Most Americans Say Immigrants Make the U.S. Better. So Why Don't Politicians Do Anything About It?
Democrats pander to immigrants but do little to liberalize the system. Meanwhile, Republicans' hostility to immigrants has increased.

At a time when the American economy could use more people, restrictions on immigration continue to trap a lot of unused talent in low-productivity countries. To unleash it, the United States could simply let these immigrants in and let them work. They'd become a productive part of the system that makes this country so wealthy. But politicians are getting in the way.
Forget for a moment about the usual fear-based talking points. Ignore the recent use of immigrants as political props. As George Mason University economist Bryan Caplan said on PBS, "if you don't know anything about economics, just learn this: the secret to mass consumption is mass production. Countries that produce a lot of stuff have a high living standard. Countries that produce a small amount of stuff have a low living standard. That is why people want to live in rich countries, because production per person is high in rich countries."
Unfortunately, the extravagant redistribution of wealth during the COVID-19 years created incentives to stay home instead of work. Today, many U.S. industries are having a hard time finding workers, leaving production lower than it should be. That means fewer goods and services to raise our living standards. It's so bad that unfilled jobs in the manufacturing sector could cost the U.S. economy $1 trillion annually.
This highlights that our problem isn't too many immigrants. Instead, we admit too few people who want to come here to work, often leaving them with no good choice but to try anyway.
I understand that some Americans feel uneasy about allowing in more immigrants who are less educated than most of our population. But you don't have to be a highly educated engineer, surgeon, or entrepreneur of the caliber of Elon Musk to add net value to the U.S. economy. In fact, so much of our country is functioning so well precisely because of so-called low-skilled workers.
Think back to the many months of the pandemic when the economy was closed except for those businesses labeled "essential." Who do you think kept supermarkets open by stocking shelves and driving supplies from warehouses to stores? Who collected garbage, planted vegetables, and raised chickens? Who prepared the takeout meals you ordered on Uber Eats or other platforms? Who cleaned your home or renovated your patio? Who worked in elder care facilities? It was the workers we dismissively call "low-skilled."
Meanwhile, much of the country's computer class hid in our homes, safe and fully paid, collecting COVID-19 checks and enjoying the luxury of others delivering to our doorsteps the things we've come to expect. In a country with 11 million job openings sitting unfilled, we should want more people around who are willing to do the type of work that makes our lives better.
The best part is that these new immigrants don't just bring their labor; they also bring their youth, culture, music, ideas, and innovation. As much as ever, it's the mixing of people who choose to become our neighbors—those who courageously and energetically uproot themselves and leave everything and everyone they know to come to America—that makes this country uniquely innovative and prosperous.
The American people agree. For years, Gallup has polled people about whether immigrants are a good, bad, or mixed thing for this country. Since 2014, 70 percent or more have responded that immigrants are a good thing. Most of us don't want fewer immigrants. Unfortunately, when it comes to immigration reform, there are no adults in the room.
Democrats pander to immigrants but do little to liberalize the system. As a result, people in search of the American dream continue to come illegally. This year, for the first time, over two million have been arrested at the Southwestern border. They take horrible risks and get stuck in despicable conditions when they arrive.
Meanwhile, Republicans' hostility to immigrants has increased, thanks in no small part to stereotypes from the minds of people like former President Donald Trump—fallacies from "they are drug dealers" and "welfare queens" to "they will deface our culture." Of course, welfare could be an issue if extended to everyone who arrives. But that's not the case now, and if need be, Congress could clarify it. This is precisely what a majority of Americans want. Either way, these concerns should be addressed by reforming the welfare state.
The tragedy is that there are solutions to all these problems. I'm willing to bet that in the long term, we'll never regret bringing more people to the United States. Please let them in.
COPYRIGHT 2022 CREATORS.COM.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The only thing missing in his utterly nonsensical drivel is '...This article first appeared in the Farmer's Almanac, 1873...'
800,000 naturalized citizens last year. More people than live in Vermont, Wyoming, North Dakota, Alaska, or DC. We do plenty.
Great! What about also allowing generous work visas to help out with the current labor shortage.
Sorry, Democrats declared that racist and said the president who suggested such was akin to Hitler for it.
I just worked part-time from my apartment for 5 weeks, but I made $30,030. I lost my former business and was soon worn out. Thank goodness, [aso-03] I found this employment online and I was able to start working from home right away. This top career is achievable by everyone, and it will improve their online revenue by:.
.
EXTRA DETAILS HERE:>>> https://extradollars3.blogspot.com/
There's not a labor shortage. People just don't want to work.
No, people don't want to work for what companies are offering.
It's pretty simple: if you need workers and can't get them for the compensation you are offering, you have to offer more.
Whether it's money, medical, vacation days, minimum weekly hours, 401(k) matches, or something else, if what you are offering isn't getting you the workers you need, you have to offer a better package. Even if that's just an extra $.50 an hour, more people will apply.
Or import brown people to work for dirt wages? Seems to be Reason's answer.
Sure, but if $15 an hour isn't enough to bring that labor back to work, the problems are far deeper than just importing more people to fill those jobs will solve. It's like taking out a cash advance to pay down a credit card bill.
And no, and extra 50 cents an hour won't work in that environment. That's ridiculously naive.
I listed a bunch of benefits that could be in play. The first was money. If $.50 an hour won't get it done, you have to go to $.75 or offer something else you think will bring in workers. They're smart enough these days to know that a bonus is a way for employers to keep salaries low with a one-time cost, so the only people who fall for that are the ones who can't do math.
So, sure. If $.50 doesn't do it, more will be required. I'm not saying $.50 will work. I'm not saying it won't. I'm saying that if you want workers, you have to compensate them well enough to make it worth it to them.
Employers are resisting that and then acting shocked that people don't take their offer. Or whining about people not wanting to work for what they're being offered.
The solution is simple, employers just aren't willing to bite the bullet yet.
Employers are resisting that because they are competing with other firms, goods, and services, so they can’t raise prices arbitrarily to pay those higher wages.
Yes, that's called capitalism. But if you choose not to invest in attracting and retaining workers, that is still a choice. You act like saying "We're competing in a capitalist system" is an excuse instead of an observation.
Retail workers are the ones that employers are struggling to attract. There is a pool of local workers. There is a level of compensation that will convince them to fill your open position. If you don't offer that level of compensation, they aren't willing to work for you. It's not rocket science.
That's why it's called a labor shortage and not a people shortage.
Which doesn't mean that the labor version of a Ponzi scheme is the answer.
Workers wanting to be paid more for their labor is a Ponzi scheme? How’s that?
PS: Thank you for the edit button!
Seriously, what a stupid article. This woman is a moron.
Care to share some reasons you consider it "utterly nonsensical drivel"?
We should deport anyone in the US not here legally and jail anyone who hires them. We should end the trillion dollar welfare State. We should automate the bottom 20% to 30% of jobs that idiots think we need to bring in millions of uneducated illegals into this Country. Anything contrary to that is nonsensical 19th Century drivel.
On a scale of 1 to 10 how strongly do you believe in what you just wrote?
Caw caw!
Do you care to address his points? Or are you just going to be a little bitch?
He took the time to comment; that’s how much he believes in this. That’s all you need to know.
So, he took the time to time some stuff with his thumbs into his phone while sitting on the pot. So, a 2 out of 10.
He answered at least in part your complaint, and you simply complain not enough. Go figure?
Instead of asking him how strongly he believes what he wrote, you should have asked him if he actually understands what he wrote. Ask him:
How do you "automate" being a home healthcare worker?
How do you "automate" being a construction worker?
How do you "automate" being a custodian/janitor?
How do you "automate" being a childcare worker?
How do you "automate" being a nursing home worker?
These are the kinds of low-paying jobs that immigrants often do, and they can't be automated. Even for other low-paying jobs that could be automated, it's not like automation is cheap. In many cases it would be cheaper for an employer just to offer a more attractive pay/benefit package than invest in automation.
Ending large tracts of the welfare state would obviate the need for lots of the automation. Not everyone is suited for programming jobs, just look at journalists.
You're betraying a great deal of ignorance of how various welfare programs work, the realities of the working poor, and the realities of the current workforce shortage. We don't have a workforce shortage because we have a huge surplus of people not working, getting fat on government cheese. Welfare has work requirements, and the vast majority of people on some form of government assistance are employed, they just need assistance because they don't get paid very much, because they have the low paying jobs you think would be suddenly be filled if their assistance was taken away. According to the US Chamber of Commerce, if every unemployed person had a job, we'd still have a workforce shortage of 5 million people.
According to the US Chamber of Commerce, if every unemployed person had a job, we’d still have a workforce shortage of 5 million people.
Those guys have been front and center in pushing mass immigration for decades, so they're hardly an objective source of data.
Fails to differentiate between legal and illegal, as usual when they try to cite positive data (legal) and mean Trump comments (illegal). Among other drivelly things.
You can have open borders or a welfare state: pick one.
False dilemma. These are unrelated issues.
"Most Americans Say Immigrants Make the U.S. Better. So Why Don't Politicians Do Anything About It?"
Then why all the fuss about 50 immigrants showing up in MV?
Because they didn't show up there voluntarily. They were dumped there against their will. Do try to keep up.
"Because they didn’t show up there voluntarily."
They literally signed up for it, pen on paper, you lying fuck.
Look, no one expects talking points reported by the mainstream media to be 100% accurate.
Well, accurate according to a narrative, maybe.
They signed forms and were given maps. Are you one of those who think they are too dumb to understand basic concepts?
Brandy wants to believe a religious fable, and spread the gospel.
He thinks black people are too dumb to get I.D. to vote. He probably thinks brown people are too dumb to read.
Can you provide a link to Brandybuck ever speaking against voter ID laws?
Cite? Lol
Why yes, I can
Will two suffice?
And Mike will pretend this never happened.
Thank you.
Acknowledged.
Good, now kill yourself.
Scythe?
Alright, muting you.
When will you realize that you fuckers lie constantly and the receipts exist?
Mike getting caught out is almost a daily event now.
The ones dumped in San Antonio weren't there voluntarily either.
Because they didn’t show up there voluntarily.
Are you asserting that they left Venezuela voluntarily?
They signed a waiver saying they knew they were going to Massachusetts. Martha's Vineyard is in Massachusetts.
Yes, and the big question was there any fraud involved in convincing them to sign that waiver.
Well, in fairness, it's only a "big" question to those who were made to look bad by DeSantis' actions.
It's not really a big question outside of that group.
OK, it’s a small question.
At least to me. DeSantis has already gotten enough free attention from this public yet stunt.
Small questions from small minds. Makes sense.
Sure, Tulpa.
Still not Tulpa, although it's awfully fun watching you concede that I've made you into my sniveling little bitch.
It’s a question for you because you hope it’s true so one of your political enemies can be charged.
Yes, isn't it awesome?
Mike asks if brown people are too dumb to read a form.
Next you’ll be telling us voter fraud doesn’t exist.
As usual, BB is wrong. Do you try to be so wrong, or does it come naturally?
wish I could break the law and then sent to MV
Hahahahahaha
You know that narrative has already fallen apart right?
Brandyfuck is such a stupid piece of shit illiterate cunt that he can't read the date at the top of the talking points memo.
Because sending sanctuary-seekers to sanctuary cities is literally Hitler.
Didn't mean to flag, sorry.
And then they were removed by men with guns.
Great question! I guess they’re only good in Republican states. Democrats are hypocrites!!
"Most Americans Say Immigrants Make the U.S. Better", just to be polite.
They don't really mean it, because they have no way of knowing if it's true, or not.
"Then why all the fuss about 50 immigrants showing up in MV?"
Because they were dropped in a place with no personnel, facilities or services to process them with no prior warning to any Massachusetts or federal authorities (but plenty of prior warning for conservative media outlets).
Leaving aside the intentional dishonesty of the officials at the departure point, transporting them to a port like Boston, which has the infrastructure to handle migrants, would have been a smooth and easy process even without prior notice. That's why Martha's Vineyard was chosen, because it isn't set up to process migrants.
It was a stunt, using people as pawns in a cynical piece of political theater. It wouldn't have worked if they gave prior notice to officials or sent the migrants to an entry point like Boston. The only way it could work is by dropping the migrants in a place that wasn't equipped to handle them with no prior notice.
As a means to convince people who didn't already share DeSantis' beliefs about immigration, it was pointless. As a juvenile, own-the-libs appeal to the base, it was successful.
Do illegals only cross the border at ports of entry? Or do you think that maybe the entire "stunt" was actually meant to shine a light on that very problem?
I guess we could figure out a way to help guarantee all entry through the southern border flows to places with the "personnel, facilities [and] services to process them"... Some kind of physical barrier perhaps?
The Border Patrol has a presence along the entire southern border. They are not in Martha's Vineyard.
There's a reason that Martha's Vineyard was chosen and that no Massachusetts officials were told that they were coming. Hint: it had nothing to do with sparking a serious conversation about migrants.
The Border Patrol has a presence along the entire southern border. They are not in Martha’s Vineyard.
And yet thousands of people are still able to get across the border....because the U.S./Mexico border is 1,954 miles long, and claiming that the BP has a presence along that entire stretch of land is just about the most stupid thing I've heard this month.
"Because they were dropped in a place with no personnel, facilities or services to process them with no prior warning to any Massachusetts or federal authorities (but plenty of prior warning for conservative media outlets)."
So, basically, like how 250,000 illegal aliens have arrived in El Paso, which is expected to just accept them and integrate them into the community. But billionaire's haven MV can't deal with 50?
Funny, I'm pretty sure the Border Patrol has a presence in El Paso. There are personnel, facilities, and services in El Paso to process migrants because that's where the migrants are.
If you would like to have a sizable percentage of Border Patrol agents relocated across the country, you can suggest that. But I think it's a terrible idea.
Setting up a Border Patrol facility in Martha's Vineyard for the next time a soon-to-be Presidential candidate decides to pander to his base seems like a collasal waste of resources to me.
But if you think that decreasing the Border Patrol at the border is a good idea, go ahead and explain why.
It was a stunt, using people as pawns in a cynical piece of political theater.
So...what the Democrats have been doing with illegal immigrants for decades?
Democrats pander to immigrants but do little to liberalize the system.
Is that true? I would argue that communicating to the world that our borders should be open, and anyone who lands here, including illegally will be a beneficiary of public benefits such as free healthcare, rental assistance, food stamps (etc. etc.) seem like a pretty liberalized system to me.
Democrats worked hard to kill the 2006 and 2007 immigration reform bills since it focused on work visas and not paths to new voters. So they are working on something.
Why "solve" a headline issue that is good for "news", votes, and donations?
That's not what "liberalized" means. Government programs are not examples of liberalization.
The problem is that the Left redefined "liberal" to mean "big government social programs and reliably voting for Democrats". But that is not what it means. It's a philosophy of freedom, which is why many libertarians call themselves "classic liberals". And "liberalize" means to free up, to reduce government involvement. Welfare is not liberalization.
Liberal is both an adjective and a noun. In English for at least several centuries it has been equally valid to say "A Liberal is someone spends liberally." as it is to say "A Classical Liberal is someone who supports social liberty." arguably, the prior has been valid longer as the adjective/noun overloading predates the notion of the Enlightenment and Classical Liberalism.
Similarly, the problem isn't necessarily that The Left redefined 'liberal' any more than it is that bleeding-heart 'Classic Liberals' discovered they weren't averse to spending other peoples' money to advance social liberty. Unless you're trying to tell us that (e.g.) Reason and all the spendthrift libertarians, everyone except the staunch fiscal conservatives, aren't Classic Liberals.
Agreed, but is that the meaning in this article? Unlikely.
Except for illegal immigrants don't get the benefits. Migrants get some benefits, but they have to actually go through the process first. The only way that illegal immigrants get tangible benefits is through fraud.
Easy question. The power elite strongly prefer their immigrants to be undocumented. Secure borders and an orderly system for admitting guest workers and immigrants would disrupt the elite's supply of slaves.
Legal immigrants, Veronique, legal immigrants.
Republicans have supported legal immigration. it's the Dems who seem to equate the two and support illegal, undocumented immigration.
The deliberate conflation of legal and illegal immigration by the Reasonistas is awful. It's pure, gaslighting dishonesty.
There's a motive.
They understand that the legal immigration system has limits. We only allow so many people in under that system. Even with whatever reform you implement there will be limits and we'll prioritize some kinds of immigrants over others.
They want mass unfettered immigration. They understand that isn't actually a popular position, so they deliberately obfuscate things so they can appear that they have more support than they actually do.
Which is why its totally retarded to conflate the two. And for the record, a million immigrants a year seems like a pretty liberal system of immigration compared to, well, anywhere else on the planet.
And, it should be noted, the actual libertarian stance along both axes is no less capable and is economically and morally better. A big part of the reason we can't let in more immigrants is because of the overhead we expend making sure they get access to healthcare and schools and the special protections from the legislature/justice system right alongside the natives.
Notice: Biden didn't hire 87,000 ICE judges and clerks to clear any immigration backlogs. He hired 87,000 more IRS agents. Regardless of whether those agents enforce the law against immigrants or low-income earners or not, more agents means more cost.
It's the same as the pro abortion group. They conflate people saying limited abortion access is the same as compleatly unrestricted goverment financed abortion. The same way that most Americans favor immigration gets conflate with Americans want compleatly open borders with the gov giving money to them.
And yet by lying in such an obvious manner they actively repel people that partially agree with them because they are extremists.
So much this^
^
About one-third of the people in India speak some English. About half of them would like to immigrate to the US. If only half of those could afford the trip, that's 75 million people. One country.
As with all things, there are limits.
They surveyed Mexicans several years back, 40% wanted to move to the US. If that still holds 48 million want to move here.
"We only allow so many people in under that system. "
The US naturalizes about 1M people per year, more than any other nation on the planet.
Look, I know it's sad, but is there anyplace that actually champions libertarianism and reasonable discussion?
I've been to this site for years, and I've seen the readerbase become more and more dissatisfied with the authorship of articles. Many are so badly reasoned or have a critical flaw from line one that I skim through the article for the comments.
However, do we have any better alternatives.
Not better, loads of the same though. I'm still here because I hold faint hope for some sort of libertarian resurgence one day.
Used to be anti-war.com, but he died.
Republicans have supported legal immigration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAISE_Act
The RAISE (Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment) Act is a bill first introduced in the United States Senate in 2017. Co-sponsored by Republican senators Tom Cotton and David Perdue, the bill seeks to reduce levels of legal immigration to the United States by 50% by halving the number of green cards issued. The bill would also dramatically reduce family-based immigration pathways; impose a cap of 50,000 refugee admissions a year; end the visa diversity lottery; and eliminate the current demand-driven model of employment-based immigration and replace it with a points system.
You do realize that issuing 700,000 new immigrant visas every year instead of 1.4 million is still "supporting legal immigration", right you lardass ugly fat piece of shit?
Yes, a much more reasonable volume, designed to allow the American worker a little more job security.
Republicans have supported legal immigration.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/marthas-vineyard-migrants-lawsuit-florida-governor-ron-desantis/
The lawsuits accused the person, who the migrants said identified herself as "Perla," of "trolling" streets outside a migrant shelter in San Antonio to identify and befriend the Venezuelan asylum-seekers, who had been released and allowed to seek asylum by federal officials along the southern border.
Oh, so these Venezuelan migrants were released pursuant to the legal procedure for adjudicating asylum applications? Huh.
Which legal port of entry did they present themselves and their asylum documents, cytotoxic?
Republicans have supported legal immigration.
https://www.axios.com/2018/10/30/trump-birthright-citizenship-executive-order
"We're the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States ... with all of those benefits," Trump continued. "It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. And it has to end."
There is no inconsistency between believing that the current immigration system is not restrictive enough, and that would-be immigrants should be encouraged to follow it or that those who pass through the system are worthy of support and respect.
It's also pretty stupid to imply that a man that had two different naturalized wives (and god knows how many mistresses) is constitutionally anti-immigrant.
Finally, Trump's right about this. The US is an outlier, and a pure jus soli system produces some ridiculous inanities and incentives, especially when tied together with our family-centric immigration regime.
Anything but birthright citizenship seems like a dangerous path to set down for a melting pot country.
I hear anti-immigration folks complaining that immigrants change our culture. The melting pot and birthright citizenship and are deeply traditional bedrock values of our culture, and the anti-immigration folks are talking about changing it.
Uh, most of the pro-immigration (i.e. left wing) corps is dead set against any sense of melting pot, since that diminishes the racial, ethnic, and cultural differences they fixate on.
I guess so. What about pro-immigration libertarians?
The melting pot and birthright citizenship and are deeply traditional bedrock values of our culture
That’s why it took a century after the country was founded to create birthright citizenship via constitutional amendment and why the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed just 14 years after the ratification of that amendment, right you historically illiterate twat?
It could be logically argued that if both your parents are citizens of another country then it doesn’t really matter where you are born, you should be subject to their jurisdiction.
Great comment from a great President. But keep up the caterwauling.
And I agree with him on this.
This year, for the first time, over two million have been arrested at the Southwestern border.
This can't be true.
Wingnut.com claims we have open borders and Sleepy Joe is handing out cash payments to new arrivals.
By wingnut.com, you, of course, mean the Biden White House.
Or Kiddy Diddler Monthly.
It's not a hard concept to grasp: DHS arrests them, then releases them and gives them money.
That's in addition to the two million people that don't get arrested, just go wherever they want to go, and then receive government handouts.
It's also a testament to the large number of illegals that have surged the border since Sleepy Joe Inc took office. It's not a number to be proud of by the way.
Sounds like wingnuts live in your head rent free.
Sounds like wingnuts live in your head rent free.
Well, there's a lot of empty space there.
Imagine Shrike thinking that two million catch and releases somehow works against his opponents arguments.
If they caught two million in eight months, I wonder how big the actual invasion is.
Hey shreek, remember how you got your original Sarah Palin's Buttplug account banned and got an entire article and comment section wiped from Reason.com for posting dark web links to hardcore child pornography?
Does the United States have too few people? From what I understand, the US currently has Male participation rates in the work force that are at Great Depression levels, despite the number of job openings. Supposedly there are four working age men who are not working and not looking for work for every that counts as officially unemployed by the way we count unemployment. Just adding more people to the population would seem to ignore something which has become broken in our society and economy for a quick fix.
Most Americans Say Immigrants Make the U.S. Better. So Why Don’t Politicians Do Anything About It?
I certainly think “immigrants make the US better”. I also think chocolate cake makes my dinner better, but I want my dinner to consist of something other than just chocolate cake.
Believing that “immigrants make the US better” doesn’t mean that I believe that (1) more immigrants make the US even better, (2) that any immigrant whatsoever makes the US better, or that (3) people who migrate into the US are all immigrants.
The US has a legally allocation of about 1 million immigration visas per year. Those visas should go to applicants based on a point system that takes into account job skills, demonstrated earnings, English language ability, and demonstrated commitment to Western values. That selects for the kinds of immigrants that actually make America better, as opposed to the kinds of immigrants that are a drain on US finances and bring social and global conflicts into the US.
And if you come to the US illegally, you aren't an immigrant, you are a lawbreaker and should be deported. Asylum seekers and refugees aren't immigrants either, they are people to whom we provide temporary shelter.
But imagine if you found chocolate cake inserted into every meal (and in your bathroom, and car, and bed, and...).
"Those visas should go to applicants based on a point system that takes into account job skills"
Which job skills are you valuing? Because manual labor in agriculture and meat processing is one of the most pressing areas to shift the workforce from illegal to legal workers.
"demonstrated earnings"
So the American Dream has to be achieved elsewhere? What justifies bringing in educated, white collar workers (which we have plenty of already) over manual labor (which we need badly)? Immigrants are less likely to utilize social welfare programs and are less likely to commit crimes than American citizens. Probably because they appreciate the opportunities America presents.
"English language ability"
What is the threshold? Should we require them to be as bilingual as an American citizen? Require fluency (including the ability to understand and use idioms)? Should we have a minimum number of English words required of each immigrant? What is your standard for "English language ability"?
"demonstrated commitment to Western values"
Who decides which values are "Western"? Does someone who believes in democracy and socialized medicine (like your average Brit) make the cut? Does someone who believes in democracy and opposes an independent judiciary qualify? Does someone who believes in theocracy? How about atheists? Is there an exclusion for fervent religiosity (or at least non-Christian religosity)? When you start talking about "values" you are getting into murky territory, since what those values are depends on who is doing the defining.
"That selects for the kinds of immigrants that actually make America better"
Immigrants that have made America better have come from all types of people, all walks of life. There is no way to "select" for the right kinds of immigrants.
My father's side of the family came from middle-class Germany. My mom's side came from poor Irish. My partner's father's side was poor and Lithuanian, while her mother's side was poor and Italian (and the first one was illegal and allegedly running from a murder rap). With the exception of my mom's Irish ancestors and one of my dad's German ones, none of them spoke English when they arrived.
Our families have contributed doctors, lawyers, high-level executives at American car companies (my mom and dad both grew up in the Detroit area), a NASA engineer on the Apollo program, coal miners in Hazelton, PA, favtory workers in Detroit, and various other low- and high-skilled workers of all stripes. They have made America better despite being non-English-speaking, uneducated immigrants. They worked hard, stressed education as the basis of success, and took advantage of the opportunities America provided. Even the dirty working-class folks who just got an honest day's pay for an honest day's work and raised their families (the kind you seem to disdain as not the "right kind" of immigrant).
Yes, and that's the past, when immigrants needed to assimilate quickly and actually forbade their children to speak any language other than English, when the US educational system was still functioning, and when immigration enforcement was strict. That was also when the US was still a manufacturing economy with little competition around the world and didn't have much of a social welfare system. All of that has changed. Your ancestors' immigrant experience is irrelevant in 2022.
I'm an immigrant myself. This country has gone to shit over the past half century: the educational system is shit (even universities), the government runs the economy, the country has rejected the Anglo-Saxon traditions that made it great, and Americans have become greedy, fat, entitled, and lazy.
The US still has "good bones"; all of this could be turned around, with sensible immigration, educational, and economic policies. But people like you are hell-bent in burning it all down because you are a typical American.
“Yes, and that’s the past, when immigrants needed to assimilate quickly”
They still do. People come to America because they want to be part of America. One of my best friends is a first generation American, born just a year after his parents came to America. He spoke Polish and English at home. His parents sponsored other Polish immigrants (almost 400 over 50+ years), gave them their first jobs in their deli, and helped them adjust to America. When his father died it was standing room only in their church in Trenton where the service was in Polish, but the conversations were almost entirely in English. That is what immigration in America looks like today, not the caricature you are portraying.
“Your ancestors’ immigrant experience is irrelevant in 2022.”
My point isn’t that their experience is the same as today. My point is that the immigrants of today are not just providing whatever they bring with them, but are the beginning of a line of people who contribute to America.
“This country has gone to shit over the past half century: the educational system is shit (even universities), the government runs the economy”
Add in a shaken fist and yelling at those damned kids to get off your lawn and you will be the picture of an old crank, telling everyone about how everything was better back in their time and kids these days don’t have any respect and they listen to that noise (which isn’t even music) and how they used to walk to school barefoot, through five feet of snow, uphill both ways.
Yes, the country has changed over the last 50 years, largely for the better. We continue to turn out highly educated, highly productive, highly innovative people through the “shit” education system. The government regulates the economy (as it should) and overreaches sometimes (like with occupational licensing, rent-seeking permits, and gaping special-interest loopholes in the tax system for the well-connected to name just a few), but it doesn’t “run” the economy by any stretch of the imagination. It isn’t a command economy like China or a kleptocracy like Russia or a theocratically constrained business and labor environment like Saudi Arabia or Iran.
“the country has rejected the Anglo-Saxon traditions that made it great”
Anglo-Saxon traditions didn’t make America great. The Enlightenment ideals that shaped our Constitution, freedom, independence, commitment to radiaclly liberal (for the time) ideas of governing like democracy, an independent judiciary, and a willingness to allow free expression made America great. We are not just slaves to our European past, we are our own, unique tradition.
The foundation of America is the rejection of Anglo-Saxon traditions in favor of creating our own direction and culture. We literally fought a war to free ourselves from Anglo-Saxon traditions and governance.
“But people like you are hell-bent in burning it all down because you are a typical American.”
I believe in the chaos inherent to a free society. I believe in the clash of ideas, the constant efforts to move our country forward. I abhor stagnation and the belief that the past was perfect. We can always be better and the only way to improve is to keep moving, keep trying, keep striving. It won’t be perfect and everything we try won’t succeed, but that is what happens when you try to improve. It is the essence of capitalism, of personal choice, of success; sometimes what you try works and sometimes it doesn’t.
It is the essence of America.
When we have millions of people already living in poverty, draining the coffers of the welfare state, there's not a reason in the world to import more poverty. So restricting immigration based on job skills and the likelihood of burden on the welfare state seems simply common sense.
Except immigrants are less likely to need welfare and social services than American citizens. Your point just highlights the value of immigrants to America, since they provide more benefit and use fewer resources than Americans do.
See, the biggest problem is your claim is wrong. And xenophobic, but the biggest problem is it's wrong.
That's true historically for legal immigrants, people who were selected for economic self-sufficiency, extensively background checked, forbidden from receiving any kind of government benefits, and run through a decade or two of bureaucratic procedures.
It is certainly not true for illegal immigrants, all of whom are law breakers, and almost all of whom are a massive drain on state and federal budgets.
"people who were selected for economic self-sufficiency, extensively background checked, forbidden from receiving any kind of government benefits, and run through a decade or two of bureaucratic procedures."
Immigrants were never selected for economic self-sufficiency. Hence the rather high percentage of poor immigrants who have come to America throughout our history. "Extensively backgroud checked"? What? Are you kidding? And immigrants are still run through a decade or so of bureaucratic procedures before they can become citizens. It takes at least seven years, usually longer.
"It is certainly not true for illegal immigrants, all of whom are law breakers"
Agreed.
"almost all of whom are a massive drain on state and federal budgets"
Not true. It's a favorite propaganda slogan of the anti-immigrant folks, but it isn't borne out by reality. Especially illegal immigrants (who should be deported when caught), who cannot access services without going through official steps to be declared a legal migrant. Which they don't, by definition, do. Hence the word "illegal" before the word "immigrant".
2 million illegal immigrants this year. 1 million legal.
And the surveys seem to be false based on the reactions of the NE areas when they had minor amounts of that 2 million sent their way.
And freaked out when 50 showed up on MV.
At a time when the American economy could use more people,
Question-begging aside, what's the evidence for this--that the people who were serving as peon labor prior to the pandemic aren't interested in doing that anymore, so we need to bring in even MORE peon labor because the current collection stopped filling their expected roles for the bourgeoisie?
This is like the Bexar County sheriff claiming that we should have open borders simply because he has to wait a few extra minutes to get a seat and receive his food at Chili's.
Reason is completely ignorant to the number of people on welfare who refuse to work. They never call for welfare reforms to get more workers. Just to get foreign poor people.
They use to talk about that in the pre orange man bad times
They are not ignorant, they are fully aware of the fact and lying.
Welfare has been workfare since the Reagan administration. Reductionism just shows how empty the "welfare queen" argument is. When combined with the fallacy of massive immigrant utilization of the welfare system, is it any surprise poeple find anti-immigrant rhetoric unconvincing?
When combined with the fallacy of massive immigrant utilization of the welfare system, is it any surprise poeple find anti-immigrant rhetoric unconvincing?
And the cherry-picking of welfare system use is false framing to begin with. As a population grows, it requires resources to service it--housing, water, medical facilities, schools, infrastructure, utilities, food. Acting as if bringing in 50 million additional people, and possibly more, in the last 30-odd years, has little to no effect on the demand for services and resources in the aggregate is mendacious. Imagine how cheap housing, for example, and how mitigated the sprawl that leftists are constantly lamenting would be, if we didn't have to continually try to keep up with the demand for it that's bolstered by outside sources.
"welfare system use is false framing to begin with"
Welfare system use is not just one of the false "reasons" that anti-immigration forces (and several commenters in this thread), it is one of the most common dog whistles of the xenophobic right.
"As a population grows, it requires resources to service it–housing, water, medical facilities, schools, infrastructure, utilities, food."
Agreed. Are you advocating for America to have a zero-growth policy?
"Acting as if ... has little to no effect on the demand for services and resources in the aggregate is mendacious."
No one has made that claim. But acting as if there is no positive impact from immigration in the aggregate is mendacious. The net impact of immigration on America is positive. They use fewer public resources, commit fewer crimes, and provide labor to a chronically under-populated sector of the job market.
"keep up with the demand for it that’s bolstered by outside sources"
I think you're missing the point of immigration. They aren't "outside sources". They're future Americans (once they have completed the long naturalization process).
Also, you are having the wrong conversation. Supply and demand are capitalism issues. They have nothing to do with immigration. When more people need housing or food or gas or cars or computers or any other commodity, capitalism will provide it. That is what capitalism is all about. Without demand, suppliers wouldn't have anyone to sell to.
Legal, highly skilled immigration under has a positive impact: it makes a country and its citizens wealthier.
Low skill, multicultural, and illegal immigration have a negative impact and make a country and its citizens poorer.
Conflating the two kinds of immigration is mendacious.
"Legal, highly skilled immigration under has a positive impact: it makes a country and its citizens wealthier."
Agreed.
"Low skill, multicultural, and illegal immigration have a negative impact and make a country and its citizens poorer."
Illegal immigrants? Agreed. Low skill, multicultural (is this your way of saying non-European and/or non-white?) immigrants? Absolutely not.
Low skilled immigrants are as beneficial to America as high skilled immigrants. What sort of elitist garbage are you spewing?
Are low skilled Americans a negative impact on America? Are the factory workers, field workers, meat processors, waiters, delivery people, rideshare drivers, and retail workers making America poorer? Because the only difference between a low-skilled immigrant and a low-skilled American is citizenship. If one is detrimental to America, so is the other.
I don't conflate illegal and legal immigration. I have been very clear on my opposition to illegal immigration. In fact I laid out my beliefs about how to invert the incentives for employers and illegal immigrants that the present system creates to make the benefits of hiring legal workers outweigh the benefits of hiring illegal workers.
I don't conflate the two. How about you?
The evidence is that libertarians are "market-focused" only if the market provides their preferred outcome.
If the market does not do so...then it is time to fuck the market and short circuit stuff.
Ever heard of too much of a good thing? Sunlight, water, food, all of these are good things necessary to sustain life. But they are also all detrimental or even deadly in high amounts.
The US population is now 329 million. Barring some miracle technology being developed soon, we just don’t have enough resources to indefinitely support everyone at this rate – especially in the arid states where there is a severe water shortage.
Also, the future of the labor force is automation, not unskilled manual labor. At some point in the future, the only jobs the unskilled could do would be sex work.
Malthus said that a couple of centuries ago. That was repeated every decade since then. Always running out of land, always running out of resources. But it never happened. What makes this time different?
It's different because retards are always retards.
That said, it IS worth noting that resources are not infinite and even big California cities are starting to notice that. Home's, water, and electricity become more expensive when supply is limited but demand is high. California has a lot of illegal immigrants, but California doesn't want more homes or electricity for their legal residents.
When you're competing with the entire planet to purchase a home in a major U.S. city, for example, one might note that the price of that home will be higher. Native born population that suddenly can't afford those things might be unhappy about that competition.
Note that the reason for all of Cali shortages are politically caused
Potentially true, although when it comes to water in particular that's not really true at all. It turns out you can't squeeze a lot of water out of the desert.
The point is that California wants it both ways: more illegal immigrants and less housing/water/electricity. California is perhaps the biggest progressive bastion in the nation, so this gives away the lie for what it is.
They have not built a single resuivuar since 79, and have actively killed construction of more, and dump more than 50% of the water they have left in the pacific ocean. It's man made
Yes, it's politically caused. Like inviting in millions of immigrants the state can't support. That was a political decision too.
It's also the most prosperous, largest agricultural producing, largest tech employing (you know, the jobs of the present and the future), and largest tourism (cultural and eco-, in particular) state in the country.
I know that people are clamoring to live in places like Wyoming, Indiana, and Alabama for their similar profiles, but for some reason California keeps on keeping on.
Yeah, that's why so many Californians who can afford to do so use Wyoming as a income tax haven with their second homes in Teton County.
Yes, Wyoming is such a tax haven that ones and ones of people use it. It's getting so bad that even that one guy's next-door neighbor knows, although to be fair he only knows because the guy told him.
Yeah, that Wyoming tax haven is getting so notorious, the Cayman Islands and Malta are worried about all the business they're losing.
"Home’s, water, and electricity become more expensive when supply is limited but demand is high"
That's a great argument for reforming zoning laws, utility monopolies, and other barriers to the free market.
It's a terrible argument for limiting immigration.
Is this an illusion?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2021/07/27/great-salt-lake-lake-powell-historic-low-water-levels/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lake-mead-water-level-historic-low-drought-heres-what-that-means/
OK, then by what calculus are we determining the "right" number of people to let in every year? Doesn't seem like we are doing any calculations based on jobs, water, food or anything like that. Instead, we are deciding by arbitrary political decisions.
What about, as an alternative, let lots of people come here, and if they can manage to find a job, a home they stay. And if they cannot, they naturally give up after a while and go back home.
The only problem with that is that we already have a welfare system that gives them free housing, free food, free education, free translation services, a free monthly stipend, and also extend all of those same benefits to all of their children and every member of their household. But you knew that, what with you loudly supporting those programs for the last 15 years.
Actually, our welfare system does nothing of the sort.
Yes, both legal and illegal immigrants these days can lavish government benefits. That is in addition to government services like education, transportation, and administration that low income immigrants simply don't pay enough taxes for.
"Yes, both legal and illegal immigrants these days can lavish government benefits."
Illegal immigrants do not get any government benefits, unless they are engaged in fraud. The hint is the "illegal" part.
Legal migrants get some benefits, but they are "lavish" the same way unemployment benefits are "lavish", which requires a complete redefinition of "lavish" to make it a synonym for "minimal".
"That is in addition to government services like education, transportation, and administration that low income immigrants simply don’t pay enough taxes for."
Again with the elitist take on "acceptable' immigrants? If low income immigrants don't pay enough, neither do low income Americans. You can't denigrate one without implicating the other.
If you want to make arguments about the costs and breadth of the social safety net in America, that's one thing. I probably will agree with you on many points. But trying to inject social programs into an immigration discussion without implicating American citizens as well is impossible. The only difference between poor immigrants and poor Americans is that the poor immigrants are at least seven years away from becoming poor Americans.
Get rid of the welfare state and the only limitation I'd put on immigration would be "let's not import known criminals". The number would be what the number would be.
So long as we have a welfare state, I'm hard against importing poverty.
By the "calculus" of government by the people. Two thirds of Americans want the current legal level of immigration or less. That's less than a million people every year.
That would be the ass sex part of Reasons weed Mexicans ass sex credo.
Hey, if I have to pay for sex, I want to see some skills.
Okay, so we can swap out our useless layabouts for their hard workers.
Each society risks extinction as it matures technologically, because rich, educated people both have fewer babies and live longer.
We must import many more people to do the labor and pay for the bodily upkeep of the elderly. That way we die off more slowly than other societies, giving us time to figure out how to upload everyone to the matrix.
Yeah, because frail 80 year old Americans really, really want to be cared for by unskilled economic migrants from Venezuela or Yemen. And young immigrants want nothing more than to wipe the asses of incontinent elderly Americans. People who make that argument for more immigration are delusional.
You certainly are making a lot of assumptions about both Americans and immigrants. My father was an 80-year-old American who was cared for by an immigrant. Granted she was in her 50s and from the Philippines, as opposed to Yemen or Venezuela, but she chose to do what she did and she was very good at it.
If your argument for other people being delusional requires you to make broad, unsubstantiated generalizations about large groups of people, in addition to claiming that people have to love their job in order to do it, your argument is worthless.
"Barring some miracle technology being developed soon, we just don’t have enough resources to indefinitely support everyone"
Are you sure your name isn't Thomas Malthus?
I understand that some Americans feel uneasy about allowing in more immigrants who are less educated than most of our population. But you don't have to be a highly educated engineer, surgeon, or entrepreneur of the caliber of Elon Musk to add net value to the U.S. economy. In fact, so much of our country is functioning so well precisely because of so-called low-skilled workers.
There are layers of nuance to talk about here that go way beyond: America can't fill jobs because Americans refuse to work, SO LET'S IMPORT LABOR!
I’m not very upset about importing labor, but I do agree that we’re probably covering up significant issues. The libertarian types like to say how immigrants have lower welfare rates than native citizens, but then I feel like we don’t have enough conversation about THAT afterwards. It’s used as a justification for immigrants and not a cause for significant concern for our nations culture.
I also am really uncomfortable with the system we’ve come up with for immigration which is, we make it illegal for people to come in, but ignore a lot of it as convenient when they do. That’s also a sign of a very, very sick system. Either work to allow the people in legally, or actually enforce laws. I would lean towards the former, but this thing we increasingly do of passing laws but then enforce it arbitrarily is a sign of immense decay.
Edit: What Fun!
Also, the whole stat that we'd be having demographic loss if it weren't for immigrants is also very concerning and I think this is a thing where the libertine part of the libertarian party mixes with the more economically libertarian part of the libertarian party to create a coalition to ignore serious problems. And they are ultimately cultural problems, that which libertarianism should be most open to grappling with as a concept.
The myth that immigrants use less welfare is just that, a myth. Accounting tricks.
An estimated 49 percent of households headed by legal immigrants used one or more welfare programs in 2012, compared to 30 percent of households headed by natives.
Households headed by legal immigrants have higher use rates than native households overall and for cash programs (14 percent vs. 10 percent), food programs (36 percent vs. 22 percent), and Medicaid (39 percent vs. 23 percent). Use of housing programs is similar.
https://cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-Legal-and-Illegal-Immigrant-Households
The reports stating otherwise usually fix it to only certain programs to get the results they desire.
With various sanctuary cities and other political districts now explicitly providing welfare benefits to "undocumented immigrant" I'm guessing this will be another one of those arguments that just quietly goes away.
And that's not great either, but it's not really a major point against my main point. Our welfare system alone covers up pretty significant issues, and we then cover it up further with immigration. This has been going on a very, very long time and has allowed a lot of hard conversations to be effectively ignored.
Add to that people displaced by immigrants and actually falling in the US citizen welfare bucket. It's not a 1:1 displacement but it is still welfare generated by the influx of immigrants.
I’m not very upset about importing labor, but I do agree that we’re probably covering up significant issues.
If we were a much more libertarian country where people got off the boat, and the immigration official said, "put your X on the line, good luck finding work" then that's when markets are better in play.
I would agree.
"Good luck finding work, because there's no more welfare state."
Then I'd agree too.
Can you expand on what concerns you have about immigrants' effect on "our nation's culture"?
You know how the thought of a Republican moving in next door makes you instantly drop a deuce in your pants? It's kinda like that.
As I said above, I think we have a current rot in our culture and immigration is a way to cover up that rot and allow us to ignore it to fester. The immigrants are the hard workers in this case.
Oh, I see. You have a point.
"It’s used as a justification for immigrants and not a cause for significant concern for our nations culture"
I never see it used as a justification for immigration. It is used when those who oppose immigration claim immigrants are overwhelming the "welfare state".
"Either work to allow the people in legally, or actually enforce laws."
Agreed. Reform the system so that legal entry is incentivized and hiring illegal immigrants is disincentivized.
I'd also ask how many people who support immigration support it in the same way Martha's Vineyard does...when it does not impact them in any real way, shape, or form.
No one supports having a bunch of people dropped into a place that doesn't have the facilities, personnel, or resources necessary to process them.
It's almost like DeSantis intentionally created a situation where Massachusetts officials weren't able to efficiently process the migrants because they didn't know they were coming. But he would never pull a stunt like that, would he?
So like Biden did when he flew them into cities without telling those cities and did it in the middle of the night and then denied he did it? Like that except De Santis sent them to MV, in day light, didn't hide he did it, and MV claims to be a sanctuary city that welcomes immigrants.
Like the hundreds of thousands currently landing in Texas and Arizona every few months? Think Texas and Arizona have the facilities, personnel, or resources needed for that?
Yes. The vast majority of Border Patrol and immigration resources are concentrated on the border. So Texas and Arizona as well as California and New Mexico.
Where do you think they are if they aren't on the border? Martha's Vineyard?
Anyone willing to work is welcome in my book.
This is in theory the right idea, but in a country with a minimum wage it's bad.
You can't legally hire an American for below minimum wage. You can't legally hire an illegal immigrant at all, so the minimum wage doesn't matter you just pay them what they'll work for.
This means Americans are at a disadvantage. Even if you could convince one to work for you for $4/hr, he can't legally do it. The illegal immigrant's presence in the country is already illegal, so what does he care if his employment is also illegal? On top of this, the American might actually face consequences for breaking that law (he has to stay here in America after all) whereas the illegal immigrant will simply be sent home.
"Anyone who wants to work is welcome" only works if your labor market is actually free.
So end the min wage (you'll have no argument from me), but that doesn't change my position on immigration.
This means Americans are at a disadvantage.
Everyone is always disadvantaged to someone else. Should we stop the world until all wrongs are righted?
On top of this, the American might actually face consequences for breaking that law (he has to stay here in America after all)
There is no crime for an American to receive less pay. An employer could face civil or criminal penalties for paying less.
So just like every lolbertarian, you want to exacerbate the problem first and then worry about fixing it later. Because you're a stupid fucking retarded chump.
Mine too, so long as the welfare state goes away.
Everyone here, except native Amerindians, are immigrants. Actually, Amerindians are immigrants too, they displace the paleo-indians who first crossed the Bering Strait. We're all immigrants.
But the narrative is that immigration was good for our grandparents but "this time it's different". But there is no difference. My White Bread grandparents came from Europe and assimilated. But I have cousins who never did, and grandparents were always kvetching that they never learned English, never became Americans. Nothing has changed, ever generation it's the same story. Today the complaint is swarthy Latinos and Arabs. Used to be the complaint was swarthy Italians and Greeks. Before that the damned Papists from Papist countries. And not just religious based, Papist Irish hated just as much as Presbyterian Scots. English kvetched about the Germans.
So when they say "this time is different", they're lying. It's still the same.
Immigration from Europe didn't turn out so well for the Natives who were already here.
Should we send all Europeans back where they came from?
Europeans have created a liberal democracy in North America and given the natives full citizenship plus additional benefits. This is the same thing that happened to the Germanic tribes at the hands of the Romans (actually better), and lots and lots of other groups in world history. It's a normal historical development. It isn't a justification for open borders. It isn't a justification for trying to restore some thousand year old mythical society.
But you, Brandybuck, think about this issue like Hitler thought about the Germanic tribes. Your thinking is an expression of your deep seated racism and fascism.
Easier logistically to get rid of the remaining "natives".
Is Brandy engaging in the marxist task of historic determinism to justify things now? Not realizing society has changed over thousands of years?
Absolutely. Get the Eurotrash out of here.
Keep in mind that 95 percent of white people here are natives.
We're also all humans and mammals. What's your point?
In fact, the US has welcomed "swarthy" people for a long time. When I went to college half a century ago, there were plenty of "swarthy" professors already. It just used to be the case that immigrants needed to bring something of value to the US in order to immigrate.
(Of course, they idea that Arabs and Latinos are somehow "non-white" is the kind of racial classification system Nazis used: it is a reflection of your racist ideology, not US reality. Most Latinos and Arabs I know consider themselves white and wouldn't be recognized as non-white by anybody other than racists like you.)
Immigration to the US is always "good for" the people who are immigrating. The question is whether it is "good for" the citizens of the US.
And indeed, immigration has ceased to be good for the citizens of the US because the US has changed into a high tax, sclerotic social welfare state since WWII. For a while, the US immigration system dealt with that by being quite strict with the "no public charge" rule, health requirements, and other conditions for immigration, but all of that has been dropped, and unskilled third world peasants are now receiving generous benefits from the US government.
"Everyone here, except native Amerindians, are immigrants."
"Clovis people evolved here from Platyrrhini monkeys!"
No shit, everyone's family tree started in Africa originally.
'Native Americans' are no more native to this continent than my family is. Their family just arrived earlier.
Native American mythology insists they were created here and did not arrive from elsewhere. Wokism caters to religious fundamentalism as long as it isn't Christian.
So, 'Trust the Science!' of the accuracy of oral traditions?
I guess it has more of a track record than genetics.
But the narrative is that immigration was good for our grandparents but “this time it’s different”. But there is no difference.
There are LOTS of differences. Markets are considerably less free now. There are price-floors on all labor within the united states. There are all kinds of market interferences which make it increasingly difficult to employ the domestic population which drives up unemployment or underemployment.
In a true free market situation, the market would adjudicate the border: When too many immigrants flood your political district, the price of labor crashes and the immigrants stop coming.
Only in libertopia do the laws of supply and demand apply to everything except labor.
I think there is also a real cultural issue as well, more and more people don't want to work and don't find any value in work. I think that's a real negative trend.
That was claimed about the Baby Boomers by the Silent Generation. And the Gen Xers by the Boomers. And the Millenials by the Gen Xers. It wasn't true before and it isn't true now.
Bruh, even the 'native amerindians' (seriously it's native Americans or Indians, you sound stupid trying to cram all that into one word and it's still just as triggering to those who hate the word indian) are immigrants.
Immigrants who killed and stole the land they were on from previous immigrants.
Toltec on line 1
Sasquatch on line 2.
No one crossed the Bering Land Bridge that theory has been almost completely debunked.
Say you're a pseudo intellectual without saying you're a pseudo intellectual.
Ah, so they independently evolved here. Got it. And who said anything about crossing the Bering strait?
There was no land bridge. It was multiple, successive sea borne migrations.
Which likely occurred on the south side of the Aleutian island chain, thus not over the Bering Strait which is north of the Aleutian Chain. It followed the Pacific Coastal Kelp highway, which doesn't include the Bering Strait.
Additionally, the genetic testing shows that Amerindians are more closely related to native tribes in northern Japan than Siberian tribes except in the furthest north of Alaska, which also appear to be the most recent wave of immigration prior to Columbus.
There is also genetic evidence that at least some South American tribes are descendant of Polynesian and other Pacifica peoples.
"native Amerindians"
Humans are not indigenous to the Americas. Amerindian's ancestors migrated here earlier than mine did (maybe 20 or 30 thousand years sooner!), but they are not "native" in that sense.
America is a developing country.
Well, the department of education would have to be abolished. Most Americans property taxes would skyrocket, except for California with prop 13. Prop 13 or freeze property taxes every state in the country, or send low skilled immigrants to California. Require developers to pay for sewage water infrastructure to build the favelas (unless zoning reform means building big open air shit pits like slums in India and the city of San Francisco)
Most Americans do not mendaciously conflate legal immigration with illegal immigration.
Why can't Reason writers or editors?
Reason is filled with dirty liars.
This talking point is always stupid, no matter how many times it's brought up. If they make places better, then by definition, they have no reason to leave their home countries. And indeed, it's pretty selfish of them to take their talents elsewhere.
Most Americans think apple pie is good. Reason thinks that justifies forcing it upon everyone.
Just not Martha's vineyard.
Most Americans would like to buy a new car. Few in a given year choose to take on the cost to do so.
Productive people often can only make a place better if they are in a place where economy and legal framework facilitate their contributions.
In other words, a lot of what makes people successful or making people thrive is the overall economy and legal framework. It can either positively magnify people's efforts or diminish them.
Why can’t immigrants improve their own countries?
Unfortunately libertinians want both.
But how would the Demoncrats get more voters if they stayed in their own country?
Why? Gee I wonder.
IT's like guns and abortion. A perpetual fight to keep both sides supporters of the uniparty fighting on the margins over something that will never budge.
We have always been at war with Eastasia.
Incidentally, and left entirely unsaid but strongly implied, the argument of the low-wage brown people is exactly the Whigs excuse for not going harder on slavery.
"But my cheep materialism"! reEEEE.
DeRugy is such a hack and sophist. Sure some immigrants or immigrants in general have made the country better. That doesn't mean every immigrant makes the country better. I am pretty sure the people who come here to commit crimes don't make the country better. And that also doesn't mean that there is no point of diminishing returns for immigration. Would a billion people from India make the country better?
I am sorry no one is this stupid. DeRugy just thinks her readers are.
The government did. The government sent them to Chicago, New York, and Martha's Vineyard.
And the people there must be that minority that says immigrants don't make things better. So Chicago deported them.
Chicago deported them.
Some sanctuary.
If Reason writers want to return to the times when immigrants were piled six deep in tenement buildings in New York, covered in coal soot, then open borders are less of a problem. But pretty soon, Jacob Riis is gonna start taking some pictures and then in come the social reformers, and with that, comes some controls on your border.
Martha's Vineyard called in NG troops to remove them, too.
If immigrants have talents to offer, they should stay in their home countries. The US is filled to the brim. Slow things down..
We very plainly have widespread labor shortages.
Look at the historically low labor participation rate. We very clearly do not have a shortage of workers.
You’re talking to a dumb lying asshole.
And yet we have companies both big and small begging for workers. I wonder why that is?
It's "historically low" because it has been steadily dropping for the last 20 years. The five year rolling average (which levels out one-time spikes like the effects of Covid) shows a continuation of a generation-long trend.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. We have jobs available, we just don't have people taking them. Mostly because the compensation offered isn't worth it to the workers who aren't already employed.
Labor participation rate is 4-5% lower than it was 15 years ago, and 1-2% lower than it was pre-COVID. That's about 5 million working-age people (or about 1.95M vis pre-COVID) who are just choosing not to work, perhaps because of government programs that incentivize them not to work (or maybe they won the lottery).
The labor participation rate has been steadily falling since 2000. The rate has not accelerated by any appreciable amount recently, excepting the one-time downward spike for Covid.
Also, your numbers are off by as much as a factor of 10. You can check the stats for any given point from 1948 to 2022 on the website below. The difference between the highest point in 2015 (62.9%) and now (62.4%) is 0.5%, not 4-5%, and the difference between pre-pandemic (63.4%) and now is 1%. Additionally, the trend line for the past 14 years (66.1% in 2008 to 63.4% in 2020) would project a much lower rate than where we are now.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART
The U.S. generally averages around a million legal immigrants a year, and has a total of around 50 million immigrants of all types in the country. Seems we're doing pretty good at accumulating immigrants.
"Since 2014, 70 percent or more have responded that immigrants are a good thing."
Could it be that the 70% in favor of immigrant might have different and even opposing reasons? How many of the 70% count on immigrants working productively from soon after they arrive? How many are motivated more by compulsive compassion, and are more concerned about care and sharing? And how many are political operatives pushing for favorable demographics?
The topline comment sounds like an issue polling thing I have concerns with. There are definitely structural issues in place that can prevent a majority from changing laws too much, that is known. But, we also do get the government we vote for over time, and my entire adult life I've been told that most Americans say immigrants make the US better. Yet we don't get movement either way on immigration, despite things like the border being a serious issue that needs attention one way or the other.
And so, if polls say Americans want it, but the elected officials never do it that raises the question of what the Americans actually mean.
Fine as long as we eliminate birthright citizenship.
If it is right and proper that immigration across borders be limited only to those people whom we deem will "create value" and not "be a burden", then why should that same idea not apply for immigration across vaginas, i.e., childbirth? If immigrants crossing a border ought to get a permission slip from the government before coming here, why shouldn't prospective parents thinking about having a child have to get a permission slip from the government before getting pregnant and giving birth? Hmm?
If it is right and proper that immigration across borders be limited only to those people whom we deem will “create value” and not “be a burden”
As is so often repeated around here, if you need an economist to make a moral argument, you're doing it wrong. It doesn't matter if you're talking about moving immigrants across borders, babies across vaginas, or balancing healthy vs. non-healthy bins for redistributing healthcare coverage. "I can't afford the baby so I must kill it.", "We either steal more money from young people or kill more old people to cover the bigger tab.", and "We can't afford to educate more immigrants who arrive here as well as (a.k.a. equitably) or better than we educated the relatively fewer natives and immigrants a generation, or even a year, ago." isn't a moral statement.
i cant even imagine being as confused and stupid as chemjeff.
Just saving the comment for the next time jeff claims he is against a welfare state.
The argument, dummy, that you are too dumb to understand, is that if restrictive immigration rules are justified in the name of reducing the cost associated with the welfare state, why not apply the exact same logic when it comes to the much *larger* source of welfare consumption, native-born citizens?
Of course we know the answer to that question based on the events of the last several days. You all don't view immigrants as morally equal to native-born citizens.
Show me one Republican or conservative who has proposed legislation based on whether someone is a "native born citizen" or an "immigrant". There are none. It is racist progressives like you who think in categories of "immigrants" and "native-born citizens". In your depraved mind, immigrants like me will never be in the same category as "native born citizens". You are disgusting.
We do. In both cases, we try to reduce the number of illiterate and low skilled workers by legally available means. In the case of citizens, that means investing massively in their education and training. In the case of non-citizens, that means giving preference to educated and skilled immigrants, as well as excluding those who try to come here illegally.
"why not apply the exact same logic when it comes to the much *larger* source of welfare consumption, native-born citizens?
I'm for that. Eliminate the welfare state for everyone.
That's easy: requiring permission to cross borders is constitutional and conforms to international human rights law, requiring permission to reproduce is unconstitutional and violates human rights.
Clear enough?
What about requiring permission not to give birth to your rapist's baby?
Passing laws against abortion is constitutional and conforms to international human rights. That’s why states in the US can do it.
Did that answer your question?
(If you ask me personally, I think any woman who wants to should be able to abort her fetus and kill her baby without legal consequences. Her murderous impulses are no more my business than wars halfway around the world. Just don’t force me to pay for it, and don't force me to associate with such people.)
Force you to associate with women who get abortions lol. You know you have to host a weekly abortion party like everyone else. You bring the coat hangers and I'll bring the guacamole.
I’m sorry, but Ms Manners clearly states that abortion parties should be served chips and queso. What kind of monster are you?
The kind of monster who has studied Miss Manners intensively.
There is no required food for an abortion party. Only the faux pas. Your scrambled eggs and such.
What's there to laugh about? Employers, businesses, insurers, and health care providers are/will be forced to associate with (i.e., prevented from discriminating against) women who have had abortions.
In a free country, women ought to be able to kill their fetuses, and other people ought to be able to ostracize them for their choice and not be forced to subsidize it.
What I don't understand is your burning need to concern yourself with the most intimate details of complete strangers' private lives.
How do you propose you find out which women get abortions? Shall the government publish their names?
In any case, your question has been answered. You're now just trying to cover up your own ignorance and bigotry, Tony.
You're the one who described your ideal society as the one from The Scarlet Letter.
Of all the retarded disingenuous takes to have, this is definitely one of them.
We literally have more immigrants here than in any time in history
Notice the sleight of hand here.
>I understand that some Americans feel uneasy about allowing in more immigrants who are less educated than most of our population.
Yeah, of course they do. But the question about whether Americans value "immigrants" lumps all immigrants together. It doesn't have any way to qualify it as "I want educated immigrants". So the author is implying that because someone wants "immigrants", they want all types of immigrants, despite explicitly admitting earlier that people don't prefer all types of immigrants equally.
Derugy is a sophist and a hack. She is just straight up lying here. DeRugy is brighter than the rest of the reason staff but no less dishonest. In fact, because she isn't as stupid as the rest of them is really the most dishonest of them all.
That is true: he will increase GDP by a small absolute amount. But the wealth of a nation is measured primarily by per capita GDP, not absolute GDP, and less educated immigrants decrease per capita GDP, making Americans objectively poorer.
The massive redistribution and debt of US government makes the problem even worse, because, in addition to lowering per capita GDP, a low skilled immigrant will be a net drain on government budgets and strain our already strained social welfare system.
None of this makes even the loosest mathematical sense.
Fuck you Veronica, do you think those in farming and animal agriculture is really low and education and low skilled working? Have you ever set up a grazing plan? Ran a John Deere harvester complete with all the electronics they now have? Pulled a modern 35 foot air drill? Ran a partial budget analysis to see if cross fencing your north pasture will pay for itself? Planned a new water system and implemented it? Applied for an agricultural loan complete with budget forecasts, cost benefit analysis, corporate plan, etc?
Fuck off with your urban elitism and nativity. Yeah, maybe the person picking the tomatoes may be less educated and or low skilled (though many actually have very technical skills) but not the farmers and ranchers who actually raise the crops and livestock. And the need for workers in agriculture is fast decreasing as automation has replaced many of these workers we needed even a decade ago. We now have autonomous grain carts, robotic fruit and vegetable pickers, etc. Fucking don't talk about shit you know nothing about. If you've never had cow shit on your boots don't try and lecture me about agriculture.
BTW I bit I have more education than you and in a hard science at that, not some pansy ass arts degree in journalism. I'll stack my CV up against yours any day, even if you think my job is low skilled and low education. Fuck off, you wouldn't last a fucking day trying to run my (small) ranch, let alone my buddies place with thousands of acres and over a hundred head (he has a MS in Range science and I a MS in Animal Science).
Also, if I spend the three quarters of a million dollars on a new harvester you can bet I am not letting a natural born citizen without a high school diploma near it, let alone an immigrant who doesn't speak English and doesn't have a high school diploma.
Plenty of immigrants to America go on to be genius scientists and artists. They're not all coming for your jerb.
Fuck off Tony, you obviously are to stupid to read what I wrote. It in no way implied I was worried about them coming for my job. It was entirely criticizing her for stating that growing vegetables and taking care of poultry (I e. Farming) was done by low skill workers with no education. Fuck you are stupid. Can't even fucking read can you, moron?
And yes plenty of immigrants go on to become quite well educated or start out that way. Fuck I never said they didn't fucking idiot. I was criticizing the writer for saying farmers were low educated and low skilled workers. Fuck, do you need someone to take care of you daily, because by the level of your stupidity in your posts in response to mine (e.g. your posts is a complete non-sequitor in response to mine) you really out to find someone to help you in average daily living because you desperately need it, moron.
Low-skilled they are not, as you have explained. For all I care about this bureaucratic terminology, so-called low-skilled labor should be considered a heroic social contribution and compensated as such compared to the quasi-leisure of many so-called skilled professions.
Educated is a case-by-case matter.
Education isn't limited to a school. Even the farmers without a degree generally spent their whole life on a farm. They learned to run it at the knees of their father, and spent most of their early adult life operating it but not in charge, until their father retired. So they served an apprenticeship that lasted decades before they began to run their own farm. Yeah, that is pretty fucking educated. They also likely have attended decades of seminars put on by extension, USDA, industry reps (with degrees, often advanced degrees) they likely were in 4-H and or FFA as kids, took any and all vo-ag classes they could in school, spend time reading farming journals and websites (most use a lot of technology and are comfortable with it, only Hollywood had created this myth that farmers don't like computers, I have actually seen 60 year old farmers debating Samsung vs Apple phones over coffee). So, no the average farmer is not low education either.
"Yeah, that is pretty fucking educated."
Being hypereducated in one thing but totally ignorant about everything else does not make one educated enough to participate in politics. An education is not a quantity of any old information, and there are very few farm animals in Congress.
We need a never-ending supply of unskilled labor from 3rd world countries. Our leaders say so, so it must be true.
Hey there's an edit button. When did that happen?
Oh it doesn't seem to work.
Immigrants are bad when unemployment is high and immigrants are bad when there's a labor shortage. They're bad every year, especially before elections, without exception.
But it's not about xenophobia and racism, it's about a careful study of the economic conditions.
Here's the difference between an immigrant and your child: your child costs a shit ton of money before they start being useful.
More immigrants, more abortions. For the economy.
I guess I should feel pleased that I am now at liberty to support the heaviest hand of government in all matters without possible credible objection from any of the "build a wall" types here. You can't say you're a libertarian and then argue that being born on the wrong side of an imaginary line means you morally deserve a lifetime of poverty, while being born on the right side of the imaginary line and inheriting wealth from multiple directions makes you a self-made hero producer. It just doesn't add up.
But mostly it makes me sad.
Being born on the other side of that imaginary line doesn’t obligate you to support everyone that wasn’t either.
No, what obligates you to treat other humans with the bare minimum of dignity is a moral conscience. Failing that, fear of rejection and ostracism for being a shiftless freeloader.
Spoken like a true fascist.
Treating someone with dignity has nothing to do with taking care of them or forcing other people to.
Most Americans Say LEGAL Immigrants Make the U.S. Better.
That does not include criminals, cartel members, violent gang members, drug dealers, terrorists, sex traffickers or those unwilling or unable to support themselves, learn English or participate in society.
Huh, you lost a bunch of antisocial traits, and then tack “not knowing English yet” onto the end of the list.
No, he didn't. He recognized that there is a significant portion of immigrants--not all by any means--who chose to isolate themselves in their own little ethnic enclaves so that they do not have to learn English or assimilate in any way. They want to live in a Chinatown or Little Vietnam or barrios where all the signs are in their native languages, where they do not welcome outsiders, where they can live just like they did in China, etc. but without some of the negatives with actually being in China, etc.
---------
“In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here does in good faith become an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with every one else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed or birthplace or origin. But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an American and nothing but an American.
“If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn’t doing his part as an American.
“We have room for but one language here and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, and American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house; and we have room for but one soul [sic] loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people.”
“Let us say to the immigrant not that we hope he will learn English, but that he has got to learn it. Let the immigrant who does not learn it go back. He has got to consider the interest of the United States or he should not stay here. He must be made to see that his opportunities in this country depend upon his knowing English and observing American standards. The employer cannot be permitted to regard him only as an industrial asset.
“The effort to keep our citizenship divided against itself,” the colonel continued, “by the use of the hyphen and along the lines of national origin is certain to a breed of spirit of bitterness and prejudice and dislike between great bodies of our citizens. If some citizens band together as German-Americans or Irish-Americans, then after a while others are certain to band together as English-Americans or Scandinavian-Americans, and every such banding together, every attempt to make for political purposes a German-American alliance or a Scandinavian-American alliance, means down at the bottom an effort against the interest of straight-out American citizenship, an effort to bring into our nation the bitter Old World rivalries and jealousies and hatreds.”
Theodore Roosevelt 1907
I have a good friend, we’ve known each other & our parents have known each other since we were kids, who married a woman who is an immigrant; a few, that I recall, of Our founders immigrated from England. Therefore, any challenges of immigration stem from either a place of xenophobia or just plain ignorance.
Open borders or rather mostly open borders should be the goal, however the majority of the nanny state needs to be dismantled first. It will not work until then, but the inefficiencies of the bureaucracy can and should be addressed.
We should know within 48 hrs if there are any red flags with a person crossing the border legally. If the process to enter the country legally was streamlined and huge fees were removed, then more migrants would opt to cross legally.
Remove the incentive to avoid crossing the border legally that has been placed. Due to the regime's laws and rules migrants who desire to come are practically forced to cross illegally.
And it doesn’t have to be black and white. If we really wanted to solve the problem we could.
For example, we could set up a separate system of social and medical services for people on work visas. They pay into it instead of social security, etc. if they need major medical treatment, they go back to their home country to receive care, when possible.
I just made that up, but the point is we could use some imagination if we really wanted to solve the problem.
If immigrants make this country better, why couldn't they make their home country better? Those s******e countries need to be made better a lot more than ours does.
Some countries have economies and laws that will reward individual initiative and some don’t. Reforming an entire country is not just hard, we don’t even understand how it ever happens to succeed.
If you think the Republicans are tough on immigration, you should hear what the Palestinian Authority does. The PA executes Palestinians who sell land to Jews.
What an elitist point of view. I don't know anyone who would say, "...It was the workers we dismissively call "low-skilled." " referring to people who remained in the in-person workforce for the last few years. Contrary to popular belief, most of the people who work at these "jobs Americans won't do" are Americans. Most of my family and acquaintances continued to work, in the workplace, in a variety of jobs from food preparation to health care, and we are definitely not "low-skilled".
Most US employers can't offer more pay because they are competing with employers abroad who have far fewer overhead costs and regulations to deal with, and because the US does not use tariffs anymore to compensate for such differences.
Illegal workrs solve this problem nicely: they receive lower wages than Americans and they can't complain about regulations being broken.
Ideas and innovations so powerful they have made everywhere else so prosperous.
One could argue that siphoning the best and brightest from other countries disallows other countries to prosper as well.
Then again we aren't getting the best and brightest.
Offer fewer government hand outs and people will work to fulfill their needs.
Offer more pay. No, that would be crazy. Diluting the market to drive down wages is the answer. It is always the answer.
I mean, we have just spent the past year bitching about inflation, and about offshoring for the last several decades - seems pretty self-defeating to recognize those as problems and then move against one of the few deflationary inputs in modern America.
Cheaper labor is a good thing for employers, and for domestic productivity. Though it would be better if instead of incentivizing the hiring of illegals, that someone, somewhere could instead lower the tax and administrative burden associated with domestic labor such that they could be competitive in spite of the higher price point.
Tangentially, it would also help if we stopped frog-marching every single teenager through college prep school or encouraging each that a baccalaureate was their path to greatness.
He knows. He did it deliberately.
White people might expect something better than being slaves who keep their jobs just so long as no one in the entire world is more desperate for it than they are. And the creatures who pay DeRugy would never want that.
Nonsense. As The One True Libertarian, I know that the libertarian ideal is that people can come to the country if they can support themselves through productive labor or voluntary private support.
Like any other empire in decline, one might note.
Get rid of welfar. We will find plenty of workers
Productive labor like sex work.
Hey 20 bucks is 20 bucks.
Work is work, right? And prostitution has a longer history than factory work, so it has tradition on its side.
1st ,Payroll Taxes - Social security the gift that keeps giving and drives legal labor prices higher . 2nd, minimum wages are pricing up skilled labor at the margins, there’s no end to it in sight. Plumbers with credentials, in my area, are at$300/hour.
All the Braintrust of Keith Ellison co-chair of the DNC and courtesy of the progressives. “A migrant driving a cab 30 hours a week, wife stays home, should be able to support a family of seven and middle class lifestyle.”
"I mean, we have just spent the past year bitching about inflation, and about offshoring for the last several decades – seems pretty self-defeating to recognize those as problems and then move against one of the few deflationary inputs in modern America."
Why should workers be fucked over due to government overspending? Government overspends insanely and...workers get to suffer? Seems like some bullshit.
If you support the market, you live with what happens. Sometimes, the market lowers wages. Other times, it raises them. Except there is ALWAYS a reason to add in more labor to offset market forces.
Youre aware that increased immigrants also increases demand curves on prices right?
We need to get rid of the democrats anyway. At leas the real Marxist true believers. Imprison and execute the real criminals, then expatriate the rest. That should help a little.
You really hate losing elections huh.
"Most US employers can’t offer more pay because they are competing with employers abroad who have far fewer overhead costs and regulations to deal with"
Or they would have to reduce the compensation of their C-suite and upper management folks by a percent or two. It's about where you choose to spend your resources. For decades they could be invested in upper management without losing the ability to attract low-skilled workers. For now, briefly, that is not the case.
"because the US does not use tariffs anymore to compensate for such differences"
Tariffs never compensated for anything, they just led to trade wars whose only result was to artificially inflate prices for American consumers. Taruffs have always been a losing policy.
"Illegal workers solve this problem nicely: they receive lower wages than Americans and they can’t complain about regulations being broken."
Agreed. This is why emoyers need to be held accountable. An integrated policy of guest workers and significant penalties for hiring illegal workers would shift the incentives from illegal to legal workers.
Or they would have to reduce the compensation of their C-suite and upper management folks by a percent or two.
Uh, you do realize that a lot of service-industry businesses aren't owned by cigar-smoking corporate fat cats, right?
That won't even get close to allowing for meaningful raises, quite apart from the fact that those high level employees really do operate in a free market and will leave.
What companies will do instead is to automate and eliminate low skilled position altogether. And that's a good thing, because it creates high paying jobs and makes a nation wealthier.
That's why the policy of importing low skill labor, whether legally or illegally, is so stupid.
That is utter nonsense: tariffs have been justified (correctly) for two centuries as leveling the playing field between high regulation/high tax and low regulation/low tax nations. Furthermore, tariffs are a form of consumption tax, which is better than any other form of tax.
So we don't need that welfare state then.
I'm sure the struggling executives at McDonalds, Nike, Apple, Wal-Mart, etc. are just scrappy little guys trying to keep food on the table for their families with the pitiful compensation they receive. I mean, where is a poor multibillion dollar, multinational corporation going to find the money to pay their workers more?
Wal-mart is the largest retail employer in the US. McDonalds is almost as big. The majority of the low-paying jobs in America (a huge percentage of them in retail) are with major corporations. Please don't act the fool.
"That won’t even get close to allowing for meaningful raises, quite apart from the fact that those high level employees really do operate in a free market and will leave."
Yes, that is the decision they have to make. It is about allocation of resources and choosing where to spend your money. The easiest way is to reallocate labor costs. Right now the profit generation at the point of sale for retail companies is becoming more inefficient because of the inability to fully staff. So companies, as of now, are betting that the long-term costs of paying its workers more will outweigh the short-term losses they are experiencing due to lack of staff. If the landscape doesn't change soon, that calculus may change.
"What companies will do instead is to automate and eliminate low skilled position altogether"
Apparently you haven't been paying attention to the labor market since Henry Ford. That's what companies do and have for over 100 years. If they can automate, they do. The problem is that most retail-level and customer-facing jobs that haven't been automated yet can't be automated yet.
"tariffs have been justified ... Furthermore, tariffs are a form of consumption tax, which is better than any other form of tax.
If you believe tariffs work, you should go back and take a macroeconomics course. Tariffs never work because when one country adds tariffs to the products it wants to protect domestically, the target of those tariffs don't just respond by placing their own tariffs on the same products, they target other industries where the original tariff-placing country has an advantage. Which leads to more tariffs from the first country, and a response, etc. It's called a trade war and it's a bad thing. Even if it never escalates, there is always a response that disadvantages a previously advantaged sector. Tariffs have never worked.
Tariffs may be a consumption tax, but they are an unnecessary and avoidable tax that doesn't result in any advantage to the tariff-placing country. No tax beats a consumption tax ten times out of ten, especially when it is a consumption tax for no purpose.