Gee, I thought drafting immigrants came from a desire for the North to win the Civil War by overwhelming the South with superior numbers, not because of “nativist whining.” Also interesting to note that the Irish weren’t “white.” News to my great-great grandfather, I am sure.

So native-born people don’t have the right to benefit from the societies our ancestors fought, bled and died to establish? We must let people whose ancestors never fought bled and died for our country to come here in uncontrolled numbers and compete with us for the fruits of our ancestors’ labors? Sounds pretty grim to me. What would be the point of doing anything to establish a decent society, if the fruits of our labors cannot be passed on to our posterity? My ancestors who fought in the Revolutionary War did not risk their lives so that some Indonesian guy they had nothing in common with could have a better life; they did it for their children, grandchildren and so on down the line. This does not seem to be a very “libertarian” concept, the concept of denying people the right to pass onto their descendants the fruits of their labors.

When you talk about our “volunteer” army, you make it sound as if the soldiers are doing it for free. They aren’t. Is it better or worse to subsidize our “defense” against such terrible threats to U.S. security as Saddam’s Iraq through the current mercenary system of paying recruits to die, or the previous slavery system of drafting them against their will? Both are pretty shitty options, but I’ll stick with Uncle Milton; you can have General Westmoreland.

Poor migrant workers and their families. Obviously.

I, for one, have not given up on attacking domestic ag subsidies. And, yes, migration restrictions are a domestic subsidy, as Micha points out.

Sure you are. Other people are not your property, period.

More generally, the argument for guest workers ignores that cheap labor largely serves to prevent the most efficient division of labor.

Up is down. Left is right. Orwellian doublespeak. Cheap labor prevents the most efficient division of labor? Only if you completely ignore the interests of the migrant workers themselves. Which you apparently do. Guest worker programs count as a subsidy for uneconomic industries? No more than immigration restrictions (which actually cost enormously more taxpayer dollars than any free immigration alternative) count as a subsidy for native workers and firms who enjoy dominance of the status quo.

Viable industries can pay the going market rate for labor and don’t need the subsidy.

*Head explodes*

Bullshit. What possible self-serving reason do we pro-immigration libertarians have for recognizing that undocumented Mexican workers are no less human than American citicizens? I’m calling bullshit on that accusation; it’s oft-repeated but never explained.

The assertion that the poor will be worse off because of an influx in labor supply is debatable – there is plenty of data to point to a long-term productivity and expansion effect that creates more jobs. Even if the truth lies in favor of your argument, the effects would probably be marginal. There are plenty of things in this country keeping the poor down – the war on drugs, crumbling schools, subsidized obesity – that having a few more latinos won’t make much of a difference.

On the other hand, allowing these few more latinos, no less human than American citizens (that is how we apply any moral standard – universally), an opportunity to make their lives significantly better would probably outweigh any moral objection you have to marginal unskilled labor displacement.