Immigrants make you richer.

[Seth]

Seth

My original message had nothing to do with any "right" to migrate. Just that a University of Oxford (UK) researcher discovered that migrants contribute positively to the economic well being of the country they migrate to.

How that translates into national policy regarding immigration is up to the nations concerned, and their government.

I think, though, that your country has benefited immensely from immigration, and the energy and enterprise those people brought to the United States.

By and large this is true, which is why we have an immigration SYSTEM that allows those who will benefit the nation to become productive citizens.

As you're a Libertarian, I'm shocked that you think it's Big Governments role to decide who can cross a border.

It's not. It's the role of the People to determine who crosses a border. The fundamental Libertarian premise at work here is the same old "force or fraud" proscription. When a person enters the country illegally, that person is initiating force and fraud against the citizens of the nation by trespassing on property that does not belong to them and that they have neither paid for nor contributed to the construction and maintenance of. Unless and until illegal border crossers become financially independent and contribute to the public resources they make use of, they are "free riders" who are imposing costs on others (through taxation to deal with their presence) against their will. They are trading on the industry and labor of others to leverage their own economic position without asking those whom they are exploiting for permission to do so.

Legal immigrants, on the other hand, ask and receive permission to burden the public with their presence until they become independently productive, and their permission to stay here is conditioned on them not abusing the charity of the nation and on becoming a taxpaying productive member of society.

Refugees are admitted legally based on the compassionate and altruistic wishes of the citizenry, who agree to admit them and support them.

Illegal border crossers are simply selfish thieves who want to enjoy what someone else has labored to create without so much as asking permission to do so.

"Big Government" is merely supposed to reflect the will of the People when it comes to allowing people to reside in this country. That it does not necessarily do so merely reflects how anti-Libertarian our existing government can be, it does not disparage the Libertarian philosophy of "no free riders without permission."

I've not read the paper, but I'm willing to bet that the researcher wasn't talking only about legally sanctioned immigration.

Does the research address the issue of uncontrolled illegal immigration?

The market should decide and Big Government should butt out. Don'cha think?

Yes, it should. The market, not the illegal immigrant. The problem is that illegal immigrants defraud the public by making their own decision to cross the border and leech on society in hopes of getting a job and becoming financially solvent and productive. Sadly, many of them never achieve that and they, or their dependents, become drains on the public purse for things like education and health care because their skill sets are inadequate to the market. And they perpetrate the fraud from the moment they step across the border, which is impermissible.

If an employer (or some charitable organization) wishes to import laborers from outside the country it should be permitted to do so at will, but only where the employer bears the entire cost of bringing that person or family to the country and maintaining them until they become productive. And by entire cost I mean everything from food and housing to clothing and medical care and social needs, until that person (and family) becomes independently financially solvent and responsible for his or her maintenance and the maintenance of his or her family. So long as an immigrant imposes NO cost whatsoever, not so much as a dime, on the citizens, there should be no barrier to entry. But where an immigrant does impose any cost at all, no matter how slight, that is an initiation of fraud and that immigrant must be deported and refused future entry forever.

[Seth]

Seth isn't a libertarian. He's a selfarian. There's very few actual right Libertarians about who are willing to take their toxic ideology to it's limits. Murray Rothbard comes to mind. And there's a reason why there are so few. It's an utterly psychopathic ideology.

Go fuck yourself rEv. Just because you're an ignoramus when it comes to Libertarianism doesn't mean the philosophy is flawed.

[Seth]

There's very few actual right Libertarians about who are willing to take their toxic ideology to it's limits. Murray Rothbard comes to mind. And there's a reason why there are so few. It's an utterly psychopathic ideology.

Good one. I never thought of rabid right wing nuts that way until you mentioned it, and it does fit. Lolbertardians, at least on the extreme fringe are psychopaths. If they are intelligent and obsessive enough, they come up with some rather simplistic philosophical backfill to rationalise their antisocial views.

In a way the idea that extreme lolbertardians are psychopaths is a comforting thought, for there are not really that many psychopaths around, and most of those who do exist typically restrict themselves to a career of random brutality, sadism and murder. On the other hand it is a bit of a worry after all. A subgroup of psychopaths act out their condition by striving to become zillionaires or at least CEOs of huge corporations. Money means political power, so this subgroup has a political influence way beyond what is healthy for a society.

You go fuck yourself too Hermit.

[Seth]

You two should move in together. You could have a real 69 then, instead of your usual online one.

But at least, in your wisdom, we now know why Australia can't take any more immigrants.
There's no room. The country is full. Someone should tell the world.

Because at the moment, the only people who know, are a couple of silly cunts on Rationalia.

"Full" is a subjective term that's within the ambit of the lawful residents of the country to decide. It's not up to you or anyone else to dictate to Australia what their standard of living must be merely because there are people who want to live there. They get to say when enough is enough.

[Seth]

Does the research address the issue of uncontrolled illegal immigration?

No. But it does discuss migrants who are uneducated. The research shows that uneducated migrants still make a major economic contribution.

Maybe, eventually. However it remains that by crossing the border illegally sua sponte and without invitation and promise of economic support they are perpetrating a fraud on the citizens of the nation, who have every right to refuse to allow them to do so, even for so long as it might take them to become other than economic albatrosses, if ever.

On land in Australia.
I am not Australian, but I have driven over more of Australia than most Australians. Australia is not short of habitable land. There is heaps. For example, the entire top one third of Australia is monsoonal, with massive rainfall over the short (four month) wet season. Living there is not always comfortable, since for those four months it is hot and very humid and wet, but there is no problem with habitability. In the dry season, water can be pumped up from the aquifers that are topped up every wet season. In fact, in the dry season, the climate is delightful

For the other two thirds of Australia, there is much arid or desert land, which is less habitable, but the entire east coast, to a width of some hundreds of kilometers, is perfectly habitable. This area alone could hold vastly more people than now live in Australia.

Some of the arguments about the most expensive land in Australia are confined to the cities, which is kinda ridiculous. If you go away from the cities and inland a little, land is cheap by the standards of Europe.

As I said above, it's not within the power of anyone other than the citizens of Australia to decide when population density has reached allowable limits. Just because there is land available that is habitable doesn't mean that anybody that wants to can illegally immigrate and squat on it.

[pErvinalia]

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9301.html

To Mistermack

Prof Ian Goldin carried out the research, and expanded his findings, and a lot of other stuff, into a book, referenced above.

Yes, Oxford professors can be full of intellectual rubbish, just like anyone else. This could be garbage too. However, I am posting on a discussion forum, and it is ammunition for discussion, right or wrong.

It's not evidence is it? Some Prof with his own slant on things. And he makes the usual stupid observation, that possible billions in world GDP are a good thing.
Nobody disputes that there are winners from unfettered immigration. Firstly the immigrants themselves are the big winners. Then rich people who get richer on the back of cheap labour.

But like I said, it's the poor in the destination country that lose out.
I don't see why the poor in Britain should be kept down, just to make the Chancellor's budget look bigger, and for multi-nationals to make bigger profits.

And Personally, as many have pointed out,I don't give a toss for the poor of Afghanistan or Syria. They've fucked up their own country. Why should the poor of Britain suffer to give them a new start? Fuck em.

Actually, Brittan fucked up Afghanistan.

[pErvinalia]

Seth

My original message had nothing to do with any "right" to migrate. Just that a University of Oxford (UK) researcher discovered that migrants contribute positively to the economic well being of the country they migrate to.

How that translates into national policy regarding immigration is up to the nations concerned, and their government.

I think, though, that your country has benefited immensely from immigration, and the energy and enterprise those people brought to the United States.

By and large this is true, which is why we have an immigration SYSTEM that allows those who will benefit the nation to become productive citizens.

As you're a Libertarian, I'm shocked that you think it's Big Governments role to decide who can cross a border.

It's not. It's the role of the People to determine who crosses a border.

The point Rainbow (and I) are making, is that international borders don't make any sense in a Libertarian system. But then your version of Libertarianism holds private property sacred, which is why American Libertarianism is so ridiculous.

[pErvinalia]

Seth isn't a libertarian. He's a selfarian. There's very few actual right Libertarians about who are willing to take their toxic ideology to it's limits. Murray Rothbard comes to mind. And there's a reason why there are so few. It's an utterly psychopathic ideology.

Go fuck yourself rEv. Just because you're an ignoramus when it comes to Libertarianism doesn't mean the philosophy is flawed.

You contradict yourself every time I take you to the limits of the ideology. As anyone who isn't a psychopath should. Seth, I'm granting you an out. I don't think you are a total psychopath. You are overly selfish and at the limits you take it to it is pretty full on anti-social. But you aren't totally without empathy for others. People like Murray Rothbard and others who take right libertarianism to it's ideological limits are total psychopaths.

[mistermack]

You two should move in together. You could have a real 69 then, instead of your usual online one.

But at least, in your wisdom, we now know why Australia can't take any more immigrants.
There's no room. The country is full. Someone should tell the world.

Because at the moment, the only people who know, are a couple of silly cunts on Rationalia.

"Full" is a subjective term that's within the ambit of the lawful residents of the country to decide. It's not up to you or anyone else to dictate to Australia what their standard of living must be merely because there are people who want to live there. They get to say when enough is enough.

Did I REALLY have to put a sarcasm smiley on that? We'll have to get you some bone marrow from someone's funny bone.
If fact, Australia has habitable land coming out of it's ears. Even large parts of the so-called desert outback would be easily inhabitable. It's just that Australians are so spoiled for good land, there's no incentive to build in the marginal stuff.
Why would you choose to go out yonder, hundreds of miles from the amenities of the coastal areas?
But if land was short, there are vast areas of Australia that could easily support human settlement.

The entire south coast, for instance. You could easily put dozens of cities along the deserted south coast from Adelaide westwards. Where would you get the water for all those cities?
Desalinated sea water.
It's a bit more expensive, but not ridiculously so. Australia already has plenty of desalination plants, proving that it's not cost-prohibitive. Israel gets forty percent of all it's water from desalination.
The only reason that there is 1200 miles of empty south coast in Australia is that they already have so much inhabitable land, and so few people to live on it. They are simply spoiled for choice.

[rainbow]

The market should decide and Big Government should butt out. Don'cha think?

Yes, it should. The market, not the illegal immigrant. The problem is that illegal immigrants defraud the public by making their own decision to cross the border and leech on society in hopes of getting a job and becoming financially solvent and productive. Sadly, many of them never achieve that and they, or their dependents, become drains on the public purse for things like education and health care because their skill sets are inadequate to the market. And they perpetrate the fraud from the moment they step across the border, which is impermissible.

Rubbish. The setting up of borders in the first place was an act of force or fraud by Big Government.

A good Libertarian should demand that all border fences be torn down.

[pErvinalia]

You two should move in together. You could have a real 69 then, instead of your usual online one.

But at least, in your wisdom, we now know why Australia can't take any more immigrants.
There's no room. The country is full. Someone should tell the world.

Because at the moment, the only people who know, are a couple of silly cunts on Rationalia.

"Full" is a subjective term that's within the ambit of the lawful residents of the country to decide. It's not up to you or anyone else to dictate to Australia what their standard of living must be merely because there are people who want to live there. They get to say when enough is enough.

Did I REALLY have to put a sarcasm smiley on that? We'll have to get you some bone marrow from someone's funny bone.
If fact, Australia has habitable land coming out of it's ears. Even large parts of the so-called desert outback would be easily inhabitable. It's just that Australians are so spoiled for good land, there's no incentive to build in the marginal stuff.
Why would you choose to go out yonder, hundreds of miles from the amenities of the coastal areas?
But if land was short, there are vast areas of Australia that could easily support human settlement.

The entire south coast, for instance. You could easily put dozens of cities along the deserted south coast from Adelaide westwards. Where would you get the water for all those cities?
Desalinated sea water.
It's a bit more expensive, but not ridiculously so. Australia already has plenty of desalination plants, proving that it's not cost-prohibitive. Israel gets forty percent of all it's water from desalination.
The only reason that there is 1200 miles of empty south coast in Australia is that they already have so much inhabitable land, and so few people to live on it. They are simply spoiled for choice.

What are they going to do for income in these cities even if desalination was cost effective, genius? That stretch of land is barren. I'm not going to tell you why, as I'd prefer you to give us another one of your stupid opinions so I can prove yet again what an idiot you are. Seriously, have you even been to Australia?? Not that I'd expect that experience to enlighten you. Evidence isn't one of your strong points.

[mistermack]

What do they do in London, or New York, or Tokyo? Or Las Vegas even?

Geez, you ask some stupid questions.

[pErvinalia]

We already have a New York and London. They are called Melbourne and Sydney. So what are people going to do for work in these dust bowls, genius??

[mistermack]

We already have a New York and London. They are called Melbourne and Sydney. So what are people going to do for work in these dust bowls, genius??

So your point is no longer that the land is uninhabitable, but that there are no jobs.

Yes, I am a genius.

Or at least, you make me feel like one.

[pErvinalia]

YOU are the one claiming it is inhabitable. I'm asking YOU what jobs these people would do if your opinion on what was habitable amounted to anything more than a hill of beans.