Walter In Denver

If they are coming here to work, let them. They do not "steal" jobs by being better at them. I agree, however, that the border needs to be sealed. Seal it, and then allow anyone in who is coming over for good reason (such as work). Filter out those who want to loaf on America's huge welfare hammock (along with Al Quada, Zapatistas, socialists, Hugonazis from Venezuela and other human scum).

From an economic point of view, this means that Mexicans who would have been assembling parts for American companies in Juarez are now assembling them in Houston. Obviously, the economic effects on American-born computer programmers in Seattle will be catastrophic.

Obvious to most, importing people is tremendously different than importing parts.

And, of course, this will effect those in Seattle eventually. For instance, a corrupt politicians might be paid by a company to do two things: a) look the other way on our immigration laws, and b) pass laws that will end up directly affecting that Seattle resident.

TLB,

Why is importing people "tremendously different" than importing parts? For such a big statement, I was hoping you were going to substantiate it.

There's a huge difference between importing goods and people. The former can be put in warehouses, thrown into the sea, sent back, charged back, etc. etc. The latter however are quite a different species. They breed, they have ideas, they're protected by international treaties, they write symphonies, they start wars. Some people you import can be a benefit, others might not be. It really is two extremely different subjects.

So if I'm understanding your comment correctly, though different, there is nothing inherently good or bad about the importation of labor versus goods.

The implication of your original comment in conjunction with views expressed on lonewacko.com is that the importation of labor is inherently bad. What I would like you to tell me is this: do you believe this country is or was ever a great nation? Though we cannot conclude that post ergo hoc, propeter hoc, it seems reasonable to conclude that there is some correlation between the greatness of our country and the people who have made it great.

To me, the correlation is intuitive: this country's greatness is the product of encouraging the importation of individuals who wish to work hard and reap the benefits of their hard work; namely, the importation of lovers of freedom. Thus, barriers that prevent people who wish to reap-what-they-would-sow from coming to this country are bad for people in this country because we miss out on opportunities for free trade. If this were not the case, these immigrants would have no reason to cross the border. Similarly, barriers of exit to those who already live in this country are also bad. These barriers to exit could be described as government-based subsidies that discourage those who would suckle on the teat of public welfare from leaving. Either way, it's the barriers that are bad, not the passing of individuals across lines on a map. To me, this conclusion is obvious; however, perhaps it it is not "obvious to most."

Neal:

There are reasons why we have country-based and skill-based quotas. And, there are reasons why we don't naturalize, say, Communist agitators.

What we have now is "self-service immigration", as anyone who wants to can sneak across the border and then be granted amnesty.

There's no test whether that person will be good for the country, whether they have skills that we need, whether they are "lovers of freedom" or are "just here to work" but have allegiances to their home countries, and on and on and on.

TLB,

I simply reject the need to screen people who wish to work in this country. Why not just cut them off from the welfare state subsidies and let them decide on their own if they want to stay. If they wish to partake in things like school, they can be taxed accordingly.

The best screen for immigrants is to cut off subsidies and let the chips fall where they may.

TLB wrote:

There's no test whether that person will be good for the country, whether they have skills that we need, whether they are "lovers of freedom" or are "just here to work" but have allegiances to their home countries, and on and on and on.

It's true that freedom, and the activities allowed in free societies, have unpredictable results. It's also true that those results are better than what occurs in unfree systems.