Interesting Trump article by Sheldon Richman


#21

It works both ways, countries restrict flows of capital. Hell, China’s doing it right now.

Yet, we don’t seek to do the same, and we even reject Liberal rhetoric to “repatriate” business “profits”, because we know this would be counter-productive.

Labor is no different. It needs to flow where it can in order for the economy to achieve equilibrium.

To point out one example in our case; Americans flooding the Mexican consumer produce market with our own produce, resulted in many Mexican farmers becoming noncompetitive, and going out of business. These Farmers still needed to work of course, and it made all the sense in world that they then came to the U.S. to fill our agricultural labor shortages, and learned for themselves just how we put them out of business.

> What we do NOT do is allow unknown, un-vetted aliens IN.

I’m not talking about leaving them “unvetted”.

I’m saying, once you’ve established that they aren’t a danger, basically, not intending to commit a crime, not a terrorist, and not sick, or anything else of a similar nature; you need to let them in.

There is no just cause to block their entry after that point. They have a right to do business here with Americans who want to do business with them.

> That what Ellis Island was? An open border?

Ellis Island didn’t appear until 1892, and even when it did appear, it only rejected 2% of those who arrived. We’re closer to 70% today.

If you want to go back to an Ellis island model, fine by me. It was a much better process than what we have now.

> We never DID have open borders.

Uh, yes we did. With no official border agency, there was little to nothing to enforce border policy, even when laws were passed.

Equally, most of the laws you’re thinking of had to do with naturalization, not immigration. Ergo, how long you had to live here before you could apply for citizenship, and what requirements you had meet to be allowed that chance.

> And we did NOT have such an elaborate Welfare State. As Friedman so eloquently pronounced, Open Borders and a Welfare State are an impossible combination.

Which is why he likened illegal immigration to pre-1914 immigration. They consume less benefits.

His stance on the issue: build a wall around the welfare state. He was never for restricting immigration; that’s simply proposing a state solution to a state-created problem.


#22

I’d dig up the history of immigration law…but I get the impression that nothing is going to sink in.

There’s honest discussion and there’s tub-thumping. It’s pretty obvious what this is.


#23

Then put it aside; and address the fact that Conservative thinkers like William F Buckley and Barry Goldwater both embraced freer immigration than we have now as an answer to illegal immigration.

Address the fact that Economists clearly think immigration & more of it serves a net good.

Address the fact that Immigration itself waxes & wanes with economic cycles, and that immigrants are traveling in droves from California, to Texas.
Something people only interested in benefits shouldn’t be doing.


#24

Those two are not oracles.

We HAVE…BORDER ANARCHY. We also have a Welfare State. We have illegal aliens driving cars without insurance; pulling welfare benefits; taking up seats in state universities; killing people; and rioting for more rights.

WHERE ELSE IS THAT DONE? Do you want to see the immigration laws of Mexico? Of Canada? Those are VERY onerous. And with good reason.


#25

Trying to figure out when melodrama and thinly disguised (and sometimes just outright) racism became the two most fundamental features of conservative thinking.


#26

Oh quit your little tantrum!

If you call people who want a border and who has access to crossing it ‘Racists’, I would suggest that when you leave your home, keep the d@mn doors wide open!

Oh and apparently it’s only “Racist” when a republican supports a wall or border enforcement!?

<div class=“lazyYT” data-youtube-id="_uXJ1mgkyF0" data-width=“480” data-height=“270” data-parameters=“feature=oembed&wmode=opaque”></div>


#27

For the uncut version and to hear Every single suggestion that Trump has made … coming out of the mouth of Hillary:

<div class=“lazyYT” data-youtube-id=“DckY2dRFtxc” data-width=“480” data-height=“270” data-parameters=“feature=oembed&wmode=opaque”></div>


#28

Because we have policy idiocy.

You cannot make immigration policy that ignores supply & demand and expect it to work. Government does not have the power to deny the consequences of economic laws, especially not with something as everyday and far-reaching as the labor market.

If it wants effective immigration policy, Government has to work through those laws, not fight them.

> We also have a Welfare State. We have illegal aliens driving cars without insurance; pulling welfare benefits; taking up seats in state universities; killing people; and rioting for more rights.

> WHERE ELSE IS THAT DONE? Do you want to see the immigration laws of Mexico? Of Canada? Those are VERY onerous.

No, Canada is freer than us on immigration, and mexico has illegal aliens.

So too does Japan btw. Hell, they have Latino illegal aliens (look here) dating back to when they sent out invitations to Japanese-Brazilians to “come on home”.


#29

Eisenhower showed us that you don’t need a wall. He had just a 1,000 border agents, yet, managed to decrease illegal immigration by ***95%***… by turning the legal system into a funnel.

They put all of the immigrants who otherwise would have crossed illegally, into Bracero, and had the program sort them out, discerning the criminals from those who just wanted to work.

Low and behold, after doing this, border crossings dropped precipitously, as immigrants instead signed up for Bracero either at the border, or in their home countries, no longer seeing a need to work outside the law. A system that was fair and willing to let most of them in, was something they were more than happy to use.

And that’s exactly what we need now. A return to an immigration policy that understands economics, and doesn’t seek to subvert it.


#30

It worked FINE, until the Elites decided not to enforce it.


Gary Johnson Loses It! Goes Full PC Over Term ‘Illegal Immigrant’ [VIDEO]
#31

Sorry, I know better. I tried ten years ago to become a resident of Canada. The procedure was onerous, requiring detailed residence history and proof of no police record - from police departments in communities I’d lived in. The cost to file was several thousand dollars, and with no guarantee of acceptance.

Mexico’s elaborate immigration law has been covered by commentators and has been in the news. You can pretend otherwise, but it is fact and it is known.


#32

Nope, the moment we replaced Bracero with Johnson’s revision in the 60’s, illegal immigration just kept ticking up.

It’s clear cause & effect.


#33

I said it was freer, and it comes down to the Provincial Nominee system, which is superior to our system trying to parse immigrants based on skills.

Getting into Canada got harder recently, but it’s still easier than coming here.

Conservatives in Canada in the mid 2000s managed to get immigrants to vote for them by adjusting their policy. Ironically, Liberals accuse them of trying to use immigrants to stack the polls, and it’s they who have been steadily working to undue the pro-market changes.

> Mexico’s elaborate immigration law has been covered by commentators and has been in the news. You can pretend otherwise, but it is fact and it is known.

What am I “pretending” exactly? Mexico has Illegal immigrants, who do the very things you dscribed before. How is anything of what you just said a counter to that claim?

The point is that Mexico has not escaped the consequences of having dysfunctional immigration policy. You asked “where else does this happen”, and I’m saying, it happens in Mexico.


#34

She voted for a 700-mile barrier in 2006 instead of the 1,000-mile barrier proposed by Trump.