Immigration

Are Low-Skilled Immigrants Good for the Economy?

|

According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in mid-July, 70 percent of Americans (including 86 percent of Republicans) believe that undocumented immigrants threaten traditional U.S. beliefs and customs, and across the country voters are expressing their frustration with current immigration policies at town hall meetings. Advocates of open borders and people who want to immigrate to the U.S., of course, are calling for a very different set of reforms. Would making it easier for immigrants to gain legal status in the U.S. be a step in the right direction? Allowing more high-skilled immigrants to come to the U.S. would certainly be good for the economy. But what about low-skilled immigrants? Last year, Reason's Shikha Dalmia argued that low-skilled workers are good for the economy too.

"Shikha Dalmia: 5 Reasons Why Low-Skilled Immigrants Are Good for the Economy," produced by Paul Detrick. Approximately 3 minutes.

Original release date was April 11, 2003, and the original writeup is below.

The Senate's "Gang of Eight" proposed immigration reform plan will likely take a look at how to make it easier for high-skilled immigrants to gain legal status in the United States. Reason Foundation senior analyst Shikha Dalmia gives five reasons why low-skilled immigrants are good for the economy too:

1. Americans are the Customers of Low-Skilled Immigrants

Most Americans are not competitors of low-skilled immigrants, they are actually their customers. They buy all kinds of services from them: House cleaning services, childcare services, landscaping services, home construction services. If Americans can spend less on these services, then they have more money in their pocket to spend elsewhere, which means more jobs created elsewhere in the economy.

2. Low-Skilled Immigrants are Mobile

Latino and other foreign workers don't have ties to the local community and they haven't invested in property so they can pick up their bags and leave at any point to wherever they are needed. They can go to where houses are built in Arizona or pick fruit in Florida, they can go wherever they want. They "grease the wheels" of the labor market, as Harvard economist George Borjas has put it.

3. Low-Skilled Immigrants are Good for Women

Low skilled immigrants increase the supply of high skilled workers and these high-skilled workers are often called women. Many professional women would be forced to spend much more time at home taking care of their children, cleaning, doing laundry if it were not for the presence of foreign nannies, Korean dry cleaners or Chinese takeout.

4. Low-Skilled Immigrants May Cost the Welfare State Less

A big fear about low-skilled immigrants is that because they are poor they impose a big cost on the welfare state. But the truth is that most of them don't even qualify for most means tests benefits that Americans do so they may actually be saving the welfare state money rather than costing it money. A CATO working paper from February 19, 2013 said, "Low-income non-citizen immigrants are generally less likely to receive public benefits than those who are native born."

5. Low Skilled Immigrants Create Jobs

They create more jobs for Americans because they reduce the cost of a key import in production: labor. When labor costs go down, more businesses can form, when more businesses can form, there are more jobs for everyone–including Americans. The fact that there is someone else to do menial work like pulling weeds means that Americans can do relatively more value added work. For instance, their English speaking skills become more marketable in a diverse economy with lots of immigrants who don't speak English.

Dalmia appeared last month on Capitol Hill to talk about the importance of low skilled immigrants. If you would like to read more articles and videos from Reason on immigration click here.

Video is about 3 min. Produced by Paul Detrick. Shot by Sharif Matar.

NEXT: Mom Arrested for (Maybe) Hanging Up on Cop While Her 'Missing' 10-Year-Old Plays at Church

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. Immigrants. Dirty, filthy stinking immigrants!

    1. “Dirty, filthy stinking immigrants!”

      After they finish my roof, they are.

  2. I still think one of the primary motivations for a lot of Americans, who don’t like low skill immigrants, is that they don’t want any competition for government handouts.

    There are so many people in this country that go to school on the tax payers’ dime, send their kids to school on the tax payers’ dime, whose retirement plans consist almost entirely of medicare and social security–and somehow imagine that they’re superior to people who use rent subsidies or EBT cards.

    These people really don’t want competition from immigrants for those handouts; otherwise, they’d be opposing the handouts instead of the immigration.

    And by opposing the immigration instead of the handouts, they only serve to reenforce the absurd idea that being an American citizen, somehow, entitles you to government services.

    But being an American citizen doesn’t entitle you to anything–except the right to vote.

    There isn’t anything about being a native born American citizen that entitles you to any of my paycheck, that’s for sure. If you can’t afford to educate your own children, don’t have them. And if you really want to get rid of EBT and rent subsidies, then go after those programs. Don’t make a red herring out of immigrants.

    And why not go after all the native born parasites? They’re the biggest part of the problem. They’re the overwhelming majority of the people on “welfare” anyway.

    1. There are so many people in this country that go to school on the tax payers’ dime, send their kids to school on the tax payers’ dime, whose retirement plans consist almost entirely of medicare and social security–and somehow imagine that they’re superior to people who use rent subsidies or EBT cards.

      Theses superior sorts who don’t rely on means tested benefits are commonly referred to as “taxpayers”.

      1. Nothing wrong with being a taxpayer.

        Just pay for your own kids.

        Why am I paying for your kids?
        Forcing other people to pay for your children; whining about having to pay for the children of illegal immigrants.

        You see a problem there, right?

        There isn’t anything about somebody else’s children being American citizens that makes me glad to have to pay for them.

        I thing more and more Americans every day are losing sight of that…truth.

        1. “Those hypocrites sending their children to public schools have no right to complain about welfare recipients”

        2. [Spoken in Maya Angelou voice…]

          1. I’ve never heard of that guy before.

            I’m not trying to legitimize spending taxpayer money on immigrants.

            I’m trying to delegitimize spending taxpayer money.

    2. If my taxes weren’t guaranteed to go up, I might actually enjoy the fight over free stuff.

      Reality is, I expect the free stuff programs to get bigger and bigger. Why? Nobody wants to be accused of being racist, and telling people who are not white ‘No, you can’t have free stuff’ is inviting the accusation of racism.

      Look over to England, and what was allowed to happen to all those poor children, all in the name of political correctness. Looking the other way and excusing deplorable behavior is a sad facet of human nature, and I’m sure we’ll see it here with regards to the free stuff brigade.

      Long story short, I think we will see some form of fighting over free stuff, it won’t be pretty, and every one earning a paycheck will have to foot the bill.

    3. News flash – government transfer programs are zero sum. And it is entirely rational for current recipients of those transfers to opposed expanding the number of recipients as doing so will result in less for themselves.

      This is the Achilles heal of the democrats plan to import a new welfare clientele.

      1. government transfer programs are zero sum. And it is entirely rational for current recipients of those transfers to opposed expanding the number of recipients as doing so will result in less for themselves.

        One of the problems–for a libertarian–is that this reenforces the idea in a lot of people’s heads that citizenship = entitlement to social benefits.

        The difference in my world is between the parasites and the productive people–I don’t give a crap about the nationality of either category. I just want more productive people and fewer parasites.

        Over the long run, reenforcing the idea in native born American parasites that their citizenship means they’re entitled to part of my paycheck is probably worse than letting more people into the system.

        1. Want to talk about one way that Mexican immigrants, in particular, are more libertarian than native born Americans?

          One of the things Mexicans in Mexico have a hard time understanding is why Americans send their elderly off to nursing homes. To them, sending your elderly off to a nursing home is like sending your children off to an orphanage. It’s actually worse!

          Americans used to think taking care of their own elderly parents was their own responsibility, too–until Medicare and Social Security showed up. Now, for a lot of Americans, taking care of my elderly parents–that’s the government’s job, not mine!

          We’re encouraging the same sort of thinking by attacking immigration as a social services problem. Again, it reenforces the anti-libertarian idea that citizenship entitles you to social services. And we need less of that kind of thinking, not more.

          1. To an orphanage, huh? So, what do they think is going to happen to those “unaccompanied minors”? And it isn’t just the offspring sending their parents off to nursing homes. Many of them do not want to live with their children or their medical needs are such that the level of care requires a nursing home. While some may not want to care for their parents, it isn’t the whole or even the majority of the picture.

            Sorry, but I disagree – illegal immigration is a drain on resources and needs to stop. You are dreaming if you believe that the majority arrive and work. Even if they do find a low paying job, they are receiving many other benefits that result in a burden on the taxpayers.

            1. “Many of them do not want to live with their children or their medical needs are such that the level of care requires a nursing home. While some may not want to care for their parents, it isn’t the whole or even the majority of the picture.”

              You understand that we’re talking about generalizations about entire nations of people, right?

              The generalization can be true even if particular instances aren’t.

              Besides, we’re talking about perceptions, here. One of the other things they used to ask me a lot about was whether it was true that Americans slept with their dogs–which to them seems incredibly disgusting. (to many of them a “dog” is a disgusting, unwashable, insect infested thing, that runs around in packs in the streets and snarls).

              No, that doesn’t mean all Americans sleep with their dogs.

              No, not all Americans hate their elderly parents.

              Yes, social security and Medicare have made it convenient for Americans (originating from all sorts of cultural traditions) to send their parents off to the warehouse–since taking care of one’s elderly parents has become the government’s job.

              Does that mean every American does this? Of course not. But who thought I was saying that in the first place? There are also Americans, I’m sure, who keep their parents at home and treat them badly!

              Study this:

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F…..omposition

              We’re talking about:

              1) General trends

              2) Cross cultural perceptions of those trends

        2. I just want more productive people and fewer parasites.

          In that case, you should favor restricting welfare for immigrants as an intermediate step in ending it altogether. Restricting welfare for immigrants is a popular measure which would have the added benefit of increasing the % of immigrants who are productive; the parasites will eventually go home without support and the productive immigrants will be what is left over. Integrating them into the body politic once they are capable of sustaining themselves without means-tested programs will also provide a voting bloc against those programs.

          The alternative is a substantial increase in the parasite population, and having interacted with them I can tell you that they don’t give a fuck what you think or are socially “reinforcing” about their lifestyles since they don’t belong to the same peer group as you.

          1. “In that case, you should favor restricting welfare for immigrants as an intermediate step in ending it altogether.”\

            I believe that the results of officially equating citizenship with entitlement will be much worse, over the long run, than the relatively short term problem you’re trying to address of more immigration putting more stress on the social services system.

            1. I believe that the results of officially equating citizenship with entitlement

              No one is equating citizenship with entitlement or justifying entitlement. A restriction on X for population Y does not imply an endorsement of X for population Z. More importantly, there is no way in fuck that in the present age the population will suddenly come to reject New Deal premises regarding welfare, anymore than America in 1912 was about to suddenly become a communist dictatorship. The best we can hope for at this point is to follow the Fabian strategy: intermediate steps with the goal of creating a voter and power bloc interested in eliminating these programs for us. Importing, keeping, and integrating productive immigrants to increase the ratio of taxpayer:leech is an excellent way to do that, and such would require selection at both the welfare distribution and citizenship levels of government.

              The other alternative, which would not require restricting welfare for immigrants, would of course be restricting immigration of anyone who stands a good chance of being on welfare. This is generally not to libertarians’ liking, but it is far preferable to importing an expanded dependent class.

              1. “No one is equating citizenship with entitlement or justifying entitlement.”

                You said you wanted to “restrict welfare for immigrants”, which cannot be done without equating entitlement to such programs with citizenship.

                1. Why is the suggestion that restrict welfare for everybody so…unthinkable?

                  Maybe access to public schools should be means tested.

                  Maybe that’s why people don’t think of it as welfare? …because access isn’t means tested?

                  1. You could still let everyone in–just charge them tuition for goodness’ sake.

                2. That’s silly. By that logic, restricting welfare for low-income people equates entitlement to such programs with low-income status.

                  I’ve articulate a strategy which I believe would at least have a better chance of killing welfare than the current path we’re on. Do you have one besides scolding people who are on welfare? Because that strategy doesn’t seem to have yielded success so far.

                  1. How about we do this novel thing: we treat immigrants like individuals, not as ciphers for the cultures they are trying to escape or as destined to be stuck in some recent pattern that we might see with people of their background? And then let’s say we take our basic principles of non-aggression and liberty and allow people, like goods, to move freely and associate voluntarily with others who want to do the same. And at some reasonable point when they’ve been part of our community we let them, like everyone else, become decision makers too.

                    Crazy, I know.

                    1. Where’s the non-aggression in people taking my shit and voting to take even more of my shit? Where’s the freedom of association in that? I don’t want anyone to be a decision-maker; hell, I don’t want to be a decision-maker. If we had a hyper-intelligent computer that could run our government in a manner consistent with NAP, I’d overthrow democracy in favor of Mike any day of the goddamn week. In the meantime, there is no value in making people who do not accept my views regarding government into “decision makers”, any more than I want a serial rapist to have a vote in where my daughters or my wife have to go late at night.

                      Fuck you and fuck anyone who wants to pretty this up; fact of the matter is that the US is a pretty nice place and that the responsibility of any immigrant (myself included) is to respect the liberties of the people inhabiting it and to improve on them, if possible. If they can’t do that or are unlikely to do so, then we shouldn’t be taking them out of some misplaced “We Are The World” bullshit or the American conceit that the rest of the world is made up of little Americans with the same desires and cultural affinities.

                    2. It’s surprising that a proclaimed ‘classical liberal’ has such little use for the value enshrined in our Declaration about the right of the people to have a say in their government.

                      It’s interesting to see you resort to more and more namecalling as the collectivist sociological underpinnings of your stance for restricting a fundamental liberty are revealed. If that’s the way you like to play, then fine, why don’t you take your tribalistic and ahistorical theories of cultural determinism and stick them where the sun does not shine. If you do not like that we libertarians disagree, then please find another website to comment on.

                    3. Considering that all sorts of requirements were in place for exercising the franchise in Jefferson’s day, I’d say that I’m closer to the spirit of the Revolution than you are. Voting is collectivist. It is not an individual liberty; it certainly isn’t a fundamental one. It is a privilege to be exercised with caution. The founders recognized this and therefore limited public control over their governments in a variety of ways, most fundamental of which was the Constitution. I’m sure that if they had seen the descent of the republic, they would have had even more cause to do so. It doesn’t surprise me that you can’t get the distinction between natural right and civil rights through your thick skull.

                      As far as insults go, you deserve each and every one of them for being so obtuse and obnoxious. I call you an asshole and tell you to fuck off because your contribution to this blog is about as much as Trotsky’s would have been to a sane republic.

                    4. “you deserve each and every one of them for being so obtuse and obnoxious”

                      Funny, I see you the same way, but I try to refrain from insulting you until you start up. I guess we were raised differently.

                      I don’t think voting is collectivist. In Libertopia there will be laws, how will they be decided? It won’t be by The Immaculate Trouser’s discernment of Natural Rights, because as you know honest defenders of liberty can come to different conclusions about how that plays out in a variety of circumstances (think of IP, children, parent’s rights, etc). To have those matters decided by some way that doesn’t include the consent and representation of the governed would be contrary to the principles of the Declaration (of course the practices of that day fell short of those, I mean slavery is the most obvious example).

                      Yes, the Constitution is a good idea to protect some spheres from majority rule, but note how the Founders went about making the Constitution into law: ratification through representatives chosen by consent of the people!

                    5. In Libertopia there will be laws, how will they be decided?

                      Preferably by a method which ensures longevity of the libertopian system. We’re in libertopia; I might not agree with all the laws but so long as the method for determining laws is public and consistent I can always appeal to the decision-makers to agree with my way of doing things. If a democracy with universal suffrage is the best way to preserve the system, go for it — but this has not been shown, nor is it an argument you are even trying to make. From historical experience as well as present examples (Hong Kong, anyone?), voting doesn’t seem to be necessary, sufficient, or even correlated with the long-term preservation of liberty, and I’d like to find out what the ideal method might be without simply assuming that the Sainted Voting Booth and Vox Populi is it.

                    6. Actually, I’ve seen studies finding impressive correlations between nations being democracies and being free in ways we’d find important.

                      But as you say, that’s a separate matter. What I’m noting is the classical liberal value of consent of the governed itself as a right and as a fundamental component of any government claiming legitimacy.

                  2. “By that logic, restricting welfare for low-income people equates entitlement to such programs with low-income status.”

                    That’s better than people thinking that public school is something other than welfare!

                    1. If you have four kids and send them to public schools, you’re a fucking welfare queen.

                    2. No, Ken, if you send your children, any number, to public schools, you are a thief. The fact that someone else (government) has stolen from you does not change the aggression of this act.

        3. The difference in my world is between the parasites and the productive people–I don’t give a crap about the nationality of either category. I just want more productive people and fewer parasites.

          There is plenty of evidence that large scale low skill immigration increases the number of parasites.

        4. One of the problems–for a libertarian–is that this reenforces the idea in a lot of people’s heads that citizenship = entitlement to social benefits.

          Yes, well, one the real problem here is that most people see the country as a type of mutual benefit social organization. And so think that citizens should recieve benefits from membership.

          Your opposing that view does not negate it, nor change the reality on ground.

          Personally, I think my country club should be open to the public, my believe so does not effect the policies of the country club.

      2. “government transfer programs are zero sum”

        Are they? When the goose lays more golden eggs the one who takes the eggs can afford to give more away.

        1. The goose in this case being what?

          And your comment is the exact same type of delusion that makes people think that socialism can work, if only the right people are in charge.

          1. The goose is the American economy, which most economists think benefits and grows overall when things like labor and goods flow freely over borders.

            1. And again, CA refutes the idea that immigration is always a net positive.

              And I agree that in an idealized free market increased immigration would be a net positive.

              But in an highly regulated economy with a large welfare state it is most likely to be a net negative.

              The childish insistence that something is always good or bad, all other factors be damned is preposterous.

            2. The goose is the American economy, which most economists think benefits and grows overall when things like labor and goods flow freely over borders.

              Well, we’ve had relatively unfettered immigration in place since the mid-1960s, and NAFTA since the early 90s. Taken a look at the growth rate of the CPI in that time frame vs. growth of the median wage?

    4. Far too many low skilled native-born Americans are comfortable with taking welfare benefits rather than low paying, unpleasant hard labor jobs.

      Why will the same proportion of low skilled immigrants be less likely to make the same choice once they, inevitably, get access to the welfare system?

      1. Because they are morally superior.

      2. After a couple of generations, they’ll behave like native born Americans do.

        …which is an excellent reason to focus on eliminating welfare programs for everyone–rather than chasing a red herring like immigration.

        1. “…focus on eliminating welfare programs for everyone….”

          Which effort will begin in earnest right after the General Resurrection.

        2. I’ve seen it happen first hand with immigrants that I’ve employed over the years and it only takes one generation. The kids that go through American schools are socialized into a greivance culture and think the world owes them free shit and that their parents are idiots for working hard for the man.

          1. In Mexican culture, especially from the classes that tend to immigrate here for low-wage jobs, families tend to be extremely patriarchal. And most of them make their sons, especially, work as hard as they do.

            You don’t even speak against your father, usually, and wanting to do better than he did can often be seen as disrespectful.

            I think it usually takes a couple of generations to sink to the American mean; regardless, if the American average is the problem, then we should probably focus on the problem.

            The EBT card program continues to proliferate–and Michelle Obama says we’ve got a problem with the poor being dangerously obese in this country.

            America’s poor are too fucking fat?

            Somethin’s gotta be wrong somewhere.

            1. In Mexican culture, especially from the classes that tend to immigrate here for low-wage jobs, families tend to be extremely patriarchal. And most of them make their sons, especially, work as hard as they do.

              You’re clearly not speaking from experience with actual immigrants.

              1. I clearly am.

                Mexican dads aren’t likely to tolerate their sons laying around the house and doing nothing all day while they go out to work their asses off–that’s for sure.

                In fact, a lot of Mexican kids have a hard time convincing their parents that they should stay in school–when they could be out working a job and bringing in a paycheck.

                1. yes, the Mexican boys work like their father in most cases.

                  But since the parents don’t have a marriage license filed at the courthouse, the mother gets welfare.

                  That is why every food store here in Texas has a sign that says “WIC se acceptan aqui which” most of you know says WIC accepted here in Spanish.

                  And a portion of the workers salary doesn’t go the the grocer and farmer, it goes back to Old Mexico.

                  1. You hit the nail on the head, OneOut. Sounds like someone has watched too much television as far as trying to build up what the majority of border jumping fathers are about. Right, they are all about doing “the right thing”, but start out with crossing illegally.

                    I’ve seen it too many times where the family comes here and the father works in the fields and the mother goes and signs up for welfare claiming to not know where the father is. She receives every benefit available including Section 8 housing where the father lives too. All six to eight children go to public school and receive benefits too such as free breakfast and lunch, not to mention their “special” education and busing.

                2. Ken, you’re repeating myths and platitudes.

                  1. I’m pretty sure Ken lived in Mexico for a while.

                    1. About a couple of years.

                      I also have years of experience with first, second, and third generation Mexican-Americans on this side of the border.

                      I also have read a lot.

                      I’m not just making this stuff up.

                      Check out this website:

                      http://www.dallasfed.org/resea…..ration.cfm

                      Click on the “research” tab.

                      There’s a lot of good stuff there. The fed in Dallas has been kinda the go to guys for research on this for years.

                    2. Great. I’ve lived in souther CA for many decades, grew up with immigrants and 1st and 2nd and beyond generation descendants. Worked along side them and for the last twenty years employed a number of them. And I’m telling you that Ken is full of shit. Yes there are some that fit his stereotype. Definitely not a majority though, not even close. The thing is that they are people with the full range of behaviors as any other people, including a temptation to lie, cheat and steal, and a desire to get something for nothing. They are no nobler in resisting the welfare state than any native born people because they are people.

                      Ken is projecting some noble savage bullshit here.

                    3. Nothing of the sort.

                      Regardless, I don’t see what it has to do with anything.

                      Why is it important for you to think that second generation children of Mexican immigrants are as lazy as Americans of the same socioeconomic status and education level?

                      Are you trying to use this as some kind of justification to halt first generation immigration?

                      What is this, like an uncanny valley critique?

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U…..Valley.svg

                      Do you not want them around because they’re too much like the rest of us?

                      Because they might become just like the rest of us even faster than we thought, do you not want them around?

                      Is that what you’re saying?

                    4. Why is it important for you to think that second generation children of Mexican immigrants are as lazy as Americans of the same socioeconomic status and education level?

                      Why is it important for you to claim that they have some inherent superiority?

                      Which of those two positions supposes that their is an inherent difference between people based on the origin of their ancestors?

                    5. It doesn’t make any difference to me in terms of what I’m saying.

                      I’m for cutting the welfare programs, regardless.

                      And I don’t know about the origin of their ancestors. I know there are cultural differences, and that these differences do show up in various ways.

                      I’ve talked about some of them. They don’t see selfishness the same way we do, and they have a hard time understanding why we send our elderly parents to go live with strangers.

                      If you ever study comparative politics, even when comparing different countries in Europe, they’ll talk about how Catholic countries tend to see things differently from Protestant countries…

                      I don’t see why the suggestion that there are cultural differences between American culture and Mexican culture, and that these differences present themselves in various ways should be in any way controversial.

      3. So now the nativist concern is not that the immigrants will come in with their welfare state cultures from their homelands, but that they will be corrupted into ours. Ay caramba!

        1. One of the problems with large scale immigration for hispanic countries is that they have a completely different conception of government. Americans, even libertarians at some level, think of that we are the government Where as people Mexico and points south see the government as an exogenous imposition, which completely makes sense given the different histories of the US and latino america.

          So those immigrants don’t have any problem with ripping off the government, which is an evil exogenous force after all, and just don’t see it as harming their tax paying neighbors.

          In general, libertarians completely ignore the cultural underpinnings in the US that make liberty even conceivable. In the past, immigrants were socialized into the large American culture via schools and intolerant social norms. Those factors have been attacked and dismantled in the last several decades on the theory that they were unfair and intolerant.

          1. Absolutely correct. And Democrats know this. Do you think they’d be gung-ho about importing millions of (say) Poles who hated the word “socialism”? Of course not. Mass immigration is the Democrats electing a new people, one that is anti-libertarian.

            1. What’s anti-libertarian is the collectivist idea that individuals immigrating are, and will be down into their descendants, be ciphers and ‘carriers’ of the very culture’s they are fleeing.

              Well, that and restricting freedom of movement and association.

              1. Culture matters. Humans are not simply interchangeable units of rights, moving about in some sort of idealized economy.

                And as good as libertarianism is IMO, all ideologies are maps and not the territory. All have weak points when applied at 100% strength to everything. Libertarianism’s weak point is immigration, because it cannot protect an imperfect but libertarian-leaning state from an invasion by masses of people who don’t (on average) believe in libertarianism. I think it’s foolish to sacrifice all other libertarian principles for “freedom of movement.”

                The process is well documented in other forms. “Californication” refers to refugees from our increasingly-statist state moving to other states, but then voting for the same policies that caused them to leave in the first place. Or look at refugees from high-tax New York moving to Florida, and then voting for higher taxes.

                1. “Culture matters.”

                  Says every good collectivist.

                  “I think it’s foolish to sacrifice all other libertarian principles for “freedom of movement.””

                  Well yes, it’s an ‘all the laws but one’ type of thinking, not a type I’d want to be associated with given its track record.

                  1. “Culture matters.”

                    Says every good collectivist.

                    Yeah, that Thomas Sowell is such a collectivist. You really should read Race and Culture sometime, it is enlightening, like almost everything ever written by Dr Sowell.

                  2. Good collectivists like sunny days, too, but so what? There’s nothing un-libertarian about acknowledging the reality and effects of culture.

                    The type of thinking I don’t want to be associated with is the kind that thinks ideology trumps reality.

                    1. They have a different conception of selfishness, too.

                      In Mexico, “selfish” is when you refuse to share what you have with others.

                      In the United States, “selfish” is when you help yourself to things that don’t belong to you.

                      I see potential for problems, there.

                      Still, the problem isn’t the culture of the people we let in. The problem is the welfare state.

                      Get rid of the welfare state, and it doesn’t matter what people think or their cultural and historical legacy.

                      It’s surely a fact that the more people are forced to pay for each other by the government, the more picky they are about who benefits.

                      I suspect this is why the highly socialized countries of Europe have such onerous immigration laws. I suspect this is why racism is so prolific in Western Europe.

                      And all those progressives who imagine that Europeans are somehow superior to us in this regard–that they’re tolerant and kind to their immigrants–they’re just kidding themselves.

                    2. Partly true, but getting rid of the welfare state is difficult, must be done first, and even then, you risk a flood of new immigrants who vote back in the welfare state. There’s still that Californication problem I mentioned elsewhere here.

                    3. I don’t know how you were raised, Ken, but being “selfish” was not sharing with others- not, as you put it, helping yourself to things that don’t belong to you.

                      I also was taught that charity begins at home. That doesn’t include charity to people who use illegal means to get into your home.

                    4. Recently tribal societies, especially where there are a lot of relatively poor people, tend to have a lot less in the way of social stratification. Certainly, the social stratification isn’t so much based on the stuff you have. Everybody has pretty much the same stuff.

                      There’s no keeping up with the Jones’, and there’s no upper-middle class. There’s the ruling elite at the top, the beggars at the bottom–and everybody else is considered pretty much the same. Status is generally achieved in these societies by the things you do for your family and extended family.

                      Here’s a generalization of the trend:

                      “A good example is given by Richard Borshay Lee in his account of the Khoisan, who practice “insulting the meat.” Whenever a hunter makes a kill, he is ceaselessly teased and ridiculed (in a friendly, joking fashion) to prevent him from becoming too proud or egotistical. The meat itself is then distributed evenly among the entire social group, rather than kept by the hunter. The level of teasing is proportional to the size of the kill. Lee found this out when he purchased an entire cow as a gift for the group he was living with, and was teased for weeks afterward about it (since obtaining that much meat could be interpreted as showing off).”

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S…..rientation

                    5. The American ideal of a hardworking kid who came from nothing, but pulled himself up by his boot-straps, founded a multi-billion dollar empire, bought himself three gigantic houses and a garage full of antique cars–isn’t as big of a factor. That’s mostly a product of Northern European culture, specifically influenced by Calvinism.

                      If people from those two societies had evolved the same exact concept of selfishness, wouldn’t that be amazing?

        2. It’s been that way for a long time.

          I saw a study from the Dallas Fed, one time, that showed that when first generation Mexican immigrants move into an area, the crime rate drops precipitously. It takes a couple of generations for the crime rate to go back up–to the same level it would be for people at that low income level, education level, etc.

          1. In Mexican culture, especially from the classes that tend to immigrate here for low-wage jobs, families tend to be extremely patriarchal. And most of them make their sons, especially, work as hard as they do.

            And that couldn’t have anything to do with illegal immigrant fear of interacting with the police to report crimes.

            Nope not at all.

            Because nothing says libertarian like blind faith in government reports.

            1. Did you not get he was agreeing with you?

              1. No he wasn’t. He was saying that immigrants are less likely to commit crime than and that their children and grandchildren become more likely as the assimilate.

                It’s just a variation of his noble savage bullshit.

                1. It’s not a noble savage thing.

                  It’s statistically accurate.

                2. You might take a look at this one, too:

                  http://www.utdallas.edu/news/2…..-wide.html

                  This data has been out there for a long time.

        3. Having lived in Latin America, I can tell you that it doesn’t have that much of a welfare culture. Governments there don’t really have enough money to play with that they can support an independent welfare population in addition to whatever else they want to do. What it does have is a strong statist culture; governments there generally oscillate between conservative caudillos (or their patrimonial equivalents) and socialists. The few Latin American countries with a classical liberal tradition in politics (e.g., Chile, Costa Rica, Uruguay) are generally successful, which means that they don’t send many immigrants our way (and in fact have virtually the same dynamics with immigration from other Latin American countries as we do). Solutions to large-scale problems are not considered in terms of society or individual effort but in terms of authority figures who can’t really be removed or changed in any way (esp those in government), which is similar to the approach of many Southern Euro cultures.

          Immigrants therefore tend to bring statist culture into the body politic, and to integrate into welfare culture once they are over here. The former is OK if they are middle class; most immigrants will integrate into American culture and political ethics fairly well and can often be its main supporters. The latter is not OK and reinforces the statist culture while adding a harmful dose of dependent politics to the mix.

          1. And to add.

            The lower economic class Mexicans are peons in the literal sense of the word.

            They grow up in a society where the Patron owns everything in sight. Working hard is a matter of survival, not achievement or advancement. Culturally a Mexican is concerned with be ing, not with do ing

            Uncontrollable immigration is the governments method of dealing with the fact that they have spent all the money paid into Social Security. For it to not crash there has to be an increase in payers into vs takers out of the ponzi scheme.

            All the othe pro immigration groups have their own personal power fiefdoms in mind.

        4. “So now the nativist concern is not that the immigrants will come in with their welfare state cultures from their homelands, but that they will be corrupted into ours.”

          Somehow, too many of our native-born people got themselves corrupted into a welfare culture, why won’t it be so with the immigrants?

          1. You missed my point. From nativists we get to hear both that immigrants will blow up the welfare state because they will import the cultures they so desparately flee AND that they will blow up the welfare state because when they get here they will be inculcated by insidious decadent US culture.

            1. I would argue that it’s the government that perverting the culture.

              My example of Social Security and Medicare undermining assumed cultural responsibilities for taking care of one’s elderly parents go back in almost every culture–save maybe the Inuit out on the Aleutians, whose environment made it practically impossible to care for the unproductive elderly.

              American culture has something to do with things like the Protestant work ethic; if you don’t work, you can’t eat, etc. Our culture has been undermined by government programs–but not totally.

              I still bust my ass at least six days a week–because I love it. The fact that my productive work goes to benefit lazy fucking scumbags makes me sick to my stomach. Encouraging people to think that they’re entitled to the fruit of my labor simply because they’re citizens of this country makes me doubly sick.

            2. Those two mechanisms can exist at the same time. It’s not a contradiction.

              1. Immigrants are going to bring the poison of statism and they are going to be poisoned by our statism?

                  1. That makes no sense.

                    1. There’s nothing contradictory or illogical about saying:

                      1) Immigrants who are (on average) more statist than natives will make the culture more statist (on average).

                      2) The statist aspects of the native culture will (on average) reinforce the statist aspects of immigrant culture.

                      It’s basically a positive feedback cycle (the bad kind of feedback).

    5. “And why not go after all the native born parasites?”

      Because we can’t just kick people out of the country for being poor. They’re our problem.

      That doesn’t mean we need to make the problem much larger.

      1. “Because we can’t just kick people out of the country for being poor.”

        I’m not talking about kicking native born Americans out of the country.

        I’m talking about shutting the spigot from my wallet off to all the parasites–native American born or otherwise.

        After you’ve kicked all the illegal aliens out of the country, you still have all those native born American parasites to contend with–and you haven’t even kind of made a dent in the problem.

        I don’t want to pay for your native born American social security. I don’t want to pay to educate your native born American children. I don’t want to pay the salaries of native born American government bureaucrats.

        So why go around pretending that illegal immigrants are the problem–when they’re not. The problem is the welfare state.

        …not illegal aliens.

  3. Are Low-Skilled Immigrants Good for the Economy?

    They’re good for themselves, and for those employers who enter into voluntary mutually beneficial employment arrangements.

    It’s nobody else’s bidness that they do so.

    1. Clearly what this economy needs is more blood offers.

    2. Wrong. It’s my business because it costs taxpayer dollars, and because it’s changing the the country to make it less free.

    3. One of my illegal immigrant former employees was involved in fraudulently obtaining mortgages on several houses in 07 and also in fraudulent auto loans/purchases.

      The really weird thing is that she was an excellent employee and I completely trusted her with financial transactions involving my business.

      So am I wrong to think worse of her for committing theft and fraud against ‘unknown’ entities?

  4. According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in mid-July, 70 percent of Americans (including 86 percent of Republicans) believe that undocumented immigrants threaten traditional U.S. beliefs and customs

    Everything else aside a moment, what does this have to do with anything else in the article? The piece is about the economic advantages of immigrant labor, which makes the opening statement seem like social signaling.

    1. Not necessarily. Some of those “traditional U.S. beliefs and customs” are a belief in the inherent goodness of hard work, a belief in the benefits of competition, a belief that a desire for material wealth is justified, a belief in ingenuity and innovation as good, and a belief in equality of opportunity.

      1. I suppose, but I’m guessing that the people who feel threatened by the Brown Menace are a lot more worried that they will have to press Juan for English or losing their construction contract to a Spanish speaking company than about the work ethic of various farmworkers, dishwashers, and carpenters involved.

        1. or losing their construction contract to a Spanish speaking company

          You mean companies don’t like competition and are for government policy that eliminates it for them? Color me shocked.

          1. For sure, but the biggest problem I see with opening up immigrant labor (which I am strongly in favor of) is that it must be met with an attack on the regulatory state and political distortions of the market.

          2. I don’t know about where FdA lives, but where I am just about every construction company is Spanish speaking, at least at the physical labor and field supervision level.

            1. I don’t know about where FdA lives, but where I am just about every construction company is Spanish speaking, at least at the physical labor and field supervision level.

              The best value I’ve ever obtained with a construction crew (and I just built a house acting as GC) was when I had a spanish speaking crew fix my roof. Worked their asses off in 100 degree heat, did great work and were dirt cheap.

              Can’t say the same for the white boys I hired.

              1. Of course, that’s a very small sample size.

                1. But it is very representative from my experience growing up in South Texas.

                  I used to bid jobs for a custom homebuilder, down to the last penny of an all inclusive contract.

                  Many of our subs were owned by illegals. They could seriously underbid an American owned competitor who tried to stay out of jail.

                  Using a false SS #, and even sometimes a false name, and paying his labor in cash gave him a serious cost competitive advantage over someone trying to obey the IRS.

                  1. Kind of where I was going with this. The regulatory state makes it difficult for the established businesses to compete. Any discussion of the economics of immigration must include the dismantling of governmental interference in the market.

                    Doing one without the other has already had some negative consequences that are not all necessarily the fault of failure to adjust on the part of the established businesses, but a legal prohibition against adjusting.

        2. The low skilled Tsarnaev family immigrating to the US was definitely a boon for the country and citizens.

          1. The low skilled Tsarnaev family immigrating to the US was definitely a boon for the country and citizens.

            Are you actually going to sit there and claim that because 3 immigrants are criminals, all immigrants are criminals?

            Really?

            1. Did I say that?

              1. YES, you fucking said that. Right here:

                The low skilled Tsarnaev family immigrating to the US was definitely a boon for the country and citizens.

                You implication is CLEARLY, that immigrants are bad because these three immigrants are bad.

                How could that be taken any other way?

                1. YES, you fucking said that.

                  Science you are as bad a Bo. He did not say that and as you indicate with caps, you assume an “implication”.

                  But your interpretation of what he said is certainly what he meant, cause you know stuff? Mind reader? And Bo pisses you off when he puts words in other people’s mouths?

                2. You’re out of bounds on that one, FdA.

                  1. Okay. If I’m wrong, please explain what VGZ meant by that, if not how I took it.

                    VGZ?
                    MG?
                    PSF?

                    1. Are you actually going to sit there and claim that because 3 immigrants are criminals, all immigrants are criminals?

                      He didn’t mean that, clearly. He meant that immigrants can be criminals, which is not an inconsequential point, when discussing mass immigration. You are more likely to find criminals among the low-skilled/poorly-educated, than among (say) people with advanced degrees. And as a practical matter, it’s harder to vet larger numbers of people.

                    2. Jews can be criminals. Blacks can be criminals. Christians can be criminals. Priests can be criminals. Mothers can be criminals.

                      What is the point of stating such, if not to make some implication as to the group as a whole? Particularly within the context of arguing against immigration.

                      Even if we take the criminal aspect out of it. Three low skilled immigrants didn’t contribute so all low skilled immigrants don’t contribute? Same legitimacy of argument, with less vile implications.

                      If VGZ didn’t mean what I understood him to mean, I want him to explain what he did mean.

                    3. Didn’t you read the headline? It doesn’t say 99%, or most, or many or the majority. The opening argument makes a claim of collective absolute. At some point, it certainly is appropriate to mention this, without having to hold some secret unspoken opinion. Unlike others, I won’t claim to know what VGZ meant but *I* didn’t take what he meant the way you did.

                      Who else, who posts here regularly, takes the words of others and claims that they imply something not written?

                    4. The opening argument makes a claim of collective absolute.

                      Sure. But there is a difference between making a generalization based upon 99% (or even 51%) and one based upon 0.001% of a population.

                      And, MG, if you are using your words to argue a point and they can be taken multiple ways, then you didn’t do a very good job of arguing your point.

                      I took him to mean he was judging an entire group based upon the actions of a couple people in that group. I still do. I don’t think there is any other way to take it. Not sure how that’s putting words in someone’s mouth?

                      If he gives explanation of another meaning, then I’m wrong and I’m an asshole, and I’ll freely admit it to anyone who asks.

                    5. so all low skilled immigrants don’t contribute?

                      THIS, is exactly what Bo does. Any statement about individuals is immediately transposed into the entire collective. If you say to Bo, “the Mafia is Italian” his response will be “why are you saying that all Italians are mafia?”

                      Can I imply that you believe the opposite absolute, that ALL low skilled immigrants contribute? I don’t assume you believe that. Why place that collective absolute assumption on anyone? Intellectual dishonesty.

                    6. Were we talking about the Tsarnaev family or immigration?

                      I made no change to the meaning of what was implied in the context of him arguing against immigration.

                      If he was not using the actions of the Tsarnaev family as a reason to curb immigration, then I humbly apologize. But I seriously doubt the meaning was otherwise.

                3. You implication is CLEARLY, that icmmigrants are bad because these three immigrants are bad.

                  How could that be taken any other way?

                  Actually no,

                  The plain reading is that some immigrants are bad and that it is fallacious to imply that all immigrants are noble entrepreneurs who only want to work hard for an opportunity.

                  IOW, they’re like people or something.

                  Now if I said that most people suck, I’d bet that you would agree, or at worst not disagree enough to respond so vehemently.

                  But my implication that immigrants are just people, no worse and no better than people already here is enough to throw you into some berserker rage; says alot about you, not me.

              2. Hey everyone! Let’s pretend conversational implicature isn’t a thing!

                1. Hey everyone! Let’s pretend conversational implicature isn’t a thing!

                  Sure, HM. As Papaya says above, the obvious point, to those not attempting to put words in other people’s mouths, going full Botard as it were, is that some immigrants can be criminal. The blanket claim that “low income immigrants are a boon to society” is proven patently false. This doesn’t imply that some or even most are not a boon, just that the blanket claim is stupid on it’s face.

                  Are you claiming that I can take anything from a post of yours and then claim that you meant whatever I say because of “conversational implicature”? If the implication I place to your words is absurd it can only be because of a lack of understanding of advanced linguistics?

                  Crime among immigrants is an almost universal demographic phenomenon. Not because of the culture they leave or who they are as individuals but simply because of the demographic reality. The majority of immigrants are young men. The majority of criminals are also young men. I doubt that the majority of posters here, who either were or are young men, would dispute this. The idea that people who are immigrants, from wherever, are special to this is, in my mind, completely ridiculous.

  5. In CA, low skilled immigrants have created the most vibrant economy in the state, and their low welfare use has created a great fiscal situation for governments at all levels.

    Oh wait…

    1. Yes, the only cause of California’s economic situation is immigrants on welfare.

      Interestingly, the state conservatives most contrast with California in terms of recent economic success, Texas, has tons of immigrants.

      1. Shikha’s premise is that low skilled immigration drives economic performance.

        CA’s experience falsifies that premise.

        Which is not to say that such immigration is incompatible with economic growth, but rather that growth is dependent on other factors, primarily the degree of government intervention and regulation.

        I’ll also point out that CA has a much larger immigrant community than TX in absolute numbers and that TX includes large areas of poor economic performance.

        1. I don’t think Shikha thinks immigration by itself can make for a good economy, she’s arguing against the stance that immigration is bad for economies. If you’re going to point to the example of high immigration California’s woes I’m going to point to high immigration Texas’ success.

          1. Nobody who counts says that immigration is “always” bad for economies. But it’s always possible to have too much of a good thing, and for other factors to make immigration bad. Those other factors are clearly the case now: e.g. it’s stupid to drive down wages in a welfare state when unemployment is high.

        2. VG Zaytsev|8.30.14 @ 12:17PM|#

          that TX includes large areas of poor economic performance.”

          Can you point those areas out for us ?

          The only areas of poor economic performance I know of in Texas are a few areas along the border. They were originally settlements outside of any are where government services existed. Illegals moved across the border and settled there where no services existed because it was cheap. The ” feelz good” crowd then began to harp about the lack of services to these people who chose to move where there were no sewer systems or running water. Instead of being responsible for their own wells and septic systems like citizens are when they move to the country, the citizens were expected to pay for those services for this group only.

          Otherwise i can’t think of any factual areaa that meet you claim of ” large areas of poor…. ” bullshit.

          1. http://media.navigatored.com/i…..ty-acs.jpg

            It’s worth pointing out that there are more ‘high-poverty’ counties in TX than CA and that those counties correlate with both high rates of illegal immigration and voting for democrats.

      2. Tons of immigrants and low welfare rolls, comparatively.

        Even though every food store has a sign in Spanis saying, “WIC accepted here”.

        The men work and the women get all the benefits the La Raza type groups can get them on. See, their marrigage aren’t recorded at the courthouse like ours are. So none of them are married as far as the welfare offices are concerned.

        If it wasn’t for WIC and other programs a lot less of our wealth would be sent south of the border.

  6. This makes a lort of sense.

    http://www.Crypt-Anon.tk

  7. 4. Low-Skilled Immigrants May Cost the Welfare State Less

    This is the point I have the most problem with, and have a hard time believing. Not just because of the use of the word ‘May’, but because of human nature.

    Most people, if offered free stuff, will accept the free stuff, because it is free.

    Gov.programs actively recruit applicants; hell, I’ve got several different welfare services advertising on my local radio stations, as well as the Spanish speaking radio stations, every single day.

    I’ll admit that point #4 might be possible, but personally I don’t think it is probable. Color me sceptical.

    1. It’s completely disingenuous, if Shikha believes that bit then she’s a fucking moron. Not only because of means tested welfare programs (which are evidence enough in and of themselves) but even more fundamentally because the funding and activities of US governments are all progressive, with the wealthy paying a disproportionately high share and the less wealthy receiving a disproportionate share. So unless these low skilled immigrants are on average going to earn income in the top 20% of earners they will be a net drain on government.

    2. I am very skeptical of #4 as well, for two reasons:

      1) Illegal immigrants are far less likely to recieve benefits than their legal counterparts precisely because they do not want to make their presence known and cannot obtain those benefits as their legal counterparts can. Legalizing them will more likely than not mean that they will begin to access welfare services at a similar rate to legal immigrants, thus increasing overall immigrant consumption of welfare goods.

      2) As immigrants become Americanized and their children become citizens, they tend to integrate into the underclass which has been so much of a problem on this front — some immigrants are extremely successful and avoid falling into this pit, but most are only successful enough to escape Mexican poverty and enter into American poverty. Many of the citizens receiving welfare are second-generation immigrants who have quite frankly integrated into a very shabby class of Americans. I have no problem with integrating immigrants (in fact, I think it’s a good thing), but we should have problems with *how many* low-class immigrants in this country are integrated into a welfarist class rather than into the bourgeois.

    3. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear poor immigrants (and citizens) have been threatened with child protective services for not taking WIC vouchers and SNAP.

  8. The solution to immigration is, quite naturally, to restrict welfare for immigrants (at both a state and federal level), to make citizenship and voting rights much harder to obtain for immigrants and their children, and to allow immigrants to come across and go back as they will depending on the work climate. Immigrants should have the same rights as the citizen in all respects except the government’s authority to deport and authority to vote.

    None of this will happen, because welfare and the US educational system are intertwined with the integration of poor immigrants into an American underclass with various social dysfunctions — an underclass which votes en masse for Democrats. Additionally public welfare and other forms of assistance smooth out the dry spells of employment for employers who want a ready source of cheap, disposable labor.

    1. What Trouser says is true, but this won’t dampen the enthusiasm of the immigrant-romanticizing open borders true believers.

    2. “because welfare and the US educational system are intertwined with the integration of poor immigrants into an American underclass with various social dysfunctions”

      Let’s say this utilitarian weighing of when to grant liberty and recognize rights and when to withhold them for a speculated ‘greater preservation of overall liberty’ were a valid approach. It’s still seems ahistorical. We had welfare and a supposedly liberal educational system when Ronald Reagan won not only majorities of the votes of descendants of Irish-Americans, but also recent Asian immigrants.

      1. Neither welfare nor voting are liberties of any sort. Withholding either cannot be construed as a revokation of liberty, and predicating one’s support of a liberty based on the ability of a person to not infringe on your own is not utilitarian.

        As far as Reagan goes, as a fan I can say that he did diddly squat to reverse the trends regarding the welfare state and New Deal/Great Society entitlements. Hell, he couldn’t even roll back the Dept of Education, and that had been instituted barely 2 years before Reagan was inaugurated! Yes, he did deregulate some aspects of the economy, but that is cold comfort for the ability of the US population to preserve our current liberties (much less recover the lost ones).

        1. I’m all for limiting welfare to citizens, in fact I’m all for eliminating it for citizens.

          I’m not for denying immigrants who have been here a reasonable time the right to vote because of collectivist ideas about how they might vote once that’s done based on recent patterns and ahistorical thinking.

          I’m not going to debate about Reagan’s actual accomplishments, my point is made by the fact that the people voting for Reagan were surely not voting for socialism and statism, and those people included not just descendants of past waves of immigrant groups which immigration restrictionists argued would become socialist fifth columns, but also recent immigrant groups. The proclivity of some immigrant groups to vote for statist Democrat Party candidates recently has as much if not more to do with the GOP’s strident anti-immigration positions than it does some sociological collectivist theory about people bringing the culture’s from which they take great efforts to escape from and implanting them here.

          1. I’m not for denying immigrants who have been here a reasonable time the right to vote

            What is a “reasonable time”? I say it’s however long it takes for immigrants and their children to understand and agree with American values regarding limited government common law freedoms, and for them to actualize those values by being self-supporting and law-abiding. You apparently think it should be an arbitrary amount of time of having their asses planted in the country, as determined by a government bureaucrat. Seniority is how unions run things; it shouldn’t be how we figure out which freedoms get parceled out.

            If Trotsky had emigrated here instead of Mexico, I don’t care how long Trotsky is in the US. If he’s still a communist he shouldn’t have any fucking say over my life. Same goes for any immigrant who does not accept the fundamental values of this country as regards economic and social freedoms; voting is a form of indirect violence and only those who agree with the classical liberal conception of the appropriateness of violence in all spheres should be given the opportunity to decide what the government does with its monopoly on violence.

            1. “I say it’s however long it takes for immigrants and their children to understand and agree with American values regarding limited government common law freedoms”

              How in the world would this be ascertained, especially since it’s been an issue of near constant debate among Americans themselves for most of our history. You’re basically saying ‘until immigrants (somehow) demonstrate agreement with me, I don’t want them voting.’ That sounds more like classical illiberalism than liberalism to me.

              We set times that are ‘arbitrary’ for many things that would be nearly impossible to ascertain otherwise. Many 18 year olds might be ready for adulthood, many will not be, and some are ready at 16, 17, etc. But lines have to be drawn. I’d come up with a certain reasonable time, seven years has been floated. The main point is that I’m not going to deny participation based on some kind of paranoid, ahistorical cultural determinist bull.

              1. How in the world would this be ascertained

                It’s less about ascertaining it as a certainty as it is eliminating it as a likelihood. Having less people vote is fine if those people are of higher quality wrt liberty ethics than the previous admixture of voters.

                Disqualifiers for voting might include a lack of owned property in the country, violent/property crimes in the mother country or here, evidence of not being able to support oneself monetarily, membership in a gang or violent political paramilitary (at home or abroad), membership in an anti-liberty political party (e.g., communist or fascist parties), tests regarding the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the courts system and other aspects of US politics/history, failure to demonstrate proficiency in the language of politics, etc. There are any number of factors which might be considered statistically significant regarding voting patterns and which would not be a matter of heredity or environment but rather of demonstrated behavior.

                There is no aggression in declining to consult with a person on government matters, and so I would decline on any grounds which would have the propensity to make the voting pool more liberty-friendly. I wouldn’t throw socialist immigrants in jail or stop them from speaking; I would throw out their voting card. This would of course not eliminate all statism from the republic, but it would limit it and is better than the seniority method of allocating decision-makers.

                1. Good lord, did you immigrate from Pinochetian Chile by any chance?

                  1. Compare a proposed system in which socialists are fully invested in their rights to speak, protest, unionize, make money, own property, etc to one where socialists and union leaders were tortured, jailed and executed. In particular, a regime where one of my uncles was jailed for a couple of months.

                    Sure Bo, that’s a reasonable and thoughtful contribution to the discussion.

                    Why don’t you go ahead and fuck right off.

                    1. I think its fundamentally illiberal to disenfranchise people because I happen at this point in my life to think their views are wrong, even loathesome, and yes, it’s the same sentiment that lay behind the kind of regimes my example illustrates.

                    2. Not enfranchising masses of immigrants who would restrict your liberty is not the same as disenfranchising them.

                    3. Yes, you’re right. It would be more correct to call it irrationally refusing to franchise people who have become part of the community.

                    4. You’re irrationally invested in universal suffrage, and you are completely wrong to associate my preferred exclusion of voters based on rational and pro-liberty interests with the Pinochet regime or any other anti-liberty construct. My logic is exactly that which was expressed in the Federalist Papers; yours is the type which lets the Weimar Republic fall to the Browns. I say the Browns, the Reds, and anyone else with a fundamentally anti-freedom framework should not be consulted on the question of what a government dedicated to the preservation of liberty should look like; you say that their mere presence in the community for an arbitrary period requires that we consult with them. Your views are incoherent; mine are an extension of the enlightened view that a republic should encompass the viewpoint that all responsible stakeholders in society — regardless of gender, ethnicity, etc — should be represented, and that this is all that is needed for good government.

                    5. “a republic should encompass the viewpoint that all responsible stakeholders in society — regardless of gender, ethnicity, etc — should be represented”

                      No, your view is that republic should encompass the viewpoint of all people you think are responsible to be represented, and the ones you think are irresponsible must be barred. That’s profoundly illiberal, it’s the same thinking that ran through the McCarthy era (and the flip side of ironically of what communist regimes do: we can’t have certain parties involved in the election, because they are irresponsible bougeiosie tools).

                      If libertarianism is to come to power, it will need to do it via persuasion and not contrary to the consent of the governed, otherwise it will be illegitimate. One aspect of liberty is not to be ruled over without having a say.

                    6. No, your view is that republic should encompass the viewpoint of all people you think are responsible to be represented, and the ones you think are irresponsible must be barred.

                      Uh… duh. Responsibility, like most other values, must be judged by the person. Unless your definition of “responsible” is “breathes oxygen and is over 18” or “has lived somewhere for 5 years” (which is the requirement for voting that you are defending), then you agree with me. You just aren’t willing to delineate between what you consider to be responsible caretakers of government, and irresponsible ones. I imagine that you agree with me that Nazis and communists are irresponsible voters pretty much by definition. You just want to pretend that giving them input into government somehow improves the thing — basically for the same reason that believers in the divine right of kings want to pretend that their monarch is invested with a special Godly dispensation, even if their monarch is an inbred loon.

                      My view carries with it the implication that we should define, ascertain, and look for responsibility before investing a person with authority. In your view we merely assume the responsibility of the Sainted People, and ignore the many cases where they have proven that they really ain’t that responsible. No amount of misplaced allusion to McCarthy or Pinochet will make your logic any better or mine any worse.

                    7. I don’t think Nazis and Communists should be denied their say in the governments that rule over them because they are determined to be ‘irresponsible.’ Again, my position is based on the classical liberal value found in the Declaration that to rule over people without majority consent makes the government illegitimate. Your view inevitably leads to where I pointed: some group deciding who is responsible and who is not and then the former get to rule the latter. And as a utilitarian matter, whatever historical faults my way has led to, your way has led historically to much uglier places.

                    8. This isn’t to fetishize democracy. The way I see it, democracy doesn’t make a wrong governmental action right, but a otherwise right governmental action arrived at non-democratically is necessarily wrong. People that are ruled have a right to have a say in that, and as such I would not revoke or fail to grant the franchise to ‘irresponsible’ groups like felons, communists, racists, or, in some people’s minds, classical liberals that lean towards fascism.

                    9. democracy doesn’t make a wrong governmental action right, but a otherwise right governmental action arrived at non-democratically is necessarily wrong

                      That’s idiotic. Hong Kong and Liechtenstein are certainly on a higher moral plane than Venezuela or their more democratic neighbors. Sure, they would probably be better organized as republics but this is a relatively small vice in the grand scheme of things.

                      I would not revoke or fail to grant the franchise to ‘irresponsible’ groups like felons, communists, racists, or, in some people’s minds, classical liberals that lean towards fascism

                      Once again, I would say that a system which declines to consult fools and thugs for its composition is an advantage that mine has over yours. As for ‘classical liberals who flirt with fascism’, I’m sorry that virtually every classical liberal of note agreed with my view of suffrage and that fascism thrived in and romanticized universal suffrage and the “Volk”. I wouldn’t beat myself up over that fact by calling myself a fascist though; I don’t like you very much but you seem more naive than fascist-leaning.

                    10. This isn’t to fetishize democracy.

                      :Spent numerous posts fetishizing democracy:

                    11. I don’t think Nazis and Communists should be denied their say in the governments that rule over them because they are determined to be ‘irresponsible.’

                      That’s your problem right there, and I condemn you or anyone else fool enough to entrust them with power with the resultant consequences.

                      as a utilitarian matter, whatever historical faults my way has led to, your way has led historically to much uglier places.

                      No, it hasn’t. Plenty of places in Africa and Latin America have been fucked by democracy. Interwar Europe was fucked by democracy. Iraq and Afghanistan? Ditto. And how about that Arab Spring, huh?

                      Yes, universal suffrage can exhibit a baseline of marginal competence under certain parameters: those parameters being a judicial system which can override their decisions when they decide to get collectivist and/or a civil bureaucracy which subverts democratic decision making. It doesn’t work great or nearly as well as my system, but it plods on OK.

                      In most other cases, it works horribly. Cape Colony was much better governed with the Cape Qualified Franchise than under the Afrikaaners elected through white universal suffrage. Germany was better governed by Bismark or even Wilhelm than by Hitler (or even by the Republic’s socialist-lite leaders). Outside the South, the US was certainly better on a variety of issues pertinent to classical liberalism than it is today. Hong Kong is, in my view, more legitimate than Venezuela.

    3. Here’s the AG of Maine ruling that it is unconstitutional to cut off General Assistance to immigrants:

      http://bangordailynews.com/201…..mmigrants/

  9. Yes, low skill workers are the greatest. India has hundreds of millions of low skilled workers and they are why India is such a rich and innovative country.

    Oh, wait, never mind,

    1. They poop on the roads, right?

      1. My kid is still doing it all the time. Sigh.

  10. Let’s take a look around and see if low-skilled immigrants in mass quantities are always and everywhere a good thing:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…..t-now.html

    Men of Pakistani heritage treated white girls like toilet paper. They picked children up from schools and care homes and trafficked them across northern cities for other men to join in the fun. They doused a 15-year-old in petrol and threatened to set her alight should she dare to report them. They menaced entire families and made young girls watch as they raped other children.

    These truly horrible things happened in our country ? not in the distant, cruel past, but as recently as last year. All but one of the perpetrators were Muslims of Pakistani heritage

  11. my buddy’s ex-wife makes $65 an hour on the internet . She has been out of work for eight months but last month her paycheck was $17546 just working on the internet for a few hours. have a peek at this website……….
    ???????? http://www.netjob70.com

  12. Here repeats a fascinating and regular pattern on Reason Hit and Run: Reason writer makes a pro-immigration position, one they’ve consistently taken since their beginning, a position used in the original World’s Smallest Political Quiz and Nolan Chart to indicate libertarianism, a position the LP has consistently taken, and in the comments half (if not more) of regular commenters disagree with the writer. If there isn’t more evidence of how many conservative lurkers this site draws I don’t know what else would be.

    1. Shikha’s arguments are easily falsified bullshit.

      Sorry if that reality offends you.

      1. So half of the commenters here think that a long time plank of libertarianism is easily falsified bullsh*t? OK, that makes my point just as well.

        1. Some Libertarians think that Libertarianism = Freedom but it does not. Libertarian freedom ends when libertarians fist touches someone’s nose.

          So movement of people across distance requires negotiation with everyone along the path and it is not a right.

          It is only massive government intervention that creates the illusion of the right to move from NYC to Chicago.

          1. So movement of people across distance requires negotiation with everyone along the path and it is not a right.

            It is only massive government intervention that creates the illusion of the right to move from NYC to Chicago.

            When you take your kids to Disney World, do you secure consent from each and every resident of Kissimmee, Florida before arriving?

            If not, you’re a fucking hypocrite.

            1. That’s a weak argument from someone who is usually much better. Nobody cares if half of Mexico wants to visit the US and then go home. We care if half of Mexico moves here, drives down wages, drives up rents, gets on welfare, and votes for more statism.

              1. Nobody cares if half of Mexico wants to visit the US and then go home.

                Really? Because I can show you hordes of people who will spit blood at mention of a guest worker program.

                1. Then perhaps I should have written “far fewer would care.”

              2. “e care if half of Mexico moves here, drives down wages, drives up rents”

                Spoken like a true leftist.

                1. Describing Econ 101 market mechanisms makes me a leftist? Is there anything in that statement that Hayek would have disagreed with?

                  1. It might be because you view “driving down wages” by increasing labor as a bad thing. Low wages–whether to immigrants or to wage-free robots–are a good thing for the consumer, which is the proper perspective for all economics.

                    If low wages are a bad, you could easily drive wages up by outlawing a particular minority from ever seeking employment or raising minimum wage. Decrease supply, maintain demand, higher price point. And that would be an obvious train wreck for the economy, just like outlawing cheap immigrant labor.

                    1. I don’t want to drive down wages at the bottom, because we live in a welfare state, and because I am willing to take the trade-offs. A somewhat tighter labor market at the bottom helps make shitty jobs more attractive, lowers welfare costs, and encourages efficiency and automation in a more “natural” way than minimum wage laws (which I oppose).

                      And why increase the labor pool with unemployment so high?

                    2. “And why increase the labor pool with unemployment so high?”

                      I guess its good that we have Top Men to decide that for us instead letting, you know, the market handle it. Of course, I’m sure market forces are irrelevant given the fact that we leave in a welfare state, which I guess means your against letting the market decide anything is a bad idea because… teh government!

                    3. An invasion of refugees is not the market “deciding” it needs even more unskilled, non-English-speaking, semi-literate, criminals, and disease carriers. It’s merely what Democrats and multiculturalist leftists and the Chamber of Commerce want, along with some purist libertarians.

                      (Yes, I know that they all aren’t like that, but far too many are.)

                      It is a basic characteristic of a nation to have borders, and to defend itself against invasion, even a slow-motion one. It is irrefutable that mass immigration has severe economic and social costs. The Labor party got caught in the UK, admitting that they wanted mass immigration to make the UK less white and traditional and conservative. That is precisely what Democrats are doing here. Masses of new poor and culturally-aliented people helps the multicultural left. So, don’t help them. Don’t sacrifice the long-term position of libertarianism as a whole because of an extreme reading of “free movement.”

                    4. Low wages–whether to immigrants or to wage-free robots–are a good thing for the consumer, which is the proper perspective for all economics.

                      No, low PRICES are a good thing for the consumer. And when comparing the rise of the CPI versus the rise of the median wage, your argument falls flat.

        2. Bo Cara Esq.|8.30.14 @ 12:24PM|#

          So half of the commenters here think that a long time plank of libertarianism is easily falsified bullsh*t? OK, that makes my point just as well.

          Note the disingenuous goal post moving.

          I said that Shikha’s assertions are bullshit.

          Which you shifted to a long term plank of the libertarianism

          Which is different.

          The plank may or maynot be wrong or needing adjustment. But Shikha’s arguments for that plank are what I was referring, and those arguments are bullshit.

    2. Oh my God, you’re right! You should find the site where all the True Libertarians post from and start commenting there instead. Maybe you can tell them about what a bunch of assholes those Reason commenters are.

      1. No, perhaps you should find a site where awful thinkers like Shikha don’t write? Why would you lurk at a site which you regularly complain about?

        1. Why would you lurk at a site which you regularly complain about?

          Science H Logic did you really just post that?!! Someone fess up, they are posting under Bo’s name.

          You spend what 90% of your time here bitching about SOCONZ or other posters lack of purity and then tell someone else to leave if all they can do is complain?!!!!

          Too. Fucking. Funny.

          1. One difference is that I agree with the Reason writers and complain about those complaining about them. But I know you’re not big on distinctions Marshall.

          2. Someone fess up, they are posting under Bo’s name.

            Tulpa

    3. There is no market right to immigration and so how can any libertarian claim that immigration is a right? There is no right to move on other peoples property. And nobody but a fool would give unlimited rights to the use of their own property to others since that is the first step on losing the ownership of that property

      1. You’ve made this ridiculous argument before: no one is talking about immigrants rights to move on other people’s private property against the owner’s will, they are talking about the right of immigrants to travel through public lands to live and work on private property with the owner’s consent. It’s your side that wants to use government to stop that, and that’s a NAP violation as most libertarian groups have long recognized.

        1. Who decided that unlimited migration across national borders is a right? Hitherto unheard of rights appear with surprising frequency.

          It seems that if somebody wants something they call it a “right” and bawl for the government to fix things so they get it.

          1. “Who decided that unlimited migration across national borders is a right?”

            Who decided it wasn’t? You’re the one asking for government intervention, bawling for it to fix the voluntary movement and associations of people by application of force.

            1. In the US its a requirement of the Federal Government to protect the States from Invasion.

              “””Article IV Section 4 The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;””‘

              1. You’re either being dishonest or profoundly ignorant, that clearly refers to an invasion of an armed, foreign force.

                1. No it does not refer to an armed invasion, that is why I quoted the Constitution and it does not say armed.

                  Mass use of the public lands without the permission of the public is an invasion

                  1. It’s part of the definition of the word understood at the time.

                    There is no power to restrict immigration in the federal Constitution at all.

                    1. Yes there is and I quoted it.

                      And no the definition of invasion at the time did not always mean armed invasion.

                      If 11 million British or Indians or Spanish had crossed the border into the US it would be considered to be an invasion even if they weren’t armed.

                    2. “And no the definition of invasion at the time did not always mean armed invasion.”

                      Maybe not always, but its pretty clear thats the definition of the word they were understood as using.

                2. You’re either being dishonest or profoundly ignorant, that clearly refers to an invasion of an armed, foreign force.

                  Well, I suppose MS-13 and the rest of the Mexican Mafia aren’t technically an internationally recognized foreign force.

            2. “Who decided it wasn’t?”

              For that matter, who decided that anything you may want isn’t a right?

              This will go nowhere.

              1. Usually it is the one advocating government restriction which has the burden of showing its justification.

              2. One has all the rights he claims, provided it doesn’t impact the rights of another.

                The question, is whether immigration impacts the rights of others?

          2. If freedom of movement is not a right, then explain how the Berlin Wall was immoral.

            1. In the same sense that keeping someone forcibly confined in my basement is immoral while keeping him out of my house, if I have no obligation to house him and I choose not, is moral.

        2. “”””through public lands to live””‘

          So you are a socialist.

          And your argument has nothing to do with free markets or libertarianism.

          1. And you claim that its public land but you deny the right of the public to determine who uses that land.

          2. Yeah the argument from libertarian open border purity in regard to “public land” is always a bit grating to my ear.

          3. I don’t think the existence of public roads and lands = socialism, and I especially don’t think the idea that if we have them people and goods should be able to freely pass over them is.

            If we had a system of purely private roads I know some owners would allow immigrants to pass over them, so what would your position be, for government to intervene and stop them?

            1. “”””I don’t think the existence of public roads and lands = socialism, and I especially don’t think the idea that if we have them people and goods should be able to freely pass over them is.””‘

              Government ownership is socialism. I don’t see how you can deny that? And then on top of that you want to deny the owners of those public lands the right to control them. What do you want some sort of anarchist socialism. Public roads but no rules?

              “””If we had a system of purely private roads I know some owners would allow immigrants to pass over them, so what would your position be, for government to intervene and stop them?””

              No. But as you say some owners would, some wouldn’t, all would have some restriction on use.

              1. No. But as you say some owners would, some wouldn’t, all would have some restriction on use.

                In other words, entirely compatible with freedom of movement.

                1. How do you acknolege that there would be restrictions on use of other peoples property and make that ‘Freedom of Movement’?

          4. There seems to be a misunderstanding around “public lands”.

            Rights of way are an inherent part of the rights of property.

            But rights of way are not “public lands”: rather they are entirely unowned commons. The “public” — i.e., the government — may improve the right of way by paving, etc. It may even charge a nominal toll for the improvement. But it cannot legitimately prohibit travel on a right of way.

            1. But that ‘right of way’ is determined by negociation and contract. How many people do you have contracts with and why do you think that just because the people in some part of the world have determined that some land is public and a right of way that anyone in the world can use it?

              1. So your rights become whatever the majority of your neighbors say they are once you set foot on public property. Sound pretty progressive.

                1. So you are saying that there is no restrictions on the use of public property. I can build a house on it or a wall? I can live my entire life on public land?

                  If people create a public land then its the public who owns it and they determine its use

              2. You are talking about the right of way to the right of way. There’s a hierarchy of rights of way. The owner who lays out property and sells it to you guarantees that you can reach the rights of way from your property and can therefore go from, e.g., your property in Chicago to someone else’s property in New York without trespassing.

                why do you think that just because the people in some part of the world have determined that some land is public and a right of way that anyone in the world can use it?

                After correcting “public” to “unowned”…

                A. First principles property rights.
                B. Hundreds upon hundreds of years of common law.

                1. So the original owners made contracts with every property owner in the world?

                  If not how can that original property owner transfer rights to others concerning third party owners?

                  1. Of course there are not contracts among all property owners in the world. The economically and legally efficient solution is to instead guarantee that every property has a right of way to it.

                    So whenever a new tract is homesteaded, there is a guarantee of a right of way to that tract. And when it is subdivided there is a guarantee of a right of way to every parcel from the tract right of way.

        3. No Bo the La Raza types are actually talking about the illegals rights to tresspass on private property. If you owned land close to the Texas/Mexico border you would not have written the sentence you wrote.

          http://goo.gl/iMEmra

          http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08…..d=all&_r=0

          1. I don’t advocate the right of anyone, immigrant or not, to trespass or damage private property. No one here does.

            1. But you on one hand want public lands but you don’t want that public to be able to restrict use of that land.

              1. I’d prefer privately owned lands and roads. If they were, I’d oppose your attempts to bar people from using them how they want, for example using them to allow the voluntary movement of goods and people.

                If we are going to have public roads and lands, then I think they should be used in accord with the NAP, yes.

                1. I haven’t barred anyone from using private lands if given permission. I just think that you don’t have any right to use that land without permisson and that permission would not be uniform nor unlimited

                  And the right to use public land is a right for the public to determine. You have no right to impose your rules on others without going through whatever rule making procedure that has been set up to determine the use of that public land

                  1. And I think it should be determined compatible with the NAP, and you think otherwise.

                    1. And what happens if the public who owns the public lands determine that people using the public land without permission is a violation of NAP.

                    2. Then I would keep trying as I am doing here, to argue that it is incompatible to the NAP to deny that permission for people who are moving themselves or goods peaceably towards voluntary associations.

                    3. So if the public decided that nobody carrying weapons should be admitted onto public property, making it effectively illegal to bare arms, you’d say nobody’s rights were violated?

                    4. Sometimes 😉

                      But seriously, it doesn’t matter here for reasons I’ve explained.

                    5. It does not matter in my argument

                      If no government then you need to negociate with every property owner you pass over

                      If governent you need to negociate with the owners of public land to use that land

                      So no right exist to move unless its on your own property.

                    6. So no right exist to move unless its on your own property.

                      Fortunately people have been faced with this raw totalitarian argument since before the Magna Carta. Hence unowned rights of way.

                    7. Sometimes 😉

                      Do you believe in the need for some government and that that government needs to be funded at some level through taxes (of some sort)?

    4. Here repeats a fascinating and regular pattern on Reason Hit and Run: Reason writer makes a pro-immigration position, one they’ve consistently taken since their beginning, a position used in the original World’s Smallest Political Quiz and Nolan Chart to indicate libertarianism, a position the LP has consistently taken, and in the comments half (if not more) of regular commenters disagree with the writer.

      And then Bo, the man-child, proceeds to declare that you cannot be a libertarian if you don’t agree with him.

      1. And then Old Man Francis, not having his reading glasses once again, misses the part where Bo wrote “one they’ve consistently taken since their beginning, a position used in the original World’s Smallest Political Quiz and Nolan Chart to indicate libertarianism, a position the LP has consistently taken…”

        1. An as Old Man Francis rightfully points out, Bo, the arrogant, intolerant, little fuck hole, thinks he is the keeper of the gates of libertarianism. How pure must you be to be in the club, Bo? 99.44% pure?

          NONE SHALL PASS! The way is shut. It was made by those who are truly libertarian, and Bo keeps it. The way is shut.

          1. You’re inability to grasp points is really impressive. Is it the result of arthritis? Can that spread to the brain?

            1. The ONLY point here, imp, is that you think that a person can’t be a libertarian unless they believe every single libertarian position.

              That, is bullshit.

              I happen to agree with you on this point, but it doesn’t make you any less of an intolerant little shitweasel.

              1. You’re full of the usual assumptions today, Francis.

  13. You should find the site where all the True Libertarians post from and start commenting there instead. Maybe you can tell them about what a bunch of assholes those Reason commenters are.

    For Bo, that would probably be Bleeding Heart Libertarians. No SoCons.

  14. Also, no pottymouthed crabapples advising Shreeek to blow his brains out.

    1. They have us beat in civility, yes.

  15. News flash – government transfer programs are zero sum.

    Worse than that, they are negative sum, because of the expenses of calculating and paying taxes and the cost of the bureaucracy to distribute benefits.

    4. Low-Skilled Immigrants May Cost the Welfare State Less

    Bull. LA alone spends $650 million a year on children of illegal immigrants.

    1. 60,000 unaccompanied minors from Central America probably cost 10,000 each for education, another 10,000 each for food and housing. So that is 120 million alone and if they have any problems, medical, mental, legal that the numbers go up and up.

  16. Worse than that, they are negative sum, because of the expenses of calculating and paying taxes and the cost of the bureaucracy to distribute benefits.

    No kidding; it would not surprise me in the least to discover it costs fifty dollars to transfer ten dollars from Taxpayer A to Government Largesse Recipient B.

    1. I remember seeing a piece on this years ago, and IIRC it cost something like $1.50-$2.00 to simply collect $1 in taxes, when you factor in the time and expenses of taxpayers. That doesn’t even consider the frictional losses of distributing the tax money.

  17. Question for those who don’t believe in freedom of movement: why was the Berlin Wall immoral?

    1. The lock on your front door is not the same as the lock on a jail cell. Direction matters.

    2. Question for those who don’t believe in freedom of movement

      Question for those who do not believe in property rights…..

      The Berlin Wall was immoral because it placed a burden on emmigration. Immigration supposes a positive right to movement on land which you do not own. There is an ocean of difference between denying my free movement and my claiming a right to access to all property held in common.

      1. In common law and in traditional, non-car societies (this includes most of the US up until autos and tractors became very common, namely around 1945), a right of way across unimproved property is standard. If people in rural farming communities needed to cross Smith’s property to get to Jones’s farm, they did it without asking permission and while also recognizing that they couldn’t help themselves to Smith’s crops without permission. The idea that rural communities were full of cranky men who’d shoot you for walking on “his” property is wrong.

        Block or someone who specializes in this kind of theory would call it homesteading a path, and it’s an important feature of libertarian theory to permit immigration and prevent encirclement, which would otherwise be the death of private property.

        1. I get your point, but what happens to a (semi-) libertarian country, more economically successful than others because of that, when it lures immigrants who then vote for the values that made their native lands such shitholes? See my post on “Californication” elsewhere on this page.

          This could be a joke about libertarian ideology regarding immigration:

          Milk production at a dairy farm was low, so the farmer wrote to the local university, asking for help from academia. A multidisciplinary team of professors was assembled, headed by a theoretical physicist, and two weeks of intensive on-site investigation took place. The scholars then returned to the university, notebooks crammed with data, where the task of writing the report was left to the team leader. Shortly thereafter the physicist returned to the farm, saying to the farmer, “I have the solution, but it only works in the case of spherical cows in a vacuum”.

          1. who then vote

            That’s your problem right there. Voting is immoral.

  18. my claiming a right to access to all property held in common

    It’s a good thing, then, that the nation is not “property held in common”.

    1. You think that’s an allodial title you got there?

  19. After her defense of RTW laws as libertarian, I always feel a little gross when I find myself in agreement with Dalmia. Which I do.

  20. OF COURSE, this Koch-funded libertarian rag would support the cheap, exploitable labor of immigrants.

    You don’t fool me you damned Cosmatarians.

    Reason was much better when Postrel was here.

    For a magazine called Reason, you guys are stoopid.

    This is like the worst chat room evar.

    $20 for head don’t cum.

    (Fuck all y’all. I feel like drinking tonight.)

  21. Kunt Schultz forgets that children attend public skool at the point of a gun.

  22. Can you look at the rape gangs in UK (of which was was only the latest, there are been at least a half dozen) and say open borders is a good thing?

    Can you look at France, where 16% of the population support ISIS and think open borders is a good thing?

    As one of the Volkh (sp) bloggers wrote – when you let in immigrants, you are letting in your future rulers. So you better be damned sure who you let in.

    1. “As one of the Volkh (sp) bloggers wrote – when you let in immigrants, you are letting in your future rulers”

      Well, I guess an unsupported assertion settles the issue!
      For some folks.

      1. “As one of the Volkh (sp) bloggers wrote – when you let in immigrants, you are letting in your future rulers”

        Well, I guess an unsupported assertion settles the issue!

        I’m sure the Native Americans would have something to say about that.

    2. The fear mongering is strong in this one.

  23. Jerry JHo Jo says that aint gonna happen.

    http://www.Crypt-Anon.tk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.