It's still appropriate, especially since I framed it as division of labor.
The middle class in America would disappear as a result of continuing this policy and American living standards would decline precipitously.
I don't believe this. Did this happen after our last go-around with amnesty? Think about that one for awhile.
What Americans are finally beginning to wake up to is that there is a class war shaping up over this immigration and outsourcing debate.
I've noticed. The ones who are outright disdainful of capitalism -- or at least the ones who are suspicious of it -- are usually the loudest. Class warfare is never pretty nor is it becoming of those who wear the "limited government" label.
You obviously do not believe that flooding the labor market with unskilled illegal labor is a bad thing.
That's right, I do not. I think we should do everything possible to absorb them legally, insisting that they -- as well as we -- stay off the government's dole in almost all instances [except for people who were born that are truly incapable of providing for themselves through no fault of their own]. We could even charge them "admission" so that the human smuggling scum is cut out of the loop and so that less human beings would be subjected to that kind of experience. I hera that the going rate is $3000 USD.
But these globalist elites and transnational corporations really have no allegiance to any particular country or system of government.
I have an allegiance to America. I have served in an active duty component of the Armed Forces for 10 years before getting out in 1999 and then reentering - in a Reserve status - just this March. I took the Oath and had no problem with swearing to protect this country from all its enemies. But are immigrants really the enemy? You and I have differing views, I'm sure. I'll tell you this, though: I have a philosophical allegiance toward any government who will embrace capitalism, free markets, private property rights [the main ingredient that allows for the first two], and a system of government power sharing where individual states collectively unite under a federation to form a strong central republic with delegated rights and freedom to its member states or to its people. If America ever ceases to be this way [the jury is still out because the enemies of true freedom are numerous], I will switch my allegiance after finishing up any obligations that I am contractually obligated to complete with Her, and I would will leave Her. Hopefully it won't come to that.
Substituting illegal alien workers for American workers has nothing to do with “division of labor.“ Just throwing around so-called economic terms like "comparative advantage" or "division of labor" and expecting that to be an argument just won’t do. You still have to explain yourself, hopefully in a convincing manner, which you have not done. You haven’t even responded to the example you asked for by showing how in real life substituting illegal Guatemalan nannies for American citizen workers is going to benefit our people or our economy or even how this is equivalent to your concept of “division of labor.“ And I’d really like you to explain how this is going to lead to increased productivity. How does one make the job of being a nanny more productive and efficient?
Bringing in millions of illegal aliens to compete with existing citizens has nothing to do with trade, limited government or freedom. In fact, the economic arguments about illegal immigration are irrelevant to this debate because the American people have long ago decided this issue -- we reject illegal immigration. I think the key to understanding my objection to your argument is contained in your response to my statement that you obviously do not believe that flooding the labor market with unskilled illegal labor is a bad thing. Your response was: "That's right, I do not."
Our founders defined the very essence of freedom as the ability of a people to govern itself. Your statement makes me ask the question: do you believe in our American system of republican self-government? For decades our democratically enacted laws have forbidden people to come here illegally but by your own statement you have no problem with these laws that the people have enacted being ignored by our government. This does indeed go to the heart of the matter of whether we actually have “limited” government -- one of the values you claim to hold highest along with capitalism. If the government may ignore the people and their duly enacted laws then there is no limitation on government at all. One can only conclude from your response that you do not really want the vast majority of Americans to be able to decide this issue through our democratic process, unless they happen to agree with you, nor do you think their decision, once made, should be respected or enforced.
It is clear that you and I have different ideas about and definitions of freedom as well as what values we hold pre-eminent . I believe that without the political liberty that is established through our system of republican self-government all other types of freedom are rendered insecure. I think your question …But are immigrants really the enemy? … indicates the extent of these differences as you explicitly leave out the most relevant and all important qualifier of “illegal.” You make no distinction between those who come here legally under our democratically enacted laws and those who come here in violation of these laws. The rule of law is one element of our structure of freedom which you did not include in your list of values, however it is the base upon which all the others rest.
I have taken the time to respond to your arguments because I understand that ultimately our system of republican self-government and the continuance of all the economic and political liberties we have discussed in this debate depends on maintaining a consensus among the American people about these fundamental matters. “Parchment barriers” as Madison warned us will not protect these freedoms. When this consensus breaks down, when Americans disagree about fundamental values like who is to be counted as a human being, as in the slavery and abortion debates, or whether the legislative authority of the people is to be respected by our elected representatives, as in this current debate about illegal immigration, then our very existence as a sovereign, self-governing people is put at risk.