Hint hint, if you want to know why preachy neocons somehow always seem to be sabotaging their voters when it comes to illegal immigration, this is why.
Arthur King
23 days ago
It’s all about driving down wages through mass immigration.
Jim Veenbaas
23 days ago
Washington Post reporter defends Tyson Foods. The regime media doesn’t even pretend to fight for the little guy anymore. Tyson Foods is an abhorrent blight on capitalism. Screws workers and farmers. It makes a good case for communism.
It’s amazing how the loudest proponents of the free market seem perfectly happy to see it manipulated the minute the pendulum nudges back towards the workers
That’s my point. Whenever power has moved back towards the workers the government has always intervened such as by passing laws to break the unions, ramping up immigration to create more competition for jobs etc. Whenever it’s the workers asking for help the response is always the same, there’s nothing we can do, it’s just the supply and demand of the market and you’ll have to wear it
Matt M
22 days ago
Firms take big profits, native workers don’t get pay rises, the young are priced out of the housing market due to excessive demand and the poor old tax-payer picks up the tab to subsidise the housing, healthcare, education and subsistence wages of the low paid immigrant. Talk about the top 0.1% skimming off the cream. And yet the (so called) left of centre parties welcome it in the name of “diversity”.
What a scam!
Martin Layfield
22 days ago
Patriotism comes above capitalism. The merchants need to be brought back into line.
So just in defence of capitalism, proper capitalism, that we do not have at the moment but should, in my humble opinion, be doing more about saving – free immigration/ open borders, in my opinion, does not have to be considered as part of free trade capitalism.
So you can actually have your patriotism and free trade capitalism in theory.
Unfortunately, the theory that is prevelant at the moment is that free trade and free immigration have to go hand in hand.
Here is a good argument, made much better than I can, for free trade and restricted immigration, rather than free trade and free immigration:
An extract:
Journal of Libertarian Studies 13, Number 2 (1998)
It is frequently maintained that “free trade” belongs to “free immigration” as “protectionism” does to “restricted immigration.” That is, the claim is made that while it is not impossible that someone might combine protectionism with free immigration, or free trade with restricted immigration, these positions are intellectually inconsistent, and thus erroneous. Hence, insofar as people seek to avoid errors, they should be the exception rather than the rule. The facts, to the extent that they have a bearing on the issue, appear to be consistent with this claim. As the 1996 Republican presidential primaries indicated, for instance, most professed free traders are advocates of relatively (even if not totally) free and non-discriminatory immigration policies, while most protectionists are proponents of highly restrictive and selective immigration policies.
Appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, I will argue that this thesis and its implicit claim are fundamentally mistaken. In particular, I will demonstrate that free trade and restricted immigration are not only perfectly consistent but even mutually reinforcing policies. That is, it is not the advocates of free trade and restricted immigration who are wrong, but rather the proponents of free trade and free immigration. In thus taking the “intellectual guilt” out of the free-trade-and-restricted-immigration position and putting it where it actually belongs, I hope to promote a change in the present state of public opinion and facilitate substantial political realignment.
Trade and Immigration
Given the case for free trade, we will now develop the case for immigration restrictions to be combined with free-trade policies. More specifically, we will build a successively stronger case for immigration restrictions: from the initial weak claim that free trade and immigration restrictions can be combined and do not exclude each other to the final strong claim that the principle underlying free trade actually requires such restrictions.
And exactly the same thing is happening in the U.K. . Whenever, even a mainstream politician raises concerns over immigration, someone from the business lobby pops up and complains about the economic costs ie they might have to pay more than minimum wages.
Some may recall that open migration was one of the ‘tricks’ that Bill Clinton passed-on to Blair and Brown and which led to Labour’s ‘open borders’ policy: keep business sweet. UK business is now addicted to cheap foreign labour because the downside consequences: lack of social cohesion, pressure on housing, health and education services, are not felt by them
Alex Lekas
22 days ago
The corporations can influence, but it is the politicians who decide. Don’t get bogged down in attempts to deflect this from the people who engineered it – this unholy alliance of elected and appointed officials, NGOs, and others within the DC cartel. Business is part of that group but not the only part.
UnHerd Reader
22 days ago
What an excellent review of the “unofficial” policy that drives so much of the U.S. economy, but cannot be named, at least in the U.S. media. A whole other essay can and should be written on how unrestricted immigration conspires to keep Black Americans at the bottom of the economic ladder — but no worries, we’ll address that with our virtue signaling on “purpose,” “social justice” and “equity.”
John Galt Was Correct
22 days ago
“Salon claimed those voicing concerns about corporations replacing Americans with foreign workers were “spinning a narrative” akin to a racist conspiracy.” So drearily predictable a response.
mike otter
22 days ago
Corporatism is not a free-market ideology, its roots are in Italian and Spanish fascism. It is a commnad economy system and as such a (non idenitical) triplet with communism and socialism both national and internationalist.
Mechan Barclay
22 days ago
I get the cutthroat attitude of the American business tycoons. I get that there is a conversation about domestic wages for citizens. But when you’re undercutting the very communities that enacted laws for prosperity, its very hard not to see them as harbingers of doom. The importance of voting in voices against this is such a priority everywhere, otherwise this just continues to bleed everyone dry of savings.
UnHerd Reader
22 days ago
What a load of . . . . The slaughterhouses/packing plants hire illegal immigrants and everyone knows it. Illegals are desperate and will work for under minimum wage. Slaughterhouse work is dangerous, but injuries aren’t reported. Just recently, it was discovered that children were working 12 hour shifts at these businesses. The story got out because a 12-year-old boy was killed. And apparently, he was not the first. Illegal immigrants stay quiet, which exactly what the businesses want.
Anna
22 days ago
The slaughterhouse/meat packing industry is the worst offender, after that fruit/greens picking. No American would do this work for the wages they pay. Fraudulent IDs, look the other way. It’s a scandal, but persists because we demand cheap food.
ChilblainEdwardOlmos
21 days ago
While some of the staunchest proponents of “Defund the Police” are quietly employing and even funding professional private security contracting firms. I am shocked!
Kat L
17 days ago
Infuriating. Neither party represents their people.
Hint hint, if you want to know why preachy neocons somehow always seem to be sabotaging their voters when it comes to illegal immigration, this is why.
It’s all about driving down wages through mass immigration.
Washington Post reporter defends Tyson Foods. The regime media doesn’t even pretend to fight for the little guy anymore. Tyson Foods is an abhorrent blight on capitalism. Screws workers and farmers. It makes a good case for communism.
It’s amazing how the loudest proponents of the free market seem perfectly happy to see it manipulated the minute the pendulum nudges back towards the workers
It’s not a “free market” when the government and corporations are aligned, Billy.
That’s my point. Whenever power has moved back towards the workers the government has always intervened such as by passing laws to break the unions, ramping up immigration to create more competition for jobs etc. Whenever it’s the workers asking for help the response is always the same, there’s nothing we can do, it’s just the supply and demand of the market and you’ll have to wear it
Firms take big profits, native workers don’t get pay rises, the young are priced out of the housing market due to excessive demand and the poor old tax-payer picks up the tab to subsidise the housing, healthcare, education and subsistence wages of the low paid immigrant. Talk about the top 0.1% skimming off the cream. And yet the (so called) left of centre parties welcome it in the name of “diversity”.
What a scam!
Patriotism comes above capitalism. The merchants need to be brought back into line.
So just in defence of capitalism, proper capitalism, that we do not have at the moment but should, in my humble opinion, be doing more about saving – free immigration/ open borders, in my opinion, does not have to be considered as part of free trade capitalism.
So you can actually have your patriotism and free trade capitalism in theory.
Unfortunately, the theory that is prevelant at the moment is that free trade and free immigration have to go hand in hand.
Here is a good argument, made much better than I can, for free trade and restricted immigration, rather than free trade and free immigration:
An extract:
Journal of Libertarian Studies 13, Number 2 (1998)
It is frequently maintained that “free trade” belongs to “free immigration” as “protectionism” does to “restricted immigration.” That is, the claim is made that while it is not impossible that someone might combine protectionism with free immigration, or free trade with restricted immigration, these positions are intellectually inconsistent, and thus erroneous. Hence, insofar as people seek to avoid errors, they should be the exception rather than the rule. The facts, to the extent that they have a bearing on the issue, appear to be consistent with this claim. As the 1996 Republican presidential primaries indicated, for instance, most professed free traders are advocates of relatively (even if not totally) free and non-discriminatory immigration policies, while most protectionists are proponents of highly restrictive and selective immigration policies.
Appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, I will argue that this thesis and its implicit claim are fundamentally mistaken. In particular, I will demonstrate that free trade and restricted immigration are not only perfectly consistent but even mutually reinforcing policies. That is, it is not the advocates of free trade and restricted immigration who are wrong, but rather the proponents of free trade and free immigration. In thus taking the “intellectual guilt” out of the free-trade-and-restricted-immigration position and putting it where it actually belongs, I hope to promote a change in the present state of public opinion and facilitate substantial political realignment.
Trade and Immigration
Given the case for free trade, we will now develop the case for immigration restrictions to be combined with free-trade policies. More specifically, we will build a successively stronger case for immigration restrictions: from the initial weak claim that free trade and immigration restrictions can be combined and do not exclude each other to the final strong claim that the principle underlying free trade actually requires such restrictions.
Full article here: https://mises.org/journal-libertarian-studies/case-free-trade-and-restricted-immigration
And exactly the same thing is happening in the U.K. . Whenever, even a mainstream politician raises concerns over immigration, someone from the business lobby pops up and complains about the economic costs ie they might have to pay more than minimum wages.
Some may recall that open migration was one of the ‘tricks’ that Bill Clinton passed-on to Blair and Brown and which led to Labour’s ‘open borders’ policy: keep business sweet. UK business is now addicted to cheap foreign labour because the downside consequences: lack of social cohesion, pressure on housing, health and education services, are not felt by them
The corporations can influence, but it is the politicians who decide. Don’t get bogged down in attempts to deflect this from the people who engineered it – this unholy alliance of elected and appointed officials, NGOs, and others within the DC cartel. Business is part of that group but not the only part.
What an excellent review of the “unofficial” policy that drives so much of the U.S. economy, but cannot be named, at least in the U.S. media. A whole other essay can and should be written on how unrestricted immigration conspires to keep Black Americans at the bottom of the economic ladder — but no worries, we’ll address that with our virtue signaling on “purpose,” “social justice” and “equity.”
“Salon claimed those voicing concerns about corporations replacing Americans with foreign workers were “spinning a narrative” akin to a racist conspiracy.” So drearily predictable a response.
Corporatism is not a free-market ideology, its roots are in Italian and Spanish fascism. It is a commnad economy system and as such a (non idenitical) triplet with communism and socialism both national and internationalist.
I get the cutthroat attitude of the American business tycoons. I get that there is a conversation about domestic wages for citizens. But when you’re undercutting the very communities that enacted laws for prosperity, its very hard not to see them as harbingers of doom. The importance of voting in voices against this is such a priority everywhere, otherwise this just continues to bleed everyone dry of savings.
What a load of . . . . The slaughterhouses/packing plants hire illegal immigrants and everyone knows it. Illegals are desperate and will work for under minimum wage. Slaughterhouse work is dangerous, but injuries aren’t reported. Just recently, it was discovered that children were working 12 hour shifts at these businesses. The story got out because a 12-year-old boy was killed. And apparently, he was not the first. Illegal immigrants stay quiet, which exactly what the businesses want.
The slaughterhouse/meat packing industry is the worst offender, after that fruit/greens picking. No American would do this work for the wages they pay. Fraudulent IDs, look the other way. It’s a scandal, but persists because we demand cheap food.
While some of the staunchest proponents of “Defund the Police” are quietly employing and even funding professional private security contracting firms. I am shocked!
Infuriating. Neither party represents their people.