That's actually very interesting, first you are willing to admit that there are limits to globalization, free market and free trade. (not you personally of course). You believe that free flow of businesses, capital, goods and services is fine but now you draw the line and don't accept the idea of free flow of labor. The question is why and you provide the answer - it's going to break you personal safety net, it's going to change your culture, it's going to affect your personal security. Your neighborhoods and streets are going to be flooded with spanish/arabic speaking immigrants, their families, their gangs, their customs. At this moment you no longer believe that globalization and all-mighty free market will quickly fix all possible negative consequences. What you fail to undestand that exactly the same argument is made by others about free flow of capital, jobs and goods. When our neighborhood stores are flooded with cheap chinese garbage there is a very large number of our fellow americans losing their safety nets, their culture, income, security, lifestyle, future. Free flow of goods and services does not work for them just like free flow of labor does not work for you. PS AAA, I am not talking about you personally of course, I am talking about the "free market at any cost" crowd.
don't forget avoidance of that pesky half of soc. sec. taxes, sex harassment and discrimination litigation, maternity leave, ADA compliance, OSHA reg's, ERISA/401k, etc., and of course, unions and their annoying tendency to advocate on behalf of employees. another thing to realize is that the illegal aliens are also being severely exploited (at least those genuinely in the US to work) -- they have very little recourse to the law due to their status, while the corporations they profit are located in the US precisely because of those legal benefits. there are very good reasons the corporations (and more specifically, their executives) do not just pack up the whole operation and relocate to countries with "cheaper" labor, as they would if cost were the only consideration.
good point! so, we should be thankful that Mexicans are here, so exploitative corps/greedy Americans can exploit them here so mexicans can set the employment standards so the rest of us can be exploited, else Mexicans get Americans' jobs. Time to take down the Mexican/American border. Viva, Mexico! x
I agree with Pat Buchanan that economic efficiency is not the sole guidline for public policy. I do think we need to have a sound reason to do something that is demonstrably uneconomic. Probably we have gone too far along the road to free trade, and our trading partners have not gone far enough. It is a form of foreign aid, but the recipients tend to be countries that are rich enough to fend for themselves. However, I don't think it is necessarily hypocritical to be in favor of free trade and opposed to free immigration. In fact, most rich countries practice some form of free trade but have restrictive immigration policies. I am not aware of a rich country that allows illegal immigration on the scale we do.
Well, if you rename "free immigration" into "free flow of labor" under free trade/free market/globalization guidelines and then restrict it then it does begin to sound a tad hypocritical IMO. I guess we'll agree to disagree on this one
The reason that "free trade," whether in goods or services/human resources, cannot be entirely free is simply because the playing field in every nation is different. If Mexico decided that it wished to be annexed into the USA as a number of new U.S. States, then I would be all for the free flow of both goods and people. But, as it is, the Mexican oligarchies use the USA as a relief valve to prevent the worker's revolution which would almost certainly occur in Mexico, were there no place for the average poor Mexican with personal initiative to run. Under current law, the very people who would vote out (or overthrow) the existing rulers of Mexico are the same people who view coming to the USA as a simpler solution to their personal problems (including Mexican criminals). Mexico has been ruled by Spanish and French ex-patriot aristocracy since its inception as a "civilized" nation. Those rulers generally view the indigenous population of Mexico (the descendants of the Aztec and Mayan culture) as inferiors, not worthy of an even playing field, and not worthy of marrying into the rulers' families, either. And the simple solution to the problem that the Mexican natives are always restless is to just let them go North. This plays well into the hands of large corporations who want cheap labor in the USA, as well as into the hands of politicians who want would prefer a large non-voting underclass. The illegal Mexicans work cheap, hard, and frequently pay Social Security and payroll taxes, using the identity of someone who is already dead or already legalized. This means that there's more federal tax and SS money collected, but no person who's entitled to the additional benefits. Unfortunately, the courts have determined that under the privileges and immunities clause, States cannot discriminate against illegal aliens in providing benefits and services from State funds, but that the Federal government "can" discriminate against those same illegal aliens. So, mo' money goes to D.C., and the feds gain power and control over the States who must beg for federal funds to reimburse for the services provided to the illegals at the State level. For people who already have power, the current illegal immigration problem is actually no problem at all -- it's a gravy train. But, for everyone else, and for the US as a whole, it's a really big problem, because, eventually, those same people who chose to leave Mexico rather than revolt against the authoritarian Mexican government, will become extremely unhappy if they are not granted the right to vote in the USA (i.e., legalized). When that day happens, we will either have to legalize them, or there will be a rebellion in the States where the majority of the illegals live. So, we need to close our southern border and simultaneously arrange to begin the legalization and/or deportation of the existing illegals who are currently within the USA. That's the only way this is all gonna work out. If we don't close the border, then the current crop of illegals, once legalized, will just be replaced by a new crop of illegals who escape from Mexico to find a better life in the US. And, if we do close the border, I'll wager that the Mexican people will overthrow or severely modify their current government within a decade -- which is what needs to happen there. Or, the US could just invade Mexico and annex it entirely. But, that would be very messy. We're not very good at invading, anyways -- we spend way too much money per square mile, and we can't squish a little nation like Iraq, so we sure as hell can't take over Mexico.
kent, Wasn't that the legal issue over Prop 187? whether a state has to provide the same services to illegals as to its citizens? As I recall there was only a District Court decision and the Davis administration declined to appeal the ruling that 187 was unconstitutional.
I don't know what we in New Orleans would have done without all those Spanish speaking workers who worked liked beasts of burden literally and are still doing it. From ripping of sheetrock to building new buildings, you will see them everywhere in the New Orleans metro area working their tails off. I for one, think if someone is ready to work let them work. Maybe the laws need to be changed so that we don't brand people who are willing to work as illegals. If you are willing to work, and there is work then I believe, they should be offered some legal status.
You would of had to have gotten off your lazy bum and done the work yourself, or hired the local residents to do the work. Just because illegals don't mind being your nigger, and the local residents do mind, is no justification for the practice.
Yes, if memory serves. But, it's reasonably well established that States (but, not the Federal government), must treat aliens substantially the same as citizens for the purposes of providing benefits, because creating a residency requirement impairs the fundamental right to travel, in favor of what is only an economic regulation. See e.g., Sanez v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999). This is why it is imperative to prevent the aliens from entering the USA at the border. I'm not at all against the Mexican natives coming to the U.S., to work or to live. But, we are currently propping up one of the most corrupt regimes in the world, by doing so, and it is actually harming the very people who we seek to help. I think we need to change the debate from an issue about people coming to the U.S. illegally, to an issue of how allowing them to come here illegally is permitting their homeland to continue to exploit them and treat them as serfs -- which is exactly how native Mexicans are treated in Mexico.