Home Community General Discussion Forum Immigration – Let them all in!

Immigration – Let them all in!

This topic contains 43 replies, has 21 voices, and was last updated by  Xerographica 1 month ago.

  • #6915
    Tyler
    GreedyCapitalistPig
    Participant

    In continuation of this video, I’d like to get more robust thoughts on our immigration policy. I’ve argued with several other of my conservative-libertarian buddies about throwing open the borders and they bring up some difficult problems.

    My ideal scenario: Border guards welcome anyone into the States with a simple question: “Do you want to be an US Citizen?” Upon receiving an affirmative indication, they are granted citizenship papers and pointed towards the nearest town with jobs with a heart “Welcome to the United States.”

    Problems:
    1) Do we want to let everyone in, including undesirables like convicted felons, drug addicts, etc.?
    I respond hesitantly yes, because they want to make a better life for themselves and we don’t want to start drawing that elitist line, though I’m secretly concerned about the drain they will have on society, which leads to…
    2) With the existing welfare state, opening the borders is a recipe for disaster. My buddies don’t want to deny people entry, but citing the higher and more prolonged usage of welfare services, they say we simply can’t afford to take in anyone.
    I respond by saying we shouldn’t blame the immigrants for our poor policy choices. Welfare, food stamps, medicare/Medicaid are all problems we should solve independently. However, that is still reality.
    3) If our borders are ill-defined, how do we defend them from hostiles? What’s to prevent an insurgency from slowly taking over parts of the country by (initial) peaceful immigration.
    I respond that’s already been done, and culture is changing all the time, but it’s not something our current immigration laws have solved, so what’s the problem?

    What do you think? Should we throw the borders open or take a slower, more balanced approach?

  • #6917
    James
    Jimmy Suitcase
    Participant

    Open borders only work when other Libertarian principles are adopted. You cannot possibly question whether they could become a drain on resources. There may be some convicted criminals who want to come here to create a better life, but there are many others who seek to take advantage of the system. One need only look at the dramatic growth of gangs in major cities. Until we can fix the welfare state, the borders should be closed.

    • #6934
      Rizvan
      R. M.
      Participant

      @ Jimmy Suitcase

      Until we can fix the welfare state, the borders should be closed

      This is so stupid. Following your logic, would you also admit that the war on drugs is a good thing (or at least something to be kept in place), since de-criminalising drugs now, with the current (partially)socialized healthcare system in the US, that would lead to higher taxes?

      Do you see why your comment is so stupid?

      • This reply was modified 1 year ago by Rizvan R. M..
    • #6939
      John
      Son Of Liberty
      Participant

      “<p>This is so stupid. Following your logic, would you also admit that the war on drugs is a good thing (or at least something to be kept in place), since de-criminalising drugs now, with the current (partially)socialized healthcare system in the US, that would lead to higher taxes?</p>
      <p> ”

      If that was indeed true that would be a valid argument. Allowing the government mass infringement of liberties to give a smaller population additional liberties isn’t exactly a noble exercise.

    • #6942
      Rizvan
      R. M.
      Participant

      @Son Of Liberty

      If that was indeed true that would be a valid argument. Allowing the government mass infringement of liberties to give a smaller population additional liberties isn’t exactly a noble exercise.

      Lol. Mexicans finding a job, and voluntarily interacting with private property owners is not an infringement of your liberties, you moron.

    • #6944
      John
      Son Of Liberty
      Participant

      Expanding the welfare state infringes on the liberty of the entire population. (those who have their property needlessly taken from them, the victims of poorly designed plans that were supposed to help them, etc)

    • #7427

      If you cannot make your case without calling people demeaning names, then I must assume your argument is just as insignificant as your (lack of) respect for others. Ain’t nobody got time for that.

    • #6989
      James
      TheCaniac
      Participant

      @R.M.

      With all due respect, your attempt at analogy fails. If we stopped the war on drugs, we’d have billions of extra dollars to spend on drug rehabilitation and prevention. If we stopped ILLEGAL immigration, we’d save money there, too. This money could be used to reduce taxes and pave the way for more investment and more jobs. More jobs would lead to more LEGAL immigration, which is both good and necessary.

      So, to answer you’re snotty question, no. Also, I think Milton Friedman and I are on the same page, so I guess he was stupid too.

      Try making your argument without the demeaning comments. They make you seem angry.

    • #8098
      Free
      Free_Folk Leader
      Participant

      <aside class=”bbp-reply-to-quote”><div class=”bbp-reply-to-attribution”>R. M. said:</div><div class=”bbp-reply-to-body”><p>@ Jimmy Suitcase</p>
      <p> <br />

      Until we can fix the welfare state, the borders should be closed</p>

      <p></p>
      <p>This is so stupid. Following your logic, would you also admit that the war on drugs is a good thing (or at least something to be kept in place), since de-criminalising drugs now, with the current (partially)socialized healthcare system in the US, that would lead to higher taxes?</p>
      <p>Do you see why your comment is so stupid?</p>

      <ul id=”bbp-reply-revision-log-6934″ class=”bbp-reply-revision-log”>

      <li id=”bbp-reply-revision-log-6934-item-6935″ class=”bbp-reply-revision-log-item”>
      This reply was modified 2 months, 3 weeks ago by Rizvan R. M..

      </div></aside>

      I don’t think the principle here is “apply X libertarian principle only after applying Y”. An open immigration is helpful only if the people come here thinking that their labor is more valued here, if they come here because there is good welfare it would destroy the local productive society.

    • #7128

      This is exactly what I used to believe too. However, evidence shows that support for the welfare state actually decreases when there is more immigration. Sweden is a great example. Increasing immigration would actually be a good strategy for weakening the welfare state.

    • #7163
      John
      Son Of Liberty
      Participant

      Could you expand on this ? Search engines are not bringing anything up.

    • #7197

      Hi Son of Liberty! Here’s a great article from Cato that I think helps illuminate my point: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/no-immigrants-wont-make-welfare-state-bigger?gclid=Cj0KEQjw_eu8BRDC-YLHusmTmMEBEiQArW6c-Hsv0CH6Tt5tFPmpcgGP0gvXsKNyoG3wjD3FaGxxcicaAjSx8P8HAQ
      The case of the United States seems to be somewhat different from Europe, but the evidence still shows that immigration does not necessarily lead to a larger welfare state and could actually lead to a smaller one.

    • #7428

      I would assume the challenge is not growth in direct welfare programs like the one in the Cato study (TANF), but the indirect costs of programs by increasing unskilled laborers into the society. Take for example public schools that are not allowed to turn away children based on immigration status (at least in Texas) and must provide low income children not only high quality schools, but extended care and food programs at no additional cost to the parents. Immigrants who are new to a community and usually live in low cost housing means that they only recently pay property taxes usually a very small share (due to the taxes being assessed on the value of housing), however, public schools are expected to provide their high costs services to everyone forcing a significant tax increase (and increased school debt) on private property owners. There are more problems with property taxes as a whole, but illegal and undocumented immigrants certainly exacerbate the problem. Also, the healthcare system (now in worse shape than every thanks to the ACA) is also not allowed to refuse care to illegal immigrants even if they cannot pay. Since there credit is not an issue for immigrants, there is no way to attempt to recover these costs at all. This creates an increased cost for insurance premiums to offset these write-offs and/or decreased quality of care. I’m not sure how these studies avoided these areas, but the public costs are large. Even Sweden as mentioned earlier that had huge advantages post WW2 to allow it to create and maintain an unusually high level of social programs is now caving under the burden of the costs of illegal immigration. Why? Because a large number of people are moving into the society and immediately using systems that others had previously paid for on the expectations of a smaller population growth. Considering the already tremendous challenges with an unsustainable medicare/medicaid and social security system, how is opening the borders going to solve these challenges or not make them worse? Assuming they are paying in, adding more low income beneficiaries of Medicaid and SS/disability continues to expand the problem. And if the immigrants are granted legal status and are filing tax forms with the IRS, the bottom 20% of IRS filers receive more in tax credits than they paid in (welfare via IRS) and the bottom 50% pay no federal income tax. So unless you are talking skilled immigration in the top 50% income bracket most immigrants are not even net contributors to federal income taxes.

      I typically see commentary on the benefits (or lack of challenges) of illegal immigration from States and regions that do not share a significant burden of illegal immigration. In Texas, the high costs are causing many communities to face significant financial challenges. The burden is difficult to quantify due to delayed or less transparent costs such as school funding and healthcare. These costs are being passed on to net taxpayers or those who have no choice but to pay their hospital bills.

      I believe in an independent Texas we will have a much more sane immigration policy. Perhaps one that doesn’t take nearly a decade and thousands of dollars to legally immigrate here. I believe there will be a low regulatory environment that values liberty, individual responsibility, and strong communities that work through privately funded non-profits to care for neighbors. In this case, those that want to be a part of the society can do so. Those that seek a nanny-state that will provide ample societal safety nets via a strong centralized government coupled with the inevitable loss of liberty will choose a country more suitable to that end.

  • #6921
    John
    Son Of Liberty
    Participant

    For your problem #1 I would say there is still a role for the government to play. Not all countries criminal systems are on the same level. While I hate the idea of discriminating against people just because they broke some law in the past, there are some legitimate murders, rapists, thieves, etc walking free in other countries due to the inadequacies of their criminal system. I don’t think someone who would be currently imprisoned under US law had they acted the way they did in the USA be allowed to freely immigrate.

    For problem #2 I disagree. I see it as a taxation and spending problem. If you want the government to spend you have to have the revenue to back it up. If the consequence of a social program is that we can’t afford immigration then we can’t afford immigration.

    For problem #3 I still say the borders should be well defined. One of the perfectly legitimate functions of the federal government is to secure the border in times of disease, unrest, and war. You can’t predict those things so you need a strong infrastructure already in place. That doesn’t mean recklessly spend however.

  • #6936
    Rizvan
    R. M.
    Participant

    All of your questions are brilliantly answered by Jason Brennan in this 10-15 minute video for Libertarianism.org: http://www.libertarianism.org/guides/lectures/immigration-rights

    You also can read the transcript below the video if you like text.

    • #6938
      John
      Son Of Liberty
      Participant

      <aside class=”bbp-reply-to-quote”><div class=”bbp-reply-to-attribution”>R. M. said:</div><div class=”bbp-reply-to-body”><p>All of your questions are brilliantly answered by Jason Brennan in this 10-15 minute video for Libertarianism.org: http://www.libertarianism.org/guides/lectures/immigration-rights</p>
      <p>You also can read the transcript below the video if you like text.</p>
      </div></aside>

      I watched the whole thing and he didn’t answer problem #1, #2 he answered from a libertarian perspective but that doesn’t address the political realities, and #3 he didn’t answer at all.

    • #6941
      Rizvan
      R. M.
      Participant

      I watched the whole thing and he didn’t answer problem #1, #2 he answered from a libertarian perspective but that doesn’t address the political realities, and #3 he didn’t answer at all.

      Lol. I watched the same video, and read the same transcript. so… Probably you have comprehension problems… or you have a distorted view of libertarianism.

    • #6945
      John
      Son Of Liberty
      Participant

      “Lol. I watched the same video, and read the same transcript. so… Probably you have comprehension problems… or you have a distorted view of libertarianism.”

      Talking about sample crime statistics doesn’t answer questions like should Khalid al-Mihdhar or Joaquín Guzmán be allowed to freely enter the USA. Saying you simply won’t have unsustainable welfare programs doesn’t answer the question of why the government (who has no intentions of doing so) would suddenly do so under open border immigration. And national defense wasn’t even addressed.

      “Immigration is a particularly difficult subject. There is no doubt that free and open immigration is the right policy in a libertarian state, but in a welfare state it is a different story: the supply of immigrants will become infinite. Your proposal that someone only be able to come for employment is a good one but it would not solve the problem completely. The real hitch is in denying social benefits to the immigrants who are here. That is very hard to do, much harder than you would think as we have found out in California. But nonetheless, we clearly want to move in the direction that you are talking about so this is a question of nitpicking, not of serious objection.” – Milton Friedman

    • #8428
      Chocolate
      Chocolate Thunder
      Participant

      <aside class=”bbp-reply-to-quote”><div class=”bbp-reply-to-attribution”>R. M. said:</div><div class=”bbp-reply-to-body”>All of your questions are brilliantly answered by Jason Brennan in this 10-15 minute video for Libertarianism.org: http://www.libertarianism.org/guides/lectures/immigration-rights

      You also can read the transcript below the video if you like text.

      </div></aside>

      I think the arguments made by Brennan regarding culture (which are very similar to Caplan’s), besides being insulting to people from North Dakota (such as myself), really don’t address the skeptics’ concerns. Indeed, he seems to completely misunderstand them. Those concerned about cultural changes due to mass immigration (at least the more sophisticated skeptics) are not worried about country music going away; they are concerned about whether major values of Western civilization – such as private property and limited government – are going to be undermined.

  • #6943
    Tyler
    GreedyCapitalistPig
    Participant

    Let’s elevate the level of conversation a bit. Two rational, reasonable people can disagree. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a fool.

  • #6948

    This is a very passionate debate! We love to see that on here, it’s why we made these forums. But i’d like for you all to remember the community guidelines we have posted. First and foremost to treat other community members with respect.

  • #6978

    There is some data that indicates illegals don’t actually place as much burden on welfare programs as many would believe.

    Although I would like to know, for example, how may illegals currently make less than minimum wage and how many would lose their jobs if they became legal(because of minimum wage laws). I imagine this could put a strain on welfare benefits.

    In general I think with how current current political/economic systems exist, it’s not possible to have an open border. We should definitely improve the current immigration system to allow not only more workers but workers for higher/mid/low skilled jobs etc.

  • #7026
    Rizvan
    R. M.
    Participant

    Some interesting links:

    Robert Higgs: Let’s try to clear up a widespread misunderstanding, amigos. The fence around your property and the walls of your house are not analogous to the borders established and defended by a nation-state. If you acquired your private property justly — by gift, inheritance, or voluntary purchase from the prior owner — you have a just right to defend it, to say who may come onto your land or enter your house. However, you have no right to make these decisions for your neighbors, whose rights are the same for their property as yours are for your property. http://archive.is/WwHFt

    – RESTRICTED IMMIGRATION IS NOT A LIBERTARIAN POSITION – A belief in freedom of movement is an essential part of being a Libertarian. Freedom of movement is a basic right, essential to any free society; it’s not a “privilege” granted by the State, particularly a privilege tied to cumbersome duties. https://rulingclass.wordpress.com/2010/06/19/restricted-immigration-is-not-a-libertarian-position/

    Libertarian Position on Immigration by Hogeye Bill — true libertarians apply the non-aggression principle, but anti-immigration quasi-libertarians start diverting, hand-waving, and hemming and hawing. The obvious NAP conclusion is that the State should not aggress against immigrants or travelers. Anti-immigrationists spurn this conclusion and begin spouting red herrings. They suddenly start talking like statist utilitarians, worrying about “artificial demographic shifts that would not occur in a free market” and the immorality of anti-discrimination laws and welfare laws, and voting patterns. Since they don’t like the predicted demographic results, they jettison the NAP! And then, they suggest a centrally controlled and enforced approximation of what they predict a free market would look like. The Soviet economic controllers of old would be proud! http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/rants/LibertarianImmigration.html

  • #7027
    Rizvan
    R. M.
    Participant

    Other interesting links:

    I Want Lew Rockwell to Be Libertarian on Immigration http://studentsforliberty.org/blog/2015/11/18/i-want-lew-rockwell-to-be-libertarian-on-immigration/

    Immigration Controls Are Socialist— Some Libertarians Have Forgotten. https://jakedesyllas.liberty.me/immigration-controls-are-socialist-some-libertarians-have-forgotten/

    “Public Property and the Libertarian Immigration Debate” By SIMON GUENZL http://libertarianpapers.org/article/7-guenzl-public-property-and-the-libertarian-immigration-debate/

  • #7103

    I resent referring to immigrants who’s only “crime” is not having completed some bureaucrat’s paperwork or working without the government’s approval as “illegals.” It’s degrading. Undocumented is far more respectful of their autonomy, and as libertarians, avoids giving unnecessary legitimacy to unjust laws like the United States’ draconian immigration laws.

    I agree with the points R.M. has made, if you claim to be a proponent of individual liberty and freedom you should endorse and defend the individuals right to travel freely without restriction as long as they aren’t aggressing against another’s right. And no, taking a job an American would otherwise have is not a crime.

  • #7106
    Chris
    Chris_Addy
    Participant

    Would you be able to clarify what you mean by “ill-defined borders”?

    Are you saying that immigration might make borders less defined in a technical sense, or do you mean culturally?

    It seems like you mean a sort of cultural shifting. Borders can be well-defined in a sort of “cartographic” sense if nothing else. The US can be pretty sure where their boundaries are.

    As far as culturally-speaking, if you look at the American Southwest, this is an area that has changed hands between governments for a long time.

    A libertarian view would suggest that two people who live 1 mile apart, share a culture, a history, and maybe even family should be free to interact. We would expect them to have roughly the same circumstances. But, imagine, there is a border between them. Now, they live under very different legal/economic systems. Would we not want there to be a way for them to pass freely between borders in order to better their lives? Especially since in every way except the law they are the same.

    I don’t imagine that borders will ever be ill-defined legally, since with good property protections everyone will know where their property begins and ends, and thus, collectively, countries will be able to tell where their borders are.

    And culturally, don’t we want borders to be ill-defined? Culture is spontaneous order that allows good ideas and customs to spread.

    • #8457
      Samuel
      Samarami
      Participant

      And culturally, don’t we want borders to be ill-defined? Culture is spontaneous order that allows good ideas and customs to spread.

      I’d say this rather sums up the quandary of “borders” nicely. If one is truly libertarian (anarchist), then s/he understands that borders are but fictitious lines in the sand. It is only psychopaths hiding under the mantle of “state” that declare borders, then prevent individuals from moving freely to work, visit and trade.

      Virtually all of us have been so inundated with state propaganda from infancy that it is challenging to envision liberty (“Unfettered, unregulated freedom” — most of us have developed vocabularies that incorporate slavery). Lew Rockwell evidently is not immune from that mental blockage.

      It never dawns upon most to think that, in a totally free marketplace, streets and highways will not only be much safer and better, but far, far less costly. In total freedom there will be roads leading from anywhere to everywhere. Why? Because commerce is profitable. It’s how all of us stay alive. But only if the sellers can find ways to get prospective buyers onto their property and next to their services and/or merchandise. And vice-versa, where the seller takes her products and/or services to the buyer.

      Sans government aggression, commerce will build highways. Trade will take place. People will move safely from place to place. Bad things will happen. Insurance and protection services will be marketed to cover and alleviate damages therefrom. Good Housekeeping, Underwriters Laboratories, Koshering agencies and other consumer services will abound for folks who want safe, clean environments and foods and high quality products.

      Think about the last time you visited a very large shopping mall. Were there guards or gatekeepers to keep you off their (private) roads and/or parking lots? No. Did they have problems with vandals and/or no-goodniks on their property? Sometimes. Most merchants find it advantageous to employ security and “public safety” people and equipment to sort out the wheat from the chaff, to keep their premises hospitable and habitable, and to assist people who might be having difficulties.

      Freedom is not such a complicated puzzle to solve. Watch small children playing — they solve the freedom conundrum easily and quickly. Sam

  • #7368

    Jacob Gaon
    Participant

    A lot of good thoughts to digest on this thread. I largely agree with the arguments expressed by GreedyCapitalistPig, Kelly@LearnLiberty, and even R. M. (minus his tone and ad hominem attacks). I’ll add my two cents and then throw in a question of my own for good measure.

    1) Do we want to let everyone in, including undesirables like convicted felons, drug addicts, etc.?

    As much as I like to think of myself as an open borders guy, I do believe in drawing the line at people with a proven propensity for law-breaking. With a generally open border and a few limitations focused on specific problems (criminals, terrorists, etc), we will maximize the probability that we get the sort of people we want to move to America–hard workers of any skill level–and minimize the probability that we are going to get troublemakers. At the same time, such a policy would still allow America’s economy to reach its Econ 101 supply/demand equilibrium.

    2) With the existing welfare state, opening the borders is a recipe for disaster. My buddies don’t want to deny people entry, but citing the higher and more prolonged usage of welfare services, they say we simply can’t afford to take in anyone.

    I don’t agree with the premise behind your question from an empirical standpoint. The existing welfare state is problematic, but, per studies from Cato and the Reason Foundation, increased immigration would have a minimal impact on the fiscal situation after taking into account the economic and tax benefits of such a policy. Then again, I don’t know what the future welfare state system will look like so you could very well be correct that our laws could change and welfare benefits (such as a situation where a healthcare “public option” is created and then non-citizen immigrants are given access to it). When the costs of providing welfare services to immigrants start to exceed the economic benefits of more immigration, then I will be more sympathetic to the argument against increasing immigration.

    Though you are of course correct that immigrants are not to blame for our poor welfare system decisions.

    3) If our borders are ill-defined, how do we defend them from hostiles? What’s to prevent an insurgency from slowly taking over parts of the country by (initial) peaceful immigration.

    That’s a tough question. I guess I’ll just cop out again and disagree with what I believe to be one of the implied premises behind your question. Two hundred years of immigration from multiple countries, including those with hostility towards the U.S. (German and Japanese immigrants to the U.S. in the years right before World War 2 in particular), leads me to believe that large numbers of immigrants will likely leave their old cultural and political allegiances behind and more or less assimilate into the American melting pot. At the same time, I sympathize with people who live in areas undergoing rapid demographic change even if I disagree with them that shutting off immigration is the correct answer to their problems.

    Ok, time for my question.

    4) It seems to me that people often project their beliefs about undocumented/illegal immigrants onto “invasive species” (the reaction to Asian carp is a good example of this phenomenon). But from a libertarian perspective, I believe that animals, and not just humans, should generally have the right to live wherever they please, subject to minor limitations designed to maximum human utility–of course with wild animals, animal control is necessary to ensure that humans be allowed to prosper. At the same time, is there a cogent libertarian argument for making a distinction between invasive species and “native” species? In other words, assuming that two species are equally beneficial to humans, is there a good reason for us to favor the native species over the non-native species?

  • #7845
    Samuel
    Samuel_Nazario
    Participant

    Can a nation be over populated? Could we allow 1 billion people to immigrate? Further, would it be possible then for 100 million Chinese, less than 1 10th of their population, immigrate and turn this into a communist nation?

    • #7846

      Jacob Gaon
      Participant

      What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

    • #7847
      Samuel
      Samuel_Nazario
      Participant

      <aside class=”bbp-reply-to-quote”><div class=”bbp-reply-to-attribution”>Jacob Gaon said:</div><div class=”bbp-reply-to-body”><p>What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?</p>
      </div></aside>

      I guess my point is that it isn’t radical for there to be a crisis were millions upon millions of people will want to enter the nation. Although it’d be nice to think they would respect our form of government, i also fear they may want it to reflect their ideals. Which could evolve our nation since their votes count too. Gradual immigration i think helps control that and expanding work visas is a good start.

  • #8097
    Free
    Free_Folk Leader
    Participant

    Can a nation be over populated? Could we allow 1 billion people to immigrate? Further, would it be possible then for 100 million Chinese, less than 1 10th of their population, immigrate and turn this into a communist nation?

    This reflects my fears too. Free markets and freedom require an government that would enforce basic contracts and defend various negative rights we have. But for such government to exist we need the society too which is predisposed towards liberty instead of big government programs.

    Immigration cuts both ways. It is immensely helpful economically at the same time Muslims will demand sharia law, Indians would demand government control of prices and Chinese would demand gun ban. Very soon the nation wont be as free as it was earlier.

  • #8240
    Mike
    mikefive
    Participant

    Regarding the question of overpopulation, I think there’s a reasonable libertarian answer to that. People won’t want to go to a place where there are SO many people. That would be crowded and undesirable. They’ll instead choose to go somewhere else. Spontaneous order would take care of it. At least theoretically.

    I think the “if you’re a libertarian, how could you want to restrict movement of people coming or going” is an unrealistic argument. This IS the United States. Mexico is Mexico and Canada is Canada. The world is NOT a free for all. It’s reasonable to want to limit entry against those who would come to do us harm or for sheer numbers. Now I understand there are potential gotchas with that. Nevertheless, there’s something to be said for that. If immigration was wide open, why wouldn’t some place like Mexico decide–instead of having jails–send all of their criminals to America? The incentive is there.

    My solution to multiple issues discussed here is to have a much more liberalized work visa program than we have now. If you want to come here to work, pretty much OK. But a key difference is that you’re not a US citizen. So that precludes you from access to entitlement systems. I’ve read that that’s already true with work visa people and welfare. Now the medical system part of it is more problematic, but I’d be inclined to say that you have to come up with a way to pay or forget it. Same with public schooling. And maybe this stuff is where I’m unrealistic, but I don’t want to make allowances for foreigners to benefit (by coming here to work and get paid) that makes everybody else pay for entitlements for them. And if that’s not a good enough deal, then stay home or go elsewhere.

  • #8287
    Chocolate
    Chocolate Thunder
    Participant

    My ideal scenario: Border guards welcome anyone into the States with a simple question: “Do you want to be an US Citizen?” Upon receiving an affirmative indication, they are granted citizenship papers and pointed towards the nearest town with jobs with a heart “Welcome to the United States.”

    What I’d like to address is the automatic conferring of citizenship upon entry. I don’t think this is necessary for the libertarian view and relaxing it may result in a more palatable policy to non-libertarians. That is, I think many people may be willing to get on board for more liberalized immigration if immigrants were not provided all of the rights and privileges of citizenship. Certain requirements or policy changes, such as voter non-eligibility, ineligibility for federal transfer programs, and allowing state and local governments the ability to decide whether they will be required to provide certain services, such as schooling or emergency medical care, to non-citizens could alleviate some of the concerns people have over increased immigration.

  • #8429
    Chocolate
    Chocolate Thunder
    Participant

    <aside class=”bbp-reply-to-quote”><div class=”bbp-reply-to-attribution”>R. M. said:</div><div class=”bbp-reply-to-body”><p>All of your questions are brilliantly answered by Jason Brennan in this 10-15 minute video for Libertarianism.org: http://www.libertarianism.org/guides/lectures/immigration-rights</p>
    <p>You also can read the transcript below the video if you like text.</p>
    </div></aside>

    I think the arguments made by Brennan regarding culture (which are very similar to Caplan’s), besides being insulting to people from North Dakota (such as myself), really don’t address the skeptics’ concerns. Indeed, he seems to completely misunderstand them. Those concerned about cultural changes due to mass immigration (at least the more sophisticated skeptics) are not worried about country music going away; they are concerned about whether major values of Western civilization – such as private property and limited government – are going to be undermined.

  • #8458
    Samuel
    Samarami
    Participant

    Late to this thread and forum, I suppose it would be appropriate to “…accept what is, and do without what ain’t…” As Mike Five commented, “…

    This IS the United States. Mexico is Mexico and Canada is Canada. The world is NOT a free for all

    …”

    But I’m old (81), the healthiest octogenarian in town (due to a lifestyle that would I’m sure look eccentric to you), and don’t have that much to lose by having fun promoting genuine freedom. So here I go:

    First, in watching and listening to the debate between Bryan Caplan and Jan Ting, if I’m paying for grandkids’ or great-grandkids’ schooling and have a choice, I’m insisting upon Caplan’s class. Ting is a “law-yer” — so there is no question but that everything he thinks and/or utters will stem from a statist mindset.

    Second, if you can’t see (to repeat what I stated in a separate comment) that borders are but fictitious lines in the sand, you’ll never grasp genuine liberty. The only — ONLY — “jurisdiction” is force of arms. I have to believe the man with the loaded gun. Or woman (L-rd have mercy!). There is one exception to that: the human family is the only legitimate governing unit — another thread for another topic probably on another forum.

    That resolved, free individuals moving about consuming and trading and exchanging labors with each other will present the greatest prosperity imaginable. Understand, “corporations” are functions of psychopaths who make up that phenomenon we like to call “the state“. “Monopolies” (“fat-cats”) can only exist by state sanction and “legislation“. A free market will keep industry and commerce condensed and lean.

    This “Trump” thing has been fun to watch unfold. Elected by the slimmest of margins, through a complicated phenomenon they call “electoral ‘college'”, it appears Clinton got more votes by close to a quarter of a million than did Trump.

    Last time I voted was 1964, for Barry Goldwater. That “learned” me. But keep in mind: Trump might just be the petard upon which the hoi polloi who got him “elected” are hoist. Read this: http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/anti-trump-us-color-revolution-includes-soros-and-clinton-purple-takeover/

    Regardless, my money sez Trump will never get his “wall”. As mentioned, I’m the healthiest 81 year-old you know; and I fully intend to see the day when all of us will walk across that fictitious line from San Diego to Brownsville “unfettered” (to use slave-speak). Sam

    • This reply was modified 8 months, 2 weeks ago by Samuel Samarami.
  • #8958
    Robert
    Rook
    Participant

    One thing I don’t really grasp is how people differentiate between native-born and foreign-born people as if this distinction has any inherent value.

    If a man is to be denied entry to a country based on his criminal history, then what is the justification for not revoking the citizenship of a native-born criminal with similar crimes? It simply does not make any sense. Of course I agree it is a good idea to set the bar higher for someone who wants to prove themselves worthy of living in a new community, but how much higher? And why the same standard should not apply to the native-born people? Why can they go on and on committing crimes without losing their citizenship, while foreign-born people can lose their right to stay because of smallest infractions?

    Even if someone opposes immigration based on economic arguments or social stability arguments, they should at least accept that they do not have the moral high ground in this debate. Not only that, the anti-immigration position is a deeply immoral one and one should strive to find reasons not to endorse such an immoral policy.

    • This reply was modified 6 months, 4 weeks ago by Robert Rook.
  • #8969
    Samuel
    Samarami
    Participant

    The important thing to keep foremost in the brain, Rook, is one basic understanding: the world about you is not a “free world”. Since the days of Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan and the very first “empires”, people have looked to emperors, kings, presidents, prime ministers, — “representatives” et al. — for “leadership”. It is that “voluntary compliance” that is the problem — not the emperors or the senators or the congressmen. Rulership is merely the consequence of ordinary individuals such as you and I who look to “leaders” for sanity and logic and reason. Ain’t a-gonna happen. “Voting” only adds fuel to the fire that has burned for thousands of years. The individual(s) who came up with “democracy” was a genius at keeping it aflame.

    The world revolves around MY belly-button, not yours. My world. Your world revolves around YOUR belly-button, whether you admit it or not. This rationale offers lots of personal freedom when you analyze it clearly. It is the foundation of anarchy.

    We don’t need the likes of Obama or Trump or Angela Merkel to make us “free”. Nor can they have significant effect on our NOT being free, when you keep the belly-button thesis in mind. It makes little sense to spend time and emotional energy thrashing about and wailing over things of which I have absolutely no control.

    I can abstain from beans (and voluntary compliance). If enough of us would do that, it will have an effect. But I’m too old to sit around waiting for a “critical mass” to come to their senses.

    The “Brexit”, “Trump” and “Renzi” votes might be an indication that a corner has been turned. The Internet Reformation is having its effect.

    It’s a fun time to be alive. Because I’ve learned that I can be free. Here. Today. Where I’m “at”. So can you.

    Sam

    • #9410
      Robert
      Rook
      Participant

      Sam, you are right. In the end, humans can always be free in some sense. One can always search and find reasons for her situation and her place in the world. Still, I have trouble forgetting Orwell’s vision of the mankind’s perpetual state (a face with a boot pressed on it).

      Going back to making sense of the world revolving around my belly button, I just logged on to Facebook after a long time and saw the great Bob Higgs had made the same point as mine a while ago. I guess I have learned something from the true libertarians after all!

  • #9081
    Gobind
    Display Name
    Participant

    whats the point of letting in immigrants if we cant keep our own citizens safe? saying we should let all the immigrants in including criminals is quite literally the same thing as saying you dont care about the people already living here

    • #9082
      Samuel
      Samarami
      Participant

      <aside class=”bbp-reply-to-quote”><div class=”bbp-reply-to-attribution”>Display Name said:</div><div class=”bbp-reply-to-body”><p>whats the point of letting in immigrants if we cant keep our own citizens safe? saying we should let all the immigrants in including criminals is quite literally the same thing as saying you dont care about the people already living here</p>
      </div></aside>

      I’d hate to disagree with you without knowing all the facts. For example, who is the “we”? And the “our” — and how do you define “citizen”??? In addition, I’m sure there might be “criminals” crossing fictitious lines — let’s say the center of what’s called “Red” river between what is now called “Oklahoma” and a place called “Texas”. Should “we” not allow them in? Texas, that is. Or the land mass many like to call “Texas”.

      Hard to present an argument if you can’t define terms.

  • #9611
    Joshua
    Joshua Hardy
    Participant

    I do not believe in unrestricted immigration.

    1. I believe that many immigrants take more from the system than they put in. http://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-Native-Households

    2. They often do not come from liberty loving cultures. Most people in most places are socialist. Keep them out. Often the reason their host country is so dismal is because of the values the immigrants hold.

    3. Immigration, improperly done, imports peoples from countries with low to non-existent antibiotic stewardship.

    4. Other cultures have different norms regarding everything from rape to contracts. It makes law difficult to apply, and the common law uncertain as it relies on shared values in a populace. The further values are apart, the more difficult they are to reconcile.

    5. In multicultural societies people vote their ethnic group, not according to ideals. The enlightenment is not universally loved.

    6. Trust breaks down in multi-ethnic communities. They don’t go to the same churches, attend the same ceremonies and have no common cultural code of ethics by which to operate.

  • #11091
    Roc
    Roc_1929
    Participant

    We need a pause in immigration. Our culture is being diluted and corrupted. Assimilation takes time.

    Until 1970 legal immigration was held to about 250,000 per year. There were strict rules for immigration and most of it was from Christian Europe which had a culture close to ours permitting easy assimilation.

    Today legal immigration is over one million per year: Many from countries hostile to American culture. Add to that illegal immigration and it won’t be long before native Americans are outnumbered.

    In 2016 the big story out of California was the water shortage. How will increasing CAs population solve the water shortage problem. Not to mention energy, transportation and on and on.

    Teddy Roosevelt said it best:
    “In the first place we should insist that the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equity with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace or origin. But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming an American and nothing but an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any flag of a nation to which we are hostile. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language…and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”

  • #11097

    Xerographica
    Participant

    The point of markets is to efficiently allocate resources… including people. In a market, resources are allocated by value signals… prices/wages/profits. The efficiency of the allocation depends on the accuracy of the signals. Because minimum wages are inaccurate signals, they inefficiently allocate people… especially poor people.

    The free movement of resources is only beneficial to the extent that they move to where they are most needed. Are unskilled workers most needed in the US? If so, where in the US are they most needed? The only way to know the true answers to these questions is to abolish the minimum wage.

    Abolishing the minimum wage is a really big challenge. What makes it so big is that even most libertarians don’t grasp the necessity of accurate value signals. So we first need to get our own house in order before we worry about the government.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.