jim rogers has some savvy and contrarian investing ideas, and that's why i always like to hear what he has to say. he is a globalist and an internationalist however, which suits his investing ideas well in this global free trade economy, but those ideas are rather naive politically.
Open the Doors
jimrogers.com
....Here’s my solution: Let ‘em all in. Get rid of visas and passports. Do away with custom agents and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Those people who are ambitious and brave enough to risk it all to get here are exactly the kind of people we want in this country.
pure folly! swing the doors wide open and millions upon millions of immigrants will pour in. 1.5 million are apprehended every year as it is when we are trying to keep them out. if we say come on in you will have tens of millions pouring into the country all at once. there is no way in hell our current infrastructure could even handle the influx.
They are certainly the kind of people I would want working for me. That kind of enterprising attitude is exactly what made this country great.
of course they are the kind of people you want working for you! they will work for pennies on the dollar!
Plus, closing our doors to outsiders isn’t going to make the U.S. any safer.
oh no? abolishing the ins and opening the borders wide open means the thousands of al qaeda not already here will be shortly. foreign governments will purposely send subversives and spies to undermine order in our country.
No country in history has lost a war because of visas.
wrong! rather than citing examples in the past, i will point out the utter ignorance and foolishness of this way of thinking in relation to the present day. go ask israel to do away with borders and visas and see how well that works for them as israel gets overrun by millions of arabs.
Tightening our borders is already hurting various sectors of our economy.
more ignorance! our economy has been hurting for a couple of years now and the borders are as porous as ever! they haven't even been tightened yet! more importantly, security of the american people comes well before the economy. free traders just can't seem to grasp this simple concept--that the economy is not what makes america great.
>> Three of our best sources of foreign earnings are education, tourism, and medical care. U.S. schools and universities have attracted tens of thousands of students annually, but the influx has been cut severely. Foreign tourists are skipping the U.S. now since it is so hard to get in. The Mayo Clinic and others are suffering since many high-paying foreigners are not allowed in for treatment. <<
well this is the fault of you global free traders! you are the ones who engineered our economy to become dependent on mass immigration, much of it from the third world.
I know, I know. Such an idea is a tough pill for many to swallow these days.
you have it backwards. returning to a productive economy rather than a consumptive economy is the tough pill that needs to be swallowed. americans have been programmed by the jewish media inculcators to be self-centered consumers addicted to an influx of cheap foreign gizmos.
There’s a distinct odor of protectionism and isolationism in the air.
yeah, funny how the death of 3,000 americans kinda gives the country a wake-up call. people are actually shocked to some semblance of sensibility. did it ever occur to you that perhaps when americans are given a wake-up call they awake from their media-programmed slumber and start thinking more clearly? or would you rather have us believe that the clear move to the right (as witnessed by the republican electoral gains) was a foolish knee-jerk reaction just like the protectionism and isolationism you see. i guess according to you americans were moving in the right direction prior to 9/11 when the most important topic on their mind was to check their internet stock portfolio. now that the country is actually paying attention to what is going on in the world we are all thinking wrong. umm, if you say so.
Immigration, after all, is one of the founding principles of this country. My guess is that the forbearers of just about everyone reading this magazine took a great risk once upon a time, coming across a dangerous ocean or a rugged border to get to America. Many of these people came with just the clothes on their back.
same old lame argument. there is a difference between western european immigration of the past and the third-world immigration we see today. it is easier to assimilate people with a similar culture, similar religion, similar appearance, background, etc. even then it took a few generations and their were bumps along the way. back then it really was risky to come all the way across the ocean to make a new start. people had to completely leave their roots behind, america was an unsettled frontier, so you had to be serious about wanting to make a new start an become an american. contrast that with today, where mexicans can simply hop a fence and come over to work for a while so they can send money back home. they can go back to mexico and revisit their culture by simply hopping the fence again. a totally different situation than immigration a century or more ago.
Such a foreign presence within our borders may sound disturbing to some but the reality is that we need these people just as our forebears were needed.
the truth is, the only reason we need immigrant labor is because americans aren't making babies. we are more interested in our consumptive lifestyle, which must be supported by our careers. kids are a drag on keeping up with the neighbors. it is not just a coincidence that abortions have run about 35 million or so in the last 30 years and about the same exact number of immigrants have replaced all the murdered children.
Don’t think that these are just uneducated laborers, looking to steal American jobs.
if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck...
However, even the laborers are needed since Americans will not take many of the jobs preferring unemployment or welfare instead.
gee, maybe the solution is to get rid of welfare then! i guarantee you that americans would perform the jobs that migrant labor do right now. the wage would simply continue to rise until the jobs were filled. simple supply and demand.
Many immigrants are highly skilled workers who bring their talents (and their capital) where they can best be used.
of course some are. when you have wide open borders and global free trade americans have to compete with over 6 billion people. it's only natural that there will be some skilled and smart workers among those 6 billion. it's also only natural that most of them live in deplorable conditions in their own countries so they are more than happy to work for less than americans. that works out great for microsoft, who can hire indians to write software for less, but how does that affect the wages of working americans?
Of the legal immigrants living here in the U.S., 21 percent have at least 17 years of education, which often includes graduate or professional schools. Among Americans born here, only 8 percent can boast such expertise.
the other 79 percent use so many social services that the net effect is a drain on our resources, not a gain.
Before the economy went south, corporations across the country were clamoring for the State Department to raise the number of skilled laborers allowed in to the country.
oh gee! maybe that's because indians and chinese will come here and work for less than americans will. did that ever occur to you? did it ever occur to you that maybe that is the motivation for microsoft and other corps. to always claim there is a shortage of high tech workers?
In 1999, Congress passed a bill that increased the number of H-1B temporary work visas, which allow skilled foreign laborers to live and work in the U.S. for up to six years. Heck, I’m not even sure there would have been a Silicon Valley if it weren’t for all the computer programmers and engineers who immigrated to this country from places like China and India.
there are plenty of americans capable of working in silicon valley. it is simple supply and demand. tech firms realize that it's easier to flood the country with immigrants to increase the supply of labor and drive wages down. good for microsoft's bottom line. the american worker is left out in the cold, forced to accept a lower wage to get the job or reduced to working for wal-mart.
Immigration is not about foreigners stealing American jobs. It’s about having the workforce necessary to meet the many different niches of employment, from highly-skilled technicians to farm hands to child-care workers to nurses.
sure, a reasonable level of immigration can be useful. from people who have specific talents and want to come here to become americans! if you think that is what the immigration situation is today, you are living in a dream world.
We especially need them now since our low birth rate is undermining the solvency of the Social Security System and Medicare.
well then why don't you advocate outlawing abortion then? we would have 35 million more americans--born and bred here to address the issue.
I’ve made my pitch against protectionism and isolationism before but it’s worth repeating: Closing our borders to foreign influence, whether it’s in the form of goods and services or labor, is the worst we could do to our economy. History doesn’t lie: In 1957, Ghana was the richest country in the British Empire. Then the government decided to completely close its borders to any foreign influence. What happened? Within a decade, Ghana was bankrupt. The same happened in Burma once it closed its borders. It does not take long to ruin a society once you close it off.
pathetic argument. comparing burma and ghana to the united states of america is ludicrous. the united states has all the resources we need to be self-sufficient. we are the freest nation on earth and the most entrepreneurial. likening the situation in burma or ghana to america is foolhardy. those rinky-dink countries don't have all the resources they need to be self-sufficient, and they don't have our democratic form of government. of course they are going to have to rely heavily on trade.
I’ve often preached in favor of free-trade zones and open markets where goods and services can move easily across borders. George Bush recently proposed eliminating all tariffs by 2015 in one of the most exciting proposals to emanate from Washington in decades. Why should labor be any different? Complicated laws limiting immigration naturally lead to illegal immigration and the black market madness which results whenever demand and supply are distorted. Prohibition did not work either. In the best of all possible worlds, the most talented labor will move to where it can best be put to use. Remember: One of the reasons the U.S. has been so successful is because we’ve always had complete mobility of labor. If you don’t like living in New York, you can move to Texas to start a new life or get a new job. In other words, you can move where your talents best serve the marketplace.
another ignorant argument. sure, if american don't like the job market in new york they can move to texas and start a new life. because we all live under the same constitutional set of laws, and we all speak the same language. under his global free trade fantasy, it won't be so easy for americans to learn to speak swahili so we can pursue the burgeoning job market in east africa!
The European Common Market is copying the very model we created, opening its borders and creating labor mobility.
how's that working out for them? what a farce.
The EU was once only six countries; now it’s 15. Within the next few years, it’s likely to grow to at least 25 countries. As the EU has grown, the governments have removed restrictions on labor movement, so a computer programmer in Portugal can take his skills to Ireland and find a job. Bigger markets ultimately lead to more competition, more efficiency, and lower costs for consumers.
lower costs for consumers are no good if you are out of a job because a mexican or an oriental will work for 25 cents an hour!
I actually find the Irish example informative. They have never limited emigration out or immigration in and have benefited both ways.
the whole world doesn't want to move to ireland. much of the world wants to live here. big difference. ireland has a lot fewer enemies than the united states as well.
The bottom line is that there’s a proven link between economic prosperity and immigration: A good economy attracts talented immigrants (both as workers and as investors).
dumb economists never have figured out how to effectively account for the social costs to society in their quack economic theories. they just care that they end up with a larger number of output. they don't seem too interested in how that output is distributed.
At the same time, a constant influx of skilled labor helps an economy grow.
sure it can. but only to a point. how well would the u.s. economy fare if 100 million people immigrated to our shores tomorrow? there would be total chaos and our society would experience upheaval. you have to balance social costs with raw numbers.
That said, fear should not be used as excuse for what’s best for our country and what’s best for our society and economy.
security is what is best for our country! security first, what is supposedly better for the economy comes next!
Instead, we need to have better policies and programs to monitor those people who are here.
how are we going to do that? you advocate eliminating the ins and throwing our borders wide open! how are we going to keep track of the tens of millions who are going to show up on our doorstep tomorrow?
Immigrants, legal or illegal are here to stay. That’s not likely to change.
president eisenhower chased a million mexicans right back over the border when he launched operation wetback in the fifties. if our politicians actually stood up to the special interests and enacted the will of the people for a change we could tackle the immigration problem.
Ben Franklin lived here in a period of wars and revolution, but he said it best: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”.
benjamin franklin also said this:
"And since Detachments of English from Britain sent to America, will have their Places at Home so soon supply'd and increase so largely here; why should the Palatine Boors be suffered to swarm into our Settlements, and by herding together establish their Language and Manners to the Exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion." --Benajmin Franklin |
