They say illegals take jobs Americans don't want - they LIE!

[Jeros]

All is One, therefore America is Mexico? I don't think so!

Logical debate is only one form of argument.

Have you never studied rhetoric?

My satirical send-up of your far-left lovey-dovey borders critique was on point.

Instead of LOGICALLY EXPLAINING why your open-borders fantasy world matters any more than the rest of the Neo-Marxist New Age nonsense, you whine about denigration. Poor you, nobody cares about your Ever-So Important Critical Theory.

This is a trippy fractal, therefore your "technical logical straightforward" is invalid.

I know, I know. Drawing borders on Mother Gaia is violent and violates our freedom of movement.

We get it, so save it for your La Raza seminar at The Aspen Institute.

I couldn't say for sure, but I have a feeling you are a little crazy. I also have a feeling you would agree with my analysis of your psychological state. Am I correct?

 

[Jeros]

My scenario didn't have borders.

If you want to come back to reality, we can talk about that too. As long as labor laws, environmental laws, tax laws, entitlement laws are different in all nations, then borders are about a lot more than just people moving around. There are a ton of "imaginary" laws that go along with those "imaginary" borders. Eliminate all the inconsistencies first, then we can talk. And as for the US, we pretty much ignore all immigration law anyway, so open borders are the current default.

My question was about a scenario where borders do not exist. It had nothing to do with immigration, legal or illegal.

The number one reason that immigration law is ignored in the US, and that we have open-borders by default is cheap labor. There are also other reasons, but cheap labor is top of the list. You may not care about cheap labor, but your powerful allies do. Go talk to Bill Gates about his global socialist utopia, where enlightened masters such he and Alan Greenspan secretly centrally plan the economy (and everything else).

So Bill Gates and the the rest of the elite are planning to turn the world into a socialist utopia, and you plan to stop them by giving the political elite the power to regulate migration?

Your scenario rest on the assumption that I am defending cheap labor, since I am not defending cheap labor, your scenario is irrelevant.

Since you say borders are not enforced, creating a state of default free migration, what is the better alternative?

You still haven't answered whether you think management of human migration increases economic prosperity.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

So Bill Gates and the the rest of the elite are planning to turn the world into a socialist utopia, and you plan to stop them by giving the political elite the power to regulate migration?

You plan to stop them by giving them what they want?

Your scenario rest on the assumption that I am defending cheap labor, since I am not defending cheap labor, your scenario is irrelevant.
...
You still haven't answered whether you think management of human migration increases economic prosperity.

You still haven't explained where this huge influx of labor is going to come from once the world is borderless and stable. You just said "human migration increases economic prosperity". Once the whole world is equal, there will be much less movement of people. How are you going to "increase economic prosperity" without the huge influxes of people that you claim are so important to the economy? Why does that sound like a Pyramid scam? Alan Greenspan admitted recently that he woke up in the middle of the night with the realization that it (the pyramid scheme) would all fall apart when the (not so) "endless" labor supply runs out.

 

[Jeros]

You plan to stop them by giving them what they want?

You still haven't explained where this huge influx of labor is going to come from once the world is borderless and stable. You just said "human migration increases economic prosperity". Once the whole world is equal, there will be much less movement of people. How are you going to "increase economic prosperity" without the huge influxes of people that you claim are so important to the economy? Why does that sound like a Pyramid scam? Alan Greenspan admitted recently that he woke up in the middle of the night with the realization that it (the pyramid scheme) would all fall apart when the (not so) "endless" labor supply runs out.

I plan to stop them by disseminating a consistent philosophy of liberty, which includes free migration. You on the other hand would stop them by granting them more power over humanity. Again, Orwell comes to mind.

I never said a huge influx of labor is essential to prosperity. I only said free migration increases economic efficiency. "Huge influx of labor" and "free migration" are not necessarily the same thing. A huge influx of labor is not necessary to maximize economic efficiency, whereas free migration is.

Again, you have not answered my question. Does the centralized management of human migration increase economic prosperity?

 

[John Taylor]

I plan to stop them by disseminating a consistent philosophy of liberty, which includes free migration. You on the other hand would stop them by granting them more power over humanity. Again, Orwell comes to mind.

I never said a huge influx of labor is essential to prosperity. I only said free migration increases economic efficiency. "Huge influx of labor" and "free migration" are not necessarily the same thing. A huge influx of labor is not necessary to maximize economic efficiency, whereas free migration is.

Again, you have not answered my question. Does the centralized management of human migration increase economic prosperity?

It doesn't Jeros, but the migration of millions of people who favor expanding the welfare state into the United States DO decrease economic prosperity, and DO harm private property rights and individual freedom.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I plan to stop them by disseminating a consistent philosophy of liberty, which includes free migration. You on the other hand would stop them by granting them more power over humanity. Again, Orwell comes to mind.

I never said a huge influx of labor is essential to prosperity. I only said free migration increases economic efficiency. "Huge influx of labor" and "free migration" are not necessarily the same thing. A huge influx of labor is not necessary to maximize economic efficiency, whereas free migration is.

Again, you have not answered my question. Does the centralized management of human migration increase economic prosperity?

Our current state is massive immigration. If that is not the same as free migration, what is massive immigration, and is it good for the current population?

"Centralized" management at what level? My property? My neighborhood? My community? City? County? State? Nation? Global centralization? The standard has been set at the national level for quite a long time. And some people do agree with government (at some level) serving a limited role.

And human immigration results in increased economic prosperity for whom? I believe that labor shortages increase individual freedom and innovation, and that labor excesses do the opposite.

Ron Paul has stated that the amount of human migration should depend upon the current economic status, and that it is not static. I agree with him on that.

 

[Jeros]

It doesn't Jeros, but the migration of millions of people who favor expanding the welfare state into the United States DO decrease economic prosperity, and DO harm private property rights and individual freedom.

That's probably the only argument with any level of truth, but when analyzed thoroughly, still doesn't hold much merit. Americans are already a bunch of dependent, worthless, bleeding heart dumb asses. I doubt an influx of a population who comes here to work for a living would sway the proportions too significantly in the direction of worthlessness. If anything, the culture of hard work and familial responsibility among a great number of Mexican immigrants would tilt the proportions in our favor.

Our current state is massive immigration. If that is not the same as free migration, what is massive immigration, and is it good for the current population?

"Centralized" management at what level? My property? My neighborhood? My community? City? County? State? Nation? Global centralization? The standard has been set at the national level for quite a long time. And some people do agree with government (at some level) serving a limited role.

And human immigration results in increased economic prosperity for whom? I believe that labor shortages increase individual freedom and innovation, and that labor excesses do the opposite.

I'm sure you do not need me to define what "centralized" is, as opposed to localized, within the context of the liberty movement, though I can be more specific if you like. As I've stated, I'm not opposed to limiting immigration on all levels. Under certain conditions, it could be moral for a government to limit migration. I'm opposed to some elitists dictating who I can peacefully associate with and who can peacefully be allowed on my property.

If you do not in fact believe that free human migration results in greater economic efficiency while maximizing potential output, I would be more than happy to get into that subject. It is obviously a fundamental difference between our two positions. You've got the Buchanans on your side, I have the Rothbards on mine, but it is an extensive topic and it would be polite to start a new thread in the economics section. I bet a related one already exists!

One can argue that the current state of immigration is at inflated levels because of social programs acting as subsidies, but subsidized immigration isn't free migration either. Like I said earlier, the state creates a problem by redistributing wealth(subsidizing immigration) The ironic part is we then want the state to come in and fix the problem that they created, by allowing them to outlaw free migration and voluntary association. Why not keep it simple and kill two birds with one stone? No welfare would allow market regulated levels of immigration. Welfare is the problem. Again, the migration issue is a non-issue. It is a cop-out. It is a misdirection. The current culture war will get us nowhere.

Ron Paul has stated that the amount of human migration should depend upon the current economic status, and that it is not static. I agree with him on that.

You just promoted free migration without realizing you are agreeing with me. Well, thank you for agreeing. "Human migration dependent on economic status" (not static) is more or less a synonym for free migration. I'm willing to bet that Ron Paul believes markets effectively regulate migration.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

You just promoted free migration without realizing you are agreeing with me. Well, thank you for agreeing. "Human migration dependent on economic status" (not static) is more or less a synonym for free migration. I'm willing to bet that Ron Paul believes markets effectively regulate migration.

Maybe we do agree, let's see.

The specific economic status indicator that is important is the true unemployment numbers (and assuming there is room for more people). When a job glut occurs, then immigration can fill that need.

Ron Paul's take:

What is your view on legal immigration?

I think it depends on our economy. If we have a healthy economy, I think we could be very generous on work programs. People come in, fulfill their role and go back home.

I’m not worried about legal immigration. I think we would even have more if we had a healthy economy.

But in the meantime, we want to stop the illegals. And that’s why I don’t think our border guards should be sent to Iraq, like we’ve done. I think we need more border guards. But to have the money and the personnel, we have to bring our troops home from Iraq.

Is the economy healthy enough right now?

No. I don’t think so. I think the economy is going downhill. People are feeling pinched—in the middle, much more pinched than the government is willing to admit. Their standard of living is going down. I saw a clip on TV the other day about somebody who was about to lose their house, they couldn’t pay their mortgage. There’re millions of people involved, people are very uncertain about this housing market. That can’t be separated from concern about illegals.
...

You have a long record of being a serious libertarian. You must have libertarians who are annoyed with you on this.

I imagine there are some, because there are some who are literally don’t believe in any borders! Totally free immigration! I’ve never taken that position.

Why not?

Because I believe in national sovereignty.

 

[libertarian4321]

One thing is for sure, we are paying for anchor babies to take jobs Americans want
see http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=224183

It's kind of pathetic that any American would lose his job to an uneducated illegal who probably doesn't speak English, but anyone who loses his job to a baby is really sad.

Seriously, how many bushels of onions can a baby harvest in one day?

 

[parocks]

Yes, if US citizens wouldn't live in shacks for $5 an hour, the hourly pay would have to be raised. This whole argument about "doing jobs that Americans won't do" makes no sense to me. Americans don't want to live under shitty conditions and do difficult work for the least amount of money. So, you pay them what you need to to get them to work for you. And, yes, that'll mean the price of vegetables will go up. So people will either pay more for vegetables, or maybe grow them themselves instead of having big lawns. If you're having trouble getting people to work for you, give them a raise. It's really simple.

That would make perfect sense, assuming it didn't factor some very important factors. However I see it a bit differently.

If the illegal labor wasn't available, you'd initially have a lot of vacant farm jobs. The cost of domestically produced food would rise dramatically, only mildly suppressed by imported good goods from other nations. For domestic farms to compete, a combination of higher wages and/or progressive agriculture technique would have to be implemented.

I agree with the first post, it's a lie that legal residents, regardless of ethnicity and free from government obstruction can't or won't produce what they need to survive.

Perhaps as a side effect, people would also be less wasteful as well... I'd imagine McDonalds, BK etc wouldn't be so quick to sell volume over quality with such an unnaturally cheap food supply.

 

[torchbearer]

Yes, if US citizens wouldn't live in shacks for $5 an hour, the hourly pay would have to be raised. This whole argument about "doing jobs that Americans won't do" makes no sense to me. Americans don't want to live under shitty conditions and do difficult work for the least amount of money. So, you pay them what you need to to get them to work for you. And, yes, that'll mean the price of vegetables will go up. So people will either pay more for vegetables, or maybe grow them themselves instead of having big lawns. If you're having trouble getting people to work for you, give them a raise. It's really simple.

you really have no idea how the market works. the farmer isn't in control of the price of his crops. just because he pays his employee more doesn't mean he gets to jack up his prices. crops are on a world market, if domestic farmers can't produce their crop cheap enough to compete price-wise, he is out of business.

 

[Inflation]

Help Us Transcend the Tyranny of Borders, O Wise One!

I couldn't say for sure, but I have a feeling you are a little crazy. I also have a feeling you would agree with my analysis of your psychological state. Am I correct?

Yes, you are correct. I'm psychologically impaired. It's cruel of you to denigrate my condition by calling me "crazy."

Please, continue to inspire us as a paragon of sanity, with such Deep Thoughts like

The planet already is one. Borders are purely conceptual. They only exist on maps because we imagine them to.

Obviously, we nutbaggers that believe So-Called "borders" actually "exist" aren't worthy of being in your enlightened, studious presence.

Natural borders

Natural borders are geographical features that present natural obstacles to communication and transport. Existing political borders are often a formalization of these historical, natural obstacles.

Some geographical features that often constitute natural borders are:

* Oceans: oceans create very costly natural borders. Very few nation states span more than one continent. Only very large and resource-rich states are able to sustain the costs of governance across oceans for longer periods of time.

* Rivers: some political borders have been formalized along natural borders formed by rivers. Some examples are; the Rio Grande border (Mexico-USA), the Rhine border (France-Germany), and the Mekong border (Thailand-Laos)

* Lakes: larger lakes create natural borders. One example is the natural border created by Lake Tanganyika (Congo-Burundi-Tanzania-Zambia)

* Forests: denser djungles or forests can create strong natural borders. One example of a natural forest border is the Amazon rain forest (Colombia-Venezuela-Guyana-Brazil-Bolivia-Peru)

* Mountain ranges: research on borders suggests that mountains have especially strong effects as natural borders. Many nations in Europe and Asia have had their political borders defined along mountain ranges.

Throughout history, technological advances have reduced the costs of transport and communication across these natural borders. This has reduced the significance of natural borders over time. As a result, political borders that have been formalized more recently — such as those in Africa or America — typically conform less to natural borders than very old borders — such as those in Europe or Asia — do. States whose borders conform to natural borders are, for similar reasons, more likely to be strong nation-states.

 

[constituent]

A river is a really shitty excuse to make people travel hundreds of miles out of their way to file through your federal police's armed inspection compounds and submit their bodies and possessions for official inspection.

"Existing political borders are often a formalization of these historical, natural obstacles."

BTW, the Rio Grande has historically been a uniting factor rather than a "natural obstacle," facilitating trade from the Gulf up into the interior of the desert Southwest.

The "line in the sand" mentality didn't overtake the Rio Grande Valley until the 1930's.

 

[The Patriot]

Americans are already a bunch of dependent, worthless, bleeding heart dumb asses.

F**k you, if you hate Americans so much, why don't you move to Mexico, instead of bringing Mexico here? If you want an idea of what mexicans do, look at Mexico for starters. I don't want Los Angeles to become a socialist third world cesspool.

 

[Inflation]

Cosmic Unity is a really shitty excuse to violate Citizens' freedom of association.

A river is a really shitty excuse to make people travel hundreds of miles out of their way to file through your federal police's armed inspection compounds and submit their bodies and possessions for official inspection.

"Existing political borders are often a formalization of these historical, natural obstacles."

BTW, the Rio Grande has historically been a uniting factor rather than a "natural obstacle," facilitating trade from the Gulf up into the interior of the desert Southwest.

The "line in the sand" mentality didn't overtake the Rio Grande Valley until the 1930's.

I'm sure the French and Germans along the Rhine, along with the Thai and Laotians on the Mekong, agree with you. And always have, far back into the mists of antiquity.

It was only in the 1930's that the sudden mass hallucination of natural borders turning into inconvenient political borders sprang into people's overactive imaginations. Must have been the discovery of LSD or something!

Picture Title: Mekong river forming the border between Myanmar and Thailand

* Rivers: some political borders have been formalized along natural borders formed by rivers. Some examples are; the Rio Grande border (Mexico-USA), the Rhine border (France-Germany), and the Mekong border (Thailand-Laos)

 

[Jeros]

F**k you, if you hate Americans so much, why don't you move to Mexico, instead of bringing Mexico here? If you want an idea of what mexicans do, look at Mexico for starters. I don't want Los Angeles to become a socialist third world cesspool.

Revived! Los Angeles already is a third world cesspool. You didn't get the memo? Considering the condition of California's economy and government, I see further degradation of their living standards in the future.

You really don't think the average American is a worthless dependent socialist sympathizer? You do know people, right? You ever take a bus in any metropolitan area in the US. I know I know, some people are decent! I'm not counting on the success of any enlightened minority in the shadow of a thieving incompetent lifeless massive majority. Time will tell who is right.

p.s. I love you too.

 

[Moderate Mammal]

How about helping me to do something about the problems of Americans losing jobs to illegals?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=245695