Lds Church Issues New Statement Re: Immigration

[ELF1024]

Could you give me a CFR on what federal Blackfoot, Wampanoag, or Apache immigration laws were, and how they were administered?

This is a perfect example of why loose immigration laws or lack of law enforcement (the same as no law) won't work. After all, it worked out so well for the American Indians...

[ELF1024]

http://www.kenan-fla..._HispanicStudy/

In Yuma Arizona, lettuce pickers, the vast majority of which are "illegals" from across the border, earn as much as $14/hr based on performance. According to a farmer in Yuma,“…if we were to pay forty dollars an hour unfortunately we cannot attract any of the local labor if you want to call it that. The Caucasians aren't about to come out and work in these fields when it's a hundred and five to a hundred and ten degrees. They don't have the sustaining power to stay in day in and day out. The work ethic in the United States and in a lot of ways has gone backwards on us.”

http://www.iptv.org/...cfm/feature/447

- Immigrants in California pay roughly $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, and $4.6 billion in sales taxes each year. In California, “the average immigrant-headed household contributes a net $2,679 annually to Social Security, which is $539 more than the average US-born household.”

-If all unauthorized immigrants were removed from California, the state would lose $164.2 billion in expenditures, $72.9 billion in economic output, and approximately 717,000 jobs, even accounting for adequate market adjustment time, according to a report by the Perryman Group.

http://www.immigrati...Immigration.pdf

"California could reap an economic boon worth $16 billion by legalizing its 1.8 million undocumented adult Latino immigrants, according to a USC study released today." http://latimesblogs....-immigrant.html

Loran,

Keynesian theory is dead? That would be surprising to Economists, most of whom are Keynesians.

Well, that's a couple of studies that you could have cherry picked. Keep listing the "virtually every academic study....

[ELF1024]

Loran,

Keynesian theory is dead? That would be surprising to Economists, most of whom are Keynesians.

If Keynesian theory worked, we'd be out of the recession by now based on Obama's stimulus package, however we are not, in fact we are worse off.

Economics is the only science where "the real world" is a special case.

[TAO]

Well, personally, if I were to immigrate to a different country, I wouldn't do so illegally...I'm not sure what the point of that question was.

Seriously honestly, the problem is that there isn't enough blue cards to go around for all the people who want to go into the US. So they go into the US illegally because they cannot come in here legally. I believe most of the blue cards are given out via raffle, although there are certain countries which get limited numbers because they send so many immigrants to the US.

That's why I sympathize with illegals a bit... I don't sympathize who want to come here and stay solely illegally... but I sympathize for the ones who want citizenship, but cannot get it due to the gov not giving out enough blue cards. It is hard to get into the US. =/

Edited June 27, 2011 by TAO

[Xander]

If Keynesian theory worked, we'd be out of the recession by now based on Obama's stimulus package, however we are not, in fact we are worse off.

You're not very familiar with either Keynesian economics or the real world if you think we are worse off than we were with Bush. Obama never said we'd be out of George Bush's mess within a few years. In fact, he said quite the opposite. Keynesian economic theory never claimed to be able to perform miracles. But most economists do agree that the stimulus package has worked to a considerable degree. Its just that they feel it wasn't big enough to do the job as they expected. However, the plan has already created more jobs in two years than Bush created in eight so we know it is going in the right direction. But thanks to the extension of the Bush Tax cuts for the richest 2%, we're sure to prolong the deficit indefinitely. Not that this should matter to Republicans. They've always been the ones to explode the deficit while saying things like "deficits don't matter." The deficit exploded under Reagan and Bush for a reason. Deficits only seem to matter to these folks when a Democrat is in power. They don't want the country to progress economically, otherwise the Left might get credit for it. Say what you will about Keynes, but his economic philosophy isn't what got us into this mess.

Oh, and I presented three studies to your zero on immigrants and the economy. I think you get the point. Only the folks who are regurgitating talk radio and FOX News are saying immigrants present a clear and present danger to our country. But those who actually know how to analyze the data and present case studies, come to the opposite conclusion. Illegal immigration doesn't increase crime rates and just the other day I read that there is evidence that residents in border towns are just as likely to cross over to Mexico for healthcare. Much of the fearmongering about illegals in hospitals has been exaggerated as well.

Edited June 27, 2011 by Xander

[mbh26]

This hurts the many immigrants who do want to work and who in my experience are very hard workers.

It's either illegal or it's legal. As soon as you start choosing which laws you think are worthy of obeying and which are not, our democratic system of government really has no sovereignty, no meaning, nor any worth. Leaving laws on the books that you are not willing to enforce opens the door for all kinds of selective enforcement and partial treatment of American citizens. The law doesn't say, "Nobody shall enter the U.S.A. illegally unless they are really hard workers." If that's what it should say, shouldn't that be decided by our current system of government and legislation?

Either you're willing to live in the reduced standard of living that having a completely free market and open border would cause, or you're not. That's why we vote on things. If you're not willing to accept and abide by laws which you voted against or disagreed with, how can you expect other people to abide by laws you do agree with but they disagree with? You either accept the U.S. system of government or you don't.

but I sympathize for the ones who want citizenship, but cannot get it due to the gov not giving out enough blue cards

I sympathize with those who can't get blue cards as well. But why don't you give enough money to put every beggar you see on the street in suitable housing with suitable transportation and provide him an education? Why do you only give him a dollar or perhaps nothing at all? It's not a question of what the beggar deserves. Even the drug addict on the street deserves better. You give what you can afford. If the beggar decides that you should give more it doesn't give the beggar the right to take it from you.

Why even bother printing the blue cards? Just do what Obama is doing and print more money. I mean, everybody needs it, and there obviously isn't enough of it around.

Edited June 27, 2011 by mbh26

[Xander]

It's either illegal or it's legal. As soon as you start choosing which laws you think are worthy of obeying and which are not, our democratic system of government really has no sovereignty, no meaning, nor any worth.

Agreed. So I guess you'll be excusing yourself from this country the next time you speed, fail to wear your seatbelt, jaywalk, loiter, litter or pull a tag off a mattress, etc. I tell ya, I have more respect for folks who come here to feed their children than I do folks who cut me off while talking on their cell phones (illegal in many states).

The law doesn't say, "Nobody shall enter the U.S.A. illegally unless they are really hard workers." If that's what it should say, shouldn't that be decided by our current system of government and legislation?

The problem is that the system discriminates. The system doesn't want poor folks. They only want immigrants who come where with money.

Either you're willing to live in the reduced standard of living that having a completely free market and open border would cause, or you're not.

A completely free market, meaning...? That's a myth.

That's why we vote on things. If you're not willing to accept and abide by laws which you voted against or disagreed with, how can you expect other people to abide by laws you do agree with but they disagree with? You either accept the U.S. system of government or you don't.

By your own logic, most Americans don't accept this system of government since we break laws regularly. From making/using pirated media to jaywalking, we're all criminals.

[mbh26]

The problem is that the system discriminates. The system doesn't want poor folks. They only want immigrants who come where with money.

That only makes sense does it not? The problem is that there are more people needing a humane standard of work/wages than there is capital to provide it. I don't see why anyone with capital would want to emigrate to the U.S.A. People with money live very well in third world countries. One of the richest men in the world lives in Mexico City. He didn't invent anything special. He's just profited immensely from the never ending supply of cheap labor that surrounded him. People entering the country with capital/money probably help the U.S. economy. There is no reason for us to keep them out, other than a desire to preserve our culture. To me that lends credence to the belief that U.S. citizens aren't any more racist or xenophobic than other cultures. As you correctly pointed out, people are discriminated againt based on money and the capital they inherit.

A completely free market, meaning...? That's a myth.

Correct, the market was never completely free. Mass importation of unskilled labor is a drag on the economy. Overpopulation in the third world above the rate of what their economy can feasibly grow to support at a level they and I would both consider humane, perpetuates and even exacerbates the problems they are facing. These problems became my concern when they imposed on me to the point of outright robbery to solve them. Having kids is their right, but paying for it has become my responsibility. That's not a myth.

By your own logic, most Americans don't accept this system of government since we break laws regularly. From making/using pirated media to jaywalking, we're all criminals.

Do two wrongs make a right? If the law said, all speeders/jaywalkers/software pirates will be deported, than you would have a case. But that's not what the law says. You could legally vote to elect representatives that might change the law to state that if you wish, but the fact that other citizens have broken laws does not give an immigrant the right to enter the country illegally nor does it give a greedy employer the right to hire him.

Edited June 27, 2011 by mbh26

[LeSellers]

Either you're willing to live in the reduced standard of living that having a completely free market and open border would cause, or you're not. That's why we vote on things.

A "completely free market and open border (for people who cross peacefully, i.e., with no intent to defraud or plunder)" would not result in a "lower standard of living". Tout á fait au contraire: we'd all (them, too) enjoy a much higher standard of living.

Lehi

Edited June 27, 2011 by LeSellers

[ELF1024]

You're not very familiar with either Keynesian economics or the real world if you think we are worse off than we were with Bush. Obama never said we'd be out of George Bush's mess within a few years. In fact, he said quite the opposite. Keynesian economic theory never claimed to be able to perform miracles. But most economists do agree that the stimulus package has worked to a considerable degree. Its just that they feel it wasn't big enough to do the job as they expected. However, the plan has already created more jobs in two years than Bush created in eight so we know it is going in the right direction. But thanks to the extension of the Bush Tax cuts for the richest 2%, we're sure to prolong the deficit indefinitely. Not that this should matter to Republicans. They've always been the ones to explode the deficit while saying things like "deficits don't matter." The deficit exploded under Reagan and Bush for a reason. Deficits only seem to matter to these folks when a Democrat is in power. They don't want the country to progress economically, otherwise the Left might get credit for it. Say what you will about Keynes, but his economic philosophy isn't what got us into this mess.

Oh, and I presented three studies to your zero on immigrants and the economy. I think you get the point. Only the folks who are regurgitating talk radio and FOX News are saying immigrants present a clear and present danger to our country. But those who actually know how to analyze the data and present case studies, come to the opposite conclusion. Illegal immigration doesn't increase crime rates and just the other day I read that there is evidence that residents in border towns are just as likely to cross over to Mexico for healthcare. Much of the fearmongering about illegals in hospitals has been exaggerated as well.

The Dems have been in control of Congress for nearly 8 years. Obama has been in the while house for three. You can stop blaming Bush now it just sounds silly and hateful.

9+% unemployment, after the Billions spent on Stimulus, which wasn't nearly as "shovel ready" as they expected.

We were posed to be out of the recession with in two years when Obama took over, if he had done NOTHING we would have been out of it by now. Instead, Obama spent more money in his first six months, than Bush did in his entire 8 years.

However, this isn't about Bush, and it isn't about the Obomination in the White House currently. This is about illegals coming across the borders.

If things for the Illegals were nearly as bad as you say they were, then why come here to be exploited? Why would they choose to come here and be abused by our system when they can stay in their own and be abused?

If things were that bad here they wouldn't come. It doesn't pass the common sense test.

(Additional: The so called "Bush Tax Cuts happened in 2001 and 2003, long before our current fiscal crisis.)

Edited June 27, 2011 by ELF1024

[ELF1024]

Agreed. So I guess you'll be excusing yourself from this country the next time you speed, fail to wear your seatbelt, jaywalk, loiter, litter or pull a tag off a mattress, etc. I tell ya, I have more respect for folks who come here to feed their children than I do folks who cut me off while talking on their cell phones (illegal in many states).

Straw-man much? Your cute when your angry, please try and stay calm.

The problem is that the system discriminates. The system doesn't want poor folks. They only want immigrants who come where with money.

Hogwash! CFR!

A completely free market, meaning...? That's a myth.

By your own logic, most Americans don't accept this system of government since we break laws regularly. From making/using pirated media to jaywalking, we're all criminals.

Still a straw-man and not at all relevant to the argument.

[mbh26]

A "completely free market and open border (for people who cross peacefully, i.e., with no intent to defraud or plunder)" would not result in a "lower standard of living". Tout á fait au contraire: we'd all (them, too) enjoy a much higher standard of living.

Lehi

I could see where people who own businesses would enjoy a higher standard of living, but if you're a laborer and not an owner how could your wages not go down? I think if the borders were opened this country would not be a place people wanted to emigrate to for very long. It wouldn't be much different from any other Latin American country.

If what you're saying were really true, there would be no reason not to have ever had borders at all. So you're saying that all this time that we've had borders in the history of Western Civilization has been based on a false premise? Even animals are smart enough to have borders because they know how much land it takes to support their chosen lifestyle. Why don't other countries open their borders? Everyone knows that only white people are racist.

[LeSellers]

The Dems have been in control of Congress for nearly 8 years. Obama has been in the while house for three. You can stop blaming Bush now it just sounds silly and hateful.

9+% unemployment, after the Billions spent on Stimulus, which wasn't nearly as "shovel ready" as they expected.

We were posed to be out of the recession with in two years when Obama took over, if he had done NOTHING we would have been out of it by now. Instead, Obama spent more money in his first six months, than Bush did in his entire 8 years.

Which is all moot, since Bush (père et fils, tous deux) were Keynesians anyway.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

I could see where people who own businesses would enjoy a higher standard of living, but if you're a laborer and not an owner how could your wages not go down? I think if the borders were opened this country would not be a place people wanted to emigrate to for very long. It wouldn't be much different from any other Latin American country.

Since this (USmerica) is not a "Latin American country", the last sentence above makes no sense.

More labor always increases the standard of living, on average (there are some who are not comptetitive and who would see their real income go down) because there's more stuff available at lower prices.

Who cares if your nominal pay falls if prices fall more?

If what you're saying were really true, there would be no reason not to have ever had borders at all. So you're saying that all this time that we've had borders in the history of Western Civilization has been based on a false premise? Even animals are smart enough to have borders because they know how much land it takes to support their chosen lifestyle.

In a sense, you are right: borders are counter-productive. However, borders serve one important purpose that nothing else could replace.

They allow one group to protect themselves from fraud and force by maurauders. People have banded together for millennia for mutual protection. It was not to keep outsiders, per se, out, it was to keep invaders out. Peaceful migrants are a whole different issue. The peaceful do not come to rob you, but to offer to do things more effectively. That could mean at a lower price or just something different.

Free trade makes both parties better off than they were. (Otherwise, they would not trade.)

Why don't other countries open their borders? Everyone knows that only white people are racist.

Because politicians love power more than they love their people. Freedom is antithetical to power.

As to your last sentence, I'll just pass on the pure sarcasm. Anyone can be (and probably is) a racist. Those who protest loudest about their not being racists (and charging others with this thought-crime) are more likely to be, and in a more perverted way, than those of us who try quietly and honestly to deal with our own prejudices.

Lehi

[mbh26]

In a sense, you are right: borders are counter-productive. However, borders serve one important purpose that nothing else could replace.

Wouldn't owning land and not allowing people to squat on it be the same thing as a country having a border? If the border were open and employers were free to pay people $1/day, how would we not have squatters? A socialist country not having an open border is really no different than a rich man refusing to divide his resources with the indigent.

Free trade makes both parties better off than they were. (Otherwise, they would not trade.)

The unseen third party getting screwed by this exchange is the American taxpayer. It's the American taxpayer who ends up having to provide for these people what their employers will not. If we lived in a free market economy, I wouldn't have a right to complain about low wage workers. But we live under a mixed economy that has taken even larger steps toward socialism.

[Xander]

Do two wrongs make a right? If the law said, all speeders/jaywalkers/software pirates will be deported, than you would have a case.

Nonsense. The type of punishment is irrelevant to the definition of criminal. It has been stated here several times. You're either legal or illegal, a criminal or non criminal. A criminal by definition is someone who breaks the law. My point is that this distinction is silly because we're all criminals, and if you want to start qualifying them you're doing precisely what you said before: "As soon as you start choosing which laws you think are worthy of obeying and which are not, our democratic system of government really has no sovereignty, no meaning, nor any worth." I'm just holding you to your own standard. Or did you have a double-standard in mind?

But that's not what the law says.

Again, it is the dictionary, not the "law" that determines who is and who isn't a criminal.

A "completely free market and open border (for people who cross peacefully, i.e., with no intent to defraud or plunder)" would not result in a "lower standard of living". Tout á fait au contraire: we'd all (them, too) enjoy a much higher standard of living.

This was Milton Friedman's myth, but that has since been decimated by recent realities. A rising tide lifts all boats, etc. Of course those devoted to this Right Wing religion will find any excuse imaginable to explain why the standard of living in the USA is lower than that in other Social Democratic countries. They'll blame government intrusion for the collapse of the economy when in fact it was unfettered capitalistic greed that drove the housing market into the ground. The problem was lack of regulations in the derivatives market and the largest wave of white collar crime in history. The FBI warned of it as far back as 2004, but Bush redirected all their manpower to the Dept of Homeland Security and focused all their attention on potential Muslim terrorists instead of the threat that was eating us from the inside out. The greedy in this country have done far more damage than Al Queida could ever hope to accomplish. Predatory lenders with their fine print deceptions, people trying to become rich quick by buying multiple homes for the purpose of "flipping" them, etc. And we now know the CRA had nothing to do with any of this.

The Dems have been in control of Congress for nearly 8 years.

Did you really just say this with a straight face? Seriously?

Obama has been in the while house for three.

Wrong again. Let me give you a hint. There are only 12 months in a year. He has been President for just under two and a half years.

You can stop blaming Bush now it just sounds silly and hateful.

If you understood economics you'd know this is just another silly Fox News talking point. The damage Bush caused is more than any Preisdent or any Congress can overcome in two years.

9+% unemployment, after the Billions spent on Stimulus, which wasn't nearly as "shovel ready" as they expected.

Again with the Hannity talking points. The fact is unemployment under Ronald Reagan skyrocketed during his first two years and stayed well above 10% for more than a year. Obama has actually leveled off an unemployment increase that was skyrocketing well over 8% before any of Obama's policies ever got off the ground. Bush essentially doubled the unemplyment rate in his last two years. Obama's efforts have created millions of jobs, Bush created none.

We were posed to be out of the recession with in two years when Obama took over

You see, now you're just making stuff up. He never said this. In fact, I remember him explicitly stating that the damage caused by Bush could last through the next decade. He has expert economists backing him too. No one thought this was a quick fix. No one.

if he had done NOTHING we would have been out of it by now.

Well, there goes any chance of you having credibility on this matter. Economists overwhelmingly disagree with this. You can't just sit there and watch the country push itself to the brink of a depression and then sit by and say you're going to have faith in the same system that got us into this mess. No, you have to take some kind of action as an responsible person would, and the only thing a President can do really is spend money and try to kick start the economy. What would the Right have done... cut taxes for the rich again? LOL. That's all they know how to do. I suppose you'll blame Obama for TARP, which was singed into Law during the Bush administration? You see, the deficit was around $1.5 trillion before Obama did a single thing.

Instead, Obama spent more money in his first six months, than Bush did in his entire 8 years.

Another falsehood that even the extreme Right Wingers wouldn't support. Bush spent a trillion on two stupid wars, he spent nearly another trillion on the medicare prescription program so his drug company buddies could have their monopology, he then wasted another trillion on the tax cuts for the wealthy. That's rougly three trillion we'd have if Bush was never elected President.

However, this isn't about Bush, and it isn't about the Obomination in the White House currently. This is about illegals coming across the borders.

That's a typical bigotted perspective from the Right (blame the dirty Mexicans) but even if true, deportations have been up since Obama has been in office, but then you'd probably know this if you ever decided to inform yourself beyond talk radio.

If things for the Illegals were nearly as bad as you say they were, then why come here to be exploited?

They come here precisely because things were bad for them where they were. Try to pay attention and stop ranting off your straw man arguments.

Straw-man much? Your cute when your angry, please try and stay calm.

I'm not the one foaming at the mouth with bigotted talking points, spitting at those you hypocritically insist on calling "illegals" while failing to understand the meaning of a straw man. Your rage has clouded your thinking.

Hogwash! CFR

I know this for a fact, as someone who spent six years on my wife's immigration process. I spent roughly $7,000 in processing fees and application fees. Her friends and family in Brazil have no chance of ever getting a visa to the United States even as tourists, unless they can show the American Embassy in Brasilia proof that they have at least $10,000 in Brazilian currency in their bank account, a home, a car, a stable job, etc. In other words, they want the rich folks - in Brazil you're either rich or poor.

This means it is ridiculous to expect these poor Mexicans to ever have the resources to pay their way into the United States via "legal" means. You guys say you don't care if they come here so long as they do so legally, but that is an easy thing to say when it is virtually impossible for them to do so.

Edited June 27, 2011 by Xander

[ELF1024]

This means it is ridiculous to expect these poor Mexicans to ever have the resources to pay their way into the United States via "legal" means. You guys say you don't care if they come here so long as they do so legally, but that is an easy thing to say when it is virtually impossible for them to do so.

I'm ignoring the rest of your rant, as it is off topic.

If you'd actually paid attention to the thread, instead of just ranting about your taking points, (which ironically you accuse me of), you'd see that I also support fixing the broken system. I have said the system is broken, and it needs fixing. However just giving citizenship to the people in the country who are illegal is not the right answer.

Anyone who hasn't broken any other law, other than being in the country illegally, and can get a reference from an employer should be welcomed as a citizen in an accelerated manner. However everyone needs to have a background check.

Criminals (crimes other than being in the US Illegally) need to be removed and sent back to the county of citizenship.

HOWEVER, first and foremost, we need to secure the border. Amnesty didn't work under Reagan, and it won't work under Obama.

Edited June 27, 2011 by ELF1024

[mbh26]

Anyone who hasn't broken any other law, other than being in the country illegally, and can get a reference from an employer should be welcomed as a citizen in an accelerated manner. However everyone needs to have a background check.

That only works for Indian computer programmers working for entrepreneurs willing to report earned income to the IRS. Most construction work is done under the table not just to employ illegal immigrants but more importantly for the employer to avoid taxation. How else would a semi skilled construction contractor earn twice as much as a medical doctor each year?

[ELF1024]

That only works for Indian computer programmers working for entrepreneurs willing to report earned income to the IRS. Most construction work is done under the table not just to employ illegal immigrants but more importantly for the employer to avoid taxation. How else would a semi skilled construction contractor earn twice as much as a medical doctor each year?

Proving yet again that the system is broken as these people are being taken advantage of. That isn't right. The employer should be punished with a revocation of business license for doing such. These people deserve a fair wage just like any other American.

However, we can't fix this if they continue to pour over the border. It just created a slave underclass; which is wrong and immoral.

Edited June 27, 2011 by ELF1024

[mbh26]

but that is an easy thing to say when it is virtually impossible for them to do so.

If the tables were turned you wouldn't want us importing our poverty into your country either. Perhaps it would be more fair if you were to consult some of the wealthier people from your own country. In my view it should be their responsibility even more than it is ours.

[mbh26]

Proving yet again that the system is broken as these people are being taken advantage of. That isn't right. The employer should be punished with a revocation of business license for doing such. These people deserve a fair wage just like any other American.

However, we can't fix this if they continue to pour over the border. It just created a slave underclass; which is wrong a immoral.

I couldn't agree more. Bringing Latin Americans to do our back breaking work will yield a similar result as was yielded by bringing African slaves to pick the cotton. I find it ironic that most Confederate soldiers were too poor to own slaves. I believe a very few wealthy and powerful people in this country has usurped the will of the majority of middle class American people regarding immigration. Poor man's fight for a rich man's war.

[ELF1024]

I couldn't agree more. Bringing Latin Americans to do our back breaking work will yield a similar result as was yielded by bringing African slaves to pick the cotton. I find it ironic that most Confederate soldiers were too poor to own slaves. I believe a very few wealthy and powerful people in this country has usurped the will of the majority of middle class American people regarding immigration. Poor man's fight for a rich man's war.

The "War of Northern Aggression" wasn't fought over slavery for the majority of people. Most people didn't care if you had slaves or not. It was fought over States Rights. It is not too far fetched to see that same thing happening again soon.

Edited June 27, 2011 by ELF1024

[LeSellers]

Wouldn't owning land and not allowing people to squat on it be the same thing as a country having a border? If the border were open and employers were free to pay people $1/day, how would we not have squatters?

I don't follow this. How would we have squatters under your scenario? If there were no incentive (and I'm assuming you believe $1/day is not an incentive) to come, then why would they even bother to move to this inequitable place?

As I have said elsewhere, and as Thomas Jefferson's Declaratoin of Independence states, governments derive their just powers from the consent of the people. If the people, individually, do not have the power to do "X", then their union can have no such power, either.

A socialist country not having an open border is really no different than a rich man refusing to divide his resources with the indigent.

Yeah. So? Who's advocating socialism? Not I, I can assure you.

If he's free to offer $1/day, they are free to accept or reject the offer.

If they reject it, then he has no employees. Only when his offer (demand for labor/supply of money) and their acceptance (supply of labor/demand for money) are both in place can either get what he wants.

Why does the rich man have to "divide his resources with the indigent"? In a just society, there would be no such compulsion.

The unseen third party getting screwed by this exchange is the American taxpayer. It's the American taxpayer who ends up having to provide for these people what their employers will not. If we lived in a free market economy, I wouldn't have a right to complain about low wage workers.

Says who?

Of course they would: the most important right: the right to refuse to accept the pay they deem unsatisfactory. Without labor, the owner would have either to raise his offered pay or automate, or, he could simply forgo the activity he was contemplating. It's his money. He can and should be able to, do with it as he pleases.

I just re-read your assertion. You can complain all you like. It will do you no good. If your concern is that you would not be able to earn as much as you could by artificially lowering the supply of labor, you're right. But, by the law of comparative advantage, you'd still be worth something to someone. The difference is, you'd earn what you actually are worth to someone who values your input (labor, brains, whatever you offer). If you are not worth as much as another person, you will not earn as much as he does. Only those who feel themselves less valuable than what they are being paid fear competition. Those who are more valuable embrace it.

But we live under a mixed economy that has taken even larger steps toward socialism.

Indeed, and we are all the worse off for it, especially the poor. They are forbidden to work for anything less than what politicians and bureaucrats say they must accept, and they, not being worth it, are given no employment whatsoever.

In a just society, there would be no taxpayer subsidy. Every trade would be independent, and the only function of a legitimate government in this sort of thing would be to enforce the provisions of the contract.

Lehi

[Nemesis]

This thread is becoming more political then dealing with the church's position on this matter. Please keep it on topic or we will need to close the thread.

Nemesis

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700143132/Immigration-LDS-Church-issues-new-statement.html

The only part I disagree with is:

• The church supports efforts "where undocumented immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship".

I think there needs to be an effective means to citizenship.