…that the SAME people who applaud the killing of 60 million PLUS unborn babies since 1973 are the SAME people who want unrestricted immigration–legal and illegal–because there’s a “labor shortage?”
I would guess that those people are more interested in getting illegal votes. I find all kinds of hypocrisies in the left-wing demos regarding their “concerns” given the horror of the more than 65,000,000 unborn baby murders since 1973.
I’m Pro-life – and Pro-Bracero.
We can have safe & legal immigration, so long as its immigration in amounts enough to meet labor demand.
Markets should control labor supply. Only a statist would advocate otherwise.
No one here, that I know of, is suggesting that government selections and limitations should prevent needed labor. But markets do not and should not take precedence over the law. Markets should not have the last word on border enforcement. Only an anarchist would advocate otherwise.
Why is the law at odds with the market to start with?
You can regulate composition, without limiting supply. One does not necessitate the other. Again, they did this during the Ellis Island system.
It’s not for “security reasons” we cap the number of visas where we do; it’s completely arbitrary.
It’s really very simple. There are political and economic special interests who want to continue open borders even if we “fix” immigration policy. The People have been promised a secure border many times in the past if we would just fix immigration and allow amnesty. But it was always a big lie. NEVERMORE.
True, OD. The open border people want it to continue for one, simple and OBVIOUS reason. They are hoping to convert them into Democrat voters. It wasn’t all that long ago that leftists were ASKING for immigration reform–until they realized that, despite the efforts of the media, schools and Hollywood, they were LOSING voters. Bringing in 3rd-World poor and uneducated people would replace those they were losing to reality.
Yeah, the Unions, whose lawyers wrote the immigration law we have right now, who don’t care if we offer amnesty to illegals.
So why are you surprised that the law doesn’t work, when it was meant to disrupt the labor supply to the Union’s benefit?
Surprised? When have I ever said that? All I want is a Wall, and an end to the damn third world invasion. Then we can have a nice discussion on agricultural workers and skilled workers needed. And if American workers are used to train their foreign replacements before getting canned, those foreign workers are NOT needed.
Again, you can’t do that without first addressing labor demand.
Law cannot work downstream of the laws of Supply & demand. You need employers on board & complying with the law, and they’ll only do that, if their needs are met first.
They can’t put their businesses on hold, until you’re “satisfied” enforcement has worked; they’d go out of business doing that. It’s not reality.
Markets work by individual arrangements. That’s not a collective decision, anymore than what I decide to buy at the store.
“Need” isn’t something a collective can decide.
You keep arguing from the point of view that we are living in a libertarian utopia and all these stupid people want to pass laws which affect the sacred and all mighty MARKET. Well, we are not there (and probably never will be). Regardless, the first step in fixing the problem is not throwing our borders open to the world. None of you MARKET BS makes sense until you defeat the leeches of society from the welfare poor to the welfare rich (which masquerades as some kind of free market). Get real.
If you eliminated welfare for illegal immigrants – and legal immigrants for a time – wouldn’t that solve the problem? That’s the incentive for illegals right? So why then fuss so much about the border itself. Are y’all really more concerned that free stuff isn’t the actual incentive and they’ll keep coming to America for a chance at a better life? And like the left, you view the economy as a zero-sum game that cannot expand and be shared with newcomers? I would think Trump and all of the Republicans obsessing about illegal immigrants would focus more on what they say bothers them most, like giving welfare to illegals. Seems that’s easier than building a wall or policing a giant border.
Correction; I’m stating what the real world is.
Governments can’t fight economic laws and expect to win, ask the Soviet Union.
This isn’t about ideals, it’s about practicality; laws can’t fight everyday economies.
You have to get the people most likely to break the law on board, that’s a pre-condition if you want your policy to work.
Otherwise, how is this any different than trans-fat bans, or music downloads?
Efficacy is a thing in the world we live in, so where are you incorporating it?
So you, AS, believe that some of our laws don’t work so your “solution” is to LEGALIZE what was formerly “illegal???” Just how stupid must one be these days to be a purported “libertarian?” We can ELIMINATE our crime problem by just making everything “legal”???
Saitate labor demand; then enforce the law.
You’re trying to enforce a 35 mph speed limit on a stretch of highway where it doesn’t make sense. I’m saying, raise the speed limit, then enforce it.
If you do that, people will follow it.
BS. The people will CONTINUE to ignore it because they’ll view you as an idiot for imposing a stupid law in the first place and therefore unworthy of their obedience REGARDLESS of what you then do.
Joseph Swing did this. We were getting 1 million illegal immigrants a year, then he turned it around and made that into a trickle of only a few 1,000.
He got the people most likely to break the law on board with his policy. Then he enforced things. And it worked.
Can’t ignore results.
“Joseph Swing” (whoever he is) doesn’t control U.S. immigration policy and never has. You’re claiming he got all those impoverished, uneducated, third-worlders to “cease and desist” coming across our border and then somehow “fixed” the immigration system???
Eisenhower’s INS director. He sent agents to farms, and got them to give him names, then he had those people checked out, and legally entered (and tracked) into our system with the I-100.
He made it a point to get people the labor they needed. In doing so, he made sure they weren’t an obstacle for him in enforcing the border.
I can’t speak for OD and I haven’t been following this thread that closely, but it seems to me that one of the best ways to cut down on illegals on welfare is to prevent them from coming here in the first place, which a wall will help. They’re not sending welfare checks to Mexico yet. That I know of…