Your arguments do ring shallow.
There is a very big advantage for Mexico getting rid of it's most impoverished. The prospect of massive political unrest is something that Mexico's elite want to avoid at all costs. Either you find a way to deal with them or suffer the consequences. You still don't get it.
You are a like most libertarians, which tend to be little more than inverted Marxists.
You don't need to have massive poverty just so you can have people run the waste collecting. Straw man; nobody is arguing that Mexico needs "massive poverty." You have offered no proof whatsoever that a significant proportion of Mexico's population is so retarded as to imagine that there's an economic benefit to be had by expelling the least wealthy N% of the population. On what basis do you suppose that Mexico's wealthy are rich and successful, but at the same time so mentally handicapped as to believe such an absurd thing? Put the shoe on the other foot. Do you imagine that "exporting" the poorest N% of America's residents would accrue benefits to the (100-N)% that remain? Of couse not. If you're not that stupid, why do you suppose that these hypothetical Mexicans are?
More crap. Again, you have this absolutely myopic understanding of modern economics. A greater and greater volume of people will translate into greater and greater economic output. False.
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. This of course put him odds with the Libertarian Party and the WSJ editorial board. Simon grasped that you could not really have kind of open borders policy advocted by the WSJ & L.P. Simon at least understood (unlike you) the fallacy of "...greater aggragate number of individuals translating into greater (or more productive) economic output". He called this principle the "negative human capital externalities". Massive poverty itself one of the underlying causes of the NHCE's. It is a major liability for any economy in the modern age. A economy is on the whole much better off with a lower number of individuals than with twice the population but with half of those living in poverty.Period.
BTW, even Von Mises himself do not agree with the open borders philosophy.
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.