Ofcoarse it adds increased incentive to move to the US. So get rid of welfare. Whats the problem? Again this isnt’ a problem with immigration, it’s a problem with welfare.
From the sounds of it you folks don’t want immigrants here, but you have discovered that they come here specifically for welfare. Despite the fact that recent studies have not shown this, why don’t you eat your own medicine and start attacking welfare, as opposed to immigrants?
Mises and Rothbard are both slightly wrong. “Immigration” is a concept within the concept “nation” of crossing an imaginary geographical line. There is nothing else to it. The only just reason to stop someone from crossing an imaginary line not delineating property is if he intends to support criminal activity. However, if a person intends to support criminal activity, his location is irrelevent to any action that should be taken against him. Arguing the justice of stopping immigration is like arguing the justice of stopping a burglar from stepping over a crack in the sidewalk on the way to your house. So, Rothbard’s mistake IIRC is missing the caveat and Mises’ mistake is referring to imaginary lines.
Again, it’s hard to get rid of the welfare state when it can always import more constituents.
Who rightfully owns public property? Only the taxpayers. So that imaginary line is to a large extent a property boundary.
Except that large amounts of ‘public property’ are in fact unowned parcels of land that haven’t been homesteaded.
Welfare is not the only problem. And the welfare-state does not refer just to public assistance.
Democracy causes racial and ethnic conflict in non-homogeneous societies. With a high level of immigration from a variety of ethnic backgrounds, the potential for a Balkan-style breakup and genocide is drastically increased.There is also a possibility that some of the southern states may succeed and join Mexico.
Immigrants consume social services that rightfully belong to taxpayers; Especially medical and education services.
The immigration of large numbers of ‘visible minorities’ combined with affirmative action leads to high levels of income and occupation redistribution.
Migration of a high crime population to a low crime population tends to raise the level of crime in the latter.
I believe that while the welfare state exacerbates the immigration problem, it is not solely responsible for it. In the absence of the welfare state there would still be a need for migration controls.
Sure I’m being over simplistic here but that is ultimately the problem your describing. Immigrants and welfare. This is predominantly an issue in California for example. Probably one of the reasons that state is so bankrupt.
Still immigrants have less of a domestic democratic voice then you think. Byzantine thinks that immigrants come here and vote for more welfare or at least to keep it. The truth is the vast majority of immigrants don’t vote. It’s middle income comfortable america that has installed welfare, not the immigrants. It’s middle income comfortable america that has perpetuated it’s growth. Need I remind you that latin american citizen’s are still a minority in this country?
If you wanted to address the issue we’d be addressing the issue of welfare. The process of migrating labor to our country brings a great deal of wealth to this country. If we eliminated the costs of welfare from those people they would be a huge net benefit. Let me put it in short.
Benefit = Productivity - Welfare
Why?
I don’t think that holds up. If someone robs me and buys a house, I’m don’t become the rightful owner of the house. Similarly, if I don’t authorize the use of my money to acquire “public property”, then it can hardly be called mine. I didn’t gain from a purchase; I was wronged by theft.
Yes you do.
Wow, alot of replies.
Ok, yes. With that one exception, public property is taxpayer owned.
@ filc.
I really don’t know much about it. I would have to study voting patterns in some depth before I could make any firm arguments. But I am willing to concede the point. Even if they don’t vote, they’re a walking advertisement for the welfare state.
Most of the wealth that is produced by the immigrants is enjoyed by the immigrants. The productivity benefits for the host population are low in the U.S. These benefits come at tremendous cost: There is a loss of national identity that needs to be considered, the possible future loss of sovereignty over U.S. territory, the possibility of ethnic conflict, an increase of crime in many areas. All of the productivity benefits could be gained through free trade and foreign investment. If the goal is productivity gains, the immigration policy should try to select for skilled immigrants instead of adopting a policy of national quotas and family reunification.
For the same reason you don’t let just anybody into your home. Some people are a security risk. Others are just undesirable for reasons that have purely to do with your personal preferences.
If someone robs you and buys a house, you have a right to get your money back. If they don’t have money to pay you back, it seems to me, you have a right to seize their personal assets as a means to reclaim your original property. I was not arguing that the thief is somehow your agent and is acting in proxy. It’s just the second best method of restitution.
Property is defined as exclusive decision making power over an object. “Public” means non-exclusive. Thus, “public property” is really “no property”, a “free-for-all”.
Public property is used figuratively, here. If we were being literal, we would say, private property in the possession of state agents.
Roads and airports are whose property?
Rightfully, the taxpayers.Non-taxpayers have no claim to it at all. Landowners may have an easement right so they are not landlocked. If two taxpayers desire the same public property, the first to repossess it should be aloud to own it (analogous to original appropriation over nature given resources).The limit of repossession that a taxpayer is allowed is is the market value of the assets he is seizing may not exceed the amount of taxes he’s paid on net plus interest.
I’ve been meaning to write something on this for a while.
Does that clear it up?
That doesn’t work. You can’t compare original appropriation to restitution or bankruptcy. In the first case there is no conflict when something is appropriated, in the latter cases the appropriation results from a conflict. It has to be settled by a bankruptcy judge who must decide how to liquidate and split the assets to the best of his abilities so that the parties that have been robbed can recover as much of their property as possible.
This doesn’t really seem like a good reason. So far, our protective efforts on the border have seemed ineffective at best.
The entire housing bubble was built by immigrants. So your previous statement is wrong.
National sovereignty is something you are concerned with but adds no real value to anything. The latter point about crime is a common fear tactic but the stats don’t support it.
The market picks skilled laborers on its own. Having a committee do it opens the path for corruption and calculation errors. A committee will not know who is the most efficient at building A frame’s on a house.
But my home is my property. The land bordering the Rio Grande is not. The statement is also non-sequitur. You gained your home and your property by trading and purchasing. But you want an artificial line drawn so that others cannot do the same.
If isolation benefits us so much why don’t we lock down cities as well? No new comers in each city and restrict people from moving about.
I think you missed his point Stephen. He is explaining how public property is not property and is not owned by the public. If it were ownership you’d have the option to sell your share at the very least. In our situation public property is ownership by way of compulsion.
@ Stranger
I decided to start a new thread to discuss this topic, here.