Libertarians should oppose the Arizona Immigrant Laws

ostrich, sand

 

So it isn't intended as an international cooperation between business? What the hell is free trade about, then? Please dude...

 

Lowering of trade restrictions should be policy for all political parties anyways.

 

Trade is a very complex problem for government. The cost of living varies greatly from country to country. I now live in a country where the equivalent of $200 per month allows me and the population at large to live quite comfortably. In fact I live much better than I did in the U.S. on $4500 per month. My neighbors and I seldom purchase any products made in the U.S., but instead purchase similar products made locally which are of equivalent quality but much lower priced. Clothing for example, a shirt can be bought for about $1 and pants $4 to $5, including blue jeans. Food is abundant and very cheap, property outside the big cities is inexpensive, and no building laws exist so everyone has a home, or can rent very cheaply. You can start a business instantly, hire and/or fire anyone at will, and fail or succeed based upon nothing more than how you and your product or service is accepted.
Products from countries such as the one I live in cannot be competed with by the same products made in the U.S. where labor costs and government regulations drive up the price of the product, therefore making the import products desirable to the U.S. consumer at a cost to the U.S. employees. Government sees money leaving the country as a result of imports, and cannot offset it with exports bringing back the money, so what is good for the consumer creates a problem for both the worker in the U.S. and the government collection of taxes. Redistributing wealth from the U.S. to those countries attempts to raise the cost of living in those countries, and creates problems abroad by making a small number very rich and powerful who consume more U.S. products but still not enough to offset the trade imbalance. U.S. companies move abroad and pay higher wages, but still much less than those paid in the U.S. which allows another segment of society to afford products from abroad, but still not enough to offset the trade imbalance. This creates disparity of wealth where it was previously insignificant, while increasing the disparity in the U.S. at the same time.

 

where the hell you live?

 

Wherever I can remain free. Here today, gone tomorrow, as necessary.

 

I consider myself a liberal libertarian. On the one hand, I want to say the immigrants shouldn't be coming over here illegally and well, breaking the law. On the other hand however, I can see how they have little else choice, as coming over here the legal way is practically impossible.

 

I hear ya. If we're going to get into labeling ourselves, I'd say I'm a social democrat with a small "L" libertarian streak. At least, that's the category I'd fall in most of the time.

It just drives me nuts that so many of the new Tea Party "libertarians" have the audacity to claim that title. Read Townhall or Human Events daily and you'll see all these Tea Baggers claiming some libertarian worldview. Yet in the same breath they'll voice support for draconian measures against immigrants, or sexual repression, or any number of bullshit social conservative talking points.

I just find it funny that the only liberty they seem to support in a libertarian sense is the economic freedom of disgustingly wealthy elites. These people are just insane if they think right wing economic libertarianism will 'save' the poor or bolster the working-class. It won't. We've tried it and, I dunno about them, but the early 1900s seemed to be a pretty shitty time to be a working-class American.

 

I think if we opened the border and mexicans could come here legally we would be able to regulate their pay and make sure they don't get next to nothing.

I think it would eventually stabilize if they were getting paid the same because then the obvious choice would be who will get the job done better not who will get the job done cheaper.

 

Yes. Except for the eventually part.

If we actually punished the people hiring them knowingly, and if we made it so they could easily legally come, the job market would saturate, and they would be no better off here than there.

The people really taking jobs are the ones underpaying immigrants, keeping open the space for a job that no US citizen can afford to keep just for costs of living.

 

Well than the issue is the min wage then. Day labors for construction and fruit pickers are the minority. The social security department estimates about 3/4 of illegal immigrants are in fact using fake numbers and working legal jobs, paying taxes, ect.

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=398296&f=36
Thread I posted about illegal immigrants paying taxes

 

yeah, they would probably all get here and be disappointed that they still can't get a job.

 

That's where entitlement programs pick up the slack. Illegal immigration could be greatly reduced if not eliminated completely by providing welfare payments to non citizens who promise to remain in their own country. The amount spent on each could be much less than the cost of their support living in the U.S. and the money they received would probably go much further in their own country.

 

So...extend our welfare program to mexico? I'm sorry but imo that is the stupidest idea I have ever heard

 

You don't think our welfare program already extends outside of the country?
What I was trying to expose is the fact that the money spent on illegal immigrants in the country costs us more than their care would cost them in their home countries, schooling, health care, etc.

The one world government/governance will tend to try and make the cost of living more equal world wide, which is why it receives so much support from wealthiest.

 

I'm not really for the government throwing money at anyone's problems, we at least need to get our shit straight before we go trying to save the world. I also think we should let starving countries sink or swim on their own, natural selection style.

 

Where's the empathy in that?

 

That's not very humanitarian especially considered we're often the cause of their problems. For example, we preach free trade, but heavily subsidize our own agriculture and have tariffs on imports(the EU and Canada too) so poor countries which often heavily rely on agriculture never have a chance to break into the market to sell their goods. Besides foreign aid is only .03% of the budget.

 

Okay the problems that we cause we should stop causing, but as far as the "oh help us there's no food here in africa" STOP LIVING IN A PLACE YOU CAN'T FARM ENOUGH TO SURVIVE! The rest of the world shouldn't have to pay for people to survive in a place that isn't sustainable. The only reason there are starving children is because we keep feeding the people that can't grow food and support themselves so then they fuck and make more babies that they can't support.

It's wasting resources and making everyone dependent on the US - just what the govt. is good at.

 

Congratulations, this is the most asinine thing I've read all day. You don't choose where you're born. You got lucky, you were born in the US, what if YOU had been born in Zimbabwe. There's also just so many health care clinics in the Congo, rural Kenya, Niger, Chad, ect giving out condoms and birth control pills. Not to mention if you farm having more kids is beneficial especially when you're doing it 19th century style. And I'm sure they purposely choose to have droughts, blight and the such too. By your proposal than would you be ok with opening the borders and letting 90 million African citizens come live here so they can stop living in a place where agriculture is hard? Great plains still have a lot of open room.

No offense but your post reeked of lack of understanding outside the first world bubble.