A labor shortage always raises wages, while a labor surplus always lowers wages. The “economic benefits of immigration” accrue to the people who pay wages, but not to the people who earn wages.
Illegal immigrants increase the supply of labor more than they increase the demand for goods; most illegal immigrants are by definition penniless, so they bring little money with them when they immigrate. It’s true that immigrants work and earn money, but a lot of that money gets sent to their country of origin to support family members at home, meaning it raises demand elsewhere, not where you live. Additionally, more demand for, say, foreign goods purchased in America does not translate into prosperity for the American economy - you could raise the demand for Chinese made goods sold at Wal-Mart by ten times and hardly any of that money would reach the American middle class.
Borders work exactly the same way as a labor union - they create an artificial labor shortage which raises the wages of people who are members. The global corporations, the WTO, Wall Street and Big Banks do not want you to have unions or borders. They want socialism for themselves, capitalism for you; democracy for shareholders, no democracy for citizens, “free speech” for corporations, “free speech zones” for citizens.
I hope that clears it up as to why they’ll talk about “military bases on the border,” but get mad if a city passes an ordinance suspending the business license of people who knowingly exploit illegal immigrants.
One of the other problems is that apparently illegal immigrants can get driver’s licenses in like 11 states, maybe more.
EDIT: Liberte, I agree that for the left, this is really just about importing Democrat voters.
It’s also important to point out that with something like 45-50 million legal and maybe another 12-15 illegals, hispanics are the largest minority in America.
What do you mean by a security risk? I mean, there are
A. Ordinary criminals
B. People with few skills who might turn to crime if they can’t find honest work
C. Dedicated terrorists, etc.
I don’t think you can say “this continent” or “that region” has more criminals. The guy from Holland might have a long criminal record and the guy from Zimbabwe might have great references and an engineering degree. What’s wrong with a case-by-case basis?
As for C., I don’t think it has much to do with immigration. Any dedicated organization can get people across if they really want to, even if there was a big scary Berlin Wall type thing the whole way across both borders. There’s a million ways; dealing with the issue at the border is just a huge boondoggle.
It’s true that there are a lot of hard-core criminals coming across from the Mexican border, but doesn’t that mostly have to do with the ‘War on Drugs?’ How much of that do you think would continue if Americans could buy marijuana at the bar and cocaine from a pharmacists?
They are not merely semantic when you advocate for coercive policies in immigration or national security that compel everybody to oblige by them. This is what you were attempting to justify, no? If not, then you should go back and check why you even had a problem with my initial position on this matter.
Benjamin, the case by case basis would be nice if we had all the information about people. But we don’t. And a lot of the variables you would try to quantify, such as anti american sympathy, cant be ranked on a numeric scale. So it seems like in the absence of information we ought to simply let in only immigrants countries whos governments are trustworthy. Britain tries hard to apprehend anti-western terrorists, much harder than Zimbabwe.
You’re right that if an organization really wants to get in, they can. But that doesn’t mean we have to make it easy. We can probably catch a lot of them. I won’t be discouraged just because some might get through.
You’re also right that the border is especially violent because of the drug trade. But I don’t think its politically feasible or moral to legalize marijuana and cocaine for general consumption. In the face of this, the best solution seems to be tighter border security.
"You’re right that if an organization really wants to get in, they can. But that doesn’t mean we have to make it easy. We can probably catch a lot of them. I won’t be discouraged just because some might get through.
You’re also right that the border is especially violent because of the drug trade. But I don’t think its politically feasible or moral to legalize marijuana and cocaine for general consumption. In the face of this, the best solution seems to be tighter border security."
Totally agreed on the first part. I might be in favor of legalizing marijuana but definitely not cocaine. It’s a disgusting drug, I know we’ll never get people to stop doing it but dammit if we catch them, they’re going to jail.
What kan that possibly mean, everyone? Every man, woman and child, including nigg…, eh I mean, African Americans? Are you saying that ‘everyone’ in America thinks just like you…?
DD5, you don’t defend my challenge that you’re arguing semantics. If you really want to drop the term ‘national’, i’ll just say “all americans”, or “most americans”, etc. I’m just trying to capture our shared risks. We’re all more or less equal targets. But yes I am attempting to justify excluding people who represent security risks to us.
Capitalist_Pig, I just think the Europeans/Canadians are a lot friendlier to the United States than others. Their governments do a good job with their own national security, and I don’t think they’d be silent if any of their emmigrants were planning anything.
Mises Pieces, private property is a boundary line but there is still potential for abuse if you can invite anyone from anywhere onto your property. The boundary line of nations is the line where governments take responsibility.
JakobM, even if everyone in the country doesn’t agree with me, we are all in the same boat as far as national security goes. I’m sure there are a lot of people out there who want more immigrants from Mexico, but they don’t realize the associated security risk.
“Seventy percent (70%) of U.S. voters favor strict government sanctions on employers who hire illegal immigrants, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Only 21% oppose such sanctions.”
“Sixty-seven percent (67%) of U.S. voters say military troops should be sent to the Mexican border to prevent illegal immigration. A new Rasmussen Reports nationwide telephone survey finds that just 18% are opposed and another 15% are not sure.”
"Fifty-eight percent (58%) of U.S. voters say a child born to an illegal immigrant in this country should not automatically become a citizen of the United States, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.
Thirty-three percent (33%) disagree and say if a women enters the United States as an illegal alien and gives birth to a child here, that child should automatically be a U.S. citizen. That’s what the current law allows and many believe it would require a Constitutional Amendment to change the law."
"The Obama administration announced on Tuesday that it is halting funding of the fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, but 59% of Americans believe the United States should continue to build that fence.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 26% of adults disagree and think the building of the fence should be stopped. Fifteen percent (15%) more are not sure."
It is true that Progressivism and Social Democrats can reek havok with there immigration schemes, however there is no way a massive federal government can effectively calculate anything worthwhile with regards to immigration.
“private property is a boundary line but there is still potential for abuse if you can invite anyone from anywhere onto your property”
But wouldn’t the abuse require for the guest to at some point cross uninvited into a 3rd person’s property? Otherwise, I don’t see how there could be any abuse.
“The boundary line of nations is the line where governments take responsibility.”
But they’re not. That’s why we’re having this conversation. A government’s only responsibility is to consolidate its own power. A private citizen has much more incentive than the state to keep dangerous people off his property.
“The boundary line of nations is the line where governments take responsibility.”
Oh really? Because they’re doing a great job now , aren’t they?
And anyway, why is security of private property the responsibility of government other then resorting to some excuse based on some Constitution or tradition? If the boundary line of nations is where governments take responsibility, then why exclude other needs of Americans from its responsibility? Why isn’t education, healthcare, shelter or even food under its responsibility? Try making your argument with those who actually do think the latter should be under the responsibility of government.
Capitalist_Pig, I don’t think most of them are planning anything.
Mises Pieces, you’re right that if property rights were completely enforced there would be no problems, but the fact of the matter is that it is very risky for people to be in close proximity to those who wish them harm. Its not practical to wait and say “OH! now you’re on my property!” before stopping someone.
DD5, I don’t want to talk about who has what responsibilities. That seems silly. The only thing that is important is if the government is in a position to protect national security, which they are. As for other welfare programs, the same aggregate argument might not be relavent. I think education and healthcare is a different discussion.
Well, to be honest, part of the reason I don’t really see a border connection to security is that I’m one of those crazy ‘truthers’ you may have heard about that thinks ‘Al Qaeda’ is a CIA database of Islamic extremists as opposed to a real organization.
As for the morality of legalizing marijuana, try it first or talk to people who use it and then make up your mind. It actually says it’s O.K. on the first page of the Bible, believe it or not. Political feasibility - there’s even odds it will happen in California this November.
As for hard drugs, Switzerland made it so that heroin addicts can get heroin from a licensed government-run clinic and have it administered by a nurse in a safe environment. A lot of Swiss were supposedly upset about it until they realized that their car radios weren’t getting stolen anymore and the junkies shooting up in the park had all disappeared. That’s basically what I’d propose.