Your post is difficult to answer, because we are speaking from the perspective of two fundamentally different views of the world and how it works.
You seem to really believe, at the core, that economic flows explain (and determine) the course of the world. I think that economics are part of the overall sphere of human activity, that we do not currently allow economics to drive all of our decision-taking processes, and that we shouldn't because the results of doing that are morally unacceptable.
You believe that if a nation imposes an economic law, that "the market" will simply get around it by going outside of the nation. I think that certain economic players may try to do that, but that well-constructed laws can make that difficult and that other things more important than economics drive the final decisions.
You gave the example of Rush Limbaugh moving from high-tax New York to low-tax Florida in order to broadcast and keep more of his money. Yes, he does just that. But why, then, does he not take the additional step and move from low-tax Florida (which still gets socked with the Federal Income Tax) to no-tax Guernsey, or Monaco, or the Cayman Islands, and broadcast from there. There is no TECHNICAL barrier to doing that, and the economics of doing so make utter sense. 40% of income going to federal taxes is a lot to save.
So why doesn't the logic of economics and dollars drive RUSH offshore?
The answer has nothing to do with economics, but all of those OTHER things that affect human decision-taking, which economics alone do not explain - and which are why we can, in fact, impose laws that are economically sub-optimal but which achieve more important social goals. Most Americans don't want to live outside of the United States even if they can save a lot of money doing it. Abroad is tricky and untrustworthy. Abroad has different sovereign risks. Abroad doesn't have the medical resources. Also, other Americans don't like to do business with you so much if you are abroad and outside of the reach of their laws and system. Who would listen to Rush Limbaugh talking about American politics if he himself opted to be a Cayman Islander broadcasting into the US? He has to pay 40% of his top dollars in taxes and remain in the US, because people are not emotionally willing to engage with a foreigner. Economics are not driving the equation; emotions are.
My point about wage-equalization tarriffs is that American purchasers CAN'T simply "go abroad" for cheaper prices to get around the tarriffs. People live here. They have to buy and consume the goods here. Europeans pay $7 a gallon for gasoline, but they don't try to import gas from the USA: it's illegal. Likewise, a wage equalization tarriff will drive up the cost of goods somewhat, but there isn't a legal solution to get around it. You can't just buy from someone else, because whoever has cheap labor gets the tarriff slapped on him when he ships the stuff into the USA.
Now, as far as agricultural labor goes, it may well be that we do need third world berry pickers. But if we bring them in, we should not do so with the stipulation that they have to leave. They should be on a track to remain and become citizens.
I guess the fundamental difference comes down to the view that labor is simply a commodity. Yes, it is, but it's a very special type of commodity, because it is human beings. As such, it cannot be treated in the same cold fashion that iron ore and pork bellies can be treated. Human concerns do not allow full efficiency in the labor markets. We have to have considerably inefficiency in labor markets because people are not machines, and human needs are constant and permanent. The full commodification of human beings and labor is not where democracy is willing to go.
As far as Mexicans simply getting here somehow if there's an advanced system erected, my answer would be: not 2 million a year. A few would get under or over the wall, and a few would go around by boat, but if you can't just walk into America, the fact of a barrier makes it harder and more expensive to try, and many, many will not make it or will not even try. We are not working in a world of absolutes, but speaking, rather, of relative positions.
Interesting discussion.
When did the Conservatives turn into economic protectionists? The modern true Conservative believes that the perfect America has razor wire and guard towers on the Southern border and closed ports on both coasts. They believe that if you are for free markets than you are an evil Globalist. They seem to think that there is nothing to be gained from trading with the other countries or that we cannot compete in the World Market. Nothing can be further from the truth or away from Conservative ideals.
President Reagan believed in the power of Capitalism and was a free trader to his core. Ronald Reagan always said gummit never solves problems, gummit is the problem. He knew that America could trade with any Country in the World and always attempted to maintain a level playing field. He was not always able to do that but he did get many tariffs removed from our trading partners as well as lowering our own to reduce taxes and inflation. He was the originator of NAFTA knowing that Capitalism would defeat Communism on our Continent. He realized that Tarriffs mostly hurt the Country that places these taxes on imports. He didn’t win the Cold War with the A-Bomb, but with the Gut-bomb from McDonalds.
Conservatives are always for a smaller gummit, however the modern Conservative/Libertarian is for a limited govt until their Steer is being algored. They are quick to add layers of bureaucracy to enforce the borders or protect our traditional industries. Just as we saw with the U.A.E. taking over running our port terminals the Conservatives in this Country were not willing to look at the entire package but emotionally tied it to sealing the borders and pretended the Arags were going to compromise our security. These small gummit talkers are willing to ignore an efficient management company to be replaced with another inefficient Port Hog Trough.
The Border Freaks would happily trade any economic advantage of having cheap labor for the emotional high of keeping Mexicans out. They preach how the Mexicans are taking American jobs in the face of the fact that there is full employment in this Country. The economy is running at full speed yet they want to eliminate this cheap commodity that is needed by labor intensive industries. The Protectionists have points about security and law enforcement, yet will veto any suggestions short of Electric Fences, Guard Towers and Mexican round-ups. They will not even allow a discussion of Immigration without expulsion and closed borders. These are the same people who are against NAFTA and the World Economy. When did the Conservative movement get taken over by Central Planners in Economics?
The real irony of this switch is that if you are a laize faire capitalist, then you are some sort of liberal Globalist? Nothing could be further from the truth since this is a complete reversal of the true foundation of the Conservative movement. The movement has been hijacked by the Protectionists who have forgotten what makes this Country great which is pure Capitalism. The basis of capitalism says that there is a perfect market that is controlled by supply and demand. It says that the market will maintain and police itself since information is or will become known and companies will do what’s in their best interest. Market and community forces will make the company act efficiently as well as ethically.
This is the building block of Conservative economics to minimize gummit taxes and regulations from the market. Whenever the politicians get involved there is an inefficiency that develops slowing the wheels of commerce. Conservatism used to lower these barriers to business and let the markets maintain and grow themselves in as open an environment as possible. There are still many Conservatives who don’t know that Business has more forces pulling them other than pure profit. Businesses must also be good stewards in their Communities whether it be locally or Globally which is why ethical companies will succeed over the long run.
The Dubai port management buyout and the Immigration problem are both parts of the same economic problem. Being the 300 lb gorilla in the world economy, we are the Dodge Hemi that powers the world. We are importing millions of containers of goods to feed our endless appetite for cheap goods and services. To bring those containers across the dock those ports realized they needed to become more efficient or the shippers will find ports that can do it cheaper and/or more efficiently. Enter Dubai who is the leader in port management specialization worldwide. They would have reorganized and modernized these ports to make them competitive with other ports on the East Coast. This is how capitalism works by finding the most efficient way of providing a product or service. Now shippers will go to the cheaper ports.
Similarly, illegal immigrants are coming to our Country to find work and feed their families just as humans have done for thousands of years. The same way we change jobs or careers for a few thousand dollars these people are coming here for a few hundred. Labor is a limited commodity just like oil or steel to produce a product that a business owner needs to stay competitive. This means he has to produce that product as efficiently as possible to keep his prices down. If he has a higher price than his competition, he will miss the sales putting him on the streets.
When your main expense is labor then that is where you are going to look to cut. As you add in related expenses such as Workman’s Comp, insurance, vacation and all the regulations, Mexican labor becomes a necessity. So now we have the situation we are in with many Mexican families being permanent residents in this Country thanks to a red hot economy combined with a labor shortage. The isolationists would like to click their heels and make this reality go away, but that is only a pipe dream. Ronald Reagan attempted to deal with this problem when he installed a plan that was far more lenient than President Bush’ with Illegals. Why? Because he understood the competitive economics of Manuel Mexical and his relationship to labor heavy industry. Reagan would have been tarred and feathered by the Modern Conservatives.
It is time to put away our Global Economic fears and address them with the realization that we are the most powerful and strongest economy in the World. We may not have the labor cost advantages but we are far more creative and efficient workforce than any other Country. By making the field level on both sides we can compete with anyone, anywhere. Walls only hurt the people behind them, just look at Japan’s cost of living and ask yourselves if you can afford $4 apples and $20/lb beef with $5/lb rice? That is where the Globalist Fear Mongers want to take us, while Dubai, Manuel Mexical and President Reagan would rather have You control those prices.
Pray for W and Our Heroic Troops