This is what I basically said awhile back in an immigration thread I started. The trick is not to get to be become legal citizens, but to allow them to stay illegal in order to actually meet demands in the market. Milton Friedman is often quoted as saying that immigration would be disastrous in a welfare state. But this was actually mentioned at the end of this very speech:
“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 its illegal.”
“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. “
JohnSchreimann:This is what I basically said awhile back in an immigration thread I started. The trick is not to get to be become legal citizens, but to allow them to stay illegal in order to actually meet demands in the market.
That sounds like an absolutely terrible idea.
Immigrants are at the bottom of the barrel of the slave class. Coyotes go to other countries and basically recruit people to come over and work for a certain company, misleading them into a death contract the companies that employ immigrants often treat them exactly like slaves with the threat that if they, say joined a union or demanded a wage past sustenance, they would be reported to ICE.
This is another reason why I really despise Milton Friedman.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
JohnSchreimann:“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. “
Yes, illegal immigrants make great workers. If they ever complain about the work they're doing, you don't just fire them - you have them arrested and deported. Talk about motivation! And some people consider this guy a libertarian?
Legalization World be a disaster not only in the for the US but also for México. If you take into consideration that the largest source of income (along with oil revenue) are remittances from migrants, and that legal migrants take their families with them so there would be no reason for the to keep sending money back. That would impoverish Mexico even more and would probably cause an even bigger wave of immigration.
And of curse sending all illegal immigrants back would level the US without a HUGHE part of its labor force.
Unfortunately the US an Mexico are currently in an unhealthy co-dependant relationship that’s why legalization is not an option for the US (at least in the welfare state)
So the illegal immigration issue is going to be around for a long time
The unions and wage laws will basically have them arrested and deported in one way another too. That is if there is no way to work outside the eye of the US government.
CorporateGhost: Legalization World be a disaster not only in the for the US but also for México. If you take into consideration that the largest source of income (along with oil revenue) are remittances from migrants, and that legal migrants take their families with them so there would be no reason for the to keep sending money back. That would impoverish Mexico even more and would probably cause an even bigger wave of immigration.
This would be a concern if not for the fact that immigration is good. Why again should we accept slavery here in order to build the Mexican economy/
CorporateGhost:at least in the welfare state)
Yes, the fact that the state steals my money and gives it to others is a great reason to give them the power to shoot anyone crossing an arbitrary line.
JAlanKatz: Yes, the fact that the state steals my money and gives it to others is a great reason to give them the power to shoot anyone crossing an arbitrary line.
When did I ever said anything about shooting people?, I’m talking about letting people in without welfare (but with natural rights).
I do not agree with the current state of immigration policies in the US if that what you got from my post.
And about illegal immigration being the same as slavery, do you think that the welfares state is necessary in order to avoid slavery? Because
that's the only diference betwen legal and illegal workers.
My point is that with the current social policies (welfare) of the US, legalization would be disastrous, that doesn’t mean that I agree neither with these social policies nor with the current immigration policies and practices (like shooting people).
JohnSchreimann: This is what I basically said awhile back in an immigration thread I started. The trick is not to get to be become legal citizens, but to allow them to stay illegal in order to actually meet demands in the market. Milton Friedman is often quoted as saying that immigration would be disastrous in a welfare state. But this was actually mentioned at the end of this very speech: “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 its illegal.”
What's the contradiction? He's making the point that the only reason why immigration is a burden on the economy is because of the welfare state. That's more obvious if you look at the rest of the speech where he compares the difference between the immigration of the 1914's to todays'. He's not calling for barriers on immigration. I don't think he's advocating nothing actually, he seems to be policy neutral there. He's just trying to teach that immigration by itself, if it's to get a job, it's not a bad thing: "You will find that hardly a soul who will say that it was a bad thing. Almost everybody will say it was a good thing. ‘But what about today? Do you think we should have free immigration?’ ‘Oh, no,’ they’ll say, ‘We couldn’t possibly have free immigration today. Why, that would flood us with immigrants from India, and God knows where. We’d be driven down to a bare subsistence level.’ What’s the difference? How can people be so inconsistent? Why is it that free immigration was a good thing before 1914 and free immigration is a bad thing today?”
Equality before the law and material equality are not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time. -- F. A. Hayek in The Constitution of Liberty
CorporateGhost:f you take into consideration that the largest source of income (along with oil revenue) are remittances from migrants...
All this does is prop up the current system in Mexico where they don't have to enact any sort of economic reforms because they know that people can go across the border to find jobs. It's just a relief valve for the status quo.
If that option were taken away, which it is to a large extent with the Great Southern Wall being constructed (over budget and with flawed technology, anyone surprised?), then the Mexican government would be forced to deal with the issue of inequality between the indigenous people and those of colonial decedent.
The main problem is that the indigenous folks want to trade cronyism for socialism and nobody is calling for freer markets.
Mexico is just as much interested in stopping immigration from other Latin American countries as is the US. I took a bus from Guatemala City to Guadalajara a few years back and in southern Mexico there were Army and police checkpoints every 20 - 30 miles or so checking ID.
I didn't mean to suggest a policy or god forbid Milton Friedman has the answer to everything. I meant only to reflect on the fact that this often quoted item is actually much different in context.
Btw, I side with Stefan Molyneux's argument that the Mexican Leviathan will never go away. I don't see that government reforming for more economic liberty. Especially in conjunction with our own Leviathan that will bail them out or whatever it takes. It seems foolish to believe the Mexican people can ever fix that, just I believe that most likely we are powerless against the US government. It's just suicide to face them down. It's probably far worse for Mexicans.
CorporateGhost: When did I ever said anything about shooting people?, I’m talking about letting people in without welfare (but with natural rights).
But, first of all, "illegals" are called such because there are laws against them. The Border Patrol will shoot them as they cross the border if they don't stop when ordered to. Second of all, "illegals" don't quite have their natural rights intact.
CorporateGhost: And about illegal immigration being the same as slavery, do you think that the welfares state is necessary in order to avoid slavery? Because that's the only diference betwen legal and illegal workers.
No, that's not the only difference, by a long shot. So-called illegals live in fear of being turned in. They compete on the job market with people who are able to unionize and who have a minimum wage. The economics of that is that illegals are limited in what jobs they can do - the jobs where they will be hired are those where the employer is trying to pay below the minimum wage. Their employer can do more than fire them if they don't do the job right, or say no - he can call the police and have them arrested. He can do that if they quit, too. That is what makes them more like slaves, it has nothing to do with welfare.
CorporateGhost:My point is that with the current social policies (welfare) of the US, legalization would be disastrous, that doesn’t mean that I agree neither with these social policies nor with the current immigration policies and practices (like shooting people).
What you're advocating is having tyrannical laws, but somehow not enforcing them, except in certain areas. This is supposed to make sense? In this political environment, that will slip in at most 5 years to a law that is enforced just as it is today. Why not say "given that governments have no moral authority to tell people where they may or may not live, current welfare policies are disasters"?
JAlanKatz:
Dude, your completely missing my point again (maybe I’m not making my self clear). I’m not advocating for any law nor for its enforcement, in fact what I said was, literally, that I don’t agree with current welfare policies (or any kind of welfare policies for that matter). Or in other words: "given that governments have no moral authority to tell people where they may or may not live, current welfare policies are disasters"? But unfortunately I don’t see this laws changing any time soon (do you?). So, due to the immutability of this laws it would make no sense to legalize, currently illegal migrants, yes I agree that this laws are tyrannical, yes I agree that unions make it unfair for illegal workers, and I never said that migrant’s natural rights are being kept intact , I said that the should be kept intact as well as I say that welfare should be abolished but the chances of this happening in short or mid term are minimum and the US government is being hypocritical by deporting migrants while they know that they are ultimately beneficial for the economy. And if this was a perfect world every body should have their natural right intact and the would be no tyrannical laws like welfare and people could go an work wherever they want, but unfortunately that is not the reality. Welfare should be abolished first and then immigrations laws should be abolished(IMHO, that is)
BTW: don’t you think that people should be fired if the don’t do their work right?
CorporateGhost:BTW: don’t you think that people should be fired if the don’t do their work right?
Well, I think that's a decision for the employer to make, but sure, I think the employer is within his rights to fire people who don't do their work right. What I object to is having a person arrested if they don't do their work well.
Now that I think I have your position more clear, my question is: Given the imperfect world we live in, is it wrong to fix the tyranny of the immigration laws before fixing the tyranny of the welfare laws? Do you consider it acceptable, given that the immigration laws are tyrannical, to maintain this status of "illegals" and accept all that can be done to them, in order to not bankrupt our government's treasury?
JAlanKatz: Do you consider it acceptable, given that the immigration laws are tyrannical, to maintain this status of "illegals" and accept all that can be done to them, in order to not bankrupt our government's treasury?
So the victim here is the government? How disingenuous.
Peace
JAlanKatz:Do you consider it acceptable, given that the immigration laws are tyrannical, to maintain this status of "illegals" and accept all that can be done to them, in order to not bankrupt our government's treasury?
No I don’t consider it acceptable, I considerate unavoidable in the current form of government.
It’s very unlikely that the government would make a decision against its own interests(like legalizing migrants) and even if they would make such decision, the fact that it would take the treasury to bankruptcy, as long as the state maintains the coercive power, this would only affect the people in the US (born and migrants both) an would not affect the power that the government have so it wouldn’t necessarily be a desirable scenario(again, in the current form of government).
JAlanKatz:No, that's not the only difference, by a long shot. So-called illegals live in fear of being turned in. They compete on the job market with people who are able to unionize and who have a minimum wage. The economics of that is that illegals are limited in what jobs they can do - the jobs where they will be hired are those where the employer is trying to pay below the minimum wage. Their employer can do more than fire them if they don't do the job right, or say no - he can call the police and have them arrested. He can do that if they quit, too. That is what makes them more like slaves, it has nothing to do with welfare.
That's not really the whole truth.
Most 'illegals' work under false social security numbers and pay takes just like everyone else. True they can't unionize because it is (mostly) cheaper for a company to call in the INS to put down a labor revolt than to pay higher wages in the long run but this is probably changing as the laws get tougher.
Once someone gets their false SS card they can work for any company that will hire them...before e-verify that is.
The funny thing about e-verify is it only applies to new hires, it can't be used to purge the current employees. This most likely will result in the near slavery effects that people so fear with the 'illegal' tag, if someone knows that their paperwork isn't good enough to pass the government test they are going to put up with whatever abuses their current employer dishes out because 'a job' is better than 'no job' in most circumstances especially if you have a family to feed.
Any employer that calls the police to get rid of an uppity worker is just going to result in a total housecleaning since the cops call in the INS and where there's one illegal...
Plus isn't it up to $10k per worker in fines or some horrific amount like that these days?
JAlanKatz:What you're advocating is having tyrannical laws, but somehow not enforcing them, except in certain areas.
Business as usual then?
CorporateGhost: Legalization World be a disaster not only in the for the US but also for México. If you take into consideration that the largest source of income (along with oil revenue) are remittances from migrants, and that legal migrants take their families with them so there would be no reason for the to keep sending money back. That would impoverish Mexico even more and would probably cause an even bigger wave of immigration. And of curse sending all illegal immigrants back would level the US without a HUGHE part of its labor force. Unfortunately the US an Mexico are currently in an unhealthy co-dependant relationship that’s why legalization is not an option for the US (at least in the welfare state) So the illegal immigration issue is going to be around for a long time.
So the illegal immigration issue is going to be around for a long time.
SO impoverish the people that no longer exist in Mexico? What?
Anonymous Coward: JAlanKatz:No, that's not the only difference, by a long shot. So-called illegals live in fear of being turned in. They compete on the job market with people who are able to unionize and who have a minimum wage. The economics of that is that illegals are limited in what jobs they can do - the jobs where they will be hired are those where the employer is trying to pay below the minimum wage. Their employer can do more than fire them if they don't do the job right, or say no - he can call the police and have them arrested. He can do that if they quit, too. That is what makes them more like slaves, it has nothing to do with welfare. That's not really the whole truth. Most 'illegals' work under false social security numbers and pay takes just like everyone else. True they can't unionize because it is (mostly) cheaper for a company to call in the INS to put down a labor revolt than to pay higher wages in the long run but this is probably changing as the laws get tougher. Once someone gets their false SS card they can work for any company that will hire them...before e-verify that is. The funny thing about e-verify is it only applies to new hires, it can't be used to purge the current employees. This most likely will result in the near slavery effects that people so fear with the 'illegal' tag, if someone knows that their paperwork isn't good enough to pass the government test they are going to put up with whatever abuses their current employer dishes out because 'a job' is better than 'no job' in most circumstances especially if you have a family to feed. Any employer that calls the police to get rid of an uppity worker is just going to result in a total housecleaning since the cops call in the INS and where there's one illegal... Plus isn't it up to $10k per worker in fines or some horrific amount like that these days? JAlanKatz:What you're advocating is having tyrannical laws, but somehow not enforcing them, except in certain areas. Business as usual then?
Actually, that's not true.
Most immigrants come over on the backs of coyotes and are connected to jobs that they work without question - that is until the company finally decides to end their slave contracts or goes bankrupt.
JonBostwick:So the victim here is the government? How disingenuous.
I don't know how you got this out of what I said. The victim is the "illegal aliens" and the government is the party doing the victimizing.
Niccolò:Most immigrants come over on the backs of coyotes and are connected to jobs that they work without question - that is until the company finally decides to end their slave contracts or goes bankrupt.
I suppose you can back up your "most" statement?
"Most" pay coyotes to get them across the border and then that's the end of their dealings with them. "Most" have friends or family already in the States and intend to hook up with them after they get across the border. Quite a few make a seasonal trek during harvest time and return to Mexico when the harvest is over.
Of the estimated 10 million or so 'illegals' in the US a tiny fraction of a percent are in the slave like contractual condition that you describe or worse.
I deal with companies that hire 'illegals' on a regular basis and have yet to see a supervisor wielding a whip to keep their 'slaves' in line. They do have to deal with abusive employment conditions (due to the reasons I stated earlier) but this has nothing to do with 'slave contracts' negotiated between the coyotes and companies.
Admittedly I rarely go deep into the bowels of most of the companies I visit so they very well could have a bunch of people chained to their machines for 18 hour shifts but I doubt it looking at the people leaving when I happen to be there during shift change time.
I'm not saying that your claim doesn't happen, it most certainly does, but am doubting that most of the people crossing the border end up in conditions that you describe. That's just what makes the news because both sides of the argument use it to justify whatever they happening to be arguing at the time to solve the problem.
Plus the fact that I live in Phoenix and know some people who used to be illegal aliens that I met in the reserves (one of the paths to citizenship) along with people who hire them and work alongside them on a regular basis.
Met some 'illegal' Brits a while back too but they just overstayed their visa or something...like my couple months in Mexico as an 'illegal' fully intending to get a job and live there.
Niccolò: SO impoverish the people that no longer exist in Mexico? What?
Well, I’m currently living in Mexico and it looks pretty crowded to me. About a hundred and ten million people, to be precise (around 1/3 of the population in the US)
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
[email protected] | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap