The Shocking Truth Behind Amnesty

[erowe1]

There are finite homes to be cleaned. Finite lawns to be tended to.

And we're nowhere close to having cheap labor to cut and clean them all. And then after that's done, there's still an infinite amount of other stuff.

 

[thequietkid10]

Europeans were brought to this country and allowed to come here because they had something to offer, the current state of illegals do not. They are just here to mooch off the country that the anglo-saxons created.

Most of the concepts from the constitution came from Europe and Rome.

...and the truth comes out. The only thing I hate more then statist stereotypes of the Ron Paul movement, is when people are living examples of that stereotype

 

[Michelangelo]

There are no such things as saturation points and surpluses of unskilled labor. The amount of work out there to be done (i.e. the distance between the world we live in and a perfect one) is infinite.

I'm open borders and such, but I'd be very careful about saying that we can never have a surplus of labor.

If the government gave subsidies to have children you could theoretically reach a point where the population increase outpaces the amount of capital available and living standards decrease. I am extremely doubtful that this will occur in real life and I can only think of three occasions where governments have tried this: (1) modern Russia, (2) modern Singapore, and (3) NAZI Germany. In all three cases the subsidies were all too low to significantly change birth rates.

Could we have a general surplus of labor? Theoretically yes. It is extremely unlikely that this will ever occur and the subsidies involved would be astronomical even relative to today's welfare state.

What is more likely, and does exist, is overpopulation in specific regions. Mind you, this is 'overpopulation' in the same sense that California's central valley is 'overpopulated' with more fruit and foodstuff than the locals can eat. The obvious solution to this problem of regional overpopulation is to allow labor to freely move towards where it is more it is more productive.

Too many people here are not acknowledging the current state of America, regarding the welfare government. Until this is changed, illegal immigration is DEVASTATING the US economy. And before someone writes dissertation trying to explain Austrian economics, save your time. I already know and agree, but I am also looking at the now and real, and not what I wish. And if you need proof, a great example is the Dominican Republic. With it's smaller population, 10 million illegal immigrants from Haiti have destroyed their nation.

There is a net negative fiscal cost that can be attributed to young immigrants (both legal and illegal) and natives newcomers (i.e. babies). I am speaking about the welfare given to kids in the form of free or reduce healthcare, schooling, free meals at said schools etc etc. We definitely need to reform the system on this end to make it more efficient.

Adult migrants (legal or illegal) however don't have a negative fiscal cost. Most of them are in their working prime and don't demand government services themselves.

Deporting the latter wouldn't do much to help us fiscally. Deporting migrants in their prime age would actually harm us fiscally since they are net taxpayers. Deporting young migrants (legal or illegal) and aborting every baby-to-be in the United States would be more effective if your goal is to preserve the fiscal integrity of the United States government. This is of course lunacy and not something I could support. I should hope no one here could such things either.

Let's reform our welfare system instead, okay? Are we still going to incur losses? Yes. Even if we introduce a nationwide voucher system or reform welfare to be needs based we will still need wealth distribution and all the negative aspects associated. I'm okay with this. As far as taxes go, I'm okay when it comes to supporting schools and welfare for the young though. In a stateless world I would not mind voluntarily donating to these causes.

 

[erowe1]

And yeah I went to college, so I do expect to get a jobby job you asshole. Thats what college is for.

You can't polish a turd.

 

[Intoxiklown]

I'm open borders and such, but I'd be very careful about saying that we can never have a surplus of labor.

If the government gave subsidies to have children you could theoretically reach a point where the population increase outpaces the amount of capital available and living standards decrease. I am extremely doubtful that this will occur in real life and I can only think of three occasions where governments have tried this: (1) modern Russia, (2) modern Singapore, and (3) NAZI Germany. In all three cases the subsidies were all too low to significantly change birth rates.

Could we have a general surplus of labor? Theoretically yes. It is extremely unlikely that this will ever occur and the subsidies involved would be astronomical even relative to today's welfare state.

What is more likely, and does exist, is overpopulation in specific regions. Mind you, this is 'overpopulation' in the same sense that California's central valley is 'overpopulated' with more fruit and foodstuff than the locals can eat. The obvious solution to this problem of regional overpopulation is to allow labor to freely move towards where it is more it is more productive.



There is a net negative fiscal cost that can be attributed to young immigrants (both legal and illegal) and natives newcomers (i.e. babies). I am speaking about the welfare given to kids in the form of free or reduce healthcare, schooling, free meals at said schools etc etc. We definitely need to reform the system on this end to make it more efficient.

Adult migrants (legal or illegal) however don't have a negative fiscal cost. Most of them are in their working prime and don't demand government services themselves.

Deporting the latter wouldn't do much to help us fiscally. Deporting migrants in their prime age would actually harm us fiscally since they are net taxpayers. Deporting young migrants (legal or illegal) and aborting every baby-to-be in the United States would be more effective if your goal is to preserve the fiscal integrity of the United States government. This is of course lunacy and not something I could support. I should hope no one here could such things either.

Let's reform our welfare system instead, okay? Are we still going to incur losses? Yes. Even if we introduce a nationwide voucher system or reform welfare to be needs based we will still need wealth distribution and all the negative aspects associated. I'm okay with this. As far as taxes go, I'm okay when it comes to supporting schools and welfare for the young though. In a stateless world I would not mind voluntarily donating to these causes.

I am not in favor of deportation, as that is a logistical and financial nightmare. And adult immigrants very much hurt an economy. Again, please look at the Dominican Republic for an example. You keep thinking along the lines of a perfect nation based on a free economy. America is nowhere near that, and until we are at least on the path to achieve it, to not stop illegal immigration is an incredibly foolish thing.

 

[thequietkid10]

It is possible that a certain region becomes 'overpopulated' however market forces encourage the excess population to migrate somewhere that is 'underpopulated'. You are certainly right that this is a possibility. I'd argue that Detroit is one such example of a place in the United States that was overpopulated and its depopulation in recent years has been for the better. Mexico and India are both overpopulated today. In the past most of Europe was overpopulated. Increasing technology has made it so that Europe is now underpopulated and capable of supporting a larger population. Mexico is starting to stabilize economically and I would not be surprised if it went from an net emigrant country to a net immigrant country within our lifetimes.

Most of the United States has not reached this point though. The United States as a whole has historically demanded more labor than it had. This is what allowed its colonial population to grow so rapidly and gave it a comparative advantage when it came towards inviting migrants over. By all measures the United States as a whole still retains the ability to house a larger population. Improving technology, and therefore better ability to make better use of resources available, will increase the ability of the United States to house even more people. Arguably the western states could house infinitely more people if so much of their land wasn't federally owned or if zoning laws were relaxed to allow them to construct more housing.

Is there a limit to how large a population the United States can house without living standards decreasing? Yes. Have we reached said limit? No. Even if we had reached such a limit, would we need the government to deal with it? No.

If the United States ever becomes overpopulated market forces will act in such a manner to deal with it by encouraging voluntary migration to locations that can better accommodate the growing population. I suspect that by the time the United States does reach this limit we will have the technology to colonize space. Indeed, it will make economic sense to begin colonizing space when Earth reaches that limit. That limit hasn't been met though.

Note: I should make it clear here that the limit to population isn't a 'hard' cap. It is a 'soft' cap that changes according to our technology and knowledge of how to use our resources better. This is why Europe has a larger population today than it did a few centuries back, but is now underpopulated. With its past technology/knowledge Europeans were incapable of using their resources to properly house their population. Advances in technology/knowledge however have allowed it to house many more.

Let me add,
Over population is a myth. Without immigration, we would have a shortage of labor, higher food prices, higher construction costs, and higher home maintenance costs (or more chores, or more stay at home parents).

You, wanna see what a nation without immigration looks like, watch Japan over the next 3 decades. The biggest problem will be their pension system. and the increasing distortion of retired to working age employees.

 

[RonPaul4Prez2012]

Its funny that all of you think that we need more immigration because they are here to work, but here is a newsflash: The US does not produce anything anymore.

There are no jobs here anymore.

I hope all of you get you jobs taken by cheap laboring illegals.

 

[RonPaul4Prez2012]

It is possible that a certain region becomes 'overpopulated' however market forces encourage the excess population to migrate somewhere that is 'underpopulated'. You are certainly right that this is a possibility. I'd argue that Detroit is one such example of a place in the United States that was overpopulated and its depopulation in recent years has been for the better. Mexico and India are both overpopulated today. In the past most of Europe was overpopulated. Increasing technology has made it so that Europe is now underpopulated and capable of supporting a larger population. Mexico is starting to stabilize economically and I would not be surprised if it went from an net emigrant country to a net immigrant country within our lifetimes.

Most of the United States has not reached this point though. The United States as a whole has historically demanded more labor than it had. This is what allowed its colonial population to grow so rapidly and gave it a comparative advantage when it came towards inviting migrants over. By all measures the United States as a whole still retains the ability to house a larger population. Improving technology, and therefore better ability to make better use of resources available, will increase the ability of the United States to house even more people. Arguably the western states could house infinitely more people if so much of their land wasn't federally owned or if zoning laws were relaxed to allow them to construct more housing.

Is there a limit to how large a population the United States can house without living standards decreasing? Yes. Have we reached said limit? No. Even if we had reached such a limit, would we need the government to deal with it? No.

If the United States ever becomes overpopulated market forces will act in such a manner to deal with it by encouraging voluntary migration to locations that can better accommodate the growing population. I suspect that by the time the United States does reach this limit we will have the technology to colonize space. Indeed, it will make economic sense to begin colonizing space when Earth reaches that limit. That limit hasn't been met though.

Note: I should make it clear here that the limit to population isn't a 'hard' cap. It is a 'soft' cap that changes according to our technology and knowledge of how to use our resources better. This is why Europe has a larger population today than it did a few centuries back, but is now underpopulated. With its past technology/knowledge Europeans were incapable of using their resources to properly house their population. Advances in technology/knowledge however have allowed it to house many more.

your ideology is garbage. Go for a surf in CA or just try to drive from SD to LA on any day. See if you can catch a wave or get to work on time. If illegals were not here this might be a decent place to live but they have all but destroyed this great state.

 

[AuH20]

There is a net negative fiscal cost that can be attributed to young immigrants (both legal and illegal) and natives newcomers (i.e. babies). I am speaking about the welfare given to kids in the form of free or reduce healthcare, schooling, free meals at said schools etc etc. We definitely need to reform the system on this end to make it more efficient.Adult migrants (legal or illegal) however don't have a negative fiscal cost. Most of them are in their working prime and don't demand government services themselves.

Deporting the latter wouldn't do much to help us fiscally. Deporting migrants in their prime age would actually harm us fiscally since they are net taxpayers. Deporting young migrants (legal or illegal) and aborting every baby-to-be in the United States would be more effective if your goal is to preserve the fiscal integrity of the United States government. This is of course lunacy and not something I could support. I should hope no one here could such things either.

Let's reform our welfare system instead, okay? Are we still going to incur losses? Yes. Even if we introduce a nationwide voucher system or reform welfare to be needs based we will still need wealth distribution and all the negative aspects associated. I'm okay with this. As far as taxes go, I'm okay when it comes to supporting schools and welfare for the young though. In a stateless world I would not mind voluntarily donating to these causes.

Tacked onto your property taxes as well. People need to break free from this myth that the labor that they are contracting is cheap. It's appears cheap because they don't have the entire complex tabulation listed on that particular invoice.

 

[RonPaul4Prez2012]

Let me give you an example of why illegal immigration and a welfare state does not work.

CA pours billions into welfare programs for illegals and the result is more and more higher taxes to take care of the programs.

Higher taxes hurt businesses such as movie studios. Right now in all of LA, there is just one major motion picture being produced.

All of the business has gone elsewhere to states and countries where they can afford to produce a movie. Louisiana, Georgia and Canada are the new hollywood.

 

[erowe1]

Let me give you an example of why illegal immigration and a welfare state does not work.

Who do you see here defending the welfare state?

 

[AuH20]

Let me give you an example of why illegal immigration and a welfare state does not work.

CA pours billions into welfare programs for illegals and the result is more and more higher taxes to take care of the programs.

Higher taxes hurt businesses such as movie studios. Right now in all of LA, there is just one major motion picture being produced.

All of the business has gone elsewhere to states and countries where they can afford to produce a movie. Louisiana, Georgia and Canada are the new hollywood.

Illegal immigration could work without the welfare state. But we know that's far from the case in this particular country.

 

[RonPaul4Prez2012]

Who do you see here defending the welfare state?

Welfare states and illegal immigration go hand in hand.

 

[PierzStyx]

20 million out of work and we need a labor force? I have been unemployed in Los Angeles for 14 months now and I have a top 50 colleges degree.

The reason we are having problems with unemployment isn't immigration. Its because we have regulated and taxed people in to poverty while destroying the currency that is the carrier of our wealth. In a free market economy cheap labor is a boon not a burden.

I'm also curious about your degree. What is it in? If you majored in some niche you shouldn't be surprised its hard to find a job.

And finally move. If you want a job go somewhere that isn't flooded with labor and regulated to death like LA (and CA in general) is today.

 

[RonPaul4Prez2012]

The reason we are having problems with unemployment isn't immigration. Its because we have regulated and taxed people in to poverty while destroying the currency that is the carrier of our wealth. In a free market economy cheap labor is a boon not a burden.

I'm also curious about your degree. What is it in? If you majored in some niche you shouldn't be surprised its hard to find a job.

And finally move. If you want a job go somewhere that isn't flooded with labor and regulated to death like LA (and CA in general) is today.

Nah, they can move not me. I am not a bootlicker.

Sounds like all of you are very well versed in Rockefeller Liberal Arts.

Nothing but liberals in here.

 

[Philhelm]

As a Cherokee, I find this all rather amusing: WHAT! Different colored "immigrants" taking over our land? Not speaking our language? Breaking our laws?

As a buffalo, I couldn't care less.

 

[RonPaul4Prez2012]

As a Cherokee, I find this all rather amusing: WHAT! Different colored "immigrants" taking over our land? Not speaking our language? Breaking our laws?

Whitey didn't come over and "steal" the land from the indians. We came over here and kicked your ass!!!!!

 

[Ender]

Nah, they can move not me. I am not a bootlicker.

Sounds like all of you are very well versed in Rockefeller Liberal Arts.

Nothing but liberals in here.

The "liberals" here are liberal in the original meaning of the word.

The only genre that would call us "liberals" in the current definition are NEOCONS.

 

[erowe1]

Whitey didn't come over and "steal" the land from the indians. We came over here and kicked your ass!!!!!

That's what makes it stealing.

 

[AuH20]

Nah, they can move not me. I am not a bootlicker.

Sounds like all of you are very well versed in Rockefeller Liberal Arts.

Nothing but liberals in here.

The American people and their children have been fooled into believing that they are above menial labor, when in fact, they were roped into a long running scheme of easy credit and housing bubbles. Inflation adjusted wages have been declining for roughly 3 decades. That's really the prime issue at hand and why many cannot cope with this tragic reality & have fallen back on the welfare state for their basic needs. Our real unemployment rate, not counting those who have conveniently been omitted from the workforce total, is somewhere between 15 and 17% last I checked.