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.
>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.