Immigration

Arizona Shows How to Kill an Economy

|

Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute has just released a policy analysis documenting the havoc that the twin legislative scourges in Arizona – to wit, the 2007 LAWA that cracks down on employers hiring paperless workers and SB 1070,

illegal-immigrants

"your papers please" law – have wreaked on the state's economy. He notes:

The(se) laws have forced unauthorized immigrants out of the state, and the regulatory mechanisms have diminished economic growth, incentivized the creation of a larger informal economy, cre­ated uncertainty for businesses, and depressed property values. These effects serve as a warn­ing to other states seeking to enact Arizona-style immigration laws. Arizona-style laws are economically de­structive and inimical to growth.

More specifically, he traces the drastic housing bust in Arizona to these laws—which forced 200,000 consumers of real-estate out of the state during an already bad housing bust.  Those combined forces resulted in the Phoenix area's disastrous housing price decline.  Only Las Vegas fared worse.

Next Up: Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina—the other states with the worst immigration laws.

NEXT: Pakistani Minister Stands By His Bounty For Filmmaker's Death

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.

  1. So now Reason wants housing prices to stay up?

    I propose a cage fight between Cavanaugh and Dalmia. They could stick it in between the reruns of Remy songs on reason.tv.

    1. It is just a straightforward observation that when you cut demand, prices fall.

      1. Don’t bother Tulpa with reality when he’s being bitchy.

        1. Tulpa reliably goes to DEFCON 3 when people assert that the collective shouldn’t be in the business of dictating who can go where.

    2. So now Reason wants housing prices to stay up?

      Who said that?

      1. Would it help if I put it in bold for you?

        More specifically, he traces the drastic housing bust in Arizona to these laws — which forced 200,000 consumers of real-estate out of the state during an already bad housing bust. Those combined forces resulted in the Phoenix area’s disastrous housing price decline. Only Las Vegas fared worse.

        1. Wow, you are beyond retarded already today. Did you have money on the Packers or something? Try and fix your stupidity. Try, at least.

        2. Not all price declines are created equal, dude.

          If prices decline because interest rates are no longer being artificially held down, that’s good.

          If prices decline because all Japanese people are sent to camps and their properties all hit the market at once, that’s bad.

          1. You notice she refers to Las Vegas’ price decline as not only bad but worse. So she’s not saying “price declines due to state-level immigration laws are bad”. She’s saying price declines in general are bad.

            1. I think “worse” in that case means “larger percentage decrease”, not “bad”.

              English is a tricky language.

              1. So if the unemployment level drops by 0.1% in September and 2.0% in October, would it be correct to say that the unemployment decrease was worse in October than it was in September?

                Of course not. The word implies a value judgement.

        3. I will let you suss out your own embedded fallacies into what you are saying right now.

          But here’s some help from downthread:

          And a policy that artificially lowers demand for housing can be just as bad as a policy that artificially inflates it.

          1. Sure you will.

            Look down thread, away from Randian’s palpably false statements!

      2. Dalmia observed Nowrasteh tracing the housing bust to those laws.

        Obviously the conclusion is that Reason wants to prop up housing prices.

        What other possible conclusion could there be?

    1. That is shocking. The NFL never admits that it is wrong. Interesting precedent. Are they going to get into the game of overturning game results now?

      1. They need to overturn Cutler’s and Forte’s injuries last year and declare the Bears Super Bowl Champions while they’re at it.

        1. So treat their sports like their politics?

    2. I was hoping Hitler was going to deliver the news.

    3. This is meaningless since the top 4 in the pick-’em league all had the same choice (GB) to win.

      Fix the Giants game so I can take my rightfully deserved #1 spot you stupid NFL jerkwads.

    4. I feel let down by the NFL using sub-par officials and giving fans the run-around, but I’ll never give up watching, that would hurt me deeply.

  2. I am sorry but I have a hard time believing that the lack of illegal immigrant buyers caused the housing but in Arizona. And even if it did, since when are lower housing prices a drawback to a policy?

    1. Even if they were renters, the demand for rentals affects the total demand for housing–just through landlords.

      And a policy that artificially lowers demand for housing can be just as bad as a policy that artificially inflates it.

      1. Shut the fuck up, you midget fuck.

        1. He’s actually right this time, though.

          1. I don’t really give a fuck.

            1. When have you ever cared about facts, accuracy, or content?

          2. No, he’s not. It’s not artificially lowering demand, it’s enforcing the laws that were already on the books.

            Otherwise you could say that NYS is artificially reducing demand for fireworks by having a law against it.

            1. Ummmm…yeah, you actually could say that and it would be 100% accurate.

            2. Otherwise you could say that NYS is artificially reducing demand for fireworks by having a law against it.

              And you think that’s a wrong statement somehow?!

              1. Maybe I should state it on a less controversial topic. Does the government artificially reduce demand for biological weapons by banning civilian possession?

                It comes down to whether you think the govt is part of the “natural” landscape of the problem. I mean, you could say that every govt act artificially reduces the demand for something, but with that definition the question becomes whether artificially reducing demand is such a bad thing.

                1. Tulpa, that is the weakest non-admission of “I was wrong” I have seen in a long time.

                  1. I wasn’t wrong. I consider legitimate public safety and territorial integrity legislation to be part of the landscape, not an artificial add-on.

                    You and the Fluffster apparently have a different definition, which is less useful.

                    1. I wasn’t wrong. I consider legitimate public safety and territorial integrity legislation to be part of the landscape, not an artificial add-on.

                      You and the Fluffster apparently have a different definition, which is less useful.

                      So what you’re saying is that The Derider was absolutely correct in that this could be artificially lowering demand but you’re going to go ahead and shift the goalposts anyway.

                    2. As the phrase is normally understood, it is not artificially lowering demand. It is enforcing legitimate law that is part of the natural landscape.

                      If you think that any government action in any area of human endeavor, even legitimate actions like banning murder and biological weapons, is “artificial” then you have a different, and less useful, definition from myself and the rest of the world.

                    3. I seem to remember someone getting sand in their vagina last time I tried to argue something along the lines of “normally understood”.

                    4. Because you were incorrect in claiming that your interpretations were the normal interpretations.

                    5. You didn’t choose to use banning murder as your example.

                      You chose banning fireworks as your example.

                      And yeah, dopey, banning fireworks decreases the demand for them.

                      I would appreciate the rest of your argument better if you first said, “OK, fireworks is a stupid example and I shouldn’t have used it”.

                    6. I don’t consider the fireworks ban artificial either. It’s legit public safety legislation.

                      But it’s not appropriate for dealing with you guys because your standard for legitimate laws is much higher than mine.

                    7. Whether or not it is legit public safety is besides the point. It does affect the fireworks market, whether you agree with the law or not.

                    8. but you’re going to go ahead and shift the goalposts anyway.

                      No Tulpa thread would be complete without a straw man moving the goalposts.

                    9. I consider legitimate public safety and territorial integrity

                      And the best way to do this is to compare housing to chemical weapons. No one gives a damn what the going rate for chemical weapons is, it’s not exactly a crucial part of the economy.

                    10. What part of immigrants renting housing without State permission is a legitimate threat to public safety?

                    11. The part where they cram 30 people into a house built for one family.

                    12. The part where they cram 30 people into a house built for one family.

                      When it starts affecting your rights, please let us know.

                    13. When is breaking and entering into your house a legitimate threat to public safety?
                      When is welfare fraud a legitimate threat to public safety?
                      When is sending your kid to a different school a legitimate threat to public safety?
                      http://www.bvonmoney.com/2011/…..ng-school/

                      We treat criminal aliens better than our own citizens.

                    14. When is breaking and entering into your house a legitimate threat to public safety?

                      The entire country /=/ my house. Unless you think everything belongs to the government, or is owned communally.

                      When is welfare fraud a legitimate threat to public safety?

                      When is welfare fraud limited to foreigners?

                      When is sending your kid to a different school a legitimate threat to public safety?

                      That has nothing to do with immigration or immigrants at all. What a stupid example.

                      We treat criminal aliens better than our own citizens.

                      What an idiotic thing to say. Do you even listen to yourself? And again, your example proves nothing at all about treatment of citizens vs. foreigners.

                    15. territorial integrity

                      What the fuck?!?

                      Territory doesnt give a fuck who lives on it. Mexicans have as much right to move to Phoenix as I do. Artificial barriers are artificial.

                    16. I seem to recall us at H+R getting our panties in a bunch over US troops crossing artificial barriers in the Middle East some years ago.

            3. No, he’s not. It’s not artificially lowering demand, it’s enforcing the laws that were already on the books.

              SB 1070 was ‘already on the books’ from all the way back to 2010.

              1. Federal immigration laws, which they enforce while BO violates his oath to take care that the federal laws be faithfully executed, have been on the books for decades.

                1. Don’t hold back now Tulpa. Fully embrace your Full Retard Nativist.

            4. Its still artificial.

              Laws that dont comply with natural law are artificial laws.

      2. Not unless the policies produce prices that are below the actual cost to build and maintain housing they are not.

        1. Don’t be a sucker please, John.

      3. Explain how Las Vegas fared worse than Phoenix, as Shikha so eloquently put it. Were Las Vegas “unauthorizeds” terrified that AZ might invade and spread their reign of rule of law terror to Sin City?

        1. Is it possible that, I dunno, other factors may have contributed to the NV bust and that such simple comparisons as the one you made are logically fallacious?

          1. If other factors are strong enough to cause a bigger bust in NV, how can we be sure that the bust in AZ is due to SB1070 rather than those mighty “other factors”? That’s the supposition that the entire study is based on.

            1. If other factors are strong enough to cause a bigger bust in NV, how can we be sure that the bust in AZ is due to SB1070 rather than those mighty “other factors”?

              Tulpa, if you have some sort of legitimate criticisms of the study, please read it, state them, and then we can talk about it. Right now you’re just throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks. That’s Truther-grade intellectual rigor.

              1. I’ve stated my criticisms below. And you’re wrong here, of course. The comparison to Las Vegas and NV is very relevant but the study fails to make it.

                1. Because Las Vegas and Phoenix have very similar economies.

                  Even you can’t be that stupid.

                  1. The study draws its conclusions from comparisons to CA and NM. Both of which have different economies from AZ.

    2. Demand is demand John.

      If the bottom end of the market collapses because there are fewer people looking to rent houses, then the prices in the middle of the market start to collapse as well. And so on.

      If the stated goal of elected officials is to prop up housing prices (which is contrary to libertarian ideals), then artificially depressing demand is counter productive.

      1. Amazing that it happened even worse in Las Vegas than in Phoenix then.

        1. My brother Joe is shorter than I. He would likely have been taller had a serious childhood disease not stunted his growth. My brother Bill is even shorter, yet he was always very healthy.

          It is possible for both of those statements to be true.

          1. He would likely have been taller had a serious childhood disease not stunted his growth.

            Begging the question. You know the cause before the effect is observed.

            1. It’s a hypothetical, Tulpa. I have no brothers. The point is that, even if I knew that my (imaginary) brother Joe would have been taller because exhaustive medical tests had determined this, that doesn’t mean I don’t have another brother who was shorter just because he got the short genes.

              I understand you had your feelings hurt because I pointed out your logical fallacy. That doesn’t mean you’re going to score points by trying to shoehorn my analogy into a logical fallacy.

              1. You observe that both A and B have property X, and A has property Y but B does not have property Y, and conclude that property Y causes property X.

                Is it logically possible? Sure. But you haven’t proven it. There may be another property Z which both A and B both have that cause X.

                1. I don’t have to prove it. It’s a hypothetical. All of the premises are assumed.

                2. And by admitting that it is logically possible, you are admitting that Dalmia’s assertion is also logically possible. Until you can show that Dalmia’s methodology, facts or logic are flawed, you fall into the same trap that you fell into trying to disprove my hypothetical. You are assuming that a logical fallacy has occurred because it’s convenient for you.

                  1. Dalmia/ Cato are claiming it’s true. Not merely possible.

                    If they want to soften their claim to say that it’s POSSIBLE that the AZ law has caused economic problems, I’m OK with that. Though that’s not really a significant statement anymore. Lots of things are possible.

  3. This is why we let states experiment with their own doom. Fifty little laboratories, each racing to see which can fuck itself up most efficiently.

    1. This is why we let states experiment with their own doom. Fifty little laboratories, each racing to see which can fuck itself up most efficiently effectively.

      I thought CA had this race in the bag.

      1. Sure, CA is the glitzy, show-off. But MA has been working hard and seriously in the off season.

        Consider them the Clubber Lang to CA’s Apollo Creed.

      2. You just think that because IL doesn’t get as much press. Illinois is far and away winning the fuck-upedness race.

        1. in the unfunded liabilities category, i believe you are correct.

        2. As a long suffering IL dweller, I can only add….amen!

  4. DEY TUK AWAY AR JERBS

  5. I don’t know if I prefer no alt-text or half-hearted literalist alt-text. Then again, I don’t know if I prefer thumbscrews or the iron pear either.

    1. Dude, the pear either went in your mouth or in your rectum.

      Uh, thumbscrews, please.

      1. Yeah but I need my thumbs!

        1. And you don’t need your rectum?

          1. Not as often.

      2. Dude, the pear either went in your mouth or in your rectum.

        And they probably weren’t very consciencous about cleaning it between uses either.

        1. it was sterile due to the high temperatures so you’re good to go.

  6. Skimming through the PDF of the actual “study” at the Cato site — an unfortunate necessity when Reason/Cato are pushing a study that just happens to line up with their open borders agenda — there are several suspect conclusions. First, the plots of construction employment show that Arizona, compared to NM and CA, experienced a spike in construction in the years leading up to 2008. So it’s natural that the employment figures experienced a deeper crater than NM and CA experienced, with all those extra homes on the market.

    The agricultural employment plots are likewise laughable. NM experienced rises and falls at the same times as AZ did, though they weren’t as pronounced. I really doubt immigrants were fleeing NM when Arizona passed immigration laws. If anything, CA and NM should be seeing numbers going in the opposite direction from AZ’s, since those are prime destination for fleeing immigrants, no?

    1. this is something you will see from all ideologues, unfortunately, and i say that as somebody who is a big fan of Cato on the whole.

      when the ‘STUDY’, the facts, the stats, or whatever lines up with the metanarrative of the ideologue, it will get zero scrutiny

      contrarily, when it conflicts with the underlying ideologies, the “yea, buts”, obfuscation, evasion, etc. will will go into overdrive.

      fwiw, i have no idea who is right here. what you say SOUNDS correct, but i haven’t looked at the #’s to confirm what you say.

      i will say this – arpaio is a grandstanding fucktard. he is an embarassment to law enforcement.

      arizona’s immigrant enforcement law is, simply put, bad policy. local cops should NOT be enforcing immigration laws. among the reasons for this, is that we want crime victims, witnesses, etc. to feel free to come forward (especially victims) and seek help from police. if they fear the police will enforce immigration laws against them, it places unlawful immigrant crime victims in a very fucked up position. victimized, and unable to seek help

      that being said, if the federal govt. DID its job vis a vis the border, we wouldn;’t have craptastic legislation like the arizona example in the first place

    2. Why would a libertarian magazine have anything but an open borders agenda? People should be able to employ or rent or sell their property to anyone they please.

      1. Indeed. However, the fedgov has no obligation to allow the buyer or seller to cross its borders to get to your property.

        1. The government has rights now? Like, bona-fide natural rights that the exercise of mine can legitimately infringe upon?

          1. Complicated question, isn’t it?

            No about gov having natural rights (hah), but to what degree border enforcement is a legitimate exercise of state power. At the extreme, stopping an invading army is clearly legitimate. Even libertarian utopia needs a monopoly on organized violence.

            It seems to me that the number and intent of prospective immigrants is what matters, but the second is impossible to determine under normal circumstances. Do we just exclude violent felons and accept the rest? What do we do when someone avoids the established intake procedures? (assuming they are less fucked up than our current set)

            1. Complicated question, isn’t it?

              No, it isn’t.

              It seems to me that the number and intent of prospective immigrants is what matters

              Without evidence of an other-than-peaceful intent, you don’t get to interfere with my business.

              1. imo, the idea of national sovereignty trumps your, or anybody’s business

                that aside, i believe that open borders, is like abortion. it is an issue that is not a libertarian litmus test. it is, in fact, an issue that libertarians of good conscience can come down on either side.

                dr ron paul is certainly far from an open borders libertarian, i might add.

                1. imo, the idea of national sovereignty trumps your, or anybody’s business

                  I care about my house getting built. You can’t interfere with my real-life rights for some made-up abstract like “national unity”. You seem to forget that “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men”. The institution of government cannot infringe on natural rights by virtue of its own existence, because that would be in violation of its raison d’etre.

                  1. There are plenty of people available to build your house in the US, so your right to build a house is not being violated.

                    1. There are plenty of people available to build your house in the US, so your right to build a house is not being violated.

                      My rights are now contingent on the current health of the construction labor market?

                      Huh, I had no idea.

                    2. My rights are now contingent on the current health of the construction labor market?

                      It’s a negative right, not a positive right. Just like you can’t claim your right to buy a rock from Pluto is being violated.

                    3. It’s a negative right, not a positive right. Just like you can’t claim your right to buy a rock from Pluto is being violated.

                      If I had a way to get one and you blocked me because NO FOREIGN ROCKS ALLOWED, then yes, my right to a buy a rock from Pluto would be violated.

                    4. There are plenty of people available to build your house in the US, so your right to build a house is not being violated.

                      Selling labor is no different morally or economically from selling any other commodity.

                      So by the terms of your argument here, passing guild laws for every occupation and cartel laws for every product and service wouldn’t violate anyone’s rights, as long as you thought there were still “plenty” of choices available to purchase from.

                    5. The immigration laws relate to a legitimate power of the national government.

                      You’re positing a law that directly interfered with the labor market, with no legitimate governmental purpose.

                  2. there is no natural or “real-life” right to violate national sovereignty so you can get your house built. that’s absurd.

                    i never said national unity. let’s use the term i used – national sovereignty. when our govt. was instituted, it was instituted within a geographical boundary (and yes, we stole plenty o’ land, but that’s because we had better weapons) and with a national identity within that national boundary. inside the boundary is the USA

                    outside the boundary is NOT the USA. and amongst the very limited powers of a federal govt. is the authority to control those borders. at different times in our past, due to a host of reasons, we have loosened, tightened, loosened, etc. the rules vis a vis the crossing of same, the process of obtaining citizenship, etc. however, the issue isn’t – what are the rules. the issue is – it absolutely is a function of a govt. ANY govt. to assert its sovereignty

                    1. Me getting my house built is not an issue of national sovereignty. The United States is not compromised in integrity or security by Juan Construction Co.

                      Simply put, it is not your or any of the nation’s business what business peaceful people voluntarily exchange in.

                    2. If enabling one party to fulfill their end of the voluntary exchange requires abrogating legitimate national govt powers, yes it is the nation’s business.

                      No one is stopping you from wiring your payment to Juan Construction in Mexico.

                    3. If enabling one party to fulfill their end of the voluntary exchange requires abrogating legitimate national govt powers

                      Circular Cat is Circular.

                    4. To me, “sovereignty” means “within these borders we will apply the following laws”, and that means that anyone who is willing to obey those laws is morally a citizen.

                      The “citizen by affiliation” is about a billion times more morally legitimate a concept than the citizen by birth or ethnicity or language.

                      And before you spring up and exclaim, “A-HA! Our immigration laws are part of the laws they must obey!” I don’t mean those laws. Since I’m saying that affiliation should create citizenship, naturally laws trying to prevent such affiliation are outside the set of the laws I’m considering here.

                    5. ok, but that’s not how the word is traditionally used, nor is it how I am using it.

                      as for the citizen by affilation thing, i would defer to the sowellian argument against “cosmic justice”. it is cosmically unjust that if not born with the boundaries of the USA, and instead happening to be born is some awful country, that one will live where one has fewer recognized rights and fewer opportunities

                      just like it’s cosmically unjust that some people are born with a silver spoon, never have to worry about money or career, etc.

                      that aside, back to sovereignty. according to wikipedia, our current notin of state sovereignty traces back to 1648 and the peace of westpahlia, the first two elements of it being territorial integrity and border inviolability

                      i’m not going to say “a-ha”. unlike many people here, im not interested in plkaying word games or “winning” or snark.

                      i simply accept that imo libertarians can be open or closed border libertarians. there is room in our tent for both. i am explaining why *i* am a closed border libertarian. i am of course interested in why you are an open border libertarian. i’m not interested in saying “im right” or “you are wrong” because … again… i think this is an issue that intellgent conscientious people can and do disagree

            2. Even libertarian utopia needs a monopoly on organized violence.

              No it doesnt. Having an army does not grant a monopoly. Hell, the US doesnt even have a monopoly on it. We have militias and Blackwater (assuming they are a US company…no clue, and yes, I know they changed their name).

              1. Militias are regulated by Congress, and Blackwater is subject to the laws passed by Congress while operating in US territory.

                1. Militias are regulated by Congress

                  You might want to tell the Michigan Militia that.

          2. Point to where I mention rights, Randian.

            You won’t of course. You’ll just throw in a red herring or insult me.

            1. I will gladly do so:

              However, the fedgov has no obligation to allow the buyer or seller to cross its borders to get to your property.

              Right there, you ascribed property ownership to the entity known as the Federal Government, which means that it has all of the rights thereof.

              So, in your words, the Government has rights, not delegated powers, because the government “owns” the border and therefore may allow (or disallow) crossing based on a private property rights scheme.

              1. it’s a semantical wank to talk about “owning” a border. the ISSUE is “controlling” the border. the border defines USA and (NOT-USA). and NOT-USA for our purposes are Canada on one side and Mexico on the other. groovy.

                the moment you step inside that border, your status changes. a host of rights are now recognized that may or may not be outside our border (and in the case of mexico – FAR fewer rights on the whole). again, that’s part of what defines nations – differing views on rights, on law, on obligations.

              2. No, I didn’t.

                When I say the government does not allow people to kill each other, I’m not claiming the government owns people.

                1. When I say the government does not allow people to kill each other

                  But that’s not what you said, so changing it and leaving out the possessive pronoun is essentially an admission of your guilt. You KNOW you’re wrong, that’s why your post didn’t say

                  When I say the government does not allow its people to kill each other

                  Which would have been a direct comparison.

                  You left it out on purpose because you know you’re wrong and you cannot possibly claim that “the government does not allow its people to kill each other” is not a claim of ownership.

                  You really think no one noticed that you left the pivotal phrase out on purpose?

                  1. I addressed this at 1:08 below.

                    The pronoun in question is not just a possessive pronoun, it also may denote other types of association. English, like most natural languages, has this ambiguity.

              3. When I say that “my” hometown is Rockford, am I claiming that I own Rockford as my personal property?

                1. When I say that “my” hometown is Rockford, am I claiming that I own Rockford as my personal property?

                  Practically speaking? Yes. It’s just that people realize that you can’t actually own it, so no one thinks that you’re claiming such.

      2. Because there’s nothing intrinsically libertarian about about open borders. “Everyone is welcome here” does not necessarily follow from “You’re free to do as you please here”.

        1. I disagree. There is no collective ownership of the whole country. If I can’t employ some Mexican dude to do whatever, I am not free to do as I please. The government is limiting MY rights by limiting immigration. I accept the necessity of some sort of border control, but not of a policy that generally prevents people who do not pose any threat or carry any communicable disease from crossing a border.

          1. again, it comes down to framing. you see this as a matter of OWNERSHIP. if i framed it that way, i’d probably agree with you.

            i don’t frame it that way, nor do i think most who are closed border proponents do.

            i simply see it as a matter of protecting and controlling sovereignty, one of the few authoritah’s govt. SHOULD be involved in.

            you most definitely are NOT free to do as you please, if doing as you please means violating our sovereignty

            1. It seems to me that sovereignty could be maintained without government having the power to arbitrarily deny people permission to cross the border.

        2. Because there’s nothing intrinsically libertarian about about open borders.

          BS.

          If I want to hire Juan Construction Co. from Mexico to fly in and build me house, it is just plain none of your business.

          None.

          1. again, this is an issue that libertarians of good conscience can differ on. it’s very similar to abortion in how it has to do with weighting competing interests

            it’s also how you frame it. as a person who is not open borders, i frame it as an issue of national sovereignty. our federal govt should be VERY limited in its power and its scope. one of the few things they SHOULD do is monitor and defend our borders.

            when who you choose to build your house violates the sovereignty of our country as a whole, yes it is our business.

            1. this is an issue that libertarians of good conscience can differ on

              No it isnt. Self ownership implies freedom of movement. Now citizenship, that we can differ on. But not movement.

              1. Then obviously we can’t have private property, either, since private property also inhibits freedom of movement.

                1. No, it inhibits movement, not freedom of movement.

                  You are free to move on any land that the owner grants you the right to move upon.

                  1. Sophistry, anyone?

            2. No it isn’t, and I say that as an agnostic on abortion.

              Crossing a border without a visa is a victimless crime, hence would not be illegal in a libertarian society.

              1. Counterfeiting and perjury on behalf of a criminal defendant are victimless crimes too.

          2. If his plane crosses my border it is.

            1. You don’t own the border, Tulpa.

              1. My pronoun selection was subpar. We the people of the United States own the border and have delegated its administration to our federal government.

                So, crossing the border is not something you and you alone have control over.

                1. We the people of the United States own the border

                  No you don’t.

                  have delegated its administration to our federal government.

                  So what? You either believe I have the right to engage in freedom of contract or you don’t. You don’t, obviously.

              2. The assumption of some sort of collective ownership of the whole country always bothers me in these discussions. The government has to control the border to some extent because of practical realities. But that has nothing to do with any principle. Its just the unfortunate fucked up state of the world.

                1. fucked up state of the world

                  As stated yesterday, taxes (and border control) are the price we pay for not being civilized.

          3. Sure thing. And if I want to fly al-Qaeda in to employ as my personel security team, that’s none of your business, either.

            1. What is it about “peaceful exchange” evades your limited understanding?

              1. Nothing. Is there anything unpeaceful about hiring security personel?

            2. Sure thing. And if I want to fly al-Qaeda in to employ as my personel security team, that’s none of your business, either.

              Yep.

              Some of them most get arrested while here, but not because they are your security force.

  7. And I’ll leave you with this little bon mot buried on page 9:

    Employment-related identity theft is higher in Arizona than in most other states because of the large population of unauthor- ized immigrants seeking work. ID theft was declining before the passage of LAWA because of the worsening economy but dropped even faster with the decrease in the unauthorized population (see Figures 5 and 6). Fewer jobs, fewer unauthorized immigrants, and deeper movements into the informal economy are re- sponsible for the decline in identity theft. To the extent that LAWA and SB 1070 contrib- uted to those factors, they are responsible for the identity theft decline.

    Who will think of the poor people working in the identity theft industry? Alabama, you may lose jobs in that sector soon too! Cato urges you to return to the open borders path!

    1. Of course, with open borders that problem largely vanishes.

      1. Yes, but other problems crop up in its place.

        1. No they don’t.

      2. OMG! Everyone, unhide Tupla’s previous comment! It’s a fucking gem.

        Apparently open borders facilitates identity theft now! Because when people are allowed to work regardless of where they were born, they naturally steal the identities of citizens to work!

        As I said, DEFCON 3!

        1. DEFCON 3 is too low. This is weapons grade retard.

        2. Incomplete immigration enforcement causes ID theft problems. Open borders causes other problems.

          1. Incompleteimmigrationdrug law enforcement causes ID theftviolence. Open BordersLegalization causes ‘other problems’ which I’m just not going to bother talking about.

          2. Dude, you’re getting torched. And you were wondering why I was trolling you and your subpar logic yesterday.

    2. Or maybe people should be allowed to work even if they don’t have a SS number. Give anyone who asks a taxpayer ID regardless of immigration status. The only reason I can think of not to is “they took our jerbs”. Problem solved.

    3. Why would movement into the informal economy lead to fewer identity thefts?

      1. Because you don’t need an SSN to work for cash.

  8. Woo-hoo, immigration. I can rest easy knowing there’s nothing new in Detroit or India.

  9. Holy shit, breaking news: NFL overturns call, declares Green Bay winner of last night’s game!

    Roger Goodell singlehandedly preserves the Integrity of the Game? (Somebody said that earlier on the teevee.)

    Fuck the NFL.

  10. “As of February, the state had added 42,6000 new, non-farm jobs over the previous year, and state revenues have increased 8.7% so far in 2012. The Arizona Office of Tourism found the state generated $17.7 billion in direct travel spending in 2010 ? a 7.9% increase over the previous year. Brewer said there may have been a negative effect in the immediate aftermath of the law, but that the state has rebounded and the “Arizona comeback” is here.”
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/w…..54487572/1

    Doesn’t sound like it is dying to me.

  11. when Reason/Cato are pushing a study that just happens to line up with their open borders agenda

    PERFIDIOUS BASTARDS

    1. It’s an agenda I tell you – to impose freedom by trickery!

  12. I didn’t RTFA, but is there anything in it that indicates that the people of Arizona are surprised by this? Yes, I know we’re a nation of idiots, but really, this was as predictable as they come.

    Given that, I don’t think the economic argument is at all relevant. This was always a social issue. This was never about economics. The economic consequences were known and accepted. If this is in fact not the case, and there’s “surprise” at this outcome, then there’s a story here.

  13. You guys just taking me literally and not clicking on my link of proof are ruining a perfectly good joke.

    1. Some of us are blocked from Youtube. And it is a great joke because the NFL is so fucked up and crooked, it is entirely believable.

      1. Vegas would never. EVER. Allow something like that to happen.

  14. This is a silly question, but what “terrible problem” was this law supposed to solve?

    1. Sherrif Joe needed an excuse to be reelected despite not investigating rapes and other violent crimes.

    2. Looks like it did a good job on ID theft for starters. Apparently Reason and Cato don’t give two shits about that problem, though, as long as the thieves are sticking it to the man and working “unauthorized”.

      1. That problem wouldn’t exist without our tight immigration laws. Which is the ultimate issue they give a shit about.

        But you knew that, didn’t you?

        1. IT might not be as much of a problem if you didn’t have thousands of people who needed an identity. Of course that cuts both ways. If the immigrants were legal, perhaps they wouldn’t be stealing identities.

          1. If the immigrants were legal, perhaps they wouldn’t be stealing identities.

            Exactly my point.

        2. Open borders brings its own problems.

          1. Entirely irrelevant. You were arguing from the false premise that Cato should be considerate of the Stolen ID problem while accepting existing immigration policy as-is.

            1. Yes,

              How dare anyone expect Cato to deal with the real world rather than an idealized fantasy one.

      2. Apparently you don’t care about people who flee State A to State B to escape civil or criminal proceedings. If you did, you would support border checkpoints at every state.

        TULPA….DUM DUM DUM DUM DUM DUM

        1. There’s an overarching government in force on areas on both sides of state borders, and states have to extradite to each other according to the Constitution.

          So, not a valid comparison to an international border.

          1. Ever tried to enforce a civil judgment from State A in State B?

            Apparently not.

          2. comparing state borders to national border is about as disanalogous an analogy as one could imagine

            like it or not, it means something to be a US citizen. it means something to say something or someone is IN the USA vs. outside the USA. within our borders, even for non-citizens, and even for people here illegally, they necessarily have all sorts of rights recognized that are not recognized outside our narrow confines.

            our govt has expanded into way too many areas it has no place being but one place it absolutely should be – is protecting our sovereignty and our borders.

      3. Well, there’s identity theft and there’s identity theft.

        If someone is assuming the identity of another person to take out credit in their name and stick them with the bill, I give a shit.

        If someone else is using the SSN of a dead person so they can get a job in a meatpacking plant somewhere, I don’t give a shit.

        This is because I care about criminal acts with actual victims, and don’t care about acts whose “criminality” arises from the fact that the state has invested in a vast machinery of social control that requires bureaucratic record-keeping and gets pissed when people mess with it.

        1. They don’t take the SSN of dead people. It is often live people. And even if they are not stealing, it can ruin people’s credit and causes all kinds of other problems.

          1. They don’t take the SSN of dead people.

            They can and have.

            It is often live people. And even if they are not stealing, it can ruin people’s credit and causes all kinds of other problems.

            Then that is a problem. But you know what else is a problem? Child abuse, and you don’t see me advocating that every parental relationship go before a Parental Review Board every couple of months or that you have to be licensed to be a parent.

            1. Warrantless wiretapping is a problem. But you know what else is a problem? Child abuse….

              1. I have run this comment through the Stupid setting on Google Translate and Babelfish, and I got nothing.

                1. The point is that the argument you’re attempting to make could be made against any law. It’s a red herring.

          2. Better open those borders to stop this from happening then.

          3. Then give the taxpayer IDs, regardless of immigration status. No more need to steal SSNs except for the actual criminals who deserve to be punished for it.

        2. So you wouldn’t mind if Guillermo the fruit picker uses your SSN on his W-4, claims 7 exemptions so nothing is withheld from his paycheck, and all the sudden the IRS tells you you have $25,000 in extra income that you didn’t report and owe back taxes on, plus interest, at your tax rate rather than Guillermo’s.

          1. So you wouldn’t mind if Guillermo the fruit picker uses your SSN on his W-4, claims 7 exemptions so nothing is withheld from his paycheck, and all the sudden the IRS tells you you have $25,000 in extra income that you didn’t report and owe back taxes on, plus interest, at your tax rate rather than Guillermo’s.

            A DEAD person, you brain-dead moron. Jesus, do you even read what you’re responding to?

            1. This is funny, because you just a few minutes ago stated (correctly) that it is not just dead people that have their SSNs stolen.

              Somehow you failed to correct Fluffy’s post stating otherwise, but you rush in to insult me when I present an example that can and does occur in real life. It’s almost as if you’re more interested in opposing me than you are in the truth. Either that or you have Jim McMahon levels of short term memory loss.

              1. Somehow you failed to correct Fluffy’s post stating otherwise

                Because Fluffy didn’t state otherwise. Fluffy gave an example of something he would care about re: identity theft:

                If someone is assuming the identity of another person to take out credit in their name and stick them with the bill, I give a shit.

                And you then proceeded to “counter” by providing that very example, you git.

                1. LOL, you’re totally changing your argument now. I thought you were complaining that I wasn’t talking about dead people?

                  taking out credit != adding to someone else’s gross income for tax purposes, btw

                  1. LOL, you’re totally changing your argument now. I thought you were complaining that I wasn’t talking about dead people?

                    I will lead you by the nose through what happened here.

                    Fluffy essentially said “I care about real victims, not the use of a dead person’s SSN”

                    You proceed to give a “real victim” hypothetical like it was some brilliant refutation.

                    This is why you get called names – because you are literally not even reading what you are responding to. You aren’t even trying.

                    1. Aaaaaand you’re back to editing other people’s comments for them.

                    2. OK, Tulpa. Tell me about your intellectual powerhouse of a blog again.

                    3. LOL. I hope when you graduate from 8th grade in a few years, you’ll have gotten beyond nyah-nyah in response to other people’s arguments.

                    4. “I care about criminal acts with actual victims” is apparently code for “credit card fraud only”. Must be some kind of special English-Tulpa dictionary.

                    5. If someone else is using the SSN of a dead person so they can get a job in a meatpacking plant somewhere, I don’t give a shit.

                      This comment does not imply that Fluffy believes only dead people have their SSNs stolen by meat packers. It simply presents a scenario under which meat packers may steal the SSNs of dead people. You inferred that he believes that only dead people are targeted by meat packers, which, again, is a breakdown in your ability to grok simple logic.

                    6. Fluffy was making it sound like the only cases where there were real victims was credit card fraud, not using SSNs for employment. He inserted the “dead” part in there just to make sure it seemed innocuous.

                      John interpreted it the same way I did, so it’s not like it’s a bizarre interpretation.

                    7. Fluffy was making it sound like the only cases where there were real victims was credit card fraud

                      In other words, you heard what you wanted to hear.

                      He said, in the VERY SAME FUCKING post:

                      This is because I care about criminal acts with actual victims

                    8. That’s not the totality of his post, though. He’s giving a certain impression about which crimes have actual victims.

                    9. Right, so sayeth the Magical Tulpa Interpretative Dictionary that Ensures Tulpa is Never Wrong.

                    10. Well, the IRS example is one of those cases where the real problem is that the state has created an unjust direct tax, and then has created a bureaucratic system to assist it in administering that unjust direct tax, and now is employing one element of that bureaucratic system to try to punish people for seeking employment.

                      Looks to me like the real wrongdoer here is the government, all around.

                      “Yeah, Fluffy, but when one person tries to evade one part of the unjust bureaucratic system, it ends up creating problems for other people dealing with other parts of the unjust bureaucratic system!” Sure. But I know where the moral fault lies here.

                      Let me guess: when you watch Brazil, you probably jump up and down with indignation at the way that horrible monster Archibald Tuttle “caused the death of” poor Archibald Buttle.

                    11. John interpreted it the same way I did, so it’s not like it’s a bizarre interpretation.

                      Think about what you said there for a minute and get back to us.

          2. Tulpa you sound like all the liberals who demand government solutions to problems the government created in the first place

    3. Having to learn Spanish to get a damn haircut?

      1. “Un poco desde arriba, por favor.”

        1. When I lived in Miami I just showed them my ID card since I had a good haircut picture on it.

          And I even knew how to say most stuff, I just didn’t want to sound like Peggy Hill.

    4. Lazy brown people taking jerbs away from ‘Merkins.

      1. The economy must really be bad if you can hire people to stand-in for merkins.

        1. “Are there any with curly hair?”

  15. You guys just taking me literally and not clicking on my link of proof are ruining a perfectly good joke.

    I would have to care, in order to click the link.

    1. So you are giving up fluffy?

  16. Should so many people be living in the Arizona in the first place? I think it’s costly to build suburbs in the desert to start with.

    1. And they are probably going to have serious water problems before too long if they keep growing like they are.

  17. A lot of people here seem to have bought into the weird narrative about how the world’s problems have something to do with too many people.

    1) Labor is a resource.

    2) More of a resource is better.

    3) Chasing customers away is bad for business.

    4) Having more employed people in your MSA doesn’t artificially inflate the price of anything.

    5) Using the government to do things like chase employed people out of your MSA is the very definition of “artificial”.

    Just saying.

    1. #2 is only true if there is useful work to be done, which someone is willing to pay a sustainable wage for.

      I see a lot of fruit farmers who got fat off of dirt cheap illegal labor squealing like stuck pigs now that they have to pay Americans. And Reason and Cato lap up their shit like barnyard chickens.

      1. #2 is only true if there is useful work to be done, which someone is willing to pay a sustainable wage for.

        So you’re saying there is such a thing as too much of a resource?

        1. If the resource requires upkeep and can potentially cause problems if not employed, absolutely.

          Hamburger meat is a resource. If you have a 10 cu ft refrigerator, and 20 cu ft of hamburger meat, you have a problem.

          1. If the resource requires upkeep and can potentially cause problems if not employed, absolutely.

            “can potentially cause problems”. You could say this about anybody. Let’s start deporting all of the unemployed, eh?

            If you have a 10 cu ft refrigerator, and 20 cu ft of hamburger meat, you have a problem.

            Well, the United States is a big-ass open country, so that isn’t a problem.

            1. So you’re going to stack the hamburger meat next to the fridge?

              1. Or are you just going to deport it to the garbage dump?

                1. Creatures of volitional consciousness != piles of ground beef.

                  1. Back to SAT training for you, Joe M. Analogies involve things that are not the same.

                    broccoli:green :: firetruck:red

                    does not imply that broccoli is a firetruck or green is red.

                2. Tulpa, we have a 20 cubit foot refrigerator. And we can always build more refrigerators.

                  You’re demanding that we only store 10 cubic feet of hamburger in it, because “herpa derp that’s enough ‘merican hamburger for everybody, nobody should want any more.”

              2. The “fridge” isn’t too small.

                1. And you need some analogy training too.

                  1. I pointed out your analogy is inapt to the situation, but I am the one who needs training.

                    1. No, you didn’t. You assumed fridge = nation.

                    2. Well if it doesn’t, your “analogy” is apropos of nothing and can be dismissed as a distraction.

                    3. I see you didn’t take advantage of the free SAT training I gave above.

                    4. “You can’t eat a fire truck, so your analogy is meaningless.”

                    5. Dude, just accept that your analogy is piss poor. Let me make it simpler for you.

                      Red and green are both colors. Fridge and nation are both containers. Piles of uncooked meat and immigrants are both… what, exactly? Your true feelings on the subject are made clear by this, amusingly.

          2. Straw man moves the goalposts, right on cue!

          3. Well I’m glad we have such amazing political masters to tell us when we have too much of a resource.

            Top down economic management at it’s finest, right Tulpa?

      2. Oh and did you really just say “sustainable wage”?

    2. 1) Water is a resource.

      2) More of a resource is better.

      3) Therefore Hurricane Katrina flooding New Orleans was a Good Thing.

      1. The worst thing immigration did in Arizona was keep wages low for unskilled labor. And low wages for unskilled labor isn’t necessarily a destructive thing like a hurricane. If you’re an entrepreneur in a labor intensive industry, low wage, unskilled labor is actually a good thing.

        There are factories that opened in places like Alabama because the cost of unskilled labor there was so low. There are factories that opened in China because the cost of labor there was so low, too.

        Was there ever a place anywhere that had an economic advantage over another place–because of a destructive hurricane?

        I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: if low cost labor is a drag on economic growth, then China must have had the slowest growing economy in the world over the past 20 years…

        Maybe there is a point where so much labor can come onto the market so quickly that it becomes destructive like a flood or a hurricane, but if the supply of labor in China (1.5 billion people?) hasn’t managed to hurt economic growth there, then how close could we have been to flood or hurricane levels in Arizona?

  18. Should so many people be living in the Arizona in the first place?

    The people best qualified to answer this question are government bureaucrats in Washington, DC, presumably.

  19. all the sudden the IRS tells you you have $25,000 in extra income that you didn’t report and owe back taxes on, plus interest, at your tax rate rather than Guillermo’s.

    This happens to me all the time.

    ALL THE FUCKING TIME.

    1. Just like getting my dogs shot by a cop serving a drug warrant happens to me all the time?

      I guess I shouldn’t be concerned about that either, since it’s extremely unlikely to happen to me.

  20. This is a really shitty paper. It talks a lot about the “drop in agriculture employment” in Arizona. But it never once gives any statistics about production. Do these figures not exist? Or are they just lying by omission? Without the production figures, the drop in employment numbers are meaningless. It could be that Arizona farmers, deprived of cheap labor, invested in machinery and capital. If that is the case, then it is hardly clear that this is an economic bad. Investments in capital increase productivity. Is it not possible that agriculture is less efficient than it could be because of the access to endless supplies of cheap labor? It could be that Arizona is better off avoiding the social dislocation of a large immigrant population by creating a more efficient agricultural sector. I don’t know the answer to that question. And the paper doesn’t provide one. Which would be fine except that they seem to want to avoid the question altogether because they will only accept one answer.

    1. Investments in capital increase productivity.

      Almost as much as cutting of a cheap labor source decreases it.

      1. Not it wouldn’t. One person with a machine is more productive than a hundred people doing it by hand. The one person and the machine may not be cheaper. But he will be more productive.

        You are confusing cost with productivity.

        1. One person with a machine is more productive than a hundred people doing it by hand. The one person and the machine may not be cheaper. But he will be more productive.

          What do you think productivity means?

          1. This is where Randian disputes meanings of words. He’s a fine heir to Neu Mejican.

          2. What do you think it means? If one person is able to use a machine to harvest a field, that person is going to be more productive than anyone of the hundred people it would take to do it by hand. If an industry goes from using 100 laborers to produce X amount of product, it is by definition raised its productivity. Those other 99 people are now free to go do something else and produce things in addition to the field of tomatoes they were producing.

            Productivity is a combination of out put and inputs. It is not a measure of total production, total cost or total employment. Those are different figures.

            1. If that were true John then the farms WOULD DO IT THEMSELVES. No government prodding needed. And those 99 people are not ‘free’ they are being deported by enforcement of insane immoral xenophobic immigration laws.

              1. You are right. So the fact that they don’t says that there is some economic loss to losing the workers. It is entirely possible that the cost of the machine is so great that it makes more sense just to hire the workers.

                But how much of an economic loss that actually is is a pretty complex question. It could be very small. Whatever the cost is, the raw “employed in agriculture” statistics tell you nothing about it by themselves.

                That is what makes this a shitty paper. It trots out one statistic and pretends that alone proves some huge economic impact. And that is bullshit. The impact doesn’t have to be huge or even large.

            2. Productivity is a combination of out put and inputs. It is not a measure of total production, total cost or total employment. Those are different figures.

              This sounds smart but it’s totally made up. Productivity can and is frequently defined as the most effect use of a dollar of capital input, whether that be buying 100 laborers or getting one guy with a machine.

              1. It is not made up Randian. Productivity is usually defined as the production per worker. Capital investment generally raises individual productivity and by extension societal wealth.

                1. Like I said, it would be a weird world where a firm could be considered to be high productivity when it’s going bankrupt, which is what you are saying.

                  1. If you disagree with the accepted meaning of the term “productivity” in this context, take your argument to the economists.

                  2. Who says the firms are going bankrupt? Maybe they are. But the paper never addresses that. It is not so much that the paper is wrong. It is that it is so slanted and poorly written that you can’t tell if it is wrong or right.

                2. It’s pointless, John. He’s just going to come up with a new definition for one of your words and claim you are arguing dishonestly.

                  1. Actually, John and I are having a legit conversation, so why don’t you sod off somewhere else and convince yourself you’re never wrong again?

                    1. Dude… you just did exactly what I predicted you’d do. I don’t think John is your BFF right now any more than I am.

    2. This is a really shitty paper.

      Yep it’s just a bunch of assertions without evidence and distractions.

      One of there first charts “proving” their point is the decline in construction employment from 2006 to 2012. WTF is that supposed to prove? Other than employment in that sector was being artificially increased by the biggest credit bubble of the last century.

      I didn’t see any charts showing overall unemployment rates in AZ compared to CA NM since enforcement of the law began. Or similar comparisons of changes in State GDP or the stability of government finances.

      But hey, real estate prices dropped and we all know that that if horrible.

      1. I am constantly amazed that Dalmia stays employed. She is proof positive that Libertarians are not above being and employing hacks.

  21. I see a lot of fruit farmers who got fat off of dirt cheap illegal labor squealing like stuck pigs now that they have to pay Americans.

    Are you shilling for the fruit pickers’ union, now?

    NO JUSTICE, NO APPLES

    Why do you hate consumers, Tulpy?

    1. Agricultural labor costs are a tiny percentage of the retail cost of fruit. The price of gasoline and weather patterns are far more influential in price increases.

      1. Agricultural labor costs are a tiny percentage of the retail cost of fruit.

        Then how did those Boss Tween caricatures you drew upthread ‘get fat’ off of ‘dirt cheap illegal labor’? Is the labor a small price input, or isn’t it?

        1. Retail cost, not cost to the grower.

          1. Huh? The inputs of the retail product + profit = retail price.

            1. Profit for who? The grower? The shipper? The wholesaler? The retailer?

              I’m sure that dirt cheap labor matters greatly to the grower, but is a very small fraction of the price paid by the consumer.

              1. I’m sure that dirt cheap labor matters greatly to the grower, but is a very small fraction of the price paid by the consumer.

                Please tell me how that is possible.

                1. I don’t have exact numbers here so I’m going to make shit up.

                  Say the labor to pull the vegetables out of the ground is 5% of the price paid by the end consumer. The rest of the price is the cost of shipping, diesel fuel to ship it, electricity to cool it in storage, the wages of the high school kid who keeps the shelves full and that cute girl who takes your money, etc.

                  If that were to double, the consumer sees the price go up by a nickle.
                  Big whoop.

                  But for the grower, doubling the cost of labor could eat up all his profits.

                  The cost of (illegal migrant) labor matters a lot to the grower, but not so much for the consumer.

                  1. Thank you for educating Randian. It’s a full time job.

                    1. Go fuck yourself Tulpa the Broken Clock.

                2. A quick google search retrieved this.

                  You’ve heard the lament, we need illegal aliens to pick the crops. Without them our food cost would skyrocket. NOT SO! Farmers can’t find anyone to work for the sub-minimal wage – so try doubling the pay, it’ll only raise the cost of lettuce by 8% and possibly save us more other in costs associated with illegal aliens.

                  Search engines are amazing things.

                  1. You are, of course, correct. I was not thinking.

                    I should add that P Brooks’ point about Tulpa fucking the consumer for the sake of having the properly-colored cherry pickers employed remains, however.

                    1. Now you’re accusing me of racism? You are such a fucking hack. Go fuck yourself.

                    2. Hey, you tell me. You seem to really, really, really care where a particular freedom-having worker comes from.

                    3. “You have reached the blind alley of the treason you committed when you agreed that you had no right to exist. Once, you believed it was ‘only a compromise’: you conceded it was evil to live for yourself, but moral to live for the sake of your children. Then you conceded that it was selfish to live for your children, but moral to live for your community. Then you conceded that it was selfish to live for your community, but moral to live for your country. Now, you are letting this greatest of countries be devoured by any scum from any corner of the earth, while you concede that it is selfish to live for your country and that your moral duty is to live for the globe. A man who has no right to life, has no right to values and will not keep them.
                      ?–Ayn Rand

                    4. Holy shit, Randian my ass, that’s either the stupidest or the most dishonest thing I’ve seen in a long time.

                      This part of the John Galt speech is referring to international aid financed by tax dollars.

                      It in no way, shape or form gets anywhere near referring to private persons asking for employment.

                      Wow.

                    5. Are you on board with Randian’s accusation, Fluffy?

                    6. I hereby disavow any disavowals that may make me look bad.

                    7. Dear H+Rers: if you stand with Randian after this shameful display, you’re a bunch of fucking hypocrites when you criticize the media for falsely accusing anyone who disagrees with them of racism. Just sayin’.

                    8. Uh oh, look out, Tulpa and his griefers are pissed.

                    9. Oh just to be clear:

                      Now you’re accusing me of racism?

                      you are goddamned right I am. You are obsessed with where “these people” come from and whether “they” are crossing “our” border and working for less than a “sustainable wage”.

                    10. Technically, I think that is xenophobia, not racism.

                    11. Fair enough.

                      Tulpa, sorry I accused you of irrational racism. I should have accused you of irrational fear of furriners instead.

                    12. That’s not an apology, Randian.

                    13. That’s not an apology

                      Sure it is.

                      The apology ends before the last sentence though, thats an unrelated, and accurate, addition.

                    14. and I can give you some very good reasons why being a racist a reasonable position (look at the crime statistics, for a start). Care to present some logical reasons why one shouldn’t be a racist? Or why being a racist should invalidate a very reasonable, fact-based argument?

                    15. I respect Randian for learning something, rather than digging in like a Tulpa and being a complete and total ass.

                    16. So you’re a hypocrite.

                      There is some value in finding out people’s character, however disturbing that process can be.

                    17. The man who, without irony, compared the sight of Israeli athletes to public gay sex, has no right to be miffed at an accusation of bigotry.

                    18. I’m afraid you’re going to need to link to that.

                    19. Brutus| 7.31.12 @ 5:02PM |#|?|filternamelinkcustom

                      The Lebanese judo team also objected to practicing in a place within sight of those dirty Jooz from Israel. Rather than tell them tough shit, the IOC helpfully put up a screen so the Lebanese wouldn’t have to sully their view with Jewish scenery.
                      reply to this
                      Tulpa Doom| 7.31.12 @ 5:15PM |#|?|filternamelinkcustom

                      So if they don’t force straight athletes to watch gay men having sex, I guess that means they’re homophobic.

                    20. Dude, you totally butchered the context of that thing. I was questioning Ed Krayewski’s claim that THE OLYMPICS were anti-Semitic for not having a moment of silence in remembrance of the 1972 Olympic murders.

                      Brutus was responding to me by claiming that the IOC was anti-Semitic for complying with the Lebanese judoers’ (stupid) preferences in a way that didn’t disrupt the games or harm anyone. I don’t know that I would agree with the IOC’s actions but they’re hardly anti-Semitism.

                      The analogy was poorly chosen, not because it’s invalid, but because that’s a hot-button issue. Once again, analogies involve things that are different, not things that are the same. How many times do I have to repeat this?

    2. I see a lot of fruit farmers who got fat off of dirt cheap illegal labor squealing like stuck pigs now that they have to pay Americans.

      Fruit farmers don’t owe Tulpa anything–except respect for Tulpa’s rights.

      Tulpa owes fruit farmers respect for their rights, too, and one of their rights is the right to hire whomever they please to pick their fruit.

      If the government isn’t respecting Tulpa’s rights by making him pay for other people’s healthcare, etc. (“other people” including immigrants, that is), then Tulpa should be mad at the government–not fruit farmers.

      It’s the fruit farmer’s fault that the government is forcing us to pay for each other’s healthcare, etc.

      It just isn’t.

      1. *EDIT*

        It [isn’t] the fruit farmer’s fault that the government is forcing us to pay for each other’s healthcare, etc.

        …but you probably already knew that.

      2. The fruit farmers do owe me something. They should stand behind their fruit.

  22. Arizona Shows How to Kill an Economy

    Yep,

    Arizona was an economic powerhouse, completely untouched by the recession that ravaged the country before they started sending illegal immigrants to death camps.

    1. Pay no attention to the housing bust in CA and NV!

  23. If the labor component is insignificant, why are you so exercised about fruit farmers who got fat off of dirt cheap illegal labor ?

    1. A 10 cent price increase for a pound of pears is more significant for the person trying to sell 100,000 pounds of pears than it is for the person buying a pound.

      1. ^^Proof that even a broken clock is right twice a day.

        1. I agree.

    2. I think he is more p’od about them yelling about their illegals/labor leaving than their kulak profits (?)

  24. Shikha Dalmia shows how to be a worse contributor than Steve Chapman.

    1. Shikha Dalmia shows how to be a worse contributor than Steve Chapman.

      Yes, how dare Ms. Dalmia show how draconian regulations inhibit the function of a free market.

      1. Except that she didn’t show that at all.

        She just made a strong assertion then confused the gullible with a lot of misdirection.

  25. Holy shit Tulpa went pretty close to full retard in this thread

    1. When in Turkey, do as the turkeys do.

  26. Randian| 9.25.12 @ 1:10PM |#

    You are, of course, correct. I was not thinking.

    I should add that P Brooks’ point about Tulpa fucking the consumer for the sake of having the properly-colored cherry pickers employed remains, however.

    This is your pal Randian, folks. Remember him when you criticize leftists for accusing people they disagree with of racism. If you let him get away with this you’re a bunch of hypocrites.

    1. To arms, Tulpa! To arms!

    2. Hey Randian’s not racist.

      He hates white trash.

  27. WSP trooper (off duty) arrested for DUI, eluding, hit and run by WSP troopers

    i strongly suspect he’s toast.

    many agencies, including my own, will not fire officers for first offense DUI. but eluding? assuming it’s a bona fide eluding? he’s done

    ime, eluding varies a bit , filing standards wise county to county, but basically, if he drove recklessly in an attempt to evade capture – that’s an eluding and he;’s fucked

    that’s viewed way more seriously than garden variety DUI. we had a state supreme court justice did a DUI/hit and run not too long ago

  28. I personally think Tulpa lines up with the immigration laws because of his natural authoritarianism.

    I also think he doesn’t really believe in capitalism, as we see in other cases, like the great food truck war.

    He has a certain sort of orderly bourgeois outlook and dislikes anything that disrupts it.

    I think he is upset about Mexican immigration because “20 poor people living in a house” is disorderly. I think that at some level part of his aesthetic objection is that the people are brown, but I don’t think that’s part of his deliberate thought process at all, it’s more of a visceral objection. If you put all those Mexicans in nice new suits and had them running Outback Steak Houses in nice little minimalls with clean parking lots, he wouldn’t object to them at all.

    1. If you put all those Mexicans in nice new suits and had them running Outback Steak Houses in nice little minimalls with clean parking lots

      This is a really funny visual if you put them all in a row.

    2. I think he is upset about Mexican immigration because “20 poor people living in a house” is disorderly. I think that at some level part of his aesthetic objection is that the people are brown, but I don’t think that’s part of his deliberate thought process at all, it’s more of a visceral objection. If you put all those Mexicans in nice new suits and had them running Outback Steak Houses in nice little minimalls with clean parking lots, he wouldn’t object to them at all.

      That’s not it at all. Tulpa is an autistic with OCD. Mexican has three syllables. Hispanic has three syllables. Three is not a good number of syllables. It’s an odd number.

    3. You’re wrong, Fluffy.

      First off, I never said anything about “20 people living in a house”. That’s not my concern at all. There are cases where there are 20 US citizens living in a house so I don’t see what it has to do with immigration. (there are indeed potentially severe externalities from an overcrowded house, but it’s irrelevant to the question at hand)

      As for the food trucks, it has always been my position that food trucks parked on private property should not be treated any differently from a brick and mortar restaurant. My issue is with food trucks parked on public property, taking advantage of the lack of rent payments. Even then I believe the best solution is not to ban them, but for the local govt to license them and collect a fee for their use of public space for their business. I do however recognize the authority of the local govt to determine how the public property and public rights-of-way are to be used.

      In short, in my real life I am about the least authoritarian person among anyone I know. If you think I’m into bourgeois culture and nice suits… I wish we could meet in person. It might surprise you.

      1. My issue is with food trucks parked on public property, taking advantage of the lack of rent payments.

        But if the public property is a public parking space, and they are parking, whats the problem?

        Of course, I dont have a problem with someone feeding homeless people in a public park either.

      2. In short, in my real life I am about the least authoritarian person among anyone I know. If you think I’m into bourgeois culture and nice suits… I wish we could meet in person. It might surprise you.

        I’ve always suspected that Tulpa is a chick.

        Jus’ sayin’

      3. I am about the least authoritarian person among anyone I know

        You should meet more people.

    4. Generally people don’t like their culture to change into things they don’t like. Make all of those immigrants into whatever culture fluffy doesn’t like, and fluffy will be throwing a fit as well.

      I don’t think you are authoritarian though. I just think you are smug and completely lack self awareness.

      If the nation were being flooded with fundamentalist Christians who demanded prohibition and a ban on porn, I doubt many Libertarians would be so keen on it.

      1. To claim that America, a country with the land area of mainland China, but with 1/30th of the population, is being ‘flooded’ with anything, is absurd.

        1. Flooded is a relative term. But fine. If Libertarians thought the country were being flooded with fundamentalist Christians who demanded prohibition and a ban on porn, I doubt Libertarians would be too keen on it.

          1. Thats not a problem at all unless we make them citizens.

            1. or they could always join the Mobile Infantry

            2. or they could always join the Mobile Infantry

              1. +++ for ST reference.

          2. If Libertarians thought the country were being flooded with fundamentalist Christians who demanded prohibition and a ban on porn, I doubt Libertarians would be too keen on it.

            Perhaps, but that’s why a republic has laws to protect the rights of the individual or the minority.

            A libertarian wouldn’t seek for a ban on a certain population of immigrants, but perhaps engage in outreach to said population, in hopes of spreading their ideas.

        2. Where are you getting your population stats from? Cause that’s way off.

          1. Sorry. I meant 1/3. But, since America has 300,000,000 people and China has 1,500,000,000 people, it’s more like 1/5, yeah?

            1. It’s about 312 million and 1.35 billion.

        3. One thirtieth? I think you meant one fourth.

      2. Generally people don’t like their culture to change into things they don’t like.

        Here’s the thing:

        When you say that your problem with Mexican immigration is that it’s changing the country’s demographics and you think that will have harmful cultural effects, other people are entitled to call that a racist outlook.

        If you brought an illegal Mexican family and dropped them in the house next to me right now and they subsequently had kids, those kids would have the same “culture” as me.

        I don’t have any reason to think that they are somehow more of a cultural danger to me than the Mennonites up in Shaftbury or the African-Americans in Albany.

        “But Fluffy, look at the voting patterns!” Yeah, I know. But blacks vote Democrat, too. And if someone came up to me and said, “I’m really worried about the black birth rate. If blacks have too many kids, it’s going to change the country’s culture and ruin it! And those kids are going to all vote Democrat!” you know what I’d call that person?

        A racist.

        1. I’m really worried about the black birth rate. If blacks have too many kids, it’s going to change the country’s culture and ruin it! And those kids are going to all vote Democrat!” you know what I’d call that person?

          Pro-choice?

        2. When you say that your problem with Mexican immigration is that it’s changing the country’s demographics and you think that will have harmful cultural effects, other people are entitled to call that a racist outlook.

          Sure they are. But so fucking what? And it is not racial it is economic. If you want to import high skilled high productivity workers from Mexico, I am all for it. If you want to import low skill low productivity workers from Ireland, I will have just as much of a problem.

          1. If you want to import low skill low productivity workers from Ireland, I will have just as much of a problem.

            Why? Why should they have the same equality of opportunity? Do entrepreneurs never start out as low-skill workers?

            1. *shouldn’t

            2. Maybe they should. But it is the Irish government’s problem to provide to them. No America’s problem. Why does America owe every poor person in the world?

              Here is the thing. If you want to make the moral argument that every person in the world has a human right to come to this country and work, have at it. It is a perfectly rational argument.

              But claiming that importing huge amounts of low skilled labor is necessary for prosperity is just a stupid and false argument. There is no reason why you couldn’t just allow high skilled worker to come to the US and do just as well or better. Or, if you have replacement birth rate, which we do last I looked, not allow any immigration.

              It is a values question not an economic one.

              1. If you want to make the moral argument that every person in the world has a human right to come to this country and work, have at it. It is a perfectly rational argument.

                That is the argument being made.

                Its not only rational, it is unassailable.

                1. No Rob. It is mostly emotional. I don’t see any reason why I owe the people of Mexico shit. If their coming here makes things worse for me, I am under no obligation to support it anymore than they are under any obligation to make their lot in life worse for my benefit.

          2. Why should you or the government control the labor market anymore than you/they should control another aspect of the market?

        3. I don’t get why libertarians freak out about immigrants voting Democrat. It’s not like the country would be in good shape if they voted for Republicans

        4. If you brought an illegal Mexican family and dropped them in the house next to me right now and they subsequently had kids, those kids would have the same “culture” as me.

          That’s funny, because I think (although I may be wrong) that you are one of the people that complains about how Californian immigrants bring there crappy government worshipping culture to the states that they move to.

          And yet you think that the same thing will not happen with immigrants from another country moving to the US.

          So why, haven’t all of the heroic entrepreneur immigrants changed the political culture of CA? Oh yeah, they have just in a big government direction.

          1. Yup, you’re wrong.

            I live in Vermont.

            I don’t know anybody from California.

          2. Don’t know about Fluffy, but a lot of people in NH complain about MA economic refugees bringing their statist tendencies into the southern part of the state and disrupting the FSP.

        5. My main concern is with the impact of uncontrolled immigration when we have a generous welfare state and a crazy quilt of labor regulations that disincentivize hiring US citizens or legal aliens. You might say, well, we should just get rid of those too. OK, I agree. But we’re not starting from square one in Libertopia, we’re starting from where we are.

  29. Let’s assume doubling the wage of the pickers-of-fruit in the fields results in a small (but not meaningless) increase in the retail price. The increase in the wholesale price is still significant; quite possibly significant enough to cause the buyers at the wholesale level to seek other suppliers, like Chileans. Unless we seal our borders not only to people, but to trade. That should really grow the economy.

    Don’t worry, though, the fruit ranchers can always turn their orchards into subdivisions.

    1. It just means that we get out of the produce business. Who says you have to be in the produce business to be wealthy or have a good economy?

      If you don’t have access to loads of cheap labor, you probably can’t compete growing produce. But who fucking cares? The country can just go into other businesses that don’t require loads of cheap labor.

      It is called comparative advantage Brooks. You can look it up. I always thought Libertarians believed in the concept along with international trade. But when it comes to immigration, apparently Libertarians think the way to prosperity lies only in importing enough cheap labor to go into the businesses that require it.

      1. It just means that we get out of the produce business. Who says you have to be in the produce business to be wealthy or have a good economy?

        Physiocrats?

        1. Yes they do. But I think they are probably a bit dated and wrong.

      2. One of Mexico’s comparative advantages is exporting cheap labor.

        And one of our comparative advantages is ability to get cheap labor.

        1. I would argue that that is one of Mexico’s disadvantages. They are able to keep their corrupt fucked up system in place because illegal immigration to the US acts as a pressure release. And further, if immigration is so great for the US because it gives us the motivated and best and brightest, why isn’t it equally bad for the countries that send immigrants? I don’t see how brain drain is a good way to build a prosperous economy.

          1. Comparative advantage can often be not very advantageous, its the whole comparative part. If Mexico had internal industry, that would give them a better comparative advantage.

            As PJ O’Rourke pointed out, Courtney Love’s comparative advantage is “singing”. That doesnt make it a positive.

            1. Comparative advantage can often be not very advantageous

              Bingo!! By importing huge amounts of cheap labor, the US is creating a comparative advantage in industries that require cheap labor. That is not so advantageous. Having a comparative advantage in cheap labor is better than having no comparative advantage. But it is pretty damn low on the list of comparative advantages. Most countries who have it, have it because they have nothing else but population and labor to offer the world. And most countries who have such an advantage strive mightily to improve wages and living conditions so that they can become a country that no longer has the advantage and has other better ones instead.

              The US may be the only country in world history who has other advantages yet wants to trade them in for the comparative advantage of cheap labor.

              1. No BUSINESS in the world wants to give up cheap labor.

                No matter how educated they need the labor to be, they prefer cheap to expensive.

              2. Your whole post is wrong because its talking about countries. That is the wrong level, countries shouldnt be taking a position on this at all.

                This is a business level decision.

                1. As long as countries have an immigration policy, it is a national issue Rob.

                  1. But they shouldnt.

                    So it isnt.

                  2. Why am I not surprised John gets his collectivist boner going when the subject is something remotely foreign related. Why should countries have an immigration policy beyond checking to see if people come here pose a threat to security or health (contagious disease)?

                    1. Calidissident,

                      Why should they even do that? If you don’t think countries have a right to control their borders, then where do they get off deciding who is a security threat?

                      Either they have the right or they don’t. And they can not let people in because doing so benefits the people already there. Countries have every right to act in their own population’s best interest.

      3. It just means that we get out of the produce business.

        So if the environmentalists managed to put a 100% tax on profits made by extracting domestic fossil fuels, you’d be OK with that too, right?

        All the people who currently own businesses extracting domestic fossil fuels could just go into other lines of business.

        Oh wait, sorry, your quote was “The country can just go into other businesses”. Because it’s “the country” that’s in business, right? Forget the people who actually own the existing businesses.

        1. Yes fluffy, if you banned the oil industry, the people who worked in it would go do something else. Sadly since there are few things more productive than fossil fuel exploration, they would most likely do something less productive and we would be a lot poorer.

          In contrast, the people who pick tomatoes would almost certainly do something more productive since picking tomatoes is about the least productive job you can do. They would either do something more productive or go home. Either way on average we would be wealthier. Countries that produce fossil fuels are on average wealthier than countries that produce tomatoes.

          So the question is what do you want your country to do? Do you want a country with a huge unskilled population doing very low productivity things or do you want your country to engage in really high productivity things?

          Yes you can have both. But understand when you have both, you have a lot of wealth disparity, and all of the social problems that go with a huge population of low productivity laborers. And you also run the risk of investment and money flowing to high labor low productivity industries at the expense of low labor high productivity ones. What do you want to be more like South Korea or India?

          1. In contrast, the people who pick tomatoes would almost certainly do something more productive since picking tomatoes is about the least productive job you can do.

            If they could do something more productive, they would already be doing it.

            1. Then they go home and average productivity increases.

              1. John,

                Google Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage. It will explain to you the fallacy you are laboring under.

                1. Tarran,

                  I fully understand comparative advantage. In fact that is my entire point. What industries do you want a comparative advantage in? There is nothing to say you have to have a comparative advantage in cheap labor to prosper.

                  Ricardo would tell you exactly the opposite. And that is my point.

                  1. No he wouldn’t John.

                    If you can type 100 hours per minute, and can earn $300.00 per hour lawyering, you are better off if you hire a secretary who can type at 75 words per minute to free you up for more lawyering.

                    You are arguing that you’ll be better off giving the secretary the boot, since your per capita productivity will go up. Ricardo showed your argument to be wrong.

          2. But understand when you have both, you have a lot of wealth disparity, and all of the social problems that go with a huge population of low productivity laborers.

            You could always make it illegal for low productivity laborers to sell their labor for less than some arbitrary minimum wage, forcing them to into a cycle of generational dependence upon government programs!

            Lose, lose!

  30. Who says you have to be in the produce business to be wealthy or have a good economy?

    Not me. I’m just trying to point out that the “refutation” of the importance of labor costs is not quite so clearcut as Tulpy wants us to think.

  31. he doesn’t really believe in capitalism

    Not the kind that benefits consumers, anyway.

    And- speaking of the amazingly stupid things people say:

    Apparently Bill Clinton “challenged” Walmart to build stores in Libya or some such nonsense. This is how central Planners create jobs, apparently; by wishing.

  32. Generally people don’t like their culture to change

    I don’t own “the culture”.

    There are a lot of changes in American culture I don’t like which can be laid, not at the feet of dirty Mexican immigrants, but at the feet of WASPy whitebread concerned soccer moms.

    We need more Brazilian anti-authoritarians.

    1. Exactly. Mexican immigrants aren’t the reason Miley Cyrus, Justin Bieber, and the Kardashians became famous

  33. If AZ wants to commit economic suicide I fail to see why I should give a shit. That’s the beauty of federalism: each state can experiment with the their own suicide techniques. So far I think CA and MI are leading the way. IL doing a pretty good job of it too. Gee, I wonder what they have in common?

    1. I agree. And the sited article is shit. There is little indication they are committing economic suicide.

      1. More like economic homocide…and the Fed is holding the bloody shirt.

  34. the people who pick tomatoes would almost certainly do something more productive since picking tomatoes is about the least productive job you can do.

    “Let them eat cake write computer games.”

  35. i simply see it as a matter of protecting and controlling sovereignty, one of the few authoritah’s govt. SHOULD be involved in.

    Its for from clear to me that people crossing borders to engage in peaceful commerce, or even just to hang out, is a threat to sovereignty.

    1. Crossing a border without a visa is a victimless crime. Anyone with half a brain who has seen the negative effects of criminalizing other victimless actions should know better.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.