Schools in Revolt


Oh, NONSENSE, AS. Parents have known of this principle for thousands of years. The story of the prodigal son is an example. He demanded and was given his inheritance–which he proceeded to waste, and lose. His brothers, on the other hand, stayed and EARNED theirs…which they valued and treasured–and KEPT.


The existing LEGAL immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed. It thoroughly punishes LEGAL immigrants and gives ILLEGALs a pass.

I have sponsored multiple people and aided in other immigration cases. It took over 10 years to get my niece here. She was 10 years old when the application for her VISA was submitted. She was 21 and almost aged out before she was granted a VISA. This happened with US Citizen relatives sponsoring her to ensure that she would not become a public charge (welfare leech). Meanwhile, Spanish speaking people simply cross the border and get the red carpet treatment. HOW SCREWED UP IS THAT?!

Having said this, there is a LEGAL process that needs to be fixed. There is no excuse for coming here ILLEGALLY.


Our system doesn’t work according to this principle.

You aren’t allowed back, illegals can’t renew themselves, and even if they tried, they’d be rejected for the same reason they went illegal in the first place.

The reason being, we don’t really have an immigration policy, we have an immigration block we selectively lax for certain persons. It’s bull**** that would have kept out my own great grandparents, predicated on nonsense.

Most people who come here to start over, the real prodigal sons trying to renew themselves? We don’t let them in, because our planners are economically illiterate nitwits who act according to what big labor wants.

A immigration built on big labor demands is not an American system, and it should be given it’s coup de grace.


There is as long as our legal system continues to be a cynical wreck.

All the justification they need is this:

" I need to work, and that company is hiring".

If the government can’t pull its head out of its ******* arse long enough to see such people aren’t a threat and indeed are the very sort we need more of, it doesn’t deserve to manage this issue. The market has sole jurisdiction.

No more " oh Americans can’t compete with that" nonsense, either you believe in free market capitalism or you don’t, and its time we decided which side this country is supposed to be on.


I wasn’t writing about COMING here. I was writing about becoming a citizen here. Coming here should be by invitation ONLY. You want to immigrate? Fine. Go to the closest American embassy and obtain an immigration visa. Issuing THOSE can be greatly streamlined–and I have no problem with that. Cross our borders at legal checkpoints and hand the ICE people your visa for them to stamp after they’ve insured you aren’t coming in with a load of drugs. From then on, you are free to travel anywhere in the U.S. you like–with the understanding that you must obtain a U.S. driving permit, buy at LEAST liability insurance for your car, obey our laws…ALL of 'em…and pay your taxes, just like anyone else. You MUST learn English and American history and government and be able to pass a test to obtain citizenship. (frankly, I’d be in favor of making that a requirement to register to vote for ANYONE.) Only AFTER you’ve become naturalized, you can register and vote in our elections.


The issue has NOTHING to do with the “free market.” It has EVERYTHING to do with illegal immigration. Nice try at diversion, though. There is no “free market” in PEOPLE in this country. The US has every RIGHT to control who comes here and for what purpose. We can’t do that without enforcing border security–first and foremost. The current flood of illegal invaders (they aren’t, for the most part, “immigrants” because they intend to make their fortune and then take it back home with them–or they intend to SEND it back home while keeping only enough for subsistence here.)


Even with all of the ridiculous crap that goes into our LEGAL immigration system, there is still no excuse to come here ILLEGALLY. In all of the cases that I mentioned, no laws were broken and the process did move (as slow as it is).

Now, We were faced with my wife’s green card expiring while waiting for USBCIS (now part of DHS) to process her renewal request. The reason that we were renewing it is because we were paying them to fix a mistake on her green card that they made. We were required to fix it before they would process her citizenship application. We had to get Senator Lugar’s office involved just to make them do their job so that my wife would not be deported. Yes, my wife could have been deported due to an expiring VISA that had to be fixed because of their own mistake and they were dragging their feet for two years to process the fix for which we paid. Yes, the LEGAL immigration system is broken. My wife was here and we jumped and paid for all of the LEGAL hurdles to keep her here. However, to cross the border as an ILLEGAL alien with the intent of being an ILLEGAL alien is still not justified.


Horse hockey. Two wrongs don’t make a right.


It has everything to do with it, because immigrants are labor, and currently, our immigration system ignores the demand for that labor. In doing that, it undermines itself, and is doomed to remain broken.

This is what makes Illegal immigration possible, they come, because there is demand for what they do. Uncoerced, freely chosen. ***Free Market. ***

There is no “free market” in PEOPLE in this country.

This is the elephant in the room.

Productivity is compromised of two factors, Capital, and Labor. Capital already moves freely across our border, Americans invest overseas, and foreign capital comes to invest here. Labor, as the other half of this equation, must too be mobile, it must follow capital. This means Americans working abroad overseas, and Foreigners coming to work here.

Thanks to NAFTA, we saw an increase in both these things, more Americans were working in Canada and Mexico than before and vice versa, but more is needed. We have industries that have been in chronic labor shortages for decades, and short of automating, immigrant labor is the only way they’ve managed to meet it.

Not having the labor they need to do their work, is the same as leaving money on the table. That’s products that won’t be made, jobs that won’t come to be, growth for our economy that simply never arrives.

Given our low birth rates, and anemic growth, we don’t have the room to be choosy as to how growth happens. This is a natural economic imperative, and standing in its way harms us as much as them.

they aren’t, for the most part, “immigrants” because they intend to make their fortune and then take it back home with them

This dave, right here, this is nonsense.

It doesn’t matter if they send wealth home, because to be sending wealth home, they must have made their employer more wealth than they earned, by definition. An employer will not pay their workers more than they’re worth afterall.

That wealth the employer or the company the immigrant works for earned, stays in the United States. It’s a gross benefit to us regardless, and a benefit to the immigrant, a win-win.

The issue, is that you are trying to view the economy as a fixed pie, “more for them means less for us” but that’s not how economics work. Economics, is about mutually beneficial transactions, freely engaged. Both parties walk away richer.

If companies were being made poorer by immigrants, they wouldn’t hire them. And if the company isn’t getting poorer, then who is?


The immigrants are perpetrating nothing less than Natural Human Action.

They have pressing material needs, they see employment in the United States as a way to meet those needs, they seek employment in the United States. Employers here welcome them with waiting arms. Why is the Gov’t interfering in the contract between these two private parties? Who is being harmed, exactly? Where is the individual culpability in the action?

We criminalized this, changed our system from how we had treated immigration for over a century, because we were seeking to protect the turf of large Unionized Groups, who saw these people as a threat.

But last I checked, the United States is NOT a labor union, we have no obligation to “protect” the “interest” of the “American workers”. That’s a market matter, and one the market should decide.

I’m all for pressing security when culpability can be shown, an immigrant went onto a private person’s property without permission, or they stole something, or they’re sick with a disease that threatens us, or they shot at our border guards, but all of that has to be on a per person basis, as it’s a person who does these things, not every-immigrant you see walking down the street. Individual culpability must be established, just as it is with any crime committed by an American.

Consolidated Immigration Issues Thread

You can capitalize it all you want; we’re men, not beasts.


Laws of nature, or Supply & demand, are stronger than laws of man. The effect permeate through everything.

Respecting laws of nature needn’t be full capitulation, but Laws of man need to at least be made with the former in mind. Ignoring it is asking for failure.


No matter how much you protest, you STILL can’t get over the mere FACT that these people are committing a CRIME by coming here without an invitation or permission…period. So WHAT if we “need” workers? If they want to fill that need, they can come here legally…just like everyone else.


The man in the Dallas Buyers Club was committing a crime Dave, one the FDA put him on trial for.

But who exactly was in the right? The Federal agency defending its turf? Or the man running a business that was saving lives? You tell me.

by coming here without an invitation or permission…period. So WHAT if we “need” workers? If they want to fill that need, they can come here legally…just like everyone else.

But they can’t come here legally Dave, you’ve already acknowledged that, and have haphazardly tried to defend it.

Our system is so cynical, that there isn’t even a line for most who want to come. If you don’t have family here, nor the skills a bureaucrat is looking for, you can’t come here to work. We will not let you.

A business could even be interested in hiring an immigrant specifically, but as long as those two criteria aren’t met (and your not from a far flung country or rich), our Government would still say “no”. Because bureaucracy.

Because of this, employers themselves abuse the system. They intentionally bring workers here on the wrong visa, say one for tourists or a seasonal visa, and once the immigrants are here they’ll either hide them or fight to keep them here in the courts. Because they need them. It’s nonsense they have to do that, but such is the result of a broken system that only serves one interest: Big Labor.


Nonsense. We issue work visas all the time! I have a cousin who’s husband was here on a work visa. It CAN be done, but these criminals would rather pay a coyote a couple of thousand dollars to SNEAK them in instead. BTW, maybe the guy in that movie was “saving people’s lives,” but illegal aliens aren’t…on the contrary, they are more likely to TAKE lives.


Seasonal ones you mean, not long term employment.

In addition, the non-farm seasonal visas are capped at 33,000 slots each fiscal period. They go almost as fast as H1B or “genius” visas. We lose billions each year in economic activity due to this cap, and the one on the H1B.

Even with the farming seasonal visa, the H2A, being unlimited, farmers themselves still widely choose to hire illegally because the process is a mess that has to be sorted out 2 months in advance, with paperwork they don’t always understand. Even when they choose to follow the system though, it still doesn’t work as well as desired.

A dairy farmer in Montana if I recall, was put on trial for not having the proper paperwork for his own workers. He had tried to get them the visas they needed, but when that didn’t work, he got them seasonal ones instead and lied about them leaving, getting them new seasonal visas each year.

Seasonal farm visas weren’t made with his particular workforce in mind, as such he had to abuse the system to get it to work. But since that was still illegal, he was fined and shut down for it.

BTW, maybe the guy in that movie was “saving people’s lives,” but illegal aliens aren’t…on the contrary, they are more likely to TAKE lives.

He bought his merchandise in Mexico, and worked alongside illegals.

The point is, something being the law is not the end of the matter. The law itself must have a moral basis, if it does not, then the law is most likely in contempt.

Another example: the Little Sisters of the Poor are currently breaking the law & are on trial for not providing contraception in their health plan for their members.

It’s nuns attempting to live according to a time-honored practice, vs a Gov’t mandate put into effect via civil law.
Again I ask, who is in the right? The lawbreakers, or the Gov’t?


And I believe you’re on the wrong side of that equation. Some restrictions must be firm.


I’m talking about the Classical economic frame of the factors of production.

I wasn’t choosing words out of hand, the claims I’ve presented here have a specific meaning, built upon a dialectic that is centuries old.

Some restrictions must be firm.

The Founders saw no need for such “restrictions”, and gave Congress no power to make them.

We can place conditions for want of security and health, but barring people simply because they are unskilled or uneducated, is nonsense. There isn’t a single economic basis for why a nation would do this. It’s simply protectionism, no different than those who call for high tariffs on foreign-made goods, or baring corporate operations overseas. At their core, each are faulty for the same reason: they assume economics is a zero-sum game. “More for them means less for us.


The founders didn’t visualize a time when we’d have 320 million people with half of them on the public dole, either. No. The American economy is NOT a “pie” in which “more for them means less for us.” But it IS a situation where half the population is supporting the other half…and it’s getting worse instead of better. What we DON’T need are another 20 or 30 million on the dole which will inevitably push us past the tipping point. Just how many motel maids and gardeners do you think our economy can absorb?


Circumstantial Dave, and it’s not enough. The Founders didn’t imagine a gun with drum magazines and automatic fire capability either.

The conditions for why they embraced the right to bear arms, having their guns collected by occupying British Troops, is very different for why we embrace the right to bear arms today.

But the principle for why we have that right has remained unchanged. It’s because individual people have a right to their own defense, regardless of the age.

The principle for why the Founders embraced open borders has equally remained unchanged. That is, the freedom of movement & association. If you can’t go to, talk with, and work with who you wish, how then are you really free? Economics naturally puts unlike people together, Indians traded with Colonials, the Spanish traded with the Indians, the French traded with the Spanish, the Canadians traded with the French, etc. transactions which many times occurred in American towns even if it wasn’t Americans themselves doing the trading. And of course, the towns liked having that commerce regardless.

The point though, is that like with guns, we can place certain reasonable conditions that the Founders didn’t have ( background checks, 18 or 21 Age requirement, license to carry in public) but what we cannot do is block access entirely, that requires individual culpability (Violent offender, mentally Ill, controlled substance abuse, etc.) as justice itself is supposed to be on the individual level. Why? Because we recognize individuals to be sovereign, to include the Alien.

Any immigration policy we have has to be made with the Founding principles in mind, just the same as any gun policy we have (or supposed to at any rate). If we ignore them, ignore the Founder’s basis, then chances are we’re simply being arrogant, as the Founders based themselves both on constraining the acknowledged fault lines of human nature, and the limited efficacy of Gov’t power. Ideas like those are timeless.