Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 21, 2014, 07:18:56 AM
Yes, but what's the point if you're telling me you don't find it comfortable to read?

I'd be making an effort, just to further frustrate you.

Show me what you mean, and then I'll tailor my response accordingly.

Case in point.

QuoteWe allow liberals to post here, so you don't have to keep this charade up.

Talk about long winded, a simple "I have Libertarian leanings" would have sufficed.
Instead, you go on some nonsensical rant?

Simple answers serve to make your point, bloviating is a sign of deeper issues, usually associated with consequences only a professional can address.

Your need to myopically focus on a single issue screams volumes about your person more than anything.
Seek help!

QuoteI' am Free Marketeer, not a liberal.

I believe in Natural Law: Life, Liberty, Property, as it was defined by John Locke. I believe in American Exceptionalism strictly as Alex de Tocqueville defined it.

This means I'm against Abortion, for it violates life, I'm against the Affordable Care Act, for it violates Liberty, and I'm Against Department of the Interior's management of Alaskan Oil Reserves, for it violates property.

The Second part means that America is unique for how it (once) used Private Association to address societal ills, instead of Public organization, as nearly all other nations have done.

I believe in the presence of Emergent order, which gave form to Natural Law, Economics, Common Law, and Language.

This means I'am suspicious if not in outright contempt of any laws that seek to place themselves above Common Law.
Emergent order is affirmed by it, something in the very fabric reality. It is an immutable truth you can choose to respect, but never ignore, for its effects will be felt regardless.

Last, but not least, I believe in the Lord my God, my savior and sovereign, who constructed Natural Law as it Exists, which is the key itself to Humans understanding Divine law. The Lord was gracious enough to appoint St. Thomas Aquinas, the namesake of my First High School, to write extensively on the existence of Natural Law and its effects.

I thank him equally for creating Father Robert Sirroco, who helped to further bridge my Catholic beliefs to my Economic imperatives, along with everyone who has joined with him at the Acton institute.

And I thank him for creating the Founders, whose Socratic example of being antagonistic to political power, and harboring great love of Liberty, served as a personal inspiration to me, on top of their creation of a nation in which we live, the one human society on Earth that has come the closest to truly embracing what Natural Law affirms.

And I finally thank him for allowing me to know it. It was by pure chance I could. I' am humbled by it.

Quote from: Solar on August 21, 2014, 07:32:56 AM

Talk about long winded, a simple "I have Libertarian leanings" would have sufficed.

Could have fooled me, I was told several times that I was not a Libertarian, but a liberal here.

Felt a gesture was necessary, apologize if wrong.

QuoteYour need to myopically focus on a single issue screams volumes about your person more than anything.

That, or perhaps I want to get into the nitty-gritty of it? Because I like talking about economics? Strange hobby, I know, but some of us poor spirits simply find the dismal science fascinating.

Probably why Thomas Sowell occupies half the space in my kindle library. Another 1/3 for Hayek. None for Thomas Malthus. Just 1 for Keynes.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 21, 2014, 08:03:49 AM

Felt a gesture was necessary, apologize if wrong.

Huh?

QuoteThat, or perhaps I want to get into the nitty-gritty of it? Because I like talking about economics? Strange hobby, I know, but some of us poor spirits simply find the dismal science fascinating.

Probably why Thomas Sowell occupies half the space in my kindle library. Another 1/3 for Hayek. None for Thomas Malthus. Just 1 for Keynes.

There is only one link between illegal immigration and economics. They are a net loss to the economy overall.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 21, 2014, 07:09:51 AM
I'm long winded, I'll give you that, and I don't always know when to hold back.

But that's all it is. I'm not showing off, I'm not being deceitful, and I'm not trying to lose you.

I sometimes go at my own pace, and expect people to pretty much read my mind. That's a flaw of mine, I'll agree.

But something else:

I did not make this personal, nor do I wish to.

From start, even before I took off here, you all decided to call me "liberal" or something worse, from me simply demonstrating dissent on the topic.

Now though, I have shown that yes, Free Market Economists do in fact affirm what I say. It's true, dissent on the Right exists for this topic.

This does not mean you now have to agree with me, but I would appreciate the toning down of the epithets, if only just slightly. In exchange, I'll try to better cater to your requests.

And sometimes I am too nasty, sure.

But when you wander onto a website that is an established community, and immediately act like a pompous know-it-all, simply overwhelming everybody with your "voluminous knowledge", this will happen.

You should learn this ASAP, and stop posting massive, presumptuous, overbearing treatises.  Come back to reality, and at least try to fit into the established ethos.

Quote from: Solar on August 21, 2014, 09:15:28 AM
Huh?There is only one link between illegal immigration and economics. They are a net loss to the economy overall.

,
Seven pages and still going strong.  Still, some posting here do not get it.  No matter how many times Bozo changes the wording or their status, they are still here ILLEGALLY and need to be promptly sent home to start over with the process we have had for countless others of different nationalities.  Were it not because of an issue of voting to keep Dems in office, we wouldn't be in this mess today.  A plan may have been in effect for years but implementing it came at the most strategic point the Dems had to date-2016 elections.  If this works for them their glory will be short lived as they will promptly start chitting on the Latinos the same way they do everyone else that ain't in their realm. 

If there is mo such thing as illegal immigration why do we have border patrol and immigration courts?

Quote from: keyboarder on August 21, 2014, 09:35:32 AM
,
Seven pages and still going strong.  Still, some posting here do not get it.  No matter how many times Bozo changes the wording or their status, they are still here ILLEGALLY and need to be promptly sent home to start over with the process we have had for countless others of different nationalities.  Were it not because of an issue of voting to keep Dems in office, we wouldn't be in this mess today.  A plan may have been in effect for years but implementing it came at the most strategic point the Dems had to date-2016 elections.  If this works for them their glory will be short lived as they will promptly start chitting on the Latinos the same way they do everyone else that ain't in their realm.

If he were to follow the law, tens of thousands would be sent back.
We have allowed quotas from different parts of the world, and South America surpassed that long ago.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 21, 2014, 09:38:40 AM
If there is mo such thing as illegal immigration why do we have border patrol and immigration courts?

IF there is no such thing as illegal immigrants.  WHY does Mexico  annually deports more illegal immigrants than the United States?

Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 21, 2014, 09:38:40 AM
If there is mo such thing as illegal immigration why do we have border patrol and immigration courts?

Anyone who comes on here and tries to "prove" that illegal immigration on the whole is somehow a profit center for America, is not attempting to have a serious discussion or debate.

Throw up a mosaic of esoteric yet sophomoric minutiae to smokescreen it all.............this BRD (or BRD-like) agent is becoming clearer by the minute.

This one has really got the "aw shucks how can I fit in better and make you happy" thing down pretty well, but we've seen that before.

In fact, he really is starting to look like a couple of earlier abortions here.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 21, 2014, 09:38:40 AM
If there is mo such thing as illegal immigration why do we have border patrol and immigration courts?

;
Apparently to decide how much welfare they'll get, and the border patrol is nothing less than that of a chauffeur nservice to get them to safe Govt housing.

Quote from: Solar on August 21, 2014, 10:12:06 AM
;
Apparently to decide how much welfare they'll get, and the border patrol is nothing less than that of a chauffeur nservice to get them to safe Govt housing.

It's the Obama dream, the vehicle for reparations and redistribution.

All of his decisions, machinations, and crimes boil down to this.

Making 2 daddies, one mama, 4 grandparents, and all his adult friends proud, one debacle at a time.

Look at the Big Picture.

The majority of our modern military comes from 'legal' immigrants. While the old 'human wave' approach to warfare is above and beyond outdated, the truth is that we need to find a way to flush our ranks with enlisted men while keeping the non-officer wages relatively low. If our legal methods for immigration were reformed, to say, perhaps even require military service starting at the age of 18 (or 16, if we lowered the military age requirement), we could flush our ranks considerably. Obviously professional immigrants such as doctors, lawyers, and businessmen would be the exception to this rule, but think of how many this rule would apply for. You could limit it to only male immigrants if you want, the female immigrants could become nursing assistants if they weren't full time mothers or in some other strictly female job.

The point is, we can find a use for these immigrants, especially with war looming in the middle east. Let us say, for example's sake, that we wanted to occupy Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and possibly Jordan, to establish permanent state-colonies in the middle east. Make them US territory and fill them with immigrant soldiers led by experienced American officers. They would be Latino's fighting against Arabs and Persians. It is the perfect situation. So whine about immigration all you like, but we have the perfect opportunity to sick the most violent men of our continent against the most violent men of theirs.

Quote from: Aristophanes on August 21, 2014, 12:21:17 PM
Look at the Big Picture.

The majority of our modern military comes from 'legal' immigrants. While the old 'human wave' approach to warfare is above and beyond outdated, the truth is that we need to find a way to flush our ranks with enlisted men while keeping the non-officer wages relatively low. If our legal methods for immigration were reformed, to say, perhaps even require military service starting at the age of 18 (or 16, if we lowered the military age requirement), we could flush our ranks considerably. Obviously professional immigrants such as doctors, lawyers, and businessmen would be the exception to this rule, but think of how many this rule would apply for. You could limit it to only male immigrants if you want, the female immigrants could become nursing assistants if they weren't full time mothers or in some other strictly female job.

The point is, we can find a use for these immigrants, especially with war looming in the middle east. Let us say, for example's sake, that we wanted to occupy Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and possibly Jordan, to establish permanent state-colonies in the middle east. Make them US territory and fill them with immigrant soldiers led by experienced American officers. They would be Latino's fighting against Arabs and Persians. It is the perfect situation. So whine about immigration all you like, but we have the perfect opportunity to sick the most violent men of our continent against the most violent men of theirs.

Now that's thinking outside the box.
Though It won't work, but it has some merit.

Alright, I'll continue, but first:



Just so you know now where I'm getting that from. (92%, I was 1% off.)

Quote from: Solar on August 21, 2014, 04:56:42 AM
Did you miss my entire answer?

Your answer demonstrated disregard for Natural Law.

Natural Law's affirmation doesn't have to be complete, but if its not part of the framework, then the law is most likely illegitimate.

Second, consider that the law does not even do what it claims, like so much else in the Government.

1/3 of legal immigrants, are becoming that 1/2 of illegal immigrants. This means, categorically, that the system is failing. If it was working, it certainly shouldn't be that high. It certainly wasn't that high in the time of Ellis Island.

QuoteJust because you say it isn't make it so. This country has always taken in immigrants, but had you read the link I posted, you'd have noted, there is a limit to just how many are allowed to enter and from where,

Your own links speak to how these limits were dead on arrival. They said they were going to limit Eastern European immigration, but then they turned right around and made huge exceptions for "Communist refugees", even going so far as to raising the quotas themselves twice in order to take them all in.

Are you saying that this was a mistake? Taking in all of these poor, uneducated, likely ideologically compromised slavs?

I think you'd have to, as I don't see how full-on Communist nations would be producing better working stock than the soft-socialist kind in Mexico, or the Latin countries.

QuoteObviously you've never opened a business o you wouldn't have posted such a stupid response.

Most businesses fail, it's not stupid, it's a truism, and we're blackmailing people in using that as a condition to immigrate.

QuoteWhy? Why does it bother your bleeding heart, that someone you'll never meet, don't know even exists can't come here and live?

For the same reason I suspect you have a problem with the crimes of people who have never personally trespassed against you, altruism.

An attack on liberty anywhere, is an attack on liberty everywhere. Respect for Natural Law itself is at stake, and it's because the immigrant face to the issue makes it all too easy to disregard.

QuoteYes, it's called sealing the border best we can, reinstating quotas and selecting the best people to enter this country.

No, that's cynical, and violates Natural Law. Quotas judge people on a collective basis, when we're supposed to be considering the Individual.

The most you can legitimately do is control for sickness and ill intent. Virtually anything else is right out.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 21, 2014, 06:39:27 AM
Alright then, prove it. Show me an estimate I can look at.

Did you not read the 30 page report about the burden on Texas?  It is 30 pages of data. You might find it informative.

Quote
Further, distinguish economically how these immigrant categories differ.

The illegals are the ones who come here illegally.  The legal ones are the ones who came here legally.  The illegal ones are usually the ones who are a burden on health care system, insurance companies since they don't purchase insurance, etc., and they are unskilled.  The legal ones tend to have a skill, and aren't as much of a burden as illegals.

Quote
Welfare? No, legals take more, because they qualify for more.

That's an American problem.  The illegals are gravy on top of the welfare system.  The burden of illegals on welfare is not excused because more legals are on it.  The burden from illegals needs to be eliminated, and we need to work on the welfare problem of American citizens.

Quote
Labor participation? No, Legal immigrants work less than illegals, likely because they qualify for more welfare.

That is an American problem.

Quote
Skills? In an age where nigh-half of illegals were once H1-B visa holders, that is no longer clear.

Indeed, this last point is why making the distinction is difficult.

Do you wish to distinguish between illegal Immigrants who cross the border, and those we let in, only to let their visas lapse? As that's the only way we're going to get anywhere.

Yes.  Illegals are the ones who come here illegally.  Legals are the ones who come here legally.  The legals who had a lapse visas are ones who came here legally and had skill, and have to go back or get their visa renewed.  I've had to deal with this a lot in the past, so I understand the difference very much, and for low skilled in the industrial sector.

What do you do for a living, may I ask?

Quote
The specific settings to policies are controlled by the politik, but their full out-and-out effects are controlled by Supply & Demand.

Supply and demand is a natural concept, encumbered by the Marxists and other big government scum of society.

Quote
Take for instance the Laffer Curve. It holds that the tax rate does not fully control Tax Revenue. If you set the Tax rate at 60%, that does not mean you will get a 60% share of private incomes. More likely, you will get less in return then if you had set the Tax rate at a lower value.


Additionally, you'll get more than if you had set it at a rate close to 0%, or at a rate higher than 60%.

Most of us normal people who understand the free market, and have understood it since we can remember, understand this concept and don't need a Laffer Curve to tell us common sense.  Maybe you do.

Quote
As to Minimum wage, it is undermined by inflation, and by the adjustment of prices. Eventually, if left unadjusted, it becomes close to meaningless, as our current minimum wage sits.

Wrong.  The free market sets the wage.  The minimum wage is a gift to the unions and a tool of control for the Marxists.

Quote
It also never achieves is true goal, for as long as it takes effect, and as Thomas Sowell likes to say: "The True Minimum Wage is Zero."
If you're willing to say this, then I think you'll agree that there exists the political capital to draw a wall around our Welfare state. We simply need to take advantage of it, and sell it in our policies.

"Our policies"?  Don't lump me in with you, please.

Quote
I had a Mexican-American coworker once, and we went back and forth several times on immigration, because he *ironically* was for, "sending all the Mexicans back."

He told me stories of his immigrant neighbor and how they were violating building codes in renovating their property, a story of a mother in grocery store buying a stack of pizzas with Food Stamps, and he even brought me the pay stub of one of his immigrant coworkers (mum's the word on how he got that), to ask if I thought he was paying his "fair share" in his taxes.

Now, despite all of this, he still voted for Obama in 2012. I actually helped him do it, by covering for him at work while he went and voted.

But last I talked with him, he was pissed at Obama, for the scandals that were erupting with the IRS, Obamacare's complete failure to be anything it was talked up to be, and yes, his handelling of Immigration.

So I asked him once "If Ted Cruz (who he said he liked somewhat) proposed a measure where we cut off the immigrants from welfare, would you be alright with reforming our Immigration laws, so that they let more people in legally?"

He said alright, so long as we didn't enact amnesty.

And then I asked this "With that platform, would you elect Ted Cruz President?". He said he wasn't sure, I then asked if it was against Hilary, and he said "yes".

Now, this is just one person of course, and I shouldn't draw too much upon it, but I believe he is a microcosm to show, that immigration reform as we want it to be would be possible if we attacked the welfare instead of pussyfooting around it.

We're not pussyfooting around it.  RINOs and liberals do. 

Quote
People understand that we're low on money, they understand a lot of the illegal immigrants don't pay income taxes.

How hard can it be then, to say "let's cut them off"?
Yes we do, we buy products from the 3rd world all the time, we buy raw resources, we buy intermediate goods to put into our final goods, which we then largely sell back to them (cars for one). We spin capital in and out of their economies when we think they're doing good, and remove it when we think they're doing bad.

We have plenty of labor in our country.  We don't need to import crime and disease.

Quote
Again, both capital and Products go across our borders all the time, and Capital is half the equation to Production.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Quote
For the economy to be in equilibrium then, labor too, the other half of the equation, must be mobile.

The free market will take care of that.  You don't have to worry.

Quote
Forcing disequilibrium, makes us poorer and uncompetitive.
We have labor shortages all over.

You can thank the government.

Quote
Silicon valley is half Foreign Born, because we can't produce the technical-inclined people we need fast enough to support our own system. Without them, our system would collapse.

Wrong.  Yes we can.

Quote
Then why is CATO, a libertarian-think tank on the Free market, pushing for what I have said?

Indeed, going down the line of institutes & Foundations, Adam Smith, Fraser, Independent, Mises Manhattan, LearnLiberty, why do they all sound like me?

Or rather, why did they teach me to sound like this?

Why did Milton Friedman trash Legal immigration in favor of Illegals?

Why is it like this? Where are the Libertarian Organizations claiming the opposite?

They don't think like you, nor do you know what you're talking about.  Friedman, for example, was making the case about how stupid it is that being legal would disqualify you for benefits (at that time), while coming over illegally would give you benefits, and how paradoxical that perspective is.  He thinks nothing like you about illegal immigration.

Illegal immigration hurts the economy.  To put it another way, having strict border security and tracking and registering immigrants doesn't hurt our economy.  The free market works fine within our country and borders.  The demand for labor will find the workers.