llegal immigrant rescues boy

[Universe Prince]

The government owns your land and your labor in principle, I believe you said.

Didn't say that either.

You sure?

First you need to answer the question of what the state owns. Does it own your business? Your land? Your labor? In principle yes, in reality no.

Sure looks like you said it.

[BT]

Yeah I'm sure.

Doesn't matter.

I know what i said and i know what i meant. Not really interested in playing snippet pong.

[Universe Prince]

Good for you. If I got it wrong, too bad.

Anyway, I can now suggest you keep this in mind next time you feel like trying to claim my support for trade in labor is some sort of expectation of guaranteeing people a job, or some similar inference of meaning that I did not express.

[Plane]

Welcome to the Republican party.  Wink

The Republican Party will not cause any changes to EEOC. Universities will continue trying to raise the percentage of Hispanic-surnamed individuals in harmony with the population. Despite the fact that the aggrieved parties in years past were Mexican American and Puerto Rican US citizens, they continue to hire mostly Cubans here in Miami-Dade County, and it matters not a whit that they are residents rather than citizens. They are more easily placed in Foreign language departments, because there they are not just a majority, but an exclusivity in both of the county's two largest universities.

Most Cubans are Republican, by the way.

My daughter's mother was born in Mexico, but my daughter could not claim that she deserves any special attention from EEOC, because her surname is not Hispanic. If just one of four grandparents had been a Martinez, or one of eight great grandparents had been an Alvarez, then she would have been 'in like Flinn' (or more likely like Fernandez.

The Republicans are even more incompetent than the Democrats in nearly every aspect, and I do not identify with them at all.

Could your Daughter write out her name in a long Spanish form?

[BT]

Anyway, I can now suggest you keep this in mind next time you feel like trying to claim my support for trade in labor is some sort of expectation of guaranteeing people a job, or some similar inference of meaning that I did not express.

But you did claim that trade of labor (employment) was a right.

I claim it is a privilege, contingent upon on a host of factors.

[Religious Dick]

The problem, UP, is that you are suggesting that the government should have no role - including that of defending our borders.  This is one of the many reasons for which I do not subscribe to libertarian principles.

Actually, this has nothing to do with libertarianism. If you read the views of libertarians and libertarian economists of note, every one of them is, in fact, against massive, unregulated immigration. Freidman was against it. Rothbard was against it. Ron Paul is against it. In fact, 2/3 of the candidates running on the Libertarian party ticket in the last election ran on an anti-immigration platform.

The "open borders" faction is basically the Cato Institute/Reason Foundation crowd, who are basically peddling what amounts to one-world corporate socialism restated in capitalist terms.

They've simply substituted redistributing the wealth among the population with redistributing the population according to the wealth. This allows them to claim the redistribution is the result of "voluntary" transactions, despite the obvious fact that, overwhelmingly, the populations of no country on earth would vote to voluntarily open their borders.

Read their positions carefully. After a while it becomes obvious the only quarrel between that crowd of "libertarians" and the out and out socialists is one over means. They're in perfect agreement as to the ends.

[Universe Prince]

But you did claim that trade of labor (employment) was a right.

I did not claim employment was a right. I've already explained why your conflation of trade and employment is wrong. But you want to talk as if I don't know the meaning of my own argument, so we're done. I have no time for your AMBE.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Could your Daughter write out her name in a long Spanish form?

================================================
Theoretically, yes.  This would involve writing two somewhat long last names in a blank intended for one, so it would depend on the form.

She wouldn't do this, ever. My daughter is not the sort of person to want to be judged on anything except her merits. And neither am I.
Once I was told by Miami-Dade Public Schools, after I worked for three months as a substitute that is was a real shame that I would not accept a job as a full-time HS teacher,"Because we really need some more White males on our faculty."

There were maybe 2% English-speaking White students in the entire student body. All my students were of either African or Hispanic descent, and they came in a variety of colors. I suppose they felt that I might serve as a role model to the tiny minority of Anglo Whites, so they, you know, would be convinced that a White Anglo could still make it in America.
 
Gettoing back to my daughter, no one in the US has ever mistreated her in any way for being half Mexican. She doesn't look half Mexican, except perhaps to other half Mexicans, either, as her mother was mostly Spanish and French. Most of the jobs she has gotten have been because she speaks and writes both Spanish and English. It's hard tpo get even a crappy office job in Miami-Dade County if one is monolingual.

[Universe Prince]

Actually, this has nothing to do with libertarianism.

Actually it does. Just because not all libertarians agree on the issue, doesn't mean an open borders position is contrary to libertarian philosophy. Your argument here is like those arguments I read that libertarians cannot be in favor of the war, so therefore anyone who claims to be libertarian and in favor of the war is not libertarian. Nonsense. Stop being so ideologically narrow-minded.

The "open borders" faction is basically the Cato Institute/Reason Foundation crowd, who are basically peddling what amounts to one-world corporate socialism restated in capitalist terms.

No, they are "peddling" what amounts to individual rights and free markets.

They've simply substituted redistributing the wealth among the population with redistributing the population according to the wealth. This allows them to claim the redistribution is the result of "voluntary" transactions, despite the obvious fact that, overwhelmingly, the populations of no country on earth would vote to voluntarily open their borders.

You're ignoring the fact that this country had more more open borders in the past and managed to do just fine. But I find interesting that you have a problem with the notion of more people making more money.

Read their positions carefully. After a while it becomes obvious the only quarrel between that crowd of "libertarians" and the out and out socialists is one over means. They're in perfect agreement as to the ends.

As someone who has had conversations with JS on this subject, I can assure you that we are not in perfect agreement about the ends. Keep in mind that the socialists want to place society over all. The libertarians want to protect the individual. So no, not in agreement about the ends at all.

[BT]

I did not claim employment was a right

Sure you did. You claimed the trade of labor was a right. And trade of labor is employment. ergo employment is a right.

Your insistence that only one side of the equation (the offer of labor in exchange for goods or services) is what you are advocating is where the smell comes from.

[Xavier_Onassis]

If we officially opened our borders today, what makes you think we would not have millions of Chinese pouring in as a result?
How many could we absorb without changing our culture unrecognizeably?   10,000,000? 100,000,000?

Eventually we might even be economically better off, but we would also be more crowded, and our children would have to learn Mandarin just to get a decent job.

I suppose we are fortunate to share borders with 90,000,000 Mexicans and 33,000,000 Canadians than with 1,200,000,000 Chinese. Luckily, the Pacific is too far to swim across.

There is such a thing as to much of anything, and that includes good things.

[Universe Prince]

Sure you did. You claimed the trade of labor was a right. And trade of labor is employment. ergo employment is a right.

You're not an idiot. Don't be stupid.

Your insistence that only one side of the equation (the offer of labor in exchange for goods or services) is what you are advocating is where the smell comes from.

No, it comes from you trying to conflate freedom to trade with a guarantee of trade. The two are not the same, and you're not stupid enough to not know that. You're selling excrement and calling it chocolate. I'm not buying.

We're done.

[Universe Prince]

If we officially opened our borders today, what makes you think we would not have millions of Chinese pouring in as a result?
How many could we absorb without changing our culture unrecognizeably?   10,000,000? 100,000,000?

Eventually we might even be economically better off, but we would also be more crowded, and our children would have to learn Mandarin just to get a decent job.

Aso. The Yellow Peril rears its ugly head, and we see your motivation.

[sirs]

Aso. The Yellow Peril rears its ugly head, and we see your motivation.

Is this going to be your SOP Prince?  Anyone that disagrees with open borders must be a racist??  From Tee, I could believe it.  But from you?     

[Universe Prince]

Is this going to be your SOP Prince?  Anyone that disagrees with open borders must be a racist??

No. Xavier complained that open borders would result in an invasion of Chinese that will change our culture, and that's basically the concept of the Yellow Peril. Not my fault if you don't like it. I'm not making this about race, and I don't really think it is. I think it's more about dislike/fear of change and dislike/fear of those who are different. One of the constants in anti-open borders arguments is complaints about the change that would happen to our culture. If U.S. had achieved its success by some sort of purity of culture, I might buy that. But it did not, and I don't.