Would free market immigration work?

If they did that, I would be able to make more ceramics without all these government regulations of business license and that crap. I already pay taxes, why do I have to have a license for making some bowls?

What kind of license do you need for ceramics?

Artist. "One who produces art for profit. The category does not include contractors, designers, and painters." (one who paint a house, I was told)

It keeps many of the economic benefits of outsourcing, without the loss of capital to the country as a whole and without perpetuating the human rights abuses perpetrated by many foreign governments.

Doing so would only make things worse, there are legitimate reasons for having annual imigration limits. The annual cost of illegals is conservatively estimated at near $350 billion, allowing open immigration would only compound that cost.

So which of my arguments are flawed?

What part of illegal don't you understand and what part of unaffordable to a country $16 trillion in debt don't you understand?

There isn't any part of illegal that I don't understand. I am saying does the government have the sense to properly set the immigration rate? Why does free market work when it comes to working conditions and minimum wage but not immigration rates?

Define "work." The "free market" MIGHT achieve optimal efficiency but who cares if that means our living standards go down? As for immigration it's a terrible idea. The US already attracts mostly third world immigrants and has enough problems with diseases like TB spreading and strain on social service thanks to migrants. If it opened up the borders entirely then that would just mean more low skilled and unhealthy people than the US could handle. But then of course people wouldn't WANT to come here anymore so I guess the problem would eventually "self correct."

The free market working at optimal efficiency means optimal living conditions to. Meddling in free market dynamics always leads to damage to an economy and to the nation. Unskilled and unhealthy workers would only come here if there were jobs available for them, in which case those jobs would be filled and the number of consumers would increase.

In real life it's not uncommon for migrant workers to come here and wind up stranded. In fact there have been articles about mexicans sending money to support relatives in the US. Now the number of people going to the US has declined but it doesn't really matter, relative to where they are the US is still attractive so we will continue to see more people until the country becomes more undesirable. Sure eventually it will "correct" but I'd rather not deal with the problems before it reaches that point. And I think there would be much more than you obviously.

Trying to correct natural fluctuations in a market will lead to a worse scenario. You should be aware of this; similar arguments were used when TARP was pushed.

Immigration isn't purely economic though, there's also cultural and political considerations. Multiple studies have confirmed that immigration decreases social cohesion. People lose trust in institutions and identity politics-type conflicts become a bigger issue. Hence a large part of why confidence in government deteriorated after the 1960s and 1970s. Plus there's the elephant in the living room which is that whites are rapidly becoming a minority in the US. I am not a "non hispanic white" or christian.. But I do not see the happy, multicultural society the left envisions really panning out even if Democrats or "progressives" reap huge gains politically. I see the country becoming more bitter and divided.

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/ne...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

to many would come here

So which of my arguments are flawed?

That it will work, it will not.

Alright, but I pointed out multiple reasons why I think it will work; point out the reason why you think a specific argument isn't valid.

First the liberals will never give up the welfare, because they would lose all those votes. Second we will not have enough jobs to support our own citizens, let alone another influx of immigrants. $350 billion (conservative estimate, some estimate the cost at over $500 billion) annually, that's a pittance of the cost if we let more in.

Except most of the jobs in the United States are skilled jobs; since most of the influx would be unskilled workers it won't effect the majority of the jobs. Combine that with all the new customers, we'll have a higher need for workers anyway.

Most of the jobs in the US are now service jobs and Americans are going to have to take them if they want to work.

Exactly how is an immigrant without an education and who can't speak English going to get a service job? Service jobs require skills. Sorry but I don't think that a new immigrant is going to take a programming job away from anyone. Will they take away some jobs at burger king? Well maybe, but now we have a ton of new people who will be eating at restaurants like that so we can open up new ones.

The free market self regulates. It's only when the government gets involved that issues start to arise.

Free market immigration would work because of supply and demand. It is the basis for immigration reform; to make it easier to have workers fill positions which are hard to fill, like picking fruits and vegetables.
It would not work here and now though because America is not ready for a system like that. In the future world economy/market, workers will go where the work is and the transition will be transparent.

There should be another answer "undecided".

That depends on the situation. A sound competition and diversity can be a success.

In case of high unemployment rates, however, high immigration numbers could cause increasingly salary dumping and deplorable work conditions for all, locals and immigrated.

What to do against unemployment? And what about the immigrants? Limit their number and control all the interested enterprises for the application of minimum salaries or allow increased unemployment figures among the local people?

The new immigrants would vote for a new government that would bleed the productive citizens dry and turn the country into a People's State. Which is just what has happened.

If they're documented then it's easier to ensure that they don't vote; besides, if we keep government local then it won't matter.

Right up to the time when the next generation decides that they're on to a real racket with a nice, juicy country ready to plunder.

You've got to make sure that everyone who enters your society is on the same page.

You've got to ask them to swear an oath like this:

"I swear,
by my life and my love of it,
that I will never live for the sake of another man,
nor ask another man to live for mine."

Really? This country wasn't founded on government controlled immigration. It's only been in the last fifty to one hundred years or so that government really started to regulate who can and can not enter this country.

Well, to be specific, it wasn't founded on welfare, either.

And one thing that still holds, or should hold: only one born in-country to two citizen parents should be eligible to the offices of President and Vice-President.

That's true, which if you read my article I mentioned that we need to get rid of the welfare system.

This is also true but is not related to the topic directly.

Here's the problem: you've got to make *sure* that the welfare system *never comes back.*

"The rectangle of light on the acres of a farm was the window of Judge Narragansett's farmhouse. He was seated in his study, with a copy of an ancient document spread before him. He had marked and crossed out the contradictions in its statements that had been the cause of its destruction. He was now adding a new clause:

"'Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade."

From /Atlas Shrugged/

Well that's always the problem; where we have immigration reform or not, we have to constantly fight against the government.

It works every time it's tried.

Can you give me documented examples? I wouldn't mind adding them to my article. I'm always looking for new fact checkers and researchers for the politicoid group.

Wealthier countries would be flooded putting too much of a strain on their resources. It is why we have immigration quotas and the rest are breaking the law and should be deported.

So which of my points do you disagree with? Where is the flaw in my reasoning? I gave multiple reasons as to why quotas aren't needed.

Speaking of quotas, if people can't self regulate then I imagine you're for gender and race quotas in education and business as well right? The government needs to ensure that people act properly right?

I'm replying to your question not your points. Look at the burden the illegal immigrants are putting on our schools, medical system and prisons. It's all I need to know. I don't think it is my grandsons (not that he's born yet) responsibility to pay for money we borrow today to pay for those who can't come here and get a job and pay taxes to support themselves in our society. It's that simple.

Yet if you had read my post you would already know my argument on the topic.

We shouldn't have these government handouts; that would solve the problem. It's not a free market if the government is still involved on that end.

http://politicoid.blogspot.co...

No time to read and can't agree. When an accident happens outside a hospital, with illegal immigrants, thieves or Democrats (let's assume none have health insurance) it is our duty as a member of the human race to make sure they are cared for.