Immigration

When Jeb Bush—and America—was GREAT on Immigration

|

The ability of people to move freely not just within our country but across the world should be one of the very highest values libertarians hold dear. Indeed, the freedom to exit any given system implies the right to show up somewhere else.

Nobody—and no country—owes you a job or welfare or whatever. But countries—free ones, anyway—should practice the sort of immigration policy the United States had for many years: If you make it to our borders, aren't a criminal or spreading infectious disease, and agree to live here peacefully and lawfully, you're welcome. That open borders policy helped make America good and great even as the nation acted abominably toward African Americans and native Americans. But open borders slowly and disturbingly gave way to explicitly racist exclusions, first of Chinese and Japanese, then of Jews, Italians, and other Europeans of undesireable descent. Now the ire of anti-immigrationists is directed first and foremost at Mexicans and Latin Americans. 

Among Republican hopefuls bidding for the 2016 presidential nomination, one candidate used to be pretty damn great on immigration. That's Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida, brother of George W., and son of George H.W. Jeb Bush is awful on many things, but his views on immigration should become the standard not just for the GOP but for all elected officials.

Bush is about to give a major policy speech in Detroit today. CNN reports that just a few years ago, Bush said a variety of statements that were openly pro-immigration and generally open-border. Such as:

"It's not possible in a free country to completely control the border without us losing our freedoms and liberties."…

"It just seems to me that maybe if you open up our doors in a fair way and unleashed the spirit of peoples' hard work, Detroit could become in really short order, one of the great American cities again," Bush said then. "Now it would look different, it wouldn't be Polish…But it would be just as powerful, just as exciting, just as dynamic. And that's what immigration does and to be fearful of this, it just seems bizarre to me."…

He said, during a discussion with Univision, that it was "ridiculous" to think that DREAMers, children brought to the U.S. by their parents illegally, shouldn't have an "accelerated path" to citizenship….

The tenor of CNN's piece isn't how great Bush is on immigration. It's how tough it's going to be for him to live down his record of having anything good to say about immigrants and immigration. 

"I'm just reading this stuff — wow," [conservative strategist Daniel Horowitz] said. "This is insane. Honestly, I don't take him seriously, because of [comments like] these and because of the Bush name it's very hard to see him getting anywhere in a primary."…

And it was the response to the comments from Brent Bozell, chairman of the conservative group ForAmerica.

"That thinking is utterly contrary to what grassroots Republicans believe. He is reflecting the viewpoint of the chamber of commerce and the businesses," he said.

Read the full article here.

I don't doubt that Brent Bozell—the longtime conservative figure who spends most of his time lambasting sitcoms and TV dramas for foul language and sexual innuendo—is absolutely right when he says that most Republicans think Bush is totally wrong on immigration. And I don't doubt that he's going to have a tough time winning the GOP nod.

But I also think Bush's past comments on immigration are right, both as a matter of morality and policy. Especially so with regards to places such as Detroit and other depressed parts of the country. These places don't suffer from too many migrants but from too few. When you look at the Rust Belt and other down-on-their-heels sections of the United States, they inevitably can't get anybody, whether U.S. citizens or from abroad, to move there. On a larger scale, the minute the United States stops being a destination for immigrants (and there are signs this is already happening) is the minute we've crested as not just a country but as an experiment in human flourishing. 

Liberals and Democrats tend to dislike immigration because they think cheap labor will undermine unions (which matter more than individuals) and wages. That's not true, but it's their argument. Conservatives and Republicans tend to stress the cultural disruptions created by non-English speakers and fret that newcomers will destroy democracy somehow because they eat with their hands or will vote Democratic. That's not true, either.

When libertarians go on the anti-immigrant warpath (and too many feel that way, even as they say they support an end to borders and limits on global trade in goods and services), they inevitably dust off the Milton Friedman quote about mass immigration being incompatible with the welfare state. Forget for the moment that immigrants consume public services at lower rates than native-born residents. If open borders—which operationalize the right of individuals to move freely around the planet—are incompatible with the welfare state, then get rid of the welfare state. Period. Full stop. In every other instance, libertarians will bemoan any increase in public expenditures but the nativists among us suddenly use it as an excuse to tell someone he can't freely cross an imaginary line in pursuit of happiness? Please.

And think about what Jeb Bush has said over the years about immigrants and immigration. Elsewhere, he has described immigration, including illegal immigration, as "an act of love," which it most certainly is. The greatest gift that all four of my grandparents gave my parents was to get the hell out of Ireland and Italy in the 1910s. Growing in Depression-era America was tough, fighting in World War II (as my father did) was tough, but being in America rather than old Europe made all the difference in the world.

Indeed, think about whatever generation of your ancestors was lucky enough to squeeze into the United States before we sadly, wrongly, and dumbly started to close our borders. For libertarians especially: Think about the insanity involved in thinking that a government which we all say can do nothing right is manipulating the total population and ethnic composition of a country that comprises hundred of millions of people and spans a continent. Countries that can't attract and keep migrants (ideological and geographical) are generally rotten places to live. So are political movements. 

Advertisement

NEXT: Why Is the DOJ Still Trying to Close a City-Supported Oakland Pot Dispensary?

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.

  1. “Now it would look different, it wouldn’t be Polish”

    You know who else said things which could be seen as offensive to Polish people?

    1. People who tell submarine with a screen door jokes?

    2. That barber from Gran Torino?

    3. Archie Bunker?

    4. Guy walks into a bar and asks the bartender if he wants to hear a Polack joke.

      Bartender says, ya see the bouncer over there? He’s a Polish. The two big guys at the end of the bar…both Polacks. The fella throwing darts is an amateur prizefighter and a Polack. Me, with the gun behind the bar, well I’m a Polack too. You still wanna tell your joke?

      Guy looks at the bartender and says, well, not if I’m gonna have to explain it five fucking times.

  2. I liked Gov. Bush a whole lot more than this guy, even though I’d still favor other potential presidential candidates for their politics and their non-connection to previous presidents.

  3. Forget for the moment that immigrants consume public services at lower rates than native-born residents.

    Why do you hate Appalachia, Nick?

      1. Excellent followup! Threat turned real!

        Yeehaw!

  4. Now if we could just get an abortion thread we could complete the trifecta of derp today.

    1. Yes, because the Teams arguing about whether federal spending should increase 2% or 3% is so productive.

      1. Does 8% sound better?

      2. Arguing about proposed spending being 40% over revenues is probably worth while.

  5. Could this issue be outflanked by issuing work permits liberally while requiring a period of good conduct as a condition for citizenship?

    1. That is basically Obama’s EO.

  6. We need a huge influx of young, able-bodied workers to come to the US to pay FICA taxes so I can collect my Social Security checks in 9 years.

    1. “Quick! He’s on to us!”

      Says the Border Patrol agent holding up the chain-link fence…

  7. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..04504.html

    Chris Christie says people should have choice in health care even when there is a very small chance they may transmit a contagious disease.

    Totally forgot about the woman he imprisoned in a tent because she treated people for Ebola in Africa.

  8. Every institution of value and persistence has a carrying capacity for new members.

    A military can accept 5% new recruits relative to its current size and maintain its standards. It cannot have a 50% yearly rate of new recruits while maintaining its discipline and cohesion.

    Likewise with immigration. There is a certain level of cultural cohesion and shared values which can be passed on to immigrants, provided that they are receptive and that the country’s institutions are effective at acculturation. IMO the US’ carrying capacity for such is greater than, say, China. However, it still exists and it is completely appropriate to have this in mind when constructing immigration policy. The US is still a nice place compared to most, and more free as well. One cannot expect this to persist in the face of open borders and the mass migration it would precipitate.

    1. Re: Immaculate Trouser,

      It cannot have a 50% yearly rate of new recruits while maintaining its discipline and cohesion.

      That’s because a military produces NOTHING.

      Likewise with immigration.

      You’re crackers. Immigrants produce. The military can only consume. You cannot compare the two.

      And that same argument could be applied to population control: “You see, unless we sterilize you, we’re going to lose cohesion! Immaculate Trouser told me so!”

      The US is still a nice place compared to most, and more free as well.

      If you mandate immigrant children to be locked up in brainwashing centers you call with a sick sense of humor “public schools” to be indoctrinated in Socialism, of COURSE you’re going to lose what you have, but that’s not an indictment on immigration.

      1. Immigrants produce.

        Sure, and if the interaction between immigrants selling their labor and businesses buying it were hermetically sealed-off from the rest of the country, that would be that. Since an immigrant brings far more than his labor, it is worth thinking about more than mere market mechanics — about voting patterns, respect and understanding for fundamental institutions, and any number of areas where an immigrant could change the country for the worse from the perspective of those who live there.

        And that same argument could be applied to population control

        Sure, if you ignore the enormous amounts of acculturation that native-born children undergo during their formative years.

        Frankly, this inheritance is probably one of the few things preventing the country from being Europe West.

        1. America has endured warnings of corruption by immigration for decades, and it’s been bullshit ever time.

    2. So we should limit freedom if it increases security.

      1. A minimum level of stability is a prerequisite to liberty. If someone told you that you could be free from any constraint for 5 minutes, afterwhich you would become a citizen of the USSR would you consider those 5 minutes of freedom meaningful? Would you trade the far less free US for those 5 minutes of freedom? I doubt it on both counts. Maintaining a stable point for liberty to exist is important for exercising said liberty in any meaningful sense.

        1. Where is your evidence that immigration in the U.S. has caused instability? Aside from the racists who attack school buses of immigrants, I mean.

          1. Where is your evidence that immigration in the U.S. has caused instability

            Instability in the sense of civil disorder, no.

            In terms of regularity of law, I’d suggest California as an example where immigration has profoundly affected the political culture.

            I do not see the slight and dubious benefit to liberty of completely open immigration as being worth the dismantling of a relatively liberal regime in the space of less than a generation.

            1. “I’d suggest California as an example where immigration has profoundly affected the political culture.”

              I would disagree. The derp in CA politics is native-born and runs deep. If there is an immigration problem affecting the liberty of CA, it’s immigrants from the Eastern Seaboard, not from abroad.

              1. The derp in CA politics is native-born and runs deep

                Sure, as a minority political expression California until a combination of native-born whites and the children of migrants were a large and stable enough voting base to propel it to politically dominance.

                1. Nope. It was all white liberals. To the extent that latinos vote dem it’s because the GOP there chased them over to their enemies.

                  Texas isn’t turning blue.

        2. Would you trade the far less free US for those 5 minutes of freedom?

          What is this even supposed to mean? There’s no such impossible situation involved here, so what is your point?

          1. Lifeboat ethics.

          2. Obfuscation.

    3. I know, this country went to hell once those damn Catholics showed up.

    4. There is a certain level of cultural cohesion and shared values which can be passed on to immigrants, provided that they are receptive and that the country’s institutions are effective at acculturation.

      And where’d you pull that horseshit from? What scientific study indicates that this is the case?

      Because I call bullshit.

      1. I find this passage entirely non-controversial, almost banal. What kind of scientific study do you want?

    5. America is not an institution.

  9. The greatest gift that all four of my grandparents gave my parents was to get the hell out of Ireland and Italy in the 1910s.

    Nick’s an Irish Wop? So his parents were cops on the mob’s payroll?

    1. Like, cop on *two* mob’s payroll – double corrupt.

    2. “Nick’s an Irish Wop? “

      Oh, man. they’re the worst. Drunken, disorganized criminals that beat each other senseless at the slightest provocation.

    3. As am I. My Italian side even had mob connections during Prohibition, and given my dad’s reticence to discuss my Irish side, I assume there’s a shady history there, too.

      Not as shady as actually being coppers, but something is up.

  10. I agree with most of the article. But, Nick, for the love of God, stop trotting out the “immigrants consume public services at lower rates than native-born residents” claim. The actual evidence is that low-income immigrants consume public services at lower rates than low-income native-born residents. However, low-income immigrants make up a larger portion of the immigrant population than low income native-born residents make up of the native-born population. Dalmia has completely and utterly butchered the evidence to make the claim and repeating it just compounds the problem.

    1. Re: Bill Dalasio,

      low-income immigrants make up a larger portion of the immigrant population than low income native-born residents make up of the native-born population.

      Maybe, but from there does NOT follow irremediably that the immigrant poor will consume MORE welfare than the native poor.

      1. I think that any discussion on open borders has to hammer on increased economic freedom. Like a lot of things libertarian this idea (open borders) needs help from other things to work.

      2. Not my point, OM.

        My point is that the claim that immigrants consume less welfare than the native population is just not supported by the evidence. The poor consume more welfare than the general population. Even if poor immigrants consume welfare at a lower rate than poor native-born (as I see no reason to assume they don’t), their rate of welfare consumption will still be higher than the general population as the higher immigrant poverty rate more than offsets the lower rate of welfare consumption of poor immigrants versus poor native-born.

        1. Its also worth noting that the low-income immigrants that concern you so have a significantly lower rate of criminality, have far higher social mobility than their native-born poor-peers *(with second and third generations typically being far, far ahead of the economic condition of their immigrant parents), and consume less social-services spending than the natives

          Your argument seems to rely on claiming the opposite is true, despite zero data supporting those claims.

          1. Good point.

            It has been observed that modern-day first-generation immigrants (in the US, anyways) tend to behave themselves far better in most cases than either the native-born of a similar socio-economic strata or than the second- and third-generation of same.

          2. *or rather…

            you’re claiming that the mere enlargement of the “poor” population via immigration seems sufficient reason for a restrictive immigration policy – despite the apples-apples profile of immigrants still being better than the domestic-poor.

            this seems to rely on ‘all else being equal’ in terms of Welfare benefits and policy, and that situation continuing into perpetuity despite obvious differences in the economic contribution and social-mobility of immigrant populations.

            In effect, you’re arguing that Manhattan should still be packed with hordes of indigent immigrant lice, because we imported all those unbelievably poor people who were obviously just going to stay poor and feed off society.

            1. you’re claiming that the mere enlargement of the “poor” population via immigration seems sufficient reason for a restrictive immigration policy

              Actually, no. I’m claiming that extrapolating from poor immigrants consume less social service spending than native-born poor to immigrants consume less social service spending than the native-born is just idiotic and makes you look innumerate.

              1. No one made the “extrapolation” you’re ‘refuting’ *(sans any actual argument)

                The point was simply, no matter how you measure it, they’re better than the native poor – and tend to contribute far more and far faster to economic growth.

                If you want to get into a “battle of the research data” on this point, I’m perfectly happy to oblige. I spent ~5 years consolidating research on 1st/2nd/3rd generation immigrant behavior and demographics for CPG companies, and as a whole, the data is consistent in showing that the net-net economic contribution is both (barely) positive in the near term, and over a longer term is far *better* than the native pop. Particularly in the 2nd/3rd gens*.

                (*there are some small urban communities where this has not been *as* true – but on a national scale its undeniable)

                I don’t personally make a case for reforming immigration *just because* it has net economic benefits. But it does. and trying to argue that the net long-term result is somehow negative won’t help you because the facts just aren’t there.

                1. No one made the “extrapolation” you’re ‘refuting’

                  Why, yes, Gilmore. You did.

                  and consume less social-services spending than the natives

                  Any “poor natives” in there, Gilmore? Because that’s what the link says.

                  Nope. I just see natives. Pretty much the same as Gillespie, although he has the excuse of not having had the problem pointed out to him ahead of time. And in the context of my comment, only aggregate profiles would be of any relevance.

                  It’s increasingly clear that you didn’t actually bother to read my comments. You’re spending more time arguing with the voices in your head than you are with me.

                  1. “Any “poor natives” in there, Gilmore? Because that’s what the link says.

                    I clarifed twice that was not what i’d intended

                    (e.g. “The point was simply, no matter how you measure it, they’re [economically & criminally] better than the native poor – and tend to contribute far more and far faster to economic growth.”)

                    and you keep pretending that the first misread-statement is the substance of the argument.

                    You also consistently avoid the further extensions of the basic point – that poor immigrants are both higher net-economic contributors relative to native poor populations, and additionally contibute vastly more in subsequent generations. i.e. despite being ‘barely positive’ in the initial profile, they are a significant source of future economic growth

                    If you wanted to actually deal with these points, you’ve had plenty of opportunity. Instead you’ve in at least 3 instances pretended that we’re talking about some Apples-oranges comparison and think that you’re winning some kind of nitpicking competition.

                    if you were serious about the subject at all you’d at least bother to address the data that fails to support your broad assumptions. Instead you pretend its not there.

                    1. if (sic) you were serious about the subject at all you’d at least bother to address the data that fails to support your broad assumptions.

                      What makes you so certain you have any fucking clue what my broad assumptions are? As far as I can tell, you’ve imputed whatever the fuck you felt like as being my broad assumptions. You clearly didn’t bother to read my comments. What started this entire line of comments was my criticism of Gillespie’s claim that immigrants consume public services at lower rates than native-born residents. I prefaced that specifically noting I agree with most of the article. You might consider that criticism “some kind of nitpicking competition”. Fine. Then I have to say I think it’s odd that you’ve gone on and on in response with all kinds of references only tangentially related. I don’t respond to them because I don’t have a problem with the claim that immigration contributes to the economy. I just don’t think that notion needs to butcher data to support it.

                    2. “I just don’t think that notion needs to butcher data to support it.”

                      The only person(s)* who seem to be insisting that poor immigrant populations are being compared to the “general population” rather than the “poor native population” are you and sidd finch.

                      Once its been clarified that the comparisons are actually being made between “poor immigrants” and “poor natives” – if there’s nothing more to discuss then…? why do you continue to claim anyone’s *butchering data*, when its apparent no one is doing that at all?

                    3. Jesus Fucking Christ. Yes, you were ‘butchering data’.

                      consume less social-services spending than the natives

                      has a very different meaning than

                      and consume less social-services spending than similarly situated natives

                      That’s why Cato, who’s paid to make the pro-immigration case, bothered to add those two words.

                    4. “That’s why Cato, who’s paid to make the pro-immigration case, bothered to add those two words.”

                      I added those words myself multiple times above. You and Bill harp on about there being confusion despite no one else being confused.

                      And BTW, Cato is not either the source of the raw data, nor the sole organization noting the improved economic profile of immigrants relative to native poor.

                    5. All those other papers also use phrases like “relative to native poor.”

                    6. The only person(s)* who seem to be insisting that poor immigrant populations are being compared to the “general population”….

                      Actually, that’s not what I’m suggesting. I’m suggesting the comparison of poor immigrant and native populations is being improperly extrapolated to the general population.

                      Poor immigrants consume less social service spending than than poor natives.

                      What the fuck does that have to do with whether increasing immigration will increase the burden for social services? That was, after all, the issue this claim was raised to refute.

                      The truth is, not a damned thing. It only makes sense to raise the claim if you’re extrapolating to the general population. Otherwise, all you’re saying is “but immigrants are nice”. I really don’t think you’re that stupid (although you’re acting it). The claim is completely beside the point when asking whether admitting additional immigrants will increase the social service burden.

                      This is just basic calculus.

                    7. “What the fuck does that have to do with whether increasing immigration will increase the burden for social services? “

                      A great deal, when you’re assuming that immigrants are a net economic drain in perpetuity, when most studies have shown that even entirely-off-the-books illegal immigrants are still a (minor) net positive in terms of their tax contribution versus their net drain on services, and over the longer period are significantly greater net contributors when the economic growth of their offspring is considered

                      “Otherwise, all you’re saying is “but immigrants are nice”. “

                      That would seem to be what you want to project on my statements.

                      You’ve ignored the same point above repeated 3 different ways. Try again.

          3. Your argument seems to rely on claiming the opposite is true, despite zero data supporting those claims.

            No, Gilmore, my argument is that, like Gillespie and Dalmia, you’re butchering the data. The data does not say they consume less social services spending than natives. It says they consume less social services spending than poor natives. Christ, did you even fucking bother to read my comment, or did you just go off half-cocked after looking at the stuff in bold-face? You repeated exactly the error I chided Gillespie and Dalmia for.

            1. “ou repeated exactly the error I chided Gillespie and Dalmia for.”

              No, you keep claiming people are saying something they arent. See above.

              1. Forget for the moment that immigrants consume public services at lower rates than native-born residents.

                Where does Gillespie note the low-income comparison?

          4. with second and third generations typically being far, far ahead of the economic condition of their immigrant parents

            This is the progressive gambit. Make a claim that sounds happy feely and is in some ways true, and force the opponent to be the racist who points out that Mexican immigrants don’t improve into the third generation.

            and consume less social-services spending than the natives

            This is the Cytotoxic gambit. Hope your opponent hasn’t read your link.

            1. ” Make a claim that sounds happy feely and is in some ways true”

              You make it sound like “evaluating facts” must have an ulterior motive if it draws unpopular conclusions.

              If you wanted to actually submit facts that undermine the point …

              (*you allude to the idea that ‘mexicans’ are somehow exceptional and do not follow the patterns observed across decades of other immigrant populations)

              … you’re perfectly welcome to. I promise no one will call you racist

              (*unless you just link to some bullshit anecdotal data generated by anti-immigrant groups that tell you what you want to hear)

              1. you allude to the idea that ‘mexicans’ are somehow exceptional and do not follow the patterns observed across decades of other immigrant populations

                What ‘immigrant populations’? Were there Mexican quotas forcing Mexicans to concentrate in a New York college where they began churning out Nobel Prizes. Is that a reasonable expectation, because of “decades of other immigrant populations”?

                http://www.amazon.com/Generati…..0871548496

                1. “Link to book” /= suitable replacement for stating your argument clearly

                  1. Standard Libertarian Argument – All future immigrant groups will be basically the same as circa early 1900 Italians and Irish. (There’s rarely a ‘because’ and when there is it’s always ‘not racist’)

                    My Argument – Mexicans didn’t start washing up on the North side of the Rio Grande around the time of those Cheech and Chong movies. We actually have longitudinal data going back 5 generations and Mexican Americans are much poorer, do much worse academically etc., than those cherry picked groups. Improvement stalls at the second generation. There’s a state that sounds like it’s chock a block with Mexican Americans and it always turns up on those worst states lists. That’s not an argument against Mexican immigration; just an acknowledgement of what should be plain as day.

                    I’m sorry that you couldn’t be bothered to read that three paragraph summary.

                    1. “Improvement stalls at the second generation.”

                      The times i’ve seen people make this argument re: Mexicans in particular, its *them* who are cherry picking selected groups of urban-mexican populations and then extrapolating their conditions over a population of millions spread out across the country, for whom the data does not tend to show any significant difference in second-generation effects.

                      did you have a source for that?

                    2. Why don’t you give me a link showing that second or third generation Mexican Americans do as well as various European and Asian immigrant groups.

                    3. “Improvement stalls at the second generation.”

                      actually, the studies i’ve looked for tend to say that “assimilation” has stalled for many second-generation mexican-americans (relative to the rates of other historical populations)

                      Not that there is *no* economic-progress beyond the condition of gen 1…or that 2nd-generation mexican-americans aren’t net-net still economically superior and more upwardly mobile than their similarly disadvantaged native-peers.

                      The criteria these studies tend to focus on are ‘language adoption’, ‘educational attainment’, and ‘earnings growth’; and tend to highlight ‘relative growth’ rather than their absolute condition.

                      the super-rapid growth between generation 1 and 2 is noted = then a steep fall-off where generation 3 etc. is only modestly improved compared to historical immigrant populations where the 3rd generation typically would be indistinguishable from an ‘average american’

                      and the data people tend to compare, BTW, isn’t some 19th century BS, but more like 1920-1970s immigrant generations. pre-and post WWII.

                      These observations are all legit – but they still don’t necessarily suggest any actual difference due to some peculiar characteristics of Mexicans rather than different societal patterns that have emerged *due* to the creation of a massive undocumented Mexican population in the US, for whom ‘lack of assimilation’ isnt so much a cultural ‘choice’ but actual fact imposed on their population due to their legal status.

                    4. the super-rapid growth between generation 1 and 2 is noted = then a steep fall-off where generation 3 etc. is only modestly improved compared to historical immigrant populations where the 3rd generation typically would be indistinguishable from an ‘average american’

                      Yea, that’s what I said.

                      As to your last paragraph, explain New Mexico.

                    5. “explain New Mexico.”

                      Uh, its what Old Mexico would eventually look like if we annexed it?

                    6. ‘Mexicans in America tend to be like Mexicans in Mexico’ is my argument. You can’t have it.

            2. “This is the Cytotoxic gambit. Hope your opponent hasn’t read your link”

              Which you *didn’t”?

              “Low-income (family income below 200% of poverty line) non-citizen children and adults utilize Medicaid, SNAP, cash assistance, and SSI at a generally lower rate than comparable low-income native-born citizen children and adults, and the average value of public benefits received per person is generally lower for non-citizens than for natives. Because of the lower benefit utilization rates and the lower average benefit value for low-income non-citizen immigrants, the cost of public benefits to non citizens is substantially less than the cost of equivalent benefits to the native-born.”

              Does that make it less Gambit-y?

              1. Gilmore – ” consume less social-services spending than the natives”

                Cato – “at a generally lower rate than comparable low-income native-born citizen children and adults”

                1. Also, that study classifies children of immigrants as natives. That’s not ‘wrong’ but there’s a reason they did that.

                2. that was copy pasting, and you’re reiterating the same niggling point re: Bill above. If you want to, read the above and see why that point is a waste of time.

                  1. LOL sure the difference between ‘better than the poor’ and ‘better than average’ is a “niggling point.”

            3. Fuck you. I read my links. Don’t confuse me with PB.

              1. I’ve corrected you three times on your misunderstanding of that same study.

                1. Given that Gilmore has torn apart your misunderstanding of the study in question I find that quite laughable.

                  I am fully aware that the study is adjusted for income.

                  1. Gilmore’s argument was to quote the study saying something else. Funny what ‘torn apart your misunderstanding’ means to cult members.

                    1. “Gilmore’s argument was to quote the study saying something else.”

                      see above

                      if you had any actual argument rather than play “gotcha” over you and bill’s “missing word” game… you would have made it.

                      Oh, right = Mexicans. You did.

                    2. “This is the progressive gambit. Make a claim that sounds happy feely and is in some ways true, and force the opponent to be the racist who points out that Mexican immigrants don’t improve into the third generation.

                      This is the Cytotoxic gambit. Hope your opponent hasn’t read your link.”

                      I called the shit out of this.

                      Also, LOL at calling out a lie = “gotcha”.

                    3. Since you’re sticking with the niggling missing-word claim that make you and bill both look like morons above…

                      “Mexican immigrants don’t improve into the third generation.”

                      1) they’re not “immigrants” anymore by the 3rd generation

                      2) you are describing ‘a slowdown in the rates of economic & cultureal assimilation’ as “Do Not Improve“, a mischaracterization which is far more misleading and inaccurate than the actual point of contention re: difference between immigrant populations and the native-poor.

                      I congratulate you on your self-declared victory, however. it was a fine showing that the entire substance of your non-point on immigration policy could be reduced to “Mexicans”.

                    4. You’re jihad against proper language is fucking crazy. Watch this shit:

                      re 1) You’re right. My bad.

                      That book makes the case that 2nd generation native Mexican Americans do not improve and that 3rd generation regress. If you have a link that says something different, I’m all ears.

                      And your point is that everybody in the world who moves somewhere else is an “immigrant” therefore they’re basically those other immigrants 100 years ago, and anyone who notices that our largest immigrant group isn’t like that at all hates Mexicans. Yawn.

                    5. “Sidd Finch v2.01|2.4.15 @ 4:22PM|#

                      You’re[sp] jihad against proper language is fucking crazy

                      Said the person who just spent an hour trying to convince himself that the omission of a word was a “lie” and was “butchering data” despite repeated clarification about exactly the point being made.

                    6. ” anyone who notices that our largest immigrant group isn’t like that at all”

                      Actually, the “immigrant group” and their kids very much *are* like that.

                      You case has been that later(3rd)-generations are failing to live up to past promise

                      Not all data shows that

                      Whether that is or is not the case writ-large rather than in isolated cases* still says nothing about “immigration policy” – it says something about the kids of Mexican-American citizens.

                      (*again, the “unassimilated” population i’ve read about – and done research on myself – are largely confined to specific ‘sub-communities’ around urban areas where you effectively have ethnic conclaves)

                      The fact is that a huge slice of the US labor population are the children of immigrants. we need immigrants. Your POV seems more an argument in favor of policies *aiding assimilation* of Mexican-American citizens rather than having any broad “Immigration policy” take-away.

        2. The poor are not some monolithic group that stays poor forever. With respect to immigrants, many of them take advantage of American liberty much more than natives. That’s why you see so many businesses that are run by immigrants. Yeah, some come because “everything’s free in America,” but many come for the opportunity. Or what’s left of it anyway.

          1. No disagreement, sarcasmic. The truth is, you don’t have to butcher the data to make the case for immigration. That’s why folks like Gilmore, Gillespie and Dalmia ought to refrain from doing so.

            1. See above

    2. I largely agree with the article too but think the casual disregard for the existence of the welfare state in the third to last paragraph is foolish. Even if you accept for the sake of argument that immigrants consume public services at lower rates than natives, that’s like saying “well, we’ve got this hole in our boat, see…but we’re only going to make it SLIGHTLY LARGER, so let’s ignore the hole and talk about the clearly pressing need for a new outboard motor.”

      1. But immigration does not make that hole larger. The cash is getting spent anyway.

        1. If total collected taxes exceeds new outlays, you mean? Numbers aside (which I believe largely do support greater immigration), my concern is more greater societal support for the institution of welfare. I poorly articulated it below with Gilmore but I worry that, regardless of taxes/outlays, adding raw numbers to social services further cements the notion that such services are “okay.” Use some of the rhetoric on immigration today (“are we REALLY going to deport 12 million people, separate families, etc.”) and apply it to a debate about ending welfare.

          1. “my concern is more greater societal support for the institution of welfare. “

            The “societal support” claim is an even worse can of worms than the ‘relative costs of immigrants versus natives’-issue.

            Because when you start imputing all sorts of ‘social attitudes’ to millions of immigrants by dint of ‘where they’re from’/demographic characteristics? you can pretty much just jump straight to the “BUT THE POPE WILL RUN AMERICA?!”-knownothing argument.

    3. So get rid of welfare.

      1. 100% with you. But that’s my point. Nick seems to be saying “who cares how many more folks get added to the rolls in the meantime.”

        I don’t care about cultural assimilation or values or any of that bullshit. I care about throwing good money after bad. Saying “no immigration until welfare is abolished” (oversimplification) doesn’t make me a nativist.

        1. Well, this same argument can be employed for all sorts of horrible policies.

          “Well, I would be all for gun ownership, but since we have the War on Drugs fueling criminal violence… ”

          “Well, I would normally be all for allowing people to eat/drink whatever they like, but since I might end up paying for their healthcare…”

          etc

          1. First, check the parenthetical. I totally acknowledge the statement is an oversimplification. Second, my point is the logic Nick is applying seems to be “I’m placing a greater value on immigration than I am on the need to stop propping up one of the largest rationales for government theft.” Same value judgments required in your examples. Third, we are talking about (current) non-citizens being added to the mix. If you don’t believe in borders and nations, fine. Otherwise you’re examples here are slightly non-sequiturs. Lastly, my major point is that the “nativist” label seems to be creeping awfully close to the “racist” scream used to bludgeon any dissent or nuanced debate from an absolutist “open the border” stance.

        2. “Saying “no immigration until welfare is abolished” (oversimplification) doesn’t make me a nativist”

          No, but using a dishonest rhetorical gimmick* as a replacement for a merit-based argument certainly suggests your reasons aren’t “Logic” so much as general antipathy to immigration writ large.

          *because a) welfare is obviously not going away overnight, so you by default get to claim that ‘Zero Immigration’ makes any sense without having to say why, and b) entirely avoids the point that immigrant populations *use less welfare* than poor natives, and contribute more to the net economy, both in the near term and particularly over time.

          1. Is anyone actually arguing for zero immigration? I’d say I’m one of the most skeptical on here of the libertarian arguments RE: immigration, and I’d actually prefer an immigration regime whose effects would likely lead to an increase in immigration over the status quo.

            1. “Is anyone actually arguing for zero immigration? “

              I dont know. That phrase (“until you end the welfare state…”) has often been used as a general replacement for any articulation of actual desired policy-reform.

              As i note below re: the ‘open borders’ canard – i’m not sure *I* have the appropriate ‘libertarian’ view on immigration, since i don’t think “open borders” is either a fair description or even a sensible idea…

              …I’m not even sure if the reforms I think would make sense would result in *more* immigration.

              Because like “drug legalization” not creating hordes of drug-zombies… we already have tons of illegal immigration. I dont know if legalizing the currently-illegal will have any effect on the net future growth of immigrant populations. I think improving and streamlining the system might even result in more outflow as well as inflow, since there would be less fear of legal status issues being threatened.

          2. G, I’m absolutely not saying we should have no immigration until welfare is abolished. My parenthetical obviously wasn’t strong enough. And I completely agree with your below comment that the world has not come to a crashing halt with the current illegal immigration levels. I guess I have two points. 1. Nick seems to be essentially saying what you criticize me of: “Welfare isn’t going to go away overnight, so by default let’s not use that as a rationale for restricting immigration.” 2. Whenever any of us now brings up how adding numbers to the welfare rolls necessarily makes it more difficult to eliminate the institution of welfare, the “nativist” label is getting used in an eerily similar way to that which the “racist” label is trotted out by others when they don’t like their positions questioned.

            1. I think this =

              “adding numbers to the welfare rolls necessarily makes it more difficult to eliminate the institution of welfare,”

              is a much better (and clearer) argument

              – however a problem arises when you insist that there is some kind of necessary link between these two subjects (*immigration policy and welfare reform) that makes it impossible to make any kind of policy reforms *without* achieving commensurate structural reforms in the other.

              its simply demanding a framework for policy-analysis that scuttles the boat before you’ve left shore.

              As i pointed out – you could ‘legalize’ all the illegals in the country right now, and it would hardly make the slightest fucking difference in terms of welfare costs = the illegals already suck up benefits what they can, and contribute to SS without deducting from it. legalizing them would have modest impacts on ‘costs’ at best, and the savings from dismantling our shitty immigration system are not exactly minor either (*what is the cost of a deportation? $5bn a year/12,000 per candidate?)

              I’m just pointing out that conflating the two policy-issues is a conscious rhetorical choice by many immigration opponents in an attempt to cut off any kind of detail-oriented debate.

              1. Fair criticism. And I agree with you that an absolutist position of “can’t have ANY of THIS until I have ALL of THAT” doesn’t get us one inch to a solution. I don’t know if I’d go so far as to say there’s no necessary link between these (or other) policies though. Even if not causal, I’d be interested to see what the political calculus is (the often searched for “grand bargains”). Whether that’s too pragmatic an approach for the teams, I don’t know.

                1. “. I don’t know if I’d go so far as to say there’s no necessary link between these (or other) policies though”

                  No one is saying there’s *not*. that’s just the reverse of the absolutist-argument.

                  i think the economic case for reducing the immigration barriers is strong enough to warrant a serious re-think by many people.

                  unfortunately, like climate-science, this whole issue is now so loaded with reams of activist-sociology work that its hard to parse the cooked-up arguments from the raw data.

                  The short of it is that the USA needs immigrants or else we go the direction of EU and Russia, where the state simply serves to provide retirement benefits for the rich old people, but has no young labor force actually around to feed the system and keep the economy thriving. Millenials aren’t exactly churning out babies.

                  This will require reform of welfare and our entire entitlement regime. And soon. Immigration is certainly tied into a major part of it. but the discussion needs to be on how we can make incremental improvements in a better direction rather than turning any reform at all into a series of ideological hills to die on.

    4. It’s been demonstrated that poor immigrants ‘push’ poor natives up the income ladder.

  11. The question is this – will the GOP fall in line with the Bush open border faction or the Tom Tandredo anti-immigrant faction? And who will represent the latter in 2016?

    1. Bush open border faction

      wut?

    2. That would be Tom TanCredo, I believe.

      1. So who will be the Tom Tancredo of 2016? I really don’t know.

        Since this is so important to the GOP base shouldn’t one of the candidates be priming this pump?

        1. Why the hell would you care who the “tom tancredo” should be when said person didn’t even have a viable shot at being ‘a close 3rd-choice’ for the nomination?

          if all you care about is the spectrum of candidates on the GOP side (for what? shits and giggles?)… i’m sure someone will step up to fit the bill as ‘most border-hawkish’. But why should it matter? At best the leading candidates will take marginally different variations of =

          Everyone should have a fair chance in America, but we must ensure a secure border for our country’s future to remain strong, and we should not provide incentives for people to ‘cut the line’…“-type rhetoric.

      2. Who was the 2012 GOP candidate that wanted to build a border moat?

  12. ” If you make it to our borders, aren’t a criminal or spreading infectious disease, and agree to live here peacefully and lawfully, you’re welcome. That open borders policy…””

    That doesn’t actually strike me as an “open borders” policy, so much as the state is unconcerned with regulating the net inflow/outflow of immigrants/emigrants. The state still discriminates who is allowed into the country based on some basic health/safety criteria.

    I think if there’s going to be an ‘immigration debate’, then it should be acknowledged at the beginning that the differences between libertarians and others are far more a matter of ‘degree’ than of ‘kind’ – there is still ‘a border’, and there is still a regulatory role for the state to play. The term “open borders” is a silly canard that positions libertarians as idealist absolutists. I’m not sure its a useful term to describe what we’d find to be “a better way”, any more than a libertarian would describe Criminal Justice Reform/Ending the Drug War as “Eliminating Prisons”

  13. Probably just me.

    But I really want the title to be :

    When Jeb Bush – and America – were GREAT

    The hyphenation just isn’t achieving any significant parentheticalization to me. So it reads like plain ole verb noun disagreement. Like he was a Brit or something.

    1. It’s not just you. Great article, bad headline.

  14. Think about the insanity involved in thinking that a government which we all say can do nothing right is manipulating the total population and ethnic composition of a country that comprises hundred of millions of people and spans a continent.

    I must be insane. About 86% of other US citizens are insane too. Fuck, the Japanese and Swiss must be totally insane. The ethnic composition of this, or any country, would seem to be very relevant to its political and economic nature.

    1. Based on what?

    2. The Swiss are not as homogenous as you think.

      Also, Japan is circling the drain.

      1. The Swiss are not as homogenous as you think.

        OK, they have Tina Turner, and Bowie (I think).

        Japan has the welfare-state pyramid-scheme demographic problem. They lightening their population without an aggressive one-child policy. That hurts, but what is wrong with that?

        1. What’s wrong? What’s wrong is that their country is literally dying off while holding up a crushing debt burden and a two-decade economic depression, with a lack of immigration being a prime culprit for all of that.

      2. “The Swiss are not as homogenous as you think.”

        Dirty Romange and Frenchies!!!

    3. The ethnic composition of this, or any country, would seem to be very relevant to its political and economic nature.

      Yes. It appears that countries dominated by one ethnic group have a greater tendency towards collectivism ex Sweden, France, much of Europe

  15. In every other instance, libertarians will bemoan any increase in public expenditures but the nativists among us suddenly use it as an excuse to tell someone he can’t freely cross an imaginary line in pursuit of happiness? Please.

    Nice one, Nick. Right. On. The. Money.

    1. an excuse to tell someone he can’t freely cross an imaginary line in pursuit of happiness

      Does this apply to your property line? I thought not.

      1. Ah yes, this insanely tiresome and mendacious analogy that is utterly bullshit. A national border is not a private property line.

        1. But it IS an imaginary line.

        2. So state institutions – schools, libraries, courthouses, the Capitol, the White House – cannot restrict access because they do not have private property lines?

          1. What state institutions?

            1. My name’s HeteroPatriarch and I love to kick the can down the street.

              1. Wasn’t your last post argumentum ad populum mixed in with some casual polygenism?

          2. What does this have to do with borders?

            1. Land that is publicly owned restricts access just as privately owned property restricts access. Every property that borders a foreign country is either publicly owned or privately owned, and both have the right to restrict access.

              1. You’re assuming land that is publicly owned has the right to restrict access.

              2. But no one aside from the original private owners of the public property, or the people taxed to develop the property, can be said to have any ‘right’ to it.

                The private property owner who restricts access to their property is acting prudently and within their rights. The public property authority who restricts access is acting prudently but not within their rights.

                1. the people taxed to develop the property, can be said to have any ‘right’ to it.

                  Elected officials representing the taxpayers thus have the right to restrict access to public property. Agreed.

                  Government doesn’t have many legitimate functions. Managing public property is one of them.

                  1. Elected officials representing the taxpayers thus have the right to restrict access to public property. Agreed.

                    Now you have to find that copy of the social contract with my signature on it.

                    Government doesn’t have many legitimate functions. Managing public property is one of them.

                    A mugger doesn’t have many legitimate functions, but disposing of his loot is one of them.

    2. That mindset Nick is referring to is akin to handing the ball off on the five yard line to the best running back in football, and then after the best running back in football brings the ball to the one yard line you inexplicably throw a slant pattern.

      Borders are the goal-line slant patterns of libertarian positions?

      1. Wilson threw the ball ahead of the receiver who was already in the end-zone as if he were going to run somewhere with it. If your from Seattle that’s called bad luck.

      2. League-wide, how many slant patterns from inside the 5 were intercepted last year? I know the number from the 1 yard line was exactly 1 — the last pass of the year.

        Yes Lockette should have turned his body instead of reaching his hands. Yes Wilson should have stomach-leveled the pass if not back-shouldered it — though that risks it bouncing up off a shoulderpad.

        But Lynch had been stopped several that game times with zero or negative yards. And with 20 seconds to go that would not have been good.

        I’m sorry. Did you have a point?

        1. The Seahawks were massively overrated?

    3. Yeah, that was a good one.

  16. “That thinking is utterly contrary to what grassroots Republicans believe. He is reflecting the viewpoint of the chamber of commerce and the businesses,”

    Who cares about “grassroots” Republicans?

    It will be ol’ Jeb and Marco in 2016. For Florida!

  17. Indeed, the freedom to exit any given system implies the right to show up somewhere else.

    um… what!?

    1. Wherever you go, there you are.

      1. But nobody goes there anymore, it’s too crowded.

  18. Open borders or a Welfare State.

    Pick one.

    1. Open borders. Was this supposed to be hard?

      1. Winner!

  19. If you make it to our borders, aren’t a criminal or spreading infectious disease, and agree to live here peacefully and lawfully, you’re welcome.

    In other words, Top Men will be the sorting hats for entry. That’s hardly fully open borders.

    And how does this not contradict:

    The ability of people to move freely not just within our country but across the world should be one of the very highest values libertarians hold dear. Indeed, the freedom to exit any given system implies the right to show up somewhere else

    .

    1. In other words, Top Men will be the sorting hats for entry.

      Wow, that is some epic projection. Isn’t anyone, such as yourself, who says restrict immigration, asking for even more of a TOP MEN sorting hats for entry situation? I mean, how is what Nick stated in any way more statist and TOP MEN-y than what you want?

      1. Nick is being inconsistent.

        Since we have publicly held property the decision as to whom to admit is a public decision, hence we will have Top Men choosing whether we like it or not. Setting the criteria for entry must also be a public decision, and should take into account the interests of the populace. It is Congress’ job.

        1. No one has rights to stolen property nor any property rightfully belonging to someone else.

          1. Define ‘stolen’.

            In nature, property–territory– changes ownership when the holder is too old or weak to keep challengers from taking all or parts of the territory.

        2. Choosing who can enter a courthouse or an air force base is a public decision.

          Choosing who can enter the a vast territory of millions of parcels of private property connected by rights of way is decidedly not.

          1. Choosing who can enter a courthouse or an air force base is a public decision.

            It’s a practical decision.

            Choosing who can enter the a vast territory of millions of parcels of private property connected by rights of way is decidedly not.

            Expropriation isn’t the same thing as an easement. Those properties the roads are built upon belong rightfully to whomever they were stolen from and if they or their heirs are not in existence, then ‘right’ to the roads belongs to the people that were taxed to build them.

            Regardless of whether or not you agree with the inherent ‘right’ of the public property authority to regulate the road, the fact remains that anyone who doesn’t fall into one of the aforementioned categories cannot be said to have a ‘right’ to the public property, even if it is ‘fair’ that they be allowed to use it.

            1. A critical component of the bundle of rights that come with a property is access to that property. Hence rights of way developed over centuries of common law.

              …’right’ to the roads belongs to the people that were taxed to build them.

              If the road is a right of way, the people did not build it: they improved it. They may be compensated by users for the improvement: they may not rightfully prohibit travel on it.

              1. A critical component of the bundle of rights that come with a property is access to that property. Hence rights of way developed over centuries of common law.

                That’s an easement and it pertains to a relationship solely between the relevant property owners, not unrelated third parties.

                If the road is a right of way, the people did not build it: they improved it.

                But a public road isn’t a ‘right of way’ like an easement is. A public road is almost always expropriated property and is therefore irrelevant to the common law relationships between property titles.

                They may be compensated by users for the improvement: they may not rightfully prohibit travel on it.

                A privately owned road can be ‘rightfully’ restricted. A publicly owned road can’t ‘rightfully’ have anything done with it aside from reverting to proper owners, but in reality the possessor should probably should make some limited* restrictions, but as is the case with any stolen property, possession doesn’t necessarily confer rights.

                People who are more practical than principled (not to say that you are) should feel relieved that the government will prudently regulate the road with the same aggression with which they financed and acquired it. But as a matter of ‘rightful’ restrictions, rules and prohibitions, only private property owners are capable of doing that.

                1. *any resource monopolized by the state should really have the most minimal of restrictions placed on it, otherwise the political strings that can be attached to the provision of those artificially scarce resources would amount to an injustice to those whom are denied access and grant the government an enormous amount of undue influence.

                  1. A publicly owned road can’t ‘rightfully’ have anything done with it aside from reverting to proper owners, but in reality the possessor should probably should make some limited* restrictions, but as is the case with any stolen property, possession doesn’t necessarily confer rights.

                    You seem to be suggesting that all public property has been stolen from someone. Can you describe the larceny better? Yellowstone park – who owned it before the govt stole it? All of the Louisiana purchase was stolen from whom? By your reasoning Native Americans own everything – but of course we are not sure they didn’t steal it from someone else.

                    Why can’t public property have rightful restrictions? Are these properties not owned by various govt bodies?

                    1. You seem to be suggesting that all public property has been stolen from someone. Can you describe the larceny better?

                      Theft of property is an involuntary transfer not seized on basis of the owner having been duly convicted of some valid crime. The only case where public property would possibly not constitute theft is where the owner voluntary donates the property to the state and even that legitimacy will only last as long as it takes the first tax dollar to be spent on the management of that property.

                      Yellowstone park – who owned it before the govt stole it?

                      Unowned nature can be appropriated but even in the case of unowned land, the government finances their appropriation with stolen loot which makes the appropriation illegitimate.

                      All of the Louisiana purchase was stolen from whom?

                      Ostensibly it was a purchase. In reality it may be considered a purchase of stolen property if it can be proved that the previous inhabitants had any rightful claim to some or all of the land themselves.

                      The fact that it would be nearly impossible to either track down the rightful individual heirs or break from all years of title transfers et cetera, means that rightful possession would in that case revert to the current possessor, unless the possessor acquired or maintained the land by criminal means themselves.

                    2. By your reasoning Native Americans own everything

                      Not everything. They’d only own what they could prove (burden of proof belongs to the claimant) they are the legitimate owners of.

                      but of course we are not sure they didn’t steal it from someone else.

                      I don’t think we’re going to find those previous owners either, thus the current non-criminal possessor becomes the legitimate owner.

                      Why can’t public property have rightful restrictions?

                      A criminal has no rights to property he has stolen or otherwise acquired by way of his crime.

                      Are these properties not owned by various govt bodies?

                      Criminal organizations claim ownership yes, but since at the very least theft is used to maintain these properties, they are not the legitimate owner.

    2. Once again…

      Open borders means entry is denied only for a specific reason individually applied to the prospective immigrant. The onus is on the government to prove the prospective immigrant is a threat to the public. Exceeding the quota of similar prospective immigrants doesn’t count.

      Closed borders means entry is allowed only at the government’s pleasure. The onus is on the immigrant to prove he qualifies for one of a limited number of some class of visa.

      At Ellis Island prior to World War I, 100% of first and second class passengers and 98% of lower class passengers were allowed entry. That’s open borders.

      In the US today, there are upwards of 500,000 illegal immigrants annually but only 5000 general purpose visas they could qualify for. That’s closed borders.

  20. the freedom to exit any given system implies the right to show up somewhere else.

    The freedom to exit implies no such right elsewhere. If “elsewhere” is private property you don’t own, you have no rights to it. If “elsewhere” is public property, only the people with ‘rights’ to that property are the people from whom the taxes and/or land was taken.

    Emigration is a right, immigration is a privilege.

    1. So if I am one of the people whose taxes paid for “public” property, can I invite immigrants onto it, or are you just flailing around for logical support for closed borders?

      1. So if I am one of the people whose taxes paid for “public” property, can I invite immigrants onto it, or are you just flailing around for logical support for closed borders?

        I’m not making any policy suggestions. I’m just saying that there logically can’t exist a right predicated on either trespassing or stolen property. Saying that a right built on such shaky foundations does exist would just be you flailing around for support for positive liberties.

      2. “who’s”, dammit. I screwed up on “you’re” upthread. Wherez the edit button?

        1. “Whose” is correct.

          1. I stand corrected on that, HP.

            http://www.elearnenglishlangua…..-vs-whose/

            “Whose’ works when the contraction of ‘who is’ doesn’t.

    2. …immigration is a privilege.

      Was “Unfree Society” taken?

      1. I think it’s supposed to be ironic.

      2. Was “Doesn’t Make Arguments” taken?

        1. What right do you or the government have to prevent a foreigner I invite onto my property from getting there?

          1. None, but your invitation is a privilege not a right. Does every foreigner have a right to your invitation?

            1. No. But I have a right to make an invitation to every foreigner.

              1. I’m glad you came around.

              2. I think you and FS and me are all on the same page. FS takes some issue with Nick’s overly-broad statement that anyone can join anything anywhere.

                1. I think you and FS and me are all on the same page. FS takes some issue with Nick’s overly-broad statement that anyone can join anything anywhere.

                  Yeah I’m not fundamentally opposed to free immigration, my wife is an immigrant. I’m just against forced association and violating property rights. Pursuant to that, I oppose any notion that a person has an automatic right to the property of others, whether privately held or stolen.

            2. By the way, the symmetric relation of “a has a right to invite b” is “b has a right to invite a”, not “b has a right to be invited by a”.

              1. By the way, the symmetric relation of “a has a right to invite b” is “b has a right to invite a”, not “b has a right to be invited by a”.

                Which necessarily means the invitee doesn’t haven’t a ‘right’ to immigrate somewhere, merely a right to emigrate from anywhere.

                1. Ah, okay. I think Cytotoxic is correct. We do agree here.

                  I just take it as more or less given that in a territory of 300 million people, someone somewhere will be willing to rent an apartment to a foreigner.

                  1. I just take it as more or less given that in a territory of 300 million people, someone somewhere will be willing to rent an apartment to a foreigner.

                    Yes assuming all else is equal, the relevant property owner is the sole legitimate authority about immigration. Again I’m not taking any policy position, just pointing out the logical invalidity of immigration as a natural right.

                  2. I think Cytotoxic is correct.

                    I usually am.

  21. Holy fuck, the anti-immigrant mongoloids are even more tiresome when they’re offended. Good for Nick for trying to drive them off.

    1. Amen. I’m happy that libertarianism is attracting more of our brethren from the Right (all are welcome, all are welcome!) but I’m also glad organizations like Reason are here to try civilize the barbarian philosophical immigrants.

    2. If he drives them off, then who bring home the bacon to us?

  22. Very nice article from Nick one the best he’s put out in a while. It is good to see writers other than Shikha bang this drum.

    Friedman was simply wrong about immigration and the welfare state. The welfare state is non-sustainable, period. Immigration or no. BTW Canada has a higher rate of legal immigration and a welfare state and hasn’t crashed and burned. Indeed, we are better off economically than America.

    1. Open borders is an idea espoused by incoherent thinkers and supported by their gruber followers, and it has nothing to do with Libertarianism.

  23. ” If you make it to our borders, aren’t a criminal or spreading infectious disease, and agree to live here peacefully and lawfully, you’re welcome. ”

    Doesn’t this imply that the State would have at least strong “control” of the border even if it did have a very liberal entry/exit policy?

  24. The ability of people to move freely not just within our country but across the world should be one of the very highest values libertarians hold dear.

    Why?

    Nothing else on the planet moves ‘freely’. Every animal has a territory that it guards from competition and destruction. Every single one.

    Libertarians hold property rights so dear because of this–it is a firm example that property is a right ingrained in us, as in all animals.

    And yet this tiresome point, this point that undermines one of the very bases of libertarianism–this point that is so obviously tacked on to libertarianism from those who see property as theft is endlessly paraded forth as some kind of libertarian ideal.

    It’s not.

  25. What Gillespie leaves out of his open borders arguament is the fact that the federal mafia controls the economy through regulation and has systematically been destroying jobs and economic opportunity her for the last 60 years while raising the costs of being a citizen for an even longer period of time. That leaves less for legal citizens who are already here and has increased the cost and taking of social welfare to where it is now a crippling expense. In addition, the balkanization of our citizenry through the insidious spread of PC “diversity” has helped to destroy the “American” community and family.

    So I may be a Libertarian, but I do not support open borders or H1-B visas. Rather I support high fines and even imprisonment for hiring illegals and the immediate arrest and deportation of illegals. Once we start enforcing our existing employment laws, the jobs for illegals will disappear and most of them will leave on their own.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.