Libertarian Clobbers Tucker Carlson in Immigration Debate

[loveshiscountry]

Lower wages is not always a bad thing. In many cases hiring cheap, illegal workers is the only way for companies to stay in business. They have to do this to counter the high cost of government. The solution is not to punish businesses that hire illegal workers. That will just put them out of business. The solution is to lower the cost of government.

The dumbest thing I hear is that we need to force businesses to hire legal workers to fix the economy. As if they can just replace $7 an hour workers with $20 an hour workers with no ill effects on profits. It's better to have a business that employs 50 legal workers and 50 illegal ones than no business at all.

Isn't the discussion more like paying $7 instead of $10? If a business needs illegals lower wages in order to survive that means their competition is doing the same thing, isn't it?

 

[undergroundrr]

How so?

You want American businesses to be forced by the government to pay more for labor.

 

[loveshiscountry]

And you would be wrong.

"Has the surge in immigration since 1970 led to slower wage growth for native-born workers? Academic research does not provide much support for this claim. The evidence suggests that when immigration increases the supply of labor, firms increase investment to offset any reduction in capital per worker, thereby keeping average wages from falling over the long term. Moreover, immigrants are often imperfect substitutes for native-born workers in U.S. labor markets. That means they do not compete for the same jobs and put minimal downward pressure on natives’ wages. This might explain why competition from new immigrants has mostly affected earlier immigrants, who experienced significant reductions in wages from the surge in immigration. In contrast, studies find that immigration has actually raised average wages of native-born workers during the last few decades. "

http://www.budgetmodel.wharton.upen...s-of-immigration-on-the-united-states-economy

"First, the displacement effect is small if it even affects natives at all. Immigrants are typically attracted to growing regions and they increase the supply and demand sides of the economy once they are there, expanding employment opportunities. Second, the debate over immigrant impacts on American wages is confined to the lower single digits – immigrants may increase the relative wages for some Americans by a tiny amount and decrease them by a larger amount for the few Americans who directly compete against them. Immigrants likely compete most directly against other immigrants so the effects on less-skilled native-born Americans might be very small or even positive."

https://fee.org/articles/15-common-arguments-against-immigration-addressed/

How could I be wrong when we know a glut of workers in a field reduces wages? That's basic economics. Your referring to immigrants. I'm referring to illegals.

Whereas studies of highly educated immigrants consider the contribution that these workers make to firms and industries, especially the ways they support innovation and the development of new knowledge practices (Saxenian 1999, 2006; Wadhwa et al. 2007; Qin 2007), studies of less educated workers instead emphasize their downward pressure on the wages and jobs of native-born workers

Native-born workers have long benefited from access to formal training and credentialing supports for tacit knowledge development, including
those supported by labor unions. In contrast, immigrant workers, and undocumented immigrants in particular, have limited access to these programs; and as a result, their ability both to represent their tacit knowledge and to advocate for the job opportunities and compensation that corresponds to
their skill level has been severely curtailed

 

[loveshiscountry]

You want American businesses to be forced by the government to pay more for labor.

Understood. Not intending to hijack but is this relating to open borders and how many to let in even if there is not a welfare state?

 

[loveshiscountry]

Is this true? It would explain the point in the video about not all the jobs are lower paying for illegals.

According to EEO laws, under the auspices of their guiding principle of Disparate Impact (in discrimination rulings), a business cannot use any employment eligibility standard that disqualifies a federally protected category (in this example ethnicity) from employment.

Here’s how it works on Main Street – If you require all applicants to be legally eligible to work in the U.S., and part of that application process is the applicant providing you documents to prove that eligibility, you cannot verify those documents –> if the verification of those documents would exclude a larger percentage of ethnic applicants, protected class applicants, than the general application pool.

Meaning, as an example, if you check Social Security numbers (example E-Verify) and that verification disqualifies a disproportionate amount more Latinos than all other applicants, then the verification process itself is unlawful because it creates a “Disparate Impact” against Latinos and you are guilty of violating EEOC law.

That risk is why most U.S. businesses do not use E-Verify.

https://theconservativetreehouse.co...-problem-part-i-how-illegals-gain-employment/

 

[PierzStyx]

Sorry, not everyone is an anarchist. Hell, most anarchists aren't really anarchists.

I'm sorry. I wasn't aware that John Locke and Thomas Fricking Jefferson were "anarchists."

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." -Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, 1776.

"To understand political power, we must consider the condition in which nature puts all men. It is a state of perfect freedom to do as they wish and dispose of themselves and their possessions as they think fit, within the bounds of the laws of nature. They need not ask permission or the consent of any other man.

The state of nature is also a state of equality. No one has more power or authority than another. Since all human beings have the same advantages and the use of the same skills, they should be equal to each other. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it. Reason is the law. It teaches that all men are equal and independent, and that no one ought to harm another in his life, liberty, or possessions. All men are made by one all-powerful and wise Maker. " -John Locke, Two Treatise On Government, 1690.

Here is the problem as I see it: You are completely and wholly ignorant of what Natural Law is, how that influences the ideals of the American Founders, or even what natural rights are. You may try and fake it, but it isn't working. There are no arguments from any source that actually understands human liberty and human rights that can justify anything you argue in regards to immigration. Not the Constitution. Not the Declaration of Independence. Nothing. This is because your ideas are anti-libertarian. They are anti-liberty. They are anti-free market. They are unconstitutional. They are illegal, immoral, and wrong.

It has nothing to do with anarchy. Your own governing documents, the legal ideas and codes that found the country you claim to follow, not only do not support this idea but the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution actively and absolutely forbids federal regulation of immigration in any way because such a power is not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution.

If you actually believed the words of the Founders of the United States you would recognize your duty not just to refuse to allow the federal government to regulate immigration you would push your state to actively disobey such unconstitutional laws in an act of what Jefferson and Madison called nullification.

So don't even try and ascribe this to anarchy. We're just actually follow the US Constitution and founding ideals and calling upon you cowards to do the same.

 

[smokemonsc]

Only the CATO fellow actually had sources, that was telling. Also, what was interesting to me were the three things Carlson brought up as "proof" that illegal immigrants are a net drain on national resources. He mentioned:

1) Roads
2) Schools
3) Healthcare

Of those three, really only the healthcare argument has any legs to stand on. But that is also true for anyone who is poor and lives on subsidized health insurance or ER visits. There are many, many more poor citizens than there are illegal immigrants.

Roads - unless illegal immigrants are buying gas illegally and not paying gasoline tax, they are paying for the roads they use when they buy the gas their vehicles run off of.
Schools - unless illegal immigrants are living rent free they are paying rent to landlords who pay property tax which funds the schools they use.

Carlson is fun to watch, but he's a fraud like everyone else in the MSM.

 

[PierzStyx]

Responses in bold.

How could I be wrong when we know a glut of workers in a field reduces wages? That's basic economics. Your referring to immigrants. I'm referring to illegals.

There is no such thing as an "illegal" person. They're all immigrants. Calling an immigrant of any type an illegal is like calling a runaway slave an "illegally free person"- it makes no philosophical, moral, or logical sense. It is just a National Socialist invention.

Whereas studies of highly educated immigrants consider the contribution that these workers make to firms and industries, especially the ways they support innovation and the development of new knowledge practices (Saxenian 1999, 2006; Wadhwa et al. 2007; Qin 2007), studies of less educated workers instead emphasize their downward pressure on the wages and jobs of native-born workers

Native-born workers have long benefited from access to formal training and credentialing supports for tacit knowledge development, including
those supported by labor unions. In contrast, immigrant workers, and undocumented immigrants in particular, have limited access to these programs; and as a result, their ability both to represent their tacit knowledge and to advocate for the job opportunities and compensation that corresponds to
their skill level has been severely curtailed

And you are wrong. I encourage you to actually follow the links above and read the provided studies there. You might learn something.

The issue is competition. Immigrants are not competing against native born people. Most immigrants fill jobs native born people wouldn't have filled anyway. Again, actually read the linked studies. The evidence is there if you're willing to learn.

 

[loveshiscountry]

Responses in bold.




And you are wrong. I encourage you to actually follow the links above and read the provided studies there. You might learn something.

The issue is competition. Immigrants are not competing against native born people. Most immigrants fill jobs native born people wouldn't have filled anyway. Again, actually read the linked studies. The evidence is there if you're willing to learn.

What's wrong with the studies I provided? The illegals are competing in the fields I mentioned.

Calling an illegal immigrant illegal is immoral? Really?

 

[loveshiscountry]

Only the CATO fellow actually had sources, that was telling. Also, what was interesting to me were the three things Carlson brought up as "proof" that illegal immigrants are a net drain on national resources. He mentioned:

1) Roads
2) Schools
3) Healthcare

Of those three, really only the healthcare argument has any legs to stand on. But that is also true for anyone who is poor and lives on subsidized health insurance or ER visits. There are many, many more poor citizens than there are illegal immigrants.

Roads - unless illegal immigrants are buying gas illegally and not paying gasoline tax, they are paying for the roads they use when they buy the gas their vehicles run off of.
Schools - unless illegal immigrants are living rent free they are paying rent to landlords who pay property tax which funds the schools they use.

Carlson is fun to watch, but he's a fraud like everyone else in the MSM.

The gas tax doesn't cover all the costs as far as roads go does it?

School you've got illegals whose parents are of little help since they don't know the system. Other students suffer scholastically. Plus many of them are on free or assisted lunches. Two schools next to where I used to live were both over 90% when it came to free or assisted lunches. Only 2 data points, I know. Texas avg ~50%

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I'm sorry. I wasn't aware that John Locke and Thomas Fricking Jefferson were "anarchists."

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." -Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, 1776.

"To understand political power, we must consider the condition in which nature puts all men. It is a state of perfect freedom to do as they wish and dispose of themselves and their possessions as they think fit, within the bounds of the laws of nature. They need not ask permission or the consent of any other man.

The state of nature is also a state of equality. No one has more power or authority than another. Since all human beings have the same advantages and the use of the same skills, they should be equal to each other. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it. Reason is the law. It teaches that all men are equal and independent, and that no one ought to harm another in his life, liberty, or possessions. All men are made by one all-powerful and wise Maker. " -John Locke, Two Treatise On Government, 1690.

Here is the problem as I see it: You are completely and wholly ignorant of what Natural Law is, how that influences the ideals of the American Founders, or even what natural rights are. You may try and fake it, but it isn't working. There are no arguments from any source that actually understands human liberty and human rights that can justify anything you argue in regards to immigration. Not the Constitution. Not the Declaration of Independence. Nothing. This is because your ideas are anti-libertarian. They are anti-liberty. They are anti-free market. They are unconstitutional. They are illegal, immoral, and wrong.

It has nothing to do with anarchy. Your own governing documents, the legal ideas and codes that found the country you claim to follow, not only do not support this idea but the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution actively and absolutely forbids federal regulation of immigration in any way because such a power is not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution.

If you actually believed the words of the Founders of the United States you would recognize your duty not just to refuse to allow the federal government to regulate immigration you would push your state to actively disobey such unconstitutional laws in an act of what Jefferson and Madison called nullification.

So don't even try and ascribe this to anarchy. We're just actually follow the US Constitution and founding ideals and calling upon you cowards to do the same.

Did that make you feel better?

 

[Madison320]

Isn't the discussion more like paying $7 instead of $10? If a business needs illegals lower wages in order to survive that means their competition is doing the same thing, isn't it?

If the illegal worker and legal worker are both making the same the cost to the employer of the legal worker is much higher, usually more than double the rate of pay.

Not sure your question about competition.

 

[Madison320]

The gas tax doesn't cover all the costs as far as roads go does it?

School you've got illegals whose parents are of little help since they don't know the system. Other students suffer scholastically. Plus many of them are on free or assisted lunches. Two schools next to where I used to live were both over 90% when it came to free or assisted lunches. Only 2 data points, I know. Texas avg ~50%

I agree, it's hard to tell if the net affect from illegal immigration is economically positive or negative. Both sides distort data.

One thing that bother me about illegals is they or their children almost always vote for socialism. That's the ONLY reason democrats like them and republicans don't by the way.

On the plus side, illegal immigrants provide cheap labor. That's a big plus for the economy.

 

[PierzStyx]

What's wrong with the studies I provided? The illegals are competing in the fields I mentioned.

Calling an illegal immigrant illegal is immoral? Really?

You haven't provided a single study. You've thrown some random names and numbers together. That isn't evidence. Provide some links.

In fact as I have tried to do some research on your "sources" I've only come up with evidence against your claims. Take this study from Saenian for example:

"Rather than a “brain drain” from the sending countries, Saxenian sees the emergence of a “brain circulation” as immigrants return to their
home countries to take advantage of promising opportunities or play a key role in building markets in their native countries from a California base. Saxenian suggests that there is a healthy flow of financial and intellectual capital between Taiwan, India, and California and that this flow has made a major contribution to technological innovation and to the economic expansion of the state."

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_699ASR.pdf

Your own sources claim that immigrants create more jobs and more wealth for natives than otherwise would exist. So you are wrong.

And it certainly is. There is no such things as an "illegal" person. Well, maybe if you're a nationalist or a socialist who doesn't believe in individual humanity.

 

[undergroundrr]

Understood. Not intending to hijack but is this relating to open borders and how many to let in even if there is not a welfare state?

Yes. Your business should be allowed to hire whomever it wants, wherever they're from, at whatever payscale you and the worker agree on.

 

[loveshiscountry]

You haven't provided a single study. You've thrown some random names and numbers together. That isn't evidence. Provide some links.

In fact as I have tried to do some research on your "sources" I've only come up with evidence against your claims. Take this study from Saenian for example:

"Rather than a “brain drain” from the sending countries, Saxenian sees the emergence of a “brain circulation” as immigrants return to their
home countries to take advantage of promising opportunities or play a key role in building markets in their native countries from a California base. Saxenian suggests that there is a healthy flow of financial and intellectual capital between Taiwan, India, and California and that this flow has made a major contribution to technological innovation and to the economic expansion of the state."

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_699ASR.pdf

Your own sources claim that immigrants create more jobs and more wealth for natives than otherwise would exist. So you are wrong.

I quoted from this which quoted the source you linked. http://nicholalowe.web.unc.edu/files/2015/06/Hidden-Talent-2010.pdf
It's pages 132-146 on a study on skill-building opportunities and practices among immigrants typically considered low-skilled.

And that's what you missed. The low skilled part.

And it certainly is. There is no such things as an "illegal" person. Well, maybe if you're a nationalist or a socialist who doesn't believe in individual humanity.

It's not about "personhood". It's about citizenship status.
Because I have no problem with the word illegal doesn't mean I'm a nationalist or socialist.

 

[PierzStyx]

I quoted from this which quoted the source you linked. http://nicholalowe.web.unc.edu/files/2015/06/Hidden-Talent-2010.pdf
It's pages 132-146 on a study on skill-building opportunities and practices among immigrants typically considered low-skilled.

And that's what you missed. The low skilled part.

It's not about "personhood". It's about citizenship status.
Because I have no problem with the word illegal doesn't mean I'm a nationalist or socialist.

The link I provided only has 105 pages. The link your provided only has 16. None of them have 132 pages. So try again. So far, no evidence for your claims.

Actually it demonstrates perfectly that you're a nationalist. You think national laws can alter basic human rights, such as the rights to move unhindered across unowned land, and regulate the market, as you want to be a protectionist and use national policing violence to regulate the free flow of human capital. You're arguing that the "good of the nation" -a collectivist term- is more important than the individual. And if you claim that the government can regulate land it doesn't own for the good of the collective then you're essentially asserting the collective ownership of land by the state for the good of the people -a basic stance of socialism's dictatorship of the proletariat.

There is no such thing as an illegal person. Just those who may or may not be citizens. But citizenship is irrelevant when it comes to protecting your natural human rights.

 

[undergroundrr]

I quoted from this which quoted the source you linked. http://nicholalowe.web.unc.edu/files/2015/06/Hidden-Talent-2010.pdf
It's pages 132-146 on a study on skill-building opportunities and practices among immigrants typically considered low-skilled.

And that's what you missed. The low skilled part.

And the low skilled aspect is important.

Check out another CATO study unless you're allergic to CATO - https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/tpa-040.pdf

EDIT: Hmmm... the file isn't coming up for me right now.

As I recall, the gist of it is that if employers didn't have to be so under-the-table about their undocumented workers, then more skills training would take place, worker paranoia and insecurity would drop, and productivity would increase. If I remember correctly, they conservatively calculate a $250B annual difference to the US economy between deporting undocumented workers (-$250B) vs. making it legal for them to reside here and work (+$250B). And of course the resulting higher-skilled workers are going to be able to ask for higher wages, creating prosperity for them, more spending in their community, more tax revenues and another positive competitive dynamic in the market.

 

[loveshiscountry]

The link I provided only has 105 pages. The link your provided only has 16. None of them have 132 pages. So try again. So far, no evidence for your claims.

Actually it demonstrates perfectly that you're a nationalist. You think national laws can alter basic human rights, such as the rights to move unhindered across unowned land, and regulate the market, as you want to be a protectionist and use national policing violence to regulate the free flow of human capital. You're arguing that the "good of the nation" -a collectivist term- is more important than the individual. And if you claim that the government can regulate land it doesn't own for the good of the collective then you're essentially asserting the collective ownership of land by the state for the good of the people -a basic stance of socialism's dictatorship of the proletariat.

There is no such thing as an illegal person. Just those who may or may not be citizens. But citizenship is irrelevant when it comes to protecting your natural human rights.

As long as we have the welfare state yes there should be borders.

No ones saying they are illegal "people" but you.

 

[undergroundrr]

No ones saying they are illegal "people" but you.

Wow. Did you really mean to put people in quotes?