| > I'm explaining that the tax-cost can be a very cost-effective tax investment for the state, so it can be sensible policy, regardless of ideology. Not as cost-effective as simply picking the cherries from other countries. Plus, the risk is lower. That's my point. If you appeal to economics (or utility, whatever), follow through. > Then don't..who is asking for that? If we don't educate them or don't give them the means to do so, they have zero opportunity here, as opposed to slightly above zero. > U.S. is a good example of shooting itself in the foot. Unles some special circumstances are allowed, no foreign software engineer can get hired in the US until Oct. 2018... Which is exactly not my point. That is Trump's protectionism at work, not the idea that you pick the cherries from other countries (instead of letting them just flow in). > "We should use force to not allow other people to move so I can have higher wages" -> how is this not oppression to you? We're talking about people at the very bottom of pay, how much lower are their wages supposed to drop? I suppose that you believe in the magic of an idealized market, but in the real world there's real people there defending their interests. The same kind of people that will gladly elect populists, by the way. If you want to call that oppression, fine. What difference does it make? > That you find a beggar unsightly is a problem to you, not the beggars problem,and you are welcome to try to fix it by donating. The beggars problem is going to become the mob of people that will ask for them to be locked up and deported, in case they become too much of a nuisance. Again, you're arguing too much like an idealist, which isn't really useful. |