As many people as the market has jobs for.
As many people as the market has jobs for.
Freedom is not for everybody, it must be earned.
... there are a handful of policy questions for which all American citizens are in the same boat, and immigration is one of them. ... It's definitely in our interest to let in a million or so immigrants per year, a pretty significant number. We might even be extremely generous and limit it at 3 million (that's 1% growth per year from immigration - 130,000,000 legal newcomers by 2050), but there must be a limit.
Everything you said makes sense only in the context of free immigration being the only change.
Even then the idea that the very poorest people in the world could travel as indentured servants seems a little unlikely.
Why wouldn't they just take the same jobs for lower wages but correspondingly lower standards of living in their own countries?
I voted for less than 10,000,000 but I don't really have any idea and it doesn't matter what I think. People should have the ability to immigrate to the US no matter how many of them there are.
Well, just remember this: For every pair who arrive here and are capable of producing offspring, they will equal ten or so within fifty years.
This means - by a factor of five - the fifteen million (or more) illegals will equal approximately 75 million by the year 2057, if they completely sealed the borders right now.
You could easily double that if you allowed the open borders, which means half the current population as it stands now, half of the entire population of this country, will put a nice big strain on the entire infrastructure as it currently stands. Traffic, hospitals, welfare/social security, the school systems, the utility network into metro areas, all would be maxed out, and that doesnt include the other 300,000,000 who will be breeding the whole time.
I'd like to see some progression tables of population. I'll bet we're looking at a total population of around 3/4 of a BILLION people by around 2060, maybe 2070 - and thats not taking into account longevity due to scientific breakthroughs.
Sounds like a hoot. I'm glad I'll be dead by then.
Well, just remember this: For every pair who arrive here and are capable of producing offspring, they will equal ten or so within fifty years.
[...]
What the fuck is wrong with you people? Grow a pair. I mean, if you cannot compete, kill yourself now. Thanks.
Well, just remember this: For every pair who arrive here and are capable of producing offspring, they will equal ten or so within fifty years.
This means - by a factor of five - the fifteen million (or more) illegals will equal approximately 75 million by the year 2057, if they completely sealed the borders right now.
You could easily double that if you allowed the open borders, which means half the current population as it stands now, half of the entire population of this country, will put a nice big strain on the entire infrastructure as it currently stands. Traffic, hospitals, welfare/social security, the school systems, the utility network into metro areas, all would be maxed out, and that doesnt include the other 300,000,000 who will be breeding the whole time.
I'd like to see some progression tables of population. I'll bet we're looking at a total population of around 3/4 of a BILLION people by around 2060, maybe 2070 - and thats not taking into account longevity due to scientific breakthroughs.
Sounds like a hoot. I'm glad I'll be dead by then.
This doesn't make any sense. You're suggesting that if we close the borders right now, the current illegal immigrant population would grow five-fold in 50 years, and then you double this figure for some reason, and then you compare that to the rest of the population as it is now, without the same growth of 50 years. Are you suggesting that every pair of illegal immigrants who arrive here and are capable of producing offspring will equal ten or so within fifty years, but every pair of legal American citizens who are capable of producing offspring will not equal ten or so within fifty years? And if you double the illegal population, why don't you at least double the current legal population (let alone what the legal population would have grown to in the same 50 years)? If you closed the border right now, the illegal population as a percentage of the entire population would remain approximately the same (or lessen considerably if you consider current rules of naturalization by birth).
Well, just remember this: For every pair who arrive here and are capable of producing offspring, they will equal ten or so within fifty years.
[...]
Most likely, they will not equal ten or so in fifty years. A household's fertility decision is strongly determined by the opportunity cost of having children - i.e., the cost of everything foregone in favor of a given choice.
The biggest opportunity cost of having children is time, because it takes a lot of time to raise a child. As the parents' time becomes more valuable due to economic advancement, the opportunity cost of having offspring increases (as measured in foregone earned income), creating a very strong tendency not to have offspring.
If Borders were open, then I wouldn't have to shop at Barnes and Noble.
It makes perfect sense. Two people have children, take the cliche of 2.5 kids per family. Those 2 people now equal 4 or 5. So, those 2 or 3 children, 25 years after birth, each have 2 kids. That is eight to ten children and grandchildren plus the original immigrants. Given some benefit of the doubt, it is simple to have fifteen million people turn into 75 million within fifty years, if thats too hard to understand, just go to a family reunion some time.
Now. If theres fifteen million here now, I think its safe to assume the influx of immigrants would double the current number of illegals... or "un-illegals" if the borders are open. So, fifteen million doubles, and so do the number of siblings in fifty years, which would total 150,000,000 as opposed to the 75,000,000 in my scenario.
Its really not that difficult.
And if you would bother to reverse engineer the results of my hypotheses, you'd easily see the 300,000,000 is factored into the total. Fifteen to 30 million cannot suddenly become 750,000,000 without the help of the segment of the 300mil that are of the child bearing age, which I figured at about 25 to 30%. Old people dont reproduce, neither do children.
So, before you go into all sorts of contorted gymnastics in defense of your little pet projects, you should consider that these were obviously rubbery numbers to begin with, but they are certainly sizeable no matter how close they are to the truth, and I'm sure its not TOO far afield.
The end result is a huge population shift, period. So, better start saving your pennies, because you're gonna be paying some pretty steep taxes over the next few decades, as well as not having the social security returned to you that you've paid into for five decades.
It makes perfect sense. Two people have children, take the cliche of 2.5 kids per family. Those 2 people now equal 4 or 5. So, those 2 or 3 children, 25 years after birth, each have 2 kids. That is eight to ten children and grandchildren plus the original immigrants. Given some benefit of the doubt, it is simple to have fifteen million people turn into 75 million within fifty years, if thats too hard to understand, just go to a family reunion some time.
Now. If theres fifteen million here now, I think its safe to assume the influx of immigrants would double the current number of illegals... or "un-illegals" if the borders are open. So, fifteen million doubles, and so do the number of siblings in fifty years, which would total 150,000,000 as opposed to the 75,000,000 in my scenario.
Its really not that difficult.
And if you would bother to reverse engineer the results of my hypotheses, you'd easily see the 300,000,000 is factored into the total. Fifteen to 30 million cannot suddenly become 750,000,000 without the help of the segment of the 300mil that are of the child bearing age, which I figured at about 25 to 30%. Old people dont reproduce, neither do children.
So, before you go into all sorts of contorted gymnastics in defense of your little pet projects, you should consider that these were obviously rubbery numbers to begin with, but they are certainly sizeable no matter how close they are to the truth, and I'm sure its not TOO far afield.
The end result is a huge population shift, period. So, better start saving your pennies, because you're gonna be paying some pretty steep taxes over the next few decades, as well as not having the social security returned to you that you've paid into for five decades.
I'm sorry, I misunderstood your example's position on opening or closing the border. You said "This means ... the fifteen million (or more) illegals will equal approximately 75 million by the year 2057, if they completely sealed the borders right now. ... You could easily double that if you allowed the open borders, which means ..." and I just confused whether you meant that the borderes were completely sealed right now or if the borders were allowed open. I now understand that your example creates 75M out of 15M with closed borders, but opening the border could double that to 150M.
However, in that same sentence ("You could easily double that if you allowed the open borders, which means half the current population as it stands now, half of the entire population of this country, will put a nice big strain on the entire infrastructure as it currently stands."), you are comparing the 150M population after 50 years of growth to the current population of America, claiming that 150M is half of the 300M population, even though 150M is in the future and 300M is in the present and hasn't been given the same 50 years to grow. Or maybe I'm still misunderstanding your example.
Also, why are you condescending to me? You said "...if you would bother to reverse engineer the results of my hypotheses..." and "...before you go into all sorts of contorted gymnastics in defense of your little pet projects..." How does it benefit you (or me, or anyone) to act superior when I am merely pointing out a what I think is a mistake in your hypothesis? If I am wrong, please explain how.
Thanks.
If Borders were open, then I wouldn't have to shop at Barnes and Noble.
No, you've got it now. Thats basically correct. The point is, it's a shitload of people. The ramifications of that influx would be huge.
The point I was making with reverse engineering the data is that it's easily visible after a few moments consideration that fifteen or 30 million cannot sprout into 750M, no way in hell. Not in fifty years, at least.
So, I got a little aggrivated to have to go over it a second time, more thoroughly, when all I was suggesting is a huge influx of people will cause a big strain on the legal citizens already here who are feeling the pinch of a steadily declining economy. The gymnastics reference was to cast an unfavorable light on people who will bend their arguments into ridiculous shapes to try to show their support for an embryonic theory of "Open borders=good/bad/maybe/love it" Its not actually against you, it was just a comment that fit the moment.
Personally, I would like to streamline the process and grant legal citizenship to anyone who requests it. But thats not open borders, thats closed borders. Open borders suggests to me that there would be no oversight whatsoever and people could just come and go with absolutely no process at all, like an open highway, just zoom right through.
That would be catastrophic.
[...]Well, just remember this: For every pair who arrive here and are capable of producing offspring, they will equal ten or so within fifty years.
[...]
Most likely, they will not equal ten or so in fifty years. A household's fertility decision is strongly determined by the opportunity cost of having children - i.e., the cost of everything foregone in favor of a given choice.
The biggest opportunity cost of having children is time, because it takes a lot of time to raise a child. As the parents' time becomes more valuable due to economic advancement, the opportunity cost of having offspring increases (as measured in foregone earned income), creating a very strong tendency not to have offspring.
[...] If you are trying to tell me there is a slower population growth in areas of economic instability, you are completely wrong. It is equal or faster than the average middle income two parent household.[...]
If Borders were open, then I wouldn't have to shop at Barnes and Noble.
You bookstore traitor. I never knew libertarians were such bookstore traitors.
No, you've got it now. Thats basically correct. The point is, it's a shitload of people. The ramifications of that influx would be huge.
The point I was making with reverse engineering the data is that it's easily visible after a few moments consideration that fifteen or 30 million cannot sprout into 750M, no way in hell. Not in fifty years, at least.
So, I got a little aggrivated to have to go over it a second time, more thoroughly, when all I was suggesting is a huge influx of people will cause a big strain on the legal citizens already here who are feeling the pinch of a steadily declining economy. The gymnastics reference was to cast an unfavorable light on people who will bend their arguments into ridiculous shapes to try to show their support for an embryonic theory of "Open borders=good/bad/maybe/love it" Its not actually against you, it was just a comment that fit the moment.
Personally, I would like to streamline the process and grant legal citizenship to anyone who requests it. But thats not open borders, thats closed borders. Open borders suggests to me that there would be no oversight whatsoever and people could just come and go with absolutely no process at all, like an open highway, just zoom right through.
That would be catastrophic.
Thanks for explaining everything. I'm still confused, though, how the 150M illegal immigrants in 50 years would be more of a burden on society proportionally then the 15M illegal immigrants now. I'm assuming that the legal population will grow at the same rate as the illegal population, to if 15M illegal immigrants now is ~5% of the total population, then in 50 years 150M will be ~5% of the total population. Are you saying that a greater population in general is more of a burden on society (i.e., on itself)?
+1
+1
So now what do you disagree with RP on? His pro-life stance?
A burden on society... Okay, watch this...
Well, wouldn't you suppose the number crunchers expect their calculations to rise gradualy?
Spikes in any scenario throw everything off. Inflation is based upon population, as is every calculation the government uses to suck your taxes out of your pocket.
A rapid influx of lower strata population is definately gonna raise your taxes. Cant deny that.
Look man, I'm paying mega-taxes. There will be no sudden shift in my salary/tax bracket to the lower side. Never.
<gloves off> I do not wanna pay for these motherfuckers.
Okay?
...
That is simple debate on economics and theory, Mike Barsky, nothing more. I have no problem with individual people of any ethnicity. Just for the record.
Capitalism is exploding in mexico, probably faster than it is here...
A burden on society... Okay, watch this...
Well, wouldn't you suppose the number crunchers expect their calculations to rise gradualy?
Spikes in any scenario throw everything off. Inflation is based upon population, as is every calculation the government uses to suck your taxes out of your pocket.
A rapid influx of lower strata population is definately gonna raise your taxes. Cant deny that.
Look man, I'm paying mega-taxes. There will be no sudden shift in my salary/tax bracket to the lower side. Never.
<gloves off> I do not wanna pay for these motherfuckers.
Okay?
...
That is simple debate on economics and theory, Mike Barsky, nothing more. I have no problem with individual people of any ethnicity. Just for the record.
I completely agree about paying for them. I don't want to pay for anyone other than me or any program for which I don't benefit or give explicit consent (i.e., voluntarily spend my own money on). But I just don't understand your argument that illegal immigrants affect your wallet (or mine) any more than legal population. If the legal population increases, taxes will increase (with our current government). If the illegal population increases, taxes will increase. There are poor among legal and illegal populations and over 50 years they will both grow proportionally the same (all else being equal), hence taxes will increase.
The whole thing sounds like an argument against welfare because as population (legal or illegal) grows, so does taxation in order to support the greater welfare load. I just don't understand how illegal immigrants worsen this scenario more than the legal population.
But thanks for trying to explain it.
All persons born in the United States are citizens by birth. There is some debate over whether other persons with citizenship can also be considered citizens by birth, or whether they should all be considered citizens by law (thus "naturalized"). Current US statutes define certain individuals born overseas as citizens by birth.[3] One side of the argument interprets the Constitution as meaning that a person either is born in the United States or is a naturalized citizen. Thus, to be a "natural born citizen," a person must be born in the United States; otherwise, they are citizens by law and are naturalized.[4] To others, the statute that grants citizenship to American children born overseas exempts them from the term "naturalized" and thus, as with the 1790 law, they are to be considered "natural born citizens" eligible for the Presidency.[5] Examples of persons who become citizens at birth (whether "naturalized" or "natural born") would include: birth to Americans overseas, or birth on U.S. soil, territories, or military bases overseas.[6]
How 'bout, anyone can come here, but if you commit a felony you're out. That includes homegrown criminals.
How 'bout, anyone can come here, but if you commit a felony you're out. That includes homegrown criminals.How about no? It's a felony to do a lot of things that are perfectly within my rights.
How 'bout, anyone can come here, but if you commit a felony you're out. That includes homegrown criminals.How about no? It's a felony to do a lot of things that are perfectly within my rights.
How 'bout, anyone can come here, but if you commit a felony you're out. That includes homegrown criminals.How about no? It's a felony to do a lot of things that are perfectly within my rights.
I mean, real felonies. You know--like the sort of crimes that actually hurt people. Murder, rape, sending out spam--THAT sort of thing.
How 'bout, anyone can come here, but if you commit a felony you're out. That includes homegrown criminals.How about no? It's a felony to do a lot of things that are perfectly within my rights.
I mean, real felonies. You know--like the sort of crimes that actually hurt people. Murder, rape, sending out spam--THAT sort of thing.
You implement that and I'll be flying a plane with my left buttcheek.
How 'bout, anyone can come here, but if you commit a felony you're out. That includes homegrown criminals.How about no? It's a felony to do a lot of things that are perfectly within my rights.
I mean, real felonies. You know--like the sort of crimes that actually hurt people. Murder, rape, sending out spam--THAT sort of thing.
You implement that and I'll be flying a plane with my left buttcheek.
What?
I think that's the point.
What would happen if Ian's position on unrestricted immigration came to fruition?
The Latino "Reconquista" will no longer be a major issue... I imagine the horizon of both our oceans, but especially the Pacific, filled with boats as far as the eye could see!
Sure, some people in the third world love their homeland and won't come to America even if they could, but most would. And they'll keep on coming as long as the wages and the quality of life in America are better than in the old country. The population of the United States is about 0.31 billion, current consumption levels average at over $100 a day. The people who'd want to come here, on the other hand... 1.1 billion people in the world presently have consumption levels below $1 a day, and 2.7 billion live on less than $2 a day. And yet even the poorest of those people would be able to make it to this country by signing a contract to work off their transportation.
The people that stay behind in the old countries, by the way, will become poorer as the result of their best and brightest leaving, and the hopes of those countries industrializing will be diminished. And the most afflicted, famine-ravaged persons won't be able to compete very well in a physically demanding factory environment, so it's up for debate whether the third world will be better off as the result. Many would come here and not be able to find a job, wasting whatever savings they had in the process.
Now, I do believe that any person, of any race and from any country in the world, is capable of attaining success in a free economy. Unfortunately for most this success doesn't come until 1-2 generations later, and that's with the help of the current welfare infrastructure. Most of the people coming off those boats will only be capable of physical labor at first. Being a Russian immigrant myself, I've seen a lot of Ph.D.'s from the old country babysitting and washing dishes in America because of the language barrier!
Other industrialized countries, the best example being Japan, will continue to limit immigration to what they perceive to be in their national interest, and invest in robotics and other technological innovations to compete with America. Cheap labor is the reason why China didn't have an industrial revolution a thousand years ago, and America might miss out on the next revolution for the same reason! Countries like Japan will also invest in overseas factories where the labor is cheapest, thus helping those countries industrialize and, in effect, buying their support on the geopolitical stage.
It's up for debate whether the total GDP of our nation will decline, but the per-capita GDP will definitely be in a free-fall! With a near-unlimited supply of cheap labor, wages will decline toward the world average. Or, if there are minimum wage laws, very few people would be making above minimum wage, and the unemployment would skyrocket even more.
(I will not speculate on what effect all this will have on the sanitation and health infrastructure of our country. For the sake of political correctness, I will pretend that hygiene and infectious disease management standards are the same in Ethiopia as they are in this country.)
Now, whatever magic wand Ian waved to open the borders ought to also work for getting rid of minimum wage laws, welfare, and other all government services and regulations as well; local, state, and federal? Unfortunately those things are more complicated.
If Michael Moore is willing to advocate government theft for the sake of some idiot who sawed off his fingers, what would he do if there were 40 Nigerian migrant workers sheltering in a basement next door, or politely picketing for work on street corners while their children fainted from hunger? He'd tell them that property is theft, and the rich American next door is stealing from them! Even if the majority of them had the moral sense not to turn to theft, enough would. Sure, you'd have your firearms, but they would have weapons as well, and pretty soon there would be more of them then there are of you. If they can't get the government to give them welfare, they'll take it by force themselves! Whether it takes a little violence or a lot of violence, sooner or later the majority of the wealth holders (at least those that haven't fled to some country with a more discriminating immigration policy) would agree to "fairly redistribute their wealth".
This is what happened in all countries filled with poor people competing for low-wage jobs, most notably in Russia in early 1900's. If America opens its borders and the ratio of "have"s to "have-not"s increases, then Socialism, maybe even Communism, would come back with a vengeance, and free market capitalism would be blamed for all society's ills!
Freedom is only possible in a wealthy and stable society, with a well-developed culture of education, hard work, self-reliance, and charity. Freedom is not for everybody, it must be earned. Just as entry to a free society should be earned, and we're talking about a lot more than just a boat fare or a walk from Mexico.
So, while I agree with Ian on most things, the position I hold on immigration is the minarchist / gradualist position, similar to that of Ron Paul. There are very few things that the federal government should be responsible for, but keeping our borders secure (and enforcing non-citizen visitation duration limits) is one of them. It will take decades do phase out welfare, and for those decades the illegal immigration must be halted, and those here illegally should be heartlessly deported, just as an American citizen would be deported if he overstays his visa in Japan or Switzerland.
If there is such a thing as the United States of America, be it a legal fiction or not, it is not a universal concept. There are stakeholders in this legal fiction, known as citizens - either you are one or you're not. And it's in the common interest of those existing stakeholders that the in-flow of new stakeholders be limited -- not unlimited and not closed off completely -- to prevent the scenario described above. Sure, I don't like the idea of a "common interest", people should be able to choose for themselves whenever possible, but unfortunately there are a handful of policy questions for which all American citizens are in the same boat, and immigration is one of them.
That doesn't mean we seal the borders completely, just control it for our national interest, like all industrialized nations currently do. It's definitely in our interest to let in a million or so immigrants per year, a pretty significant number. We might even be extremely generous and limit it at 3 million (that's 1% growth per year from immigration - 130,000,000 legal newcomers by 2050), but there must be a limit. And since there'll be many people competing for those limited spots, we can choose the applicants that would serve our national interest the most. Why should a high school drop-out from Mexico (no offense to both those groups) have an unfair advantage over the next Einstein from India or China just because of an accident of geography?
There will come a day, probably within our lifetimes, when the third world becomes more "industrialized" (and the first world less welfare-prone), and the need those barriers to immigration will gradually fade away, and all first-world countries, not just the U.S. will open their borders as Ian suggests. But not yet!
The discussion 70 minutes into the March 8th podcast prompts me to ask again:
Given open borders, what will keep America from eventually reaching the same population density (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density) as India or China? And will that many poor immigrants act differently in political terms than they did in their old country, or would they turn the country just as Socialist as India or China?
I have to take a minarchist position on immigration, unfortunately. There is such a thing as a nation-state, at least for now, not because it's a good idea but because other parts of the world believe in it. That doesn't mean another country would roll in the tanks, but there are other ways to annex territory and resources. Remember what the British Empire did to China leading up to the Opium Wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars)? They would LOVE, LOVE to do the same thing to us!
I do believe in large-scale immigration, but it should be merit-based. If Japan prefers millionaires and Ph.D's and we let in anyone who can swim the Rio Grande, their average IQ (and other per-capita indicators) would rise even more significantly above ours! I say: anyone wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt should be stopped at the border!
You pessimists might also consider that a rapid influx of immigrants would force a change in the welfare system - probably by crashing it sooner. It might actually be a good thing.
You, apparently, don't trust the market. Pessimistic projections about immigration, like scary projections of every other non-aggressive human activity, fail to take into account that they are self limiting.(See my post, just above yours.)
You pessimists might also consider that a rapid influx of immigrants would force a change in the welfare system - probably by crashing it sooner. It might actually be a good thing.
What happens when they start to riot?
You pessimists might also consider that a rapid influx of immigrants would force a change in the welfare system - probably by crashing it sooner. It might actually be a good thing.
What happens when they start to riot?
Its just circular thinking to assume that millions more coming into this country to leech off of it will not impoverish the country and, therefore, make it less appealing as a destination.
You, apparently, don't trust the market. Pessimistic projections about immigration, like scary projections of every other non-aggressive human activity, fail to take into account that they are self limiting.(See my post, just above yours.)
I've already addressed that earlier in this thread. There's free market, and then there's magical thinking. Absence of welfare is only possible if the mob that demands welfare can be kept at bay. We already have welfare in this country in spite of limited immigration (compared to what it would be with open borders), with the overwhelming majority of immigrants voting for it. The only immigrants who don't vote for welfare are the ones who would make it here anyway: hard-working professionals. So this country cannot remain free without some controls over immigration!
Yes, there would come a point at which a person in India would rather stay in India than come to America, but if that point is reached America would very much resemble India today: filled with poor people who do nothing but breed and blame rich people for "oppressing" them. With cheap labor the incentive for labor-saving technical innovations will go away, so it will be closed-borders countries like Japan that will gain the technological edge, first with robotics and then with other things as well. The top brains from all over the world will find it in their best interest to immigrate there, making it the Galt's Gulch of sorts, while the open-border socialist countries fall apart further as the result. A nation of 100 million scientists will wipe the floor with a nation of 2 billion rice farmers, even more so in the future than we can imagine today!
Do you know any Mexican immigrant families? Most of them have at least 4 or 6 kids even though they are poor! Most American families on the other hand are only having 2 kids, which will only sustain the population at its current level. I know a couple legal Mexican immigrant families with 10+ kids in each. This is not uncommon.Well, just remember this: For every pair who arrive here and are capable of producing offspring, they will equal ten or so within fifty years.
[...]
Most likely, they will not equal ten or so in fifty years. A household's fertility decision is strongly determined by the opportunity cost of having children - i.e., the cost of everything foregone in favor of a given choice.
The biggest opportunity cost of having children is time, because it takes a lot of time to raise a child. As the parents' time becomes more valuable due to economic advancement, the opportunity cost of having offspring increases (as measured in foregone earned income), creating a very strong tendency not to have offspring.
That would only work if we shoot all the democrats first! :lol:
But even then - a mob of tens of millions of people doesn't need the right to vote to have influence. If there are no democrats to vote them into citizenship and welfare, then the republicans, who'd obviously see them as a threat, would vote to close the border and have them deported.
The only way to have large-scale sustainable immigration into this country is to only allow controlled amounts of middle-class non-socialists on a competitive basis: the more you have to offer this country, the more likely you are to gain an entry visa, a work permit, and eventually a citizenship.
What do you do when 10 million Mexcians riot because they can't get free milk for their 8 children?
You, apparently, don't trust the market. Pessimistic projections about immigration, like scary projections of every other non-aggressive human activity, fail to take into account that they are self limiting.(See my post, just above yours.)
I've already addressed that earlier in this thread. There's free market, and then there's magical thinking. Absence of welfare is only possible if the mob that demands welfare can be kept at bay. We already have welfare in this country in spite of limited immigration (compared to what it would be with open borders), with the overwhelming majority of immigrants voting for it. The only immigrants who don't vote for welfare are the ones who would make it here anyway: hard-working professionals. So this country cannot remain free without some controls over immigration!
Yes, there would come a point at which a person in India would rather stay in India than come to America, but if that point is reached America would very much resemble India today: filled with poor people who do nothing but breed and blame rich people for "oppressing" them. With cheap labor the incentive for labor-saving technical innovations will go away, so it will be closed-borders countries like Japan that will gain the technological edge, first with robotics and then with other things as well. The top brains from all over the world will find it in their best interest to immigrate there, making it the Galt's Gulch of sorts, while the open-border socialist countries fall apart further as the result. A nation of 100 million scientists will wipe the floor with a nation of 2 billion rice farmers, even more so in the future than we can imagine today!
Immigrants are not allowed to vote, until they become citizens. Instead of closing borders to immigrants, why not simply end their eligibility for all state welfare programs and putting an end to naturalized citizenship?
Immigrants also shouldn't be taxed to pay for "services" that they don't receive. They could set up, pay for and govern any free market alternatives to these services that may be of value, thereby setting an example of voluntary free market government for those, unfortunate enough to be citizens, to emulate.
Why do you think that locking down the boarders is more politically feasible than making immigrants ineligible for public welfare?
You, apparently, don't trust the market. Pessimistic projections about immigration, like scary projections of every other non-aggressive human activity, fail to take into account that they are self limiting.(See my post, just above yours.)
I've already addressed that earlier in this thread. There's free market, and then there's magical thinking. Absence of welfare is only possible if the mob that demands welfare can be kept at bay. We already have welfare in this country in spite of limited immigration (compared to what it would be with open borders), with the overwhelming majority of immigrants voting for it. The only immigrants who don't vote for welfare are the ones who would make it here anyway: hard-working professionals. So this country cannot remain free without some controls over immigration!
Yes, there would come a point at which a person in India would rather stay in India than come to America, but if that point is reached America would very much resemble India today: filled with poor people who do nothing but breed and blame rich people for "oppressing" them. With cheap labor the incentive for labor-saving technical innovations will go away, so it will be closed-borders countries like Japan that will gain the technological edge, first with robotics and then with other things as well. The top brains from all over the world will find it in their best interest to immigrate there, making it the Galt's Gulch of sorts, while the open-border socialist countries fall apart further as the result. A nation of 100 million scientists will wipe the floor with a nation of 2 billion rice farmers, even more so in the future than we can imagine today!
Immigrants are not allowed to vote, until they become citizens. Instead of closing borders to immigrants, why not simply end their eligibility for all state welfare programs and putting an end to naturalized citizenship?
Immigrants also shouldn't be taxed to pay for "services" that they don't receive. They could set up, pay for and govern any free market alternatives to these services that may be of value, thereby setting an example of voluntary free market government for those, unfortunate enough to be citizens, to emulate.
Sorry, we tried that in California with Prop 187.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_187 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_187)
The courts threw it out.
We really need to bring down the welfare state entirely.
All of this is academic anyway. What is more likely to happen is that the increasingly tyrannical state will destroy the US economy and drive more and more jobs out of the country and into Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Dubai, China, Ireland, India, etc. Nobody will want to come here where there are no personal freedoms and no jobs.
We will never have freedom and prosperity here or anywhere until the welfare state is dismantled. Once that happens then you can send all of the people you want and they will either be productive, go home, or die.
Why do you think that locking down the boarders is more politically feasible than making immigrants ineligible for public welfare?
A determined thief could break into your house no matter what kind of a security system you have, but that doesn't mean you should remove all locks in your house, leave the doors wide open, go on vacation for a month, and put an ad announcing all this in all local papers...
(Will reply to other points later... Unless I forget.)
I think we should donate billions of free clothing articles to the Mexicans...infested with smallpox.
And then after the smell goes away we can open the borders.
I think we should donate billions of free clothing articles to the Mexicans...infested with smallpox.
And then after the smell goes away we can open the borders.
Despicable.
I think we should donate billions of free clothing articles to the Mexicans...infested with smallpox.
And then after the smell goes away we can open the borders.
Despicable.
You don't think that might have been ironic? I mean I don't know for sure, but the specific form of genocide being advocated leads me to think it would be a fair guess.
I think we should donate billions of free clothing articles to the Mexicans...infested with smallpox.
And then after the smell goes away we can open the borders.
Despicable.
... "the anti-immigrant crowd" ...
Not if they have no incentive to come here seeking welfare. Then only the responsible and productive people will have any reason to arrive.
Not if they have no incentive to come here seeking welfare. Then only the responsible and productive people will have any reason to arrive.
There's more to this than just "Welfare" as we know it today, there are the underlying reasons why Welfare was created in the first place, and it cannot be taken away at a stroke of a pen without taking care of those underlying reasons first or the results would be many times more devastating. Many western countries suffered political revolutions mid-way into their entry into the so-called "Industrial Revolution". Those revolutions didn't happen because Karl Marx was such a smartie, they happened because the mob of poor people decided it was easier to loot and pillage than to work their way up through the capitalist system (which admittedly wasn't very fair in those countries and was failing to reform itself, but the revolutions can still happen under the fairest of systems). That's why we have welfare: it costs us less than the damage the mob of angry poor people would cause.
Poor people are dangerous, especially in large quantities, and especially if they are jealous of what you have. True, they have very painful and difficult lives, but everything is relative - compared to our uncivilized ancestors just 5000 years ago their lives are pretty darn good. Gather round, little pro-open-border kiddies, Uncle Alex will tell you a story of how our world might end up in the future:
Imagine a poor person living among other poor people in Indonesia working 60 hours a week attaching zippers to jeans for $3000 a year, which is what the actual value of his labor is on the open market. He is pretty content - he can buy his daily bread, send his children to school, and maybe even buy a used television set. He knows there are rich people somewhere out there, but they are too far away to be angry at, and all of his neighbors live just as well as he does in a poor but happy little community. If they do decide to "beat the rich" and go Communist, so goes Indonesia - the few rich Indonesians flee, and Indonesians find themselves in the middle of a war zone making $500 a year - not that big a loss to the world economy.
Now imagine America has open borders and no socialist government policies. Someone tells this jeans zipper attacher guy that he could make $10,000 a year doing the same work in America, with the increase in salary being due to lower density of cheap labor there (though obviously not as much as before) and also a much larger sales market, which means lower shipping costs for the company. He saves up for a $500 passage for his family on a cargo boat (or buys it on credit), arrives in LA, and indeed does get a job for $10,000 a year. Land costs a lot more, obviously, but his family can rent a cheap room in some cheap housing project too crummy to be allowed to be built back when there was government regulation. He misses his old village and its community, but hey, American dream, right? He works just as hard as he did in Indonesia, makes more money, but for some reason he just isn't happy.
He sees all those rich Americans, most of whom hate him for bring down their own wages. Those people have all the luck - they had free education, tremendous economic protectionism, etc... But now that the playing field is leveled, they're angry at him. He has to join a gang of other Indonesian jeans factory workers for his own protection, and in that gang he hears things: "Americans don't deserve what they have! They still have many economic benefits: savings and land they bought back when they'd be paid $20/hour to do the job we're doing now!" Since America would by then have 100+ million people, mostly recent immigrants, who're making less than $15K/year, this sentiment would be very popular. "The rich people owe us", they would say. Why should some childless American couple have this big house all to themselves, when we, five families with a total of 30 kids, have less living space than they do!" Etc, etc, etc.
The riots won't begin all at once, but once they do they'll accelerate, and, since guns are legal, will become ever more deadly. Factory owners will have to hire security to protect both their factories from sabotage and their workers from the angry mobs of the unemployed. The more violence increases, the worse the economy becomes; and the worse the economy becomes, the more violence increases - the textbook collapse of any country that finds itself having a lot of angry poor people.
America falls further and further behind other nations as various Communist (the "Reds") and anti-Communist (the "Whites") fractions gain local power and fight each-other for broader control. After several years of mass chaos and civil war, the rich will come to see that continuing to fund the Whites is a lost cause, and will instead pay an arm and a leg to immigrate their families to Japan, which kept its immigration merit-based and built zipper-attaching robots a long time ago - and in fact are making their zippers from an alloy mined in the asteroid belt and smelted by throwing it in close orbit of the sun. Japan's scientific innovations in the field of SDI prove especially useful as newly Communist America tries to use its nukes as leverage in negotiating the price on imports of Venus-grown rice to feed its starving masses. In the end, the leaders of America, and all other poor countries in the world, are forced to resort to drastic measures to maintain their hold on power, which some going as far as instituting zero-child policies and evacuating whole parts of their country to sell to the Japanese.
Open borders and free flow of people are good values to have, and in many cases they have utilitarian benefits, but not when taken to extreme. In a contest between blind idealism and pragmatism, in this fairytale symbolized by Japan, pragmatism will win out in the long run.
Immigrants will only come here as long as there is a great enough benefit to their presence here to overcome our greater cost of living and we will only offer them jobs and business opportunities which give immigrants incomes sufficient to overcome these costs if doing so improves our own standards of living. It's a self limiting process. When the costs of living here start to outweigh the benefits, then migration will start to flow in the opposite direction.
If you're worried about state welfare programs upsetting this balance, well, even state welfare is a self limiting process. If the burden becomes too noticeable, then there will be a justifiable demand to remove immigrants from state welfare, and if too many immigrants find a way to work around this obstacle by becoming citizens, then there will be a justifiable demand to limit or even stop the naturalization process.
When it comes to immigration, I'm all for it. It's not because of any 'good of the nation' bull shit that seems to be on everyone's mind (not just saying on this board, but in politics in general). I'm all for immigration because who the fuck am I to say where people can and can not live. Course I don't really believe in boarders...
The FTL crowd, and Libertarians who tout open borders as being important and necessary are only using that platform to gain support for their agendas, which include utopian rhetoric and fantastic stories to incorporate wonderful, considerate, kind people and expecting the rest of humanity to magically follow suit. The plain reality of it all is that the world is full of deceitful, hateful, lazy, jealous morons who care nothing for Liberty and only want a handout and a free ride. Enter, stage left: Mexicans.
You underestimate the people's desire to come to America, even if it is to make $1500 a year instead of $1000. There are 6.5+ billion people in this world, most of whom are much poorer than you or I, and the number of them who'd be willing to drop everything and come to America is very high. The average beggar in NYC clears several dozen times more money per day than what the poorest billion of people in the world are living on! And with all the container ships going between our coasts and the third world, the price of basic passage is fairly accessible even to the poorest of the poor, especially if they can get a micro-credit loan to pay off after they get here.
And you overestimate the limiting factors, such as the cost of living. Lack of government regulation when it comes to real estate is probably a good thing, but it would allow for people to live very cheaply in shanty towns or, more likely, private "workers' residence" ghettos built by businesses sponsoring the importation of cheap labor. I'm not against all those things in of themselves, but I do believe that they would sooner or later lead to political instability and socialism. Thus is human nature: people who can barely afford to feed their children will always feel justified to rob the rich.
Hopefully 2-3 generations from now all parts of the world will experience sufficient economic growth where mobs of angry poor people will no longer be as much of a threat, but until then - we need some limits on immigration.
Here's my stance on welfare. I think there should be a small safety net for the general public. BUT... That safety net should only be applied only to disabled people and those people must provide proof that they are not physically capable of working. I think the current welfare system can do a lot of trimming and that would also benefit the tax payer as well. Right now it is just too vulnerable to too many fraudsters.
Here's my stance on welfare. I think there should be a small safety net for the general public. BUT... That safety net should only be applied only to disabled people and those people must provide proof that they are not physically capable of working. I think the current welfare system can do a lot of trimming and that would also benefit the tax payer as well. Right now it is just too vulnerable to too many fraudsters.
By the way, I'm talking about trimming down the current system. Getting rid of all the leaching scum-bums is already by itself an improvement.
Why not let charity help the charity cases?
I agree with that. Here's the thing... I think by having welfare directed only towards the severely disabled is the only way to get the majority of the people in the U.S. to agree on the welfare trimming. That's the only way you can get at least half of the socialists to shut up about it. Go ahead, try telling them you want to get rid of welfare completely... Let's see Ron Paul run with that issue. I don't remember him doing that.
Right now, I don't think there are enough of private organizations or "fellow humans" that help the severely disabled. I also don't want to go down the road where we have them rotting to death in their homes.
I agree with that. Here's the thing... I think by having welfare directed only towards the severely disabled is the only way to get the majority of the people in the U.S. to agree on the welfare trimming. That's the only way you can get at least half of the socialists to shut up about it. Go ahead, try telling them you want to get rid of welfare completely... Let's see Ron Paul run with that issue. I don't remember him doing that.
Why not get rid of all welfare? The socialists aren't going to agree to your plan anyways.
You might just get a good portion to agree. Compare that number to the number of people that would agree on getting rid of welfare altogether.
Hey markuzick, what countries have you been to in your lifetime? A nice tour of the third world, especially the parts still stuck in socialism because that seems to be the best those people are capable of, would knock that irrational faith right out of you. Not that you'd need to go very far - every single Russian / Ukrainian immigrant I know in NJ is involved in some serious welfare / Medicaid fraud! A mere plane / train / boat ticket (the prices for which will be falling ever lower) could transport a person from a socialist country to your open-border utopia, but it takes a lot more than that to take socialism out of a person!You are very dishonest to cut that quote in a way that completely changes its meaning. It actually goes, "Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses longing to be free...".
The homeless bum who made his way to Manhattan might have higher ambitions compared to the homeless bum sleeping in the woods of West Virginia, but what benefit does he bring to the city? What if there was 50 thousand bums like that crowding into Manhattan? What if there was 50 million? It won't happen of course, but what mechanism would stop it? Precisely the mechanism that you're trying to take away!
Immigration works very well when the strongest and bravest of any country come to America ready to fight for their place in the sun and integrate into the established functional middle-class society. The "give us your tired, your poor" crap is socialist propaganda. The people who've become successful in America are not representative of the 6.5 billion people on this planet.
Take away natural selection, and you get cancer-like growth and then collapse.
That part of the quote is a complete wildcard - anyone could claim to be "longing to be free", because the English language has merged a dozen different concepts into that one word. Is it national freedom, religious freedom, financial freedom, freedom from poverty, freedom from having to work hard, or just some free beer? Well, I've met a lot of immigrants who couldn't care less about political freedoms, to them welfare is freedom.
I already told you half-a-dozen times that you fail to propose a realistic scenario for having open borders without this country becoming politically unstable as it goes from having a mostly-middle-class to a mostly-poor population.
I'm not a xenophobe, I'm a poor-people-phobe. There has never been a free society without a dominant middle class.
I already told you half-a-dozen times that you fail to propose a realistic scenario for having open borders without this country becoming politically unstable as it goes from having a mostly-middle-class to a mostly-poor population.
It's like talking to a wall...
I've heard and addressed your faith-based "free market will change all human nature at once" argument many times.
In reality, free market only works among rational people who agree to respect each-other's natural rights and not to initiate violence, that is in a society that goes through natural selection to reduce the number of people who'd whack you on the head and steal your wallet. Free market didn't help my great-grandparents in Russia when Communists came to take away their property, and they won't help you if a gang of well-armed Communists come to take away yours. Or are you about to tell me that this land is inherently magical and Communism is impossible here even if same economic conditions are created?
Government services and regulations that benefit the poor are bad for the economy. [Examples of such "services" include Welfare (both personal and corporate to "protect" jobs), Food Stamps, agricultural subsidies that lower cost of some basic food items, various programs that help pay the rent and energy bills, subsidized water / sewage / roads to bring down real-estate costs in poor neighborhoods, etc. Examples of such regulations include hospital emergency room mandates, minimum wage and other employment laws, etc.]
Most of the ~6.2 billion non-Americans in this world are poor, and with no entry restrictions most of the people coming to this country would be poor, and their presence in our society would put very strong (but irrational) political pressure to expand those services to the point of collapse.
You want America to become the only country in the world with truly open borders, and you want it done ASAP, as in right now. I believe this should be phased in over many decades, and will probably take most of the 21st century, and we need merit-based immigration quotas in the meantime.
You seem to have irrational faith that all people, or at least most people in this world, are basically good, and would respect your property rights and work hard within the capitalist system. History shows otherwise: most countries in the world have had or have been on the verge of a communist revolution, and having the right to bear arms would only make this revolution more probable and more bloody. The only countries not to go communist were the wealthiest of countries, that didn't have too many poor people they could not control, and the countries where the communists were fought back through interventionism by those wealthy countries.
You seem to think that the immigrant success stories you've heard thus-far are representative of the types of immigrants we'd get if we had open borders. The truth is that there has been a lot of natural selection in the immigration process. I've been through the immigration process myself - I was only 10 years old then, but I still understood how difficult it was for my parents to make it here. It took years to get an exit visa from Russia, and we only got it because we were ethnic Jews and had a huge lobby campaigning for us in Washington, and my uncle was living here (he got out around 1979, when USSR wanted to prevent the West's boycott of the Moscow Olympics by letting some Jews out of the country). Getting permission to enter the country was also very difficult. My mother coached me very carefully on what to say when I was interviewed - to denounce Communism, to say my parents always have been dissidents, etc. Immigration would be next to impossible for your average Russian, if it wasn't half of Russia would be here by now. Yes, the ones who voted 80% for Putin, with the rest of the votes going to Communists and Fascists. Most people in the world have exactly the government that they deserve (with the exception of countries like Taiwan and South Korea, where America imposed a better government than then deserve). Some might behave differently in America, but from my experience in observing different kinds of immigrants I believe that most would not.
You have irrational faith in the idea that other self-interested nations won't exploit America's open borders for their gain. Remember, just a few decades ago the nations of this world were on the verge of nuking each-other, and nationalism is still very strong in places like Russia, China, and the Middle East. If Russians (or, more likely, the Chinese) came to be in majority in Alaska, would it remain part of America for long?
You have irrational faith in the idea that all the socialist government programs can be done away with overnight, and you make your arguments as if you have a magic wand that would do so. But in reality there is no magic wand, and getting rid of socialism in this country would be very difficult. If you crunch the numbers, you will see that the bulk of people opposing socialism in this country are middle-class and have been here for many generations, while most immigrants vote for more socialism. There are exceptions, of course - the non-socialist immigrants, that is precisely the ones we should selectively allow into this country.
You seem to have irrational faith that socialism is the work of the devil and once it's cast out it will stay out for good. The reality is that it takes perpetual vigilance to keep any country from going socialist, and in order for that to happen the people of that country need to be taught to understand capitalism and why it is good and why socialism is bad. In order words, the core culture of this country needs to be protected, which is impossible if you have open borders.
As an aside... You claim to be a "Pro-Lifer" - does that mean you support a prohibition on abortion, with the state enforcing criminal laws on women and doctors who have or perform abortions? That sounds far, far more totalitarian than my proposal of long-term gradualism in opening the borders...
You seem to be unwilling to re-examine your faith-based assumptions in light of many historical examples of mobs of poor people destabilizing societies and throwing them into violent chaos and communist dictatorship. You seem to be unwilling to examine the nature of the current "Welfare state" that was created in modern first-world countries to prevent this outcome. You only see an image of the free-market utopia you've imagined, and you want to transport yourself to that utopia in an instant flight of fantasy, without solving the long chain of challenges that need to be resolved in order to make that utopia possible in the real world.
QuoteYou want America to become the only country in the world with truly open borders, and you want it done ASAP, as in right now. I believe this should be phased in over many decades, and will probably take most of the 21st century, and we need merit-based immigration quotas in the meantime.
While this is probably the most that we can expect and that's being optimistic, it is still wrong.
Making it "merit" based only makes it more unjust and has the politically destabilizing effect of creating an over-class of aliens who use citizens to preform their menial labor. This is a sure recipe for disaster.
If you agree with me that it would probably take the rest of the 21st century to get rid of existing socialism in this country (and, in my opinion, to get rid of the extreme poverty in the third world that makes them prone to socialism, which is the other prerequisite to having open borders), then our disagreement is simply a matter of fantasy vs reality. I'm talking about a realistic vision for bringing this about, and you're fantasising about your magic wand...
Making it "merit" based only makes it more unjust and has the politically destabilizing effect of creating an over-class of aliens who use citizens to preform their menial labor. This is a sure recipe for disaster.
Uh oh, now you're afraid of merit-based immigration because Americans can't compete with the world's best and brightest? Who's the xenophobe now, ha?
How will the permittance of unrestricted immigration possibly benefit liberty if the immigrants (Mexicans) are unable to procure any liberty of their own?
Additionally, what flag would these people fly, ours or theirs?
Who would teach them our traditions and our history, or keep them out of being utilized as cannon fodder for some political race war and voting platform? If these immigrants do not even know what the constitution is or what their rights are (as free sovereign citizens of any particular state of the union-if applicable), then how would they ever be expected to defend those rights?
I am sorry, Markuzick. I do not see open borders as a first step being successful or logical in the fight for liberty and freedom. Perhaps later, after liberty has been attained (and that's a long shot) will the open border policy ever become a logical possibility. If we continue to be divided, then any energy spent will be exhausted on petty battles over race and equality or other special interests well before the fight for liberty ever presents itself.
We can't deport existing socialists, but at least we can keep new ones from immigrating.
Freedom is a very fragile thing in this world as a whole. We should be willing to share our freedom (that is, whatever freedom we still have left), but not everyone in the world is worthy of it.
A nation-state, which I said must exist in self-defense from other nation-states like China,
is like a giant home-owner's association that can vote on who can or can't move into the neighborhood. Hopefully a century from now those things will no longer matter, but for now they do.
They will be coming here to escape socialism, so a far smaller percentage of immigrants than citizens will be likely to be socialists.
Those who are socialists will be unable to vote anyway.
By being free of subjection to socialist programs and indoctrination, those immigrants that started off with socialist beliefs will soon learn the relative advantage of living with individual responsibility as compared with the hapless citizen who is bred to be a slave. They will be the first to reject socialism and the citizens will learn from and, I hope, follow their example.
Each person's freedom is not yours to share or withhold. Every person who pursues freedom without the expectation of state welfare and is able to establish an economic foothold for himself, is more worthy of freedom than someone who has done nothing but get born to the right parents.
By erecting a great wall? :roll:
A Mexican immigrant (illegal) does not support and defend the republic, and though you believe this to be unimportant, it does not erase the fact that this makes them your enemy.
You can claim that they have more liberty because they do not have to obey our laws and fall under the jurisdiction of any government, but this also means that they do not support traditional authority or even have to respect your rights to property and life.
They will be coming here to escape socialism, so a far smaller percentage of immigrants than citizens will be likely to be socialists.
Like Mark pointed out a few shows ago, the Massholes moving north aren't subject to instant conversion on I-93...
Those who are socialists will be unable to vote anyway.
You still don't get it. Giving people the vote and letting them vote themselves into socialism was done in self-defense to prevent violent revolution.
A free society is only possible when you have lots of well-educated, armed middle-or-upper-class people and as little poor people around as possible. The more poor people you have around, the more socialism you need to keep them content.
By being free of subjection to socialist programs and indoctrination, those immigrants that started off with socialist beliefs will soon learn the relative advantage of living with individual responsibility as compared with the hapless citizen who is bred to be a slave. They will be the first to reject socialism and the citizens will learn from and, I hope, follow their example.
Yes, history is filled with examples of majority-poor societies working hard to lift themselves out of poverty, which often takes several generations, with neither colonialism nor socialism nor any other form of violence what-so-ever. Just look at how well it works in Africa, Latin America, Eastern Europe, South Asia, etc! </SARCASM> :roll:
Each person's freedom is not yours to share or withhold. Every person who pursues freedom without the expectation of state welfare and is able to establish an economic foothold for himself, is more worthy of freedom than someone who has done nothing but get born to the right parents.
Yes, but the entire 6.5 billion (and growing) mob of humanity cannot achieve freedom by coming to America!
It is in the best interests of those already living here to let the best of would-be immigrants compete for this privilege, and only let in a reasonable amount every year. All other first-world countries are doing that, to varying degree of success, and for America to be the only first-world country to open itself to an endless flood of third-world refugees (who don't necessarily love the concept of property rights as much as we do) would be suicide!
By erecting a great wall? :roll:
If we do enforce immigration limits, the question of the physical wall isn't all that crucial - maybe like 200,000 a year will get in if we have the wall and 300,000 a year if we don't. If we have open borders, on the other hand... After a while, the biggest red spot on he population density map would be in North America:
raping someone or molesting a child
i think this thread is debating an outdated version of the issue - it has gone far beyond this simple concept of a guy sneaking across once and becoming a mooch. so lets start with some recent problems..
so lets say the unauthorized immigrant came across and had his chance at success - but that he raped someone and got arrested and deported for his crime.
what should we do with the same guy when he sneaks across the border for the 2nd or 3rd time? once he has been convicted of raping someone or molesting a child- all we're gonna do is drop him off at the border and hope to catch him next time?
news vid on the topic from AZ:
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=65874#comment-245674
raping someone or molesting a child
What percentage of rapes and child molestations are done by immigrants, whether legal or illegal?
Sorry. That was too funny to ignore. Don't bother to call me. I'll call you in the future should I need you for a re-audition to fill a position on my ignore list. (Hint: Next time don't make jokes. You're too good at it. Try debating instead. You really suck at that!)
NEEEEEXT!
Sorry. That was too funny to ignore. Don't bother to call me. I'll call you in the future should I need you for a re-audition to fill a position on my ignore list. (Hint: Next time don't make jokes. You're too good at it. Try debating instead. You really suck at that!)
NEEEEEXT!
Too many immigrants would come here waving Che Guevara banners, call us thieves for being rich, and liberate our wealth through force because they have more of a stomach for a fight and less to lose than an average American. Heck, the average American is half-way brainwashed into socialism (that is "liberal democracy") already!
I myself am convinced that we need a gradual and pragmatic approach to opening the borders, which might even include a "North American Union". I cannot climb into your brain and see what major malfunction is causing your fanatical idealism. "Open borders or bust, even if that means the end of capitalism as we know it!" Well, I hope your stupidity hurts no one but yourself.