Bitcoin Forum

So, here's a thought: Isn't the designation of "illegal" immigrant just Big Government regulating who can live where, and who can hire whom? Why aren't the GOP anti-government types realizing this? (I suspect, as with many things they believe, it's just being selectively hypocritical without realizing it)
Comments?

Except you need to be a legal citizen to even register to vote... and that illegals pay sales, payroll, social security, and real estate (indirectly through rent) taxes... and illegals not only work and contribute to the economy, but even start their own businesses and hire legals...

I stop reading when I see the label "democrat' or "republican". More people should do this. Your point may be valid but if it is framed in partisanism you don't get it.

Yea, I didn't even notice I did that because stopped reading his at GOP and moved on down the thread. I just noticed it in yours because it came earlier in the sentence. Since that is the case, I agree your point is relevant. In the future I will make an effort to just stay out of these discussions.

This is a tautology.  Can you say specifically what it is that illegals help to save?

But it's Big Government™ that defines a certain class of people as "illegal" and then prevents or exempts them from doing those things. Plus, that's like saying "I'm against government forcefully fucking everyone, BUT when it comes to illegals, I am against them because they are an example of government NOT forcefully fucking everyone, and I WANT government to forcefully fuck EVERYONE." Is your argument really that it's unfair that Big Government decides whom it should fuck, then let's some people off the hook, and those people are to blame?

It's indeed contradictory to support free markets and not support open immigration. From an economic point of view, immigration is "free commerce of labor". Exactly the same arguments that can be used to support free commerce apply to open immigration. The latter is just a specific instance of the former.

Interesting seeing this topic today. This morning I read this blog post on the subject of immigration: http://athousandnations.com/2012/05/01/economics-and-emigration-trillion-dollar-bills-on-the-sidewalk/

Sorry for the further down reply, but I only just now realized it. Are you seriously suggesting that illegals would go through the huge criminal risks of acquiring stolen identity, and then risk further exposure by using that identity just to cast one vote that in a larger scope will not make any difference anyway? Either you believe illegals REALLY love to vote despite their 1 or even 100 votes not having effect, or you didn't consider the risks involved with stealing identities and risk of being caught every time you use it. (Or you believe illegals vote in huge numbers using their stolen identities, and actually do affect election outcomes, in which case the evidence is against you)



Wow, very interesting read. Thank you!

Just so that we're all on the same page, let's review the events of the last two decades here in the US:

• 11 million illegal Mexican immigrants enter the US.
• Illegal immigrants settle mainly in Southern and Western states.
• Housing prices, mainly in Southern and Western states, skyrocket.
• Paul Krugman, noted idiot, suggests in an editorial that "The FED should create a housing bubble."
• Federal Reserve prints money, robbing American savers and foreign holders of US dollars, to funnel into building houses.
• Illegal immigrants get jobs building houses for themselves, financed by the FED.
• ...
• More illegal immigrants enter the US to get great construction jobs and houses with no-doc loans.
• ...
• Housing prices continue to rise.
• ...
• Reckless morons start taking out second mortgages and flipping houses.
• ...
• No one notices any problem.
• ...
• Peter Schiff notices a problem and starts yelling like a lunatic on cable television.
• ...
• Creditors, savers and holders of US dollars start to become concerned.
• ...
• Someone withdraws $500 billion in money market funds within a few hours.
• Credit markets freeze up.
• Economy implodes.
• Housing prices plummet.
• All large banks technically bankrupt.
• American taxpayers (not illegals!) are forced to bail them out.
• Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich (from California) testifies to Congress that the bailouts should go to "minorities" and "not white construction workers."
• Paul Krugman suggests that the FED print more money.
• ...
• FOUR YEARS AND TWELVE TRILLION MORE PRINTED DOLLARS LATER...
• the housing market still hasn't cleared,
• banks are still not lending,
• unemployment is at depression-era levels,
• Americans have lost their homes and are living in their cars,
• (even though there are 5 million empty houses
• that banks refuse to place on their balance sheets and on the market because they would be technically bankrupt again if they did)
• the illegals are still here,
• Paul Krugman still for some reason has a shred of credibility,
• and there is a noticeable lack of traitorous banksters or midget politicians swinging from lampposts.

I hope that was everything.  Did I miss anything important?

Does anyone want to tell us all again how great illegal immigrants are for the economy?

Just to confirm, is your claim that the illegal immigrants in the southern states where they settled (and not poor people in general, which is most of southern states) are responsible for the housing boom and subsequent crash in the entire country, even in states where they were not residing nor building houses?

Yes, immigrants are good for the economy. Just like free commerce.
Printing money to decrease the interest rates and thus create bubbles is not good for the economy. Trying to imply immigrants had anything to do with this mess is ridiculous. One thing has nothing to do with the other. Actually, "American voters" are more liable than people who can't even vote, if you want to go blaming innocent people (and no, I'm not saying American voters should be blamed for the Fed's actions, just showing how ridiculous your argumentation is).

And besides economics, there's ethics too. Neither you nor nobody has the right to tell who I rent my house to, who I employ in my firm etc. From your property, you may exclude people born outside some imaginary line, if you want. But not from other people's property.

+1, that's exactly how I feel when people make this ridiculous argument.

[biased anecdote from personal experience]
Where I live there are a LOT of illegal immigrants. On average they're so poor that they wouldn't pay income taxes anyways. They came here for the work, and do the heavy lifting while lazy Americans cash unemployment checks.

Ask a Mexican illegal about his love for government. Many feel powerless, that it's all just political bullshit and they're just trying to get by.
[/anecdote]

Holy frijoles, let's not pretend that Mexicans somehow just move to the US and all of the sudden magically become worthwhile employees.  That's just nonsense.  If they were worthwhile employees here, they would be worthwhile employees in Mexico.  Move your company there if you want to hire them.

The only difference between Mexican employees in Mexico and Mexican employees in the US is that they suddenly become model employees whenever the cost of their negative externalities (all the little baby Mexicans they produce) can be foisted upon the US economy and US taxpayers.

And, hell, I'm sure the average Mexican in the US with five kids in public schools does work extra hard and probably is a model employee.  He's hit the Mexican jackpot, relatively speaking.  He knows that his kids will have a great opportunity growing up in a country that re-distributes all the wealth generated by prudent, hard working non-Mexicans who spent generations saving and reproducing at a reasonable rate and living in a country that hasn't (yet) been ruined by other Mexicans, like having all the croplands over-tilled and used up and blown away while the economy is ruined by socialist politicians and money-printing populist central bankers, all in a futile effort to support his five kids and all of their five kids forever into the future...

I mean, why is it that I can't keep certain fish or grass species from foreign countries because they are too productive and reproduce at too high of a rate and crowd out and destroy the native crops.  But, when it comes to illegal invasive foreign human species, the US government not only sanctions them but actively subsidizes them to help overpopulate and crowd out existing, legal citizens.  And the same army of eco-libtards is ready to jump up and help defend this and cry about human rights, when in any other instance of some native frog or slime mold they would be chaining themselves to the native species and demanding that it be "protected".

How's that for "hypocracy?"

"Worthwhile employee" is defined by the employer, not by you. You shouldn't assume identical labor demand between countries.

What company? I'm just a random dude who keeps spending cash anonymously on whatever. ;)


So education is a positive externality when provided to the children of Americans, but a negative externality when provided to the children of Mexicans? Won't the kids grow up to be more productive Americans in either case?


It's not hypocracy if you don't consider the white American race to be a species  that needs state protection to survive.

I just can't accept your classification of "us" and "them". People are people - individuals with rights irrespective of ethnicity or national origin - and I refuse to treat them like distinct species as if they deserve this land any less than we do.

Please share your proposed method for moving an orchard, including the land it is on, to Mexico.

Sorry but not every business has a right to succeed and make a profit.  If your business can't succeed when all externalities are accounted for, it needs to be shut down.

Holy frijoles I say, how ignorant must you be to think that labor is the only factor that counts?
If these jurisdictions are poor is precisely because their laws and government suck. Not to mention lack of capital, lack of security, international barriers to commerce...


Here we see how racist you are. And ignorant again.
It's not the immigrants fault that the US government redistributes wealth. Rampant socialism is not their fault. This crappy monetary system that cripples a nation through inflation and business cycles, is not their fault.
Blame the correct targets, the real criminals, not innocents that you happen to dislike.

And by the way, why aren't you saying the same thing about the wealthy white farmers from the northern states, who also earn big bucks from unfair wealth distribution? Shouldn't you be asking for their expulsion as well, for coherence sake? Or in their case you recognize it's not their fault (even though their are allowed to vote, while immigrants are not)?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8G1HIlRppo


If the "native crops" belong to you, you should be allowed to destroy as much as you  want. Your property, you do what you want. If you're not allowed, again, that's the fault of the government, not immigrants.


Oh come on! If there's an "invasive foreign human species" in the world it's precisely the US government invading multiple countries at a time. The most violent invasive armed group of all is the US government.
Immigrants don't "invade" anything, they are voluntarily accepted by the landowners and employers who shelter and employ them. Quite different from what US soldiers do worldwide.

And pray tell what those negative externalities are?

Lol, this must be a bad joke.  Of course it's an economic benefit for Mexico to export their excess population to other countries.  The point is that it's not an economic benefit for the victims of Mexican mass migration who have to expend resources to support and educate them and their unsustainable reproductive practices indefinitely into the future.

...because they don't re-distribute wealth in order to support the irresponsible, or because they ran out of wealthy people to rob?

Which is the fault of no one but Mexicans.  Unlike, say, Iran or North Korea, no one singles out Mexico in order to impede commerce.  In fact it's completely the opposite.  Mexico is almost totally subsidized by NAFTA and the US.  We're not responsible for your inept government.  Fix it yourselves.

As for "security," you're welcome to take Eric Holder to the Hague as far as I'm concerned, but that's mostly a Mexican issue as well.

Ad hominem attacks, the hallmark of a losing argument.

You're right.  I'm just pointing out that they benefit from this theft.

Because the topic is "illegal immigrants," not "yankee socialists."


I'm sure if you ask the Army they would tell you that it's the same.  Regardless, the US military is not the topic at hand.  Besides, there's lots of historical evidence that prosecuting US foreign wars is actually aided by illegal Mexican immigration.


Yes, for exactly the same reason that opening your refrigerator door doesn't actually cool your house.

So because the Mexican government does bad things, the consequences are the fault of "the Mexicans", even unwilling individuals leaving the country?

That sounds like it should be really insightful but I still don't understand. Would you please explain that by either
A) Heavily elaborating your analogy
B) Describing it using economics, not thermodynamics (strongly preferred)

+1

Niether party is doing what is best for the country. 

Illegals greatly contribute to the economy by allowing small business access to cheap labor.  While illegals do commit crimes they do so at a lower rate then the average for fear that they will be deported. They help balance SS by contributing without drawing benefits.   

On the eastern shore of Maryland there is Still an ongoing labor shortage exasperated by government sting operations against farmers.   In this case the government is working against the economy and FOOD SECURITY.

I guess I got my question answered: racism, bigotry, nationalism, and jingoism are blinding.

You know, misquoting me with condescending "scare quotes" doesn't really make me want to explain anything to you.  I'm not picking on Mexicans because I hate them, or because I'm racist.  I'm picking on Mexicans because it's an extremely accessible, modern example of complete across-the-board government failure that the "free market" would not necessarily have prevented.

Attempting to frame the debate the way most people in this thread have, with simplistic either-or scenarios buttressed by baseless emotional accusations and mindless political correctness, completely sidesteps the basic facts.  If you can't handle the facts of illegal immigration, don't make a thread about it and don't post in one.

In fact, it kind of makes me want to take a closer look at some of the other dumb things you've said.  For instance...


Can you think of a reason that most Mexicans are "just trying to get by?"  Have you really drank the Kool-Aid and believe that Mexicans are all just really hard-working and responsible and that if it weren't for the evil Mexican government, they would have stayed in Mexico and been hard working and responsible there?

I'll give you a hint:  Mexican immigrants to the US overwhelmingly have more children here than they would have if they had stayed in Mexico, which is still far beyond replacement.  Do you think you could extrapolate that into the future a few generations and take a guess at the reason that Mexico is bursting at the seams with impoverished, low-wage workers desperate to leave?

I mean, it doesn't require differential equations or anything.  It's just social science...


Let's put it this way:  If you see the neighbor kid lighting matches in the back alley, and you decide to deed your house over to him and move a mile away, you can't claim to be less responsible when he burns down the neighborhood.  You're more responsible.


Rassah, you don't seem to be interested in having a discussion.  You seem to be interested in throwing out some poorly-considered, one-sided assertions and then attacking anyone who doesn't agree with them, as though the brainfart in your OP were some sort of brilliantly insightful revelation you just had to share with the world.

I'll answer your questions when you answer mine.

My original question was in regards to how do those who rail against big government and government regulations reconcile the fact that the status of "legal" or "illegal" is defined by the government, and the government regulates whether we can employ or house illegals.
In respect to big government, regulations, and free markets, it doesn't matter what illegals contribute to the economy; just that they can, and no one should be able to make them not. Nor, of course, should anyone be forced to support them if they don't.
As for what they help to save, what do you mean by "save?"

Then the simple answer is that this is not just a function of "big" government.  It's a function of even the smallest government:  to defend the populace against external threats.  And since global or universal governments are wildly impractical, that will not change any time soon.  But I'm not an anarchist, so I really can't tell you what those who rail against small government think.


Yes, which is an unfortunate consequence of the particular wealth redistribution policies preferred in the US and other countries.  Yet as I pointed out, these policies favor immigrants by redistributing wealth away from natives and into the market.  So if you want to get rid of them, you'd probably end up with much less economic incentive to employ or house illegals anyways and the point would be near moot.  But, hey, I'm all for it.  It's just a bigger job than you think.


But they can also take away from the economy, which is the reason they are regulated.  And since, for completely undocumented immigrants, it takes at least a generation to determine whether they are likely to be a net gain or a net loss, they should be heavily regulated.


Regardless of whether you are forced to support them, you are forced to compete with them.  And this has almost the exact same effect, potentially even a total race to the bottom in terms of living standards in the case of completely unrestrained immigration from actively malicious or totally failed foreign states.  But like I said, feel free to change this by starting with the biggest government of all, the FED.


I mean what resources are saved?  That's what "economy" means -- savings.

You've been brainwashed by FED propaganda into believing that "economy" is synonymous with "consumption".  That's the official line.  It's built into the GDP.  That's how the talking heads can say with a straight face that spending, and debt, and warfare and immigration are all "good for the economy."  Well, they aren't.  That's nonsense and if you're going to repeat it, you should back it up.

::)


So please forgive me if when I read this...

... It looks an awful lot like this...
:o

Face it, you're fighting against Mexican immigrants because of the actions of two governments - one that they don't want to be a part of, and one that will forcefully deport them if they speak up.

And you think Rassah is the brainwashed one.

I'm genuinely curious where you got the idea that I believe such a thing? I believe that "economy" is "production." Not consumption, and definitely not "savings." What gave you the idea I thought that way?

Oh, well in that case there's no such thing as net "production" in a free market or in most (all?) mixed-economies.  It's an illusion.  There are only different rates of consumption.

http://ej.iop.org/images/1751-8121/41/31/312003/Full/jpa280646fig01.jpg