Comments (74)

• Bill Ott

  The current immigration policies provide an open invitation to the smuggler!!!!!

  You hit the nail right on the head. Instead of outlawing a physical product like alcohol or cocaine the government with its police state policies is attempting to outlaw the service of cheap labor.

  But when the government outlaws a product with this a large amount of demand, smugglers appear to satisfy that demand. Only the truely horrible part is that the smugglers are the immigrants/laborers themselves.

  And do not think the government with its considerable ability to steal money is capable to stop this. We have immigrants pouring into the country from all over the world.

  Published: May 10, 2006 8:08 AM

• David C

  The truth is that I prefer the immigrants to the "poor" here at home. At least most the immigrants understand that the state doesn't owe them a living. One morning, I went to the local mart and there were groups of Mexicans waiting to be picked up for work, then I drove down the road and there were Americans holding signs guilt-triping people for free handouts. If that doesn't say it all.

  I've never understood peoples bitterness toward immigrants, we should be sending out thank-you notes and offering welcoming parties bercause they make our goods and services so much cheaper. There have been over 2000 people who have died in the deserts trying to make it into the US, and all they wanted to do is nothing more than honest work. This was done for my "protection"? Well, I resent this "protection" and it won't be a day too soon for this system to die.

  In practice, all the debt we have is probably going to force the death of the dollar - and then the elderly voting block will clammer to open the immigration flood gates to bring in more revenue to "save" their defaulted social security bonds and supply cheap home care labor. Won't that be interesting.

  Published: May 10, 2006 8:43 AM

• Frank Z

  Good article.

  The road to hell is paved with good intentions..and government is full of them. The day will come that their attempt to please everybody, will please nobody. I think that day is near.

  Published: May 10, 2006 9:42 AM

• Reactionary

  David,

  Immigration is being used for exactly what you suggest: to mitigate inflation and expand the tax base. Mass immigration is vital to the health of the welfare-warfare state.

  Published: May 10, 2006 9:45 AM

• Alan R

  Excellent article. But the US government is not the only government at fault. The Mexican government is using the US as a dumping ground for its criminals (as Castro has in rhe past) and for illegal immigrants INTO Mexico from south and central American countries. Mexicans appear to be escaping to the US not only for jobs but to escape their own corrupt government, corrupt drug police, corrupt aristocracy, etc. Who can blame them? Maybe President Cheney should have promoted regime change in Mexico instead of Irag.

  Published: May 10, 2006 10:09 AM

• Fran

  I think the biggest difference between the previous government "wars" against drugs, poverty, etc, and the curreent "war" against ILLEGAL immigration, is that the public generally supports this war. The distinction is we are speaking about ILLEGAL immigration. Also, the argument of economic benefit does not ring true when one considers the costs driven into our education, judicial and health systems by illegal immigrants. I think the answer may be to require they enter the country legally, and then prohibit them from utilizing our social systems until they become legal citizens of this country.

  Published: May 10, 2006 10:42 AM

• Evans Munyemesha

  This article has a refreshing 'taste' than whatever Profs Sowell(Hoover Institute) and Williams(George Mason Univ.)have been regurgitating in their newspaper columns. Bravo!

  Published: May 10, 2006 10:47 AM

• Glen Smith

  The war on immigration will not fail in that it won't achieve the desired ends of the leadership calling for this war.

  What I find ironic, is that the only valid conclusion that can be made against free immigration, is one that comes from leftist arguments (leftist as I understand the term).

  Published: May 10, 2006 10:55 AM

• mike / san francisco

  good article, but, as a republican and not a libertarian, i see your talk as tediously utopian. AS LONG AS we have a society that insists on providing education and medical services, and other things, to everyone who comes in here, we simply cannot let the natural tendency towards open boarders to continue unchecked -- at least, regulated (do you really believe that we shouldn't at all in may, 2006?). we are a magnet for unreasonable and unsustainable distributions of people -- we have to cushion ourselves and our institutions, lest their only chore be adapting to continual change and instability. That insulation sometimes requires geographical remove. we will keep trying to maintain our levels of social services and get further in the hole. they will come, and eventually vote, and turn government into little more than a means of income redistribution. ampole politicians will help them. aren't you interested in all the social science about assimilation vs. diversity? haven't you been reading about the problems in france?

  why don't you come up with a THEORY that doesn't afford itself the luxury of always assuming, arguendo, that there has just been a miraculous cessation of entitlements, with a static level of social unrest following?

  As long as libertarians entitle themselves to forever ignore the fact that their ideas need to emerge in a democratic system, they can't really say much on this.

  it's sort of like the libertarian party on the death penalty or abortion: they don;t take a stance. you guys keep going on and on, but you are only talking to proselytes. for example, what can one possibly learn from the fact that one particular reader happens to like the hard working immigrants more than slovenly americans?

  Published: May 10, 2006 11:02 AM

• Chuck Summers

  I agree that the cause of the problem is the welfare state, but we live in a situation where there is a welfare state. It will take time and education to get us from where we are to where we need to be, but in the meantime, we have to deal with the issues mentioned.

  One large problem that I see is that for the free economy, the illegal immigrant has an economic advantage over the legal immigrant. He can work for less money from the employers perspective, but still make as much, if not more personally than the legal immigrant because of taxes.

  So we can either force everyone, legal or not, to pay taxes, or take away the taxes from those who are legal. One way to do this would be to do away with the current tax system and replace it with one that has no income tax. That way everyone who works gets all of his money, and gets taxed when he uses that money (at least with the fair tax).

  I enjoy reading many of the articles from the Mises Institute, but find that they tend to be long on theory, but short on practicality. While I agree with most of the criticism, I find that without a workable solution (that is one that can be supported within our current political situation) I just get frustrated.
  

  Published: May 10, 2006 11:09 AM

• David Canning

  mike said:
  it's sort of like the libertarian party on the death penalty or abortion: they don;t take a stance. you guys keep going on and on, but you are only talking to proselytes. for example, what can one possibly learn from the fact that one particular reader happens to like the hard working immigrants more than slovenly americans?
  
  Mike, libertarians do take a stance on both of these issues, we are 1. against the death penalty, and 2. pro-choice (although individually we may be for or against abortion, we are for being able to choose). Also, you can learn a lot from the article aside from what a reader thinks of immigrants vs. americans and their expectations of handouts. You could learn that anything you want government to do can be done better in some other manner, and that government will without fail screw it up, see here

  Published: May 10, 2006 11:30 AM

• Ninos Malek

  While I might be sympathetic to more immigration by changing the current law, I guess I still believe until it is changed, the law of the land must be respected by the employers who want to go around it and by potential entrants into the US. Also, I think that not punishing illegal immigration is a slap in the face to people like my parents and others who waited (are waiting) and played (are playing) by the rules. Again, if you want to change the rules, great, but do not send the message that our laws do not have to be respected. In any case, interesting piece.

  Published: May 10, 2006 11:33 AM

• mike / san francisco

  chuck, we seemed to have the same concern at the same time. mises articles are very good on history, though. they are ridiculously sanguine on the subject of china, though.

  Published: May 10, 2006 11:33 AM

• Som

  Great Article, it's finally nice to hear a firm stance for free immigration than what some "supposed" libertarians whine over illegal immigration. The worst is "oh think of the political implications that come from illegal immigrants" so there must still be controls until society becomes libertarian. thats like saying socialist parents should not be allowed to have children in the U.S. because of the "political implications" that these children will jeopordize our liberties in the future. give me a break! Now that I think about it, the 700 mile fence on the US and Mexican border is a pretty racist bill too, since it will only cover that border and not the US-Canadian Border (but god forbid we ever build a fence up there)

  And no, stable immigration reform is not utopian. Here's a good start:

  1. Treat the Mexican border like the Canadian Border, and remove all oher "immigration" quotas laws, police, etc.

  2. Have all border states enforce a "national" prop 187 (where non-naturalized citizens have no legal access to any public service - except dispute resolution - but including public schools, public health care, welfare, licensing, and anyting else i missed)

  3. Sell of public land accross the border back to the people and restore it all as private property. I'm sure some of those minute men would buy some up too.

  Now is that REALLY so utopian?

  Published: May 10, 2006 11:46 AM

• Francisco Torres

  Fran wrote:
  Also, the argument of economic benefit does not ring true when one considers the costs driven into our education, judicial and health systems by illegal immigrants.

  The US Gov has acknowledged that immigrants do pay federal and state taxes, using phoney Social Security numbers and special tax returns from the IRS, so it is not like they are sucking resources away from citizens.

  
  I think the answer may be to require they enter the country legally, and then prohibit them from utilizing our social systems until they become legal citizens of this country.

  Uh, I think the answer would be to do away with those services for good, and let people use the market. The free market can deliver those services more cheaply and quicker - for example, in Mexico, where doctors are made to compete (unlike the US where the AMA limits the supply of doctors), a specialist would charge you somewhere around 40 to 50 USD for a consult. Medicine can be purchased without a prescription (except narcotics), making it dirt-cheap. So it is not like Libertarians and Austrians are talking about utopias.

  The Gov could not prohibit immigrants or non-citizens from using the public schools since schooling in the US is mandatory, making it a crime not to send kids to be indoctrin... sorry, to be schooled.

  Published: May 10, 2006 12:11 PM

• William Gardner

  I see nothing racist about having a fence along the mexican border. We do not have a problem with canadians. They are not illegally coming here by the millions. You have Mexico and other south American Nationals flooding to our country illegally. It needs to be stoped. I for one could careless about Corprate America. If a bussiness can not afford to hire legal Americans at a decent wage then let them close shop for all i care. I for one am not willing to give away my country so corprate america can make a extra dollar, or to make librals happy. If you remeber your american history you will know the first civil war was about cheap labor. What alot of people fail to realize is alot of Americans, the Majority of Americans( Despite what polls say) is fed up with Illegal Immigrants and our goverment.

  Published: May 10, 2006 12:16 PM

• TLB

  Two things for libertarians to consider:

  1. Illegal labor is massively subsidized. Employers get "cheap" labor and force everyone else to pay the costs for schools, roads, jails, etc. etc. For just one example, the LAUSD is spending billions to build new schools and many of those students are illegal aliens or their children. And, even when all that building is done they'll still be short tens of thousands of seats.

  2. Libertarians claim to support national defense. However, allowing millions of people who have allegiance to another country to come here is extremely dangerous. The recent marches were a show of force by foreign citizens. If we don't give them what they want - or if we started large scale deportations - they would probably riot.

  Since we do have a right as a country to deport illegal aliens, those who've allowed this situation have endangered this country. If you say we can't do deportations, then you're saying we're no longer a real country.

  Published: May 10, 2006 12:34 PM

• Curt Howland

  Calling libertarians "utopian" is false. "Utopian" visions are ones of controlled, planned societies. The "utopian" vision is government control, government regulation, government solutions to every problem.
  

  For instance, this article does not propose how to eliminate any problems by repeal of government regulation other than those problems that are caused by government.
  

  That does seem to be what the Republicans and Democrats just do not comprehend: Government is causing the problems that they themselves decry.
  

  Don't like the money pouring into the public schools to provide day-care to illegal immigrant children? Then repeal the laws that require them to attend. Don't like the money spent propping up overloaded emergency rooms? Then repeal the laws requiring emergency rooms to treat patients. Don't like illegals using public infrastructure? Repeal the laws that fund that infrastructure through taxation.
  

  If those who use a service must pay for it, then it doesn't matter if they are illegally in this geographic location or not.
  

  Being that most Mexican immigrants are Catholic, I fully expect that Catholic hospitals, clinics, schools and such will be set up to provide those services because, just as this article tries to point out, there is a demand. Right now, that demand is being filled by taxpayer funded programs. Repeal those programs, and those problems vanish.
  

  Remember the relatively unregulated Mexican medical "system"? Last time I heard anything about that it was decrying how Americans were crossing the border to get cheaper drugs. Maybe the current furor isn't actually about cheap Mexican labor, it's being backed by the drug companies trying to prop up their profits by building a fence across the southern border to try to keep Americans *IN*.

  Published: May 10, 2006 12:39 PM

• TGGP

  There may be some taxes paid by illegals (surely sales taxes at least), but all the statistics I've read say that on net they are a drain on the state: http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/060126_nd_tables.htm You may "prefer" them to our native "underclass", but this is not a trade: we are getting taking on more of something slightly less bad. And the article is wrong when it says the government cannot enforce immigration law. It did before 1965, notably in the succesful but oh-so-politically-incorrectly-named "Operation Wetback". It's not doing so now because despite the public being greatly in favor of more enforcement, the leaders of both parties do not want to.

  Published: May 10, 2006 12:41 PM

• Brian Drum

  Simple, one word solution to the immigration 'problem': SECESSION

  Published: May 10, 2006 12:42 PM

• tom

  “There exists a market demand for low-skilled cheap labor. Part of this demand is being met by outsourcing of jobs overseas. The rest is met by vast numbers of immigrants coming to this country. Illegal immigration is the market supplying a demand. A demand is being met and satisfied.�

  There always exists a demand for cheap labor in EVERY occupation, from lawyers, doctors, and engineers to ditch diggers, hamburger flippers and parking lot attendants. This is the nature of a demand curve. The quantity demanded increases as the wage falls. If 500 million engineers, doctors, lawyers and other high skilled workers entered the country tomorrow a demand would be met, but at a much lower wage. The market would work. Does one really need to spell out why this would be a problem?

  As long as low skilled workers are entering the country, the well educated elite don’t see a problem with this. These low skilled workers are not in direct competition with the elite and the elite benefit because these are the type of people the elite hire in order to do their landscaping or pick the fruit they buy at the super market and other menial tasks. Just imagine 5 million journalists pouring across the border every year. You would certainly hear the media elite change their tune about illegal aliens and start demanding a stop to illegal alien journalist entering the country.

  Ludwig von Mises have pointed out that the way to increase the wages of workers is to increase the amount of capital invest per worker. With an open borders policy the wage level of everyone, not just the unskilled workers who have to compete against the illegal aliens whom the elite seem unconcerned about, will fall.

  Despite the faults of the US government, it has been relatively benign with respect to capital accumulation relative to most governments in Mexico; and South and Central America. This has led to the US citizen being one of the highest paid workers in the world. Unchecked immigration will cause everyone’s wage to fall. Right now, since mainly unskilled labor illegally enters the country, only unskilled wages fall. The consequence of mass migration to the US if the government adopted an open borders policy would be a drastic diminution in the wage of all US workers.
  

  Published: May 10, 2006 1:01 PM

• Paul Edwards

  David,

  “…libertarians do take a stance on both of these issues, we are 1. against the death penalty, and 2. pro-choice (although individually we may be for or against abortion, we are for being able to choose).�

  I think, while it is true to say that most individual libertarians do take a stand on these issues, it is quite untrue that there is general agreement among us on them.

  I, for one, don’t object to the death penalty if it is known with certainty the convict committed the murder. And I am not pro-choice. And I do not hold these positions only from purely moral grounds but rather based on what I claim to be libertarian ethical grounds.

  What libertarians are striving for is to discover how to apply the relevant libertarian principles on which to conclude decisively what ethical propositions are valid and which are not. I think we have the principle: non-aggression, we just need to continue to refine our application of it to each scenario. That is what the mises blog allows us to do, is to hammer out all the arguments going each way and see which ones are most consistent.
  

  Published: May 10, 2006 1:23 PM

• George T. Kysor

  You're right, Tom! and with an open border policy the vast hords from China and India would also swarm in, creating even lower wage rates untill finally the wages here would be nearly level with the wages now in China and India.

  Published: May 10, 2006 1:47 PM

• Paul Edwards

  It bothers me that things are as they are, but as the article points out, this is how they are:

  We have state provided

  hospitalization,
  cash payments,
  affirmative action privileges,
  public schools (that's a huge one),
  voting rights,
  and a range of political demands that impinge on people's expectations concerning language, security, and political cohesion.

  And “there is the problem of the justice and security system in this country, which doesn't even work for residents, much less for poor immigrants.�

  So let me pose this, if we were to imagine a world, where all of the above in the US were about to remain very much the same, or perhaps get slightly worse, and the only thing that one could possibly hope to successfully agitate for would be changes in immigration policy, would we agitate for

  a) Completely 100% open borders with no immigration restrictions or

  b) Maintaining enforced immigration restrictions.

  Before we choose (a), I think it is wise to carefully consider what the likely results of it would be. It has been argued by Hoppe who rejects (a), and conceded by Block who (I believe) accepts (a), that the results of choosing (a) for a country such as say Austria, would be complete and utter economic devastation. What do we expect in the US given also our current political reality? Are we sure that this is a result that libertarian thinking should acquiesce to? I believe that we are faced with the reality of a welfare state and that advocating a policy that, given our very real circumstances, would tend towards an advanced rate of economic devastation of this nation, is not libertarian. It would be aggression against the property of the people who live here presently.

  Published: May 10, 2006 1:55 PM

• Brian Drum

  Paul,

  Couldn't one argue that an immigration policy that would result in the complete collapse of the welfare state is actually a good thing?

  Now we know that a welfare state is destined to grow until it collapses in on itself, right? If we have accepted the fact that the welfare state is not going to be repealed, would not the next best option be to move it towards collapse as soon as possible?

  Published: May 10, 2006 2:18 PM

• Karl

  ""There exists a market demand for low-skilled cheap labor, writes Wade Mitchell. Part of this demand is being met by outsourcing of jobs overseas. The rest is met by vast numbers of immigrants coming to this country.""

  What utter tripe. There is a "market" for every type of labor, low-wage is nothing special. Labor is a cost. To increase profits costs are reduced. Costs are reduced by outsourcing labor overseas, and for labor that is not transportable immigrants are insourced into our "country" to deflate wages according to the basic principles of supply and demand. Patriotism and other fellowfeelings for groups like "America" or any country are old fashioned. Capitalism has no boundaries or borders and should not have any. Those here that are trying to make moral arguments rationalizing the overclass's interest in depressing underclass wages are still stuck in morality and group identity.

  Published: May 10, 2006 2:31 PM

• Karl

  "Before we choose (a), I think it is wise to carefully consider what the likely results of it would be."

  Paul, the results are increased profits for the industries lobbying for these bills. These people who wish it to be motived otherwise are suckers or think tank flak. Those who wish it to be punishment on the Welfare State, "lazy" Americans, etc. etc. are just rationalizing their support on enmities.

  It is the money Paul. Join the overclass. Nation, patriotism and group think are artificial trade and economic barriers. Profits are made because the extra costs are not borne by the overclass. They are borne by the middle classes in state taxes weighted towards sales taxes.

  If the cost were shifted to upper income taxes the story would be different naturally. But the privileged classes are privileged with money to bribe politicians. The bribes/campaign contributions are well-spent, unfortunately the Senate couldn't pull the fast one with "patriots" like Jeff Seesions making noise. We need to increase pressure to increase profits and if an appeal is made to prejudice about the lower classes so be it.

  Join the global libertarian elite.

  Published: May 10, 2006 2:45 PM

• Paul Edwards

  Hi Brian,

  “Couldn't one argue that an immigration policy that would result in the complete collapse of the welfare state is actually a good thing?

  “Now we know that a welfare state is destined to grow until it collapses in on itself, right? If we have accepted the fact that the welfare state is not going to be repealed, would not the next best option be to move it towards collapse as soon as possible?�

  At first it struck me as plausible, until I read Hoppe’s counter argument which strikes me as more persuasive:

  “But then there is the great leap—or the gaping hole—in the open border argument: out of the ruins of the democratic welfare states, we are led to believe, a new natural order will somehow emerge.

  “The first error in this line of reasoning can be readily identified. Once the welfare states have collapsed under their own weight, the masses of immigrants who have brought this about are still there. They have not been miraculously transformed into Swiss, Austrians, Bavarians or Lombards, but remain what they are: Zulus, Hindus, Ibos, Albanians, or Bangladeshis. Assimilation can work when the number of immigrants is small. It is entirely impossible, however, if immigration occurs on a mass scale. In that case, immigrants will simply transport their own ethno-culture onto the new territory. Accordingly, when the welfare state has imploded there will be a multitude of “little� (or not so little) Calcuttas, Daccas, Lagoses, and Tiranas strewn all over Switzerland, Austria, and Italy. It betrays a breathtaking sociological naiveté to believe that a natural order will emerge out of this admixture. Based on all historical experience with such forms of multiculturalism, it can safely be predicted that in fact the result will be civil war. There will be widespread plundering and squatterism leading to massive capital consumption, and civilization as we know it will disappear from Switzerland, Austria and Italy.�

  (from Hoppe's “Natural Order, the State, and the Immigration Problem�, http://mises.org/journals/jls/16_1/16_1_5.pdf )

  Published: May 10, 2006 3:25 PM

• quincunx

  "I for one am not willing to give away my country so corprate america can make a extra dollar,"

  Your country? Whoa! I want to see you put up the fence with your own money.

  " If you remeber your american history you will know the first civil war was about cheap labor. "

  No it was about tariffs. It was about the south financing a government that send money to the north. It was about the inability for the south to export.

  "What alot of people fail to realize is alot of Americans, the Majority of Americans( Despite what polls say) is fed up with Illegal Immigrants and our goverment."

  Who cares what the majority thinks? The illegal alien and local resident are both engaging in mutually beneficial action.

  "1. Illegal labor is massively subsidized. Employers get "cheap" labor and force everyone else to pay the costs for schools, roads, jails, etc. etc"

  Not paying is NOT a subsidy!

  "Since we do have a right as a country to deport illegal aliens, those who've allowed this situation have endangered this country."

  Countries don't have rights! People have rights. And if people on both sides of the border want to trade goods or labor services, then they have a right to!

  "If you say we can't do deportations, then you're saying we're no longer a real country"

  You can deport people off your property! But you can't deport people from something you don't own.

  Published: May 10, 2006 3:25 PM

• Brian Drum

  Paul,

  I have no doubt that after the implosion of a welfare state there will be mass conflict and strife. But aren't we sort of in that boat already? Someday the welfare checks will start bouncing or the funds won't be enough to buy a gumball. If the welfare state (U.S.) imploded tomorrow I think the same situation would occur. I wouldn't expect for a natural order to spring up all across the United States's in that case either. Even without any immigrants there is still a massive amount of people that are completely dependent on Uncle Sam's tit. However, surely there will be pockets of civilization remaining.

  Either way I'm not really too interested in the immigration debate per se. And as for openning the immigrant flood gates in order to kill the welfare state, that was sort of just an off the top of the head thought. I think maybe the best hope is Hoppe's vision of a cascading secessionist movement that takes us into a world of tens of thousands of mini-'state's. Perhaps all of the hubabaloo over immigration will spark some viable seperatist movements?

  Published: May 10, 2006 3:54 PM

• Paul Edwards

  Karl,

  I am too dull to understand what you are driving at. Are you for or against 100% open borders?

  Published: May 10, 2006 4:03 PM

• Paul Edwards

  "Perhaps all of the hubabaloo over immigration will spark some viable seperatist movements?"

  It would be so cool if secession became a reality and little islands of anarchy formed here and there for starters without the threat of mass murders by the state.

  Published: May 10, 2006 4:09 PM

• M E Hoffer

  I find it interesting that noone cared to engage Mr. Howland's posit that the push to Fence/Paramilitarize our southern border may, in fact, be upon us to keep "us" *IN*.

  There's a corrallary to: " The regulated mirrors the Regulator." As follows: " "Enemies", over time, mirror one another."

  That, as we well were told, The U.S.S.R. tried desparately to keep those, they thought of highest value, in, should inform "us" as to the potential of our current U.S. State.

  Mr. Howland has done the tradition of being an American--questioning any potential trammeling of one's Liberty--proud. That, seemingly, the rest of us accept, readily, the sound-bite frame, of the issue at hand, bodes ill, not only for our Liberty, but, for our very Health.

  Published: May 10, 2006 5:19 PM

• Karl

  Paul,

  It's satire. You're not dull, I should have done better.

  Nice try anyway?

  I'm pro-Americans.

  Published: May 10, 2006 6:13 PM

• M E Hoffer

  Karl,

  That's funny ! I was going to guess you were an LSE Grad~

  Published: May 10, 2006 6:19 PM

• Mike Linksvayer

  Excellent article, spot-on.

  Published: May 10, 2006 7:24 PM

• billwald

  How many of you want your kids to be migrant workers? The "Americans want to do stoop labor" is similar to the argument that we should build mass transit for other people to use so we can have the freeways.

  Published: May 10, 2006 7:41 PM

• Keith Preston

  I knew this article was going to provoke a lot of debate on this blog.

  Any anti-immigration policy that strengthens the federal government (like building a Berlin Wall along the southern border) is a bad idea because, as M.E. Hoffer points out, such tactics are just as likely to be used to "keep us in" as they are to "keep them out". Of course, there are a lot of things that could be done to reduce immigration without strengthening the state: repealing antidiscrimination laws and affirmative action, ending entitlements to non-citizens (or ending entitlements altogether), making the requirements for citizenship more stringent, decentralizing the naturalization process to the local or regional level, ending subsidies to corrupt Third World regimes that wreck their own economies and encourage mass migration elsewhere,etc.

  None of this will happen because it's not in the state's interest to accept such reductions in its own authority. The state will continue to grow until it collapses under its own weight.

  The Southwestern US is the inevitable location of a future Republic of Atzlan. Whether that's good or bad may well be an individual value judgement. I think the main danger, as Hoppe argues, is civil war between contending ethnic groups a la the former Yugoslavia. (Incidentally, I think a Hispanic vs. Black civil war is more likely than Black/White or Hispanic/White conflict.) Here's the site of a fairly interesting group that addresses this idea in a fairly no-holds-barred manner: http://www.separatism.org

  Here's my own critique of the above group:
  http://www.attackthesystem.com/asdplancritique.html

  
  The main problem I see with Hoppe's argument is that I'm not convinced that Europeans or North Americans are any less inclined towards plunder than Third Worlders. It was these nations that gave us the two world wars, the holocaust, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the arms race, Vietnam, Hitler, Stalin, the present war in Iraq and much else. Also, the welfare states of these nations are quite large. Their taxes are some of the highest anywhere.

  I tend to regard Islamic immigration into Europe as much more dangerous than Latino immigration in the US. Most immigrants to America are economic immigrants. They share the same European ancestry and Christian religious traditions. English and Spanish are rather close to one another as linguistic system. However, Islam brings with it its imperial, theocratic ideology. I'm not demonizing Muslims but I do think the large-scale Islamic immigration into Europe presently taking place is dangerous to Europe's future, if those are to remain as Enlightenment-influenced nations. Remember how Christianity (which originated from the Near East) overthrew the classical Greco-Roman civilization? I suspect Islam will eventually do the same to modernity in Europe.

  I do think Third World immigration into the northern hemisphere is here to stay, so we'd better get used to it. One of the reasons I am an anarchist is because I think ethnic, cultural and religious differences that often lead to massacres and repression are best accommodated under the type of decentralized, pluralistic, polycentric panarchy that I think a nation or civilization influenced by anarchist ideas would eventually produce.

  Published: May 10, 2006 8:26 PM

• Karl

  Karl,

  That's funny ! I was going to guess you were an LSE Grad~

  Posted by: M E Hoffer at May 10, 2006 06:19 PM
  _______________________________-

  Dear M E Hoffer,

  Brevity is the soul of wit and by God, you got it!

  Published: May 10, 2006 10:31 PM

• Scott Stinson

  The reason that the war on illegal immigration has failed is because the US Government has not been harsh enough towards the illegal immigrants.
  If the People of the United States do not want illegal immigrants in this country, then the US Government and the poor working Americans who see their wages affected by illegal immigrants need to take a gun and execute the illegal immigrants on sight!

  Published: May 10, 2006 11:57 PM

• Ulrich Hobelmann

  Scott, now only would that be murder (even if there were people on your property, you'd first have to ask them to leave, and even then carry them away instead of just killing them!), but most of all you'd be forcing your view of immigration on all others.

  What if another US-citizen doesn't mind foreign immigrants and wants to provide them a job (because he likes the guy and doesn't see an American that wants to work for the same low wage)? That gives you the right to shoot the immigrant?

  Sorry, but in my eyes you are a severe danger to any peaceful human society.

  (oh, and what about tourists? What if they stay a month longer than "allowed" in their Visa, like I did last year?)

  Published: May 11, 2006 2:41 AM

• Brett_McS

  Gee, we must be in real strife here in Australia, an island, with almost no illegal immigration. I'm surprised the economy isn't tanking, instead of having 15 years of continuous, uninterrupted growth, along with strong border (sea) patrols. We could probably rectify this situation by letting hoards of illegal immigrants come pooring in. But they won't ever learn, will they?
  

  Published: May 11, 2006 4:05 AM

• Reactionary

  Brian:

  "If we have accepted the fact that the welfare state is not going to be repealed, would not the next best option be to move it towards collapse as soon as possible?"

  After the collapse of the multicultural empire known as the USA, if such a thing ever comes to pass, people will separate according to tribe, as they did in Somalia, Yugoslavia, and Iraq. When that day comes, hopefully your descendants are in the majority race/ethnicity in their locale. Otherwise, they are going to lose their property and possibly their lives as well.

  I actually don't think we'll be so lucky to see the ultimate day of reckoning for liberalism. Immigrants will expand the tax base, mitigate the effects of inflation, sign up for the military in order to earn citizenship, and enthusiastically participate in elections. The multicultural imperium will be here for the indefinite future.

  Published: May 11, 2006 8:18 AM

• Francisco Torres

  How many of you want your kids to be migrant workers?

  I do, if it means they will be happier, more productive people. I would not mind my kids migrating to, let us say, Australia, if that makes them happy and if the money is there.

  Published: May 11, 2006 9:14 AM

• Richard

  Wade Mitchell's article on the libertarian solution to our immigration problem is utopian, to say the least. "If" we didn't have a welfare state, then most illegals would not come here. They provide a needed source of cheap labor, according to free market concepts. Great. In the meantime, the US becomes more like a third world country, with its native population and culture being displaced. That's not what most Americans want, and if you could see the ultimate damage, not what most libertarians would want either.

  Published: May 11, 2006 10:05 AM

• Alan R

  "its native population and culture being displaced"?
  We palefaces are "native"? Ask the real natives about the effects of uncontrolled immigration.

  Published: May 11, 2006 11:02 AM

• Lisa Casanova

  Suppose I'm anti-immigration, and I get the government to enforce my personal preference of closing the borders because immigrants cause too many problems. My fellow "natives," meanwhile, are busily producing babies who consume socialized healthcare, education, and various other public programs, and who will grow up to be enthusiastic advocates of the continued expansion of the welfare state (Heck, maybe we'll become one of those places where the welfare-statist government pays people to have MORE babies becuase they aren't having enough!). Do I get veto power over their procreative choices, too?

  Published: May 11, 2006 3:29 PM

• Keith Preston

  I really think the whole debate over whether or not immigrants "should" be here is for nothing. The fact is they are here, and more are coming all the time. That's not going to change, certainly not while the present ruling class is in power. It's not in their interest to change, not economically, not ideologically, not demographically, not even for the sake of their short-term political interests. It all gets down to what the economics-minded people who read this blog mean when they talk about "incentives". Big Business has an interest in bringing immigrants (legal and illegal) here. Small business has the same interest(cheap labor). So do the many social services bureaucracies, from schools to the welfare system. So does the Democratic Party (need more minority voters). So does the Republican Party( need more look-we're-not-racist window dressing). So do the ethnic lobbies. So do the cultural elites.

  I just saw an AP report today showing that one third of the US population is now comprised of ethnic minorities with the Hispanics being the unquestioned largest of the minority groups. Which side has the most motivation to take political action? The pro-immigrant groups and their allies go out and raise hell over the smallest anti-immigration measures. What does the other side do? So far as I can tell, nothing except exchange angry e-mails and run their mouth on talk radio.

  Seriously though, you couldn't "send 'em home" now even if there was a political will to do so. An attempt at mass deportation would result in a civil war a la Yugoslavia. Insteady, we need to work towards some means of peaceful co-existence, like the ASD Plan I linked to in a previous post. Here it is again: http://www.separatism.org

  Published: May 11, 2006 4:22 PM

• Reactionary

  "Do I get veto power over their procreative choices, too?"

  If you are paying for their children, I don't see why you shouldn't. However, most people feel an attachment to their fellow citizens or fellow whites, blacks, etc., which they don't have to strangers. Thus, they value their fellow's procreative choices higher than they value an immigrant's choice to leave his or her own country and come here.

  Published: May 11, 2006 4:24 PM

• Paul Edwards

  Lisa,

  The way i try to work out a position on the most brutally awkward immigration issue is to imagine how a libertarian ethic would apply to it in anarchy.

  In that case, first of all, land would be either privately owned or completely unowned. Roads would be private or non-existent. If all land is owned, then the situation is very simple: new-comers to the region would require an invitation by both (typically) an employer and a seller or renter of accommodation, and would have to acquire the rights to travel the roads to arrive. They would otherwise be criminal trespassers.

  In the case where there is unowned land, then new-comers would be free to homestead it, providing they can acquire the right to access/discover it.

  In either scenario, the issue of "immigration� would be decided purely on private voluntary agreement. All would be good.

  Under the coercive state, since individuals do not have the right to deny new-comers access to "public" land and roads, which should naturally be private, this function is left to the state to perform. If it does not perform this function at all (i.e. has 100% open border policy), it does not imply liberty, it just means that private individuals cannot exercise their property rights to deny entrance to the new-comer and neither is the state going to even make the pretense of doing it for him.

  All it means is that an important right of exclusion has been almost completely revoked.

  When you compound that flaw, with the devastating costs associated with completely open borders in a western welfare state, with its natural leaning towards subsidizing minorities and the “underprivileged�, you have the formula for near certain economic catastrophe and racial conflict, without the prospect of libertarian anarchy emerging from the rubble.

  I think the above suggests the inappropriateness of the analogy you present of children as pseudo immigrants. Children are invitees of their parents and are ethically entitled to being raised in the homes of their parents. Of course, they will one day need to go out and see if they can contract to obtain their own employment and housing. But at the least they are invited guests. Furthermore, of course no one else is justified in dictating if these parents have kids or not.

  So while it is a disaster that the state exists, and the huge immigration problem exists because of it, it is very hard to accept that, given a state, a 100% open borders policy could be a good thing either in libertarian principle or in any kind of practice.

  Published: May 11, 2006 4:40 PM

• Francisco Torres

  But at the least they are invited guests.

  Paul, immigrants ARE being invited by their employers.

  Lisa's point is that the argument many times wielded against immigrants, that they gobble up resources, is inconsistent, since newborn babies do exactly the same no matter if they are invited guests or not. Babies gobble up tax money taken from Lisa, and she did not invite them - which is why she asks a fair question: Doesn't she have a saying regarding the reproductive rights of people she subsidizes, even if they are white, anglo saxon and protestant?

  (And I am not implying a racist overtone from your comments, Paul. I think you're cool on that)

  Published: May 11, 2006 4:56 PM

• Paul Edwards

  Hi Fransisco,

  "Paul, immigrants ARE being invited by their employers."

  Yes, and i agree that the state will reject many who should not be rejected, and it will allow many it should not allow. This is the nature of the state. But, nevertheless, i am convinced 100% open borders would be an even worse state instigated disaster in theory and practice.

  Also,

  I agree with your interpretation of Lisa's point, however what i meant to convey was that if you shift the analysis over to a model of anarchy, one can show that restricted immigration, or more precisely exclusion, is a libertarian right inherent in property, but that there is no situation that justifies one person's controlling of another's having children. This is why it is not persuasive in the argument that advocates (not that she is necessarily arguing for this) 100% open borders while living under a western welfare state.

  Published: May 11, 2006 6:36 PM

• James Bond 007

  I live N. of Austin, home to hundreds of thousands of foreign workers. These folks build our homes, tend our yards and quarry limestone. My employer looks at my white skin and knows, as a cost of hiring me, he'll need to pay: salary, unempl. comp., social security and matching soc. sec., workman's comp, medicare taxes, benefits, plus myriad regulatory requirements.
  The company also faces much litigation exposure if we scream "age discrimination" or "sexual harrassment" etc.

  
  WHILE many of our undocuemented neighbors work for cash, and with no incentive to file bogus lawsuits. What a HUGE ADVANTAGE these guys have over us. Plus they get the welfare state benefits, particularly for their children.

  Perhaps I could ask an employer to give me the undocumented worker "cash deal." But he knows I could easily rat him out and sue him, if I ever got angry at him or hurt. Our undocumented neighbors are hugely advantaged.

  Published: May 11, 2006 11:38 PM

• Reactionary

  Alan R,

  Nobody seems to want to answer your question so I'll take a shot: they saw their property confiscated, their young men killed, and their culture destroyed. They ended up a despised minority with intractable social problems.

  Here's a question I never see liberals bother to ask, let alone answer: if immigration is so good and so right, is there no criteria for quality or quantity that could be put in place? 40% of the Mexican population has expressed a desire to emigrate to the US. Should they all be allowed? Criminals? People with TB or hepatitis? How about everyone in Haiti? Liberia? Nigeria?

  Here's another: if Third World peoples are such a boon to a nation, why are the nations where they enjoy majority status such hellholes? Why are Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea and, increasingly, mainland China such prosperous places despite their homogeneity?

  If you want to see your children's future after several more decades of unchecked immigration in the US, look at Brazil.

  Published: May 12, 2006 9:12 AM

• Francisco Torres

  if immigration is so good and so right, is there no criteria for quality or quantity that could be put in place?

  The market establishes the criteria. People will hire those immigrants that have the necessary skills needed. Those that do not will not find work and leave.

  
  40% of the Mexican population has expressed a desire to emigrate to the US. Should they all be allowed?

  Have they, really?

  
  Criminals? People with TB or hepatitis? How about everyone in Haiti? Liberia? Nigeria?

  Again, the market sets the criteria. Not everyone finds a job - many DO return home after failing.

  Here's another: if Third World peoples are such a boon to a nation, why are the nations where they enjoy majority status such hellholes?

  This question is loaded, but I will take it and reply to it: It is not the people, Reactionary, but the governments, that create the hell holes. And keep in mind that not a long time ago, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and recently, China, were Third World Countries - and are prosperous because their governments have allowed (ugly word, but accurate) free markets to bloom. The US actually created their immigration problem by intervening so many times in Latin American affairs, giving aid to represive and highly statist governments, just to keep left-leaning, represive and highly statist governments out.

  Published: May 12, 2006 9:56 AM

• Francisco Torres

  
  Sorry, I meant to say "the skills needed". The "necessary" is redundant. My bad.

  Published: May 12, 2006 9:57 AM

• Qj

  As a free-marketer, I am in favor of free migration of labor. However, I am a little alarmed at the political power pandering made by the left/socialist organizations supporting illegal immigrants. In my opinion the immigrants and their supporters are more interested in posturing to the powers, instead of the American people. I find it very peculiar that unionists are much more in favor of low wage laborers this time around. I hope that today's migrant laborer will not be duped into bolstering the numbers of labor unions in hopes of seizing more political favors.

  Published: May 12, 2006 3:36 PM

• Reactionary

  "It is not the people, Reactionary, but the governments, that create the hell holes."

  And it is the people that create the governments. All governments everywhere exist with the active consent or acquiescence of the majority.

  "And keep in mind that not a long time ago, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and recently, China, were Third World Countries - and are prosperous because their governments have allowed (ugly word, but accurate) free markets to bloom."

  This is obviously fascist propaganda, since none of those countries have imported millions of low-skilled foreign laborers. In fact, they are remarkably homogenous countries, much like the US was prior to the 1965 Immigration Reform Act.

  Published: May 15, 2006 8:55 AM

• Francisco Torres

  Reactionary wrote:
  And it is the people that create the governments. All governments everywhere exist with the active consent or acquiescence of the majority.

  A silly notion. Most governments in the world were either imposed by other countries (like the US or the UK, or the UN in the case of Israel), or imposed themselves by force, and most of the time, people are impotent to do something about it, since these governments are armed to the teeth. Is it your contention that a person such as Stalin or Saddam Hussein wer in power due to the acquiescence of their people? Or was it because they made it clear what would happen to dissenters? Why do you think States in the US did not try to secede from the Union after 1865? Due to their acquiescence?

  This is obviously fascist propaganda[??????], since none of those countries [South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, China] have imported millions of low-skilled foreign laborers.

  Why is this "fascist propaganda", and why call it obvious? And why would it matter if these countries did not import "millions of low-skilled" workers? They already HAD millions of low-skilled workers. Your question was: "if Third World peoples are such a boon to a nation, why are the nations where they enjoy majority status such hellholes?" My answer: Those countries I mentioned WERE 3rd World countries, were NOT hell holes and the low skilled labour coupled with some economic freedom made them into 1st class competitors in the global market. So having 3rd World labourers around can be an advantage, if you include economic freedom. Your question mentions nothing about "homogenous populations".

  In fact, they are remarkably homogenous countries, much like the US was prior to the 1965 Immigration Reform Act.

  The US was homogenous before 1965? Where did you get that idea? Now, that seems like racist propaganda to ME.

  Your question mentions nothing about "homogenous populations". You are just using that as an excuse to extricate yourself from the problem you face with my answer.

  Published: May 15, 2006 3:00 PM

• Reactionary

  "The US was homogenous before 1965? Where did you get that idea? Now, that seems like racist propaganda to ME."

  It is not. The US has been overwhelmingly Anglo-Celt for most of its history. The 1965 Immigration Reform Act was a radical departure from prior US policy. Immigration from outside Anglo-European populations has brought us nothing but cultural Marxism and socialism.

  The Asian countries you listed do well in part because they have a strong sense of themselves as a people.

  Japan is also a good case in point: they developed automation rather than importing cheap labor.

  Published: May 15, 2006 4:00 PM

• Francisco Torres

  It is not. The US has been overwhelmingly Anglo-Celt for most of its history. The 1965 Immigration Reform Act was a radical departure from prior US policy.

  Right... Except that the US was filling itself not only with "Anglo-Celt" people but with Slavs, Poles, Russians, Italians, Africans, Asians and Mexicans as well... hardly Anglo or Celtic. Mexicans could cross the border at will before 1965 and afterwards, so I do not see what you're hinting at. Chinese labourers helped lay train tracks in the West.

  
  Immigration from outside Anglo-European populations has brought us nothing but cultural Marxism and socialism.

  Interesting comment, considering Marxism is a European invention - which they are still suffering from it.

  The Asian countries you listed do well in part because they have a strong sense of themselves as a people.

  Yeah, sure. That is why such homogeneous people as the NORTH Koreans are doing so well, in the same degree, right? I mean, you cannot get more homogenous than that!

  By the way, Hong Kong is not predominately Chinese in its population. It has thousands of immigrants from other Asian countries. It is NOT homogenous by a long shot - and yet it is very prosperous.

  Japan is also a good case in point: they developed automation rather than importing cheap labor.

  So, that's that! Instead of cheap labour, Americans can simply create automated machines to collect strawberries in Santa Cruz, or landscape lawns in sub-urban Pittsburg, or wait at tables in Dallas. Brilliant!

  Reactionary, the Japanese developed robots and automation for R-E-P-E-T-I-T-I-V-E, tedious or even dangerous tasks. Many of these tasks were being performed NOT by cheap labour but by HIGHLY SKILLED labour with the risks involves. Automation allowed these labourers to focus on other things. Cheap labour actually does the same thing: it releases other labour to do more productive tasks - however, the kind of jobs more suited for cheap labour cannot be done by automated machines in a cost-effective way.

  Published: May 15, 2006 5:53 PM

• Francisco Torres

  Sorry, meant to say: With the risks involved.

  Published: May 15, 2006 5:55 PM

• Peter

  All governments everywhere exist with the active consent or acquiescence of the majority.

  That "or" is very important. I really doubt there is a government anywhere, or ever has been, that had the active consent of the majority. "Acquiescence" in the face of violent regimes where outspoken citizens disappear into the ether is rather less of a test.

  Published: May 15, 2006 8:41 PM

• Reactionary

  "Cheap labour actually does the same thing: it releases other labour to do more productive tasks - however, the kind of jobs more suited for cheap labour cannot be done by automated machines in a cost-effective way."

  You mean like picking cotton? Threshing wheat? Sewing buttons? Deboning chickens? Harvesting corn? In the civilized world, machines do these things. I don't particularly care to see my smart, automated nation devolve into Guatemala because well-connected businessmen prefer to lobby government rather than figure out how to get more productivity from the existing labor supply.

  Published: May 16, 2006 9:42 AM

• Francisco Torres

  You mean like picking cotton? Threshing wheat? Sewing buttons? Deboning chickens? Harvesting corn?

  No, like: Picking lettuce (which machines do not), or grapes (which machines do not), or landscape, or fix roofs, or wash dishes quickly, or wait on tables, or paint walls, or wash windows, or pick up the trash, or sew entire clothes, or change the oil in your car, or babysit kids, or install electrical outlets, or install floors, or clean carpets, or dryclean...

  In the civilized world, these things are not yet being done my machines alone - we are way too far for that, yet.

  I don't particularly care to see my smart, automated nation devolve into Guatemala because well-connected businessmen prefer to lobby government rather than figure out how to get more productivity from the existing labor supply.

  Please explain to me how can a country that uses cheaper labour "devolve" into a country like Guatemala. I would very much like to see your economic analysis.

  Published: May 16, 2006 11:55 AM

• Reactionary

  "Please explain to me how can a country that uses cheaper labour "devolve" into a country like Guatemala. I would very much like to see your economic analysis."

  It's real simple: if you import a bunch of Guatemalans rather than figure out how to increase productivity, you end up with Guatemala. If you increase productivity rather than importing cheap labor, you end up with Japan, Korea, Taiwan, etc.

  Published: May 16, 2006 12:41 PM

• Francisco Torres

  
  Reactionary wrote:
  It's real simple: if you import a bunch of Guatemalans rather than figure out how to increase productivity, you end up with Guatemala.

  The Law of Diminishing Returns would not allow you to RISE the productivity in an activity more than a certain level. For example, if it were a matter of raising productivity making, let us say, blue jeans, then a blue jean factory would have done so. But there comes a point where humans cannot raise their productivity level on a certain skill, like making blue jeans.

  For example, how fast can a typist write text? Some can write 50 words a minute. I can write 45. My wife can probably write about 60. The fastest there is 170 words a minute, but only in short bursts. It can be safely said that a normal, highly productive person could write around 75 words a minute with short breaks for reading texts or gathering thoughts. If that is such the case, it becomes more difficult to find people able or willing to write text faster without getting tired or cramped. If the productivity of a person, regardless of origin, can only achieve around the 75 words a minute, then a limit in productivity has been achieved. At that point, the point of comparison between one typist and another is not how productive is one against the other but the COST - meaning, if a person is willing to type at 70-75 words a minute for 5, instead of another willing only for 10, the person charging 5 has a competitive advantage.

  It is the same with the kind of work Guatemalans or Mexicans, or whoever, are willing to perform. The productivity level of some tasks has been maximized up to a level where more productivity is impractical, meaning the main concern now is comparative COST. If a Guatemalan is willing to landscape a lawn for 5, instead of 10, with equal results, then the Guatemalan holds the competitive advantage.

  
  If you increase productivity rather than importing cheap labor, you end up with Japan, Korea, Taiwan, etc.

  You are missing the fact that cheap labour RELEASES local and more productive labour for more productive tasks.

  You put so much emphasis on "homogeneity" and on the unlikely risk of the USA becoming another Guatemala, that it makes me wonder...

  Published: May 16, 2006 3:23 PM

• Reactionary

  "You put so much emphasis on "homogeneity" and on the unlikely risk of the USA becoming another Guatemala, that it makes me wonder..."

  If I could be a racist? These days, "racist" means someone who notices the obvious. One such obvious fact is that multicultural empires can only be maintained by force. Another is that there are measurable differences in aggregate intelligence between various racial and ethnic groups. Mass Third World immigration and liberal democracy is just a recipe for disaster.

  Published: May 16, 2006 3:55 PM

• Reactionary

  And I actually don't think the US will end up like Guatemala. I think the US will end up like Brazil.

  Published: May 16, 2006 3:59 PM

• Alan R

  I suspect that the US will end up like the Soviet Uni--er, I mean, Russia: Run by freedom-loving fascist/corporate oligarchs, kept in place by an acquiescient populace soothed by cheap bread and endless circuses, where everyone in the Politb --er, I mean Congress, always gets re-elected, fighting perpetual wars to main the Empire, and like many middle eastern countries, importing hoards of cheap foreign labor to do what we have become too fat, dumb and lazy to do ourselves. Wait! That is already the situation!

  Published: May 16, 2006 4:48 PM

• Francisco Torres

  If I could be a racist?

  No, a fascist. A nationalist, to be precise.

  One such obvious fact is that multicultural empires can only be maintained by force.

  Not necessarily - it can be held together by peaceful trade. What creates the tension between different cultures is a government favouring one people over another.

  
  Another is that there are measurable differences in aggregate intelligence between various racial and ethnic groups.

  You mean stupid people abound more in certain ethnic groups? Like which, for instance? I find such knowledge fascinating...

  Mass Third World immigration and liberal democracy is just a recipe for disaster.

  I have still to see such dreaded effect happen. Considering that most people migrating to the USA in the late 1800s and early 1900s were coming from what comparatively were third world countries (like Italy, Poland, Romania, Ireland, Russia, plus others), the disaster you imply has yet to make its appearance. Those countries were still mostly agrarian societies with very poor populations and little mechanized industry.

  Published: May 16, 2006 5:41 PM

• Joshua Katz

  All these concerns about economic hardship and lowering of wages...I have to wonder...why do Americans deserve to make $15/hr for a given job, while those in other countries make $.15/hr for the same job? Some speak about subsidies to the employers of illegals - but what about the money taken from me to buy guns to bring about, by force, a situation that raises your wages artificially? Why artificially? Because the supply is being held down by force.

  Published: June 4, 2006 9:57 PM

• patrick

  hello i write because it sounds to me you have no hope for our country and i believe that you have given up on the american people sure its not wrong to make your life better and to improve your quallity of life but not at the expense of others not sure if you really get out and see these elegal immagrants in action you know i cant go to the local flea market without having mexicans hit on my wife and make rude comment to her and if i say anything or try to do something about it im the one who is wrong well that is crap besides the leval of crime and the magnitude of drug traffic has gone up since we here in missouri started noticing a large number of immagrants migratting to our area 1st and foremost they are illegal immagrants anything they do here is illegal just being here is illegal when did we stop and say screw the law it really doesnt matter and neither do the opinions of the millions of concernsd u.s.citizens people born here and should have first rights to the u.s. jobs out there ,but, companies are out there giving jobs to illegal immagrants and refusing u.s. citizens i could name a few but i have already spoken with I.N.S. and it wouldnt be very smart of me, i cant stress the fact that U.S. citizens should be our main concern in making sure our people have a bright future if you support mexicans so much move to mexico and fight for their rights there see what happens most likely you would be imprisoned or killed why their government is so corrupt so we should let people of such a corrupt counrty come to ours and sue us for things they would have otherwise such as water towers in the desert so the illegals can safeley break in to our country illegaly and steal our jobs rape and kill our people and on my leval family members oh if you really look at it they say one million illegal immagrants cross the border every day to me if you add it up we are being invaded and that to me calls for action war on illegal immagration, we defenitly have the manpower problem is noone wants to do anything about it and people like you want to fight for these people sorry their lives are so bad in their own country but thats why so many U.S. citizens have fought and died for the american dream wich is being given away to people who do not deserve it you appall me when you say war on illegal immagration is wrong and wont work if you put your mind to it anything can work you just dont have any hope you must be republican we see get rid of the unions and you can control everything you can make U.S. citizens your slaves work hard for low wages put all the money in the hands of the employers none in the hands of the people who deserve it, the ones who bust their asses only to realize they have nothing .so you can take a flying leap

  Published: August 21, 2007 3:12 PM

• patrick

  hello i write because it sounds to me you have no hope for our country and i believe that you have given up on the american people sure its not wrong to make your life better and to improve your quallity of life but not at the expense of others not sure if you really get out and see these elegal immagrants in action you know i cant go to the local flea market without having mexicans hit on my wife and make rude comment to her and if i say anything or try to do something about it im the one who is wrong well that is crap besides the leval of crime and the magnitude of drug traffic has gone up since we here in missouri started noticing a large number of immagrants migratting to our area 1st and foremost they are illegal immagrants anything they do here is illegal just being here is illegal when did we stop and say screw the law it really doesnt matter and neither do the opinions of the millions of concernsd u.s.citizens people born here and should have first rights to the u.s. jobs out there ,but, companies are out there giving jobs to illegal immagrants and refusing u.s. citizens i could name a few but i have already spoken with I.N.S. and it wouldnt be very smart of me, i cant stress the fact that U.S. citizens should be our main concern in making sure our people have a bright future if you support mexicans so much move to mexico and fight for their rights there see what happens most likely you would be imprisoned or killed why their government is so corrupt so we should let people of such a corrupt counrty come to ours and sue us for things they would have otherwise such as water towers in the desert so the illegals can safeley break in to our country illegaly and steal our jobs rape and kill our people and on my leval family members oh if you really look at it they say one million illegal immagrants cross the border every day to me if you add it up we are being invaded and that to me calls for action war on illegal immagration, we defenitly have the manpower problem is noone wants to do anything about it and people like you want to fight for these people sorry their lives are so bad in their own country but thats why so many U.S. citizens have fought and died for the american dream wich is being given away to people who do not deserve it you appall me when you say war on illegal immagration is wrong and wont work if you put your mind to it anything can work you just dont have any hope you must be republican we see get rid of the unions and you can control everything you can make U.S. citizens your slaves work hard for low wages put all the money in the hands of the employers none in the hands of the people who deserve it, the ones who bust their asses only to realize they have nothing .so you can take a flying leap

  Published: August 21, 2007 3:13 PM