Billionaires: It's good to import foreign workers

Jul 15, 2014 1:00:00 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I have no objection whatsoever to "the legal immigration of people from other lands" (bold added).  It is the illegal sort that I oppose. 

Yes, "our ancestors" immigrated to the US.  But the US was not even the US at that time; it was merely a geographical entity, free of any central government.  So the "immigration" that occurred during The Age of Discovery is nothing even remotely like the illegal invasion of a sovereign nation in the twenty-first century. 

And I certainly disagree with your assumption that the "right" to enter a sovereign nation--as long as it is for purely "peaceful" purposes--is a function of "[l]iberty."    

In truth the New Lands discovered were always "claimed" by the European monarchs upon discovery so those immigrating to the New World were always subject to the authority of European governments even when those governments failed to enforce that authority.

Few Americans can even claim that their ancestrial immigration pre-dated the founding of the United States and even colonial America was under the authority of the British, Spanish, and French governments prior to the American Revolution.

The Inalienable Right of Liberty extends to all cases except when the exercising of that Right infringes upon the Rights of another Person. In such a case the Right of Liberty does not exist. For example a person cannot claim a Right of Liberty to rape a woman as that is a violation of the Woman's Inalienable Rights as a Person.

Immigration for peaceful purposes does not infringe upon anyone's Inalienable Rights and therefore it is a Right of Liberty of the Person. This is something that founders such as Washington, Madison, and Jefferson all agreed with when they advocated for immigration to America. They understood that the Right to Immigrate was a subset of the Inalienable Right of Liberty of the Person. 

Jul 15, 2014 18:41:45 GMT pjohns1873 said:

In the time of "Washington, Madison, and Jefferson"--at least 200 years ago--immigration did not need to be controlled, as it does today. For one thing, there was then no worry that immigrants might make it substantially less likely that others already here might find gainful employment. And there was also no Welfare State, which many of those immigrants might depend upon for assistance, at the expense of others.

If various "European monarchs" sincerely believed that they had a valid claim to "the New World"--even if they had done nothing whatsoever to establish a valid claim to it--they should have exercised the necessary military power to enforce that claim.  (Do you believe that any such claim was valid?) 

As has been documented immigrant laborers produce more jobs in the economy than they take and immigrants pay more in taxes than they receive in government benefits. Your two issues are false because the problems noted do not exist.

Those European monarchs did use military force to back their claims of sovereignty over the "New World" during the age of discovery. Admittedly lawlessness was also rampant but that doesn't imply that they monarchs didn't take their claims seriously and enforce those claims with military might.

We should also note that the US Constitution does not delegate the role or responsibility to government to control immigration. If you're a "conservative" that believes the US government is limited to it's enumerated powers in the US Constitution you would be demanding a Constitutional amendment to authorize the federal government to control immigration. There is no such enumeration in the US Constitution because the founders believed that all people had a "Right of Immigration" based upon their Inalienable Right of Liberty. Of course I oppose Constitutional Amendments designed to take away the Rights of the Person as that reflects the tyranny of government.

Jul 16, 2014 18:36:08 GMT pjohns1873 said:

There really is no free lunch. I would imagine that "studies" that claim that illegals "produce more jobs in the economy than they take" began with a conclusion that was congenial to the preferences of those conducting the "study"; and they then used creative methods to determine how many new jobs had been "produced" by these illegals, that would not have been produced otherwise. (And this, in turn, is typically predicated upon the highly suspect belief that Americans just "would not have taken" these jobs, so the only way to create these jobs is through illegal means.)   

You asserted in a prior post that the relevant European governments "failed to enforce that authority" over the American colonies (now the United States).  Yet in this post you claim that these same European powers "did use military force to back their claims of sovereignty over the 'New World' during the age of discovery."  Which is it?   

Unlike many libertarians (apparently, including you--even though most libertarians reside somewhere on the rightmost portion of the political spectrum, whereas you may be found on the left), I do not believe that America went off the rails, constitutionally, in pre-Civil War times.  Or even by the so-called "Gilded Age," about 100 years ago.  So I strongly support the Ellis Island model of immigration to America. 

Scientific studies do not originate with a predetermined conclusion and that is a mistake many "social conservatives" seem to assume. The studies related to employment being created and tax revenues v benefits are certainly directed to determine the facts but are not pre-loaded to fulfill a conclusion. For example the fact that immigrants pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits was based upon unbiased studies done by state government (i.e. Texas in 2007).

We're not talking about "illegal" immigration but instead addressing "legal" immigration without a quota system that is designed to limit Hispanic immigration for nefarious political purposes (or outright racism).

BTW Did you notice the news story that the KKK is joining with the Social Conservatives in supporting the strict immigration laws that block Hispanic immigration?

news.yahoo.com/kkk-gives-goodie-bags-recruit-knights-140756223.html

Of course the KKK has supported literally all of the immigration laws historically that blocked or limited non-WASP immigration to the United States. This is not to claim that all "social conservatives" are racists but when they advocate for the quota system that significantly restricts Hispanic immigration they are aligning themselves with the KKK politically. That fact alone should give social conservatives reason to ponder what they're advocating. Every immigration law historiclly that resulted in blocking non-WASP immigration has been supported by the KKK for racist reasons. We cannot deny the racist linkage of these laws because it's a historical fact.

Jul 17, 2014 20:19:34 GMT pjohns1873 said:

To suggest that all support of laws blocking illegal immigration is rendered morally impure simply because the KKK supports the same thing (for its own nefarious reasons) is tantamount to one's suggesting that the support of the late Nelson Mandella by the ANC--a Marxist organization--made Mr. Mandella a communist.  Or, at least, that it should have given him "reason to ponder" what he was "advocating."   

Agreed, "cientific studies" should not begin with "a predetermined conclusion"; but that is not to say that some do not do precisely that.    

And even if illegals "pay more in taxes than they recieve in benefits," as you assert (without any link to the study, so that I might determine its methodology), that cannot obviate the fact that they are taking jobs that might otherwise be filled by Americans (which the left claims that Americans--even young, poorly educated Americans--simply will refuse).   

It is true that the KKK is a white supremacy hate group that wants to make all non-WASP immigration to the United States illegal while "social conservatives" and many "liberals" are only insisting on immigration quotas that prevent Hispanic immigration today so they are not exactly the same.

What I would ask people to ponder is that why, historically, our immigration laws have always been designed to block non-WASP immigration to the United States? We've blocked Catholic immigration, we've blocked Chinese immigration, we've blocked Jewish immigration, and today we block Hispanic immigration but never once have our immigration laws ever blocked WASP immigration. Why is that?

Are we a WASP supremacy nation just like the KKK advocates? If we are then we should all be wearing white bedsheets with holes for our eyes because we're racists.

Jul 19, 2014 0:01:28 GMT pjohns1873 said:

It is true that, more than 100 years ago, immigrants from mostly Catholic nations--e.g. Ireland, Italy, Poland, etc.,--were welcomed to the US with less than open arms.  (It is my understanding--even though I was not around then to verify it--that many American businesses had signs proclaiming, "No Irish Need Apply."  And the Italians and Poles were similarly unwelcome.)  Still, they eventually made it in America--and assimilated very nicely.  (For many years, my closest friend was a seccond-gereration Italian-American; he passed away in 1999.) 

There are only two other countries that are contiguous to the US--Canada and Mexico--and illegal immigration along our northern border has never been much of a problem.  But illegal immigration along our southern border--including, recently, many from the Central American countries of Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, with the assistance of Mexico--has been, and remains, a problem.   

All immigrants eventually become assets to America even when they are blocked at different times from immigrating based upon "racist" immigration laws. As you noted one of your best friends was an Italian-American where Italians had been blocked from immigrating because they were Catholics at one time. They still turned out to be excellent citizens just like the Chinese, Jews, and Irish immigrants that were, for a time, blocked from immigration to America. Hispanic immigrants have also become very valuable citizens in the United States even with the quota system designed to block their immigration.

We don't have a problem on the Northern border because our immigration quotas aren't restricting Canadians, that tend to be WASP, from immigrating to the United States. If we imposed a quota on Canadians that blocked immigration from Canada then we would have an illegal immigration on our Northern border as well. The illegal immigration probably wouldn't be as great because the economic opportunity differential isn't as great but there would still be illegal immigration and there are actually many "Canadians" today living in the United States illegally but we rarely read about it and often they're unaware of the fact that they're actually here illegally. The case of Leeland Davidson comes to mind because he was born in Canada but raised by his American parents in Washington State. He always believed he was a US citizen, even serving in the US military during WW II, but his parents never submitted an application for naturalization for him as a child and technically he was an undocumented Canadian living in the United States.

It is somewhat ironic that Hispanics have a longer history of citizenship to the SW United States than whites as immigration to the SW was predominately Hispanic long before any "whites" started to immigrate there. All of California, Arizona, New Mexico and even Texas were occupied by Hispanics long before any "whites" arrived in those states.  

Simply remember that the problem with illegal immigration is the fact that we don't allow legal immigration for these people. If it was legal for them to come here we wouldn't have 10 million or so illegal Hispanics living and working in the United States. It's the quota system that's the problem and not the people that are denied legal immigration status because we know that they would eventually become excellent citizens in the future just like all foreign non-WASP immigrants, like you Italian-American friend, eventually became excellent citizens of the United States.

Jul 19, 2014 19:52:00 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Let me make one thing absolutely clear: I am deeply, viscerally opposed to any sort of racism or ethnocentricism.  Again, not just intellectually opposed to it--who, after all, could make a compelling argument that it is just hunky-dorey?--but viscerally opposed to it also.

My opposition to illegals, therefore, has nothing whatsoever to do with their skin color--which should be considered no more important than hair color or eye color is considered to be--but with their reckless disregard for America's national sovereignty.

If you believe that our current immigration quotas are unnecessarily low, or that the process just takes too long--or both--then it would behoove you to fight for reform.  But that should not be confused with our cavalierly scrapping all immigration laws, and thereby becoming an open-borders society. 

I oppose immigration quotas completely. They are, at best, rationalized as "protectionist" economic policies that violate free market capitalism and that ultimately harm the US economy costing us millions of jobs for Americans. At worst they are motivated by racist political agendas.

I have been contacting my Congressional representatives (House and Senate) for years on immigration but who's blocking any immigration reform today? Try looking at the House GOP because they're the ones refusing to address any immigration reform in 2014 (citing that it's an election year) after refusing to address in 2013 (that was not an election year). They seem to state "We'll look at in 2015 that is not an election year" but they didn't do anything in 2013 so why the hell would we believe they'll do anything in 2015? That and they won't do anything to solve the "illegal" immigration problem because they will keep the quotas that are the cause behind illegal immigration. So long as there are jobs here for immigrants they will come regardless of whether it's legal or not. A 100 mile high fence around the US would not prevent that illegal immigration.

Prohibition where demand exists always creates a black market and illegal immigration is merely the black market for labor that is in demand. What part of that do people seem to not understand. To appropriate an phrase that identifies the problem, "It's the Quotas Stupid!"

Jul 20, 2014 17:21:15 GMT pjohns1873 said:

One reason for the GOP's refusing to take up immigration reform in 2014--as you have noted--is the fact that it is an election year. But you are also correct in noting that 2013 was not an election year; and nothing was done then either, as regarding immigration reform.  So what to make of it?

I would suggest that there is something else at work here also, viz.:  Most House Republicans--justifiably, in my opinion--simply do not trust President Obama to enforce any part of an immigration-reform bill that he does not like.  So compromise--which must be the essence of any such bill--probably will not work with this president.  Sad, but true.  (He has unilaterally altered other laws--including ObamaCare--when he does not care for certain of its particulars.) 

Yes, you are certainly correct that "(P)rohibition" invariably "creates a black market."  But I do not believe that this automatically constitutes a compelling argument against any prohibition.  For instance, the legal prohibitions of cocaine and heroin have created a black market for these drugs; but I still believe that they should be kept illegal.  (One of the purposes of the law is to be didactic:  It should act as a teacher as regarding what society does and does not consider acceptable behavior.)   

The one thing that President Obama has been very good at is dealing with our immigration problems. Border security is the "best" it's ever been in my lifetime and certainly far superior to what it was under former President Bush. He's done a great job of prioritizing who's to be deported using the limited financial resources at his disposal by first targeting criminal aliens as our highest priority and the children of illegal immigrants as our lowest priority (allowing a two year deferral of deportation proceedings for them). I can find no fault with his actions in this regard and what he's doing is certainly within his discretionary authority to prioritize the actions of the federal government.

The recent influx of tens of thousands of children is a problem but it's not an immigration problem but instead is a refugee problem. These children come as refugees and not as illegal immigrants. According to what I've read 80% of them do have family members here in America that are willing to take care of them and we should allow that to happen. They won't be taking "American jobs" because they're too young (averaging about 11 years old as I recall) and they will become excellent American citizens in the future.

We both agree that the delay of the Employer Mandate, regardless of pragmatic reasons, really sucked. If anything was to be delayed it should have been the Individual Mandate while the Employer Mandate received priority. Perhaps millions of Americans that would be covered by their employers health insurance policies are being forced to purchase insurance or pay a tax penalty this year and that just ain't right by my way of thinking. The Employer Mandate should  have had priority if there was a choice between the two where one had to be delayed for pragmatic reasons. A bad decision by the White House on that call IMHO.

Unlike you perhaps I don't believe that the government should be engaging in social engineering of the People. It smacks of Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia and the current Islamic countries of the Middle East that also engage in social engineering of the People.

I don't believe it's good for a person to become a heroin addict but it's not my place to tell them not to and I also know that I can't stop them from becoming a heroin addict. What I don't want them to do is to break into my house because the cost of heroin on the black market is so high that they can't afford it without resorting to stealing. There was an experiment in the UK several years ago (sorry, no link) where they gave heroin addicts their heroin. The burglaries in the neighborhoods dropped by 98%!!! Now I don't know if that was correlation or causation but a 98% drop in burglaries cannot be ignored completely. The cost of the government provided heroin was insignificant when compared to the cost of the crimes related to the use of addictive drugs. Overall the violent crimes related to drug prohibition laws are far worse for society than the use of the illegal drugs by individuals.

We should note that just because something is "legal" doesn't imply that it's a good thing for a person to do nor does making something illegal imply that it's something a person shouldn't to. Yes, sometimes there is correlation between the two but not always. I would put forward the proposition that there are far more things that are legal that a person shouldn't do than there are things that are illegal that a person shouldn't do.

Bottom line, I oppose social engineering by government because as long as I don't violate someone else's Rights as a Person what I do is none of the government's or even my neighbor's damn business.