“basically a nation builds an infrastructure together… ”

Actually, a nation does not build anything. Individuals do. And individuals make up a nation, not the other way around. It does not say ANYTHING about the ethnicity or nationality of those individuals.

“roads, utilities, economics, etc… why?… so their children can have a better more stable place to live…”

Is it? Or is it to make money? Don’t childless people build roads or utilities? Don’t people without children engage in economics? You are committing a non-sequitur and a begging the question fallacy to justify a further argument.

“this takes time, energy, and capital… if you let anyone come in and enjoy that, nay, consume that… then where is the incentive of people to build such things, enduring the sacrifice it takes to establish such things?…”

Apparently the incentive is still there, otherwise there would be no builders, no actual building being done, and no capital. Of course government action has something to do with this (forcible taxation), but if you have a problem with this, don’t blame foreigners, blame government. Don’t be a nationalist, be anti-public property.

“we build and pay for infrastructure not for anyone to come in and consume but for OUR children to consume…”

Who is this “we”? Is this everyone, or just the anti-immigration camp? Why do you think you can make up motivations, reasoning, justification and opinions for everyone? Who says there aren’t people who built and paid for infrastructure so that “anyone can come in and consume?”
You obviously want everyone to pay whether they like it or not, so then who are you to decide for others what their demands and conditions for paying should be?

“I am all for freedom…”

No, you are not, because… (see next line)

“but that is NOT the end-all-be-all…”

Yes, it is. Provided nobody is forced by anyone to do anything against their will. Who are you to dictate to others where their freedom should stop, provided they don’t impose their will on others?

“it also has its set backs…”

Yes, and that is why you can identity someone who loves freedom by how he does not reject it once it becomes personally inconvenient to him.

The situation that we have with regards to immigration today is that whether they come legally or illegally, immigrants now have access to various government assisstance and services……that deprives citizens of resources they could otherwise put to other uses. Many immigrants would not come here be it not for the fact that they know that they can get such things as free schooling, free medical care and an array of other services.

Access to these services can also give them an unfair advantage over the tax paying citizen that does not qualify for such assistance.

I am all for compeltely open labor markets…..just don’t use the welfare state to give immigrants a competitive advantage over the citizens already here and paying taxes.

As Smith points out the value of labor is based on reproduction. The more people you have (supply) the less labor is valued.

The reason labor has had more value in the US than in other countries is the infrastructure Ed mentions relative to our population growth.

In the time it took the US to grow from 150 million to 300 million the population of Latin America grew from 60 million to 600 million, India went from 300 million to 1.2 billion, and China had to take draconian measured to curb its growth at 1.3 billion.

Population growth of this magnitude is not sustainable and will result in ignorance and poverty on a global scale.

This has been an economic law for a century now but the author fails to mention it, as is typical of the supporters of free movement.

While everything in the article is theoretically true, the US in 2011 is vastly different than the US in 1951 (when this article was written). A major fear is that US government social-welfare policies will attract non-economic immigrants, coming to seek relief from the squalor within their own borders but not via employment.

Dramatically cut the socio-economic “safety nets” and access to US services for unemployed immigrants (primarily education and medical care) and we will encourage only immigration for economic purposes.

Employed, tax paying immigrants are welcome from no matter where, especially those holding HB1 visas (why on earth do we encourage them to leave once they get a world class US education?).

Well said. I wanted to discuss your 3 fears you pointed out:.

Fear 1 – Failure to Integrate: The thing these authors fail to take into account is that the ideals located in the Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights are not self evident. These concepts need to be taught. It is one thing for you, me, and this author to discuss philosophy and economics but the level of failed integration, especially in California, threatens to undermine the ideals and freedoms on which the US was based supplanting the culture that has fostered liberty for two centuries with a third world culture where gangs, thugs, and corrupt politicians rule as they do in most of Latin America.

Fear 2 – Racist Core: US born criminals have difficulty escaping their past so why should we allow a foreign criminal free access? Even if we allow reasonably free access to the US this does not mean we should allow other countries to rid themselves of unsavory elements and economic refugees by banishing them to the US. Even if entitlements magically disappeared overnight it takes thousands of dollars a month to incarcerate inmates. Even if the unskilled immigrant isn’t a criminal when he arrives when faced with exposure and starvation throwing a brick through a window ensures “three hots and a cot.” One way or the other we’re going to end up paying for them.

I’d also point out that 75% of illegal immigrants are from Latin America, 57% from Mexico alone. Why should illegal aliens from these countries be given priority while millions of others are not allowed in? If we are going to open the boarders then access should be granted equally to all racial groups rather than providing special status based solely on geographical convenience or we’re violating “equal protection” under A14.

Fear 3 – Job Loss and Depressed Wages: You can’t escape scarcity any more than you can escape inertia or entropy. When two disparate markets interact freely they have no choice but to equalize. This means the standard of living in the US will drop while the standard of living in Mexico increases. As business leave the US to capitalize on the cheap labor in Mexico their population gains employment and ours loses it.

In addition to this in the model being offered, free movement is unilateral. If we use Mexico as an example, cheap labor can move into the US but consumer access to undervalued Mexican capital is limited or nonexistent so the markets are only equalizing when it comes to scarcity of labor. When it comes to land, natural resources, and other consumer goods the markets are essentially isolated. If Mexico truly wants free movement they need to understand that it needs to be reciprocal as it is between US states not monodirectional.. While President Calderon seems disinterested in US sovereignty he is far less understanding when it comes to the sovereignty of his own country.

That sentence is the flaw in this article. Back in 1986 when it was written the illegal immigrants did submit to the laws and customs of the United States. Now they do not. I live in a state that borders Canada not Mexico yet there are places here where Spanish is spoken more than English is. The teenagers getting off the local school bus speak Spanish with each other not English. That is not the melting pot in action.