[quote=@Jotunn Draugr]
People with decent paying jobs shop and Walmart too. It's not a 1:1 ratio.
[/quote]

Oh yes of course, but they aren't going to start consuming more because people who are no longer in the country cease to consume. I'm not saying that Wal-Mart will fold without illegal immigrants, just saying that there will be a drop in consumption equal to the jobs opened up. This isn't an argument for or against illegal immigration (since, on the other hand, an increase in consumption via immigrants comes with an equal increase in new competitors for labor). All I am saying is this consumption gap negates the jobs created by chasing out illegal immigrants. 

[quote]What's wrong with stopping cheap goods from being imported from China? I shouldn't have to remind you that there was a time when such products were all made in America, and the economy was doing just fine.[/quote]

Again it's a negation thing. American access to manufacturing would increase, but because manufacturing would then need to pay American wages instead of Chinese slave wages, the cost of living would increase. So long as investors require a certain cut, Americans workers are going to have to make up the difference. 

And don't get me wrong, I love the idea of making shit in the US. I'm not exactly financially stable, but when I can do it, I love trying to stick to local shit. Keeping my own community up seems ideal. And, you know, gives me and my people access to employment But there are problems that come from legally mandated protectionism. Aside from the cost of living rise, we'd also lose equal access to foreign markets for our exports, since they'd all have to compensate with their own protectionist measures to protect their own markets, which would slow the global economy in turn. 

[quote]Well if there are any academic-level economic books on the subject, that you've personally read, you're welcome to cite them, and I'll give them a look.[/quote]

I've been vague here because economics is such a broad subject and there are so many directions you could go in. I personally liked Capital in the 21st century (I mean liked the theory, it's a fucking dull read), but that one is controversial. He puts the blame for our economic woes on wealth disparity, and though his solution is lackluster, his description of the economy just meshes more with how I have experienced it.

Regarding this discussion, really, Wealth of Nations is still relevant 200 years later. I think it is because of that book that most economists still scoff at protectionism, because that is the subject of his argument. 

[quote]I'm sure you're likewise aware that protectionism comes with tariffs on imported goods, meaning a Mexican thrown out of Tulsa, won't "steal another job in manufacturing", as there won't be any American manufacturing south of the border.[/quote]

We can't really gunboat our way out of the tariff problem liked we could in the 19th century. Back then we could get away with forcing people to buy our goods against their will so we could keep our tariffs high without our industry suffering as a result. 

But since the modern world makes that difficult to do, what would happen is those foreign markets would close themselves to our goods, so that the economy would dip from a loss of sales just as the cost of living starts to rise. Mexico would suffer the same result, as would anybody else involved, which would certainly destabilize Latin America. They'd have to respond to our tariff with a tariff though, to protect their own industry. 

Now doing this with Mexico would yield small results for the same reason I think illegal immigration is a small potato in our economic woes. But if we did that with China, especially if done awkwardly? That is downright dangerous. As in, worst case scenario [@Keyguyperson] gets his proletarian revolution dangerous. 

[quote]
I think you lost me a couple times. One was at the Chihuahua comment. If you don't mind, could you explain how exactly they're going to continue occupying American jobs when they're thrown out of the country? Likewise, what does "Latin America getting their shit together" have to do with this?[/quote]

Taking jobs producing for American companies via NAFTA.

Also, Latin America getting its shit together would fix the illegal immigration problem from the other direction. Latin America hemorrhages people now because Latin America is a mess that people want to flee from. Hell, fixing Northern Mexico might be enough, since they border us and are producing the lions share of the immigrants.