They say illegals take jobs Americans don't want - they LIE!

[lynnf]

http://www.azfamily.com/news/Hundreds-seek-to-fill-vacant-positions-at-Pros-Ranch-Market-91880224.html

PHOENIX -- Job hunters turned out in the hundreds to fill recently-vacant positions at Pro's Ranch Market stores, where a federal audit led to the firing of some 300 workers.

Roxanne Nieves, one of the many that came out in search of a job, said she came to apply after she heard about the layoffs.

"We heard they are firing a lot of illegal people, so we're here to apply," she said.

...


--------------------------------

lynn

[ClayTrainor]

YouTube - south park-they took our jobs!!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLni3wbndls)

[lester1/2jr]

see how long they last

[catdd]

It's all about wages.

[TastyWheat]

It's all about wages.

Exactly. The illegals are willing to do the same work for less. I think the real objection amounts to jealousy. Sure, illegal aliens get benefits they don't pay for, but they have a good incentive not to pay. For us, paying avoids greater consequences in the future. For illegals, not paying keeps them from exposure. Minus the new exception of AZ, illegals can get away with so much more than citizens.

[tmosley]

Blame the government, not the people.

More government power is not the answer.

[silverhandorder]

I like what Peter said that if the illegals leave you are not guranteed the job will be offered. The employer may just call it quits.

We need a lot of reforms. We need to reform welfare state, we need to reform labor regulations. This is our chance to hit hard there, let's not turn on each other over some silly law. Let's start discussion about the reforms I mentioned.

[jkr]

trust me LEAGALS take the jobs we do.

[lester1/2jr]

white people won't do the hard work in the sun. unless you want to being back slavery theres no alternative but to hire illegal immigrants

[ItsTime]

yeah I heard no one wants construction job. Last summer they busted 100 something illegals in New Hampshire on a federal construction job. They were paying the legal visa worker $35/hr/man and he was paying the illegals something like $12. They could have found a ton of legal workers to work for that. HOWEVER he would have needed to pay workmans comp and countless other fees for hiring legal workers.

It is a mix of big government and wages.

[ItsTime]

white people won't do the hard work in the sun. unless you want to being back slavery theres no alternative but to hire illegal immigrants

bull$hit. If true, whites must be many times more lazy out west then they are here in New England.

[torchbearer]

bull$hit. If true, whites must be many times more lazy out west then they are here in New England.

coming from a farm community. most of the farmers who owned the land were white, but finding labor at the worth of the job was very hard.
minimum wage laws may have something to do with it, but some jobs just aren't worth minimum wage.

i invite lynn to come work a mexican's job on the farm. it will require her to leave her family for 9 months, live in a shack, eat lots of beans and rice. work from sun up to sun down in louisiana summer. The local farmer will be gracious enough to give her $5/hr for her labor and she can feel smug to know that an illegal didn't take that job from her.

[lester1/2jr]

when and if the economy picks up again arizona will be begging for them to come back. they shuld just legalize lynching if they want to do something to make them feel better during a recession. that's what their forefathers did

[extrmmxer]

white people won't do the hard work in the sun. unless you want to being back slavery theres no alternative but to hire illegal immigrants

Completely disagree due to self experience. Americans do all types of work regardless of the labor type & wage scale.

"They do work Americans don't want to do" is a complete LIE!

[torchbearer]

Completely disagree due to self experience. Americans do all types of work regardless of the labor type & wage scale.

"They do work Americans don't want to do" is a complete LIE!

see post 12 for personal testimony.

[M House]

I have worked for 6 dollars an hour washing dishes at a restaurant. Um I'm pretty sure you can find someone who will work for crappy pay, illegal or not. Unless you for some reason wanna go way below minimum wage. Also I don't know why it's expected that yer employer provide healthcare. They should pay you well and it should be yer responsibility to get it.

[angelatc]

http://www.azfamily.com/news/Hundreds-seek-to-fill-vacant-positions-at-Pros-Ranch-Market-91880224.html

PHOENIX -- Job hunters turned out in the hundreds to fill recently-vacant positions at Pro's Ranch Market stores, where a federal audit led to the firing of some 300 workers.

Roxanne Nieves, one of the many that came out in search of a job, said she came to apply after she heard about the layoffs.

"We heard they are firing a lot of illegal people, so we're here to apply," she said.

...


--------------------------------

lynn

They also never hesitate to call Americans lazy and inefficient. All talking points by the globalists.

The jobs the illegals hold are the jobs that our college kids and high school students used to do.

[torchbearer]

I have worked for 6 dollars an hour washing dishes at a restaurant. Um I'm pretty sure you can find someone who will work for crappy pay, illegal or not. Unless you for some reason wanna go way below minimum wage. Also I don't know why it's expected that yer employer provide healthcare. They should pay you well and it should be yer responsibility to get it.

Do you really think the local farmers in my area are turning away english speaking natives for illegals? as in, they have a line of people from the local community for those 5$/hr jobs, yet they turn them away for people they have to ship in who can't speak the language? really?

[M House]

I don't know there are alot of unemployed people. Seems like someone is just making this hard. Though I don't think there's a massive number of illegal immigrants taking jobs. That's probably mostly BS, though there's been plenty of raids in various areas that say otherwise. Seems like there's probably some factor in this.

[erowe1]

white people won't do the hard work in the sun. unless you want to being back slavery theres no alternative but to hire illegal immigrants

You don't think it's possible to get the same labor force by way of legal immigration?

[Brian4Liberty]

I have worked for 6 dollars an hour washing dishes at a restaurant.

I did it for $2.25 an hour. :o

[ClayTrainor]

You don't think it's possible to get the same labor force by way of legal immigration?

What do you mean by legal? (http://reason.org/files/a87d1550853898a9b306ef458f116079.pdf)

[Depressed Liberator]

dey turk er jerbs

[Brian4Liberty]

Slavery used to be an important part of many business models...

[lester1/2jr]

why would you want them to come here legally? then they'd be entitled to social security!! illegal immigration is the best of both worlds

[ClayTrainor]

why would you want them to come here legally? then they'd be entitled to social security!! illegal immigration is the best of both worlds

Wow, that's actually a really great point... Thanks! :cool:

[Jeros]

coming from a farm community. most of the farmers who owned the land were white, but finding labor at the worth of the job was very hard.
minimum wage laws may have something to do with it, but some jobs just aren't worth minimum wage.

i invite lynn to come work a mexican's job on the farm. it will require her to leave her family for 9 months, live in a shack, eat lots of beans and rice. work from sun up to sun down in louisiana summer. The local farmer will be gracious enough to give her $5/hr for her labor and she can feel smug to know that an illegal didn't take that job from her.

but...but...our jobs! Damn your logic!!!

[Jeros]

You don't think it's possible to get the same labor force by way of legal immigration?

All immigration that doesn't involve trespass is legal. It is the anti immigration laws that are illegal, unless you believe the government owns all land. If that is the premise you are operating from, then your argument would be consistent. You should therefor ask yourself, does the government own all land?

[puppetmaster]

The fact of the matter is ALL people will, and do work for food!

Answer me this: what good is a border if we don't enforce immigration laws?
Do so called real libertarians want no borders?....one country one planet?

[ItsTime]

coming from a farm community. most of the farmers who owned the land were white, but finding labor at the worth of the job was very hard.
minimum wage laws may have something to do with it, but some jobs just aren't worth minimum wage.

i invite lynn to come work a mexican's job on the farm. it will require her to leave her family for 9 months, live in a shack, eat lots of beans and rice. work from sun up to sun down in louisiana summer. The local farmer will be gracious enough to give her $5/hr for her labor and she can feel smug to know that an illegal didn't take that job from her.

So I guess it is true, people in the south are lazier than the people in the north :eek:;):cool:

[torchbearer]

So I guess it is true, people in the south are lazier than the people in the north :eek:;):cool:

welfare is king.

[foofighter20x]

It's all about wages.


Exactly. The illegals are willing to do the same work for less. I think the real objection amounts to jealousy. Sure, illegal aliens get benefits they don't pay for, but they have a good incentive not to pay. For us, paying avoids greater consequences in the future. For illegals, not paying keeps them from exposure. Minus the new exception of AZ, illegals can get away with so much more than citizens.

It's not just the wages. It's the expense of employment incurred too.

When you hire illegals, you save on wages, but you also save on the expense of complying with OSHA. Because who are the legals going to complain to if they get injured on the job? The government?

[Lord Xar]

see post 12 for personal testimony.

LOL. Dude. I have personal experience too and my experience tells me you are an apologist with an agenda.

When validating the "illegals" being here, you use the free market to justify their need. When the shadow of them not being here, the free market argument is never part of the equation. No "americans will fill the void" etc.. argument - nothing of the sort. Instead we get tales of "your" experience validating the lazy american stigma and why illegals are needed.

Try not to be so obvious in your open border apologist agenda. It is rather discouraging to know another libertarian promoting the globalist goal is hiding behind "Liberty" to further the collapse.

[Marenco]

The fact of the matter is ALL people will, and do work for food!

Answer me this: what good is a border if we don't enforce immigration laws?
Do so called real libertarians want no borders?....one country one planet?

http://rense.com/1.imagesH/erasedee.jpg

[Jeros]

The fact of the matter is ALL people will, and do work for food!

Answer me this: what good is a border if we don't enforce immigration laws?
Do so called real libertarians want no borders?....one country one planet?

You answered your own question. Good job.

The planet already is one. Borders are purely conceptual. They only exist on maps because we imagine them to. Legal enforceable national borders are the result of tyranny. Their practical existence rest on the premise that all land is owned by the government. The only ethical borders are those surrounding private property, or those surrounding collective property where agency is voluntarily granted by all contractual stakeholders.

[Jeros]

LOL. Dude. I have personal experience too and my experience tells me you are an apologist with an agenda.

When validating the "illegals" being here, you use the free market to justify their need. When the shadow of them not being here, the free market argument is never part of the equation. No "americans will fill the void" etc.. argument - nothing of the sort. Instead we get tales of "your" experience validating the lazy american stigma and why illegals are needed.

Try not to be so obvious in your open border apologist agenda. It is rather discouraging to know another libertarian promoting the globalist goal is hiding behind "Liberty" to further the collapse.

hahaha! So you want him to be secretive about his open borders agenda??? Are you promoting the stigma of the word agenda? Doesn't everybody have an agenda? Is liberty not a credible concept to hide behind? Is being an apologist of liberty a bad thing? Are you promoting the stigma of the word apologist? hahaha! Give me a break. Think before you type please.

Your argument more or less boils down to less liberty = more liberty. Orwell would be proud.

[jbuttell]

coming from a farm community. most of the farmers who owned the land were white, but finding labor at the worth of the job was very hard.
minimum wage laws may have something to do with it, but some jobs just aren't worth minimum wage.

i invite lynn to come work a mexican's job on the farm. it will require her to leave her family for 9 months, live in a shack, eat lots of beans and rice. work from sun up to sun down in louisiana summer. The local farmer will be gracious enough to give her $5/hr for her labor and she can feel smug to know that an illegal didn't take that job from her.

That would make perfect sense, assuming it didn't factor some very important factors. However I see it a bit differently.

If the illegal labor wasn't available, you'd initially have a lot of vacant farm jobs. The cost of domestically produced food would rise dramatically, only mildly suppressed by imported good goods from other nations. For domestic farms to compete, a combination of higher wages and/or progressive agriculture technique would have to be implemented.

I agree with the first post, it's a lie that legal residents, regardless of ethnicity and free from government obstruction can't or won't produce what they need to survive.

Perhaps as a side effect, people would also be less wasteful as well... I'd imagine McDonalds, BK etc wouldn't be so quick to sell volume over quality with such an unnaturally cheap food supply.

[torchbearer]

That would make perfect sense, assuming it didn't factor some very important factors. However I see it a bit differently.

If the illegal labor wasn't available, you'd initially have a lot of vacant farm jobs. The cost of domestically produced food would rise dramatically, only mildly suppressed by imported good goods from other nations. For domestic farms to compete, a combination of higher wages and/or progressive agriculture technique would have to be implemented.

I agree with the first post, it's a lie that legal residents, regardless of ethnicity and free from government obstruction can't or won't produce what they need to survive.

you don't know much about the farm market. farmers have to compete against world prices. which are low. those jobs can't earn any more pay unless you had high tariffs to artificially increase market price in the states. then you could pay domestic labor more than they get on their welfare checks. and it will have to be a lot more to do a job as shitty as tending/harvesting crops.

[Free Moral Agent]

One thing is for sure, we are paying for anchor babies to take jobs Americans want
see http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=224183

[jbuttell]

you don't know much about the farm market. farmers have to compete against world prices. which are low. those jobs can't earn any more pay unless you had high tariffs to artificially increase market price in the states. then you could pay domestic labor more than they get on their welfare checks. and it will have to be a lot more to do a job as shitty as tending/harvesting crops.

I'm well aware of world markets. Rather than just saying I'm wrong, what point do you disagree with, specifically? Keep in mind, the volume of food that the US produces is not a drop in a bucket... what the US produces most definitely affect the world prices.

Are you saying that if illegals weren't undercutting the market, prices would not rise? In this scenario, I believe a couple things might happen. Either the farm goes out of business since it can't produce, or it increases wages to attract workers.

I would argue that an employer's motivation for paying higher wages has more to do with the availability of workers, than the chance that they might have tariffs available to compensate.

If the people here can't afford to pay for the higher priced domestic product, their needs will be met with foreign.

[SooperDave]

without illegals, there will be some businesses that have difficulty filling current low-wage jobs at that same labor rate. BUT...

at the right wage/benefit level, any job can be filled with a worker. so, all the jobs can be filled but many at a higher labor rate.

the effects will be:

-higher prices, or

-lower profits, or

-the business will need to get more productive in other ways to make up for the increase in labor costs

-or a combination of the three

[Southron]

I'm still waiting on my $25/hr lettuce picking job that John McCain said I wouldn't do.

[torchbearer]

I'm well aware of world markets. Rather than just saying I'm wrong, what point do you disagree with, specifically? Keep in mind, the volume of food that the US produces is not a drop in a bucket... what the US produces most definitely affect the world prices.

Are you saying that if illegals weren't undercutting the market, prices would not rise? In this scenario, I believe a couple things might happen. Either the farm goes out of business since it can't produce, or it increases wages to attract workers.

I would argue that an employer's motivation for paying higher wages has more to do with the availability of workers, than the chance that they might have tariffs available to compensate.

If the people here can't afford to pay for the higher priced domestic product, their needs will be met with foreign.

what i mean is... the only way farmers are even able to make it with the illegal cheap labor is because we already have tariffs in place.
for instance, the sugar cane farmers are one of the biggest employers of illegals in louisiana. the process of planting, maintaining, and harvesting suger cane requires a lot of labor even with all the heavy machinery.
The crop is protected by tariff right now, that is why soda makers use corn syrup instead. And even so, the farmers can still only afford $5/hr based on the price of the market. Tariffs would have to go way higher to afford minimum wage workers.
Just imagine doubling all your food cost- and you will be making minimum wage. your standard of living will be the same as the $5/hr worker right now, plus you'll be paying more taxes on food (in louisiana) because of the increase in price.
Then, with high tariffs you may run into shortages.

these farmers aren't living rich. one good year makes up for the one bad year. if you have ever farmed, you'll know what i'm talking about.

[Jeros]

without illegals, there will be some businesses that have difficulty filling current low-wage jobs at that same labor rate. BUT...

at the right wage/benefit level, any job can be filled with a worker. so, all the jobs can be filled but many at a higher labor rate.

the effects will be:

-higher prices, or

-lower profits, or

-the business will need to get more productive in other ways to make up for the increase in labor costs

-or a combination of the three


I'm well aware of world markets. Rather than just saying I'm wrong, what point do you disagree with, specifically? Keep in mind, the volume of food that the US produces is not a drop in a bucket... what the US produces most definitely affect the world prices.

Are you saying that if illegals weren't undercutting the market, prices would not rise? In this scenario, I believe a couple things might happen. Either the farm goes out of business since it can't produce, or it increases wages to attract workers.

I would argue that an employer's motivation for paying higher wages has more to do with the availability of workers, than the chance that they might have tariffs available to compensate.

If the people here can't afford to pay for the higher priced domestic product, their needs will be met with foreign.

It sounds as though you are focusing on only the economic argument. What about the ethical argument? Do you have the right to tell the farmer, an owner of private property, that he cannot hire another human?

As far as what is economically efficient, it is easy to come up with a seemingly logical argument to justify just about anything. I think we can all agree that it is safer to error on the side of more freedom as opposed to less. If free markets are more efficient than command markets, would not a freer market increase efficiency further? Or do you propose that some level of coercion increases the efficiency of markets?

As far as specifics, I think its safe to say that if illegal workers were all deported:

1. The supply of labor would go down, the cost of labor would go up
2. The supply of domestically produced food would go down
3. Many domestic farming operations would go out of business
4. The price of food will increase
5. The average quality of life of Americans would decrease because more resources would be devoted to buying food
6. Large corporate farms would increase in size further because their process automation gives them a greater competitive advantage as wages increase
7. Local produce would be more difficult to come by, making your existence more directly dependent on international and interstate trade. (I'm all for globalism, but I prefer my food to be produced locally)

We decrease the quality of life of immigrants in order to decrease the quality of life of Americans? I think nothing demonstrates the failure of the command economy more than that question.

All this so we can provide a few jobs to the few Americans that would accept them? I would prefer to keep the government out of the economy. I would prefer to completely legalize voluntary association. I reject the notion that you can increase freedom by decreasing freedom. I reject the notion that you can increase economic efficiency by decreasing freedom of choice and managing human relationships and human migration.

[tjeffersonsghost]

Do you really think the local farmers in my area are turning away english speaking natives for illegals? as in, they have a line of people from the local community for those 5$/hr jobs, yet they turn them away for people they have to ship in who can't speak the language? really?

I wonder how much the owner of the local farm pays himself while he pays his people crap wages? I'd say if the farm owner is making $300k per year while paying 5 laborers $5 an hour ($10400 yr) then something morally isnt right with the farm owner.

Greed is a big reason for crap pay today and importation and exportation of labor. Executives are making record pay while shipping good American jobs over seas. It's a great gig for the executive but it's crap for the workers getting paid nothing and its bad for America as a whole.

[jbuttell]

what i mean is... the only way farmers are even able to make it with the illegal cheap labor is because we already have tariffs in place.
for instance, the sugar cane farmers are one of the biggest employers of illegals in louisiana. the process of planting, maintaining, and harvesting suger cane requires a lot of labor even with all the heavy machinery.
The crop is protected by tariff right now, that is why soda makers use corn syrup instead. And even so, the farmers can still only afford $5/hr based on the price of the market. Tariffs would have to go way higher to afford minimum wage workers.
Just imagine doubling all your food cost- and you will be making minimum wage. your standard of living will be the same as the $5/hr worker right now, plus you'll be paying more taxes on food (in louisiana) because of the increase in price.
Then, with high tariffs you may run into shortages.

these farmers aren't living rich. one good year makes up for the one bad year. if you have ever farmed, you'll know what i'm talking about.

Your first reply stated that I was wrong and now your second seems to go on to imply that prices would rise, which is what I said. I don't understand where you're going with this.

Nowhere did I suggest that there weren't consequences to such a scenario. However, here you're laying out a description of the reality of today's market, where we have illegals undercutting american jobs, tariffs and government subsidies.

If I didn't know you from your previous posts on this forum, I'd think you were expressing support for the current system based soley on the concern that it might lower our standard of living.

[torchbearer]

I wonder how much the owner of the local farm pays himself while he pays his people crap wages? I'd say if the farm owner is making $300k per year while paying 5 laborers $5 an hour ($10400 yr) then something morally isnt right with the farm owner.

Greed is a big reason for crap pay today and importation and exportation of labor. Executives are making record pay while shipping good American jobs over seas. It's a great gig for the executive but it's crap for the workers getting paid nothing and its bad for America as a whole.

try less than $100,000 net.(on a good year farming about 1000 acres) the farmer has the land, the means of production, the know how ,the start up capital, and has all the risk involved in the crops.
perhaps you are advocating that the less skilled take over the farm by force??

[torchbearer]

Your first reply stated that I was wrong and now your second seems to go on to imply that prices would rise, which is what I said. I don't understand where you're going with this.

Nowhere did I suggest that there weren't consequences to such a scenario. However, here you're laying out a description of the reality of today's market, where we have illegals undercutting american jobs, tariffs and government subsidies.

If I didn't know you from your previous posts on this forum, I'd think you were expressing support for the current system based soley on the concern that it might lower our standard of living.

i'm just stating the facts. not a judgement.
you want high paying farm jobs, you want high food cost.
the market forces are saying people want low food cost and are willing to have lower waged farm jobs.
the only reason we still have farms in the US is because of tariffs. but even with them, the jobs are still not paying enough.

[torchbearer]

maybe this will help you understand why low prices and low wages are a good thing: YouTube - How an Economy Grows and Why It Doesn't (by Irwin Schiff) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFxvy9XyUtg&feature=player_embedded)
it is the fiat currency and the debasement of fiat currency(theft) that leads to the distortion in the market.

[jbuttell]

It sounds as though you are focusing on only the economic argument. What about the ethical argument? Do you have the right to tell the farmer, an owner of private property, that he cannot hire another human?

As far as what is economically efficient, it is easy to come up with a seemingly logical argument to justify just about anything. I think we can all agree that it is safer to error on the side of more freedom as opposed to less. If free markets are more efficient than command markets, would not a freer market increase efficiency further? Or do you propose that some level of coercion increases the efficiency of markets?

As far as specifics, I think its safe to say that if illegal workers were all deported:

1. The supply of labor would go down, the cost of labor would go up
2. The supply of domestically produced food would go down
3. Many domestic farming operations would go out of business
4. The price of food will increase
5. The average quality of life of Americans would decrease because more resources would be devoted to buying food
6. Large corporate farms would increase in size further because their process automation gives them a greater competitive advantage as wages increase
7. Local produce would be more difficult to come by, making your existence more directly dependent on international and interstate trade. (I'm all for globalism, but I prefer my food to be produced locally)

We decrease the quality of life of immigrants in order to decrease the quality of life of Americans? I think nothing demonstrates the failure of the command economy more than that question.

All this so we can provide a few jobs to the few Americans that would accept them? I would prefer to keep the government out of the economy. I would prefer to completely legalize voluntary association. I reject the notion that you can increase freedom by decreasing freedom. I reject the notion that you can increase economic efficiency by decreasing freedom of choice and managing human relationships and human migration.



No I wouldn't want to stand between a business and who they want to hire. If illegal immigration was stopped in its tracks, I highly doubt this would even be an issue. Companies would hire whoever they want, like they do today. The blame would fall solely on law enforcement.

That of course isn't the world today. We have a flood of illegals sitting in limbo and an impotent law enforcement watching the problem grow past the point of no return. Our government's blind eye to their residence, like minimum wages or the Federal Reserve's manipulation, is seriously distorting the price of everything. Other than what we perceive as beneficial in the short term, is this honestly healthy for our society?

I don't think many here are arguing for further restriction of markets. At most people are asking for borders to be maintained and immigration to be done lawfully. I'm not convinced that disolving our borders and letting a free flow of immigrants from every corner of the globe come and stay, would be in anyone's best interest - including the immigrants.

[Jeros]

No I wouldn't want to stand between a business and who they want to hire. If illegal immigration was stopped in its tracks, I highly doubt this would even be an issue. Companies would hire whoever they want, like they do today. The blame would fall solely on law enforcement.

^^That sentence is just one big contradiction. If you regulate immigration, you stand between a business and who they want to hire. If states regulate immigration, companies cannot hire whomever they want. If I own property, unless agency is voluntarily granted to another, it is only I who can morally enforce the borders.


That of course isn't the world today. We have a flood of illegals sitting in limbo and an impotent law enforcement watching the problem grow past the point of no return. Our government's blind eye to their residence, like minimum wages or the Federal Reserve's manipulation, is seriously distorting the price of everything. Other than what we perceive as beneficial in the short term, is this honestly healthy for our society?

It is not human migration that distorts prices. It is the governments interference in human migration that distorts prices. Free human migration is as much a part of pure free markets as voluntary association and unrestricted competition. A governments attempt to regulate migration is an initiation of force.


I don't think many here are arguing for further restriction of markets. At most people are asking for borders to be maintained and immigration to be done lawfully. I'm not convinced that disolving our borders and letting a free flow of immigrants from every corner of the globe come and stay, would be in anyone's best interest - including the immigrants.

Another big fat contradiction. Borders created without the consent of the property owners is a restriction on the markets. Lawful human migration is repetitive. Migration is a right constricted only by legitimate property owners. Your entire argument rest on the premise that it is ethical for some coercive involuntary organization to tell humans where they can go.

[Danke]

the only reason we still have farms in the US is because of tariffs. but even with them, the jobs are still not paying enough.

You mentioned sugar. Does that apply across the board?

As with wheat and corn? I know many of those farmers get a lot of government subsidies.

[michaelwise]

I worked cleaning the slop off the dishes at Villanova U for $2.75/hour. That was minimum wage back around 1977. I would work for minimum wage doing the same thing again if I could find a job like that in my area.

[torchbearer]

You mentioned sugar. Does that apply across the board?

As with wheat and corn? I know many of those farmers get a lot of government subsidies.

I know big corn farmers get better prices because of ethanol subsidies.
not sure about soybean. it seems really cheap. if there is a tariff, i'd hate to see the world market price.

[jbuttell]

^^That sentence is just one big contradiction. If you regulate immigration, you stand between a business and who they want to hire. If states regulate immigration, companies cannot hire whomever they want. If I own property, unless agency is voluntarily granted to another, it is only I who can morally enforce the borders.

In a certain light it is and I had a sneaking suspicion someone would jump at the opportunity to wave their hands ecstatically and point it out. Regulation of immigration definitely takes away freedom to do whatever you please, but it's an inherent aspect of having a border. I'm not sure how you can have both free immigration and a border. I realize it's a dirty word here, but regulation doesn't necessarily have to prevent an employer from hiring who they need.

If the state doesn't define those borders, the state/country on the other side will do it for you.




It is not human migration that distorts prices. It is the governments interference in human migration that distorts prices. Free human migration is as much a part of pure free markets as voluntary association and unrestricted competition. A governments attempt to regulate migration is an initiation of force.


Other than the first sentence which is simply too generalized to mean much of anything, I don't disagree with what you're saying here.




Another big fat contradiction. Borders created without the consent of the property owners is a restriction on the markets. Lawful human migration is repetitive. Migration is a right constricted only by legitimate property owners. Your entire argument rest on the premise that it is ethical for some coercive involuntary organization to tell humans where they can go.

You're arguing against government in general. It's a nice dream and I don't discourage you from exploring it - I may even share it in spirit. I'm just not in agreement that it's of any practical use to find a workable solution in our current situation.

[angelatc]

what i mean is... the only way farmers are even able to make it with the illegal cheap labor is because we already have tariffs in place.
for instance, the sugar cane farmers are one of the biggest employers of illegals in louisiana. the process of planting, maintaining, and harvesting suger cane requires a lot of labor even with all the heavy machinery.
The crop is protected by tariff right now, that is why soda makers use corn syrup instead. And even so, the farmers can still only afford $5/hr based on the price of the market. Tariffs would have to go way higher to afford minimum wage workers.
Just imagine doubling all your food cost- and you will be making minimum wage. your standard of living will be the same as the $5/hr worker right now, plus you'll be paying more taxes on food (in louisiana) because of the increase in price.
Then, with high tariffs you may run into shortages.



What you just said is that they're running an inefficient, technology-challenged business, kept alive only by illegal labor and import tariffs, because there's no signficant demand for their product.

You've just illustrated why they shouldn't even be in business, not why they deserve to hire illegal labor.

[tjeffersonsghost]

try less than $100,000 net.(on a good year farming about 1000 acres) the farmer has the land, the means of production, the know how ,the start up capital, and has all the risk involved in the crops.
perhaps you are advocating that the less skilled take over the farm by force??


not advocating for anything but the freedom to earn a living and to not be exploited by your employer. If you are making less than $100k then minimum wages is all you can afford. The profit margins just aren't there. Some farmers are pulling in $300k a year while paying 3 to 5 illegals $7 an hour. To me this is exploitation.

There are benefits to being the owner and Im not advocating some sort of socialist utopia of we all get paid the same. But paying yourself $300k while hiring illegals $5 an hour because you dont want to pay some legal citizen $10 an hour is just screwed up. Greed is good, but in moderation. Greed brings about the entrepreneurial spirit. But to much greed screws yourself and the country as a whole in the long run. If everyone decided to pay crap wages where would the money come from to buy products from to keep the economy rolling? More credit bubbles?

[dwdollar]

This is one reason why I AM NOT a Libertarian. Open borders is lunacy that ignores the real problems. How about we drop taxes, minimum wage, and get rid of all the f*cking regulation imposed on small businesses. Then, small businesses and farms would have an endless supply of cheap American labor.

[catdd]

It's completely impossible for Americans to compete with the the kind of slave labor they pay the illegals under the table.
Most of the people who are against this Arizona bill are the same ones that argue for open borders, and that's what's really going on here except for a few that are honestly concerned about how the government might take advantage of the situation to impose more control over everyone.
I don't see a problem with hiring migrant pickers but we have to secure the borders first.

[torchbearer]

What you just said is that they're running an inefficient, technology-challenged business, kept alive only by illegal labor and import tariffs, because there's no signficant demand for their product.

You've just illustrated why they shouldn't even be in business, not why they deserve to hire illegal labor.

here is one for you to think about-
farming goes away in america. do you know where we import a lot of our food from?
places like venezuala.

how do you feel about OPEC having a strangle hold on our energy? How would you feel if people like Chavez controlled our food.. or some foreign cartel like OPEC?

what happened when our farms go away?
the ability and knowledge to do so in the future slips away. right now the skill is passed from one generation to the next.

am I advocating government intervention in their market? not really, its the intervention in the market(via destruction of our currency) that has put the farmers where they are.
also, tariffs kept sugar farmers from trying more profitable plants like stevia. they already have a half million dollars invested in sugar cane equipment. their crop is protected. no reason to change.

but none of the above has anything to do with illegals. notice that?
in everyone of my post, illegals had nothing to do with the malodies, only government intervention.

[torchbearer]

not advocating for anything but the freedom to earn a living and to not be exploited by your employer. If you are making less than $100k then minimum wages is all you can afford. The profit margins just aren't there. Some farmers are pulling in $300k a year while paying 3 to 5 illegals $7 an hour. To me this is exploitation.

There are benefits to being the owner and Im not advocating some sort of socialist utopia of we all get paid the same. But paying yourself $300k while hiring illegals $5 an hour because you dont want to pay some legal citizen $10 an hour is just screwed up. Greed is good, but in moderation. Greed brings about the entrepreneurial spirit. But to much greed screws yourself and the country as a whole in the long run. If everyone decided to pay crap wages where would the money come from to buy products from to keep the economy rolling? More credit bubbles?

i'd love to meet these "rich" farmers you are talking about. (you must be thinking of trent lot)
our family farm went out of business because we didn't use illegal labor. so go fuck yourself you stupid ignorant dip shit.
farmers aren't rich, and only those who farm 1000s of acres can even hope to make a decent living, using cheap labor.

have you ever thought about what happened to everyone's crops during katrina?
they lost them all. you spend $200,000 in production cost to generate an average of $100,000 net profit after crops are sold, but then next year a huricane comes through, you spend $200,000 in production to get zero back. you aren't back at even you in a deep fucking hole. every year requires capital to start the process over again. you lose your crops you are finished or you going into dept and roll the dice again.
that is the life of a farmer. don't see people jumping around for that fate.

[silverhandorder]

Farmers going away in America will simply confirm that government fucked them over. Taxes, regulations on labor and land hurt them. So in essence we can opt in for more government intervention or for eliminating it all. I find it hard to justify subsidies and tarifs.

I don't want to be dependent on Venezuela either.

[tjeffersonsghost]

i'd love to meet these "rich" farmers you are talking about. (you must be thinking of trent lot)
our family farm went out of business because we didn't use illegal labor. so go fuck yourself you stupid ignorant dip shit.
farmers aren't rich, and only those who farm 1000s of acres can even hope to make a decent living, using cheap labor.

have you ever thought about what happened to everyone's crops during katrina?
they lost them all. you spend $200,000 in production cost to generate an average of $100,000 net profit after crops are sold, but then next year a huricane comes through, you spend $200,000 in production to get zero back. you aren't back at even you in a deep fucking hole. every year requires capital to start the process over again. you lose your crops you are finished or you going into dept and roll the dice again.
that is the life of a farmer. don't see people jumping around for that fate.

go fuck myself? Ignorant dip shit? Really sounds like talk of a business owner :rolleyes:

Where are all the rich farmers? All over. Between huge government subsidize and higher commodity prices farmers are loving life right now. I know 3 farmers personally who don't own thousands of acres and they pay American workers around $10 an hour. They still have room to pay themselves a little over $100k and live in beautiful houses in Iowa. Are there bad years? Yup but that is just like in any other industry out there so you'll get no tears from me.

As far as the downfall of the small farmer (300 or less acres) don't blame illegals for that. Blame the local and federal government for subsidizing huge farming conglomerates. Once again that is happening in every other industry so you will get no tears from me.

The fact is there are indeed farmers out there paying themselves big money while hiring illegals. There are also some farmers who could pay themselves a ton of money and hire illegals and they don't. You say make a decent living, define decent. As a business owner who makes a little over $100k per year I pay my employees around $30k. I could go hire some illegals and pay them $10k per year and pocket the rest which would push my income to over $200k. I'm happy making what I am making, I make a decent living and my employees dont have to be subsidized by welfare to make ends meet because I am paying them shit wages.

[Jeros]

In a certain light it is and I had a sneaking suspicion someone would jump at the opportunity to wave their hands ecstatically and point it out. Regulation of immigration definitely takes away freedom to do whatever you please, but it's an inherent aspect of having a border. I'm not sure how you can have both free immigration and a border. I realize it's a dirty word here, but regulation doesn't necessarily have to prevent an employer from hiring who they need.

If the state doesn't define those borders, the state/country on the other side will do it for you.

Other than the first sentence which is simply too generalized to mean much of anything, I don't disagree with what you're saying here.

You're arguing against government in general. It's a nice dream and I don't discourage you from exploring it - I may even share it in spirit. I'm just not in agreement that it's of any practical use to find a workable solution in our current situation.

It does sound like much of the disagreement revolves around the practicality of any certain policy. Those that advocate regulated migration say that because the government regulates so many other aspects of our lives, millions of legal immigrants will just make the situation that much worse. More welfare, more health care costs, more law enforcement and court costs and so on; this problem makes an already bad situation worse. I think this perspective fails to understand that immigration is only a problem because of socialism, so we are basically attempting to fix a problem caused by government by allowing the government more power over us. Free migration is good for markets and compatible with freedom. Without government interference, it would be self regulating. The government has indirectly tricked people into thinking that migration is the problem, and not government programs. Lets also not forget that every attempt to reduce the size of government since the creation of the united states has been an eventual failure. So any argument of impracticality is sort of baseless. Migration is a none issue, though the state loves it because those who ask for it grant the state more power and control.

I am not actually arguing against government in general. I am arguing against involuntary government in general. Wouldn't it be nice if you could opt out of the requirement to fund the Iraq war? That only those who wanted war would fund the war? Or if roads were covered by fees just like rails? If you don't use the road, you don't have to pay for it? If on a local level, you could sway just about any policy that might affect you? I don't think of any of these as impractical, and further, would argue that they are more practical than the alternative, which is command and control. I find it interesting that people so quickly dismiss ideas because they are not compatible with the current absolutely corrupt doomed to fail system. The current unsustainable course is that which is impractical. Luckily, even Ron Paul says that although he will try to slow the decline, Americans are not ready to truly fix the system so the collapse of it is a matter of time. Now would be a good time to determine what policies are compatible with morality, and relegalizing free migration and voluntary association would be a good first step. At the very least, concepts compatible with liberty should not be demonized, which some on this thread are attempting to do.

[Brian4Liberty]

The planet already is one. Borders are purely conceptual. They only exist on maps because we imagine them to.

So let's say that the world has fully transformed. There are no borders. People can move and work at will. Labor laws are essentially the same in the entire world. Tax laws are essentially the same in the entire world. Environmental laws are essentially the same in the entire world.

Where does the new supply of cheap labor come from? We keep hearing that a continuous and increasing stream of cheaper labor is the only way for certain businesses or even the entire economy to function. Now that the planet has "stabilized", where do you get the new, cheaper labor?


What you just said is that they're running an inefficient, technology-challenged business, kept alive only by illegal labor and import tariffs, because there's no signficant demand for their product.

You've just illustrated why they shouldn't even be in business, not why they deserve to hire illegal labor.

That sounds like the answer.

[Brian4Liberty]

not advocating for anything but the freedom to earn a living and to not be exploited by your employer. If you are making less than $100k then minimum wages is all you can afford. The profit margins just aren't there. Some farmers are pulling in $300k a year while paying 3 to 5 illegals $7 an hour. To me this is exploitation.

There are benefits to being the owner and Im not advocating some sort of socialist utopia of we all get paid the same. But paying yourself $300k while hiring illegals $5 an hour because you dont want to pay some legal citizen $10 an hour is just screwed up. Greed is good, but in moderation. Greed brings about the entrepreneurial spirit. But to much greed screws yourself and the country as a whole in the long run. If everyone decided to pay crap wages where would the money come from to buy products from to keep the economy rolling? More credit bubbles?

Forget farming. How about one of the most powerful advocates for immigration: Bill Gates. Now your scenario if very appropriate. Bill was on American Idol last week asking for donations to his "One" fund so that he can lobby for more government spending. You give him money, he doesn't even use it for charity, he uses it to lobby government to spend more taxpayer money! He certainly shares the "greed is good" motto. Unfortunately, he's also an Oligarchist and a big government socialist.


i'd love to meet these "rich" farmers you are talking about. (you must be thinking of trent lot)


Farming is a tough business, there's no doubt about it. Many of us had ancestors that were farmers, but the old farms are long gone, and everyone works in other areas now. There are some rich farmers and farming corporations though. They bought up all the smaller family farms. ADM isn't hurting for money.

[dwdollar]

go fuck myself? Ignorant dip shit? Really sounds like talk of a business owner :rolleyes:

Where are all the rich farmers? All over. Between huge government subsidize and higher commodity prices farmers are loving life right now. I know 3 farmers personally who don't own thousands of acres and they pay American workers around $10 an hour. They still have room to pay themselves a little over $100k and live in beautiful houses in Iowa. Are there bad years? Yup but that is just like in any other industry out there so you'll get no tears from me.

As far as the downfall of the small farmer (300 or less acres) don't blame illegals for that. Blame the local and federal government for subsidizing huge farming conglomerates. Once again that is happening in every other industry so you will get no tears from me.

The fact is there are indeed farmers out there paying themselves big money while hiring illegals. There are also some farmers who could pay themselves a ton of money and hire illegals and they don't. You say make a decent living, define decent. As a business owner who makes a little over $100k per year I pay my employees around $30k. I could go hire some illegals and pay them $10k per year and pocket the rest which would push my income to over $200k. I'm happy making what I am making, I make a decent living and my employees dont have to be subsidized by welfare to make ends meet because I am paying them shit wages.

You shouldn't base your opinion on 3 people. 95% of farmers are dirt poor.

This is so f*cking ridiculous. Are we really going to argue about farm subsidizes and the fabled "rich farmer" when the banks are looting us for trillions. Give me a f*cking break. It seems to me some of you are just picking on easy targets, because you don't have the guts to look your banker in the eye and say what you really want to say.

[Jeros]

So let's say that the world has fully transformed. There are no borders. People can move and work at will. Labor laws are essentially the same in the entire world. Tax laws are essentially the same in the entire world. Environmental laws are essentially the same in the entire world.

Where does the new supply of cheap labor come from? We keep hearing that a continuous and increasing stream of cheaper labor is the only way for certain businesses or even the entire economy to function. Now that the planet has "stabilized", where do you get the new, cheaper labor?



That sounds like the answer.

That's sort of a short sighted question and answer. Economies balance, the entrepreneurial spirit will even partially compensate for the mistakes of the economic managers you seem to trust. The world economy would also balance if we deported all immigrants who did not get the permission of our caretakers, but there will be immediate and long term consequences that have a net negative impact on output. Economic efficiency is inversely proportional to central economic management. What you call "illegal immigration" benefits immigrants and long term residents.

I am not arguing in favor of cheap labor, I am arguing in favor of free labor. Are you arguing that free labor is a detriment to prosperity? That we need to control human movement to become more prosperous? I think certain austrian economists would disagree with you.

[Danke]

You shouldn't base your opinion on 3 people. 95% of farmers are dirt poor.


Say what?

Not up here in the Midwest.

[dwdollar]

Say what?

Not up here in the Midwest.

Yep it's true. Maybe "dirt" was the wrong word to use, as it gives the image of some poor barefoot from the Oklahoma dustbowl. Those new tractors and trucks you see farmers driving around aren't owned by them. They're either leased from a dealer or part of a hopelessly large farm loan that will never be paid up. They need that new equipment in order to compete. If they don't have the latest equipment, they're out of business. The reasons for this predicament are too numerous to mention, just pick a topic on this forum.

[Brian4Liberty]

That's sort of a short sighted question and answer. Economies balance, the entrepreneurial spirit will even partially compensate for the mistakes of the economic managers you seem to trust. The world economy would also balance if we deported all immigrants who did not get the permission of our caretakers, but there will be immediate and long term consequences that have a net negative impact on output. Economic efficiency is inversely proportional to central economic management. What you call "illegal immigration" benefits immigrants and long term residents.

I am not arguing in favor of cheap labor, I am arguing in favor of free labor. Are you arguing that free labor is a detriment to prosperity? That we need to control human movement to become more prosperous? I think certain austrian economists would disagree with you.

Nice dodge. What's short sighted about a scenario that represents the desired endgame of world-wide open borders? That is a long way off. Of course economies balance. That's why I used the word "stabilized". Where does the constant stream of cheaper labor (that many say is necessary) come from once the end-game is established?

Don't try to put words in my mouth. I don't trust any economic managers.

[Inflation]

http://sathyasaibaba.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/new-age.jpg



The planet already is one. Borders are purely conceptual. They only exist on maps because we imagine them to. Legal enforceable national borders are the result of tyranny. Their practical existence rest on the premise that all land is owned by the government. The only ethical borders are those surrounding private property, or those surrounding collective property where agency is voluntarily granted by all contractual stakeholders.

http://skepacabra.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/new-age.jpg

It's like. All of the universe is a continuous field. Separateness is an illusion.

There has never been an object. If you see the Buddah, kill him.

http://www.sunshinejoy.com/images/Stickers/115366.jpg

Wow, man. We all just, like, need to come together as ONE.

Who cares about illusions like borders, politics, and death? I'd rather embrace New Age nihilism and purge my brain of all concepts.

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q21/zigzul/BaphometIlluminationNewAgeCosmicCon.png

Dude, the answer to everything is KOSMIK UNITY!!!11ONE

IT'S ALL ONE MAN!!!

/Anarchist Lobotomy :rolleyes:

[Jeros]

Nice dodge. What's short sighted about a scenario that represents the desired endgame of world-wide open borders? That is a long way off. Of course economies balance. That's why I used the word "stabilized". Where does the constant stream of cheaper labor (that many say is necessary) come from once the end-game is established?

Don't try to put words in my mouth. I don't trust any economic managers.

I didn't dodge at all. It is very very simple. Let me explain.

1. You support centralized management of human migration for economic ends. How is that putting words in your mouth? You obviously trust economic managers.

2. It is shortsighted to believe that peaceful immigration is illegal. It is shortsighted to believe deporting "illegal" immigrants will produce an economic benefit.

And here you go again bringing up the subject of cheap labor. I am not defending cheap labor. Like I already said, I am defending free labor (free from management). Now please answer my question, do you believe free labor is detrimental to economic prosperity?

[Jeros]

IT'S ALL ONE MAN!!!

/Anarchist Lobotomy :rolleyes:

If you are unable to debate, denigrate instead. :rolleyes:

You quoted a technical logical straightforward portion of my argument and associated it with abstract concepts more comparable with imaginary borders than social philosophy.

[The Patriot]

YouTube - south park-they took our jobs!!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLni3wbndls)

Looks like they got the jobs back. The funny thing is, this bill changes nothing. Arizona police aren't doing anything differently. The only difference now is that cops can arrest people for being illegal as opposed to just detaining them and moving them into the Federal Custody. Obama and the MSM, indirectly and unintentionally actually did the right thing. They are trying to hype it up to rally support for Amnesty, but it backfired because Americans want to deport illegals and now the illegals are s*******g their pants. They hyped up this bill so much and scared the hell out of the illegals, now they are fleeing the state. Hopefully more states do this, the media hypes it up, and all the illegals run scared out of the country.

[Inflation]

If you are unable to debate, denigrate instead. :rolleyes:

You quoted a technical logical straightforward portion of my argument and associated it with abstract concepts more comparable with imaginary borders than social philosophy.

All is One, therefore America is Mexico? I don't think so! :rolleyes:

Logical debate is only one form of argument.

Have you never studied rhetoric?

My satirical send-up of your far-left lovey-dovey borders critique was on point.

Instead of LOGICALLY EXPLAINING why your open-borders fantasy world matters any more than the rest of the Neo-Marxist New Age nonsense, you whine about denigration. Poor you, nobody cares about your Ever-So Important Critical Theory. :(

http://www.fractaldimentia.com/200009/images/newage.jpg

This is a trippy fractal, therefore your "technical logical straightforward" is invalid.

I know, I know. Drawing borders on Mother Gaia is violent and violates our freedom of movement. :rolleyes:

We get it, so save it for your La Raza seminar at The Aspen Institute. :p

[Brian4Liberty]

I didn't dodge at all. It is very very simple. Let me explain.

1. You support centralized management of human migration for economic ends. How is that putting words in your mouth? You obviously trust economic managers.

My scenario didn't have borders.

If you want to come back to reality, we can talk about that too. As long as labor laws, environmental laws, tax laws, entitlement laws are different in all nations, then borders are about a lot more than just people moving around. There are a ton of "imaginary" laws that go along with those "imaginary" borders. Eliminate all the inconsistencies first, then we can talk. And as for the US, we pretty much ignore all immigration law anyway, so open borders are the current default.


2. It is shortsighted to believe that peaceful immigration is illegal. It is shortsighted to believe deporting "illegal" immigrants will produce an economic benefit.


My question was about a scenario where borders do not exist. It had nothing to do with immigration, legal or illegal.


And here you go again bringing up the subject of cheap labor. I am not defending cheap labor.

The number one reason that immigration law is ignored in the US, and that we have open-borders by default is cheap labor. There are also other reasons, but cheap labor is top of the list. You may not care about cheap labor, but your powerful allies do. Go talk to Bill Gates about his global socialist utopia, where enlightened masters such he and Alan Greenspan secretly centrally plan the economy (and everything else).

[The Patriot]

...

[The Patriot]

white people won't do the hard work in the sun. unless you want to being back slavery theres no alternative but to hire illegal immigrants

It is total nonsense Americans won't do construction jobs(only jobs illegals supposedly will do). They are just being priced out by cheap foreign labor. My best friend(White American Citizen) is taking a Construction job for the summer for above minimum wage. Illegals take jobs teenagers and low skilled low income citizens should be taking. Only 3% of illegals work in the farming industry, so it is a misnomer that they are only taking farming jobs.

[Inflation]

If you are unable to debate, denigrate instead. :rolleyes:

You quoted a technical logical straightforward portion of my argument and associated it with abstract concepts more comparable with imaginary borders than social philosophy.

All is One, therefore America is Mexico? I don't think so! :rolleyes:

Logical debate is only one form of argument.

Have you never studied rhetoric?

My satirical send-up of your far-left lovey-dovey borders critique was on point.

Instead of LOGICALLY EXPLAINING why your open-borders fantasy world matters any more than the rest of the Neo-Marxist New Age nonsense, you whine about denigration. Poor you, nobody cares about your Ever-So Important Critical Theory. :(

http://www.spiritandflesh.com/meditation-mandala-digital-art-fractal-ethereal-tendrils-from-the-source-large.jpg

This is a trippy fractal, therefore your "technical logical straightforward" is invalid.

I know, I know. Drawing borders on Mother Gaia is violent and violates our freedom of movement. :rolleyes:

We get it, so save it for your La Raza seminar at The Aspen Institute. :p

[Jeros]

All is One, therefore America is Mexico? I don't think so! :rolleyes:

Logical debate is only one form of argument.

Have you never studied rhetoric?

My satirical send-up of your far-left lovey-dovey borders critique was on point.

Instead of LOGICALLY EXPLAINING why your open-borders fantasy world matters any more than the rest of the Neo-Marxist New Age nonsense, you whine about denigration. Poor you, nobody cares about your Ever-So Important Critical Theory. :(

This is a trippy fractal, therefore your "technical logical straightforward" is invalid.

I know, I know. Drawing borders on Mother Gaia is violent and violates our freedom of movement. :rolleyes:

We get it, so save it for your La Raza seminar at The Aspen Institute. :p

I couldn't say for sure, but I have a feeling you are a little crazy. I also have a feeling you would agree with my analysis of your psychological state. Am I correct?

[Jeros]

My scenario didn't have borders.

If you want to come back to reality, we can talk about that too. As long as labor laws, environmental laws, tax laws, entitlement laws are different in all nations, then borders are about a lot more than just people moving around. There are a ton of "imaginary" laws that go along with those "imaginary" borders. Eliminate all the inconsistencies first, then we can talk. And as for the US, we pretty much ignore all immigration law anyway, so open borders are the current default.

My question was about a scenario where borders do not exist. It had nothing to do with immigration, legal or illegal.

The number one reason that immigration law is ignored in the US, and that we have open-borders by default is cheap labor. There are also other reasons, but cheap labor is top of the list. You may not care about cheap labor, but your powerful allies do. Go talk to Bill Gates about his global socialist utopia, where enlightened masters such he and Alan Greenspan secretly centrally plan the economy (and everything else).

So Bill Gates and the the rest of the elite are planning to turn the world into a socialist utopia, and you plan to stop them by giving the political elite the power to regulate migration?

Your scenario rest on the assumption that I am defending cheap labor, since I am not defending cheap labor, your scenario is irrelevant.

Since you say borders are not enforced, creating a state of default free migration, what is the better alternative?

You still haven't answered whether you think management of human migration increases economic prosperity.

[Brian4Liberty]

So Bill Gates and the the rest of the elite are planning to turn the world into a socialist utopia, and you plan to stop them by giving the political elite the power to regulate migration?

You plan to stop them by giving them what they want?


Your scenario rest on the assumption that I am defending cheap labor, since I am not defending cheap labor, your scenario is irrelevant.
...
You still haven't answered whether you think management of human migration increases economic prosperity.

You still haven't explained where this huge influx of labor is going to come from once the world is borderless and stable. You just said "human migration increases economic prosperity". Once the whole world is equal, there will be much less movement of people. How are you going to "increase economic prosperity" without the huge influxes of people that you claim are so important to the economy? Why does that sound like a Pyramid scam? Alan Greenspan admitted recently that he woke up in the middle of the night with the realization that it (the pyramid scheme) would all fall apart when the (not so) "endless" labor supply runs out.

[Jeros]

You plan to stop them by giving them what they want?

You still haven't explained where this huge influx of labor is going to come from once the world is borderless and stable. You just said "human migration increases economic prosperity". Once the whole world is equal, there will be much less movement of people. How are you going to "increase economic prosperity" without the huge influxes of people that you claim are so important to the economy? Why does that sound like a Pyramid scam? Alan Greenspan admitted recently that he woke up in the middle of the night with the realization that it (the pyramid scheme) would all fall apart when the (not so) "endless" labor supply runs out.

I plan to stop them by disseminating a consistent philosophy of liberty, which includes free migration. You on the other hand would stop them by granting them more power over humanity. Again, Orwell comes to mind.

I never said a huge influx of labor is essential to prosperity. I only said free migration increases economic efficiency. "Huge influx of labor" and "free migration" are not necessarily the same thing. A huge influx of labor is not necessary to maximize economic efficiency, whereas free migration is.

Again, you have not answered my question. Does the centralized management of human migration increase economic prosperity?

[John Taylor]

I plan to stop them by disseminating a consistent philosophy of liberty, which includes free migration. You on the other hand would stop them by granting them more power over humanity. Again, Orwell comes to mind.

I never said a huge influx of labor is essential to prosperity. I only said free migration increases economic efficiency. "Huge influx of labor" and "free migration" are not necessarily the same thing. A huge influx of labor is not necessary to maximize economic efficiency, whereas free migration is.

Again, you have not answered my question. Does the centralized management of human migration increase economic prosperity?

It doesn't Jeros, but the migration of millions of people who favor expanding the welfare state into the United States DO decrease economic prosperity, and DO harm private property rights and individual freedom.

[Brian4Liberty]

I plan to stop them by disseminating a consistent philosophy of liberty, which includes free migration. You on the other hand would stop them by granting them more power over humanity. Again, Orwell comes to mind.

I never said a huge influx of labor is essential to prosperity. I only said free migration increases economic efficiency. "Huge influx of labor" and "free migration" are not necessarily the same thing. A huge influx of labor is not necessary to maximize economic efficiency, whereas free migration is.

Again, you have not answered my question. Does the centralized management of human migration increase economic prosperity?

Our current state is massive immigration. If that is not the same as free migration, what is massive immigration, and is it good for the current population?

"Centralized" management at what level? My property? My neighborhood? My community? City? County? State? Nation? Global centralization? The standard has been set at the national level for quite a long time. And some people do agree with government (at some level) serving a limited role.

And human immigration results in increased economic prosperity for whom? I believe that labor shortages increase individual freedom and innovation, and that labor excesses do the opposite.

Ron Paul has stated that the amount of human migration should depend upon the current economic status, and that it is not static. I agree with him on that.

[Jeros]

It doesn't Jeros, but the migration of millions of people who favor expanding the welfare state into the United States DO decrease economic prosperity, and DO harm private property rights and individual freedom.

That's probably the only argument with any level of truth, but when analyzed thoroughly, still doesn't hold much merit. Americans are already a bunch of dependent, worthless, bleeding heart dumb asses. I doubt an influx of a population who comes here to work for a living would sway the proportions too significantly in the direction of worthlessness. If anything, the culture of hard work and familial responsibility among a great number of Mexican immigrants would tilt the proportions in our favor.


Our current state is massive immigration. If that is not the same as free migration, what is massive immigration, and is it good for the current population?

"Centralized" management at what level? My property? My neighborhood? My community? City? County? State? Nation? Global centralization? The standard has been set at the national level for quite a long time. And some people do agree with government (at some level) serving a limited role.

And human immigration results in increased economic prosperity for whom? I believe that labor shortages increase individual freedom and innovation, and that labor excesses do the opposite.

I'm sure you do not need me to define what "centralized" is, as opposed to localized, within the context of the liberty movement, though I can be more specific if you like. As I've stated, I'm not opposed to limiting immigration on all levels. Under certain conditions, it could be moral for a government to limit migration. I'm opposed to some elitists dictating who I can peacefully associate with and who can peacefully be allowed on my property.

If you do not in fact believe that free human migration results in greater economic efficiency while maximizing potential output, I would be more than happy to get into that subject. It is obviously a fundamental difference between our two positions. You've got the Buchanans on your side, I have the Rothbards on mine, but it is an extensive topic and it would be polite to start a new thread in the economics section. I bet a related one already exists!

One can argue that the current state of immigration is at inflated levels because of social programs acting as subsidies, but subsidized immigration isn't free migration either. Like I said earlier, the state creates a problem by redistributing wealth(subsidizing immigration) The ironic part is we then want the state to come in and fix the problem that they created, by allowing them to outlaw free migration and voluntary association. Why not keep it simple and kill two birds with one stone? No welfare would allow market regulated levels of immigration. Welfare is the problem. Again, the migration issue is a non-issue. It is a cop-out. It is a misdirection. The current culture war will get us nowhere.



Ron Paul has stated that the amount of human migration should depend upon the current economic status, and that it is not static. I agree with him on that.

You just promoted free migration without realizing you are agreeing with me. Well, thank you for agreeing. "Human migration dependent on economic status" (not static) is more or less a synonym for free migration. I'm willing to bet that Ron Paul believes markets effectively regulate migration.

[Brian4Liberty]

You just promoted free migration without realizing you are agreeing with me. Well, thank you for agreeing. "Human migration dependent on economic status" (not static) is more or less a synonym for free migration. I'm willing to bet that Ron Paul believes markets effectively regulate migration.

Maybe we do agree, let's see.

The specific economic status indicator that is important is the true unemployment numbers (and assuming there is room for more people). When a job glut occurs, then immigration can fill that need.

Ron Paul's take:


What is your view on legal immigration?

I think it depends on our economy. If we have a healthy economy, I think we could be very generous on work programs. People come in, fulfill their role and go back home.

I’m not worried about legal immigration. I think we would even have more if we had a healthy economy.

But in the meantime, we want to stop the illegals. And that’s why I don’t think our border guards should be sent to Iraq, like we’ve done. I think we need more border guards. But to have the money and the personnel, we have to bring our troops home from Iraq.

Is the economy healthy enough right now?

No. I don’t think so. I think the economy is going downhill. People are feeling pinched—in the middle, much more pinched than the government is willing to admit. Their standard of living is going down. I saw a clip on TV the other day about somebody who was about to lose their house, they couldn’t pay their mortgage. There’re millions of people involved, people are very uncertain about this housing market. That can’t be separated from concern about illegals.
...

You have a long record of being a serious libertarian. You must have libertarians who are annoyed with you on this.

I imagine there are some, because there are some who are literally don’t believe in any borders! Totally free immigration! I’ve never taken that position.

Why not?

Because I believe in national sovereignty.

[libertarian4321]

One thing is for sure, we are paying for anchor babies to take jobs Americans want
see http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=224183


It's kind of pathetic that any American would lose his job to an uneducated illegal who probably doesn't speak English, but anyone who loses his job to a baby is really sad.

Seriously, how many bushels of onions can a baby harvest in one day?

[parocks]

Yes, if US citizens wouldn't live in shacks for $5 an hour, the hourly pay would have to be raised. This whole argument about "doing jobs that Americans won't do" makes no sense to me. Americans don't want to live under shitty conditions and do difficult work for the least amount of money. So, you pay them what you need to to get them to work for you. And, yes, that'll mean the price of vegetables will go up. So people will either pay more for vegetables, or maybe grow them themselves instead of having big lawns. If you're having trouble getting people to work for you, give them a raise. It's really simple.



That would make perfect sense, assuming it didn't factor some very important factors. However I see it a bit differently.

If the illegal labor wasn't available, you'd initially have a lot of vacant farm jobs. The cost of domestically produced food would rise dramatically, only mildly suppressed by imported good goods from other nations. For domestic farms to compete, a combination of higher wages and/or progressive agriculture technique would have to be implemented.

I agree with the first post, it's a lie that legal residents, regardless of ethnicity and free from government obstruction can't or won't produce what they need to survive.

Perhaps as a side effect, people would also be less wasteful as well... I'd imagine McDonalds, BK etc wouldn't be so quick to sell volume over quality with such an unnaturally cheap food supply.

[torchbearer]

Yes, if US citizens wouldn't live in shacks for $5 an hour, the hourly pay would have to be raised. This whole argument about "doing jobs that Americans won't do" makes no sense to me. Americans don't want to live under shitty conditions and do difficult work for the least amount of money. So, you pay them what you need to to get them to work for you. And, yes, that'll mean the price of vegetables will go up. So people will either pay more for vegetables, or maybe grow them themselves instead of having big lawns. If you're having trouble getting people to work for you, give them a raise. It's really simple.

you really have no idea how the market works. the farmer isn't in control of the price of his crops. just because he pays his employee more doesn't mean he gets to jack up his prices. crops are on a world market, if domestic farmers can't produce their crop cheap enough to compete price-wise, he is out of business.

[Inflation]

I couldn't say for sure, but I have a feeling you are a little crazy. I also have a feeling you would agree with my analysis of your psychological state. Am I correct?

Yes, you are correct. I'm psychologically impaired. It's cruel of you to denigrate my condition by calling me "crazy."

Please, continue to inspire us as a paragon of sanity, with such Deep Thoughts like


The planet already is one. Borders are purely conceptual. They only exist on maps because we imagine them to.


http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/RioGrande/Images/rio_grande.gif


Obviously, we nutbaggers that believe So-Called "borders" actually "exist" aren't worthy of being in your enlightened, studious presence. :rolleyes::D:rolleyes::D:rolleyes::D

http://www.houstonfreeways.com/modern/images/2007-01_big_bend/IMG_3340_big_bend_rio_grande_exiting_santa_elena_c anyon_2007-01-10.jpg



Natural borders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borders)

Natural borders are geographical features that present natural obstacles to communication and transport. Existing political borders are often a formalization of these historical, natural obstacles.

Some geographical features that often constitute natural borders are:

* Oceans: oceans create very costly natural borders. Very few nation states span more than one continent. Only very large and resource-rich states are able to sustain the costs of governance across oceans for longer periods of time.

* Rivers: some political borders have been formalized along natural borders formed by rivers. Some examples are; the Rio Grande border (Mexico-USA), the Rhine border (France-Germany), and the Mekong border (Thailand-Laos)

* Lakes: larger lakes create natural borders. One example is the natural border created by Lake Tanganyika (Congo-Burundi-Tanzania-Zambia)

* Forests: denser djungles or forests can create strong natural borders. One example of a natural forest border is the Amazon rain forest (Colombia-Venezuela-Guyana-Brazil-Bolivia-Peru)

* Mountain ranges: research on borders suggests that mountains have especially strong effects as natural borders. Many nations in Europe and Asia have had their political borders defined along mountain ranges.

Throughout history, technological advances have reduced the costs of transport and communication across these natural borders. This has reduced the significance of natural borders over time. As a result, political borders that have been formalized more recently — such as those in Africa or America — typically conform less to natural borders than very old borders — such as those in Europe or Asia — do. States whose borders conform to natural borders are, for similar reasons, more likely to be strong nation-states.

[constituent]

A river is a really shitty excuse to make people travel hundreds of miles out of their way to file through your federal police's armed inspection compounds and submit their bodies and possessions for official inspection.

"Existing political borders are often a formalization of these historical, natural obstacles."

BTW, the Rio Grande has historically been a uniting factor rather than a "natural obstacle," facilitating trade from the Gulf up into the interior of the desert Southwest.

The "line in the sand" mentality didn't overtake the Rio Grande Valley until the 1930's.

[The Patriot]

Americans are already a bunch of dependent, worthless, bleeding heart dumb asses.

F**k you, if you hate Americans so much, why don't you move to Mexico, instead of bringing Mexico here? If you want an idea of what mexicans do, look at Mexico for starters. I don't want Los Angeles to become a socialist third world cesspool.

[Inflation]

A river is a really shitty excuse to make people travel hundreds of miles out of their way to file through your federal police's armed inspection compounds and submit their bodies and possessions for official inspection.

"Existing political borders are often a formalization of these historical, natural obstacles."

BTW, the Rio Grande has historically been a uniting factor rather than a "natural obstacle," facilitating trade from the Gulf up into the interior of the desert Southwest.

The "line in the sand" mentality didn't overtake the Rio Grande Valley until the 1930's.

I'm sure the French and Germans along the Rhine, along with the Thai and Laotians on the Mekong, agree with you. And always have, far back into the mists of antiquity. :rolleyes:

It was only in the 1930's that the sudden mass hallucination of natural borders turning into inconvenient political borders sprang into people's overactive imaginations. Must have been the discovery of LSD or something! :rolleyes:

Picture Title: Mekong river forming the border between Myanmar and Thailand
http://travel.mongabay.com/thailand/600/thailand_0377.jpg


* Rivers: some political borders have been formalized along natural borders formed by rivers. Some examples are; the Rio Grande border (Mexico-USA), the Rhine border (France-Germany), and the Mekong border (Thailand-Laos)

http://www.newsmekong.org/files/images/images/Mekong%206%20cover%20lek.jpg

[Jeros]

F**k you, if you hate Americans so much, why don't you move to Mexico, instead of bringing Mexico here? If you want an idea of what mexicans do, look at Mexico for starters. I don't want Los Angeles to become a socialist third world cesspool.

Revived! Los Angeles already is a third world cesspool. You didn't get the memo? Considering the condition of California's economy and government, I see further degradation of their living standards in the future.

You really don't think the average American is a worthless dependent socialist sympathizer? You do know people, right? You ever take a bus in any metropolitan area in the US. I know I know, some people are decent! I'm not counting on the success of any enlightened minority in the shadow of a thieving incompetent lifeless massive majority. Time will tell who is right.

p.s. I love you too.

[Moderate Mammal]

How about helping me to do something about the problems of Americans losing jobs to illegals?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=245695