Tea Party Libertarians complaining of co-opting

[Soxbadger]

But there is no correlation between anchor babies, illegal immigrants and the US spending more money.

 

If anything you would likely have people who are paying into a system that never get benefits. More specifically, SS# etc are like pyramid scams where the present tax payer is actually paying for some one elses benefit, in hopes that when they get old some one will be there to pay for their benefit.

 

For a pyramid scam to work, you need a constant influx of people at the bottom of the pyramid. Legalizing immigrants would create a huge influx at the bottom of the pyramid, while creating almost no new liabilities (no one is arguing that immigrants should get benefits they did not pay for).

 

Not to mention there are hundreds of other arguments to support immigration (Ive posted numerous graphs on this website so Im not going to rehash).

 

The only thing preventing immigration does is artificially decrease the supply of labor, which artificially creates demand in labor, which results in the price of labor artificially increasing. Because businesses are forced to hire artificially expensive labor, they are unable to be as efficient as they could be if we allowed the labor market to be free as suggested in capitalist theory.

 

The argument that the US govt should restrict the supply of labor is ultimately arguing for an increase in govt power and govt economic control, which should be opposed by any libertarian.

 

[Soxbadger]

You believe its an acceptable idea to deny those born in the US of US citizenship?

[Steve9347]

Wow, there certainly are a lot of non-cited facts and figures being thrown around in this thread.

 

80% of bulls*** is 100% bulls***.

[Jenksismyhero]

Alright seriously, could you stop with the hyperbole? No one is saying that, at all. I'd love it if we could have a discussion in here without people turning everything into an extreme.

 

Yes, I know that was in green, but you are clearly trying to say the only opposition to this is that its somehow racist.

 

Well, that's the reality of this issue. It's not based on law. It's not based on science. It's "do you feel as though person X should get Y." When it comes down to feelings, that's what you're left with. One side says "you're not logical," the other side says "you have no soul" (or you know, the modern "you just don't like brown people). That's just my cynical take on the issue.

[Soxbadger]

Well weve already had a 16 page debate on it (depending on how many posts you view). Im not going to rehash the same things, but here is the nuts and bolts math:

 

http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?sh...8952&st=200

 

Thats what you believe, I respectfully disagree. I believe that if the govt stopped wasting money on the war on drugs, stopped wasting money on trying to enforce an imaginary border to keep out people seeking freedom, the US economy would rebound rapidly.

 

The United States already pays for millions of illegal immigrants, at least if they were legal they would have to pay taxes. I dont believe every immigrant will be a starving man, I think that many immigrants are hard workers who will become invaluable members of American society. I think historically there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that immigration hurts an economy. In fact if you look at the numbers, the worst economic disaster in US history occurred when there were the most restrictive immigration measures.

 

http://www.npg.org/facts/us_imm_decade.htm

 

Conversely in 1901-1920, when there was the most legal immigrations by percentage (obviously today 9mil is a smaller percent of the total population as compared to 1901) the US economy was thriving. I wont just assume that there is going to be some unproven correlation between immigration and the US failing.

 

In fact I think that restricting immigration undermines capitalist society.

 

Capitalism works when you have a supply/demand curve that the govt doesnt interfere with. Labor is no different than any other commodity, it is based on supply and demand. When the US govt restricts immigration, it is artificially restricting supply.

 

What happens when you restrict supply even though demand stays the same?

 

The cost of the good increases artificially. What are the impacts of this? The US loses jobs to overseas markets where there is less restriction on the labor commodity. By allowing for more supply of labor, you will be able to lower costs for US employers, companies etc, which would allow them to compete more world wide.

 

Many immigrants were the backbone of US labor in the late 19th and early 20th century. The US economy boomed because you could pay immigrant workers far less than some one from the US.

 

So until proven otherwise, I wont just blindly believe that immigrants are going to bankrupt the US economy. In fact I would guess that having more legal immigrants would increase the tax pool and end up making the US money.

 

I really disagree. Any country who bases their economy on the economic theory of capitalism, should never want to restrict supply on labor. Restricting labor as well as anartificial floor on wages is the best way to make your country uncompetitive on the world market.

 

I would be really interested to see an economist write on this subject. Im completely blanking on my economic theory and cant think of the one who said that everything adds to the pie (including crime). Here is one of the few articles I can find, it uses data to state what should be the obvious, restricting immigration will hurt the economy.

 

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1653345

 

"Specifically, we find that these laws had a 1 to 2 percent negative effect on employment; for the average U.S. county, this translates to about 337 to 675 jobs (40 to 80 jobs for the median county). Consistent with the effect on employment, payroll was also negatively affected. This drop in employment includes both authorized and unauthorized workers"

 

Id love to see some articles the other way, I just know that all of my "conservative" economics professors were against any sort of govt regulation of the supply of labor.

 

Furthermore if you look at historical data, the US tax rates were the lowest during the highest rates of immigration. http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/fed_ind...ry-june2010.pdf

 

Even stranger in 1932, one of the years immigration is the lowest during the great depression, taxes jump to a cap at 63%. 1936 the top is 79%. In 1944 the highest tax bracket was 90%. 12 years earlier when immigration was at one of its all time highs, taxes were capped at 25%.

 

It wasnt until 1964 that taxes are dropped to 70%. 81 drop to 50%. And so on and so forth.

 

Im not going to argue whether high taxes are good or bad, but what I think should be clear is that tax rates and immigration do not have any correlation, unless you consider a negative one.

 

When immigration rates were increasing, taxes were either staying the same or decreasing.

 

The only time immigration was drastically restricted, taxes increased to ridiculous levels as well as the US suffering the worst economic depression in its history.

 

Now were some of these actions a result of the great depression?

 

Of course, people in the US during the 1930's were saying the exact same thing as this thread.

 

"We are in bad economic times, we cant let immigrants in, theyll take our jobs and ruin our economy."

 

The problem is, immigrants are jobs, immigrants are consumers. There is no reason to believe that immigrants will be nothing but a net loss, almost all economic capitalist theory would suggest the opposite, immigrants should be a net gain.

 

But thats just my belief based on my knowledge of economic theory and US history. Id love to see some economists write on the subject, because Im just not convinced by talking heads.

 

I dont really like to argue about the economic impact because im willing to give the other side the benefit of the doubt and say that there might be some negative impact (even though I dont agree). I just think that giving people the chance to have freedom and to live in a free place is worth the risk that I may have to pay more taxes.

 

The web page you linked shows the exact same trend as I pointed out.

 

Here are the immigration numbers:

 

1931-40

 

528,431

1941-50

 

1,035,039

1951-60

 

2,515,479

1961-70

 

3,321,677

1971-80

 

4,493,314

1981-90

 

7,338,062

 

As immigration increased from 1950 to 1990, taxes either remained constant, or decreased. Which is exactly what I said in my previous post:

 

The amnesty act was passed in 1986. The deficit didnt occur because of the amnesty act. Im not sure if these numbers are right but im to lazy to use FRASER (Federal archive for economic research).

 

 

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-debt-o...ited-states.htm

 

1980 $711.9

1981 $789.4

1982 $924.6

1983 $1,137.3

1984 $1,307.0

1985 $1,507.3

1986 $1,740.6

1987 $1,889.8

1988 $2,051.6

1989 $2,190.7

 

Strange that after the amnesty act, the debt actually grows at a slower pace. Almost as if the amnesty had no impact on the US debt...

 

Seems to support the idea that allowing more legal immigrants wont all of a sudden bankrupt America because: " immigrants are jobs, immigrants are consumers. There is no reason to believe that immigrants will be nothing but a net loss, almost all economic capitalist theory would suggest the opposite, immigrants should be a net gain."

 

/end Scene

[southsider2k5]

Well weve already had a 16 page debate on it (depending on how many posts you view). Im not going to rehash the same things, but here is the nuts and bolts math:

 

http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?sh...8952&st=200

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/end Scene

 

Great, now tell me what the debt service is now, and how much would be added by adding everyone in the country illegally.

[Balta1701]

Great, now tell me what the debt service is now, and how much would be added by adding everyone in the country illegally.

According to the Heritage foundation, if you include every potential cost, assume that people who are here and who are already 67 take OASDI, that there are no regulations regarding how they qualify for government assistance, about $35 billion/year. Unlike ballooning OASDI costs due to the baby boom however, that number should stay pretty close to the rate of inflation, because there isn't a retirement baby boom coming in that population.

 

If we're going to be fully rigorous about the math though, then we need to start taking into account the $20 billion+ currently being spent on enforcement along the southern border, the extra revenue those workers would bring through taxation, and the economic stimulus that would come about by allowing that population to suddenly declare that it exists economically.

 

Frankly, at this point, the costs and benefits that people have estimated, making reasonable assumptions, are somewhere within the margin of error of each other. Projected over 20 years, those margins of error become things like "$1 trillion costs!" or "$2 trillion saved!"

[Soxbadger]

I dont believe that I am here defending my thesis, if you want to make an argument why debt service would matter in this case, Ill gladly read it, but on a free message Im not doing the research for another person's argument.

 

I dont see why the debt service should change.

[southsider2k5]

I dont believe that I am here defending my thesis, if you want to make an argument why debt service would matter in this case, Ill gladly read it, but on a free message Im not doing the research for another person's argument.

 

I dont see why the debt service should change.

 

You want to add millions of people to the roles, most of whom won't contribute anything of merit to the system, and don't think total debt will change? I don't blame you for not wanting to defend that thesis.

[Balta1701]

You want to add millions of people to the roles, most of whom won't contribute anything of merit to the system, and don't think total debt will change? I don't blame you for not wanting to defend that thesis.

Oh come on Mike, you know full well that the rest of us can play the same game. "You want to keep spending tens of billions of dollars a year on enforcement while still keeping tens of millions of people locked in a cycle where they're not recognized by the law, and you don't think that the total debt will change"?

 

Reality is..."whether it costs you $2 trillion or you gain $1 trillion depends a lot on how you structure your legalization setup."

[lostfan]

According to the Heritage foundation, if you include every potential cost, assume that people who are here and who are already 67 take OASDI, that there are no regulations regarding how they qualify for government assistance, about $35 billion/year. Unlike ballooning OASDI costs due to the baby boom however, that number should stay pretty close to the rate of inflation, because there isn't a retirement baby boom coming in that population.

 

If we're going to be fully rigorous about the math though, then we need to start taking into account the $20 billion+ currently being spent on enforcement along the southern border, the extra revenue those workers would bring through taxation, and the economic stimulus that would come about by allowing that population to suddenly declare that it exists economically.

 

Frankly, at this point, the costs and benefits that people have estimated, making reasonable assumptions, are somewhere within the margin of error of each other. Projected over 20 years, those margins of error become things like "$1 trillion costs!" or "$2 trillion saved!"

Just wanted to point out Balta citing a right-wing hack tank. That is all

[Soxbadger]

You want to add millions of people to the roles, most of whom won't contribute anything of merit to the system, and don't think total debt will change? I don't blame you for not wanting to defend that thesis.

 

Because that is not my position at all.

 

I want to add people based on the amount that they have paid into the system. The amount most illegal immigrants will have paid into the system is $0. Therefore if they were to become citizens their benefit would start at "$0".

 

I would allow for expedited payment into the system where immigrants could "opt in" and have to pay vastly higher social security and taxes to receive the same benefits as some one who had been paying into the system for longer.

 

I have made this very clear time and time again, people just tend to ignore the idea that just because you grant them citizenship, does not mean it equals a free check. I would think most immigrants would understand that becoming a US citizen means that there are responsibilities and one of them is paying into the SS system if you want its benefit.

 

Right now you get different benefits based on how much you pay in, why in the world would it be any different for legalized immigrants?

 

Furthermore, what is "anything of merit" to the system?

 

Illegal immigrants come from all economic classes (well except the super rich, because if you are super rich you can buy a path to citizenship by creating enough jobs), to believe that no illegal immigrant will ever become a millionaire is absurd.

 

That is nothing more than American elitism, because I believe that anyone given the opportunity can make something of themselves.

[Balta1701]

Just wanted to point out Balta citing a right-wing hack tank. That is all

I figured that if I used a Heritage estimate, I was looking at the top level line, from a place that wants to put a multi-trillion pricetag on immigration reform so that it's done the way they like.

[southsider2k5]

Oh come on Mike, you know full well that the rest of us can play the same game. "You want to keep spending tens of billions of dollars a year on enforcement while still keeping tens of millions of people locked in a cycle where they're not recognized by the law, and you don't think that the total debt will change"?

 

Reality is..."whether it costs you $2 trillion or you gain $1 trillion depends a lot on how you structure your legalization setup."

 

I have made my position crystal clear. Take away the incentives to come here. That is how you fix the problem for the most part.

[Soxbadger]

You mean create a bigger govt to further control the supply of labor?

 

That is fine if you are into big govt and expanding the govt's role in US economic policy.

 

But thats not libertarian. If you are a libertarian you want the least possible govt interference in business.

 

It just goes to the heart of this thread, to be a real libertarian you have to believe in the principles, not just say "Down with big govt", you actually have to take steps to reduce the govt interference in business. That would mean taking out artificial restrictions on labor.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

You mean create a bigger govt to further control the supply of labor?

 

That is fine if you are into big govt and expanding the govt's role in US economic policy.

 

But thats not libertarian. If you are a libertarian you want the least possible govt interference in business.

 

It just goes to the heart of this thread, to be a real libertarian you have to believe in the principles, not just say "Down with big govt", you actually have to take steps to reduce the govt interference in business. That would mean taking out artificial restrictions on labor.

 

I never said I was libertarian either.

[StrangeSox]

I have made my position crystal clear. Take away the incentives to come here. That is how you fix the problem for the most part.

 

The incentive to come here is to live in a better country and have a job to feed your family.

[Soxbadger]

I should have been more clear, I wasnt accusing you of being a libertarian, more accusing those "tea-party" members or "Republicans" who like to say they are libertarian because they like to throw around small govt ideas.

 

Which is why I said it went to the heart of this thread.

[southsider2k5]

The incentive to come here is to live in a better country and have a job to feed your family.

 

I should have said the illegal incentives. The system works best when immigrants fill jobs not able to be filled by Americans. The problem is we have 10% unemployment now, and jobs are being underpriced by people who don't have to compete on a legal basis. All this does is artificially hold down the people's wages who actually financially support this country.

[Soxbadger]

The incentive to come here is to live in a better country and have a job to feed your family.

 

And if we destroy our country enough, eventually we wont have an immigration problem!

[southsider2k5]

And if we destroy our country enough, eventually we wont have an immigration problem!

 

Which is exactly what I am worried about. We are watching economies all over the world self-destruct because of debt. How people can ignore it here and now is beyond me.

[StrangeSox]

I should have said the illegal incentives. The system works best when immigrants fill jobs not able to be filled by Americans. The problem is we have 10% unemployment now, and jobs are being underpriced by people who don't have to compete on a legal basis. All this does is artificially hold down the people's wages who actually financially support this country.

 

Great, legalize them. No more downward wage pressure from illegal immigrants who are freely and frequently abused by employers who exploit their legal situation to the detriment of everyone (except the shareholders).

[Balta1701]

Which is exactly what I am worried about. We are watching economies all over the world self-destruct because of debt. How people can ignore it here and now is beyond me.

Because saying "They're self-destructing because of debt" is as accurate as saying "They're self-destructing because people tried to own land!"

[Soxbadger]

I should have said the illegal incentives. The system works best when immigrants fill jobs not able to be filled by Americans. The problem is we have 10% unemployment now, and jobs are being underpriced by people who don't have to compete on a legal basis. All this does is artificially hold down the people's wages who actually financially support this country.

 

Err negative.

 

Jobs are being overpriced due to artificial interference by the US govt. If there was no minimum wage and the labor supply was unregulated, you would see an absolute decrease in wages.

 

If anyone could work for any price, you shouldnt have 10% unemployment, because undoubtedly employers would hire workers cheaper which would allow them to hire more workers.

 

The two things that are artificial are:

 

1) Minimum wage

2) Creating a class of people who cant legally work (illegal immigrants)

 

American wages are artificially high, this is why you see factories going to Vietnam, China and India, because the labor is far cheaper there. Why would any business pay $8 an hour to some one to stuff cotton in a toy, when they can pay some one $.25 an hour?

[StrangeSox]

Don't forget about charing $30 for the final product, too!