The Benefits of Immigration
Opening America's Borders Would Increase Our Prosperity
In my October “Notes from FEE” I challenged a case, made by some market-advocates, for immigration restrictions. I have since received scolding letters and E-marls from numerous people predicting that open borders would bring all manner of calamities. While some writers were less certain than others about the baleful consequences of unregulated immigration, only one correspondent fully shared my support for eliminating all immigration restrictions.
These many letters have prompted me to think longer and harder about immigration. Alas, my opinion remains unchanged: we should welcome all immigrants. Government should not redistribute income to immigrants, but neither should government prevent immigration.
Each immigrant comes to America to make himself better off. Suppose government no longer redistributes income to immigrants. Would immigrants still relocate here? You bet! A handful will come because some Americans are willing to use their own resources to care for them. Most immigrants will come because each has sufficient skill and ambition to profit in the market.
Absent government welfare payments to immigrants, immigrants who do not seek work burden no one other than family or friends who voluntarily assume this burden. I here ignore such non-working immigrants who receive no government handouts. These immigrants do not raise the ire of anti-immigrationists. Opponents of immigration object most vehemently to immigrants who are eager to work.
Such objections are mistaken. Let’s see why.
Juan is a hypothetical immigrant. He arrives in America and immediately begins looking for employment. Before finding a job, he must secure food, clothing, and shelter. He may do so from funds brought with him from his native country, or he may depend upon the kindness of family, friends, or charitable organizations here in the United States. In either case, because such transfers are voluntary, no American is harmed.
If Juan resorts to theft, however, the story is different. Some Americans are indeed harmed. But criminal law is the appropriate tool for dealing with such thievery. Restricting immigration on the grounds that a handful of immigrants behave criminally would be like denying drivers licenses to everyone just because a small percentage of people drive recklessly. More focused and less ham-fisted means are available in both cases for weeding out the bad apples from the good.
Juan, however, is no thief. He’s a worker. Suppose that Juan has no skills of any value to any American. He can do nothing that any American is willing to pay for. In this case, Juan will eventually return home. No American is harmed. (Actually, Juan would probably not come to America in the first place. People so destitute of skills are unlikely to leave home in search of work in a foreign and highly competitive economy.)
But Juan is extremely unlikely to lack any skill for which Americans are willing to pay some mutually agreeable wage. Readers who doubt this claim should consult that cornerstone of economics called the theory of comparative advantage—a theory, by the way, that exposes the senselessness of identifying people economically as being “above average” or “below average.” The theory of comparative advantage makes clear that everyone is above average at some tasks and below average at many others.
When Juan finds employment, not only is Juan made better off, but so, too, is his employer. Consumers are also made better off, for the higher output or lower cost that Juan’s availability makes possible for his employer is shared with consumers through reduced prices or improved product quality. Nothing to complain of so far.
Some people, however, are harmed by Juan’s availability—namely, American workers who compete with Juan. If Juan’s most marketable skill is nearly identical to the most marketable skill possessed by Sam the American, Juan is a potential rival for Sam’s job. Because of Juan, Sam’s income may fall.
Protecting Sam from income loss, though, is inappropriate. To prevent Juan from entering America is to do nothing more virtuous than to protect Sam from competition. But it is also to prevent George and Bill and other Americans from freely dealing with Juan, who is someone they would otherwise choose to deal with! To restrict immigration is to deny to Americans their freedom of association. Sam, then, becomes a monopolist under immigration restrictions. If Sam suffers income loss when these restrictions are lifted, he is no more worthy of our solicitude than is any other monopolist whose monopoly privilege unravels.
Suppose that government grants me the exclusive privilege to write newspaper op-eds. No longer can publishers carry the likes of Walter Williams, George Will, Maureen Dowd, or Russell Baker. Protected from such competitors, my income skyrockets. Now imagine that government withdraws this privilege. Publishers— and readers!—are again free to patronize op-ed writers other than me. My income plummets.
Should you feel sorry for me? Of course not. Would you conclude from the fact that this heightened competition reduces my income that the wealth of the nation falls? Of course not. Likewise, productively employed immigrants invariably increase the nation’s wealth by intensifying competition and expanding the division of labor. Immigration restrictions, in contrast, reduce economic growth. Prosperity cannot be bred by monopoly protections.
Immigration opponents also fear that open immigration means overcrowding. This worry is overblown. First, the United States is sparsely populated. Second, owners of private property have incentives to keep their properties from being overcrowded. The proper solution to overcrowding is privatizing those property holdings not yet privatized, not forcibly stopping productive people from coming to our country.
Third, overcrowding is an elusive concept. Among the people who wrote to complain that immigration spawns overcrowding was a resident of New York City. But this person clearly doesn’t mind crowds. If he did, he’d move to Oklahoma or Mississippi.
Manhattan is one of the most densely populated spots on earth. Yet it is also one of the wealthiest. New Yorkers often complain of crowds, but no one is compelled to live in that city. The reason people live there is because economic opportunity in New York is vast. Living in close contact with lots of people is a price that many of us voluntarily pay for the opportunity to take advantage of the wealth-producing capacities of an extensive division of labor.
New York and Los Angeles are crowded but wealthy. Oklahoma and Mississippi are sparsely populated but much poorer. This fact alone is ample evidence of the great economic benefits of immigration.
Comment by ktmkidd6 on 23 March 2009:
thanks alot. this helped me so much on my immigration essay i had to write for history class.
dont worry i cited it
Comment by Will on 6 April 2009:
MISSISSIPPI ISN’T POOR!!!!!!!!
Comment by Alma on 7 April 2009:
Thanks!! I had to do an essay on immigration and this gave me alot of information.
Comment by Shunom on 26 April 2009:
This is incredible and should be publish nationwide to countries that are still ignorant of the advantages of immigration.
Comment by Oscar on 22 July 2009:
Great information! I cited you as a source for an essay i am working on.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 23 July 2009:
Ktmtkdd6, Alma, and Oscar,
Before you write papers citing Mr. Boudreaux’s brilliant work you might want to look at the title and understand that his analysis is not neutral.
As Ms. Akers has done in similar articles Mr. Boudreaux does not differentiate between legal and illegal immigration. This is a disingenuous attempt to pretend that any variety of immigration is beneficial when it is not.
On an intuitive level it is easy to prove that an influx of poor and uneducated does not benefit a country. If it did then Latin America, Africa, India, and Asia would have the largest economies on Earth growing by leaps and bounds every time one of the impoverished birthed another child. This is not the case.
So the problem isn’t “Juan” coming here to make a better life. The problem is millions, of “Juans”, “Chens”, “Appos”, and others coming here with their families looking for a better life and making ours worse in the process. Finite resources and infinite population means less for you and your children.
You should also not Mr. Boudreaux’s use of the name “Juan” in his commentary. Why didn’t he use “Angus” or “Kim” or a neutral name such as “John Doe?” In debate we call this “Race Bating.”
Mr. Boudreaux indicates the “Government should not redistribute income to immigrants, but neither should government prevent immigration.” Unfortunately the US has broad entitlement programs that are being expanded and Mr. Boudreaux should be well aware by this point in his life that it is unrealistic to assume these programs will be disbanded soon, if ever.
On the other hand Simpson-Mazzoli and McCain-Kennedy demonstrates that unlimited immigration is not nearly as unlikely. So the question you should be asking is if you want to support a flood of “Juans” and their kids with your tax dollar or if you would like to see better roads, schools, and other public works, cheaper tuition, less expensive health care, and better wages because Mr. Boudreaux’s fantasy of a social services free society isn’t going to happen.
Even if we could disband every social program this would not be in the public interest since poverty breeds disease, social unrest, and crime. The Middle-Class and Upper-Class gain benefit from elevating the Lower-Class by creating a cleaner, healthier, and more stable society to live in.
In addition to this an educated workforce is able to research, develop, and produce better products that improve the quality of life for everyone in the community. Education is the primary reason that mud huts are the pinnacle of engineering for tribesmen in Africa while we’re building skyscrapers. We need doctors to cure cancer. We need engineers to go the Moon. We need technicians to repair computers. Educated immigrants can help us achieve these goals the poor and uneducated can’t.
We also have laws such as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) that forces private hospitals to treat people regardless of if the patient can pay for it or not. The bad debt has bankrupted hospitals and closed Emergency Rooms throughout the United States.
Mr. Boudreaux compares preventing foreign workers for being employed in US positions to a monopoly when the opposite is true. Allowing unlimited immigration would provide access to the labor in a foreign market without giving the worker and the consumer equal access to the markets this labor was imported from. This would cause a decrease in the scarcity of labor, an increase in the scarcity of housing and other consumables thus lowering wages and increasing prices. That’s great for landowners and businessmen but terrible for workers and consumers.
Unfortunately it can take entire pages to explain the folly in a single sentence so it would take an epic treatise to correct all of Mr. Boudreaux’s mistakes. Hopefully this “short” explanation will give you incentive to do your own research to debunk his sophism rather than using it as a source.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 28 July 2009:
Interesting take James.
One thing I can agree with Buchanan is if WWI had not ended the way it did then WWII would not have occurred.
I think the better suspect to blame is Versailles than Britain. If Versailles had not been so punitive the German economy would not have tanked and there is a good chance the Republic would have survived. By destroying Germany’s economy it undermined the Republic, fostered animosity towards the US and France, and generated the hate that Hitler exploited.
I find it amazing that so much destruction and carnage was caused by a single document.
Comment by Amanda on 22 November 2009:
this is great!
really helped me with my immigration essay I had to write.
Comment by Anthony on 24 November 2009:
Cited and used for essay. Thanks
Pingback by Haitians Can Stay in U.S. for Awhile | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty on 18 January 2010:
[...] Timely Classic “The Benefits of Immigration” by Donald J. [...]
Comment by Atherton-Bloxham on 18 January 2010:
To James Madison Fan
Every point that you bring forth, has been thoroughly analyzed and logically de-constructed by the Austrians that write for fee.org, fff.org, mises.org, cafehayek and the independentinstitute.org. as a starting point. There are now several excellent books exploring both the economic and the philosophical position for the free movement of “labor, goods, and capital.” It is critical that those who say they support individualism and the voluntary market process, re-think the logic in their anti immigrant position. The very idea of Administrative rules and regulations, quotas etc, are based on a collectivist ideology administrated by “experts.” This is not an arcane economic argument but is of immediate importance. The hostility and blame, fueled by the type of erroneous arguments you make,could explode.
Comment by James on 18 January 2010:
I notice you have taken to the PC habit of dropping off “legal” and “illegal” when using the word immigrant. So when you make statements like, “Each immigrant comes to America to make himself better off.
I doubt that is always true in all cases and much less true in the case of illegal immigrants.They may come make themselves better off, but not us. Illegal immigration is the type of criminal activity that most Americans are opposed to.
You can crunch numbers and spout off statistics all day long, however if you have ever known anyone who has legally immigrated to America, you would know that it is a very long, expensive, and harrowing experience. Legal Immigrants pay thousands of dollars in fees, wait endless hours in government lines, fill in dozens of forms written in government doublespeak, are accused with being criminals,have their character and intentions constantly questioned and scrutinized, and have to spend years waiting and dealing with arrogant,and bigoted government employees for something that is never promised and never known and only grudgingly given at the last possible moment.
To give illegal aliens, the ones who bypass this tortuous process, special considerations, special rights, and fast tracked immigration visa is nothing less than a travesty, and should not be tolerated it matters not the race, nationality, or religion of the immigrant, but the character of the person should matter a lot !
Comment by Joshua on 26 January 2010:
I would like to know whether the author distinguishes between legal and illegal immigration. I agree with the economic benefits of immigration. However, many illegal immigrants do not pay taxes. Being from California, we see millions of dollars spent on educational, medical, and social services for illegal immigrants who do not pay taxes. What does the author propose as a solution for this predicament?
Pingback by Groups Rally for Immigration Reform | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty on 22 March 2010:
[...] Timely Classic: “The Benefits of Immigration” by Donald [...]
Comment by charles braly on 22 March 2010:
Donald J. Boudreaux is right on target. However, the other responders have also pointed out the current differences between legal an illegal immigrants. In order to make sure that immigrants pay their way and are subjected to the same taxes the rest of us are, they need to be able to become legalized. I am not sure the government can assure that they will pay taxes, since they cannot assure that any of the rest of us pay taxes if we wish to work in the “cash” economy.
We have other problems that need to be solved, in addition to legalizing immigrants. There should be NO free medical care to illegal immigrants, or free schooling, or any other free government service, until they can prove that they have paid taxes on their earnings for a certain period of time.
All these other problems can be resolved with a little thought, and at the same time, we can all benefit from those who want to come to the USA to work harder, longer and for less pay. We need to eliminate minimum wage laws, too, so the rest of us can benefit from whatever lowered wage they will agree to.
Comment by caleb baker on 30 March 2010:
you suck. it doesnt talk about benefits crackers
Comment by caleb baker on 30 March 2010:
faggots!
Comment by James Madison Fan on 31 March 2010:
Atherton-Bloxham:
You don’t get to unilaterally declare entire arguements deconstructed and offer a plethora of home pages and vague allusions to books as evidence. I’ve had Creationists make the same declaration about Evolution and point to sites such as True.Origins, books published by “The Foundation on Thought and Ethics”, and authors such as “Doctor” Kenny Hovind.
If you want to provide specific agruments for me to examine and counter I look forward to your input.
Here’s an economic axiom.
X unskilled workers > Y demand for unskilled workers =
X – Y unemployed unskilled workers
If you find an book, site, video, or smoke signal that says different they’re writing fiction.
Comment by Mike on 1 May 2010:
To James Madison fan:
You make an excellent point with your axiom, except that you neglect to include the correlation of when X unskilled workers < Y demand for unskilled workers = Y-X unskilled jobs unfilled.
I am not using this article for my immigration essay, only because it restates information I already have from other articles by Nashville Business Journal, The Independent Institute and a study by Humboldt State University I am using for opposing viewpoints.
The Humboldt study has a conclusion that that the costs of immigrants outweigh the benefits. However, it is flawed in that it doesn't take into account the increase in goods and services provided to immigrants. This is the biggest boost to the economy that is brought by immigrants. As more people come to a country, it creates more demand for housing, food and other basic necessities. As the immigrants' incomes increases, more demand is made for products and services beyond the basics. This can only result in a gain for the GDP.
If you can find a book, website or article that says different, they are writing fiction.
Comment by Lindsey on 18 May 2010:
You guys are funny. “im sorry but your poorly written explanations and lack of statistics can only shows how poorly you are as a researcher.” “Can only shows”? Take a Language Arts class. This poorly written statement can only show how poorly, what the heck lets just say “poorly” one more time, you are as a speaker. Whoever wrote this article, thank you, its awesome and very helpful.
Comment by Samantha on 20 June 2010:
Hmm, could be better written but it gives the main facts I suppose. Did help me a little, thanks.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 21 June 2010:
Mike,
You offer that an increase in demand for basic goods is good for the economy. You suggest that an increase in unskilled workers aids the economy driving up demand. What this does is drive up the cost of housing, food, clothing, etc. So you have an increase in unskilled workers driving down wages while increasing the cost of living. You just countered your own thesis.
You don’t need an author to examine what you can see in practice in countries from Mexico to India to China. The more poor and unskilled people you have the more poverty you have. Pick a country and examine population versus infrastructure versus education versus poverty. Standard of living has a direct correlation between these factors. If your population grows faster than infrastructure then the increase cannot be supported so the cost of necessities goes up, literacy rates drop, and this increasing the number of uneducated and unskilled workers in a reciprocal fashion.
You don’t need complex theories when there are real world models to be examined. The US is loosing ground economically and that’s especially true in California where we have dropped from the fifth largest economy in the world to the eighth. Even using the most conservative statistics (conservative as in lowest rather than Conservative as in political stance) California has absorbed between 3 and 5 million illegal aliens over the past 25 years. Using your theory our economy should be booming as we leap up the economic ladder towards Number 1. What has actually happened is our freeways are constantly gridlocked. Class sizes have risen. We have the highest taxes of any state. Our cost of living is higher than any state. Tax payers are fleeing. Population is increasing but the tax base is shrinking. We are well on our way to joining the rest of Latin America in the economic toilet.
If we assume only 3 million illegal immigrants this means approximately 1.5 million children. At $8,000 per child per annum that is 12 billion dollars in taxes being siphoned off in education dollars alone. Meanwhile, as you so aptly pointed out, they are increasing the cost of living by increasing demand for resources, as well as lowering wages.
I would also ask you to consider that if an increase in poor and uneducated was good for a county then Phillipe Calderon wouldn’t be so excited about exporting 10% or more of Mexico’s population to the US. What he knows that you and your sources do not is that Mexico’s second largest source of income behind Pemex is money sent back to Mexico from Mexican emigrants. The more poor and uneducated he exports the better it is for Mexico’s economy. That’s why they have their southern boarder with Guatemala lock up with an army of boarder guards while publishing comic books explaining the best places to cross the boarder into the US, where to get assistance from illegal alien groups, and where to apply for entitlement programs. If your model was correct Mr. Calderon would open his southern boarder allowing more poor and uneducated from Latin America to enter Mexico while closing his northern boarder keeping them in. Even the dimmest of economic nations know that unrestricted immigration consisting of poor and uneducated is a drain rather than a benefit. Selective immigration helps a nation. Unrestricted immigration destroys it.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 21 June 2010:
Lindey,
Who are you quoting? I did a search and as far as I can tell the only author that uses “can only shows” is you.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 21 June 2010:
Mike,
Please forgive me but I missed your modification to my equation. That would be a valid change if you assume those jobs would not be filled. That is the same false assumption offered by Baby Bush in regard to his “Jobs Americans won’t do” fallacy. What Baby Bush left out is “…for the wage being offered.” If anyone in Washington understood economics no one would have listened to Barney Frank and the housing bubble wouldn’t have existed much less exploded like a nuclear bomb. Both sides of the isle are pointing fingers when the fact is both sides are equally culpable. I worked fast food and construction while I was in college for spending money, to buy books, pay for classes, gas, etc. Instead of college kids doing these jobs and moving on so the next generation can get job experience we have illegal aliens making Del Taco and Burger King a lifetime career.
Even if you are correct and we need immigrants to fill “jobs Americans won’t do” there is no reason this couldn’t be done by increasing legal immigration. We allow around half-a-million immigrants in every year and we could easily increase this if there really is a need.
If we allow disparate markets to interact freely they will attempt to equalize which means our standard of living will attempt to reach equilibrium. The national median in the US is around $44,000.whereas in Mexico the gross personal average income in 2002 was around $3,500 (US). Assuming the markets equalize at the average, the US would drop to $23,750. Good news if you’re Mexican. Not so much if you’re a US citizen. I’m not really looking forward to seeing the middle class eradicated so corporations can pad their already exorbitant profits. That kind of economic polarization is a throwback to the 1800’s and the Robber Barron not post WWII US when our production was the envy of the world.
Comment by Derf on 23 September 2010:
this is gay
Comment by Derf#2 on 23 September 2010:
BOWNED
Comment by Cookies on 30 September 2010:
Wow. This was Just wow.. Lolsz
Comment by Professor Q on 29 October 2010:
Due to the exuberant amounts of large words, I would say that neither of the debaters understands the other, and therefore this argument is void. Although it was well attempted
Comment by James Madison Fan on 29 October 2010:
Q,
Let me know which words you’re having trouble with and I’d be happy to explain them to you.
)
Comment by jenna on 29 October 2010:
They both suck at writing but they think if they write a lot of words and throw in a multi-syllabic jargon gobledigook in here or there, they can fool us into thinking they are intelligent. Epic Fail. Mike and James Madi-whatever, I’m talking ’bout YOU.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 2 November 2010:
jenna,
Big words not bad. Big words good. Make it so you can tell people what you mean is good and they tell you why what they mean is good. Talk to people that do not think like you do to make you smart. You should try one of these days. Tell us why you think the way you do. Help us know why. Maybe we agree. Maybe not. We call this “debate” or “discussion.”
I may disagree with Mike but at least he has the courage to debate the topic and the intelligence to formulate a reasonable reply. Are you up to the challenge or are you just going to whine?
Comment by Natalie on 17 November 2010:
People need to stop using Immigrants as scapegoats. Illegal Immigrants can not receive Welfare nor Food stamps. If you were educated you would know that in 1994 prop 187 was passed by Pete Wilson Illegal Immigrants can not get government assistance. We are in an economic problems due to all the money we have spent in the war from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 22 November 2010:
Natalie,
Most of 187 was found Unconstitutional. Social Services can’t ask if you are in the country legally or not so yes they do have access to these programs. Even if you were correct they still get sick and their children go to school. The State of California alone spends at least 7.5 billion on medical care for illegals and 10 billion is spent educating their children. This does not include the cost of in-state tuition breaks that are not available to fellow US citizens. With a budget shortfall of 25 billion that’s nearly 18 billion in expenditures on people that do not belong here.
Comment by Juan on 8 February 2011:
James Madison
I’m going to highlight Jenna’s comment and add that if u are as intelligent as you say you are, what the hell are you doing here??? go find a cure for cancer instead of doing pointless arguing in the neglected internet. Do you know how many people take you seriously? None.
Comment by Ozzyboy on 19 February 2011:
Hey Juan
You can only speak for yourself. There are a lot of us who know and understand that what James Madison Fan say is true. We the taxpayers pay for services for illegals like emergency room care that we can’t afford ourselves. Illegal crime has cost Americans dearly not just in money but
also in lives. Check out the illegal who just killed three people in VA. Is it worth it to ignore the laws already on the books but not being enforced?
Comment by Educ on 3 March 2011:
I just want to say, all of this has been entertaining. I am actually studying to be an educator and I see everyone’s points as valid. Whether wrong or right. It is all based on opinion and is there a real ethical solution to all problems? I do not go into politics (I am not good at it) but I am for the children. I do believe it is important to give who ever we can a chance to a great education. I know many will disagree but I just think about the innocent children. I applaud everyone for having a voice and using them.
Comment by Educ on 3 March 2011:
Sorry I wanted to add. Those who are against immigration or have concerns visit fairus.org… I found it when I was doing research for an educ paper. Take care all.
Pingback by GOP Drafts Legislative Assault on Illegal Immigration | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty on 31 March 2011:
[...] “The Benefits of Immigration” by Donald J. Boudreaux [...]
Comment by Jon Ogden on 31 March 2011:
I wish Horowitz would come to grips with the fact that he isn’t a libertarian and start working for the Huffington Post. This piece certainly could have been published by them. The reason so many kiddies are using it is simple: it is so PC that there’s not a teacher in the country who won’t love it.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 31 March 2011:
Jon,
My Dad was a teacher and he wouldn’t love it and he was a Union Rep. He’d explain to Horowitz the difficulty in California’s schools can be directly linked to children of illegal aliens and this has been exacerbated by “No Child Left Behind.”
Even if we use 10 million illegal aliens as offered by PEW instead of 30 million as offered by FAIR the State of California has approximately 3 million illegal aliens. If half of these are children that means 1.5 million kids in our schools that are absorbing $8,000 a year. That’s 12 billion dollars. If we use the average between PEW and FAIR (20 million illegals with 7 million in California) the number jumps to $28.8 billion dollars. If Governor Brown would like to balance our budget then ensuring that only US citizens use US funded schools would go a long way.
We then follow that up with absurd policy of “No Child Left Behind” in Latino communitees where education isn’t valued and Machismo reigns. As a male teacher my father was usually saddled with children that had a history of behavior problems, especially those that had family members that did not respect Women as equals which is common in Hispanic Cultures. The result is that school in minority communities are usually in danger of failing grades due to student and family contempt for education and educators rather than failures on the part of teachers or adminstrators. You can’t treat teaching in Yorba Linda the same as teaching in Santa Ana if for no other reason than teachers in Yorba Linda don’t have to worry about getting shot if they fail or discipline a student.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 31 March 2011:
Juan,
You and Jenna take me seriously enough to answer so I must be more relevant than you pretend. Of course that’s assuming you’re not just a pseudonym for Jenna since you both seem focused on me rather than addressing the article or the points in the replies.
Here’s an idea. In the future have a point. It makes it so much nicer for those of us that interact with you.
Comment by Jon Ogden on 31 March 2011:
@James Madison Fan
You are right to take me to task. I should never have painted all teachers with the brush that could color many of them. It is a shame that those who wish to teach the truth get so little support from their government, their administration, or (even if he was a rep) their union.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 31 March 2011:
Jon,
Truth be told there are more teachers that lean the direction you presented than my father’s but in listening to various radio hosts like Limbaugh I get annoyed when they pull out the same brush so I have to appologize for making you the victim of some displaced annoyance.
The problem is the Union is a function of circumstance. The GOP talks about the middle class but when it comes to unions versus corporations they know where their bread is buttered. The DNC prostitute to big labor. The GOP prostitute to Corporate America. The middle class gets trambled in the battle.
My opinions on labor unions would be off topic so I’ll resist but when you look at how much money is spent on PAC’s, Unions are dwarfed by Big Oil, Big Pharma, etc. so when the Far Right starts whining about “Union Thugs spending dues on politics” I have to wonder if they took a look at how much companies like Haliburton throw around in Washington?
The apologists on both sides (Limbaugh and Obermann) do a great job at looking at each other but they have terrible myopia when looking in the mirror.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 31 March 2011:
Trambled? Trampled.
Comment by immigration reality on 6 April 2011:
PLEASE WATCH THIS VIDEO about anti-immigration bills!!!
Click on the following link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf
Comment by Cassandra R on 19 April 2011:
I find it funny how Americans only think about themselves. You put it out to the world showing how great you are and yet you can’t except the fact that others want a piece to. If it were easier to become an American citizen many illegal immigrants would choose to do so without being scared. Yeah there is crime but you can’t blame every illegal. EVERY RACE CAN COMMIT CRIMES duhhh. Paying taxes is another problem but if you look at it right……an illegal getting paid in a (check) IS paying taxes just so you know. The state is the one not saying how much taxes is not being collected by those that can’t collect. An the one to blame in the beginning is the GOVERNMENT. They distribute to the immigrants it’s not as if they ask/beg for it. The government should put the people of the country first rather than the people trying to come here. They are the blame, not the immigrants that everyone WANTS to blame.
Comment by Anthony Lima on 21 May 2011:
The idea that the others need to be feared is rampant throughout history. Racism! We simply find more subtle ways to implement it as certain aspects become less tolerated.
Pingback by What are the Pros and Cons of Immigration? on 15 June 2011:
[...] at a cheaper rate than the citizens may offer. Immigration often involves a lot of money and other benefits of monetary value that can help the economy of the country. Immigration creates a global economic structure by [...]
Comment by Anonymous on 14 July 2011:
shut the fuck up
Comment by Jon Ogden on 19 August 2011:
The argument that America can accept unlimited immigration is simply an assurance that it is possible to put ten pounds of manure in a five pound bag.
Since our resources are unlimited, the concept that “any peaceful person would be welcome,” is balderdash.
Comment by Joe Schmoe on 19 August 2011:
RE: James Madison Fan
Note that the purpose of this article was to dispel myths that working immigrants “steal jobs” and thus are economically unhealthy.
You make several references to “illegal immigrants” but fail to take into consideration the following line from the original article:
“Government should not redistribute income to immigrants, but neither should government prevent immigration.”
Your main criticism seems to be that illegal immigrants use schooling, health care, and other government-granted privileges but don’t pay taxes due to their illegal status. I’m sure you know what The Freeman’s position on government-funded services is by the year 2011.
Constitutionally, at the bare minimum, the taxes are directly associated with the service, e.g. Bus Fares or Mail Stamps should cover the full cost of operating buses and mail.
Re: Jon Ogden
“The argument that America can accept unlimited immigration is simply an assurance that it is possible to put ten pounds of manure in a five pound bag.”
The argument is that government is not necessary to regulate immigration, not that unlimited immigration is feasible. The flaw in your thinking comes from the fact that you associate a lack of government regulation with the existence of unlimited immigration.
There’s only so much land in America, and the immigrants will have to buy it or rent it to immigrate. Replace land with pretty much anything else and you can see that there are very real barriers to entry here. The question is, do the benefits of a modern economy and government payouts outweigh the costs and barriers to entry? At this point, it probably does, but we can only blame the government for socializing massive parts of the economy.
Realistically, we welcome both the skilled worker and the unskilled worker, as each new worker makes products on the net cheaper; when the payouts of government exceed the economic activity that the worker generates, then criticisms can be made. But that’s not really a fault of immigration but of government policy.
Comment by Rick Dutkiewicz on 20 August 2011:
Don, since you said “only one correspondent fully shared my support for eliminating all immigration restrictions.”
Make that two, at least.
I’m a free-market advocate, and I support eliminating all immigration restrictions.
For what it’s worth, I say “Hear, hear!”
The people who argue for some distinction between “legal” and “illegal” immigration are often the same people who argue to continue the war on drugs, because “drugs are bad because drugs are illegal, drugs are illegal because they’re bad”.
Comment by Isai Calderon on 23 August 2011:
Wonderful Mr Bodreaux! EXACTLY! Illegal or legal is the same, both useful.. Prpbablu illegal better.. only crooks can fill up paper work to come and bomb World Trade Center! Its like welfare and food stamps; only pencil pusher receive them, really needy people cannot complete requirements!!!
For some reason the “Right” and the “Tea Party” has been polluted with this issue, which does not belong to them of opposing immigrants…. we all were one time or another! Many votes are lost to this issue which they place top on their list! Jons in the Midwest were lost because of Union and overpriced labor, not o Mexicans! Many high school and Summer jobs have been lost to minimum wage laws. The non left groups should be a little better educated, since that, they argue is their position.., being principled rather than pleasing special interests, yet, at this issue they sound so much like Berkley economic 101 students! Reagan turned Carter’s anti immigrant policies around.. He wondered… if those coming to the US loved to be in a foreign country with a foreign language where they were despised??? And he well conlcuded that it was the terrible Socialist situation in Latin America that drove them to the US. Instead of building tall Jimmy Carter walls, he turned his sight to changing Latin America and taking the government off the Latino folks.., and it worked! At this moment Latin America is doing better econimically than the US and Europe because of economic policies imposed by him on Latin American States!
Good for FEE, good for us, good for the world, Bodreaux has simply stated what anyone proud of understanding should assimilate and put to practice.
Comment by DeeLegit on 1 December 2011:
James Madison Fan is there any way I can cite you for my research paper?
Comment by Paul Wooldridge on 15 December 2011:
I live in the UK and can say from experience that unrestricted immigration leads to a fractured culture (multi culture in PC speak) huge welfare,a drop in standards of education and health services, a rise in crime and unemployment. Mass Immigration will benefit the rich who can afford to live in “nice” areas but will make life a lot less pleasant for the great majority.
Comment by best vps hosting on 2 February 2012:
I am glad to be a visitant of this gross web site! , thanks for this rare info ! . vps hosting | unmetered vps |
Comment by marimupefu on 4 February 2012:
Apparently, you will never wade into the lawn using a ruler and determine each blade’s length. Are you in your 30s or 40s and remember the good old days of blowing into your Nintendo cartridges in an attempt to get them to work? However this is working for you, it means you’ll be expanding your ability to be self-reflective and to give more of your time or understanding to something, or someone, worthwhile over the following 12 months. [URL=http://lopolikumino.com ]colporteurs[/URL] One of the most anticipated awards night of the year for geeks and interactive video gamers alike is the VGA or Video Game Awards. Making sure that the blade is designed to avoid contact with your roof’s surface may be essential, depending upon the age, condition, or configuration of your roof.
Comment by Xavier Huntoon on 6 February 2012:
Well I definitely liked reading it. This subject offered by you is very constructive for good planning.
Trackback by stop spam plugin on 7 February 2012:
Gems form the internet…
[...]very few websites that happen to be detailed below, from our point of view are undoubtedly well worth checking out. Especially when they clean your website from spam better than askimet.[...]……