Replies

I know you are against freedom. As you seek to try to undermine the case for free voluntary exchange between people based on artificial imaginary geographic concepts.

By this standard, I suppose that you are also opposed to all restrictions on immigration. Immigration is, after all, the movement of people willing to work to areas where employers are willing to hire them. Immigration controls and restrictions are, then, a mechanism to restrict the "free voluntary exchange between people based on artificial geographic concepts."

Why not post a vanity to that effect? Please ping me when you do.

Actually I am of the view that vanities should be used sparely here. But I certainly do agree that if people want to move from Michigan to Houston or Mexico to Houston to better themselves they should be free to do so.

Now a big social welfare program can cause a problem, so I favor a 10 or 15 year period of residency before eligiblity for certain welfare programs. You might notice one of the new institutions that many countries have that did not exist in Ricardo's days is a guest worker program. And President Bush has proposed a type of such a program here.

So the bottom line is yes I favor freedom. Sorry you do not. The US does not have nearly the percentage immigration now that it has had in its history. That helped build the US. The problem now IF THERE IS ONE is Dim trying to Balkanize various groups including immigrants and of course setting up a social welfare system that attracts immigrants for reasons other than productivity.

BTW, free trade is a winning nation issue. Every President from Carter to Reagan to G.H.W. Bush to Clinton to G.W. Bush have basically been free traders and worked to reduce tariffs through GATT/WTO and regional arraingements. It is a winning stance electorally nationally and it is a winning stance for the economy.