On last night’s podcast we talked about immigration and tried to figure out the objective approach to this issue. Like most problems we talk about on the show, it seems the government always creates more problems then it solves. Since we live an age of big government, I don’t think its going to stop anytime soon.
At the end of the show I asked the question, “What does someone have to do to enter this country?” I don’t have time to read though all the immigration laws, but luckily I found the short answer below on Findlaw.com.
Q: What documents do I need in order to apply for an immigrant visa?
A: You will generally need a passport; three photographs; a birth certificate; marriage, divorce, or death certificates; and proof of financial support. You will also need to pass a medical examination. READ MORE
Sounds easy enough. So why are there so many people coming illegally? Well, it turns out that our government is limiting who can enter the country. So not only do you need all that paperwork you also need to “qualify” (whatever that means) to get to enter. I am sure that it’s a little more complicated then that, but I am not an expert on immigration.
Well, during the show we talked about the “pros” of immigration. We found that unrestricted immigration promotes capitalism. The more people you have, the more people you can employ, because more people are buying products, which is creating more wealth, and the wealth is then paid to the employed. By allowing immigration you are creating more opportunities to create wealth which raises the standard of living for everyone. I am not the only one with this view, just read this article. The only “cons” we could come up with were government created ones, like welfare abuse and other tax-funded programs.
Open, unrestricted immigration (with appropriate medical and criminal screenings as done on Ellis Island in the late 19th Century) poses no threat to the U.S. Rather, open immigration is the means for renewing the American sense of life and injecting “new blood” into the nation. Read more…
Listen to the podcast at TalkShoe.com to hear the whole discussion on immigration. Brandon and I are getting better with staying on topic, so I hope this one is easier to listen too. If you would like to join the show just go to TalkShoe.com and create an account. It’s easy. The more interactive (live) listeners we have, the better the show will be.
Hey guys,
I’m listening to your episode on immigration right now and had to pause to come here to leave a comment regarding the cons of immigration.
The single largest risk that immigration poses is to unskilled workers in the United States who are at risk of losing their jobs in competition with unskilled workers willing to work harder for less money.
I am not a historian, but I believe that it was organized labor groups who initially pressed the hardest for tight immigration controls.
On your show you said everything would be ok so long as immigrants come here to get jobs, but that is exactly what the groups organized against immigration are afraid of, that they will get jobs.
Ayn Rand would not consider this con to be a legitimate concern, of course. But for the people displaced by immigrant workers, it is the most important issue in their lives, and very much a con to them. And they fight it.
Good point but, “Capitalism demands the best of everyman… - Ayn Rand.”
So the US workers that are losing their jobs better start working harder. Also maybe at first they would be paid less, but if a worker is working hard and increasing productivity. I bet the compaction would pay him a little more to work for them.
I think this is actually what Rand was talking about when she referred to “lower your standard of living”, I think she was addressing in particular the members of the working class threatened most by immigration.
Labor economics is a simple matter of supply and demand. Right now, the American laboror’s wage or salary is based on the amount of available labor. If that supply were to suddenly double or triple or quadruple, wages would plummet.
The American labor class already working these types of jobs are accustomed to a certain lifestyle. They are used to earning X amount, and their bills and obligations are measured in expectation of X amount. If X were to drop dramatically, these people’s financial lives would be ruined. They’d default on their debts, their homes would be repossessed, etc. Working harder or becoming more productive might help some, but there is guarantee that it could compensate for their loss.
There’s no way around it, it would be an absolute life-destroying disaster for these people. But…only these people.
The rest of us, the economy and society at large would benefit tremendously for all of the reasons you’ve outlined on your show.
Now, there are some people who think this is a perfectly good argument for keeping out immigrants. This is generally the “buy American” crowd. If you ever get into a debate with one, this will probably be their major argument, not welfare or racism. They will accuse you of being willing to destroy (some) American workers’ lives and to some extent, they will be right.
The best you can say is that these American workers need to “take one for the team” to benefit the economy and society at large, which was a good enough argument for Ayn Rand. But they won’t want to hear that.
Steve you make a very good point in your comment.
If we would have kept the boarders open then the wage inflation wouldn’t have happened and this would not be an issue. But like most problems in this country they are easy to create but almost imposable to fix.
That’s why Objectivist are always seen as radicals, because you’re right I would want them to “take one for the team”.
Also, the working class are losing there jobs anyway to factories over seas. The labor is to costly here thanks to the unions. So the “buy American” crowd are shooting themselves in the foot. Some jobs are only worth $7 an hour not $27.
Mosley pointed out on the show that all of the cons of immigration spawn from government interference. This includes the point that you mention.
If government were out of the picture, and we were to have laissez-faire capitalism, then there would be many more jobs to go around. Why? Employers would not have to give up any of their profits to tax collections. The prices of their products would no longer include a sales tax, allowing them to earn larger profits. As a result, they would have much more money to potentially hire more workers.
Even IF this were not the case, no one has the right to deny immigrants, or any persons, the pursuit of their own happiness. No one is guaranteed happiness. If you are unwilling to do what it takes to obtain a job, you can’t expect the government to pat you on the head and hand you a check at the expense of others.
I understand that we do not currently have laissez-faire capitalism, and perhaps open borders isn’t step one to obtaining that. But the point is that it’s the government that is causing such problems.
EDIT: Also, since employees will not have to pay taxes, they can do much more with a lot less. Consequently, employers could pay lower fees (which could still provide a livable wage) and create even MORE jobs.
Here’s another con:
Allow millions of poor people into a democracy and they’ll vote themselves the nations wealth to disastrous result.
Nobody has the right to vote away the individual rights of anyway else. With true laissez-faire capitalism, nobody would have the power to do so. This point would be invalid in such a government. And as I said, open borders may not necessarily be the best first step in creating a free society. We cannot jump straight from a mixed economy to a free economy or it would be disaster. It must be a gradual process with each step building on the last.
Well I don’t mean to get off the topic of the thread but if opening the borders isn’t the first step….what is?
We do not live an a true Democracy, we live in a Representative Republic. So no the poor people could not vote themselves money. The major dose not rule in this country.
Steve,
Since it is late I will give you the short answer. The first step would be a revolution. Since objectivism view on major issues are seen as radical it would take to long to change the government any other way.
Mosley, I’m not sure what you’re suggesting when you mentioned a revolution? I think one place where a “revolution” needs to take place is in our schools. Public opinion shapes politics. If the public is well-educated and understands the issues at hand, rather than forming its policies based on what “feels right” or “sounds good”, then positive changes can begin to be made.
I think the first step in bringing the USA closer to true capitalism would be to start privatizing or abolishing many of the government’s services such as social security, welfare, etc. We can’t reshape our government overnight, or it would be a disaster. Progressive steps must be made, with each building off of the last.
How would you privatize social security or welfare without creating disasters? Specifically, how could you cut off those payments without creating disaster?
In either case, you have a large group of people whose lives are organized around and in expectation of that money. These people’s lives will be ruined.
The social security system is fundamentally flawed and it’s destruction is inevitable. There will not be enough funds to support the forthcoming generations. I can’t tell you what it would require to create an abolishment plan, but it has to be done.
Regarding welfare, some politicians in the government are trying to get people off of welfare and into the workforce, which is a great first step. The next step would be to stop allowing people to sign up for welfare, and instead, let it be privatized (leave it up to charity organizations). And as taxes decrease, there is more money that people have free to donate, if they wish to do so.
As I said, the process must be gradual or yes, there will be a disaster.
Destruction is inevitable? What if they raise taxes and lower benefits? Won’t it survive then?
Nope.
lol
I doubt very much that anyone will be anxious to pay more to get less. Who would support that? The system would be extremely inefficient and its purpose defeated.
But voters always vote for programs that are extremely inefficient, and which do not in fact achieve their purpose.
Right?
While that is often the case, that’s not an absolute that always holds to be true. I’d think that even uneducated voters can see the absurdity of such a proposal.
I see.
Well done guys. Your debates are very entertaining and I learn a lot from both of you.
Steve,
Your side of the debates lose steam once your reach a point were your not using reason.
“But voters always vote for programs that are extremely inefficient, and which do not in fact achieve their purpose.”
You can’t say always. You will never now how anyone will vote so that statement is false. You could have said,”Looking at pass elections is seems the majorirty of voters vote for programs that are extremely inefficient, and which do not in fact achieve their purpose. So how do you know if it would not be supproted?”
No you can’t say always, but that wasn’t the crux of the issue, was it?
Brandon suggested that people won’t vote for a program that costs more than it returns. His intitial comment seemed to suggest that this was self-evident, on account of how stupid the program was. Obviously, nobody would vote for a stupid program.
But this is, obviously, false. People can and do vote for stupid programs all of the time. Social security exists in the first place, doesn’t it? And in 2005, President Bush made a half-assed attempt to get a reform debate brewing in Congress, only to see that smacked down immediately by Congressmen afraid to even discuss changing it. So stupid or not, it seems that quite a few voters do like the program (and would likely vote to continue it, in whatever form it must take to be affordable)
Which doesn’t mean that they will or won’t vote for this one, it just means that the stupidity of a program isn’t proof that it won’t be chosen.
That’s what I was looking for. That’s a far better response then, “But voters always vote for programs that are extremely inefficient, and which do not in fact achieve their purpose”!
You explained your self well.
Also I think congress doesn’t trust Bush so they dismiss any idea he comes up with. I don’t know why they didn’t look in to his reform idea from what I know of it, it seemed like a good idea.
Also, Social Security was supposed to be temporary when it was started. It was meant to get the country back on its feet after the Depression. But once a “benefit” is there it’s hard to take it away, even though they would be better of with out it. It’s like a kid learning how to ride a bike, there afraid to take the training wheels off, because they “might” get hurt.
I disagree, Steve. People don’t vote for things “because they’re stupid,” but usually because they “sound good.” Your proposal blatantly hurts people where they feel it the most: their wallets. And what do they get in return? Less benefits. That sounds wonderful.
Do you really think that is the way they are going to sell it?
And who is this “they” that you speak of? The people who pay social security benefits and the people who receive them are two different groups.
Steve,
Could you give us a small bio about you. I would like to know alittle about the person that is the #1 commenter on this blog. Also you should be one our podcast as a call in!
I’m just a guy who searched “Objectivism” on iTunes one day, found the show, found you guys, and thought it might be fun to challenge you a bit. And it has been!
The “they” refers to the “hurt people” (those who will have to pay) that I mentioned in the preceding sentence. These are the same people who have the majority vote. I won’t bother speculating how such a rotten collectivist policy would be marketed, as I really don’t see it to be a feasible alternative. With the increasing population, it would just hurt our nation more and more economically. Social security and welfare programs need to end.
And I do appreciate you coming to talk with us! Welcome!
I haven’t heard the most recent podcast, but Brandon is a brilliant debater.
I do feel the need to point out that I can’t imagine Ayn Rand endorsing “taking one for the team,” given her support of individualism…
Scripts Magazine has an article about the guy who’s writing the Atlas Shrugged screenplay. The one with Angelina Jolie.
Congress has a thorn in its paw because Bush doesn’t acknowledge them in a way that they’d like - though he isn’t breaking any laws. As such, Bush (who any right-minded [no pun intended] must have supported over Kerry, irregardless of Peikoff’s ideas) is getting sortof a cold shoulder from Congress, and will probably continue to do so until his term is over.
All that needs to be said has been said by a previous poster, however:
“I understand that we do not currently have laissez-faire capitalism, and perhaps open borders isn’t step one to obtaining that. But the point is that it’s the government that is causing such problems.”