VIDEO: Immigration 'reform' adds 33 million competitors to jobless Americans

[Warlord]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7xqryEuaG4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7xqryEuaG4

NumbersUSA, the low-immigration activist group founded by Roy Beck, launched an 18-state television and radio ad buy today opposing the Schumer-Rubio immigration bill that was voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee last week.

“The Gang of Eight bill abandons the 20 million of our fellow Americans who need a job; and it does so for the purpose of rewarding the wealthy special interests who wrote the bill and who will reap the profits of further glutting the labor market and driving down the wages of American workers,” Beck said in a statement. “Under the flood of tens of millions more foreign workers over the next decades, more middle-class occupations will collapse and essential jobs that now pay near-poverty wages will have little chance of improving.”

The television ads will air in Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Utah.

The radio ads will air in Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Nevada, Tennessee, and Wyoming.

H/T Washington Examiner (http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2530621#.UaTbHiU4pes.twitter)

[ObiRandKenobi]

But what about the children!?

[Warlord]

Bumping for Brian

[Brian4Liberty]

Bumping for Brian

Lol. Took the bait...

Instead of basing the legal amount of immigration on "border security", Rand should push for basing it on the true unemployment rate. The lower the unemployment rate, the higher the number of visas. When the official unemployment is greater than 5 1/2 percent, a temporary moratorium should be implemented.

[Zippyjuan]

The total estimated number of illegal aliens in the country is about 10.3 million (which is down from 12.6 million). Not sure where he is getting a 33 million figure from. Net immigration from Mexico was zero last year.

This CATO article is from 2009. It fell by another million in 2010.

A Pew Hispanic Center report released today confirms what has been widely known, that the number of illegal immigrants in the United States has dropped sharply since 2007. The real argument is over what’s behind the decline.

According to Pew’s Jeffrey Passel and D’Vera Cohn, the annual inflow of unauthorized immigrants dropped by two-thirds during 2007-09 compared to 2000-05. That plunge has contributed to an overall decline in the total number of illegal immigrants in the United States from a peak of 12 million in March 2007 to 11.1 million in March 2009. Pew calls this “the first significant reversal in the growth of this population over the past two decades.”

Advocates of more restrictive immigration policies have been quick to credit increased enforcement for the decline, but that thesis doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. While enforcement efforts have indeed been ramped up in the past couple of years, the change has not been dramatic. Resources devoted to border and interior enforcement have been increasing pretty steadily since the early 1990s.

[Brian4Liberty]

“The Gang of Eight bill abandons the 20 million of our fellow Americans who need a job; and it does so for the purpose of rewarding the wealthy special interests who wrote the bill and who will reap the profits of further glutting the labor market and driving down the wages of American workers,” Beck said in a statement. “Under the flood of tens of millions more foreign workers over the next decades, more middle-class occupations will collapse and essential jobs that now pay near-poverty wages will have little chance of improving.”


No worries, the Welfare State will placate the unemployed. Bread and circuses.

[krugminator]

Except immigrants aren't taking jobs. If the job could be filled, it already would be filled. There isn't a shortage of jobs right now. There is a shortage of jobs people are willing to take.

[Brian4Liberty]

Except immigrants aren't taking jobs. If the job could be filled, it already would be filled. There isn't a shortage of jobs right now. There is a shortage of jobs people are willing to take.

Welcome, new shill from the US Chamber of Commerce.

[CPUd]

http://i.imgur.com/n0Bnszt.jpg

[Warlord]

33 Million Green Cards in 10 Years -- Here's How
By Chris Chmielenski, Friday, May 3, 2013, 10:31 AM EDT

Now that we know that the Gang of Eight's immigration overhaul would issue more than 33 million green cards in the first decade, if passed, the question is: where are all the new green cards coming from?

Here's a breakdown of where the other 22 million come from in the first decade.

(For more details on each calculation and estimate see the chart prepared by our Capitol Hill team (https://www.numbersusa.com/content/files/10-Year_LPR_Numbers.pdf).)

10,647,000 -- green cards currently being issued in all categories per decade

+13,364,000 -- green cards in the newly created merit-based track two category (Surprisingly, "merit" includes most of the amnesty)

+1,337,000 -- green cards in the newly created merit-based track one category

+2,510,000 -- green cards for spouses and minor children of employment-based green cards (a new category)

+2,500,000 -- green cards to DREAMers

+864,000 -- green cards to Agricultural workers

+1,177,000 -- recapturing "unused" green cards

+676,000 -- others

================================================== =================

33,057,000 total green cards in the first decade!

MERIT-BASED TRACK TWO

The Gang of Eight creates two so-called merit-based green card categories, simply called track one and track two. Track two will have the
single greatest impact on the number of green cards issued in the first decade since it deals with most of the 11 million illegal aliens (http://www.pewresearch.org/2013/04/17/unauthorized-immigrants-how-pew-research-counts-them-and-what-we-know-about-them/) that receive amnesty through the bill. It will grant 13,364,000 green cards in the bill's first 10 years.

Illegal aliens that don't qualify for either the DREAM Act or the agricultural amnesty can get a green card through the merit-based track two category in the bill's 10th year. This accounts for 7,736,000 of the 13,364,000.

This category also "clears the backlog." According to the Department of State (http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/WaitingListItem.pdf), 4,299,635 applicants are on the waiting list for a green card through one of the four family-sponsored green card categories - a.k.a., chain migration. The track also allows anyone who has lived in the United States for at least 10 years with Temporary Protected Status, Deferred Enforced Departure, or other long-term nonimmigrant visas to qualify for a green card. These individuals combined with the "backlog" and the amnestied illegal aliens brings the estimated number of green cards for this new category to 13,364,000.

MERIT-BASED TRACK ONE

Beginning in 2015, 120,000 green cards will be issued each year through the merit-based track one category. In 2019, the number can be increasedby 5% per year up to 250,000 if at least 75% of the green cards are issued and the unemployment rate for the civilian workforce 18 years or over is at or below 8.5%. (The Gang of Eight conveniently removes the 16-19 year olds who historically have a high unemployment rate.)

Assuming unemployment stays at or below 8.5% and at least 75% of the green cards are used, we estimate that 1,336,741 green cards will be issued through the merit-based track one category in the bill's first decade.
EMPLOYMENT-BASED GREEN CARDS FOR SPOUSES AND MINOR CHILDREN

Under current law, green cards for spouses and minor children of employment-based green card holders count towards the employment-based annual cap (http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/types/types_1323.html). In other words, if an exceptional foreign professor is issued an EB-1 green card (priority worker), and the professor has a spouse and two minor children, all four green cards count towards the EB-1 cap.

The Gang's bill creates a new, uncapped preference under the employment-based category for spouses and minor children of employment-based green card recipients.

Historically, spouses and minor children have accounted for 54% of all green cards (http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2011/ois_yb_2011.pdf) issued in the employment-based categories. The current annual cap on employment-based green cards is 140,000, but the Gang eliminates the cap on several of the high-skilled green card preferences and creates two new preferences, so we estimate the new annual number of green cards to be about 216,000 per year. (This increase is included in the "others" section below.)

If spouses and minor children historically account for 54% of the total, and the number of green cards issued to the employers is 216,000 per year, then roughly 251,000 green cards will be issued per year. That's 2,510,000 green cards in this new category in the bill's first decade.
DREAMers AND AGRICULTURAL WORKERS

The Gang of Eight's bill includes the DREAM Act amnesty and the AgJobs amnesty. Illegal aliens that qualify under either of these programs get a green card in the bill's fifth year. These green cards aren't counted against caps in any other category.

The Migration Policy Institute (http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/dream-insight-july2010.pdf) estimates that 2.1 illegal aliens would qualify for the DREAM Act with a maximum age of 35. The bill has no upper age limit, so we estimate the number of green cards issued to DREAMers to be about 2,500,000.

According to the Pew Hispanic Center (http://www.pewhispanic.org/2009/04/14/a-portrait-of-unauthorized-immigrants-in-the-united-states/), 400,000 illegal aliens work in agriculture and could be eligible for the Agriculture amnesty. Spouses and minor children of these illegal aliens also qualify, so we estimate the number of green cards issued to Agriculture workers and their families to be about 864,000.

RECAPTURING 'UNUSED' GREEN CARDS

The Gang of Eight's bill requires that all supposedly "unused" green cards from 1992-2013 in both the family-sponsored and employment-based categories be recaptured and issued in 2015.

Under current law, the annual cap for all preferences in the family-sponsored green card category is 226,000. Between 1992 and 2012, the U.S. failed to issue the full number of green cards in 14 of the 21 years, amounting to 298,436 green cards. These green cards would be issued in 2015.

In the employment-based category, the annual cap between 1992 and 2013 was 140,000 green cards. The U.S. failed to grant the full number of green cards in 10 of those 21 years, amounting to 404,658 green cards. But that's not all. Remember, the Gang's bill creates a new employment-based preference for spouses and minor children of employment-based green card holders. Using the same 54% from before and applying it to the 404,658 recaptured employment-based green cards, that's another 474,000 green cards that would be issued in 2015!

That makes a grand total of 1,177,000 green cards issued through this additional provision.

OTHERS

There is some good news. The Gang eliminates the Visa Lottery, but only after 2015. The 10-year average for green cards issued through the lottery is 50,000, so this eliminates about 450,000 green cards that will be issued if the Gang's bill doesn't pass.

But there are another 1.1 million green cards spread out over the 10 years that don't fall into any of the above sections. I mentioned above that we estimate the number of green cards issued in the employment-based category (minus the new preference for spouses and minor children) is 216,000. That's up from 140,000 under current law.

Also under current law, green cards for spouses and minor children of legal permanent residents are subject to an annual cap, but the Gang moves them out of of the capped family-sponsored category and into the uncapped immediate relatives category.

They also create a new preference under the immediate relatives that includes spouses and minor children of spouses and minor children of legal permanent residents. Sound confusing? Let's say the 16-year-old daughter of a legal permanent resident has a child of her own. Under current law, there's no way for the child to get a green card. This new preference creates one.

For a line-by-line analysis of the impact of the Gang of Eight's bill on all green card categories and subcategories, see the chart prepared by our Capitol Hill team (https://www.numbersusa.com/content/files/10-Year_LPR_Numbers.pdf). All the estimates are based on averages from the last 10 years, and in some areas we believe the estimates may be conservative. We also have no way to estimate the numerical impact of two newly created preferences in the employment-based category.

CHRIS CHMIELENSKI is the Director of Content & Activism for NumbersUSA

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/nusablog/cchmielenski/may-3-2013/33-million-green-cards-10-years-heres-how.html

[JorgeStevenson]

I dont get what's so complicated about this issue - if someone wants to live here, and they can find a place and pay rent, then they should be able to live here. It should honestly be as simple as that.

[JCDenton0451]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7xqryEuaG4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7xqryEuaG4

NumbersUSA, the low-immigration activist group founded by Roy Beck, launched an 18-state television and radio ad buy today opposing the Schumer-Rubio immigration bill that was voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee last week.

The television ads will air in Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Utah.

The radio ads will air in Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Nevada, Tennessee, and Wyoming.

H/T Washington Examiner (http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2530621#.UaTbHiU4pes.twitter)

No ads in Florida??

[JCDenton0451]

I dont get what's so complicated about this issue - if someone wants to live here, and they can find a place and pay rent, then they should be able to live here. It should honestly be as simple as that.

But it isn't. Immigration has consequences, some serious long term consequences that go way beyond economics.

[Zippyjuan]

33 Million Green Cards in 10 Years -- Here's How
By Chris Chmielenski, Friday, May 3, 2013, 10:31 AM EDT

Now that we know that the Gang of Eight's immigration overhaul would issue more than 33 million green cards in the first decade, if passed, the question is: where are all the new green cards coming from?

Here's a breakdown of where the other 22 million come from in the first decade.

(For more details on each calculation and estimate see the chart prepared by our Capitol Hill team (https://www.numbersusa.com/content/files/10-Year_LPR_Numbers.pdf).)

10,647,000 -- green cards currently being issued in all categories per decade

+13,364,000 -- green cards in the newly created merit-based track two category (Surprisingly, "merit" includes most of the amnesty)

+1,337,000 -- green cards in the newly created merit-based track one category

+2,510,000 -- green cards for spouses and minor children of employment-based green cards (a new category)

+2,500,000 -- green cards to DREAMers

+864,000 -- green cards to Agricultural workers

+1,177,000 -- recapturing "unused" green cards

+676,000 -- others

================================================== =================

33,057,000 total green cards in the first decade!

MERIT-BASED TRACK TWO

The Gang of Eight creates two so-called merit-based green card categories, simply called track one and track two. Track two will have the
single greatest impact on the number of green cards issued in the first decade since it deals with most of the 11 million illegal aliens (http://www.pewresearch.org/2013/04/17/unauthorized-immigrants-how-pew-research-counts-them-and-what-we-know-about-them/) that receive amnesty through the bill. It will grant 13,364,000 green cards in the bill's first 10 years.

Illegal aliens that don't qualify for either the DREAM Act or the agricultural amnesty can get a green card through the merit-based track two category in the bill's 10th year. This accounts for 7,736,000 of the 13,364,000.

This category also "clears the backlog." According to the Department of State (http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/WaitingListItem.pdf), 4,299,635 applicants are on the waiting list for a green card through one of the four family-sponsored green card categories - a.k.a., chain migration. The track also allows anyone who has lived in the United States for at least 10 years with Temporary Protected Status, Deferred Enforced Departure, or other long-term nonimmigrant visas to qualify for a green card. These individuals combined with the "backlog" and the amnestied illegal aliens brings the estimated number of green cards for this new category to 13,364,000.

MERIT-BASED TRACK ONE

Beginning in 2015, 120,000 green cards will be issued each year through the merit-based track one category. In 2019, the number can be increasedby 5% per year up to 250,000 if at least 75% of the green cards are issued and the unemployment rate for the civilian workforce 18 years or over is at or below 8.5%. (The Gang of Eight conveniently removes the 16-19 year olds who historically have a high unemployment rate.)

Assuming unemployment stays at or below 8.5% and at least 75% of the green cards are used, we estimate that 1,336,741 green cards will be issued through the merit-based track one category in the bill's first decade.
EMPLOYMENT-BASED GREEN CARDS FOR SPOUSES AND MINOR CHILDREN

Under current law, green cards for spouses and minor children of employment-based green card holders count towards the employment-based annual cap (http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/types/types_1323.html). In other words, if an exceptional foreign professor is issued an EB-1 green card (priority worker), and the professor has a spouse and two minor children, all four green cards count towards the EB-1 cap.

The Gang's bill creates a new, uncapped preference under the employment-based category for spouses and minor children of employment-based green card recipients.

Historically, spouses and minor children have accounted for 54% of all green cards (http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2011/ois_yb_2011.pdf) issued in the employment-based categories. The current annual cap on employment-based green cards is 140,000, but the Gang eliminates the cap on several of the high-skilled green card preferences and creates two new preferences, so we estimate the new annual number of green cards to be about 216,000 per year. (This increase is included in the "others" section below.)

If spouses and minor children historically account for 54% of the total, and the number of green cards issued to the employers is 216,000 per year, then roughly 251,000 green cards will be issued per year. That's 2,510,000 green cards in this new category in the bill's first decade.
DREAMers AND AGRICULTURAL WORKERS

The Gang of Eight's bill includes the DREAM Act amnesty and the AgJobs amnesty. Illegal aliens that qualify under either of these programs get a green card in the bill's fifth year. These green cards aren't counted against caps in any other category.

The Migration Policy Institute (http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/dream-insight-july2010.pdf) estimates that 2.1 illegal aliens would qualify for the DREAM Act with a maximum age of 35. The bill has no upper age limit, so we estimate the number of green cards issued to DREAMers to be about 2,500,000.

According to the Pew Hispanic Center (http://www.pewhispanic.org/2009/04/14/a-portrait-of-unauthorized-immigrants-in-the-united-states/), 400,000 illegal aliens work in agriculture and could be eligible for the Agriculture amnesty. Spouses and minor children of these illegal aliens also qualify, so we estimate the number of green cards issued to Agriculture workers and their families to be about 864,000.

RECAPTURING 'UNUSED' GREEN CARDS

The Gang of Eight's bill requires that all supposedly "unused" green cards from 1992-2013 in both the family-sponsored and employment-based categories be recaptured and issued in 2015.

Under current law, the annual cap for all preferences in the family-sponsored green card category is 226,000. Between 1992 and 2012, the U.S. failed to issue the full number of green cards in 14 of the 21 years, amounting to 298,436 green cards. These green cards would be issued in 2015.

In the employment-based category, the annual cap between 1992 and 2013 was 140,000 green cards. The U.S. failed to grant the full number of green cards in 10 of those 21 years, amounting to 404,658 green cards. But that's not all. Remember, the Gang's bill creates a new employment-based preference for spouses and minor children of employment-based green card holders. Using the same 54% from before and applying it to the 404,658 recaptured employment-based green cards, that's another 474,000 green cards that would be issued in 2015!

That makes a grand total of 1,177,000 green cards issued through this additional provision.

OTHERS

There is some good news. The Gang eliminates the Visa Lottery, but only after 2015. The 10-year average for green cards issued through the lottery is 50,000, so this eliminates about 450,000 green cards that will be issued if the Gang's bill doesn't pass.

But there are another 1.1 million green cards spread out over the 10 years that don't fall into any of the above sections. I mentioned above that we estimate the number of green cards issued in the employment-based category (minus the new preference for spouses and minor children) is 216,000. That's up from 140,000 under current law.

Also under current law, green cards for spouses and minor children of legal permanent residents are subject to an annual cap, but the Gang moves them out of of the capped family-sponsored category and into the uncapped immediate relatives category.

They also create a new preference under the immediate relatives that includes spouses and minor children of spouses and minor children of legal permanent residents. Sound confusing? Let's say the 16-year-old daughter of a legal permanent resident has a child of her own. Under current law, there's no way for the child to get a green card. This new preference creates one.

For a line-by-line analysis of the impact of the Gang of Eight's bill on all green card categories and subcategories, see the chart prepared by our Capitol Hill team (https://www.numbersusa.com/content/files/10-Year_LPR_Numbers.pdf). All the estimates are based on averages from the last 10 years, and in some areas we believe the estimates may be conservative. We also have no way to estimate the numerical impact of two newly created preferences in the employment-based category.

CHRIS CHMIELENSKI is the Director of Content & Activism for NumbersUSA

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/nusablog/cchmielenski/may-3-2013/33-million-green-cards-10-years-heres-how.html

Thanks for the info. How does that compare to the current system?
http://www.myvisa.com/Visasage/PRnumber.htm

How many immigrants are admitted to the United States every year?

By statute, Congress has placed a limit on the number of foreign-born individuals who are admitted to the United States annually as family-based or employment-based immigrants or as refugees.

Family-based immigration is limited by statute to 480,000 persons per year. Family-based immigration is governed by a formula that imposes a cap on every family-based immigration category, with the exception of "immediate relatives" (spouses, minor unmarried children, and parents of U.S. citizens).



Employment-based immigration is limited by statute to 140,000 persons per year. In most cases, before the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) will issue an employment-based immigrant visa to a foreign-born individual, the employer first must obtain a "labor certification" from the U.S. Department of Labor confirming that there are an insufficient number of U.S. workers able, qualified and willing to perform the work for which the foreign-born individual is being hired.

[Ender]

I dont get what's so complicated about this issue - if someone wants to live here, and they can find a place and pay rent, then they should be able to live here. It should honestly be as simple as that.

It is as simple as that; working people add to the economy.

Where I live there are tons of jobs from construction to nursing to housekeeping that no one will take except the Mexican immigrants. Because this is primarily a tourist community, the whole area is better off because those jobs are filled- keeps the rich folks happy and coming back.

[Michelangelo]

But it isn't. Immigration has consequences, some serious long term consequences that go way beyond economics.

People using drugs has long term consequences as well. Should we prohibit their usage?

People reading bad literature has long term consequences. Should we prohibit people from reading Twilight?

Women wearing pants has long term consequences - namely that they don't look as good looking as if they wore skirts. Should we mandate skirt wearing?

[Brian4Liberty]

Ron Paul on immigration (http://www.vdare.com/articles/ron-paul-i-believe-in-national-sovereignty):


Please start by summarizing your position on immigration.

Well, I start off with saying that it's a big problem. I don't like to get involved with the Federal Government very much, but I do think it is a federal responsibility to protect our borders. This mess has come about for various reasons. One, the laws aren't enforced. Another, the welfare state. We have a need for workers in this country because our welfare system literally encourages people not to work. Therefore, a lot of jobs go begging. This is an incentive for immigrants to come in and take those jobs.
...
I also want to revisit the whole idea of birthright citizenship. I don't think many countries have that. I don't think it was the intention of the Fourteenth Amendment. I personally think it could be fixed by legislation. But some people argue otherwise, so I've covered myself by introducing a constitutional amendment.
...
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.

...
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.

[Brian4Liberty]

Where I live there are tons of jobs from construction to nursing to housekeeping that no one will take except the Mexican immigrants.

I know a 28 yo American that works in seasonal farming, gardening, landscaping and some construction. He is unemployed, but not on any type of welfare. I'll be sure to tell him that the problem is that he is not willing to take any jobs.

[JCDenton0451]

People using drugs has long term consequences as well. Should we prohibit their usage?

People reading bad literature has long term consequences. Should we prohibit people from reading Twilight?

Women wearing pants has long term consequences - namely that they don't look as good looking as if they wore skirts. Should we mandate skirt wearing?

There is one big difference between all 3 examples you listed and immigration.

Can you figure out what it is?

Think, think.

[Ender]

I know a 28 yo American that works in seasonal farming, gardening, landscaping and some construction. He is unemployed, but not on any type of welfare. I'll be sure to tell him that the problem is that he is not willing to take any jobs.

Just saying how it is in my neck of the woods. I know a lady who could not get anyone to work in her nurses aid program. The housekeeping and gardening jobs are huge here and no one wants them except the immigrants.

Just the facts.

[JorgeStevenson]

I know a 28 yo American that works in seasonal farming, gardening, landscaping and some construction. He is unemployed, but not on any type of welfare. I'll be sure to tell him that the problem is that he is not willing to take any jobs.

Why does your friend get property rights over my private property? If I want to lease my apartment to a Mexican, and the Mexican wants to move here, why can't that happen? Why does your friend get a say in what happens on my property? Does your friend also plan to confiscate some of my property in order to fund the bureaucracy, border agents, and equipment necessary to enforce his restrictions on who I am allowed to invite onto my own property?

[Warlord]

Thanks for the info. How does that compare to the current system?
http://www.myvisa.com/Visasage/PRnumber.htm

All the numbers are explained for you... it includes the 500k a year, 13m current that will get amnesty under this bill, their dependents, recaptured and so on they get to 33m within the next decade

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/files/10-Year_LPR_Numbers.pdf

[Brian4Liberty]

But what about the children!?

You reminded me... I was talking to this guy who has a 22 yo (American) son. His son had worked odd jobs, really only qualified for entry level work. He had a lot of trouble finding a job. The good news is that he no longer has to look for a job. Being unemployed left him too much time to smoke pot, which led to him and his mother having a fight, and mom called the Police. This led to jail, and after being let out, possession of marijuana led to a longer stay at the county hotel. No money for fines leads to longer jail stays. Anyway, no problems for him now. Three hots and a cot, and probably easier access to drugs. Thank god he never found a job, otherwise he wouldn't be living his current life of luxury.

[Brian4Liberty]

Why does your friend get property rights over my private property? If I want to lease my apartment to a Mexican, and the Mexican wants to move here, why can't that happen? Why does your friend get a say in what happens on my property? Does your friend also plan to confiscate some of my property in order to fund the bureaucracy, border agents, and equipment necessary to enforce his restrictions on who I am allowed to invite onto my own property?

Yes, we know. We understand your belief system. Some of us feel that it sometimes conflicts with reality. Sorry to burst your bubble.

[JCDenton0451]

Why does your friend get property rights over my private property? If I want to lease my apartment to a Mexican, and the Mexican wants to move here, why can't that happen? Why does your friend get a say in what happens on my property? Does your friend also plan to confiscate some of my property in order to fund the bureaucracy, border agents, and equipment necessary to enforce his restrictions on who I am allowed to invite onto my own property?

Your apartment is your private property. But the city streets, roads, US airspace, US borders are public property, and your Mexican will never reach your apartment unless we the public, as represented by our government, allow him to use our public property...In short, we are fully within our rights to tell your Mexican to GTFO.

Just to be clear, a Mexican as a non-citizen is not a member of the public, he can only get access to our public property with our permission by filing appropriate paperwork. Failing to do that would make illegal, a criminal, a 'thief' if you like.

I hope that wasn't too confusing?

[JorgeStevenson]

Which one conflicts with reality -

The side that wants to build a freaking fence around our country and somehow deport 10 million people?

Or

The side that says you should be able to rent your apartment to anybody you want to? You should be able to hire anybody you want to? You should be able to work wherever you can find a job?

[JCDenton0451]

Yes, we know. We understand your belief system. Some of us feel that it sometimes conflicts with reality. Sorry to burst your bubble.
JorgeStevenson (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?34452-JorgeStevenson) represents a retarted strand of libertarianism that really needs to disappear. The reality is that open-border policy is stupid, short-sighted, impractical and very, very unpopular. It's people like JorgeStevenson (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?34452-JorgeStevenson) that make us all look fringy.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Your apartment is your private property. But the city streets, roads, US airspace, US borders are public property, and your Mexican will never reach your apartment unless we the public, as represented by our government, allow him to use our public property...In short, we are fully within our rights to tell your Mexican to GTFO.

Just to be clear, a Mexican as a non-citizen is not a member of the public, he can only get access to our public property with our permission by filing appropriate paperwork. Failing to do that would make illegal, a criminal, a 'thief' if you like.

I hope that wasn't too confusing?

Yay socialism!

[Brian4Liberty]

Which one conflicts with reality -

The side that wants to build a freaking fence around our country and somehow deport 10 million people?

Or

The side that says you should be able to rent your apartment to anybody you want to? You should be able to hire anybody you want to? You should be able to work wherever you can find a job?

The subject of renting apartments hadn't come up. You are trying to shift the subject in order to bring in a property rights argument. Good luck on creating your global Marxist village. I hope it works out.

[Feeding the Abscess]

The subject of renting apartments hadn't come up. You are trying to shift the subject in order to bring in a property rights argument. Good luck on creating your global Marxist village. I hope it works out.

You're calling him a Marxist when he's arguing the private property position? Really?

[JCDenton0451]

Yay socialism!

Just acknowledging our reality. You want to find a place without government, welfare, public property, border control? Move to Somalia.;)

[HOLLYWOOD]

Reagan's Amnesty turned into 20 Million... I say this will be closer to 50 million once immigrants learn they can get: Subsidized Housing, discounted utilities, free communication devices/discounted lines, free food, educational welfare, minority racist welfare preferences, child welfare everything, free medical, free food/dental for the kids, grants, and whatever else can be sucked from the State/Federal vote for entitlements government.

Have kids... you go to the front of the line...

[Feeding the Abscess]

Just acknowledging our reality. You want to find a place without government, welfare, public property, border control? Move to Somalia.;)

From Barre's fall until the middle of last decade, when the US decided to set up camp and install a government, living conditions in Somalia were improving at rates that far exceeded those of neighboring regions. Given another couple of decades, Somalia could have been a nice place to live. But since that isn't really the point, I could simply mention that there is a government there, and things have taken a turn for the worse since that government was installed.

[Cutlerzzz]

You're calling him a Marxist when he's arguing the private property position? Really?

There's no logical defense of their position. What do you expect?

[Brian4Liberty]

Ron Paul:


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

A: 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.

[JCDenton0451]

From Barre's fall until the middle of last decade, when the US decided to set up camp and install a government, living conditions in Somalia were improving at rates that far exceeded those of neighboring regions. Given another couple of decades, Somalia could have been a nice place to live. But since that isn't really the point, I could simply mention that there is a government there, and things have taken a turn for the worse since that government was installed.

You seem to exist in imaginary universe, consumed with some quixotic theories, utopian ideas, while we normal people attempt find solutions to real-life situations. Please, do not disturb us.

[Brian4Liberty]

You're calling him a Marxist when he's arguing the private property position? Really?

My prediction is that if or when we become a border-less planet, it will be Marxist/coporatist in nature. This that is what the result will be. It won't be an anarcho-global society.

And like I said, bringing in property rights is an attempt to change the argument. Property rights certainly do exist in a nation, so there is no conflict between borders and property rights.

[JCDenton0451]

My prediction is that if or when we become a border-less planet, it will be Marxist/coporatist in nature.

That's not going to happen. Nations like Japan, Israel are smarter than we are, they value their sovereignty.

[Brian4Liberty]

JorgeStevenson (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?34452-JorgeStevenson) represents a retarted strand of libertarianism that really needs to disappear. The reality is that open-border policy is stupid, short-sighted, impractical and very, very unpopular. It's people like JorgeStevenson (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?34452-JorgeStevenson) that make us all look fringy.

IDK about Jorge himself, but I never take these arguments at face value. The percent of people who believe in open borders as a pure concept with no ulterior motives or hidden agendas is certainly a small minority. Start with Marxism and all of it's mutations as people who will support massive immigration, yet it is purely a means to their desired ends. There are quite a few other common agendas that also push for this, with different ends in mind.

Breaking down the structure and essence of the original United States is a goal shared by most of them. Note how the Founding Fathers are now considered an archaic joke. An evil manifestation of a WASP society, that needed to be diminished, diluted, outnumbered, fundamentally changed and eventually destroyed.

People who believe purely in open borders? It's hard to distinguish them from those who believe only in open borders for today, applied to the United States, and only as a tool to achieve an ends. Hidden agendas are by definition, hidden.

[Brian4Liberty]

You're calling him a Marxist when he's arguing the private property position? Really?

FYI, I believe that Marxism has evolved into Marxist-Corporatism. When I use the term "Marxism", I mean modern Marxism, which allows some forms of private property.

[The Free Hornet]

Welcome, new shill from the US Chamber of Commerce.

-1 Is this a suitable welcome while humoring "old shill" "Warlord"?



Except immigrants aren't taking jobs. If the job could be filled, it already would be filled. There isn't a shortage of jobs right now. There is a shortage of jobs people are willing to take.

+1 and welcome. Expect the zero-sum thinkers to post another hate-filled piece on the same subject every other day.

+1 Zippy for using facts (again).

[The Free Hornet]

I know a 28 yo American that works in seasonal farming, gardening, landscaping and some construction. He is unemployed, but not on any type of welfare. I'll be sure to tell him that the problem is that he is not willing to take any jobs.

Be sure to tell him his wages ought go up when those " seasonal farming, gardening, landscaping and some construction" enjoy the same labor mobility he has. He may even get to work on the ground floor for one of his coworkers when they start a company. That may not appeal to him or maybe he'll start that company with the numerous labor force he knows.




FYI, I believe that Marxism has evolved into Marxist-Corporatism. When I use the term "Marxism", I mean modern Marxism, which allows some forms of private property.

Do you have a reference where the term "Marxism" or "modern Marxism" is used elsewhere in this manner by self-identified advocates of "Marxism" or "modern Marxism"??????

[Michelangelo]

There is one big difference between all 3 examples you listed and immigration.

Can you figure out what it is?

Think, think.

Skirt wearing twilight fans who do drugs are less attractive than an illegal alien from Brazil?

Otherwise all examples are examples of negative externality market failure. Well except the skirt example which is a public good example.

[Brian4Liberty]

Do you have a reference where the term "Marxism" or "modern Marxism" is used elsewhere in this manner by self-identified advocates of "Marxism" or "modern Marxism"??????

It's my way to describe them. Would you prefer I call them progressives? Neo-Marxists? Socialists? Economic fascists? Trotskyites? Help me out here. Is there an officially sanctioned term that better describes our current rulers? What terms would you like to apply to Obama?

[Michelangelo]

It's my way to describe them. Would you prefer I call them progressives? Neo-Marxists? Socialists? Economic fascists? Trotskyites? Help me out here. Is there an officially sanctioned term that better describes our current rulers? What terms would you like to apply to Obama?

Statist works.

There are such things as market socialists, but they're distinct from the powers that be.

[The Free Hornet]

Welcome, new shill from the US Chamber of Commerce.

To add, what's really insulting aboout this comment is that the US Chamber is an advocate (BIG) of the H1-B visas (http://www.uschamber.com/issues/immigration/skilled-worker-visas-h1-b-and-l-1-visas) much more so than normalization* of a labor force that has been here for years and likely will be here for years.

The H1-B program is - or has been likened unto - indentured servitude (http://www.pagunblog.com/2011/12/20/the-h1b-our-modern-worlds-indentured-servitude/).

Now, somebody here might take the position that the H1-B sponsorship (employee is tied to their current sponsor or some other company that just happens to have an H1-B slot) thing is good. I think it is bad and is an artifical depression of wages for both H1-Bs and the Americans who would compete for those jobs. So to throw somebody in with the US Chamber is just a low blow on a liberty advocacy site.


* I can't speak to "citizenship" to the extent it is a bunch of privileged welfare statists. My position is as regards economic freedom and labor mobility. If you want to boot someone, boot 'em. Don't keep them here in a quasi-legal status in perpetuity and expect average, private citizens to shoo them out of the country while teachers, police, healthcare, prison industry, and social services all sponge salaries by servicing them.

[Galileo Galilei]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7xqryEuaG4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7xqryEuaG4

NumbersUSA, the low-immigration activist group founded by Roy Beck, launched an 18-state television and radio ad buy today opposing the Schumer-Rubio immigration bill that was voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee last week.

“The Gang of Eight bill abandons the 20 million of our fellow Americans who need a job; and it does so for the purpose of rewarding the wealthy special interests who wrote the bill and who will reap the profits of further glutting the labor market and driving down the wages of American workers,” Beck said in a statement. “Under the flood of tens of millions more foreign workers over the next decades, more middle-class occupations will collapse and essential jobs that now pay near-poverty wages will have little chance of improving.”

The television ads will air in Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Utah.

The radio ads will air in Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Nevada, Tennessee, and Wyoming.

H/T Washington Examiner (http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2530621#.UaTbHiU4pes.twitter)

Rand just said the bill reduces the number of work visas.

[Brian4Liberty]

Be sure to tell him his wages ought go up when those " seasonal farming, gardening, landscaping and some construction" enjoy the same labor mobility he has.


That don't make no sense. (http://youtu.be/TM-G0bkl8MQ)

[Brian4Liberty]

Forum hiccup.

[Brian4Liberty]

To add, what's really insulting aboout this comment is that the US Chamber is an advocate (BIG) of the H1-B visas (http://www.uschamber.com/issues/immigration/skilled-worker-visas-h1-b-and-l-1-visas) much more so than normalization* of a labor force that has been here for years and likely will be here for years.



The US Chamber of Commerce supports all types of imported labor.


U.S. Chamber Urges High Court to Strike Down 2007 Arizona Immigration Law (http://www.uschamber.com/press/releases/2010/september/us-chamber-urges-high-court-strike-down-2007-arizona-immigration-law)

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Today the U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed its opening brief in Chamber of Commerce, et al. v. Whiting, et al. (formerly Candelaria), the Chamber’s Supreme Court case challenging the constitutionality of a controversial 2007 Arizona immigration law.
...
The challenged Arizona law requires businesses to comply with the federal E-Verify pilot program to electronically verify employees’ eligibility to work, and authorizes state officials to adjudicate employment eligibility. The law also imposes harsher sanctions on employers than those under federal law. As governor of Arizona, Janet Napolitano called the law’s sanctions “the business death penalty” because the law permits the state to revoke a company’s charter and articles of incorporation. In its lawsuit, the Chamber argues that the Arizona law is preempted by federal immigration laws. Leading Supreme Court advocate Carter Phillips of Sidley Austin LLP will argue the case for the Chamber.
...
The lawsuit has garnered widespread support, with business, labor and civil rights organizations joining in the litigation. The Chamber’s co-plaintiffs include Chicanos Por La Causa, Somos America, Valle Del Sol, Inc., represented by the ACLU, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and National Immigration Law Center. Other co-plaintiffs include Arizona Chamber of Commerce, Arizona Contractors Association, Arizona Employers for Immigration Reform, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona Farm Bureau Federation, Arizona Restaurant and Hospitality Association, Associated Minority Contractors of America, Arizona Roofing Contractors Association, Wake Up Arizona!, and Arizona Landscape Contractors Association.

[The Free Hornet]

That don't make no sense. (http://youtu.be/TM-G0bkl8MQ)

Imagine working for a company near the bottom. Mostly below and sometimes parallel with your level are people who can't pass e-verify and can't cross the border into Arizona (https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/illegal-immigration/map-states-mandatory-e-verify-laws.html) to work there. They can't get government jobs in many other states as well. Nor can they work for employers that voluntarily use e-verify (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Verify).

Above and but sometimes parallel with you, the same company has lots of H1-Bs. Another captured labor market. In essense, you compete - within that company - with people who can't reasonably work elsewhere.

You would have the benefit of leaving - if you can pass E-verify - but within that market, do not expect upward wage pressure.




It's my way to describe them. Would you prefer I call them progressives? Neo-Marxists? Socialists? Economic fascists? Trotskyites? Help me out here. Is there an officially sanctioned term that better describes our current rulers? What terms would you like to apply to Obama?

The simple answer is "no". Given that Marx is dead and wrote his philosophy, I would see it as somewhat fixed, just as Objectivism is somewhat fixed and defined as the philosophy of Ayn Rand (in her case, her intellectual heir lives and that is the definition last I recall).

Anyway, I'm not sure why you called JorgeStevenson a Marxist (or implied "Good luck on creating your global Marxist village."). Perhaps you have a link to justify that. Seems like you don't and you want me to do the footwork for you. As to our "current rulers"... you changed the goal posts in true troll fashion.

On the other side of this debate, you have called one a US Chamber shill and another a Marxist. Give it up already.

[smhbbag]

Except immigrants aren't taking jobs. If the job could be filled, it already would be filled. There isn't a shortage of jobs right now. There is a shortage of jobs people are willing to take.

A shortage of jobs people are willing to take means the prices are too low.

[otherone]

But it isn't. Immigration has consequences, some serious long term consequences that go way beyond economics.

A gray race? :rolleyes:
fyi, in another thread someone wanted to know the difference between a paleo and a libertarian...

[ReasonableThinker]

Anyone that advocates for unrestrained or mass immigration does so going beyond the realm of history, science, and economics. There is no positive side to Latin American immigration, save for cheap labor which only benefits a select Capitalist elite in our flawed system. The political impact, with libtards are gleeful over and libertardians ignore, is a permanent Democratic majority and a lifetime full of pseudo-egalitarian dictators (ala Obama) with a populace too stupid to vote them out over overthrow them with the use of force. The proponents of mass immigration act totally ahistorically, as none of the founding fathers would have advocated such a preposterous anti-american policy, with Benjamin Franklin even warning against German and Swedish immigration. This hyper-individualism rhetoric that Libertardians on here spew is as dangerous as anything the Left has come up with.

[ReasonableThinker]

People using drugs has long term consequences as well. Should we prohibit their usage?

Yes, drug use has a greater consequence on the family and nation as a whole and it can't be summed up in simplistic and flawed Libertardian principles like the NAP.


People reading bad literature has long term consequences. Should we prohibit people from reading Twilight?


Not twilight, but preventing people from reading radical Leftist literature that appeals to teenagers, college kids in their 20s, and pushes them to an illogical Leftist extremist viewpoint is justifiable. If you recall, the Founding Fathers didn't exactly tolerate Loyalist newspapers from passing out their material.

[BAllen]

Reagan's Amnesty turned into 20 Million... I say this will be closer to 50 million once immigrants learn they can get: Subsidized Housing, discounted utilities, free communication devices/discounted lines, free food, educational welfare, minority racist welfare preferences, child welfare everything, free medical, free food/dental for the kids, grants, and whatever else can be sucked from the State/Federal vote for entitlements government.

Have kids... you go to the front of the line...

It's white genocide.

[Danan]

Yes, drug use has a greater consequence on the family and nation as a whole and it can't be summed up in simplistic and flawed Libertardian principles like the NAP.

Not twilight, but preventing people from reading radical Leftist literature that appeals to teenagers, college kids in their 20s, and pushes them to an illogical Leftist extremist viewpoint is justifiable. If you recall, the Founding Fathers didn't exactly tolerate Loyalist newspapers from passing out their material.

So you are against the first ammendment? At least you are consistent. If you are against immigration, even though it violates individuals' property rights, because of alleged negative long-term consequences, you also ought to be against the first ammendment, for the same reasons. Batshit crazy, but consistent.

[Danan]

It's white genocide.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbefzmY6B01qarg8ao1_500.gif

[ReasonableThinker]

So you are against the first ammendment? At least you are consistent. If you are against immigration, even though it violates individuals' property rights, because of alleged negative long-term consequences, you also ought to be against the first ammendment, for the same reasons. Batshit crazy, but consistent.


According to you, the Founding Fathers and Americans up until rather recently were all batshit crazy. The 1st Amendment always had its limitations, and sedition is one of those. The Left in general clearly falls under the 'sedition' category, especially when advocating America become a third world utopia with a permanent Democratic majority through illegal means.

[Danan]

According to you, the Founding Fathers and Americans up until rather recently were all batshit crazy. The 1st Amendment always had its limitations, and sedition is one of those. The Left in general clearly falls under the 'sedition' category, especially when advocating America become a third world utopia with a permanent Democratic majority through illegal means.

Lol.

[BAllen]

According to you, the Founding Fathers and Americans up until rather recently were all batshit crazy. The 1st Amendment always had its limitations, and sedition is one of those. The Left in general clearly falls under the 'sedition' category, especially when advocating America become a third world utopia with a permanent Democratic majority through illegal means.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AW1FmKNffyg

[pcosmar]

Immigration 'reform' ?

Codename,, Bullshit.

anyone remember Rex84?
Anyone remember that the Containment (FEMA) Camps were originally built to house the "illegal aliens"? (that was the cover story)

anyone remember that that never happened,,? and yet millions were recently spent on refurbishing these camps.

Do you really think all this rhetoric is about "illegal aliens"?

some of you need to pull your heads out of where ever they are stuffed.

[Brian4Liberty]

You would have the benefit of leaving - if you can pass E-verify - but within that market, do not expect upward wage pressure.


Be sure to tell him his wages ought go up when those " seasonal farming, gardening, landscaping and some construction" enjoy the same labor mobility he has.

Well, what is it? Will his wages go up or down?

[Zippyjuan]

Reagan's Amnesty turned into 20 Million... I say this will be closer to 50 million once immigrants learn they can get: Subsidized Housing, discounted utilities, free communication devices/discounted lines, free food, educational welfare, minority racist welfare preferences, child welfare everything, free medical, free food/dental for the kids, grants, and whatever else can be sucked from the State/Federal vote for entitlements government.

Have kids... you go to the front of the line...

Actually the total from the Reagan amnesty was closer to three million.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128303672


As the nation's attention turns back to the fractured debate over immigration, it might be helpful to remember that in 1986, Ronald Reagan signed a sweeping immigration reform bill into law. It was sold as a crackdown: There would be tighter security at the Mexican border, and employers would face strict penalties for hiring undocumented workers.

But the bill also made any immigrant who'd entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty — a word not usually associated with the father of modern conservatism.

In his renewed push for an immigration overhaul this week, President Obama called for Republican support for a bill to address the growing population of illegal immigrants in the country. This time, however, Republicans know better than to tread near the politically toxic A-word.

Part of this aversion is due to what is widely seen as the failure of Reagan's 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. However, one of the lead authors of the bill says that unlike most immigration reform efforts of the past 20 years, amnesty wasn't the pitfall.

"We used the word 'legalization,' " former Wyoming Sen. Alan K. Simpson tells NPR's Guy Raz. "And everybody fell asleep lightly for a while, and we were able to do legalization."

The law granted amnesty to nearly 3 million illegal immigrants, yet was largely considered unsuccessful because the strict sanctions on employers were stripped out of the bill for passage.



PolitiFact says it was 1.7 million. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jan/06/rudy-giuliani/yep-reagan-did-the-a-word/

The GOP candidates keep sparring over who's tougher on immigration. In this climate, dem is fightin' words to say your opponent supports "sanctuary" or "amnesty" for illegal immigrants.
But as Giuliani reminded his foes during the Jan. 5, 2008, Republican debate, none other than Ronald Reagan, the patron saint of modern-day conservatism, signed the very law that Republicans call amnesty.

Say it ain't so!

Sorry. It's so. In 1986, Reagan signed an immigration reform bill, the first in 20 years, that legalized the status for 1.7-million people.

Some defenders of the law dispute the term "amnesty."

But here's how Edwin Meese, Reagan's former attorney general, characterizes what his boss did: "President Reagan called this what it was: amnesty. Indeed, look up the term 'amnesty' in Black's Law Dictionary, and you'll find it says, 'the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided amnesty for undocumented aliens already in the country.' "

Reagan signed the bill after Republicans and Democrats cobbled together an amnesty program in response to concerns from farmers worried about harvesting profits. The official record of congressional debates shows that lawmakers intended the program to provide a steady supply of labor for growers of perishable crops, such as cherries, grapes, peaches, etc. At the time the bill was written, however, "perishable" was defined so loosely that more durable crops such as potted plants, tobacco and seedlings were lumped in as well.


but later the same piece says 2.7 million.

To qualify for temporary status, migrants had to show they entered the United States before Jan. 1, 1982, and that they had continuously resided since then. They could get permanent residency within 18 months after that if they met certain requirements, such as learning English. The program took effect in 1987, also covering up to 350,000 people who had worked in U.S. agriculture at least 90 days in each of the preceding three years.

Many have called the program a success because it awarded green cards to 2.7-million migrants, giving them the hope of entry to the American middle class.


And there aren't 50 million illegal immigrants in the country to grant status to- the total estimated number of those currently in the country illegally is about eleven million.

[familydog]

So NumbersUSA wants the federal government to protect me from job competition. Will they also lobby the state to protect my business from competition?

[HigherVision]

I'm more concerned about the reality of the majority of these however many million legalized people all voting for bigger government once they get the ability to. Many libertarians might favor immigration but not many of today's immigrants seem to favor liberty. That's a reality I think we should be looking more closely.

[Danan]

I'm more concerned about the reality of the majority of these however many million legalized people all voting for bigger government once they get the ability to. Many libertarians might favor immigration but not many of today's immigrants seem to favor liberty. That's a reality I think we should be looking more closely.

Maybe immigrants tend to vote democratic because large parts of the right view them as cultural and economical parasites.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I'm more concerned about the reality of the majority of these however many million legalized people all voting for bigger government once they get the ability to. Many libertarians might favor immigration but not many of today's immigrants seem to favor liberty. That's a reality I think we should be looking more closely.

Not many white people favor liberty either. Poor argument against immigration.

[BAllen]

Maybe immigrants tend to vote democratic because they are cultural and economical parasites.

Fixed it.

[Antischism]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AW1FmKNffyg

Go back to Stormfront.

[The Free Hornet]

Well, what is it? Will his wages go up or down? [When will *you* end the war on drugs and police state and stop disabling labor freedom? Asking me to predict the future is just as fair.]

To reiterate...


Above and but sometimes parallel with you, the same company has lots of H1-Bs. Another captured labor market. In essense, you compete - within that company - with people who can't reasonably work elsewhere.

You would have the benefit of leaving - if you can pass E-verify - but within that market, do not expect upward wage pressure.

With non-e-verified immigrant labor and H1Bs competing for every rung of your economic ladder, you may not have upward wage pressure.


Be sure to tell him his wages ought go up when those " seasonal farming, gardening, landscaping and some construction" enjoy the same labor mobility he has. He may even get to work on the ground floor for one of his coworkers when they start a company. That may not appeal to him or maybe he'll start that company with the numerous labor force he knows.

In the context of not being swarmed with H1Bs and immigrants not sufferingl labor immobility, his wages may go up. To be clear, his wages as you describe him near the lower end of job spectrum. Middle-to-upperclass... I don't know. But we ought to benefit from a bigger pie and a smaller police state nibbling from it.

Keep in mind, whether you want "border security" (assuming you don't mean more jobs for Homeland Security) or "immigration reform", a crucial first step could and ought be ending the war on drugs - and doing so with extreme predjudice.

That this isn't your first and largest point on these topics, puts you in a very ugly light (IMO).