Milton nailed it:

[BackAgain]

1.5M views · 44K reactions | Friedman identifies the central tension that makes pre-1914 immigration fundamentally different from immigration today. When newcomers arrived at Ellis Island, they came to work—there was no safety net waiting for them. S

Friedman identifies the central tension that makes pre-1914 immigration fundamentally different from immigration today. When newcomers arrived at Ellis Island, they came to work—there was no safety...

www.facebook.com

Just listen to the first few lines of this piece by Milton Friedman.

Damn! That man was brilliant.

There IS a difference between unfettered immigration for those who come here seeking work and those who come here seeking welfare. The former can work. The latter simply cannot.

As do many other conservatives, I support legal immigration coming with rules and regulations and set limits. Historically, we have an unequaled record of allowing legal immigration coming to our land. I say that is something we can justifiably take some pride in.

But, the adjective “legal” is crucial. Nobody who comes here outside of our Immigration Law and the rules and regulations regarding legal immigration policy should be permitted to stay here.

Also, just for clarity, not only do we distinguish between adhering to our immigration laws or coming or remaining here illegally, but we also distinguish between immigration and asylum.

Of course, even as to asylum cases, the aliens should comply with the laws regarding asylum.

 

[Mr Natural]

Isn’t he the quack who opposes licensing for medical professionals?

 

[toobfreak]

Damn! That man was brilliant.
There IS a difference between unfettered immigration for those who come here seeking work and those who come here seeking welfare.

That's not brilliance, BA, just common sense. A rare thing in today's world.

Immigrants of the 19th & 20th century came here to work, skilled workers seeking to acclimate to being Americans.

These immigrants today (the illegal hoards) mostly don't come here to work, they come here for safety, are often unskilled, uneducated, and are mainly interested in bringing their way of life here, not be part of ours.

It is a subtle form of invasion.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

That's not brilliance, BA, just common sense. A rare thing in today's world.

Immigrants of the 19th & 20th century came here to work, skilled workers seeking to acclimate to being Americans.

These immigrants today (the illegal hoards) mostly don't come here to work, they come here for safety, are often unskilled, uneducated, and are mainly interested in bringing their way of life here, not be part of ours.

It is a subtle form of invasion.

The Cato Institute's study, based on 2022 data available from the federal government, broke down spending among native-born Americans, naturalized immigrants and noncitizens. The latter group includes those in the country illegally, as well as those with temporary visas and green cards.

Nowrasteh and co-writer Jerome Famularo found that noncitizens were claiming $4,564 per capita, compared to $9,623 for native-born citizens and $11,135 for naturalized immigrants—i.e. immigrants who have become citizens, a demographic that is generally older.

"We want the general message that, hey, immigrants are not a drain on the welfare state, they consume less than native-born Americans, so that narrative is false, but there are still savings that can be captured," Nowrasteh said.

Immigrants consume far less welfare than American citizens: Study

The U.S. government spent about $3.1 trillion on benefits payouts in 2022, data showed.

www.newsweek.com

 

[toobfreak]

"We want the general message that, hey, immigrants are not a drain on the welfare state, they consume less than native-born Americans

C'mon Taz, that is non-sequitur. The issue is not what they consume. First of all, few if anyone should be coming here just for our welfare if they cannot work. If they cannot work, how the hell did they get here? Who paid for it? The exception being if they are here on asylum for being hunted or killed if they return home. Most people coming here should at least be able to SUPPORT themselves.

The issue here is whether they come here legally, documented, approved, instead of letting in gang members, druggies, criminals or terrorists.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

They "came to work"

Just like today's immigrants.


That's why ICE Barbie the Dogslayer is raiding Home Depots and car factories.

 

[BackAgain]

Isn’t he the quack who opposes licensing for medical professionals?

Quack? No. But he apparently did suggest that licensure requirements fail to insure superior medical care and he added that it undermines the benefits of competitive n via capitalism.

One need not agree with every position he ever espoused to recognize how brilliant he was. Your ad hominem argument against him doesn’t address the topic of this thread in any way.

Even if his position on medical licensing requirements is misguided, how about what he said concerning unrestricted immigration without requiring that the immigrants have jobs so as to avoid putting them on welfare?

Or did you miss the actual point?

 

[BackAgain]

They "came to work"

Just like today's immigrants.


That's why ICE Barbie the Dogslayer is raiding Home Depots and car factories.

Wrong. They came illegally to secure financial benefits. Do it legally and be denied welfare. Then we’d be in a very different position.

Come here illegally or remain here illegally, and you need to get removed.

It’s odd how you lefties just hate the rule of law.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Wrong. They came illegally to secure financial benefits.

Says the racist turd that inhabits the middle of your brain.

 

[BackAgain]

Says the racist turd that inhabits the middle of your brain.

Nothing I have ever said or posted or implied has been “racist.”

Assholes like you just resort to meaningless ad hominems when you’re unable to argue based on facts or logic.

 

[toobfreak]

Nothing I have ever said or posted or implied has been “racist.”
Assholes like you just resort to meaningless ad hominems when you’re unable to argue based on facts or logic.

No, BA, I think what the idiot was trying to say is that the racist Trump who inhabits the middle of your brain directing you. The Left use that argument to dismiss anyone they disagree with by discounting them as a "cultist" under the mind-control of Trump, that way, they evade debating your point and losing.

Everyone who disagrees with a leftard is a racist.

 

[BackAgain]

No, BA, I think what the idiot was trying to say is that the racist Trump who inhabits the middle of your brain directing you. The Left use that argument to dismiss anyone they disagree with by discounting them as a "cultist" under the mind-control of Trump, that way, they evade debating your point and losing.

Everyone who disagrees with a leftard is a racist.

That’s possible. He’s a moron, either way.

 

[DennisPTate]

1.5M views · 44K reactions | Friedman identifies the central tension that makes pre-1914 immigration fundamentally different from immigration today. When newcomers arrived at Ellis Island, they came to work—there was no safety net waiting for them. S

Friedman identifies the central tension that makes pre-1914 immigration fundamentally different from immigration today. When newcomers arrived at Ellis Island, they came to work—there was no safety...

www.facebook.com

Just listen to the first few lines of this piece by Milton Friedman.

Damn! That man was brilliant.

There IS a difference between unfettered immigration for those who come here seeking work and those who come here seeking welfare. The former can work. The latter simply cannot.

As do many other conservatives, I support legal immigration coming with rules and regulations and set limits. Historically, we have an unequaled record of allowing legal immigration coming to our land. I say that is something we can justifiably take some pride in.

But, the adjective “legal” is crucial. Nobody who comes here outside of our Immigration Law and the rules and regulations regarding legal immigration policy should be permitted to stay here.

Also, just for clarity, not only do we distinguish between adhering to our immigration laws or coming or remaining here illegally, but we also distinguish between immigration and asylum.

Of course, even as to asylum cases, the aliens should comply with the laws regarding asylum.

Dr. Milton Friedman also gave us what could well be the only way to prevent a pandemic of poverty and homelessness as Artificial Intelligence and robotics make a high percentage of jobs obsolete.

x. The Distribution of IncomeFriedman examines the progressive income tax, introduced in order to redistribute income to make things more fair, and finds that, in fact, the rich take advantage of numerous loopholes, nullifying the redistributive effects. It would be far more fair just to have a uniform flat tax with no deductions, which could meet the 1962 tax revenues with a rate only slightly greater than the lowest tax bracket at that time.

xi. Social Welfare MeasuresThough well-intentioned, many social welfare measures don't help the poor as much as some think. Friedman focuses on Social Security as a particularly large and unfair system.

xii. Alleviation of PovertyFriedman regarded welfare programs as misguided and inefficient. To replace them, he advocates a negative income tax, giving everyone a guaranteed minimum income.

xiii. ConclusionThe conclusion to the book centers on how, time and time again, government intervention often has an effect opposite of that intended. Most good things in the United States and the world come from the free market, not the government, and they will continue to do so. The government, despite its good intentions, should stay out of areas where it does not need to be.

Capitalism and Freedom - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org