But illegal immigrants who do work here are doing so illegally, right? 

I wonder if the work -- the fruits of this labor -- is positive in one instance and completely negative in the other.

Limit the number? No.  Not admit because of character, criminal history, and certain health conditions; sure.  I believe that all people have a right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.  You might counter that to secure these rights we need to institute government with the consent of the governed.  If that's the case, are you consenting that government should limit the pursuits of others?

Whoa!  Getting some backing on this was nice.  Thanks!

And when those laws do not make much sense?  I ask because there are various laws in nearly every juristiction that are just plain stupid or downright obscure (and usually simulataneously stupid).  Asking for their enforcement is, indirectly, advocating for bigger government.

List your objections to easing up restrictions on lawful immigration (or granting permission for foreigners to work here as a guests), and I'll support my position.  Go ahead and make the list and I'll provide my supported rationale for my views.  Deal?

I listened to this particular podcast and it led to me listening to this book in audio format.  The price was right and the content was eye-opening and provocative.

 Also, the three podcasts with Professor Ed Leamer are very insightful.

Wait!  Gary Johnson is fiscally liberal.  Are you using the classical definition of the word " liberal" here?

The ones with Mike Munger are my favorites. 

I enjoy the heck out of immigration discussion.  I particularly enjoy conservatives who adopt a "we need more government" approach to 'fix' this migrant person problem while they'll talk-up the concept of liberty for all in other threads.
I've heard nearly all there is to hear on this topic: "It's not immigration that we're trying to stop, it's illegal immigration.  Don't you get that!"  So when it's suggested that the rules can be relaxed or guest worker programs can be used to take the illegality out of the equation, then the discussion leads to something else such as American workers being displaced, immigrant crime statistics, welfare payments, or some such other bogeyman that some just cannot be rational about.

What would Robert Yates have felt?  Slighted, is my guess.

University of Science, Music, and Culture!

When one supports a so-called sin tax, from my point of view it is no different than saying: "At least some non-trivial percentage of well-meaning folks abhor this behavior.  And, in your best interest -- as well as the best interest of those who may be watching you engage in this behavior -- we are going to have you pay more for the privilege of being able to continue to behave the way you've chosen.  I only wish we had the political courage to outright prohibit what you're doing but at least the extra cost you'll be forced to pay will go to a good cause...that amount which is left over after paying for enforcement costs, anyway."  

If someone can find a conservative justification for this I would be very interested in hearing it...and arguing against it.

Also, the purchasing power from one's wages goes further in right-to-work states.

It's too difficult to know the effect.  My gut feeling says that many of those people who came here to work were employed in jobs in which much of the (potential?) labor market will just turn their noses up at anyway.  And the outflow of people will certainly decrease the total amount of economic activities and transactions.  But all that is unclear as to how the unemployment rate will be affected for those of us who stay here.  Ask yourself this, though: if the amount of people who are leaving is significant, isn't there a whole host of industries which will be negatively affected by a decrease in demand for goods and services and will this not result is income-earning opportunities being cut?

There's an H.L. Mencken quote on democracy and how it relates to common people knowing what they want ready to be sprung here.

I'm guilty.  This particular portion you quoted of mine was tired, weak, and gratuitous.  So, you have no major beef with the rest of what I wrote then?  Or is that also off-limits?

That cannot be proven either way.  But it doesn't look good for the Left -- their policies do have consequences that affect economic growth.  So, either they know the consequences and tradeoffs and do not care [deliberate]; or they do not know them [incompetence].

Yet the overpopulation/global warming/class envy crowd has so much currency in pop culture.  Are you sure about this pronouncement?

I liked it.  Are you having second thoughts about being in the chior?

I'm scared that he'll get another SCOTUS appointment.  But most of all I'm just scared that there are enough voters that want him to keep the job because he represents more 'free' stuff or because he's most likely to implement radical environmental policies.  I'm actually more concerned that team Mitt looks at poling data and makes some free-stuff promising of his own -- promises that won't be able to match those by Barry; promises that will only turn-off the liberty caucus of the GOP.