The federal government encouraged people not to have children, and therefore they must also interfere with the right of people to trade with each other?

Do you seriously believe that two unrelated wrongs make a right?

Wow.

An estimated 47 million is a whole lot of somebody’s.

The Unacknowledged Holocaust

Back in the 60’s the Federal Government came into the public schools and brainwashed us as little children with the message that the children we were about to have were unwanted because the population was rising so fast. They launched a program called, “Zero Population Growth”. They pushed Family Planning and birth control pills. I think you and I now both know that you only have to trick people for their few child bearing years and there is no going back.

Many of us never had a say in the future of our unborn.

I am the result of two living cells. One from each of my parents. They are the result of two living cells, one from each of their parents. I wasn’t just born. I am a continuation of life. I am a living thing that reaches back into time perhaps 400 million years and the result of billions of joining of pairs of cells. It is possible that if you were to follow my cells back to my parent’s cells and beyond that my family tree touches every living thing here on earth. That is if we limit ourselves to believing life was created here on earth. If it rained down from the immensity of the universe it could reach back into that immensity of time and space, and who knows what relationships and who knows what species.

At least until I came up against the Federal Government and their plan to control the population.

I have seen the Federal Government do little else to control the population.

The open border, United States laws only apply to some malarkey, is a serious slap in the face. No, not a slap in the face. It reaches well beyond that. Maybe back to the beginning of time and stretch to the bounds of the universe.

A few of points:

1) Nobody is snuffing out anybody. An immigrant does not have to kill someone who is already here to make room for themselves.

2) If I were to convince the U.S. Congress to forbid anybody from employing people who post under the handle of “Carson” the people who continued to illegally do business with you would not be hurting anyone. In fact, the law itself would violate the right of you and those you interact with to contract with each other. Laws criminalizing immigration are in fact a violation of the right to contract. As such, they are no more moral than laws against interracial marriage, or laws requiring segregated seating on buses.

3) Illegal immigrants earn black market wages. These are not token wages, but the actual freemarket price for labor. When they differ from the “legal” price, it’s a sign that the government is intervening in labor markets causing a misallocation of resources.

4) Yes, immigrants strain the welfare state. So do births. The welfare state is immoral and should be abolished. It’s immorality is in no way an argument to further violate human rights.

5) If native born workers require the government to “protect” them from competing with foreign born labor, that is a sign that the natives are incapable of competing on a level playing field. Remember, if you are trying to keep immigrants “from takin ‘er jobs’, what you are actually demanding is that the government make an unlevel playing field in your favor. You are basically claiming that native born Americans are incapable of competing fairly with foreign born workers. Personally, I believe that to be hog-wash.

Comically, people have been complaining about the wrong sort of immigration since before the American Revolution. While Thos. Jefferson was penning the Declaration of Independence and listing in it the grievance that the King was restricting immigration into the colonies, old Ben Franklin was bitching about the excessive immigration of Germans who talked funny, worshiped God the wrong way, and had ruddy complexions. It was dumb then, and it is dumb now.

Incidentally, you might want to study something called The Theory of Comparative Advantage”. It explains why unskilled immigrant labor actually makes everyone better off.

I can sort of see how a myopic economist may be able to see an increase in profits by snuffing the descendants of the founders of this country. That makes room for the criminals in business’s illegal labor. Not only can many of the illegal invaders be paid off in token wages but that also leaves the honest workers stiffed with the criminal’s taxes, medical and social services. It’s a pure genius way of eliminating any competition. They won’t be able to compete on that playing field. Every day more and more will go under.

The part that confuses me is I can see examples of some of the illegal aliens previous work. How will all of the crime that surrounds illegal immigration be helping you out when the honest people are forced to join in, in the lawlessness?

http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/itaa.real.html

Doug, you just get off the turnip truck?

“Later on, I will argue that by switching to a national sales or VAT tax (both of which are consumption taxes [Ehrbar, 2005]), the illegal immigration problem can largely be solved. This would not be the case for a flat income tax. Thus, I argue, the consumption taxes are superior, if for this reason alone.”

His argument was for removing the income tax so that government could charge us a national sales tax. A consumption tax essentially punishes people for the act of purchasing goods and services…those that purchase more will pay more in taxes and have less disposable income to spend on other products beyond subsistence or need (which slows the growth of jobs). It may create more revenue for the government, but it’s about as anti-economic growth as you get. And he’s doing this in an attempt to continue welfare services.

In case you’ve missed my point, Oh Clever Dispenser of Nicknames, taking more revenue from consumers so you can give it to the government to redistribute is not a good thing. Retard.

Your article’s proposal to increase progressive taxation, however, is completely off the mark… Same thing with your article’s argument for keeping out immigrants because they’ll suck up welfare…

UCrawford,

you are a ranting retard that obviously didn’t read the article or have no reading comprehension.

http://br.endernet.org/~akrowne/writings/illegal_immigration/illegal_immigration/

The Solution: Eliminate the Income Tax

Sometimes it’s eerie how spot-on the founding fathers of the United States were. Though they made direct taxes explicitly illegal, later governments couldn’t figure out why (and couldn’t help themselves), so they simply erased that pesky little clause of the Constitution. As argued above, the income tax is basically a huge bulls-eye painted on the United States that says “exploit me.” It sets up a scenario whereby those who wish to opt out of the citizenship system, and indeed, the core of our social fabric, are actually rewarded.

We will not successfully prevent illegal immigration by “watching our borders more closely.” The cost of doing such a thing perfectly will be astronomical, and even then, still susceptible to false positives that would be a civil liberties nightmare.

The cheap, easy, elegant, and humane solution to illegal immigration is simply to do away with the income tax system. If you do this, the 20-30% wage advantage of illegals vanishes instantly.

Illegal immigration is caused by several things…poverty and unemployment in the countries of the immigrants’ origins, the availability of jobs in our country, and the desire of humans not to have to starve to death because of ridiculous laws. Reasons like that are why unskilled immigrants come here, not progressive taxation. That’s why immigrants are so often willing to shell out big bucks to coyotes and risk death to cross our borders.

As for the costs for employers being lower to hire illegal immigrants…well, duh. Want to get rid of that incentive? Then dump minimum wage laws so that American citizens can competitively bid for work against illegal immigrants. Cut back on government support for labor unions so that they don’t have a coercive edge in negotiations and drive the costs of employing domestic labor up. Cut back on restrictive licensing laws so that start up businesses have less barriers to entry and can create more jobs for everyone. Your article’s proposal to increase progressive taxation, however, is completely off the mark. In addition to having no actual effect on immigration (other than to likely create less jobs here by punishing the producers in society) all that does is to steal money from the more productive to give it to the less productive out of some sense of pity. And I don’t have a lot of pity for anyone that thinks they’re entitled to the money in my pocket simply because they’ve got a hard luck story that’s got nothing to do with me.

Now, if you’re saying that restrictive government is the cause of much employment misery, I agree and I’m all on board with getting them out of our daily lives. If you think that wealthy people abuse the system and get undeserved breaks, hell, I’m all for creating a straight percentage tax so that everyone pays their fair share, and I’d be a big proponent eliminating subsidies and payouts for corporations and special interests. Less government can only be a good thing. If, however, you’re merely saying that poor American people deserve a handout because an immigrant was willing to do the same job as them for less money, you’re wasting your time because you’ve got no moral argument. Same thing with your article’s argument for keeping out immigrants because they’ll suck up welfare…abolish welfare and it won’t be an issue. Americans have no more right to steal tax money out of other peoples’ pockets than immigrants do.

Your article lost its credibility once it based its premise for tax reform on the idea that the government had a responsibility to remove the differences in relative wealth.

Hmm… I wonder if you read a different article than I did…

FYI…a great number of people who are less successful in life are in that position because of actions they themselves have taken. And it’s not the obligation or responsibility of anyone else to shield individuals from the consequences of their actions…particularly when the proposed solution involves forcibly stealing money from people who earned or inherited it (via compulsory taxation) and giving it to people who didn’t.

Hmm… I tend to think the wealthy use the government to steal from the poor more so than the other way around…

Simply put, nobody owes anyone else a living, and if the “blue-collar” (by which I assume you really mean “unskilled”) American workers your article tries to deify are finding competition from lower-paid immigrants to be such a problem, I’d suggest that it’s because the job skills those unemployed workers possess simply aren’t worth as much in a free market as those workers (and the unions that often represent them) would like us to believe.

There are no “free markets” here…

Life sucks when you have minimal utility to offer an employer. But that’s not anyone else’s responsibility to fix either…and nobody owes you a higher wage or secure employment based solely on where you happened to be born, which is what the anti-immigration faithful never seem to get. Appeals to pity, which is what articles like the one you cited are all about, are for private charities to address, not government programs and “progressive” taxation.

Now you’re just ranting about whatever. The article I referenced was making the argument that illegal immigration is caused in part by the tax system which artificially makes legal/documented labor costs more expensive for the employer.

I don’t know what you’re spouting off about… “free markets”… as we if we such a thing here… “progressive taxes helping blue collar workers”… as if the government hasn’t ever bailed out the wealthy… oh wait, I guess you’re saying when the government bails out the wealthy people, that’s called “free markets.” Gotcha…

The Nationalist see it all as a plot to destroy the United States while Transnationalist see it as a step up into their utopia.

Your article lost its credibility once it based its premise for tax reform on the idea that the government had a responsibility to remove the differences in relative wealth.

FYI…a great number of people who are less successful in life are in that position because of actions they themselves have taken. And it’s not the obligation or responsibility of anyone else to shield individuals from the consequences of their actions…particularly when the proposed solution involves forcibly stealing money from people who earned or inherited it (via compulsory taxation) and giving it to people who didn’t.

Simply put, nobody owes anyone else a living, and if the “blue-collar” (by which I assume you really mean “unskilled”) American workers your article tries to deify are finding competition from lower-paid immigrants to be such a problem, I’d suggest that it’s because the job skills those unemployed workers possess simply aren’t worth as much in a free market as those workers (and the unions that often represent them) would like us to believe.

Life sucks when you have minimal utility to offer an employer. But that’s not anyone else’s responsibility to fix either…and nobody owes you a higher wage or secure employment based solely on where you happened to be born, which is what the anti-immigration faithful never seem to get. Appeals to pity, which is what articles like the one you cited are all about, are for private charities to address, not government programs and “progressive” taxation.

That’s the side of the immigration debate that the nativists don’t want you to think about. Kick out all that cheap foreign labor and the cost of everything from your new house to the lettuce at the grocery store goes up. Not to mention the revenue lost to businesses who benefit from the wages that immigrants earn.

Or, perhaps legal/documented labor costs are ketp artificially high by payroll deductions. See link in previous reply.

BTW, WordPress sucks…