MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

America Needs Immigrants Now More Than Ever

From falling birthrates to labor shortages, if you want to make America great again, the economic case for opening borders has never been stronger.

Georgetown Book ShopGeorgetown Book ShopImmigration is the most-heated domestic policy topic today. Leave aside questions about whether members of MS-13, a violent gang started in Los Angeles, are "animals" or not and you still have Donald Trump dismissing migrants from "shithole countries", members of Congress such as Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) railing against "somebody else's baby", and Republicans pushing to reduce legal immigration by 50 percent. Democrats these days are mostly welcoming to "dreamers" but we're just a few years removed from the policies of Barack Obama, who was arguably the "most anti-immigrant president since Eisenhower" and had no trouble deporting millions of Latinos and raiding workplaces suspected of employing undocumented workers.

Opponents of immigrants and immigration take their cues from President Trump, who opened his campaign for the Republican nomination by denouncing illegals entering from Mexico as nothing less than a criminal horde:

When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

Opponents advance a host of other, sometimes contradictory arguments to make their case. Immigrants, they say, are lazy and soak up massive amounts of welfare even while they are willing to work harder and for less money than natives (a paradox known as "Schrodinger's Immigrant"). The litany also includes: Immigrants bring down wages, illegals make a joke of the rule of law, newcomers don't learn English, they vote Democratic, they destroy common culture, they are hotbeds of terrorism and crime, and on and on.

Supporters of current or expanded levels of immigration (I'm one) dutifully rebut all these arguments and more by pointing to relevant data, economic theory, and history. We also underscore American ideals of inclusion and a history of immigrant entrepreneurship, among other things.

Needless to say, the two sides rarely convince one another, or even come to a common understanding of what facts are true and relevant.

Which makes a column appearing in today's Wall Street Journal all the more interesting. Gerald F. Seib lays out a series of facts that I think everyone can agree on. They provide an excellent starting point for a different discussion about immigration, one that foregrounds the very sort of economic issues that both diehard Trump supporters and proponents of immigration can agree on. Among them:

  • Unemployment is at 3.9 percent, the lowest it has been in 17 years.
  • "There are 6.6 million job openings in the U.S., which means that, for the first time in history, there are enough openings to provide a job for every unemployed person in the country."
  • Employers all over the country—Seib mentions Maryland crab processors, Alaskan fisheries, farmers in the heartland, and New Hampshire restaurants—"all say they are critically short of workers."
  • The relatively few slots for annual H-1B and H-2B visas (for skilled and unskilled workers, respectively) have been filled at record paces this year already.
  • "The [National Federation of Independent Business] says that 22% of small-business owners say finding qualified workers is their single most important business problem, more than those who cite taxes or regulations."

That's a portrait of an economy that is stuck in second gear, unable to expand to meet increasing demand and grow. Given the general listlessness of the American economy for virtually the entirety of the 21st century, in which annual economic growth has averaged under 2 percent (compared to about 3 percent from 1950 to 2000), we may not be immediately capable of recognizing the opportunity in front of us.

The long-term prospects for a healthy economy face real problems, reports Seib, including:

  • "The fertility rate for women aged 15 to 44 was 60.2 births per 1,000 women, the lowest since the government began tracking that rate more than a century ago."
  • Over the next three decades, the percentage of Americans over the age of 65 will become larger than the percentage under the age of 18, "a historic crossing of demographic lines."

Other sources underscore that immigration and births to immigrants, who tend to have more children than native-born women, are the only reasons why America's population is growing slightly. Unless it is supplemented by immigration, the decline in birth rates will disastrously sink the labor market in years to come. To get a sense of what happens when a country ages dramatically and doesn't replenish its population with younger residents, look to ultra-restrictionist Japan, which is the prime example of a First World "demographic disaster." Japan, which has fewer people than it did in 2000, is suffering a slow-motion economic collapse characterized by weak-to-nonexistent economic growth and an erosion of quality of life. As The Weekly Standard's Jonathan V. Last wrote in What to Expect When No One's Expecting: America's Coming Demographic Disaster, Japan's "continuously falling birthrates" has given rise to "a subculture that dresses dogs like babies and pushes them around in carriages, and a booming market in hyper-realistic-looking robot babies." No major developed country, he cautions, has managed to consistently grow economically with a shrinking population.

As a hardcore, principled libertarian, I'll defend anyone's right to dress dogs however they want and buy whatever sorts of robots the market can produce, but I don't think today's Japan is anybody's vision of making America great again.

The Journal's Seib concludes that "there is a good case that America's economy—growing and thriving—has never needed immigrant labor more than it does now." Yet the congressional reaction to the current situation is to crack down on illegal immigration, especially through intrusive employer sanctions. Hardliners are also calling for reductions in legal immigration. Instead of giving DACA dreamers permanent legal status, they want to give them three-year renewable grants. When it comes to conventional immigration, they want to reduce current totals by "by 260,000 slots a year, or 25%. The libertarian Cato Institute, which is generally pro-immigration, says the reduction actually would be closer to 40%' which would be 'the largest policy-driven reduction in legal immigration since the awful, racially motivated acts of the 1920s.'"

Immigration is more complicated than economics, of course, but Seib's cautious and fact-rich piece may provide a model for a meaningful conversation between pro-immigration forces and restrictionists. If the latter want to make America great, they surely recognize that this is something that we can't do on our own. Underscoring the central role that immigrants play in a flourishing, growing economy while figuring out how to assuage the fears of immigration opponents—many of whom surely recall a parent or grandparent who was born elsewhere but died a "real" American—won't be easy, but it is necessary.

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

  • John||

    Great. Immigration is not the same as open borders. What starts with "hey we need more labor" always becomes "hey we must let everyone in and their families too". If Reason wants more legal, skilled immigration, good for them. But, I am skeptical that is what they want.

    The thing about immigration is that the pro-immigration side seems incapable fo being honest. Reason doesn't give a shit about the need for labor. If they did, they would be proposing a system where we maximized the skills and productivity of those we allow in. They just pretend to as a way of avoiding defending the full open borders never deport anyone no matter how criminal they are or how much of a burden they are, position that Reason prefers.

  • Harvard||

    Your first paragraph sums it all. The only response to this article needed.

  • Presskh||

    Agree Harvard. John's post sums it all up.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Reason doesn't give a shit about the need for labor. If they did, they would be proposing a system where we maximized the skills and productivity of those we allow in.

    Yeah, because Reason is well known for believing in central planners getting things like that right.

  • John||

    Since when is allowing the most productive or most needed, central planning? If your reason for wanting immigration is that you need skilled labor and a higher birth rate, then allow young people, who have marketable skills to immigrate and don't allow the old, the sick, or the unskilled to do so. It is not that hard.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Since when is allowing the most productive or most needed, central planning?

    Who decides who is most productive or most needed?

  • John||

    The economy. Employers. It is not hard to see when you have a labor shortage in a certain area. If it were, how does Nick make the claims he is making here? You are just being pedantic because you have no response to the point.

  • Agammamon||

    John, *that is open borders*.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Reason's immigration articles do read a bit like central planning posts. The authors here rarely push for a simple lottery system.

  • Agammamon||

    Why a lottery system? Why not a 'must issue' visa system. You don't have any disqualifying characteristics - like violent criminality, disease, etc - then you get a visa.

    Not a permanent residency, a work visa. 6-9 months and then you go back home and apply again.

  • Nardz||

    How many?

  • I can't even||

    On the flipside - admitting unskilled, unassimilated Third World peasants is exactly how you grow the welfare state. Reason spends a lot of energy purposely ignoring this aspect of immigration.

  • DarrenM||

    Yes. The government has no business getting involved in who gets into the country or who pays taxes.

  • ||

    I would like to know about all this illegal immigration from Central America and the MS-13.

    That's the 'rapist-killer' from shithole countries (sorry, I can't get worked up over that because it's essentially what they are regardless of the coffee and lovely local cultures) double whammy right there.

    I think this is what anti-illegal immigration - or at least people who want the borders enforced - is concerned about.

  • John||

    That and the Middle East and Somalia. But talking about individual groups of people and individuals would require a level of honesty that the open borders people are unwilling to attain.

  • Elston G||

    Middle East and Somalia? Americans have hundred thousand percent better chance of getting killed by a right-wing gun-toting Nut Job then by any Somalian or Middle Eastern person. Who the fuck you think you're kidding?

  • tlapp||

    Exactly, we have every reason to check out people who want to immigrate. My grandparents went through the check point called Ellis Island. Make sure they were not criminals, not bringing in diseases like tuberculosis. Now we have potential terrorists, MS13 and others that it is very reasonable to deny access. The rest are welcome.

  • tlapp||

    Exactly, we have every reason to check out people who want to immigrate. My grandparents went through the check point called Ellis Island. Make sure they were not criminals, not bringing in diseases like tuberculosis. Now we have potential terrorists, MS13 and others that it is very reasonable to deny access. The rest are welcome.

  • Libertymike||

    Notwithstanding the fact that I am an anarchist and have already this morning vigorously argued that the feds do not have the constitutional power to regulate immigration, I DO NOT WANT MORE IMMIGRANTS!

  • John||

    This is why you are my favorite commentator on here Mike. I don't agree with you about immigration, but unlike every other pro open borders person on here, you believe in your position because it is the logical consequence of your beliefs not because of some cultural preference or need to virtue signal. You actually think beyond "but Mexicans are cool and they run delicious food trucks", which is about the level of many of the pro open borders people on here.

  • Juice||

    but unlike every other pro open borders person on here, you believe in your position because it is the logical consequence of your beliefs not because of some cultural preference or need to virtue signal.

    Yeah, that's it. You really nailed it. All the others are being shifty and disingenuous.

  • John||

    Yes, I did. And it apparently hit a nerve. The truth always does.

  • Juice||

    I see. So you're suggesting that my opposition to using force against people who simply move from one place to another is because I need to virtue signal and it has nothing to do with the ideas of liberty and freedom. You're saying that I don't really believe in liberty? It's just that I want to prove that I'm woke or something like that? If that's the case, that's not a nerve, that's the funny bone.

  • John||

    I am suggesting that your opposition is the result of your cultural biases and desire to virtue signal. It is not even so much that you are wrong, there is a case to be made for more immigration. It is that you can't even make the proper case for your position. You just spout platitudes like "liberty" as if they mean something by themselves without context and pretend every counterpoint is morally illegitimate thus avoiding the need to actually make an argument.

    You are not quite that bad. You are better than some. But mostly it is just a question of virtue signaling and rationalizing their own self interest. It is forever someone else' duty to suffer for the speaker's principles. The whole thing is unconvincing and transparently cynical.

    Go show me where you suffer for your principles and get back to me. Otherwise, they are just rationalizations.

  • Juice||

    You have an active imagination for an old, retired curmudgeon with apparently no life except for the Reason comment section. I have no self-interest in immigration. None. In fact, I'd personally prefer if far fewer people immigrated to where I currently live. But I'm just another person just like them. They have no less right to live and work here than I do. I have no right to force anyone to leave anymore than they have a right to force me to leave.

    And you've got me really puzzled with the "suffer for your principles" thing. What the hell is that even supposed to mean?

  • Barry soetaro||

    Actually, they DON'T have any right to be here. Recent polling in the Americas indicate around 130 MILLION people would move here immediately. The result would be "America the Shithole" as resources dried up instantly, leaving taxpayers hanging and swinging. As well, having lived in south central America and Mexico, I don't want to ever again live where razor ribbon has to be wrapped around building up to the third floor to slow down burgers.
    Sorry boys. We can pick and choose while locking the rest out..

  • Azathoth!!||

    I see. So you're suggesting that my opposition to using force against people who simply move from one place to another is because I need to virtue signal and it has nothing to do with the ideas of liberty and freedom.

    Yes.

    BECAUSE it has absolutely nothing to do with ideas of liberty or freedom--because invading another animals territory is NOT a liberty or a freedom--it is, throughout the entirety of living things, a reason to fight. It's called 'self defense--something that actually IS a liberty and right we all possess.

    We, all of us, every single thing that falls under the extremely broad umbrella of 'life', have the right to defend ourselves, our loved ones and our territory and property from others.

    We DO NOT have the right to anyone elses body, loved ones, territory or property.

    This is libertarianism at it's most basic. Why is this so hard?

    And, guess what? We should(although we don't) have the right to contract with whoever we wish to perform tasks for us--so long as we negotiate their transit through the territory of others(it's this part of 'freely contract' that fouls up the whole 'open borders' thing)

  • JFree||

    because invading another animals territory is NOT a liberty or a freedom--it is, throughout the entirety of living things, a reason to fight.

    You're wrong. Mobility IS a natural liberty. And it also conflicts with the liberty to claim some territory as exclusively 'yours'. Liberties can and do conflict. And natural liberties in particular do not come with the expectation that anyone or anything else need respect them. Natural liberties do NOT self-enforce. They require a coercive violent sociopathic alpha entity which is either gonna be govt or the most coercive violent individual.

    As it pertains to immigration, I don't much care. I'm OK with the political notion that Americans created our own coercive sociopathic entity (as self-governing people) to enforce the territorial claims of the US. Which means that a)we can legitimately exclude foreigners via the political process (even if I personally favor more immigration esp from Asia) and b)we cannot legitimately fuck around in other countries because we don't claim that territory.

    BUT arguing that mobility is not a natural liberty means denying Americans that liberty within America. Creates HUGE problems for this country and we have simply refused to acknowledge it since our 'frontier' closed and the Lockean proviso ceased.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    We have hummingbirds in our back patio. My wife fills the feeder conscientiously, and so a rather significant population has accumulated. The one who was there first (yes, we know who he is) regards the feeder as his territory and regularly fights to defend it against the others. The principle of "meum et tuum" is fundamental to nature and human society alike.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Well, this is gonna be a fun, civil, uniting thread.

  • John||

    They always are with Mike. He is one of the most civil people on here. He also has some of the most interesting views. I often disagree with him, but I always feel like his views are worth hearing. Mike is not a virtue signaler or someone who won't take his position to its logical conclusions, good, bad or indifferent. That is a very good thing in a person.

  • Libertymike||

    Yep, I might not be welcome at chez Ole Mex.

  • Alcibiades||

    Notwithstanding the fact that I am an anarchist and have already this morning vigorously argued that the feds do not have the constitutional power to regulate immigration, I DO NOT WANT MORE IMMIGRANTS!

    Who in your view should have the constitutional power?

  • Libertymike||

    A, if you do not want to hire Jose, don't hire him. I will defend your right to refuse to hire him.

    B, if I do not want to hire Pedro, I won't. I expect that you would defend my right to refuse to hire him.

    C, if Ole Mex does not want to hire Hakeem, he shouldn't hire him. Hopefully, you would defend Ole Mex's decision to refuse to hire Hakeem.

  • Alcibiades||

    In other words, in your world there are no national boundaries, which, since you're a self-described anarchist, makes perfect sense.

  • Libertymike||

    Yes, but I do not want muh homeland flooded with hordes of gimme dats types who can't speak English.

  • Alcibiades||

    Yes, but I do not want muh homeland flooded with hordes of gimme dats types who can't speak English.

    What if that flood of hordes were to happen?

  • Libertymike||

    It has been, and continues to be, happening.

    I don't like it.

    Just because I am an anarchist doesn't mean I have to like it. Witness my post below - I will not hesitate to complain about poor customer service rooted in the hiring of Hispanic analphabets.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Except the Constitution does authorize immigration in Article I, Section 9.

    You're a self-proclaimed anarchist, so you will find any excuse to ignore the enumerated power Congress has to regulate immigrants.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    No, A1 S9 was meant to prohibit Congress from banning the slave trade until 1808, one of several compromises the North made with the South to ensure ratification.

    And note: this is in Article 1, which deals with Congressional powers. Nothing in either the language or the history of the provision prohibits Congress generally from legislating the issue as it sees fit at any given time.

  • mtrueman||

    "I DO NOT WANT MORE IMMIGRANTS!"

    More fucking and less commenting!

  • lap83||

    "Leave aside questions about whether..."

    In other words, you have to unquestioningly accept the following list of media outrage topics as proving my point

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Wow, you're pretty mendacious, aren't you?

  • Azathoth!!||

    Nah, just factual.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    And you are frivolously sesquipedalian, so there!

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Some of these labor issues are from college degrees being a mark of social class. If you own a plumbing business but only have a high school diploma, you are socially lower than a Starbucks barista with an MFA.

    Kill the eduction establishment.

    One question, how stable is a situation with a white, English speaking retired class being supported by a heavily taxed brown, Spanish and Arabic speaking workforce? I mean basic human nature.

  • Don't look at me.||

    Sounds like utopia.

  • JFree||

    Sounds like the antebellum South

  • John||

    I completely agree. The worst thing that the Left has done to this country, and it was absolutely by design, is to convince large numbers of people that earning an honest living is somehow unworthy unless it involves a high degree of formal education. It just infuriates me. There is nothing wrong with being a barista anymore than any other honest living. But, your social status should not be determined by your formal education. Fuck credentialism.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Credentialism comes with Socialism. You can't have some unlettered plumber making important decisions, can you? They work together - he is sneered at socially to put him down politically, and put down politically to be dominated socially.

    I blame Vietnam War era college deferments. We should have drafted the fuckers out of their sociology graduate programs and got them shot too.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Credentialism goes back to the founding days of capitalism itself: Who are your parents? What college or university did you attend? What degree(s) did you attain? I can guarantee you that 17th century Scots and Brits paid a great deal of attention to these questions and there wasn't a socialist among them. And it continues unabated to this day in every capitalist country you might care to name.

  • damikesc||

    I've encouraged my sons to look into trades. Plumbers make more than most college grads. You cannot really outsource or automate HVAC or electricians. They are safe, honorable, and desperately needed jobs.

  • John||

    I had a friend in law school who worked during the summers in college at a luxury car dealership. He said that when he started he figured he would be dealing with Doctors and Lawyers and such. But once he started, he found out most of their customers were plumbers, electricians and other tradesman who had built businesses or become contractors. If you have the skills to do a trade and also have the business sense to run your own business, you can do very well. The thing is that a lot of people who are really good at the trades do not have the interest or the aptitude to own the business or be the general contractor. Those who can do both will likely do very well for themselves.

  • Libertymike||

    My experience echoes this point.

    Lots of my clients are tradesmen who start their own businesses and do well. Some have done quite well and a couple have become millionaires. Most are really good, decent people.

  • The_Hoser||

    I've done the same with my two daughters. They are interested in HVAC or something similar. I told them they'd make a killing as the only women in the area operating their own business (after apprenticeships), and all the guys I know in the trades are far happier than the folks working white-collar.

  • DarrenM||

    I expect robot maintenance will be a decent vocation in the future.

  • The_Hoser||

    Good point, although I don't want my daughters cleaning out the sexbots. Gross.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Explain to them that if they have a trade they can always find work, always earn an income. Get that set first. Then if they want to go to college they will not only be free to do so, they will be able to pay for it themselves. Wow. Such a deal.

  • Elston G||

    " The Left" has done nothing of the sort. The left has never disparaged any working American especially one that makes an honest living that they are somehow unworthy because they don't have a college education.
    You made that up, pulled it right out of your Fox watching cultist ass.
    You have zero legitimacy. None.

  • I can't even||

    Socially lower? Says who?

    Several of my (home owning) neighbors fall into the non-college educated business owners class. None fall into the graduate barista category.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    He's talking about the cultural perception that anyone who doesn't pursue higher education is doomed to a life of misery and low living. There was a commercial a few years ago by the Hispanic Ad Council that contrasted a kid arguing with his mother about going to work at a blue-collar job or going to college. The ad was set up in a very manipulative fashion to make it seem like going to work would leave the kid poor and miserable in a small house, while going to college would make him a doctor in a McMansion with Pottery Barn furnishings. It's appeal to both elitism and mass consumerism made me want to punch out the TV.

  • vek||

    Yeah, it's ridiculous. I have a lot of friends from high school who decided to go into various trades. Several of them make well into the the 6 figures now, and have been making better money than your average college grad since they were in their early 20s. It all depends on what you want to do with your life. If you REALLY want to be a doctor, then go study that. You have to by law to do it in the USA anyway. But if you like doing stuff with your hands, there's no reason not to learn one of the many highly paid blue collar trades.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Heck, I'm a professional engineer, nearing retirement. There are guys in the tool room who make more than I do.

    Mind, I get to make it while sitting down, which isn't a minor thing when you've got arthritis, but they're still making more. My father was a master machinist; If I'd known how things were going to go down, I might have gone to vo-tech instead of Michigan Tech. I'd have been making money sooner.

  • vek||

    Yup. The "Everybody has to go to college, even if it's to study something useless that doesn't provide good pay" thing is nonsense.

    One thing about some trade jobs that can almost be nice for a lot of people is that there tends to be less BS with them, and less mental stress. I do white collar work. Email, talk on the phone, deal with contracts, etc. It's a pain in the ass! But I like tinkering with things too. Sometimes I think about how nice it would be to just have to show up somewhere and do some stuff and then go home! I'm self employed though, so even if I had gone that route I'd probably be the owner dealing with the paperwork for those jobs now anyway :(

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    An ironic ad campaign indeed considering how many Hispanics go into blue collar jobs and do quite well. But on the other hand, who could pass up a liberal arts education leading to graduate school which may or may not lead to employment but will certainly burden him with a mountain of debt. Not much of a choice as I see it.

  • Agammamon||

    How stable is a white, English speaking retired class being supported white English speaking workforce?

    Doesn't seem to have worked out too well so far - the retired class just continually sucks more from the workforce beyond sutainability.

    So, let's get rid of the welfare state. *That's* the problem here. A retired class that supports itself is a non-issue to the workforce. A retired class that sucks the lifeblood out of the workforce to sustain its privileges is resented no matter what the skin color of the workforce is.

  • Elston G||

    The lifeblood was sucked out of Pensions because right Wingers who hate the working class, underfunded them.

  • The Laissez-Ferret||

    Pensions being underfunded are worst in places like NY, IL, CA, and MI. You tell me which of those has been run by right-wingers. Take your time...I'll wait.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    And just when you accused another poster of having zero credibility. Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    That owner of a plumbing business may be socially lower than a Starbucks barista with an MFA, but I can guarantee you he has a better house, better food on the table and provides better for his kids.

  • Don't look at me.||

    We have plenty of idiots. How about we get some smart ones.

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    BORING.

    Seriously, do some hard hitting journalism Reason. I'm switching back to independent press; they might not have your funding and legacy, but they have balls and principles.

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Uh, no, shirtless morons on YouTube are no longer considered newsworthy.

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    Appearance dictates merit for you? I find you grossly wanting of character; I base that off your words, rather than prejudice.

  • ||

    Go see Dyson calling Peterson 'a mean, mad angry white guy'.

    It's all they got: Emotion and ad hominen. It's a weapon of pride of sorts for them.

    'I just called that guy I don't know a white fucker because I feel he is! Woooo!'

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    Go see Dyson calling Peterson 'a mean, mad angry white guy'.

    The Munk debate is on my 'to-do' list, assuming I can stomach it. No promises, cringe is super effective against me.

  • The_Hoser||

    I can't recommend it, unless you want to Elvis your device about 15 minutes in.

  • Agammamon||

    Yes it does. At least at first.

    https://youtu.be/x_9hYMVVv_Q?t=30

  • ||

    He's actually pretty well-reasoned.

    Unlike some.

    Hence, the usual personal attacks.

  • John||

    It would be nice if the author of this piece would consider why we have a labor shortage beyond just not enough people. The low, but fortunately getting better, labor force participation rate shows there is more to this issue than just not having enough people. This country is starting to suffer from a mismatch of skills and that is a direct result of our failing and outdated education system. We also throw huge numbers of young people in jail and make it impossible for them to get a job after they get out.

    There are some very good Libertarian takes to be had on this issue. It speaks to the total failure of the government-run education system, it shows the economic price we are paying for putting so many people in prison and then making a conviction into such a burden, it speaks to our broken tort system that makes employers loath to take a chance on anything less than a perfect applicant out of fear they will choose the wrong person and end up paying dearly for it. The list goes on and on. But with Reason, it always must come back to one of the famous big three issues of sodomy, Mexicans, and Pot.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    So you're saying government management is the problem, but we need government to solve the problem by managing immigration.

  • John||

    No dumb ass. I am saying our problem is not that we don't have enough people. Therefore, "we need more people" is not a reason to increase immigration.

    You really are pretty slow on the uptake, aren't you?

  • Agammamon||

    The mismatch of skills is not because of a failed education system. Its because you can sit on your arse and earn min-wage equivalent *plus* food stamps. And get your housing subsidized. And if you take work, all that goes away.

  • Benitacanova||

    One day they're complaining about a labor shortage, always for low level jobs. The next they're warning us that automation and robots are going to eliminate most low level jobs. They need to get their story straight.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    "Move to the city and learn to code, hick! Oh wait, we're going to support H-1B increases so you'll be undercut by shitty programmers who will work for 2/3 or less of what we'd pay you! What, you can't compete with these people for jobs? You must be a loser!"

    And then they wonder why Trump gets the support he does.

  • vek||

    Yup. If extreme levels of automation weren't clearly on the horizon I might be SLIGHTLY more open to immigration. But they are. The fact is that low level jobs meant to be done by low IQ people are going to be fewer and farer in between in the future.

    Here's the thing about employment: A genius can always sweep a floor if he can't find a gig as a robotics engineer... But a typical janitor does not have the mental capacity to be a robotics engineer. So which type of worker is more flexible for any potential future? We're America. We can get as many over qualified people to move here as we feel like letting in. So why let in the lowest of the low when we don't have to?

  • I can't even||

    We have labor shortages because we have a welfare state.

    Crab crisis: Maryland seafood industry loses 40 percent of work force in visa lottery
    www.baltimoresun.com/news/mary.....story.html

    Meanwhile a few miles away...
    Hundreds Protest In Cities Across U.S. For 'Poor People's Campaign'
    The Rev. William Barber II and the Rev. Liz Theoharis ― the two religious leaders spearheading The Poor People's Campaign: A National Call for Moral Revival ― led dozens of demonstrators at a rally and march in front of the Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Monday afternoon.
    www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/p.....94524b4de7

    In a sane world, the people complaining about their job opportunities would be signing up for jobs in the crab industry.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Can't speak to the nation as a whole, but one of the problems for HS students here in California was the elimination of the "shop" classes. They were generally regarded as where the unworthy were tracked to, so they had to go. Now there is no systematic way to train young people in necessary technical skills until they are out of high school without burdening them with debt. I loved shop, especially metalwork, and have long wished I had stuck with it. Couldn't though; I was one of those who had great college prospects so the school wanted me out there padding their stats. Never finished college, so I guess I got them back

  • JoeBlow123||

    You guys need a new thing, this topic is stale. It's like half the articles here.

  • Bearded Spock||

    I propose a new Drinking Game. Drink a 1-oz alcohol equivalent of your favorite beverage whenever there is an H&R post featuring:

    1. Gillespie talking about his Italian ancestors

    2. Shikha implying that anyone who opposes open borders is a racist

    3. Robby using a caveat in a sentence to lessen its impact (free drink)

    4. A century-old editorial cartoon showing immigrants as invading animals

    5. Trump being described as misogynistic, unintelligent, irrational, impulsive, or hateful

  • JoeBlow123||

    "Japan, which has fewer people than it did in 2000, is suffering a slow-motion economic collapse characterized by weak-to-nonexistent economic growth and an erosion of quality of life."

    There are too many people, apartments are small, and shits expensive. That's why people don't have kids. This is such a bunch of horseshit. Come visit Tokyo and try to afford a house where you can pack three kids then tell me how Japan is collapsing. Birth rates are declining because shit is expensive, i.e. naturally.

    "As The Weekly Standard's Jonathan V. Last wrote in What to Expect When No One's Expecting: America's Coming Demographic Disaster, Japan's "continuously falling birthrates" has given rise to "a subculture that dresses dogs like babies and pushes them around in carriages, and a booming market in hyper-realistic-looking robot babies." No major developed country, he cautions, has managed to consistently grow economically with a shrinking population."

    People need to stop writing about Japan who have never lived there. The dogs dressed as kids and robot babies is such a bunch of horseshit I can't believe it was published. Some Japanese like weird shit, they are obsessed with cute shit like cartoons or babies or, yes, dogs. This is a cultural thing but the ignormasues at Reason and conservative blowhards at Weekly Standard turn this into some economic bullshit. This is some serious postmodernist bullshit critique.

  • Juice||

    Japan, which has fewer people than it did in 2000

    Sounds like a good thing to me. Now, hopefully this will start to happen with countries that need a bit of population decline.

  • JoeBlow123||

    And Japan is about the safest, friendliest, warmest place in the world but they not to reform because economics! Bullshit. I am moving back to the States soon and wanted to bike to work, but all the neighborhoods within biking distance are fucking ghettos or force me to bike through places where I might get pistol whipped while witnessing the daily junkie overdosing on heroin. Know where I would never have to think about this? You guessed it, the land of unlocked bicycles and open windows, Japan.

    Give me slow motion suicide Japan any day of the week over some of the crime infested American shithole cities.

    And to reiterate why birth rates are declining: Japan is a majority mountainous country. Space is at a premium. It is damn near impossible to go more vertical than Tokyo already has. So shit is expensive, apartments and houses are smaller, people have less kids. Natural. The last thing you need are fucktons of Filipinos or Indonesians coming here and stressing the system more than it currently is, having 10 kids, and making even two bedroom places stupid expensive. I believe there is a thing called carrying capacity in biology, why does this concept seem to elude our prognosticators here?

  • John||

    Japan is also prone to earthquakes making going verticle even more problematic.

  • Juice||

    all the neighborhoods within biking distance are fucking ghettos or force me to bike through places where I might get pistol whipped while witnessing the daily junkie overdosing on heroin

    San Francisco?

  • EirkKengaard||

    Bravo!

  • The_Hoser||

    Joe, could you also comment on the number of immigrants you see in Japan?

  • JoeBlow123||

    99% of the time I am the only foreigner around. The Japanese do not even care, they pay zero attention to me.

    There are a few places where foreigners congregate. Tourist areas, nightlife areas, near military installations, and near the embassies and financial sector. All of the time foreigners are still vastly outnumbered by Japanese. It is a very high trust society (also very socially conservative, hierarchical, and honestly a bit repressive as downsides) and introducing loads of non-Japanese would be a very fast way to dismantle that in my opinion. I am not Japanese and honestly would be pissed if Japan bowed to the outside prognosticators and opened their borders to everyone and wrecked what they have now just so they can chase 2%-3% economic growth rates.

  • vek||

    People always like to ignore the obvious UPSIDES to having homogenous, stable societies. You can argue there are downsides, but if you only look at one side of the equation you come away with a skewed view.

    I read an article not long ago about how housing prices are plummeting in the suburbs of Tokyo because of the shrinking population. THIS IS A GOOD THING FOR YOUNG PEOPLE.

    Also, look at all the strife ethnic tensions have caused in American history, and now in Europe. NONE OF THAT EXISTS IN JAPAN. Are you telling me there is no societal value to not having race riots? To not fighting the deadliest war in your nations history over (to a large degree, but not entirely) slavery? To not having race motivated crimes, in the past against blacks and non whites, and now mostly nowadays TOWARDS whites because minorities hate us?

    Those are all positives. And a ton more to boot. All those problems are avoided by not having large ethnic minority groups. Yet completely waved away as nothing of importance by idiots like Nick and all the progressive lefties.

    Europe is just now beginning to get a taste of the BS the US has put up with since its founding, and it is not very appetizing to the Europeans. Rapes and other crimes are on the rise in places that used to be some of the safest in the world. This will only escalate as the number of non whites goes up.

    There may be pros to immigration, but there are also cons. You can't just look at one side when making the call which is best.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "There are too many people, apartments are small, and shits expensive. "

    No, yes, and yes. There are increasingly large parts of the country that are emptying out. Urban Japan has too many people. Rural Japan is turning into a ghost country.

    There's something about Japanese culture that people no longer want to live in the boonies.

    They don't permit immigration because they've got a xenophobic culture. I think it will likely work out in the end, because they're more advanced with robotics than anybody else. Japan's future is one of cat girl geriatric nurse bots, and eventually they'll repopulate by producing saber marionettes with artificial wombs.

    They'll go through the population implosion, and come out the other side still Japan.

  • John||

    Yes they will. And that sounds a lot better than parts of Europe that will go through a population implosion and come out as the Middle East.

  • I can't even||

    So they need a flood of Mexicans to work their rice paddies?

  • JoeBlow123||

    "No, yes, and yes. There are increasingly large parts of the country that are emptying out. Urban Japan has too many people. Rural Japan is turning into a ghost country.

    This is very true. Rural Japan is also filled with super tiny, inefficient family farms that probably could use some reform. I once visited a family's house where the family made a living by owning two breeding cows and selling the cows that are born.

    "They don't permit immigration because they've got a xenophobic culture."

    People say this, I just do not see it. I have never been discriminated against, about the only annoying thing is Japanese will sometimes treat you as a curiosity or try to practice English with you or wont leave you alone in a kind of endearing (yet odd) way. If you conform and mind your own business, do not yell like an asshole on the trains, pick fights when you are drunk, do not assume Asians are some meek bunch of sexbots for Westerners to come and fulfill all their desires, think anime is all their is to Japan, learn some Japanese, be polite, etc., you will be treated with nothing but respect and kindness while you are here.

    I know some people have trouble getting good jobs with Japanese corporations while they are here, but this honestly makes sense to me too. If you cannot read or speak Japanese at a corporate level and do not understand Japanese business culture (very different from America), how does someone expect to get a corporate job without having these basic skills?

  • vek||

    Xenophobic is a bullshit word IMO, and is no more than a smear against common sense anymore.

    Preferring to retain your native culture IS NOT xenophobic or a bad thing. Japan seems to have THAT desire, but that is perfectly natural and normal. Frankly being in favor of the destruction of your native culture and people is what is insane.

    I fit the bill of wanting to maintain my own culture and people, but I do not hate any foreigners, or wish any harm to come to them. Yet this makes me the devil in some peoples eyes. They're the crazy ones with a sick self immolation mental issue.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Xenophobic might be the wrong term. As a society, they're just not that interested in importing their own replacements.

    To many western cultures have ended up with governing elites who got dissatisfied with the people they were ruling over, and set out to replace them. The term is "electing a new people".

  • vek||

    Totally. The word is misused in common usage today. What many people mean by it is really simply not wanting to have your own country overrun and your own people replaced... But that is not the traditional dictionary definition of the word.

    It's much like the word racist which is now used to mean things that are most definitely not racist by the traditional dictionary definition either.

    Why anybody would be in favor of replacing their own people, in their native homeland, and their thousands of years of history is beyond me! We, rightly, decry when Europeans did this to some groups, like the Native Americans, yet then push to do the same thing to ourselves! There have been several prominent Native Americans who have spoken out on this subject saying that they hope what happened to their people does not happen to the whites who jacked them, because it sucks.

    Being a minority is lame, even if you're a successful minority. They're often the most despised of all... Just ask the Jews! I don't want to become a 21st century equivalent of a Jew in the land my ancestors settled.

  • MikeP2||

    "•Unemployment is at 3.9 percent, the lowest it has been in 17 years."

    Using unemployment numbers is very deceiving, as it excludes those who have stopped looking for work. It does us no good economically to hire immigrants whilst a large portion of the native work force doesn't bother to show up.

    A better metric is labor-force participation rate....which is on par with 30 years ago. Or the welfare/disability roles, which are at highs.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I heard that since The Dorard was elected all 90 million people Hannity said didn't have jobs have since gotten one. So the LFP rate is now 100%.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Talking to yourself again? They have meds for that

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Yeah, if we need more workers, stop putting 20% of our boys on Ritalin before they graduate high school.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    The litany also includes: Immigrants bring down wages, illegals make a joke of the rule of law, newcomers don't learn English, they vote Democratic, they destroy common culture, they are hotbeds of terrorism and crime, and on and on.

    Of course more immigration will mean more net votes for Democrats in the long term. That's a good thing! As long as the Republicans are a white nationalist party trying to turn the United States into The Handmaid's Tale, libertarians should support any policy — open borders, restoring voting rights to felons, automatic voter registration, etc. — that gives the Democrats an advantage.

    #NoBanNoWall
    #AbolishICE

  • Cy||

    meh... D-

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

    Oh, I give him an A! I just heard an SJW say almost the same thing verbatim the other day, and she was serious about it. Right down to the Handmaiden's Tale bit! He nailed it!

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Real libertarians like in the Peanut Gallery here believe that the movement of people must be restricted to their native racial lands!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Maybe ~330 million people in America is too many.

    I always laugh when people say we need more immigrants but never can articulate how many more or why their reasoning trumps letting in fewer immigrants.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Maybe ~330 million people in America is too many.

    Especially given that the percentage of Americans in the labor force is still close to its 40 year low despite an improved economy, and there are probably more Americans on welfare, particularly the Social Security Disability scam and the Medicare scam, than at any time in our history.

  • Libertymike||

    LC, see my post above - WE HAVE ENOUGH ALREADY.

    A couple of weeks ago, I was shopping at Whole Foods in Shrewsbury, Massachusetts (Shrewsbury is a far western suburb of Boston, about 30 miles or so).

    I went to the deli where they will make fresh sandwiches. The deli help consisted of one native English speaker, one Hispanic woman with poor English skills, and one woman from Bangladesh with horrible English skills. The one regular American was tied up, leaving me to do business with the Hispanic woman. She could not understand what I ordered and I quickly expressed the view that I wanted to interact with a person who had a better command of the English language. She turned me over to the woman from Bangladesh. She confused, inter alia, sun dried tomato wrap for wheat wrap. She mixed up mustard and mayonnaise.

    That was it. I got lathered up into my demanding outstanding customer service mode - I become a different person. I perorated about Whole Foods insulting its customers with employing people who did not have a command of the English language. In my view, it is far more important for a customer service business to employ people who can communicate effectively enough so as to not inconvenience or otherwise piss off its customers than prostrate itself to diversity and / or to multiculturalism and / or to other progressive nostrums.

    Thus, I waited for the regular American employee to serve me. Her service was far superior.

  • Libertymike||

    The language portion of borders, language, and culture can not be underestimated.

  • John||

    The culture portion is enormous. In a true libertarian society, immigration would solve itself. Without any public services, no one who couldn't pay their way would ever be able to come or stay very long if they did. Immigrants could never overwhelm public services because there would be no public services, only services that they could pay for.

    Having to pay your way, would ensure that immigrants adopted the dominant culture. You can't get a job or pay your way unless you are willing to conform to the culture. But with socialism, immigration and culture is a huge problem, since people no longer have to pay their way and thus have no motivation to adopt to the dominant culture if they don't otherwise want to.

  • Libertymike||

    No doubt you are right. I did not mean to undercut the culture portion of the equation.

    BTW, as you probably know, there are lots of paleo-libertarians who argue that in order for a true libertarian society to exist, there must be a cultural foundation laid before hand. The paleo-libertarians rip left libertarians, such as most of the Reason staff, as harshly as they rip straight out progressives.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    in order for a true libertarian society to exist, there must be a cultural foundation laid before hand.

    You can't have individualism without collectivism! Brilliant!

  • vek||

    Well it's pretty much true.

    Frankly I don't think you can have a system where people vote where there isn't a strong culture enforced, not by government mind you, but by other people, to respect those cultural values. As far as immigration goes, such a society is highly likely to be ruined by immigrants from cultures without said values, unless one literally has a political litmus test people must pass before being allowed in.

    Libertarianism is NOT a very natural human structure to exist in in anything close to its pure form. Humans naturally gravitate towards it in some areas of life, but very much NOT in others. So a real libertarian society could not in fact be libertarian in all ways if it wanted to continue to exist. One of those ways is controlling who comes into the country IMO.

    This is one of my main problems with the USA. We were about the most libertarian society in history, and we're essentially flushing it down the tubes with bad immigrants with bad views. Perhaps not being so strict on international freedom of movement produces better results in all other areas of freedom? Methinks this is the case IRL.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    We were about the most libertarian society in history, and we're essentially flushing it down the tubes with bad immigrants with bad views.

    It wasn't immigrants who created the modern welfare state, it was native-born Americans who did that all on their own.

  • vek||

    WRONG! In a way anyway.

    Did you know that FDR ONLY became president because of recent immigrants, who voted overwhelmingly for him? They shifted the whole spectrum left, just as they do now.

    Long established Americans voted AGAINST his socialist bullshit. They got outvoted by the hordes of recent immigrants at the time. Which merely proves the point that the number of immigrants, and their political leanings matter. Frankly I'm not big on having a lot of European immigrants today, because they too would bring more leftist leanings here.

    Now, keep in mind those left voting Italians/Irish/Poles/etc have since been converted to believing in the traditional American ideals... But if they had limited the numbers back then, FDR would have never been president, and we may have never ended up with some of these big government boondoggles we have like SS.

    Slow and steady is the best tact IMO. It gives everybody time to adjust. It's no accident that our society was the most stable and prosperous for all when we were at the lowest immigration levels in our history. It gives things time to settle, and people time to assimilate.

  • vek||

    BUT even if that had been the case, because many native born do vote for leftist shit... There is still a matter of degrees. That is cultural. Virtually nobody from the UK questions government run healthcare. Even many left leaners in the USA don't like the idea. Our whole spectrum is farther to the right/libertarian side than any other country on earth, even if it is far from perfect.

    More left wing people=more left wing votes=more left wing laws. PERIOD. We can absorb in and convert people over time, but if you bring in too many too fast they will over power the natives and their more right leaning ideas. This happened with FDR, and it is happening now. Not a single democrat would have won the presidency in the last few decades without overwhelming majorities of the minority vote. It seems to be shifting even harder that direction now.

    I think we can convert Hispanics to a certain degree, and especially with intermarriage etc... But not if we keep allowing an endless flood come in. You have to give assimilation time to work.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    This is a ridicilous story for so many reasons. I shop in Whole Foods every week, there are many immigrants working there, and I have never had a problem making myself understood. Second, why didn't you just point? Third, I have gotten poor customer service many times from native white phlegmatic teenagers. Fourth, frankly, you sound like an asshole, going on a tirade about muh America and muh language. I hope no one recorded your outburst.

  • Libertymike||

    Just because you have never had a problem with any Whole Foods immigrant employees it does not thereby logically follow that no other person has had problems with such employees.

    "Why didn't [I] just point?" So, if a customer encounters an employee with horrible English speaking skills, the customer should "just point?" I see that you are truly committed to the proposition that a service based business need not be committed to providing outstanding customer service.

    Nevertheless, as a practical matter, many of the components / ingredients are located behind the counter and not visible to the customer. Did you think of that possibility before bloviating?

    The fact that you have received poor customer service from native white phlegmatic teenagers does not thereby nullify my experience and the reality that what I have experienced is something that millions of native born English speakers experience every day.

    Besides, the issue is not whether white teenagers have furnished poor service. That was not part of my post - thus, you chose to engage in some multicultural what aboutism.

    So, color me an asshole for insisting upon the delivery of customer service excellence.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    My main point is that you are generalizing from one experience to a whole group of people. You know what that is called, right? If a conscientious employee does not understand something, the employee tries to clarify what the customer wanted. The problem was not poor English skills. The problem was low conscientiousness (a personality trait). Unless you are making the claim that immigrants from some country suffer from low conscientiousness (an unsupported claim), your complaints are more about your prejudices than about a pervasive problem of Whole Foods customer service.

  • Libertymike||

    Actually, my first post chronicled my experience at the Shrewsbury Whole Foods a few weeks ago. There was no generalizations set forth.

    My response post did contain an assertion that lots of native born English speakers experience poor customer service every day and please do not bother to contest the veracity of it. Just having to navigate the "for Spanish, press 2" and "para Espanol, presione dos" is, per se, poor customer service.

    Providing outstanding customer service in the US necessarily means leaving your virtue signaling and genuflecting to Hispanics at home. Native born English speakers should not have to navigate a labyrinth of multicultural road blocks.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Just having to navigate the "for Spanish, press 2" and "para Espanol, presione dos" is, per se, poor customer service.

    Because companies who don't cater to potential customers who may not speak English is *poor* customer service?

  • Libertymike||

    Yes, jeff.

    If I were sojourning in San Luis Potosi, I would not expect businesses to cater to English speaking gringos.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Actually, you will find quite a few vacation destinations in foreign countries will absolutely cater to English-speaking tourists, because they are interested in some of those gringo dollars. Same reason why companies here will cater to people who speak both English and Spanish, because they are interested in dollars that come from both English speakers and Spanish speakers. We Americans have it pretty easy, we can go to almost any vacation destination anywhere in the world and expect to be served in English.

    But I am more interested in your claim that if companies decide to cater to BOTH English-speakers and Spanish-speakers, and not EXCLUSIVELY English-speakers, that they are somehow engaged in "poor customer service". What is it about waiting 2 whole seconds for some computer voice to say "para Espanol oprima el dos" makes you so upset? (Note that it's the Spanish-speakers who have to do extra work to be served, the English speakers don't have to do anything.)

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You've made it pretty clear that to you, the only customers that matter are those that speak English, and companies should go out of their way to cater to English speakers before catering to anyone else.

  • Libertymike||

    jeff, it would appear that you are ignoring, hopefully by inadvertence, that my Whole Foods experience is rooted in the company's failure to hire and train service employees with sufficient English communication skills so as to not maltreat its native born and other fluent English speaking customer base, a customer base which is still the overwhelming numerical majority, and a customer base which no doubt antes up the most non-GMO dollars to the Amazon subsidiary.

    If a company employs workers who cannot speak the native language, what does that say about the company's concern for its native customers? Its just a matter of common decency. Manners. Good behavior.

    In your zeal to virtue signal your moral superiority over those of us, like me, you make the mistake of making the normative assertion that bigotry, per se, is antithetical to the principles of anarcho-free associational liberty. There is nothing inherently superior about being a diversotopian who thinks that a native born English speaking American is wrong for expecting and demanding that a high end Super-Mercado employ people with good English speaking skills if the employee is to communicate with the vast majority of its customers.

    Of course, Whole Foods has the right to employ analphabet Hispanics. That does not mean that it is immune from my criticism for adopting such policies or the rainbow coalition reasons offered by the company for such policies.

  • Libertymike||

    In the United States, businesses should cater first to English speaking people, native or otherwise, and then, if at all, to people speaking other languages.

    Of course, all businesses have the right to cater to whomever they want, and if they want to cater to Spanish speaking people at the expense of its English speaking people, that is their right.

    However, let us not kid ourselves. Employing Spanish speakers who do not have good English communication skills for positions which require inter-personal communication with fluent English speakers can hardly be described as a policy driven by a desire to provide outstanding customer service.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    you make the mistake of making the normative assertion that bigotry, per se, is antithetical to the principles of anarcho-free associational liberty.

    Well I guess it depends on why you are an anarchist.

    I am not an anarchist, but I do believe in individualism and limited government. And the reason I do is because I believe all human beings have inherent worth and value, and should not be collectivized or generalized as a matter of principle. Large collectivist institutions, of which government is the worst offender, steal people's dignity and render them into statistical numbers rather than the human beings that they really are.

    Why are you an anarchist? Clearly it is not because you believe in the dignity and self-worth of all people. You basically flat-out say that non-English speaking people aren't even worth your consideration. You place native-born English speakers high up on a pedestal above all of the riff-raff.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    How many of you suckers shops for all your groceries at Whole Foods?

    I can see buying things you cannot get at other grocery stores and maybe their fresh fruits and veggies are better quality.

    The few times that I have shopped at Whole foods for fruits and veggies, I was shocked at more expensive non-perishable foods are.

  • Libertymike||

    I don't do all of our family's shopping at Whole Foods. It is just the go-to for a lot of fruits and veggies and some, if on sale, free-range, grass fed beef. Sometimes, I will buy some fresh juices and the sandwiches they will make.

    Then there is Trader Joe's and Hannaford. The latter is a regional super-market and several of the stores have a great fresh seafood selection. As you note, the non-perishables are also a lot less expensive than Whole Foods.

    I also patronize Wal-Mart for a lot of the basics, like TP, Paper Towels, sponges, cleansers, baking soda, etc.

  • vek||

    Anybody who will argue that someone directly interacting with customers should not be required to speak the native language OF WHATEVER COUNTRY THEY'RE IN is a fucking moron.

    Do you think I should be able to move to Mexico and then not learn more than pidgeon Spanish and all the Mexicans should just put up with that? Or that I should move to Germany and expect all my German customers to speak English with me?

    That's ridiculous. I run into people that have dodgy English skills all the time, and it pisses me off every time. I don't mind foreigners who can speak English well, but when it becomes a problem trying to do whatever it is I'm trying to do it is an inferior service than could be offered. That's a bad thing in business BTW.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Oh boy. Get ready to be called a racist by all the usual suspects around here.

  • damikesc||

    I'd buy this argument...except we still "needed" them a lot when the economy wasn't great, according to Reason.

    i'm also baffled why you suspect immigrants will be happy to support old people who are not like them. We are not really encouraging assimilation, so there will likely be a lot of discontent about them supporting old folks.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    The economy was doing poorly because we weren't letting in enough immigrants, dummy.

  • DarrenM||

    Is this like neo-Keynsianism? When the economy is poor, we need "stimulus", so spend more money. When the economy is good, we can afford it, so spend more money.

  • EscherEnigma||

    i'm also baffled why you suspect immigrants will be happy to support old people who are not like them.


    I think the class difference is going to be a far bigger problem then any immigrant/race problem.

    Which is to say, folks that can afford to pay their caretakers and folks that get paid to be caretakers are rarely in the same social/economic class. And the resentments/animosity based on that are going to be way bigger then immigration/race.

  • Bearded Spock||

    Our immigration policy should not be based on making sure businesses have plenty of cheap labor.

  • Cy||

    +1

    It's the new modern slavery. I often wonder if business prefer things to be the way they are because they enjoy having the perfect employees that'll keep their mouths shut and take the beatings. If our governments actually agreed one way or the other, business would be pissed. Either they'd have legal migrant workers who could compete in the entire job market or they'd have to hire actual American born citizens who would require legal pay, insurance and the ability to call a lawyer.

  • Bearded Spock||

    The upper classes tend to support unrestricted immigration because they benefit from it: cheap nannies, gardeners, and cooks. Plus, they live in neighborhoods which are unaffected by the radical demographic changes wrought by an influx of foreigners.

    Middle- and working-class people are not as sympathetic, because it is their jobs, neighborhoods, and schools which bear the brunt of our immigration policies.

  • John||

    Bingo. The problem with the immigration debate is that the upper classes see it as nothing but a vehicle to rationalize their own self interests. The people who experience the negative effects of immigration interests matter as well. But people like Nick see the debate as a way to virtue signal and pursue their own self interests. It not only gives them a sense of moral superiority, it allows them to avoid having to debate the issue by just declaring those who are harmed to be racists and their interests illegitimate. The open borders people see those who suffer from immigration as having a duty to suffer for the open borders' advocates principles and self interests.

  • The_Hoser||

    Yep. The way to fix this is tell Nick his children are not eligible for university or white-collar work.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Middle- and working-class people are not as sympathetic, because it is their jobs, neighborhoods, and schools which bear the brunt of our immigration policies.

    Yes, they "bear the brunt" of cheap produce.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Yes, they "bear the brunt" of cheap produce.

    As one can see, it always comes down to food for open-borders advocates. Never mind if urban neighborhoods become increasingly trashy shitscapes undergirding an economic caste system of highly-paid white professionals living in gated communities so they don't have to live alongside or send their kids to school with the brown-skinned underclass .

  • JoeBlow123||

    "Never mind if urban neighborhoods become increasingly trashy shitscapes undergirding an economic caste system of highly-paid white professionals living in gated communities so they don't have to live alongside or send their kids to school with the brown-skinned underclass ."

    Go to Zillow or Trulia and look at the school rankings for neighborhoods correlate to housing prices and crime rates. Near uniformly when I click around (out of curiosity) the rich places have high rated schools with low crime while their shit neighborhoods not ten minutes away have trash schools. About the only good schools rankings wise I ever see in neighborhoods with cheap houses are charter schools or IB schools of some sort. The random public schools in these places are usually trash.

    Rich, successful people do not ever have to come to grips with this though. Not their problem.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    As one can see from the closed-border zealots, it is ALWAYS the case that they equate immigration with crime, immigration with disease, immigration with poverty, immigration with social pathologies in general. You'd be hard-pressed to see people like RRWP here describe immigrants as even just normal people, let alone good decent people. No, they are scum ushering in the downfall of the Republic. That is the mentality of the closed-border crowd.

  • vek||

    Hey moron, you ever live in a neighborhood that was majority non white? I HAVE. My home town was majority non white, and my first house as a child was in a lower middle class neighborhood with mostly working class whites, a few blacks, and tons of Mexicans.

    There are these things called statistics. Statistically speaking basically all immigrant groups that aren't Asians or Europeans have higher crime rates, and lower incomes than native born whites. This is simply an objective fact.

    Again, upper middle class whites don't have to deal with this shit in their daily lives. I don't really now, but I did growing up. In the 2nd town I lived in there was not a single white kid in a gang of any sort... Yet there were tons of Mexicans in gangs. If there had not been tons of Mexicans, there wouldn't have been any gangs. That's simply reality. Deal with it. Keep in mind this is coming from somebody who is part beaner! If I can accept reality for what it is, surely you can too?

  • BYODB||

    Cheap produce...which is subsidized to the hilt in the United States to keep prices artificially low.

    Hmm...it's almost like no one gives a shit.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Now you sound like a prog, complaining about child factories in Asia. A low paying job is way better for these people than no job, otherwise they would not keep showing up for work.

  • BYODB||

    Except that notably child factories in Asia are in Asia, whereas these people would be in an ostensibly 'free' Western society without the same legal productions as a U.S. citizen. Also, bonus points, if you extend those protections to them you have also erased their primary benefit to the workforce.

    Oops. So, we're in favor of a caste system? Just to be clear, that's what it looks like to me.

  • DarrenM||

    We need to help all those poor workers working at slave wages immigrate, so they can work here for slave wages.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Does one have to be a "prog" to complain about child-labor factories in Asia? Seriously, now

  • Benitacanova||

    And whose businesses are they? I just heard that the GE appliances plant in KY where my relative worked many years is now owned by the chinese. Now we work for them. And import workers for them. Outsourcing doesn't look so bad suddenly.

  • John||

    I agree. See my post below about how an oversupplied labor market is not conducive to freedom.

  • Bearded Spock||

    One only needs to look at California to understand that unrestricted immigration does not create a libertarian paradise.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    ^this!

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    So libertarianism is by definition an expansionist ideology?

  • John||

    And for the record, a good labor market is essential to freedom. If people don't feel their prospects of employment are good, they don't value the opportunity economic freedom gives them and will instead turn to the false security offered by socialism. I will happily absorb the economic costs associated with a labor shortage because of the security and consequent valuing of economic freedom that comes with such a situation.

    Too often people fail to consider why someone would value freedom. Freedom offers opportunity. But with that opportunity comes responsibility and risk. The more free you are, the greater risk and opportunity there is. So if you want people to value economic freedom, you want them to see the value of the opportunity it creates. And the tighter the job market is, the less people see the value of opportunity and the more they look for security. All socialism is, is giving up your freedom and the opportunity that goes with it in return for government guaranteed security. Yes, it never works and the security sucks, but people don't often see that until it is too late. The only way to get them to resist that temptation is for them to value the opportunity that comes with freedom more than the security that comes with socialism. And the easier it is to find a job or get a new one if you lose yours, the more people will value freedom.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    This is also why I doubt the "gun prohibition means civil war" crowd. The govt will just collapse the economy with debt and when you're afraid your children will starve, you are way less likely to care about govt overreach. See the Depression and New Deal for examples. This was done to the men who stormed the beaches at Normandy.

  • John||

    If people lose faith in the government, they likely are going to want to keep their guns. Guns are just too numerous and too ingrained in our culture to ever effectively ban or confiscate them.

    But, you make a good point about economic collapse and upheaval. The claims that the government collapsing or going bankrupt is going to cause people to turn to small government are very naive. People balance freedom and security. Make things insecure enough and people will give up their freedom every time. And indeed, you can't blame them. Freedom does you no good if you can't enjoy it. And you can't enjoy freedom without a basic measure of security.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Technically that was done before those men stormed the beaches.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I will happily absorb the economic costs associated with a labor shortage because of the security and consequent valuing of economic freedom that comes with such a situation.

    How big of you that you would happily absorb economic costs for yourself that you wish to impose on everyone.

  • Harvard||

    Give yourself a treat. Google up Dearborn: America's no go zone city. Nick's America is much like Europe, that mecca for globalists of his ilk.

  • John||

    It really is a Marxist view of things when you think about it. Marx believed that everything was determined by economics and the class struggle. Marx called things like religion the opium of the people and rejected the importance of culture in human affairs. To him, everything was determined by economics and economic class.

    People like Nick, buy into the same assumption. They just make different conclusions from it. To Nick, people's religion and culture are just opiates that will be overcome by economic necessity. In the same way that Marx believes the state can create a New Man free of his former culture and religion, Nick believes the free market will get people to leave their culture and religions behind and produce "Homo Economicus". Both Nick and Marx share a common belief that economics transforms all.

    Sadly, it doesn't work that way and never will.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Even if you believe that the economic argument is the one that matters by far the most, both the short-term and long-term economic trend in America and virtually all of the first world is that industries are getting more and more productivity out of fewer and fewer people. And Reason is constantly going out of their way to claim that most of the job losses taking place in industries such as mining and manufacturing are primarily due to automation.

    If both of these facts are true, they clearly support an argument for LESS immigration, not more.

  • John||

    But that automation is good automation because it takes the jobs of people reason doesn't like. Immigrants are cool and should not be replaced by automation.

    Reason's thinking on this issue is only marginally more sophisticated than this.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    I can entertain a conversation on open borders, but most that tout open borders mean people crossing into the US. However, I demand reciprocity or it's a non-starter. A one way pass is not an open border. It's giving a right to non-citizens that citizens do not have. Also, There should be strict rules about government benefits applying to citizens only if there are open borders.

  • BYODB||

    This is a point I've brought up before, and I still feel it's important. Why should a 'free border' in the U.S. only go in one direction, and what might we need to do to convince Mexico to agree with our two-way open border?

    It's an assumption with the open borders crowd that people can come into the United States, but they never seem at all interested in other nations reciprocity which means it isn't an open border at all. It's just a perverted view of American exceptionalism.

  • MayneDeWayne||

    Any undocumented immigrants on staff at Reason? All these jobs for them, must be a few right?

  • Harvard||

    I'm suspicious of Shecky Dullmia. I'm guessing she's on a list to be shipped back to Delhi any minute, and she ain't happy about it.

  • DarrenM||

    I wonder what the writers at Reason's viewpoint would be if they were getting replaced by writers coming here illegally. (Actually, Reason could get hire writers over the internet. They wouldn't even have to be here physically.)

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Even if it were true we need immigrants, it would matter a great deal who those immigrants were. Or else we could just fulfill our needs by emptying the world's prisons, or inviting in any terrorists who cared to visit.

    So basically there's no circumstance whatsoever under which open borders makes any sense. Because it matters whether we're importing scientists and engineers, or ISIS commanders and rapists.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    "we"
    "we"
    "we"

    go fuck yourself

  • John||

    Go fuck yourself Hail. Do you think that there is no one out there you would want to meet?

  • Azathoth!!||

    If you are too stupid to understand who is being referred to by those "we's", you need to put the keyboard down, back away from the computer and find a five year old to explain it to you before you come back.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    "We" neither "need" nor "don't need" immigrants, because "we" are not some Borg-like collective speaking with one purpose and one voice. "We" are a collection of distinct individuals each with our own preferences and desires. Some of us would prefer to choose to associate with immigrants. Some of us would not. If we got government out of the business of trying to impose one group's preferences on everyone when it came to "needing" immigrants or not, then everyone's desires would be better met. But instead, we have the closed-border crowd trying to use the coercive power of the state to impose its will on the entire country.

  • The_Hoser||

    Great. As soon as the distinct collection of individuals you represent band together and promise to clothe, house and feed the MS-13 members and/or the folks who want to cut the clitoris off your daughter, we'll listen to your opinion.

    Until you're willing to back up your stupidity with your own money and your own family, though, and not everyone else's at the same time? Not so much.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Gee what a surprise. Your knee-jerk response is to equate "immigrants" with "MS-13 gangbangers" and "FGM practitioners". Why, it's as if your opposition to immigration is based on something other than reason...

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    soak up massive amounts of welfare even while they are willing to work harder and for less money than natives (a paradox known as "Schrodinger's Immigrant").

    I don't understand why this is so hard to understand. If you don't make a lot of money by working at lower wages than natives (which presumably immigrants, especially of the illegal variety) you'll be eligible for more hand outs.

    The latest from Philadelphia today is a sob story about how hard it is to fill out an application to get your water bill reduced by some 80%. One of the complaints is the application requires a SSN and many residents who want to apply for the program don't have one. I doubt there are many Admiralty Law quoting sovereign citizens who want to take advantage of this program so who else wouldn't have an SSN? Illegal Aliens!

  • ||

    I broke the law but I should still get the perks and hand outs!

    It's kinda perverse. It's like an intruder breaking into your house and squatting and preying on your guilt to take care of them. Even going as far as demanding filet mignon while you have to settle for spam.

    I may be wrong but it's what I'm interpreting whenever I hear these stories. Who owes them anything? You chose to go to America illegally. The onus is on you to respect the rules of the guest and try to integrate (because it just would be more advantageous; not because Americans are mean spirited racists) as opposed to demanding the government coddle you.

  • Brendan||

    This is essentially a long form strawman.

    Aside from a small cadre of white nationalists and other fringe types, NO ONE is calling for an end to immigration. NO ONE.

    The immigration conversation happening now is centered on people who immigrate illegally. That is, people who simply sneak over the border or violate the conditions of entry and remain after they are supposed to leave.

    The immigration and naturalization process absolutely needs reform, but it's damn difficult to make that happen when the supposed moderates are essentially calling for open borders. People who are anti-illegal immigration, but pro-reform may withhold support for or outright oppose the reform because they think it's just a stepping stone or path for uncontrolled immigration and/or amnesty for the people here illegally.

    If you want immigration/naturalization reform, you have to stop acting like you don't know the difference between illegal and legal immigration, then you have to stop calling for actual or near open border policies.

  • John||

    It is exactly that. Reason wants total open borders where anyone can come and no one can be deported for any reason. Nick is just pretending that that is the same position as wanting skilled immigration and anyone who disagrees with him must be a white nationalist who opposes all immigration.

  • DarrenM||

    What's humorous is that open borders would undermine the ideology of "libertarianism" by encouraging the immigration of people who tend to have an even more collectivist mindset than the average American, making any gains in that direction more and more unlikely. I wasn't aware suicide was a libertarian principle.. You learn something every day..

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

    Most common sense article I've read on immigration I've read in a long time.

    No, it wasn't published at Cato.

    http://quillette.com/2017/08/2.....al-hubris/

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    What a garbage article. I learned nothing new. Same old tired nativist arguments we've heard from the peanut gallery here. Seriously, tell me, what new ground did that article break? What new point or study or data did it put forth?

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

    Quite a bit of data, but you have to click the links to get it.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Brendan,

    Aside from a small cadre of white nationalists and other fringe types, NO ONE is calling for an end to immigration. NO ONE.


    Liar!

    Tom Cotton? David Purdue? Jeff Sessions? Are these fringe types? The "honorable" members of the Center for Immigration Studies, who routinely molest statistical data, are you saying it's a fringe group? They're all VEHEMENTLY anti-immigration, Brendan.

    The immigration conversation happening now is centered on people who immigrate illegally.


    Which is nothing but a big, fat, red herring. So-called "illegal" immigration is the direct result of anti-market restrictive policies, in other words: you have a black market in your hands, caused by government interference.

    it's damn difficult to make that happen when the supposed moderates are essentially calling for open borders.


    Now you're equivocating. "Open Borders" is just a scary term meant to rile up ethno-centered assholes - that is, Trumpistas. In Free Market terms it would mean open to trade for goods, services, capital and, yes, labor, but that doesn't mean the same as Trumpistas want everyone to think it means. For closed-border types - mostly ethno-cetered assholes, or Trumpistas - the Market does not police itself sufficiently and so government needs to step in to protect the American white Worker(R) from "dem immigruntz who takum er jebz!"

  • John||

    Tom Cotton? David Purdue? Jeff Sessions? Are these fringe types?

    No but none of them are demanding an end to all immigration either. If they are, provide a link showing so. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

    So-called "illegal" immigration is the direct result of anti-market restrictive policies, in other words: you have a black market in your hands, caused by government interference.

    They are not the only immigrants. Lots of people come here legally. And the debate over whether to let more come here legally is not the same as whether to allow those who have come here illegally to stay. You are just lying here as usual. Saying that those who broke the law need to go does not preclude us from allowing more of the people who did not to come in.

    . In Free Market terms it would mean open to trade for goods, services, capital and, yes, labor, but that doesn't mean the same as Trumpistas want everyone to think it means. F

    So I guess we are going to magically get rid of welfare and public services and chain migration and only allow those in who have a job? God, you are a lying asshole. You are just an asshole. You are the most dishonest racist piece fo crap on here.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: John,

    No but none of them are demanding an end to all immigration either.


    You're kidding. They want to curtail immigration, the legal kind, the GOOD kind ─ostensibly─, by HALF. That's calling for the END of HALF of immigration - today. That's what Brendan said. You added the 'all'. Not him.
    They are not the only immigrants. Lots of people come here legally.
    The MARKET is saying that legal immigration is not enough.

    So I guess we are going to magically get rid of welfare and public services and chain migration and only allow those in who have a job?


    Those are ALL red herrings, John. Each of them.

    The most touted argument against immigration has been that you cannot have an "open border" and a welfare state. In fact, that's a specious argument. I could make the even MORE compelling case that you cannot have babies and a welfare state, turning both arguments into absurdities. Welfare is not provided to everyone, least of all non-naturalized immigrants. Trumpistas love to lie about that.

    'Chain migration' only means that AMERICAN CITIZENS have the right to sponsor members of their IMMEDIATE family.

    Trumpistas like to conflate ROADZ! and schools under the name 'public service' to demonize immigrants, even when immigrants pay taxes and pay for the maintenance of those things, and they're public services because they're meant to be used by everyone, not just the "right" kind of people.

  • John||

    You're kidding. They want to curtail immigration, the legal kind, the GOOD kind ─ostensibly─, by HALF. That's calling for the END of HALF of immigration - today. That's what Brendan said. You added the 'all'. Not him.

    No citation for it. You just make shit up. I can't prove a negative. If they advocate for this, show a link that proves that. You can't because none exists. But you are too much of a liar to just admit the point. You are fooling no one.

    The most touted argument against immigration has been that you cannot have an "open border" and a welfare state. In fact, that's a specious argument. I could make the even MORE compelling case that you cannot have babies and a welfare state, turning both arguments into absurdities. Welfare is not provided to everyone, least of all non-naturalized immigrants. Trumpistas love to lie about that.

    That is completely irrational. Even if it were true, it would just further prove my point. If people are willing to have children to get welfare and that is a problem,. then they sure as hell will immigrate for welfare and overwhelm the system.

    You are just a fucking moron. It is just embarassing.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Immigrants could help struggling communities by bringing entrepreneurship, optimism, education, ambition, and other productive attributes to communities starving for them. This formula built and improved America for generations. We also have confronted successive waves of intolerance, however, targeting the Irish, eastern Europeans, blacks, Italians, Jews, Hispanics, Asians, Catholics, and others. The current wave seems nothing special, at least with respect to its chance to succeed in America.

  • ||

    And people understand and accept this reality.

    It's ILLEGAL immigration and secure borders and vetting the issue.

    What am I missing?

    Also, be careful. Up here we have a douchebag remedial PM named Justin who compared Italian immigrants of the past to ISIS fire fighters who return to Canada.

    Think of the mindset for a second here of a progressive: A Canadian citizen (and the UK has a similar issue) leaves Canada to go fight for ISIS to kill Canadians (and its allies) and then seeks to reenter the country without much problem. In fact, the Liberals have created a 'reintegration program' for them. Hence, the obtuse and perverse and utterly incorrect comparison to past immigrants from Europe. He said something along the lines of 'they face similar discrimination Italians did'.

    He's a fucken retard.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Rufus The Monocled

    It's ILLEGAL immigration and secure borders and vetting the issue.
    What am I missing?


    You're missing the part where the government provokes illegal immigration by its anti-market policies designed to 'protect' the jobs of American white Workers (R) from "them immigruntz who takum er jebz!"

  • John||

    The government provokes illegal immigration? People have no moral agency? God you are fucking stupid. You just fucking stupid.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: John,

    The government provokes illegal immigration?


    Yes. It's called Economics Of Prohibition.

    Government provokes the black market of opioids and other narcotics the same way.

    People have no moral agency?


    HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!

  • John||

    It is called begging the question you idiot. Yes, when you ban something, people might still do it. That fact says nothing about the virtues or vices of banning you.

    You used to just be dimwitted and a Hispanic Supremacist. Now you have lost your mind.

  • ||

    We have that here too. And we have what is considered to be an open but restrictive immigration policy.

    Basically, 'what can you do for us?' - or if you prefer, 'what can brown do for you?'

    Get it?

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

    Immigrants could help struggling communities by bringing entrepreneurship, optimism, education, ambition, and other productive attributes to communities starving for them.

    The problem is, the immigrants who are providing those things overwhelmingly come from Asia and Europe.

    The immigrants from South America and Africa, not so much.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: napoleon Bonaparte,

    The immigrants from South America and Africa, not so much.


    Liar.

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

  • JoeBlow123||

    lol

  • DarrenM||

    I would love to have more Asian women immigrate.

  • Juice||

    Immigrants could help struggling communities by bringing entrepreneurship, optimism, education, ambition, and other productive attributes to communities starving for them.

    Are these communities starved for entrepreneurship and ambition because those things have been squeezed out by the law? If so, an immigrant probably won't fare any better than a native.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Generations of bright flight -- the smart, ambitious young people depart at high school graduation, seeking opportunity and education in better communities and on strong campuses, leaving behind a community in which less attractive attributes concentrate -- precipitated this problem.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Umm ... the Nation of Islam preachers still don't like Jews, Italians, and the Irish.

  • Jerryskids||

    For my part, I just don't want immigrants from socialist, dictatorial kleptocracies coming here and taking over our culture and our society. American ideals of individualism and liberty are so fragile that they have no chance of surviving an onslaught of foreign ideas about what's good and what's bad about a country. In a straight-up competition between America and any third-world country with a pre-Enlightenment view of the nature of Man, America's going to get its ass kicked every time. There's no chance that the foreigners coming here might prefer American ideals to their native ideals, that they might be persuaded that the US does things better than their home countries, that the US is the land of opportunity that their own country is not. No, they're just going to steamroll right over that nonsense and turn the US into Shitholia 2.0 because that's the way they like it.

  • Juice||

    Is...this a parody?

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    He's certainly parodying the typical Trumpista.

  • Tony||

    If they like living in a shithole then why are they leaving their shithole again?

    Just to make you personally upset, or what?

  • John||

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news.....1526999674

    Girls in Sweden who are at risk of being taken abroad for forced marriage or female genital mutilation (FGM) have been advised to tuck a spoon into their underwear as a last-ditch method of alerting authorities to their plight.

    Katarina Idegard, who is in charge of tackling honour-based violence in Sweden's second biggest city Gothenburg, said girls should hide the spoons so that they would be taken off for questioning in private room where they could raise the alarm.

    The spoons would trigger metal detectors as a last chance to get help, Ms Idegard said.

    What could possibly be the downside of free immigration?

  • ||

    Stockholm Syndrome is settling in Sweden and elsewhere. Sweet.

    Where's Patty Hearst anyway?

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: John,

    Girls in Sweden who are at risk of being taken abroad for forced marriage or female genital mutilation


    And Mexican Rapists! Millions of them!

    What could possibly be the downside of free immigration?


    The downside would be that we would hear your paranoid fantasies directly from you.

  • John||

    Those are not paranoid fantasies. That is the truth. That is what is happening. Lying about it doesn't change it. So go think of something reasonable to say or just shut up you miserabl3e lying racist fuck.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: John,

    Those are not paranoid fantasies.


    Yes, they are. You really think that having a border open to COMMERCE is going to put girls and women at risk of being vaginally mutilated. That's paranoid and it is a fantasy.

    Or, what, do you live in Sweden?

    Idiot.

  • John||

    Yes, they are. You really think that having a border open to COMMERCE is going to put girls and women at risk of being vaginally mutilated.

    Yes. People in the world do that shit. And when they show up in a nice place like Sweden, they bring their culture with them. If you were not so profoundly stupid, you would understand that. You want to live in Somalia? Import the population from there and you will.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: John,

    Yes. People in the world do that shit.


    See? And you don't believe me when I say that you're paranoid?

    People in the world, somewhere, in SOME part, do crazy shit.

    SO WHAT?

    WHO CARES?

    Crawl under your bed if you're so scared. You're like Tony in almost all regards except you're a right-wing Socialist.

  • John||

    People in the world, somewhere, in SOME part, do crazy shit.

    Entire societies and cultures do that and much worse you ignorant buffoon. You really don't understand that do you? You are the most hideously ignorant person I have ever seen on here.

  • lap83||

    You really think that having a border open to COMMERCE is going to put girls and women at risk of being vaginally mutilated. That's paranoid and it is a fantasy.

    Right, it would NEVER HAPPEN

  • lap83||

    From the conclusion in the second link:

    The estimated increase was wholly a result of rapid growth in the number of immigrants from FGM/C-practicing countries living in the United States and not from increases in FGM/C prevalence in those countries.

    a study from the USCIS, so it's probably just anti-immigrant propaganda... I'm sure

  • Stevecsd||

    I guess Old Mexican has never heard about the Muslim rape gangs in Rotherham, England who reportedly raped over 1,400 young girls over decades. Or the New Year's Eve groping problem in Cologne, Germany.
    Allowing large amounts of immigration from cultures whose values are the opposite of yours has severe consequences.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    A more effective method is to talk to your daughter often enough to make her feel comfortable asking for advice on something like immigrating or dealing with a boy friend. Close the Clash of Clans app and call her every week. It is not that difficult.

  • Magnitogorsk||

    Heaven forbid the labor market favor workers for a little while

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Employers all over the country—Seib mentions Maryland crab processors, Alaskan fisheries, farmers in the heartland, and New Hampshire restaurants—"all say they are critically short of workers."
    The relatively few slots for annual H-1B and H-2B visas (for skilled and unskilled workers, respectively) have been filled at record paces this year already.
    "The [National Federation of Independent Business] says that 22% of small-business owners say finding qualified workers is their single most important business problem, more than those who cite taxes or regulations."

    A couple of these points might not be fixed by immigration. Employers all over the country are looking for workers... right in the middle of one of the biggest homeless crises the country has seen in recent memory-- easily eclipsing the so-called crisis of the late 80s.

    Taxes and regulations also play into small businesses not finding qualified workers. There used to be a lot of jobs that teenagers could fill under short notice or temporary conditions, but labor laws make that very difficult to do.

    It seems to me that what we have is not so much a shortage of workers, but an inability for employers to connect with workers already here.

  • John||

    Bingo.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Diane Reynolds,

    Employers all over the country are looking for workers... right in the middle of one of the biggest homeless crises the country has seen in recent memory-- easily eclipsing the so-called crisis of the late 80s.


    Are you saying employers are being stupid, Diane?

    but an inability for employers to connect with workers already here.


    Are you saying it is much easier to connect with workers 5,000 miles away than here?

    Please.

    I've heard that argument from Pat Buchanan when he was doing Crossfire in CNN since the late 80s and early 90s, that there are plenty of people who only need to be shown the money and they will pick strawberries. The ABSURDITY of such fantasies could only come from a person OBLIVIOUS to basic economics like Pat and, today, Trumpistas. Not that I'm calling you one - I call John a Trumpista, the Red Tony - but you cannot assume that employers are being stingy or stupid.

  • Bubba Jones||

    You are both right and wrong.

    Mexican immigrants are willing to do jobs that unemployed black men are not. Picking strawberries and gutting chickens are two empirical examples.

    On the other hand, there are plenty of people willing to be welders and pipefitters and auto mechanics, but not at the $10/hr that employers are thus far willing to pay for the jobs they are "desperate" to fill.

    Perhaps the reality is that they are desperate to fill $10/hr jobs because they have a lot of $12/hr work to do.

    But obviously, there isn't much economic difference between importing $1/lb strawberries from Mexico, and importing $1/hr mexican labor to work the fields in California. Both scenarios undercut US labor.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I think the picture is complicated. I do concede that most "employable" people are in fact, employed. I think there are some gaps-- some regulations and some social ills which complicate the equation.

    For instance, unemployment is very low in sectors like mine, the tech sector. There's a kind of unspoken acknowledgment that when unemployment gets this low, it gets harder to find "quality" workers. That when you have an open position, the only people showing up are the ones that got passed over by everyone else.

    You've got a transition to a highly tech-oriented service economy, that's leaving a lot of blue collar positions out in the cold. Opioid crisis, people with criminal records have a tough time finding work, young workers squeezed out with labor laws, unnaturally high minimum wage laws making employers more choosy.

    I'm just not sure how H1Bs for Indian workers who've been through Cisco certification mills is going to fix this.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Are you saying employers are being stupid, Diane?

    What?

    Are you saying it is much easier to connect with workers 5,000 miles away than here?

    Huh?

    Not that I'm calling you one - I call John a Trumpista, the Red Tony - but you cannot assume that employers are being stingy or stupid.

    I'm not sure how we got from regulations making it difficult to hire currently unemployed workers to employers being stupid or stingy.

    What I'm saying is that I don't think the "worker shortage" can be a fact upon which the argument for increased immigration can be predicated.

    I'm actually remaining neutral on the open borders question. I'm saying that if you did open the borders, I suspect that "worker shortage" wouldn't go away.

    I have personally been at ground zero in the immigrant employee milieu and it's a curious and complicated question. In the early 2000s I remember Microsoft and other companies lobbying the feds, claiming that "lo, we just can't find ANYONE in America qualified for this work" when I knew that was more than likely bullshit.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Diane Reynolds (Paul.)

    >What?


    What was it about the question you didn't understand? You're basically arguing that entrepreneurs are STUPID for looking for immigrant labor when there's all this available labor right in front of their noses, except not connecting with them.

    What I'm saying is that I don't think the "worker shortage" can be a fact upon which the argument for increased immigration can be predicated.


    Quite the contrary, a SHORTAGE is a SIGNAL to the Market of a profitable opportunity. Where the labor is to come from matters NOT as far as the Market is concerned. It would only matter to Trumpistas, like John, who sees vaginal mutilators lurking under his bed.

    Say that there's a shortage of artichokes; the price for artichokes goes up or at least there are buyers looking for artichokes. That's a MARKET signal. Say you can bring artichokes from overseas. What difference is there between importing artichokes from overseas and importing labor from overseas or across the border? You cannot say that one is proper but the other is not.

    However, if you said "That's not enough of an argument to allow bringing artichokes from overseas, you must purchase your artichokes from local suppliers", you would be advocating for protectionism, for what is essentially "closed borders". There's no difference.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    What was it about the question you didn't understand? You're basically arguing that entrepreneurs are STUPID for looking for immigrant labor when there's all this available labor right in front of their noses, except not connecting with them.

    No, not in the first statement. It wasn't at all what I was saying. I'm pointing to the fact that we have social ills that are possibly making people unemployable. Perhaps I wasn't clear.

    Quite the contrary, a SHORTAGE is a SIGNAL to the Market of a profitable opportunity.

    Sure, absent distortions created by an overzealous government.

    What difference is there between importing artichokes from overseas and importing labor from overseas or across the border? You cannot say that one is proper but the other is not.

    None, but if you're not addressing the local ills which may require the "importation" (your word, not mine) of artichokes because you've made it hard for domestic growers to fill the gap, don't be surprised when those domestic growers become resentful.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Old Mexican, your anology would work better if there was a tax on bringing artichokes into the market parallel to the income tax, a healthcare insurrance requirement for artichokes brought into the market, and artichokes delaying their entry to the market to earn the art history degrees that are now required to work as secretaries.

  • John||

    Paul,

    Mexican is a moron and makes up for it by being completely irrational. He has become a troll. We really should stop responding to him on these threads.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    So true, Diane.

  • Bubba Jones||

    The data suggests that either wages are too low, or that welfare benefits are too high.

    Solution: IMMIGRATION!

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Bubba Jones,

    The data suggests that either wages are too low[...]


    What wages are "too low"?

  • vek||

    DING DING DING. If welfare were eliminated all those millions of people who have generally been slacking, or who stopped looking for work would actually be enticed to re-enter the job market. Likewise if wages rose and welfare benefits were the same. The balance between those two is what controls who bothers to work on the margins at super low end jobs. Either way importing half illiterate foreigners to undercut the dumb minimum waes we have on the books is NOT the best solution.

  • ||

    I really need to pull out Huntingdon's 'Clash of Civilization'.

    I admit I could be off in 'thinking out loud' here, but given the numbers of immigrant crossing the 'limes' at the very least it would be somewhat foolish to not think it won't have a seismic impact on demographics. Whether this is good or bad is irrelevant but it does make screening and processing critical in my view. No one is saying no don't come in but man, try and control the flow for the love of God. It's similar to the Germanic tribes making - at first a slow process - their final thrust in 5th century in Rome that would eventually have them (after first serving as mercenaries in the Roman army) setting up Kingdoms and gaining outright power in Italy and Spain.

    So get ready for a Mexican Odoacer or Alaric!

    I kid, I kid. Or am I? You'll never know!

  • JoeBlow123||

    "So get ready for a Mexican Odoacer or Alaric!"

    Haha. It could be true in a few hundred years. Who knows?

  • Bubba Jones||

    We care about the poor, so we offer welfare benefits to them.

    Welfare benefits are expensive, so we offer abortions to poor women to reduce the burden.

    Birth rates go down, so now we have to import poor laborers.

    WTF.

  • MasterThief||

    The call for more immigration of both the legal and illegal variety keeps being undercut by the current state of our nation. I'm actually of the belief that we'd be better off decreasing the human population of the world and the US. From the data it does look like our native population is beginning to do so naturally. The reason why most immigration advocates wants more seems to have little to do with benevolence and much to do with ensuring their own benefits. Reasons tend to include retaining an underclass to do things the speaker doesn't want to do. Other reasons include providing more workers to shore up the poorly conceived welfare and retirement entitlements that require a fast growing population to upkeep. With reciprocity and a significant culture and laws that are libertarian, I'd be on board with the open borders crowd. We have none of the things that makes this viable, so most of the time all the argument boils down to is elitism and statism.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Supporters of current or expanded levels of immigration (I'm one) dutifully rebut all these arguments and more by pointing to relevant data, economic theory, and history.


    Don't talk to Trumpistas about economic Theory. They're as oblivious to economic theory or ignorant of economic theory as their fellow travelers on the Marxian left, who today say they're for immigration even when Marxian economic theory suggests immigration would be 'bad' for a Communist society (Marx was especially critical of specialization and division of labor in the same manner as Trumpistas, interestingly enough).

    But don't go far to find the true motivation of the anti-immigrant crowd when you have John posting about his paranoid fantasies about hordes of Mid Eastern immigrants vaginally mutilating blonde girls. It's right up there. It's DISGUSTING.

  • John||

    Allowing you to read books is like letting a child play with a chainsaw. You pull just enough to be even more dangerous and stupid than you already are from everything you read.

    Stay away from Marx you idiot.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    There is a strong moral argument for granting more visas through the diversity visa lottery and through a reciprocity visa program, but I dislike practical arguments for immigration. People are more than reasources that one can import.

  • Mencken Sense||

    Oh no, a tight labor market means that employers might have to actually raise wages! Reason's corporate paymasters can't have that.

    Besides, there is tons of available labor sitting on its collective ass. Stop paying Americans not to work, and there will be fewer "jobs Americans won't do." You'll be amazed at what people will do when the free shit stops rolling in.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Opponents advance a host of other, sometimes contradictory arguments to make their case.

    Remind me why so many African-Americans object to Columbus Day.

  • Benitacanova||

    Birth rates are falling in Mexico. What are they gonna do? They're falling in china too. So what?

  • sharmota4zeb||

    "The fertility rate for women aged 15 to 44 was 60.2 births per 1,000 women, the lowest since the government began tracking that rate more than a century ago."

    Yes, that is what happens when we inflate the cost of homes by restricting their supply. Haven't you heard the NIMBY folks complain that a new development will impact schools?

  • EirkKengaard||

    @ sharmota - what is restricted is the supply of land. The problem is on the demand side - population increase driven by immigration.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Over the next three decades, the percentage of Americans over the age of 65 will become larger than the percentage under the age of 18, "a historic crossing of demographic lines."

    We can solve this problem through immigration if we make retirement social security payments contingent on living in Mexico.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Unless it is supplemented by immigration, the decline in birth rates will disastrously sink the labor market in years to come.

    How did Baby Bomers not see this coming when they aborted so many Gen-Xers?

  • lap83||

    So if the culture from every country is identical and there are no "shithole" countries, why does every immigrant need to be able to come here? That seems like a lot of wasted effort to go on a long trip just to move somewhere that is identical to the place you left.

  • Tony||

    I think the difference is in economic opportunity. This being America, what culture people choose to practice is none of your goddamn business. Mexicans don't come to where you live and inspect your casserole dishes, Christ.

  • Mark22||

    This being America, what culture people choose to practice is none of your goddamn business.

    It is my business when I'm expected to pay for the consequences of their choices, as I currently am.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    The OECD data for 2017 show that Japan's per capita income is about the same as the UK's.

  • vek||

    That's another one of the things these open borders types never like to talk about.

    Overall GDP growth is literally meaningless for most people. What is actually useful is increased wages and per capita GDP. We could add considerably to our GDP by allowing in 100 million Africans over the next 5 years... BUT our GDP per capita would plummet. Our standard of living would plummet. We'd have ethnic strife, areas would become over populated. And on and on.

    Japan is frankly doing just fine managing a slow decline. If I were them I would allow in a few more immigrants from cultures that would be likely to assimilate, like China/Korea. They'd blend in in a generation or three, and in small enough numbers to not make much of a negative impact, it would just soften the glide down population wise just a touch. The key is keeping it all in balance and in reasonable numbers. Letting in 50 million Chinese over 20 years would destroy their culture, but letting in 5 million would probably be nothing but a net benefit. Especially if they made sure they all already spoke Japanese etc.

    People who refuse to admit that the specifics DO matter with these things are morons.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    If the future is that most of the work will be done by robots, other machinery and artificial intelligence entities, why do we need more labor?

  • EirkKengaard||

    @ Gilbert - Why do we need more immigrants?
    Politics by Other Means, The Why of Immigration to the United States, and Immigration and Usurpation: Elites, Power, and the People's Will, both by Fredo Arias-King. Those who are dependent on government are more likely to vote democrat, and democrats are more likely to effect policies that increase dependence.

  • mtrueman||

    Being serviced by robots is strictly for the proles. Our betters will always insist on being looked after by humans, the more obsequious the better.

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

    You have to go back.

  • EirkKengaard||

    The realities underlying the immigration debate are that we have more than enough people, more than enough imported poor people (see The Characteristics of Unauthorized Immigrants in California, Los Angeles County, and the United States by Karina Fortuny et al; the February 9, 2006 report by the California Legislative Analysts Office (LAO) on efficacy of border police; the Analysis of the California 2001-02 Budget Bill by the LAO), and more than enough imported criminals (read about Jamiel Shaw, Kate Steinle, Juan Francisco De Luna Vasquez, ); consider the disproportionate medicare fraud, food stamp fraud, and mortgage fraud by recent arrivals from cultures in which crime and fraud are normal - look up Glendale medicare fraud).

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Last wrote in What to Expect When No One's Expecting: America's Coming Demographic Disaster, Japan's "continuously falling birthrates" has given rise to "a subculture that dresses dogs like babies and pushes them around in carriages, and a booming market in hyper-realistic-looking robot babies."

    My brother's ex-wife returned to Japan childless after five years of married. They used birth control so he could dedicate more time to making it big in film. His current wife is a Black transgender immigrant from the Caribean. They have 2 dogs and she does not expect to give birth anytime soon.

  • M.L.||

    The case for open borders is great if you want America to turn into a stagnant, broke, socialist hellhole.

  • I can't even||

    Are you saying that isn't the goal of the DNC and their counterparts in Western Europe? As long as those immigrants become loyal leftist voting blocks, they're fine with that.

  • M.L.||

    Yes, you're exactly right.

  • Tony||

    When you people say open borders, are you talking to the few libertarians here with some actual principles having an interesting if unmoored-to-reality discussion about hypothetical societies, or are you talking about politicians who want to reform the United States immigration system to be only slightly less draconian and nonsensical than it is right now? You know that means less de facto amnesty, right?

  • Echospinner||

    No it is a philosophy of free markets, individual autonomy, freedom of association, and private property rights.

    Capitalism and market economy has resulted in gains far beyond any central managed government run scheme ever attempted. Goods, services, investment and labor need to move in response to market forces. If we close off any those channels the US will end up like Venezuela.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    I think california has turned out well. And we all get to ride trains, so that's fun!

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    If so-called "open borders" is the reason why California is deep blue and broke, then why isn't Texas also deep blue and broke? Surely Texas has just as many, if not more, undocumented immigrants than California has.

  • vek||

    The truth is that the reason your AVERAGE American has such a high standard of living is VERY MUCH to do with restrictions on labor. We have a few industries that we are genuinely competitive in globally, and all the exorbitant wages for all other Americans are contingent on those industries pushing up other wages to compete for laborers.

    Do you really think a Janitor in the USA is being $38,000 a year more productive than one in India, where such a person probably makes $2,000 a year or less? Obviously not. The reason the American has higher wages and a higher standard of living is because we restrict the flow of labor. If we had truly open borders the wages of 80-90% of Americans would take a MAJOR hit.

    As a business owner I might benefit in some ways... But I would not want to live in such a country, even if I came out better. Big business does not see it this way of course, so they push for flooding the labor market at all skill levels. I myself just want to protect the floor level a bit, as I think some of our highest paid jobs are probably more than sufficiently priced anyway. There's a big difference between taking a $150K a year job down to $125K and a $50K job down to $25K.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    The bottom line is that the border restrictionist crowd, by and large, believe that today's immigrants, even legal immigrants, are just inferior people compared to native-born Americans.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    The bottom line is that the open borders crowd loves the welfare state and this is the best way to lock it in.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    But that's not true, at least around here.

    On the other hand, look at the language that the closed-border types use to describe immigrants, even legal immigrants. They describe immigrants, AT BEST, as a nuisance that the country must endure.

    It is rare, if ever, that John and his crowd acknowledge the good things that immigrants have done or can do. Or EVEN, just to describe immigrants as normal people. But they will not hesitate to generalize about immigrants being welfare moochers or violent criminals.

    Look at the Whole Foods rant above. Somehow, having employees who don't speak fluent English is a HUGE BURDEN to the "real customers that matter". Why, it's "poor customer service" to give customers the OPTION of using a language other than English! Yes he really said that. THIS type of language is revealing. Spanish-speaking immigrants are not on the same level as English-speaking ones, and should be shamed and belittled for their choice of language that they speak. That is the mentality around here.

    You will be hard-pressed to find around here open-borders advocates who "love" the welfare state.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Furthermore, it's more than a little bit amusing to see the closed-border crowd invoke Marxist-esque class-warfare arguments to justify why keeping immigrants out is a good idea. You see, it's the "upper classes" who 'import' cheap labor for their own benefit, but to the detriment of the "working classes" who suffer all of the harms. I'm old enough to remember when it was liberals who were derided for trying to sic classes against each other. But not in Trump's America, now it's the right-wing closed-border enthusiasts who are the real class warriors.

  • vek||

    Ugh Chemjeff. There's a difference between a Chinese Comp Sci degree holder, and a Somali that never got past the equivalent of 4th grade. Pointing out that such a difference exists somehow makes me a horrible person? Likewise pointing out that being FLUENT in English should be a pre-req for customer facing jobs makes me crazy? I think somebody speaking multiple languages is great... But if you don't speak the main language of a country, that's not meeting the requirements of a customer facing job. If you do speak fluent English, then it's great that you speak Spanish too. In Mexico not speaking Spanish but having excellent English would be an equally bad decision.

    As far as pointing out that INTERESTS diverge between different groups, that's simply reality. The fact is every country in history has had to balance class interests. Usually by being decent and even handed across the board. Choosing policies that ONLY benefit one quintile out of 5 is a sure fire recipe for pissing off the other 4! This is common sense.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    There's a difference between a Chinese Comp Sci degree holder, and a Somali that never got past the equivalent of 4th grade. Pointing out that such a difference exists somehow makes me a horrible person?

    Tell that to the "Chinamen are stealing our jerbs" Trumpists.

    The fact is every country in history has had to balance class interests.

    I guess "a rising tide lifts all boats" is just a quaint pithy saying nowadays.

  • vek||

    Give me a break dude.

    "Tell that to the "Chinamen are stealing our jerbs" Trumpists."

    You talking about outsourcing, or bringing in high skilled people? In both cases they're technically correct to a degree. Now both of those things MAY be advantageous overall, but they still have many of the effects they complain about. Outsourcing has removed millions of low skill jobs from America. Importing Chinese Comp Sci majors does suppress wages for native programmers. I live in Seattle, and know many programmers, they bitch about H1B people. There is likely a shortage of skilled programmers, BUT if there were a greater shortage because more were not being allowed in, their wages would in fact be higher. I think it is obvious that in an expanding high wage field we should be importing these people because...

    A rising tide DOES lift all boats. However on the low end of the spectrum importing millions of low productivity people DOES NOT rise the tide. High value workers do. Suppressing wages at the lowest end of the spectrum does not increase the average productivity or wealth generated by the society, it just hoses the low IQ low skill workers at the bottom. Hence my position of only allowing in high skill people.

  • vek||

    Imagine if you will a change in immigration policy... Frankly one I would almost be in favor of!

    What if we removed ALL caps on immigration for doctors, lawyers, engineers, and programmers. Tons would move here from abroad. This supply would push down wages in those fields. Right? Supply and demand?

    I would argue this will be a net benefit for the country overall. Why? Because I think doctors make plenty enough anyway! If their wages come down by 50K a year, so what? They're still doing okay. Everybody who uses doctors benefits!

    But what about doctors/engineers/etc? They probably wouldn't be keen on getting their wages cut would they? They'd complain that the government policy is specifically unfair to all the professions they work in. They'd say it's not fair to have policy that specifically fucks certain people, and benefits everybody else.

    Now see our ACTUAL de facto policy for the last few decades. It has been EXACTLY THAT, but for low skill jobs. Wages in construction have stagnated for going on 2+ decades now, because supply and demand controls all markets! DUH.

  • vek||

    So whether you agree or not that it is good or bad overall, it is obvious any given group will not be stoked on specific and arbitrary policies that specifically fuck them over. Hence the anger of the lowest 2 quintiles or so of people.

    Again, whether you like it or not these are obvious considerations. People are not widgets. They have emotions, a sense of fairness, etc. Our de facto policy has been one that specifically benefits the upper classes and harms the lower classes. Even if you think this is good overall, you'd have to be pretty dense to not "get" why it would enrage working class people.

    Frankly I think it is worse to do it to the lowest earners because that pushes them from a so so living to outright poverty, whereas a doctor taking a pay cut still leaves them quite comfortable, and the high earners are what raise the tide. So there's more logic in flooding the high end job market than the low in practical terms.

  • vek||

    And the fact that low skill immigration specifically hurts the lowest 2 quintiles or so is pretty well factual if anybody every looks at wage data, correlated with immigration rates, and outsourcing etc. It's kinda intuitive to me that labor bends to a supply and demand curve like every other market! How so called libertarians don't appreciate that fact, and actively deny it, is beyond me.

    And I straight up stand by some of the cultural/political reasons as well. I believe immigration should be slow and steady with lots of time for integration, and that it should lean towards people that are actually likely to integrate in well in the first place. I see no moral obligation to let anyone in, so anyone we do let in should be pretty likely to be an awesome net positive for natives. I will GLADLY accept being called a nativist, because I DO favor native born people of all colors over foreigners.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I will GLADLY accept being called a nativist, because I DO favor native born people of all colors over foreigners.

    Why? What makes you think that the native-born *as a group* are better people, more committed to liberty, more willing to work hard, have better moral values, etc., etc., than foreigners *as a group*? To me, this type of opinion is simply not based in rational considerations. There are good and bad native-born citizens, and there are good and bad foreigners, and it's just silly to give automatic preference to one group over another, no questions asked. It's this type of attitude that leads to claims of xenophobia - the irrational distrust of foreigners.

    I see no moral obligation to let anyone in

    Do foreigners have the liberty to associate with native-born individuals if they so choose?

    STOP viewing immigration as this collectivist endeavor to serve the Glory of America. It is NOT. Immigration is about the free movement of people, whether they bring glory to America or not.

  • vek||

    1. Well statistically native born Americans ARE more committed to liberty. We MAY convert the new folks in time, but if we bring in too many too quick they screw things up with their bad voting habits. See California for evidence. I grew up there. The Reagan amnesty was the final nail in the coffin for any semblance of small government there.

    2. Some foreigners have great moral values, by our standards. Others DO NOT. Japanese people tend to have morals that fit in very nicely with ours. Never heard of a Japanese rape gang have you? Yet Europe seems to be having some issues there with some Muslim immigrants.

    I'm not saying all foreigners are evil, horrible people. They're not. Many of them are nice people, and hard working etc. But here's the thing. Even a nice Somali, who works hard, is not really useful in 21st century America. Statistically he's going to end up an Uber driver, or a dish washer, janitor etc. We need to be getting our native born black guy off the dole and/or out of crime via reforms to our borked system, not importing more low end laborer widgets. A Japanese scientist will help us raise the tide, a janitor will not.

  • vek||

    "Immigration is about the free movement of people, whether they bring glory to America or not."

    This is where I differ. I see no reason to place international freedom of movement ABOVE all other rights and considerations. These people vote wrong, they are poor and net tax drains on natives, they often commit crimes at higher rates (their kids certainly do), a lot of them don't even want to assimilate etc.

    Why is it that international freedom of movement more important than the fact that immigrants vote for bigger government? Or against 2nd amendment rights? These are STATISTICAL FACTS. They cannot be denied. That is what is happening in objective reality.

    Sometimes you can't have your cake and eat it too. If I choose smaller government and gun rights over international freedom of movement that is my call. You apparently would rather have international freedom of movement and bigger government and fewer gun rights. I think that is a HORRIBLE decision... But from what you say that is the call you have made.

    Again this is not theoretical, this is what is ACTUALLY HAPPENING in objective reality. Immigration and its effects may work differently in your mind, but I'm dealing with the measurable facts in the real world.

    You can disagree with me about which right is more important, that's your prerogative... But I can think you're an idiot for having that opinion too.

  • Tony||

    Yeah, radical individualist quasi-anarchists who start crying over having to press 2 for English.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    If anything exemplifies the bigotry that underlies a great deal of the current immigration hysterics, it's the people who get outraged over not having to do anything but listen to a 2-second computer voice speak a short sentence in Spanish so that companies may better cater to customers who don't speak English. The supposed inconvenience to English speakers is beyond negligible. I can see some merit in many of the closed-border arguments, even if I disagree with most of them, but I am hard-pressed to find any basis for the outrage over "oprima dos para Espanol" that is rooted in anything other than just plain bigotry and a sense that America should be unwelcome to people who don't speak English.

  • Tony||

    Maybe they aren't exactly "rugged" individualists.

  • mtrueman||

    "it's the people who get outraged over not having to do anything but listen to a 2-second computer voice speak a short sentence in Spanish so that companies may better cater to customers who don't speak English."

    If I have to listen to another language, let it be Nordic.

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

    It's been a boon to responding to neocons who tell me, "If people like you were running the country, we'd all be speaking German now!". I simply respond that since their descendants will likely be speaking Spanish, maybe we should have taken German when we had the opportunity.

  • vek||

    It is annoying, but pretty whatevs. The thing is that if people in Spain had to push 2 for English it would probably annoy them too! The fact is that English IS THE LANGUAGE OF THE UNITED STATES. People who move here should learn it. I don't mind people that aren't perfect right off the bat, but I have no patience for people who don't even try. Fuck those people. The French are notorious for getting pissed at people not even trying to speak French when visiting. It's a pretty common reaction to people being expected to not have to even try to speak the language of the land they are in. It's basically just a dick move IMO.

    If I moved to Spain, or Germany, or China, or Timbuktu, I would learn the native language... Not only does it suit the best interests of the person in the long run, but it is simply the respectful thing to do.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    English IS THE LANGUAGE OF THE UNITED STATES

    It is? We don't have an official language in this country.

  • vek||

    Don't be a stupid fucking twat dude.

    This nation was founded by English speakers, all our laws and founding documents are in English, and the overwhelming majority of the population has always spoken English. Many European nations never saw a reason to pass a law declaring an official language either... Because it was so painfully obvious what language everybody spoke it was not needed. So it was in America.

    Nobody 200 years ago, when it wouldn't have been a big political battle just to state the obvious, felt the need to pass such a law... But perhaps they should have so dumb asses couldn't post stupid things like that post.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    But that's not true, at least around here.

    On the other hand, look at the language that the closed-border types use to describe immigrants, even legal immigrants. They describe immigrants, AT BEST, as a nuisance that the country must endure.

    It is rare, if ever, that John and his crowd acknowledge the good things that immigrants have done or can do. Or EVEN, just to describe immigrants as normal people. But they will not hesitate to generalize about immigrants being welfare moochers or violent criminals.

    Look at the Whole Foods rant above. Somehow, having employees who don't speak fluent English is a HUGE BURDEN to the "real customers that matter". Why, it's "poor customer service" to give customers the OPTION of using a language other than English! Yes he really said that. THIS type of language is revealing. Spanish-speaking immigrants are not on the same level as English-speaking ones, and should be shamed and belittled for their choice of language that they speak. That is the mentality around here.

    You will be hard-pressed to find around here open-borders advocates who "love" the welfare state.

  • Mark22||

    On the other hand, look at the language that the closed-border types use to describe immigrants

    Why don't you look at what Democrats actually are proposing: they are proposing to hand out immigrant visas like candy to illegal immigrants while continuing to treat legal immigrants like shit.

    Republicans just want a race-blind, skill-based, legal immigration policy. Democrats want a racist immigration policy that hands out favors to their preferred minority constituencies.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Did I say I supported the Democrat position?

    Republicans just want a race-blind, skill-based, legal immigration policy.

    oh good grief, not even you can believe that with a straight face

  • Mark22||

    Did I say I supported the Democrat position?

    You categorized people into the "open border types" and the "closed border types". And the "open border types" in reality advocate screwing legal immigrants. The fact that you personally don't want to take responsibility for that position hardly matters.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I said "open-border types AROUND HERE". I am well aware that there are big-government open-border types who love the welfare state. Among the open-border libertarians commenting here, that is not the case. It is just dishonest of you to characterize everyone who favors open-borders as being some welfare-loving statist. But that is what you do, mischaracterize people and generalize about them - people who support open borders love welfare, illegal immigrants are motivated by government bennies, etc., etc...

    And no Republicans absolutely do not want a race-blind immigration policy. Look at the freakout they currently have with the refugees that we have coming now.

  • Mark22||

    I am well aware that there are big-government open-border types who love the welfare state. Among the open-border libertarians commenting here, that is not the case.

    Anybody who advocates open borders right now advocates the combination of open borders and the welfare state.

    And no Republicans absolutely do not want a race-blind immigration policy. Look at the freakout they currently have with the refugees that we have coming now.

    What freakout? What refugees?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Now you are twisting what I said. Guess what, people can advocate for two different positions simultaneously. I want a reduction of the welfare state and I want an end to the labor prohibition created by immigration laws. There is nothing contradictory about those positions. If you want to argue against welfare-loving open-border progressives, then go chat with them. But assuming that everyone who favors open borders wants a huge welfare state is dishonest and wrong.

  • Mark22||

    But assuming that everyone who favors open borders wants a huge welfare state is dishonest and wrong.

    I'm not making that assumption. You may well prefer both open borders and a reduction of the welfare state, but that is a different position from the position that borders can be opened only after the welfare state has been largely eliminated.

    I've actually made a fairly straightforward proposal before relating the two issues: let anybody immigrate who consistently pays at least as much in taxes as the average per capita government spending in the US (about $22000 per capita per year, federal, state, and local right now). That way, borders gradually get opened as the welfare state shrinks.

  • vek||

    The fuck they don't! That's exactly what Republicans have proposed.

    Not wanting to take in half illiterate refugees just because their country happens to be a bigger shithole than average does not contradict wanting a merit based system! It is actually quite consistent with that position.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Gee, I seem to recall a certain Senator Ted Cruz suggest, during the 2016 campaign, that the US should take in Syrian *Christian* refugees, but not Syrian *Muslim* refugees. And that a certain Donald Trump suggested a "total and complete shutdown" of *Muslim* immigrants, not "shithole" immigrants.

    I don't disagree that there are some Republicans who genuinely want a merit-based immigration system only. But I don't for one minute believe that Republicans in general are in favor of a race-blind, religion-blind, non-discriminatory immigration system.

  • Mark22||

    Gee, I seem to recall a certain Senator Ted Cruz suggest, during the 2016 campaign, that the US should take in Syrian *Christian* refugees, but not Syrian *Muslim* refugees.

    First of all, refugees aren't immigrants. Second, Cruz's position is justified: Christians are persecuted and oppressed in Muslim countries for their religion, Muslims are not. That's what (generally) makes Christians from Muslim countries refugees and Muslims from the same countries not. Furthermore, refugees should generally go to nearby, culturally compatible countries, which in the case of Muslim refugees means nearby Muslim countries.

    And that a certain Donald Trump suggested a "total and complete shutdown" of *Muslim* immigrants, not "shithole" immigrants.

    You recall incorrectly. Trump called for "for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." That is, he called for a temporary ban until we as a country can figure out how to vet immigrants from Muslim countries properly. That's both reasonable and non-discriminatory.

    He didn't have to call for such a ban on Christians or Jews because the US isn't currently the target of Christian or Jewish terrorism.

  • vek||

    Mark is correct.

    I will of course grant you that SOME people surely do not want a merit based system. However in polling the majority of not only Republicans, but Democrats as well, simply want a color blind merit based system... So why is it that the political establishment, especially on the left, ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to do this?

    It's not only the sensible thing to do, but also the will of the people.

    As far as the immigration proposals actually made in Congress a merit based system is exactly what the Republicans proposed. So whatever some individuals may want is beside the point, it's not what they wanted to actually pass.

  • Mark22||

    Spanish-speaking immigrants are not on the same level as English-speaking ones, and should be shamed and belittled for their choice of language that they speak. That is the mentality around here.

    Well, I'm an immigrant and had to learn English. Learning English is a prerequisite for succeeding economically in the US. Immigrants who refuse to come up to speed in English quickly are basically saying that they have no interest in succeeding in the country.

    Most other countries in the world have a single official language and require immigrants to demonstrate an excellent command of that language before immigrating; the US should do the same thing. Most other countries require a single official language to be used for all commercial transactions as well. Those are reasonable and sensible policies that are in the interest of both citizens and immigrants.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Immigrants who refuse to come up to speed in English quickly are basically saying that they have no interest in succeeding in the country.

    Funny how "not yet having learned English" morphed into "defiantly refusing to learn English", which turned into a criticism of their supposed moral failings. ONCE AGAIN, the characterization of immigrants by your tribe is derogatory and inflammatory, deliberately so, *even of the legal immigrants*. *At best* immigrants are a nuisance and a problem to you, a problem that you'd rather not have.

    And no there should not be an official language and no there should not be an official government diktat forcing businesses to conduct their transactions in English or any other language. Funny how the zeal for Trump's supposed deregulation never seems to translate into removing regulations when it comes to immigration.

  • Mark22||

    ONCE AGAIN, the characterization of immigrants by your tribe is derogatory and inflammatory

    I am an immigrant. I obeyed all US immigration rules, have never used government programs, and I learned English sufficiently well to get by in daily life within a few months of arriving. I expect the same of other immigrants.

    I also used to be a registered Democrat until 2016, and I am now an independent, so I don't know who you think my "tribe" is.

    You, on the other hand, are pretty typical of self-righteous, privileged, pampered, ignorant Americans, the kind of people who talk down to immigrants like me. Fortunately, you people are still a minority in the US.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Well good for you, you're the regular Horatio Alger of immigrants. Not everyone is as fortunate as you, and that doesn't make them bad people or devious people with bad intentions if they can't pick up the language as quickly as you.

    YOUR tribe, in this context, are the people who want closed borders, and who whip up support for their position by casting immigrants - all immigrants, not just the undocumented ones - in the worst possible light. According to you, someone who doesn't learn English as fast as you did is a person with bad motives and bad intentions. That is your deliberate unfair demagoguery of immigrants because you evidently have a chip on your shoulder that so many of them are immigrating that are evidently "beneath you".

  • Mark22||

    That is your deliberate unfair demagoguery of immigrants.

    Immigration isn't about "fairness". There is no right to immigrate anywhere. Immigration ought to be of mutual benefit to the immigrant and the country they are immigrating to.

    According to you, someone who doesn't learn English as fast as you did is a person with bad motives and bad intentions.

    You're making things up. Here is what I said: "Immigrants who refuse to come up to speed in English quickly are basically saying that they have no interest in succeeding in the country." People who are incapable of coming up to speed in English quickly shouldn't even be given immigrant visas.

    you evidently have a chip on your shoulder that so many of them are immigrating that are evidently "beneath you".

    You bet I do! The US required me to prove that I'm had exceptional skills and earning potential when I immigrated. The US used to be a country where performance and skill mattered. Why would I want it to lower its standards?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Well, here is the truth. The US has a horrible broken immigration system through which you had to suffer. I'm sorry that you had to go through the huge expense to become a citizen. It should not have been so hard for you to come here. You should not need mountains of paperwork and documentation from the authorities to immigrate here. But just because you had to suffer through a broken system, does not mean that everyone else has to suffer the same amount as you did. This is just the stupid trope of wanting everyone else to have it as hard as you did. By that standard nothing ever changes and injustices are never corrected. So get over yourself and put your emotional temper-tantrum to the side, and realize that the ordeal you went through isn't a normative process but an unfair one that others shouldn't have to endure.

  • Mark22||

    The US has a horrible broken immigration system through which you had to suffer. I'm sorry that you had to go through the huge expense to become a citizen. It should not have been so hard for you to come here.

    Yes, it should have been so hard for me to come to the US. Immigration ought to be highly selective.

    But just because you had to suffer through a broken system, does not mean that everyone else has to suffer the same amount as you did.

    I didn't suffer. I went through an orderly if lengthy process that assured Americans that I was going to contribute to this country, and I believe that is the correct process for immigrants to go through.

  • DarrenM||

    So, you emphasize that The Journal's Seib concludes there "has never needed immigrant labor more than it does now" yet then start moaning that that Congress cracks down on ILLEGAL immigration. Why do you consider illegal immigration to be more desirable, or at least not less desirable, that legal immigration? Or perhaps you believe ignoring the law because you don't care for the policy is a good thing and something everyone should get in the habit of doing.

  • mtrueman||

    "Why do you consider illegal immigration to be more desirable, or at least not less desirable, that legal immigration? "

    More freedom, less paperwork. What's not to like?

  • Mark22||

    More freedom, less paperwork. What's not to like?

    It's a lot less freedom and more paperwork for those Americans who actually have to foot the bill for the schooling, social services, retirement, police, etc. that those illegal immigrants require.

  • mtrueman||

    "It's a lot less freedom and more paperwork for those Americans who actually have to foot the bill for the schooling, social services, retirement, police, etc. that those illegal immigrants require."

    Maybe so. But these Americans, who turned out in droves to vote for the likes of Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, simply don't value their freedom as much as those intrepid illegal immigrants, who often take great risks just to cross an imaginary line.

  • Mark22||

    simply don't value their freedom as much as those intrepid illegal immigrants, who often take great risks just to cross an imaginary line.

    Those "intrepid illegal immigrants" obviously don't come for freedom because they don't actually gain freedom in the US: they can't vote, they are at constant risk of arrest and deportation, they can't engage in many transactions. What they actually come for is economic benefits and government services.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    What they actually come for is economic benefits and government services.

    Because you've peered into their hearts and know for certain their true motivations. I get it.

    THOSE immigrants are bad people. Unlike you, the GOOD immigrant.

    Perhaps, just perhaps, a large number of them come here because they are interested in more economic liberty.

  • Mark22||

    THOSE immigrants are bad people. Unlike you, the GOOD immigrant.

    You bet I'm a "good immigrant"; I had to prove that with several pounds of paperwork when immigrating: academic records, tax returns, letters of support, a job with far above average pay, etc., plus thousands of dollars in legal expenses. I had to leave the country multiple times, having to worry every time whether the paperwork would be alright and I would be allowed to return. That's what legal, skill-based immigration in the US looks like.

    People who illegally walk across the border are indeed "bad people": they violate US law, unfairly get ahead of legal immigrants, and try to enrich themselves at the expense of American tax payers.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So because you filed the right papers with the people holding the guns, that makes you a "good person", unlike all of those other immigrants. Good Lord get a grip on yourself.

  • Mark22||

    Because you've peered into their hearts and know for certain their true motivations.

    As I was saying, I don't need to read their minds:

    Those "intrepid illegal immigrants" obviously don't come for freedom because they don't actually gain freedom in the US: they can't vote, they are at constant risk of arrest and deportation, they can't engage in many transactions.

    It's elementary logic that if you immigrate to a country where you are not free, you obviously don't immigrate because you want freedom.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    There is more to freedom than just the right to vote. There is also economic freedom, which is what I suspect most immigrants are after, not necessarily the right to serve on a jury.

  • Mark22||

    There is more to freedom than just the right to vote. There is also economic freedom

    Illegal migrants have very little economic freedom in the US: they can't legally work and they can't legally enter into many kinds of contracts.

    The only freedom illegals have in the US is that they can be lawless with impunity because people like you defend their lawlessness.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Mark, do you ever apply your cost-benefit analysis to the children of native-born citizens?

  • Mark22||

    Mark, do you ever apply your cost-benefit analysis to the children of native-born citizens?

    Well, yes, and so have lots of economists. The conclusion is pretty obvious: the majority of Americans is receiving much more in government benefits than they pay in taxes. That's at the root of the US deficit and debt problems, it is not sustainable, and it is a problem we need to address by cutting entitlements and government spending. We should avoid adding to this problem by importing more low income workers into the US.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    But if we applied your preferred solution for immigrant families, to the families of native-born citizens, you wouldn't even let them have children at all (who are citizens). Why should poor native families be permitted to have children?

  • Mark22||

    You're delusional. Nowhere have I advocated denying anybody the right to have children.

  • vek||

    God you're a moron chemjeff.

    Think about it like this. If you're born into a family, and you have a blow it case son or daughter... You're kind of stuck with them, for better or worse.

    But that moral obligation to try to be decent to them DOES NOT obligate you to go out and adopt a known problematic child who is an orphan... Does it?

    Well there ya go. We're stuck with our native born losers, however it doesn't make sense to intentionally import more people that are guaranteed to be below average achievers. Especially not when we're MUTHA FUCKIN' AMERICA! We could take nothing but 2 million PHDs every year and we'd probably never run out of people wanting to move here. So why take in people that will never be net positive tax contributors, will earn minimum wage, have higher crime rates, etc?

    It just makes no sense.

  • vek||

    Chemjeff, you respond to many other posts, but not to this horribly common sense one? No retort?

    I stand by nobody, or nation, having an obligation to take in problematic people on purpose. I think my analogy makes perfect sense too, because a nation is like an extended family. You're stuck with your drunk uncle Bob, but it doesn't mean you have to go adopt a drunk!

  • ranrod||

    This writer is a complete OPEN BORDERS sellout...
    Our US is 21 trillion in debt - THAT CAN NEVER BE REPAID!

    Illegal alien numbers - Youve been lied to for decades!
    Fox News and other sources repeat the same old media/political lie of only 11-12 illegal aliens in the USA!!
    Whenever these politicians and the media regurgitate these lies you will know them for their cover up!!

    Univision boasted 50 million
    Retired INS M. Cutler writes of 40-50 million would receive amnesty if ever it is granted...
    Debbie Schlussel writes of 40 million..
    CAPS Study 2007 reports of up to 38 million..

  • Wildbill2u||

    Look at what happened in Europe when a declining population in native stock led to open immigration by economic immigrants from mostly Muslim countries. The immigrants and refugees did not assimilate. They maintain their own culture and most importantly their own religion which advocates expanding Islam worldwide.

    If this sounds OK to the Left now, just wait until the new conquerors of the birthplace of modern Western civil society begin to destroy the art, music, law, and writings so dear to us all. Sound impossible? Well, I would never have believed that ANY European country would take in so many immigrants that no-go zones would become common and the native stock would turn their eyes away from the rapes of their women because of some leftist mantra about 'that is their culture and we must respect it." When you give up your children, you are doomed.

    In our own case, if we completely open borders to the south, eventually we could have a Reconquista by demography. Militant activists in the Chicano movement used to boast that they would overcome the dominant white European culture by their high birth rates and immigration.

    A change in our culture to Hispanic ethos and values may be a good thing, but it will certainly change the prevailing culture which is largely based on English, Scot, and Irish cultures, interwoven with other European strains to be sure. By the way, my grandson's name is Perez if you think I have some racist bias.

  • mtrueman||

    "When you give up your children, you are doomed."

    Children have the amazing and surprising capacity to look after themselves for the most part. It's when you refuse to have children, as is increasingly popular among America's native stock, is when the Doom comes in.

  • Mark22||

    It's when you refuse to have children, as is increasingly popular among America's native stock, is when the Doom comes in.

    Well, why does "America's native stock" refuse to have children? It's because women are subsidized and indoctrinated by the government into having careers just like men and maybe can squeeze out a child in their late 30's, and under divorce laws, men are increasingly just required to pay for children without any of the benefits of fatherhood. It's authoritarian, progressive social policy at work.

  • mtrueman||

    "It's authoritarian, progressive social policy at work."

    The sooner America's native stock extinguishes itself, the better. Or is it just the women you want to get rid of?

  • Mark22||

    The sooner America's native stock extinguishes itself, the better.

    That's your view.

    Or is it just the women you want to get rid of?

    You tell me: you want the "native stock to extinguish itself", not me.

    I would like Americans to have more children again, which is what would happen if the US government got out of the business of telling men and women how to live.

  • mtrueman||

    I see the attraction of blaming your government for all of society's ills.

  • vek||

    God you're a sick bastard. White Europeans invented 90% of what is great about the modern world... And you want them all to die off? The world will be suuuch a better place when totalitarian China is the dominant geopolitical force I'm sure!

    Moron.

  • mtrueman||

    "White Europeans invented 90% of what is great about the modern world... "

    What have these white assholes done for me lately?

  • vek||

    Continue to invent 60-70% of what makes the world of the future possible? The other 29-39% coming from Asia of course, leaving the 1% or so that the entire rest of the world actually seems to come up with...

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    It's because women are subsidized and indoctrinated by the government into having careers just like men

    Oh good Lord. Can you be any more patronizing towards women? "Why, if it wasn't for that gubmint propaganda, women would be barefoot and pregnant, just like God intended!" I'm no fan of government, but I'm not about to blame it for the free choices of individuals.

    Maybe, an alternative hypothesis is that growing prosperity creates additional opportunities beyond those found in traditional gender roles, opportunities for both men and women.

  • Mark22||

    Maybe, an alternative hypothesis is that growing prosperity creates additional opportunities beyond those found in traditional gender roles, opportunities for both men and women.

    Those "additional opportunities" aren't magically created by "growing prosperity" alone, they are created by massive, government-mandated transfers from men to women. Without those government mandated transfers, the rational economic calculation for many women would mean that they cannot have both a career and children.

    Now, you are perfectly welcome to argue that these forced transfers are a good thing; that's the progressive view. But pretending that the current status of men and women is the outcome of "free choices of individuals" or represents some kind of libertarian outcome is delusional.

    In an actual libertarian society, in a society where gender roles are actually the outcome of free choices of individuals, you would have a much larger percentage of women choosing traditional gender roles.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    they are created by massive, government-mandated transfers from men to women.

    They are? Like what?

    In an actual libertarian society, in a society where gender roles are actually the outcome of free choices of individuals, you would have a much larger percentage of women choosing traditional gender roles.

    No, that would be in a more conservative society, not a more libertarian one. By what basis would you claim that people being freer to self-actualize without stifling customs would willingly choose the stifling customs for themselves?

  • Mark22||

    No, that would be in a more conservative society, not a more libertarian one.

    Libertarianism is about limited government, not about social norms. A libertarian society would likely adopt more conservative social norms than a progressive society.

    By what basis would you claim that people being freer to self-actualize without stifling customs would willingly choose the stifling customs for themselves?

    Who said they would "willingly choose"? In a libertarian society, economics forces people to make choices they wouldn't make in a progressive society. That is, progressives assert positive rights, libertarians reject positive rights.

    They are? Like what?

    CHIP, SNAP, school lunches, public education, childcare, mandatory maternal leave, child support, no-fault divorce, student loan programs, to name just a few. All of those programs, laws, and regulations reduce economic pressures on women and allow them to make choices that they wouldn't be able to make in a limited government, free market based society.

  • mtrueman||

    "CHIP, SNAP, school lunches,"

    Don't know what CHIP and SNAP are, but how on earth are school lunches, which are presumably given to boys and girls of both sexes, an example of a government mandated program transferring wealth from men to women? If anything it's about transferring sandwiches from adults to children.

  • vek||

    Well, most users of school lunch programs are single mothers! One of many perks...

    If you look at almost every single government social program single mothers are the number one largest demographic that suckle off the tit. That's just a statistical fact.

    Men are economically more productive, and all these incentives that transfer wealth are from men to women. That's just how it is. Many of them also have the perverse effect of encouraging the woman to ditch a stable relationship for the feelz, whereas in a real un-perverted by big guvmint economy they would ride out the highs and lows that come with any relationship as happened in the past, out of necessity if nothing else.

  • Mark22||

    Don't know what CHIP and SNAP are

    Seriously? You want to talk about US social policy and you don't know two of the most important and contentious social programs?

    For the second part, see Vek's response; he gets it right: these are all programs subsidizing single motherhood, and single motherhood is probably the single largest cause of welfare dependence and poverty in the US. If African Americans in the US had the same lower rate of single motherhood as whites and Asians, the race gaps in crime and earnings would largely disappear.

  • mtrueman||

    "Seriously? You want to talk about US social policy and you don't know two of the most important and contentious social programs?"

    Yes.

    I know what a school lunch is though, and don't see how it illustrates a transfer of money from men to women. Boys and girls of both sexes, African Americans, Asians, and even normal people can presumably get their school lunch.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    A libertarian society would likely adopt more conservative social norms than a progressive society.

    I see scant evidence for this claim.

    Who said they would "willingly choose"? In a libertarian society, economics forces people to make choices they wouldn't make in a progressive society.

    Wait, so choices made in a free market aren't "willing choices"? Are you one of those people who thinks markets are coercive? And once again you are confusing a conservative society with a libertarian one.

    A conservative society would say "the best family arrangement is the one that has been handed down by tradition".
    A libertarian society would say "the best family arrangement is whatever the members of that family freely agree to".
    Now a libertarian family MIGHT choose to adopt traditional gender roles, or they might not. What is your evidence to say that they would OVERWHELMINGLY choose traditional gender roles? If anything, being free of the burdens of tradition means that more people will choose more creative approaches to families.

    CHIP, SNAP, school lunches, public education, childcare, mandatory maternal leave, child support, no-fault divorce, student loan programs, to name just a few.

    These are not "massive, government-mandated transfers from men to women", they are government-mandated transfers FROM both men and women, TO other men and women.

  • Mark22||

    Wait, so choices made in a free market aren't "willing choices"? Are you one of those people who thinks markets are coercive? And once again you are confusing a conservative society with a libertarian one.

    I most certainly do think that markets are coercive. For example, in a libertarian society, a single woman does not have the option of raising a child on her own without working; both she and her child would starve. The choice to raise a kid without working is only enabled through government transfers.

    Now a libertarian family MIGHT choose to adopt traditional gender roles, or they might not. What is your evidence to say that they would OVERWHELMINGLY choose traditional gender roles?

    I didn't use the word "overwhelmingly", so please don't put words in my mouth.

  • Mark22||

    If anything, being free of the burdens of tradition means that more people will choose more creative approaches to families.

    Libertarianism doesn't free you from traditions, it frees you from the state. It's progressivism, socialism, and fascism that try to free you from traditions, with evidently bad results.

    Furthermore, those "traditions" you decry aren't arbitrary: they came about because they demonstrably result in positive outcomes for children. Now, there may be a few variants of the traditional two parent family that might also work reasonably well (some same-sex couples, some stay-at-home dads). But variants that clearly don't work well are single parenthood or two high powered career parents with a nanny.

  • Mark22||

    These are not "massive, government-mandated transfers from men to women", they are government-mandated transfers FROM both men and women, TO other men and women.

    Statistically, social welfare programs are a massive transfer of wealth from men to women, and I was talking statistically. That is, as a group, women consume substantially more government resources than men over their lifetime. And it is that general, statistical trend that causes a lot of the other statistical trends we see, such as a massive rise in single motherhood and a massive decrease in the birth rate.

    You're trying to confuse the issue by switching from a statistical problem (low birth rates) to a non-statistical statement ("both men and women...").

  • Mark22||

    That is, as a group, women consume substantially more government resources than men over their lifetime.

    And, more importantly, as a group. women consume more government resources than they contribute in taxes, while, as a group, men consume less government resources than they contribute in taxes. That's why there is a large net transfer of resources from men to women via the government.

    On top of that are indirect transfers created by regulation (retirement, healthcare, child support, etc.).

  • vek||

    Mark, when I read Chemjeffs last post I really wanted to tear into him! ... But you basically covered it all.

    With respect to what family arrangement people would choose in a truly free society, I think history largely shows this. Pre welfare basically no society on earth EVER had single motherhood (or fatherhood) as a common or desirable arrangement. It was always married couples, or in some cases men with multiple wives. Extended families usually were involved too.

    As in free choice clearly showed not only what most people choose, but also has proven that that arrangement tends to produce the best results as well.

    I have little doubt that if all the wealth transfers from men to women via government were stopped we would rapidly return to wealth transfers from men to women via marriage again!

  • Mark22||

    Thanks. I think Chemjeff exposes the misconceptions and selective application of libertarianism of a lot of people. Many self-proclaimed libertarians don't seem to realize that small government necessarily results in a pretty conservative society.

  • vek||

    Very true. Without big daddy government a lot of "degenerate" behavior largely destroys itself because it is not sustainable by people who have to actually take care of their own shit. I used to be pretty anything goes on my view of morals, but as I have got older and wiser I've come to realize almost all traditional societies have fairly rigid moral values built in for good reason. As a libertarian I still don't think LAWS need to be put in place for those morals, but I think society would naturally gravitate towards most of them without bad behavior being actively pushed and encouraged by the government/leftist political class.

  • Tionico||

    You are right. Trump is right. Both are.. but in different ways.

    Yes we need immigrants. NO we do NOT need an open border and hordes of unvetted welfare
    customers". Look at Europe to see how that is working.

    Trump wanted to close down entry from certain at risk origins because those governments do not have any system in plce to enable us to do any history on a given individual. Just like the "he called all immigrants animals" lie, it was said he is anti moslem, anti immigration (hah, he's MARRIED to one, isn't he?) anti whatever. Stupid egocentris federal judges disregarded the Constitutional fnce round what cases they can take up and "ruled" against him.

  • Tionico||

    Years ago I applied for and was granted permanent resident status in Canada. I was warned.. IF within two years yuo end up on public support, we will deprt you back ot the uSA, and deny you ever entering again. They examined me carefully ascertaining that I have a marketable skill that was needed in the area Iintended to live, and made me verify my work experience and financial statue. I was welcome, as long as I did not bcome a deadbeat and drain on their system. Had to pass an in depth medical exam to make sure I was not dying of cancer and then I headed north to
    settle.
    Nothing wrong with the desire to ensure the rest of us don't have to feed millions who have nothing to contribute, cure them of diseases they have, and endure their antics as they want to live here under the same standards they lived THERE before they came... except, of course, for all the wonderful handouts. No other nation on earth has ever thrown open their boundaries to any and all, and survived. We will not be the first.

  • mtrueman||

    Native-born deadbeats are much more deserving.

  • vek||

    Not really, but we're stuck with them. Some family members may be losers, but they're family... You don't have to go out of your way to adopt more deadbeats into your family though!

  • Harvard||

    I do so wish Old Beaner would successfully anchor in that last third cousin.

  • Martiandawn||

    There is no labor shortage. Democrats use the welfare system to pay people to not work, thereby winning their votes, and that in turn opens up jobs for immigrants, who also vote for Democrats.

  • Mark22||

    Opponents advance a host of other, sometimes contradictory arguments to make their case. Immigrants, they say, are lazy and soak up massive amounts of welfare even while they are willing to work harder and for less money than natives (a paradox known as "Schrodinger's Immigrant").

    Where is the contradiction between (1) immigrants working for less money than natives and (2) immigrants consuming massive amounts of welfare? Even progressives like to make this kind of argument.

  • Spookk||

    Some of us (those that don't own wage slaves) are thrilled at the prospect of a shrinking number of humans for many good reasons. Number one, there wont be so much garbage and pollution to choke on. Number two, there will be more resources to go around.

  • Mark22||

    Unless it is supplemented by immigration, the decline in birth rates will disastrously sink the labor market in years to come.

    The only reason stagnant or shrinking populations are a problem for the US government is because the US government has created various intergenerational pyramid schemes that depend on continuous population growth. That is, the politicians who promote Social Security, Medicare, and public pension plans are scared because those plans will fail even faster with falling populations. But low skill immigrants won't rescue those plans because they will always take more in government payouts than they pay in taxes.

    The US can benefit from immigration: skilled immigration from people who make a net positive contribution in taxes; all other immigrants are, by definition, a net negative for America.

  • vek||

    Exactly. Low wage workers are a net drain, and can never sustain the ponzi scheme anyway. We need high skill immigrants to pull that off... If we wear everybodies nerves thin dealing with millions of Latino janitors, it will be harder to convince people we ALSO need to bring in millions of actually useful people from India, China etc. Which is why I say only bring in the skilled ones!

    Would you rather have an Indian IT guy who speaks solid English move in next door, or a Mexican lawn guy? I have Indian IT neighbors right now, they're not so bad. I've also lived next to Mexican lawn guys in the past. They're not horrible people, but I'll take the IT guy any day of the week because he's going to be a net positive tax payer, not a burden that requires my taxes going up!

  • Entelechy||

    Nick needs to pick up an AMERICA NEEDS A HIGHER POPULATION DENSITY
    sign, to see how he looks waving it in front of a mirror.

  • Tricia McMillan||

    Maybe more educated women like me could afford to have and rear a kid or two if the taxes were lower. Or if we were in a different micro-culture. I'm flirting with the idea of just saying "fuck it" and having 6 kids on the government dime like my many neighbors. The only thing stopping me is self-respect and my peers.

  • vek||

    You don't need 6, but shoot for at least 3. That's why I'm going to shoot for. That way I at least maintain and perpetuate my culture instead of watching it cease to exist.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Plenty of educated people afford children and taxes.

    Those who believe circumstances should be easier for educated women and children should support policies that benefit education, children, workers, and parents.

  • vek||

    Buuut you have to tax those same educated women (and their husbands/baby daddys) at higher rates to subsidize the less educated peoples breeding... You could just let people keep their own money and people would breed or not breed as their own means allowed them?

    Or is that completely insane somehow? To ask people to be able to support their own decisions?

  • Mark22||

    Those who believe circumstances should be easier for educated women and children should support policies that benefit education, children, workers, and parents.

    Yes and those policies are lower taxes and less money spent on universities. Universities were never intended for mass education (70% of high school graduates right now, it was 10% in 1975) and they are lousy at it. Universities are expensive and have a huge opportunity cost for the individual. And on top of that, in the 21st century, we have far better means of mass education.

    The progressive high tax regime you favor penalizes educated and successful people and transfers their resources to less educated and less successful people.

  • Mark22||

    Maybe more educated women like me could afford to have and rear a kid or two if the taxes were lower.

    If taxes were lower, spending on higher education would be lower, and a lot of men and women like you would recognize that formal higher education is a lousy investment, and that in the 21st century, there are far better alternatives.

    So, with lower taxes, you could become educated online while having a kid in the prime of your childbearing age, meaning your early 20s. These days, you might even become credentialed online.

  • vek||

    Yes, because we're REALLY going to need millions of low education workers in the ever more automated future...

    Plus all of the other issues they just wave away magically as if they don't exist/matter. Pay no attention to the lowest labor force participation rate in decades! Pay no attention to the TYPES of jobs available and the SKILLS required for them, which tend to require more than a middle school education, which is the average for an illegal Mexican immigrant. Just wave away that all immigrant groups vote left wing... Because THAT'S totally going to help make the country be more free! Pay no mind to higher crime rates in the Hispanic community. DEFINITELY don't notice the massive amounts of racial animus all non white groups are showing towards the white majority, even while the white majority is less racist than it has ever been.

    No, just wave allllll that away as if it doesn't exist. It's ridiculous. Those, and 1000 other issues, are all important and real concerns. The fact is there are theoretical pros and cons to immigration in general, and to immigration from specific countries, and people with specific skills. It is not a single Yes/No question.

    I'm hardcore libertarian on 95% of issues... But on this one it is literally an existential level question, and as such I am totally fine with not going totally willy nilly.

  • vek||

    You people forget that the only reason 1st world countries exist is because of restrictions in immigration/labor markets. Our standard of living would probably shrink to 2nd world country levels within a matter of years if we had true open borders... And that being total freedom or not I would not prefer that, neither would almost anybody else who isn't a billionaire.

    If some people want to advocate completely destroying having a stable culture, a middle class of any significance, and internal freedom ALL in the name of the so called freedom of international movement... So be it. I think it's a horrible decision, but at least it's principled. But don't expect many other sane, rational people to agree, because it would objectively be a worse outcome for the vast majority of the people currently in 1st world countries.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    "I'm hardcore libertarian on 95% of issues... But on this one it is literally an existential level question, and as such I am totally fine with not going totally willy nilly."

    Because only certain people are entitled to liberty; the rest, not so much....

  • vek||

    They are entitled to liberty... But they aren't entitled to liberty HERE. How about those people fix their own countries if they love freedom so damn much?

    The fact is the USA cannot possibly take in every person who wants to move here. If we tried our country would be turned to shit, and their home country would still be shit.

    I much prefer the way South Korea went about it. They made THEIR country better, and then the lives of their people became better too.

    I feel no obligation to destroy the amazing country my ancestors built so that some foreigner can have a marginally better life. You're making the same argument that I should allow a hobo to move into my house because I have it so good, and clearly he deserves a chance to live a better life too... Even though it's MY house. Just as I would deny the hobo, I deny any foreigner that I don't think will improve my life.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Immigration is NOT about "doing what's best for America".
    Immigration is NOT about "helping the upper class" or "helping the lower class".
    Immigration is NOT about "getting a workforce for certain types of jobs".
    Immigration is about preserving individuals' liberty to associate with whom they please.
    If a person from another country wishes to associate with me, why should ANY third party stand in their way?

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Immigration is not a person-to-person issue. Anyone who wants to visit you is certainly free to do so. Immigration is a person-to-country issue, and every country has the right and power to set the terms for allowing people to enter its borders.

  • Mark22||

    If a person from another country wishes to associate with me, why should ANY third party stand in their way?

    You can associate with them as much as you want, just not on US soil.

    Once someone steps on US soil, the US government forces all Americans to associate with that person in a variety of ways, and it is that forced association that people object to.

    You're welcome to try to remove that forced association from US law. But as long as that forced association is part of US law, people (including libertarians) legitimately object to your desire to bring arbitrary people of your choosing into the US.

  • vek||

    Merely being here is different from becoming a citizen. Many nations in history made the distinction, Rome being a prime example. Many people were allowed to come and go throughout the empire during some periods, however there were certain rights AND responsibilities if you were a citizen who had voting power and other legal rights.

    I would be more okay with guest worker stuff if we didn't have the stupid anchor baby interpretation of birthright citizenship, and didn't give guest workers (or illegals as most are now) access to all of the socialized programs we have in this country which they don't pay enough to be entitled to. In a more libertarian nation where I didn't directly have to bear the burden of law skill immigration I would be more okay with it... But I'd like to effect those changes BEFORE letting a flood of low skill immigrants in.

    You don't put the cart before the horse. Sometimes things have to be done in a certain order to make any sense, and if you do them in the wrong order you end up with horrendous results. Mass low skill immigration is one of these things.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    I'm sorry, but the assertion that 6.6 million jobs means that "for the first time in history there are enough openings to provide a job for every unemployed person in the country" is simply bullshit.

    There are not 6.6 million unemployed persons in the country. There are 6.6M by the BLS metric, which means there are 6.6M collecting unemployment benefits. It does not include those whose benefits have run out, much less those who have long since given up on seeking employment. There are millions of potentially employable people, all races and sexes included, whom we do not count and have no expectation of ever getting back to work (much less getting into the job market in the first place)

    And yet, we need the immigrants to do those jobs.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    No, what America needs is a breather period to assimilate the millions of LEGAL immigrants that we've taken in over the last 50-years, and to send home the millions of ILLEGAL immigrants that sneaked into the country without our permission.

  • James_R||

    There is no labor shortage out there. If there was; wages (adjusted for inflation) would not be stagnant for decades on end. Get back to me when hotel maids and baristas are bringing in $20/hr in Omaha.

  • Sevo||

    James_R|5.23.18 @ 5:10PM|#
    "There is no labor shortage out there. If there was; wages (adjusted for inflation) would not be stagnant for decades on end. Get back to me when hotel maids and baristas are bringing in $20/hr in Omaha."

    So what wages for maids would make it clear there is a labor shortage?
    Dimbulbs who *know* the market price of things are amusing.

  • LifeStrategies||

    "That's a portrait of an economy that is stuck in second gear, unable to expand to meet increasing demand and grow."

    Not so. We actually have an economy which is busy and could become even busier improving productivity with technology.

    You're trying to have your cake and eat it. You can't deplore the vast numbers of American workers who'll soon be out of work because of technology, bemoan the coming unemployment and support luddites arguing against the benefits/deployment of information technology at the same time.

  • Mark22||

    You're trying to have your cake and eat it. You can't deplore the vast numbers of American workers who'll soon be out of work because of technology, bemoan the coming unemployment and support luddites arguing against the benefits/deployment of information technology at the same time.

    Of course he can, he just did! It's irrational, illogical, and stupid, but he certainly can do it!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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