Comment: Yeah, I know what you mean.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: ROFLMAO (see in situ)

Yeah, I know what you mean.

Yeah, I know what you mean. You'd think someone would have a really good explanation to go with their really strong emotions on the subject...

...In the end, the best "anti-immigration" argument presented is, "we don't want them to have the free stuff". Well, take a stand against gov't handouts, not against individual liberty!!!

Why shouldn't foreigners receive handouts from the gov't? Because gov't shouldn't be stealing our wages and handing them out TO ANYONE. This is the moral high-ground, not building fences!!!

Anything wrong with staying on point? If the handouts disappeared, it would be to the benefit of ALL. If we close the borders, some will (briefly) benefit at the expense of others.

... And, remember Hazlitt's one rule of economics: "The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but
at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups."

Anti-immigration is an idea that fails this test horribly, thus it's spot on the "bad economics" list, right there with all of the other ideas meant to benefit some at the expense of all others.

I wonder if peoples' feelings on the subject would change if there were no gov't handouts. I would HOPE that most would have an easier time acknowledging (and maybe, someday, helping to protect) human rights of foreigners, as well as their neighbors, if that were the case. If so, all the more reason to keep promoting the cause of liberty, and not letting side issues distract us and lead us to supporting ideas at the expense of said liberty.

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."