Of course, that’s only one side of the issue. None of these factors is cause to discriminate, harass or detain people based soley on ethnicity, background or other factors that some mistakenly lump in with the immigration issue. The real problem is a question of legality, not country of origin. Besides, the real problem is not “those damn foreigners.” The problem is “those damn AMERICANS.”

Lest we forget, the people who enter and live in America without going through proper immigration channels are still human beings. In spite of being treated as sub-humans in some cases by employers, law enforcement, and citizens of the communities affected by this issue, illegal aliens are people. The founding fathers stated clearly that humans have certain inalienable rights. Those rights do not cease for want of a passport, visa or green card.

Those who immigrate-legally or not–have many reasons for wanting to come to America. Many are exploited on the way here and beyond. Illegal immigrants are often subject to the same types of hateful practices perpetrated on convicted criminals who are released or paroled; they are employed by those who demand kickbacks, bribes or special consideration. They are also often underpaid because the workers can’t lodge a complaint. They wouldn’t dare, and those who exploit them take full advantage
=================================================
anna
=================================================
New York Immigration Lawyer Marina Shepelsky, located in Brooklyn, assists clients from the New York metro area and across the United States in all immigration and naturalization matters http://www.e-us-visa.com

1) See my posts on Per’s new blog on this subject.

2) If lettuce would cost over $5 a head and onions $8 a pound without rampant immigration, this would mean that American workers did in fact want these jobs, just at wages they were willing to accept. Thus it is a contradiction to say, on the one hand, that prices would be higher, while maintaining, on the other hand, that Americans don’t want such jobs.

What exactly is wrong with “cheap” labor? Whose business is it if a person wants to sell their labor for a penny less than another’s?

All of the arguments against immigration from utility are easily addressed, but this opposition to free, peaceful exchange is the Achilles’heel of your argument as far as libertarianism is concerned.

This is no different than unions’ claims that no one should be allowed to sell their labor at less than the union (price-fixed) wage. This cannot be squared with Austrianism, much less anarcho-capitalism.

I absolutely agree that a private-property based society (i.e., one in which there was no “public” property) would solve the problem, as it would become one of “trespass” rather than “immigration.”

Since this is not the case, however, for the US government not to defend its borders against the onslaught by millions of poor people fleeing their homelands is suicide in that it amounts to “insourcing” the same cheap labor that we are increasingly outsourcing, the combined effect of which is our country’s third-worldization.

Combine this twin scourge with the fact that our prosperity is a debt-induced sham, and it is clear that we are not only on the road to ruin but that we very near the end of it.

Not to quibble, but I have actually been the victim of discrimination against ‘foreign workers’. I represented no threat to the economy of the country. I simply wanted to go there and do my job. The visa system (likely in response to US policies) in that country essentially caused me to become an ‘illegal immigrant’. Exactly what purpose was served here? None that I can discern, except to create an opportunity for some minor corruption (and an extra day’s layover in Miami Beach for me at my employer’s expense, boo hoo).

Let me say this – if we had a private-property regime in this country, and we did not have military stationed imperially in over 100 countries, we could control immigration of crooks and unproductive citizens in a completely libertarian manner by limiting access to private property as Professor Hoppe lays out.

source:

http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/mexico/release.html

the lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) for the average adult Mexican immigrant is a negative $55,200

=========

shutting up for now….

You believe this? How many immigrants do you know?

First: by immigrants I always mean those who immigrated legally under the current rules.

How many immigrants I know -
our family’s primary physician (Russian)
dentist (Chinese)
governor of the state (Austrian:)
owners of a few nearby auto shops (Palestinian, Mexican and Vietnamese)
real estate agent (Italian)
my co-workers from the current and previous jobs (mostly Chinese and Indians, ~80 people total)
University professors (say, another 20)

I am not aware of any reason why would my life suddenly improve or worsen
if all these people got magically replaced with Americans overnight,
provided that the total population in the US remained the same.

So yes, I claim for now that they are equivalent to the natives, and their presence
is equivalent to a corresponding birth rate increase.

The Kenyan exchange student from the 95th
percentile of his homeland doesn’t count.

Of course he doesn’t. He is a visitor, not an immigrant.

If he decides to stay then he either fits the requirements and immigrates legally (see above) or stays illegally (see below).

Immigrants in the Atlanta area generally have about 5 different SS cards in their wallets.

Obviously you mean illegals. I assume they use these cards to get jobs, not to collect 5x benefits.
Therefore, they contribute to the SS fund (under someone else’s name)
without any intention or a chance to collect the corresponding retirement benefits.

Overall contribution is positive: they contribute, but don’t vote.

SS and DFACS offices in the Atlanta area all have bilingual forms.

DMV in California offers a choice of 6 languages. So what?

Existence of goverments guarantees that every country converges to a single language:
The language of the goverment is perceived as a langauge of power, and immigrants make sure
their children study it, regardless of their origin.

I would also invite you to go to the ER of Grady Hospital and tell me what you see.

Should socialist immigrants receive equal consideration? Islamic militants?

Both are valid questions. Don’t know.

I am a “self-identified” libertarian who opposes open borders on practical grounds:

1) States are all-pervasive, thus political boundaries are all-pervasive.

2) State intervention in human affairs has varied to the extent that it has created massive income disparities between and among them, the US and Mexico being an obvious case in point.

3) Allowing the US-Mexico income disparity to be reconciled by opening the US border (as is presently the case due to lax enforcement) is the wrong way to go about it so far as the citizens of the US are concerned.

4) The solution, then, is not for the US to open its borders but for Mexico to open its economy.

That said, Mexico will not open its economy. And while the US government may try to tighten control of the border, it’s a moot point in that the US economy is in reality a house of cards that is going to collapse under the weight of its enormous government and consumer debt, thus “solving” the immigration problem.

“Human Action is not a book to convince anyone of anarcho-capitalism.”

Whether one agrees with your statement or not, it is at least arguable that reading and understanding Human Action in full would naturally and inevitably lead a principled student to an anarcho-capitalist orientation. Certainly it led his brightest student, Murray Rothbard that way. And unlike say Neo-conservatives, anarcho-capitalists by definition must suffer non-anarcho-capitalists to live and do not molest them as long as they reciprocate. Per Bylund’s article simply tries to reconcile non-aggression with sensible approaches to immigration. Too many self-identified “libertarians” have extremely non-libertarian attitudes toward immigrants. This is clearly an emotional approach that does not do our position, our country. or those immigrants any good.

Although your intended point is clear despite the error, Human Action is not a book to convince anyone of anarcho-capitalism. Whether or not you agree with him on this matter, Ludwig von Mises was not an anarcho-capitalist, and Human Action is not a book supporting the anarcho-capitalist position.

You believe this? How many immigrants do you know? (The Kenyan exchange student from the 95th percentile of his homeland doesn’t count.)

Should socialist immigrants receive equal consideration? Islamic militants?

That’s a lovely, principled stand but the government is not going away in your lifetime. Maybe you could put out copies of Human Action at the border to assure that the new arrivals will adopt anarcho-capitalist philosophy.

Klueless,

Immigrants in the Atlanta area generally have about 5 different SS cards in their wallets. SS and DFACS offices in the Atlanta area all have bilingual forms. I would also invite you to go to the ER of Grady Hospital and tell me what you see.

Libertarians, like social democrats, apparently assume that Mexico is bad only because it’s Mexico, and if we plop down a bunch of Mexicans amongst us, they won’t bring Mexico with them.

My neihgbor is Mexican-born. If his brother comes to visit him on a tourist visa, and overstays it for one day (thus becoming an illegal), this will sure sap all my remaining strength.

There are three groups of people in the country: natives, immigrants (preselected by the gov according to the current rules) and illegals.

Natives: born within the country, live on their property, so the position toward them seem to leave them alone.

Immigrants: they are identical to the natives, (in the sense of externalities), so any consistent philosophy, including libertarian, should treat them exactly like the natives (that is, leave alone).

Illegals:
quoting from http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/back1104.html
“…research on illegal aliens has shown that they are overwhelmingly of working age. Relatively few illegals come prior to age 18 or after age 50. Since their primary motive for coming is work…”

In other words, they would be very welcome if the immigration policy got changed to a libertarian.

Outcome – the US already has the best policy ???

What passes for “education” in this country is part of our third-worldization, no matter who’s being “taught.” Or are you going to defend government schooling as well.

Bottom line: welfare socialism and militaristic nationalism have conspired to doom us to the same fate as the former Soviet Union — a process that rampant immigration only exacerbates, sapping what remaining strength we have.

This is how I read the numbers:

1) 4M per year = birth rate in the US, has nothing to do with the 3-worldization.

2) 1M per yeas = legal immigration. These people are prescreened based on their health (no TB, AIDS and whatever else is checked), absence of criminal record, and having a job offer or a relative who agrees to support them for the first 10 years.

I argue that the impact of this group is exactly the same as if they never existed, but the birth rate were bumped by 1M per year.

So they have nothing to do with the 3-wordization too.

3) 0.5M per year = illegal immigration.
Not enough information to evaluate their impact for now, especially on the welfare.

Does anyone here know for a fact what benefits are available for someone who does not even have a valid SS# ?