[Video] Rand Paul on The O'Reilly Factor w/ Laura Ingraham 6/27/13

What's also simple economics though is that since the cost of production is made higher due to wages having to be raised, the price of food goes up to cover the added cost. So that's not a net benefit. But the point that everyone misses about immigration is not that we're importing people who are willing to work for cheap wages, that's actually the good part about immigration and why a lot of libertarians favor it from an economic basis. The thing is that by becoming citizens they also get the political right to vote and all the collected data shows that Hispanic immigrants overwhelmingly vote for socialism and big government. So the real harm from Mexican immigration is not the they're taking our jobs argument, it's that they're taking our freedom and prosperity away by voting it away in elections.


Farmers may wish for more farm workers, just as any of us may wish for anything we would like to have. But that is wholly different from thinking that some third party should define what we desire as a “need,” much less expect government policy to meet that “need.”

In a market economy, when farmers are seeking more farm workers, the most obvious way to get them is to raise the wage rate until they attract enough people away from alternative occupations — or from unemployment.

With the higher labor costs that this would entail, the number of workers that farmers “need” would undoubtedly be less than what it would have been if there were more workers who are available at lower wage rates, such as immigrants from Mexico.

It is no doubt more convenient and profitable to the farmers to import workers for lower pay than to pay American workers more. But bringing in more immigrants is not without costs to other Americans, including both financial costs, in a welfare state, and social costs, of which increased crime rates are just one.

Some advocates of increased immigration have raised the specter of higher food prices without foreign farm workers. But the price that farmers receive for their produce is usually a fraction of what the consumers pay at the supermarket. And what the farmers pay the farm workers is a fraction of what the farmer gets for the produce.


In other words, even if labor costs doubled, the rise in prices at the supermarket might be barely noticeable.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/350684/who-needs-immigrant-labor-thomas-sowell
 
Farmers may wish for more farm workers, just as any of us may wish for anything we would like to have. But that is wholly different from thinking that some third party should define what we desire as a “need,” much less expect government policy to meet that “need.”

In a market economy, when farmers are seeking more farm workers, the most obvious way to get them is to raise the wage rate until they attract enough people away from alternative occupations — or from unemployment.

With the higher labor costs that this would entail, the number of workers that farmers “need” would undoubtedly be less than what it would have been if there were more workers who are available at lower wage rates, such as immigrants from Mexico.

It is no doubt more convenient and profitable to the farmers to import workers for lower pay than to pay American workers more. But bringing in more immigrants is not without costs to other Americans, including both financial costs, in a welfare state, and social costs, of which increased crime rates are just one.

Some advocates of increased immigration have raised the specter of higher food prices without foreign farm workers. But the price that farmers receive for their produce is usually a fraction of what the consumers pay at the supermarket. And what the farmers pay the farm workers is a fraction of what the farmer gets for the produce.


In other words, even if labor costs doubled, the rise in prices at the supermarket might be barely noticeable.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/350684/who-needs-immigrant-labor-thomas-sowell

I agree that we shouldn't just import more people on the basis that they're willing to work for cheap and that people want to employ them. It's good that they want to be productive, but what's more important to me as a libertarian is what the political effect of making them citizens will be, are they more likely to have a positive or negative effect on liberty in the country based on the information we have about them. And in the case of Mexican/Latino immigrants the information suggests that they will have a negative effect on it.
 
Last edited:
with no welfare state the immigration policy doesn't matter. As you know we have a rather large welfare state therefore immigration becomes important. Too bad we're labeled "racists" when race has nothing to do with the situation.
 
Well with millions more legalized Latino/Mexican voters the welfare state is not in danger of ending any time soon and will likely expand.
 
Farmers may wish for more farm workers, just as any of us may wish for anything we would like to have. But that is wholly different from thinking that some third party should define what we desire as a “need,” much less expect government policy to meet that “need.”

Ha! We're not asking the government to meet the need, FAR from it. We're asking the government to stop artificially restricting it.

In a market economy, when farmers are seeking more farm workers, the most obvious way to get them is to raise the wage rate until they attract enough people away from alternative occupations — or from unemployment.

With the higher labor costs that this would entail, the number of workers that farmers “need” would undoubtedly be less than what it would have been if there were more workers who are available at lower wage rates, such as immigrants from Mexico.

It is no doubt more convenient and profitable to the farmers to import workers for lower pay than to pay American workers more. But bringing in more immigrants is not without costs to other Americans, including both financial costs, in a welfare state, and social costs, of which increased crime rates are just one.

Illegal immigrants live in the black market, of course they commit more crimes. Legalize them and that shrinks. Their economic output exceeds their welfare take. They are net benefit for the economy.


Some advocates of increased immigration have raised the specter of higher food prices without foreign farm workers. But the price that farmers receive for their produce is usually a fraction of what the consumers pay at the supermarket. And what the farmers pay the farm workers is a fraction of what the farmer gets for the produce.

So now you're making it harder to enter the farm industry for the newcomer. BIG mistake. Not everything comes from the supermarket, as there are farmers markets and CSA's. You're not looking out for the little guy.

In other words, even if labor costs doubled, the rise in prices at the supermarket might be barely noticeable.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/350684/who-needs-immigrant-labor-thomas-sowell

Sowell is being very "Luddite" with his analysis. I bet he's against technology and machinery taking over American jobs as well. He probably looks at self-checkout counters with disgust and I bet he's against the industrial revolution that abolished jobs that "Americans have been doing for generations". What a joke.


Completely incongruous argument. People are not substances. Making an artifical umbrella category of "prohibition" just doesn't get you anywhere.

So there's no prohibition on prostitution then? What do you call it, a "no-no"? You're using semantics. Economics applies to people too, not just "substances".

Dictionary Definition: "a social science concerned chiefly with description and analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services"

If you would rather have me used "workers", then fine...there ya go. Everything still stands.
 
Last edited:
He looks like a hypocrite when he was originally so concerned about the solvency of S.S. and Medicare. Well, bringing in low skilled, uneducated workers and their families en masse isn't going to save the system, aside from lining the pockets of corporate whores who exploit the immigrants during their prime years and then pawn them off to the overburdened system.

What Rand says and what he thinks privately are two different things. My guess is he could well be anti-immigration and think there's enough but he'll never admit it publicly and his plan would allow the House of Reps which is in GOP hands for the foreseeable future to vote that the border isn't secure so legalization would stop.

Rand is the type of politician to say he's all for something and for sounding reasonable even when he's not so when he takes a position against the bill he has more credibility and can argue against it.

This is why you and William getting so upset about his public statements on immigration is dumb. He's voted against this terrible bill and is trying to kill it behind the scenes. In public he's all for it and provides a soft image.
 
Last edited:
Ha! We're not asking the government to meet the need, FAR from it. We're asking the government to stop artificially restricting it.



Illegal immigrants live in the black market, of course they commit more crimes. Legalize them and that shrinks. They're economic output exceeds their welfare take. They are net benefit for the economy.




So now you're making it harder to enter the farm industry for the newcomer. BIG mistake. Not everything comes from the supermarket, as there are farmers markets and CSA's. You're not looking out for the little guy.



Sowell is being very "Luddite" with his analysis. I bet he's against technology and machinery taking over American jobs as well. He probably looks at self-checkout counters with disgust and I bet he's against the industrial revolution that abolished jobs that "Americans have been doing for generations". What a joke.




So there's no prohibition on prostitution then? What do you call it, a "no-no"? You're using semantics. Economics applies to people too, not just "substances".

Dictionary Definition: "a social science concerned chiefly with description and analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services"

If you would rather have me used "workers", then fine...there ya go. Everything still stands.


Yes with open borders to Mexicans we'll have a great robust market economy with all the added labor force for the short time before they completely vote it away and we go to socialism: Pro-Immigration Congressional Republicans Do Not Perform Better Among Latino Voters

This is the inconvenient truth about immigration.
 
Completely incongruous argument. People are not substances. Making an artifical umbrella category of "prohibition" just doesn't get you anywhere.
Your property, investments, purchases, rentals, labor, etc are all part of the market just like any other you deem "illegal". His argument is spot on.
 
Yes with open borders to Mexicans we'll have a great robust market economy with all the added labor force for the short time before they completely vote it away and we go to socialism: Pro-Immigration Congressional Republicans Do Not Perform Better Among Latino Voters

This is the inconvenient truth about immigration.

Hey dolt, open borders have nothing to do with the plebiscite. Stop conflating the two in order to make it seem like your argument has any merit. Who in the grand hell said that having free-trade (open borders) requires the plebiscite? The EU has free-trade (relatively similar to among US States) and the plebiscite isn't part of coming over the border and working.
 
Rand should save the composting talk for when he goes on The View or other simpleton programs.
 
Hey dolt, open borders have nothing to do with the plebiscite. Stop conflating the two in order to make it seem like your argument has any merit. Who in the grand hell said that having free-trade (open borders) requires the plebiscite? The EU has free-trade (relatively similar to among US States) and the plebiscite isn't part of coming over the border and working.

Oh so pathway to citizenship doesn't include voting rights? That's news to me, I guess I really must be a dolt. Show me the proof of this. Show me where it says that we're going to legalize all these immigrants but not give them voting rights.
 
Back
Top