Vallery.net

Penn and Teller did it again, this was a great episode. I’m glad to see them taking on the immigration issue. Most American’s are opposed to immigration, and support stricter border controls. I think changing that opinion will be a hard pill for most American’s to swallow.

Penn and Teller are critical of the government’s plans to install 700 miles of fencing on the border at the cost of $60 billion dollars. They setup a mock version of the wall and show how easy it is to circumvent. Their illegals are able to get past it in around 3 minutes using a variety of different techniques. In addition, they pointed out that majority of illegals actual enter the country on legal visas and overstay their welcome. I think the most fascinating fact that they pointed out is that the contractor, golden sate fence company, who was hired to build the wall was actually fined for using illegal workers!

The one thing that they didn’t get into that disappointed me a little bit is the philosophical side of immigration. Immigrants are the core work force of this country. America was built on a tradition of immigration. By limiting immigration, you’re increasing manual labor costs, which in turn increases prices and lowers the value of the dollar. Immigration laws are another great example of “unintended consequences”. On the face it sounds like a good idea, limit the number of people entering the country, thereby ensuring jobs for the people already here, lowering the demand on social services, and controlling population growth. The problem however is that if you try and control the immigration you are forcing the “illegals” deeper into a black market. Mexicans will always find a way to get here, there is no physical way to stop them. Once here, the harder you make it for them to work, the harder you make it on everyone. You not only put the “illegals” into harms way, but you put Americans into danger as well. If their existence here is criminal, they will avoid authority at all costs. They might be witness to a crime, but they won’t report it. They might be in medical danger, but they won’t go to a hospital. They might resort to identify theft in order to remain here. You’re forcing honest, hard working, principled individuals to become criminals, just so they can provide for their families and better themselves.

A bit closer to home, I have a guy that takes care of my lawn every summer, let’s call him Bob. He is one of the hardest working guys I’ve met. He does a fantastic job, is punctual, and cheap. Of course, he is also probably illegal. Last fall he came to me and said “I’ve got to go back to Mexico, so I can’t take care of your yard next year”. Of course I don’t know the details, but I can only imagine. Why would we do this to someone who wants to work hard and make money. He has capitalistic intentions, he knows that he has to earn what he makes. He embodies the spirit and work ethic that this country was founded on. I’m proud to pay him to do the work, I feel a sense of satisfaction in our transactions. It’s hard to explain, but he lives for the ideas and principals that I believe in with all my heart. Yet someone has the balls to tell him that he can’t work here? That what he is doing is illegal.

Before we turn away men like Bob we need look in our own backyard. Some American’s are nothing more than looters, living off the system, living off our tax money, our social services, and our charity. Perhaps we should worry more about our existing problems in society before we cast stones on the immigrants. Instead of our money being taken at the point of a gun by our government to feed these American looters, maybe we should embrace the work ethic of our neighbors to the south and force the unproductive members of our society to take these men as examples. I say open borders for all, any man that has a work ethic like Bob and can help make this country a better place is welcome here in my book.

Here is the Libertarian party’s official stance on immigration.

The Issue: Our borders are currently neither open, closed, nor secure. This situation restricts the labor pool, encouraging employers to hire undocumented workers, while leaving those workers neither subject to nor protected by the law. A completely open border allows foreign criminals, carriers of communicable diseases, terrorists and other potential threats to enter the country unchecked. Pandering politicians guarantee access to public services for undocumented aliens, to the detriment of those who would enter to work productively, and increasing the burden on taxpayers.

The Principle: The legitimate function and obligation of government to protect the lives, rights and property of its citizens, requires awareness of and control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demands that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.

Solutions: Borders will be secure, with free entry to those who have demonstrated compliance with certain requirements. The terms and conditions of entry into the United States must be simple and clearly spelled out. Documenting the entry of individuals must be restricted to screening for criminal background and threats to public health and national security. It is the obligation of the prospective immigrant to demonstrate compliance with these requirements. Once effective immigration policies are in place, general amnesties will no longer be necessary.

Transitional Action: Ensure immigration requirements include only appropriate documentation, screening for criminal background and threats to public health and national security. Simplifying the immigration process and redeployment of surveillance technology to focus on the borders will encourage the use of regular and monitored entry points, thus preventing trespass and saving lives. End federal requirements that benefits and services be provided to those in the country illegally. Repeal all measures that punish employers for hiring undocumented workers. Repeal all immigration quotas.

I have to admit, I’m a huge fan of Penn and Teller. When I heard that they were going to be covering Wal-Mart on an upcoming episode of Bullshit I was extremely excited. Like many small and medium size towns across the country, Wal-Mart hysteria has come to my home town of Longmont, Colorado and I was in the front lines of the debate.

Back in 2003 I had decided to run for City Council here in Longmont, and at that time Longmont was looking to annex a plot of land right outside of town by request of the Wal-Mart corporation. The plan was to build a new Super Wal-Mart store on the lot, and the city wanted to get the tax revenue. Typical to these decisions, the public outcry was immense. The anti Wal-Mart groups arranged speakers from all across the country to come and petition our City Council against the annexation. Of course, in the end cooler heads prevailed and the City Council voted to annex the land, and now we have a brand new Super Wal-Mart (to complement the smaller Wal-Mart across town).

Penn and Teller did an okay job in this episode, I’m just a bit disappointed that it didn’t go into more detail around the pure capitalistic nature of Wal-Mart, and really get down into the philosophy behind it. As anyone who knows me can attest, I’m a hardcore Libertarian. I live, eat, and breath free market capitalism. Nothing gets me more excited than seeing it in action, and nothing pisses me off more than special interest groups with agendas trying to stop it.

You see, Wal-Mart isn’t evil, capitalism isn’t evil, outsourcing and sweat shops arent’ even evil. They are all the natural product of a free market doing what it does best. Wal-Mart is one of the most amazing American success stories ever. A company that was able to find efficiencies in everything they do. Reinvest their profit into smart growth, cut costs where they can, negotiate bulk buying deals with manufacturers. There is a reason why Wal-Mart is the number one retailer in the United States, it is because they are the best at doing what they do, selling us household items at cheap prices. Wal-Mart isn’t here to put small business out of business. If that is a by-product of giving the consumer choice, then that is the essence of the free market.

What is evil is groups that preach the “social good”. Perhaps this is because I just finished reading it, but I’m reminded of Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. The world is so concerned with the social welfare of the disadvantaged, the poor, the needy, that they “loot” from those who are productive members of society to give to the unfortunate. The same thing is happening with these anti Wal-Mart groups. They are going around spouting about the evils of Wal-Mart, using the plight of the common man as their evidence. Their motive may be well placed, but the outcome of such actions will eventually mean that Wal-Mart won’t be able to open new stores. They won’t want to deal with the headache and the legal loopholes that are put in place against them. Like the example Penn and Teller gave in Chicago requiring Wal-Mart to have a higher minimum wage than other retailers (Which gets me on an entire different minimum wage tangent, which I will save for a future post). The hurdles they will encounter will be so high that it will impact the profitability of a given store, and then they won’t have the justification to build it. What happens then? Who really suffers? Is it Wal-Mart, or is it the common man that now has to pay more for his television set at the local electronics store? Or is it the unemployed mother who still can’t find a job because nobody will hire her? Maybe it is the city who now has less sales tax because their residents are driving to the next town over to shop at Wal-Mart?

One of the great things about this country is that not only do we get to vote on election day. We get to vote every time we go to the store. Consumers vote with their dollars. They are saying that they want a higher quality of living for less money. They are saying that Wal-Mart offers them what they want at the best price. If the established businesses are adversely affected by the opening of a new Wal-Mart then that is the product of the kind of change the market is dictating. To survive, the established businesses must learn to adapt to the changing economy. People want convenience and they are casting their ballot loudly and clearly with every dollar they spend at these “big box” stores.