Lets talk immigration!

[ThePieSwindler]

So, it seems the most common opinion on immigration is that we need to greatly increase security on the borders. Some of the reasons offered include national secutiry, national soveriegnty, crime, economic reasons, welfare reasons, etc. My grasp on Paul's view is that the border needs to be secured, but that government, and not the immigrants, are the real culprit. My biggest beef with immigration was that it increased dependance upon the system - health care, schools, etc. However, I then began to question if my belief in free markets and free trade meshed with a view of restricted borders, including H1-B visa quotas. While it might further burden the system, it is a knock on the system rather than a knock on open borders. Plus, the "system dependance" claim is really only a qualitative judgement that I have yet to see real evidence for.

I now lean much more heavily toward near unrestricted immigration, labor markets, and borders. I do think health checks are ok, and there are some other reasons to at least have some border security, but it should not be so restrictive and should essentially allow anyone through who wants to come, so long as some basic requirements are met (requirements that one would need to travel anywhere). From a realistic standpoint of where we actually stand, I think that H1-B quotas should be scrapped,and anyone who wishes to work in the US may do so. Businesses should not be punished for hiring someone who doesnt have the governments "permission" to work. Essentially, at the border, it would be very easy, just like from US to canada or back again. Afterward, there would be no "monitoring" or "papers" needed. As for "illegals" already in the country, im not sure how i feel about a path to citizenship, and really don't care either way. Again, with a belief in free trade, free flow of capital, free markets, one must believe in free labor markets as well. It certainly doesn't mean anarchy, and there should be border security and checkpoits, but if restrictive immigration policy and labor laws didn't exist in the first place, most "illegals" would not have to try to sneak across the border. Even then, i'm not sure it really bothers me that much anymore.


What are everyone elses thoughts - especially those who believe in free market capitalism and free trade?

[nate895]

The system dependence is there. The border states spend billions to keep up with illegals. I am all in favor of free trade, but an unrestricted flow (or lightly restricted) of immigrants who refuse to learn the language or to assimilate will only destroy our culture, and we need to maintain European culture as it looks like the Europeans themselves aren't.

[ThePieSwindler]

The system dependence is there. The border states spend billions to keep up with illegals. I am all in favor of free trade, but an unrestricted flow (or lightly restricted) of immigrants who refuse to learn the language or to assimilate will only destroy our culture, and we need to maintain European culture as it looks like the Europeans themselves aren't.

Free trade usually speaks of the market for goods and services having unrestricted, global scope. Labor markets are another form of market, and they in many ways work the same except for prices, which lag/are sticky in the short run. Why should there not also be "free trade" in this market as well? As for the dependance arguement, yes, it makes qualitative sense, but saying that its there and referencing state spending increases as a reason isnt really evidence that its actually "hurting" the economy overall. There are tradeoffs, so even if there is a detrimental increased state spending on, say, education, theres also an increase in the labor force, and even an increase in the skilled labor force. This increase would be no different than an increase from, say, a sharp growth in population. The only difference would be "American citizen" vs "non-citizen", and even then the only arguement i see is a tax one (that citizens pay taxes, illegal immigrants do not, although legal immigrants do. This would then be an arguement for changin the tax code - maybe to a consumption tax - rather than one against immigrants. Again, immigrants are the scapegoat, not the problem).

I'm not going to argue with you for the cultural reasons, since people have different opinions and views. You are culturally conservative, I respect that, and though I don't agree, itd be a pointless arguement. Though I will say, i fail to see how the US is a european culture. American culture is quite a bit different than European culture - we probably have about as many similarities with _some_ aspects of Mexican/Latin American culture as we do with some countries in Europe. I also fail to see how Mexican culture would somehow destroy, rather than complement, current American culture, or why there should not exist a free market for ideas and beliefs. Interestingly enough, many european countries have very restrictive immigration policies, and in many cases stagnating economies as well, because birth rates are declining.

[familydog]

The system dependence is there. The border states spend billions to keep up with illegals. I am all in favor of free trade, but an unrestricted flow (or lightly restricted) of immigrants who refuse to learn the language or to assimilate will only destroy our culture, and we need to maintain European culture as it looks like the Europeans themselves aren't.

I think you're on to something there. Multiculturalism destroys nations. This is what we are turning to. Assimilation is the key.

[ThePieSwindler]

I think you're on to something there. Multiculturalism destroys nations. This is what we are turning to. Assimilation is the key.

?? How does multiple cultures coexisting peacefully destroy a nation?? If by "assimilation" you mean that the cultures begin to blend, then you're right - but just as much is taken from the "lesser" culture as is taken from the "dominant" culture to change a society. This is quite a powerful statement to make considering you have little to back it up with.

Whats interesting is that people that espouse multiculturalism are usually thought of as hippie liberals - yet i see it as even more vital as a characteristic of advanced capitalism - increasing division of labor, larger, more vibrant workforce, and ultimately an improvement to long run growth and society as a whole, as well as freedom of movement, labor, and capital. Much of American culture is 'borrowed' from various other cultures that shared ideas and began to naturally mesh over time. If by multiculturalism you mean cultural clash, then maybe, but if you simply mean different cultures 'refusing' to fully submit to a dominant one, then i think you're simply being a xenophone.

[familydog]

?? How does multiple cultures coexisting peacefully destroy a nation?? If by "assimilation" you mean that the cultures begin to blend, then you're right - but just as much is taken from the "lesser" culture as is taken from the "dominant" culture to change a society. This is quite a powerful statement to make considering you have little to back it up with.

Whats interesting is that people that espouse multiculturalism are usually thought of as hippie liberals - yet i see it as even more vital as a characteristic of advanced capitalism - increasing division of labor, larger, more vibrant workforce, and ultimately an improvement to long run growth and society as a whole, as well as freedom of movement, labor, and capital. Much of American culture is 'borrowed' from various other cultures that shared ideas and began to naturally mesh over time. If by multiculturalism you mean cultural clash, then maybe, but if you simply mean different cultures 'refusing' to fully submit to a dominant one, then i think you're simply being a xenophone.

So I am a xenophobe? That's a pretty powerful statement considering you don't even know me.

[Kalifornia]

TLDR.

Immigration is easy. Set an annual limit somewhere below 1% of our current population, the best qualified (read the least likely to go on welfare) get in. Anyone who is here illegally gets deported the first time, and a year in prison the second time. An employer who knowingly hires illegals does a year in in federal 'pound me in the ass' prison per employee. He also gets fined the cost of his prison time, as well as the prison time of his employees who were here illegally.

Once you do that. Whether you build a 2000 mile wall with motions sensors and flamethrowers is really a function of how concerned you are about terrorists walking across the desert to get to Milwaukee or not.

[pdavis]

TLDR.

Immigration is easy. Set an annual limit somewhere below 1% of our current population, the best qualified (read the least likely to go on welfare) get in. Anyone who is here illegally gets deported the first time, and a year in prison the second time. An employer who knowingly hires illegals does a year in in federal 'pound me in the ass' prison per employee. He also gets fined the cost of his prison time, as well as the prison time of his employees who were here illegally.

Once you do that. Whether you build a 2000 mile wall with motions sensors and flamethrowers is really a function of how concerned you are about terrorists walking across the desert to get to Milwaukee or not.

After reading your post, I noticed your username. It fits you perfectly.

[angelatc]

What are everyone elses thoughts - especially those who believe in free market capitalism and free trade?

I believe that until there's an end to the welfare system that the borders should remain closed. After that we can talk about it more, but I am not committing to anything.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I think we should let people cross over, but quit subsidizing it.

[banjojambo9]

Aztlan Rising-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajkAP_M4ZAM -I have experienced the reconquista

[nate895]

TLDR.

Immigration is easy. Set an annual limit somewhere below 1% of our current population, the best qualified (read the least likely to go on welfare) get in. Anyone who is here illegally gets deported the first time, and a year in prison the second time. An employer who knowingly hires illegals does a year in in federal 'pound me in the ass' prison per employee. He also gets fined the cost of his prison time, as well as the prison time of his employees who were here illegally.

Once you do that. Whether you build a 2000 mile wall with motions sensors and flamethrowers is really a function of how concerned you are about terrorists walking across the desert to get to Milwaukee or not.

You receive the Speaker of Common Sense Award.

[ThePieSwindler]

So I am a xenophobe? That's a pretty powerful statement considering you don't even know me.

That was a bit strong, but so was your general statement on multiculturalism. I can only go by what people say, and your statement was pretty much the definition of xenophobia - though notice, i only said it after a conditional statement.Iits not like i made sweeping generalizations about anything other than exactly what you said. Sorry if i offended you, and if im wrong, forgive me.

[ThePieSwindler]

I think we should let people cross over, but quit subsidizing it.

Which is essentally my 2 paragraphs summed up in one sentence - attack the system, not the symptom

[Zippyjuan]

What is the reason most people are against immigration? Is it the possiblity of terrorists getting in? The 9/11 hijackers entered the country legally. Is it because they take jobs? Unemployment levels are pretty low based on historical averages meaning that there is not much surplus of workers in the country at this time.
http://www.thinkinboutstuff.com/images/Unemployment%20Rates.jpg
Are they a drain on society in this country? Unless they are paid in cash (which legal residents can do too) they have fake Social Security cards and money is being taken out of their paychecks for that and other payroll taxes and going into the government coffers- programs they will never collect from. The Social Security Administration took a look at the "incorrect or invalid" Social Security numbers and calculated that 2002 alone that amounted to $56 billion -and most of that likely came from illegal aliens. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/05immigration.html They are also paying medicare and income and other taxes including state income taxes.

Starting in the late 1980's, the Social Security Administration received a flood of W-2 earnings reports with incorrect - sometimes simply fictitious - Social Security numbers. It stashed them in what it calls the "earnings suspense file" in the hope that someday it would figure out whom they belonged to.

The file has been mushrooming ever since: $189 billion worth of wages ended up recorded in the suspense file over the 1990's, two and a half times the amount of the 1980's.

In the current decade, the file is growing, on average, by more than $50 billion a year, generating $6 billion to $7 billion in Social Security tax revenue and about $1.5 billion in Medicare taxes.

In 2002 alone, the last year with figures released by the Social Security Administration, nine million W-2's with incorrect Social Security numbers landed in the suspense file, accounting for $56 billion in earnings, or about 1.5 percent of total reported wages.

Social Security officials do not know what fraction of the suspense file corresponds to the earnings of illegal immigrants. But they suspect that the portion is significant.

"Our assumption is that about three-quarters of other-than-legal immigrants pay payroll taxes," said Stephen C. Goss, Social Security's chief actuary, using the agency's term for illegal immigration.


If we want to help the future problems with Social Security, we should have MORE illegal imigration to help finance it. They pay in, but won't be able to collect.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/02/opinion/02wed3.html

Editorial
Published: April 2, 2008

How Immigrants Saved Social Security

Immigration is good for the financial health of Social Security because more workers mean more tax revenue. Illegal immigration, it turns out, is even better than legal immigration. In the fine print of the 2008 annual report on Social Security, released last week, the program’s trustees noted that growing numbers of “other than legal” workers are expected to bolster the program over the coming decades.

One reason is that many undocumented workers pay taxes during their work lives but don’t collect benefits later. Another is that undocumented workers are entering the United States at ever younger ages and are expected to have more children while they’re here than if they arrived at later ages. The result is a substantial increase in the number of working-age people paying taxes, but a relatively smaller increase in the number of retirees who receive benefits — a double boon to Social Security’s bottom line.

We’re not talking chump change. According to the report, the taxes paid by other-than-legal immigrants will close 15 percent of the system’s projected long-term deficit. That’s equivalent to raising the payroll tax by 0.3 percentage points, starting today.

That is not to suggest that illegal immigration is a legitimate fix to Social Security’s problems. It is another reminder, however, of the nation’s complex relationship with undocumented workers. Would the people who want to deport all undocumented workers be willing to make up the difference and pay the taxes that the undocumented are currently paying?

It is also a reminder of Social Security’s dynamism. As society and the economy evolve, so does the system, responding not only to changes in immigration and fertility, but also in wage growth and other variables. As such, it is adaptable to the 21st century, if only the political will can be found to champion the necessary changes. Those include modest tax increases and moderate benefit cuts that could be phased in over decades — provided the country gets started soon


Something to think about.

[angelatc]

I don't want to steal from third world workers to make my retirement plans work, but thanks anyway.

I'd rather have my wages rise properly so I can pay my own darned way.

I am against illegal immigration because it is illegal. Also because it dilutes the labor pool, forcing wages down, which practically eliminates the incentives to improve efficiency and invest in technology.

The over-abundance of the fast food restaurants is called "saturation" and it woudn't be possible if they were forced, by a tight labor market, to pay decent wages and benefits.

Their taxes don't cover the costs of the services they use.

I can go on....

[familydog]

That was a bit strong, but so was your general statement on multiculturalism. I can only go by what people say, and your statement was pretty much the definition of xenophobia - though notice, i only said it after a conditional statement.Iits not like i made sweeping generalizations about anything other than exactly what you said. Sorry if i offended you, and if im wrong, forgive me.

I said nothing that sounds like xenophobia. You're stretching my words if you got that I'm afraid of people who are different than me from what I said.

I have no problem with immigration. What I do have a problem with is illegal immigration and this new attitude of Americans. Although I think its a lie we were founded by them and we are a nation of them, immigrants have played a big role in our history there is no denying that. And I have no problem with pluralism. My problem is again multiculturalism which has became the way of the present. How, many colleges don't force their students to take Western Civilization courses anymore because Western Civilization is associated with evil things. How, it has become acceptable for these new wave of thinkers to deny that our concepts of liberty and equality came from a bunch of white Europeans. And how our Anglo-Protestant heritage is being denied. That's not to say everyone should be Protestant, or the government should be religious, or that Proestantism is the only way to go (believe me, it's not), but to deny our heritage? Why? If we deny our heritage, we deny what our nation was built on. If we deny what our nation was built on, we don't have a nation anymore.
How, we don't force people to assimilate. Our standards for being an American citizen have dropped so much that all you have to do to be an American is live here, obey the law, and pay taxes. You don't even have to believe that our form of government (a constitutional republic) is the right way to live. If you want to live in a communist state, fine go to China. Multiculturalism leads to identity politics and now all of a sudden I'm not not an American. I'm a lesbian, I'm Haitian-American, I'm a Catholic...oh yeah I guess I'm an American too. I'm no longer fighting for rights as an American I'm fighting for gay rights and women's rights, and for Catholic rights rather than the individual rights that this country was built on.

The point of this rant is that I have no problem if you a are different. But this new attitude of ours with regards to immigration and mulitculturalism is harmful to us as a nation. I blame this increase in illegal immigration as a major contributor to all of this.

[angelatc]

?? How does multiple cultures coexisting peacefully destroy a nation??
.

I keep telling you guys that you should subscribe to American Conservative. Buchanan wrote a fantastic piece about this. It isn't on-line though.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

The problem isn't Mexicans, it's the people in their government that perpetuate their poverty. All the poor nations of the world suffer from bad government policy, I don't believe for a second that Mexico is incapable of becoming prosperous, provided that the government gets the hell out of the economy.

[nate895]

The problem isn't Mexicans, it's the people in their government that perpetuate their poverty. All the poor nations of the world suffer from bad government policy, I don't believe for a second that Mexico is incapable of becoming prosperous, provided that the government gets the hell out of the economy.

Especially considering California is prosperous and it is almost just like Mexico.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Especially considering California is prosperous and it is almost just like Mexico.

California isn't prosperous at all.

[micahnelson]

Mexicans don't come here because there is no fence. They come here because of the welfare state and an opportunity to make a living. End the welfare state and you end the problem of people mooching off the system, then only hardworking people would come to America.

The problem with tough laws against hiring illegals is that it usually implies a national database and ID system to check in the hiring process.

The problem with walls and fences is that walls intended to keep others out often result in keeping you in.

[nate895]

California isn't prosperous at all.

It is the world's 6th (or 7th, I forgot) largest economy if it were its own nation. I consider that prosperous for a state with upwards 40M if including illegals.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

It is the world's 6th (or 7th, I forgot) largest economy if it were its own nation. I consider that prosperous for a state with upwards 40M if including illegals.

Right. And your point being? Mexican government policies aren't the same as California's policies. Are you try to say that Mexicans are inferior to California residents or something?

[nate895]

Right. And your point being? Mexican government policies aren't the same as California's policies. Are you try to say that Mexicans are inferior to California residents or something?

No, I'm saying that Mexico has the potential to be prosperous if the government wasn't so corrupt and the number one industry wasn't drug smuggling.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

No, I'm saying that Mexico has the potential to be prosperous if the government wasn't so corrupt and the number one industry wasn't drug smuggling.

lol. Drug smuggling is ok with me.

[Truth Warrior]

I think that the current immigration situation is merely a small part and a next step of the overall NAU/NWO agenda acceptance implementation. :(

[Kalifornia]

After reading your post, I noticed your username. It fits you perfectly.

oh right. yet another useless anarchist nh freestater who rejects the notion of US sovereignty and borders altogether chimes in.

the constituttion and proper rule of law is the only reason we aren't just like mexico in the first place.

if my name matched my position, id be advocating for renaming the southwest to aztlan, kicking out any european americans, and redistributing their possessions to random mexican citizens.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

oh right. yet another useless anarchist nh freestater who rejects the notion of US sovereignty and borders altogether chimes in.

the constituttion and proper rule of law is the only reason we aren't just like mexico in the first place.

if my name matched my position, id be advocating for renaming the southwest to aztlan, kicking out any european americans, and redistributing their possessions to random mexican citizens.

I understand your beliefs in protectionism of the US. It's just that many others wish to remain absolute in their free market thinking.

[Truth Warrior]

The Mexican's own government has the correct tough approach in their immigration laws.<IMHO> The US government is doing what it is doing for a purpose. It is a part of the war on the middle class and the subsequent globalization ( subservient peonization ) of the masses. :(

[Kraig]

So, it seems the most common opinion on immigration is that we need to greatly increase security on the borders. Some of the reasons offered include national secutiry, national soveriegnty, crime, economic reasons, welfare reasons, etc. My grasp on Paul's view is that the border needs to be secured, but that government, and not the immigrants, are the real culprit. My biggest beef with immigration was that it increased dependance upon the system - health care, schools, etc. However, I then began to question if my belief in free markets and free trade meshed with a view of restricted borders, including H1-B visa quotas. While it might further burden the system, it is a knock on the system rather than a knock on open borders. Plus, the "system dependance" claim is really only a qualitative judgement that I have yet to see real evidence for.

I now lean much more heavily toward near unrestricted immigration, labor markets, and borders. I do think health checks are ok, and there are some other reasons to at least have some border security, but it should not be so restrictive and should essentially allow anyone through who wants to come, so long as some basic requirements are met (requirements that one would need to travel anywhere). From a realistic standpoint of where we actually stand, I think that H1-B quotas should be scrapped,and anyone who wishes to work in the US may do so. Businesses should not be punished for hiring someone who doesnt have the governments "permission" to work. Essentially, at the border, it would be very easy, just like from US to canada or back again. Afterward, there would be no "monitoring" or "papers" needed. As for "illegals" already in the country, im not sure how i feel about a path to citizenship, and really don't care either way. Again, with a belief in free trade, free flow of capital, free markets, one must believe in free labor markets as well. It certainly doesn't mean anarchy, and there should be border security and checkpoits, but if restrictive immigration policy and labor laws didn't exist in the first place, most "illegals" would not have to try to sneak across the border. Even then, i'm not sure it really bothers me that much anymore.


What are everyone elses thoughts - especially those who believe in free market capitalism and free trade?

I agree in that I think there should be nearly unrestricted immigration. I love how you worded it with "Businesses should not be punished for hiring someone who doesnt have the governments "permission" to work." One man (or business) should be able to hire any other man to work for them, if they both agree to the terms then they should be able to conduct business together privately. That is part of a free market and I don't think it should matter what country the person came from. If you had this system you would need to have some kind of agency to hand out ID cards to immigrants for a reasonable fee and they immigrants would pay for the cost of that process, not the taxpayers. With a system like that immigrants would have little need or desire to conceal their identity or purchase a false ID because their legal immigration ID would allow them to live and work. Of course you would want some reasonable safety checks that would require people to show identification from their own country, have that verified, and use it to create their new immigration ID. This level of common sense would help prevent known criminals of other countries from moving here.

There are definitely problems with immigrants taking government handouts and therefore draining the taxpayers money. The root of this problem is not the immigrants themselves but the fact that our government enjoys giving our money away. What everyone loves to ignore about this issue is that while immigrants are responsible for taking undeserved handouts - so are American citizens. When you take taxes from an honest working man who provides for himself, and give that money to a lazy man who needs help with his rent, food, healthcare, ect., only then can you create a drain on the economy - which is another way of saying we have people consuming more than they produce, we have people who do not earn their keep, we have forced the men who produce to produce not only for themselves but for those who are unwilling. It really does not matter if the lazy man's family have been US citizens for the past 100 years or if he came from Mexico, he will drain our wealth and break the backs of working men either way.

If someone chooses to immigrate here, and they do it under the conditions that they will have to pay for their own food, their own rent, their own healthcare, and everything else, then they will not be harmful in any way, shape, or form - they will add to our success.

[nate895]

The Mexican's own government has the correct tough approach in their immigration laws.<IMHO> The US government is doing what it is doing for a purpose. It is a part of the war on the middle class and the subsequent globalization ( subservient peonization ) of the masses. :(

Look up peon in the dictionary and you will find that it means Mexican Hacienda worker, so you are almost spot on.

[Kalifornia]

" One US citizen should be able to hire any other US citizen to work for them, if they both agree to the terms then they should be able to conduct business together privately. That is part of a free market... .

there. I fixed it for you and got rid of all that useless fluffery.

[ThePieSwindler]

Again, im not necessarily advocating 100% open borders, i simply think it is the system that should be attacked moreso than the immigration "problem". There are just as many economic benefits to immigration as there are downsides, and i think the negatives outweigh many of the positives.Some of the supposed negatives I don't even think are negatives at all. Im not an anarchist, but national soveriegnty does not mean there should be restriction of capital and labor from flowing freely across borders. The US should have control over its borders, but very liberal immigration policies are simply better policies than anything else, in my opinion.

[Kalifornia]

Again, im not necessarily advocating 100% open borders, i simply think it is the system that should be attacked moreso than the immigration "problem". There are just as many economic benefits to immigration as there are downsides, and i think the negatives outweigh many of the positives.Some of the supposed negatives I don't even think are negatives at all. Im not an anarchist, but national soveriegnty does not mean there should be restriction of capital and labor from flowing freely across borders. The US should have control over its borders, but very liberal immigration policies are simply better policies than anything else, in my opinion.

I consider <1% of current population to be very liberal. That is like 3M people a year. It allows us to assimilate and educate new Americans, satisfies big businesses insatiable appetite for pissing in the labor pool, and can bring many families out of poverty.

Im all for immigration, but uncontrolled immigration can destroy our culture. Look at what is happening here in California...

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I consider <1% of current population to be very liberal. That is like 3M people a year. It allows us to assimilate and educate new Americans, satisfies big businesses insatiable appetite for pissing in the labor pool, and can bring many families out of poverty.

Im all for immigration, but uncontrolled immigration can destroy our culture. Look at what is happening here in California...

Maybe because California sucks.

[Kalifornia]

Maybe because California sucks.


A big reason California sucks is that the southern half increasingly resembles Mexico.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

A big reason California sucks is that the southern half increasingly resembles Mexico.

Bad government policy

[Kalifornia]

Bad government policy

Yeah, bad government policy like rewarding illegal immigration and declaring pretty much the whole state a sanctuary for them.

[SeanEdwards]

So, it seems the most common opinion on immigration is that we need to greatly increase security on the borders. Some of the reasons offered include national secutiry, national soveriegnty, crime, economic reasons, welfare reasons, etc. My grasp on Paul's view is that the border needs to be secured, but that government, and not the immigrants, are the real culprit. My biggest beef with immigration was that it increased dependance upon the system - health care, schools, etc. However, I then began to question if my belief in free markets and free trade meshed with a view of restricted borders, including H1-B visa quotas. While it might further burden the system, it is a knock on the system rather than a knock on open borders. Plus, the "system dependance" claim is really only a qualitative judgement that I have yet to see real evidence for.

I now lean much more heavily toward near unrestricted immigration, labor markets, and borders. I do think health checks are ok, and there are some other reasons to at least have some border security, but it should not be so restrictive and should essentially allow anyone through who wants to come, so long as some basic requirements are met (requirements that one would need to travel anywhere). From a realistic standpoint of where we actually stand, I think that H1-B quotas should be scrapped,and anyone who wishes to work in the US may do so. Businesses should not be punished for hiring someone who doesnt have the governments "permission" to work. Essentially, at the border, it would be very easy, just like from US to canada or back again. Afterward, there would be no "monitoring" or "papers" needed. As for "illegals" already in the country, im not sure how i feel about a path to citizenship, and really don't care either way. Again, with a belief in free trade, free flow of capital, free markets, one must believe in free labor markets as well. It certainly doesn't mean anarchy, and there should be border security and checkpoits, but if restrictive immigration policy and labor laws didn't exist in the first place, most "illegals" would not have to try to sneak across the border. Even then, i'm not sure it really bothers me that much anymore.


What are everyone elses thoughts - especially those who believe in free market capitalism and free trade?

Communicable infectious diseases alone are a good enough reason for secure borders in my opinon. I really don't give a damn if that infringes on some ebola victim's right to work in this country. Fuck 'em.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Yeah, bad government policy like rewarding illegal immigration and declaring pretty much the whole state a sanctuary for them.

Yup, the welfare. Cut it and you'll be ok.

[Kalifornia]

Yup, the welfare. Cut it and you'll be ok.

The welfare is draw one. The jobs and sanctuary from deportation is draw two. Cut them both, start deporting people and locking up those who assist them and we'd be great.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

The welfare is draw one. The jobs and sanctuary from deportation is draw two. Cut them both, start deporting people and locking up those who assist them and we'd be great.

deportation would be in the back of your mind if we had a stronger economy lol

[Kalifornia]

deportation would be in the back of your mind if we had a stronger economy lol

Not really. We have a critical mass problem here. They are not assimilating, and come from a long history of socialism/communism, which of course, is why the Democrats want them having drivers licenses and voting.

This Meccha idea of reclaiming the southwest for Mexico is not idle talk.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Not really. We have a critical mass problem here. They are not assimilating, and come from a long history of socialism/communism, which of course, is why the Democrats want them having drivers licenses and voting.

This Meccha idea of reclaiming the southwest for Mexico is not idle talk.

ok. Wouldn't be an issue in a true free market.

[Kalifornia]

ok. Wouldn't be an issue in a true free market.


Sure, if the whole world was an anarchic capitalist paradise, borders wouldnt matter. Until that happens (which it wont), distinguishing American territory, culture, citizens, and sovereignty is mucho importante.

These nationalistic issues are what seperate us libertarian realist paleocons (goldwater, Buchanan, etc.) from libertarian anarchic purists. (debatatarian society)

The world is a dark place. America is the light. If we dont protect it, there is no place left to go.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Sure, if the whole world was an anarchic capitalist paradise, borders wouldnt matter. Until that happens (which it wont), distinguishing American territory, culture, citizens, and sovereignty is mucho importante.

These nationalistic issues are what seperate us libertarian realist paleocons (goldwater, Buchanan, etc.) from libertarian anarchic purists. (debatatarian society)

The world is a dark place. America is the light. If we dont protect it, there is no place left to go.

There's a difference between libertarian, Libertarian and paleocon. Keep this in mind. And why resort to name calling? I'm not one of the "anarchic purists." I'm one of the "anarchic realists." I believe that anarchism is ideal, but that we must be realists and try to work with the system we have. Reforms!

I just don't see any viable options here.

If we do "lock down" out borders, will it remain this way? Indefinitely? But you must realize, there will just be a result of blackmarket trafficking into the US. So locking the border down doesn't really solve the issue at all.

And how can we stop subsidizing? We can cut a lot out of the Federal level, but I think the states should bare responsibility for their own stupid policies. Let states suffer the consequences of their own bad economic policies.

[Kalifornia]

There's a difference between libertarian, Libertarian and paleocon. Keep this in mind. And why resort to name calling? I'm not one of the "anarchic purists." I'm one of the "anarchic realists." I believe that anarchism is ideal, but that we must be realists and try to work with the system we have. Reforms!

Sorry if I offended, I didnt mean to 'call names'. Just pointing out philosophical differences.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Sorry if I offended, I didnt mean to 'call names'. Just pointing out philosophical differences.

uh ok. I added more to my post. I used to be more gung-ho about the borders. Did the war on drugs work? I don't think the war on illegals will, either. Are you scared of Meccha would have a hard time "annexing" anything. Doing so would be war with America, so how can they do so? A voluntary army would go in and slaughter them. That ends that.

[Kalifornia]

uh ok. I added more to my post. I used to be more gung-ho about the borders. Did the war on drugs work? I don't think the war on illegals will, either. Are you scared of Meccha would have a hard time "annexing" anything. Doing so would be war with America, so how can they do so? A voluntary army would go in and slaughter them. That ends that.

To put it bluntly, the goal of Meccha is to migrate vast numbers of 'La Raza' here, and reclaim the Southwest with the ballot box. They wont have to go to war if they have 50 million commie Aztlaners who also have US citizenship rights. Its very much a racist movement that has a huge amount of support in the illegal immigrant community, less in the legal immigrant community, but there is alot of support there as well.

Im not so concerned about physical border security as I am about removing ALL the incentives for illegal immigration. That includes removing the incentives for people to trade with or hire illegal immigrants.

Any 'war' on an idea is never gonna work. Im not advocating sending in storm troopers. Im advocating doing what Arizona has done. Create real penalties for people who provide jobs to illegal immigrants. Make it unprofitable to trade with them. As soon as the work and welfare dries up, they will go home on their own, unless they are willing to wait in line to come in legally, in which case I welcome them with open arms. (so long as the flow is light enough to ensure proper generational assimilation).

Immigration is a little different than drugs in the regard that drugs arent really about doing the smart thing. People will buy drugs or alcohol or whatever no matter what the consequences are. The same thing doesnt apply to cheap factory labor.

[Kalifornia]

'reconquista' is not just some cutesy folk idea like Chupacabra or whatever. It has become deeply ingrained in the Mexican conscience.

http://l.yimg.com/www.flickr.com/images/spaceball.gif

http://www.flickr.com/photos/newcorrespondent/2383371667/

Heres an LA times blog on this ad being used to sell liquor in Mexico.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laplaza/

[Kraig]

Once again, there is nothing harmful if an immigrant moves here and fully earns his own way while he's here. It doesn't matter if the laws define him as illegal or legal. It is up to the lawmakers to create laws the define and prevent the harmful things in our society, but a law cannot change reality, it cannot make something that is harmless harmful by simply defining it as such.

What on earth to you mean by 'assimilation'? and why is it needed?

[Kalifornia]

Once again, there is nothing harmful if an immigrant moves here and fully earns his own way while he's here. It doesn't matter if the laws define him as illegal or legal. It is up to the lawmakers to create laws the define and prevent the harmful things in our society, but a law cannot change reality, it cannot make something that is harmless harmful by simply defining it as such.

What on earth to you mean by 'assimilation'? and why is it needed?

Of course if ONE PERSON enters our society of 300 million and fully earns his own way while he is here, his impact is small. Although you can argue that his invasion and corresponding willingness to work for what would otherwise be the market pay directly deprives a U.S. citizen of the ability to work for market rates.

Where the problem occurs is when MILLIONS OF PEOPLE enter our society illegally. Of course they benefit by their work, or else why would they come? Their employers benefit from paying a lower wage, and pocketing the difference. Who suffers is the U.S. middle class, who now must earn less in response to the increased supply of workers relative to demand. Now before you go saying that it all comes out in the wash, the fact is that it doesnt. Illegals dont spend the same amount of money in the US economy that US workers do, they send much of it home. Also, they increase demand for things which have a relatively inelastic supply, such as housing, fuel (particularly in California), etc. This raises the price of these things. Inelastic supply markets have HUGE price increases with even a small amount of increased demand. Reputable studies have shown that the illegal immigration problem has cost the average US worker over 2000 dollars per year in lost wages he would have earned had the labor pool not been watered down. This is in addition to all the government costs that they consume.

The other problem is cultural. When one person moves to the US, or a small group of people, they 'assimilate'. In order for them to survive or thrive, they have to learn the dominant culture, language, and societal norms. Their kids come up fully embracing the dominant culture of the US (freedom, liberty, individual responsibilty, etc.). When MILLIONS OF ONE CULTURE enter the US, they hang together, reinforce their own value and cultural norms. There are kids coming up in California who dont speak English. They dont need to. Many second generation US citizens in Southern California see themselves as Mexican first. There is a reason why latin america is a 3rd world pit. It is because the citizens of these nations embrace cultural norms that allow that kind of craziness ot continue. We cant afford to import 20 or 30 million voters who think like that. We already have too many voters who are statists. In order to ensure the survival of American society, our historical cultural values must be maintained. Ensuring the assimilation of new immigrants to those cultural norms is vital to our survival.

Rome didnt fall because of an armed invasion. It fell due to a critical mass of immigrants who didnt think like Romans. Immigration is fine, but it has to be sufficiently slow to ensure that what makes America unique survives.

[nate895]

I see many parallels between the illegal immigration debate and the one over slavery. If we let this problem get too out of hand, we will end up fighting a war over it, I guarantee you.

[Deborah K]

I now lean much more heavily toward near unrestricted immigration, labor markets, and borders. I do think health checks are ok, and there are some other reasons to at least have some border security, but it should not be so restrictive and should essentially allow anyone through who wants to come, so long as some basic requirements are met (requirements that one would need to travel anywhere). From a realistic standpoint of where we actually stand, I think that H1-B quotas should be scrapped,and anyone who wishes to work in the US may do so. Businesses should not be punished for hiring someone who doesnt have the governments "permission" to work. Essentially, at the border, it would be very easy, just like from US to canada or back again. Afterward, there would be no "monitoring" or "papers" needed. As for "illegals" already in the country, im not sure how i feel about a path to citizenship, and really don't care either way. Again, with a belief in free trade, free flow of capital, free markets, one must believe in free labor markets as well. It certainly doesn't mean anarchy, and there should be border security and checkpoits, but if restrictive immigration policy and labor laws didn't exist in the first place, most "illegals" would not have to try to sneak across the border. Even then, i'm not sure it really bothers me that much anymore.


What are everyone elses thoughts - especially those who believe in free market capitalism and free trade?

I would agree to an open border system if we had a healthy economy but we don't. Open borders would destroy the middle class because businesses will always hire the cheapest labor.

[familydog]

I would agree to an open border system if we had a healthy economy but we don't. Open borders would destroy the middle class because businesses will always hire the cheapest labor.

Open border policies are a good way to destroy a nations sovereignty.

[Deborah K]

Open border policies are a good way to destroy a nations sovereignty.

How so? Assuming the economies of all three countries were healthy, and our immigration policies were in tact, how would open borders destroy our sovereignty?

[thuja]

'reconquista' is not just some cutesy folk idea like Chupacabra or whatever. It has become deeply ingrained in the Mexican conscience.

http://l.yimg.com/www.flickr.com/images/spaceball.gif

http://www.flickr.com/photos/newcorrespondent/2383371667/

Heres an LA times blog on this ad being used to sell liquor in Mexico.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laplaza/
right, it's taken very seriously. and it's unpleasant.

[familydog]

How so? Assuming the economies of all three countries were healthy, and our immigration policies were in tact, how would open borders destroy our sovereignty?

If by open borders you mean the ability for people to freely flow from country to country as they please, then yes it is harmful to a nations sovereignty. If people can come and go as they please we don't have a nation-state anymore. A nation has a distinct people and distinct qualities, and that is lost when the nation does not control who can and who can't stay in the confines of the country. As well as who can and cannot become a citizen. To me, open borders open up a huge whole that a world government can fill. Like I said earlier in the thread, I don't care who wants to come here, but I want it controlled and I want assimilation. At the same time I'm all for pluralism. Call me old fashioned, but I kind of like the idea that our founders had of the US being the "city of the hill." It makes us unique, and it makes us better than every other nation :D

[Deborah K]

If by open borders you mean the ability for people to freely flow from country to country as they please, then yes it is harmful to a nations sovereignty. If people can come and go as they please we don't have a nation-state anymore. A nation has a distinct people and distinct qualities, and that is lost when the nation does not control who can and who can't stay in the confines of the country. As well as who can and cannot become a citizen. To me, open borders open up a huge whole that a world government can fill. Like I said earlier in the thread, I don't care who wants to come here, but I want it controlled and I want assimilation. At the same time I'm all for pluralism. Call me old fashioned, but I kind of like the idea that our founders had of the US being the "city of the hill." It makes us unique, and it makes us better than every other nation :D

Yes, by open borders I mean a free flow of people and goods between Mexico and Canada. I don't necessarily mean open to other countries. Until recently, Americans could go back and forth between Canada and Mexico without incident. I've done it many, many times. I am a first generation American on my Canadian father's side. And I live near the Mexican border. I rather liked being able to cross with ease.

As to assimilation, I agree. If I were to move to Mexico, I'm sure I would be expected to learn their language and respect their customs. (Which I already have and do.) But I don't see the tie-in. As I stated, with a healthy economy and immigration laws in tact and enforced, I see no reason why open borders with Canada and Mexico, (not other countries) would threaten our sovereignty. And, I don't have a problem with providing proof of citizenship at the border.

Having stated the above you should know that I am a Minuteman. I'm on the executive council for the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps. in California. My husband and I patrol the border once a month. As it stands right now, I want secure borders, let me make that plain. I am against illegal immigration, drug smuggling, and terrorist crossings and I don't think our government is doing its job on the border. They keep saying we're fighting this war over there to prevent it from coming here and yet our borders are like swiss cheese. They spend billions on the so-called war on drugs and yet our borders are like swiss cheese. And they do nothing about illegal immigration except try to pass laws to make them legal.

Please don't misunderstand where I'm coming from. Philosophically speaking, open borders is more in line with liberty and freedom. It's just that our leadership is too stupid and corrupt to make it work.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Yes, by open borders I mean a free flow of people and goods between Mexico and Canada. I don't necessarily mean open to other countries. Until recently, Americans could go back and forth between Canada and Mexico without incident. I've done it many, many times. I am a first generation American on my Canadian father's side. And I live near the Mexican border. I rather liked being able to cross with ease.

As to assimilation, I agree. If I were to move to Mexico, I'm sure I would be expected to learn their language and respect their customs. (Which I already have and do.) But I don't see the tie-in. As I stated, with a healthy economy and immigration laws in tact and enforced, I see no reason why open borders with Canada and Mexico, (not other countries) would threaten our sovereignty. And, I don't have a problem with providing proof of citizenship at the border.

Having stated the above you should know that I am a Minuteman. I'm on the executive council for the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps. in California. My husband and I patrol the border once a month. As it stands right now, I want secure borders, let me make that plain. I am against illegal immigration, drug smuggling, and terrorist crossings and I don't think our government is doing its job on the border. They keep saying we're fighting this war over there to prevent it from coming here and yet our borders are like swiss cheese. They spend billions on the so-called war on drugs and yet our borders are like swiss cheese. And they do nothing about illegal immigration except try to pass laws to make them legal.

Please don't misunderstand where I'm coming from. Philosophically speaking, open borders is more in line with liberty and freedom. It's just that our leadership is too stupid and corrupt to make it work.

I believe in free market in language and in culture. That's the way it's supposed to be. You don't sound like you support open borders

[familydog]

Yes, by open borders I mean a free flow of people and goods between Mexico and Canada. I don't necessarily mean open to other countries. Until recently, Americans could go back and forth between Canada and Mexico without incident. I've done it many, many times. I am a first generation American on my Canadian father's side. And I live near the Mexican border. I rather liked being able to cross with ease.

As to assimilation, I agree. If I were to move to Mexico, I'm sure I would be expected to learn their language and respect their customs. (Which I already have and do.) But I don't see the tie-in. As I stated, with a healthy economy and immigration laws in tact and enforced, I see no reason why open borders with Canada and Mexico, (not other countries) would threaten our sovereignty. And, I don't have a problem with providing proof of citizenship at the border.

Having stated the above you should know that I am a Minuteman. I'm on the executive council for the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps. in California. My husband and I patrol the border once a month. As it stands right now, I want secure borders, let me make that plain. I am against illegal immigration, drug smuggling, and terrorist crossings and I don't think our government is doing its job on the border. They keep saying we're fighting this war over there to prevent it from coming here and yet our borders are like swiss cheese. They spend billions on the so-called war on drugs and yet our borders are like swiss cheese. And they do nothing about illegal immigration except try to pass laws to make them legal.

Please don't misunderstand where I'm coming from. Philosophically speaking, open borders is more in line with liberty and freedom. It's just that our leadership is too stupid and corrupt to make it work.

We must have different definitions of open borders. But I know what you're saying.

[Kalifornia]

I believe in free market in language and in culture. That's the way it's supposed to be. You don't sound like you support open borders

This is a good example of why I left the Libertarian party. Im all about the marketplace of ideas, but leaving your nation open to being overtaken by external forces is just crazy. Liberty is an idea which is superior to other 'isms', but if it dies here, it dies everywhere. It just isnt worth the risk.

While the market is vastly superior to managed economies of anything, it still has weakenesses. The problem with the market is that it can be manipulated by manipulating the flow of information. There have to be basic fundamental safeguards to protect the integrity of that information. Allowing an invasion of a different culture with a history of anti-individualist ideas isnt a great way to protect the integrity of that information.

Borders are increasingly becoming porous.

If a borderless world and the corresponding free markets in culture and language worked, we wouldnt be facing an ever increasing statist threat, unless of course statism really is superior to individualism.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

This is a good example of why I left the Libertarian party. Im all about the marketplace of ideas, but leaving your nation open to being overtaken by external forces is just crazy. Liberty is an idea which is superior to other 'isms', but if it dies here, it dies everywhere. It just isnt worth the risk.

While the market is vastly superior to managed economies of anything, it still has weakenesses. The problem with the market is that it can be manipulated by manipulating the flow of information. There have to be basic fundamental safeguards to protect the integrity of that information. Allowing an invasion of a different culture with a history of anti-individualist ideas isnt a great way to protect the integrity of that information.

Borders are increasingly becoming porous.

If a borderless world and the corresponding free markets in culture and language worked, we wouldnt be facing an ever increasing statist threat, unless of course statism really is superior to individualism.

Many in the LP are natonalistic. Why leave? Try to make your voice heard. I wouldn't campaign talking like I am lol political suicide! I would moderate my views of course.