California Town Wants to Send Immigrants Back, But WSJ’s Jason Riley Makes the Case to Let Them In

Residents of Murrieta, California filled a high school gym on Wednesday night to protest the arrival of 140 immigrants from Texas facilities. On Tuesday protestors blocked a bus filled with immigrants from entering a Border Patrol facility in Murrieta (approx. 81 miles southeast of Los Angeles)—forcing officials to re-route the detainees to Chula Vista where some were hospitalized for scabies and fever. 

The current crisis on the border (an estimated 100,000 children and young adults are expected to enter the country this year) illustrates the broken immigration system in our country. While the Obama administration and Congress have failed thus far to tackle any serious immigration reform, the Wall Street Journal’s Jason L. Riley says we should consider an open borders approach to dealing with immigration. 

The WSJ columnist sat down with Nick Gillespie in 2008 to dispel some of the myths of immigration that he outlines in his book, “Let Them In: The Case for Open Borders.” Original air date was August 4, 2008 and the original writeup is below. 

The title of Jason L. Riley's new book helps explain why it has proven so controversial: Let Them In: The Case for Open Borders.

Let Them In is as exhaustively researched as it is eminently readable, Riley, a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board runs through all the anti-immigration arguments at play in today's heated political world—and finds them wanting.

Riley sat down earlier this summer with reason.tv's Nick Gillespie to discuss the leading myths about the causes and effects of immigration.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    They are not immigrants, they are illegals. My step-mother is an immigrant. She entered legally and jumped through all the right hoops and paid out the nose.

    I agree that the immigration system is broken, but until you get rid of the welfare state I am not willing to entertain open borders. The two are simply not compatible and imagining otherwise is naive and foolish.

    Get rid of the welfare state and I will be happy to champion open borders.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Get rid of the welfare state and I will be happy to champion legal drugs.

    Get rid of the welfare state and I will be happy to repeal sin taxes.

    Get rid of taxi regulations and I will be happy to champion ridesharing apps.

    See how stupid and immoral and toxic to liberty that is? This is why conservatives have to be kept at the kids table. They just fuck up everything.

    They are not immigrants, they are illegals. My step-mother is an immigrant. She entered legally and jumped through all the right hoops and paid out the nose.

    My grandma was treated unfairly, so now you do to!-conservaderp 'logic'

  • Dave C||

    Hey Orange Shreek, why do you care about American immigration laws? You're a fucking Canadian

  • Cytotoxic||

    BECAUSE I MIGHT WANT TO IMMIGRATE INTO AMERICA AND BECAUSE I CARE ABOUT FREEDOM

  • ||

    "My grandma was treated unfairly, so now you do to!-conservaderp 'logic'"

    Huh?

    I was pointing out that there are channels for legal immigration. They might be fucked up, but people do successfully navigate them.

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    Those hoops really shouldn't exist.

    Immigration is good for the country, in the same way it would be good for ANY country.

    Take the federal government out of the equation, and have each state decide how they want to handle immigrants personally. That's the ideal way to solve the issue.

    We'll end up with one to five states (hem hem Illinois hem hem) that just fucking LOVE immigrants.

    The decidedly conservative (hem hem Texas hem hem) states will probably opt to shut them out completely.

    But however the states decide to do these things, take the goddamn fedgov out of the goddamn equation, goddamnit!

  • ||

    I agree the hoops shouldn't exist.

    It should be much easier to immigrate.

  • DJF||

    Why, there is no liberty based right to travel.

    Property owners have the right to travel on their own property, others only do so with the permission of the property owners. They can ask, but they have no right to it.

  • MWG||

    There's also no liberty based right to free speech.

    Property owners have the right to free speech on their own property, others only do so with the permission of the property owners. They can ask, but they have no right to it.

    There's also no liberty based right to bear arms.

    Property owners have the right to bear arms on their own property, others only do so with the permission of the property owners. They can ask, but they have no right to it.

  • No Tulpa 4U||

    If you're a likely contributor to American society, yes it should be easier. We absolutely should not be making it easier for every bit of riff-raff to cross the border legally.

    Nearly every other industrialized country in the world has essentially that policy, yet somehow it's racist for the US to do it. Sure.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Nearly every other industrialized country in the world has essentially that policy

    Nearly ever other industrialized society is poorer than America and yes more racist (ie Europe)

  • No Tulpa 4U||

    Such as Canada? Even most Americans wouldn't be allowed to immigrate there. They would take me, but that's because I have a mind in demand.

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    So now we're basing our immigration policy on the ideal of "But mom, Germany does it! Why can't I do it?"

  • Rhywun||

    Since not even legal immigrants are entitled to welfare, I suppose what you really mean is get rid of things like public education and emergency room visits for illegals. Do you really see that happening, ever?

  • Lady Bertrum||

    Actually, illegals are eligible for welfare benefits in some states and their children under 18 are immediately eligible. And if they have children while in the US those kids are eligible as citizens.

  • Harun||

    This is another example of our government passing laws, and then deciding to not enforce them.

    There is actually very little enforcement of these rules, and other rules about working or hard time limits have all been relaxed.

    The laws are placed to placate the populace, and then the administrative state ignores them or cosmetically applies them.

  • Cytotoxic||

    The USG spends over 30 billion soothing the neurosis of borderites. I think that's plenty of enforcement.

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    It's easier to say "The USG spends 30 billion dollars harassing Americans within 100 miles of the border."

    They don't do that much work on illegal immigration.

  • SIV||

    Since not even legal immigrants are entitled to welfare

    Refugee/asylum immigrants are entitled to the full panoply of fed/state and local welfare benefits as soon as they set foot in the US.

  • DJF||

    Actually they are getting welfare right now, organization like Catholic Charities and Feed the Children who are giving food and shelter to the illegals are being paid with taxpayer dollars.

    They call themselves charities but they are just government contractors

  • tarran||

    So, Suthenboy, how long have you been such a fan of the welfare state?

  • ||

    "See how stupid and immoral and toxic to liberty that is? "

    No.

    Nice try y'all, but I am not buying it. Get rid of the fucking welfare state. I know they aren't eligible, but somehow I keep standing in line behind them while they pay their groceries with welfare cards, here and in Texas.

    Get rid of the fucking welfare state.

  • tarran||

    If immigrants are consuming welfare, then an opponent of the welfare state should be cheering open borders; more people would hasten the inevitable collapse of the unsustainable system.

  • ||

    Before it collapses state agents will be going door to door and holding people up by their ankles shaking ever last penny out of them.

    I am not entirely against the welfare state, but what we have is absurd. I am all for immigration. But the two are just not compatible.

  • No Tulpa 4U||

    tarran doesn't give a shit about results. All that matters is that his ideology is followed.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Before it collapses state agents will be going door to door and holding people up by their ankles shaking ever last penny out of them.

    That will happen anyway you are just deepening the fascism.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    What if more immigrants on public assistance doesn't collapse the system? What if we limp on for decades in socialist hell? The plan to accelerate the arrival of Libertopia by increasing socialist policies via open borders is fucking insane.

    Instead of getting a more free society we'll get a less free one.

  • ||

    when it collapses there will be blood in the streets. The free shit crowd won't stand for no more free shit and they will burn the country down. When the smoke clears there will be more of them than of us, and I have seen what that looks like. Try raising yourself up in a society like that and you get your head cut off.

    We will just end up another third-world shit hole.

  • Mike M.||

    And this is the precise goal of the Cloward-Piven Strategy.

  • No Tulpa 4U||

    Look at the bright side, at least there won't be any more income inequality.

  • Cytotoxic||

    How will the free shit crowd get so far when we have all the guns? Do you nativist types get off on your own melodrama?

  • No Tulpa 4U||

    I think he's talking about what happens if the democratic govt is still in control of the country and the desperately poor are a majority.

    If it comes to the point of "us" fighting off the welfare hordes with our guns, that means our society has already been destroyed and we're screwed regardless.

  • DJF||

    How about instead of collapsing the entire economy we just stop welfare.

    I really doubt if a libertarian state will appear after the collapse of the present system.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Well, the socialists seem to think that pouring more and more impoverished people from socialist societies into the system until it collapses will lead to Socialistopia. You think it will lead to Libertopia. I think it's going to look like a Romero movie, but who can say?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    somehow I keep standing in line behind them while they pay their groceries with welfare cards, here and in Texas

    You can tell with certainty someone's immigration status just by looking at them? I know some folks in INS who could hook you up with a job with your amazing psionic abilities.

  • No Tulpa 4U||

    You may be able to help too, HM, as you are so certain that no immigrants have access to welfare services in practice.

  • Cytotoxic||

    HUR DUR I'LL JUST RESTATE MY DEBUNKED TALKING POINT AD VERBATIM

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    Hodor.

  • buybuydandavis||

    but until you get rid of the welfare state I am not willing to entertain open borders.

    It's not all about welfare.

    When you import people, you import their values, and those values have an effect on you, particularly *when they vote*. Most of the world is less libertarian than the US. Keep up a steady stream of less libertarian people, get a less libertarian US.

  • Harvard||

    Don't entertain it until a fence is built. As Krauthammer observed, there is one around the White House indicating it must work to some degree.

    Line up at the gate and orderly immigration may begin.

  • ||

    Nothing says "free country" like a 50 foot electrified fence!

  • Cytotoxic||

    Krauthammer is an idiot. The equivalence between the WH fence and a massive reverse-Berlin Wall is even stupider than goat sandwiches. Holy shit conservatives love them some state control.

  • KevinP||

    Especially since the vast majority of Hispanic immigrants will vote for Democratic Party big government.

    Open immigration - making the US a less libertarian nation - one illegal at a time!

  • ant1sthenes||

    The notion of the demos in a democracy as "random collection of people living in a well-defined geographic area", as opposed to an actual "people", is what is broken. For a nation birthed in a revolt against feudal privilege, we still retain a hierarchy of authorities defined not by their people but by the land over which they are master.

    If governments were linked to communities rather than territory, then assimilation would be more important than any sort of physical migration.

  • ||

    I'll leave it to Don Boudreaux to respond to the Friedman argument on immigration:

    "[A]s far as I know Friedman never qualified his passionate, powerful, and principled case for drug legalization by claiming that legalization, while desirable in principle, is unworkable (or undesirable, or impractical, or unrealistic, or whatever) in a world with a U.S. welfare state. But it seems to me that if Friedman genuinely believed that the existence, and likely permanence, of a welfare state in America is a strong-enough reason to empower government to do what that government otherwise ought not do – in the case of immigration, forcibly prevent people from migrating to the United States – then he should also have qualified his argument for drug legalization with the same condition; namely, in the case of drugs, forcibly prevent people from getting high by whatever peaceful means they choose."

    http://cafehayek.com/2014/06/m.....again.html

  • blank||

    to do what that government otherwise ought not do – in the case of immigration, forcibly prevent people from migrating to the United States

    Okay, assuming the U.S. government decides to follow this principle and let us also assume that Russia surreptitiously declares a state of war with the U.S.. Part of their strategy is to have their Army "emigrate" from Russia to the U.S.. Russian immigrants pour across the border by the hundreds of thousands. They spend the next year building up their position and import all the necessary supplies for a protracted war. During this build up interval the Russian soldiers harm no one and legally acquire all their property and equipment.

    Now if we were to have open borders at what stage would the U.S. government be justified in intervening to prevent further immigration? Does the U.S. government and its citizens have to wait until hostilities formally commence?

  • ||

    Even under open borders, the US has the legitimate authority to prevent entry of individuals who are provable threats to the public. That includes carriers of contagion, terrorists, and foreign agents -- including individuals conspiring to wage war against the US or its people.

  • No Tulpa 4U||

    Ah, but who determines what constitutes "provable threats to the public"? (Let me guess, cosmotarians do!)

    Are people who intend to work for low wages and thus take Americans' jobs a provable threat to the existing American public?

    Are people flooding across the border who will vote for a third-world kleptocracy a provable threat to the existing American public?

  • No Tulpa 4U||

    He's massively begging the question there. There's no evidence that the existence of a welfare state causes drug abuse; there's a lot of evidence that the welfare state draws a lot of non-contributing people across open borders.

  • ||

    there's a lot of evidence that the welfare state draws a lot of non-contributing people across open borders.

    Citation needed.

  • ||

    He's full of it. There is no nation with open borders for him to even draw a data from. Most of the social services available in this country exclude illegal immigrants.

  • No Tulpa 4U||

    There is no nation with open borders for him to even draw a data from.

    LOL. We have to pass it to find out what's in it, eh?

    Or we could just extrapolate from what happens with our (de facto) semi-open border with Mexico. If people flood across when there's a risk of getting sent back, surely more will do so when there's no such risk.

    Most of the social services available in this country exclude illegal immigrants.

    And police brutality is illegal in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

  • ||

    Or we could just extrapolate from what happens with our (de facto) semi-open border with Mexico.

    Yes, we could. They come to the US to work.

    In fact, when the borders were more de facto open, they often came to work without their families and returned home after a few seasons or a few years.

    I know of zero evidence that the welfare state draws anyone.

  • No Tulpa 4U||

    Why do they come to the US to work? Do they enjoy digging ditches and picking fruit in the hot sun, and don't have the opportunity to get that kind of exercise in their home country?

    No. Those who come here to work are after MONEY. Not that there's anything wrong with that per se.

    But it seems pretty foolish to say that people come here because they can get money in return for work, but will not come here to get money for nothing. The sudden Cartesian skepticism that cosmotarians develop toward any argument against their sacred immigration cow notwithstanding.

  • ||

    Why do they come to the US to work? Do they enjoy digging ditches and picking fruit in the hot sun, and don't have the opportunity to get that kind of exercise in their home country?

    Since the US economy is more productive than their home country's economy, they are paid more for the same work.

    Is this news to you?

  • ||

    In a system of completely legal drugs there is absolutely an incentive to increase drug use by having a welfare state. In such an environment there would certainly be more people doing more drugs than they would absent it.

  • No Tulpa 4U||

    Justification? You're treading dangerously close to the drug warrior meme that the CSA is all that's holding America back from being swamped with drug abuse.

    If we legalized drugs tomorrow you still couldn't use food stamps or housing assistance, etc, to buy them. Drug use might go up due to them becoming cheaper, but that's unrelated to the existence of the welfare state.

  • Cytotoxic||

    The good news this that cryptocurrencies will make sending money back home cheaper for unauthorized immigrants, which will further incentivize more of it.

    On Tuesday protestors blocked a bus filled with immigrants from entering a Border Patrol facility

    They should have run those fuckers over.

  • C. Anacreon||

    A friend who volunteered for a food bank became disenchanted with it and is no longer involved. He said that just about the entire crowd who came to pick up food were clearly undocumented and didn't speak a word of English. No problem there, of course -- people need to eat.

    But what he learned is that they were using the food bank to get free food so they could send more money to their home country. Most were working and could easily have paid to feed themselves, but why not get as much as you can for free and spare your money for the Western Union wire.

    He's now volunteering in a shelter instead, where he says he feels like he's really helping people in need, rather than people gaming the system.

    I'm not passing judgment here, just telling you this guy's experience and point of view. I don't know how accurate it is or if it is replicated elsewhere vs just this one spot.

  • ||

    My step mother worked for the food bank here and ran into the same thing. She is from Peru and immigrated legally so it really burned her ass. Mine too. I used to donate to the food bank, but no longer.

  • lap83||

    Many of the people I know who are the most hard-lined against illegal immigration are legal immigrants. So isn't it plausible that open borders could have the unintended consequence of deterring much of the restricted immigration we're used to? Everything has trade offs.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Okay....they get to help their dependants in the home country more.

  • No Tulpa 4U||

    Because fraud is OK if you're an illegal immigrant. You're selling out the heart of libertarianism for a single issue.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Well, at least he doesn't have a personal stake in the... oh, wait.

  • OneOut||

    How many of them have you taken into your own home and provided for ?

    Even if your parents allowed it I doubt you would be willing to share your room with a little Guatemalan boy.

    Libtards are overly generous with other peoples money, but their own ?

    Neh, not so much.

  • Cytotoxic||

    WTFITS?

  • New Normal||

    You're all about liberty until somebody has a different set of beliefs then you, huh? This is why I can't take open border supporters seriously, all 16 of you.

  • Dweebston||

    So liberty now means embracing immigration restrictions? Liberty means respecting the opinions of people who want to see a fence installed along the southern border, at tremendous cost and questionable efficacy, to stem the tides of swarthy laborers?

  • No Tulpa 4U||

    Liberty certainly doesn't mesh with the government running protesters over with a bus.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Move bitch, get out the way

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....feature=kp

  • Harvard||

    You convince me a fence from Seattle to Maine is in order too.

  • Rhywun||

    Don't forget a wall along Alaska's border too. I don't think the fence people have thought this completely through.

  • No Tulpa 4U||

    We don't have an illegal immigration problem on that border, smarty.

    Next you'll argue against Burmese Python controls in Florida by wondering why we don't have Burmese Python controls in Alaska. Racism, probably.

  • Cytotoxic||

    You don't have a 'problem' on the other border either, beyond the USG's hyper-restrictionism on immigration law.

  • Ted S.||

    Does California want to send back the pot and ass-sex, too?

  • ||

    I think most of that is domestic.

  • Hawk Spitui||

    Based on the way they voted on one of those issues when they had the opportunity (not that it did them any good), I'd say the answer is yes.

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    If we make gays illegal, then there will be no more gays!

    Sigh.

  • Hawk Spitui||

    On Tuesday protestors blocked a bus filled with immigrants from entering a Border Patrol facility in Murrieta (approx. 81 miles southeast of Los Angeles)—forcing officials to re-route the detainees to Chula Vista where some were hospitalized for scabies and fever.

    There you go. Spreading the diseases Americans just won't spread!

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    I don't think that a person who isn't an American citizen has a natural right to enter the country.

    I believe that as a country attractive to immigrants, which has benefited from the contributions of hard-working migrants, the government should *choose* a liberal immigration policy.

    But that isn't to justify the retarded policy we have now.

    I don't know what a good immigration policy would look like, but I *do* know what a bad policy looks like, and we have one.

  • ||

    Part of my natural rights (the ones that exist in a state of nature) is being able to move freely on my own land and onto the land of those who will have me. Absent a state, and i's terrible immigration laws, these people would be free to come and enter at the pleasure of those who would have them.

    As it is now, if I buy land along the border and want to accept all comers onto it, I am not allowed. Tell me again how this doesn't violate MINE and THEIR natural rights?!

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Part of my natural rights (the ones that exist in a state of nature) is being able to move freely on my own land and onto the land of those who will have me

    That last part is the caveat; what if those on the other side don't actually want you or anyone else like you?

    As it is now, if I buy land along the border and want to accept all comers onto it, I am not allowed. Tell me again how this doesn't violate MINE and THEIR natural rights?!

    You know what you just described? A refugee camp. Go ahead and visit a few and tell me how wonderfully libertarian and socially stable they are.

  • Cytotoxic||

    So in your view America is a private club.

  • ||

    I don't think that a person who isn't an American citizen has a natural right to enter the country.

    Do you think that a person who is an American citizen has a natural right to enter the country?

    Given the definition of natural right, the answer must be "no".

  • No Tulpa 4U||

    With very few exceptions*, a person who is an American citizen has already been in the country and has roots put down here, legally and in good faith (ie property owned, membership in the community, etc). It's a very different situation from a person who either has never been here or perfidiously attached themselves after illegally entering the country previously.

    * all of whom are minors, to whom applying natural rights logic is always going to be problematic

  • ||

    Wow, your definition of natural rights differs a lot from mine.

    In particular, I believe natural rights are unalienable and endowed equally on all people by simple virtue of their being human.

    For you, it's a bit more... fuzzy.

  • lap83||

    Since open borders will never happen here, it would be great for open borders advocates to go off and found a nation where they could have that policy - just for curiosity and experimentation's sake. But since that isn't even a remote possibility in this country, will you guys PLEASE admit that amnesty and selective enforcement of immigration will only lead to one thing...and that isn't open borders, it's a permanent Dem majority.

  • No Tulpa 4U||

    Iraq has open borders. So does Somalia.

  • Cytotoxic||

    RETARD ALERT

  • AlmightyJB||

    It would be interesting to see what our immigration/border policy would be if our southwest border was instead the border of our northeastern states.

  • IceTrey||

    Just ending the WOD would solve 90% of this.

  • Hyperion||

    Do you want heroin dealers on your child's playground?

    Why do you hate the children?

  • No Tulpa 4U||

    Really?

    Obviously it would decimate the Mexican cartels, though they've diversified their service portfolio to include kidnappings and contract murders in recent years so it wouldn't eliminate them.

    It doesn't solve the problem of people crossing the border to live the American welfare dream.

  • ||

    Drug Cartels are an underground business for whom the vast majority of revenue and profit comes from illegal drug sales. Eliminating it would be like preventing Microsoft from selling Windows or Google from doing search. They will shrink to a size that is neither dangerous nor worrisome.

  • No Tulpa 4U||

    Assuming that for the sake of argument, as it's not the topic of the thread, repealing the CSA still doesn't solve the immigration-for-welfare problem.

  • Cytotoxic||

    repealing the CSA still doesn't solve the immigration-for-welfare problem.

    There's no evidence or logic indicating that this 'problem' exists or is a problem.

  • No Tulpa 4U||

    I bet you don't leave bits of cheese laying around in your kitchen, do you?

    Why not?

  • New Normal||

    Wow, a book from 2008 on immigration. That totally applies today since nothing at all has changed.

  • Hyperion||

    Interesting conversation in which there are no easy clear cut answers. I'm pro-immigration. But there are a lot of sides to this thing.

    First of all, I know some illegal immigrants. They all work hard and I would say that it's not possible to hire many Murikins that will work that hard for the money. I don't think any of them get government benefits, but I am not saying that they cannot(which I would oppose) And no, I don't know any of them that make less than minimum wage and I don't employ any of them myself. But I really don't care, I don't have too much respect for our current government, surprise surprise.

    The immigration system is totally draconian and fucked up. Do I think the government will fix it with any currently proposed legislation? Um, no. They will fuck it up 1000 times worse than it already is.

    Here's the problem with immigration reform. A majority of those pushing this so called reform, do not have the best interest of the country or the new immigrants in mind, they have nefarious reasons, at best, for wanting changes to current law. The Obama admin and their supporters want a new flock of sheep. The current sheep are getting all grouchy and are ill content. They might become trouble makers for their ruling elite class. So a new infusion of more obedient sheep would be just the fix.

    No good can come of this. If we want to talk immigration reform, then we need real people to talk about it, not establishment politicians.

  • l0b0t||

    Has anyone else read Moldbug's take on American castes (Brahmin, Dalit, Helot, Optimate, Vaisya)?

    http://unqualified-reservation.....tates.html

    And the caste conflict, of which immigration is a tactic?

    http://unqualified-reservation.....ct_07.html

  • MWG||

    Hey look, another immigration thread where a bunch of conservatives and nativists show up to bitch about the welfare state. Funny, people like southenboy and lap83 never argue against ending drug prohibition because of WELFAREZ! I wonder what the difference is...

  • No Tulpa 4U||

    Hey look, another immigration thread with cosmotarians insinuating that people are racists because they disagree with the cosmo position.

    You guys really ought to get along with the leftists.

  • MWG||

    Drink.

    Also, where did I insinuate racism?

  • No Tulpa 4U||

    "I wonder what the difference is..."

    Equivalent to the famous (and much overused) "You know who else did X" to evade Godwin's Law.

  • MWG||

    Actually, it's a legitimate question. If you're for prohibiting who people can associate with and where people can live because of the welfare state, why not prohibition on what people can put in their bodies because of the welfare state?

    Dense much?

  • No Tulpa 4U||

    If you're for prohibiting who people can associate with and where people can live because of the welfare state

    I am for prohibiting strawmen, but not because of the welfare state.

    Your freedom to associate with someone from another country does not imply an obligation on the govt's part to break the law so that the association can occur in a place convenient for you.

    I don't see anyone here arguing that there should be regulations on where people legally in the US can live, either.

  • MWG||

    "I am for prohibiting strawmen, but not because of the welfare state."

    Great non answer tulpa.

    "Your freedom to associate with someone from another country does not imply an obligation on the govt's part to break the law so that the association can occur in a place convenient for you."

    Your freedom to put any substance in your body does not imply an obligation on the govt's part to break the law so that can occur.

    See how that works?

  • No Tulpa 4U||

    You're not helping your claim to be innocent of race-baiting by calling your opponents nativists, either.

    You guys get so little pushback on your ideology at this place these days that any amount of opposition throws you into a tizzy.

  • MWG||

    "You're not helping your claim to be innocent of race-baiting by calling your opponents nativists, either."

    Keep avoiding the question moron.

  • No Tulpa 4U||

    And now morons. Do you have any other compelling rational argumentation to offer?

  • Cytotoxic||

    ITT, Tulpa gets his ass kicked by MWG and pulls every Tulpa move he can to try and damage control.

    Get wrecked Tulpa.

  • No Tulpa 4U||

    I guess I should be happy you're only advocating govt buses running over protesters now instead of Hellfires incinerating innocent women and children. You're taking that "Liberty or Death" thing a bit too literally.

  • No Tulpa 4U||

    There's a difference between controlling the border of a jurisdiction and controlling noncoercive activity inside it. Maybe not in libertarian idealism land, but here in the practical real world there is.

  • MWG||

    In Tulpa land North Korean style borders are ok. The government could keep us 100% isolated from the outside world so long as it doesn't violate our rights inside the borders.

    Slavery is freedom

  • No Tulpa 4U||

    That wouldn't be my preferred policy in any but the most desperate circumstances*, but I don't see how it's incompatible with minarchist territorial libertarianism. Libertarianism is silent on things that happen on both sides of an international border, as there's no dominant coercer to enforce the NAP.

    e.g. if we're hostile towards Mexico and need to intercept Mexican spies attempting to go back to their handlers; if a person is under suspicion for a crime and attempts to board a plane for France; etc.

  • No Tulpa 4U||

    So if I contract with Papa Johns 3 miles away to deliver me a pizza within 5 minutes of completion, but then it turns out that the speed limit on the road is only 30 MPH, that means the govt is interfering with my freedom to contract, freedom to associate, etc.?

    So I can demand that they allow Papa Johns drivers delivering my pizza to go at least 36 MPH, right? Consitutional rights are constitutional rights.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Probably that there aren't 5 billion+ drug users out there waiting to get a free ride on the gravy train.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Supporting open borders is simply a logical requirement of being pro-liberty, in much the same way that 2 + 2 = 4 is a logical requirement of being pro-mathematics. If you don't believe in open borders and amnesty, you hate freedom.

  • No Tulpa 4U||

    Cytotoxic est locuta.

  • DJF||

    Open borders = socialism.

  • MWG||

    Freedom = Slavery

  • ant1sthenes||

    Since the likely end result of open borders is the extinction of liberty through the creation of a massive unassimilated, voting underclass with no cultural ties to the values that make liberty possible, it seems like the sort of situation for which the phase "letting the perfect be the enemy of the good" was intended.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement