So what am I supposed to think about this. Apparently, the argument that Sowell (whom I usually agree with) is making is that the only reason "illegals" do jobs that "no Americans will do" is because they are willing to work for less, and in their absence, employers will need to pay more, up to the point where Americans will do the jobs. Or, presumably, somewhere between the cost of "illegal" labor and "legitimate" American labor may lie the labor-cost point where employer-capitalists are better off investing capital in increased mechanization and automation.

Bruce McQuain, much to my disappointment, seems to applaud this argument, even though it rests on a sneer: "illegal."

Well, let me be the one to stand up for libertarianism, then. The freedom & liberty position, first and foremost, respects the rights of the employers here; i.e., the capitalists; i.e., the owners. Libertarian doctrine holds that employment arrangements are between employers and employees, and it’s nobody else’s business.

Here’s what I wrote in two comments to that Q&O entry:

So let me get this straight. "They do jobs Americans won’t do" is
flawed because if we kept out the "illegals," then the market price of
labor for particular jobs will increase to the point Americans will do
them.

I
don’t see anything particularly novel or earth shattering about this
"revelation." Keeping Americans (by force, I will add) from purchasing
cheaper alternatives in labor, whether from Mexico or anywhere else, is
no different that denying them the freedom (by force, I will add) to
purchase cheaper alternatives in cars, computers, household goods of
all sorts.

Wow, Neo-"Libertaian" Protectionism. Just bloody wonderful.

I get this response:

Keeping Americans (by force, I will add) from purchasing
cheaper alternatives in labor, whether from Mexico or anywhere else, is
no different that denying them the freedom (by force, I will add) to
purchase cheaper alternatives in cars, computers, household goods of
all sorts.

Well, your blog is somewhat aptly named, I guess.  That logic is truly uncommon.

The scary quotes around illegals
was a nice touch, too. Using illegal immigrants to do labor reduces the
market pressure to mechanize the jobs in question so that individual
workers are more productive. Perhaps we would be better off with
cheaper alternatives to labor.

My further reply:

Silly, silly Mark.

First, those decisions are made by capitalists (hint: capital
investments), not by Neo-"Libertarian" theorists or central planners.
In other words, restricting Americans (by force, i.e., at gunpoint)
from purchasing labor at the lowest price they can obtain, such that
the inflated price suddenly makes capital investment a
bargain is no different than restricting their access to raw materials
or components (i.e., making them "illegal") at the lowest price they
can obtain, in hopes of achieving the same sort of result.

It’s all protectionism, and there isn’t any difference at all.

…Including
using sneers such as "illegal," which have no basis in economic or
ethical reality. If being able to see beyond such self-limiting,
mind-created, unreal restrictions down the the essentials of such
things is uncommon logic, then I’ll certainly bear that charge.