Thanks for sharing your feeling. I live for differing views. You should see how my Marxist wife differs from me.

I know what you are talking about. I, too, have my share of crowdedness growing up and at present. The emphasis of that article is on the benefits of big populations, which some people, myself included, had overlooked. Although I didn’t stress it, I mentioned in that article the problem of welfare with regard to immigration. I understand welfare is toxic and ruins everything, including the advantages of population growth and immigration.

I recognize that, even if we don’t have welfare and immigration reform has been achieved, cities can still be too crowded to be comfortable. Then it comes down to personal choice. We weigh the pros and cons of city living and decide whether or not to live in one. Some people even hate the crowd and love to live in nature–that’s cool, too. In my view, it’s all relative and about taste and choice.

I got to tell you, I live in a big city and I don’t feel “The more the merrier”, feels already way too crowded. Sure there are advantages that come with a society, but like anything else there is also such thing as too much togetherness. In CA especially, entire Mexico and it’s neighboring countries are over here. Feels too crowded. It seems like this place is a giant welfare state, where too few contribute, and too many just consume.

This isn’t a Libertarian view, I haven’t really thought of it that much. Just a personal feeling I wanted to share.

In addition, patriotism as we know it is contradictory when applied to immigrants. If an immigrant is “patriotic” to the U.S., then they are unpatriotic to their native country when they pledge allegiance to the U.S. and abandon their old country. How can someone be a patriot and a non-patriot at the same time?

I find that when pressed on why they really are against immigration, people (at least the ones who aren’t way off the deep end) get really embarrassed about their position. Kind of like when you ask someone to give you a rational basis for being against marriage equality. So I like to really twist the knife and make it as painful as possible for them. A favorite line to use on the Republican types is that you don’t want to be forced to join their union.

1) Are you a dangerous criminal?
2) Do you have any communicable diseases?
3) Can you afford to cover the cost of us verifying that the answer to the first two questions is “no”?
Then welcome to America. Stay out of trouble, pay your taxes, and enjoy the land of opportunity.

If this were the case, there would basically be no illegal immigration. So I guess I’d say that I’m against the laws that cause it.

As the author does, factoring out politics, and looking strictly at the human action that has occured historically, a better understanding of how the economics has played out will tell a more realistic story. Further, this response commentary will highlight how “the Gold Standard” can play an important part in immigration policy, by looking at recent history of the United States and Mexico.

Referencing the book “Gold”, author Nathan Lewis talks about how In 1971, President Richard Nixon took the US off the gold standard. As a result, the Mexican Peso too was taken off the gold standard as well, since it was pegged indirectly through the dollar. At that time at a ratio of 12.5 to 1. In the years 1963 to 1968, Mexico had an average of 12% annual growth! So this proves despite prejiduced bias towards Latino cultures, the Mexican economy has the capability of exceptional growth. However, by the late 1980′s, the Peso had been devalued to over 2200 pesos to 1 dollar, and as result the Mexican economy overall suffered from this devaluation.

The Government Sponsored Enterprise, Fannie Mae was created in 1938 to help a Depression-ravaged America more easily create homeowners. Further government interventionsim through legislation such as the Fair Housing Act of 1968, Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974 and the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, allowed Fannie Mae, according to New York Times business journalist, Gretchen Morgensen, in her book “Reckless Endangerment”, that during the 1990′s CEO James Johnson collaborated with the Clinton Administration practicing a corrupt coporation buiness model once again aiming at as high a rate of American home ownership as possible. All of which essentially happened without any credit rating standards.

This all created an enormous boom in the US real estate market during the 1990′s and after the turn of the century. The result of which created a vast amout of work, and with the Mexican economy in shambles, it’s labor force met that US work supply with it’s demand. Causing a flow of migration of unauthorized Mexican nationals into the US. The end result was a great example of division of labor that produced tremendous growth, however it ended as a boom bust cycle in 2008.

Finally, people normally do not want to leave their home countries, due to ties to families, tradiation, culture, etc. But when a country’s economy is destroyed by currency devaluation and jobs are scarce, people have no choice but to migrate and look for work elsewhere. Naturally, not all of the proceeds coming from increased division of labor will stay in that location. Nationals who have migratied will inevitably send earnings back to support remaining family members left behind. This in the end makes the case for the world to return to the gold standard. Historically it has provided for healthy economies and stable currency leading to continuous growth. Division of Labor is still important with regards to immigration, but if all economies are healthy and stable, division of labor is actually optimized as potential employees from everywhere will compete for the highest wages and free market output will be more performance based.