Posted on 05/29/2006 12:32:15 PM PDT by traviskicks
"A man brings with him ideas and a history--- he is always much more than whatever job he takes or what he produces" Very well put although some of the extremely free-traders here would disagree, seeing things in money terms only."
----
I dunno.... this reminds me of some debates I get into regarding healthcare and people say, "Healthcare is too important to leave to the free market, after all, lives are at stake."
I always respond that this makes it all the more important to get government out of healthcare and leave it to the free market, BECAUSE lives are at stake.
So, it sort of seems to me that individuals, personalities, and ideas, and ideologies are TOO important to leave to anything else than the open market.
I certainly wouldn't want government screening or considering immigrants etc.. based on ideologies and histories and beliefs and whathaveyou.
In the past large and disparate groups have come here and become fully assimilated without these sorts of issues occurring.
Everything is pretty easy and acceptable, except the part where the IRS estimates your "earnings potential" for the next 10 years, and sends you a bill for taxes due on that amount immediately.
It's the law, it's enforceable, and you will be detained and prosecuted, in contrast to what happens when people just sneak into the country, do whatever they want, then sneak out - or stay; whatever the case may be.
"Everything is pretty easy and acceptable, except the part where the IRS estimates your "earnings potential" for the next 10 years, and sends you a bill for taxes due on that amount immediately."
---
Are you serious? lol
I was thinking there isn't even really a need to tell them you're going illegal, just sort of do it I guess. :)
I would take a 2 dollar an hour cut in pay if I didn't have to pay taxes and neither did my employer.
In the end I would be bringing home far more money.
Yes, I'm serious.
I did this two computers ago, but I think I can repeat it and send you links.
Also, it may have changed since then, but certainly not to the benefit of the expatriates.
I need a faster connection than the one that I have here, but I'll get it done.
Looks like the future for the USA.
Holy Moly! Thanks for that link and that info.
"......and registration for Selective Service requirement for all males 18 to 26.....?"
-----
Thanks for that, it has been added in.
Can somebody tell me how 20+ million(or more) new democrats is a GOOD THING?..
I dunno.... this reminds me of some debates I get into regarding healthcare and people say, "Healthcare is too important to leave to the free market, after all, lives are at stake." I always respond that this makes it all the more important to get government out of healthcare and leave it to the free market, BECAUSE lives are at stake. So, it sort of seems to me that individuals, personalities, and ideas, and ideologies are TOO important to leave to anything else than the open market. I certainly wouldn't want government screening or considering immigrants etc.. based on ideologies and histories and beliefs and what have you. In the past large and disparate groups have come here and become fully assimilated without these sorts of issues occurring.
Those are good points. I agree with you that similar arguments to the one I made don’t apply to, say healthcare. The problem with government-subsidized health care is in large part that it does precisely that. It’s nobody’s business whether I drink, roll smoke, love ladies, love Jim Beam and otherwise carry on the family tradition. But as soon as the government gets involved, placing incentives that make anything but insurance based health care impossible, my fellow citizens will scream “you’re raising our premiums!” and they’ll have a point. In short, government involvement in health care gives our fellow citizens some degree of ownership over me and you, violating the principle that people should not be treated as commodities.
So, I agree with you on healthcare. Why not then immigration?
Think of Israel. It is surrounded by areas full of people who are sympathetic to terrorism. Among these are the Palestinians, who just elected Hamas, the “a-team of terror” into leadership. Leftists, along with the Palestinians, and Arab mainstream, support the “Right of Return” and deny that Israel has the right or need to control its borders.
But if this “Right of Return” were accepted, Israel would cease to exist as a Jewish nation. Well, so what? Well, the problem is that, while it might continue as a democracy it would also cease to exist as a liberal democratic republic. Hamas would be elected into the leadership of Israel as well as “Palestine” and the Israel’s Jewish citizens would once again face life under the boot of admirers of Hitler.
So it seems clear that Israel needs to control its borders.
What about Taiwan? Should it open up to any and all immigration from Red China? No, it, too, would be swamped by those who do not believe in it and thereafter cease to exist as a nation. Despite its own large population, we can say the same of Japan—it too would be swamped and cease to exist.
Notice the big difference here between China “dumping” products into and dumping people into Taiwan. Whereas China dumping people without impediment would destroy Taiwan as an independent nation, dumping product makes for cheap prices and improves the overall national economy of Taiwan.
Now, one may argue that the United States is different than Taiwan and Israel because it is not very close to any enemy other than Cuba, but mentioning brings up another point that shows why this is not in fact the case. Remember the Cuban Boat Lift in which Castro dumped criminals like (but not including) Tony Montana and others he didn’t want into the United States? Given totally unrestricted immigration, every nation, including Red China, could dump their criminals and physically sick into the U.S.
Surely the United States government is required to reject dumping of this sort. If we agree on that, we agree that it is the business of the United States to place SOME restrictions and regulations upon immigration. The United States should not have to accept as citizens every person currently in South Africa with AIDS, for instance. And it must be the federal government that has the final authority in this, because whether South Africa decided to dump its citizens with AIDS in that way, it surely would not be up to California alone to accept them.
So the question then becomes, what sorts of regulations the federal government have and how should it enforce them? I take your point about how the free market is a great adjudicator of many issues and agree with it. But we eliminated slavery because we agreed that John Calhoun and Robert Hayne were wrong in their belief that a free market based on free trade included the freedom to trade and sell human beings. For one thing, such a freedom (or more precisely, power) would deny the freedom of those enslaved to participate in the free market themselves, thus contradicting the very basis upon which the free market is taken to be free. So even the free market must have limits where human beings are concerned for the same reason government health care is a such a bad idea.
Now, one might make the argument that, unlike the Cuban boatlift, Mexican immigration is largely beneficial--- so beneficial it doesn’t need to be regulated. However, Mexicans have been brought up to believe that capitalism is evil, Republicans are evil and only socialism can work. Remember, while to us Vicente Fox often sounds like a leftist and is generally despised on Free Republic, he is almost certainly the greatest president Mexico has had in the last hundred years and compared to the others they have had, as conservative as Ronald Reagan is compared with Ted Kennedy. That shows how leftist Mexico is. Besides which, they are brought up to believe the American Southwest belongs to Mexico and are allowed to keep their Mexican citizenship when they become American citizens. All of this makes Mexican immigration in general a matter for regulation, not just in the case of Mexican criminal gangs like MS-13.
WHOA! RUSH IS SAYING WHAT I SAID ABOUT PEOPLE AND COMMODITIES RIGHT NOW AS I WRITE THIS! AWESOME!
Okay, sorry about that... I’m in favor of legal immigration… but the free market is not anarchy--- otherwise Tanzania would be as prosperous as Honk Kong. As P.J. O’Rourke shows, capitalism depends on the rule of law… Wthout some regulation of the borders, the ratio of the number of people who buy into the social compact of the United States to those who do not diminishes, thus breaking down that rule.
Well, I appreciate this discussion. Your opinions are well thought out and raise some issues I hadn't considered. I'll have to think and ponder them a bit. Unfortunately, I won't have internet access for the next month, so it will be a while before I get back to you. I do think that almost all the issues corrupting people, hatred of jews, south american leftwingism, etc... stem from the influence of governments and that in a free society, these unnatural sorts of ideologies would flow away.
BTW, I especially like and agree with:
"But we eliminated slavery because we agreed that John Calhoun and Robert Hayne were wrong in their belief that a free market based on free trade included the freedom to trade and sell human beings. For one thing, such a freedom (or more precisely, power) would deny the freedom of those enslaved to participate in the free market themselves, thus contradicting the very basis upon which the free market is taken to be free."
I agree-- they'd definitely be WAY less pernicious! Thanks for the stimulating post!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.