You, Lawrence Libby, wrote:

>> In any
>>event, open immigration is what the WSJ, friend of the working man, is
>>advocating. I wonder why.
>
>Because they don't seperate human rights from corporations'.  I believe it
>was you, Tresy Kilbourne, who said, "Also, as Noam reminds his listeners,
>the truth value of a statement does
>not depend on who's uttering it."
Which is why I made the case against it in the immediately preceding
paragraph. I might as well quote myself too; if any paper is a "shill for
capitalism," it's the WSJ, so one is properly skeptical when it affects
concern for the working man on such a basic issue. As for human rights,
there is a human right to emigrate from somewhere, but not, at least as
far as I know, a right to immigrate *to* anywhere.

Back to my original question. Noam has written, and Bill has echoed, that
the problem with labor and capital is the asymmetry in their relative
mobility. (I think that there's even an Adam Smith quote to the same
effect somewhere.) I don't see how this is. IMHO capital fleeing to cheap
labor abroad is little different from cheap labor fleeing to capital at
home. What seems to me to be the problem is asymmetry in respective labor
laws. As long as corps can enjoy favorable labor laws in one country and
favorable tax laws in the U.S., they are going to continue having it both
ways, with labor the inevitable loser. Immigration meanwhile is at best a
sideshow, one which I think the Left has let itself be gulled into by
shills.

________________
Tresy Kilbourne
Seattle WA
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.2
mQBPAzElMHYAAAECAOKQh+/yB6jWnJvD3PS+RXa74TxuoM5QelvCjsWBgswu5OLt
bnCxkdJR2xzUkpCPx0aghVj+RMXj9iQMMQFUcWUAEQEAAbQkVHJlc3kgS2lsYm91
cm5lIDx0cmVzeWtAaGFsY3lvbi5jb20+ =5wHY
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

------------------------------------------------------------------------