NO AMNESTY FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS
Contact Your Representatives and RINO Senators
Click Here to Find Your Reps
Toll Free Numbers
(888) 355-3588
(877) 762-8762
Posted on 04/03/2006 12:16:03 PM PDT by Rockitz
NO AMNESTY FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS
Contact Your Representatives and RINO Senators
Click Here to Find Your Reps
Toll Free Numbers
(888) 355-3588
(877) 762-8762
You got it right. Bush should tell Fox and his cronies to provide some opportunities for their people--in Mexico! All of these "La Raza" and "reconquista" protesters should be asked why we should put up with their claims to our country, when Mexico is such a miserable failure.
bttt
Make the 10-12 million illegals return to Mexico. Their country would collapse within a week through revolution.
bump
An ad hominem put in a reasonable tone of voice is still an ad hominem. Consider it ignored.
Your arguments do ring shallow.
"Ring shallow"? An argument is valid or invalid. If it's invalid, identify the error.
There is a very big advantage for Mexico getting rid of it's most impoverished.
That answers my earlier question: you actually do believe that eliminating the poorest N% of the population confers and economic advantage.
The prospect of massive political unrest is something that Mexico's elite want to avoid at all costs.
You've finally said something that might contain the germ of a serious argument. You need to build on it a little, though. You appear to be claiming that there is a serious danger that seething masses will rise up and overthrow the existing government of Mexico, and that influential Mexicans are attempting to prevent this by sending would-be revolutionaries to the US. That will take some proving, but you've at least articulated a claim.
You are a like most libertarians, which tend to be little more than inverted Marxists.
Another ad hominem. Also ignored. I include it here lest anyone mistake the level of rational discourse you're engaging in.
More crap. Again, you have this absolutely myopic understanding of modern economics.
More ad hominem. If I have misunderstood economics in some fundamental way, state the error with proof.
A greater and greater volume of people will translate into greater and greater economic output. False.
Straw man. I made no such claim. This is becoming a pattern: the only points you manage--or even try--to disprove are the ones I never made in the first place.
I've stated before (on previous threads) that even the Libertarians' favorite immigration authority, the late Dr. Julian Simon understood the dubious nature of the open borders argument.
Appeal to authority. Also ignored. Your post has been replete with logical fallacies, I point out. Your favorite is ad hominem; your second favorite the straw man; your third favorite the appeal to authority.
He called this principle the "negative human capital externalities". Massive poverty itself one of the underlying causes of the NHCE's.
Appeal to authority again.
You do a poor job of explaining so-called "negative human-capital externalities." Essentially, Simon claims that a point is reached at which costs of assimilation--such as language training, and infrastructure to support immigration itself--outweighs the benefits from immigration. A good illustration is the notion that putting lots of kids with discipline problems in one classroom has a negative impact on teaching, because too much time and effort is consumed maintaining discipline. The notion is certainly intuitively appealing, though it requires more thorough justification than simply intoning the phrase "negative human-capital externalities" as if it proved something by itself.
However, let's grant that such externalities are very real. This is not in any way an argument against immigration: it is the proof that even with open borders, immigration is self-limiting. If the benefit to be gained from immigration is less than the cost of immigration itself, then one will not immigrate. Note that these costs must be born by the immigrants themselves, since everyone must pay his own way in life. Arguing that this is a public expense won't wash, because I advocate the elimination of virtually all public expense, particularly welfare.
Massive poverty itself one of the underlying causes of the NHCE's.
You clearly don't grasp the concept of "NHCE" in the first place. Or more likely, you are treating receipt of welfare and other public services as such an externality--in effect assuming at the outset that we must handle immigration using socialist policies. Which of course it should not be. Once you realize that, you will further realize that the fact that your neighbor is starving has no particular impact on you. Your neighbor can seek a job, ask for help, eat tree bark, or whatever he can find to do. If he attempts to mug you, you will--rightly--answer with deadly force.
Period.
Your argument would be even more sound if you put "Period" in all caps and added some exclamation points, like this: "PERIOD!!!"
BTW, even Von Mises himself do not agree with the open borders philosophy.
Another appeal to authority. I think that's become your second-favorite fallacy now.
"Infrastructure" is, at least in this thread, a euphemism for "socialism." Socialism is always bad. What in hell does it mean to say that Mexico can "afford" socialism?
In real life, they don't take enough money from their economy to keep services up to a reasonable standard.
OK, as near as I can tell you're an out-and-out socialist. That helps clarify things; I usually assume I'm dealing with a capitalist when I post on FR.
Hear me well.
I hear and obey, for you speak the words of truth. Shine your light on this ignorant and most humble servant.
As mentioned before, I remember arguments but forget people. I recognize your handle, and have an inkling that we've already been round the block before: namely, that your advocacy of socialism is already established.
Whether or not that's the case, I suggest you refrain from making universal statements. They're never true.
Mexico is a corrupt third world sh$thole. I will not travel to or spend one dime there EVER!
btttt
No, not really. Somewhere today I heard someone saying (maybe during Rush) that the elite want a poor class so they have cheap labor, and will do nothing to help the poor succeed in order to insure there is cheap labor.
You're right on that score, but the way the Repubs have been acting does it really make a difference which party has control? If the GOP can't get a conservative agenda passed with control of 2 houses of congress plus the presidency, when will we see it? Obviously pleasing the "cheap labor" supporters with the fat checkbooks is more important than supporting and defending the constitution
>There is a very big advantage for Mexico getting rid of it's most impoverished.
That answers my earlier question: you actually do believe that eliminating the poorest N% of the population confers and economic advantage.
Yes it does because to successfully integrate mass populations of poor people into modern economy takes time massive amounts of capital and recources. Basically not having this kind of population in first place means that you can spend the capital, recources and personal in other more productive areas.Having the massive amounts of poverty is actually an economic liability.
>>More crap. Again, you have this absolutely myopic understanding of modern economics.
More ad hominem. If I have misunderstood economics in some fundamental way, state the error with proof.
You are incredibly disingenuousness. You actually want proof? OK...here it is :
Name one country in the world that actually meets your criteria with regards to your philosophies on economics and immigration. You can't.
>>You are a like most libertarians, which tend to be little more than inverted Marxists.
Another ad hominem. Also ignored. I include it here lest anyone mistake the level of rational discourse you're engaging in.
No, you are actually proving my point regarding Marxists & Libertarians. A country's economic policies are a reflection of its political philosophies/leadership. You are simply operating from what is a utopian viewpoint where we will have open borders and a libertarian society with no welfare state, no government programs, with every individual (basically) for himself. This position is completely at odds with the political realities of the real world.
In election after election, both in this country and abroad, the very people who are the most inclined to vote political candidates who advocate "big government" solutions to public problems are the people of the lower classes. Most of the immigrants that would enter the country under an "open borders" policy would fall into that very category. They will vote for candidates that will promise them governement assistance with regards to education, medical care, housing, unemployment benefits, child care, etc. Look at Mexico : it's lower class either votes for the quasi-socialist PRI or the socialist PRD. Look at the elections throughout Latin America. You must first successfully change then political leadership vis- a-vis the ballot box. Trying to convice all these newcomers to actually adopt a libertarian philosophy on politics and economics is simply ludicrous. It is not going to happen. Again, what country do you currently see with both of your kind economic and immigration in place...?? Not even one, right...??
Look at what immigration did to California's 47th Congressional district: the disctrict that elected conservative Republican Bob Dornan to eleven consecutive terms has now become a Democratic stronghold for liberal Democrat Loretta Sanchez. Once upon a time a liberal like Sanchez could have no more defeated a Republican incumbent in race for 47th District than Bozo the Clown. Immigration has changed all that but it really hasn't been a change for the better now has it? That is more or less a microcosm of what would happen with an open borders policy.
>>>He called this principle the "negative human capital externalities". Massive poverty itself one of the underlying causes of the NHCE's.
Appeal to authority again. You do a poor job of explaining so-called "negative human-capital externalities." Essentially, Simon claims that a point is reached at which costs of assimilation--such as language training, and infrastructure to support immigration itself--outweighs the benefits from immigration. A good illustration is the notion that putting lots of kids with discipline problems in one classroom has a negative impact on teaching, because too much time and effort is consumed maintaining discipline. The notion is certainly intuitively appealing, though it requires more thorough justification than simply intoning the phrase "negative human-capital externalities" as if it proved something by itself.
However, let's grant that such externalities are very real. This is not in any way an argument against immigration: it is the proof that even with open borders, immigration is self-limiting. If the benefit to be gained from immigration is less than the cost of immigration itself, then one will not immigrate. Note that these costs must be born by the immigrants themselves, since everyone must pay his own way in life. Arguing that this is a public expense won't wash, because I advocate the elimination of virtually all public expense, particularly welfare.
More disengenuousness! You accept Simon's NHCE's as a reality but then try to claim that they actually serve as a argument in favor of open borders!! Hello, this is the opposite conclusion that Simon himself ultimately reached!! There is no such proof that you can show that open borders would prove to be "self limiting". To borrow your own pathetic terminology "the notion is certainly intuitively appealing,..." but again, there is no proof that you can show this to be the case. Simon thoroughly understood this critical fact and thus prudently realized that it would be too much of a colossal leap of faith for entire nation to take (open borders).The negative impact mass amounts of low skilled workers could (and logically would) ultimately negate the benefits of higher skilled workers. Thus he accepted that limits were a practical necessity here in the real world.
You live in fairy tale world were there would be no government assistance programs, open borders to all newcomers from all over the world, all the while the electorate would not would try to change the change political leadership and return to a strong centralized government. Get real.
You're speaking as if "poverty" were some sort of fluid. Having poor people is of itself neutral: there's no reason poor people must stay poor. They can work, invent, engage in entrepreneurship, and so on. If you actually tried to prove that poor people are inherently an economic liability, you'll realize that your thinking is hopelessly tangled up.
In election after election, both in this country and abroad, the very people who are the most inclined to vote political candidates who advocate "big government" solutions to public problems are the people of the lower classes.
That's bollocks; people of every economic stratum try to vote themselves benefits. The poor often favor direct welfare--but so do rich liberals; rich conservatives also bribe politicians and seek government contracts and other largesse. It's democracy itself that's a stupid idea, as the founders themselves knew very well.
...the disctrict that elected conservative Republican Bob Dornan to eleven consecutive terms has now become a Democratic stronghold for liberal Democrat Loretta Sanchez.
Yawn. Which Republicrat holds office is of very little interest to me. Even Freepers turn out to be statists too often. It's true that people prefer plunder over freedom, but it's hard to get excited about which sort of thief happens to have the upper hand at the moment.
You live in fairy tale world were there would be no government assistance programs...
You may be a fan of the welfare state, but I am not. I'll call it the injustice it is, even though I know it won't go away. Meanwhile, pot, meet kettly. You live in a fairy-tale world where politicians give a rat's patoot about stopping illegal immigration.
I have known that Mexico is rich. Mexico has plenty of petroleum and minerals. It has plenty of arable land. It even makes the top 20. Problem is, most of the wealth is in the hands of a few wealthy elites. They've been like this since the first Spaniard set foot in the 16th century. Mexico is stuck in the 16th century. There is lot of racial discrimination. The wealthy don't care for the poor and want to use America as a dumping ground. They want to keep the status quo, which they have done for centuries. Mexican social structure is just as rigid as India's caste system. At least in India, they are addressing the problem.
Mexico is like a larger version of New Orleans and Detroit. Cities that are thriving, yet poverty and crime runs rampant.
More likely they'll turn those guns toward us so they can recapture "their" lands of California, Arizona and New Mexico. They're dangerous enough unarmed. Look at what the armed ones do. That 29% of them in our Federal Prisons didn't get there by being choir boys.
I'm going to make fairly broad analogy here..but think of Mexico as the USA about 100 years ago...the establishement of an income tax here was designed to break up the mega-rich regional control of the country, acquire federal and local resources with which to build infrastructure in rural areas, and accelerate and facilitate the transition from an agricultural economy to a manufacturing economy. When we deal with the present Mexican leadership,who have read history north of the border, their gamble is to keep their oil assets and not be forced to invest in their countrymen , as ultimately many of the American "robber barons" families and corporations were 100 years ago. If George W. Bush is serious about bringing the benefits of the American Republic to Iraq, I expect to see him and his leadership doubly serious about the septic mess south of the border...not to prop up the status quo there on the backs of the American middle-class. Likwise, if he is intellectually and politically honest about homeland security, I expect to see real, functioning, constructive border solutions at the North and South that ultimateley enhance our relations with our neighbors. ("Good fences make good neighbors"). This is the only American approach to these issues.
Thou hast spoken. The street upon which you walked today is "socialism." Water, sewer, power, and light are "socialism." Socialist countries and capitalistic countries both have "infrastructure." Infrastructure is an ideologically neutral term, since it can be provided by the government, or by private means. Either way, it has to be paid for; by taxes, or by user fees. A free people voting to tax themselves to build infrastructure, which then all can use, hardly qualifies as "socialism." Or they may vote to use that most capitalist of all funding mechanisms: a bond issue by which capitalists lend money to governmental entities in exchange for a fair return.
OK, as near as I can tell you're an out-and-out socialist....Shine your light on this ignorant and most humble servant
For me to shine a light upon you, for free, would indeed make me closer to a socialist. You have my leave to remain in humble circumstances and as ignorant as you please.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.