Immigration madness (Tony Blankley)

And your use of "comparative advantage theory" is not appropriate.

It's still appropriate, especially since I framed it as division of labor.

The middle class in America would disappear as a result of continuing this policy and American living standards would decline precipitously.

I don't believe this. Did this happen after our last go-around with amnesty? Think about that one for awhile.

What Americans are finally beginning to wake up to is that there is a class war shaping up over this immigration and outsourcing debate.

I've noticed. The ones who are outright disdainful of capitalism -- or at least the ones who are suspicious of it -- are usually the loudest. Class warfare is never pretty nor is it becoming of those who wear the "limited government" label.

You obviously do not believe that flooding the labor market with unskilled illegal labor is a bad thing.

That's right, I do not. I think we should do everything possible to absorb them legally, insisting that they -- as well as we -- stay off the government's dole in almost all instances [except for people who were born that are truly incapable of providing for themselves through no fault of their own]. We could even charge them "admission" so that the human smuggling scum is cut out of the loop and so that less human beings would be subjected to that kind of experience. I hera that the going rate is $3000 USD.

But these globalist elites and transnational corporations really have no allegiance to any particular country or system of government.

I have an allegiance to America. I have served in an active duty component of the Armed Forces for 10 years before getting out in 1999 and then reentering - in a Reserve status - just this March. I took the Oath and had no problem with swearing to protect this country from all its enemies. But are immigrants really the enemy? You and I have differing views, I'm sure. I'll tell you this, though: I have a philosophical allegiance toward any government who will embrace capitalism, free markets, private property rights [the main ingredient that allows for the first two], and a system of government power sharing where individual states collectively unite under a federation to form a strong central republic with delegated rights and freedom to its member states or to its people. If America ever ceases to be this way [the jury is still out because the enemies of true freedom are numerous], I will switch my allegiance after finishing up any obligations that I am contractually obligated to complete with Her, and I would will leave Her. Hopefully it won't come to that.

On the whole, though, and not limiting this so-called evidence to just semi-skilled or low-skilled labor, can you show me where real wages are being depressed in the economy as a whole?

I don't normally post on the immigration threads because I haven't quite reasoned out my personal position on what should be done about the illegal's who have lived in the US for more than say five years.

I do take exception to your statement about semi-skilled and low-skilled wages not being taken into consideration as having any affect on real wages being depressed. I'm unsure if I'm misunderstanding you. Semi and low-skilled wages help to make up the backbone of real wages. I'm going to use new home construction as an example because illegals are hired for a lot of the low/semi skilled positions in that particular industry.

When I was a young adult I had a number of acquaintances who had summer jobs working on new home sites as carpenters, bricklayers, roofers, painters, etc. Upon graduation they would find construction work on a full time basis and they would command a larger per hour wage because of their summer job 'internship'. As they gained more experience along with more knowledge they would be able to advance up to being able to manage a crew. With even more experience they would strike out on their own and become a contractor. Even working as part of a crew, these men were able to support themselves and a family.

In looking at the kids who graduated with my son (he's 28) I can't name one who went into construction. The illegals took the majority of the jobs and the jobs would no longer support a single young man much less one who wanted to raise a family. By the way, I'm not talking union either since there wasn't a union for construction workers (at least not in Texas there wasn't.)

Based on what I saw with my son's peers, in order to be able to get a job where they were self-supporting, they first had to go to college. A large number of his friends graduated with large debt in the form of student loans. Needless to say if they wanted to have the standard of living of a 'skilled' worker, they had to command a larger salary or they had to live paycheck to paycheck.

I'm not sure what you consider real wages to be. To me a real wage is any wage which will allow a person to be self-supporting and to have some discretionary income.

It's still appropriate, especially since I framed it as division of labor.

Substituting illegal alien workers for American workers has nothing to do with “division of labor.“ Just throwing around so-called economic terms like "comparative advantage" or "division of labor" and expecting that to be an argument just won’t do. You still have to explain yourself, hopefully in a convincing manner, which you have not done. You haven’t even responded to the example you asked for by showing how in real life substituting illegal Guatemalan nannies for American citizen workers is going to benefit our people or our economy or even how this is equivalent to your concept of “division of labor.“ And I’d really like you to explain how this is going to lead to increased productivity. How does one make the job of being a nanny more productive and efficient?

Bringing in millions of illegal aliens to compete with existing citizens has nothing to do with trade, limited government or freedom. In fact, the economic arguments about illegal immigration are irrelevant to this debate because the American people have long ago decided this issue -- we reject illegal immigration. I think the key to understanding my objection to your argument is contained in your response to my statement that you obviously do not believe that flooding the labor market with unskilled illegal labor is a bad thing. Your response was: "That's right, I do not."

Our founders defined the very essence of freedom as the ability of a people to govern itself. Your statement makes me ask the question: do you believe in our American system of republican self-government? For decades our democratically enacted laws have forbidden people to come here illegally but by your own statement you have no problem with these laws that the people have enacted being ignored by our government. This does indeed go to the heart of the matter of whether we actually have “limited” government -- one of the values you claim to hold highest along with capitalism. If the government may ignore the people and their duly enacted laws then there is no limitation on government at all. One can only conclude from your response that you do not really want the vast majority of Americans to be able to decide this issue through our democratic process, unless they happen to agree with you, nor do you think their decision, once made, should be respected or enforced.

It is clear that you and I have different ideas about and definitions of freedom as well as what values we hold pre-eminent . I believe that without the political liberty that is established through our system of republican self-government all other types of freedom are rendered insecure. I think your question …But are immigrants really the enemy? … indicates the extent of these differences as you explicitly leave out the most relevant and all important qualifier of “illegal.” You make no distinction between those who come here legally under our democratically enacted laws and those who come here in violation of these laws. The rule of law is one element of our structure of freedom which you did not include in your list of values, however it is the base upon which all the others rest.

I have taken the time to respond to your arguments because I understand that ultimately our system of republican self-government and the continuance of all the economic and political liberties we have discussed in this debate depends on maintaining a consensus among the American people about these fundamental matters. “Parchment barriers” as Madison warned us will not protect these freedoms. When this consensus breaks down, when Americans disagree about fundamental values like who is to be counted as a human being, as in the slavery and abortion debates, or whether the legislative authority of the people is to be respected by our elected representatives, as in this current debate about illegal immigration, then our very existence as a sovereign, self-governing people is put at risk.

A changing market place for labor -- changing because some people are willing to do work for less and some employers are willing to hire them at the going rate or otherwise face not being in business -- leads to displacement. Less economic activity means less growth and standard of living increase. Besides, job displacement is a short to intermediate term phenomena that, many more times than not, forces the displaced worker to acquire new skills and become more productive. This is specialization or, division of labor. I wont go much deeper than this because it would require a much more laborious explanation. So, either you buy into the brief explanation or you don't. I will cease to argue with you on this matter because I feel very strongly that I'm correct concerning how the term division of labor and comparative advantage are, indeed, applicable to this argument.

As to laws: you are correct, I must concede [concession is something that I have a disliking for but will have the integrity to do], that we are a nation of laws and this must be respected. It does not mean that I have to like the law that I am respecting. It does not mean that I should not and cannot lobby (petition or influence) that the law be changed if I find it to conflict with my beliefs.

Some examples: I think that violent crime would greatly decreased if we didn't have laws that made the possession or usage of drugs illegal...the profits would be taken out of the trade and the incentive for thugs to eliminate any threats to their profits (i.e other drug dealers) would be virtually eliminated; laws against gambling; Sarbane-Oxley; McCain-Feingold; the Federal Drug Administration's prohibition on supplying potentially life saving drugs to desperate & terminally ill patients willing to try anything. This list could be quite extensive if I were to give it some thought and have the time to type it out. I hope you understand my position -- these are all laws on the books that I do not agree with yet I respect as laws and do not break even though I find them to be misguided. Are there not some laws that you personally do not agree with that you'd like to change?

Immigrants who come here illegally should not be doing so. Businesses that hire illegals should not be doing so. Yet, immigrants still come here illegally and the enforcement or wall erecting would be prohibitively costly and would probably have very little effect on immigrants who come here illegally. Many businesses that currently hire illegal immigrants would probably not be in business if they did not. The cost of labor would rise in this instance the consumer of the final products would pay substantially more. You're probably okay with this part as a legal citizen laborer would be better off. But would the consumer be? The evidence to prior bouts of immigration and its aftermath suggest that we need not worry about the long-term effects.

I've also sprinkled a bit of Julian Simon's research in this thread. Maybe you should check some of it (and more here) out and refute it.

Now, I've taken the time to respond but I don't see the need to continue unless there is something you'd like to respond to.

I'm not sure what you consider real wages to be. To me a real wage is any wage which will allow a person to be self-supporting and to have some discretionary income.

A real wage is one that keeps pace with inflation and is a wage at which the purchasing power would be comparable to that of another era. The problem with such a measurement, though, is that it does not take into consideration innovate and technological advances that make our lives easier or more enjoyable. The fact that we're are sharing opinions over the Internet even though we could not have done so prior to the 1990s is some kind of evidence that we are better off today than we were in our past...unless of course you despise the Internet and the lethargic culture it has created. But then, being as lethargic as we are, we are now living longer than we ever have. Can you explain these things if our standards of living are not improving? These things cannot be measured just by comparing wages, either.

As for the rest: perhaps our drives, our educational system, our values, our expectations, or any combination of these are a little out of whack and need to be revisited by everyone today. No one said that markets were equitable and no one entitled us to a life of ease without busting our asses to achieve success.

I am not convinced by your "economic" arguments as you are obviously not convinced by mine. I agree that there is not much to be gained by continuing this exchange so I will just respond to the questions you asked.

First, you have not said this in so many words but it sounds like you expect people like my American citizen nanny to somehow obtain a different job that requires more skills (what you call specialize) and leave all the nanny jobs in this country to illegals. I guess you would have the same advice for her husband in the landscaping business. This is apparently what you call "division of labor." You seem willing to impose all the costs and inconveniences of employing illegals in this country on the people who are unfortunate enough to be in the position to have to compete with them. This is strangely reminiscent of an earlier era of "economic specialization" of the labor force in America during which slaves were imported to do the unskilled work -- which is perhaps why critics of illegal immigration frequently refer to it as "slave labor."

Of course, as soon as the illegals become legal, they will demand higher wages, vacation days, health care benefits and all the rest. The only reason illegal labor is cheaper is because it is illegal and because the business owners have been able to shift most of the true costs of their presence in this country (education, welfare, health care, prisons) to taxpayers. To use economic terms since you are seem to prefer them, they have internalized the benefits (profits) and externalized the costs. Employers of illegal aliens are receiving massive subsidies from the American taxpayer.

According to your reasoning, because of the presence of massive numbers of illegal workers in America we should all be living in the best of all possible times. This is self-evidently untrue. Living standards for the lower and middle classes in this country have declined and wages have not kept up with inflation. There is less, not more economic opportunity today for the unskilled worker or the worker who has only a high school education. In the 1950's and 60's, a time of very little immigration illegal or otherwise, my high school educated father was able to support a family of six in a comfortable middle class lifestyle on the wages he earned from delivering dry cleaning. Nothing like this opportunity is available today, nor would it have been for him if he had to compete with millions of illegal workers.

As to your question about consumer costs, I believe that in the end, we are all deluding ourselves in thinking that the cheap goods and labor costs afforded by illegal immigrants are a good bargain. I think most Americans understand this. We are subsidizing this insanity with our very lives (as the families of those who died on 9-11 can attest), with massive crime rates and prison costs, with skyrocketing welfare, defense and education costs, and most importantly with the destruction of the very economic and social conditions (an independent and self reliant population) that are required to maintain democratic self-government. If we added all these costs of illegal immigration to the prices of the goods and services they are involved in providing I doubt anyone would consider us better off in the bargain.

This is strangely reminiscent of an earlier era of "economic specialization" of the labor force in America during which slaves were imported to do the unskilled work.

Oh, suddenly we care about this "scourge" and want to compare it to slavery to make the argument more dramatic? Maybe I'm imagining it but I thought illegal immigrants were coming in droves, voluntarily, so as to achieve something better. Now it's slavery? Oh my, you've certainly moved the bar on me now!

Julian Simon showed that immigrants -- even the illegal ones -- are more of a benefit to the economy, when all the costs and value are accounted for, then they are a drain on it. The data and research is about 20 years old though and things may have changed. If they did change, it is no doubt because of a change in entitlements -- entitlements that many unsavory-type American's are a larger consumer of (and at the good-standing American taxpayer's expense.)

Of course, as soon as the illegals become legal, they will demand higher wages, vacation days, health care benefits and all the rest. .

This is rich! Isn't this the very thing that you want for these people, especially with the "all the rest" comment? All the rest means to pay taxes and assimilate, right? Didn't you just become these slaves' champion earlier [And the bar moves a little further this time]?. A little consistency would be helpful here.

As I have already explained, the economic argument about whether illegals harm or help our "economy" is irrelevant given the overwhelming opposition of the American citizenry but people like you who approve of illegal immigration will continue to spout ridiculous, so-called "studies" in the vain hope of propping up your defense of the indefensible -- illegal immigration. Anyone can concoct an "economic" study to prove anything they want. We have, however, had a gigantic real world experiment in illegal immigration over the past several decades and the actual results of this experiment are in. Whether you look at living standards, wages, social-welfare costs, or crime, the massive and uncontrolled illegal immigration we have experienced has been a disaster for our society. Every crime committed by an illegal alien who was not even supposed to be here in the first place is a failure of government in the first order and all politicians and citizens who have promoted and tolerated the presence of illegal aliens in this country share responsibility for this harm.

Over the pasts few decades, the opinions and interests of those like you who support illegal immigration have overridden our democratically enacted laws and all the principles of republican government in which the people’s will is supposed to prevail and decide these matters. For the sake of our children’s future, I can only hope that as a result of this immigration debate “the people” will awaken to the dangerousness of this state of affairs will insist that their elected officials restore the legislative authority of the people to its rightful place.

Since our disagreement goes to the fundamentals of republican political theory , ethics and even “economic” theory and because it is clear there is no hope of changing minds, I will not read or respond to any further posts from you. Hopefully, other readers may have benefited from this exchange.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.