Is Immigration Policy an example of this?
Immigration Policy is independent of Border Security. Can we not implement a market based solution to Immigration Policy?
Just to kick off the idea, it is unquestionably clear that the Market Demand for Immigrant Labor far exceeds the Supply of Immigrant Labor, as allowed by our Immigration Policy.
Our Immigration Policy artificially restricts Supply to levels far below Demand, can this not be fixed?
I am going out on no limb at all by saying that if Obama did militarize the border much of the GOP would be screaming about how he is violating the Posse Comitatus Act and trying to set himself up as a dictator. But yes, the suicide bombing thing is silly and unnecessary.
Out of curiosity, what is it about border control that makes it unsuited to a “market based” solution. We employed more mercenaries in Iraq for most of our time there than we did soldiers. Why do you think the private sector could not secure the border.
I am not advocating this solution (I am hardly a “let the market sort it out” type), just asking why this differs from, say, Social Security.
I can’t really agree with this. I think that, in theory, the free-market could find a solution for anything. There’s a ton of government services that could easily find free-market solution. As a libertarian, and not an anarcho-capitalist, I don’t think the appropriate question to ask is whether there is a free-market alternative, but whether or not the free-market is the proper alternative. That is, I think a lot of people confuse anarcho-capitalist ideology, that the free market will always provide a superior solution and government is inherently evil, with the libertarian ideology, that government is necessary but needs to be limited.
As such, using national defense as an example, even if a free-market solution would be cheaper, most libertarians would argue that it is inappropriate for national defense to be in private hands. The reason being that national defense shouldn’t have a for profit motive and should be answerable only to the will of the people it protects, not to market incentives. On the other side, I could easily see arguments in both directions regarding things like trash pickup, road maintenance, schools, etc. but that’s not really relevant to the point of the thread.
That said, I’m generally in favor of a pretty lax immigration policy. As long as someone isn’t a criminal, can find work, and won’t be a drain on society, I say let them in. However, I don’t really know what a “market” solution would be beyond what we already have, which is people volunteering their own time to patrol the border. I see immigration as being one of those things that rightfully ought to be in the hands of the government, not private industry because, whether or not I agree with the policies, the policies ought to be answerable to the people, not to market incentives.
I think market incentives stand a very real risk of getting results contrary to what the people want. For instance, if the people decide that it is important for our immigration policy to protect the jobs of citizens over immigrants, without condoning or condemning, our government ought to enact laws that do that. However, at the same time there is market pressure, particularly in low-skill and high-skill labor forces, to bring in cheaper immigrant labor. Thus, if left up to the enforcement of the market alone, there could be significant market pressure to allow more low and high skilled labor enter and take away those jobs from citizens, even though in this supposition that’s not what the people want.
Now, sure, we could pass laws to that end and hire contractors to enforce, but that’s not so much a “market” solution as just whether it’s better to have the government hire contractors or hire people directly.
Sure, there’s a demand for cheap labor. If we let in a bunch of immigrants to meet it there will be another demand for even cheaper labor.
Just because there is a demand for something doesn’t mean that we have to use market based solutions for it and not have laws regulating it.
I’m a libertarian leaning person, but I don’t want a person poorer than me coming into my house to sleep on my couch just because he has a demand for it.
Even in a Libertarian system there are still property rights and laws.
Just like the government prevents someone from coming in and living on my couch they need to prevent people from coming in to the country if they don’t belong here.
ETA, this was in response to
I doubt it. Most conservatives are outraged about the border. If Obama actually did something to control it he would see conservatives pleased with that.
Sure, some pundits and true haters would complain no matter what he does, but I’m talking about regular conservative voters. They would be happy with it.
You’re talking about the actual enforcement. That’s different. Sure you could hire a lot of private contractors to do the actual work. But that’s not what most people in this thread mean by “market based solutions”. What most people mean, I think, is using supply and demand to have the market solve a problem for you.
For example, a market based solution is to have parents pick private schools using vouchers and bad schools would need to compete. This is different than just hiring a lot of privately employed teachers rather than publicly employed ones.
That’s the problem with the border. The market forces in play are cheap labor south of the border and employers who aren’t really penalized for using cheap labor north of the border. It’s those market based forces that are causing the problem. It’s like military spending in that there’s no profit in stopping it for a private company. It’s something the government needs to do.
I’m with you on the first two, but are you saying if someone meets those two criteria, then by definition they meet the third?
Because right now, immigrants as a whole are a massive drain on society. I don’t see how anyone could think otherwise. Look at that train that derailed with 1,200 people on it. Are we as a society not drained by taking them in if they got here? (Even if, for arguments sake they all are not criminals and are capable of doing manual labor or entry level jobs.)
Sorry if I misunderstood your post. Not trying to put words in your mouth at all. Just looking for clarification.
I find this is what separates most pro-immigration from anti-immigration people. Those of us who want the border controlled are generally the ones who recognize the huge drain on our society that these illegals are.
Obama has deported more undocumented immigrants than any prior president but has never received a thimbleful of credit from conservatives.
Presumably, it is OK for someone to sleep on your couch if they’re richer than you?
Who decides whether or not somebody belongs here? Anyway, they’re not coming here to mooch off of your couch, they’re coming here to do hard work, and contribute to our economy. The government is preventing you from hiring a housekeeper/gardener/cook/etc. who will work his ass off for a reasonable wage.
Want to move 1,000 miles, work long hours and try to make a better life for yourself? Fuck off, you don’t belong here, this is the United States!
This assertion is highly debatable.
From just one easily found cite: Analysis Online
There is enough language in this short excerpt to support either side of the argument, if you cherry-pick and depending on how you define “massive” and “society”.
I think most people aren’t looking at our occupation of Iraq as a source for good ideas.
Alternately, what separates the anti-immigration people is that they’re the ones who imagine illegals are a huge drain on our society.
Libertarians and Republicans are not proposing any free market solution because:
Immigration is a fundamentally government affair. It can be affected by the free market, but the policy of who’s allowed in the country must be decided by a government, and both Libertarians and the current crop of Republicans do not believe that government should do anything (except to help themselves)
They find the issue useful in attacking Obama with. The current batch of them are extremists and would rather the country fail than the government be seen as useful
There are little that they can propose without coming into conflict with their core belief that government should do nothing
They have no ideas. Most of them are idiots and morons
Probably related to this is the fact that the Obama administration has actually been pretty successful on the border issue. The Republicans would probably rather stick with vague accusations rather than call too much attention to an issue that would end up making Obama look good.
Conservativeniks hate it that Reagan amnestied millions of illegals, but most of them ended up with proper paperwork and became good Americans. What Reagan did that worked was to convince American business owners they would be fined and face criminal penalties if they continued to use undocumented labor. Two years after the amnesty construction and service jobs in Texas were paying almost twice as much for labor as before. I was having to pay labor foremen $15-$18 an hour to get somebody with good documents as my employer no longer permitted me to hire illegals. Business didn’t like that so GHW Bush, Clinton, W, and BO all gave a nod and a wink and everybody knew it was okay to hire w/o documents again. That’s the market solution, and why we have 12 million illegals here and some of the lowest wages in history. The politicians, Dems and Publicans alike,would prefer we go on being stupid and listening to stupid arguments about border security so they can continue to do nothing and keep wages artificially low, keep business profitable and wreck the economy because caint nobody afford to buy nothing.
Just imagine the federal agency they’re going to create once the border is secure and they have to import and control millions of foreign nationals from all over the world to get enough labor to keep our wages low?
I’m a conservative and I’ll give him credit. Bush was terrible on immigration. Obama is slightly less terrible.
Happy?
What about Reagan, Bush I and Clinton? At some point you have to concede that what presidents actually do represents what is possible given the prevailing political will and various interests involved.
Of course not. A person with riches can afford their own house. Why would you even ask this?
Disagree. For every person looking to work, there’s another that just soaks up government benefits. For examples see:
Auntie Zetuni, who was living in government housing in Boston and collecting government disability checks as an illegal even before a judge granted her legal status because she’s Obama’s aunt.
The Tsarnaev brothers, who took in $100,000 in benefits while they were planning their attacks in Boston. We gave them asylum from their home country even though they regularly went back to visit Chechnya and clearly weren’t refugees that needed it.
Just today in the news, the current wave of illegal children is overwhelming Lynn, MA:
This is all just off the top of my head and just in the Boston area. Send them home.
Why should I care how long they traveled or what they want?
If someone shows up to rob my house I don’t let them do it just because they traveled a 1,000 miles to get there and they really need my stuff. I call the cops.
So, yes, they can fuck off and they don’t belong here.
I’ll grant you that there are various interests involved. Businesses want cheap labor. Democrats want new voters.
There are a lot of forces at play who benefit from the current situation.
But the “prevailing political will” is against illegal immigration and strongly so. Every time this issue comes up the overwhelming desire of the American people to stop the madness at the border is loud and clear.
Bush tried it, Obama tried it. Both failed because a “comprehensive solution” involving amnesty is something that the American voters overwhelmingly reject. People recognize that we need border security first.
You were very specific about a person “poorer than me” entering your house. I was just curious as to how important that descriptor was.
This is where we need some actual facts, and not just opinion. I don’t have a problem restricting immigration to people who work and contribute, and not allowing immigration to people who don’t work and just take.
The reality is that we have millions of people working and living here illegally. If they were to all decide to follow the law, and leave, we would have millions of jobs to fill, and millions of real estate vacancies. Millions of people no longer buying goods and services, millions no longer contributing to sales tax and property tax. Crops rotting in fields, construction unable to proceed, other services made terribly scarce.
Our immigration policy does not account for the fact that there is a place for these workers in our economy. A fraction of a percent of the immigrant low-skill labor that our economy can use is actually legally allowed to immigrate. Set immigration based on economic need, not political expediency.
Fiction goes in Cafe Society, I think.