I’m not necessarily advocating restrictions, just expressing my concern.
I’m not so sure that the only reason people would want to do such things is economic. Dont underestimate nationalism and the power of an idea. History is full of war based on uniting a people or a land. To many people this kind of thing is as important as money.
Also, there is a real sentiment in latin america that the people there are poor because of imperalist policies of the United States. Dont put it past savy politicians to advance thier own agendas by using the US as a scape goat. Hugo Chavez is an example. He uses the anti-US propoganda to advance disasterous economic policy. So even if economic advantage is the only reason people would get on board with nationalistic ideas, then that only means that people have to think that it is in their economic well being. It doesnt have to be the reality. Many other insane ideologies have swept up the masses that were disasterous for their economic well being.
Again what I have described above is only one of the changes to the current situation that would have to happen. Also, I’m not intending to fear monger.
No, but its a preference. People of a certain race or ethic group generally prefer to associate within their own group. I just dont see why some libertarians cannot admit this or their own biases.
See the thing is, I dont advocate force. But I also dont pretend that the current immigration system is anything close to what we’d have in an ancap world. Many Meso-Americans are poor and are willing to take the risks of hoofing it across an open desert, but most of them are simply laborers. But with a Bulgarian engineer, for instance, who is worth much more in the labor pool simply doesnt bother trying to come over here despite the desire.
Therefore it doesn’t matter if they pay taxes, the entire question is utterly irelevent.
The fact that there is such a thing as “illeagle” immigration is an immoral label and guns shouldn’t be used at any level to stop people’s pursuit of hapiness so long as they aren’t breaking the non-agression principal.
Mass immigration is a problem that exceeds the power of any given state to resolve, as most immigrants are refugees from an oppressive state. The sheer malthusian nightmare of it is that any place that accumulates any amount of capital can be swarmed by immigrants if does not restrict residency. If it allows unlimited residency and provides citizenship on top of that, its political system is going to collapse. Enforcing free residency is a form of communism, much like forcing everyone to allow the homeless in their house.
Ultimately it’s a question of land ownership. If the land is owned in common and immigration open to anyone, then the landlords will benefit from higher demand for rental real estate, while the landless will be crowded out by the immigrants. (Capital dilution works out in the capital-owner’s favor.) If the land is capital owned privately, the property owners on this land will not gain any rents from mass immigration, as the right to residency will be owned by the land owner.
Suppose that people were allowed to privatize parts of the U.S., and create remote communities and cities. Would they allow mass immigration? Of course not, as that would mean people overcrowding buildings and destroying them, or living out on the street and lowering the attractiveness of the place. This same factor scales up to the entire country, only the issue is political, and the capital owners favor mass immigration so long as they do not have to pay the cost of the loss of land value.
Unfortunately the only solution to mass immigration is to take the fight for freedom to the potential immigrants themselves, and help them live free in their own countries, where they most likely want to remain but are being oppressed into exile. But since the ruling class in the USA is more interested in plundering their own country than making it great, the only plausible outcome is that the U.S. itself will become a source of immigrants soon enough. We might even see immigration barriers appearing internally in America. (Repressive urban zoning already serves this purpose to an extent.)
Most Latin american people don’t want to change your culture at all. They only want to preserve their own just as you like to preserve your own.
False.
Probably one of the largest fallacies about immigration floating around today. If american’s took those jobs immigrants wouldn’t be coming at all.
Get rid of the stupid welfare programs then. They don’t come here for our welfare. Immigration is not a problem of too much welfare. It’s a problem of a strong economy. Something every country should want to have. There is a demand for labor, it needs to get filled. Immigration is a wonderful problem for a country to have, would you rather have emigration where people want to get the F out?
Souther Cali isn’t the only place where immigrants go. The present state of California is a simple reflection of it’s retarded politics. Immigration problems in NM, AZ, Tx are entirely different. Therefore your logic is inconsistent and does not follow.
Then I doubt you have ever met a Mexican. Most are far more family oriented then the average american. You do sound racist and your hasty generalizations show it. I’ve lived in latin america for a few years and know many. They arn’t the shallow minded people you make them out to be.
So? And the rest of the countries white people do nothing right? Come to Seattle, we all smoke pot. Ironically most latin american countries ridicule drugs more than we do.
Some Latinos drink alcohol and don’t do drugs. Others do drugs and don’t drink. (Americans are the same btw) Which ones are supposedly moral in your eyes? Participating in drugs is no more a crime than skydiving. Both have high health risks, both put the individual at risk and both are completely benign to the rest of us. Perhaps we should outlaw skydiving as well.
Cheap shot and also false.
That is because you are a bigot and incapable of using rationality as a part of your thought process.
California has net domestic emigration even as it has net cross-border immigration, so people appear to be voting with their feet and leaving their new Meso-American neighbors.
They break down the data by county as well. There have been large surges in net domestic emigration in both LA and Orange Counties even with, again, net immigration from across the border.
Just to add to this. In talking to the economist in Honduras who worked at the embassy there he stated that one of the most powerful economic problems of Honduras is emigration. Their economy is incapable of growing when everyone leaves the country. As a result, and at the time, the average age in Honduras is 25 years of age. That means that the countries general pool of skillset is very low and un-experienced.
Further more due to large donations from external institutions, like the US and Spain, young members of this country get incentive to learn skillsets that are only valuable outside of their home country. This further perpetuates the the emigration. Donations from external institutes give this money and programs, often together. The overwhelming amount of donations entering these countries often enter educational institutes. As such they influence them greatly. What you have as a result are students getting engineering degrees of skill that is completely non-existent and not needed presently in the country as a whole. In addition most of the universities are state run so as normal the insentives are all messed up. Like many staterun universites the programs they offer generally do not reflect the type of labor that is in demand on the market. This fallacy of insentives can be seen in the states as well.
I myself taught a Cisco training coarse at a local colegio in my pueblo. It was the largest waste of information I ever gave these kids. Most of which had fathers with successful farms that eventually needed to be passed on.
So as a result we have an entire culture being trained for jobs outside of their country of residency. Topple that with an already existent heavy emigration problem. Basically our philanthropy has created a perpetual cycle that encourages people to leave their own country rather then stay. In addition we exploit the people who do stay by building up state institutes where residence bear the expense of teaching young people skills that cannot be used there. It’s ironic with this knowledge to think that some of the people who complain about immigration into the US might be participating in a “Adopt a child” program or a church program that sends thousands of dollars into these countries perpetuating the economic situation.
We basically created a breeding ground to fill the skillsets we desire in the US. It should be no surprise to us that people come here. Additionally we have our domestic issue of labor in the US where we have a severe lack of engineering capabilities. As a result tech firms across the nation must outsource as all our kids have Political Science degrees working at best buy. I read about a company in Houston hiring, right out of college, petroleum engineers to start 75k/year. If anyone knows anything about Houston thats cheap living and 75k/year is lots of money! Still we have a culture that thinks engineering, producing, and innovation is boring or unsophisticated. People read about ingenuity with glazed look on their face but praise public servants. So as a result the demand for that labor gets noticed by over seas people who suffer from crappy political situations of their own. They aren’t blinded by the silly cultural views american’s have and are happy to learn that skillset and take that job.
Another factor regarding mexico that many people overlook is their own immigration/emigration problem. To someone in a third world country in Latin America, the US is only their first choice of migrating to, many also share a second choice to mexico. As a result Mexico not only suffers from massive emigration of their own but a large influx of immigration from neighboring latin american countries. How this effects their labor force I can only imagine but I wonder if that also has a factor to play.
In case anyone still thinks unlimited immigration is a good idea, or that District 9 was wildly exaggerated, you should look for and watch the documentary Staying Alive in Joburg about what has happened to Johannesburg in South Africa since the end of Apartheid and the beginning of mass immigration from across Africa.
