Consolidated Immigration Issues Thread


All very easy to say when you KNOW that there is absolutely NO political will to get rid of Welfare anywhere on the horizon with nearly half of the US population receiving more in largess than they pay in taxes, your dependent slave invasion would build that percentage to such a level as to make eradicating the Welfare State impossible FOREVER; JUST LIKE IT DID IN California.

You are like the GOP Congress that passed a Robertscare repeal 50 times when they knew Obama would never sign it but refused to pass it even once when they knew there was a President in the White House who would sign it immediately.

You are not fooling anyone.


Coordination of the labor market is more important than the states poor choices with its welfare state.

The Welfare state, does not give you an excuse to play economic God.

Because who are you empowering to be that God? The Government.

Government stupidity with its funds, cannot justify Government expansions of power. That’s circular reasoning.

Milton Friedman wanted the same policy.

Unless you’re going to call him a socialist, you’re in a bind RET.

Be honest about what it is you’re disagreeing with. Quit beating around the bush.


Please post everything you can find from Friedman on the subject of importing Welfare recipients, I would be quite interested in hearing about all of this “agreement” you say you have with him.


Look, for example, at the obvious, immediate, practical example of illegal Mexican immigration. Now, that Mexican immigration, over the border, is a good thing. It’s a good thing for the illegal immigrants. It’s a good thing for the United States. It’s a good thing for the citizens of the country. But, it’s only good so long as it’s illegal.

He said this, because illegals took less welfare than legals… and natives. To him, illegal immigration is the closest thing we get to pre-1914 immigration.


You forget that NEITHER a Republican President NOR a Republican Governor has the LEAST effect on government policies in Kalifornia. Reagan was popular enough to get a FEW conservative ideas through the legislature, but they were quickly rescinded as soon as another Democrat governor took office. Its the LEGISLATURE that governs Kalifornia, and that’s been leftist since the 1920’s!


… So you’re saying I’m right, and that California was leftist, long before the 90s.


Never denied it.


As expected, not 1 citation of Friedman advocating importing Welfare recipients to improve the economy.


As expected, no reaction to him stating illegal immigrants were good.

You don’t take ownership RET. That’s a failing.

You won’t admit what it is you’re disagreeing with here.


Maybe we should all head for California on election day and upset their voting system. Since they can’t ask for ID . . .


Sure AS, I am the delusional one.

While you are failing to find a single quote from Friedman about how importing Welfare recipients helps the economy maybe you could also fail to find a Friedman quote that qualifies the prior non existent quote that says “as long as you don’t import more Welfare recipients than you have in the citizenry” ; you know, since you claimed that was what he meant.

Friedman was a brilliant economist, he never uttered or implied such moronic ideas.

There have been some who said such ridiculous things, Nancy Pelosi once said it was good for Americans to be on unemployment and get extensions because every dollar we give them results in 2 dollars growth in the economy!

That is your intellectual kin, of course Pelosi shared your agenda of a dependent society so her Party would never lose another election; Friedman would have laughed you out of the room.


That’s exactly not what AS claimed.

Unless I missed something AS claimed somewhere higher in the thread. It appears to me that you’re claiming AS claimed that importing welfare recipients is good for the economy.

Friedman claimed that illegal immigrants don’t qualify for welfare, therefore they do not receive welfare benefits. They must work, which is good for the Mexican illegals and for the United States.

That’s the gist of the quote AS posted. That seems to me to be AS’s argument over and over again.

Rather than putting words in AS’s mouth, perhaps you might argue – as you have – that illegal immigrants receive welfare, which is bad for the economy – rather than pretending AS said something else entirely. To which, he’ll post that they don’t. And you’ll post that they do…


This isn’t about you being “delusional”, this is about you disagreeing with Free Marketeers:

Like Don Boudreaux:

"Where does the enhanced scope for government action end once we admit that government buys for itself, by illegitimately exercising power W, an indulgence for the exercise of otherwise illegitimate power R? What sort of distrust of the motives and knowledge of government officials leads many self-described libertarians to oppose government’s exercise of power W but approve of government’s exercise of otherwise-illegitimate power R if government insists on simultaneously exercising illegitimate power W?

I have never grasped the logic that leads to the conclusion that the illegitimate welfare state turns the otherwise illegitimate power exercised by government to interfere with freedom of movement and association (that is, open immigration) into a legitimate power."

And Bryan Caplan:

  • Immigration laws deny very basic human rights: The right to accept a job offer from a willing employer and the right to rent an apartment from a willing landlord. The predictable result for people born on the wrong side of the border is severe poverty and worse. This creates a strong moral presumption against immigration restrictions.

  • To overcome this presumption, you’d have to show that free immigration has consequences so awful that they clearly overshadow the horrible consequences of restriction. And you’d have to show that there isn’t any cheaper, more humane way to avert these consequences.

  • The best social science finds that the alleged downsides of immigration are greatly overstated at best, and often the opposite of the truth. For starters: Immigrants make Americans and the world richer, and they pay about as much in taxes as they use in benefits.

  • Even in worst-case scenarios, there are cheaper, more humane remedies. If immigrants are really a fiscal burden, you don’t have to prevent immigration. Just make them ineligible for benefits. If that seems cruel, it’s far less cruel than forcing them to live in Haiti.

Take ownership RET. If you’re disagreeing with these people, own it, and quit beating around the bush about it.


That’s exactly what he claims here and elsewhere.

He argues for open borders based on a Labor premise which he justifies with pre Welfare examples and the opinions of economists that NEVER accounted for the realties of the Welfare State that we have today. When you point that out he pretends that these economists agree with HIM about how these issues are NOT relevant for the moronic reasons that HE argues.

So, he should be able to cite them; which he cannot because Friedman was NOT a moron.

He quite specifically quoted Friedman and then added “He said this because illegals consume Welfare at less a rate than our citizens” ; imbecilic so I asked for evidence that Friedman had ever expressed such nonsense ( I knew he had not when I asked).


Except Immigrants add to Federal programs, and add economically far more than they take in State and local programs.

You never bothered to do the math on this.

You are not aware, of how gargantuan the economics effects are.

They do agree with me. “Pretend”? Don Boudreaux is stating my argument there verbatim.

Is this what you do RET? Stick your fingers in your ear, and pretend the economists aren’t against you?

That? It’s in the same lecture I quoted from:

That’s an interesting paradox to think about. Make it legal and it’s no good. Why? Because as long as it’s illegal the people who come in do not qualify for welfare, they don’t qualify for social security, they don’t qualify for the other myriad of benefits that we pour out from our left pocket to our right pocket. So long as they don’t qualify they migrate to jobs. They take jobs that most residents of this country are unwilling to take. They provide employers with the kind of workers that they cannot get. They’re hard workers, they’re good workers, and they are clearly better off.


Complete BS

Illegals are not leaving California for Texas, you made that up.

Illegals cannot be denied Social Services or benefits based on their immigration status since the Federal courts over Proposition 187, you made that up as well.

Friedman was not speaking in the context of these realities because they had not happened yet, you knew this which is why you made your ridiculous argument and attributed it to HIM.


Not most of it, and certainly not enough to live on.

Hence why they have a 93% worker participation rate, and why they leave California, for Texas and the Carolinas.

Details RET; you got to account for them to understand the incentives illegals are actually facing.


Who said anything about “immigrants?” We’re all (but you, apparently) talking about ILLEGALS sucking on the government’s teats…which they DO, if for nothing more than using hospital ERs as their family doctors and not paying a dime out of their own pockets, or for sending their children to our public schools and getting “free” lunches.


“If” Friedman said any such thing, which I doubt, he was WRONG. Illegals use welfare in myriad ways…not always just AFDC cash subsidies–though they DO use that by CLAIMING “legal status” falsely and stealing Americans’ identities.


How many SS numbers did the SSA recently admit were compromised? Was it in the 10s of millions? I can’t remember now, I just remember thinking “Holy $#!, that’s a #@%ing LOT…”