My latest column in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review will bring me plenty of hate mail; one cannot endorse more open immigration today without causing unjustified fury.
Tom Palmer’s related post from several years ago is especially worth reading.
A Libertarian Case for Restricting Immigration?
Previous post: The next generation
Next post: The dwindling importance of unions
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 47 comments }
Agreed. Otherwise, why shouldn't Ohio restrict immigration from Kentucky, Indiana, or any other state in the union? Why shouldn't Cleveland control the influx of Akronites (or vice versa)?
It is bizarre to think some libertarians would restrict my right to employ whomever I wish.
It is bizarre to think some don't realize that unmediated immigration is a massive expansion of government.
The issue that is never addressed of immigration (the illegal type) is not the unintended consequences (crime, poverty, disease, traffic, public safety) but the REAL cost. Remember the Boston Tea Party? That was "no taxation without representation". Illegal immigrants come to the US and drive on our roads, call 911 for fire and police, stop at traffic lights, use power, water and sewage, engage in activities that have to be monitored and/or stopped by the DEA, FBI, FAA, CIA, NSA, Dept. of Labor, the local school system, hospital ER's etc. Except-they don't pay for any of it! Except for sales taxes on goods they buy they do not pay any income or (direct) property taxes. But, they use these resources in as great or greater quantity as anyone else living here. And their champions are legion. This is "representation without taxation" and it is the true problem immigration. I say, let them fill out the forms and become legal so we can at least help pay the Border Patrol and ICE agents' salaries!
Tiger: "Except for sales taxes on goods they buy they do not pay any income or (direct) property taxes."
I think you are mistaken.
I'm not defending the practice, but immigrants who work using fake ID's or someone else's ID do have taxes withheld from their paychecks. Unlike the legal low-income workers, they do not receive the benefits legal workers would expect, such as earned income tax credits and social security retirement.
Everyone who pays rent pays property taxes. Landlords pass on those taxes to tenants as part of the rent.
Everyone who uses the services of any property-owning business pays property taxes as well. Businesses pass on the cost of those property taxes through the prices they charge for their goods and services.
"I say, let them fill out the forms and become legal so we can at least help pay the Border Patrol and ICE agents' salaries!"
I am positive that immigrants would become legal – if they had any chance to do so. Only highly skilled immigrants and relatives of U.S. residents have any hope of legally gaining entry.
The very same people who argue that immigrants should come here legally are the ones who would prevent any increase in the numbers ofg legal immigrants.
Tiger… The number floating around these days from a Reason article is that illegal immigrants contributed about $50 Billion with a "B" to FICA in 1996. That's just FICA. Contrast that to Heritage's recent scare-mongering report that pegged the total tax dollar cost at all levels of government at $440 Billion on the high side (assuming 22 million illegals and the high end of their range, requiring 2 kids in school and families of 4). Compare all that to $1.6 Trillion with a "T" in open construction projects in November, 2006, where a significant amount of hard to find labor is "illegal", and the costs of so-called illegals is really a drop in the bucket for a large gain.
In English… The narrative of people coming here to soak off our welfare and take our jobs away is silly. Illegal immigrant labor is a huge part of our building and service industries. That's why the "problem" ends up being politically intractable, not because anyone is unpatriotic or selling us out, and restrictionists would have us all believe.
Mr. Boudreaux, like the editorial page of the WSJ, leaves one guessing as to the fine points of his position on immigration. If you were given the absolute power to establish immigration policy, Mr. Boudreaux, what would that policy look like? Would the border between Mexico and Arizona be no different than between Arizona and New Mexico?
Great post, Don, but it bypasses the problem of the meta-community, that is, the community beyond community that exists only to the extent that people believe in it. When you hear the words nation, america, we, our, and usually the word community itself, what you're hearing is the individual's visualization of a meta-community. The problem is that the vision of the meta-community has great competitive value to the believers – and seldom includes everyone because it wouldn't have much point if it did. Your point makes perfect sense to a modern atheist, or a true individualist, but there aren't very many of us.
free people do good (for the world)
more people do more good
bring 'em on.
brad: "That's why the "problem" ends up being politically intractable, not because anyone is unpatriotic or selling us out, and restrictionists would have us all believe."
Exactly right, Brad.
Some of my fellow conservatives argue that legal workers would magically appear to replace illegals. They argue that we would, of course, have to pay more.
With unemployment at levels considered to be full employment, just where would those replacement workers come from? Retired worklers are not going to be motivated to climb up on roofs and shingle houses, no matter what the wage.
Why should everyone in the U.S. do without the services of these workers anyway? Why should we pay higher costs when the 8 million illegals are willing to do the work?
The problem of ensuring their tax contribution is simple: make them legal overnight.
Mr Boudreaux,
The only problem I have with unrestricted immigration is in conjunction with unrestrained democracy. If everything is left open to democratic reform, including liberal democracy itself, then unfettered immigration is not necessarily preferable.
It is not a mere triviality that immigrant groups often do not share the cultural values without which liberal democracy is impossible, and where they wield political power, allowing entry may foreshadow further eroding of the very libertarian principles you espouse.
In another world, with different political institutions and incentives, I might agree with you.
Regards,
Lee
"immigrant groups often do not share the cultural values without which liberal democracy is impossible"
But isn't that true of nearly every immigrant group that has populated our nation?
Wasn't there great fear among Protestants that Irish and Italian Catholic immigrants would reject our founding principles in favor of allegiance to the Vatican authority?
Did 19th century Asian laborers ultimately erode our cultural values? or did they simultaneously adopt and enrich our culture? How long did it take Asian immigrants to embrace capitalism?
Mr. Kelly, is it possible you underestimate the power of our freedoms and our culture to effect change in immigrant values?
Hi John,
"Mr. Kelly, is it possible you underestimate the power of our freedoms and our culture to effect change in immigrant values?"
Perhaps. I hope so. I do not mean to imply that every immigrant group has this problem. I live in the UK, and am ever more concerned about the growing political power of Islam, and particularly MPs willingness to court it. In many pockets of the UK, and similarly for Europe, there are communities where, in effect, Sharia reigns. Islam is a species of socialism, and far from anything resembling libertarianism, hostile to the basic principles of liberal democracy.
In regard to the US, I do not find it coincidental that among the immigrant amnesty's greatest proponents are a majority of Democrats. I would suggest that the politicians who would have this amnesty, far from being moved by the principles Don espouses, are far more moved by the belief that those they offer amnesty to will return the favour with votes.
It may be that many immigrants move to escape problems in their countryof origin, though I have less faith that they attribute those problems to the culture, beliefs and values which they bring with them to the US.
Regards,
Lee
My ideal immigration policy-
Immigration is not a problem, it is an opportunity. We can monetize that demand.
Border enforcement is appropriate no matter how you feel about immigration. With good border enforcement we can charge substantial entrance fees to immigrants. Maybe auction off slots on E-bay or have a special immigrant income surtax until they naturalize.
The point is, lets turn that demand into money and get more hard working young people here to support you and me in our old age. The more that come, the better off we are.
John Dewey comments; "I'm not defending the practice, but immigrants who work using fake ID's or someone else's ID do have taxes withheld from their paychecks."
Those that do work "on the books" also routinely claim 14 dependents and thus pay SocSec and very little else.
Unlike the legal low-income workers, they do not receive the benefits legal workers would expect, such as earned income tax credits and social security retirement.
They do however consume huge quantities of public commons and social services with no contribution. They additionally externalize a great many of their direct costs. Uninsured motorist coverage anyone?
I like Tom Kelly's idea. Every morning at 8AM a row of buses arrives at the border and an open auction ensues. Rather than pay drug smugglers and "coyotes" the motivated would be immigrant can bid for that day's available spots. After deducting service charges and paying for health screening the buses and the rest of the money are free to disperse to their predeclared destinations.
Tiger,
The old "no taxation without representation" is a bit of an Americocentric canard – possibly the first great piece of disinformation in the Republic's history.
The initial reason that the Stamp Act and its successors were imposed was because of the horrific expense the British government (and, er, people)had incurred fighting the Seven Years' War in North America – and at the time the shooting was going on, the crapulous colonists were more than happy to enjoy the security provided by British generals and swarms of redcoats without showing any urgency about picking up the tab to pay for them and bitching that their rights as Englishmen being trampled upon when asked to do so.
A suitable counterslogan to "no taxation without representation" would have been "no security without cash up front".
Mind you, if the British had spread propaganda to the effect that the French were coming down to forcibly convert them toPapism, the colonists would have enlisted en masse.
For more details, read Fred Anderson's 'Crucible of War'.
"I don't recall Ireland once owning part of our country"
How irrelevant! The Irish may not have owned part of the U.S., but the French and the Canadians did. Thousands of poor Catholic French Canadians resettled in the U.S. colonies and in Spanish Louisiana after being expelled by Canada. Their descendants have bravely fought for the U.S. in every one of its major wars. My uncle John, who gave his life for this country in WWII, was one of them.
Descendants of Mexican immigrants have also saccrificed their lives while serving in the U.S. military. Your implication that Mexican immigrants will be disloyal to the U.S. is an insult to their honor.
Citing the radical rants of a tiny portion of a large population does not prove anything, M.A.B.
The important point, M.A.B., is that descendants of immigrants from everywhere do assimilate. They do adopt as well as enrich our culture. A few Americans have always resisted immigrants and tried to invoke fear in their fellow citizens. They have always been proven wrong.
"The important point, M.A.B., is that descendants of immigrants from everywhere do assimilate"
If they feel like it; not really a high enough standard to be permitted to share in the great property right that is citizenship, don't you think?
Well, I had already heard about these odd theories and your article made me curious, so I just read the papers you're referring to.
I had originally planned on writing my impressions but I seriously have no idea where to start, the neo-nazi authors quoted in the footnotes, the intensive blockquoting of his pet-authors as an appeal to authority, the general unscholarliness or the unjustified/undocumented/unargued xenophobic assertions (the list could go on and on)?
Seriously, what did people ever think was libertarian about this hack?
martin: "not really a high enough standard to be permitted to share in the great property right that is citizenship, don't you think?"
Sorry, but I'm not understanding your meaning.
Children born in the U.S. to immigrants are entitled to citizenship for exactly the same reason anyone else is entitled. They were born here.
Children who spend most of their lives here should probably be granted citizenship once they turn 18. Why shouldn't they? This is the country they know, that they are loyal to. What difference does it make if their parents moved them here illegally when they were unable to make decisions for themselves?
As far as I am concerned, anyone who comes here, legally or illegally, and works for ten years should be given citizenship. No, make that five years! Not be eligible to wait in line for citizenship, but given citizenship right then. Anyone who proves they are willing to work should be welcomed with open arms. But that's just my view, and certainly not the law.
M.A.B.: " I've written thousands of posts about this general issue for five years, and I live in L.A. So, I'm going to guess that I'm much more familiar with the topic than you are."
Well, that paragraph tells me not so much about what you know as is does about your opinion of yourself. I suppose self-confidence is a good thing. But I did stop reading at that point.
Tom Kelly, you are missing something important. The money wouldn't go to "us." It would go to the Government. More money for the Government does "us" no good.
And your reliance on social security is an illusion. All the immigrants in the world paying social security taxes will do nothing to save it because none of the money goes into the so-called social security "trust fund." There is no fund and there is no trust. The Government just spends the money as fast as it comes in.
Bring all the immigrants in that you can, and social security will still be broke by the time anyone now under 40 reaches eligibility.
John Dewey: I've written thousands of posts about this general issue for five years, and I live in L.A. So, I'm going to guess that I'm much more familiar with the topic than you are. – More about Boudreaux
You've guessed wrong. Mr. Dewey and I jave been jousting for some time. He is conversant and additionally ammenable to reasoned positions.
In these last few bits I have to point out yet another instance of my ox being gored and his not caring.
That said Mr m.a.n. you have little understanding of the political dynamics of Hispanic voting patterns.
"He is conversant and additionally ammenable to reasoned positions"
Well, I appreciate that. Like everyone else I could be more tactful in disagreeing.
"Bring all the immigrants in that you can, and social security will still be broke by the time anyone now under 40 reaches eligibility."
Flash, this is off the topic of immigration, but let's pursue it anyway. Is it possible that social security might still be partially funded? From what I've read, the amount collected in FICA taxes should be about 73% of the benefits that are projected. If the cap on FICA taxes is eliminated, and everyone accepts a slightly lower benefit amount, couldn't social security survive?
The key to reducing benefits is to do it gradually – to give everyone a chance to adjust savings.
I would prefer to do away with social security altogether – except that it can't go away. Today's retirees and those nearing retirement have been promised. They are counting on social security for their survival. And they (we) have the votes. Those under 40 need to work out and sell a compromise.
To respond to John Dewey and others about my no taxation on illegal immigrants-bull! Most illegals DO NOT fake their ID for work, they simply work in the underground economy. While they do rent, that contribution to the property tax base is minimal. Likewise, all contributions are minimal in terms of a tax base. I never asserted that illegal immigrants get welfare, etc. But, they drive on our roads, call the police, use power, sewer, water, etc. just like other residents. The difference is, one more time and with a strong emphasis here, THEY DON'T REALLY PAY FOR IT!
tiger: "Most illegals DO NOT fake their ID for work, they simply work in the underground economy. "
How do you know this?
We know that SOMEBODY is using fake ID's. Social Security is collecting over $30 billion annually in FICA taxes on those ID's. The total amount in the SS suspension file now exceeds $500 billion. How can you say with certainty that this money did not come from illegal immigrants? I know for a fact that some illegal workers are using fake SSN's. I've met a couple who did. Dallas Morning News reporters have interviewed others who have done so.
tiger: "But, they drive on our roads, call the police, use power, sewer, water, etc. just like other residents."
Renters most certainly pay for the power, sewer, water, etc, that they use. They either pay the bill directly or else through the rent they give the landlord.
Illegal immigrants pay for the highways just like the rest of us pay for them: through gasoline taxes.
Sorry, tiger, but I'm haveing trouble buying your argument.
From the United States Constitution, Article IV:
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.
Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
I am in favor of an aggressive campaign where Americans ask the people of other countries to dissolve their sovereign governments and then, afterward, the U.S. accept these people — and their former countries' territories — into our union under Article IV, section 3 & 4, of the U.S. Constitution.
Upsides: More Americans; more cooperation with superior results than what outright hegemony produces (less costly, too); more freedom of movement of people and capital (reduction in tarrifs without the need for agreements and concessions to special interests); and an eventual reduced role or replacement of the United Nations.
Downsides: You name them…it's my reinvented idea (certainly not an original idea as evidenced above) and I'm only looking at this with rose-colored glasses.
Tiger, but those who work under the table are providing a net cost advantage to employers and consumers. What I vehemently object to are accountings (like from Heritage) which list all the costs and omit the contributions. Again, it is because they are actually a giant net benefit that the "problem" is politically intractable. Look at Arizona… They implemented a law requiring all employers to use ICE's Basic Pilot on every new hire. Sounds reasonable enough to most (though I disagree). The state's Chamber of Commerce is fighting it, because (a) it is a ridiculously unfair burden in practice on many/most businesses and (b) it would reduce the applicant pool for many jobs. No kidding it's a "problem", but it's a "problem" because they are the only supply of workers available!
MAB… I'm in South OC, so don't think you're so special and uniquely qualified to dislike illegal immigrants. I love it when anti-immigrationists from SoCal claim some special right to speak to the problem. For the record, my 4-great grandfather came here from Philly and had a ranch that is now the city of Downey. It gives me no special right or perspective on immigration. But it ought to show that yours isn't too special either.
One objective fact I can fill you in on that might be unique to my South Orange County residency… A strong, healthy day laborer with home improvement or landscaping skills here will cost you about $100 and you'll get 6 or 7 good hours from them and probably end up buying them lunch. Do the math. They're making more than the kids at In N Out.
"In immigration debate, I think you find the best evidence of libertarians biting the proverbial hand that feeds them. Pro-immigration libertarians enjoy the benefits of an existing political culture, while at the same time endorsing the gradual transformation of that political culture through support for mass immigration into something that will be significantly different and much less libertarian."
http://www.theamericanscene.com/2007/9/12/libertarians
Nobody has pointed out that people willing to leave hearth and home are already partially assimilated into American culture. Everyone here is descended from an immigrant. That's what makes us different from the rest of the world, and that's why we should welcome with open arms all Americans regardless of their current address.
Good points, Mr. Nelson. Makes me want to go out at lunch and hug an immigrant.
Rob Dawg, You have written, what I have been thinking but was unable to put into words.
Thanks for oiling my thinking machine. lol
My Lead-up & question:
Donald J. Boudreaux wrote in his article:
“But we do not live in a fully free society. We're stuck with a large and intrusive government,….”
I agree and lets also not forget the huge number of Welfare servers/payments which Mr. Boudeaux glosses over with the statement
Donald J. Boudreaux wrote:
“An immigrant who receives no welfare payments engages only in consensual capitalist acts……”
To shorten this up please allow me to Ditto what Rob Dawg & tiger wrote.
What is the total tax dollar cost Cost vs. illegal immigrants contributed?
I agree with Mr. Boudeaux IF we lived in a Free Socity, BUT we do not. We have Massive Rules/Regulations/laws that tell us what we MUST do and we have HUGE welfare programs.
Excuse my next statement since I do not remember the source to the story…..
I remember running across an article which claimed that 9 Hospitals in California over the years have gone out of business(moved) because of the high number of patents they treated had no insurance and did not pay there bill. These patents were said to be illegal immigrants.
(again, take the last comment for what’s worth, something or nothing. I am unable to find the source.)
"An immigrant who receives no welfare payments engages only in consensual capitalist acts with those (and only those) domestic citizens who choose to deal with the immigrant."
"There is no reason to believe that government will exercise this power more prudently and intelligently than it exercises other powers."
The above two paragraphs are taken from Don's column and explain exactly what I believe, not just about immigration, is true.
I will be the odd man out again, but what the h.ll.
I am perfectly willing to accept, embrace and enjoy total open borders and immigration at will from any foreign nation as long as the immigrant receives from our government not one penny of support in any way for any aspect of his/her life, and if found unable to be totally self supporting after a period of 3 months, deport them.
I don't believe in the charity of government because my money is used to provide for someone with whom I have zero relationship. That's a problem. And, if I have no relationship with them I have no interest in their survival or existence. That is stated bluntly.
The second paragraph I agree with because it points up the fact that government has chosen to lavish welfare and support on its citizens and therefore finds it impossible to deny the same to indigent illegal immigrants.
I personally believe that immigration is good for the country. Fresh ideas, fresh new perspectives, new energy, new ambitions, innovation and inventiveness are all hallmarks of immigration and have been demonstrably so for hundreds of years. Those traits or things I just mentioned are not unique to immigrants by no means, but I believe that the mix of fresh with old brings out the best in both.
In summation here is my own assessment:
We do not have an immigration problem, we have a government problem.
Quite frankly that last little sentence is exaclty how I feel about all of our "problems".
We do not have a drug problem, we have a government problem.
We do not have an education problem, we have a government problem.
We do not have economic problems, we have a government problem.
We do not have employment problems, we have a government problem.
The reason I say it that way is obvious, we have a government run amok and so far away from being constrained by its forming charter, the Constitution, that it is not worth discussing that aspect anymore.
Oh, well. let the attacks begin.
Well, vidyohs, I agree with almost everything you've written. We have a huge government problem.
Here's the sticky part: it is extremely hard to fix a problem when there is such disagreement about what needs to be fixed.
Here's where I may disagree with you:
"as long as the immigrant receives from our government not one penny of support in any way for any aspect of his/her life"
By law, legal workers are entitled to almost all of the same support as citizens. In fact, the Supreme Court even ruled that children of illegal immigrants are constitutionally entitled to public education. We're not going to change that unless we amend the Constitution. (Don't hold your breath waiting for that.)
"if found unable to be totally self supporting after a period of 3 months, deport them. "
That sounds simple, but it is not. How do we identify illegal immigrants who don't want to be identified? If we did identify 1 million illegal immigrants are not totally self supporting, it would take us at least 4 years to give them hearings and deport them. By then there could easily be another 1 million immigrants here who are not totally self-supporting.
I guess what I'm saying is that it is not an easy problem to solve. In the meantime, we're going to waste many millions if not billions of $ on a partial fence that will not reduce the flow of immigrants. All that fence will do is wreck the economy of a few border cities, interfere with migration of wildlife, and increase the demand for ladders and tunneling equipment.
And the open border for people with drug resistant TB? The immigrant who plans on supporting herself via drug dealing and prostitution? Legal in her country and no boder issues to tell her otherwise. And the guy with the pickup truck from just over the border who picks up a little firewood in a national forest? no one to stop his return trip, no borders. And of course come every September the best schools are flooded and the worst are empty. Heck, why stop with residency restrictions, this idea of personal property is just another border is it not?
I am not going to write to denigrate or pick a fight, just to make simple truthful (to me) observations.
The response from John and Rob Dawg make it clear that distilling out the dregs from our situation until we leave pure freedom with only minimal government is hard for people to grasp.
I was not precise because I wanted to see what I would get in reponse. My whole belief is that no one should get a penny of support or welfare from our government because our government is supposed to be us, you and I, individuals, and I was clear about how I felt on the idea of contributing my labor to support someone I have no relation to. This addresses your question legal Vs illegal.
But, identifying "illegals" could be simple, in that with the open border scheme all those wishing to immigrate could be welcomed to do so at proper border checkpoints and be issued an ID identifying them as "legal". Any other person questioned who did not have that ID would be "illegal" and deported or jailed. Not as difficult as one may imagine.
And, if we actually could muster the political will to take this kind of action then we could also muster the political will to deport them immediately and do away with the extended waits and B.S.
I will end with this; I ferverently believe that if the potential immigrant knew that he/she would have to come and be totally self sufficient from day one with absolutely no public charity, then those who come now knowing they have a fall-back would not come, and those who do come anyway are the kind of people we want here, especially if they can actually do it.
Rob, every complaint you have about the idea of open borders and open immigration are complaints that exist now under the run amok, chaotic situation of government studpidity. We spend so much of our time and money on efforts that will never be effective. Massive amounts of men and money have been expended on trying to prevent drugs and people from coming across the borders with zero effect. Why? Because our own government is undermining our efforts and will.
Our own Supreme Court has ruled that the actual fact of crossing the border without going thru the proper procedure is illegal (in other words if you catch them in the river or halfway through the fence then it's illegal) but, they continue, once in they are entitled to full protection of our Constitution through the 14th amendment, which means food, clothing, shelter, education, and medical care, all of it. Now does that make you believe that the government is on your side? this little fact is why Mexicans slip over the border, get in trouble or conflict and can come into our courts and sue citizens or corporations. It is crazy, and in my opinion the only way to get it back on track is remove government and its welfare totally from the picture.
Oh well, what can I say? There are immigrants (illegal and legal) that are wonderful pluses for our country and there are others that I agree should be deported immediately upon apprehension, or shot and dumped. But we are never going to be able to stop it when the two powerful attractions remain. The first is the powerful attraction of opportunity unequaled in the world. The second is the powerful attraction of the big sugar teat unequaled in the world.
Keeping the first is a good idea and eliminating the second is essential.
vidyohs: "I was clear about how I felt on the idea of contributing my labor to support someone I have no relation to. "
I know of no nation on earth where the productive are freed the burden of supporting the non-productive. Do you?
vidyohs: "Any other person questioned who did not have that ID would be "illegal" and deported or jailed. Not as difficult as one may imagine."
Politically impossible, in the first place. Further, "questioning" 300 million residents in order to identify the 12 million illegals is logistically impossible. Third, jailing or deporting suspected illegal immigrants without an immigration hearing is unconstitutional.
vidyohs: "we could also muster the political will to deport them immediately and do away with the extended waits and B.S."
Again, you can't do that without a constitutional amendment. It takes one hell of lot more political will to amend the constitution. IMO, you are grossly underestimating the task.
vidyohs: "There are immigrants … others that I agree should be deported immediately upon apprehension, or shot and dumped."
Fortunately there are laws to protect the rest of us from deviants who would shoot and dump their fellow human beings. Surely you do not mean what you write, vidyohs.
Again, you can't do that without a constitutional amendment. It takes one hell of lot more political will to amend the constitution.
What of my though? It's constitutional. A campaign to promote the idea would send shockwaves through the political establisment, too. That's never a bad thing. Imagine the xenophobe nationalists on the Right warming to the idea of a broader US influence. Imagine the bleeding hearts on the Left — the ones who see immigrants as 'have nots' ripe for political exploitation — now seeing US influence, capitaism, and trade growing. There would be massive political upheaval and the end results would likely be postive…unless, of course, we admit territory and people into the union that are predisposed to radical socialist thinking: but think about that, can it actually get any worse than it is now?
John,
I surely wish there were laws to prevent deviants from keeping murderous viscious scum alive, caged, and forcing me, and others like me, to pay for it, year after year after year after year. Now that is true deviation. You are enslaving me to salve your own conscience, when I suggest that a true rational person sees a problem, fixes the problem and moves on with no regrets.
You ask if I know of any other nation where the productive are saddled with the burden of providing for the nonproductive, and I ask you what the h.ll does that have to do with the principle that it would be a good thing if there were one, maybe ours for instance? This is one of the great dilemmas of socialism, how to convince people that there is a relationship, shared humanity, that justifies burdening one's self with the nonproductive. I don't buy it, shared humanity is not strong enough for me.
By the principles of natural rights I am free to pick and choose my relationships and trust me my relationships don't extend past my immediate family and even some of those don't want to push the issue too far. No one in Maine, California, or even Austin, Texas is close enough to me for me to voluntarily burden myself with their hunger, nakedness, or lack of dwelling. Sorry.
By the same principles I do not expect you to burden yourself with my relations. I would never ask it or demand it.
Remember, John, because something is, does not mean that it is right or justifiable.
Be realistic John, you are either for immigration control or you are not. No matter what is done at this juncture people are going to have to be acosted by law, checked out, and either cleared or sent home. Hiding behind all the BS that has been created by government will not change that fact. If you're going to insist on immigration control some one's feelings are going to be hurt. So hurt 'em and get it over with and save the hand wringing and angst for worthwhile issues.
Mr. Boudreaux wrote, "That case grows from the recognition that a geopolitical border is a grotesquely arbitrary reason to prevent people from dealing with each other in whatever peaceful ways they choose."
Really? So, we can't take reasonable measures to keep out rapists, murderers, known fraudsters, and terrorists?
Boudreaux is an anarchist. Anarchisim is foolish. Therefore, Boudreaux is foolish. QED
"No matter what is done at this juncture people are going to have to be acosted by law, checked out, and either cleared or sent home."
I don't think the American people are going to pay to have that done by force. I think it is much, much costlier than you apparently think.
"No one in Maine, California, or even Austin, Texas is close enough to me for me to voluntarily burden myself with their hunger, nakedness, or lack of dwelling."
But it's not voluntary, of course. Your fellow citizens have decided that you should be so burdened – assuming that you have enough income.
"By the principles of natural rights I am free to pick and choose my relationships and trust me my relationships don't extend past my immediate family and even some of those don't want to push the issue too far. "
You can try to practice "natural rights" but I don't think you'll get too far. Maybe you can avoid having some of your wealth transferred to others. I'm not willing to risk trying.
"Hiding behind all the BS that has been created by government will not change that fact."
Not sure if this fits you, but some of my conservatives are hypocrits. They argue for upholding the laws they like, but then want to ignore the laws that give rights to immigrants.
It is neither your right nor mine to interpret the laws passed by our elected representatives. By living under this constitution we have ceded that right to the courts. You can call it BS, but it doesn't make it any less the law of the land.
JohnDewey:
I must admit that, in the current exchange, I am even more amazed at how blithely you dismiss the arguments of others (who do not agree with you) and take up the cause for any and all illegals. I wonder if maybe you're not a representative of LULAC or MALDEF or any of the other latino subversive groups.
You speak about protecting the "rights" and "humanity" of illegals – but are more than happy to sacrifice everything that all the rest of us have worked for. That sounds like a false economy to me. What the hell, let's just give it all to the illegals – because under your view of the world they deserve it more than the rest of us do.
Frankly, your perspective is sickening. Boudreaux's value set – whereby Mexicans have more value than Americans – shows a copmplete lack of critical thinking. From him it's expected – I don't place too much value on the perspectives of tenure-protected Ivory Tower pseudo-intellectuals.
You, however, purport to be "of the people" and I continue to wonder: which people? This "world citizen" stuff you seem to espouse would be great, if you applied it equally and it were even remotely realistic. Unfortunataly, that's not where you come from – at least not in this forum.
Your blithe willingness to support illegals – in whatever they want to do – to the detriment of all others renders your stance intellectually meritless.
You talk a good game, but fail to convince.
faultolerant: "You speak about protecting the "rights" and "humanity" of illegals – but are more than happy to sacrifice everything that all the rest of us have worked for."
I don;t think I used the word "humanity". That was vidyohs word, not mine.
I did write about the legal rights of everyone within our borders. I do not agree that because some immigrants disobeyed a law, we have a right to dismiss the laws of our land. Those laws, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, still apply.
There is a legal but probably not practical way to remove illegal immigrants against their will. Shooting and dumping them, as vidyohs suggested should be done for some, is not legal.
What I object to are costly proposals which have no chance of succeeding.
When someone proposes spending a few billion dollars for a fence, I do object. I view a 2,000 mile long fence as a silly and ineffective boondoggle. Actually, it will have some effects. It will harm the economies of border towns and will prevent the movement of wildlife. And fail to accomplish its purpose.
When someone proposes rounding up 12 million immigrants, I ask how that can be done. I am opposed to spending the many billions that would be required to track down and incarcerate 12 million people.
When someone proposes deporting 12 million immigrants, I ask how that can be done, given the constitutional right of every one of them to a deportation hearing before an immigration judge. That's the practical side of it.
When someone proposes suspending the Constitution in order to solve this "problem" – a problem I believe exists mainly in their mind – then I do get a little worried. People who propose such "solutions" really do scare me.
Mexican immigrants who build our homes, process our food, maintain our lawns, and cut our hair do not scare me in the least.
John,
We collect taxes, levy fines, issue traffic tickets, open bank accounts, grant credit cards by the billions every year with a success rate many orders of magnitude greater than you claim is possible. 12 million is a tiny number and even if you are contemplating all 300 million of us submitting to the indignities of suspicion it is still a trivial administrative issue.
When you talk about building our homes and preparing our food you make a huge leap. Our homes would still get built and our food cooked just that instead of being stuck in 18th Century methods there would exist incentives to free all people from that drudgery. Think auto workers programming robot welders instead of welding themselves. There was a time when we did weld by hand. We still pick strawberries by hand. Why? If you answer honestly you'd realise our immigration economy is a push phenomena and not a pull phenonema.