Some Food For Thought on Immigration
Immigration is an issue which divides the liberty movement. On the one hand are those—mostly traditional conservatives—who believe that the federal government should secure the borders and ensure that all who come into the United States go through official government channels. On the other hand are those—mainly libertarians—who believe that these tasks are impossible, unwarranted, and, even if they could be construed as positive, will lead to greater infringements on the liberties of all Americans. As for me, I fall into the latter category.
While I respect and admire many of the folks on the other side of this issue, it seems to me that they have forgotten the warning issued by Thomas Paine: “He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself.” In other words, be careful what you ask the government to do because it may do it to you.
It is a wonder that during this economic calamity, illegal immigration is still at the forefront for so many conservatives. Despite the rhetoric by immigration warriors that illegal immigration was going to destroy America, Pedro and Juan mowing your neighbor’s lawns haven’t had much to do with it. Charles and Biff in the boardroom at Goldman Sachs, on the other hand, as well as the dolts in Washington, DC—all of them legal Americans—have done more to decimate America than any army of illegal immigrants ever could.
I also find it curious that some in the liberty movement gripe about the apathy of the average American—supposedly too indifferent about their liberties to even go to the voting booth, much less pick up a sign and protest—while at the same time looking down with scorn at folks who literally risk death to come here and make a better life for themselves. (As Lew Rockwell points out, however, fewer people are willing to take that risk because of the economic downturn—a trend which does not bode well for America.)
The fact that many conservatives advocate enlarging the size and power of the federal government in order to solve a problem reveals an inconsistency in their political philosophy. After all, it was Ronald Reagan who said that “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” (Unfortunately, the Gipper doubled the size of the problem when he was president.)
Besides, it is the policies of the federal government which have made illegal immigration a problem to begin with. Maybe that’s why the Founders believed that immigration was an issue that, like almost all others, should be dealt with at the state level.
For most of the first century of American history, immigration was considered a state matter. For instance, President Ulysses S. Grant said in a letter to Congress that “responsibility over immigration can only belong with the States since this is where the Constitution kept the power.” Texas even had its own Bureau of Immigration. It wasn’t until an activist Supreme Court decision in 1875, Chy Lung v Freeman, that immigration was placed under federal purview.
If Texas has a problem with immigration, why should the people of Tennessee be taxed to help pay for it? In fact, why should those of us for whom stopping illegal immigration is not a priority be forced to pay the bill for those whom it is? While conservatives complain about taxes when they are used to pay for things that conservatives oppose, they happily jump on the tax bandwagon when it suits their purposes. Taxes used to support welfare are bad, but taxation to deal with illegal immigration is acceptable.
All taxation is immoral and based on theft. It is not just the uses to which tax money is put but the methods by which it is collected—force and coercion—that we should consider.
Of course, many other things that would normally be considered un-American are perfectly acceptable when applied to immigration policy.
The trend toward militarization of the police is extremely disturbing, but militarizing the border is reasonable. Okay, but remember, those machine-gun turrets can point inward as well. (By the way, I don’t think that granting citizenship to immigrants as an enticement for military service is a good idea, either. However, the Constitution only allows Congress to fund the Army for two years at a time and the Founders repeatedly warned about the dangers of a standing army. Thus, the problem is not immigrants in the military, it is the fact that the military is so large as to have room for immigrants to begin with).
National ID cards are an anathema, but the E-verify program is laudable. What is E-verify but another government database? And it differs from other government databases in what way? Of course, E-verify is primarily aimed at weeding out illegal immigrants. Yeah, and your social security number will never be used as identification, and only the rich will pay income tax. The truth is that E-verify is a permit to work. Don’t you find that particularly creepy—that a government bureaucrat can theoretically turn off your permit, effectively leaving you unable to work? Right now, E-verify is voluntary, but just wait, sooner or later all of us will participate like it or not.
Every government program expands. That is the nature of the beast. One of the books which helped form my political philosophy was Harry Browne’s Why Government Doesn’t Work. After years of reflection, I now realize that Harry’s book is misnamed; government does work, just not in the ways we think and not for us. All of the government’s wars on “insert term here” have been failures in achieving their ostensible goals. But from the perspective of expanding power and giving politicians and bureaucrats more control over our lives, they have been spectacular successes.
For instance, the TSA (an unconstitutional agency itself) is tasked with keeping terrorists off of airplanes. Why then must every airline passenger present positive government identification? In other words, why does the TSA need to know who we are when it really only needs to know who we aren’t? If you are not a terrorist—which could easily be determined by comparing your face with a database of known terrorists—get on the airplane, no questions asked. Instead, the government must know who you are. Why? Because it wants to track and trace our every move.
E-verify will end up being no different. Eventually, it will be linked with some sort of national ID or it will become one itself, giving the government access to all of your personal information, including your financial information, and completely destroying whatever remains of privacy. Oh well, at least illegals will be prevented from working here as well.
But that’s right, illegal immigrants are already supposed to be prevented from working here. That’s what the $5 billion and the 17,000 federal agents that work for ICE are supposed to do. I guess the answer is to increase the funding and size of the agency. That seems to be the answer for every other government failure.
Conservatives will argue against government involvement in education and health care, but then turn around and declare that illegal immigrants are destroying local communities by taking advantage of these services without paying into them. True, but the problem is not who is exploiting these services but the fact that they are there to be exploited. Despite what liberals may claim, no one, American citizen or otherwise, has a “right” to “free” education or health care. It is the private sector, whether for-profit or charity, that should be providing these services, not the government at taxpayer expense.
Likewise, conservatives argue that affirmative action is an insult to minorities because it implies that individuals within these groups cannot fairly compete with whites. These same folks, however, will then argue that Americans in generally cannot fairly compete with Mexican villagers and that “American” jobs must be protected.
There is no such thing as an “American” job. If one believes in economic freedom, one must believe that the job is the property of the employer, not the employee. (And, indeed, this is the case. For proof, here’s a simple thought experiment. Say you wish to hire someone for a job. If the person you hire to fill the job dies, your need still exists; you will find someone else to fill the job. If, on the other hand, you die, the job is destroyed as well. Thus, the job is a part of you and is your property.) The employer, the person providing the job, should be able to hire whomever he wishes to fill the position. If he cannot, he is not free. Yet, all this goes out the window when dealing with immigration.
Somehow, ICE agents kicking down employer’s doors to ensure that they are complying with federal employment mandates does not jibe with my concept of a free market.
Employers compete with one another to provide the best services at the lowest prices. In order to keep costs low, they may hire low cost labor. As consumers, we benefit from these lower prices; we have more money to spend on other desirable products. Socialists do not see the benefit. To socialists, entrepreneurs in search of a profit are greedy. Unfortunately, many conservatives think the same way when employers use illegal immigrants to keep costs low. Then the employers are engaging in unfair, illegal tactics.
Instead of seeing the benefits to consumers, immigration warriors only see jobs which are not filled by Americans. However, often the reason that Americans do not fill these jobs is because the jobs do not pay the state mandated minimum wage. In addition, if the labor cost rose, the consumer would no longer be willing to pay for the product and the job would be destroyed anyway. Thus, it is the consumer, and not the employer, who ultimately determines the price of a product, and, therefore, the acceptable input costs to the producer; a process Ludwig von Mises called "consumer sovereignty".
There are legitimate concerns when it comes to illegal immigration, but as with every other issue, government policies are the problem; not the solution. An arduous government process discourages productive individuals from immigrating to America through official channels. It took a friend of mine 5 years and $10,000 and an immigration attorney to finally secure a green card. At the same time, the welfare state beckons to the non-productive to feed at the government’s trough at taxpayer expense. Meanwhile government intervention in the economy skews conditions in favor of undocumented workers in the form of minimum wage.
Eliminate these programs and interventions and you eliminate the problem. Giving government more power to deal with illegal immigration will only expand the police state and further socialize the economy. The government will never be able to stop illegal immigration, but it can use illegal immigration as an excuse to infringe upon the liberties of us all.
While I respect and admire many of the folks on the other side of this issue, it seems to me that they have forgotten the warning issued by Thomas Paine: “He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself.” In other words, be careful what you ask the government to do because it may do it to you.
It is a wonder that during this economic calamity, illegal immigration is still at the forefront for so many conservatives. Despite the rhetoric by immigration warriors that illegal immigration was going to destroy America, Pedro and Juan mowing your neighbor’s lawns haven’t had much to do with it. Charles and Biff in the boardroom at Goldman Sachs, on the other hand, as well as the dolts in Washington, DC—all of them legal Americans—have done more to decimate America than any army of illegal immigrants ever could.
I also find it curious that some in the liberty movement gripe about the apathy of the average American—supposedly too indifferent about their liberties to even go to the voting booth, much less pick up a sign and protest—while at the same time looking down with scorn at folks who literally risk death to come here and make a better life for themselves. (As Lew Rockwell points out, however, fewer people are willing to take that risk because of the economic downturn—a trend which does not bode well for America.)
The fact that many conservatives advocate enlarging the size and power of the federal government in order to solve a problem reveals an inconsistency in their political philosophy. After all, it was Ronald Reagan who said that “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” (Unfortunately, the Gipper doubled the size of the problem when he was president.)
Besides, it is the policies of the federal government which have made illegal immigration a problem to begin with. Maybe that’s why the Founders believed that immigration was an issue that, like almost all others, should be dealt with at the state level.
For most of the first century of American history, immigration was considered a state matter. For instance, President Ulysses S. Grant said in a letter to Congress that “responsibility over immigration can only belong with the States since this is where the Constitution kept the power.” Texas even had its own Bureau of Immigration. It wasn’t until an activist Supreme Court decision in 1875, Chy Lung v Freeman, that immigration was placed under federal purview.
If Texas has a problem with immigration, why should the people of Tennessee be taxed to help pay for it? In fact, why should those of us for whom stopping illegal immigration is not a priority be forced to pay the bill for those whom it is? While conservatives complain about taxes when they are used to pay for things that conservatives oppose, they happily jump on the tax bandwagon when it suits their purposes. Taxes used to support welfare are bad, but taxation to deal with illegal immigration is acceptable.
All taxation is immoral and based on theft. It is not just the uses to which tax money is put but the methods by which it is collected—force and coercion—that we should consider.
Of course, many other things that would normally be considered un-American are perfectly acceptable when applied to immigration policy.
The trend toward militarization of the police is extremely disturbing, but militarizing the border is reasonable. Okay, but remember, those machine-gun turrets can point inward as well. (By the way, I don’t think that granting citizenship to immigrants as an enticement for military service is a good idea, either. However, the Constitution only allows Congress to fund the Army for two years at a time and the Founders repeatedly warned about the dangers of a standing army. Thus, the problem is not immigrants in the military, it is the fact that the military is so large as to have room for immigrants to begin with).
National ID cards are an anathema, but the E-verify program is laudable. What is E-verify but another government database? And it differs from other government databases in what way? Of course, E-verify is primarily aimed at weeding out illegal immigrants. Yeah, and your social security number will never be used as identification, and only the rich will pay income tax. The truth is that E-verify is a permit to work. Don’t you find that particularly creepy—that a government bureaucrat can theoretically turn off your permit, effectively leaving you unable to work? Right now, E-verify is voluntary, but just wait, sooner or later all of us will participate like it or not.
Every government program expands. That is the nature of the beast. One of the books which helped form my political philosophy was Harry Browne’s Why Government Doesn’t Work. After years of reflection, I now realize that Harry’s book is misnamed; government does work, just not in the ways we think and not for us. All of the government’s wars on “insert term here” have been failures in achieving their ostensible goals. But from the perspective of expanding power and giving politicians and bureaucrats more control over our lives, they have been spectacular successes.
For instance, the TSA (an unconstitutional agency itself) is tasked with keeping terrorists off of airplanes. Why then must every airline passenger present positive government identification? In other words, why does the TSA need to know who we are when it really only needs to know who we aren’t? If you are not a terrorist—which could easily be determined by comparing your face with a database of known terrorists—get on the airplane, no questions asked. Instead, the government must know who you are. Why? Because it wants to track and trace our every move.
E-verify will end up being no different. Eventually, it will be linked with some sort of national ID or it will become one itself, giving the government access to all of your personal information, including your financial information, and completely destroying whatever remains of privacy. Oh well, at least illegals will be prevented from working here as well.
But that’s right, illegal immigrants are already supposed to be prevented from working here. That’s what the $5 billion and the 17,000 federal agents that work for ICE are supposed to do. I guess the answer is to increase the funding and size of the agency. That seems to be the answer for every other government failure.
Conservatives will argue against government involvement in education and health care, but then turn around and declare that illegal immigrants are destroying local communities by taking advantage of these services without paying into them. True, but the problem is not who is exploiting these services but the fact that they are there to be exploited. Despite what liberals may claim, no one, American citizen or otherwise, has a “right” to “free” education or health care. It is the private sector, whether for-profit or charity, that should be providing these services, not the government at taxpayer expense.
Likewise, conservatives argue that affirmative action is an insult to minorities because it implies that individuals within these groups cannot fairly compete with whites. These same folks, however, will then argue that Americans in generally cannot fairly compete with Mexican villagers and that “American” jobs must be protected.
There is no such thing as an “American” job. If one believes in economic freedom, one must believe that the job is the property of the employer, not the employee. (And, indeed, this is the case. For proof, here’s a simple thought experiment. Say you wish to hire someone for a job. If the person you hire to fill the job dies, your need still exists; you will find someone else to fill the job. If, on the other hand, you die, the job is destroyed as well. Thus, the job is a part of you and is your property.) The employer, the person providing the job, should be able to hire whomever he wishes to fill the position. If he cannot, he is not free. Yet, all this goes out the window when dealing with immigration.
Somehow, ICE agents kicking down employer’s doors to ensure that they are complying with federal employment mandates does not jibe with my concept of a free market.
Employers compete with one another to provide the best services at the lowest prices. In order to keep costs low, they may hire low cost labor. As consumers, we benefit from these lower prices; we have more money to spend on other desirable products. Socialists do not see the benefit. To socialists, entrepreneurs in search of a profit are greedy. Unfortunately, many conservatives think the same way when employers use illegal immigrants to keep costs low. Then the employers are engaging in unfair, illegal tactics.
Instead of seeing the benefits to consumers, immigration warriors only see jobs which are not filled by Americans. However, often the reason that Americans do not fill these jobs is because the jobs do not pay the state mandated minimum wage. In addition, if the labor cost rose, the consumer would no longer be willing to pay for the product and the job would be destroyed anyway. Thus, it is the consumer, and not the employer, who ultimately determines the price of a product, and, therefore, the acceptable input costs to the producer; a process Ludwig von Mises called "consumer sovereignty".
There are legitimate concerns when it comes to illegal immigration, but as with every other issue, government policies are the problem; not the solution. An arduous government process discourages productive individuals from immigrating to America through official channels. It took a friend of mine 5 years and $10,000 and an immigration attorney to finally secure a green card. At the same time, the welfare state beckons to the non-productive to feed at the government’s trough at taxpayer expense. Meanwhile government intervention in the economy skews conditions in favor of undocumented workers in the form of minimum wage.
Eliminate these programs and interventions and you eliminate the problem. Giving government more power to deal with illegal immigration will only expand the police state and further socialize the economy. The government will never be able to stop illegal immigration, but it can use illegal immigration as an excuse to infringe upon the liberties of us all.
Posted by Citizen X at 7/20/2009 10:30 PM 
Categories: Immigration,Police State,Economics,Government
Tags: Immigration
Categories: Immigration,Police State,Economics,Government
Tags: Immigration
What a great and complete article "X" I completely agree with everything , just to mention a few things , I agree with what you mention about the borders , they want to build wall's etc to stop the entry of immigrants but what about the "Trans Texas Corridor" or you mention the TSA and the ICE in fact the ICE operates in the town when I reside in the summer in Los Fresnos ,TX and they hire immigrants because they want people who speak both lenguages, english and spanish and they don't care if are legal or illegal , so I really don't understand the government , I got a lot of story's about the ICE because I travel a lot between Los Fresnos,TX and Monterrey,MX and It took me 5 hours to get there because I spend 2 hrs in the border with the Border Patrol and the ICE agents it's completely ridiculous ,but anyway "the government it's always right" , and contrary of what Reagan said, I better go with Milton Friedman when he said.-The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem.
Reply to this
Immigration has been a relatively remote issue for me personally until now, although I philosophically agree with you 100%, Citizen X. What has made it personal is that friends of mine have just received deportation notices after living legally within the U.S. for 8 years.
A 4-year-old girl was allowed to come to the US to attempt to restore her eyesight through a series of medical procedures. She had been blinded as an infant by mis-care in a foreign hospital. After several unsuccessful surgeries over several years (paid for by generous benefactors), she has adjusted very well to her blindness and American life.
Now, at the age of 12, after exhausting legal remedies, she is ordered to return to a land that is now foreign to her and that provides little opportunity for the blind. Her father must sell the house he built with his own hands at a time when prices are depressed.
A few days ago, I learned that the parents are leaning toward putting their daughter up for adoption as the only way to keep her in the US, which they think is her best chance for a decent life. They are like that; they have done everything they possibly could for the well-being of their daughter, no matter what the cost to themselves.
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
I was very moved when I first heard those words engraved on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty. It was the first time I felt proud of my American heritage. Now I am ashamed, and have recently moved to the same country my friends left 8 years ago. I hope they, too, leave the country that has heartlessly scorned them, together as a family. The golden door is gone and is on its way to becoming the barbed wire of a FEMA camp.
Reply to this
I was wondering what that bar code tattooed on the back of my neck was when I woke up the other morning.
The immigration issue is a joke.
To tell you how good the system is I recently found out that a co-worker from an old job was taken into custody by immigration because he'd been here illegally since he was a small child.
Oh yea and the only reason they discovered he was illegal was on a random minor traffic issue. Way to go guys!
Now he's going to be deported after living and working here for at least 30 years if not more. Granted he is partially to blame because he did nothing to correct the situation but still. Who did he hurt? What did he hurt? I'm more in favor of him staying than the welfare mother with 20 kids who just sits around all day and does nothing except collects checks.
There needs to be a re-evaluation of what's a serious problem and what's not in this country.
Reply to this
Wow! This entry took courage to write. I have found myself defending the Mexican worker but also advocating a strong border. The answer is now obvious to me (once I read it here), this is and should of course be a state issue and I am glad to learn that it once was. I like the thought that there could be different attitudes towards illegal aliens without one being decisively superior to the other. If it were left to the states I believe this would be the natural outcome. The founders thought of everything! Thanks citizen x for tackling the most difficult subject I can think of and making sense of it.
Reply to this
Anymore I don't care if illegals live here. However, the government lives to screw them over. If the government wants people to be legal, they should make that process possible and affordable to all. Apparently if an employer hires and illegal, and the government, I guess the fines are through the roof - causing companies to close. Our own citizens of this country will make our lives a living hell long before an illegal does.
Reply to this
My comment on E-Verify will be in honor of the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing...
"That's one small step for Ms. Napolitano, one giant leap towards our Orwellian future."
And although I have to admit to falling in the former category on the issue of illegal immigration I also understand and respect your opinion, X.
Reply to this
iI found this articale very interesting
we have the same issues here in the united kingdom and that confusses me a bit Keep up the good work
Reply to this
Citizen X here in Canada is the same..immigration we us binding Canadians have to pay for immigrants living.. to insure them.. to live well till they find a job..and make money..they actually live better then us regular joes.. I thinks thats highway robbery.we the tax payer are paying for these immigrants to live here while they rake in what we work hard for..til they get back on there feet.. convaluaded.
Reply to this
Citizen X, you've gone "open borders" on me! Say it ain't so! I agree with you in theory that about open immigration and a free society but as you acknowledged, we are far from a free society. Between the leviathan welfare state and drug war, mass immigration works in big government's favor. As you're aware, new immigrants by and large work for more government handouts/intervention. Even the great Rothbard understood the inherent dangers of open borders - http://mises.org/journals/jls/11_1/11_1_1.pdf
I can "supersize" (Idiocracy joke) with your desire to end the government interventions which make 3rd world immigration such a problem in the first place but isn't it unrealistic to not address the clear problems posed by open borders for the time being? The welfare state and drug war are not going away overnight. I find multiple problems with the open borders position embraced by some libertarians as well as neocons and progressives.
http://www.vdare.com/fulford/libertarian_immigration.htm
Reply to this
Patrick,
I never said "open borders." I'm simply pointing out, as you are, it is big government that causes the problems that we associate with immigration. The solution is not then to advocate bigger government to fight immigration, but to oppose the government programs that are causing the problem.
Thanks.
Reply to this
Ah, my mistake. You have to admit that the opening paragraph made it sound like you don't believe in any government immigration controls at all - i.e., open borders.
Are you for enforcing existing immigration controls? I'm not for militarizing the border like Tancredo but I do believe the federal government should fulfill its constitutional role to secure the border by enforcing rules already on the books. I also agree that we should start with halting all unconstitutional federal incentives to illegals (including putting a stop to the anchor baby nonsense) but that alone will not solve the problem. I'm not some anti-immigrant type though and I recognize they get unfairly scapegosted much of the time for problems caused by government. At the same time, our current predicament dictates that we must have some sensible immigration control at the federal level.
Reply to this
Yes, Rothbard, Milton Freidman, and Ron Paul have all recognized the incompatibility of the welfare state with open borders. So the first step, as you say, is to roll back the welfare state and also economic interventions like minimum wage. We all know that the War on Drugs is a leading cause of violent crime, yet instead of dealing with the problem, the government engages in a cycle of intervention including disarming law abiding folks. Same with immigration.
Even those who believe in a closed border must acknowledge that the current policies of the federal government has been an abject failure. My first ever post on this blog was about an internal checkpoint north of Laredo, Texas. South Texas is crawling with border patrol. They are really good at stopping citizens, documented aliens, etc. but not so good at stopping illegal aliens. Why? Because the market always wins and prohibitions do not work--they just drive things underground. No human smuggler worth his salt is going to just head up I-35. Thus, as with programs like the War on Terror, the average American is harassed because he has nothing to hide while the ostensible targets avoid detection.
My solution: streamline the immigration process to make it easier for productive folks to work here, eliminate welfare incentives, strengthen property rights (people should be able to employee or rent to whomever they wish). Yes, unfortunately under the current paradigm there will be involvement at the federal level but the goal should be to downsize that involvement and eventually eliminate it altogether.
Reply to this
"streamline the immigration process to make it easier for productive folks to work here" - I think we're basically in the same ballpark here so I don't want to nitpick but you're not suggesting something similar to McCain/Kennedy/Obama/Bush's big government amnesty styled "guest worker" program, are you? Also, it starts to get sticky when it comes to dealing with unproductive folks of which there are many. And there is also the hairy, un-PC issue of problems inherent with multiculturalism, welfare state aside. The riots in Europe are good examples of the dangers of mass immigration.
Reply to this
I would argue that the riots in Europe are an example of the dangers of collectivism and socialism. These individuals are rioting because they think the government or "society" owes them something. In addition, they may not see themselves as individuals but part of a collective which makes it easier for politicians (whether formally in office or seeking to be leaders of the group) to manipulate them based on their group identity.
Now the same thing is happening to some extent here as the Democrats (and some Republicans) do not take the positions that they do on immigration out of altruism, but out of hopes of appealing to a voting block.
Reply to this
When are you going to start the Tiny Political Show again? I'm in need of some eduhmacation on these issues!
Reply to this
Hahaha. I'll get you on as a co-host!!! BTW, check out Patrick' show.
Reply to this
That would be awesome! I'm afraid that BTR might crash from our combined brilliance though. FYI, your show was what inspired me to do mine. Thanks for the plug!
Reply to this
I agree with Liberty X's theorem on maximizing job competition but the true backlash to immigration lies with the sins of the welfare state. Hospitals and clinics are fracturing under the duress of illegal aliens. School budgets and other service cost overruns are negatively impacting this nation. To paraphrase Milton Friedman, you cannot simultaneously promote unfettered immigration and a gratuitious welfare state.
Reply to this
Nice work - I appreciate the insights, especially the thought experiment on who owns the job, the employer or the employee - a very clear way of putting a correct principle that I'd not run into before. Also the historical perspective on individual state control of immigration - this is the kind of reality check that is NEVER inserted into the mass media discussion. I have to assume this is because it's too much work for the so-called journalists to research, and it's not what "people want to hear," meaning what might get people to think outside the bright populist lines. Thanks again.
Reply to this
We all have our own feelings when the subject of immigration comes up.. myself well I don't mind them coming in. I do mind them collect welfare and sucking up any programs they can get...these things should be for US CITIZENS ONLY!!!
But if they want to come here and build a better life, I say come on in. after all isn't this country called the melting pot? and doesn't that mean different people from different places all coming together to form this country?
but if you give one inch to the government they will smurf up the whole darn country. that's how we got stuck with "National Stupidity" what a lovely game of the blind leading the deaf, and we get to pay millions in taxes for these screw ups to do their jobs, so what exactly do they do? Border Patrol? well we all know if Jose gives them enough money they can't see him and 20 others crossing tonight. Welcome to America where money talks and everyone looks the other way.
I like the country in my head the borders are open so you can come and go as you please, everybody helps their neighbor, and we all live in peace and love. we all live to just be happy today...everyday.
Reply to this
All of you need to watch this video.
It exposes the hypocrisy and stupidity of the immigration debate....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nN1kp1ggWyM
Reply to this
If employers can hire staff from abroad who are trained and experienced, where is the incentive to hire a school/college leaver?, they will end up unemployed and resentful as a result.
Reply to this
The cost of labor is something like 5-6 percent of the retail price. Hiring native-born Americans to pick lettuce and clean motel rooms would barely raise the price of those goods and services. Plus the wages earned by native-born workers would likely be spent on goods and services in America.
Of course businesses want to adopt the most cost-effective way of producing goods and services, but they cannot impose costs on third parties (negative externalities). For instance, it may be cost-effective for factories to adopt a production process that pumps sulfurous gases and soot into the atmosphere, but what if the gases and soot harm the environment and people with respiratory problems? What is the solution to this? Do we privatize the air and tell people with respiratory problems they're "free" to move away from the factory? In a case like this, the government steps in to regulate the production process that gives rise to the harmful externalities. By the same token, businesses cannot import people who vote, create urban sprawl (which adds more police, construction workers, and firemen to city budgets), vote (mainly for left-wing parties), and drive on federal and state highways and county and city roads. This imposes costs on American citizens, the majority of whom aren't privy to the transactions between businesses and illegal aliens.
Importing people from third-world countries is not like importing natural resources. Natural resources don't vote, use hospitals, fill up prisons, drive on roads, and attend schools. Importing Mexicans won't make us freer, it will make America more like Mexico.
Reply to this