Easy for Editorial Writers in the U.S. to Say

Hi Donald,

Don't you think that if the entrepreneurial talent of Haiti leaves the country,that possibly shuts the income generating opportunity of many Haitians who would have benefited...or better put have a better odds of surviving since the situation there is dire...By shifting to the U.S. how many people really stand to benefit vis a vis he/she staying in Haiti and employing his/her trade there,thus benefiting the already fragile population.

Thanks,
Mehak

No doubt true that this would be better for Haiti and other Haitians. But I don't think that trumps the right of individuals to leave if they decide to do so.

Plus, like many of the Indians and Egyptians are doing, if they decide to return, it can be a big boost to the economy and governance of the country.

So far I have read arguments against "multiculturality" (Bill), the welfare state (again Bill,), and drug prohibition (jamesjoyce). But none against allowing Hatians to emigrate to the U.S. I find that interesting.

Let's see if this penetrates your skull: The United States is supposed to be a nation state. As a nation state, it can control its borders and choose to let in only those people who are beneficial to the United States and its citizens. Haitians are, by and large, not beneficial to the US and its people and therefore should not be admitted. It is as simple as that.

Nobody's arguing that the US can't prevent Haitians from entering the country, Bill. Some of us are arguing that it's conterproductive to do so, and others are arguing that it's morally wrong to do so.

Got to hit the unsubscribe can't support this nonsense, crime drugs and gangs are too big of problem in this country to be letting more in, it kills kids and ruins American lives !

JJ, did you really leave us? Permanently?

People who live in the suburbs and drink lattes should not be involved in real world decision making. The remarks about what Haitians could do, might do, given a house, car and a garage in these comments are laughable.

On the East Coast where I am from, but long ago gone, Haitians are the most violent,successful, feared drug dealers around. Yea let's have some more of that !

Wow, I am almost out of here, such a good newsletter for the most part. Why ? Really, I am not going to jump at the race baiting and need to say little. Haiti speaks for itself, it is a culture that throws it's children into the streets at age 8-10 years old, is driven by voodoo and magic, violent, and hopelessly corrupt.

Now there are two other Islands nearby that are in far better condition culture wise (culture does matter) and I have no problem with that, besides why doesn't France offer them refuge ?

Be careful they will be calling you Ideologue.

Thank you for puncturing the perpetually falacious arguments deployed against migration. "Why should these real flesh-and-blood individuals be sacrificed to something called 'Haiti'?" Indeed.

I perhaps should add: when Haitians and (and citizens of LDCs in general) live in the developed world, they quickly acquire knowledge, skills, understanding of institutions conducive to high productivity. Many of them transfer that back home, directly or indirectly, and do a far better job of it than any development schemes dreamed up by governments.

I actually have known Haitians. When they come to the U.S., they are generally productive, more so than they could be at home. The remittances they send home are better spent on alleviating poverty than foreign aid dollars are.

Free trade, including in labor, generates mutual gains.

Moreover, perhaps the loss of those "best and brightest" would be the catalyst for change away from that anti-market, anti-freedom history.

So, your theory is that the "worst and the dumbest" who remain will be the change agents to lead Haiti away from it's anti-market, anti-freedom system?

This sort of wishful thinking illustrates why people do not take libertarians seriously. Sometimes, the facts of life are just the facts of life. Haiti is screwed up. Always has been. Probably always will be. The best thing to do is to try to send aid, missionaries and other assistance and keep them where they are.

"Why should these real flesh-and-blood individuals be sacrificed to something called 'Haiti'?" That may be the best question you have ever asked!

The real question is why can't Haitians make something of their own lives in their own country? Why should the West be the dumping ground in the ne'er do wells?

They're kinda like Indians. India has been stagnant (until the last 10 years or so) since independence, yet 1/10 Indians in the US is a millionaire. Same people, different system.

Let's bring some facts to this discussion:

The implication of your statement that "India has been stagnant (until the last 10 years or so) since independence..." is true, but it suggests that the economic liberalization (in the classical sense) of the early '90s has enabled the Indians to demonstrate that a move toward laissez faire capitalism lifts the entire population.

In fact, what it does is free up those who already have significant economic resources to rapidly increase those resources while the vast majority of the population remains stagnant. For example:

Since the economic reforms of the early 1990s...

* 80% of Indians live on $2/day and 35% live on $1/day

* the top 1% of income earners have increased their share of total income from 7% to almost 12%, wiping out all the gains of the other 99% since 1960.

* income inequality between 1990 and 2004 (latest data available) rose from 30 to 36, back to levels last seen in 1960 (based on the Gini index of inequality, 2006). The trend has been rising dramatically since 1994, so it's a reasonable assumption that the disparity has grown since 2006.

You provide a lot of data with little context.

"80% of Indians live on $2/day and 35% live on $1/day"

What was it before the liberalization of the 90s? What is the cost of living like in rural India? $2/day in the US is one thing, but I have no idea what it means for those in India...

"The top 1% of income earners have increased their share of total income from 7% to almost 12%, wiping out all the gains of the other 99% since 1960."

You talk as if wealth is a pie of which if one person takes a larger piece he leaves less for everyone else. I would guess the pie has grown substantially since the 90s liberalizations.

"Income inequality between 1990 and 2004 (latest data available) rose from 30 to 36, back to levels last seen in 1960 (based on the Gini index of inequality, 2006). The trend has been rising dramatically since 1994, so it's a reasonable assumption that the disparity has grown since 2006."

Income inequality has been discussed at length on this blog, but since you're new...

Income inequality (especially as measured by the gini index) is extremely misleading as, for one, it says nothing about income mobility. It also says nothing about overall wellbeing. Bill Gates is a hell-of-a-lot wealthier than I am, but it is utterly irrelevant as the source of Bill Gate's wealth, Microsoft, has not only NOT made me worse off, but has left me better off (though to be honest, I'm a Mac user).

MWG, interesting that after I took the time to find and present data to support my position, you didn't and just resorted to dragging out your same old unsupported opinions.

This is typical of most (not all) posters on this site.

"You provide a lot of data with little context.""

Not really. Just three. Sorry if I overwhelmed you. But I understand. I see so little evidence (theory isn't evidence, but data is) on this site to support the opinions I see spouted that I can imagine three little data point could be tough to process.


"What was it before the liberalization of the 90s? What is the cost of living like in rural India? $2/day in the US is one thing, but I have no idea what it means for those in India..."

Yeh, but the fact you have "no idea" of the situation in India, doesn't seem to have any effect on your confidence in your opinion. Try reading a book.

You really need to give me a break. You're going to argue that even IF there were an increase in income from $.80 to $1.00 (holy cow! thats 25%) a day due to these "reforms", that this represents any kind of meaningful progress for these people?

"You talk as if wealth is a pie of which if one person takes a larger piece he leaves less for everyone else."

No I'm not. I think growth is an excellent thing. I think growth that mostly goes to the top 1% of income earners doesn't provide much of an argument for the "reforms" that enabled it.

" I would guess the pie has grown substantially since the 90s liberalizations."

You guess? Surely you're capable of doing more than guessing. Too much trouble to find any data that supports your claims.

"Income inequality (especially as measured by the gini index) is extremely misleading as, for one, it says nothing about income mobility. It also says nothing about overall wellbeing."

So how much well-being do you think those Indians who earn $1 to $2/ day, 600 million of them, can buy? Get informed and then tell me.

"Sorry if I overwhelmed you."

Overwhelmed me? No, more like waste my time by providing pointless data points with no context. Now (for some unexplainable reason) I have to spend the next 10 mins of my evening explaining basic economics to a quasi-socialist ideologue, who, for all I know, might just be a 17 year old chubby zit-faced kid sitting in his mother's basement that gets off by trolling random blogs and engaging in mental masturbation... but here I go...

"I see so little evidence (theory isn't evidence, but data is) on this site to support the opinions I see spouted that I can imagine three little data point could be tough to process."

That's because you see what you wanna see. You obviously haven't been here very long...

"Yeh, but the fact you have "no idea" of the situation in India, doesn't seem to have any effect on your confidence in your opinion. "

You're the one who brought in the data without context. If you can show me that the lives of average Indians has decreased since the 90s go right ahead... though I highly doubt you can. (oh, what the hell? Click on my links... it'll save you some time.)

"You're going to argue that even IF there were an increase in income from $.80 to $1.00 (holy cow! thats 25%) a day due to these "reforms", that this represents any kind of meaningful progress for these people?"

Progress? After decades of stagnation under their "planned" economy? Yea, how else does growth work? This isn't even hayekian ideology... it's econ 101. "Try reading a book."

"You guess? Surely you're capable of doing more than guessing. Too much trouble to find any data that supports your claims."

Fine, here you go...

Tracking the growth of India’s middle class
http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Retail_Consume...

India's per capita income posts healthy 7.6% growth
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/biz/india-bu...

India's economic report card - This is a less than glowing article that still talks about progress...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5116596.stm

"So how much well-being do you think those Indians who earn $1 to $2/ day, 600 million of them, can buy? Get informed and then tell me."

I have no idea. You're the one who provided the data. I'm telling you those numbers mean shit without context. Although I'm sure you understand the context, right? Otherwise go find out what $60 a month will buy you in India and than come back repost the data with some context.

OK, MWG, I've done some quick research to educate us both on what it means to live on $1 or $2 a day in India.

For the 900 million Indians who live on $2/day,

* if you live in a major city, like Mumbai, you spend your entire income on a shanty in one of the city's squalid slums (to get a sense of what that's like, read Shantaram, a facinating autobiographical novel by an Aussie)

* if you live in a rural area you can feed and clothe yourself and family but you won't have clean water, sewage disposal, or any health care services. Sounds peachy.

For the 400 million Indians who live on $1/day,

* in a major city, you live on the streets and survive hand-to-mouth

* in rural areas, you live in a squalid multi-generations family hut, you are illiterate with no access to education of any quality whatsoever, you probably have anemia, and you're likely to die soon because you haven't been immunized against the rampant diseases that plague the extremely poor.

There's your context.

I'm not arguing that economic reform hasn't led to faster growth in India. I'm arguing that this growth in income has meant very little for the 80% of Indians (900 million of them) who live on $2/day or less, while generating big leaps in wealth for the top 5% of Indian wealth-holders.

I'm objecting to the misconception held by Hayekians that economic growth that overwhemingly goes to the wealthiest members of a society always benefits the entire economic spectrum of that society. Even when (or if) Hayekian policies do eventually produce crumbs for the masses, it come well down the road (to serfdom?) and by then the crumbs are stale.

I support reforms that lead to economic growth; just not that kind of reform.

MWG,

Do you now notice a really tight parallel between the presentations of Tex and of muirduck?

I speculate that they were classmates. Lazy, illogical, and dismissive classmates to be sure, but in high probability sat close enough to one another to share notes and cheat on the same tests.

Maybe I ought to run my list of 47 muirpidities past Tex to see on how many he agrees with muirduck. LOL.

I thought about warning Tex not to hitch his wagon to muir's star prematurely a few posts ago, but I thought he'd figure it out soon enough... I may have been wrong...

Does "vidyohs" mean "paranoid" in Klingon, vidyoh? Are you and MWG sisters?

All good points. Frankly, I'm still trying to figure out how 115% of Indians live on $2/day or less.

Txslr, are you really that dense? The $2/day INCLUDES those who earn LESS THAN $2/day, including the 35% who make $1/day.

My god.

And the Indian immigrants to the US are a random sample of the population of all Indians which allows us to make this sweeping generalization about the superiority of our mixed economy which is on the the verge of socialism after 70 years of post-New Deal government intervention in the economy.

Is this your point?

And the Indian immigrants to the US are a random sample of the population of all Indians which allows us to make this sweeping generalization about the superiority of our mixed economy which is on the the verge of socialism after 70 years of post-New Deal government intervention in the economy.

Is this your point?

Compared to the Indian system our economic system is paradise. That's one of the reasons they do so well. When an Indian entrepreneur tries to set up shop in India, he faces bureaucratic hurdles that can take months, sometimes years to overcome. No wonder they do so much better here.

So back to the point, as you still seem unable to comprehend it.... Haitians are NOT less productive (lazier) than Americans. It's instead a question of which system has helped who gain more from their productivity. In the US where we have relatively protected property rights and a judicial system that punishes corruption, (along with a list of other things) entrepreneurs thrive. In Haiti, where neither exist, only the corrupt thrive.

"...which allows us to make this sweeping generalization about the superiority of our mixed economy which is on the the verge of socialism after 70 years of post-New Deal government intervention in the economy."

...talk about lazy and dismissive...

"Compared to the Indian system our economic system is paradise. That's one of the reasons they do so well. When an Indian entrepreneur tries to set up shop in India, he faces bureaucratic hurdles that can take months, sometimes years to overcome. No wonder they do so much better here."

And the fact that the Indian cream of the crop come here and, contrary to Hayekian prescriptions, benefit from our government-subsidized higher eduction system has nothing to do with it.

"So back to the point, as you still seem unable to comprehend it.... Haitians are NOT less productive (lazier) than Americans. It's instead a question of which system has helped who gain more from their productivity. In the US where we have relatively protected property rights and a judicial system that punishes corruption, (along with a list of other things) entrepreneurs thrive. In Haiti, where neither exist, only the corrupt thrive."

Despite my "laziness", I agree 100% with this statement.

"...which allows us to make this sweeping generalization about the superiority of our mixed economy which is on the the verge of socialism after 70 years of post-New Deal government intervention in the economy."

...talk about lazy and dismissive..."

Nice try, but you've dodged my point. Unless I'm mistaken and you're not one of Hayekians that dominate this site and agree with me that "our mixed economy which is on the the verge of socialism after 70 years of post-New Deal government intervention in the economy."

Which maybe you do since you called our economic system a "paradise".

"Nice try, but you've dodged my point. Unless I'm mistaken and you're not one of Hayekians that dominate this site and agree with me that "our mixed economy which is on the the verge of socialism after 70 years of post-New Deal government intervention in the economy."

Which maybe you do since you called our economic system a "paradise"."

Compared to the Indian system, ours is "paradise". Our system is one that has created great opportunity for many people... that said there is vast room for improvement. We'd be better off if we looked more like Hong Kong and less like France.

Not a bad retreat after being hoist on your own petard.

So 9 out of 10 Indians who are in the U.S. aren't particuarly more productive? What percentage of the Haitian are 'uber-productive' but are being held down the bad guys? Probably very, very few.

On the other hand, what does this say about poor Americans? Maybe they should be deported to Haiti so they can intermingle with people of their equivalent productivity level.

What percentage of the Haitian are 'uber-productive' but are being held down the bad guys? Probably very, very few."

You should be embarrassed by the lack of historical knowledge this statement reflects.

"So 9 out of 10 Indians who are in the U.S. aren't particuarly more productive?"

That's not necessarily true.

"What percentage of the Haitian are 'uber-productive' but are being held down the bad guys? Probably very, very few."

...in your opinion...

"Maybe they should be deported to Haiti so they can intermingle with people of their equivalent productivity level."

Why am I not surprised the that you support the idea of govt. having enough power as to be able to deport its "poor" citizens?

Yes indeedy. It's the same with Russia - it's awash in poverty because a substantial part of the population is not particularly productive. Russia is free enough such that their losers can't complain the "evil guvmint holding them down" as other Russian have seized on the relative economic freedom they have had since 1990 or so.

You might suppose the Socialist governments have brought about Idiocracies because Socialism favours the unproductive to reproduce more and at a younger age at the expense of the productive . . .

Law enforcement and a functional legal system are important.

"It's the same with Russia - it's awash in poverty because a substantial part of the population is not particularly productive."

So Russians are just lazier than most?

"Russia is free enough such that their losers can't complain the "evil guvmint holding them down" as other Russian have seized on the relative economic freedom they have had since 1990 or so."

This statement could not be more ignorant. Russia ranks 143 in terms of economic freedom on Heritage's list of 179. Hardly an example of free market capitalism.

http://www.heritage.org/Index/Ranking.aspx

If you really think it's a question of the people and not the institutions (ie govt.) ask yourself this: How come the Chinese of Hong Kong are so much farther ahead of the Chinese on the main land? Did Hong Kong just get lucky and simply took all the "productive" Chinese? Or is Hong Kong's wealth a direct result of laissez faire capitalism set up by their colonial masters the British?

Right, or the north and south Koreans, or before the wall fell, the east and west Germans, or the Checks and Polish before and after the fall of Communism, or Chile after Pinochet and economic reform. The example are myriad.

No that's not the real question at all. The real question is: why is an individual to be regarded as a sacrificial offering to the state? Try and answer that to my satisfaction!

Pfff! That like a Creationist asking a non-Creationist: can you explain how the whole world was flooded without invoking God? The non-Creationist would reply: you're presuming The Great Flood is an actual historical event at all. Your question doesn't make sense. What duty do Americans have to gather up all the Haitians and take the U.S. to live there?

"Your question doesn't make sense."

Well let me try and explain it to you. The question is: why is an individual to be regarded as a sacrificial offering to the masses? In the country known as Haiti why should a citizen (a real flesh and blood individual, as the good Professor put it) be *required* to stay there? If said individual wants to relocate to another country (the USA, for example), and if the other country wants him to come, then what is the moral objection to the relocation?

Are you suggesting that the Haitian people have some sort of moral priority to his wishes? If they decide they need his talents, then he should be required to stay? Surely not!

As to your question of the duty America has to take Haitians in, the answer is: none at all!

Have you forgotten that Libertarians have no problems with emigration but do have problems with immigration? And the Libertarians who are 'pro-open borders' are hypocrites because theyhave no intention of opening up their personal homes to aspiring immigrants. Haitians are free to leave but that doesn't imply others have to open their borders to accept Haitians.

My goodness, Gil, you surely paint with broad strokes. All Haitians are horrible people. All libertarians are suspected hypocrites. You keep ignoring the central point. Why is an individual considered a sacrificial offering to the masses? Rather than trying to divert attention away from the question, why don't you answer the question?

Who's sacrificing whom on what altar to appease what masses? I don't get your poetry.

We seem to be talking past each other. So let me try to put a timeline on the situation, and then, maybe, we'll both be talking about the same thing.

Apparently someone wrote an editorial in which he argued that "productive" individuals in Haiti should be *encouraged* to remain in that country "for the good of the country."

Professor Boudreaux asked why these individuals should be required to stay. I applauded the question.

Your response was that the people of Haiti were horrible people and for that reason the USA should not take any of them in. The "real question," you proposed, was why couldn't the horrible Haitians take care of themselves. I attempted to return the conversation to the original question - why should individual Haitians (or ANY individual) be sacrificed for the good of the Haitian people? What is the moral prerogative of the Haitian people over an individual Haitian?

I can't explain it any simpler than that. Hopefully you now understand my "poetry," and can answer the question.

The plight of 'productive Haitians' is their problem - no country is obliged to take in Haitian immigrants. It's just their tough luck to be born in that part of the world.

Gil, you make me hope that Buddhism is right and you come back as a Haitian. That's probably better than you deserve.

Funny thing is: Until you started posting, the only regular here that is more socialist than Gil is Yasafi Muirduck.

Well, I'll take that as a welcome mat. I'm gald to join the fray, but I'm not a socialist.

If you don't subscribe to Libertarianism than you're a Socialist.

Vidyohs has told you many times that he's not a libertarian. He's also not a socialist.

You believe in the redistribution of wealth. You are a socialist.

Gollly gosh don't you have to be one or the other brotio? Libertarianism is about pure meritocracy and thusly any other system involves some sort of 'redistribution' hence it's Socialism-lite or outright Communism depending on the measure of redistribution?

BTW, did you ever get your GED, Gil?

HA! Shirley you jest.

But I know you don't have a sense of humor.

Neither do you.

Wow, the wit in that response really stung, Gilbert.

I give up.

Me too.

Haiti doesn't have institutions conducive to growth. America does. Put a Haitian in the American system, and they become productive. Put a productive American into the Haitian system (the system, not just the geographical bounds) and they'll be at Haitian levels of productivity.

Douglass North, Bill Easterly, or for that matter Adam Smith explain the crucial effects of institutions on economic performance. Go read them.

Charles, while Gil can read a blog, we have come to realize that he is functionally illiterate. Please do not taunt him with admonishments to read such complex authors as North, Easterly and Smith. It's highly insensitive.

Bull! The Dominican Republic occupies the other half of the island and they aren't as poor as the Haitians. It like comparing Zimbabwe and Rhodesia - same land + different people = different results.

I'm pretty sure Charles was referring to more than geography when he used the word "institutions".

How about this then: same geographic location + different people = different results

Jiminy, Gil. You really nailed that exchange.

And why in the world would we want to import the very people who have made Haiti into a hell on earth? I take it from these comments that none of you have had any dealings with actual Haitians. I can tell you from my experience that that they are not the wonderful people you imagine and we certainly would not benefit from their presence in this country.

Oh, I don't know, Bill: perhaps there's a few Haitians who think differently that the majority do [perhaps maybe a lot more than a few] and they so desparately want a better life and to be around like-minded thinkers.

You can't blame them for their country any more than you can blame the citizens of California or Detroit for the failings of their governments. But there is zero to suggest people would come and just get on welfare.

Plenty of research has suggested immigrants are harder working than the average American. I'm sure Haitians are no different. So why not let them in? I'd rather have more people in this country willing to work hard to get ahead on their own merit, than more lazy union members who want to make a living by rent seeking.

I used to worry about protecting american jobs. But not only is it not that simple and new jobs are created when costs of labor are lowered, but I also stopped caring about people who want to use the government to allow them to work less hard for more money.

Of course you blame the citizenry for their government. Who else would be to blame? The Tibetans? It is the people of Haiti who allow themselves to be ruled by savage, crooked thugs. When the people of the American colonies decided that they had had enough of arbitrary rule from afar they took matters into their own hands and changed the government. Haitians could do the same but their society is so systemically screwed up that it apparently either (a) does not dawn on them that there is a better way or (b) they actually prefer things the way they are. Either way, this is not a bunch I want living next to me.

What a crock. You know almost as much American history as you do Haitian history. Try reading a book sometime.

Of course, the real problem with the Haitians is they made a pact with the devil in order to win their independence. You'd know that if you'd stop watching Glen Beck 24/7 and turn on the 700 Club every now and then.

Wow. A red herring followed by two sweeping generalizations.

Bravo.

Really? It's obvious Haiti is a sinkhole. Don's going in for the notion that "Haiti would be great if it weren't for a few bad apples" when it's that it more of a case of a "few good apples". Besides what 'wonderful skills' could a Haiti bring to the U.S.A. that don't already exist? Voodoo cursing perhaps?

That isn't the notion Don is going for. It's a very simple question, I don't understand why people are struggling with it.

Why should any Haitian with sufficient means, talent and motivation be denied the opportunity to move to a place where those talents can be better put to use?

Besides what 'wonderful skills' could a Haiti bring to the U.S.A. that don't already exist?

I don't know and neither do you. That's the point.

Why should any Haitian with sufficient means, talent and motivation be denied the opportunity to move to a place where those talents can be better put to use?
I agree here, they should be welcomed anywhere.

Haitian with sufficient means, talent and motivation is the issue.

"What 'wonderful skills' could a Haitian bring to the USA that don't already exist?"

The same could have been said of the Indians and the Asians, and they've done of pretty damn good job of demonstrating "wonderful skills" and making a contribution.

And the Irish, and Germans, and Italians and Scots. And the Africans, once we stopped enslaving them.

Hell, and the English.

My apologies. I meant this as a reply to Gil, not MnM:

"What 'wonderful skills' could a Haitian bring to the USA that don't already exist?"

The same could have been said of the Indians and the Asians, and they've done of pretty damn good job of demonstrating "wonderful skills" and making a contribution.

And the Irish, and Germans, and Italians and Scots. And the Africans, once we stopped enslaving them.

Hell, and the English.

Bill, in a way, brings up a point I have been thinking about when it comes to immigration. Don makes a good point that a free thinking individual with the ability to move freely can create enormous value.
I would agree Bill is overly generalizing about the "Haitian" people, I have never delt with one, but I have delt with people and as a person I know that all generalizations are not particular to any group, but they are human traits. Americans maybe loud and French rude, but I think everyone knows a loud and rude person no matter where they are from.
That being said Don says
"Why should Haitians be denied the same opportunity to move to where their talents can be better used?"
A quick wiki search reveals a literacy rate of 65% and low attendance in schools and they also do not speak English. So what talents are they going to bring here? Al Neuharth had a degree and years of experience.
Yes some will obviously become a valued part of society, but how many? I know dealing with human lives is not the same as dealing with taxing tires from China, thanks Obama. How many will require government aid, commit crimes and in general cost tax payers money? I don´t want to sound inhumane and Haiti is a special case after such a disaster.
I know we are a country of immigrants and that they have produced enormous wealth over the years, I am also not saying we should not allow immigration. I am simply wondering about this sort of topic.
I am sure all those here will provide me with input and that is my hope.

Haiti's literacy rates aren't the point.

You repeat Don's question and make no attempt to answer it.

Why should Haitians be denied the same opportunity to move to where their talents can be better used?
I agree they should not be denied the opportunity and as the article suggests some are not and with 50,000 on the waiting list. I know we should just say let them in and in with each of them with freedom and ability to make their own choices they will provide value in a country like the US that rewards hard work and free will.
My point was how many of them will chose a life a crime or have no skills in which to find work and become dependent on the state. I mean our welfare system is top notch and is not susceptible to fraud. Again I am not generalizing about the Haitians, just humans in general, that some will head in opposite directions.

IMHO; you did a good job, a person would really have to get ticky tacky nitpicky to find fault with your reasoning or the presentation of it.

By your logic, are you also in favor of tossing out of our country all residents of Detroit and Cleveland???

Actually, it is you who is not employing logic. Those residents of Detroit and Cleveland who are already citizens of the United States are legally entitled to stay here. We are talking about letting in non-citizens from the worst country on earth who would all become instantly eligible for welfare.

BTW, is your "Detroit and Cleveland" statement in reference to the race of the Haitians? I dont recall making an argument based on race so a counter-argument based on race is similarly illogical, tw.

I happen to disagree with you on letting the Haitians into the country, but agree wholeheartedly with your response to tw. This is the kind of illogic I find far to often from the Hayekians on this site. Lazy and dismissive.

"This is the kind of illogic I find far to often from the Hayekians on this site. Lazy and dismissive."

Um... how long have you participated in discussion on this blog???

"BTW, is your "Detroit and Cleveland" statement in reference to the race of the Haitians? I dont recall making an argument based on race so a counter-argument based on race is similarly illogical, tw."

You just did. You're the first to bring it up.

Another one of those lazy, illogical, dismissive comments I mentioned above. SW, the quote from Bill is not an argument but a question. Moreover, tw's choice of Detroit and Cleveland is a very reasonable basis for that question.

Amen.

Beautiful argument!

USA Today,
Don showed your hypocrisy.
Goose. Gander. You lose.

Absolutely brilliant