I never said anything about importing them. Just don't stop them from coming. We all gain. It's an aspect of free trade.Originally Posted by RestorationOfLiberty
That's naturalization. That did not restrict immigration at all. Those are two separate things. People who weren't naturalized by that act weren't prevented from being able to stay in the USA or to move freely across the border. Such an idea never even crossed the founders' minds.
Establishing a uniform code of naturalization is a power enumerated to the federal government in the Constitution. Regulating immigration is not.
Last edited by Superfluous Man; 01-28-2017 at 06:45 PM.
No it isn't, and the equation of those two things is ridiculous.
Do you think that no border between Indiana and Michigan exists?
Do you think that throughout most of the history of the USA when there were no limits on movement of people across the border that no border existed?
Once again, what do we gain from them begin here?
You are trying to reason with an ideologue, that is what open border believers are.
They can not see the different between states and nations but mandate that no one cross their borders to their property all the while claim borders do not exist....
We can show everybody how virtuous we are!
http://usinc.org/wp-content/uploads/...torylutton.pdf
Contrary to the claims expressed by some historians,Colonial America did not welcome any and all who tried to enter and they were right to do so.
If we allow immigration by government fiat and give benefits to legally "VETTED" immigrant "citizens" we get government cheese suckers who vote for more cheese.
If we allow free market immigration; green card with a no free cheese asterisk, where only those who could get a job and a home in the free market survive... we get hard working, assimilated, intelligent, VALUABLE immigrants, who vote for free market principles.
Markets; survival of the fittest; NOT governments fiats, should vet immigrants because ONLY individual actors in free markets can solve the Local Knowledge Problem.
"In economics, the local knowledge problem is the observation
that the data required for rational economic planning
are distributed among individual actors,
and thus unavoidably exist outside
the knowledge of a central authority."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_knowledge_problemFriedrich Hayek described this distributed local knowledge:Today it is almost heresy to suggest that scientific knowledge is not the sum of all knowledge. But a little reflection will show that there is beyond question a body of very important but unorganized knowledge which cannot possibly be called scientific in the sense of knowledge of general rules: the knowledge of the particular circumstances of time and place. It is with respect to this that practically every individual has some advantage over all others because he possesses unique information of which beneficial use might be made, but of which use can be made only if the decisions depending on it are left to him or are made with his active coöperation. We need to remember only how much we have to learn in any occupation after we have completed our theoretical training, how big a part of our working life we spend learning particular jobs, and how valuable an asset in all walks of life is knowledge of people, of local conditions, and of special circumstances. To know of and put to use a machine not fully employed, or somebody's skill which could be better utilized, or to be aware of a surplus stock which can be drawn upon during an interruption of supplies, is socially quite as useful as the knowledge of better alternative techniques. And the shipper who earns his living from using otherwise empty or half-filled journeys of tramp-steamers, or the estate agent whose whole knowledge is almost exclusively one of temporary opportunities, or the arbitrageur who gains from local differences of commodity prices, are all performing eminently useful functions based on special knowledge of circumstances of the fleeting moment not known to others.[1]Because this distributed knowledge, while incomplete, is essential to economic planning, its necessity is cited as evidence in support of the argument that economic planning must be performed in a similarly distributed fashion by individual actors. In other words, economic planning by a central actor (e.g. a government bureaucracy or a central bank) necessarily lacks this information because, as Hayek observed, statistical aggregates cannot accurately account for the universe of local knowledge:One reason why economists are increasingly apt to forget about the constant small changes which make up the whole economic picture is probably their growing preoccupation with statistical aggregates, which show a very much greater stability than the movements of the detail. The comparative stability of the aggregates cannot, however, be accounted for—as the statisticians occasionally seem to be inclined to do—by the "law of large numbers" or the mutual compensation of random changes. The number of elements with which we have to deal is not large enough for such accidental forces to produce stability. The continuous flow of goods and services is maintained by constant deliberate adjustments, by new dispositions made every day in the light of circumstances not known the day before, by B stepping in at once when A fails to deliver. Even the large and highly mechanized plant keeps going largely because of an environment upon which it can draw for all sorts of unexpected needs; tiles for its roof, stationery for its forms, and all the thousand and one kinds of equipment in which it cannot be self-contained and which the plans for the operation of the plant require to be readily available in the market.[1]As such, the local knowledge problem is a microeconomic counterargument to macroeconomic arguments that favor central planning and regulation of economic activity.
Last edited by presence; 01-28-2017 at 09:25 PM.
'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988
Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation
'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3
Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.
...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...
Countless economic benefits. Again, you are trying to concentrate on that which is seen and not the unseen. Read Bastiat.
That's colonial America. That's not the USA.
The federal government of the USA did not restrict immigration for most of this country's history (N.B. this country = the USA). And in fact, the framers of the Constitution did not include it among the enumerated powers.
That's why the Naturalization Act Antifederalist mentioned earlier did not include any regulations of immigration or any crossing of the nation's borders by anyone.
He is,he is cutting the welfare state.
You have no case against those ideas so you are using "MUH FEELS!", it does not work anymore.
You can not immigrate within the same nation, word games no longer work.
What is a "nation"? Does the Constitution call the USA a nation? Or does it only refer to it in the plural as "states"?
And I don't see why you're even trying to make such a distinction. Not everyone who crosses a border is immigrating.
My point is that the existence and maintenance of borders does not require regulating the crossing of them, as you claimed. And the borders between the states are proof of that. Up until about a century ago, that's how all borders were. Your notion that a nation can't be a nation unless it keeps certain people from being able to cross its borders is ridiculous and ahistorical.
Passports didn't even exist until WWI, and then supposedly only as a wartime measure.
It should practically go without saying that we at this website would not support the requirement of passports to cross borders. But obviously for someone with your ideology that's unthinkable.
Last edited by Superfluous Man; 01-28-2017 at 08:25 PM.
Name one.
Funny how that led to the creation of the welfare state, namely by Eastern Euro immigrants who largely voted for FDR.
Labor is the obvious one. If we actually lost all of our unlawful residents in America, it would be disastrous to our economy. We would all see the effects very quickly, and we would all want them back.
Why would people in a website with a free market mission statement like this one have trouble with this concept?
Last edited by Superfluous Man; 01-28-2017 at 08:28 PM.
Are you sure about that?
Because as the slaves know "virtue" matters more then Victory, "equality" more then victory.We can show everybody how virtuous we are!
"cheap" labor isnt cheap. We have shown this. Higher cost of living, lower wages, more crime, how they vote. What is seen and felt matters more then "MUH FEELS".
You are just mad you can not make a point.
Holy God you are dense. Read the damn link, educate yourself on how immigration laws existed since the beginning of this nation and how they were a net positive.
You can repeat your feel goodism as long as you want. Fewer and Fewer people care. We did not have welfare voters then nor did we have forced interaction and forced inclusion, so once again we have to act in our best interests and if that means excluding others, so be it.The federal government of the USA did not restrict immigration for most of this country's history (N.B. this country = the USA). And in fact, the framers of the Constitution did not include it among the enumerated powers.
That's why the Naturalization Act Antifederalist mentioned earlier did not include any regulations of immigration or any crossing of the nation's borders by anyone.
"We did not do X before so we can not do X now", great argument.
Of course.Are you sure about that?
Why would you doubt it?
And if you do, then why are you here?
No it would not http://www.vdare.com/posts/wsj-on-ar...o-materialized
Wages would increase, tax burdens would drop, crime, welfare would go do, would be leftist voters would no longer threaten our future. All around a net win.
We have proof of this between 1924-1970 wages increased 90%. Less labor=Increase value in Labor.
No, actually, I had it right. And your article backs me up. If you actually did read it, you should read it again.
When are you gonna change your handle? If you ever did pretend to be libertarian, you've obviously come out of the closet since then.
Holy crap, dude. You are overdoing it.
I did not read.
Well its just proves how worthless open borders really are, thanks for making the case against your ideal.
And this is why you guys do not win.
That's ridiculous. You can't attribute that to immigration laws. And you also can't pick out the price of labor by itself and measure the health of the economy by it. More expensive labor isn't automatically a good thing. But free markets are, regardless where they lead the price of any given thing to end up.
Do we really need to trade links like this? How about some from the Mises Institute or the Independent Institute, or anything by any actual economists, rather than vdare (I'm not even sure why you shared that one. Like your link about history of immigration laws, it didn't even say what you claimed it did).
Last edited by Superfluous Man; 01-28-2017 at 08:41 PM.
Overdoing what? Freedom?Holy crap, dude. You are overdoing it.
I mean really, this is basic stuff. I don't get why it still needs to be debated here.
Do we have anything less controversial?
If you did read it would know that colonies/states banned groups from immigrating to them. Anyone who reads it will see for themselves.
I am a Libertarian Closed border Nationalist. I have nothing to be ashamed. But hey keep allowing in people who undermine and vote against your rights under the guise of bring "moral" and "MUH freedom". All it is is cuckoldry.
Autism speaks...And it posts.Holy crap, dude. You are overdoing it.
Thank, where did he find what he claims. Maybe be should share it.I did not read.
Oh but we can, thanks to SB1070.
You have theory, we have fact and practice. I wonder who wins.
Yes the link does, maybe you should read.
Which one? Colonies or states? And in what time period? The colonial time period is irrelevant. We're talking about the laws of the federal government of the USA pursuant to the US Constitution.
Posting Permissions
Connect With Us