Ron Paul Opposes Border Fence Finds it Offensive

So sorry! mis-spelled words do happen huh?

 

Actually, it was my fault. You just quoted my error.

 

If the illegal immigrants paid taxes like the rest of us, paid for health care like the rest of us and spoke at least a little English like the rest of us...less of us would have problems with illegal immigration. I have watched my fiance's workload come to a stop because of illegal immigration. The jobs that he used to have no problem getting (roofing, seal-coating etc..) that paid a reasonable living wage now pay half of what they used too because they are being underbid by companies hiring illegal immigrants. All I hear is that illegal immigrants do the jobs Americans won't, but I know that the reason they won't is that they can't afford to do them! The kicker of the thing is that these companies that hire my fiance's competition end up paying more because the work done is sub-par. They end up having to pay for it to be re-done a year later! This is why I personally have a problem with open-borders.

 

Here's another good reason for the fence -

 

Any problem with policies of taxes/spending/deficits can hardly be pegged on people that don't vote much less hold office.

But, I see where you're coming from. Life should be as fair as possible. You have a point.

Btw, NiteShift, I'm not seeing the images you posted. What are they?

 

They were pictures of a protest, with Mexican flag flying above an upside-down US flag. I guess they've been blocked.

 

I see how that's both offensive and stupid. I still don't see how a fence would matter when a legal US citizen could just as easily protest in the same manner.

 

Well, fences work, where they have been implemented. -

"Those advocating expanded fencing already have a model they can look to: a fence the federal government built more than a decade ago along a 14-mile-stretch in San Diego, Calif., that borders Tijuana, Mexico...Before the fence was built, all that separated that stretch of Mexico from California was a single strand of cable that demarcated the international border....Today, Henry is assistant chief of the Border Patrol's San Diego sector. He says apprehensions here are down 95 percent, from 100,000 a year to 5,000 a year, largely because the single strand of cable marking the border was replaced by double -- and in some places, triple -- fencing." - LINK

Fencing is only part of the answer, but for the money spent, it shows real results.

 

Undoubtedly so. The question is: do we really want them to work? The jury's still out on that one.

ETA: it's been interesting to watch the feud that's developed between The Wall Street Journal (think: big business that needs cheap labor) and Rush Limbaugh. Some conservatives understand the perils of micromanaging the labor market.

 

If the fence was so easy to get around and over then we wouldn't have so many people fighting against it. Build the fence.

 

WSJ editorial board, July 3, 1984.

(And they've been more adamant since.)

 

Not only big business, but building contractors, growers, and others want that stream of cheap labor to continue. Doesn't mean they should get what they want.

 

You forgot consumers. Namely, you.

The issue boils down to property rights. That and whether one views rights as individualistic or collective.

 

If a new home, a chicken, or a head of lettuce costs less because it was produced by illegal labor, I personally would not mind paying more.

I'm not sure how securing borders relates to property rights, unless you're speaking of those landowners in Texas who could be fenced off from watering their cattle. That's what gates are for.

 

Part of securing the borders has become to force employers to fire illegals. IMHO, that is a matter of property rights. The entreprenuer owns the business, not 50 million busybodies in a political party. The owner of a business, and only the owner of the business, has the moral right to decide who to hire and who not to hire. It's his business after all. If talk radio hosts, for instance, do not own Wal-Mart, McDonald's, or construction companies then they should have no legal say-so in what those companies do. I'm not sure how the property rights could be any clearer.

 

I hadn't realized you were a total open-borders advocate. Is it your opinion that employers have no responsibilty other than their own bank account? I mean you know, unless they just felt like voluntarily being a good guy. By that reasoning, we would still allow them to dump raw sewage into the creek out behind their factory. After all, it's their property.

 

By default of siding with the illegals... um, yes. Also, I tried to reiterate my position with the WSJ's, "There shall be open borders."

Legally? Yes. It's called "capitalism."

The beauty of free enterprise is that it doesn't matter if a particular business isn't lead by a "good guy." I'm free, as are you, to shop else where. Competition is God's gift to the fallen world.

Provided the polluting company owned the ENTIRE creek, sure. But shared property, and most bodies of water are, must take into consideration other property owners as well. And speaking of, how many talk radio hosts own your local construction company?

Always a pleasure to spar w/ someone as smart as you,
Me

 

And employers must take into consideration how their actions are affecting our schools, our hospitals, our crime rate. Not to mention, they are breaking the law for their own purposes. Capitalism is a fine system, but business owners still have to consider the well-being of their fellow citizens.

Thank you sir. And you as well.

 

The best thing business owners can do for society is precisely what they're doing now: offering goods and services at competitive pricing.

 

in my mind the prices aren't really competitive if we can afford to make those products here at a livable wage. Just a thought