Sounds like a reason to decriminalize immigration, no?
@Anderson
How do you know though? How do you know who will be the entrepreneur of the future? That we don’t know for certain whether a certain individual will be a succesful entreprenuer in the future is precisely why we can not use the state’s coercive power to dictate who to allow entry through the border.
Not really. Decriminalizing illegal immigration wouldn’t do anything for our country, which would be the point of making the law in the first place. We can’t make laws to benefit people who are sneaking into the country. But we can make laws against coyotes, which Arpaio has done quite well considering less people will be willing to do it or get thrown in Tent City.
And we don’t know who will be the next big entrepreneur, but having a selective immigration policy will make people try harder to make a life for themselves in their native country. If they can prosper in a country that allows less freedom than ours, they can surely prosper here and make our country a better place.
Why would you want to criminalize the Coyotes? In their positions as Coyotes they do no wrong. No more than the prostitute does. He provides a valued service, namely in circumventing the state’s regulations. Why, we should not criminalize the Coyote, but to the contrary they ought to be thought of as heroes for their willingness to provide their services despite the state’s regulations.
@ Brian.
So the State should be able to tell me who i can and can’t hire because it, in all of its infinite wisdom, is the only thing capable of finding the productive immigrants. What if i don’t like the ones its selected and want to hire the big guy that just jumped the border because i’m a contractor and he looks like he could carry a crap-ton of bricks. How can the State tell me who i can and cannot hire to work for/on my property.
You can’t just say that anyone who defies the state’s regulations should be thought of as a hero, though. I don’t know how anarchist/libertarian you are, so I don’t really know what beliefs you hold. When we talk about heroes, I think of soldiers who fight for our freedoms. I wouldn’t categorize drug dealers and coyotes anywhere near soldiers and heroes of that sort just because the drug dealers and coyotes go against the state.
As for the state telling you who to hire, they aren’t telling you which citizens hire. They’re just telling you that you can’t hire illegal immigrants who aren’t a part of our country. As I’ve said, this whole debate completely depends on your view of borders. The United States is the most free country in the world. You don’t have a right to be here and to work here unless you’re a citizen. You can’t say that the big guy who just came across the border is the only person to hire. Our unemployment rate is too high for you to not find one single person who will do the work for you.
Not the Austrian view, but here’s the stick Constitutional view: Immigration is not an enumerated power of the federal government.
I’ve used this argument against conservatives who are always glorifying the Constitution but are in favor of the Arizona law. It drives them crazy when you suggest that the federal government isn’t authorized to build a fence, set quotas, or in any way deal with the comings and goings of citizens and non-citizens.
Terrorists come across the borders all of the time. We can’t be so naive to state that it’s only freedom-seeking, hard-working people. Despite their good intentions, illegal immigrants do hurt society. Our constitution was formed in part to provide for the common defense, and an outsider coming into the country illegally is invading. The intent of the Constitution is to protect its citizens, and illegal immigration is an opposition to that. We have the right to defend our borders just as much as the Native Americans did when British imperialists came in. The Founding Fathers were skeptical of legal immigration in the first place.
Jefferson said, “Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans were thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom? If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.” Truthfully, our country is running out of space for manual laborers. With technology becoming so advanced, a bigger population will do nothing for us unless the workers are highly specialized and have managerial skills.
I am a first generation immigrant. I could not get an in-state tuition.
This is exactly what I was going to write until I saw u say it !!! 
What do you mean by that? If you’re a first generation legal immigrant and you’ve been living in a certain state for over a year, then you can most certainly get in-state tuition.
Also, since there are two different terms for it, by ‘first-generation immigrant’, do you mean that you immigrated here and were naturalized, or your parents immigrated here and you were born in the United States?
You would probably agree that you sound like someone attempting to regulate economic activity. Hopefully, being on this site, you know how that usually goes ??? 
In my case, I had to wait a bit to receive permanent residence. Until then you are not elligible for in-state. It is very unlikely that some state college will grant you in-state just because you have lived there for a year. From my exerience, they find every reason to deny you in-state. I am sure its possible that some colleges do allow that, but they are in minority.
Also, do you see how we keep running into these problems of who gets what and who pays for what ??? Dont you see the easy solution ???
Mises was also pro-immigration
He also advocating restricting people because of where they are from and what government they lived under:
These considerations are not a plea for opening America and the British Dominions to German, Italian, and Japanese immigrants. Under present conditions America and Australia would simply commit suicide by admitting Nazis, Fascists, and Japanese. They could as well surrender directly to the Fűhrer and to the Mikado. Immigrants from the totalitarian countries are today the vanguard of their armies, a fifth column whose invasion would render all measures of defense useless. America and Australia can preserve their freedom, their civilization, and their economic institutions only by rigidly barring access to the subjects of the dictators.
At least in Arizona, up until a few years ago, illegal immigrants could get in-state tuition simply by showing current residence for the past year, sometimes not even for a full year. Even with the new laws, many illegal immigrants still get in-state tuition. I don’t know where you’re from, but it happens in Arizona where illegal immigration is at its worst.
I’m not saying you shouldn’t get in-state tuition, by the way. You’re a citizen now, so you’re entitled to all of the rights that every other citizen is. You can’t just say that we should give amnesty to all illlegal immigrants because it’s an easy solution. The easy solution is never the best solution. We need to get rid of the welfare system in the first place, and then it won’t matter with the exception of how high our unemployment rate is.
It’s not that we don’t want any immigrants, but we don’t want immigrants who only want certain aspects of freedom. I don’t think the Founding Fathers fought for the freedom of those who would completely change the original culture of the United States. And, again, that isn’t supposed to sound xenophobic, but it’s true. Why shouldn’t we expect people around the world to fight against their own governments that have taken over their native lands?
I am not a citizen yet. I solved my problem the following way. I chose Hillsdale College (look it up !!!)
I agree that the welfare system should be eliminated. Where to start? Anywhere and everywhere. Including the state sponsored colleges.
It’s not that we don’t want any immigrants, but we don’t want immigrants who only want certain aspects of freedom.
Are you replying to me or Mises?
I don’t think the Founding Fathers fought for the freedom of those who would completely change the original culture of the United States. And, again, that isn’t supposed to sound xenophobic, but it’s true. Why shouldn’t we expect people around the world to fight against their own governments that have taken over their native lands?
I’m not really sure how relevant what the U.S. founding fathers wanted really is to libertarian and economic theory, but yes, many of them were culturally conservative (and extremely racist to boot). However, it would be bit hypocritical of them to question the intentions of immigrants, who escape their crippling government instead of fighting it, as that is exactly what most of their own fathers had done.
The vast majority of Founding Fathers abhorred racism. I don’t know if you just assumed that they were racist, but that’s completely untrue for the most part.
The colonization of America was done by the British imperialists. Since the colonies were then part of the British Empire, and in turn the ‘home’ of the Founding Fathers, through no choice of their own, it had nothing to do with the choices of their fathers. The colonization of American was an expansion, not an escape. So many of their fathers wanted to expand, but not escape their government. The Revolutionary War then freed them from the government. Since the British had already colonized America, the Founding Fathers never ran into another country for freedom. They just fought back and claimed back the land from the government.
Just as we can make laws against drug dealers. I don’t quite understand your response: You said that some coyotes rape the women they’re smuggling. The only sure way to stop this, then, is to remove the power from a coyote. Open the borders and people would not seek the services of a coyote, and women would not be in danger. Just as, if you decriminalize narcotics, no one would bother patronizing a violent team of drug sellers on the corner.
I’m sorry, I don’t understand this at all. Yes, I can see that, if you are able to effectively cap the number of people allowed in, you can choose only the cream of the crop. And yes, if people know they can only get in through this process, they might be motivated to work harder. But people can get in around official channels. And that simply cannot be stopped. (though I want to say that, given people are willing to risk life and apparently rape to enter the US, how much can we blame their poor conditions on lack of motivation? Perhaps, for many of them, there is simply no way to better their lot in life; an additional unit of motivation brings little marginal gain)
You kinda have to deal with that rhetoric around here. I don’t think anyone here has a framed picture of a pimp or a drug dealer or a coyote on their wall. But the general belief is that these people are demonized for satisfying people’s demand and engaging in commerce, and in order to counteract this negativity, we ought to reach for the other extreme and call them heroes.
…No comment on “soldiers who fight for our freedoms.”
That’s telling us who we can hire. That’s what Anarcho said: “So the State should be able to tell me who i can and can’t hire”.
The latter statement does not necessarily contradict the former, but it’s certainly a bit odd, don’t you think?
Why is that anyone’s decision to make other than the employer? And if I can only afford to hire someone for, say, $4 an hour of labor, then your appeal to unemployment numbers are meaningless. I can’t hire an unemployed citizen at $4/hr - my only option is to hire an illegal immigrant.
And who is to decide that? You? The government? If businesses situated inside American borders have less and less need for unskilled workers, then wages will fall so far that workers will look elsewhere for work. Or businesses will invest in more capital requiring more workers, and we’ll all get richer.
Clearly everyone feels terrible for the women who get raped by the coyotes who bring them into the country, but we can’t say that they’re willing to be raped in return for freedom. If they knew what was probably going to happen, they may not risk it. The coyotes are friendly to their customers. They don’t tell them that they’re going to use their underwear to decorate the rape tree.
A lot of these other arguments are just fundamental differences of opinion between us, I think. I don’t mean to put words in your mouth, but I seem to place much more importance on citizenship and patriotism to the United States. Again, that might sound bad. It’s not supposed to, if it does.