|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 25, 2014 8:01:28 GMT
We appear to be in agreement as concerning the back-of-the-line status for illegals who are undergoing the naturalization process. The problem with a laissez-faire approach to immigration--allowing "[t]he free market" to determine immigration levels--is that we will surely end up with many low-skill, low-education immigrants (e.g. seasonal fruit pickers, nannies and other domestic servants, and other minimum-wage workers), and not too many physicians, attorneys, and CPAs. I believe our immigration laws should attempt to serve our country as a whole--not just some narrow cross-section of it (e.g. produce distributors or wealthy homeowners). As a practical matter, I can see your point as regarding the difficulty of the government's ever acquiring back taxes that were unpaid. And I really have no deep, visceral desire to punish the laborer whose taxes were (illegally) not withheld by his or her employer(s). It is a very close call, in my opinion.
We are indeed in agreement with the "back of the line" status for existing undocumented workers (illegal aliens) and their dependents but unfortunately Republicans are. They want to give new immigrants preferential status over those already here working. That is something disagree with.
I would ask you to envision a "stratafied economic pyramid" based upon a "corporate management structure" where there are hourly workers at the bottom, then supervisors, managers, directors, vice presidents, presidents, the board of directors, and finaly the "owner" of the corporatio with each layer above the other. Typically in this structure each level oversees between about 5-18 people below them and each level earns perhap 10% more than the highest paid employee below them. Basically upper level position requires several lower level position employees below them and no level exists without all of the levels below them. All levels are important and each depends upon the foundation below it with the lowly hourly workers being the most numerous at the base of the pyramid. As you add more hourly workers the pyramid above it has to grow. For example in a large aerospace company it's not uncommon to have four levels of "managers" between the supervisors and the "directors" of the corporation because of the number of hourly workers and supervisors over them.
Adding more "hourly workers" to the US economy drives the need fo rmore "physicians, attorneys, and CPAs" as they expand the economy. Fewer hourly workers contracts the US economy because we don't need as many "physicians, attorneys, and CPAs" because there is less income and less consumption (spending) without the hourly workers.
Ultimately then the question needs to be asked is whether we want a vibrant expanding economy with a growing GDP or do we want a stagnant or slower growing economy with much lower GDP? As statistics indicate even the lowly paid H1B immigrant worker creates almost 2 American jobs and those American jobs typically pay more than what the immigrant earns.
Think about how many US truck drivers are required just to transport food to markets for one million immigrants that have to eat. How many "civil engineers" are required to provide infrastructure for one million people? How many doctors are required to treat those workers and their families? How many CPA's are required to take care of the books for the businesses they work at? How many supervisors are required to oversee the work they do?
Capitalism depends upon the hourly workers at the bottom of the economic pyramid because without them the higher levels cannot expand because they lack the foundation for it. The misconception is that some people believe that immigrants have a negative impact on the economy when all evidence shows just the opposite.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 25, 2014 18:22:18 GMT
We appear to be in agreement as concerning the back-of-the-line status for illegals who are undergoing the naturalization process. The problem with a laissez-faire approach to immigration--allowing "[t]he free market" to determine immigration levels--is that we will surely end up with many low-skill, low-education immigrants (e.g. seasonal fruit pickers, nannies and other domestic servants, and other minimum-wage workers), and not too many physicians, attorneys, and CPAs. I believe our immigration laws should attempt to serve our country as a whole--not just some narrow cross-section of it (e.g. produce distributors or wealthy homeowners). As a practical matter, I can see your point as regarding the difficulty of the government's ever acquiring back taxes that were unpaid. And I really have no deep, visceral desire to punish the laborer whose taxes were (illegally) not withheld by his or her employer(s). It is a very close call, in my opinion.
We are indeed in agreement with the "back of the line" status for existing undocumented workers (illegal aliens) and their dependents but unfortunately Republicans are. They want to give new immigrants preferential status over those already here working. That is something disagree with.
I would ask you to envision a "stratafied economic pyramid" based upon a "corporate management structure" where there are hourly workers at the bottom, then supervisors, managers, directors, vice presidents, presidents, the board of directors, and finaly the "owner" of the corporatio with each layer above the other. Typically in this structure each level oversees between about 5-18 people below them and each level earns perhap 10% more than the highest paid employee below them. Basically upper level position requires several lower level position employees below them and no level exists without all of the levels below them. All levels are important and each depends upon the foundation below it with the lowly hourly workers being the most numerous at the base of the pyramid. As you add more hourly workers the pyramid above it has to grow. For example in a large aerospace company it's not uncommon to have four levels of "managers" between the supervisors and the "directors" of the corporation because of the number of hourly workers and supervisors over them.
Adding more "hourly workers" to the US economy drives the need fo rmore "physicians, attorneys, and CPAs" as they expand the economy. Fewer hourly workers contracts the US economy because we don't need as many "physicians, attorneys, and CPAs" because there is less income and less consumption (spending) without the hourly workers.
Ultimately then the question needs to be asked is whether we want a vibrant expanding economy with a growing GDP or do we want a stagnant or slower growing economy with much lower GDP? As statistics indicate even the lowly paid H1B immigrant worker creates almost 2 American jobs and those American jobs typically pay more than what the immigrant earns.
Think about how many US truck drivers are required just to transport food to markets for one million immigrants that have to eat. How many "civil engineers" are required to provide infrastructure for one million people? How many doctors are required to treat those workers and their families? How many CPA's are required to take care of the books for the businesses they work at? How many supervisors are required to oversee the work they do?
Capitalism depends upon the hourly workers at the bottom of the economic pyramid because without them the higher levels cannot expand because they lack the foundation for it. The misconception is that some people believe that immigrants have a negative impact on the economy when all evidence shows just the opposite.
This looks very much like the left-wing version of "trickle-down" economics: We must have lots of unskilled, poorly educated workers in order to sustain the need for more "physicians, attorneys, and CPAs; and the only way to acquire enough would be through illegal measures. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 26, 2014 9:40:46 GMT
This looks very much like the left-wing version of "trickle-down" economics: We must have lots of unskilled, poorly educated workers in order to sustain the need for more "physicians, attorneys, and CPAs; and the only way to acquire enough would be through illegal measures.
Actually it's a very "fundamentalist" understanding of capitalism that acknowledges that "money" is a common commodity used as a medium or exchange in the barter system and that all commodities are produced by the labor of the person (i.e. the worker). Without labor (workers) producing goods there is no wealth.
We can't, for example, build a house without someone digging the ditches for the foundation. The ditch digger is, in many respects, more important than the architect that designs the house. We can build a house without an architect but we can't build it without the ditch digger that is necessary for the foundation. The architect provides a "service" related to the construction of the house while the ditch digger is provides the physical labor necessary for the construction of the house and the "house" is "money" as it is a physcal object (commodity).
The "economy" is the exchange of "goods" being produced by labor (workers) and they are the essential element of the economy and an economy can theoretically exist without any "services" but it cannot exist without any "goods" being produced. Going one step further based upon the arguments for "natural law" as put forward by John Locke the "natural rights of the person" relate to a situation where there is no exchange of goods (economy) but instead every "Person" has a "Right to Live" off of the "Surpluses" of nature.
This fundamentalist understanding of "capitalism" reflects the ultimate understanding of the "gold standard" (i.e. an understanding of "money") that has fundamentally been rejected by both "left-wing" (Democrats) and "right-wing" (Republican) political ideologies today.
"Legal" and "Illegal" refers to laws/regulations created by government and both of us acknowledge that some laws/regulations are required but we also tend to believe that such laws should be about protecting the (Rights of the) People and should not be based upon a "statist" government's controlling economic outcomes. We seem to agree that laws/regulations related to the proper handling and disposal of toxic waste are necessary because no one has a Right to Pollute and we all have a Right to clean air, land, and water.
Where we apparently disagree is that you support "statist" interventionism by government to control peaceful immigration as opposed the "law of supply and demand" that would inherently control peaceful immigration. You're willing to violate the "Right of Liberty" of the person by government by intervening to control economic outcomes while as a "libertarian" I'm an advocate of the "Inalienable Right of Liberty of the Person" (all persons regardless of nationality) and oppose infringements upon it except as necessary to protect the Rights of other Person. Peaceful immigration for work does not violate anyone's Inalienable Rights.
So you look at it as "illegal immigration" and I look at it as "Statist Government protectionism that violates the Inalienable Right of Liberty of the Person" and I realized that this statist inteventionism actually harms the US economy.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 26, 2014 23:20:17 GMT
This looks very much like the left-wing version of "trickle-down" economics: We must have lots of unskilled, poorly educated workers in order to sustain the need for more "physicians, attorneys, and CPAs; and the only way to acquire enough would be through illegal measures.
Actually it's a very "fundamentalist" understanding of capitalism that acknowledges that "money" is a common commodity used as a medium or exchange in the barter system and that all commodities are produced by the labor of the person (i.e. the worker). Without labor (workers) producing goods there is no wealth.
We can't, for example, build a house without someone digging the ditches for the foundation. The ditch digger is, in many respects, more important than the architect that designs the house. We can build a house without an architect but we can't build it without the ditch digger that is necessary for the foundation. The architect provides a "service" related to the construction of the house while the ditch digger is provides the physical labor necessary for the construction of the house and the "house" is "money" as it is a physcal object (commodity).
The "economy" is the exchange of "goods" being produced by labor (workers) and they are the essential element of the economy and an economy can theoretically exist without any "services" but it cannot exist without any "goods" being produced. Going one step further based upon the arguments for "natural law" as put forward by John Locke the "natural rights of the person" relate to a situation where there is no exchange of goods (economy) but instead every "Person" has a "Right to Live" off of the "Surpluses" of nature.
This fundamentalist understanding of "capitalism" reflects the ultimate understanding of the "gold standard" (i.e. an understanding of "money") that has fundamentally been rejected by both "left-wing" (Democrats) and "right-wing" (Republican) political ideologies today.
"Legal" and "Illegal" refers to laws/regulations created by government and both of us acknowledge that some laws/regulations are required but we also tend to believe that such laws should be about protecting the (Rights of the) People and should not be based upon a "statist" government's controlling economic outcomes. We seem to agree that laws/regulations related to the proper handling and disposal of toxic waste are necessary because no one has a Right to Pollute and we all have a Right to clean air, land, and water.
Where we apparently disagree is that you support "statist" interventionism by government to control peaceful immigration as opposed the "law of supply and demand" that would inherently control peaceful immigration. You're willing to violate the "Right of Liberty" of the person by government by intervening to control economic outcomes while as a "libertarian" I'm an advocate of the "Inalienable Right of Liberty of the Person" (all persons regardless of nationality) and oppose infringements upon it except as necessary to protect the Rights of other Person. Peaceful immigration for work does not violate anyone's Inalienable Rights.
So you look at it as "illegal immigration" and I look at it as "Statist Government protectionism that violates the Inalienable Right of Liberty of the Person" and I realized that this statist inteventionism actually harms the US economy.
I believe you are overlooking two important points, viz.:
(1) Your observation that we need "[t]he ditch digger" seems to presuppose that this service cannot be supplied by American citizens; we must, therefore, look elsewhere for assistance in this regard. Well, I disagree. (2) In any case, I would favor a guest-worker program; and have stated as much previously. Oh, and your observation that " eaceful immigration" (at the whim of those who would come to America, uninvited) is not a violation of "anyone's Inalienable Rights" overlooks the fact--rather conveniently, perhaps--that it is a violation of our national sovereignty. And that is of critical importance to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 27, 2014 12:14:44 GMT
I believe you are overlooking two important points, viz.:
(1) Your observation that we need "[t]he ditch digger" seems to presuppose that this service cannot be supplied by American citizens; we must, therefore, look elsewhere for assistance in this regard. Well, I disagree. (2) In any case, I would favor a guest-worker program; and have stated as much previously. Oh, and your observation that " eaceful immigration" (at the whim of those who would come to America, uninvited) is not a violation of "anyone's Inalienable Rights" overlooks the fact--rather conveniently, perhaps--that it is a violation of our national sovereignty. And that is of critical importance to me.
(1) No, I don't overlook that the "ditch digger" position might be filled by an American citizen but what we find is that the "American citizens" are not filling all of the "ditch digger" positions. All things being equal I believe that most employers do give preferential treatment to American citizens over immigrant labor but I've also had discussions on other forum where "employers" have been unable to find workers to fill open positions at all. There is also a vast "employment" area that has traditionally been filled by immigrants because they will do work that Americans simply don't feel inclined to do.
My position is that "caplitalism" will sort out the "employment" issue and I oppose "statist" government when it comes to employment in the United States. Congress is completely incompetent and should "butt-out' of the issue and let the market resolve the "employment" issue.
(2) I'm merely for an unrestriced "guest worker program" because Congress is limited Constitutionally to only addressing "uniform laws of immigration" and has no authority to control immigrant workers except as it relates to potential naturalization.
The "sovereignty of a nation" is based upon the "individual sovereignty" of every person living in the nation. The Right of Sovereignty is an Inalienable Right of the Person and the "government" doesn't have any Inalienable Rights. The term "person" related to all people living in a nation and not just to the citizens of the nation. The US Constitution recognizes this fact as apportionment of the House of Representatives is based upon "all persons" living in the United States. You are apparently of the opinion that only "citizens" are the "people of the nation" but this conflicts with the US Constitution.
You claim to be a "Constitutional Conservative" but then want do disregard the fact that the Constitution itself recognizes that "immigrants" and "citizens" are the "people of the nation" and it is the "people of the nation" that establish the national sovereignty.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 27, 2014 20:08:26 GMT
I believe you are overlooking two important points, viz.:
(1) Your observation that we need "[t]he ditch digger" seems to presuppose that this service cannot be supplied by American citizens; we must, therefore, look elsewhere for assistance in this regard. Well, I disagree. (2) In any case, I would favor a guest-worker program; and have stated as much previously. Oh, and your observation that " eaceful immigration" (at the whim of those who would come to America, uninvited) is not a violation of "anyone's Inalienable Rights" overlooks the fact--rather conveniently, perhaps--that it is a violation of our national sovereignty. And that is of critical importance to me.
(1) No, I don't overlook that the "ditch digger" position might be filled by an American citizen but what we find is that the "American citizens" are not filling all of the "ditch digger" positions. All things being equal I believe that most employers do give preferential treatment to American citizens over immigrant labor but I've also had discussions on other forum where "employers" have been unable to find workers to fill open positions at all. There is also a vast "employment" area that has traditionally been filled by immigrants because they will do work that Americans simply don't feel inclined to do.
My position is that "caplitalism" will sort out the "employment" issue and I oppose "statist" government when it comes to employment in the United States. Congress is completely incompetent and should "butt-out' of the issue and let the market resolve the "employment" issue.
(2) I'm merely for an unrestriced "guest worker program" because Congress is limited Constitutionally to only addressing "uniform laws of immigration" and has no authority to control iimmigrant workers except as it relates to potential naturalization.
The "sovereignty of a nation" is based upon the "individual sovereignty" of every person living in the nation. The Right of Sovereignty is an Inalienable Right of the Person and the "government" doesn't have any Inalienable Rights. The term "person" related to all people living in a nation and not just to the citizens of the nation. The US Constitution recognizes this fact as apportionment of the House of Representatives is based upon "all persons" living in the United States. You are apparently of the opinion that only "citizens" are the "people of the nation" but this conflicts with the US Constitution.
You claim to be a "Constitutional Conservative" but then want do disregard the fact that the Constitution itself recognizes that "immigrants" and "citizens" are the "people of the nation" and it is the "people of the nation" that establish the national sovereignty.
Your position would appear to be that illegal immigrants--i.e. invaders of the Southwest--are part and parcel of America's national sovereignty, whereas the US government is not. And I find that position absolutely mind-boggling. If not enough Americans will fill some positions--even among those who are still young (and have not, therefore, yet had time to acquire a substantial education or an impressive skillset)--that is a matter to be rectified by our society's attitude toward some types of work. (If it is honest and honorable work, it ought not be deemed to be "beneath" someone. That attitude needs to change.)
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 28, 2014 22:10:19 GMT
Your position would appear to be that illegal immigrants--i.e. invaders of the Southwest--are part and parcel of America's national sovereignty, whereas the US government is not. And I find that position absolutely mind-boggling. If not enough Americans will fill some positions--even among those who are still young (and have not, therefore, yet had time to acquire a substantial education or an impressive skillset)--that is a matter to be rectified by our society's attitude toward some types of work. (If it is honest and honorable work, it ought not be deemed to be "beneath" someone. That attitude needs to change.)
How strange considering that historically the Southwest was Hispanic and it was the White Europeans that invaded the Southwest. Unlike many I don't have anti-Hispanic prejudice because I grew up in Los Angeles that has always had a signficant Hispanic population. It was, after all, a Spanish town to begin with. Hispanics of the Southwest are just as much Americans as White Europeans and their decendants. Why would someone consider them to be anything else?
Why don't we change society's attitude so that employers will voluntarily provide livable wage and health insurance for their employees while were at it? How about voluntarily ending invidious discrimination as well since were at it?
Or we can pay attention to what studies have shown. If we allow 100 low paid immigrants that will work at jobs that Americans won't traditionally work at they'll create over 180 new jobs that Americans will work that generally pay more money. So instead of having 100 unemployed Americans and 100 job openings we'd have 280 jobs being filled by people that want to work at those jobs. Isn't it amazing how "capitalism" works if you let it?
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 29, 2014 2:38:02 GMT
Your position would appear to be that illegal immigrants--i.e. invaders of the Southwest--are part and parcel of America's national sovereignty, whereas the US government is not. And I find that position absolutely mind-boggling. If not enough Americans will fill some positions--even among those who are still young (and have not, therefore, yet had time to acquire a substantial education or an impressive skillset)--that is a matter to be rectified by our society's attitude toward some types of work. (If it is honest and honorable work, it ought not be deemed to be "beneath" someone. That attitude needs to change.)
How strange considering that historically the Southwest was Hispanic and it was the White Europeans that invaded the Southwest. Unlike many I don't have anti-Hispanic prejudice because I grew up in Los Angeles that has always had a signficant Hispanic population. It was, after all, a Spanish town to begin with. Hispanics of the Southwest are just as much Americans as White Europeans and their decendants. Why would someone consider them to be anything else?
Why don't we change society's attitude so that employers will voluntarily provide livable wage and health insurance for their employees while were at it? How about voluntarily ending invidious discrimination as well since were at it?
Or we can pay attention to what studies have shown. If we allow 100 low paid immigrants that will work at jobs that Americans won't traditionally work at they'll create over 180 new jobs that Americans will work that generally pay more money. So instead of having 100 unemployed Americans and 100 job openings we'd have 280 jobs being filled by people that want to work at those jobs. Isn't it amazing how "capitalism" works if you let it?
I believe your cheerleading for "capitalism" is really about capitalism that is uncircumscribed by any governing laws; or what some would characterize as anarcho-capitalism.
I, too, am free of any "anti-Hispanic prejudice." And those of Hispanic ancestory who are American citizens are, indeed, "just as much Americans as white Europeans [are]." No argument there. But the mere fact that Los Angeles was "a Spanish town to begin with" does not necessarily mean that illegals should consider it a part of Greater Mexico today. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 29, 2014 9:46:17 GMT
I believe your cheerleading for "capitalism" is really about capitalism that is uncircumscribed by any governing laws; or what some would characterize as anarcho-capitalism.
I, too, am free of any "anti-Hispanic prejudice." And those of Hispanic ancestory who are American citizens are, indeed, "just as much Americans as white Europeans [are]." No argument there. But the mere fact that Los Angeles was "a Spanish town to begin with" does not necessarily mean that illegals should consider it a part of Greater Mexico today.
I don't endorse unregulated capitalism and I'm hardly an anarcho-capitalist. Capitalism is far from perfect and does require regulation but I don't endorse laws or regulations that negatively effect it's positive aspects. "Protectionism" suppresses economic growth and I'm not actually aware of any economic philosophy that actually endorses it. I know that it's not endorsed by the Austrian School and don't believe it was endorsed by Keynes either.
We can address generational American citizen but we also need to address immigration and Mexicans (and other Hispanic) immigrants are no less willing to become Americans than prior Italian, Irish, Chinese or other immigrants to America. Yes, I've read the stories about "Mexicans" that want to consider the Southwest a part of "Greater Mexico" but they're a rather small insignificant group of no importance. "La Raza" is often falsely accused of advocating this because a few people associated with La Raza have made statements implying that but La Raza is really an organization of US citizens and lawful immigrants and not "illegal" immigrants and it doesn't support that position as an organization. La Raza wants Hispanics to become US citizens and is an advocacy organization for that.
The number of "Hispanics" that are US citizens, legal immigrants, and illegal immigrants combined that advocate the "Greater Mexico" idea are so insignificant as to not be worthy of consideration and you don't condemn a whole people based upon false stereotyping.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 30, 2014 0:26:25 GMT
I believe your cheerleading for "capitalism" is really about capitalism that is uncircumscribed by any governing laws; or what some would characterize as anarcho-capitalism.
I, too, am free of any "anti-Hispanic prejudice." And those of Hispanic ancestory who are American citizens are, indeed, "just as much Americans as white Europeans [are]." No argument there. But the mere fact that Los Angeles was "a Spanish town to begin with" does not necessarily mean that illegals should consider it a part of Greater Mexico today.
I don't endorse unregulated capitalism and I'm hardly an anarcho-capitalist. Capitalism is far from perfect and does require regulation but I don't endorse laws or regulations that negatively effect it's positive aspects. "Protectionism" suppresses economic growth and I'm not actually aware of any economic philosophy that actually endorses it. I know that it's not endorsed by the Austrian School and don't believe it was endorsed by Keynes either.
We can address generational American citizen but we also need to address immigration and Mexicans (and other Hispanic) immigrants are no less willing to become Americans than prior Italian, Irish, Chinese or other immigrants to America. Yes, I've read the stories about "Mexicans" that want to consider the Southwest a part of "Greater Mexico" but they're a rather small insignificant group of no importance. "La Raza" is often falsely accused of advocating this because a few people associated with La Raza have made statements implying that but La Raza is really an organization of US citizens and lawful immigrants and not "illegal" immigrants and it doesn't support that position as an organization. La Raza wants Hispanics to become US citizens and is an advocacy organization for that.
The number of "Hispanics" that are US citizens, legal immigrants, and illegal immigrants combined that advocate the "Greater Mexico" idea are so insignificant as to not be worthy of consideration and you don't condemn a whole people based upon false stereotyping.
I am certainly not "condemn[ing] a whole people" (i.e. Hispanics) for the views of some. (One would hope that you, similarly, would not condemn the entire Tea Party as "racist"--as some have attempted--merely becauuse of the wildly inappropriate words or actions of an occasional individual.) As for " rotectionism," that is what is usually referred to (euphemistically, I believe) as fair trade. I have never previously heard of capitalism that is circumscribed by immigration law dismissed as mere "protectionism."
And I am not at all certain that the analogy to "Italian, Irish, Chinese or other immigrants to America" from 100 years ago is apposite. Whereas these immigrants from the early twentieth century (and the late nineteenth century) truly wished to become American citizens--whether because of the freedoms offered by America, or because of economic opportunity, or a combination of both--many Mexican illegals do not desire any such thing: They would (apparently) prefer to remain non-citizens--prehaps removed from "the shadows" through legal-resident status--and continue to send much of their earnings back to their respective families in Mexico. At least, that is what I have heard.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 30, 2014 10:45:36 GMT
I am certainly not "condemn[ing] a whole people" (i.e. Hispanics) for the views of some. (One would hope that you, similarly, would not condemn the entire Tea Party as "racist"--as some have attempted--merely becauuse of the wildly inappropriate words or actions of an occasional individual.) As for " rotectionism," that is what is usually referred to (euphemistically, I believe) as fair trade. I have never previously heard of capitalism that is circumscribed by immigration law dismissed as mere "protectionism."
And I am not at all certain that the analogy to "Italian, Irish, Chinese or other immigrants to America" from 100 years ago is apposite. Whereas these immigrants from the early twentieth century (and the late nineteenth century) truly wished to become American citizens--whether because of the freedoms offered by America, or because of economic opportunity, or a combination of both--many Mexican illegals do not desire any such thing: They would (apparently) prefer to remain non-citizens--prehaps removed from "the shadows" through legal-resident status--and continue to send much of their earnings back to their respective families in Mexico. At least, that is what I have heard.
www.investopedia.com/terms/p/protectionism.asp
When we impose immigration "quotas" to "protect" American jobs that is explicitly "protectionism" by definition and protectionism, as Investopedia mentions, in practice harms those that it is intended to protect. By imposing immigration quotas to "protect American jobs" we significantly reduce the number of American jobs over time.
My position on eliminating immigration quotas (that are based upon protectionism) are in truth very "main stream" from an economic philosophy standpoint. Those that avocate for the quotas are actually the ones arguing against established economic philosophy regardless of whether they advocate for Keynesianism or Austrian Economic School philosophy (the two dominate economic philosophies).
*********************************
Yes, historically most foreign immigrants came here for "freedoms offered by America, or because of economic opportunity, or a combination of both" which is exactly the same reason that Hispanics want to immigrate to the United States. They're coming here for jobs (i.e. economic opportunity) just like the Irish and the Chinese did in the past.
The claim "many Mexican illegals do not desire any such thing" is fundamentally false on two counts. As noted above, regardless of any other possible reason, they're coming here for jobs. Next is that "many" is a relative term as "many" can be 100, 1000, or even 100,000 but it does not imply a "significant" number or percentage. The "Greater Mexico" Hispanic advocates are a very small political cult movement of insignificant size and influence that has absolutely no chance of ever realizing it's objective of re-uniting the US Southwest with Mexico. The entire "movement" is perhaps in the tens of thousands range and that represents a small fraction of 1% of Hispanic immigrants and isn't even a pimple on the ass of all Hispanics in the United States. By way of comparison the entire membership of the Libertarian Party is only between 300,000-400,000 as I recall and they "Greater Mexico" movement is insignificant when compared to the Libertarian Party.
To actually believe that "Greater Mexico" advocates have any possibility of accomplishing their stated objective borders on the same level of irrational paranoia that some Evangelican Christians have of Muslim immigrants imposing Sharia Law in the United States. Neither of these have any possibility of happening.
Are you really afraid of something that you know has no possibility of ever happening?
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 30, 2014 16:55:01 GMT
I am certainly not "condemn[ing] a whole people" (i.e. Hispanics) for the views of some. (One would hope that you, similarly, would not condemn the entire Tea Party as "racist"--as some have attempted--merely becauuse of the wildly inappropriate words or actions of an occasional individual.) As for " rotectionism," that is what is usually referred to (euphemistically, I believe) as fair trade. I have never previously heard of capitalism that is circumscribed by immigration law dismissed as mere "protectionism."
And I am not at all certain that the analogy to "Italian, Irish, Chinese or other immigrants to America" from 100 years ago is apposite. Whereas these immigrants from the early twentieth century (and the late nineteenth century) truly wished to become American citizens--whether because of the freedoms offered by America, or because of economic opportunity, or a combination of both--many Mexican illegals do not desire any such thing: They would (apparently) prefer to remain non-citizens--prehaps removed from "the shadows" through legal-resident status--and continue to send much of their earnings back to their respective families in Mexico. At least, that is what I have heard.
www.investopedia.com/terms/p/protectionism.asp
When we impose immigration "quotas" to "protect" American jobs that is explicitly "protectionism" by definition and protectionism, as Investopedia mentions, in practice harms those that it is intended to protect. By imposing immigration quotas to "protect American jobs" we significantly reduce the number of American jobs over time.
My position on eliminating immigration quotas (that are based upon protectionism) are in truth very "main stream" from an economic philosophy standpoint. Those that avocate for the quotas are actually the ones arguing against established economic philosophy regardless of whether they advocate for Keynesianism or Austrian Economic School philosophy (the two dominate economic philosophies).
*********************************
Yes, historically most foreign immigrants came here for "freedoms offered by America, or because of economic opportunity, or a combination of both" which is exactly the same reason that Hispanics want to immigrate to the United States. They're coming here for jobs (i.e. economic opportunity) just like the Irish and the Chinese did in the past.
The claim "many Mexican illegals do not desire any such thing" is fundamentally false on two counts. As noted above, regardless of any other possible reason, they're coming here for jobs. Next is that "many" is a relative term as "many" can be 100, 1000, or even 100,000 but it does not imply a "significant" number or percentage. The "Greater Mexico" Hispanic advocates are a very small political cult movement of insignificant size and influence that has absolutely no chance of ever realizing it's objective of re-uniting the US Southwest with Mexico. The entire "movement" is perhaps in the tens of thousands range and that represents a small fraction of 1% of Hispanic immigrants and isn't even a pimple on the ass of all Hispanics in the United States. By way of comparison the entire membership of the Libertarian Party is only between 300,000-400,000 as I recall and they "Greater Mexico" movement is insignificant when compared to the Libertarian Party.
To actually believe that "Greater Mexico" advocates have any possibility of accomplishing their stated objective borders on the same level of irrational paranoia that some Evangelican Christians have of Muslim immigrants imposing Sharia Law in the United States. Neither of these have any possibility of happening.
Are you really afraid of something that you know has no possibility of ever happening?
Well, you spoke briefly of the matter of Sharia Law, and then inquired if I am "really afraid" of the possibility that it might someday be imposed in the US--even though I never even mentioned Sharia Law in my post (or anywhere else in this thread). As for the matter of Greater Mexico, I am not suggesting that the southwestern US might someday be officially reunited with Mexico; rather, I am suggesting that it may effectively be balkanized by the exceedingly large influx of illegals, thereby transmuting it into an area that is largely autonomous from the rest of the US. The Irish and Chinese of the past who came here for "economic opportunity" did so legally--does anyone still remember Ellis Island?--not illegally. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 30, 2014 23:19:45 GMT
Well, you spoke briefly of the matter of Sharia Law, and then inquired if I am "really afraid" of the possibility that it might someday be imposed in the US--even though I never even mentioned Sharia Law in my post (or anywhere else in this thread). As for the matter of Greater Mexico, I am not suggesting that the southwestern US might someday be officially reunited with Mexico; rather, I am suggesting that it may effectively be balkanized by the exceedingly large influx of illegals, thereby transmuting it into an area that is largely autonomous from the rest of the US. The Irish and Chinese of the past who came here for "economic opportunity" did so legally--does anyone still remember Ellis Island?--not illegally.
I believe that I mentioned that "Evangelical Christians" have an irrational fear of Muslims imposing Sharia Law.
As noted the "Greater Mexico" ideology is a cult political ideology that will never gain traction among the Hispanic population. What I think some people really fear is that Hispanic culture itself and there are historic roots against any culture other than the inherited WASP Western European culture in the United States. I'm sure you've read of Native-American children basically being force to go to the "Reservation" schools where they were prohibited from speaking their native language and from engaging in any traditional tribal activities. When Europeans took hold in the Hawaiian Islands they banned nudity and surfing because it was unacceptable to the WASP European culture.
The problem as I see it is that we're demanding that everyone be exactly like us (WASP's with a European heritage) and I believe that is wrong. I've recently heard people complain about Cinco De Mayo being celebrated in Los Angeles where Mexican flags are displayed and yet I grew up with that in the 50's and 60's and all of us "Angeleno's" celebrated Cinco De Mayo breaking pinatas and waving Mexican flags because Los Angeles was a historic Mexican city. It was a part of "our" culture and not just the Mexican immigrant culture. The United States is a nation of natives and immigrants and the diversity of our culture is one of our greatest national assets. We're like the "mutt" dog that is genetically superior to a "purebreed" dog.
I would remind you that when there was an influx of the Irish and an influx of the Chinese there were racist immigration laws passed because they were not WASP and those that imposed quotas. Just like today there were many illegal Irish and Chinese immigrants as well as legal immigrants and today that "illegal" immigration is all but forgotten because they all became US citizens eventually and have made major contributions to America both culturally, politically and economically. We can even throw in the more recent Vietnamese "boat people" of the 1970's many of which initially came here illegally and they've greatly added to our culture today.
I don't know why people don't believe there were quotas before that also created illegal immigration just like we have today. Perhaps its because there were no problems after the "illegal" immigrants were eventually absorbed into American and if they acknowledge that then they'd have to admit that their fears today are unfounded. Of course I could be wrong about why people don't want to remember history......
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 31, 2014 17:06:37 GMT
Well, you spoke briefly of the matter of Sharia Law, and then inquired if I am "really afraid" of the possibility that it might someday be imposed in the US--even though I never even mentioned Sharia Law in my post (or anywhere else in this thread). As for the matter of Greater Mexico, I am not suggesting that the southwestern US might someday be officially reunited with Mexico; rather, I am suggesting that it may effectively be balkanized by the exceedingly large influx of illegals, thereby transmuting it into an area that is largely autonomous from the rest of the US. The Irish and Chinese of the past who came here for "economic opportunity" did so legally--does anyone still remember Ellis Island?--not illegally.
I believe that I mentioned that "Evangelical Christians" have an irrational fear of Muslims imposing Sharia Law.
As noted the "Greater Mexico" ideology is a cult political ideology that will never gain traction among the Hispanic population. What I think some people really fear is that Hispanic culture itself and there are historic roots against any culture other than the inherited WASP Western European culture in the United States. I'm sure you've read of Native-American children basically being force to go to the "Reservation" schools where they were prohibited from speaking their native language and from engaging in any traditional tribal activities. When Europeans took hold in the Hawaiian Islands they banned nudity and surfing because it was unacceptable to the WASP European culture.
The problem as I see it is that we're demanding that everyone be exactly like us (WASP's with a European heritage) and I believe that is wrong. I've recently heard people complain about Cinco De Mayo being celebrated in Los Angeles where Mexican flags are displayed and yet I grew up with that in the 50's and 60's and all of us "Angeleno's" celebrated Cinco De Mayo breaking pinatas and waving Mexican flags because Los Angeles was a historic Mexican city. It was a part of "our" culture and not just the Mexican immigrant culture. The United States is a nation of natives and immigrants and the diversity of our culture is one of our greatest national assets. We're like the "mutt" dog that is genetically superior to a "purebreed" dog.
I would remind you that when there was an influx of the Irish and an influx of the Chinese there were racist immigration laws passed because they were not WASP and those that imposed quotas. Just like today there were many illegal Irish and Chinese immigrants as well as legal immigrants and today that "illegal" immigration is all but forgotten because they all became US citizens eventually and have made major contributions to America both culturally, politically and economically. We can even throw in the more recent Vietnamese "boat people" of the 1970's many of which initially came here illegally and they've greatly added to our culture today.
I don't know why people don't believe there were quotas before that also created illegal immigration just like we have today. Perhaps its because there were no problems after the "illegal" immigrants were eventually absorbed into American and if they acknowledge that then they'd have to admit that their fears today are unfounded. Of course I could be wrong about why people don't want to remember history......
I quite agree that there is nothing especially attractive (to me, at least) about the "purebred" person. (Perhaps for the Westminster Kennel Classic, a pedigree is very important; for the rest of us--well, not so much.) I would not, however, wish to be so dismissive of our "WASP" culture. Granted, it has sometimes led to (a most regrettable!) bigotry; signs, from about 100 years ago, declaring, "No Irish Need Apply," are a very good example of this. And don't even get me started on the Jim Crow laws (and traditions) that resulted in restrooms and drinking fountains being festooned with signs reading, "White Only" and "Colored Only." Still, I believe that our European culture, for the most part, was very good; it just needed to have its chauvinistic ethnocentrism altered. And I am not a believer in multiculturalism, but rather, in assimmilation.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jun 2, 2014 12:13:08 GMT
And I am not a believer in multiculturalism, but rather, in assimmilation.
An interesting proposition considering that in many respects the Native-American, Native-Alaskan, and Native-Hawaiian cultures were far superior to the European culture that we forced upon them.
Once again the "Hispanic" culture has been a part of the "American-European" culture going back about a century before the United States was even created. All of the Southwest was "Hispanic" and not "American-European" culturally so who should have been assimmilated? The Spanish immigrated to the "New World" (that wasn't new) before anyone else.
|
|
