<p>
That the indigenous people of the Americas should be treated with dignity and respect in their OWN countries. That we shouldn’t encourage their actions of last resort in coming to the US and surrendering their culture and heritage. That we shouldn’t pretend that we are doing good by enabling and even profiting from the destruction of their homes and families.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well I wish people would make <em>proper</em> economic arguments, rather than pandering to protectionism. When they say, “we don’t have enough economic resources” they must at least account for the fact that immigration is basically a market movement, and one that augments economic efficiency.</p>
<p>Spoonfed material yes, but then that means people should make more than elementary arguments that can be easily rebutted with spoonfed material. The most efficient solution is one that uses the least resources to yield the highest return. After all, if development in Mexico is slow in coming because the upper classes won’t budge, then spending resources on such a country might not such a wise investment. Take the labour instead.</p>
<p>How does immigration destroy indigenous cultures? Culture is culture, and culture transcends geography. My distant ancestors (based on mDNA flow) came from South China to Hainan, from Hainan to Southeast Asia, from Southeast Asia to Singapore.</p>
<p>Immigration is a fact of life in this globalised world.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nonsense. My identity stems from being a cross-migrant. Nothing has been destroyed.</p>
<p>What does it mean, “own countries”? In this modernised world, the idea of a “country” is becoming less and less relevant. I am loyal to ideas; to ways of life I endorse, not where I was born.</p>
<p>Again, why don’t you make all the migrants from New Orleans STAY THERE?</p>
<p>A whole “culture” has been destroyed. Yeah, that’s right. Those damn Orleaners are putting a strain on everyone’s resources, crowding out bona fide Alabamans / Pennsylvanians / what have you.</p>
<p>Never mind in fact, that the real effect is merely a transfer of capital and labour; the benefit or detriment comes from the changed comparative advantage of the movement and the economic cost of the transfer.</p>
<p>
What you don’t get is that this is a conversation among adults. Perhaps that is why you feel uncomfortable and out of place.</p>
<p>“the idea of a “country” is becoming less and less relevant. I am loyal to ideas, to ways of life I endorse, not where I was born.”</p>
<p>There ya go. I knew that was coming. To hell with borders & sovereignty. Go global, oh citizen of the world.</p>
<p>“we shouldn’t encourage their actions of last resort in coming to the US and surrendering their culture and heritage.”</p>
<p>My family coming to America was certainly an action of last resort (there were pogroms in the Old Country), and I thank God that Americans already here enabled, and profited from, our abandonment of our home. We might well have starved to death otherwise. Our culture and heritage are very much intact.</p>
<p>Ah. One of the One World Government supporters is in our midst.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The cost of American low-skill labour is actually overpriced, and a protectionist developed economy helps encourage this inefficiency.</p>
<p>You are in quite the danger of committing the fallacy of the broken window – you think you are saving “American resources for Americans” but what you have in fact ignored is that you are costing American firms savings that could be pumped back into the economy to hire even more Americans.</p>
<p>I don’t get this idea of “excess demand for schools and social services”. Education is more than a service – it’s a positive spillover benefit and it’s an investment. What happened to the returns from education that will go back towards the American economy, or from the increased efficiency that will compensate for the increased demand for social services?</p>
<p>I have an idea – instead of buying oil, why not employ millions of Americans to jump on a peat bed? American labour for Americans! No trade needed!</p>
<p>“Excess demand” results when services are provided such that MC > MB. That is, immigrants are producing less benefits than the costs they impose. But that’s not what I see at the moment.</p>
<p>“Unlimited immigration” is also a fallacy. Simply because y prime is huge at t=now doesn’t mean it will stay at that point. If the demand for migrant workers by American firms were completely filled, I suspect the migrant immigration line would be cut to somewhere near zero. (Of course, because of structural market change, there will always be a constant transfer – reallocations.)</p>
<p>padad,</p>
<p>Re: your proposed procedures in #56 and #57. Your policies add more “red tape” and fees, and takes away birth-right citizenship with all of its attendant benefits. Why would illegal immigrants and employers choose to follow your procedures when they can continue as they are doing right now?</p>
<p>Galosien, I’m glad you liked economics and can repeat what you were taught (but do you understand it?), but it’s not particularly interesting. Most of us are familiar with economics but know very well that real life is not all about what you learn in a text book. Perhaps this kind of showing off would be more popular among students?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why not? They are meaningless constructs. They are only barriers to natural market flow.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What I don’t get is why so many smart people continue to endorse protectionism and economic inefficiency.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not really. More of the Chicago and Austrian Schools of Economics. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A famous extract from a text you will all recognise.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Huh? I used no textbooks. I took the test cold – drawing upon the works of Friedman, Hayek, et al. The prep book was only to reinforce.</p>
<p>Unless there is some reason to disagree with the great thinkers in the Chicago and Austrian schools.</p>
<p>Also “life is not what all you learn about in a textbook”. I heartily agree – but at least explain WHY economic theory fails here. Because if economic theory fails here, then we shouldn’t be making economic arguments.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What I meant was that I find your posts boring and intrusive because they provide no insight, just repetition of things that you have “learned.” The term textbook wasn’t literal. Again, this is a conversation and you don’t seem to have mastered that art in this context.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The more likely scenario is, that when the American standard of living is sufficiently lowered (due to unfettered immigration and depletion of resources) to a point where Canada or other countries in Europe or Asia become more appealing places to live, that is when the immigration line will be “cut to somewhere near zero.”</p>
<p>Actually in this instance it will only fall to zero when the standard of living in Mexico and Central American countries meets or exceeds ours. Let them surpass us. Then we can return the favor and start illegally immigrating to Mexico et al… No wait, their immigration laws are draconian and they don’t play nice with illegals. Somehow they expect differently from us though…</p>
<p>Bay, The employer will benefit with a more stable and projectable labor force. At present, they could lose their labor force whenever they are raided by the INS. Moreover, they will benefit from a pre-screened labor force rather than hiring unknowns off the street. I would presume that having a “happy and stable” labor force will translate ultimately to economic benefits. Moreover, most employers would rather be law-abiding or would not wish to incur large fines. In terms of red tape, you certainly would not agree to forego that for legal visa issuance. Red tape is not necessarily bad, if it operates efficiently. </p>
<p>I think the federal government needs to charge more for specialized services. We do already for a number of services such as new drug applications to the FDA. It is a system that works rather well. The pharmaceuticals pay a fee of $250K for every submitted new drug application. The fee is waived for an orphan drug (where an unmet medical need could be first established).</p>
<p>“Actually in this instance it will only fall to zero when the standard of living in Mexico and Central American countries meets or exceeds ours.”</p>
<p>Correct. And s.o.l. is a product of many things, including ‘overcrowding,’ broadly speaking – i.e., greater numbers of people competing for a smaller size of resources within a finite area…Which is why developing the immigrants’ countries to excel in resource output/availability is a more long-term & prosperous solution for <em>them</em>, as well.</p>
<p>I have no issue helping them build strong economies. It benefits us all. That’s one of the better uses for foreign aid, presuming it is actually put to the use intended and not into someones pocket.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. I would be in full support of getting the Mexican and Guatemalan economies into healthy shape and to help their citizens to have healthy and productive lives together with their families, within their own cultures and communities. The benefits to the US and to those countries would be immeasurable.</p>
<p>The US does not wish to have its labour rates based on the lowest standard in the world. We will control the supply and keep wages higher for those allowed to be here. The overflow demand can be met through cheap imports while we export more highly valued goods without the overcrowding of our cities, schools, and other infrastructure that unfettered growth would mean. The low -paid jobs if imported to the US are a loser for all the social institutions funded by our taxes which are limited as are our other resources–something to economic theory often ignores. We do not want Seattle to grow to a city of 10 or 15 million with all that would entail. It would reduce the quality of life for those living here now and in the future.</p>
<p>I hope that you didn’t think I was disagreeing with you, prmlcomm, over that issue. (Post 77)</p>