"Meanwhile the rest of us pay the costs that farmers don't"
One way or the other, yes. I'm happy to sell you a $40 hamburger. I think our politicians behave the way they do for economic reasons; we spend about 9% of our income on food (third world nations average about 60%). To upset this balance will cause us to spend more on subsistence and less on the other junk that drives our economy (read depression like conditions). Bad politically speaking as most people have no problem spending the balance of their income on frivolous entertainment. This is also why freenig trade is important to the politicians, let the thrid world feed us, keep the illegals at home, free farm land up for open space, control property more, etc.
What bothers me is I consider our self reliance on food a BIG national security issue. We get weird when oil is threatened, imagine the food supply threatened.
Sorry Rey, but I think there are a few holes in your argument. 1) We now export food - we have excess capacity for our needs. 2) We now produce enough oil to produce food for ourselves - it would be tough, but "do-able." And time favors changeover to other fuels. 3) I am already paying the rest of the cost of the hamburger in taxes. I want to know what it really costs me so I can come up with alternatives, if I find the cost too high. I also want others to pay for what they use, and I only want to pay for what I use, I don't want to subsidize them. 4) As far as free trade goes I agree with you. In the mean time the finances in our schools, hospitals and jails will improve without the presence of illegal immigrants. In net, the tradeoffs for American citizens are in favor of sending illegal immigrants home.
Only takes one illegal terr perp in the fields or food processing facilities to spread a deadly bio weapon.
But if we continue to allow illegal immigration, WE will become a third world nation and then we will pay 60% of our income for food.