Immigration

Of Course the Country Isn't Full — and Trump Knows It

America desperately needs more immigrants to support its economy.

|

KEVIN LAMARQUE/REUTERS/Newscom

In remarks over the weekend, President Trump expressed his opposition to immigration as a matter of practical impossibility. "What can we do?" he said. We can't handle any more. Our country's full. You can't come in, I'm sorry." Later, seeming a touch less apologetic, he followed up on the sentiment with yet another of his oddly capitalized tweets. "Our Country is FULL!"

Of course it isn't. There are at least 145 countries more physically dense than the U.S. There is no sense in which America has reached its capacity to hold, support, or employ people. If anything, the opposite is true—and Trump, of all people, surely knows it.

Consider Maine. In March, the state's senators, Susan Collins and Angus King, led a bipartisan group of lawmakers in writing to then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen, requesting an increase in the number of visas for foreign workers, because of the "continued tightening of the labor market" and the "growing need for seasonal workers."

The letter warned that many parts of the country "simply lack the working-age population to meet the demand for seasonal jobs. In some industries, particularly tourism, the demand for workers so far outstrips the available supply that businesses could be forced to curtail operations," risking the jobs of American workers. The state of Maine, the letter noted, serves some 20 million overnight tourists every year, and another 16 million people who visit during the day, mostly during the summer season. Without foreign labor, serving these people would be impossible, and many of the state's hotels and restaurants "simply could not survive."

Roughly the same thing is true in states like Alabama, Delaware, Alaska, and West Virginia, the letter said, all of which rely on the thousands of foreign workers that come to the United States each year on H-2B visas.

The point is this: Foreign workers aren't a threat to the American economy, or to American jobs. On the contrary, they are necessary to support a thriving economy, and to keep American businesses, and American jobs, in place.

That's especially true in some of the smaller, more rural, less populated states where opposition to immigration tends to be the highest. Iowa alone relies on nearly 100,000 immigrant workers. As The New York Times notes, the nation's fertility rate is at its lowest point since 1937. In the vast majority of American counties—around 80 percent—the number of prime-age workers declined between 2007 and 2017, according to the Economic Innovation Group. The relatively slow expected growth of the U.S. labor force over the next decade is a major factor in projections of slower overall economic growth.

Our president is not exactly known for his command of economic policy detail. But he knows this. He must. Not only is his administration contemplating increasing the number of H-2B visas allowed this year, yet again, but Trump's own private club, Mar-a-Lago, has employed hundreds of foreign workers over the years. When Trump was asked several years ago why he employs so many foreign workers, he said, "getting help in Palm Beach during the season is almost impossible."

For a business like Mar-a-Lago to exist and function well, foreign workers are simply necessary. That's true all over the country. What the letter from Sens. Collins and King makes clear is that places like Maine and Alabama and Alaska need more of them, not fewer. America isn't full. It hasn't reached some sort of population cap, some sort of natural or economic limitation. On the contrary, it's in desperate need of more people.

But maybe that's overthinking things. When Trump says the country is full, he's not really making a statement of fact, a coherent case to be analyzed. He's just offering another expression of the same hostility and animosity to foreigners, especially those who come through the southern border, that has long driven his political ambitions, going back to his presidential campaign announcement, in which he warned—despite plenty of evidence that immigrants are less criminal than the native born—that Mexico was sending rapists and drug dealers across the border. It's a pose meant to create the impression of toughness and resolve.

Which means it's of a piece with Trump's decision this week to oust Nielsen from her job running DHS for not being tough enough, despite having overseen some of the harshest border enforcement policies in memory, reportedly because she refused to take actions that would break the law. (Trump apparently told border agents to do the same.)

It's the same underlying instinct that led to Trump floating the possibility of ending birthright citizenship through executive order last year, the same that resulted in last year's zero-tolerance policy at the border, which led to thousands of children being forcibly separated from their parents, and the same tendency that apparently has Trump considering reinstating the separations policy despite little evidence that it worked.

"Our country is full" is not an argument. It's an excuse for draconian political symbolism that will have real and lasting consequences for both immigrants and native-born Americans.

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.

417 responses to “Of Course the Country Isn't Full — and Trump Knows It

    1. TBH, this whole site could be called The Masturbation Channel.

      1. Or the whole internet for that matter.

      2. Crusty approves.

    2. Fixed Headline:

      Of Course Immigration Isn’t Illegal Immigration ? and Suderman Knows It
      But watch him dishonestly conflate the two anyway…

  1. America desperately needs more immigrants to support its economy

    Then I strongly suggest it looks into fixing it’s economy. Because 50 years ago the economy was doing fine with a population of 180 million people and close to zero immigration. If it can no longer function with a population of 320 million, something has gone very, very wrong, and more immigration sure ain’t the way to fix it!

    1. Manufacturing economy transitioning to service economy?

      1. So, the solution is to import more low-skilled workers suitable for a manufacturing economy?

        1. New spin on immigration issues: Deprive the greedy kapitalists of labor that they only want to use to grow their companies!

    2. Even assuming that this is true (which it mostly isn’t), the immigrants that are most desperately in America are educated ones with valuable skills, not Mestizo peasants who are functionally illiterate in Spanish (forget about English).

      The percentage of Americans in the labor force peaked in January of 2000 at 67.3%, plummeted all the way down to 62.4% during the so-called Great Recession (which in reality was more akin to a Second Great Depression), and in the midst of a so-called recovery has rebounded all the way back up to a whopping…… 63.0%

      No economist these days can make a serious case that we’re ever going to back to anywhere near that 67.3% again. If anything, the number is almost certainly going to continue declining over time due to automation. And when the politicians go around citing the alleged record low unemployment rates, they’re lying, because the numbers they’re citing deliberately exclude the massive number of Americans today who are on welfare and not even attempting to find work.

      1. Our large prison population has something to do with that figure as well. The base number for the labor force participation rate was around 128 million in 2017 and there were around 2.2 million people in jails and prisons. So 1.7% of that is people in jail.

        Beyond that, you point to the 800 lb gorilla in the room that Suderman medaciously ignores. Unless and until the economy gets to some unsustainable labor force participation rate, we do not have a worker shortage. We might have a trained worker shortage but we don’t have a worker shortage.

        Reason is just a clown car on immigration.

      2. The number is declining because of the aging population. In 2000 65+ year olds made up 12.4% of the population, now they are almost 17%. Then add in the blue collar workers who went on disability so they can do heroin all day

        1. The existence of SSI and its expansion to anyone who claims to be disabled is appalling.

          1. I know a guy who has minor back problems. Far less severe than mine, which do not preclude most kinds of work. He is only about 40 years old. He now receives $3k per month to do nothing. I know for a fact he is perfectly capable of doing most work, and is just a lazy piece of shit.

            1. There are millions of Americans like this now. The disability scam absolutely exploded after ’08.

              1. The explosion of the disability rolls coincided with the expiration of, sometimes extended, unemployment insurance.
                What is the easiest way to get on disability? Complain of some kind of pain.
                What can’t a doctor quantify? Pain.
                What do doctors prescribe for pain? Opioids.
                What is the latest “epidemic” among Americans? Opioid addiction.
                Thanks Nancy, for the 2008 meltdown, two years after taking over the House.
                What can we expect in the next two years?

    3. Corporations move to an area and they multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way to survive is to spread to another area.

      1. I saw… its thoughts. I saw what they’re planning to do. They’re like locusts. They’re moving from planet to planet… their whole civilization. After they’ve consumed every natural resource they move on… and we’re next.

        1. Uh oh, reference crossover.

    4. 50 years ago the labor force was a larger percentage of the total population. Today we have a (relatively) smaller labor force supporting a much larger retired population

      So, bringing in immigrants who will add to the labor force is absolutely a way to fix it

      1. It is a way to fix it but it is not the only way to fix it. Another way to fix it is to invest in capital so that the workers we do have are more productive and thus able to support a larger population of retirees or you could do some combination of the two.

        Gee, maybe we should do a combination where we concentrate on allowing in only the most productive and needed workers but not so many and especially not large numbers of unskilled workers that the demand for capital decreases? It is an idea that is just so crazy it might work.

        1. But THOSE types of workers might compete with open borders advocates for jobs and money. Cannot have that.

    5. No, it wasn’t. 50 years ago, the economy was entering a long period of ‘stagflation’ (high inflation AND high unemployment). 49 years ago (in 1970), Nixon imposed wage and price controls. A few years after that, we had Gerald Ford’s idiotic WIN (whip inflation now!) buttons followed by Jimmy Carter’s ‘malaise’ speech. The decade that started 50 years ago was not a happy economic period.

      1. The 70’s Mostly sucked.

        1. The only good things about the 70s were Black Sabbath and AC/DC.

          1. The music was awesome… well disco was unfortunate, but on the whole it was fantastic.

            1. Disco sound like Beethoven now compared to Rap Crap & Hip-Hop Shit!

    6. The economy was fucking awful 50 years ago but OK.

    7. Maybe we should just tailor a solution to the problem then, temporary worker visas for workers to fill positions that have been open 60 days at the prevailing wage, and the visa is only good for work in that industry and that geographic area.

      They say they want to fix labor shortages in Maine, but their solution will just further fill up cities with generous safety nets that don’t really need more people in their underclass.

  2. Google needs more computer scientists, so America should import more Central American peasants. The logic is sound!

    1. Computer scientists are just so good at picking vegetables and processing meat.

    2. Strawman.

      1. Yeah well, Suderman started it

  3. Does Suderman not understand the relationship between capital and labor or just pretend he doesn’t so he can shill for open borders?

    If labor is expensive and in short supply, companies invest in capital. Investing in capital increases productivity and in doing so makes us all richer. In order for Suderman’s claim to be correct, importing labor would have to be the only way to increase economic production. That is just nonsense.

    1. There is no inherent direct link between labor and capital.

      Investing in capital increases productivity and in doing so makes us all richer.

      This is just typical John nonsense. Investing in capital is not necessarily good. If you overinvest in capital, you overproduce and the result is a recession because the supply exceeded the demand.

      You are arguing for artificially reducing the supply of labor through border restrictions. The result of that is higher prices on products and services produced by that labor.

      1. It’s even more ‘artificial’ to have an open border and a welfare state. So your argument is faulty.

      2. I love this line of reasoning. Where does it end? If a $15/hr minimum wage brings prosperity, why not make us all rich by mandating $100/hr. $1000/hr! So also, if we can just restrict one border to enrich ourselves, why not all borders? Why not state, nay county borders! Why not checkpoints to get to the grocery store? Think of the wealth that would be generated!

        1. You love that line of reasoning because you are vapid moron. No one is saying we should restict all immigration. Just limit it to some level.

          Do yourself a favor and google “Reductio Absurdum” fallacy you fucking disgusting nitwit.

          1. John, you are the victim of satire, which tends to be based on “Reductio Absurdum,” used deliberately. Out of politeness, I wouldn’t normally say more. But because, “fucking disgusting nitwit,” it’s worth pointing out that folks who misunderstand obvious satire look kind of dim when they do it. You could avoid hurting yourself that way simply by improving your manners. That way, satire might still go over your head, but no one would know.

      3. This is just typical John nonsense. Investing in capital is not necessarily good. If you overinvest in capital, you overproduce and the result is a recession because the supply exceeded the demand.

        If you overinvest in labor you have the same problem. You arguement is complete nonsense. It isn’t even internally consistent. I tolderate you being a moron but what I can’t tolerate is you being a moron and insulting those who are not.

      4. “artificially reducing the supply of labor through border restrictions”

        As opposed to those borders “restricting” all sorts of other things like tax avoidance. Nothing says statist quite like thinking you get to decide when it is borders for ‘this’ but not borders for ‘that.’

    2. No. Investing in capital (what does that even mean?) doesn’t make us all richer. Assuming you mean buying automated machinery to replace human labor, it makes the newly jobless human laborers poorer. It also makes pensioners poorer, because the new machines don’t pay into pension funds the way the replaced laborers did. Maybe the new stuff does add to gross national product, or something, but that is by no means the same as “makes us all richer.”

      1. You couldn’t be more wrong, your ignorance is astounding.

        Higher productivity means higher real wages and incomes and higher standard of living, that is gospel across economists of every political persuasion.

        1. Kazinski, that’s a problem with gospel. It can make you slow to respond to experience.

          I number two very good MIT-trained academic economists among my oldest friends. One of them is a labor economist. What he is saying today is that economists agree it worked as you say for a long time, but now, not so much. The factors I mentioned are among candidates to explain the change.

          In general, it’s a mistake to rely on a method of using ideology to deduce purported facts, and then to try to convince empiricists that puzzling changes they are studying don’t exist.

          Also, you seem to overlook the possibility that higher productivity could increase the general wealth, but because of recently evolved shortcomings in the economy of distribution, fail to work as you say for everyone. It’s easy today to find well-regarded economists who think that is happening now, in the United States.

          In defense of myself, I am certainly ignorant, just as we all are. I find that it shows less if I try to be polite.

      2. ” it makes the newly jobless human laborers poorer.”

        Yep, buggy whip makers are barely getting by these days.

        1. On the other hand there remains a real demand for certified heavy equipment operators and repairmen.

    3. This is only a valid point when labor and capital are substitutes. If instead they are complements, investing in capital cannot compensate for labor being in short supply.

    4. This is only a valid point when labor and capital are substitutes. If instead they are complements, investing in capital cannot compensate for labor being in short supply.

  4. Suderman, Soave, Dalmia. One of them is real, the others are pseudonyms.

    1. Pseuderman?

      1. like it.

    2. That’s really unfair to Robby.

      1. Robby is a psychic projection of all that is childlike from the Pseuderman. Similar to the dynamic between Kanpo Rinpoche and Cho-Je (props to anyone who gets that reference).

        1. I think he’s been doing some fine work debunking hoax “hate crimes” and addressing the silly freakouts over perceived racism and sexism.

    3. And all you nativists are the same commenter?

      1. Are you open borders nuts all the same commenter?

        1. You mean libertarians?

          1. No, open border nuts are a small subset of libertarians.

            1. Explain how open borders isn’t the pure libertarian position?

              I accept that it is likely not a practical position. But from basic libertarian principles, how can restriction of immigration, absent specific health and safety concerns, be justified?

              Why do all of you immigration restrictionists want your position to be libertarian?

              1. It’s an anarachist position. Libertarianism allows for some amount of government. Including sovereign borders. Anarchism does not.

                1. I think he asked about the principle, but I suppose that was a poor move on reason nowadays.

                  1. And it was answered based upon principles.

                    Libertarianism seeks to maximize liberty, but recognizes the essential need for government. If it didn’t then the only things libertarianism would discuss is methods for eradicating government wherever and whenever possible.

                    But that would be anarchism.

                2. Yes, but the fact that libertarianism allows borders to exist doesn’t mean that whatever restrictions you can think of are just fine. I suggested two possible reasons to restrict immigration that I think are reasonable from a libertarian perspective.

                  I think that the arguments that too much immigration could make the country less free have some merit. But those aren’t libertarian arguments. They are utilitarian arguments.

                  1. I’m practical terms we simply cannot absorb the influx of people at the rate they would come here, plus the existing problems we have with over half of Mexico being under varying levels of Cartel control. Including areas that border the US.

                    Also, in practical terms, the people that flood our southern border are also favorable towards the anti freedom socialist agenda of the progressive democrats.

                    Bottom line, the quickest way to crush libertarian values in America for all time is to eliminate our sovereign borders and control voter who comes here.

                  2. As are Suderman’s arguments.

                3. “Sovereign borders” just means we get to determine our own border policy. It doesn’t mean we’re required to keep people out. How is immigration restrictionism consistent with the non-aggression principle?

                  1. How are we harming anyone by not letting them come here?

                  2. “How is immigration restrictionism consistent with the non-aggression principle?”

                    Any sort of border enforcement – including where you need to go in order to get your driver license – ultimately involves the use of force.

              2. Naivete isnt a product not a requirement of libertarianism. Open border nuts are naive and ignorant and refuse to acknowledge the welfare state.

                1. “Open border nuts are naive and ignorant and refuse to acknowledge the welfare state.”

                  Because it’s an insurmountable restriction on what they want. Which is to be a progressive in libertarian clothes.

      2. Sometimes I think there are 5 people who actually comment here: myself and 4 others with 20 sockpuppets each

        1. It’s just one guy who has DID. The rest of us are just alters of that person.

    4. Out of the three, I find Robby to be the most “credible”…

  5. The country seem crowded because most of us live near one another and we fill up the all-you-can-drive roads and highways, especially during rush hour when people do the most driving.

    1. Yes, everyone drives at rush hour because they can not because they have to.

      1. Why people drive at rush hour is irrelevant to his comment, I think.

        If you could drive to work on empty roads, you might well not feel so crowded.

        1. Why people drive at rush hour is irrelevant to his comment, I think.

          Its absolutely relevent. If you are going to price people out of using a product, the reason and benefit they get from using it is crucial in determining whether it is better to make more of it or price it higher. Congestion pricing advocates never consider that and think pricing people out of using a product has no price. That is nonsense.

          1. I thought his comment was about perceptions of how crowded it is, not about the reasons why things appear so crowded.

  6. >>>America desperately needs more immigrants to support its economy.

    debatable points on *desperately*, *needs*, and *more*

    1. As WCR points out above, it is pretty laughable to claim the economy desparately needs more workers when its labor force participation rate is sitting at 63%.

      1. the rhetoric is laughable.

        1. Reason consistently resorting to histrionics almost makes you think they don’t really have much of an argument here and are just trying to make up for it by being shrill.

          1. Well obviously, the best thing for the American economy is for uncontrolled droves of people who mostly don’t speak the local language, have few or no job skills, and are completely indigent, often with many children to come here. We need at least another 20 or 30 million people like that in the next 5 years.

            That would be just awesome.

            1. Look what wonders it’s done for Italy.

      2. how are you proposing to increase the labor force participation rate to make up for the loss of immigration to our tax base? What is an acceptable, normal rate for a modern industrialized country?

        Additionally, just because you seem to think the participation rate is low, doesn’t mean the non participating workers are the type businesses need.

        1. how are you proposing to increase the labor force participation rate to make up for the loss of immigration to our tax base?

          Demand creates supply. It is known as Say’s Law. Or to put it in more simple terms, it is called a market you fucking half wit.

          1. That’s exactly backwards, you nitwit. Say’s Law says that supply creates its own demand. Another way of saying that is that markets clear. However, it says nothing about the price at which they clear. The price could well be below the cost of production.

            1. You are right. Long day.

            2. Beyond that, demand creates supply. Do you not think it would? God damn you know just enough about this stuff to be dangerous.

        2. “Additionally, just because you seem to think the participation rate is low, doesn’t mean the non participating workers are the type businesses need.”

          Clearly we need millions more unskilled, illiterate, indigent illegals who are impoverished to come here. That will fix things right up, because open borders no matter what.

      3. We need more tax paying immigrants to support all the people unwilling to work. And to prepare all the food for those unwilling to cook. And landscapers for those unwilling to maintain their own property…

      4. Then how are all these migrants finding work?

        1. They aren’t. It is better to live on welfare or on the street here than it is to live where they are coming from.

    2. debatable points on *desperately*, *needs*, and *more*

      “Immigrants” is sold though. There is broad consensus on what does and does not constitute an “immigrant”.

      1. if it needs parsing past “not from here”

    3. Also, when I run whole chuck roast through the meat grinder in order to make ground chuck would the chuck be considered as ‘supporting’ the meat grinder?

      1. >>>would the chuck be considered as ‘supporting’ the meat grinder?

        which chuck the whole chuck or the ground chuck?

        1. Chuck bless you.

          1. Did you know that the woodchuck is simply a grassland species of marmot?

    4. What “America needs” isn’t the right thing to be asking anyway. What restrictions are appropriate in a free society should be the question.

      Lots of cheap labor affects the economy. So do restrictions on new cheap labor coming into the country. Lots of people benefit from either policy. Why should government be making policy based on a choice between the two?

      1. One issue most people seem to ignore is where that cheap labor is coming from? Why should Mexico, for example, have a priority over Indonesia or any other country? This doesn’t even get to the point that we have immigration laws for a reason and it’s not to favor one country over another. I don’t see a problem with doing so, but that’s not how the current laws are written.

        1. Well, Mexico is right there. It’s not a matter of having priority. It’s just geography. You can’t walk here from Indonesia. Does an immigrant from Mexico have any priority over an immigrant from Indonesia who shows up at the border?

        2. Good point. How many more !exiacans and Central/South Americans do we really need at this point? We already have plenty. Maybe more people from Eastern Europe (especially the hot chicks, gotta watch the ratio). Except the democrats will never go for that since they all hate socialism over there.

          That’s really what this is all about, trandpsforming the electorate into a bunch of socialist friendly AOC types. And that cannot be.

          1. That’s really what this is all about, trandpsforming the electorate into a bunch of socialist friendly AOC types. And that cannot be.

            That statement is about as reasonable as claims that immigration restrictions are all about racism.

            And I think that non-socialists could do pretty well convincing immigrants of their positions if they would just stop being so hostile to so many immigrants. Sell them on the American dream of self actualization. Most come here to work. We should be telling them “great, come, work, make something good for yourself. Just don’t expect any free shit.” There is no reason why poor immigrants should automatically be assumed to be in the AOC camp. But non-leftists are doing a terrible job selling them anything else.

            1. Bullshit. Republicans have been trying for decades to court the black and Hispanic vote. The sad truth is that these people are mostly poor, low skill people with high illegitimacy rates. They thus depend on government to pay for their upkeep. Small government and individual responsibility will never appeal to them, no matter what we do.

              1. Not necessarily. A recent poll showed Trump at 50% with Hispanics. Blacks are also starting to come around. Given the job market, I’m sure they’re starting to see that their bread is buttered better by Trump than the idiotic policies the democrats are pushing. Despite the media propaganda to the contrary.

                1. And now, with the Democrats going insane, there is even more opportunity to get more minority votes for conservatives. A lot of blacks and hispanics are pretty socially conservative. Just need to convince them that the economic policies the Dems are selling aren’t in their best interests.

      2. Why should government be making policy based on a choice between the two?”

        The decision is not just about labor supply. Ignoring everything else – particularly the welfare and other public expenditure (ie. schooling, public health, law enforcement) aspects – is a gross oversimplification of a complex issue.

    5. The vast majority of immigrants work in conventional white or blue collar jobs. The economy does not run on seasonal work and temp farm jobs. I’m an immigrant and in the 20 years I lived in this country I’ve never met a single immigrant who worked full time at a farm. A handful of Latino coworkers worked at warehouses, which borders on service sector work.

      This country collects a ton of money from businesses that sell intangible goods like tech and intellectual property. If Google ever went dead in CA, that entire state would be halfway to Kentucky. The legion of immigrants working at Walmart in that state couldn’t save it. Unless some of them start their own companies that can fill in the revenue gap, which requires capital, investment, and market – many things America can uniquely provide. Which is why immigrants come here in the first place.

      We don’t NEED more immigration. Unless Reason can show how immigrants can meaningfully cut the deficit and spending, they’re essentially arguing a sinking ship to take in more rats. Brick and mortar model will continue to decline as cost of labor and business climb, and if Amazon’s cashier-less grocery stores become a hit – that’s all she wrote. Where are new immigrants supposed to find work when jobs are being priced out?

  7. Susan Collins and Angus King are among a bipartisan group of legislators too stupid to be embarrassed about publicly displaying their ignorance of Economics 101 and the law of supply and demand. There’s no shortage of workers, there’s simply a shortage of workers who are willing to work at the wages you’re willing to offer. You can always increase demand for the jobs by raising the price you’re offering, and that might be beneficial to American workers. I know I’d rather get paid more rather than less and I’ll bet most people would, too. The alternative of keeping prices low by increasing the supply benefits immigrants and businesses, but why are you favoring businesses over workers and non-Americans over Americans?

    1. The alternative of keeping prices low by increasing the supply benefits immigrants and businesses, but why are you favoring businesses over workers and non-Americans over Americans?

      That is a wonderfully concise bulldozing of Suderman and reason’s arguments on immigration and the labor force. There is one other thing along these lines that never seem to dawn on Reason. Opening the borders would not only decrease wages, it would decrease job security. Reason if it had its way would create an economy where everyone but those at the very top’s job is just as secure as their employer’s abiity to find someone in the world more desparate to do it than they are. How reason thinks people in such an economy would not turn to government and be willing to give up their freedom for security is beyond me.

      1. “Reason if it had its way would create an economy where everyone but those at the very top’s job is just as secure as their employer’s abiity to find someone in the world more desparate to do it than they are.”

        This is exactly the economy the people at the top want, which likely explains a lot of Reason’s funding.

        1. And Cato’s funding as well.

          1. But the people doing the advocating are the most easily replaceable of the bunch. It’s not hard to write like Dalmia, after all. Or Suderman.

            1. It isn’t hard to replace anyone at CNN or KSNBC either. They’re all connected. And that’s the system they want for the people at the top. They don’t want your kids competing with their kids either.

              The progressives at their core favor a de facto caste system. Just one more evil, elitist thing about them.

        2. Yeah, that’s how competition works. Why is it great if limited to one country and terrible if extended beyond national borders?

          1. Why is eating a piece of cake great but eating the entire cake bad? Because life isn’t a simple as you tell yourself Zeb. There is such a thing as too much of something. Just because competition is great in some circumstances doesn’t mean that more of it is always good.

            If you think that making people as insecure about their wages and jobs as possible is a good thing and won’t cause them to look to the government for that security, I would be curious to hear how you think that is the case.

            1. When I ask questions like that, I’m usually actually interested in hearing people’s answers.

              I’m taking what I see as the libertarian position. You don’t claim to be a libertarian, so I expect you might have problems with the libertarian position on certain issues.

              1. Debating dogma.
                Sounds useful

                1. Is anything anyone does in this comment section useful?

                  I was not aware that anyone expected it to be.


                  1. Touche

            2. when has eating an entire cake ever been bad?

    2. And of course bringing in more workers reduces the wages of workers already in that field. I don’t know if overall that’s good or bad, but to pretend that no American workers whatsoever are harmed by immigration is to totally dismiss basic supply and demand laws.

      1. That’s why we need to mandate $100/hr minimum wage with full health benefits and 16 weeks annual leave! Anything less is inhumane!

        1. You forgot 20 hour work weeks.

      2. Exactly Mr. Tibbs. They call you Mr. Tibbs for good reason appearently.

    3. Maybe we could remove the various barriers that drastically increase the cost of legally hiring someone, let the Markey determine wages, and then see whether there is a labor shortage?

      1. *that should, of course, say “market.” I would prefer the junior Senator from Massachusetts not be the arbiter of labor costs.

  8. What do H2-Bs who are guest workers (and will return home), have to do with immigrants who are here to stay and whether the country is full up?

    1. Nothing. And notice Suderman skips over the unfair advantage that H2-Bs get over natives. Why hire a native who can expect you to train them or treat them well when you can hire a foreign slave who knows he is going back to bumfuckistan the moment he complains about anything?

  9. Suderman, numerous arguments for stopping illegal immigration have been put forward, but you’ve chosen to focus on “Our Country is Full.” My guess is that you are either too stupid, lazy, or dishonest to engage the actual arguments.

    1. “What can we do?” he said. We can’t handle any more. Our country’s full. You can’t come in, I’m sorry.”

      The USA is full of assholes and Suderman is one of them.

      1. Indeed.

  10. “There are at least 145 countries more physically dense than the U.S.”

    Relevance? Is this some kind of benchmark? Or do we wait until we resemble Bangladesh before we cry “too full?”

    1. Maybe Americans don’t want to live in Bangledesh. According to Suderman that is not something they have a right to expect or have any say over.

      1. Well, it isn’t is it? I don’t get to decide if my neighbor builds another house next to me. Or prevent people moving to my town. How is this different?

        There are a lot of reasons why we aren’t Bangladesh and immigration policy is very low on the list. That’s a silly argument. Countries don’t get too full because of immigration. That’s self limiting. People will stop immigrating when there isn’t an advantage to doing so. Countries get overpopulated because they have lots of kids and fewer of them die than used to happen.

        1. Well, it isn’t is it? I don’t get to decide if my neighbor builds another house next to me. Or prevent people moving to my town. How is this different?

          First, you do. It is called zoning. Second, why is this different? Because the people of this country are a sovereignty and have a right to have a say in their government and how it controls its borders. You don’t get to or shouldn’t get to stick your boot on their faces for your preferred policy.

          1. First, you do. It is called zoning.

            Actually, libertarians call that “your neighbors trampling on your property rights.”

            1. You’re not a libertarian. How would you know?

              1. “Only members of X group know what members of X group call Y.”

                Is that the kind of smart thing shitlords believe?

                Oh, and I’m sure you can cite unlibertarian comments I have made, right?

                1. You’ve Generally telegraphed yourself as a progressive, and about as libertarian as the parody account OBL. No one is going to back you up on any kind of libertarian bona fides.

                  You certainly have a two dimensional perception of libertarianism. That much is obvious. As does Tony and your other fellow travelers here.

          2. I control the zoning board?

            People clearly do have the political right and power to have a say in how the borders are controlled. But that’s really not what I’m talking about. In my way of looking at the world there is a big distinction between using force to prevent people from doing something and simply allowing people to do certain things. So the question isn’t “why should we allow so many immigrants?” but “why is it justified to use force to stop immigration?”.

            1. To the extent you vote in a Democratic Republic yes you do.

              So the question isn’t “why should we allow so many immigrants?” but “why is it justified to use force to stop immigration?”.

              Yes it is. It is just as justified to enforce the law. You reject the concept of nations and borders and think nations have no right to stop people from entering their borders. You just make that asuumption and argue from it without ever considering that your opponents don’t share that assumption or ever justifying the assumption.

              Everything you and the other open borders wokeltarians say on immigration is a giant exercise in question begging.

              1. You don’t know what assumptions I make.

                And I asked why border control is justified. I actually am interested in people’s answers and having a conversation. How is that not a reasonable question?

                And yes, I am sort of an anarchist. But not the kind who thinks anarchy is actually a tenable situation. So I’m interested in talking about how governments can operate since we are pretty well stuck with governments whether we like it or not.

        2. My point is what frigg’n difference does it make where the US is on a “list” of countries by population density. Our ability and sovereign right to control our borders is the issue, not how many people occupy per square mile in Pakistan. No one has a “right” to come here, or anywhere, outside their native country. That is a privilege that should only be granted according to the circumstances of the individual and their family. Some need asylum, but most are looking for economic opportunity. Fine, if they benefit us and are not criminals or appear to pose a drain on our safety nets; if not we can and should say “no.”

  11. Meanwhile in the real world there is this.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/rr…..c558663eff

    The Permian Basin looks to now be the world’s most productive oil field. But wait, there is more

    http://www.rigzone.com/news/wi…..0-article/

    Exxon Mobil Corp. plans to reduce the cost of pumping oil in the Permian to about $15 a barrel, a level only seen in the giant oil fields of the Middle East.

    Assuming Exon can do this, and I bet they can or can get close, that means West Texas is now Kuwait. It is staggering to think of the amount of wealth that represents and the number of downstream positive consiquences of it’s existence. That is assuming we can keep the retarded and superstious from stopping us from pumping the wealth out of the ground.

    1. That is assuming we can keep the retarded and superstious from stopping us from pumping the wealth out of the ground.

      *And* redistributing it like absolute fucktards once above ground.

      I dunno about you, but I’m getting to the point where stuff like this is more foreboding than promising.

      1. Well, a positive of the Permian basin, as opposed to off-shore or on Federal lands, is that most of the resource is privately owned so it’s at least more difficult for government to claim a very large share for stupid redistribution and spending.

  12. Was Trump being literal? I doubt it. So answering literally is a little comical despite the good info.

    Also. If Quebec residents are annoyed by this, I can just imagine how bad it must really be at the border. How about Reason really investigate that instead of focusing on Trump? He may have a point.

    https://bit.ly/2U9zILG

    1. So we are doing to Canada what Mexico is doing to us. Great.

      1. So we are doing to Canada what Mexico is doing to us.

        Not at all. That Mexico is doing what they’re doing to us is right and just. That we’re doing it to Canada is callous and immoral. Because open borders.

      2. How do you think all those picks in SF who support sanctuary cities would react if a million conservative Texans suddenly flooded SF? Bet it wouldn’t be popular.

    2. Was Trump being literal? I doubt it. So answering literally is a little comical despite the good info.

      That was my take. I suspect that what Trump is referring to is that the immigration system is being overwhelmed. The Left does not seem to be willing to address that; they prefer to just keep emoting about how this proves that Trump = Hitler.

      1. The Left does not seem to be willing to address that; they prefer to just keep emoting about how this proves that Trump = Hitler.

        I LOL’ed when I heard this on NPR:

        “Despite our progress in reforming homeland security for a new age, I have determined that it is the right time for me to step aside,” wrote Nielsen. “I hope that the next Secretary will have the support of Congress and the courts in fixing the laws that have impeded our ability to fully secure America’s borders and have contributed to discord in our nation’s discourse.”

        Democrats, who have been critical of Nielsen’s actions at DHS throughout her time there, said her departure showed that Trump’s immigration policy was too extreme.

        “When even the most radical voices in the administration aren’t radical enough for President Trump, you know he’s completely lost touch with the American people,” said Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

        If it weren’t so sad it would be pretty good satire where the hosts are puzzling over why Nielsen could possibly be retiring and her departure letter effectively says, “I hope the next loser that gets stuck with this position has better luck with the retards in the judiciary and the numbnuts in Congress.”

        1. retiring resigning

    3. Roughly 96 per cent of all migrants who have crossed illegally into Canada since 2017 have done so at Roxham Road, about 50 kilometres south of Montreal.

      Is it ironic that they’re crossing into the most xenophobic and culturally protective province in all of Canada?

      1. Lol. Quebec doesn’t believe itself to be so. They consider themselves to be moderates. Bill 22 and 101 suggest otherwise.

    4. Get your own damn wall, Canadians.

  13. No we don’t need more immigrants. We need to end social security and medicare. Because these programs borrow from our kids to fund low wage foreign employment. If we end these programs we wouldn’t need the workers and in fact the elderly could pick up some of the slack instead of sitting in nursing homes or whatever they do all day. Even Bernie is now warning against unchecked immigration. The bolshies are apoplectic about it. They accuse you of ‘nationalism’ and block you if you dare to protest. Meaning, they have chosen immigrants over their fellow citizens. We are in a dangerous place now.

    1. I had some dumb kid on an MMO try to explain to me that the Nazis weren’t socialists, that they were nationalists. I kit think he understood what either word meant. He is a university student too.

    2. End social security and Medicare.

      Great so did a few calculations. With the years of forced payments, and compounded returns based on what I gained in investments in the 401k. I would take that check and retire tomorrow. Oh wait, Apple is up. Love the idea.

  14. Fair question:

    If the author leaves the USA, how does he do it?

    Does he sneak out?

    I tried to travel from Vermont, USA, to Montreal, Canada, and when I got to the ‘border’ there was an ‘agent’ there who demanded a ‘passport.’

    I told him I was a libertarian, and didn’t believe in ‘borders’ so I did not need a ‘passport.’

    He told me, ‘no passport no crossy.’

    What Reason’s position on ‘passports?’

    Seems to me a ‘real libertarian’ would not get a passport because of principles.

    Is this correct or not?

    1. Typically you CAN get out of a country without a passport. It’s getting into the NEXT country without one that’s dicey.

      1. According to Delta:

        When you’re traveling outside of the United States, make sure you have all required travel documents. A passport is required for all international travel. Remember, the name on your boarding pass must match the name on your government-issued passport. In general, your passport must be valid for at least six months beyond the period of intended stay in a foreign country. Also, be sure to check to see if a visa is needed to visit your destination country.

        http://tinyurl.com/y4oefytq

        1. I have been to Canada many times without a passport, usually driving, though on a few occasions it was by boat.

          But any time you want you can hop on a boat and leave the country without one. Most of the surface of the Earth isn’t the territory of any country, and we DO border on two oceans.

    2. Last time I went to Canada, they said I could leave the country without a passport, but would have trouble getting back in.
      Does Canada require passports from Americans now?

      1. Last year, a border guard wanted to see my passport to enter Canada from Vermont.

        Because of your question, I did a search.

        —–
        Visitors from any country other than the U.S. have always needed a passport to enter Canada. On the other hand, because of a friendly border crossing agreement between Canada and the United States, Canada Border Services did not require U.S. citizens to present a passport to enter Canada.

        This friendly border crossing agreement used to be mutual; however, now the WHTI requires that U.S. citizens have a passport to return home via air.

        In this way, passport requirements for Canada and U.S. borders are different on paper, but, are in practice, the same. Canada will not allow a U.S. citizen into the country who does not have the proper documentation to return home.

        The Canadian government requires citizens of the United States to have a passport to fly to or transit through a Canadian airport, but not to enter Canada by land or by boat. For those travelers, in lieu of a passport, Canada requires that you carry proof of your citizenship, such as a birth certificate, certificate of citizenship or naturalization, or a Certificate of Indian Status, as well as photo identification.

        http://tinyurl.com/y3pfjjam

        Seems like the guard was either ignorant or just being a dick. I didn’t have my birth certificate on me and he never asked for it.

      2. I can’t get into the USA without a passport.

        I’m old enough to remember a time – before NAFTA interestingly enough – when we didn’t need them either way.

        1. I think that changed in 2004 or so. A driver’s license would usually do it.

    3. Seems to me a ‘real libertarian’ would not get a passport because of principles.

      Or pay income taxes or property taxes or send their kids to government school or drive on government roads, etc. So if anyone wanted to act like a free person they wouldn’t get very far and would probably end up in jail after a short while.

    4. I don’t think “real” libertarians are obliged to refuse to participate in things that wouldn’t exist in their ideal society. That’s kind of ridiculous, no? If the laws exist, you follow them if you have to.

  15. America desperately needs more immigrants to support its economy.

    As someone who has mixed views on immigration, I find this argument to be one of the worst, and fundamentally untrue. And even if it WERE true, that tells you that something is profoundly wrong with our economy.

    1. If by “profoundly wrong” you mean has some how created an entirely new relationship between labor and capital, sure. I don’t think that is the case. Suderman’s argument is fundementally untrue and frankly absurd.

  16. America desperately needs more immigrants to support its economy Ponzi welfare schemes.

    That’s better.

    1. That sounds much more reasonable.

      1. And Reasonable too.

  17. America has encountered successive waves of intolerance and ignorance — often driven by skin color, religion, or perceived economic pressure — throughout its history. Those targeted for discrimination and opprobrium have included the Irish, Jews, Asians, blacks, eastern Europeans, Catholics, gays, Hispanics, agnostics, Italians, women, and others.

    The lesser elements of America have not prevailed in this context, however, over time. And this latest batch of bigots seems nothing special, its reliance on the insights, charms, and character of Donald J. Trump notwithstanding.

    We have withstood the cultural onslaught of ravioli, bagels, collard greens, pierogis, egg rolls, Jameson, tacos, lutefisk, and the Friday fish fry. I believe we are destined to maintain a strong America despite the influence of hummus, falafel, and more burritos.

    I expect America to continue to improve and immigrants to continue to contribute to our progress. As usual, our progress will occur against the wishes and efforts of our intolerant, ignorant, right-wing malcontents. Our desolate desolate backwaters may stand to gain most from an infusion of immigrants and their optimism, entrepreneurship, education, skills, and character.

    1. US Deports 2 Million Illegal Immigrants During Obama’s Tenure

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yVMrvaXZxg

      ====

      Of course this is not surprising because Obama is half black and half white. His half white side is, as the Rev points out, ‘ intolerant, ignorant, right-wing malcontent.’

    2. Kirkland Signature is Costco’s proprietary trademark for its house brand merchandise.”

      1. “Kirkland Signature is Costco’s proprietary trademark for its house brand merchandise.”

        I hear Kirkland Signature Anti-Diarrheal caplets is a good buy.

        1. The balsamic vinegar is pretty good, though they’ve been downsizing the bottles.

  18. The country’s not as densely packed as Hong Kong. Yes, I’m persuaded.

    1. These people refuse to say how many people in America is “full” and what our population “should” be.

      Based on very generous immigration policies and natural birth rates, America has about 300 million people.

      Seems like things are working well for us with that number. China and India have food and poverty problems at ~1.3 billion people each. Seems like more people is not better.

      1. *~327 million people.

      2. Yes what is the number pseudo Libertarians agree is enough? How about 300 million poor under educated non-English speaking low skilled workers who are only good at having babies and have little knowledge of proper hygiene.

        1. This is funny. The people supporting the rights of individuals to move and do business as they will are “pseudo-libertarians”.

          Now, perhaps the libertarian position on immigration is not practical in the world we live in. That may well be true. But restricting immigration to prop up the domestic labor market is not a libertarian position. Maybe it’s a good position.

          1. The true libertarian position will ultimately destroy the true libertarian position.

            1. because, increased tax rates to pay for our unfunded liabilities and shrinking workforce is freedom?

              1. We have no unfunded liabilities. We have unrealistic promises that will not be met.

            2. Well, if that’s the case, I guess libertarianism is a suicide pact. It still is what it is. I like to think that it isn’t actually the case, but I doubt we will have an opportunity to find out.

              1. no, because libertarians would let immigrants come and work here as long as they peacefully contract with others. this would solve the shrinking tax base problem. Actually, it already is saving the US from becoming Japan or the stagnating western European economies who have no history of dealing with heterogeneous immigration.

      3. America isn’t even close to full. According to the Washington Post, the US could accommodate 45.8 trillion people. And the world should be able to hold 700 trillion, nearly 100,000 times its current population.

    2. We’re not as packed as the Lower East Side of NYC back in the early 1900’s, either. We shouldn’t be whining about immigration, apparently.

      It’d be like replying to an accusation that Germany is suppressing religious freedom for a group by noting “Well, I don’t see ovens in use, so it’s not too bad”

  19. Poor Suderman. TDS on the brain every day.

    Its no wonder that even shitty MSM outlets wont give you a job with them.

    They are all full up on TDS.

    1. oh, trashley. we look forward to when you OD on fentanyl. What day is food stamp day again? How much oxy can you get for a case of Shasta?

  20. Another pseudo Libertarian advocating for open borders at the expense of our sovereignty and Constitution. Suderman writes for the NYTimes, VOX, Politico and Slate what more do you need to know.? What is with Reason these days?
    Suderman never addressed the fact that these people are under-educated non-English speaking, low skilled workers which is for fine mowing lawns and cleaning homes but really doesn’t add to the productivity of the population. They become a drain as they pop out children they instantly go on food stamps and other services guaranteed to their US born children.. I don’t give a rats a$$ what the once respected CATO institute says these people don’t add anything other than cheaper labor. They have no emotional connection to this country, it’s people or it’s history. They are really a type of interloper who can’t wait to send most of their money home. If you advocated for highly motivated South Asians, Nigerians, Eastern Europeans and SE Asians I would be all over it. Unfortunately Reason magazine wants again poorly educated non-English speaking low skilled workers to ensure the Koch brothers and their friends have low cost lawn services and house keeping for ever.

    1. “They become a drain as they pop out children they instantly go on food stamps and other services guaranteed to their US born children..” – 100% False. we actually have data on this which time and time again show this is not the case. see below.

      “First-generation immigrants cost the government more than native-born Americans, according to the report ? about $1,600 per person annually. But second generation immigrants are “among the strongest fiscal and economic contributors in the U.S.,” the report found. They contribute about $1,700 per person per year. All other native-born Americans, including third generation immigrants, contribute $1,300 per year on average.” – National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

      ” I don’t give a rats a$$ what the once respected CATO institute says these people don’t add anything other than cheaper labor. ” – ok, but that’s not a cogent argument. and demonstrably false based on empirical data.

      “They have no emotional connection to this country, it’s people or it’s history. ” – cry about it. boo hoo. neither did my ancestors when they arrived.

      “If you advocated for highly motivated South Asians, Nigerians, Eastern Europeans and SE Asians I would be all over it.”
      – It’s funny when you trash types go on diatribes like that, ignore readily available data, repeat insulting stereotypes, and then are confused/aghast when someone calls you racist.

      1. He’s not wrong. I am a legal immigrant from Honduras. I went to a private international school, speak three languages, and when I came here my family paid for my college. I did not want to be a drain on the system, but hopefully an asset. Unfortunately, most of the people sneaking in illegally are illiterate, have kids they can’t afford, and bring backwards attitudes about gays and women. Don;t even get me started on abortion. I work in the nonprofit sector and it is absolutely true that they disproportionately access resources meant to go to legal citizens. Bleeding heart liberals working for said nonprofits not only cover for them, they encourage them.
        Look at the US public school system. Do we really need more illiterate kids who can’t speak English? More money toward ESL programs? More teen moms? And, what are you going to do w them as automation increases?

        1. you are an anglo saxon, native born worker, probably from appalachia, who should be shot.

          1. Stop lying you racist piece of shit.

            1. go fall on a bullet.

  21. “America desperately needs more immigrants to support its economy.”

    The problem isn’t immigrants, the legal ones, the problem is the unchecked mass influx of illiterate third world migrants.

    1. “unchecked mass influx of illiterate third world migrants.” – really? how many are there? cite your source.

    2. The problem is the encouragement of illegal behavior; the promotion of an attitude that says U.S. law is meaningless and is something to be ignored when personally convenient.

      1. it ought to be ignore when it’s morally repugnant.

      2. Sometimes the law is to blame. Laws only work if most people are inclined to obey them. Making laws that normal, decent people won’t obey is the best way to encourage lawlessness.

        1. sounds like the law needs to change then with all these “hordes of refugees” not taking it seriously. Real talk though, if you grew up in Honduras or El Salvador, you wouldn’t give 2 fcks about immigration law in the US. I would break it in a heart beat to get outta there and so would you, and everyone else.

          1. If it is so bad in Honduras or El Salvador, why aren’t they overjoyed at just getting into Mexico?

            1. It’s not as bad as the caravan people make it out to seem. No one is getting killed if they go back, unless they themselves are in maras or fucked with the wrong drug dealer.
              They could go to Costa Rica, Panama, or even Belize, but they all want to come here and use asylum loopholes to trick liberals into thinking they are not economic migrants when that is exactly what they are.
              And if Honduras is so bad, why do they come in waving honduran flags?

              1. i don’t care why they want to come here. If they compete with you directly, Ferngullible, i want as many to come as possible. your white trash kind needs to learn its place.

            2. again, you wouldn’t stop in Mexico either if you had a shot at the US.

  22. Reason should change its name to Delusion. I’m giving it the benefit of the doubt for believing the lies its pushing rather than being a deliberate propaganda arm of the swamp.

  23. We need to import more journalists. Sensitive people who are willing to write propaganda that Americans just won’t write. We need a bunch of new propagandists to keep wages low; we certainly don’t need our current crop of over-paid, lazy journalists.

  24. Indeed. If only we could flood the labor market with unskilled, uneducated, culturally bereft, indigent third worlders willing to work for a fraction of the wages paid to the natives, our problems would vanish in a puff of smoke. Poof.

  25. when did this site become a bastion for the alt right? Immigration is a form of free trade. Free trade benefits nations, per Ricardo, adam smith, etc. See the theory of comparative advantage.

    Additionally, with our birth rates (1.8 vs 2.1 for replacement), and low labor for participation rate, we need more workers, esp for the types of jobs native born people aren’t willing to do at any wage.

    First generation immigrants cost the government more than they contribute, but their children are some of the biggest net contributors to the federal government in the country, moreso than native born workers as a group. Ultimately, this benefit outweighs the cost of their parents over the long term.

    Less immigration will squeeze the welfare state, resulting in higher tax rates and more draconian measures to sustain it. Doesn’t sound pro freedom to me. Sounds like a recipe for more stagnation, and higher tax rates.

    1. “Immigration is a form of free trade”
      True.
      Unlawful immigration is not.
      There is a lawful method established for immigration, which includes Naturalization.
      Shouldn’t those who advocate for immigration mention that?

      1. Unlawful immigration is not – because why? Our laws are not necessarily consistent with individual freedom.

        “There is a lawful method established for immigration, which includes Naturalization.
        Shouldn’t those who advocate for immigration mention that?” – again, just because there is a legal process doesn’t mean it’s just from a libertarian perspective.

    2. Do you have a passport?

      1. this feels like a setup for some sort of tu quoque fallacy.

        1. I’m curious.

          If someone believes that a person has a right to cross artificial borders erected by the state, would that person question the need for a passport?

          1. and i was correct – a tu quoque implication was coming.

            1. The appeal to hypocrisy?

              1. correct. It’s like saying “you’re an anarchist? i hope you don’t use the government roads, then!”

    3. and low labor for participation rate, we need more workers, esp for the types of jobs native born people aren’t willing to do at any wage.

      This has been debunked repeatedly. Again, if you study your free market agrippa, if people aren’t willing to do a job, it’s because the price isn’t right.

      So the question isn’t that no one will pick lettuce, the question is that the price we’re setting for the lettuce picking job is too low. It’s no different than your house mysteriously not selling to anyone: the price is too high.

      Second, the idea that immigrants are merely going to fill the gap in jobs that “native Americans won’t do” isn’t true. Many immigrants will do jobs that Americans do want to do. So the question becomes one of policy. With a flood (or a trickle) of immigrants increasing the available supply of labor, does that influx of immigrants lower or depress wages in WHATEVER sector they’re filling? Presuming the market of labor follows the laws of all other markets (which it does) then does the US have a right or obligation to give preference to native born workers by limiting the influx of the labor supply?

      I don’t have a clear answer on the last part because the libertarian in my says that government shouldn’t be manipulating markets– even if they hurt people. But because I have an ounce of humanity in me, maybe this is a case where we might control the flow of foreign born labor. To what levels and in what process I can’t say.

      1. citation missing, and no, this is not correct. It is theoretically possible that there is no wage high enough for me to skin dive for roto rooter. I would probably commit suicide first. I’m not actually joking. This is similar to the idea of a liquidity trap, where the interest rates can’t be lowered low enough to entice people back into the market. Labor markets have myriad barriers to entry, some legal, some natural, and the inputs to said market are not homogeneous. Therefore, they do not operate like a perfectly competitive market, and market failure is possible.

        – what you are describing with immigration controls (i.e. not allowing free trade) is erecting artificial barriers to entry for this market in order to keep wages artificially high – not free markets.

        This idea that more laborers CETERIS PARIBUS would put downward pressure on wages is correct. In the real world, each laborer is also a consumer, and will increase the demand for local goods and services simultaneously, such that the net affect on wages is ambiguous. Empirically, the data shows that in the long term, we all are better off from the gains from trade – see Ricardo and comparative advantage.

        “But because I have an ounce of humanity in me, maybe this is a case where we might control the flow of foreign born labor.” – i’d say, just the opposite is true. If you want to keep out refugees to protect first world native born workers, i’d say your empathy compass is off.

        1. citation missing, and no

          You made the extraordinary claim that immigrants are doing jobs that no American is willing to do for any wage. Then you used a fictional job to make your example The citation needs to come from you.

          If you don’t think an out-of-work low skill construction worker wouldn’t pick lettuce for $104,000 a year (something John McCain claimed in a speech while people in the crowd shouted back they’d be willing to do) then you don’t have much of an understanding about market prices at all.

          This is similar to the idea of a liquidity trap, where the interest rates can’t be lowered low enough to entice people back into the market.

          It’s like no one’s ever heard of negative interest rates.

          Therefore, they do not operate like a perfectly competitive market, and market failure is possible.

          Well that didn’t take long.

          – what you are describing with immigration controls (i.e. not allowing free trade) is erecting artificial barriers to entry for this market in order to keep wages artificially high – not free markets.

          But the labor market isn’t like a perfectly competitive market, so market failure is possible. That’s where… *clears throat* the government steps in? You just scored a massive own-goal here.

          1. The closest I got to declaring “market failure” is when the supply of labor gets so high that wages of native-born workers suffered flat or depressed wages. Even I didn’t go as far as calling that a market failure, but if you want to run with this theme, then that’s fine with me.

            Empirically, the data shows that in the long term, we all are better off from the gains from trade – see Ricardo and comparative advantage.

            Yes, we are, in the long term. But political reality shows that if we have an … *ahem* market failure (your words, not mine) then political intervention tends to rear its ugly head.

            i’d say, just the opposite is true. If you want to keep out refugees to protect first world native born workers, i’d say your empathy compass is off.

            No, I’m merely talking about markets and making the citizens of my own country a priority. Plus, you’re conflating immigrants with refugees. As Europe discovered, the two different categories can have radically different effects on your labor and welfare markets.

            1. “The closest I got to declaring “market failure” is when the supply of labor gets so high that wages of native-born workers suffered flat or depressed wages.” – no, market failure has a specific definition in the neo-classical framework. This is not it. Have you not taken a freshman econ course?

              “Yes, we are, in the long term. But political reality shows that if we have an … *ahem* market failure (your words, not mine) then political intervention tends to rear its ugly head.” – again, in this example, it’s not really market failure, because the barriers to entry are artificial. and again, market failure is not justification for intervention, just an observation that market xyz doesn’t function as perfectly as market abc.

              “No, I’m merely talking about markets and making the citizens of my own country a priority. ” – yeah, in other words, base tribalism. I’m sorry, but i see no reason why i should care about the well being of someone in Florida more than, say British Columbia. BC is a lot closer to me anyway. So is Mexico.

              1. no, market failure has a specific definition in the neo-classical framework.

                The definition of market failure is when a favored constituency got a poor outcome from the natural effects of markets. If you increase the supply of a thing, the price of that thing will go down. As all immigrants will not enter every job segment equally, not ALL wages will go down, but they will go down in the particular segment they’re entering.

                – yeah, in other words, base tribalism. I’m sorry, but i see no reason why i should care about the well being of someone in Florida more than, say British Columbia. BC is a lot closer to me anyway. So is Mexico.

                Hey, unemployed Americans in flyover country, John McCain and a bunch of bureaucrats in DC decided that you wouldn’t pick lettuce at $104,000 a year. They decided this because they couldn’t imagine giving up their $242,000 a year consulting gig to pick lettuce. Therefore, it’s IPSO FACTO truth NO American is willing to do this job at any wage, so we’re going to bring in millions of immigrants who will do it for $6.35 and hour. It’s the only way our economy will survive!

                1. no, it’s not. the fact that you think you can just make up a definition tells me that you haven’t taken a micro theory class.

                  “If you increase the supply of a thing, the price of that thing will go down. As all immigrants will not enter every job segment equally, not ALL wages will go down, but they will go down in the particular segment they’re entering.” – yup, and in econ 101, you would have learned this is what’s called a ceteris paribus analysis. However, real life is never ceteris paribus and multiple variables change simultaneously.

                  In this case, laborers are also consumers, so while they increase the supply of labor in certain local markets, they also increase the demand for goods/services in certain local markets, meaning the net affect on wages is ambiguous, without empirical data.

                  “Hey, unemployed Americans in flyover country, John McCain and a bunch of bureaucrats in DC decided that you wouldn’t pick lettuce at $104,000 a year” – just nonsensical strawmanning and gibberish.

                  Look. economics is not an immediately intuitive science. If you haven’t formally studied it, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Just like i have never formally studied organic chemistry, and thus would not know what i’m talking about in an O chem discussion.

                  1. “Hey, unemployed Americans in flyover country, John McCain and a bunch of bureaucrats in DC decided that you wouldn’t pick lettuce at $104,000 a year” – just nonsensical strawmanning and gibberish.

                    Look. economics is not an immediately intuitive science. If you haven’t formally studied it, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Just like i have never formally studied organic chemistry, and thus would not know what i’m talking about in an O chem discussion.

                    Again I ask you, what is the job that no native born American will do at any wage requiring immigrants to do?

              2. Democrats: We need to find out why a New York Billionaire who talks tough on immigration is stealing the working class voter from us.

                Howard Dean: I think we might need to…

                DNC: Shut up, Howard, the consultants are delivering their report.

                Consultants: Russian meddling. Definitely meddling.

                DNC: Go with it.

                Democrats: We gotta figure out how a New

                1. go back to the daily stormer, trashley.

                  1. Boy, that’s how you win an argument!

          2. I showed a hypothetical example that didn’t conform to your general hypothesis – i.e. showing that it doesn’t hold true in all cases. This is called falsifying your hypothesis.

            “This is similar to the idea of a liquidity trap, where the interest rates can’t be lowered low enough to entice people back into the market. It’s like no one’s ever heard of negative interest rates.”
            – lol. cute. in any case, the modern Keynesian outlook suggests that in bad recessions, monetary policy becomes useless, even with negative rate, and only fiscal policy can save the day.

            “Therefore, they do not operate like a perfectly competitive market…Well that didn’t take long.” – i’m sorry, is there a cogent argument with this?

            “But the labor market isn’t like a perfectly competitive market, so market failure is possible. ” – the existence of market failure, i.e. when the outcome doesn’t = the same as it would in a perfectly competitive market, does not mean that government intervention necessarily can improve the outcome. So, nope, not an own goal. It simply means that it doesn’t operate like a perfectly competitive market – that’s it. There are natural, imperfectly competitive markets. Again, it’s a function of barriers to entry, fixed costs, homogeneity of inputs. Sorry, bro.

            In this case, the barriers to entry are artificial – i.e. immigration law that are causing markets not to clear. So it’s the intervention in the first place that is causing the failure.

            1. I showed a hypothetical example that didn’t conform to your general hypothesis – i.e. showing that it doesn’t hold true in all cases. This is called falsifying your hypothesis.

              You offered up a statement of fact that you have failed utterly to back up with facts. You said: we need more workers, esp for the types of jobs native born people aren’t willing to do at any wage.

              You haven’t named that job that native born Americans aren’t willing to do at any price. This whole subthread was predicated on that statement and you have no backing for such a claim. You’ve falsified nothing. You made the claim you provide the proof.

              1. back up with facts

                Should read ‘back up with evidence.’

              2. “You said: we need more workers, esp for the types of jobs native born people aren’t willing to do at any wage.”

                – and i subsequently qualified that statement by saying they wouldn’t take those jobs at reasonable, competitive wages that would be sustainable for the business owners. the evidence for this is that companies risk going out of business to get illegal workers rather than paying through the nose for some snot nosed brat to pick strawberries.

                “You haven’t named that job that native born Americans aren’t willing to do at any price. This whole subthread was predicated on that statement and you have no backing for such a claim. ”

                – again, i apologize, i didn’t literally mean that. What i do mean is that, given the educational opportunities and human capital most native born workers have, it’s irrational to expect them to pick lettuce at globally competitive prices.

                And MOST importantly, you don’t get competitive wages by erecting barriers to entry. A competitive wage is not a wage that you think is high enough for native born workers, just like market failure isn’t whatever definition you want to make up on the spot.

                1. – and i subsequently qualified that statement by saying they wouldn’t take those jobs at reasonable, competitive wages that would be sustainable for the business owners.

                  So you do at least understand where the sentiment comes from? You do at least get why the working and middle classes are becoming skeptical of a corporate oligarchy that might be dictating immigration policy just to keep wages low, sometimes read: competitive?

                  What i do mean is that, given the educational opportunities and human capital most native born workers have, it’s irrational to expect them to pick lettuce at globally competitive prices.

                  I can’t really agree or disagree with that because I don’t know that right wage for picking lettuce is. Markets determine that. And yes, illegal immigrants (or legal ones) coming in to do that job IS an effect of a market. But we’ve got a segment of America that sees that as a market failure, do you agree?

                  1. ” You do at least get why the working and middle classes are becoming skeptical of a corporate oligarchy that might be dictating immigration policy just to keep wages low, sometimes read: competitive?”

                    – yeah, i mean, that’s what the Sandernista conspiratoids say. Are you a Sandernista? However, study after study, and basic economic theory suggests that free trade benefits us overall. Immigration raises the gains from specialization and comparative advantage, increasing productivity, which ultimately increases wages.

                    ” can’t really agree or disagree with that because I don’t know that right wage for picking lettuce is. Markets determine that.”
                    – yes, and if you prevent immigrants from coming here, you have decided not to let markets
                    determine that.

                    “But we’ve got a segment of America that sees that as a market failure, do you agree?” – no, because market failure has a very specific definition within the neoclassical micro economics framework that has nothing to do with whether you think certain workers are getting a fair deal.

        2. It is theoretically possible that there is no wage high enough for me to skin dive for roto rooter.

          The more I re-read this quote, the more fascinating I find it. Even if I run with your fictional example, you’re arguing that someone is willing to do this job, just not a native born American, so leave that to the refugees at a lower wage. And because YOU aren’t willing to do it, there is NO ONE IN AMERICA ANYWHERE AT ANY SKILL LEVEL willing to do it. And my empathy compass is off.

          1. Denise – i think you’re taking this too literally. What i am saying is that erecting barriers to entry to our labor markets leads inefficient outcomes, and that the wages you would need to pay a native born worker on average to do certain jobs might be prohibitively high for the business.

            In any case, if you’re a free market fan, you know that erecting barriers to entry leads to less efficient outcomes and social welfare loss. Sure, people might pick lettuce for $25 / hour, but more likely than not, they would just automate more processes – i.e. substitute capital for labor when the relative price of labor increases, and/or move their capital to the cheap labor instead of vice versa, which, again, would not help native born unskilled workers anyway.

            1. What i am saying is that erecting barriers to entry to our labor markets leads inefficient outcomes, and that the wages you would need to pay a native born worker on average to do certain jobs might be prohibitively high for the business.

              ON this, you and I agree. We erect all kinds of barriers to labor markets: Minimum wage laws, licensing, union protection rackets, regulations that protect corporate markets from upstart competition, environmental regulations that often do more harm than good, insurance requirements and mandates. The list goes on. Then we wonder why illegal immigrants pour over the border and bypass all that stuff.

              People have realized that they can’t turn off all of the above regulations, but they *might* be able to turn off illegal (or legal) migration and stem the downward pressure on wages.

              Again, as I said, I don’t know WHAT the exact right policy is, but I damn sure understand where the sentiment comes from, and yes, no matter WHAT the exact policy is, I do believe that nations have a right to control their borders vis-a-vis immigration policy. And that idea doesn’t make someone Hitler or “alt-right”.

              1. “People have realized that they can’t turn off all of the above regulations, but they *might* be able to turn off illegal (or legal) migration and stem the downward pressure on wages.”

                – nope, again, migrants on the whole exert upward pressure on most people’s wage in the medium and long term, and often in the short term. Regardless of hypothetical deductive arguments, the empirical data show that immigrants generally are taking jobs that americans aren’t.

                On a farm, for example, owners, managers and salespeople are often born in America. Immigrants tend to work as field hands. Neither group could do their job without the other. They complement each other, and they mutually raise each other’s productivity from specialization, leading to higher wages.

                “Most economists agree that in spite of being a very big part of the labor force, immigrants have not come at the cost either of American jobs, nor of American wages,” Peri, the UC Davis professor, said.” – PBS News Hour

              2. ” I do believe that nations have a right to control their borders vis-a-vis immigration policy. And that idea doesn’t make someone Hitler or “alt-right”.” – yeah, it’s just that you people do all this obvious mental gymnastics to avoid admitting that you’re ok with certain types of immigrants, but not others, and it isn’t really a skill thing that distinguishes them from each other.

                1. you people do all this obvious mental gymnastics to avoid admitting that you’re ok with certain types of immigrants

                  “you people”? I haven’t made that argument, I haven’t even alluded to it. You’re now erecting straw men and you know it. Are there racist people who just don’t want Mexicans pouring over the border? Of course, but lumping anyone who simply said “America has a right to set immigration policy” as an alt-right Nazi is disingenuous and a shitty tactic to divert from the subject at hand.

                  1. sure, ok. you haven’t (debatable). but if i were a betting man…..

                    1. Hmm, I guess the citation of how Paul is an alt right Nazi is SOON to be forthcoming, right? I read your attempts to thrash out a point and I missed Paul’s blatant racism…so please show me what I missed.

                    2. shut your c*nt mouth when you talk to me.

                    3. Is that what you tell your mom when you demand a new Hot Pocket?

                      I’m impressed you almost went 5 posts without coming across like a raving moron,

                    4. **yawn** – i don’t take you seriously.

                    5. Now you’re repeating your mom’s reply.

                      I didn’t ask, but thanks.

                    6. 2.5/10. Was kinda clever, but the whole “your mom” thing has been out of fashion for a couple decades. you’ve done better.

                    7. So……are you a new sock for PB since he got outed for posting kiddie porn links here?

        3. Actually, without the supply of artificially low priced labor, most of our agriculture would probably have been automated by now in order to reduce the demand for high cost unskilled labor. Which would nicely stop all those veggie recalls for E. Coli. (Workers shitting in the fields.)

      2. “Again, if you study your free market Agrippa”

        I am not left-handed!

        1. You are using Bonetti’s Defense against me, ah?

    4. You sound like the nuts in Europe. I personally don’t want the USA to look like Honduras.
      I’m not right wing and I oppose illegal immigration, or for that mattered, immigration of low-skilled workers.

      1. yeah, trashley. Europe is such an awful place.

        Yes, we know you oppose low skilled immigration. You trash types don’t want to have to compete.

    5. When did you become a fucking moron? Were you born that way? Did your parents drop you on your head? Or was it just a lifelong goal that you have clearly achieved?

      Alt right? Go fuck yourself you miserable Prog troll.

      1. i’m sorry about your childhood, john. but sometimes suicide is the best solution. Let me know if you need help with the method.

        1. My childhood and life is wonderful. The world kisses my ass dipshit.

          1. what did uncle cletus do to your ass?

            1. Yep, you sound like that pedo shitbag PB

  26. “Of Course the Country Isn’t Full ? and Trump Knows It
    America desperately needs more immigrants to support its economy.”

    Why does the author use the term ‘immigrants’ when he knows that it is not lawful immigration that is the issue (the INS has applications for citizenship waiting as I type). The issue is unlawful entry, aka: Illegal Immigration.
    The premise of the article is about discounting Trump’s comment while the content of the article is disingenuous because it conflates illegal and legal in one term ‘immigrant’. Advocate legal immigration, but do not purposely obsure the issue by pretending that “immigrant” and an unlawful “immigrant” are the same. You should either be able to make your point Honestly or not try to make it at all.

    1. how does illegal immigration hurt you personally? And i think the implication behind advocating for increased legal immigration is the same as the argument for legalizing drugs to reduce the black market. i.e. with increased legal immigration, there would be less demand for black market (i.e. illegal) immigration.

      1. Notice no-one comments to you? I’ll bite.

        Personally – let’s see.

        High car insurance because they drive without insurance or licenses.
        Higher medical bills because they don’t pay their bills at the ER or have health care
        Higher crime – be it because they are afraid to report, MS-13, or other illegal (And yes, I lived in a complex as the minority)
        Push x for Spanish – isn’t this racist? Here in Houston we have a large Asian population. Why isn’t there an option for Chinese or Korean? Why do we cater to one group?
        Lower wages – again, if someone is willing to work for 5 dollars in construction compared to 10 legally who gets hired? Guess what this hurts African Americans because they go for the same jobs.
        Slower schools/learning – because students don’t speak English at home or try – it slows public schools for everyone
        Pregnancy – guess what – poor people get pregnant at a higher right (My daughter’s high school as an example).

        Look – not all illegal immigrants are evil and hate America. Agreed. But why should they be given special treatment. My person story is my ex fiancee worked hard to get thru the system and because a citizen . Followed the rules no matter how painful. Why should these people be allowed to jump in line.

        I live in Houston with a huge illegal population. I see it first hand. Do you?

        1. “High car insurance because they drive without insurance or licenses.” – citation missing. People who drive without insurance drive up insurance costs how? They can’t even make claims.

          “Higher medical bills because they don’t pay their bills at the ER or have health care” – citation missing

          “Higher crime – be it because they are afraid to report, MS-13, or other illegal (And yes, I lived in a complex as the minority)
          Push x for S” – citation missing

          “Push x for Spanish – isn’t this racist? Here in Houston we have a large Asian population. Why isn’t there an option for Chinese or Korean? Why do we cater to one group?” – no one cares.

          “Lower wages – again, if someone is willing to work for 5 dollars in construction compared to 10 legally who gets hired? Guess what this hurts African Americans because they go for the same jobs.” – citation missing.

          “Slower schools/learning – because students don’t speak English at home or try – it slows public schools for everyone” – citation missing. Somehow our german, italian, french, spanish speaking european ancestors overcame this no problem.

          I could keep going, but you probably don’t get the point anyway. None of your claims are backed by empirical data. Some of them are entirely speculative. And you’re definitely racist.
          My advice would be to consider ending your life for the benefit of houston and your immediate family. you are a skid mark on the panties of society.

          1. Yes my German speaking ancestors overcame it. And there aren’t many neighborhoods in the northern Midwest that have all German signs up. Unlike many places in LA, San Diego, Phoenix, et al.

            1. at one point in our history, you could travel down the appalachians from Penn to GA, and meet only german speakers. Many schools, towns, businesses operated in German. This wasn’t a problem until WWI when being German became politically problematic in the US.

              OMG – signs in a different language? How do you manage to survive such an affront to your dignity? You realize there is no official language in the US?

              1. Mary, you can’t even recognize a different language.

          2. I agree with chucknorris so I, a Honduran, must be racist too. Fuck off with your bleeding heart bullshit, you are ruining it for us skilled legal immigrants who don’t want their neighborhoods full of trash, teen parents, and dog fighting.

            1. cute. likely anglo saxon person pretending to be Honduran.

              If you don’t like it, take an extra oxy than normal today or something. Maybe you’ll be lucky and that’ll be one too many.

              But seriously, immigrants who come here and then try to keep others from entering should die in a fire. If you really are honduran, and you’re probably not, but if you are, kill yourself. it’s that simple.

              1. Don’t be a dick.

                1. like, if i pretended to be honduran so it doesn’t seem as racist when i say racist things? He’s all over this thread, and based on previous comments, he’s not an immigrant, and not honduran. white people do this all the time on the web.

                  1. Still, it’s sound advice in general.

                2. nah, people like him need to be yelled at, insulted, ridiculed, etc until they learn socially acceptable behavior. The problem is that too many people are more worried about his feelings than the people he insults.

                  Like, if you have that proverbial uncle at thanksgiving, what’s worse, having an award, hostile dinner after you correctly point out how bigoted your uncle is, or the continued affect of the racist view points that your proverbial uncle and those like him have?

                  1. He is not pretending to be a Honduran. You are just claiming he is because like every other Prog you are a racist piece of shit who assumes all brown people must think a certain way.

                    Go fuck yourself.

                    1. john. seriously, you need to talk less and start killing yourself more. i’m never gonna take you seriously, and i have a feeling the feeling is shared by most people around you.

                    2. I will keep talking and keep calling you the racist piece of garbage you are. Go die.

                    3. zing goes the trash.

          3. Hey faggot, everything you questioned are long proven tracts and are also painfully obvious. You are either a total liar, or so willfully obtuse you are brain dead.

          4. “People who drive without insurance drive up insurance costs how? They can’t even make claims.”

            OK, that’s really stupid. Because they can’t make insurance claims, they can’t run into you?

        2. Why should these people be allowed to jump in line.

          That’s a fair question. But for a lot of people, there is no chance of actually getting through the line. I don’t think many pro-immigration people are saying that we should just continue allowing illegal immigration just like it is and that’s fine. What people are saying is that legal immigration should be opened up to a lot more. Make them not-illegal and you mostly solve the first 3 problems on your list anyway.

          1. We’re at over a million a year for the last decade.
            How much more opened up do you propose? What’s a good number?
            And is there any upper limit that you’d choose, or are there any minimum qualifications?

            1. how bout – anyone with a clean criminal record, who doesn’t have communicable diseases etc and who is willing to pay their way can come? no limit, just have to meet basic requirements.

              If i want to hire a mexican, and s/he wants to work for me, and this is all done with private resources voluntarily, no harm has been done. If you think you should be able to stop me from hiring who i choose, because you’re worried about competition with natives, cultural changes, etc, you’re not a libertarian and don’t belong here.

              1. “you’re not a libertarian and don’t belong here.”

                Solid irony.

                The question was for zeb.

              2. ITAL, no one gives fuck about you or what you think. YOU don’t belong here.

              3. This is a totally reasonable position that a lot of people here would agree with. It’s a shame you’re too busy trashing everyone with empty slurs and not furthering this point

            2. Enough to meet demand. I’d let anyone in who is not diseased, has a clean criminal record and has employment lined up or otherwise has the means to support themselves..

              I also think making it easier to come work in low-skill jobs will encourage more people to come temporarily to work and then go back home, meaning fewer people will bring families to stay. If it’s easier to enter legally, it’a also easier to come and go.

  27. The Treasury is empty
    The Budget is in deficit
    The Welfare rolls are packed
    The Country is full.

    1. But the credit card hasn’t been revoked yet, so all is good.

    2. better not increase the tax base then. That would be a disaster.

      1. ========= better not increase the tax base then. That would be a disaster.

        A libertarian arguing for an increase of the tax base ?

        1. tax base = working population who pay taxes, not the rate of taxes.

    3. OK. Cut the budget or figure out how to collect more taxes. Stop giving out so much welfare. If the country is really full, we’d better start requiring breeding licenses before people have kids.

      There are solutions to the problems you raise. What’s that have to do with immigration?

      1. as the alt right is wont to point out, the welfare state isn’t going anywhere so we ought to adjust accordingly.

        1. It will go away when it collapses of it’s own mathematical inevitability.

          And when that happens, indigents like you will really be in a world of hurt.

          1. yeah, mean. Us left wing libertarians, with our expensive coastal real estate and tech jobs. we’re gonna be up a creek for sure.

  28. What a ludicrous article. Nowhere does the writer recognize the distinction between legal and illegal immigration, just referring to “immigrants.” Such sleight-of-pen does not go unnoticed.

    1. please explain to us how legal or illegal immigration has personally affected you in a non-trivial way….

      1. ITAl, who the fuck is ‘us’? You got a turd in your pocket?

    2. Why is that such an important distinction?

      1. because, as many on the left suspect, the motivation for the anti-immigration crowd may not actually come from a non-trivial economic loss that they incurred, but rather fear of change. So i always ask the alt-right trash how they have actually been affected by immigration in a non-trivial way in order to better gauge their ultimate motivation.

        1. Mary,

          You are mentally ill and haven’t worked in decades if you ever have. Don’t talk about people who do work. It is unbecoming.

          1. how long have you been a working girl, John?

        2. Yes, I actually fear that my native country will change into a country that is more like South America or Mexico.

          Now, explain why this isn’t a prospect people should fear? Is South America such a nice place that caravans regularly form up in America to travel there?

  29. Really? You write a headline accusing someone of making a misleading statements then say “immigrants are less criminal” without any qualification? People who immigrate legally are more law abiding, which is unsurprising.

  30. Gee whizz…Peter R. Koch Brother’s much?? Clearly everyone has become mouthpieces for the Chamber of Commerce. All they want is cheap labor. How about paying competitive wages??? Then maybe some Americans will drop a resume off.

    1. competitive wages happen when there aren’t artificial barriers to entry to labor markets, such as immigration laws that prevent companies hiring the workers they want at the price they want. Just because you think you should get paid more to clean toilets, doesn’t mean that wage is competitive.

      1. Just because you want a slave to wipe your sorry ass because you are too lazy and stupid to do it yourself doesn’ tmean the country owes you access to one.

        1. see grammatical help with run-on sentences.

  31. One of the metrics that CATO uses to rate a nations economic freedom is Rule Of Law. Somehow, that metric is left out of the post and Reasons obsessive fixation on open borders. Most rational Americans want Legal, functional immigration, not ILLEGAL chaos, shitstorm, dysfunctional immigration (BTW..Sweden wants to close a popular migrant pathway bridge and is warning of resource depletion and inability to allow more migrants-only available info is from Sweden local newspapers). Here is another point: Why is POTUS contender Andrew Yang, who seems like a knowledgeable reasonable type guy, talking up the Techapocolypse on low skilled workers and pushing for a Basic Income? This talking point alone would make all of the open borders economic arguments bunk.

    And final questions remain: WHO PAYS FOR:…..Public Schools (babysitting),English Language Classes, Interpreters, Expansion of the Legal System, Courts, Medicare, Housing, Energy, Food
    for illegal immigrants making $10/hour with 2-3 kids or refugees that are not working making that big ol $10/hour?

    1. “Most rational Americans want Legal, functional immigration, not ILLEGAL chaos, shitstorm, dysfunctional immigration ” – i’m sorry, can you point out an example of someone who wants dysfunctional, illegal immigration?

      According to the National of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine: “First-generation immigrants cost the government more than native-born Americans, according to the report ? about $1,600 per person annually. But second generation immigrants are “among the strongest fiscal and economic contributors in the U.S.,” the report found. They contribute about $1,700 per person per year. All other native-born Americans, including third generation immigrants, contribute $1,300 per year on average.”

      The answer is, at first, there are some short term costs, but long term, it pays for itself and then some. I suggest reading some David Ricardo- specifically about comparative advantage and the gains from trade.

    2. An essential part of rule of law is having laws that people generally support and obey. Otherwise you get a police state. That does not seem to be the case with current US immigration and employment law.

      1. Okay zeb, so I guess if sectarian violence broke out, the government should not try to stop it and should just make murder illegal. By your logic, that is the answer.

        1. Um, no. Obviously laws against actual violence can’t be treated that way. That’s an essential function of government.

          I’d say that when you have significant sectarian violence, rule of law has already failed anyway.

  32. You know, I think I have had an epiphany. I usually describe my politics as “libertarian-leaning Republican”. Primarily because I am anything but a Socon, and I am middle of the road in terms of isolationism/interventionism.

    The founders of this country did something no one else had ever achieved: created a nation from an idea. The Constitution is supposed to be the document that embodies that idea by granting certain, limited powers to the federal government. But so many “Libertarians” seem to believe that anarchy is preferable to limited government. As an ideal, all humans SHOULD be able to choose where to live (provided they don’t infringe upon the legitimate property rights of others). However, the natural state of humankind for most of its existence since the advent of agriculture has been slavery of one form or another, rather than freedom. And the founders knew that. So they tried to create an island of liberty in a world of tyranny.

    Taken as a whole, it is good news that most of the world is freer than at most times in the past. But if borders are meaningless, then the Constitution is meaningless. And this is one fundamental reason why I don’t consider myself a Libertarian.

    I am probably making a bit of a hash of this, but I am limited on time (and characters). Suffice it to say that I believe there are a few legitimate functions of govt, and controlling immigration and naturalization fits.

    1. here’s the argument against the constitution being a sacred cow: why should men from 250 years ago have a say in how our government functions today? I didn’t vote for the constitution. Neither did you. No one alive today did. Why are we obligated to accept it as this sacred cow of a document?

      “But if borders are meaningless, then the Constitution is meaningless.” – good thing no one’s advocating for meaningless borders. Libertarians don’t want dysfunctional, unsupervised immigration. Even during the hey day of ellis island, people were sent back, quarantined, etc.

      1. here’s the argument against the constitution being a sacred cow: why should men from 250 years ago have a say in how our government functions today?

        Why should people from the 1930s have a say in what we do today? Can I stop paying Social Security?

        God damn you are stupid.

        1. they shouldn’t. and you should be able to stop paying SS. However, i wouldn’t recommend it, because you’d go to jail, regardless of right and wrong.

          God damn that was a horrible analogy on your part. next!

          1. So we have to repass every law on the books forever? Yeah that will work out well. Take your meds Mary. Really, this manic phases just harm yourself.

            1. yeah, john. that’s what was suggested. right. seriously, why do people like you with a GED level education even try to get involved in political discussions? It’s irritating that you haven’t learned your place.

              1. Mary, you are an 8th grade drop out who probably has been in and out of mental institutions your entire life. Come on Mary, just get yourself banned so the rest of us can talk.

                1. lol. this is too rich. how long will you let me do this to you?

                  1. I am enjoying watching you wallow in your own misery far more than I should. I just have a weakness for it.

                    1. lol. ok, trashley. of course.

                  2. ITAL, John is slapping you around just like the rest of us. You’re just too stupid to know that.

      2. “here’s the argument against the constitution being a sacred cow: why should men from 250 years ago have a say in how our government functions today? I didn’t vote for the constitution. Neither did you. No one alive today did. Why are we obligated to accept it as this sacred cow of a document?”

        We have a government formed by that Constitution, full of people sworn to uphold it. If that Constitution is meaningless, what is the basis of the power they exercise?

        Just the fact that they can shoot us if we don’t knuckle under.

        And if they don’t have to follow that Constitution, they’re free to demand that we knuckle under in a lot of ways that the Constitution forbids. And shoot us if they don’t do it.

        You don’t like the Constitution? Fine, find the support to formally replace it. Because just getting rid of it will NOT be an improvement.

  33. Embarrassed for the idiot that wrote this lib shill piece. Where is Reason?

    1. this is a libertarian site. Reason has always been a libertarian site. libertarians believe in free markets, which require the free movement of capital and labor, i.e., immigration.

      If you would like to only hear opinions that support your white trash world view, i hear the daily stormer is a good place to start?

      1. Take your meds Mary Stack.

        1. clever, girl.

          1. I wish so much that someone would drop by 8113 Sun Meadows Court in Fort Worth, Texas and do both you and the world a favor and put you out of your misery.

            1. i wish your mom and you didn’t get hit so much by your dad, but if wishes were wings….

              8113 Sun Meadows Court in Fort Worth, Texas – looks like a nice house.

              1. Fuck off Mary. God you are a sick worthless piece of shit.

                1. white trash people usually get angry around me. i’m used to it. they’re usually pretty insecure about their station in life, looks like you confirm the stereotype.

                  1. You are a mentally unstable piece of garbage Mary. Listen to your family and take your meds.

                    1. if you’re gonna try to troll me, at least be clever. That was just fcking lame. 2/10 at best.

                    2. There is nothing clever about the sorry truth that is Mary Stack. She is a sad aging troll and stalker who goes off her meds and tries to destroy the site. It’s pathetic.

                    3. There is nothing clever about the sorry truth that is John and his uncle cletus lover. John is a sad aging, hermaphrodite troll and stalker who goes off his/her meds and tries to destroy the site. It’s pathetic.

                    4. Hermaphrodite?

                      Typical prog, goes for the transgender gay slur at the first opportunity. Hateful piece of shit like they all are.

                    5. haha. you don’t even know what a hermaphrodite is.

                      “transgender gay slur ” – where? being a hermaphrodite =/= trans, and neither have anything to do with your sexual orientation. silly, john. you can’t even pretend to be offended right.

                    6. Come on Mary. Let all of the crazy out. You know you want to you crazy sad creature

                    7. You may be ruled by materialism without realizing it. Do not let it eliminate the deeper meaning of your path. Illusion is born in the gap where karma has been excluded. Without passion, one cannot vibrate.

                      This life is nothing short of an unveiling uprising of karmic passion. To go along the mission is to become one with it. Empathy is the deeper meaning of complexity, and of us.

                      Throughout history, humans have been interacting with the planet via morphogenetic fields. We are at a crossroads of presence and illusion. Who are we? Where on the great story will we be awakened?

                  2. You’re implying that minorities are fond of assholes? Seems racist

                    1. Not exactly. Rather, i’m implying that the quantum matrix is calling to you via transmissions. Can you hear it? How should you navigate this sublime nexus? Wanderer, look within and inspire yourself.

  34. There’s already 218 comments. I’ll make a quick guess and say thay at least half of the comments revolve around something like “Yes, we’re already full of [some euphemism for brown people] already!”

    1. yeah, but they rarely say it that explicitly.

      1. I just sent the IRS a check for $6,769.00.

        It was either that or go to jail.

        I hope none of the money goes to take care of foreign moochers no matter where they’re from, what they look like, or what they believe.

        1. i hope you die?

        2. “I hope none of the money goes to take care of foreign moochers no matter where they’re from, what they look like, or what they believe.”

          – also, just calling them foreign moochers makes you sound prejudiced, regardless of how you qualified it at the end.

          1. So non citizens have a right to US taxpayer monies?

            Tres Libertarian, son.

            1. i’m sorry, did something say that anywhere ever?

              Tres trash, mikey. Sorry about uncle cletus.

              1. You did. Just now.

                I was wondering if you read your own gibberish. Now I know.

                Hint: moochers take resources, such as money, they have no right to. You wailed about how racist it is to say that.

        3. I’m not really any more worried about foreign moochers getting my money than domestic moochers getting it. And they are definitely both getting some.

          1. yeah, but the foreign moochers might have different “values” and “principles”

          2. You know, having “isn’t this” as a fervent supporter would make me question my views pretty heavily.

            1. zing from trashley! so clever.

            2. Well, that’s a silly way to think of things. Being a giant asshole doesn’t necessarily make you wrong.

          3. I’m not really any more worried about foreign moochers getting my money than domestic moochers getting it.

            1. There are six billion of them Zeb. Do you not understant that?

              1. tie a rope around your neck. then tie the other end to a high place. make sure the rope is not long enough for you to reach the ground. then jump. it will be fun. trust me, john.

                1. Take your meds Mary. You are a sick and sad person.

                  1. see above about the rope again. trust me, john. it’s for the best. some lives are a waste. it’s ok. you’ll probably be reincarnated as a housecat or something.

                    1. Why did you not take your meds Mary? Why do you let yourself have these manic episodes? What the hell is wrong with you?

                    2. Why did you not take your meds, John? Why do you let yourself have these manic episodes? What the hell is wrong with you?

                    3. Let’s just hope she listens to the voices in her head and harms herself.

                    4. Come on Mary, Just get yourself banned like you always do. Just get it over with.

                    5. Come on, John. Just get yourself banned like you always do. Just get it over with.

                    6. I have never been banned. I don’t dox people and try to shut down the site like you do. It is just a matter of time. At this point I will stop picking on you and leave you to wallow in your own shit and misery.

                    7. I have never been banned. I don’t dox people and try to shut down the site like you do. It is just a matter of time. At this point I will stop picking on you and leave you to wallow in your own shit and misery.

                    8. Yes you do. Mary. You have been banned multiplle times on this site and several times for trying to dox me. Eventually you will lose your temper and do something stupid and get banned. You lack the self control and mental stability not to.

                    9. Yes you do. John. You have been banned multiplle times on this site and several times for trying to dox me. Eventually you will lose your temper and do something stupid and get banned. You lack the self control and mental stability not to.

                    10. Come on mary, just do it. You know you will.

                    11. Prophet, look within and awaken yourself. Although you may not realize it, you are mythic. If you have never experienced this explosion of the creative act, it can be difficult to vibrate.

                      The network of rebirth is now happening worldwide. Imagine a blossoming of what could be. It is a sign of things to come.

                      We can no longer afford to live with dogma. Illusion is the antithesis of complexity. Without intuition, one cannot exist.

                    12. Come on. Let the crazy win.

                    13. If you have never experienced this rekindling inherent in nature, it can be difficult to believe. Seeker, look within and fulfill yourself. Although you may not realize it, you are infinite.

                      Soon there will be an evolving of balance the likes of which the planet has never seen. The wellspring of synchronicity is now happening worldwide. We must unify ourselves and bless others.

                      It is time to take guidance to the next level. We must learn how to lead spatial lives in the face of selfishness. It is in condensing that we are re-energized.

              2. It’s like opposing stopping a forest fire because there are so many more trees left to burn.

                1. i oppose both forests and fires.

              3. There are 6 billion people who can’t support themselves trying to immigrate to the US?

  35. You open borders fanatics are morons. First, these people are going to be a huge welfare suck. You can talk about the hypothetical world where we had no welfare state, but that isn’t reality. Second, our cities are jam packed. Traffic sucks, infrastructure is at capacity, and our environmental problems are worsening. The idea that we have “plenty of room” is a joke.

    1. “First, these people are going to be a huge welfare suck” – missing citation.

      “Second, our cities are jam packed.” – mine is feeling a little to small. i want more people.

      “Traffic sucks, infrastructure is at capacity, and our environmental problems are worsening.” – boo hoo.

      Bottom line, the people who are against higher levels of immigration fall into one of two camps, or both. Either a.) they are racist and don’t want the culture to shift to far away from a eurocentric POV, or b.) they are unskilled laborers (i.e. losers) who are afraid of the competition, or c.) both.

      1. The data is all there. Do you own research.

        Yeah, well, most immigrants go to the most crowded cities.

        We have a right to control burdens on our infrastructure.

        Haha. If wanting a European based culture makes me a racist, I’m happy to be called one.

        You “libertarians” are hilarious. You probably also think it’s just fine and dandy for a gay man to ejaculate into another man’s an*s and get a “marriage” license to bless his “relationship.”

      2. “Bottom line, the people who are against higher levels of immigration fall into one of two camps” – missing citation.

      3. “Bottom line, the people who are against higher levels of immigration fall into one of two camps” – missing citation.

  36. Yeah, we keep hearing we need more ignorant fence hoppers who just want to get free stuff, or hang about looking for jobs and no taxes.
    The open border crowd tells a lot of whoppers. “There’s only 11 million” false more like triple that. “Americans won’t do the work”. Pull my other leg.
    “Immigrants aren’t on welfare”. Really, then why do so many sign up and why don’t dems want the census to show them?
    “They’re all sweet valedictorians”. So’s my dog.
    The Mexicans offered to help, but noooooo, they want free stuff plus wave their rag in our face while trying to break in. Guatemalans, etc, should be exported within 10 minutes. If we need them, we can call them.

    1. “There’s only 11 million” false more like triple that. “Americans won’t do the work”. Pull my other leg.” – multiple citations missing

      “”Immigrants aren’t on welfare”. Really, then why do so many sign up and why don’t dems want the census to show them?” – multiple citations missing

      “”They’re all sweet valedictorians”. So’s my dog.” – gonna guess that no one in your extended family has been valedictorian of anything ever.

      bottom line, people like you just don’t need to be here anymore. you’re uneducated and prejudiced, and unwilling to learn. You and we will be be better off when you’re turned into soylent green to feed the refugees.

    2. That comment would be very well received on other web sites catering to a non libertarian readership.

      Liberty and individual rights is not an easy, nor popular way of thinking.

      1. do you mean the racist diatribe based on multiple false assumptions regarding readily available empirical data by Barry?

      2. You import enough of these “immigrants,” and we’ll no longer have any liberty or individual rights.

  37. Every mestizo peasant who crosses into America makes America more like Latin America.

  38. So, you want to know why so many people accuse border restrictionists of being racist? Well, let’s start with some of these comments:

    Mestizo peasants who are functionally illiterate in Spanish (forget about English)

    unskilled, illiterate, indigent illegals

    the unchecked mass influx of illiterate third world migrants.

    unskilled, uneducated, culturally bereft, indigent third worlders

    ignorant fence hoppers who just want to get free stuff

    Note that these opinions on the moral character of immigrants have nothing to do with the speaker’s position on immigration itself. They are all gratuitously gross generalizations about the migrants themselves.

    If you want more open borders, then the best way to do that is to convince everyone that being opposed to open borders must mean that you’re a bigoted asshole. So, keep up the good work, ladies and gentlemen!

    1. Oh Ledo Jeffy, I knew you would take a break from whacking it to violent kiddie porn to spout your usual race baiting proggy bullshit here.

      Since you hate Americans so much, maybe you should go to one of those open borders Progtopia you dream of so much where you can watch children get raped by indigent foreign sex predators to your heart’s content.

      1. Don’t you have more progressives to murder?

        1. Don’t you have trashy barrios to be avoiding?

  39. An endless pyramid scheme of immigration-fueled population increase is a terrible long-term plan.

    All the developed countries of the world are dropping below replacement rate, and as deceopi g could tries become more prosperous, we see their birthrates dropping.

    And that’s fine. We should be developing national economic systems based on stable populations.

    Population increase as fodder for the debt-fueled welfare state GDP machines is so self-evidently a destructive long-term policy that it is embarrassing that anyone promotes it

    1. “deceopi g could tries” == “developing countries”

      My phone does bizarre things with autocorrect. It’s more like autogarble.

    2. We should be developing national economic systems based on stable populations.

      Why do you presume to speak for all of us?

      1. Don’t be an idiot.

  40. It’s full to illegal border jumpers. Thats what Trump said and hes right. He also said he wants to welcome legal immigrants in the largest numbers ever. But not welfare cases.

  41. Hair of the dog is certainly one cure for the issue.

  42. If a country is only a matter of a matter of work and money. 1. Democratic principles are hurt by ignoring the vote of the people. 2. Hating and scorning/never acknowledging an elected president is hating the country itself. 3. Law and order become a game for lying and cheating the system. 4. the country’s identity and history are undermined as trivial. 5. Culture is remade as simply a matter of money and power.

    Libertarians and Republicans become just users without consistent principles. The government is subsidizing big-time the illegal immigrants, but hey, big government is bad, right? Where will Libertarians be when the jobs go cold and immigrants have not integrated? Oh well, not their problem because they have their stash and can move where they want. In fact, why even have nations. Nations are the feared evil of evil now it seems. How convenient — and how irresponsible.

    A cultural war over beliefs and principles is underlying this issue. If for the sake of material wealth, the wrong ideas and ideals are indulged….will it matter? Yes, it’s revolutionary. But Libertarians pretend that’s outside their ultimate concern. Not very admirable, not very honest.

  43. Because you see, Americans exist for the economy, not the economy for Americans.

    Kneel before Economy!

  44. Google pay me $280 to 390$ each hour for internet working from home.i have made $35K on this month on line do business from home.i’m a ordinary understudy and that i paintings 2 to 5 hours in keeping with day in my greater time efficiently from home..every body can perform this interest and win extra dollars on-line in low renovation via truly take after this connection and take after subtle factors

    HERE>>>>>>>> http://www.GeoSalary.com

  45. isn’t this a libertarian site

    Your plan for a perfect libertarian country is flawed because it’s build on a huge welfare/warfare state.

    I’ll agree with your open borders utopia when the federal government is cut by 96%.

    Until then, you’re living in a pipe dream.

    Start with the foundation and cut the size of the federal government.

    Now I’m off to work to help pay for the flawed foundation.

    1. The new libertarian only wears it as a facade now. Regardless of what they claim about favoring a light hand, they are free riders on the back of big government now, the negative externalities of their indulgent fantasies require ever expanding welfare with an oppressive police state to make whole.

  46. ‘immigrants’ or ‘ILLEGAL immigrants’. Jesus. Come in the front fucking door.

    1. But you forced me to break in by not letting me in the door!

  47. So what! We can use immigrants? So let us choose who comes in. Why should we accept the dire poverty stricken people who most likely have no skills or the intellectual tools to develop skills. The open border libertarian position is mindless and lacks diligence of thought.

  48. “isn’t this a libertarian site?|4.9.19 @ 8:14PM|#

    how bout – anyone with a clean criminal record, who doesn’t have communicable diseases etc and who is willing to pay their way can come? no limit, just have to meet basic requirements.

    If i want to hire a mexican, and s/he wants to work for me, and this is all done with private resources voluntarily, no harm has been done. If you think you should be able to stop me from hiring who i choose, because you’re worried about competition with natives, cultural changes, etc, you’re not a libertarian and don’t belong here.”

    This seems like a legitimate position. It’s hardly “open borders.” It’s crazy reading through all these comments, and all the hate back and forth, and yet I think most people commenting here would agree with what this person said.

    Is the person who said it nuts? Yes. Does that make the statement unreasonable? no

  49. Less than 2% of the immigration population works in farms. We can address seasonal demand with guest worker programs. Canada does that, and they won’t open their border despite being a HUGE empty land that uses a single payer system.

    We’re less densely packed than places like Korea because our land is massive and people tend to be more mobile. But look what’s happening in densely populated sections of the country. The middle parts of the country will lose whatever’s working for them if they resembled LA or SF.

    Increased immigration will certain boost parts of the country, but that will come from a sliver of their population that has capital. Frankly we don’t need increased legal immigration for existing investment to expand.

    How can a nation with debt the size of small nation’s GDP and mind boggling amount of spending take in even more amount of people? We’re running out of money because the way we spend money, not because we lack source for funding. Libertarians correctly point that out. Beyond a certain threshold, immigration will start to raise housing prices and pose other logisitical issues. Overall spending WILL increase, even if they take less government handouts.

  50. Wow is Peter Suderman is a liar in his article. Not a word about the pay rates the business who can’t find workers are paying. Basic economics (yes, that is my degree) prove there is no such thing as a shortage of labor. Suderman lies in his article because the business people being talked to are not paying enough in wages to attract the workers they need. Period, end of story. The shortage in Maine for example of workers is because those businesses (let me interview them) are paying to say $8 per hour. Well, of course, you won’t get enough workers paying wages which are from 10 years ago. There is inflation you know (caused by none other than the government). Had a CNC shop complaining they could not find workers to run their machines. Pay rate: $12 per hour. Absolutely laughable. Pay rates in other states for CNC operators are anywhere from $25 up to $45/hour. Hey Suderman – of the businesses who can’t find enough workers tell me, tell us all, what are their pay rates for the which jobs? Why didn’t you find out before writing this article? And what about illegal immigration. You don’t say a word about that, just lumping them all in. Then let’s get to criminals coming in our country – what about them? And how about terrorists? Huh???? Not a word. A joke of a “journalist” Peter Suderman is proving to be here, a complete joke. How about an article “Businesses not paying enough to attract the workers they need”. ?

  51. Without my slaves how will my plantations survive?

    Peak lulbert indeed.

    Pave over the forests, the only value is unlimited access to cheap labor, down stream costs, no concern at all, its subsidized by government, and that’s the libertarian principle now, indulge, and let uncle sam tax the rest of us to pay for it.

  52. Get rid of all the illegals and replace them legals. It won’t matter anyway becuase when the socialists retake the DC Swamp, the border will be open wide, the walls will come down and the Dems will be paying for votes. Flood the country with more people and what do you do when the economy goes bust? The big black deficit hole in DC just gets bigger.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.