I can only speak for myself and my family. When they immigrated in the early ad mid 20th century, it was done legally.
The laws were different at different points in American history. What laws did the first Indians have to prevent the incursion of new waves of Asian settlers? What laws did the Indians have to prevent the incursions of waves of Europeans? What laws did the Spanish, Dutch, and English settlers have to prevent each other from settling the new land? Laws are a very partial answer to any issue this complex. As Thomas Jefferson said, "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
Does the Spirit of Crazy Horse know that? Better tell him, because I hear he's royally pissed off. (oops - posted after Will's post. What he said).
At the time we came here, we came here legally. We respected the law of the land. Period. As far as rightful liberty, I have the right to economic liberty, which is not coercion by the state to take the fruits of my labor, and redistribute it to everyone who pours across the border. I'm all for immigration, but in post 9/11 America, there needs to be screening and a process. This country is not short for workers, it is short for good, well paying jobs and a friendly tax atmosphere.
I respect moral laws. If a law is immoral, I will not respect it. I must go back again to Thomas Jefferson, "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." But instead I could go to Ralph Waldo Emerson, " Every actual state is corrupt. Good men must not obey laws too well." Or even to Martin Luther King, " Just as it is the duty of all men to obey just laws, so it is the duty of all men to disobey unjust laws". I thought you were a Libertarian? This only states that you have the moral right not to aid immigrants -- not that you have a moral right to hinder them. Your rights stop where another persons rights begin. No Mexicans were responsible for 9/11. There is no effective screening process for Mexican immigrants -- because of U.S. Law. Mexican immigrants would all come to the Border Patrol booths if there was "screening and a process." Currently, the process is "GO AWAY. WE DON'T WANT YOUR KIND HERE." This country is short of workers, but the current supply of illegal immigrants masks that shortage.
So you would break an immoral law. Interesting. After your diatribe about following the forum rules, I would have thought you were a statist. I'm not really interested in labels. There are dozens of divisions under the banner of libertarianism. Correct. Which is why I approve of Dr. Paul's plan to remove the welfare incentives, and remove taxation. There were no Iraqis responsible for 9/11. Your point is? This is incorrect. Currently, there is very limited enforcement of the borders, hence the creation of the MinuteMen. The government has done little to control the influx of people crossing. And the Mexican government actually promotes it, dumping their poor and uneducated here, because the welfare system gives them a better chance than they would have in Mexico. From your remarks, it doesn't sound like you have a lot of background on the situation.
Well its good to see that cleared up! Participation in this forum is voluntary. The rules are just. As such, I follow them. Mostly. When my temper doesn't get in the way. While sober. Not valid in all nation states. Not responsible for loss due to theft or vandalism. Your mileage may vary. Comments do not represent the views of any particular candidate. No animals were harmed in the making of this post. Tsk tsk tsk... another baseless personal attack. I am very disappointed in you, as you should be in yourself. If you have a valid argument, please make it. I love a good debate.
Good stuff. Would make a nice forum sig. I'm disappointed a lot. Comes with high expectations. I love a good debate. And I think I am starting to love debating you.
Illegal immigration only serves the weathly at the expense of the middle and working class. It's B.S. that there are not americans that are willing to do the jobs. The agricultural and construction sectors are on a illegal alien feeding frenzy. The agricultural sector is attempting to use scare tactics that they do not have the labor to harvest the crops. The number pproblem is the low wages. Even the illegal aliens don't want these jobs. They stay around for one season and drify off to higher paying service and construction jobs fueling a never ending cycle of illegal immigration. The construction industries need for illegal aliens is based on the desire to avoid employment taxes and workmans compensation insurance. Immigration law needs to be changed to benefit the economy. We don't need cheap workers, we need cash. Americans need to start working. Lets get 1 million immigrants from Europe, Homg Kong, Japan or whereever come to the US with at least 1 million dollars each to invest, start business or buy property. That's one trillion dollars for the economy. How do you expect a grown man working in a car wash or bagging grocerys to pay rent and support his family. It's 100% they will end up on welfare. Dry your own car and bag your own groceries. The October unemployment rate in Washington DC was 7.8 percent.
Economics are wondrously and miraculously fluid. Money will always try to flow around obstacles. Yes, we could -- even with our terribly low unemployment rates -- get Americans out of IT jobs and into the fields to pick tomatoes. Of course, we would all be paying 4x as much for groceries as we do now. That wouldn't be all bad. Existing home owners would benefit significantly as the price of new homes increased by four times due to the increased cost of labor. And landlords, they might benefit too. Housing starts would plummet and the price of rental housing would skyrocket. Of course, our trade deficit would become even worse as other nations stopped importing American food. Mexico would be a huge beneficiary of this, as American companies would move South and invest billions in farms and food processing factories south of the border. D.C. is full of city folks and Democrats. I'd pay twice as much for a Mexican who didn't speak a word of English as I would for a Democrat city slicker with a government education.
We have millions of prisoners in jail that are being fed at tax payer expense. Time to put them to work to pay off their debt to society. US farmers can shift to less labor intensive crops and invest more on automation rather than relying on cheap labor. Tomatoes are costing me $2.00 a pound and I can't see how the farmer does not earn enough not to pay to pick them.
So true and the same goes for outscourceing.. Neither one is helping the american people our politicions allow these things because the money from these big greedy corporations is what helps get them in office.. And Un Employment statistics are joke they are only counting people who are activly drawing unemployment benifits not the true numbers. We all had it made before nafta and before the influx of illeagle immigration now this country is going down hill farther each day.. There is nuthing we can do anyway.. Least not untill the common people decide to stand up for their rights
You only support continued illegal immigration because you benefit from it. Haven't we been down this road Will? Nice try with the pilgrims and Indians Will, I guess you forgot that the continent we known today as the U.S. was split into literally hundreds and perhaps thousands of Native American tribes, and each of them fought over the land. It is not like the country was an organized nation with one set of laws for everyone at the time. Your logic has serious flaws. If what you're saying is true, how about we move Americans off of lands that were once in the possession of Native American tribes. This doesn't work, it is impossible. come on Will, you can do better than that...by the way, had the Native Americans butchered the Pilgrims as soon as they showed up, there goes the Constitution, Bill of rights, and the U.S. as we know it today. In a parallel universe, this might have happened, but lets be realistic about this discussion. People have lost their land many times throughout history. I'm not saying its right, but it happened. With beat the Mexicans and took Texas and added to the Union. Are you suggesting we should turn back Texas over to Mexico? This argument that "this country once belonged to them, so they have a right to be here," is a load of crap. First off, Central American immigrants, who make up a large percentage of the illegals here, "never owned this land." It belonged to the Native Americans, who were beaten by the Settlers and then the land was turned over to the U.S. So Gtech, you disagree with Jones about the illegal immigration situation? You think we should open the borders and let illegals flood in? Oh wait, the government is doing that anyway.
We may have to have the IT start picking tomatoes. A lot of the IT and call center jobs are being outsourced to India. You will add a few cents to the price of some fruits and vegetables like apples and tomatoes. Much of the cost of food is transportation, processing and mark-up from middlemaen. That's what is happening now. Most US agricultural products are grain and beef that are mechanized requiring little labor. Time to get these people off welfare or sitting in jails.
This is a fallacy. The illegals live here, and still manage to send money home. We also subsidize the illegals with education and healthcare. We pay people to be on welfare. Those are all hidden costs in the underground economy. A 5% tax cut would go a long way to offsetting the increased cost of food. Mexico doesn't have the land to farm like America does, but I diggress. Is there an export trade surplus on American produced food? I wasn't aware of this. Who is eating all of these McNuggets? Every day, in every way, I like you more and more.
What Will is saying is very accurate. Every economist worth his salt would agree with it. Think how high the inflation would become if jobs are not outsourced, or if Mexicans are not allowed to work in US. With higher inflation, interest rates would be higher too. And higher interest rates are not good for the economy (or for the stock market). Just a simple calculation - An average Business Process Outsourcing job pays around 300$ a month in India. The same job in US could cost you nothing less than 3000$ a month. That means you could hire 10 Indians for the cost of 1. And no need to worry about employee benefits, or taxes, or other such things. Companies can concentrate on their core products, and back-end is handled in India. The competition to US companies is no longer domestic. The world is flatter now. Internet has just made the world very small. US companies will die if they are unable to compete with other International firms. As a concept it's not new. Companies have chased cheap labor around the globe for decades, making cars in Mexico, plastic toys in Taiwan and shirts in Malaysia. So, we may still see hitech jobs like production of micro-processors still in the US, other production jobs would shift to China, and low-level service jobs would come to India. It is still a beginning. In this way, both countries benefit. US keeps inflation under check, the companies continue running smoothly, and India gets money for its people.
What people forget, in these highly theoretical economic models, is that no one weighs the social cost. That's what makes Austrian Economics unique. There is a cost when jobs are outsourced. Someone in the domestic economy loses a well paying job. Now obviously, they will try to find other employment, but if it is skilled labor, like programming, their options to change fields and meet the same rate of pay are few. People say, but the cheaper cost of outsourced goods matches their reduction in the rate of pay, to which I say, yeah, but savings on imported goods are usually realized quickly, in the first 2~6 months. The long term costs of a programmer working in another field, making less money, means less taxes, a lower standard of living when it comes to all of the goods not imported or outsourced. Don't get me wrong. I'm ok with outsourcing. If the playing field is level. Remove taxes and the burden of health costs from the employers in the US, and you will see outsourced jobs come back in a big way.
This is an interesting point, well done. One of the reasons the presumed panacea of a service economy is bullshit. The amplifier effect of things attending on manufacturing - the services that service manufacturing - are never taken into account in glowing discussions of a "post-industrial economy." More generally, one of the problems with looking at strictly economic models, as you say, that do not measure social costs in transitional effects and long-term structural shifts in an economy.
That's the size of it. If the US doesn't produce anything what do the foreigners do with all the dollars the US is paying them with?
Oh come on, the whole indian and early immigration is really no argument to the effects the current illegal immigration is having. Do I really think that illegal immigrants are going to come to my home and force me to leave? No. But I do think that the results are higher taxes to pay for their healthcare, fewer jobs, and in general a huge financial burden for the southern states. I would say dealing with illegal immigration and forcing people to do it legally will help those that want to come to this country in the long run. They have a leg to stand on to fight for hire wages, which is a benefit to everyone seeking those types of jobs.