User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 5:46:01 PM EDT
[#1]
The comments against more lenient immigration policies seem to focus less on the labor competition aspect and instead raise concerns that those who come will alter the American ethos in a negative way (and thereafter alter the body of our elected officials to represent that new ethos with more entitlements).
But, considering the American ethos, is it not inextricably enmeshed with the concept of immigration; that America is the land of opportunity to which those willing to work hard can come and have a chance to succeed? The country was built by people who came expecting hardships and anticipating that they would rise or fall based on their own abilities, effort and a little luck. The concern raised seems to boil down to people coming not for opportunity, but for entitlements. Is that really a problem we can blame on immigrants, or is that instead a problem of our own making? Is that opportunity ethos already dead as evidenced by our existing entitlement programs? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 5:49:20 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It is actually necessary to hate illegal immigration if you love capitalism, because as I've stated, free markets would be destroyed by the immigrants. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I don't think it is possible to reconcile strict immigration policies with capitalism. No, I don't. If somebody comes out and says "I am against capitalism because it is not in my interests in this situation" I would be very surprised though. Because here in GD, the dominant narrative is that one must love capitalism and hate immigration ("illegal"), I don't think thats consistent, I enjoy poking holes in the dominant narrative wherever I go. It is actually necessary to hate illegal immigration if you love capitalism, because as I've stated, free markets would be destroyed by the immigrants. Today I learned that capitalists should not love a true free market.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 5:50:29 PM EDT
[#3]
Pure capitalism implies complete labor mobility, that is, open borders. If you want restricted immigration, you are not a capitalist.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 5:50:44 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
lol No offense, but your argument that you were not trolling is a bit hard to believe. 
Either that, or you really do not understand economics at all.  Even the most ardent supporters of capitalism support SOME regulation in markets (because of things like natural monopolies, commons dilemmas, not to mention stuff like child labor, ownership of people,  ) - which in fact do lead to undesirable outcomes. The suggestion that ANY regulation or state involvement in an economy somehow EQUALS socialism is asenine.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How is the labor market free if immigration laws prevent the free movement of labor from one place to another? If I cannot compete against you for a job, how is that market free? There is no 100% free market, just as there are no absolutes involving human action. The free market of the US is more free then those of latin America, due to the cultural differences. If you want it to be less free, and to enjoy less prosperity, then by all means support illegal immigration. So you are in favor of state involvement in the economy. You believe that if capitalism were permitted to exist unregulated, that the outcome would be undesirable. So you favor limits and regulations of the market. You favor socialism. lol No offense, but your argument that you were not trolling is a bit hard to believe.
Either that, or you really do not understand economics at all. Even the most ardent supporters of capitalism support SOME regulation in markets (because of things like natural monopolies, commons dilemmas, not to mention stuff like child labor, ownership of people, ) - which in fact do lead to undesirable outcomes. The suggestion that ANY regulation or state involvement in an economy somehow EQUALS socialism is asenine.
But we're not talking about child labor or slavery. We're talking about using the state to attempt a monopoly over the labor market in an area. How is this different from the behavior of unions who attempt to lock out other labor from a given locale/job? Immigration law prohibits the free exchange of labor power for a wage. Do you disagree with this assertion? And if some regulation is desirable then you know there is no end to it? Is it not also desirable that unemployed workers have some sort of safety net? Is it not also desirable that the workforce of a country be healthy and fit? Is it not desirable that the workforce should be well educated, etc. If there is a social responsibility (spit) to limit capitalism, where is the line? At what point does it cease to capitalism and begin to be something else? Because I don't think that all government involvement=socialism, but that does seem to be a pretty consistent position amongst conservatives in general, and certainly here in GD. The state is bad, unless it helps me, the state is good, unless it helps those I oppose. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 5:57:12 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: lol No offense, but your argument that you were not trolling is a bit hard to believe. Either that, or you really do not understand economics at all. Even the most ardent some supporters of capitalism support SOME regulation in markets (because of things like natural monopolies, commons dilemmas, not to mention stuff like child labor, ownership of people, ) - which in fact do lead to undesirable outcomes. The suggestion that ANY regulation or state involvement in an economy somehow EQUALS socialism is asenine.Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: How is the labor market free if immigration laws prevent the free movement of labor from one place to another? If I cannot compete against you for a job, how is that market free? There is no 100% free market, just as there are no absolutes involving human action. The free market of the US is more free then those of latin America, due to the cultural differences. If you want it to be less free, and to enjoy less prosperity, then by all means support illegal immigration. So you are in favor of state involvement in the economy. You believe that if capitalism were permitted to exist unregulated, that the outcome would be undesirable. So you favor limits and regulations of the market. You favor socialism. lol No offense, but your argument that you were not trolling is a bit hard to believe. Either that, or you really do not understand economics at all. Even the most ardent some supporters of capitalism support SOME regulation in markets (because of things like natural monopolies, commons dilemmas, not to mention stuff like child labor, ownership of people, ) - which in fact do lead to undesirable outcomes. The suggestion that ANY regulation or state involvement in an economy somehow EQUALS socialism is asenine.Fixed
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 6:00:42 PM EDT
[#6]
You fix the ability of non citizens to get free .gov shit and remove the minimum wage laws and you can have as many work visas as you like. Let me know when you have that taken care of.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 6:02:55 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Strict immigration policies prevent the fair competition of individuals seeking employment. If you cannot do your job better than somebody from Guatemala then you do not deserve your job, the market has decided. If you depend on the intervention of the state in the form of labor laws or immigration controls, then you depend on state interference in the economy to produce a desired result as opposed to allowing the natural processes of the market to play out. If a person from Morocco can do a job cheaper than a person from France, then the French worker must lower his wage in order to stay competitive, if the French worker does not want to be competitive, he will lose. Insisting that the state employ its violence and its law to prop up the failed French worker is completely and totally at odds with the operation of capitalism and the free market. Why do so many in GD hate capitalism and love big government socialism when it comes to this issue? You all sound like a bunch of commie union members crying about "scabs". Workers compete against each other for the opportunity to sell their labor, that is capitalism. The state creating an unlevel playing field where one protected group is favored over an excluded group is not. So you are saying you don't mind living in exiguous conditions and you should have the right to go to someone else's country and depress the wage so much the citizens of that country are forced to live that same life style in order to compete with you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 6:05:15 PM EDT
[#8]
 TL:DW The Welfare State fucks everything up.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 6:19:39 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you are saying you don't mind living in exiguous conditions and you should have the right to go to someone else's country and depress the wage so much the citizens of that country are forced to live that same life style in order to compete with you? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Strict immigration policies prevent the fair competition of individuals seeking employment. If you cannot do your job better than somebody from Guatemala then you do not deserve your job, the market has decided. If you depend on the intervention of the state in the form of labor laws or immigration controls, then you depend on state interference in the economy to produce a desired result as opposed to allowing the natural processes of the market to play out. If a person from Morocco can do a job cheaper than a person from France, then the French worker must lower his wage in order to stay competitive, if the French worker does not want to be competitive, he will lose. Insisting that the state employ its violence and its law to prop up the failed French worker is completely and totally at odds with the operation of capitalism and the free market. Why do so many in GD hate capitalism and love big government socialism when it comes to this issue? You all sound like a bunch of commie union members crying about "scabs". Workers compete against each other for the opportunity to sell their labor, that is capitalism. The state creating an unlevel playing field where one protected group is favored over an excluded group is not. So you are saying you don't mind living in exiguous conditions and you should have the right to go to someone else's country and depress the wage so much the citizens of that country are forced to live that same life style in order to compete with you? This is the reality for most of the world. How do you know it is not my reality right now? Tbh, I'm only sitting about $6,000 above the national poverty threshold. And no, I don't think its cause Manuel down the street took a job away from me. Afterall, he's living in the same neighborhood as me, the same conditions. Anyways, how strict should our attempts at preventing wage depression go? The geographic region I live in has a higher unemployment rate than the state itself and also higher than the national average. Given these facts, should I be prevented from leaving my county or the view that adjoin it? Should I be permitted to find work elsewhere in the state? How about elsewhere in the country? My presence, will drive wages down, won't it? If all of us unwashed masses come pouring across the chesapeke bay, won't it drive down wages? But you grant me this right, you will allow me to go out to the dakotas and try to get hired on in the oil fields. So why me and not Jorge? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 6:27:14 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That, Sir, doesn't make a lick of sense. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The 'immigration' problem isn't a border problem, it's a entitlement problem. Get rid of entitlements, and increase the labor pool, everyone wins (except the lazy). Not really. The cultural conditions that have resulted in the differences between Mexico and the US would still exist. At heart it is a cultural problem. The economic problems Mexico faces are the direct result of Mexican culture. That, Sir, doesn't make a lick of sense. Yes, it does. Mexicans don't just come here for handouts, they come for the better economy. Absent entitlements they will continue to come. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 6:29:07 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's some weak trolling, IMO - but you may get some bites. lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 6:33:09 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you are in favor of state involvement in the economy. You believe that if capitalism were permitted to exist unregulated, that the outcome would be undesirable. So you favor limits and regulations of the market. You favor socialism. No. What I believe is that the immigrants will continue to push for regulation of the economy. Open immigration = less economic freedom. I believe in MORE economic freedom, which means controlling the border. Reality does not include ideal free markets or any other form of perfection. Reality is we will never have 100% ideal free markets. Reality is that open immigration policy will do for free markets what English immigration policy did to the young women of England. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 6:40:38 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. What I believe is that the immigrants will continue to push for regulation of the economy. Open immigration = less economic freedom. I believe in MORE economic freedom, which means controlling the border. Reality does not include ideal free markets or any other form of perfection. Reality is we will never have 100% ideal free markets. Reality is that open immigration policy will do for free markets what English immigration policy did to the young women of England. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So you are in favor of state involvement in the economy. You believe that if capitalism were permitted to exist unregulated, that the outcome would be undesirable. So you favor limits and regulations of the market. You favor socialism. No. What I believe is that the immigrants will continue to push for regulation of the economy. Open immigration = less economic freedom. I believe in MORE economic freedom, which means controlling the border. Reality does not include ideal free markets or any other form of perfection. Reality is we will never have 100% ideal free markets. Reality is that open immigration policy will do for free markets what English immigration policy did to the young women of England. 
So your fear of immigrants' potential to regulate the free market has lead you to advocate regulating the free market. I still want you to tell me what "mexican culture" is, btw. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 6:40:40 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The comments against more lenient immigration policies seem to focus less on the labor competition aspect and instead raise concerns that those who come will alter the American ethos in a negative way (and thereafter alter the body of our elected officials to represent that new ethos with more entitlements). But, considering the American ethos, is it not inextricably enmeshed with the concept of immigration; that America is the land of opportunity to which those willing to work hard can come and have a chance to succeed? The country was built by people who came expecting hardships and anticipating that they would rise or fall based on their own abilities, effort and a little luck. The concern raised seems to boil down to people coming not for opportunity, but for entitlements. Is that really a problem we can blame on immigrants, or is that instead a problem of our own making? Is that opportunity ethos already dead as evidenced by our existing entitlement programs? It isn't simply that they are coming for entitlements. It is that they bring cultural traditions that are contrary to rule of law and liberty. The immigrants of the late 1800s and early 1900s also brought in cultural traditions contrary to rule of law and liberty, one example from popular culture is shown in mob movies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 6:46:56 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: Strict immigration policies prevent the fair competition of individuals seeking employment. If you cannot do your job better than somebody from Guatemala then you do not deserve your job, the market has decided. If you depend on the intervention of the state in the form of labor laws or immigration controls, then you depend on state interference in the economy to produce a desired result as opposed to allowing the natural processes of the market to play out. If a person from Morocco can do a job cheaper than a person from France, then the French worker must lower his wage in order to stay competitive, if the French worker does not want to be competitive, he will lose. Insisting that the state employ its violence and its law to prop up the failed French worker is completely and totally at odds with the operation of capitalism and the free market. Why do so many in GD hate capitalism and love big government socialism when it comes to this issue? You all sound like a bunch of commie union members crying about "scabs". Workers compete against each other for the opportunity to sell their labor, that is capitalism. The state creating an unlevel playing field where one protected group is favored over an excluded group is not. You conveniently left out the main reason American workers cannot compete. I am surprised no one has mentioned this yet. The employers when hiring illegals do not have to pay out SS, medicare, medicaid, insurance, workman's comp, and a whole host of other costs that circle around the time and cost consuming requirements that the gov has required them to do. This involves additional costs on the businesses for CPAs, lawyers, accountants etc to insure it is done right over threat of fines and other worse things. Additionally illegals don't have those taxes taken out of their pay. So, it is on both ends. It is impossible to make the numbers work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 6:48:18 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So your fear of immigrants' potential to regulate the free market has lead you to advocate regulating the free market. I still want you to tell me what "mexican culture" is, btw. I'm still waiting for you to post your address. No one is arguing for some ideal, perfect free market, for the simple reason it will probably never exist. The wonderful thing about free markets is that they work well even when imperfect, unlike the system you no doubt prefer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 6:49:39 PM EDT
[#17]
Hey OP I am not sure what the fee is to renounce ones citizenship is but whatever it is I will pay it for you because you do not even America bro
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 6:56:22 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm still waiting for you to post your address. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So your fear of immigrants' potential to regulate the free market has lead you to advocate regulating the free market. I still want you to tell me what "mexican culture" is, btw. I'm still waiting for you to post your address. That relates to "mexican culture" how? You perceive "mexican culture" to be inferior, or at least, incompatible and undesirable, and this perception is integral to your argument. So, what is "mexican culture"? Are you ok with immigration from places that are not mexico? You say it will destroy the US if to many mexicans get in. Well what is US culture, and why do you get to define it? And what is mexican culture, why do you get to define it? And why is it fundamentally opposed to US culture? Until you can define these terms you're using, you cannot participate in the conversation in a meaningful way. I don't want to respond to assumed positions, I want to respond to your actual positions, so present them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 6:58:12 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hey OP I am not sure what the fee is to renounce ones citizenship is but whatever it is I will pay it for you because you do not even America bro "Don't you think strict immigration law is at odds with the free market?" "Fuck you faggot, I love america, suck an eagle's dick" Cool, see ya later. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 7:02:53 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OP, why do people want to move (immigrate) to the US if there are so many barriers to a capitalistic economy? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 7:14:57 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Don't you think strict immigration law is at odds with the free market?" "Fuck you faggot, I love america, suck an eagle's dick" Cool, see ya later. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Hey OP I am not sure what the fee is to renounce ones citizenship is but whatever it is I will pay it for you because you do not even America bro "Don't you think strict immigration law is at odds with the free market?" "Fuck you faggot, I love america, suck an eagle's dick" Cool, see ya later. I believe what he was attempting to point out to you, Sir Troll, is the intent of strict immigration law is to protect the rights and interests of the citizenry - not the rights and interests of the "free market". You can rant all you want, but DU is =====> |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 7:15:12 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That relates to "mexican culture" how? You perceive "mexican culture" to be inferior, or at least, incompatible and undesirable, and this perception is integral to your argument. So, what is "mexican culture"? Are you ok with immigration from places that are not mexico? Quote HistoryQuoted:
That relates to "mexican culture" how? You perceive "mexican culture" to be inferior, or at least, incompatible and undesirable, and this perception is integral to your argument. So, what is "mexican culture"? Are you ok with immigration from places that are not mexico? Much of the world has cultures even less capable of rule of law then Mexico. Furthermore, I'm not opposed to all Mexican immigration, the fundamental problem with Mexican immigration is due to proximity and the fact that so much Mexican immigration is uncontrolled. The situation would be much worse if Pakistan was on our border instead of Mexico. Quoted:
You say it will destroy the US if to many mexicans get in. Well what is US culture, and why do you get to define it? And what is mexican culture, why do you get to define it? And why is it fundamentally opposed to US culture? Until you can define these terms you're using, you cannot participate in the conversation in a meaningful way. You haven't engaged in the conversation in a meaningful way. You are a troll. I'll answer questions as I wish. Quoted:
I don't want to respond to assumed positions, I want to respond to your actual positions, so present them. No, you want to respond to assumed positions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 7:19:22 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Much of the world has cultures even less capable of rule of law then Mexico. Furthermore, I'm not opposed to all Mexican immigration, the fundamental problem with Mexican immigration is due to proximity and the fact that so much Mexican immigration is uncontrolled. The situation would be much worse if Pakistan was on our border instead of Mexico. You haven't engaged in the conversation in a meaningful way. You are a troll. I'll answer questions as I wish. No, you want to respond to assumed positions. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That relates to "mexican culture" how? You perceive "mexican culture" to be inferior, or at least, incompatible and undesirable, and this perception is integral to your argument. So, what is "mexican culture"? Are you ok with immigration from places that are not mexico? Much of the world has cultures even less capable of rule of law then Mexico. Furthermore, I'm not opposed to all Mexican immigration, the fundamental problem with Mexican immigration is due to proximity and the fact that so much Mexican immigration is uncontrolled. The situation would be much worse if Pakistan was on our border instead of Mexico. Quoted:
You say it will destroy the US if to many mexicans get in. Well what is US culture, and why do you get to define it? And what is mexican culture, why do you get to define it? And why is it fundamentally opposed to US culture? Until you can define these terms you're using, you cannot participate in the conversation in a meaningful way. You haven't engaged in the conversation in a meaningful way. You are a troll. I'll answer questions as I wish. Quoted:
I don't want to respond to assumed positions, I want to respond to your actual positions, so present them. No, you want to respond to assumed positions. If you won't define your terms, I won't engage in a discussion with you. Troll. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 7:21:29 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I believe what he was attempting to point out to you, Sir Troll, is the intent of strict immigration law is to protect the rights and interests of the citizenry - not the rights and interests of the "free market". You can rant all you want, but DU is =====> Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hey OP I am not sure what the fee is to renounce ones citizenship is but whatever it is I will pay it for you because you do not even America bro "Don't you think strict immigration law is at odds with the free market?" "Fuck you faggot, I love america, suck an eagle's dick" Cool, see ya later. I believe what he was attempting to point out to you, Sir Troll, is the intent of strict immigration law is to protect the rights and interests of the citizenry - not the rights and interests of the "free market". You can rant all you want, but DU is =====> Thats my point. That capitalism and the free market is not what many around here are concerned with. And thats fine, but don't gnash teeth over "THE FREEEEE MARKETTTTTTT" if you're not actually a partisan of the free market. LOL at telling somebody to go to DU because they advancing a dogmatic free market capitalist position, though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 7:22:51 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
OP, why do people want to move (immigrate) to the US if there are so many barriers to a capitalistic economy? And I'm going out for the night so this is the last one I will respond to. That is a strawman. (why I ignored it the first time) I never claimed there were "so many barriers", only that restricted immigration is a barrier to the free market. This statement is, of course, a fact. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 7:27:20 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I believe what he was attempting to point out to you, Sir Troll, is the intent of strict immigration law is to protect the rights and interests of the citizenry - not the rights and interests of the "free market". You can rant all you want, but DU is =====> Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Hey OP I am not sure what the fee is to renounce ones citizenship is but whatever it is I will pay it for you because you do not even America bro "Don't you think strict immigration law is at odds with the free market?" "Fuck you faggot, I love america, suck an eagle's dick" Cool, see ya later. I believe what he was attempting to point out to you, Sir Troll, is the intent of strict immigration law is to protect the rights and interests of the citizenry - not the rights and interests of the "free market". You can rant all you want, but DU is =====> lol, didn't realize that DU was a bastion of capitalism and freedom.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 7:31:07 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's some weak trolling, IMO - but you may get some bites. In its specifics it is somewhat weak but... Most of GD knows little to nothing about capitalism other than how to ape symbols of it to assure others that they are on "the right team." Most of the banter about capitalism here serves to mask a lack of robust individualism. So I guess that makes it incredibly useful for those inside the bubble. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 7:34:47 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
OP, why do people want to move (immigrate) to the US if there are so many barriers to a capitalistic economy? 'Cause immigrants just want to move here and suck up our tax dollars in welfare rather than participate in capitalism. Haven't you been listening to GD? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 7:47:42 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
lol, didn't realize that DU was a bastion of capitalism and freedom. OP does not favor capitalism or freedom. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 7:53:53 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thats my point. That capitalism and the free market is not what many around here are concerned with. And thats fine, but don't gnash teeth over "THE FREEEEE MARKETTTTTTT" if you're not actually a partisan of the free market. LOL at telling somebody to go to DU because they advancing a dogmatic free market capitalist position, though. The "dogmatic free market capitalist position" you advanced would destroy free markets. Furthermore there is no way the US-Mex border will meet free market ideals in any forseable future. If you don't believe me, drive over the border into mexico with a loaded handgun sitting in the passenger seat. Pushing open borders as a means towards free markets is insane in reality. Capitalism requires rule of law to properly function. It isn't simply freedom, but certain cultural preconditions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 8:01:12 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
lol, didn't realize that DU was a bastion of capitalism and freedom. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hey OP I am not sure what the fee is to renounce ones citizenship is but whatever it is I will pay it for you because you do not even America bro "Don't you think strict immigration law is at odds with the free market?" "Fuck you faggot, I love america, suck an eagle's dick" Cool, see ya later. I believe what he was attempting to point out to you, Sir Troll, is the intent of strict immigration law is to protect the rights and interests of the citizenry - not the rights and interests of the "free market". You can rant all you want, but DU is =====> lol, didn't realize that DU was a bastion of capitalism and freedom. No, but it is certainly a bastion of protecting the poor downtrodden immigrants who just want their piece of the American dream by competing on a level playing field. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 8:04:10 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And I'm going out for the night so this is the last one I will respond to. That is a strawman. (why I ignored it the first time) I never claimed there were "so many barriers", only that restricted immigration is a barrier to the free market. This statement is, of course, a fact. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
OP, why do people want to move (immigrate) to the US if there are so many barriers to a capitalistic economy? And I'm going out for the night so this is the last one I will respond to. That is a strawman. (why I ignored it the first time) I never claimed there were "so many barriers", only that restricted immigration is a barrier to the free market. This statement is, of course, a fact.  , you admit to at least one of them here:
Quoted:
American workers are not owed anything by simply being born on one side of a border. If the American worker wants to be successful he should compete against the immigrant worker. This is capitalism. If the American worker wants to compete against the immigrant worker maybe he should be lobbying for a reduction in the amount of state interference with the economy and not demanding more. How is my question a strawman? Because the answer to it blows your assertion out of the water? The capitalistic economy in the US favors US citizens because of the barriers we deal with being citizens. Things like taxes (state and federal interference to a capitalist economy) go to things that benefit citizens, not illegals. If the capitalist economy here is as "locked up" by unions and monopolies as you say, then why do immigrants continue to pour in at such a high rate illegally? If we know its not for subsidies, then maybe its because our capitalistic economy is still better than what they deal with in their own countries. Which brings me to my next question. If you believe " lobbying for a reduction in the amount of state interference with the economy," is possible, then why don't these immigrants do it in their own countries? Is it maybe because this assertion is much more complex than you're making it out to be? That Friedman video pretty much makes my point. Immigration is good for an economy that doesnt have a welfare state and entitlements. For countries that do have them, why should citizens born here, and subject to government barriers, have to compete with those with no such barriers? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 8:16:54 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
[Which brings me to my next question. If you believe " lobbying for a reduction in the amount of state interference with the economy," is possible, then why don't these immigrants do it in their own countries? IS it maybe because this assertion is much more complex than you're making it out to be? Quote HistoryQuoted:
[Which brings me to my next question. If you believe " lobbying for a reduction in the amount of state interference with the economy," is possible, then why don't these immigrants do it in their own countries? IS it maybe because this assertion is much more complex than you're making it out to be? Mexico went from anarchy to dictatorship and back to anarchy in its early years. The fundamental problem was (and is) cultural. Quoted:
That Friedman video pretty much makes my point. Immigration is good for an economy that doesnt have a welfare state and entitlements. For countries that do have them, why should citizens born there, and subject to government barriers, have to compete with those with no such barriers? The bigger issue isn't even economics, but culture. Lack of entitlements does help, because assimilation works much better when economics helps to drive it. But it isn't simply an economic problem. Mexico has great potential, but the culture has to sort itself out first. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 8:17:53 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, but it is certainly a bastion of protecting the poor downtrodden immigrants who just want their piece of the American dream by competing on a level playing field. You meant the illegals who broke the law to come here? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 8:19:42 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
, you admit to at least one of them here:
How is my question a strawman? Because the answer to it blows your assertion out of the water? The capitalistic economy in the US favors US citizens because of the barriers we deal with being citizens. Things like taxes (state and federal interference to a capitalist economy) go to things that benefit citizens, not illegals. If the capitalist economy here is as "locked up" by unions and monopolies as you say, then why do immigrants continue to pour in at such a high rate illegally? If we know its not for subsidies, then maybe its because our capitalistic economy is still better than what they deal with in their own countries? Which brings me to my next question. If you believe " lobbying for a reduction in the amount of state interference with the economy," is possible, then why don't these immigrants do it in their own countries? IS it maybe because this assertion is much more complex than you're making it out to be? That Friedman video pretty much makes my point. Immigration is good for an economy that doesnt have a welfare state and entitlements. For countries that do have them, why should citizens born there, and subject to government barriers, have to compete with those with no such barriers? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
OP, why do people want to move (immigrate) to the US if there are so many barriers to a capitalistic economy? And I'm going out for the night so this is the last one I will respond to. That is a strawman. (why I ignored it the first time) I never claimed there were "so many barriers", only that restricted immigration is a barrier to the free market. This statement is, of course, a fact. , you admit to at least one of them here:
Quoted:
American workers are not owed anything by simply being born on one side of a border. If the American worker wants to be successful he should compete against the immigrant worker. This is capitalism. If the American worker wants to compete against the immigrant worker maybe he should be lobbying for a reduction in the amount of state interference with the economy and not demanding more. How is my question a strawman? Because the answer to it blows your assertion out of the water? The capitalistic economy in the US favors US citizens because of the barriers we deal with being citizens. Things like taxes (state and federal interference to a capitalist economy) go to things that benefit citizens, not illegals. If the capitalist economy here is as "locked up" by unions and monopolies as you say, then why do immigrants continue to pour in at such a high rate illegally? If we know its not for subsidies, then maybe its because our capitalistic economy is still better than what they deal with in their own countries? Which brings me to my next question. If you believe " lobbying for a reduction in the amount of state interference with the economy," is possible, then why don't these immigrants do it in their own countries? IS it maybe because this assertion is much more complex than you're making it out to be? That Friedman video pretty much makes my point. Immigration is good for an economy that doesnt have a welfare state and entitlements. For countries that do have them, why should citizens born there, and subject to government barriers, have to compete with those with no such barriers? Exactly, how is it fair competition for citizens to pay for the welfare state and entitlements that they (illegals) use to survive here on lower wages which in turn a causes the depressing of wages for those same citizens? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 8:52:37 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Don't you think strict immigration law is at odds with the free market?" "Fuck you faggot, I love america, suck an eagle's dick" Cool, see ya later. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Hey OP I am not sure what the fee is to renounce ones citizenship is but whatever it is I will pay it for you because you do not even America bro "Don't you think strict immigration law is at odds with the free market?" "Fuck you faggot, I love america, suck an eagle's dick" Cool, see ya later. Wow if I was thin skinned I would say you just were in violation of the conduct code here
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 9:15:19 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Strict immigration policies prevent the fair competition of individuals seeking employment. If you cannot do your job better than somebody from Guatemala then you do not deserve your job, the market has decided. If you depend on the intervention of the state in the form of labor laws or immigration controls, then you depend on state interference in the economy to produce a desired result as opposed to allowing the natural processes of the market to play out. If a person from Morocco can do a job cheaper than a person from France, then the French worker must lower his wage in order to stay competitive, if the French worker does not want to be competitive, he will lose. Insisting that the state employ its violence and its law to prop up the failed French worker is completely and totally at odds with the operation of capitalism and the free market. Why do so many in GD hate capitalism and love big government socialism when it comes to this issue? You all sound like a bunch of commie union members crying about "scabs". Workers compete against each other for the opportunity to sell their labor, that is capitalism. The state creating an unlevel playing field where one protected group is favored over an excluded group is not. It's a sensible argument, but it ignores the fact that the issues involved in immigration laws and policies and illegal immigration are by no means exclusively economic, and that even in the economic sense there is the matter of the Provider State, which causes distortions. There are major political and social reasons for opposing mass immigration, amnesty for illegals, lax enforcement of the borders and immigration laws, easy naturalization or birthright citizenship laws, etc. This fact is why I am opposed to trying to base everything on "capitalism" (a word I personally dislike). It is not a basis for a political ideology or philosophy in and of itself; it can only serve as a component of the same, and not necessarily for economic reasons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 9:33:13 PM EDT
[#38]
Hay OP let them come but no free shit, no job = YOU STARVE AND DIE, NO FREE MEDICAL CARE BECAUCE THE HOSPITALS CAN'T TURN YOU AWAY= YOU DIE.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 1:24:30 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wow if I was thin skinned I would say you just were in violation of the conduct code here Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hey OP I am not sure what the fee is to renounce ones citizenship is but whatever it is I will pay it for you because you do not even America bro "Don't you think strict immigration law is at odds with the free market?" "Fuck you faggot, I love america, suck an eagle's dick" Cool, see ya later. Wow if I was thin skinned I would say you just were in violation of the conduct code here Derek Zoolander school for you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 1:41:15 PM EDT
[#40]
In this case, I would say too much of a good thing and the thing's not so good anymore. All the isms have that problem. And the immigrants will wind up undercutting each other once they run all the previous occupants out. And guess what they're gonna want? Government protection from shit like that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 1:50:33 PM EDT
[#41]
Most immigration is not necessary with capitalism - outsourcing allows for an even cheaper source of labor.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
