Immigration

Parent Cafe
81

<p>“Do you really think that many people can afford to buy a home in first-world country, much less travel to one?”</p>

<p>Who said anything about buying a home? What limited worldview do you hail from? Have you so little awareness, in your ivory-tower theoretical framework, of the way the rest of the non-landed non-gentry live? and what motivates them? and how they’ll sacrifice to get here? Is it because they hate their own countries & prefer to expatriate themselves? Is it only an educated class that attempts & succeeds? Wow. Which rock have you been living under? You haven’t noticed that they risk life & limb, & are willing to detach from close relatives & an entire culture, possibly permanently, because (listen carefully)…REASONABLY PROSPEROUS SURVIVAL IN THEIR OWN THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES IS UNLIKELY?</p>

<p>(Hint: living in frugal, even semi-squalid conditions over a restaurant in the U.S. is an UPWARD movement in standard of living, for many of them.)</p>

<p>It’s scary, the content & scope of some people’s educations – not only in the practical realities, but even in the theoretical models: FINITE mathematics, anyone, FINITE economics?</p>

<p>I refuse to do your intellectual work for you, such as researching population & migration trends from 1776 to 2008, as well as projections based on declining mortality rates. </p>

<p>Do the math.</p>

82

<p>@BusinessGuy</p>

<p>Sorry. My mistake</p>

83

<p>@zoosermom</p>

<p>You are saying that people are entitled to their culture, family, and prosperity.</p>

<p>Thanks for telling me that you are a conservative republican. That puts the whole unjustified belief in sovereignty into perspective for me as well as a desire to keep out immigrants.</p>

84

<p>@epiphany</p>

<p>“Who said anything about buying a home? What limited worldview do you hail from? Have you so little awareness, in your ivory-tower theoretical framework, of the way the rest of the non-landed non-gentry live?”</p>

<p>So tell me where they would live? Would they rent homes, because that again is not something all of them can afford? Be specific rather than using ad hominem attacks. Don’t say “you don’t know where they live?!”, but rather say “they live in so-and-so place without a rent agreement or buying land”. So I ask again, where would they all live?</p>

<p>“and what motivates them? and how they’ll sacrifice to get here? Is it because they hate their own countries & prefer to expatriate themselves? Is it only an educated class that attempts & succeeds?”</p>

<p>They are looking for better economic conditions and those who come here sacrifice a lot. A lot of the poorest end up succeeding here, but you are making it seem as if half of Mexico will come here. If that is the case, please tell me where they can find a place to live.</p>

<p>"Wow. Which rock have you been living under? You haven’t noticed that they risk life & limb, & are willing to detach from close relatives & an entire culture, possibly permanently, because (listen carefully)…REASONABLY PROSPEROUS SURVIVAL IN THEIR OWN THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES IS UNLIKELY?</p>

<p>(Hint: living in frugal, even semi-squalid conditions over a restaurant in the U.S. is an UPWARD movement in standard of living, for many of them.)"</p>

<p>I already know all of that, so I ask again how does it make sense to restrict immigration if YOUR particular goal is to give them a prosperous life? Millions of people have been able to come to America and not look back (e.g. Europeans in the early 20th centuries) and have been better in the long run for doing so. </p>

<p>“It’s scary, the content & scope of some people’s educations – not only in the practical realities, but even in the theoretical models: FINITE mathematics, anyone, FINITE economics?”</p>

<p>Whatever finite economic is, I don’t ascribe to it. Economics has a great deal of subjectivity to it which is undermined by fundamentally false models of most mainstream economists.</p>

<p>"I refuse to do your intellectual work for you, such as researching population & migration trends from 1776 to 2008, as well as projections based on declining mortality rates.</p>

<p>Do the math."</p>

<p>So you’re saying that lots of people will come to the US? Tell me again, how is that a BAD thing? Are you afraid of becoming the next minority?</p>

85

<p>

Here’s what they do - </p>

<p>They pack many families in what’s supposed to be a single family home illegally in order to afford it. In doing so, they strain the infrastucture of sewer systems (by living 15-20 people in a house designed for 4), the school system (by not paying appropriate taxes), and they strain the hospitals and other social services. If you don’t believe this, head over to areas with lots of illegals and you’ll see it if you keep your eyes open. </p>

<p>They also live in canyons and other land areas where they pollute streams (use your imagination), leave a lot of trash, accidentally start brushfires from their campfires, and subject themselves to being victimized by thieves who target them because they carry cash with them and are vulnerable.</p>

<p>If there were no immigration control this country would be far more inundated than it already is. There’d be massive immigration from Latin America, Asia, India, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Africa, the Caribbean, and virtually everywhere else. Our social systems would collapse under the strain (it’s strained enough as it is in areas where there are lots of illegals).</p>

<p>

A significant number (millions) of Mexican citizens are already here illegally and open borders would prompt magnitudes more to come. </p>

<p>I don’t know what part of the country you’re in but head anywhere in the southwest and see what it’s like. Increasingly, head anywhere in the country and see what it’s like. </p>

<p>

You have it wrong. The statements here have been to keep out ‘illegal immigrants and migrants’, not legal immigrants. The open borders crowd likes to conveniently leave off the term ‘illegal’ and characterize those interested in enforcing our laws as ‘anti-immigration’ which is incorrect.</p>

86

<p>I applaud your efforts, ucla_dad, but I believe this person does not wish to be educated. Anyone who parallels the late 19th century immigration trends with today’s, is truly out to lunch and has zero sense of similar & dissimilar historical patterns.</p>

<p>Yes, hello, clueless poster: “Lots of people” not only will come to the U.S., but they will come in the numbers that Post 85 suggests. 30% of Mexicans living in Mexico have stated that they wish to live permanently in the U.S. The recent trends confirm this. Ditto for many of the South American, Central American, Asian, Middle Eastern locations.</p>

87

<p>…and let me help you: Finite economics is what China has been experiencing in the last – oh – several decades. A fraction of the population have the opportunity to prosper, quite unlike here. This is called supply & demand. I don’t care whether you don’t like the models. Fewer economic opportunites, divided by maybe a billion or so folks wanting those opportunities. The solution of the inhabitants? Hey, emigrate. Now, Canada, with its previous open-border policy, was one country of choice. When they realized what was happening to their own social system as a result, they wisely restricted immigration, to prevent unlimited consumption of available resources. Second choice? Hey, the U.S. Now, many of these fine people we need & want, legally & in finite quantitites, as ucla_dad mentioned.</p>

88

<p>When a person believes borders should be irrelevant, that sovereignty is “immoral”, and rejects out-of-hand the logic in your arguments to the contrary, there’s not much point in continuing the discourse. Really, aren’t you done with this guy, yet? Or is there yet some amusement to be gained from this?</p>

89

<p>poetsheart, I really cannot argue with you.</p>

<p>(Love it: sovereignty “immoral.” I’m still focused on abandoning countries to various forms of underdevelopment while happily skimming the cream of their crop to come here, as somehow “moral.” Right.) It’s a different situation for the targeted programs that bring people here with the express intent of returning to develop, plan, bring know-how & technology back to their countries, & to do so permanently, by their own desire. That education & training here is precisely configured to do that, in certain of our universities.</p>

90

<p>@ucsd<em>ucla</em>dad</p>

<ol>
<li>What is wrong with packing 10 families into one home? That’s a non-violent act.</li>
<li>Your arguments regarding the following have a common flaw: sewers, schools, and social services. They are all arguments against those systems, not the immigration. Rather than have a one-price-fits all model whereby governments mandate payment plans which do not reflect the true costs of things, the cost of things should be associated with its use. Like to use the bathroom 100 times a day? Fine, but we’re going to jack your rates up. If that doesn’t fix the sewage problem, we’ll jack your rates up to the heavens so as to have a efficient system while making profits.</li>
</ol>

<p>The fact that the “social” system cannot properly account for the costs of things shows how deficient it is. If your criteria for keeping them out is the strain on social services, then maybe we should sterilize the poor?</p>

<ol>
<li>As for polluting and ruining streams and such, tell me what are the correcting forces for a government to not do that? There are none. When it does do something, it is to calm mass hysteria and often does it in the least urgent area (e.g. DDT).</li>
</ol>

<p>The correcting forces for pollution are private property rights. Much like people buy insurance for cars, people will want to ensure the quality of their environment and buy pollution insurance. If a threat comes along, the company tells the polluter’s voluntary government that they will refuse to do business with the polluter if they continue to pollute. Another way to solve this is for the insurance company to outright buy the polluting area to keep it clean; they would rather pay one small fee than pay all the money out to their customers for failing to provide a service. Furthermore, individuals can ostracize the polluter and its workers. Your workers want some milk at the local store? $20. This will aggravate the workers and lead them to the conclusion that there are much better jobs available seeing as how this job has enormous costs associated with it.</p>

<ol>
<li>“You have it wrong. The statements here have been to keep out ‘illegal immigrants and migrants’, not legal immigrants. The open borders crowd likes to conveniently leave off the term ‘illegal’ and characterize those interested in enforcing our laws as ‘anti-immigration’ which is incorrect.”</li>
</ol>

<p>And your crowd likes to make it seem as if a piece of paper people never agreed to can be enforced upon them and allows you to call them “illegal”.</p>

91

<p>@epiphany</p>

<p>Let’s assume 40% come. I already addressed how it is unfeasible for them to get a place to live. But then you people point out all the welfare which allows them to live here. As I pointed out in the post right before this, that is an argument against those systems, not immigrants.</p>

92

<p>“…and let me help you: Finite economics is what China has been experiencing in the last – oh – several decades. A fraction of the population have the opportunity to prosper, quite unlike here. This is called supply & demand. I don’t care whether you don’t like the models. Fewer economic opportunites, divided by maybe a billion or so folks wanting those opportunities. The solution of the inhabitants? Hey, emigrate. Now, Canada, with its previous open-border policy, was one country of choice. When they realized what was happening to their own social system as a result, they wisely restricted immigration, to prevent unlimited consumption of available resources. Second choice? Hey, the U.S. Now, many of these fine people we need & want, legally & in finite quantitites, as ucla_dad mentioned.”</p>

<p>See previous posts: that is an argument against social services, not immigration.</p>

93

<p>“When a person believes borders should be irrelevant, that sovereignty is “immoral”, and rejects out-of-hand the logic in your arguments to the contrary, there’s not much point in continuing the discourse. Really, aren’t you done with this guy, yet? Or is there yet some amusement to be gained from this?”</p>

<p>I have noticed that you like to pop in time to time, provide zero evidence for your arguments, and then proceed to attack my arguments as baseless because what I am telling you will mess up everything you’ve ever been taught.</p>

<p>I have a question for you: what makes sovereignty correct? More specifically, how can somebody claim something as their own?</p>

94

<p>“that is an argument against social services, not immigration.”</p>

<p>The two are linked, unless you believe in the supposed “morality” of virtually inviting, even seducing, people to come here unprepared to earn the means to maintain a First World basic lifestyle. Truly, you live in a world of unreality. Along with the well-educated, reasonably well-financed foreigners come (in greater numbers) rather uneducated ones by any standards. From Latin countries, they may have anywhere from an equivalent 3rd-4th grade education, to a 6th grade one. Last week I met a woman from India who had <em>begun</em> her education in 6th grade in India, “finished” it in 9th grade, is illiterate & nonfluent, & desperately seeking a better future, but could not communicate with me. She is a touching but typical example of my local population. Such people are hardly in a position to become self-sufficient instantly, even though most come with that assumption & with that earnest intent. Further, some people (depending partly on country on origin) have more marketable skills than others. Overall, sparse education will keep one low on the economic pecking order, dependent at least somewhat on social services for supplementation.</p>

95

<p>“what makes sovereignty correct?”</p>

<p>That’s pretty hilarious.</p>

<p>(Let’s hear it for global anarchy! There ya’ go!)</p>

<p>Are you a Wolf-Child? (Sorry, I couldn’t resist that.)</p>

<p>And why isn’t poetsheart allowed to post randomly? “No evidence?” Where’s your own?</p>

96

<p>"The two are linked, unless you believe in the supposed “morality” of virtually inviting, even seducing, people to come here unprepared to earn the means to maintain a First World basic lifestyle.</p>

<p>Nobody forced them to come here. A first world basic lifestyle is not a right.</p>

<p>If the conditions were so great from where they came from, they would not have come here. you are arguing that you know what’s best for other people and therefore you have a right to control their lives. I believe the word for that is sadism, but I’m not sure.</p>

<p>“Further, some people (depending partly on country on origin) have more marketable skills in others.”</p>

<p>So? Isn’t specialization a good thing?</p>

<p>“Overall, sparse education will keep one low on the economic pecking order.”</p>

<p>That is not true. For the Soviet Union, they had brilliant people and still collapsed economically. Also, many immigrants with no formal education are able to start businesses and become successful enough to think about education (becoming more and more successful as generations pass).</p>

97

<p>poetsheart:</p>

<p>I think I’ll follow your advice.</p>

98

<p>@epiphany</p>

<p>You have refused to prove sovereignty. It is up to the person to prove that they own something, not another person to prove that the other does not own it. Otherwise, I could just claim your computer as mine and you would have to stop typing lest you wish to violate my rights.</p>

99

<p>

</p>

<p>Good man, ucsd<em>ucla</em>dad, good man!</p>

100

<p>@poetsheart</p>

<p>I suppose you have no justification (true or false) for sovereignty. OR you intend to be intellectually dishonest. If it is the former, then I refer to you here to dispel the notion of sovereignty (AKA “what I say belongs to me belongs to me”):
<a href=“http://blog.mises.org/archives/002502.asp[/url]”>http://blog.mises.org/archives/002502.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;