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.
As to laws: you are correct, I must concede [concession is something that I have a disliking for but will have the integrity to do], that we are a nation of laws and this must be respected. It does not mean that I have to like the law that I am respecting. It does not mean that I should not and cannot lobby (petition or influence) that the law be changed if I find it to conflict with my beliefs.
Some examples: I think that violent crime would greatly decreased if we didn't have laws that made the possession or usage of drugs illegal...the profits would be taken out of the trade and the incentive for thugs to eliminate any threats to their profits (i.e other drug dealers) would be virtually eliminated; laws against gambling; Sarbane-Oxley; McCain-Feingold; the Federal Drug Administration's prohibition on supplying potentially life saving drugs to desperate & terminally ill patients willing to try anything. This list could be quite extensive if I were to give it some thought and have the time to type it out. I hope you understand my position -- these are all laws on the books that I do not agree with yet I respect as laws and do not break even though I find them to be misguided. Are there not some laws that you personally do not agree with that you'd like to change?
Immigrants who come here illegally should not be doing so. Businesses that hire illegals should not be doing so. Yet, immigrants still come here illegally and the enforcement or wall erecting would be prohibitively costly and would probably have very little effect on immigrants who come here illegally. Many businesses that currently hire illegal immigrants would probably not be in business if they did not. The cost of labor would rise in this instance the consumer of the final products would pay substantially more. You're probably okay with this part as a legal citizen laborer would be better off. But would the consumer be? The evidence to prior bouts of immigration and its aftermath suggest that we need not worry about the long-term effects.
I've also sprinkled a bit of Julian Simon's research in this thread. Maybe you should check some of it (and more here) out and refute it.
Now, I've taken the time to respond but I don't see the need to continue unless there is something you'd like to respond to.