Thursday, November 22, 2007

Anarcholibertarians Etc. Urge One To Evaluate Immigration From The Standpoint Of Landlords Etc. Whose Freedom To Take On A Foreigner Is Constrained

by any restriction of immigration. The landlords or employers on whose behalf such complaint is made are either net taxpayers or they are not. If they are net taxpayers, the restriction of immigration benefits them insofar as there is restriction of immigration on to net public subsidy. There would be increase of aggression on them if other landlords or employers en masse, were to get realized their freedom to take on foreigners regardless of the effect on the net taxpayers and others of their citizenry. If the employers or landlords are using net public subsidy themselves, or are indirectly using it by giving places to those whose new position is possible as a result of an increase in the aggression on the net taxpayers of our citizenry; their freedom-for-aggression, as now it may well be called, is of course constrained by restriction of immigration, as well it should be. Apart from anarchists, leftists and suchlike, the desire is for more freedom-FROM-aggression, and such that the use of foreigners to increase the public subsidies to a (directly or indirectly) subsidized landlord or employer is a claim to freedom-FOR-aggression or its increase, which is not right to honor. Beyond this, is the circumstance of the entry of warlike foreigners, which, for them to say is the right of landlords or employers to take on such foreigners, would be a claim of a right to act treasonably. If the existence of the net taxpayer among our citizens be acknowledged, and as one to whom our loyalty is owed above the aggrandizement of the foreigner, the great smear-emblazoned edifice of preachment favoring mass immigration, shudders and throws off debris in huge quantity.
NYT of Nov.12th,'07, p.A12. 'Open Doors 2007' from the Inst. of Int'l Edu., says that 580,000 foreign students here spend ~10 billion on tuition and fees, and another 10 billion on other expenses. That's ~16,000/ year on tuition and fees, but college costs nearly always much more than that, even exclusive of other expenses. Public universities and colleges budget much more per student than they charge even full-rate paying students of whatever origin. The costs run 10-20 thousand dollars more than full charge. Instead of assuming that foreign students are paying their way at 16,000 apiece, it should be realized that they are grabbing a public subsidy of the difference between that and the 25-35 thousand that our governments have to pay per student for cost of education, exclusive of living expenses. On top of this, the report admits that 1/4 or 5 billion dollars of the foreign students total expenses here come from U.S. sources. That is how they arrive at the supposed net contribution of ~15 billion; by subtracting 5 from 20. Scholars may relish the thought that they are the world's teachers par excellence, and some may delight in the chance to usher in hostiles; but should Americans really want to provide them with additional billions per year to pursue such prestige-seeking or destructive goals? Valuing openness to diversity that you can never have too much of, imposes costs which have to be covered-up with deceptions.

No comments: