shall we abort the children of Democrats becasue they are going to vote for bigger government! The moment you start denying freedoms to other human beings because you don't approve of their political views, particularly when you don't approve of what you guess are their political views, you have become my enemy.

    Fourth, rather than trying to do good by interfering with other people's freedom of contract and movement, why don't you leave people alone? For you to dismiss people who leave their neighbors alone as "unrealistic do-gooders" is just nuts!


    Seriously, you have either not thought your positions through with any rigor at all, or you have a very nasty totalitarian streak running through you. I hope it's the former.

  • Trident||

    "I asked you if you could point to any tax that illegal aliens were evading"

    They're "illegal". They are evading taxes they'd pay if they were legal.
    Whatever private citizens are doing to make them pay an equivalent amount in the end, is irrelevant to the question.

    "1) If you don't know of any just say it. IF you have something in mind, out with it."

    Are they paying the exact same type and amount, or not? Answering your questions is not my problem; the facts are. If you can show me they are paying the GOVERNMENT (and not anybody else) the same as legals, then you are right and i am wrong, and i'll have no problem admitting it. The reason why i say "government" is because if they are paying to private citizens, there is no way to determine if absent a government, they would not simply be paying the same amount because that happened to be the deal the private citizens were making.

    "2) Taxes, being levied by force regardless of ones desire to consume the services they are to pay for, have nothing to do with property rights."

    You are seriously suggesting that the money you are forced to pay to the government in the form of taxes is NOT private property? Wow...
    Look, let me explain what i mean in case you didn't understand it.
    If you are forced to pay for something, and someone else uses that something without paying for it equally (or at all), then your property rights are violated all the more. Because not only would there be forced funding regardless of whether you intend to use what you are forced to pay for; there would be more or less free loaderism by others on top.

    "If I pay a lower income tax than my neighbor, but file the same lawsuit that he did, I am not stealing from the courts."

    If someone else paid the same as you, how well funded would that court be? If you pay less for something than someone else, you should also have less of a right to use it.
    Courts cost (forcibly extracted) money. You use it to a degree that you haven't paid for, than someone else must be paying for the rest. It is not the courts you'd be stealing from, but those who are forced to pay for whatever you, with your lower income taxes, have not paid for.
    As an example: rich people pay for a LOT bigger share of the government's funding. Now imagine they pay exactly as much as someone in the lower class. Now imagine how much government services, or quality thereof, those lower classes could use. Considerably less, wouldn't you agree?
    What they are using NOW, is funded primarily by people who are forced to pay more. Therefor you are reaching into THEIR wallets (not the court's, because the courts have no money of their own), whenever you use a government service.

    "The thing you are opposing was based entirely on private property rights. "

    I did not oppose your fictitious scenario. You've obviously misunderstood me.
    Maybe you thought i opposed your scenario, because i explained other reasons for why they might *still* be violating property rights, in other ways. You're specific scenario, however, does not get any objection from me.

    "Third, we should keep people out because you do't like the way they vote?"

    That's right. I don't want even more people who vote my rights or my property away.

    "Never mind that most immigrants who get a taste of freedom are its biggest evangelists."

    Most immigrants? Do you have official statistics that most immigrants are libertarians?
    That would be interesting indeed.

    "So what! Shall we abort the children of Democrats becasue they are going to vote for bigger government!"

    Abort children is similar to Stopping immigration?
    Who is employing a blatant non-sequitur now?

    "The moment you start denying freedoms to other human beings because you don't approve of their political views, particularly when you don't approve of what you guess are their political views, you have become my enemy."

    People should not have the so-called "freedom" to vote to violate other people's rights or property away.
    Hey, why not put to a vote if we should allow the mob to rob us. After all, voting is a right, isn't it?
    You are not even thinking clearly about the nature of the policies that people are voting for.
    Voting in favor of immoral actions by government is "freedom" in the sense that voting on which guy to kick the crap out of is "freedom". Democracy is not the same as freedom. It is merely a system in which the larger number wins and dictates whom, and for how much, to rob and to violate. Democracy gave us George W. Bush and gave the middle east hundred of thousands of savagely violated innocents.
    If you are in favor of that, don't worry, you are MY enemy too.
    FUCK democracy.

    "Fourth, rather than trying to do good by interfering with other people's freedom of contract and movement, why don't you leave people alone?"

    I *want* to leave people alone. But i will not leave anyone alone that will not leave me alone. You vote to have the government violate me in any way, i will not vote to give you that leeway and will support anything that keeps you out.
    As long as you don't use the government in any way against me, you can do whatever the fuck you want.

    "Seriously, you have either not thought your positions through with any rigor at all, or you have a very nasty totalitarian streak running through you. I hope it's the former."

    Don't worry about my totalitarianism. Unlike a number of people here, i do not even support the tiniest government if i could have my way. I do not support democracy or voting. I do not support giving people a right to vote on the degree to which i get violated (unlike you, apparently).

  • tarran||

    They're "illegal". They are evading taxes they'd pay if they were legal.

    Which tax? Seriously. If you are going to declare that they aren't paying the taxes they 'owe', surely you can point to one. Otherwise, I am just going to assume you are pulling rationalizations out of your butt.

    Nor is it up to me to prove a negative. I've stated repeatedly that I can't think of a single tax that is not levied on people who are legally in the United States and who are not legally inside the U.S.
    You, on the other hand, are claiming that there is one.

    Moreover, it is interesting for someone claiming to be an anarchist to come out of the gate whining about people not paying their "fair share of taxes".

    You're obviously new around here, and don't know who the ancaps are, and thus are probably ignorant that I am one of the more radical ancaps among the frequent commenters. Now I, and my ancap friends, generally cheer when someone evades paying taxes. We are thrilled when someone manages to pursue peaceable activities without having to pay off a protection racket. For you to complain that the freedoms of contract and movement, critical freedoms, must be violated to ensure people pay enough taxes strikes me as one of the most poorly thought out positions that any person who claims to not want a government calling the shots can take. Seriously, do you actually think about what you are writing?

    People should not have the so-called "freedom" to vote to violate other people's rights or property away.

    Amen to that! However, we are not talking about people's right to vote, are we? We are talking about the freedom of people to move about. Extending your logic about preventing new voters entering the rolls, do you also advocate for birth licenses? Sterilization of people with the wrong political views?

    I don't like the fact that people vote. I want it to end. Yet, I accept that forcibly preventing them from exercising their freedoms is the dumbest, most ass-backward way to deal with the problems caused by government.

    Remember, it is you arguing that the government should decide who gets to go where. TO advocate for that, on the grounds that this is how you keep government small and out of your way is like shooting yourself in the foot in order to make it harder for enemy soldiers to shoot you.

    I *want* to leave people alone. But i will not leave anyone alone that will not leave me alone.


    I am having trouble seeing how someone who advocates having the government choose who gets to go where can so unself-cosnciously claim that he wants to leave people alone.

    Here's a hint. If you want to leave people alone, LEAVE THEM ALONE! It's not fucking rocket science. You're like the dweebs that break up with their hot girlfriend before the girlfriend can break up with them, and then wonder why their lives are full of failed love affairs.

    Honestly, I think you haven't really thought anything through with any rigor whatsoever. You may want to google Friedman's Machinery of Freedom or Rothbard's For a New Liberty or Block's Defending the Undefendable to understand how far into error your policy prescriptions take you, assuming your desire to leave people alone is sincere.
  • Trident||

    "Which tax? Seriously. If you are going to declare that they aren't paying the taxes they 'owe', surely you can point to one. Otherwise, I am just going to assume you are pulling rationalizations out of your butt."

    Here is the relation between amount paid and amount of government used:
    "On average, the costs that illegal households impose on federal coffers are less than half that of other households, but their tax payments are only one-fourth that of other households."
    http://cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

    So they are using government more than is paid for, in relation to legals.
    The costs of this must be paid by someone else because funding does not come from moneytrees.

    "Moreover, it is interesting for someone claiming to be an anarchist to come out of the gate whining about people not paying their "fair share of taxes".

    Bullshit. I don't want *anyone* to pay taxes. If taxes are going to paid however, to fund government services, then people should pay relative to what they use, and not pay for something that someone else is using, while the other guy is using but not paying for all of the share of government usage he has.
    I'm not going to pretend that there is no government when there is. As long as there is, i'm going to oppose anything or anybody that is using more government than he is paying for, at the expense of others.

    "You're obviously new around here, and don't know who the ancaps are, and thus are probably ignorant that I am one of the more radical ancaps among the frequent commenters."

    I don't give a shit who you are. Do you actually think i should be reliant on you for my arguments? Use arguments, or shut up. But don't talk to me about your credentials because i don't give a fuck.

    "We are thrilled when someone manages to pursue peaceable activities without having to pay off a protection racket."

    I do too. I am arguing against the people who DON'T merely pursue peaceable activities, but who use the government to their advantage in any way.
    I'm still waiting for the statistics that prove that most immigrants are libertarians and therefor preaching freedom.
    Now is your opportunity to prove a positive. Convince me, Mr. Radical Ancap.

    "Amen to that! However, we are not talking about people's right to vote, are we?"

    Are the majority of immigrants abstaining from voting? Are they libertarians? Any evidence of either?
    If not, then you are still expecting me to praise immigration of people that are voting my rights or property away. You may want me to ignore this vital detail, but i have no intention of doing that.

    "We are talking about the freedom of people to move about."

    People only have the freedom to move about in so far as they don't violate another's rights. Voting immediately negates that as they are then influencing collectivist policy that has an effect on everyone.

    "Extending your logic about preventing new voters entering the rolls, do you also advocate for birth licenses? Sterilization of people with the wrong political views?"

    I don't have to support any such ridiculous measures. What i am doing is simply using the existing system against itself, and against those who would actually use that system against me. I didn't ask for this system, but it's here. Expecting me to use the means of private property and liberty that don't currently exist, to defend myself against those who support the system that does, is exactly the kind of naive, pointless idealism that will never improve anything.
    I've asked it, and i'll ask again: how do you intend on changing anything at all, if you support the kind of thing that will only increase the ranks of those violating you? You may not vote, but they sure as hell will. They'll vote you into oblivion, and i have to negate myself by sticking to currently non-existing ideal situations of "free movement" even when i can clearly see that in reality this means i am favoring the importation of my own abusers.
    No thanks.
    When i'll see your evidence that most immigrants are freedom-lovers (and we both know what i mean by that), i'll start adjusting my opinion accordingly.

    "Yet, I accept that forcibly preventing them from exercising their freedoms is the dumbest, most ass-backward way to deal with the problems caused by government."

    Who is "them"? If we're talking about ideals: ideally, those that pillage and plunder (big government or its voters) would go to jail. So ideally, such voters would have no "freedom" to exercise.

    "I am having trouble seeing how someone who advocates having the government choose who gets to go where can so unself-cosnciously claim that he wants to leave people alone."

    Why are you not reading? I'll leave those alone who leave ME alone. For whatever reason it may have, government may actually reject a number of new people who would like a share of the booty. I am not so blind in my hate of the state, that i would reject it even if one of their policies accidentally happened to be beneficial to my freedom or property.
    I will change my mind on this when i see the proof that most immigrants oppose the state. In that case, i WANT them in America.

    P.S. Walter Block has no problem with using the government to your advantage. And i don't consider Milton Friedman's word as gospel on anything. If you want to know why, ask the third of the people you mentioned: Murray Rothbard, who by the way had no problem with voting, and was part of the Ron Paul/Lew Rockwell camp.
    You remember Ron Paul, right? He's against illegal immigration.

  • tarran||

    Oh my god! Trident, you really do have a totalitarian streak a mile wide. It's simply amazing:

    Let's first discuss the tax business. From the executive summary you linked to:

    With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services.

    So, essentially, illegal immigrants pay taxes to a simmilar degree as other unskilled laborers.

    In fact, they say that the costs of "using" government are higher for people who are legally here, because they consume higher amounts of government services than they pay for through their taxes!

    Far from butressing your clams, your link undermines them fatally. The problems caused by the welfare state are fixed by eliminating the welfare state, not harming innocent people who bear no responsibility for its existence.

    But, let's say that the illegal immigrant is indeed paying less in the way of taxes to the similarly employed legal guy. I find it a very fascinating window into your thought processes that you're not arguing that the legal person is paying too much.

    I don't give a shit who you are. Do you actually think i should be reliant on you for my arguments? Use arguments, or shut up. But don't talk to me about your credentials because i don't give a fuck.

    Your unwillingness to tailor your arguments for your audience is noted. It's actually not surprising to me that you have that attitude. Your poor writing - particularly the turgid way you construct your arguments - bespeaks to an utter indifference to your audience understanding what the hell you are trying to say.

    Are the majority of immigrants abstaining from voting? Are they libertarians? Any evidence of either?
    If not, then you are still expecting me to praise immigration of people that are voting my rights or property away. You may want me to ignore this vital detail, but i have no intention of doing that.

    They're voting your rights away? More so than the guys graduating high schools across the land and helpfully being placed on the voter rolls by the clerks of the DMV aren't?

    Why are you showing up on this thread about immigration, but not railing against people having children?

    People only have the freedom to move about in so far as they don't violate another's rights. Voting immediately negates that as they are then influencing collectivist policy that has an effect on everyone.

    So I take it that if you lived in New Hampshire, you'd be picketing those evil massholes moving up from the Boston MEtropolitan area. Do you protest when your employer hires people from West Virginia? Did you get angry when you found out that your school was encouraging people from California to attend it and inviting them to job fairs with local employers?

    Anyway, last time I checked, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS DON'T VOTE!

    Again, do you even think about what you are writing?

    I've asked it, and i'll ask again: how do you intend on changing anything at all, if you support the kind of thing that will only increase the ranks of those violating you? You may not vote, but they sure as hell will.

    By not wasting my time worrying about the ballot box? Trident, the only thing coming out of the ballot box is a larger state. For someone who does not like government, you really seem to want it to provide you with solutions.

    Anarchy, what I advocate for, is a cultural thing. The only way you get it is by persuading people to eschew the state. By advocating for state action, you are in fact doing just the opposite. I can't guarantee my way will lead to a freer society.

    YOur way, though, I can guarantee will result in a less free society. The first rule of getting what you want is to avoid doing the things that will prevent you from getting what you want.

    I don't have to support any such ridiculous measures. What i am doing is simply using the existing system against itself, and against those who would actually use that system against me.

    Oh you simpleton. You utter fool. You bufoon!

    You're not using the system to protect yourself, you are allowing the system to use you! Do you think the politicians or trade unions give a shit about you!?! What, you think they're going to say "hey we have less immigration, yay freedom?!?"

    No, the politicians you vote for and support are going to say "I haz mandate!" and are going to loot the hell out of you.

    Why are you not reading? I'll leave those alone who leave ME alone. For whatever reason it may have, government may actually reject a number of new people who would like a share of the booty. I am not so blind in my hate of the state, that i would reject it even if one of their policies accidentally happened to be beneficial to my freedom or property.

    You'll stop punching people in the face when they stop trying to punch you in the face?!? Even when they're not trying to punch you in the face?

    BTW, immigration restrictions are not beneficial to you and your property. After all, now we need permission from the Federal Governemnt to get a job. Solely to keep immigrants out... That sure promotes freedom.

    You want to know how you convince people to like freedom? You allow them to experience its benefits! You allow them to experience a life where they are allowed to start businesses, work in the fields of their choosing, buy cars, rent houses etc without having to pay bribes.

    Yet, that's not what you are doing, is it, Mr Trident. You are preventing people from experiencing freedom. You are throwing your lot with people who thing the government should decide who works where & when.

    In other words, your actions are those of a quisling, and your claims that you think you are fighting for freedom show you to be a pathetic fool.

  • MWG||

    Citing CIS about immigration issues is a bit like citing the KKK about racial issues.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    Or citing Cato Institute about economic issues...

    Oh, wait....

  • Maxxx||

    So they are using government more than is paid for, in relation to legals.

    Jesus Christ this meme is so fucking retarded.

    Let me explain it to you slowly.

    Illegals are poor.

    Poor people take much more from the government than they pay to support it.

    Illegals have on average 3.4 children per household. That will cost taxpayers at least $500,000 to educate, probably more.

    It's great that they pay sales tax and cigarette excise taxes but how much fucking taxes do you think a family earning 30,000 / yr pays anyway?

  • ||

    Not a lot. So I guess that means you don't have a problem with them raising taxes in the 50% of the population who don't pay any taxes and live here legally do you?

    Fucktard

  • fyngyrz||

    "The question remains for me, whether they are using either private or public property or services that they aren't paying for"

    So in this case, your position is that all babies and children should immediately be expelled, because they do not pay for the public property and/or services they consume, right?

    Look, the entire point of public roads, property, etc. is that by providing these things, we encourage commerce and a civil society. Those things, in turn, make us more productive and wealthy and educated and benefit us in many other ways.

    The whole public land/services argument is specious.

    In the end, it's simply disingenuous to try to say that worker A is ok because he comes from here, but worker B is not because he comes from there.

    Either *people* should be able to work, or not. Yelling rah rah and waving a flag just means you're a bloody idiot. It doesn't mean you are any better than the next guy over. What you're engaging in is gang mentality, really no better in any way than those mac-toting druggies from the LA ghettos or some Afghan tribe muttering to their version of the ghost in the sky.

  • ||

    it's not disingenuous at all

    they are two different things.

    a citizen (or resident alien with a work permit) vs. an illegal alien.

    all these tangents about public lands, bla bla are really irrelevant.

    nations have a right (and imo we have a duty) to protect our borders and to protect our sovereignty. sorry, but merely crossing into our country doesn't give one the right to the benefits of being a US citizen

  • MWG||

    "nations have a right"

    Stop right there. Nations do not have rights. Only individuals do.

    Though it's true some countries may have a constitutional mandate to 'protect its borders and to protect its sovereignty' from teh illegals, you will find no such mandate in the US constitutions.

    I know that sounds shocking, but if you do a little research (no more than 5 mins on google) you'll find that the first laws regarding immigration here in the US didn't even appear until 100 years after the country was established.

  • ||

    fine. that was my bad. nations have the AUTHORITY (or authoritah if it suits you) to...

    and i'm well aware that we had essentially open borders for a long time. great. that was then, this is now.

    when we were a frontier nation, we practically begged others to come here and homestead, etc.

    that was then, this is now

    regardless, we definitely have the authoritah to protect our borders. that is one of the few absolutely inarguable duties of the federal govt.

  • MWG||

    "regardless, we definitely have the authoritah to protect our borders. that is one of the few absolutely inarguable duties of the federal govt."

    Not according to the constitution, which goes back to my original point. If we had a constitutional mandate to 'protect' ourselves against teh immigrants, why didn't the first laws appear until 100 years later. If it was really a concern of the founders and that was their intent with the constitution, why didn't they make the laws?

  • ||

    again, because we were a frontier nation. we were (essentially) empty and plus the founders were more than happy to have more NON-indians come and push indians farther away. let's be realistic here.

    if a govt. doesn't have the authoritah to protect its borders, then the borders are meaningless. borders define (to a large extent) the limit of both our duties and our powers.

  • tarran||

    Dunphy, the United States is still mostly empty, and even if it weren't that does not justify violating the basic human rights of movement and contract.

  • ||

    the United States is still mostly empty

    The places that are still empty (in the sense of not being populated and not being used for something a la cornfields) are essentially worthless for any wealth-producing activity.

  • tarran||

    Bullshit.

    Otherwise the Department of the Interior would not be such a scandal ridden corrupt organization.

  • ||

    So you're saying the illegals are going to move to ANWR.

  • tarran||

    People go where they can make money Tulpa. Oddly enough that includes not only arable land, but land with mineral or other forms of wealth just begging to be converted into salable goods.

  • MWG||

    "if a govt. doesn't have the authoritah to protect its borders, then the borders are meaningless. borders define (to a large extent) the limit of both our duties and our powers."

    Sigh... borders have meaning in that they define to what geographical point the governments constitutional authority extends. IOW, borders set limits on the government, not on individuals.

  • Xenocles||

    "Not according to the constitution..."

    "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion..." (Art. IV, sec. 4)

    "The Congress shall have Power... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..." (Art. I, sec. 8)

  • MWG||

    ""The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion..." (Art. IV, sec. 4)"

    Poor mexican workers do not represent a foreign power or army, no matter how much you wish they did.

    ""The Congress shall have Power... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..." (Art. I, sec. 8)"

    Naturalization and immigration aren't the same thing, but you already knew that, didn't you.

    The constitution says nothing about immigration. So much so that the founders made no laws restricting it.

  • Xenocles||

    "Poor mexican workers do not represent a foreign power or army, no matter how much you wish they did."

    I never implied they did. What you said upthread was that the government has no constitutional duty to protect the borders (see your 1:27 PM). Don't get mad at me for providing a fact to the contrary.

    "Naturalization and immigration aren't the same thing, but you already knew that, didn't you."

    I'll concede that (though SCOTUS has used the former word to imply the latter) if you stipulate that the states then hold the power to regulate immigration via the 10th Amendment. (Reserving this power "to the people" just doesn't seem to work here.)

    "the founders made no laws restricting [immigration]."

    Was John Adams not a founder? It's been a while since I took a formal history course, so maybe I'm a little confused.

  • MWG||

    "What you said upthread was that the government has no constitutional duty to protect the borders (see your 1:27 PM). Don't get mad at me for providing a fact to the contrary."

    What I said was as it relates to immigration. The constitution gives no authority to the feds to defend the borders from teh immigrantz.

    "Was John Adams not a founder? It's been a while since I took a formal history course, so maybe I'm a little confused."

    Yes, its true. The single example of an immigration law passed by the founders was part of the Alien and Sedition Acts. Interesting that you didn't mention the name in your comment.

    In your mind, was the ASA constitutional?

  • Xenocles||

    I'll take that as an admission that you were wrong in your bold factual assertion. I forgive you. Nothing to say about the power devolving to the states?

  • MWG||

    The constitution says nothing about immigration.

    Regarding the state. I'm against the state having the authority to infringe on the rights of individuals. Whether it be allowing slavery, or impeding individual rights to free association and movement.

    I'm against Obamacare and Romneycare.

  • Robert||

    Maybe this is one of those things that's permitted, though not mandated, by the constitution. I hope you're not a believer that anything that isn't mandatory is forbidden.

  • MWG||

    @Robert,

    Thanks for the response. W/O getting into a long debate, my 'view' is pretty basic. The only responsibility of 'legitimate' govt. is to protect individual rights. Rights that exist independent of government. In the case of immigration, the right to free association and movement.

    I am, by no means, a constitutional scholar, but I know that no power is given to the govt. to regulate immigration. This makes sense given the preamble and the idea of 'inalienable rights'.

  • Robert||

    1.9 para. 1 looks pretty damn explicit! There are people who say it applies only to slaves, but then it wouldn't've specified "migration or importation", indicating that it didn't matter whether the persons were someone's property or just moving on their own. How much clearer could it be?

  • MWG||

    "1.9 para. 1 looks pretty damn explicit!"

    Perhaps to a conservative trying to make the constitution fit their narrative.

    "There are people who say it applies only to slaves..."

    Ya think?

    Let's look at the text.

    "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit..."

    Migration? You see, when slave holders moved from one state to another, they generally took their property with them. Slaves were considered property, hence they migrated with their owners.

    "...shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight..."

    You see, the founders where having trouble with the issue of slavery (Not immigration) and instead of actually dealing with the issue, they decided to put it off until 1808.

    "...but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

    They were placing a 'duty' or tax on the 'importation' of immigrants? Interesting.

    I find it amusing that conservatives (not sure if you're one) bring this up on numerous posts related to immigration. It's quite a 'liberal' interpretation of the constitution by those who claim to be against such interpretations (see liberal use of welfare clause and commerce clause), if you ask me.

    But lets say for the sake of argument that you're correct, and that the founders were concerned with immigration issues to the point they touched on it in the constitution. With the exception of the Alien and Sedition Acts (Hardly a shining moment for the constitution), why weren't any laws written for 100 years after the country was established (Laws which were based purely on racist fears at the time, BTW)?

  • ||

    Border protection and immigration are two completely separate topics and should be treated as such.

  • MWG||

    @Sloop

    I actually think you're right about this, but teh illegalz r invadors, douncha know.

  • MWG||

    @Sloop

    I actually think you're right about this, but teh illegalz r invadors, douncha know.

  • MWG||

    Worth repeating apparently...

  • ||

    No, it wasn't. :)

  • ||

    Border protection and immigration are two completely separate topics and should be treated as such.

    They're not completely separate. You can't be an immigrant without crossing borders.

  • ||

    Fucking airports and harbors, how do they work?

  • Xenocles||

    "Fucking airports and harbors, how do they work?"

    Are you implying that entering a country through an airport or harbor doesn't require crossing that country's border, or was this not meant as a response to Tulpa's 1:53?

  • ||

    ever heard of maritime borders?

    Flying over a border is still crossing it. It's not just a line, it's a perpendicular surface.

  • ||

    I think you mean perpendicular plane. (I like the word perpendicular. It sounds dirty.)

  • ||

    Nations do not have rights. Only individuals do.

    Nations are made up of individuals acting in concert to some degree. If they don't have rights, neither do corporations, so you better work on getting Citizens United overturned.

  • tarran||

    Tulpa, This is one of the dumbest things you have written in a while.

    The difference between a corporation and a nation state is that people aren't forcibly required to join with other people in the corporation.

    If the Reason Foundation claimed the power to bash down your door and beat you up for having too much cough syrup in your medicine cabinet, and if they could require you to cough up 10% of your assets for permission to leave the Hit and Run Commentariat, then you might have a point.

  • MWG||

    ^This. Come on Tulpa, think before you type.

  • ||

    I'm not saying that nations and corporations are the same thing. I'm saying that your statement that "only individuals have rights" proves too much.

  • MWG||

    Individuals have the right to voluntarily pool their money together and do things as a corporation. Those individual rights end where the rights of other individuals begin.

  • ||

    But once they pool together they are not free to choose what the corporation does. That's determined by a type of majority rule, no?

    So the group of individuals may well be using its "rights" in a way that some of the individuals don't want.

  • ||

    But once they pool together they are not free to choose what the corporation does. That's determined by a type of majority rule, no?

    Fucking limited partnerships, how do they work?

  • MWG||

    Except that it's voluntary.

  • Maxxx||

    Except that it's voluntary.

    No one is forcing you to stay in the US.

    Hell, I'll buy you a plane ticket to North Korea.

  • MWG||

    Just because you emigrate from the US does not mean you are no longer a citizen.

  • Maxxx||

    I thought that you rejected the concept of "citzenship".

  • MWG||

    You thought wrong.

  • Trident||

    "So in this case, your position is that all babies and children should immediately be expelled, because they do not pay for the public property and/or services they consume, right?"

    Don't be fucking ridiculous. There is a difference between children and adults, for all the obvious reasons.

    "Look, the entire point of public roads, property, etc. is that by providing these things, we encourage commerce and a civil society."

    You do not need "public" roads/property for that. But that debate would get off topic so i'm not getting into the private roads/property vs. public roads/property issue.

    "Those things, in turn, make us more productive and wealthy and educated and benefit us in many other ways."

    See previous answer.

    "In the end, it's simply disingenuous to try to say that worker A is ok because he comes from here, but worker B is not because he comes from there."

    Yes it is. Fortunately i never said such a thing. My arguments revolve around something other than stupid tribalism.

    "Either *people* should be able to work, or not."

    This question is unrelated to my objections, as i've never said people "shouldn't be able to work". It depends on where, and under which conditions. In the society i envision, everybody no matter where he's from would be able to work. We are NOT living in that society now, and so i refuse to pretend the conditions are the same.

    "Yelling rah rah and waving a flag just means you're a bloody idiot."

    Yes, it does. Fortunately i don't yell "rah rah" and i find flags to be moronic symbol-mongering. You are obviously mistaking me for some stupid hick nationalist.
    I advise you to read more carefully, and presume less quickly.

    "It doesn't mean you are any better than the next guy over. What you're engaging in is gang mentality, really no better in any way than those mac-toting druggies from the LA ghettos or some Afghan tribe muttering to their version of the ghost in the sky."

    Since your entire response is based on a false assumption, it is obvious that your above remarks are about as far off the mark as could be.

  • Ecolibertarian||

    I say we all vote to ban Trident from public property. As soon as he sets foot on a road, WHAMMO! Off to the big house. All in favor say aye.

  • Trident||

    If i'm not supposed to be there in the first place, i shouldn't complain about it.

    So in that case i would agree with you.
    How do you like that?

    But you better let government handle it, because THEY are the ones who regulate those things. If they didn't, this discussion wouldn't even be happening.

  • ||

    All hail the government! Without them to monitor "things," our economy would be in the shitter and we'd constantly be at war.

  • Trident||

    Apparently you missed the fact that i was being sarcastic.

  • ||

    I checked the batteries in my sarcasm detector this morning. I'm sure it was working fine.

  • Trident||

    Then your sarcasm detector itself is faulty.

    But since you are not eager to get my point, let me explain it to you.

    The guy i responded to proposed i be banned from public roads.
    I suggested he let government handle such matters, because quite frankly, it generally does NOT GIVE A FUCK what people want, and if you take it upon yourself to do such a thing, then YOU may find yourself in the big house.

    The guy i responded to presumed he gets to make decisions about property, when my whole damn point was that he doesn't. Which is why i am against 'open immigration' in the first place. Because government has too much fucking power and indiscriminately violates property rights.

    Do you get it now?

  • ||

    Yes, I get it now.

    BTW, how does that boot taste?

  • ||

    Wow. Just wow.

  • ||

    Sorry, that's a bill of attainder, which is unconstitutional.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    That sounds pretty goofy, but regardless, I would guess that illegals are paying just as much as legal citizens making similar amounts of money.

  • Trident||

    If i'm wrong then i'm wrong.

    Saying my arguments are "goofy" doesn't impress me.

    The question is still if the amount of property rights violations is *added* to through illegal immigration. Not how much someone pays.
    Let's say 85% of immigrants, legal or illegal, support big government.
    Then immigration ADDS to the problem of private property violations, as they support and therefor further enable those violations.

    Do you mind if have a problem with adding to the numbers of coercive state-enablers?
    And if we accept Shikha's claim of "poor, third world immigrants" being rejected, and that they should be allowed, how many of them would refuse government assistance?

    That is my whole point. I don't have a problem with immigrants by definition. I have a problem with boatloads of proverty-rights-violators and/or coercive-state-enablers being ADDED to the already existing number.

    It baffles me that so-called "libertarians" still believe they'd ever get anything remotely like their preferred society by happily opening the door to people who support the opposite.

  • yeah||

    I for one am looking forward to our own Chavez-style demagogue.

    But maybe we'll get lucky like some latin american countries, and the left will split the vote because they can't agree how much socialism is enough.

  • ||

    They're claiming 7 exemptions and using someone else's SSN. They're not paying shit.

  • MWG||

    "They're not paying shit."

    Well, they do pay some taxes (See sales, gas, etc...) and if they're using someone else's SSN, their employers are also paying taxes, particularly the kind the illegals will never benefit from (See SS and medicare).

  • ||

    The income tax is the elephant in the room, friend.

  • MWG||

    So... it's not that they aren't 'paying shit'. They're just not paying income taxes. Got it.

  • ||

    Since you're being Mr. Literalist, recall that you said "I would guess that illegals are paying just as much as legal citizens making similar amounts of money" which is even more incorrect.

  • MWG||

    Lol. I didn't say that.

  • MWG||

    OTOH, it really wouldn't be all that incorrect assuming that those in the lower middle-class range essentially pay no income taxes making them similar to illegals in terms of taxes.

  • Brian E||

    So they're not paying for all the stupid shit that I'm paying for, right? Big fucking deal. If what they were not paying for was at all justifiable, I might start to be a little bit concerned. As it is, you're basically whining that they're not paying for their fair share of the invasion and subjugation of other brown skinned folks we don't like, or air travel subsidies to underutilized small airports, or any of the other ridiculous shit you accuse us of not actually caring about. Fuck that noise. By my account, they're actually ahead morally for not paying for any of that.

  • Maxxx||

    Yeah, real moral libertarians taking welfare, costing taxpayers a fortune to "educate" their kids, stealing identities.

    Are you really this big of a dumbfuck or do you just play one in the intertubes?

  • MWG||

    "Yeah, real moral libertarians taking welfare, costing taxpayers a fortune to "educate" their kids, stealing identities."

    This is what libertarians want?

  • Maxxx||

    It must be.

    Because that is the reality of illegal immigration today, which you defend.

  • MWG||

    Libertarians are against welfare for illegals. We're also against having to pay for citizens kids' and citizens healthcare as well, something that doesn't appear to bother you.

  • ||

    The bulk of the taxes that come out of my paycheck are ss and Medicare, not income, so I'm not sure you are really right here tulpa.

  • but then||

    Of course none of us will benefit from the money we're throwing into the SS and medicare holes.

    It goes to current retirees, soon to be followed by most of our income taxes.

  • MWG||

    Who's 'us'? Is no one currently benefitting for SS?

  • meh||

    you do realize those are like 2% and 4% of income when you only talk about the employer part. You'd have a better argument with sales tax.

  • oh and||

    if you work as an independent contractor they don't even have to withhold that. So if you don't file you don't pay squat.

    I wonder how much the feds are cracking down on illegals who evade taxes. Something tells me they direct their efforts elsewhere.

  • MWG||

    So you want higher taxes?

  • thats what I read from it...||

    because someone pointing out that illegals only pay half of payroll taxes which is a fraction of what the average american forks over, is clearly a call for higher taxes on everyone...

  • MWG||

    Instead of arguing for immigrants to pay 'their fair share', you should be arguing for lower taxes across the board. While fault someone for being able to avoid immorally high taxes?

    Oh right... the law is the law.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    They're claiming 7 exemptions and using someone else's SSN. They're not paying shit.

    Just like "legal citizens making similar amounts of money." They "don't pay shit" either.

  • ||

    Thank you Fatty!

  • ||

    So the rest of us should have to pay higher taxes, pay higher insurance premiums, pay higher prices for homes or apartments, pay more to educate our children, waste more money sitting in traffic just so some libertarin hipster can have his lawn mowed cheaply and not even bother to raise his own children.

    Illegal aliens impose a massive costs of others that cheaper pupusas and cheaper lawn care does not begin to make up for.

    Just ask all of the people in cities like El Paso, Los Angeles, or Manhattan to have to spend thousands for private schools because immigrants have ruined the local public schools.

  • Ecolibertarian||

    Illegal aliens impose a massive costs of others

    Citation needed.

  • Amakudari||

    Just ask all of the people in cities like El Paso, Los Angeles, or Manhattan to have to spend thousands for private schools because immigrants have ruined the local public schools.

    Yeah, it's the immigrant kids wot done it, not the tolerance of shitty teachers and total lack of accountability.

  • ||

    I know, right? Talk about living in denial. Maybe super destroyer can explain to us who and how the public school systems in Cincinnati, Dubuque, Chicago, Buffalo, Richmond, Atlanta, and myriad other cities got ruined.

    Illegal immigrants again? Cause if it was, they did it by correspondence course.

    What a dumbass.

  • Maxxx||

    Yeah and the solution to a fucked up welfare state is importing more clients, right?

  • ||

    Way to move the goalposts, assface.

    I want to know what the reasons for the failed school systems in those cities are.

    Oh, and the solution for a failed welfare state is to eliminate the welfare state and give the confiscated money back to the taxpayers, be they American or foreign-born immigrants.

  • prolefeed||

    Just ask all of the people in cities like El Paso, Los Angeles, or Manhattan to have to spend thousands for private schools because immigrants have ruined the local public schools.

    Yeah, it's just awful that people feel that they are better off paying out of their own pocket to educate their own children rather than sending them to the government indoctrination camps financed by stolen money.

    / sarcasm

  • Maxxx||

    I want to know what the reasons for the failed school systems in those cities are.

    Obviously because of a fucked up statist system that uses children as props in a make work program.

    Dumping hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrant children into that system will equally obviously exacerbate its dysfunction.

    And yet you argue for doing exactly that.

    Why?

  • ||

    And you know it will exacerbate the problem....how, exactly?

    And I have always argued to close public schools and eliminate compulsory education.

    You sure do like putting words in other peoples' mouths. I've noticed it all over this thread.

  • Edsger Duckstrap||

    Bill: I could explain why you're wrong, but there's enough comments on this thread doing that already. Why don't you go and read them instead of posting more of the same shit?

  • MWG||

    "...so some libertarin hipster can have his lawn mowed cheaply and not even bother to raise his own children."

    Yea, that's right. Only 'libertarian hipsters' take advantage of illegal immigrant labor. You, I'm sure, have never benefited from them.

    "Illegal aliens impose a massive costs of others that cheaper pupusas and cheaper lawn care does not begin to make up for."

    MAJOR citation needed. Here's a hint though, before you waste you time looking. You won't find one.

  • sevo||

    superdestroyer|8.13.11 @ 11:49AM|#
    "So the rest of us should have to pay higher taxes, pay higher insurance premiums, pay higher prices for homes or apartments, pay more to educate our children, waste more money sitting in traffic just so some libertarin hipster can have his lawn mowed cheaply and not even bother to raise his own children..."

    Ignoring the strawmen, it actually has to do with a concept you might have heard of. It's called "freedom". And the belief that even brown people ought to have some.

  • Oh, come on...||

    ...do we really have to say stupid shit like "even brown people ought to have freedom"?

    Sure, of course they ought to. But a line like that is better suited for DemocraticUnderground and other purveyors of such tripe.

    Could we find a way to phrase that concept so we *don't* sound like liberal asswipes?

  • Fatty Bolger||

    I agree with you. Save the race card for Kos, Democratic Underground, or some other lefty shithole.

  • ||

    If there are fewer neighborhoods where I can live, I have less freedom. If there are fewer good paying jobs, I have less freedom. If my children do not get to have lab sciences or AP classes because all of the school funding is spent on ESl and remedial class, I have less freedom. If my taxes are higher, my insurance bills higher, and I have to wait for hours to be seen at an emergency room, then I have less freedom.

    Cheaper tacos and cheaper servants is not freedom. It is short sighted greed by hipster libertarians who think that they are clever enough to get the benefits of third world wages for others while avoiding paying the costs incurred.

    When I see hipster libertarians moving to El Paso Texas for the great economic opprtunities intead of moving to very white Portland, Oregon or Burlington, Vermont, then I will believe what they are saying about immigration.

  • PantsFan||

    You are confusing freedom with choices.

  • ||

    Are you still not free to move wherever you want in this country? AFAICT, the only limitations are placed by the government, not immigrants.

    Are you entitled to a "good-paying job?" Most good-paying jobs are limited by government intervention and control. Besides, if you rely on a smaller employee pool to get a better job, then you don't deserve one.

    Public schools fail all over the country, not just where there are larger groups of illegal immigrants, so that argument is totally debunked.

    Cheaper tacos (nice racism, btw) and cheaper servants is freedom. It is freedom for both the person who employs them and the employees.

    You aren't worth arguing with because your arguments are silly racist rants disguised as some patriotic screed.

    Well, fuck you, asshole.

  • ||

    I agree but I don't want to fuck his asshole.

  • ||

    I read "you" as "you're". Oops.

  • MWG||

    "If there are fewer neighborhoods where I can live, I have less freedom. If there are fewer good paying jobs, I have less freedom. If my children do not get to have lab sciences or AP classes because all of the school funding is spent on ESl and remedial class, I have less freedom. If my taxes are higher, my insurance bills higher, and I have to wait for hours to be seen at an emergency room, then I have less freedom."

    You've got a warped sense of 'freedom'. What you're actually trying to do (probably intentionally) is avoid the real issue.

    You do not have a RIGHT to 'many neighborhood choices.

    You do not have a RIGHT to a 'good paying job'.

    You're children do not have a RIGHT to education or AP classes in particular.

    I would actually say you do have a 'right' to not be taxed excessively, but you're argument is with the welfare state, not with teh immigrants who make up a small % of the overall costs.

    You do not have a RIGHT to low insurance premiums.

    You do not have a RIGHT to healthcare (or do you support nationalized healthcare?).

  • ||

    Herman Cain said that we have to secure our borders “by any means necessary” although, apparently, he was only joking when he said that the means ought to include a 20-foot-barbed-wire-electrified fence in addition to a moat with alligators.

    This will come in handy once we reach the point where it is necessary to forcibly dissuade people from emigrating.

  • ironically though...||

    By the time it gets so bad that emigrating south is a better option than staying here, Mexico will already have made a north wall to stop you.

  • Why should...||

    ...libertarians find it necessary to sound like fucking socialist liberals on this issue?

  • vagina of course||

    The answer to all questions really.

    The whole point of libertarianism is to be able to espouse common sense economically while being cooler than conservatives. So they leap at any attempt to point out that distinction (especially now with that tea party running around). yeah so what if over 50% of our immigrants are uneducated mexicans. this technical legal crap about H-whatevers proves we are not open bordersy enough!

  • Bradley||

    Inalienable rights apply to foreigners too? Only a liberal would say that!

  • now now||

    liberals don't believe in inalienable rights. Too religiousy for 'em.

  • Slap the Enlightened! ||

    Because they're essentially cultural Marxists, just like liberals are. Think about it - with the exception of economics, they're in agreement with the left on virtually every issue. And what is their argument for free-market economics? Usually that it will be more successful in achieving leftist ends than socialism will. As a political alternative, it reminds me of what Henry Ford once said - you can have any color you like, as long as it's black.

    Socialist ends by free market means!

  • tarran||

    Actually, where not in agreement with the Right on economics either slappy.

    See, the right hates free markets. Free markets cause too much creative destruction and threaten the established institutions that they cherish.

    For example, the republican party is actually a mercantilist party. Their sad devotion to that ancient right-wing economic system has not helped them conjure up prosperity at home nor given them the clairvoyance needed to find their way out of the morass their policies have created. When compared with the disastrous policies of the socialist left, though, it's understandable that they might look like the much lesser of two evils.

    As to the fact that libertarians sound like leftists, it's because we are leftists. In the original Paris Assembly, the supporters of the ancien regime sat on the right. The people who supported freedom of conscience, freedom of contract, freedom of property ownership, freedom of speech, freedom of self-defence, freedom of association sat on the left.

    That is why in the U.S. the term Liberal is still used by people on the left. They aren't really liberals anymore, they fell into the error of promoting leftist ideals using rightist means.

    It's kind of ironic that so many people who believe in live-and-let-live principles think of themselves as being rightists since the their opinion is really a rejection of the tactics that socialists have borrowed from rightists. In reality, a libertarian who applies libertarian principles consistently will be, politically speaking, an extreme leftist. Of course, the whole left/right thing loses a great deal of information. There are many axes to political theories. It's the difference between a flesh and blood person and the shadow he casts on the sidewalk. Two very different people can cast an identical shadow if the angle between their bodies and the sun were just right. It doesn't mean that they are identical to each other.

  • ||

    you better let government handle it, because THEY are the ones who regulate those things.

    SERFDOM

    This exit.

  • ||

    Your refusal to adhere to threaded comments is both refreshing and maddening in equal quantities.

  • MWG||

    Seconded!

  • Trident||

    My sarcasm has been explained in the proper place.

    I hope to have been of sufficient service in explaining that i actually oppose that government "handle" anything at all.

  • Hate Potion Number Nine||

    With the peaceful way unrestricted immigration in Europe is working out I see no problems with it here. As those who've gone to the various European countries have integrated themselves peacefully and without trouble have shown, the same thing is bound to happen here.

    In Europe, the immigrants have been small in number and are always respectful of European traditions. They always leave behind the "old country" and never insist that they be allowed to break European laws for cultural reasons and they certainly don't demand that European governments give them handouts because they're "special" or change the rules for everyone just for their own sake.

    What could go wrong if we let it happen here?

  • ||

    The US is inherently far better at assimilating immigrants, so that argument doesn't hold water. We actually have similar rates of de facto immigration (ie, including illegals) to Europe's and we don't have their problems.

  • Slap the Enlightened! ||

    Yet.

  • fyngyrz||

    er... I should point out the Muslim bent towards sharia. Not that Muslims are necessarily Europeans, but some of them are.

  • ||

    Sort of like the Jewish bent toward Torah, eg stoning homosexuals and rape victims.

  • fyngyrz||

    Yep, absolutely.

  • ||

    it's really a stupid question (and not the first time it's brought up)

    iow, one can be against illegal immigration AND recognize that if one was a (poor) mexican (mexico's upper class is doin' just fine), i'd probably try to cross the border illegally too.

    so what?

    it says nothing about the right, and the duty, of a nation to protect it's sovereignty and borders

  • fyngyrz||


    it says nothing about the right, and the duty, of a nation to protect it's sovereignty and borders

    Yes, well, that's because we don't need to protect ourselves from people who want to work and live with us. We need to protect ourselves from people who would come and destroy our infrastructure, murder our citizens, arbitrarily impose governance we have not ourselves agreed to put in place, that sort of thing. I feel absolutely no need to be "protected" from Manuel's lawnmower and his known willingness to kill my weeds under my direction for money I willingly exchange for said service. Likewise, it makes America no less sovereign to allow Manuel to do my weeds such egregious harm.

    I very much doubt that you aren't offspring of an immigrant. Even if you are directly descended from our local indians, your ancestors walked here across a land bridge. Should we throw you out? Or is it your claim that just because you've been here a while, or are descended from people who have been here a while, that you're better than the guy across the imaginary line?

    If so, just fair warning, your argument is worthless.

  • ||

    Is it? How are those peaceful Native Americans doing now?

    Do you want the US to wind up like the Hopi nation?

  • Imp of the Perverse||

    Good point. Because clearly Guatemalan gardeners and Vietnamese dentists have the kind of vast technological and organizational advantages over us that Europeans had over the Indians, not to mention they carry deadly diseases we have no immunity against.

    Wait, what?

  • ||

    oh well if my argument is "worthless" then never mind.

    of course i am the descendant of immigrants. so f'in what?

    we can still establish the requirements to be a US citizen and protect our borders. it's a nonsensical argument.

  • MWG||

    "we can still establish the requirements to be a US citizen and protect our borders"

    Uh... you're confusing immigration with naturalization.

  • ||

    no, i am including both.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Oh, man, do some people bristle over the word "communism"!

    http://www.gonzalescannon.com/node/6068

  • ||

    Maybe they said it because it's what the majority of the people want in spite of the incessant rantings of the elites. Perhaps the people are sick & tired of being told what's in their best interests by the so-called intellectual elites. After all, the track record of those telling us what we should do hasn't exactly been a raging success, has it?

    I currently pay $11,000 a year in property taxes (80% of that is school taxes) on a home that I'd be lucky to get $220,000 for (if I could sell it and I can't) in a suburb just outside Philadelphia where the population is approximately 65% illegal alien. At this point, I'm immune to the charms of open borders.

  • Imp of the Perverse||

    It's well known that 74.5% of all statistics on the internet are made up on the spot.

  • ||

    Nice try but it's 74.53698479145%

  • MWG||

    "After all, the track record of those telling us what we should do hasn't exactly been a raging success, has it?"

    ...because you not telling us what to do AT ALL, right?

  • ||

    The open borders crowd has for all intents and purposes held the power on this issue for decades. Big biz and big govt both benefit from open borders and the cheap labor, extra votes, and drug war justification they bring.

    Once in a while there's a raid for show, and they have to maintain at least the appearance of a border patrol (even if it's massively understaffed with its hands tied).

  • tarran||

    Yeah, it's that power of the open borders crown that meant my grandfather had to call in his chips with Ted Kennedy so that my dad could work here in the U.S.

    Tulpa, if I were sugarfree, I'd be bookmarking the hell out of this thread to throw back in your face. This is industrial grade stupid you've been spewing.

  • ||

    He was probably a skilled worker.

    Big govt doesn't like them; only parts of big biz do.

  • ||

    Yeah, it's that power of the open borders crown that meant my grandfather had to call in his chips with Ted Kennedy so that my dad could work here in the U.S.

    What, was he in the back seat of that Olds 88 giving directions or something?

  • tarran||

    My grandpa ran a pretty big company here in Boston. He was very closed-mouthed about why Teddy owed him big. From my grandfather's expression the one time the matter was discussed in my presence, it was pretty clear he was full of contempt for Teddy and that whatever favor he had done for Teddy, the situation he had fixed had not been to Teddy's credit.

  • Mary Jo||

    Another reason Teddy is rotting in hell.

  • tarran||

    So the town can't figure out how to levy property taxes on 65% of the residences?

    And despite the fact that they are so incompetent, you keep paying the taxes anyway?

    It sounds to me like your problem is not with illegal immigrants, but the fact that you are too dumb to evade the taxes that most of your neighbors seem to be doing without skipping a beat...

    Or, perhaps the problem is that your solution to the problems of expensive government schools is the nonsensical one of chasing people with children away from the schools.

  • ||

    Wouldn't we be doing them a favor if we chased people with children away from public schools?

  • tarran||

    We would. That's what I think that music teacher who was screwing the doll in the news yesterday was doing. He should be getting accolades, not be facing charges.

  • Imp of the Perverse||

    No serious person can compare immigration to Europe with immigration to the US. The US has some things in common with Europe, but only in the sense that a garden and a forest both have plants in them. This is ESPECIALLY true when it comes to the concept of nation and citizenship.

  • sevo||

    "This is ESPECIALLY true when it comes to the concept of nation and citizenship."

    And 'duty', right? You left 'duty' out of that ridiculous comment.

  • ||

    His point is that we are a nation formed and built by immigrants unlike European nations that imported their non native populations through their empires.

  • Why is it...||

    ...our responsibility to let people come here just because their home countries are shitty socialistic hellholes?

    Let them fix their homelands, so they can be prosperous on their own turf.

    Not saying disallow all immigration, by the way. So don't even go there.

  • Bradley||

    Who's trying to justify immigration by appealing to the shittyness of foreign countries? The article didn't. Nobody here did. What are you even talking about?

  • Why is it...||

    ...we have to put up with people just coming here and jumping the immigration queue, only to satisfy some "open borders" bullshit?

    I can understand, say, a Cuban wanting to seek refuge from his/her shitty homeland. When the day comes for Cubans to be able to take back their shitty homeland and turn it into something better, I will rejoice by buying a Cuban cigar.

    But Cubans can't do much to fix their homebound problems, because stirring the sauce too much under the Castros will get them thrown in prison.

    For instance.

    BTW, I never said it was in "the article", or that anyone here said what I posited. So simmer down.

  • sevo||

    "...we have to put up with people just coming here and jumping the immigration queue, only to satisfy some "open borders" bullshit?"

    'Cause brown people get to be free, too?

  • and so||

    they can stay in Mexico and be free there.

  • Joe 6 pack||

    Their freedom is coming at my expense. Many of those illegals are paid in cash - no taxes.

  • MWG||

    No... the welfare state is at you expense. Freedom of movement costs nothing.

  • ||

    How the fuck is that "at your expense," asshole? You should be bitching about the fucked up government confiscating your wealth and redistributing it to others through our ever-expanding welfare state.

    Grain subsidies=at your expense
    UI payments=at your expense
    Social Security=at your expense
    Medicare Part D=at your expense
    people exchanging labor for payment without including the state=/=at your expense

  • Joe 6 pack||

    Maybe you guys can't read or don't comprehend. Many, many of those illegals get paid under the table in cash. So until all those govt programs are closed, those illegals are freeloading off of me.

  • ||

    Maybe your retarded ass can understand that 50% of "legal" citizens don't pay their "fair share" of taxes and are thus freeloading off of you. I'm sure you know some of them since they are probably your sister-aunt or something.

  • MWG||

    "...we have to put up with people just coming here and jumping the immigration queue..."

    Where's this magical 'queue' you speak of? As if immigrating legally to the US is simply a matter of 'getting in line'.

  • Well...||

    ...it is, basically, a matter of getting in line.

    Otherwise, people just show up and don't bother to go through the process.

    Nice of you to ascribe racism, there, sevo.

  • ||

    That's their point, dumbass. This "line" you speak of doesn't exist for most groups of people who want to come here.

  • Well...||

    ...it should exist.

    You may now respond with a baseless claim of racism on my part.

  • MWG||

    Having been through the process on behalf of my wife and several members of her family (some of whom denied visas) I can tell you that immigration is not simply a matter of 'getting in line'. You are full of shit on this point.

  • Bradley||

    BTW, I never said it was in "the article", or that anyone here said what I posited.

    Well, thanks for admitting that you pulled that out of the air. Any other straw men you'd like to knock over?

  • ||

    Oh look, all the nativist shitfuck racists are out in force. I only wish you could be denied access to this county solely by chance of birth, and see how your arguments change. Enjoy your collectivism, you scum. Enjoy.

  • MWG||

    That just about sums it up for me.

  • ||

    But...but...they usurp tax money by sending their kids to school...just like fucking parasite American parents. But...but...they are coming from shitty countries, and will turn our country into the shitty fucking tyranny that it already is. But...but...fuck all of them.

  • sevo||

    And they don't have the sense of duty to the country we fine white folks do!

  • ||

    Collectivism--it's all the rage!

  • Joe 6 pack||

    BS. You are supporting thievery. Working as a group to prevent that is free association. Some libertarian you turned out to be!

  • MWG||

    Uh, epi is not a libertarian nor does he claim to be.

  • ||

    Immigration has NOTHING to do with thievery you dumb fucks!

  • ||

    Me, too.

    What neocon website linked this story, anyway?

  • Amakudari||

    I looked. No mentions outside of libertarian sources on Twitter and Google, plus a few news aggregators.

  • ||

    It's not just neocons, dude. It's a lot of so-called "libertarians", too. They're all for freedom until it comes to the dirty dirty furriners. Then, not so much.

  • Trident||

    Why would a "libertarian" resort to nothing but the kind of emotional and race baiting outburst one might expect from liberals?

    I'm sure you could come up with something better; others here have too.

    If not, then maybe you should forget about pretending that you can defend your case any better than those who declare Tea Partiers to be "terrorists".

    You may not agree with the counter-arguments, but becoming hysterical and shouting "RACIST! RACIST!" puts you square in Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid company. So just relax and take a chill pill.

  • ||

    Fuck you. Look at the explosion of "but...but...they come and take our stuff" arguments on this thread. If it was a wave of Australians, do you really think this would be the same reaction?

    Hey buddy, you going to take their side? Then fucking explain to me how they suddenly go apeshit when it's a bunch of Spanish-speaking dudes with terrible mustaches who park on the lawn, and not a bunch of New Zealanders.

  • tarran||

    Dude,

    If you don't want people to call you a racist, you might want to stop parroting the incoherent, illogical arguments racists use while trying to justify racist policies while pretending not to be racist.

    I remember reading every one of the arguments you have made in this thread as to why immigration is a problem on stormfront.

  • ||

    Fuck you, shitbag! Fuck all of you! Racists! Collectivist scum! Keyboard-rage! Aarrrggh!

  • ||

    Oh look, rectal is going crazy on her smartphone. You like trying to post a lot from a smartphone? Is that fun for you?

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • ||

    You are totally clueless, but I get a kick out of watching you flail.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • ||

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • MWG||

    It's simple Tri. You either believe in individual rights of free movement and free association, or you don't.

    You may want the government to have the kind of authority it pretends to to restrict those rights, but it better be included in the constitution. As the constitution is currently written, that authority does NOT exist.

  • ||

    I am against laws requiring employers, renters, etc, to check immigration status. I am also against open borders and support govt action to remove illegal immigrants who slip past our defenses.

    This is not an incoherent or oddball position; indeed Ron Paul gave voice to it, however much Dalmia is trying to lump him in with the others.

  • Shouting...||

    ..."racist" is, indeed, best left to, um, the left.

    By all means, use the word when it actually applies. But only in those circumstances when the definition of the word is truly met.

  • ||

    Racist collectivist scum!

  • MWG||

    I'm actually against some sort of libertarian purity test, but immigration is one where I draw the line. You're either a libertarian on the issue, or a conservative.

  • ||

    It's even simpler than that: are you for the free movement of people or not? If you're not, you're a fucking statist. Papers please.

  • MWG||

    Damn, you posted that right as I was responding to Tri just above.

  • ||

    As an ancap, you think anyone who supports the existence of a police force is a statist, no?

    Don't pretend you're part of some moderate mainstream defending libertarianism from these posers.

  • ||

    I'm just defending it from you, dude. And your fellow statists who think that restricting people's movements is all hunky dory, as long as your movement isn't restricted.

  • ||

    You're not for free movement of people either; you support putting people in cages if they walk across an imaginary line which someone else claims delimits their property.

  • ||

    I don't even know what the fuck you're talking about, but it's good to see that you are as adept at making no sense as you are adept at fellating authority.

  • ||

    Trespassing. Pull the cotton out of your virtual ears.

  • ||

    What the fuck does trespassing have to do with this? Personal property and "national borders" have nothing whatsoever to do with one another.

  • ||

    You know what's wrong with your jello? Not enough strawberries.

    "Freedom of movement", which you're proposing as the gold standard of liberty, would seem to indicate that there should be no coercive restrictions on movement, no? Laws against trespassing are restrictions on movement.

    Yes, I know that by "freedom of movement" you meant "freedom of movement that Epi approves of" but I'm inviting you to expand your horizon of meaning a bit.

  • ||

    You become really boring when you get this disingenuous, Commodore. I actually expected better from you, but I guess I shouldn't have.

  • ||

    Translation: I'm too hip to deal with your point.

  • prolefeed||

    You should be free to move on or through the private property of others if they give you permission. Equating laws forbidding trespassing on private property with laws telling willing employers that they can't invite willing employees onto their private property is either disingenous or stupid. The two are not at all the same thing.

  • ||

    You should be free to move on or through the private property of others if they give you permission.

    But you're claiming that "if..." qualification is a horrid violation of human rights when we're talking about national borders as opposed to property lines.

    My POV is not disingenuous at all. I've shown time and time again how much violence is inherent in the institution of private property.* You have an axiom that "private property is not coercion" that blinds you to the fact that is just another restriction on freedom of movement.

    * DISCLOSURE: I support the institution of private property for utilitarian reasons.

  • meh||

    if you define statist to include anything short of anarchist, then why don't you just say "not-an-anarchist"? Its clearer and avoids sounding like you're just here to rant and call names.

  • Joe 6 pack||

    Epi must feel (s)he is losing the argument. Hence the ad hominems and name calling.

  • ||

    Precisely. There's nothing like an an-cap lecturing on the proper management of borders that he thinks illegitimate from the getgo.

  • ||

    I know you're an ancap so this doesn't apply to you (the disagreement is far more fundamental), but minarchist libertarianism assumes the existence of a single legitimate initiator of force operating among the collection of individuals in question. In this case, there is no single LIOF which spans the border, so ordinary libertarian philosophy doesn't apply there.

  • ||

    Authority fellator!

  • prolefeed||

    "Legitimate initiator of force" is an oxymoron and not a libertarian concept.

  • ||

    "Legitimate initiator of force" is an oxymoron

    No one can legitimately initiate force? Wow! Nice false axiom you have there. You could build a whole pseudo-philosophy* on it!

    *libertarianism

  • prolefeed||

    I don't recognize that anyone can legitimately aggress against (aka "initiate force") against me. It's called the NIOF principle. You obviously have no problem with that, so long as you are not the victim of the aggression but the supposed benefactor.

  • ||

    "Legitimate initiator of force" is an oxymoron and not a libertarian concept.

    After we define the stuff we don't like as "initiation of force", that is. Such as walking across an imaginary line that someone claims is the boundary of their property.

    After we've made snuck in that and other arbitrary definitions, then we huff and puff about how principled we are.

  • Thatguy||

    Neocons are actually pro-Immigration. HTH.

  • Lib'Tarian||

    chance of birth

    Reality can be so unkind.

  • ||

    Fuck off, scumbag. You're nothing.

  • Lib'Tarian||

    "Nothing" sure gets under your skin!

    I laugh and laugh when the puppets dance.

  • ||

    I laugh and laugh that you got banned and have to post from a smartphone.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • Lib'Tarian||

    Wrong and wrong.
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • Lib'Tarian||

    And shouldn't you be obeying your own commands and ignoring the trolls, hypocrite?

  • ||

    I MAKE THE PUPPET DANCE

  • ||

    I MAKE THE PUPPET DANCE

  • Lib'Tarian||

    Why won't anyone take us seriously?

  • ||

    No one takes you seriously, rectal. They just find you annoying. Must be very satisfying for you. You like that, buddy? You like being nothing but a smear of shit on this website? Is that rewarding?

  • Lib'Tarian||

    Oh Pissy, why can't you quit me?

  • ||

    Please, tell me that you think I care. PLEASE. I don't think I could process something so amusing.

  • Lib'Tarian||

    You care so little that you just can't quit!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • ||

    That's rich coming from someone who thinks those who are conceived in the wrong womb thereby forfeit their right to not be dismembered and sucked out through a vacuum hose.

    At least we don't deny people access to life itself by 'accidents'.

  • ||

    Huh?

  • ||

    Well, Commodore, there isn't that thorny issue of body rights involved, now is there? But we wouldn't want to let that get in the way of "freedom", now would we?

  • ||

    And the jello of your argument slips away from the nail of my ratiocination once again.

  • ||

    And the delusion that you are a rational thinker is hilarious.

  • Kramer||

    Why can't you both admit that you're in love?

  • ||

    Wow, that was original. Like, genius level original. Have you thought about a career as a professional comic?

  • ||

    My nail is very rational on the contrary. So is my hammer, as you can see from this photo.

  • Kramer||

    I read somewhere that you are delusional because you think you are rational. True?

  • Damn||

    What the hell is a "wrong womb"?
    My parents were not rich. Can I claim the "wrong womb" exemption and move in with a wealthy family in Switzerland?

  • ||

    A womb surrounded by someone who wants you dead.

  • Damn||

    Damn! That sounds bad!

  • MWG||

    Nope. Individuals in Switzerland have the right to protect their own property, get it?

  • Damn||

    No. But I'm not very smart. I usually let the editors here think for me, and I obediently parrot them. It's a symbiotic relationship.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Switzerland recognizes individual property rights? I figured they'd have the same dim-assed view of such capitalistic nonsense.

    /sarc

  • Damn||

    Anyway, I have a whole new outlook on my mommy's womb. I blame the womb for my unhappiness, and Tulpa for making me aware of it. Thanks, Tulpa!

  • MWG||

    Actually... my views on immigration come from my own personal experience. I've actually been through the process on behalf of my wife and a few members of her family... but hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a narrative you pulled out your ass.

  • Those who...||

    ...go through the proper immigration process, are to be applauded, MWG.

  • MWG||

    Not really. I don't hold anything against those who come here illegally anymore than I do against those who smoke weed. It's their right to what they want with their bodies whether it be smoking a joint or moving freely where they choose. Unconstitutional laws should be looked at and treated with the disdain they deserve.

  • ||

    If your wife or any of her relatives is a hot Asian chick, could you please post photos?

  • MWG||

    Sorry Sloop... She's Brazilian... but she does come from a family of all women.

  • ||

    Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Brazilian?!?!?!?!

    That's even better, so the request still stands.

  • MWG||

    How bout this: you send me a picture of yourself, and I'll forward it to my sis-in-laws. If they're game, I send you a pic of them. Fair enough?

  • Old Mexican||

    You... You... You dog!

    How dare you live MY dream???

  • MWG||

    No worries OM. I always tell my wife, that my NEXT wife is gonna be Mexican.

  • ||

    No worries OM. I always tell my wife, that my NEXT wife is gonna be Mexican.

    Dey'll Terk Yer Blow Jerbz!!

  • MWG||

    Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winnah!

  • let's think about that||

    Nice rant. Problem, there's several billion foreigners living in shitholes, if we let them all in here this place would just become a shithole too. What do you propose? A different prediction about the future that could well be wrong? Because a bunch of irishmen immigrated one time and didn't fuck up the country, that proves immigrants will never fuck up a country? Nice proof, Except it only applies to irishmen.

    As for your little projection of hypocrisy, its the conservatives who oppose taxing the rich despite overwhelmingly not being rich themselves by an "accident of birth", so I'd say you're full of shit regarding what would happen if they were born elsewhere. Conservatives are the ones who believe in self-reliance and, if born in some foreign shithole, would work to better their little pile of shit there. And they would be the ones defending said shithole against assholes like you who presuppose being mexican is a form of punishment. You are the real racist here.

  • ||

    FUCK YOU RACIST STATIST COLLECTIVIST SCUM!!!
    AAARRRGGGH!

  • ||

    Somebody types fast on their smartphone. You must have a lot of practice texting the people you stalk.

  • ||

    the people you stalk

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • ||

    Puppets, dance, etc. You know the drill. Please, rectal, tell me how it feels to be universally hated. Do you get some kind of perverse pleasure from it?

  • ||

    STOP STALKING ME!1!

  • sevo||

    "Problem, there's several billion foreigners living in shitholes, if we let them all in here this place would just become a shithole too."

    "Dogs and Irish Not Allowed"

  • that a counter of some kind?||

    "Because a bunch of irishmen immigrated one time and didn't fuck up the country, that proves immigrants will never fuck up a country? Nice proof, Except it only applies to irishmen."

  • sevo||

    "Because a bunch of irishmen immigrated one time and didn't fuck up the country, that proves immigrants will never fuck up a country?"

    Care to define 'fucking up the country'?

  • why sure||

    Pivoting to a racism accusation now, are we? That's funny since I was simply predicting the counter-argument. And was right. So it means what people like you mean by your use of that argument.

    But I'll bite anyway, it means make the place into another shithole like they came from. Just as the juxtaposition of that argument with the preceding one would imply. I'm no fan of arguments about "wealth inequality" and such socialist metrics, but I do buy the argument that it puts a strain on democracy. Especially when we have a system with half the population paying zero taxes while voting for cynical politicians who will promise anything.

  • ||

    let's think about that said: its [sic] the conservatives who oppose taxing the rich...

    You've got to be kidding. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

    Conservatives are not perfect, but your contention is bogus as they don't have a problem with the wealthy being taxed.

    Conservatives are opposed to RAISING income tax rates on any group that is; (1) already paying a higher tax rate than the individuals of any other group; (2) already paying more collectively than any other group; and (3) in a better position to know how to invest their own money than the government since government constituents only receive $1.00 for every $1.42 that the government receives in revenue.

  • nice||

    As a matter of fact its you who don't know what I'm talking about.

    I meant that as a good thing regarding conservatives. I should had said "oppose disproportionately taxing the rich". But I didn't see the need to summarize an entire tax policy when I only wanted to make the point about "accidents of birth". I think its pretty clear from the context frankly.

    Sorry about the confusion and thanks for being a dick about it. including the little grammar nazi bit

  • Maxxx||

    Oh look, all the nativist shitfuck racists are out in force. I only wish you could be denied access to this county solely by chance of birth, and see how your arguments change.

    And I will rejoice when one of those free heroic immigrants sticks a shiv in your neck to steal twenty bucks.

    Fuck off dick head.

  • asdf||

    zzz

  • -||

    A+

  • ||

    Article subject: illegal immigration
    Central causes of Mexican illegal immigration: US corn dumping on Mexico in "free trade" agreement, demand for cheap labor in US businesses
    Number of mentions in article about dumping: 0
    Number of mentions in article about US businesses pocketing billions benefiting from cheap, undocumented labor: 0

    Good old Reason.

    Ha ha.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Fuck you, Orel.

  • Kramer||

    Ha! I guess he told you, Orel!

  • ||

    Great argument.

    Which monkey in the picture are you? The one covering his eyes, his ears or his mouth?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Why the fuck won't you just STAY gone, Orel?

  • ||

    Because I never want you corporate-cocksucker mooks to forget that we're on to you, watching every dime of Stalin's money you spend trying to shove this country into a state comparable to Brazil's.

  • sevo||

    "we're on to you,"

    Shoppers! Blue-light special on tin-foil lids! Aisle 6!

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Apparently, Orel forgot he should be directing his rage against Team Red and Team Blue.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Not to mention how he overlooks socialism-cocksucking, and that "Stalin's money" ran out a LONG fucking time ago...

    ...though, for the life of me, I can't figure out why Orel would say something bad about Stalin. That, is a noggin-scratcher.

  • Kramer||

    Depends on the day, I think.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Maybe the servers at Kos are acting up, and he just had to vent more of his socialist-lovin' bullshit before he asploded.

  • uh oh||

    Holy shit, BUSINESSES making MONEY! That's not what America is about!

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Orel Hazard,

    Central causes of Mexican illegal immigration: US corn dumping on Mexico in "free trade" agreement,


    Bullshit. You have NO clue on the matters you talk about.

    [...]demand for cheap labor in US businesses


    "In" US businesses? So besides being stupid, you're also functionally illiterate?

    Yes, US businesses (from cottage to just slightly above cottage industries) do demand more affordable labor (and NO, it is not the same thing as "cheap"). If small businesses could pay the minimum wage ONLY and not have to pay the additional "fees" on top of the base salary, then you would see LESS demand for immigrant labor (I am not saying ZERO demand, just less.)

    But that is not your spin, right Orel? You think we're supposed to believe that the demand for "cheap" labor comes from big businesses?

    And let's say it was: WHO CARES? An employer has EVERY RIGHT to employ whoever he or she wants; it's his or her money and NOT YOURS, you fucking asshole.

  • MWG||

    Damn OM! Where ya been all day?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re:MWG,

    Damn OM! Where ya been all day?


    Hey man, I have a life!

    (He he he!)

  • MWG||

    Touche. =)

  • ||

    "Yes, US businesses (from cottage to just slightly above cottage industries) do demand more affordable labor (and NO, it is not the same thing as "cheap"). "

    COMEDY GOLD!

    "Bullshit. You have NO clue on the matters you talk about."

    Right. Here's only one of many studies that demonstrate what subsidized US ag policy and dumping does to Mexican farmers.

    http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/.....umping.pdf

    In short, it knocks the farmers out of business and sends them north looking for unskilled work at chea- sorry, more affordable rates.

    I'd explain why that is, but it involves actual markets instead of the masturbation material you misunderstand markets as, so, maybe another time, genius.

    Ha ha.

  • uh oh||

    That paper is a great argument against subsidies. Not so much against illegal immigration and NAFTA.

  • ||

    Yeah, I, along with everybody who has a healthy distrust of large concentrations of unelected power, am against ag subsidy and want them ended for giant ag corporations, while possibly reformed for small farmers.

    As far as the paper not being an argument against NAFTA when it shows the Mexican farmer losing $99 a hectare and his farm going bust, I'm not sure what else you'd need to tie NAFTA to spikes in illegal immigration after 15 years of displaced unskilled ag workers coming here in droves.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Orel hazard,

    As far as the paper not being an argument against NAFTA when it shows the Mexican farmer losing $99 a hectare and his farm going bust, I'm not sure what else you'd need to tie NAFTA to spikes in illegal immigration after 15 years of displaced unskilled ag workers coming here in droves.


    There were plenty of immigrants BEFORE NAFTA, so your argument that NAFTA suddenly created this inflow of people is specious, at best; ignorant and stupid, at worst.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Orel Hazard,

    COMEDY GOLD!


    THAT'S IT? So you're stupid, illiterate and to boot lacking in rhetorical skills.

    Right. Here's only one of many studies that demonstrate what subsidized US ag policy and dumping does to Mexican farmers.


    And you don't disappoint. So, you're stupid, illiterate, lacking rhetorical skills and ignorant.

    Let me tell you a little secret, OH: a) Most immigrants are NOT farmers, they are mostly people that cannot find work in the cities, are educated at least to elementary and have SOME money stashed to pay for the trip and the "polleros"; b) most farmers in Mexico have been subsidized for 80 YEARS in the same manner as your farmers.

  • ||

    If your idea of "rhetorical skills" is announcing that cheap and more affordable are somehow not synonymous things -- when every thesaurus ever printed knows they are, then I'm definitely not worried about impressing you.

    Now if you'll excuse me, I feel like listening to a record. Maybe "Heaven Tonight" by More Affordable Trick.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Orel Hazard,

    If your idea of "rhetorical skills" is announcing that cheap and more affordable are somehow not synonymous things -- when every thesaurus ever printed knows they are, then I'm definitely not worried about impressing you.


    You should not worry about impressing anybody, Orel. You will not be able to. You're clearly raking up a good set of virtues, OH: stupidity, illiteracy, lack of intelligence and now: presumptuousness.

    "Cheap" is an adjective determined by a price comparison, whereas "affordable" is determined by opportunity costs. Something that's affordable may be cheaper that something that is not affordable, but not necessarily the cheapest there is.

    In the same manner, businesses are not looking for cheap labor as they still have to pay a HIGH ENOUGH WAGE to entice people to come to work. What they are looking for is AFFORDABLE labor, as the cost of labor affects profitability. Whether you like it or not, minimum wage laws and the fees placed on top (FICA, FUTA, SUTA) makes unskilled labor UNAFFORDABLE, as the productivity of unskilled labor cannot surpass its cost.

    There's plenty of "cheap" labor out there: In Vietnam, Indonesia, Bangladesh. But most US businesses are NOT looking for "cheap" Labor (which is my point), they are looking for labor which has a cost LOWER than its output: HENCE, affordable.

    NOW do you get it, son?

  • Employer of Immigrants||

    Hell Old Mexican

    Get the fuck off the computer and get your ass back to the plucking table.

    Fucking lazy Mejicans.

  • ANTI-SEMTIC LIBERTARIAN||

    KEEP OUT THE JEWS

  • ||

    "The Jew is using The Black as muscle against you. And you are left there helpless. Well, what are you going to do about it, Whitey? Just sit there? Of course not! You are going to join with us. The members of the American Socialist White Peoples' Party. An organization of decent, law abiding white folk. Just like you! "

  • Patooey||

    Damn.

    Every time illegal immigration comes up the comments go ballistic.

    Again....this is why libertarians will never amount to a hill of beans. You got it all but drop it all with this one world/no borders bull-shit.

    Toodles.

  • sevo||

    "Toodles."
    Don't let the door hit you in the ass.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I'll have to agree on part of that... "one world" thinking = bullshit.

  • sevo||

    Shame he tried a false-equivalence to no borders.

  • Libertoidians||

    Jeez, we just do what the editors tell us to do. Don't blame us. Blame the persuasive powers of propaganda!

  • MWG||

    Interesting. You sound like a leftist.

  • Libertoidians||

    We do the puppet dance.

  • yep||

    The problem is this "TEH RACISMS!" narrative about those oppposing illegal immigration. You'd think people that understand markets would see a completely predictable response from people who are forced to provide entitlements to anyone who waltzes in.

    And the counter that "yeah we're against welfare too" misses the massive moral hazard that would be created by only fixing one half of the problem. I.e. open borders AND welfare state. Which is by far the most realistic scenario, given that amnesty's happen constantly while tweaks to restrict welfare cause riots. Not to mention DC's desire to buy new votes.

  • Sidd Finch||

    thread needs more TL;DR's IMO

  • Sidd Finch||

    thanks [Herc]

  • WarrenT||

    I don't know about the rest of you people but I say The Avengers better not replace a certain star-spangled hero just because Captain Mexico will do the same heroing work for less.

    It will be the DOWNFALL of our NATION!!!!!!!

  • ||

    Captain Mexico?

    What, we need a hero to mow the lawn and keep the lair of the real American heroes clean or something? Fine, but he better bring his own Lemon Pledge.

  • Robert||

    But they'd better replace Patrick MacNee, who said decades ago that it wouldn't do to have an arthritic Steed.

  • Old Mexican||

    But most disappointing was Ron Paul. He likes to talk in fundamentals about every other issue, but betrayed absolutely no grasp of the fundamental reasons driving illegal immigration.


    You really think he doesn't know the reasons, Ms. Dalmia? Or are you simply here to confirm Reason's anti-Paul stance? I know that Johnson is Reason's boy, but that does not give you carte blanche to tell lies.

  • Brian E||

    Does it matter if he knows the reasons if he does not speak in those terms? So long as he's speaking about immigration in explicitly populist terms it's entirely fair to treat him as such.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Brian E,

    Does it matter if he knows the reasons if he does not speak in those terms?


    Has he not? Read Liberty Defined.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Hmm... Orel resumes posting the same day Hercule shows back up.

    Coincidence? I think not.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Now, if only shrike would reappear... we'd have a trifecta o' stoopidity.

  • ||

    You rang, smegma-breath?

  • Almanian, World Police||

    HERR-CUE-ELLLL!
    FUCK [YEAH]!
    HERE TO [SHARE] HIS PSYCHO[BABBLE] WAYS!!

    HERR-CUE-ELLLL!!!
    FUCK [YEAH]!!
    HE SAYS TAKE YOUR [EMPIRE] AND
    SHOVE IT IN YOUR [ASS]!!

    /Team Herc

  • David E. Gallaher/Ruthless||

    Borders shmorders... our tax dollars at play.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Ben,

    We have high unemployment. We have no need to import unskilled labor.


    The fact that there's high unemployment changes NOTHING the requirement for unskilled labor. Welfare queens and bum youths, no matter how unskilled, are NOT EMPLOYABLE.

    Nor do we have any duty to people in other countries.


    The duty is to respect people's right to freely assemble, e.g. freely employ whoever they wish.

    We can barely afford the unskilled folks who are already here.


    What's with this "we" business, Kimosabe? First of all, you have NO CLUE on the issue you pretend to talk about. Labor is a COST, like anything else that involves a productive activity; it does NOT matter who provides this labor as long as its productive output surpasses its marginal cost.

    I'm not sure why you guys want to burden the US with an unlimited number of poor unskilled immigrants.


    What burden? If immigrants WORK and are PRODUCTIVE, they are certainly much less of a burden than welfare recipients, social security recipients and the other social parasites.

  • 4chan||

    MSNBC and CNN really need to step it up in the really hot women anchors category. I believe this is the sole reason why FOX news always lands in first in the ratings.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: 4chan,

    I believe this is the sole reason why FOX news always lands in first in the ratings.


    Stop believing and become convinced:

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-v6ab.....nderas.JPG

    http://www.glossedover.com/.a/.....367970c-pi

  • MNG||

    "Welfare queens and bum youths, no matter how unskilled, are NOT EMPLOYABLE."

    I'll have to remember this on the next thread where we argue the minimum wage laws are killing the chronically poor...

    "The duty is to respect people's right to freely assemble, e.g. freely employ whoever they wish."

    But we've never allowed people to "freely employ whoever they wish." We don't let people employ prostitutes or hit-men for their services or child laborers, though they may wish to.

    "Labor is a COST, like anything else that involves a productive activity; it does NOT matter who provides this labor as long as its productive output surpasses its marginal cost."

    This is what happens when economic efficiency is elevated to a moral principle. If this is the only justification necessary then child labor should be allowed.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    I'll have to remember this on the next thread where we argue the minimum wage laws are killing the chronically poor...


    No, welfare is killing the chronically poor. Minimum wage laws make unskilled laborers too expensive, which includes youths and the elderly.

    Welfare has made many people (unfortunately) unemployable simply because they completely lack any semblance of a work ethic. You can thank minimum wage laws for this, but welfare certainly creates this entitlement mindset which makes a person unreliable.

    But we've never allowed people to "freely employ whoever they wish."


    So? Arguments from popularity are NOT valid, MNG.

    We don't let people employ prostitutes or hit-men for their services or child laborers, though they may wish to.


    Ah, the conflator-in-chief attacks again. Prostitutes and hit-men, same category - right.

    Child labor is still ubiquitous in many places in the US, MNG. The problem lies on who you call "children." We're not talking about toddlers placing laces on footballs. "Child Labor" laws were imposed in the US to reduce the pool of workers available to protect unionized workers, not to protect children. As people become wealthier, there's decreasingly LESS need to have their children work (in the fields or the stables or what have you.) However, the pressure from 16 and 17 year old youths looking to garner skills by being employed was simply too much for your unionized friends, hence the appearance of so-called "child labor" laws.

    This is what happens when economic efficiency is elevated to a moral principle.


    Who said it's a moral principle, you dolt? It's an economic fact: Labor IS a cost, just like raw materials, energy and time. It does not matter if the person is an immigrant or a national, it is what it is.

    Are you having a hangover? Because you seem too willing to showcase your ignorance, MNG. Eat something and then come back.

    If this is the only justification necessary then child labor should be allowed.


    There's NO MORAL justification to stop a person from employing a "child" (an arbitrary term when it comes to perfectly fit 15 or 16 year old youths) who is willing to work for a wage.

  • MNG||

    The point is we quite rightly don't allow economic efficiency to determine the laws of our society. That person A is willing to employ and can get person B to do something for them is not the only criteria we think matters for this determination. The characteristics and situations of A and B matter, as does the subject and terms of the "agreement".

    Of course, this is because human welfare is a reasonable ultimate criteria to measure the morality of an act or agreement while liberty is, at best, a means to that end. For immigration policy, as with all issues, one need only ask: does it increase or decrease the welfare of society overall?

  • mng||

    arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    The point is we quite rightly don't allow economic efficiency to determine the laws of our society.


    Nobody is making that case - you're now being paranoid.

    That person A is willing to employ and can get person B to do something for them is not the only criteria we think matters for this determination.


    Of course not. Person A cannot employ person B to infringe on person C's rights.

    Except, of course, if you happen to be the taxman, [wink, wink]right MNG?

    The characteristics and situations of A and B matter


    Really? Could you be so kind as to enumerate them all here? I'll leave you some space:

    Of course, this is because human welfare is a reasonable ultimate criteria to measure the morality of an act or agreement while liberty is, at best, a means to that end.


    This tells me you have your concepts all screwed up. "Human welfare" is a totally subjective concept; each person will have his or her own definition of "welfare." Liberty is a human condition, it is totally objective: You're either free, or you're not. It is certainly NOT a means to an end.

    For immigration policy, as with all issues, one need only ask: does it increase or decrease the welfare of society overall?


    For population policy, as will other issues, one need to ask: Does your existence increases or decreases the welfare of society overall?

    If you think you can get away with using such abstract concepts as "society," be reminded that any kind of perfidious act can be justified under the guise of "society's welfare."

  • MNG||

    "Human welfare" is a totally subjective concept; each person will have his or her own definition of "welfare.""

    Welfare is a big concept but not totally elastic. It's true that different people will have different things that make them happy, and there is a diversity of conditions that bring people happiness, but welfare is not exactly happiness. Take Aristotle's comments re: knives; if someone said "I have a good knife, it is dull and cumbersome to use" then they don't understand what a knife is and what it is for. Likewise if someone said that welfare is so elastic as to embrace Job-like suffering we would think that person doesn't understand what welfare means.

    "Liberty is a human condition, it is totally objective: You're either free, or you're not."

    That's certainly not true, as you and I would differ on examples of whether a person is at liberty. Think of FDR's "four freedoms" several of which libertarians would reject but many would accept as critical elements of freedom. It seems that the idea of liberty may be as 'subjective' as welfare!

    Now, if you say "well liberty is objective, all those people who say x and y about it contrary to me are wrong" realize that of course that is what I can say about welfare.

    "any kind of perfidious act can be justified under the guise of "society's welfare.""

    Of course not. The only kind of act that can be justified under that criteria are acts that actually maximize the overall welfare of society (of its members overall).

  • ||

    MNG, we have a specific, objective definition of liberty. The only thing you have offered towards defining welfare is that you can say that something is not welfare in certain obvious cases.

  • sevo||

    "We don't let people employ prostitutes or hit-men for their services or child laborers, though they may wish to."

    Pretty lame even for you.
    You left out nuclear-weapons retailers.

  • Almanian||

    And what about the poison peddlers? Huh? WHAT ABOUT THEM?

  • Robert||

    Apparently I am not employable. Nobody wants a highly skilled person, who they assume will be bored and bitter at any job not requiring those skills, and too few jobs exist that do require them.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re:MNG,

    Caught the debate, and once again I have to say, ["]Jesus[,] Ron Paul is a breath of fresh air.["] I can't remember when I have last seen a national pol speak with such courage, speaking his mind, and a mind informed by a coherent philosophy. He's willing to say things that no other candidate would even consider, though many people in the nation are thinking it. His exchange with Santorum was, well, priceless.


    I liked the fact that the moderators let them duke it out for a bit longer. Ron Paul not only gave Santorum a run for his money, he gave him a good history lesson, something the Neo-cons could do well with.

    Of course the GOP acted like it did the last time he ran, attacking him and pitching a fit.


    Interestingly, Juan Williams (of all people) defended him yesterday in The Five, telling everybody in the table not to dismiss him [that would be neo-connish Eric Bolling and Andrea Tantaros, the faux libertarian Greg Gutfeld... and the stunning Juliet Huddy.)

  • ||

    That "We have lots of unemployed Americans, so we don't need no stinkin furriners!" argument really only works if "we" plan to round those Americans up and put them in forced-labor camps.

    As appealing as that may be to some people, what "we" are actually doing is stuff like paying out-of-work mortgage brokers to sit around on their asses waiting for Bennay & Co to reinflate the real estate bubble.

  • not sure I follow||

    I would assume a little hunger would get those unemployed people off their ass in no time. Not saying we necessarily let people starve, just maybe the process of slimming down from morbidly obese to just obese should probably do it.

    As for the too-skilled-to-do-shit-work people, I eagerly look forward to all the innovation and new enterprises a little desperation on their part unleashes.

  • Joe 6 pack||

    Exactly. A less generous welfare state will help reduce immigrtion and get both the illegals and local lazy a-holes off their asses - illegals go home and the locals pick fruit. We need to BOTH close the border AND reduce the welfare state.

  • ||

    What I love is that all of the "dey tuk r jobz!!!" crowd don't seem to realize that for the last 3 years people have been crossing the border in the opposite direction.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    What's driving this "problem" is our insane, irrational, and cruel immigration system.

    *snicker!*

    You can tell me we have a "cruel" immigration system when you can demonstrate that we're shanghaiing people off of the streets of other countries and dragging them here.

    Any interactions with our immigration system is entirely voluntary. We don't force people to come here. If you don't like the way we do business, you're perfectly free to stay home.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Slap the Enlightened,

    You can tell me we have a "cruel" immigration system when you can demonstrate that we're shanghaiing people off of the streets of other countries and dragging them here.


    It was just a figure of speech. The laws are actually [and more accurately] counterproductive, but "cruel, insane, irrational" sounds more dramatic.

    Any interactions with our immigration system is entirely voluntary[...], you're perfectly free to stay home.


    Or bypass it.... Right?

  • ranting ranter||

    6+ years of navigating government paperwork is kinda cruel and unusual.

  • 4chan||

    If you want the 11 million or so Illegal Immigrants/Aliens/scum/what have you to abate, you should be in favor of a liberalization or repealing the current immigration laws.

    When the U.S. tightened up the boarder, it also meant that the people stuck on this side of the fence won't take the chance to emigrate back to their country of origin, and permanently settle here, even if the majority of their work is seasonal work that pay very little.

    The prohibition of labor needs to end if you want to end this permanent illegal alien class.

  • oh come on||

    That's a weak one. "At least with an open border they might visit home occasionally".

    They ain't going anywhere either way. Not with sanctuary cities and regular hints of a coming amnesty. Try listening to the radio in Los Angeles sometime. Illegals DESERVE to be here, its the evil colonists that should leave!

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: oh come on,

    They ain't going anywhere either way.


    You don't know that, oh.

    Even if it were true that many would not return, is that a problem with you? What, don't you like women?

  • caveat||

    I do support open immigration for all single females in the 18-29 age range. Certain weight restrictions also apply.

  • Old Mexican||

    Hmm, live a little! I would also include MILFs.

  • ||

    Um. If we didn't make it "illegal" there wouldn't be a need for sanctuary cities.

  • Max||

    What's the John Birch Society's position on immigration? Whatever it is, it will explain Ron Paul's position He knows the secret JBS handshake.

  • Old Mexican||

    Arf Arf Arf!

    Shhhhssshh! Shut it, Max! Go git yourself outside and do your "stuff" there! Go, git!

  • Alex||

    I think you're forgetting Gov. Gary Johnson... He's very pro-immigration, and very anti-fence. In fact, his approach is the most market-based, since he is vehemently against quotas.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Alex,

    I think you're forgetting Gov. Gary Johnson... He's very pro-immigration, and very anti-fence. In fact, his approach is the most market-based, since he is vehemently against quotas.


    That's a few of the things I like about Johnson. I am still extremely suspicious of his consequentialist ethics.

  • 4chan||

    Rick Perry announced his presidential candidacy today, among the things he's running on are:

    Secure the Boarder
    Less Taxes
    Less regulation
    Better Business enviroment
    more state rights
    protection for the unborn
    A more muscular Middle East program. (This I find confusing, you can a lot of things about our foreign policy in general, and in the middle east in particular. Describing it as a weak sister is just odd. We're in 3 fucking wars already.)

    I'm sure I'm missing some of the nuances and details, but it seems like Perry is running as a Big Government in some places, little Government in other places. Just like everyone else.

    And this is probably your front runner for he Republican ticket now.

    One last thing, because I'm sure Rick Perry is going to pimp the fuck out of the great business enviroment in Texas as a selling point.

    Texas unemployment rate at Aug. 2011: 8.2%

    http://www.google.com/url?url=.....Mw&cad=rja

    United States employment rate at August, 2011: 9.2%.

    http://www.google.com/publicda.....l=en&dl=en

    Make that as what you will.

  • Almanian||

    Fuck Rick Perry, that SoCon prick. Vote Almanian in 2012! "Why Not?"