Free Minds & Free Markets

Shutting Out Foreign Workers Would Cost American Jobs

History suggests that if the government chokes off the supply of foreign labor, American workers won't step in to reap rewards.

Misael Virgen/ZUMA Press/NewscomMisael Virgen/ZUMA Press/NewscomDonald Trump is a businessman who has routinely hired foreign guest workers to staff his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, claiming it's impossible to find Americans to do the work. But his administration now wants to shut out foreigners who fill comparable jobs, which he now insists Americans would be happy to take. Consistency is not a Trump obsession.

Nor is economics. Endorsing a Senate bill that would cut net legal immigration in half, he charged that the U.S. has "a very low-skilled immigration system" that "has not been fair to our people, to our citizens, to our workers." White House aide Stephen Miller said it's "common sense" that the hiring of lower-skilled foreigners takes jobs away from Americans and "drives down wages."

Common sense said the Earth was flat. Superficial appearances can be grossly misleading. What is clear from experience is that low-skilled immigrants mostly take jobs that Americans don't want and that the effect they have on the wages of native-born workers is between slim and none.

During the 1990s, the number of undocumented immigrants in this country more than doubled. The number of legal immigrants also climbed. But the economy added more than 23 million jobs, and the unemployment rate fell below 4 percent. The earnings of middle-wage workers rose.

In recent years, by contrast, while the number of legal and undocumented immigrants has declined, the economy has grown more slowly. Job growth has fallen well short of the 1990s pace, and wages have been stagnant. First we proved there is no contradiction between welcoming immigrants and improving the fortunes of the average American. Then we showed that reducing the inflow brings no broad benefits.

People who employ farmworkers, housekeepers, landscapers and seasonal employees already know how hard it is to attract native-born Americans to do these types of jobs. In Maine, a vacation destination, labor is so scarce that the tough-on-crime Republican governor actually let some prison inmates out to work in tourism-related jobs.

Eric Haugen, who runs a Denver landscaping firm, told The New York Times he offers jobs paying $14 to $25 an hour, plus health insurance and other benefits, but rarely gets American applicants. "The labor pool really doesn't exist," he said.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) says there's a simple solution for businesses that rely on foreign labor: Pay enough to attract Americans. "Closing our borders to inexpensive foreign labor," he writes, "will force employers to add benefits and improve workplace conditions." Like his socialist colleague, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), who wants to double the minimum wage, Cotton thinks employers can easily afford to be generous.

But if the government chokes off the supply of foreign labor, American workers may not step in to reap rewards. Farm wages in California have risen 50 percent more than inflation since 1996, reports the Los Angeles Times, and growers are still waiting for that stampede of natives into the fields. Nine in 10 farmworkers are still immigrants, and half are undocumented.

Faced with the need to pay more, some farmers shift to crops that demand less labor, and some replace workers with machines. Some simply quit farming. California's production of asparagus, a labor-intensive crop, has largely moved to Mexico because it was hard to find workers on this side of the border.

It's not as though employers can blithely raise prices to cover higher wages. The more businesses have to pay lower-skilled workers the more vulnerable they are to being underpriced by foreign rivals. Economist Veronica Nigh of the American Farm Bureau Federation says that in many instances, "either we import labor or we import food."

When people come here from Mexico or China or Nigeria to work, they don't take jobs from Americans; they create jobs for Americans. When farmers can find workers, they grow food and fiber that has to be processed, packaged, transported and sold -- all of which boosts employment.

When construction companies save money by hiring relatively inexpensive immigrants, they can build more houses, raising the demand for workers who produce lumber, tile, appliances, carpet and plumbing supplies. When a family finds low-cost child care, both husband and wife can afford to work outside the home, and the jobs they fill may need the support of additional hires.

Some American workers will applaud if the federal government targets job-seeking immigrants. Those Americans will realize too late that when it hits that target, they can end up as collateral damage.


Photo Credit: Misael Virgen/ZUMA Press/Newscom

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

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    I agree with this article's premise, *but* it is extremely disingenuous to look at the overall performance of the US economy in the 1990s and 2000s and attempt to divine the effect of immigration based on that. Immigration is just one of approximately 1 mega-zillion factors that influenced our performance during those periods.

    It is the libertarian equivalent of gun control advocates referring to Australia's '96 confiscation correlating with a major drop in homicides and suicides... While neglecting to mention that knife murders and hanging suicides dropped even more precipitously during the same period.

    TL;DR: Correlation doesn't equal Causation. There is never an excuse for this sort of sophistry, even when it is something I agree with.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    Exactly. Indeed it's far more likely that the economic boom of the 1990s was the cause, rather than the effect as Chapman would have us believe, of increased immigration. The US became a more attractive work market for foreigners.

    And similarly for the current economic stagnation and decreased immigration.

  • Rhywun||

    Correlation doesn't equal Causation

    Came to say this. Also, no mention of welfare at all. Another disingenuous article from the master.

  • BambiB||

    No, the "master" of the disingenuous crap article on immigration is Shikha Dalmia.

    Bottom line: Immigration rates - legal and illegal, have been at near record levels for some time (declining with the economic crash they helped precipitate.)

    How about this? We institute a 10-year program where we limit LEGAL immigration to 100,000 per year - and selecting those we admit, and start shooting criminal invaders as they cross the border? At the end of 10 years, we measure the impact. My bet is America would be better off.

  • OM Nullum gratuitum prandium||

    Re: Telcontar the Wanderer,

    [...] t is extremely disingenuous to look at the overall performance of the US economy in the 1990s and 2000s and attempt to divine the effect of immigration based on that.

    Well, from 1990's to the 2000's is a long time.

    Immigration provides an even greater pool of workers which increases division of labor and specialization. This means a person, instead of having to dig the earth for worms to eat and pretty much notgibg else, can offer his or her labor to a much greater choice of options. The more labor there is the greater the opportunity for the owners of capital, the more productive the econony and the more jobs are created (even though job creation is not the raison d'etre of economic activity - trade and consumption is).

    This means that more workers does not mean less jobs. It means allocation labor more efficiently thus allowing more THINGS to be made.

    Stopping immigration would have the equivalent effect of keeping teenagers living inside the basement
    for... Ever. It would mean less businesses - because with less labor, ordinary people who want to start small businesses like house cleaning or landscaping can't find the labor for them - and thus less jobs.

    Less businesses, means less demand for supplies and services. Less trade. Less activity. Less jobs.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Yes, I agree with all of that. The point is that Reason made a very poor argument amidst all of the better ones, and it drags the overall argument down. So it has to be pointed out and castigated, regardless of what one thinks of the other arguments for immigration.

  • John Rohan||

    Not to mention, this country's longest growth streak ever was during the 1950s, when immigration was at a very low trickle.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    "People who employ farmworkers, housekeepers, landscapers and seasonal employees already know how hard it is to attract native-born Americans to do these types of jobs."
    Get rid of government backed college loans and let kids, who want to pay for college, work during summers. Its great beginner job experience and would toughen up snowflakes.

    Also solves the issue of people wanting to go to college to learn because they have to pay for it, so there is less time to SJW their young lives away.

    We are literally borrowing money to hire illegal foreign workers and saddling our young adults with copious debt. Genius plan!

  • EscherEnigma||

    Get rid of government backed college loans and let kids, who want to pay for college, work during summers. Its great beginner job experience and would toughen up snowflakes.
    ... you think that bottom-rung, no-work-experience-needed jobs, that are currently paying below the minimum wage, are suddenly going to paying well enough that someone can pay for room and board for the entire year after working just three or four months?

    I mean hell, even if we're strictly talking about "single, no kids, no major bills" folk, that's a pretty sweat deal. And then you think folk would be able to afford tuition on top of their room and board? All on three or four month's pay.

    I think there's multiple unrealistic assumptions in your theory.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    You're forgetting that those tuition fees are artificially inflated *by the loans*. It's a racket. Cut off the loans, and after a (politically unfeasible) decade of pain, the cost of tuition would go skyrocketing down.

  • BambiB||

    I know I used to work summers in a fruit packing shed, unloading trailers and wrapping pallets for storage, bucking bales, knocking out irrigation end rows, setting pipes and trimming apple trees. You ever bucked a bale? Didn't think so. Get back to me after you have loaded 42 tons of fruit onto pallets in a single day by yourself.

    By the way, my degrees are in mathematics and law - with post-grad education in electrical engineering and computer science. Worked for me.

  • frankania||

    I not only worked full-time jobs every summer; I worked part-time during regular semesters, at the college, at hotels, for construction companies, buying fixer-upper cars, and re-selling them, etc. All good experience and it paid my whole loans.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    "When people come here from Mexico or China or Nigeria to work, they don't take jobs from Americans; they create jobs for Americans."
    And some don't. Some just have a bunch of babies.

    Funny how every immigrant is supposedly a net gain for America, according to open border types. There are never any lazy immigrants who live off welfare and/or don't create jobs.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    If economic migrants are a net benefit, why does pretty much every developed country's government spend lots of time and money determining whether refugee applicants are really refugees or just economic migrants? Shouldn't they want to take all comers and reap the rewards of increased immigration?

    And why is the EU sanctioning Poland, Hungary, and Czechia for not taking any refugees? Shouldn't they be thanking those countries for letting the rest of Europe have a bigger share of the wonderful job-creating refugees?

  • sarcasmic||

    If not jumping off a bridge isn't going to kill you, why is everyone else jumping off the bridge? Everyone else is doing it! We need to do it too!

  • OM Nullum gratuitum prandium||

    Re: loveconstitutuon1789,

    There are never any lazy immigrants who live off welfare and/or don't create jobs.

    There are plenty of lazy teenagers yet I don't hear you advocating for sterilization programs...

    See, this is what happens when Trumpistas use the same arguments as Marxians. They ALSO sound stupid.

  • Jury Nullification||

    OM Nullum gratuitum prandium says, "There are plenty of lazy teenagers yet I don't hear you advocating for sterilization programs..."

    If you were a 10th as intelligent as you think your Latin moniker projects, you would wish for an edit button for that grand stupidity.

    Get some help for your Trump hysteria.

  • BambiB||

    Lazy teens are lazy because they're permitted to be lazy.

    It's a failure of parenting and a government/society that denigrates hard work - casting it into a category of "work no American would do".

    Which of course is horseshit. Cut off the welfare taps, get rid of the buy-now-pay-and-pay-and-pay later student loan program and viola! Lots of teens who want to work.

  • Cy||

    Also, throw out all of the bull shit labor, insurance and driving laws that are ridiculously prejudice to the young.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    You can have Open Borders OR a Welfare State.

    And guess what ? All those countries with "points systems"? They got MAD Welfare States, yo.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm sure I'm missing the key to this.

    When immigrants take low-skill jobs that produce goods, jobs are created for the Americans to ship and sell those goods.

  • sarcasmic||

    I see plenty of Americans working in warehouses, driving trucks and working retail. In fact I know people who do all of the above. Some of those jobs pay pretty well. So I'm not sure what your point is. Are saying that you agree that illegal immigrants taking low-skill jobs is good for the economy because that creates more jobs for Americans? Or are you saying we'd be better off without those jobs because they are beneath you?

  • sarcasmic||

    I think the point is that Americans won't pick lettuce, but they will work in the warehouses that store it, drive the trucks that transport it, and work in the stores that sell it.

  • Gozer the Gozarian||

    So according to your hypothesis, job growth at one tier of employment is solely restricted to horizontal expansion and there will be no subsequent vertical expansion of worker opportunities?

    No new jobs for managers of these workers? No new HR people to deal with the additional volume? No executive sales people to manage the growth and expansion of new clients demanding the additional output?

    You really need to rethink your position.

  • sarcasmic||

    A job is something you do until you have the opportunity to move to a career.

    That's the road I took, and I'm guessing the road that you took, but not everyone can become a professional. For many people an job is the best they will ever do. So why not allow more jobs to be created?

  • Azathoth!!||

    Common sense never said that the Earth was flat. You can see that it's round by the fact that things disappear over the horizon.

    That's called reality.

    Reality says that, to remain profitable, businesses have to get the best and most value possible for their business expenses. If people can do a job for less than it costs to employ an American, then, if they can legally do so, they will(and often illegally as well)

    Someone who has had to deal with this exact situation, who has actually done this, explains that it does--based on their own experience doing it, take jobs away from Americans--who would have to be paid more.

    Someone who has never run a business, who has never employed anyone, who has no practical experience in this whatsoever insists that, in this case, the only concrete law of economics--that people seek out the greatest value in each transaction--does not apply.

    For some reason, the presence of people who can undercut the cost of hiring other people has no effect.


  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    And how is that different from Free Trade or Automation?

    Either you replace the US workers with lowballing immigrants here, you replace the US factory with a lowballing factory in Mexico, or you just replace the workers with robots. Make all the cultural or criminal arguments you want, but *economically*, what's the difference? The workers are out in the cold either way.

    Either you believe that there is a "Lump of Labor", or you don't. Either you believe that bringing in more workers drives down old workers' wages *while* generating more efficiency to lower the prices of goods such that it balances out, or you believe that we have to stop businesses from increasing efficiency by "protecting" current workers.

    There is no difference between Trade Protectionism and Immigrant Protectionism: either you bring the cheap workers to the factory, or the factory to the cheap workers.

  • OM Nullum gratuitum prandium||

    Re: Azathoth!

    The addition of women and frewd blacks to the workforce did not translate to lower wages but actually MORE economic activity.

    It is not true that "undercutting" happens because that would be assuming a Fixed Pie Economy fallacy. Think about if for just a second and you will see.

    Or pick up an economics book for a change.

  • JWatts||

    "The addition of women and frewd blacks to the workforce did not translate to lower wages but actually MORE economic activity."

    Actually, the addition of women and blacks to the workforce in the 50's and 60's did lead to a drastic slow down in wage growth for white males. It did increase net economic activity, but certainly the formerly protected class lost their protected class.

    Increases in the supply of labor drop the price of labor. That's basic economics.

  • Jury Nullification||

    Too bad that too much of that economic activity is subsidized through social programs which is derived from taxes. Emergency rooms and schools sure get their fair share of that activity. To ignore the subsidization is disingenuous. How much of that economic activity does Western Union wire out of the country each month.

    "Or pick up an economics book for a change." Would those be the same economics books that sit on Paul Krugman's shelf.

  • chemjeff||

    Let's consider a hypothetical situation.

    Suppose Alice is the owner of a company, and she wishes to fill an executive vice-president position. She is not interested in the nationality of her eventual hire, only that she finds the best talent to fill the position. So Alice makes the formal announcement in a trade publication of the position opening. Bob, who is not from Alice's country, reads the announcement and applies for the position. Alice invites Bob to the company's property for an interview, and eventually Alice offers the job to Bob, which he accepts.

    1. Should Alice have the right to find the best talent for her open position, regardless of the nationality of the eventual hire? Or should Alice give preference to those with whom she shares citizenship? And if so, should that preferential treatment be enforced by the state?

    2. Should Bob have to get permission from Alice's country's government before visiting and interviewing for the job? If so, why? If Bob does seek permission and is turned down from visiting, has anyone's rights been violated? If so, whose, and on what basis?

  • EscherEnigma||

    Fundamentally, you're asking if a government has a legitimate interest in (a) favoring the welfare of citizens over non-citizens, and (b) securing it's orders.

    That said, are you also arguing that it's not enough for there to be a path for Alice to hire any foreign national she wants, but that there should be no increased opportunity cost for her to do so?

  • Loss of Reason||

    Ok open border folks answer me this - so illegal immigrants do jobs that American's don't want to do at a pay an American won't accept.

    Let's go with that premise. So the illegal immigrant, is doing it below min wage or sorry "not a living wage". So you are ok having a slave or new welfare class right? That's what you are really saying. You won't to reduce government entitlements (don't we all), but these illegal immigrants...oops undocumented in your terms are doing it for such cheap pay they can barely live (10 to a house).

    So what's your answer? Pay a better wage? Than wouldn't American's take that job than?

    "When people come here from Mexico or China or Nigeria to work, they don't take jobs from Americans; they create jobs for Americans. When farmers can find workers, they grow food and fiber that has to be processed, packaged, transported and sold -- all of which boosts employment."

    When farmers can't find workers, than they have to pay more and charge more for their product. That's the way it's supposed to work. Reason complains about corn subsidies and milk subsidies, yet it's ok to basically bring in worker subsidies.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Are you actually arguing for a minimum wage? Those "barely living" jobs are still better than the "nope, really can't live, good-bye cruel world" non-jobs back in Mexico or the PRC. If immigrants weren't better off for immigrating, they wouldn't immigrate.

    Moreover, it is no more a "subsidy" to let in immigrants than it is a "subsidy" to let in trade. The companies pay for the workers.

    And yeah: the above doesn't apply in a welfare state. But guess what? Even keeping out overseas immigrants who have to come by plane and ship requires massive costs in ID and E-Verify tech (not to mention more tap-dancing on the 4th Amendment's grave), and most of the poor immigrants who come here come over the border: the border we would have to spend a hundred billion on a year in personnel, construction, maintenance and upgrade costs in order to actually keep the illegals out.

    So welfare subsidies or Great Wall subsidies: either way, a statist approach to immigration costs you, but at least with the Open approach, you don't have native-born Hispanics being imprisoned for years by ICE like the guy in the Brickbat the other day, nor do you have thousands of women and children dying of thirst in the desert.

  • Heywood||

    Could it be, the reason Americans won't do those labor intensive jobs, is because we have such a generous welfare state? Why leave welfare to take a back breaking job that pays $15/hr, when you can make more than that in government handouts and subsidies?

  • mpercy||

    I knew I can count on Reason to promulgate pro-immigrant propaganda. I've no problem with immigrants with two stipulations. First, they come legally (and overstaying a visa is not "coming legally"). Second, we are not importing poverty; which is to say, immigrants should not come here and go onto any sort of welfare benefits--and I know that supposedly immigrants use welfare less than native-born, that's a different issue.

    End the welfare state, and I'll drop down to one stipulation.

  • ||

    There are not enough American worker because there are to many able bodied people ( and I use that term loosely ) on entitlement programs. I would give 75% of those ''people '' a couple months to find a job or make arrangements with the local undertakers because they would starve to death.

  • Headache||

    During the 1990s, the number of undocumented immigrants in this country more than doubled. The number of legal immigrants also climbed. But the economy added more than 23 million jobs, and the unemployment rate fell below 4 percent. The earnings of middle-wage workers rose

    Stevey, you lazy libtard...

    More than 23 million jobs? !993 - 2000 net change in tax returns processed by IRS is 16 million. If they are "undocumented", how do you know the amount doubled? Legal immigrants also climbed - yah, 1 + 1 = 100% increase. Climbed, rose, doubled, all meaningless without a base.

  • Peter Schaeffer||

    There is a substantial economic literature on this point and Chapman isn't wasting his time on the facts. The facts show that immigrants drive natives out of the labor force. Here is a typical paper on the subject.

    "Immigration and the Economic Status of African-American Men"

    "The employment rate of black men, and particularly of low-skilled black men, fell precipitously between 1960 and 2000. At the same time, their incarceration rate rose. This paper examines the relation between immigration and these trends in employment and incarceration. Using data from the 1960–2000 US censuses, we find that a 10% immigration-induced increase in the supply of workers in a particular skill group reduced the black wage of that group by 2.5%, lowered the employment rate by 5.9 percentage points, and increased the incarceration rate by 1.3 percentage points."

    Note that many other similar papers exist. Immigration destroys jobs for natives. It does not create them.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    How many statistics exist on the benefits of gun control, I wonder...

    Of course "the immigrants" don't create jobs: they lower the costs of goods, allowing more productivity, which *then* allows more jobs.

    I love your re-use of the Correlation = Causation fallacy here. A lot of things happened to black people from the 60s onward, most notably the Great Society (*makes sign of the cross*). I also recall it was in the 60s that we started letting in more immigrants, so, yeah, big whoop.

    And of course, it couldn't possibly be that black mens' (and now rural white mens') exiting the workforce to go on welfare created a vacuum the immigrants filled; why, that would turn your whole argument on its head, wouldn't it?

  • martman1||

    Per the Bureau of Labor Statistics, of the 8.8 million net new jobs created from 2000 through 2014 (latest data I could find) 6.2 million of them (70% of them) went to foreign born people.

    Want to find out if immigrants (including high skilled H1B workers) are taking American jobs? Impose a 20% payroll tax, paid by employers, on their non-citizen employees (preferably coupled with a $15 an hour federal minimum wage).

    This would cause employers to first look to hiring citizens but not preclude them from hiring non-citizens if they couldn't find enough citizens to fill positions.

    If the level of non-citizen employment stayed the same, that would be a pretty good indication that they were not taking jobs from Americans. To the extent that non-citizen employment fell (if it did) that would be a pretty good indication of the extent to which non-citizens were taking American jobs.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    So, in other words, legalize immigrant workers and extend to them the same protections as the native-born. Gotcha.

  • Mark22||

    During the 1990s, the number of undocumented immigrants in this country more than doubled. The number of legal immigrants also climbed. But the economy added more than 23 million jobs, and the unemployment rate fell below 4 percent. The earnings of middle-wage workers rose.

    During the 1990's, my annual income also doubled. It must have been because of illegal immigrants! Thank you, Chapman, for showing me the light.

    Of course, during the 1990's, I also had two breakups in relationships. That must have been due to illegal immigrants too! Those sneaky Latin lovers!

  • Released||

    How hard is it for libertarians to understand that the president has to increase the wealth of the WORKERS, not some published Keynesian average statistics from numbers out of the basement, about what people "on average" earn?

    Is there something which is difficult with understanding the difference between US workers profiting off of their works, or instead some foreigner profiting?

    If there is any kind of unclarity, please ask and I will try to teach you the first fundamentals of economics and politics. Because if you ask, you obviously don't understand anything about it.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Please, Released, teach me everything you know. Let me bask in your hard-earned wisdom.

    You can start by explaining why moving cheap foreign workers to a US factory (Free Immigration), is different from moving a US factory to cheap foreign workers (Free Trade), on a purely economic basis. And thusly, why the last 241 years of argument in favor of Free Trade, on the part of such peripheral economic thinkers as Adam Smith, Frederic Bastiat, Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, somehow does not apply to both concepts equally.

  • Released||

    Hussein Obama negotiating with Angela Merkel is in no way "free trade"! Why are you lying?

    Free trade would be great, yes. But it takes two to dance tango. That's hard across nation borders. I love defense secretary general Mad Dog's quote:
    "The US can never make peace. We can only try to convince others to make peace with us!"

    It's like that with trade. You're not an individual anymore when you represent a nation or any organization. Your decisions are then not dependent on what you want as an individual, but on your position as a representative of will of others. And this of course occurs as often in unregulated capitalism as in any other circumstance in which there are humans. The representative is a glue between our minds and not an individual in himself in that role. Libertarian theory unfortunately remains on the hypothetical Robinson Crusoe level. Libertarianism is like ABC for pre school children, who then loses interest because they discover reality.

    Moving labor doesn't only moves salary levels. It moves culture too. Ignoring those costs, which for the southern half of the Roman Empire succumbing to islam, are incalculable. The greatest parts of civilization for ever destroyed and for thousands of years turned into the worst tyranny humanity has ever known with eternal backwardness, hatred, intolerance, slavery, torture. And you want to do that in order to cut wages? Turning the US into Venezuela, how low salaries do you need in order to compensate for that?

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||


    In regards to your first sentence:

    At no point in my comment did I mention Angela Merkel, Barack H. Obama, or any failures to live up to the principles of Free Trade that they may have perpetrated.

    In regards to your second and third paragraphs:

    If you cannot grasp the superiority of markets comprised of individuals cooperating via voluntary exchange to markets controlled by a monopolist collectivist political body, you will get little further in persuading we eternal pre-schoolers of your worldview.

    And in regards to your fourth paragraph:

    You will recall I specified in my first comment: "on a purely economic basis". The cultural and criminal ramifications of immigration are a separate concern. Your original comment was purely about the effect of immigration on native-born wages, making no reference to possible political, welfare-related, or cultural/ethical effects, and it was to that comment alone that I was replying.

    Incidentally, you may also want to read up a bit on the "Southern Roman Empire" (by which I assume you mean the *Byzantine*, eg Eastern, Roman Empire, given that the Empire west of the Adriatic fell some 200 years before Islam was created), if you are under the impression that "slavery", "tyranny" and "torture" were somehow alien to Rome, or that "backwardness" and "intolerance" were present in the Caliph's, Seljuk, or Ottoman Empires to a greater degree than the Christian polities of the time.

  • Liberty Lover||

    Leaving foreign workers in costs Americans jobs, shutting foreign workers out costs Americans jobs.
    Signing trade agreements costs Americans jobs, ending or changing trade agreements costs Americans jobs.
    Illegals costs Americans jobs, deporting Illegals costs Americans jobs.

    Is there anything, and I mean ANYTHING that does not cost Americans jobs?

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Some of the "guest workers" from Korea don't. Purely additive, jobs-wise.

  • tinder download||

    very nice post. I like it. Thanks for sharing this information.
    Tinder is the best online chatting application. Try it. tinder for pc tinder download


Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online