I asked you a couple of questions. Don't expect me to answer your question when you haven't answered mine.
Its painful to them to see their beliefs laid bare, because they really are silly. They live in a world of feelz, not reality.
Seems you've never spent any time whatsoever in 'foreign nations'. Had you done so you'd be aware that whenever there is an opening for an American, Swedish, German or Canadian firm, the lineups form very early. Not only are they treated better by foreign firms, they have added status.
Your assumption is that government authority comes first and if you want liberty, you have to justify it. My assumption is the opposite. It is those who want to restrict liberty that have a burden of proof. You think they must justify their entry, I think the government has to justify stopping it. It is as simple as that. Your position involves government interference for its own sake, which is what I'm arguing against.
No, supply and demand still exist. Your assumption that labor demand is stagnant and does not respond to increased supply is what doesn't make sense. Supply and demand does not mean that demand never changes.
Sure thing. You asked about border security. Stopping someone from entering because they pose a risk is border security. It is government intervention for a rational purpose. Stopping someone from entering even though the pose no risk, essentially just because we can or because we arbitrarily decided 1 million is enough or because of outdated and irrational country-of-origin quotas is fake "border security." It doesn't actually have anything to do with security. The "justification" frequently boils down to "I don't need to explain why, I'm doing it because I can." That's government intervention for the sake of government intervention. I'll assume for the moment that you support gun ownership. Suppose someone on the far left proposes a cap on the number of guns someone can own. You point out that the number of guns one owns doesn't really matter when it comes to security. You only need one gun to commit a crime. The fact that you have 50 more at home doesn't matter. What is the response you will get? "Well why do you need that many guns?" They are trying to force the assumption that you must justify your freedom rather than them justifying the restriction. That's how the anti-immigrant right treats immigration.
If we had actually no "entitlements".....I'd say let them in. The government extracts our wealth to redistribute. We simply cannot distribute to foreign nationals. I am sick and tired of those that say the land belongs to Native Americans. Which tribe? Those tribes stole land committed mass genocide long before they were finally subdued. These snowflake liberals need to look up "the pyramid of skulls" recently discovered in Mexico. Hundreds of thousands of sacrificed beings who had their hearts ripped out while still beating then thrown down the steps of the pyramid to be decapitated and celebrated. A very large percentage were women and children. Atrocities of that nature happened all over the western continents. Not making excuses, but since they were subdued....it has been comparatively, "peaceful".
I don't have to watch it, I've seen several college-aged dreamer/idealists say the same thing. It ain't gonna happen. At least not until all other nations drop their borders and, barring some vast expansion of tech allowing unlimited energy and resources, not for a few hundred years.
First world problems...but they can become 3rd world problems. Im in California, where half the people I see are leftists or believe this is Mexico.
Your assumption of my assumption is wrong. I am all for small government and individual freedom. But, I do realize that government has a role, and the first condition for freedom is its limitation or it is lost in chaos. One important role for govt is controlling the border and deciding who and how many immigrants to bring in each year. I don't say immigrants must justify their entry, they must qualify for it. It is the government that must justify letting them in. Our population is growing by over 2 million per year. If we did as you suggest it would be growing much faster than that. I would like to hear the argument in favor of that. Why would that be good for the country?
Oh no, you misunderstand. The labor market absolutely responds to an increased supply of labor. For any equivalent skill set, all things being equal, an increase in the labor supply will bring about a decreased value (the wages they can claim) in that same labor. This is really Econ 101. Stop being silly.
I've aced all my econ courses, undergraduate and graduate. Your argument still assumed that labor supply increases but demand doesn't, which is silly. You are making a painfully naive assumptions about elasticity here. If you would like, I can provide examples of labor supply increasing without wages plummeting. Hell, you should be able to piece it together yourself. The supply of labor is much higher now than it was in 1776. Is the general public worse-paid than they were in 1776? No. Increased supply does not categorically mean lower prices. Look up elasticity. I'm being literal here: this actually IS econ 101.
The US has supported violent coups or one-sided trade deals in Latin America for years when these countries had the temerity to want to control their own destiny. The latest was in Honduras.