Stephen:A human being may be a producer, but they may also be a parasite. Migration is more than just the movement of labour. While it may lead to an intensification and extensification of the division of labour, it may also lead to its disintegration.
Ofcoarse it adds increased incentive to move to the US. So get rid of welfare. Whats the problem? Again this isnt' a problem with immigration, it's a problem with welfare.
From the sounds of it you folks don't want immigrants here, but you have discovered that they come here specifically for welfare. Despite the fact that recent studies have not shown this, why don't you eat your own medicine and start attacking welfare, as opposed to immigrants?
Stephen:I highly recommend Peter Brimelow's Alien Nation. He goes through various aspects and consequences of the issue. I found his analysis radical, reasonable, and alarming.
Not everyone.
Mises and Rothbard are both slightly wrong. "Immigration" is a concept within the concept "nation" of crossing an imaginary geographical line. There is nothing else to it. The only just reason to stop someone from crossing an imaginary line not delineating property is if he intends to support criminal activity. However, if a person intends to support criminal activity, his location is irrelevent to any action that should be taken against him. Arguing the justice of stopping immigration is like arguing the justice of stopping a burglar from stepping over a crack in the sidewalk on the way to your house. So, Rothbard's mistake IIRC is missing the caveat and Mises' mistake is referring to imaginary lines.
Caley McKibbin: Mises and Rothbard are both slightly wrong. "Immigration" is a concept within the concept "nation" of crossing an imaginary geographical line. There is nothing else to it. The only just reason to stop someone from crossing an imaginary line not delineating property is if he intends to support criminal activity. However, if a person intends to support criminal activity, his location is irrelevent to any action that should be taken against him. Arguing the justice of stopping immigration is like arguing the justice of stopping a burglar from stepping over a crack in the sidewalk on the way to your house. So, Rothbard's mistake IIRC is missing the caveat and Mises' mistake is referring to imaginary lines.
Who rightfully owns public property? Only the taxpayers. So that imaginary line is to a large extent a property boundary.
Stephen: Who rightfully owns public property? Only the taxpayers. So that imaginary line is to a large extent a property boundary.
Except that large amounts of 'public property' are in fact unowned parcels of land that haven't been homesteaded.
filc: Stephen:A human being may be a producer, but they may also be a parasite. Migration is more than just the movement of labour. While it may lead to an intensification and extensification of the division of labour, it may also lead to its disintegration. Ofcoarse it adds increased incentive to move to the US. So get rid of welfare. Whats the problem? Again this isnt' a problem with immigration, it's a problem with welfare. From the sounds of it you folks don't want immigrants here, but you have discovered that they come here specifically for welfare. Despite the fact that recent studies have not shown this, why don't you eat your own medicine and start attacking welfare, as opposed to immigrants?
Welfare is not the only problem. And the welfare-state does not refer just to public assistance.
Democracy causes racial and ethnic conflict in non-homogeneous societies. With a high level of immigration from a variety of ethnic backgrounds, the potential for a Balkan-style breakup and genocide is drastically increased.There is also a possibility that some of the southern states may succeed and join Mexico.
Immigrants consume social services that rightfully belong to taxpayers; Especially medical and education services.
The immigration of large numbers of 'visible minorities' combined with affirmative action leads to high levels of income and occupation redistribution.
Migration of a high crime population to a low crime population tends to raise the level of crime in the latter.
I believe that while the welfare state exacerbates the immigration problem, it is not solely responsible for it. In the absence of the welfare state there would still be a need for migration controls.
Sure I'm being over simplistic here but that is ultimately the problem your describing. Immigrants and welfare. This is predominantly an issue in California for example. Probably one of the reasons that state is so bankrupt.
Still immigrants have less of a domestic democratic voice then you think. Byzantine thinks that immigrants come here and vote for more welfare or at least to keep it. The truth is the vast majority of immigrants don't vote. It's middle income comfortable america that has installed welfare, not the immigrants. It's middle income comfortable america that has perpetuated it's growth. Need I remind you that latin american citizen's are still a minority in this country?
If you wanted to address the issue we'd be addressing the issue of welfare. The process of migrating labor to our country brings a great deal of wealth to this country. If we eliminated the costs of welfare from those people they would be a huge net benefit. Let me put it in short.
Benefit = Productivity - Welfare
Stephen: I believe that while the welfare state exacerbates the immigration problem, it is not solely responsible for it. In the absence of the welfare state there would still be a need for migration controls.
Why?
Stephen:Who rightfully owns public property? Only the taxpayers. So that imaginary line is to a large extent a property boundary.
I don't think that holds up. If someone robs me and buys a house, I'm don't become the rightful owner of the house. Similarly, if I don't authorize the use of my money to acquire "public property", then it can hardly be called mine. I didn't gain from a purchase; I was wronged by theft.
Josh Hanson: If someone robs me and buys a house, I'm don't become the rightful owner of the house.
Yes you do.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Wow, alot of replies.
Michelangelo: Stephen: Who rightfully owns public property? Only the taxpayers. So that imaginary line is to a large extent a property boundary. Except that large amounts of 'public property' are in fact unowned parcels of land that haven't been homesteaded.
Ok, yes. With that one exception, public property is taxpayer owned.
@ filc.
I really don't know much about it. I would have to study voting patterns in some depth before I could make any firm arguments. But I am willing to concede the point. Even if they don't vote, they're a walking advertisement for the welfare state.
Most of the wealth that is produced by the immigrants is enjoyed by the immigrants. The productivity benefits for the host population are low in the U.S. These benefits come at tremendous cost: There is a loss of national identity that needs to be considered, the possible future loss of sovereignty over U.S. territory, the possibility of ethnic conflict, an increase of crime in many areas. All of the productivity benefits could be gained through free trade and foreign investment. If the goal is productivity gains, the immigration policy should try to select for skilled immigrants instead of adopting a policy of national quotas and family reunification.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: Stephen: I believe that while the welfare state exacerbates the immigration problem, it is not solely responsible for it. In the absence of the welfare state there would still be a need for migration controls. Why?
For the same reason you don't let just anybody into your home. Some people are a security risk. Others are just undesirable for reasons that have purely to do with your personal preferences.
Josh Hanson: Stephen:Who rightfully owns public property? Only the taxpayers. So that imaginary line is to a large extent a property boundary. I don't think that holds up. If someone robs me and buys a house, I'm don't become the rightful owner of the house. Similarly, if I don't authorize the use of my money to acquire "public property", then it can hardly be called mine. I didn't gain from a purchase; I was wronged by theft.
If someone robs you and buys a house, you have a right to get your money back. If they don't have money to pay you back, it seems to me, you have a right to seize their personal assets as a means to reclaim your original property. I was not arguing that the thief is somehow your agent and is acting in proxy. It's just the second best method of restitution.
Property is defined as exclusive decision making power over an object. "Public" means non-exclusive. Thus, "public property" is really "no property", a "free-for-all".
Public property is used figuratively, here. If we were being literal, we would say, private property in the possession of state agents.
Roads and airports are whose property?
Caley McKibbin: Roads and airports are whose property?
Rightfully, the taxpayers.Non-taxpayers have no claim to it at all. Landowners may have an easement right so they are not landlocked. If two taxpayers desire the same public property, the first to repossess it should be aloud to own it (analogous to original appropriation over nature given resources).The limit of repossession that a taxpayer is allowed is is the market value of the assets he is seizing may not exceed the amount of taxes he's paid on net plus interest.
I've been meaning to write something on this for a while.
Does that clear it up?
Stephen: If two taxpayers desire the same public property, the first to repossess it should be aloud to own it (analogous to original appropriation over nature given resources).The limit of repossession that a taxpayer is allowed is is the market value of the assets he is seizing may not exceed the amount of taxes he's paid on net plus interest.
If two taxpayers desire the same public property, the first to repossess it should be aloud to own it (analogous to original appropriation over nature given resources).The limit of repossession that a taxpayer is allowed is is the market value of the assets he is seizing may not exceed the amount of taxes he's paid on net plus interest.
That doesn't work. You can't compare original appropriation to restitution or bankruptcy. In the first case there is no conflict when something is appropriated, in the latter cases the appropriation results from a conflict. It has to be settled by a bankruptcy judge who must decide how to liquidate and split the assets to the best of his abilities so that the parties that have been robbed can recover as much of their property as possible.
Stephen: For the same reason you don't let just anybody into your home. Some people are a security risk. Others are just undesirable for reasons that have purely to do with your personal preferences.
This doesn't really seem like a good reason. So far, our protective efforts on the border have seemed ineffective at best.
Stephen:Most of the wealth that is produced by the immigrants is enjoyed by the immigrants.
The entire housing bubble was built by immigrants. So your previous statement is wrong.
Stephen:The productivity benefits for the host population are low in the U.S. These benefits come at tremendous cost: There is a loss of national identity that needs to be considered, the possible future loss of sovereignty over U.S. territory, the possibility of ethnic conflict, an increase of crime in many areas.
National sovereignty is something you are concerned with but adds no real value to anything. The latter point about crime is a common fear tactic but the stats don't support it.
Stephen:All of the productivity benefits could be gained through free trade and foreign investment. If the goal is productivity gains, the immigration policy should try to select for skilled immigrants instead of adopting a policy of national quotas and family reunification.
The market picks skilled laborers on its own. Having a committee do it opens the path for corruption and calculation errors. A committee will not know who is the most efficient at building A frame's on a house.
Stephen:For the same reason you don't let just anybody into your home
But my home is my property. The land bordering the Rio Grande is not. The statement is also non-sequitur. You gained your home and your property by trading and purchasing. But you want an artificial line drawn so that others cannot do the same.
If isolation benefits us so much why don't we lock down cities as well? No new comers in each city and restrict people from moving about.
Stephen: Josh Hanson: Stephen:Who rightfully owns public property? Only the taxpayers. So that imaginary line is to a large extent a property boundary. I don't think that holds up. If someone robs me and buys a house, I'm don't become the rightful owner of the house. Similarly, if I don't authorize the use of my money to acquire "public property", then it can hardly be called mine. I didn't gain from a purchase; I was wronged by theft. If someone robs you and buys a house, you have a right to get your money back. If they don't have money to pay you back, it seems to me, you have a right to seize their personal assets as a means to reclaim your original property. I was not arguing that the thief is somehow your agent and is acting in proxy. It's just the second best method of restitution.
I think you missed his point Stephen. He is explaining how public property is not property and is not owned by the public. If it were ownership you'd have the option to sell your share at the very least. In our situation public property is ownership by way of compulsion.
@ Stranger
I decided to start a new thread to discuss this topic, here.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: Stephen: For the same reason you don't let just anybody into your home. Some people are a security risk. Others are just undesirable for reasons that have purely to do with your personal preferences. This doesn't really seem like a good reason. So far, our protective efforts on the border have seemed ineffective at best.
It seems like a good reason to me. The protective efforts are a failure because the ruling class is not interested in keeping illegal immigrants out of the U.S.
@ filc
I'm gonna have to do some research and find some statistics. I think I'm right, but its going to take some time before I can back it up. If I can't find anything, I'll concede the points.
You're wrong about national self-determination. Ethnic conflict is enormously disruptive to economic performance.
filc:The market picks skilled laborers on its own. Having a committee do it opens the path for corruption and calculation errors. A committee will not know who is the most efficient at building A frame's on a house.
We don't have a market for imported labour.
filc:If isolation benefits us so much why don't we lock down cities as well? No new comers in each city and restrict people from moving about.
Every city should be allowed to set it's own standards for admittance.
Stephen: It seems like a good reason to me. The protective efforts are a failure because the ruling class is not interested in keeping illegal immigrants out of the U.S.
Well, it actually probably has more to do with the cost of border surveillance, the length of our border and the amount of immigrants which cross it per year. Within any given budget, the border will remain permeable, because we simply cannot afford the capital nor the manpower to have one hundred percent efficiency.
That said, what persons have constituted a security risk? Timothy McVeigh was an American. Zacarias Moussaoui is a French citizen, and therefore could visit the United States based on traveling agreements between the United States and the European Union. All the 9/11 hijackers, except one, obtained U.S. Visas. The one who didn't never entered the United States (Ramzi Binalshibh). It goes to show that those who want to harm the United States usually come in by legal means, not illegally.
Your argument does not hold water. The only result of closing the borders to immigration would be a capping of potential productivity: Want to Shrink the Economy? Limit the Labor Force.
If this was true, then they wouldn't be hired.
Byzantine:The capital-owning class has the means to insulate itself from the effects of importing millions of low-IQ individuals.
I would venture to say that this is a mischaracterization. I know many immigrants who are not low-IQ at all, but merely don't speak enough english to do more than "hang drywall". I even know a (legal) Mexican doctor who speaks perfect english, but has to work low-income jobs because she doesn't have the appropriate licenses to practice in the US.
Byzantine: Public utilities, welfare and civil rights laws mean that importers of labour can privatize the profits and socialize the costs. The capital-owning class has the means to insulate itself from the effects of importing millions of low-IQ individuals. How do you think the Kennedys would react to a bunch of Guatemalans coming on Martha's Vineyard for any purpose other than hanging drywall?
Public utilities, welfare and civil rights laws mean that importers of labour can privatize the profits and socialize the costs. The capital-owning class has the means to insulate itself from the effects of importing millions of low-IQ individuals. How do you think the Kennedys would react to a bunch of Guatemalans coming on Martha's Vineyard for any purpose other than hanging drywall?
If you follow the exchange back to the original post, we are assuming the lack of a welfare state. As already mentioned in the first few posts, a free immigration policy requires the dismantling of the welfare state. Also, I will reiterate the views of the above post: immigrants do not have low IQs. I think you mean low skill-sets, which is completely different (and even then, still incorrect).
Finally, I'm not sure what this even means:
How do you think the Kennedys would react to a bunch of Guatemalans coming on Martha's Vineyard for any purpose other than hanging drywall?
Stephen:We don't have a market for imported labour.
Then explain why we are outsourcing and importing labor. Microsoft requests more work visa's every year because they consistently have a difficult time filling the labor domestically. In some cases it's not even
Stephen:Every city should be allowed to set it's own standards for admittance.
How about every individual should be allowed to set his/her own standards for whom they voluntary trade with?
It's entirely off topic but an IQ exam is a superficial way of representing worthy competency or performance. IQ tests will never be able to measure work ethic and various skill sets. It may be able to identify someone's mathamatic abilities, memorization abilities and so on and so forth. But such vague statistics tell us nothing about the individuals character and overall ability.
In short, IQ tests are a joke.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:Well, it actually probably has more to do with the cost of border surveillance, the length of our border and the amount of immigrants which cross it per year. Within any given budget, the border will remain permeable, because we simply cannot afford the capital nor the manpower to have one hundred percent efficiency.
Alien-Nation pp.236-236: My own response to the spectacle on the border: mounting irritation with the immigration enthusiasts who insist dogmatically, gloatingly that the illegal influx cannot be controlled. Quite obviously, it can - especially by the country that put a man on the moon. What is missing is not the way. It is the will. The border patrol has fewer than four thousand officers. The service is so underfunded that it cannot field enough vehicles for the officers it does have. They have to chase illegals on foot, trying to follow directions called to them over the radio by the by the infrared-scope operator. (And there's only one such scope.) They are so hemmed about with regulations that, for example, your young Border Patrol guide will calmly turn his jeep out of the immediate battle zone for a few minutes, onto the I-5 freeway, and immediately point out squads of illegals marching brazenly northward on the hard shoulder. The illegals know that arrest attempts have been forbidden there, supposedly for fear of accidents. Incredibly, as late as 1991 there was not even a frontier fence in the San Diego sector, nor any lights. Illegals drove across the border in vehicles, several abreast. The U.S. government had to be literally shamed into action: Muriel Watson, a Border Patrol officer's widow, organized a monthly demonstration whereby enraged private citizens began driving to the border at night and simultaneously switching on their cars' headlights. After her fourth "Light Up the Border" demonstration, Watson was interviewed on Roger Hedgecock's top-rated radio talk show on San Diego's KSDO and achieved national fame. Yet seeing the border also brings home how easy securing it could be. The new nineteen-mile fence from the coast - a clumsy metal barrier, you can see where the illegals dig under it daily like raccoons - ends in the Otay Mesa, a cruel-looking desert wall. This is terrain you could die in. Some illegals have. Only and estimated 200 to 250 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border are thought to be passable at all. The problem is far from infinite. Similarly, when the dogs start barking in the houses just below while you are watching through the infrared scope, you can actually see the ghostly illegals and their guides filing down the canyons suddenly hesitate and stop. Which provokes a simple question: Why doesn't the Border Patrol use dogs? This shocks your young guide. "Have you ever seen a police dog in a crowd?" he says. He thinks the solution, reasonably enough, is the hire more Border Patrol officers. Well, yes. But, thinking about his reaction, several questions occur. Such as: why is it acceptable to use police dogs on American citizens but not on foreign invaders? And: the dogs don't have to eat the illegals. They could be trained differently, to hold them - or just to track the. But the real answer is something your guide has told you earlier. The illegals (or at least their professional smugglers) are acutely attuned to U.S. Border Patrol activities. They ever time their crossings to coincide with the duty shifts of officers they regard as lazy. ... ... Mexican-American ingenuity may be in better shape. In late 1993, El Paso Border Patrol sector chief Silvestre Reyes organized "Operation Blockade," deploying as many of his agents as possible right on the border around the clock. The aim was to deter illegals from entering, rather than intercepting them after entry - the standard Border Patrol procedure, whether to economize on force or because only big apprehension numbers scare money out of Congress. It worked. Apprehensions, a proxy for illegal border crossings, fell by three quarters or more. Crimes in which illegal immigrants specialize also fell - auto theft was down by half.
My own response to the spectacle on the border: mounting irritation with the immigration enthusiasts who insist dogmatically, gloatingly that the illegal influx cannot be controlled. Quite obviously, it can - especially by the country that put a man on the moon. What is missing is not the way. It is the will.
The border patrol has fewer than four thousand officers. The service is so underfunded that it cannot field enough vehicles for the officers it does have. They have to chase illegals on foot, trying to follow directions called to them over the radio by the by the infrared-scope operator. (And there's only one such scope.) They are so hemmed about with regulations that, for example, your young Border Patrol guide will calmly turn his jeep out of the immediate battle zone for a few minutes, onto the I-5 freeway, and immediately point out squads of illegals marching brazenly northward on the hard shoulder. The illegals know that arrest attempts have been forbidden there, supposedly for fear of accidents.
Incredibly, as late as 1991 there was not even a frontier fence in the San Diego sector, nor any lights. Illegals drove across the border in vehicles, several abreast. The U.S. government had to be literally shamed into action: Muriel Watson, a Border Patrol officer's widow, organized a monthly demonstration whereby enraged private citizens began driving to the border at night and simultaneously switching on their cars' headlights. After her fourth "Light Up the Border" demonstration, Watson was interviewed on Roger Hedgecock's top-rated radio talk show on San Diego's KSDO and achieved national fame.
Yet seeing the border also brings home how easy securing it could be. The new nineteen-mile fence from the coast - a clumsy metal barrier, you can see where the illegals dig under it daily like raccoons - ends in the Otay Mesa, a cruel-looking desert wall. This is terrain you could die in. Some illegals have. Only and estimated 200 to 250 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border are thought to be passable at all. The problem is far from infinite.
Similarly, when the dogs start barking in the houses just below while you are watching through the infrared scope, you can actually see the ghostly illegals and their guides filing down the canyons suddenly hesitate and stop. Which provokes a simple question: Why doesn't the Border Patrol use dogs?
This shocks your young guide. "Have you ever seen a police dog in a crowd?" he says. He thinks the solution, reasonably enough, is the hire more Border Patrol officers.
Well, yes. But, thinking about his reaction, several questions occur. Such as: why is it acceptable to use police dogs on American citizens but not on foreign invaders? And: the dogs don't have to eat the illegals. They could be trained differently, to hold them - or just to track the.
But the real answer is something your guide has told you earlier. The illegals (or at least their professional smugglers) are acutely attuned to U.S. Border Patrol activities. They ever time their crossings to coincide with the duty shifts of officers they regard as lazy.
...
Mexican-American ingenuity may be in better shape. In late 1993, El Paso Border Patrol sector chief Silvestre Reyes organized "Operation Blockade," deploying as many of his agents as possible right on the border around the clock. The aim was to deter illegals from entering, rather than intercepting them after entry - the standard Border Patrol procedure, whether to economize on force or because only big apprehension numbers scare money out of Congress.
It worked. Apprehensions, a proxy for illegal border crossings, fell by three quarters or more. Crimes in which illegal immigrants specialize also fell - auto theft was down by half.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:That said, what persons have constituted a security risk? Timothy McVeigh was an American. Zacarias Moussaoui is a French citizen, and therefore could visit the United States based on traveling agreements between the United States and the European Union. All the 9/11 hijackers, except one, obtained U.S. Visas. The one who didn't never entered the United States (Ramzi Binalshibh). It goes to show that those who want to harm the United States usually come in by legal means, not illegally.
The U.S. should restrict immigration from countries where is is currently intervening or has done so recently, just to mitigate the risk of blowback. It should also avoid taking on immigrants who are at a high risk of engaging in criminal activity.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:Your argument does not hold water. The only result of closing the borders to immigration would be a capping of potential productivity: Want to Shrink the Economy? Limit the Labor Force.
Productivity benefits can for the most part be obtained just as easily by free trade, without all of the hazards that come with mass immigration.
filc: Stephen:We don't have a market for imported labour. Then explain why we are outsourcing and importing labor. Microsoft requests more work visa's every year because they consistently have a difficult time filling the labor domestically. In some cases it's not even
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: We don't have a market for imported labour. If this was true, then they wouldn't be hired.
I should have worded this differently. It is not the case that the market is deciding entrance requirements for immigrants. Profit and loss don't enter into it. What I was arguing was that if you have a bureaucracy deciding who gets in, it would be better if its goals were based on selecting for skill sets instead of family reunification and national quotas.
filc: Stephen:Every city should be allowed to set it's own standards for admittance. How about every individual should be allowed to set his/her own standards for whom they voluntary trade with?
But then you end up with "Free trade and Restricted Immigration", not "Free Immigration and Forced Integration".
Stephen: <snip>
<snip>
That didn't really address my points:
Stephen: The U.S. should restrict immigration from countries where is is currently intervening or has done so recently, just to mitigate the risk of blowback. It should also avoid taking on immigrants who are at a high risk of engaging in criminal activity.
This is really ambiguous, since race-based violence is often fueled by U.S. government-induced poverty (economic regulations, et cetera), not by their race.
This is not true, and doesn't address the fact that national productivity increases as the labor pool increases. In any case, free movement is just as much a part of free globalization as open borders. Indeed, free movement and open borders should be considered one in the same.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: Immigration and increasing the pool of labor increases productivity, and so it is not desirable to shut off immigration.
It increases the productivity of capital, not of labor (which is decreased), and it creates other social costs.
Stephen: I should have worded this differently. It is not the case that the market is deciding entrance requirements for immigrants. Profit and loss don't enter into it. What I was arguing was that if you have a bureaucracy deciding who gets in, it would be better if its goals were based on selecting for skill sets instead of family reunification and national quotas.
Obviously, the problem is bureaucracy. The solution is not changing the face of this bureaucracy, but removing it altogether.
Stranger: It increases the productivity of capital, not of labor (which is decreased), and it creates other social costs.
I never said it increases the "productivity of labor" (and I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this; do you mean marginal productivity of labor?). What social costs? Do you mean welfare? I think I've already said it three times in this thread; we are assuming a lack of the welfare state.
Increased labor does increase productivity. Capital aside. This is the fundamental premise of the division of labor and of Ricardo's law. 4 hands are better then 2.
2 men can produce more efficiently then 1.