Rand Paul

Rand Paul's Statue-of-Liberty-Sized Immigration Contradiction

He wants to protect civil liberties from the drug war but not the immigration war

|

Those who think that Rand Paul is some heroic champion of civil liberties thanks to his filibusters against drone

Rand Paul Smirk
Gage Skidmore / Foter / CC BY-SA

strikes and NSA surveillance ought to think again.

There is no functional difference between the war on drugs and the war on immigration. Both use the power of the state to go after the supposed perpetrators of victimless "crimes" (actually, in the case of immigration, the "crimes" are not only victimless, but have only beneficiaries) while running roughshod over civil liberties and decimating minority communities.

Yet Paul opposes the drug war and supports the immigration war, I note in my column at The Week. He went before the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and chastised his party's harsh anti-immigration talk in 2013 – only to join in with a vengeance:

After getting elected, one of Paul's first acts was to co-sponsor a bill to end birthright citizenship to deal with the putative scourge of "anchor babies." He opposed the Senate's comprehensive immigration reform bill because it refused to attach his draconian Trust and Verify amendment.

This amendment demanded "100 percent incarceration for all visa overstays or illegal entrants until trial" — even if that meant effectively orphaning the American kids of undocumented parents. What's more, it required Congress to authorize that the border was satisfactorily secured every year for five years before key immigration reforms could go forward. This was an impossible requirement that allowed Paul to be for immigration reform while sabotaging it. It was tantamount to conditioning the end of the drug war on congressional authorization that drug use in America had been eliminated.

Read the whole column for chapter and verse on Paul's immigration contortionism here.

But the best predictor of what Paul will say and do on immigration are the headlines: If the headlines demand pandering to Hispanics, he will; if they demand throwing them under the bus, he will. So much for his minority outreach.

In other words, the "new kind" of Republican is really closer to the old kind of Republican.

Advertisement

NEXT: A.M. Links: U.S. Police Have Killed 664 People This Year, Russia Blocks U.N. Resolution on MH17 Crash in Ukraine, Hillary Clinton Disappoints Democrats

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. How long until we get “The Libertarian Case for Hillary Clinton” article?

    1. I give it ten days.

    2. They are building towards it right now.

    3. If that happens I will eat my hat. And cancel my subscription.

      As clever as the Reason writers are, I don’t think that even they could make that case.

      1. That’s why all my hats are nacho hats.

      2. Hillary once said something nice about open borders and came out in favor of gay marriage once it was popular.

      3. You do remember they ran “The Libertarian Case for Obama” in 2008 and 2012? And the libertarian case for the Dems in the 2014 election? So if she gets the nomination then yes they will.

    4. Lol, nice!

      My question is: don’t we want the US the be more like Europe? That means getting rid of birthright citizenship.

      1. My question is: don’t we want the US the be more like Europe?

        No.

        1. That was said tongue-in-cheek.

      2. You know who else had citizenship based on Volk…?

    5. That’s not how Reason operates. They just nitpick the GOP candidate to death in an attempt to minimize the difference between them and the Dem candidate.

      1. You werent reading in 2008 then.

        1. I remember that, but it’s forgivable. Obama wasn’t as well known and it was easy to get caught up in the fervor if you hadn’t done much research into his background. Also, the racism accusations were even more reflexive than they are now. A weak-willed journalist with poor research skills would easily fall prey to the hype. It’s hard to respect that person, but there is still hope that they could learn from their mistake.

          It would be harder to forgive if any of the Reason writers backed Hillary. Her corruption and incompetence is on display to anyone with half a brain.

        2. I remember that, but it’s forgivable. Obama wasn’t as well known and it was easy to get caught up in the fervor if you hadn’t done much research into his background. Also, the racism accusations were even more reflexive than they are now. A weak-willed journalist with poor research skills would easily fall prey to the hype. It’s hard to respect that person, but there is still hope that they could learn from their mistake.

          It would be harder to forgive if any of the Reason writers backed Hillary. Her corruption and incompetence is on display to anyone with half a brain.

    6. My god don’t even joke like that.

    7. LMAO

    8. How long until we get “The Libertarian Case for Bernie Sanders” article?

      1. I will volunteer to write that article now on the condition that Reason doesn’t pay me by the word.

        The Libertarian Case for Bernie Sanders and Hillary

        None.

    9. They already have. Can’t you see this is part of it?

      For those who want the REAL story on the 14th Amendment:

      http://www.14thamendment.us/ar…..ality.html
      http://www.federalistblog.us/2…..isdiction/

      And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Reason limits the number of links – but there are dozens all citing to the historical record – not waving hands and making it up as they go along (like Shikha).

      It’s pretty easy to see that Shikha is either woefully misinformed – or outright lying.

      Which is it, Shikha?

  2. Uh oh.

    I’d expect some of thins kind of stuff from any Republican who wants to get elected. I am a bit bothered by the ending birthright citizenship thing. Seems to me that a constitutional amendment would be required for that anyway, so not the greatest move for someone who wants to be seen as a great defender of the constitution (unless the proposed bill was a constitutional amendment).

    I’d still probably vote for him if he gets the nom. and if i vote.

    1. I say we revoke everyone’s citizenship. Make everyone reapply and prove their worth to the collective. Yearly.

      1. Think of the jobs created!

    2. Birthright citizenship comes only from the 14th amendment:

      All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

      The part in bold was intended to prevent the children of foreign visitors or diplomats from becoming US citizens at birth. But it does potentially serve as a loophole to allow Congress to forbid birthright citizenship to children born of illegally present parents, as illegal immigration wasn’t an issue in 1867.

      1. Diplomats may not be, but I can’t think of any sense in which foreign visitors are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

        1. Actually, the Fedgov has decided that pretty much the entire world is subject to their jurisdiction.

          1. So, good thing the “born or naturalized in the United States” part is in there.

          2. I think it clearly reads out foreign diplomats (and their spawn).

            Others? More ambiguous. As foreign citizens, they are also subject to the jurisdiction of their home country. Illegals haven’t affirmatively submitted to the jurisdiction of the US, so I could see a legislative “definition” that allows birthright citizenship only for people who are here legally.

            1. Illegals haven’t affirmatively submitted to the jurisdiction of the US

              I haven’t either.

              The fact that illegals can be and often are arrested and deported seems like pretty clear evidence that they are subject to US jurisdiction.

              1. I haven’t either.

                But, you are also not subject to the jurisdiction of any other country. That’s what can raises the issue, I think.

                If I buy a ticket to see a movie, there is a set of legal consequences that I affirmatively adopt by virtue of buying the ticket. Responsibilities on both me and the theater owner.

                If I sneak in, many of those responsibilities do not exist. Even though we are both in the same theater, the ticket buyer has a different legal status than I do.

                Its not a laydown argument, but it needs to be thought through, anyway.

        2. “but I can’t think of any sense in which foreign visitors are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.”

          If they are subjects of a foreign jurisdiction – citizens elsewhere.

  3. Oh Lawd Jesus! A Robby college rape article, an ENB abortion article, and a Dalmia immigration article thrown at us in one morning? I haven’t even finished my coffee!

    1. I was thinking the same thing. Sheldon before lunch?

      1. I think I saw a Sheldon article on the main page.

        1. Oh, he’s there. And retarded as ever.

  4. What is the deal with Reason? Have they turned on Rand? Seemed like he was their ideal candidate not too long ago ( a real SEMI-libertarian!!), but I know the reason staff (Lookin’ at you, Nick!) tends to lean leftward….

    1. August is the month with the best cocktail parties and the invitations go out a couple of weeks in advance.

    2. Rand is on the Koch shit list.

      1. Koch derangement syndrome is not a disease exclusively found on the left.

    3. Is it Reason’s job to promote candidates, or is it their job to report and comment on them?

      Also, this is Dalmia. She always writes ridiculous stuff. I almost think she does it on purpose to troll the commentariat.

      1. She has written some decent stuff. She just can’t write about immigration without losing her head. The opening paragraph of this article is horrible.

  5. illegal immigration, Shikha; see if you can spot the difference. You cannot have open borders and the welfare state; it’s not even a debatable point. Since we’re not likely to get rid of the welfare state, open borders do not appear likely.

    1. You can’t have X and Y. Since we’re not likely to get rid of Y, we certainly can’t have X.
      (Insert your favorite non-libertarian bugaboo as X.)

      1. You can’t have (gay marriage) (smaller military) (floor wax) AND (public accommodation laws) (dangerous terrorists) (dessert toppings).

        1. (defunding Planned Parenthood), (Medicare)

          1. You mean Medicaid (unless there are some fertile seniors out there) and you’re wrong even then. We can stop funding PP beyond what they get from Medicaid.

            1. We can stop funding PP beyond what they get from Medicaid.

              Uh, yes? I think you’re missing my point.

        2. +1 can of Sheen

      2. then, let’s see the person who will dismantle the welfare state. Or we can declare the US a theme park and anyone tall enough to wade across the Rio Grande is admitted.

    2. And look at the amount of pepole who would like to leave Syria and Iraq now.By the way,many people in entral and South Ameria would not be fleeing their countries except for the U.S. drug war.End that and open up free trade with those countries. Then again,there will never be a wall high enough on the southern border and the 11 million here can not be rounded up.Let’s make these countries better through trade and the end of th WOD.

      1. no objection with ending the drug war. But I’m not the one accusing Rand of hypocrisy.

    3. Given the ongoing debate on the point, it clearly is a debatable point.

      How about welfare for citizens only, and a path to citizenship for people with jobs only.

      And illegal immigrants do pay taxes. And if legalized, they would pay even more. I wonder if there is a good analysis anywhere of whether they pay more in than they take out.

      1. Good analysis? No.

    4. I hear this crap all the time. Exactly what welfare benefits are the illegals claiming? Don’t you need to have some kind of ID to claim most welfare benefits? Can someone explain this to me?

      1. Identity theft.

      2. I hear this crap all the time. Exactly what welfare benefits are the illegals claiming? Don’t you need to have some kind of ID to claim most welfare benefits? Can someone explain this to me?

        Would you accept info from US GAO or The Center for Immigration Studies (just to name a couple sources)?

        1. CIS is part of the John Tanton network, along with FAIR, NumberUSA, US Inc., Social Contract Press, ProjectUSA, US English, ProEnglish, and many other immigration restrictionists groups.

          1. CIS is part of the John Tanton network…

            Thanks for that info!

            I admit I did not vet the source very thoroughly.

        2. Check out the CATO institute..
          http://www.cato.org/publicatio…..-rate-poor

      3. Public schools? The government may not cladsify it as welfare….

        1. They don’t have to pay property tax?

      4. Don’t you need to have some kind of ID to claim most welfare benefits?

        No.

      5. Many (most?) illegals have fake IDs as citizens. Once you have that, you can sign up for any welfare you want. Keeping a low profile probably keeps some (many?) from doing so.

        And, of course, there are all the publicly funded benefits that are available, by law, to illegals. Schools, health care, etc. Communities with big illegal populations would take issue with the notion that there is absolutely no downside to illegal immigration.

      6. Ever been to Maryland? An illegal ID cornucopia – I laugh every time I see Maryland plates in the Midwest.

      7. I live in a heavily immigrant neighborhood (of the poorer taxi-cab driver type, not the educated tech-professional type to the north of us). At the farmer’s market and local grocery store I see ALOT of them using WIC and food stamps. It is prevalent enough that WIC sets up a helpful ‘sign up now’ van at the farmer’s market at least one week out of the month.

        I’m sure not everyone in the neighborhood is 100% legal and has been the whole time. Anecdotal evidence, sure, but enough to convince me that the welfare state is not carefully controlled for immigration (both legal and illegal).

      8. I’d be willing to bet that even with fake id’s and stolen identitites, the amount of welfare that illegals receive pales in comparison to the welfare they are able to get once they have a kid here in the states.

        Not that that really means anything, but I think that’s probably where most peoples idea of “welfare for illegals” comes from.

      9. In LA county alone half a billion dollars in food stamps to illegal households for their American citizen childs.
        Almost 60 percent of illegal households with American children get some form of welfare benefit, that compares to just over 30 percent for native households with minor children. This also applies to medical insurance, for the US citizen children of illegals.

        First, they need to make E-Verify mandatory and fine employers big time who employ
        Second, US citizenship only for children with one legal parent.

  6. It’s not Reason’s job to get libertarians elected. It’s to hold politicians’ (of whatever stripe) feet to the fire. When a libertarian-leaning politician does something questionable, Reason should be the first to call them on it. When they stop doing that is when I stop reading.

    1. It’s Reason’s job to administer the libertarian purity tests to all. The closer one gets to actually being libertarian, the harder the tests get and the worse the penalties for failing.

      1. What’s wrong with that? A politician’s job is to get elected. A reporter’s job is to grill him. Just because most reporters don’t do their job, isn’t an argument that Reason reporters shouldn’t do theirs.

        1. What’s wrong is that it make for ridiculous reading. When Ron Wyden says something nice about civil liberties, Reason writers give a big cheer and ignore the rest of his horrible ideas.

          When Rand Paul offends your libertarian purity (with statements many out here actually agree with), he gets slapped down like he’s… Ron Wyden?

          1. Reason is a libertarian mag. They are obviously going to highlight the libertarian stands of non-libertarian politicians and the non-libertarian stands of libertarian-ish politicians. This shouldn’t be hard to understand. But, yes, it does upsets the feelz.

            1. Reason is a libertarian mag. They are obviously going to highlight the libertarian stands of non-libertarian politicians and the non-libertarian stands of libertarian-ish politicians.

              That’s not remotely obvious. Nitpicking to death the people who mostly agree with you, while treating people with kid gloves who totally disagree with you, does not make any sense at all.

          2. Ron Wyden does not claim to be, or is associated with, the liberty movement. Since Rand is, when he comes out in favor of something stupid, which is more and more often these days, it is up to all of us to point out how that does not line up with the principles of liberty.

            1. Its a strategic question:

              Which is more likely to advance liberty? Beating the crap out of libertarianish candidates when they stray, or beating the crap out of totalitarian assholes all day every day?

              1. Which is more likely to advance liberty? Beating the crap out of libertarianish candidates when they stray, or beating the crap out of totalitarian assholes all day every day?

                Rand Paul is not “straying” on immigration. This has been his position all along. If you nitpick to death people who agree with you 90% and treat those who disagree with you 90% with kid gloves, guess what the effect is likely to be?

            2. Rand Paul, R, KY? That Rand Paul? Ron Paul’s,R, TX son?

              Or did you not notice those Rs?

              Because ‘L’ still basically just gets you laughed at.

              What I want to know is why so many Ls pursue Ds when only small-l Rs ever actually get elected to national office? It’s as if they like the Ds pissing in their faces.

              1. Generally, it’s a disdain for SoCons. Many left-libertarians are atheist/agnostic libertines who consider SoCons to be fairy-tale believing bigots and believe the social issues (kulturkampf) to be more important than economic/foreign policy issues.

                From that lens, any bone thrown to the left-libertarians by a D politician is a promise that they’ll have some national presence at a distance from the SoCons in the R party. I think that most of the writers for Reason, and a large contingent of the commentariat, are left-libertarians, which explains the social signalling and the lowered standards for the D candidates (look through the archives for all the Obama love in 08 and 12).

                1. True in so far as it goes, but you need to include three other problematical issues with typical Rs that are unacceptable to libertarians: support for the surveillance state, support for the War on Drugs, and cop-sucking.

        2. what’s wrong with it? It’s nonsensical because it sets up an impossible bar. Paul is among the few guys who sees a problem with the WoD, but that’s not good enough because he’s not the border Welcome Wagon. No one will meet the standard on ALL issues, which may be what Reason wants since it allows the staff to constantly bitch about the good being the enemy of the perfect.

          1. Again, it’s a politicians job to get elected. It’s a reporter’s job to ask uncomfortable questions. I think some of you folks have been too long stewed in the MSM status quo.

            1. Shikha’s not asking uncomfortable questions; she’s not asking questions at all. She is simply riding her favorite hobby horse.

              1. Shut the fuck up, Shikha. wareagle has spoken.

                1. try commenting on something I actually said instead of things the voices in your claim were said.

                  1. (voices in my claim), (commenting)

      2. I hear only 8% of people pass the test.

    2. Well said.

  7. “There is no functional difference between the war on drugs and the war on immigration.”

    There is an enormous functional difference between a logically consistent libertarian and a politician who is trying to win the nomination for President from Republican Party primary voters.

    I wish we could stop framing these issues in terms of an attack on Rand Paul. Surely Dalmia’s arguments would be just as consistent and true (or not) regardless of whether they were framed as attacks on Rand Paul.

    You know, in 2008, Barack Obama ran against gay marriage.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5L2LMJcRIg

    Gay rights activists officially endorsed him anyway–because they bet knew he was playing a bigger game. In order to win the nomination, Rand Paul is going to have to play a game to win the support of a certain number of Republican primary voters would normally vote for the establishment candidate, too.

    Using that fact to bash Paul is counterproductive to the libertarian cause. I’m usually highly skeptical of politicians as a force for positive libertarian change, but if Rand Paul is elected President, it’ll be the best thing that’s ever happened to libertarians, and I dare say, it’ll be the best thing that ever happened to immigrants–legal or otherwise–too.

    1. Even if Rand Paul was the Jesus H. Christ of libertarianism, I’d still expect Reason to call Him (especially Him!) out. He’s not the messiah, of course. He’s just a libertarianish GOP Senator. If he’s nominated, I’ll probably vote Republican for the first time ever. That doesn’t mean I think Reason should give him a pass.

      1. Giving him a pass is one thing.

        Habitually roasting him for being–isn’t he less anti-immigrant than anyone else in the field?–is qu9ite another.

        I’d almost rather see her go after The Donald on a regular basis.

        I said “almost”!

        And if we’re going to be honest and balanced, why not highlight some of the upsides of Rand Paul’s positions?

        Riddle me this: how does Rand Paul feel about the federal government imposing penalties on old people and working mothers for hiring illegal immigrants to mow their lawns or babysit their children?

        And how does his position on that compare to the other candidates?

        1. why not highlight some of the upsides of Rand Paul’s positions?

          Wait, what? You’re saying Reason doesn’t do this?

          1. I’m saying we don’t have to slam Rand Paul like he’s Donald Trump if he’s not.

            1. I would agree, Ken. But I’d disagree that Reason treats Paul like it does Trump.
              Hyperbole is fine, but in reality, Reason is undoubtedly one of the most pro-Paul publications extant.

              1. If all you knew about Rand Paul was what you read in this article, you might think that Rand Paul and Donald Trump are somehow on the same page when it comes to immigration.

                1. If all you knew about Rand Paul was what you read in this article

                  Ah. HERE’s yer problem.

                  1. As I wrote above:

                    “Rand Paul is going to have to play a game to win the support of a certain number of Republican primary voters [who] would normally vote for the establishment candidate, too.

                    Using that fact to bash Paul is counterproductive to the libertarian cause. I’m usually highly skeptical of politicians as a force for positive libertarian change, but if Rand Paul is elected President, it’ll be the best thing that’s ever happened to libertarians.”

              2. It wasnt in 2008. Clumping all Pauls together.

                1. I wasn’t talking about the Pauls.

                  I was talking about Obama.

                  Obama was against gay marriage in 2008.

                  Obama publicly campaigned against gay marriage in 2008.

                  No really.

                  Look at the video I linked. It shows Barack Obama publicly campaigning against gay marriage in 2008.

          2. Wait, what? You’re saying Reason doesn’t do this?

            Not as often as they bash him.

  8. (actually, in the case of immigration, the “crimes” are not only victimless, but have only beneficiaries)

    Yeah… so, residents on / near the border whose property gets trashed and/or stolen are beneficiaries not victims??

    Border towns pay price for illegal immigration

    … At an early morning roundup at the Single Star Ranch, Bud Strom inspects his cattle and then the fence-line ? looking for signs of illegal immigrants. He has reason to worry. By his count, 1,000 illegal immigrants cross his ranch near the Mexican border every week.

    “If they’re savvy, they’ll open the gate and close it behind them,” says Strom. “If they’re not, they’ll cut the wires.”

    Strom has lost cattle and had other property stolen from his ranch. He wonders if it will ever end.

    “It’s just very aggravating,” he says…

    1. and that’s the reality Shikha, and some here, pretend does not exist.

      1. (open borders), (litter/theft)

        1. is that you, Obama? Because you keep arguing against points that no one is making, a very Barack habit.

            1. and you keep making my point. Any more straw men today?

    2. Forget it See.More, it’s Shikha Town.

    3. Honestly? if immigrants are destroying and or/stealing personal property, it isn’t because they’re immigrants. It’s because they’re destroying and/or stealing personal property.

      I’m sure Dalmia is just as much against destroying and stealing other people’s personal property as much as the next person–why pretend otherwise?

      In fact, if we had open borders in this country, that guy wouldn’t have 1,000 immigrants sneaking through his property in the middle of the night. All those immigrants would be using proper border crossings. Why walk miles through the desert at night if you can take a bus?

      1. you cannot have open borders and a welfare state. That has not changed since the first time it was said. And as many times as people have laughed at the notion of a law being magic, why would declaring open borders have a magical effect on crime?

        1. “You cannot have open borders and a welfare state.”

          Using your dichotomy (which I’m not endorsing by the way), I’m not convinced you can have closed borders, full stop, so let’s work on getting rid of the welfare state.

          P.S. Also using the logic of your dichotomy (which I’m still not endorsing by the way), I’m not sure you can have open borders and a war on drugs either. If that were so, what would you rather do from a libertarian perspective–tighten down the borders or get rid of the war on drugs?

          1. First, it’s not my dichotomy; others have said the same thing, Uncle Milton among them. As to your question, get rid of the war on drugs. Unequivocally. Prohibition has always proven a failure, no matter the subject of the ban.

            No one has suggested closed borders or ending immigration, but what we’re doing is not working.

            1. What we’re doing is making things worse.

              We’re relegating millions of people who came here to work hard into criminal black markets–especially to help them get across the border.

              It’s not only like the drug war in logic, the immigrants are using drug smuggling associates and their routes to help them get across the border.

              Welfare is a serious problem, but it’s a serious problem regardless of the national origin of the welfare queen. I don’t care about whether the parasites sucking blood out of my back were born in Mexico or the USA–I want the parasites off my back. So if you’re concerned about the welfare state, then rail against the welfare state–not immigration.

              1. I have no doubt many can and do work hard; in many ways, the illegal is the only honest broker in this game, the one whose motivation is most transparent. But why is it our job to make it easy for the least skilled, the least educated, and the least likely to assimilate to come inside?

                Still, the presence of a welfare state is part of the allure, not matter how much people want to claim otherwise. Illegal immigration makes the welfare problem worse and there is no problem in railing about both. Add the WoD and that makes three things. Paul rails about two; it makes little sense to hang him because of the third.

      2. Why walk miles through the desert at night if you can take a bus?

        Serious question: In this open borders scenario, what’s the final destination of this “bus”?

        1. My factory? My apartment building? My farm?

          1. All already available through the legal visa process. You may begin sponsoring now

            1. Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system!

              1. (i.e., our benevolent government has this covered, so shut the fuck up.)

              2. Not sure what you’re yammering about, people that actually hire migrants do this all the time and there’s nothing difficult about it.

                1. and there’s nothing difficult about it.

                  Do tell.

                  1. Easy peasy lemon squeezey. Why, it’s so simple that I don’t even know why the USCIS even bothers making you apply.

                    1. Difficult difficult lemon difficult?

                    2. I don’t know what you’re getting at. There’s nothing difficult about a lemon party.

          2. And my grocery store will be free to not sell to these immigrants if we so choose? Landlords would be free to discriminate against immigrants from country X, Y or Z? If not, then your open borders equate to forced integration and forced association.

            You can’t act like the general population has no legitimate say-so on who gets to immigrate here when those same people are FORCED to associate with the immigrants.

            1. (open borders), (forced association)

            2. Again, the problems you’re talking about aren’t problems with immigrants. They’re problems even if we’re not talking about immigration.

              If your problem is with forced association, then rail against forced association.

              I’ve seen immigration used as a scapegoat for at least three different issues in this thread (welfare, public rather than private property, and now public accommodation). At some point, it’s going to be okay to accuse anti-immigrant commenters of using immigration as a scapegoat.

              These are all serious problems that need to be addressed–regardless of whether we have open borders–and, furthermore, they all seem to be problems that native born Americans contribute to in far greater numbers than immigrants.

              1. If your problem is with forced association, then rail against forced association.

                I do.

                I didn’t say immigrants=bad. I married an immigrant. My point is that immigration is not a natural right, unlike emigration. Unrestricted immigration is unnatural in the course of human interaction. Under ideal circumstances, there would indeed be open borders and property owners who are free to be as accomodating or as unaccommodating as they care to be, which would provide local society and local culture with it’s own defense mechanisms for preserving the values and demographics that people find valuable.

                Under present circumstances we have a restricted immigration policy and accommodation laws for the whole country, this is less than ideal. Under the open borders with accommodation laws arrangement, that would be even less ideal.

              2. Ken,
                at some point, you may have to question is illegal immigration is a problem, too, but first you would have to acknowledge that it exists. Illegal immigration is not a scapegoat, it is an issue unto itself that is tied to other things.

                1. Trade barriers help some people by protecting them from competition, but overall, trade barriers are bad for the economy.

                  The overall economy benefits from free trade–by letting goods and resources flow across borders without any taxes or encumbrances from government.

                  Labor is a resource.

                  Immigration restrictions are an encumbrance on a highly valuable resource.

                  And having more of a resource is better–not a “problem”.

                  If having too much cheap labor available were bad for economic growth, then China must have had the slowest growing economy in the world over the last 20 years.

                  1. “Labor” is not the only facet of a person. They also bring with them their culture, their ethics and values. That being said, even if I was made economically better off because a Somali refugee camp opened next door to my house, I would not consider myself to be better off at all. I’d happily forgo whatever economic benefits there are to be had of Somali refugees in order to not live next to them. I don’t think I’m alone on that sentiment that economic value isn’t the only factor that makes a community that I want to live in.

                    1. Your disdain for Somalis notwithstanding, the question is whether you should be free to use the coercive power of government to deprive other Americans of the benefits of associating with Somalis should it please them to do so.

                    2. I don’t have disdain for them. I just don’t want to live next door to them. I’ve done enough of that for one lifetime when I lived next to a refugee camp at my apartment in Eindhoven, NL. I’m perfectly content to conduct business with just about anyone, but I’m a bit more selective about about the communities I live in. I don’t suppose that when you were shopping for a house you decided to buy a house in the ghetto of Detroit. Why not? The property values are low and all peoples and cultures are equal so why not?

                      As I said before, it’s not ideal. But the day where it no longer makes sense to have any coercive government controls is the day I and everyone else legally able to discriminate freely.

                      I don’t think the government near monopoly and management of roads is a good thing and I don’t think seizing private property is a good thing. Nonetheless, the roads we do have need to have rules, that need for rules is rooted in practicality, not principle. Principled road rules based on private property are nearly impossible presently so we’re forced to deal with the next best thing, arbitrary government rules.

                      All the same, in an environment that lacks any legal protection for free association, it’s practical to have immigration rules since we’re legally prohibited from relying on private property based rules of association.

                  2. Trade barriers help some people by protecting them from competition, but overall, trade barriers are bad for the economy.

                    True, but what about inspections at ports of entry to limit movement/importation of invasive species (including non-native parasites, diseases, infections, etc.)? While not a “trade barrier”, as I understand your allusion, such inspections are a barrier to trade. Are they legitimate?

                    Immigration restrictions are an encumbrance on a highly valuable resource.

                    But what happens when they are not a “highly valuable resource”? Without restrictions, you will get infants, children, and elderly (haven’t reached or are potentially past their economic utility); the indigent / lazy; incompetents; carriers of contagious diseases like the measles; criminals; etcetera.

                    The market automatically limits the flow of unvaluable goods from port to port. If there is no demand for a particular product, no one’s going to import it. Conversely, unrestricted immigration takes the market control out of the equation; anyone can come and go as they please regardless of their value (or lack of) as a labor commodity. Also, transporting goods takes an agent of some sort, someone that is moving those goods. They don’t move themselves like people do.

                    1. “True, but what about inspections at ports of entry to limit movement/importation of invasive species (including non-native parasites, diseases, infections, etc.)? While not a “trade barrier”, as I understand your allusion, such inspections are a barrier to trade. Are they legitimate?”

                      I have no problem with the government checking to make sure that the people we let in through our checkpoints have verifiable IDs, don’t have felony convictions, and reasonable precautions that they aren’t carrying a transmissible disease.

                      If people who could pass all those hurdles could just walk across the border after having their documentation verified, the only people sneaking around out there in the desert at night would be criminals, threats to American security, etc.

                      The reason we’re able to check goods for such things at ports of entry and elsewhere is because it’s perfectly legal for such things to cross our borders. Open borders would make it easier to check immigrants for such security and health risks.

                      Open borders would let us concentrate our security apparatus on what few loathsome smugglers, et. al. creeping around out in that dark desert at night. It would make America safer.

                    2. Ken Shultz|7.30.15 @ 5:31PM

                      I have no problem with the government checking to make sure that the people we let in through our checkpoints have verifiable IDs, don’t have felony convictions, and reasonable precautions that they aren’t carrying a transmissible disease.

                      If people who could pass all those hurdles could just walk across the border after having their documentation verified…

                      Previously, you said, “Immigration restrictions are an encumbrance on a highly valuable resource.” Now, you’re conceding to immigration restrictions which necessitate ports of entry, if for no other reason but to verify that their papers are in order… kinda like we have now.

                      So, are you actually arguing for open borders, which are effectively unrestricted entry, or a more liberal (adjective, not political leaning) immigration / transient worker policy?

                    3. “Now, you’re conceding to immigration restrictions which necessitate ports of entry, if for no other reason but to verify that their papers are in order… kinda like we have now.”

                      What I’m talking about isn’t anything like we have now because right now access is restricted.

                      What I want for Mexico is more like what Americans have to do to get a passport plus some kind of health screening or immunization record.

                      I also want some kind of verification that the Mexican citizens coming over aren’t convicted felons, wanted criminals, etc. Also, they may need to verify that they’ve been immunized against x, y, and z.

                      Once a Mexican citizen has that documentation, they should be free to go back and forth across the border through a checkpoint–whenever they want–just like I do. Fly into Cancun for a weekend, and Mexico gives Americans a visa good for six months. There’s no wait. You show your ID and they give it to you.

                      Mexican citizens should get that plus a work permit–just because they want one.

                      That isn’t anything like we have now. Mexicans aren’t allowed to go back and forth across the border just because they want to look for work.

                    4. I also want some kind of verification that the Mexican citizens coming over aren’t convicted felons, wanted criminals, etc. Also, they may need to verify that they’ve been immunized against x, y, and z.

                      That’s still conceding to some sort of restrictions and necessitates some sort of border check points to verify documentation (hardly “open” borders).

                      And why don’t you like Brazilians, and Venezuelans, and Guatemalans, or any of the other Central / South Americans that might wanna walk through Mexico to cross the border? 😛

                    5. I’m not sure infants are necessarily a drain on the economy. And, again, you seem to be blaming immigrants for social programs that benefit American welfare queens disproportionately.

                      Repeatedly beating this immigration red herring against a rock isn’t going to do anything about the welfare state. If you want to kill the welfare state, then beat the welfare state against a rock.

                      One of the reasons people are resistant to arguments for ending the welfare state is because they think the people who want to end it are racist, and that’s really hard to live down when there are so many people out there who would rather talk about keeping Mexicans off of welfare than talk about ending welfare.

                    6. Ken Shultz|7.30.15 @ 5:39PM

                      … And, again, you seem to be blaming immigrants for social programs that benefit American welfare queens disproportionately.

                      Nope. Never said anything of the sort.

                      Rather, you likened open borders to free trade, justifying open borders with the statement, “Immigration restrictions are an encumbrance on a highly valuable resource.” I inferred, admittedly, that your solution to unencumber the movement of “a highly valuable resource” [labor] is unrestricted immigration. I merely pointed out that, without restrictions, you cannot limit the flow of people to only “[the] highly valuable resource.”

                      I also pointed out one key difference in free trade and open borders; the market ultimately determines what goods are valuable enough to move them from one place to another. Open borders eliminates that market control on “[the] highly valuable resource” of human labor. So the comparison breaks down.

                    7. “But what happens when they are not a “highly valuable resource”? Without restrictions, you will get infants, children, and elderly (haven’t reached or are potentially past their economic utility); the indigent / lazy; incompetents…”

                      Why did you write this if you didn’t mean to suggest that these immigrants are likely to be a financial burden to taxpayers?

                      We take care of infants and children through all sorts of programs. We take care of the elderly and others with questionable economic utility through various programs. And the overwhelming majority of the beneficiaries are American citizens.

                      Why wouldn’t I assume you were talking about the financial burden of caring for such immigrants through welfare programs?

                      Again, you seem to be blaming immigrants for social programs that benefit American born welfare queens disproportionately.

                    8. Again, you seem to be blaming immigrants for social programs that benefit American born welfare queens disproportionately.

                      Your inferences, not my implications.

                      The simple fact that you’re dodging here is that not all people that cross the border, if it is open without restrictions, will be “highly valuable resource[s]” (re: labor).

                      You appear to be hung up on a singular facet — people as labor resources — ignoring the facts that (a.) people are more than just labor, with their own cultures, worldviews, etc. and (b.) not all people are labor.
                      “People as labor,” only, ignoring what else people are and that not all people are labor in the analysis, is like a blind man patting an elephant’s leg and shouting, “ah ha! a tree!”

                  3. Labor is not a ‘resource’. Labor is a cost.

                    Labor is what you pay to get what you want or need.

                    The idea that labor is a resource distorts so many of our economic concepts its no longer funny.

                    China’s economy is a mystery–the party lies. Giant empty cities tend to lend themselves to the idea that tons of cheap labor can be wasted on makework–all because someone thinks labor is a resource.

                    TIME for oneself, and ones own interests is a resource. Labor spends that. China’s makework cities cost the chinese people time.

                    1. “Labor is not a ‘resource’. Labor is a cost.

                      Labor is what you pay to get what you want or need.”

                      Just because labor has a cost associated with it doesn’t mean it isn’t a resource.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Factors_of_production

                      Coal has a cost associated with it, too. So does land. So do all the other resources.

                      Labor is a resource, and having more of a resource available is better for the economy.

                    2. Labor is a resource, and having more of a resource available is better for the economy.

                      Not all resources are equal. Starting with free trade; a Chinese firm shipping sand to a market that neither needs nor wants sand will incur either a net-loss or a lower gain than they otherwise could have gotten by shipping a more valuable commodity. Or, if the target market, for some stupid reason, agrees to pay the net cost of shipping the sand to take possession of it, not only are they out the money to “purchase” the sand, they incur additional costs, both actual and opportunity, in transporting and storing or disposing of the sand. Either way, the economy is not necessarily better off with more sand.

                      The market controls for that. Instead of the Chinese firm shipping sand to where it is neither needed nor wanted, it will, instead ship it somewhere else where sand is in high enough demand to make it worth the while. Or, the firm won’t ship sand at all and opt to ship industrial-grade diamonds instead.

                      Yes. Labor is a resource, but not all labor is equal nor in equal demand. Open borders would allow a free-flow of labor, much of it speculative (hoping to find work in a given area), and not necessarily market-driven. That may or may not improve the economy. A surplus of labor may result in a net gain in under- and un- employment which will ultimately depress the economy in that market.

                    3. Cheap labor is like cheap oil for the economy.

                      The Mexicans who come here looking for menial jobs typically can’t speak English when they arrive and have no more than an 8th grade education.

                      I don’t feel sorry for American workers who can’t compete with uneducated non-English speakers. Those Americans shouldn’t have dropped out of high school, shouldn’t have gotten that felony conviction, or should stop snorting so much meth. I’m trying to think of another plausible reason why able-bodied, American born workers wouldn’t be able to compete for work with relatively uneducated non-English speakers, but I’m coming up blank.

                      Maybe if the American worker had some kind of mental illness, that might explain it, too.

                      Meanwhile, the beneficiaries of immigrant menial labor are legion. I’ve mentioned elderly people on fixed incomes, who can’t do their own yard work anymore, but cheap daycare is probably even bigger. There are so many single mothers (and married women) out there who would have a real hard time going to work at the job they have if it weren’t for cheap childcare.

                      There’s an old saw about service economies being superior to manufacturing because “You can’t import a haircut”, but that’s baloney. You can import a haircut through immigration. My last one came from Colombia.

                      Immigrant labor putting pressure on union labor is great, too.

                    4. Cheap labor is like cheap oil for the economy.

                      That’s an assertion (cheap labor == good for the economy) that keeps being made, but not really proven.

                      First, it assumes that the economy is one giant, homogenous… thing. Variations in the median and average wages and average costs of living in various regions, states, and cities demonstrate otherwise. Rather, it is a network of interlinked markets that, individually, influence the aggregate to different degrees.

                      Second, it ignores the fact that cheap labor (a la illegal immigrants) doesn’t follow demand like products. Grossly simplifying it here, products are ordered from suppliers by buyers to meet either individual (someone buying from Amazon) or local market demands (retailers supplying a market). This mechanic tends to limit gross surpluses or shortages. It also signals to producers which products to produce more or less of.

                      [continued]

                    5. [concluded]

                      Human capital (labor), generally, does not move that way. People tend to choose where they move to for a variety of reasons. Without buyers ordering from suppliers/producers to signal demand, a booming market for their skills may or may not be a factor in their decisions. Illegal immigrants aren’t any different, and, for the most part, they’re not following the demand for cheap labor. Rather, generally, they follow “family” or migrate to ethnic enclaves in the hope of finding a job. One result is, absolutely, gross surpluses in some markets and gross shortages in others with very weak signaling mechanisms to shift surplus from the former to the latter.

                      Without looking at the disparate impact in different markets, and accounting for every other variable, it is impossible to simply declare that more cheap labor is a net boon to the economy. After all, illegals are still flooding across the border, yet our economic recovery and growth is still very weak. Correlation != causation.

                    6. I’m trying to think of another plausible reason why able-bodied, American born workers wouldn’t be able to compete for work with relatively uneducated non-English speakers, but I’m coming up blank.

                      How about the glut of college graduates with worthless liberal arts degrees can’t get cheap labor jobs b/c they are “overqualified”? And how many cheap labor jobs that are going unfilled by others of that group b/c cheap labor is “beneath” them (i.e.: since they got a degree they figure they’re worth at least $40k a year).

                      Refer to my previous post. The labor market, as it is, cannot signal demand for particular skillsets as effectively as it can signal demand for particular products. So the raw materials for producing labor are not adequately guided to the appropriate assembly lines. A result of that are gross surpluses of some labor and gross shortages in other labor.

                    7. “China’s economy is a mystery–the party lies.”

                      There isn’t anything mysterious about the source of China’s economic growth.

                      All those peasants left the countryside, moved to the cities, and got jobs in factories.

                      The economic engine of all that cheap labor finally being plugged into the world economy was so powerful, even corrupt politicians and an awful political and judicial system couldn’t stop the growth from happening.

                      The importation of goods is great. It gives us access to all that Chinese manufacturing labor.

                      Immigration allows the importation of services, too. Did you know that in Mexico, all the fast food restaurants (McD’s, BK, KFC, et. al), they all deliver to your door. They have couriers that ride around on mopeds with hot boxes on the back to keep the food warm.

                      In fact, there isn’t any store anywhere that wouldn’t deliver in Merida Yuc. I wish we had service like that here in the U.S. You know why they have that kind of service in Mexico?

                      Because the labor is so cheap.

                    8. I wish we had service like that here in the U.S. You know why they have that kind of service in Mexico?

                      Because the labor is so cheap.

                      There are more factors involved than just an availability of cheap labor. Culture certainly plays a part in what services are offered / desired.

                      How about asking, why is it cheap(er)? If it is, in part, because there are fewer regulations — if regulatory compliance is cheaper — then importing more cheap laborers is not going to have any meaningful impact in creating those kind of deliver-everything jobs here.

                      And if the ubiquity of cheap labor and, subsequent, deliver-everything services makes like so much better, than why are so many fleeing the Mexican job markets? (Note: You can’t blame it all on the WoD…)

        2. “Serious question: In this open borders scenario, what’s the final destination of this “bus”?”

          I’m not sure I understand why that matters.

          They’re presumably subject to the same motives and constraints as the rest of us.

          1. I’m not sure I understand why that matters.

            It matters to me whether housing, travel, food, etc. is going to be provided on my dime. Is there some plan for a giant private immigrant housing center somewhere?

            Also, do the citizens of the U.S. own the public property of the U.S. or is it just neutral territory owned by the world? If I do partially own this property, do I have any say in whether or someone without any ownership of it can use it or not?

            1. As I wrote above:

              “Welfare is a serious problem, but it’s a serious problem regardless of the national origin of the welfare queen. I don’t care about whether the parasites sucking blood out of my back were born in Mexico or the USA–I want the parasites off my back. So if you’re concerned about the welfare state, then rail against the welfare state–not immigration”.

              1. And public ownership?

                1. “If I do partially own this property, do I have any say in whether or someone without any ownership of it can use it or not?”

                  Again, why do you associate that problem with immigration specifically?

                  Isn’t that a beef you have with 300 million other native born Americans, too?

                  If you’ve got a problem with public ownership, rail against public ownership. Why mention immigration?

                  1. Isn’t that a beef you have with 300 million other native born Americans, too?

                    If you’ve got a problem with public ownership, rail against public ownership. Why mention immigration?

                    About the beef with 300 million, no, I don’t have the same beef because they have paid and are paying for public accommodations like I am.
                    So, you think anybody has an inherent right to travel on any road anywhere at any time as long as it’s not owned by a single individual?

                    1. “About the beef with 300 million, no, I don’t have the same beef because they have paid and are paying for public accommodations like I am.”

                      If, say, Mexican immigrants aren’t paying their fair share of the taxes, it isn’t because they’re immigrants; it’s because the government has made hiring them illegal, and so they’re paid under the table.

                      You shouldn’t oppose open borders on the basis of problems that are caused by closed borders.

                    2. If, say, Mexican immigrants aren’t paying their fair share of the taxes, it isn’t because they’re immigrants; it’s because the government has made hiring them illegal, and so they’re paid under the table.

                      I don’t think we are on the same page. Do the citizens that pay for a public accommodation, such as a road, have any ownership rights concerning the use of that property or not? I’m not talking about immigrants, I’m talking about a non-citizen that wants to come here and make use of property, whether it’s public or private. I am referring to people that are not here.
                      In other words, explain to me how people that are not citizens have a right to public accommodations for which I and other citizens are paying

                    3. “I don’t think we are on the same page. Do the citizens that pay for a public accommodation, such as a road, have any ownership rights concerning the use of that property or not? “

                      the “public” is everybody except you. have you never met our government?

                    4. “In other words, explain to me how people that are not citizens have a right to public accommodations for which I and other citizens are paying”

                      Yes, I think you have a right to use the roads because you’re a taxpayer, but I’m not sure that’s the only reason you have a right to use the roads. I’m also not sure the government can restrict services to people because of their race, creed, color, or national origin either. There is a right to equal protection of the law.

                      Many of our rights are restrictions on the government’s ability to impose itself on us. I suppose I see the right to use the roads as like the right to an attorney. Just because you’re an immigrant doesn’t mean you don’t have a right to an attorney–even if you can’t afford one and the taxpayers foot the bill.

                      Another way of saying that might be that the government doesn’t have the right to deprive immigrants of their life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

                      If you want to deprive an immigrant of their right to liberty and the equal protection of the laws the government passes (like road building finance bills), then you need to respect their due process rights and convict them of a crime. Keeping the borders closed might theoretically leave that option open, but it’s not like we’re keeping illegal immigrants (or legal tourists) from using the roads now.

                    5. I just don’t see immigrants using the roads as a serious problem. So long as the spending bills are passed by legislators that understand those roads will be used by people who aren’t paying taxes, and the voters keep voting for those legislators anyway, then I think immigrants have as much right to use the roads as anyone else. Just becasue we don’t what duly elected legislators do doesn’t mean it isn’t Constitutional.

                      And, again, the solution is privatizing the roads rather than restricting immigration–not that private road owners are likely to restrict access to immigrants. They’re likely to sell access to anyone who’s willing to pay their price.

                    6. “Just becasue we don’t [like] what duly elected legislators do doesn’t mean it isn’t Constitutional.”

                      Fixed!

                    7. So long as the spending bills are passed by legislators that understand those roads will be used by people who aren’t paying taxes, and the voters keep voting for those legislators anyway, then I think immigrants have as much right to use the roads as anyone else.

                      Actually, people vote for legislators that vote for funding public accommodations with a knowledge that they aren’t for Russians to drive tanks on. They are for citizens, as proven by the fact that we have immigration laws.

                    8. “Actually, people vote for legislators that vote for funding public accommodations with a knowledge that they aren’t for Russians to drive tanks on. They are for citizens, as proven by the fact that we have immigration laws.”

                      Again, I’m not convinced the government can discriminate against people in the use of the roads based on their national origin, and the solution to people using the roads without paying for them is privatizing roads rather than restricting immigration.

                      So, why not focus on privatization rather than immigration?

                    9. Again, I’m not convinced the government can discriminate against people in the use of the roads based on their national origin

                      They aren’t being discriminated against based on their national origin, they are being discriminated on based on their non-citizenship(which really is just short for having no skin in the game). A lot like how I have no right to come into your corporate office, pitch a tent and start using your phones to call my in-laws in Russia

                    10. You really shouldn’t compare what the government can and can’t do (discriminate against immigrants) to what a privately owned corporation can and can’t do.

                      If you want the government to run like a corporation in some regard, then you want privatization, and immigration is a red herring.

                    11. You really shouldn’t compare what the government can and can’t do (discriminate against immigrants) to what a privately owned corporation can and can’t do

                      I see little difference in a government making rules concerning the use of public accommodations owned by it’s citizens and corporations doing the same for it’s shareholder’s property. Maybe you can explain to me how switching the name from Microsoft to U.S.A. suddenly gives others a right to use property that doesn’t belong to them.

                    12. Mexican immigrants aren’t paying their fair share of the taxes, it isn’t because they’re immigrants; it’s because the government has made hiring them illegal, and so they’re paid under the table.

                      An argument for the FairTax!

                  2. I think you can break apart the “Property Ownership” piece from the “Free Association and Movement” piece.

                    I can see an argument for saying “I am a part owner (citizen) of this country, and I want to restrict who else gets franchise.” I don’t see anything morally wrong with that from a libertarian perspective.

                    However, from a libertarian perspective, restricting freedom of movement and association is a non starter.

                    1. I can see an argument for saying “I am a part owner (citizen) of this country, and I want to restrict who else gets franchise.” I don’t see anything morally wrong with that from a libertarian perspective.

                      Except that could be used to justify anything. It’s just about the most anti-libertarian argument there is. “I’m a citizen, so I get to decide what other people can and cannot do.”

                2. this is where the argument the open borders crowd uses is turned around on you: they have spoken, so shut the fuck up.

                  1. I haven’t treated anyone like that here.

                    I do treat Tony and Shrike like that sometimes, but sometimes with them, STFU is a perfectly appropriate response.

                    Neither of them are anti-immigration. If they thought immigrants were anti-Obama, they’d both start calling for a wall on the border, in which case STFU would be perfectly appropriate, too. …not because they would be anti-immigration but because they would still be Tony and Shrike.

                    1. I haven’t treated anyone like that here.

                      No, you haven’t. I think open borders is a good ideal, but given present day reality, would have some serious negative effects. And, I’ll admit, I’m a self-preservationist before anything else. “Wouldn’t it be nice” doesn’t put food on the table.

              2. it’s a serious problem regardless of the national origin of the welfare queen

                American citizens are our problem. We’re stuck with them, and since we’re not going to be able to kill off the welfare state in the foreseeable future, we’re stuck paying them.

                Foreigners are not our problem unless we let them become our problem. The open borders people want us to keep digging.

                1. Foreigners are not our problem unless we let them become our problem.

                  I have no issue with “foreigners” who want to pull their weight. I do think it’s a fantasy that everybody that wants to immigrate is coming to “work hard”

        3. Whatever town has a construction industry, a bus depot, and a preexisting Spanish-speaking population.

          Which is to say, take your pick of thousands.

          1. Mexico City?

      3. Honestly? if immigrants are destroying and or/stealing personal property, it isn’t because they’re immigrants. It’s because they’re destroying and/or stealing personal property.

        Fair enough. The act of illegally crossing the border doesn’t victimize anyone, but you cannot deny the property crimes of trespass, vandalism, and theft perpetrated by illegal immigrants after they committed a victimless crime.

        Dalmia’s parenthetical that I quoted had two parts, though: “actually, in the case of immigration, the ‘crimes’ are not only victimless, but have only beneficiaries.” Take the rancher from the article and explain to me how he has only benefitted from illegal immigration?

        1. By that same token, you can’t deny the property crimes committed by those looking for their next high from illegal drugs.

        2. “Fair enough. The act of illegally crossing the border doesn’t victimize anyone, but you cannot deny the property crimes of trespass, vandalism, and theft perpetrated by illegal immigrants after they committed a victimless crime.”

          Nobody would have a thousand immigrants a week sneaking through their property at night (committing property crimes of trespass, vandalism, and theft), if they could just walk through a security checkpoint like San Diego State students do when they cross the Mexican border to party in Tijuana.

          I’ve done it dozens of times myself. Why would Americans sneak across the border through other people’s property when they can just show a photo ID and they’re good to go and come back as they please?

          1. Ken, Dalmia’s parenthetical had two parts: immigration is victimless and only benefits people. I’ve conceded the victimless point. Now, how about the second part?

            Please explain how that rancher is only a beneficiary of illegal immigration when illegal immigrants trespass on, vandalize, and steal his property.

            And restating what would not happen IF there were open borders does not explain how that rancher and others like him benefit from illegal immigrants crossing their property without their consent.

            TL;DR version: Dalmia presented a “Black Swan” fallacy. I found a black swan. Have I not?

            1. I’ve written here many times that everything we do–or don’t do–harms someone else in some way. The Supreme Court was right to correct to note in Filburn that when a farmer grows wheat on his own property for his own consumption, he is harming other wheat farmers because it means he won’t be buying wheat that he would have bought otherwise–and that keeps the price of wheat lower than it would have been.

              Where the Supreme Court was wrong was to suggest that we don’t have a right to harm other people in that way.

              John Stewart Mill almost had it right when he wrote that we should all be free to do as we please so long as we don’t harm others. However, if everything we do or don’t do “harms” someone else, then we aren’t free to do–or not do–anything. The correct formulation is that we should all be free to do as we please so long as we don’t violate someone else’s rights.

              Immigration doesn’t only benefit people. It harms people, too. But I can and do have a right to harm you so long as I don’t violate your rights. I have a right to go to your boss, tell him that I’ll do more and better work than you do for half the price, and if that means you get fired, lose your home, and your wife leaves you and takes your children, then I still have a right to harm you in that way anyway.

              1. How hard is it to just concede that Dalmia’s assertion/premise that there are “only beneficiaries” of immigration is patently false?

                1. And drug dealers benefit from drug prohibition. Beneficiaries!

                2. That isn’t hard.

                  But I’m much more interested in why people think what they do.

                  Aren’t you?

                  I’m more interested in what you think of my “why”, too.

                  It’s how I learn.

                  How can you tell me that what I think and why is wrong if you don’t know both what I think and why?

                  1. But I’m much more interested in why people think what they do… How can you tell me that what I think and why is wrong if you don’t know both what I think and why?

                    Fair enough. And I apologize for my bulldoggedness; happens when it seems that someone is avoiding a direct question. WRT to this article, my specific complaint was with, ost particularly, the false premise of “only beneficiaries”. False premises lead to faulty conclusions.

                    I don’t often take a side on the immigration debate b/c I haven’t fully formed a single, intellectually & logically consistent conclusion. From a purely ideological standpoint, I lean AnCap in which this would be essentially a non-issue. There would be patches of owned/homesteaded property separated by swathes of unowned property. People would be able to freely move throughout their own and unowned property. And other property owners would be free to allow them to pass across or bar their path (across their property).

                    [continued]

                  2. From a practical standpoint, I don’t believe any AnCap society will ever happen in any meaningful scale without a massive shift in human nature, so I tend to lean more minarchist in practice if not conviction. If we must accept suffer the existence of the State (minarchy or otherwise), then we must accept borders and Sovereignty Ownership of Territory by the State. Without both a State is, in essence, a non-entity. Without borders you cannot define the geographical scope (e.g.: property lines) of the State. Without ownership the State cannot, amongst other things, secure those borders against invasion; any other State can walk in and claim possession. Without ownership there is no right to defense.

                    Erego, State ownership of the territory necessarily confers a property right to grant, or deny, access to non- “members”/”shareholders”/”citizens”/outsiders for whatever stupid fucking reason, and with whatever stupid fucking restrictions, it chooses. Violating the State’s property right to control who may visit/use/etc. its territory is trespassing against the State. But, that, in essence, elevates the State to personhood… and tacitly concedes legitimacy to the State.

                    [continued]

                  3. [concluded]

                    Since I cannot hold both conclusions — the state is illegitimate (AnCap) and the state is legitimate (sovereignty == territorial ownership) — without a double-dose of cognitave dissonance, I will only conceded, at the moment, that our current system is absotardedly, fucking broke!

      4. if immigrants are destroying and or/stealing personal property, it isn’t because they’re immigrants.

        Well, as was just made crystal clear, we are talking about crimes being committed by illegals because they are immigrating, you know, illegally. Crimes other than not having a visa, that is.

        The other crime many illegals commit is fraud (with fake IDs) which may or may not also be identity theft.

        Shikha’s rather puerile assertion that there is absolutely no downside, nothing whatsoever but benefits, from illegal immigration is nonsense.

        The only interesting question is whether that downside would be mitigated by wide open borders (probably), and whether on net wide open borders would make the citizens of the US better off. That’s not an easy question, but pretending its not even a question at all is asinine.

        1. “Shikha’s rather puerile assertion that there is absolutely no downside, nothing whatsoever but benefits, from illegal immigration is nonsense.”

          If she had it to write over, I suspect she’d write that differently.

          Certainly, the free flow of labor is a net benefit to the economy and society just like the free flow of any other resource, and if closed borders are causing the damage we’re talking about, then we shouldn’t be using that damage to argue against open borders.

          Incidentally, my take on the reality of that harm was addressed here:

          https://reason.com/blog/2015/07…..nt_5479230

          1. the free flow of labor is a net benefit to the economy and society

            When you have a welfare state, you need to filter those who are here to work from those who are here to collect welfare. That’s the intention of much of our current immigration system – all that stuff about sponsors and visa categories, etc.

            What we are struggling with is how to get the workers, but not the leeches. And if you have a welfare state, you probably ought to be doing some filtering of leeches.

    4. Yeah… so, residents on / near the border whose property gets trashed and/or stolen are beneficiaries not victims??

      These are effects of making immigration a black market activity. Make a simpler guest worker program that spends our border security money on Ellis Island style ingress points and this problem goes away.

      1. These are effects of making immigration a black market activity. Make a simpler guest worker program that spends our border security money on Ellis Island style ingress points and this problem goes away.

        Not arguing that. In the meantime, however, it is patently absurd to assert that there are “only beneficiaries” of [illegal] immigration. No?

        1. Not really. It is easy enough to separate trespassing from illegal immigration, as one does not require the other. If all you do is illegally immigrate (for example, crossing public lands) the crime of immigration is indeed victimless.

          1. Not really. It is easy enough to separate trespassing from illegal immigration…

            So, that rancher who is a serial victim of illegal immigrants committing property crimes against him is benefiting from immigration?

            Neat!

            1. No, that person is a victim of Trespassing. I had a corner lot in a previous house, and all the kids coming home from school would cross my lawn as a shortcut, until my lawn was striped with dead spots along their path. I’m sure that if I got rid of the school down the street, I wouldn’t have had the problem. But I was not a victim of the school, I was a victim of trespassing.

              1. No, that person is a victim of Trespassing…

                /sigh

                I didn’t press you about being a victim of anything. Rather, he is not a beneficiary of illegal immigration; he does not benefit from being victimized by illegal immigrants.

                Therefore, Dalmia’s assertion that there are”only beneficiaries” is false.

          2. Just because its possible to be an illegal immigrant without trespassing or committing vandalism doesn’t refute the fact that many illegals do trespass and commit vandalism.

            You might as well say that its easy enough to separate car theft from owning a car. Well, yeah, so what?

            1. You might as well say that its easy enough to separate car theft from owning a car. Well, yeah, so what?

              As I noted above, it is about the proximate cause. A school near my house supplied plenty of kids to trash my lawn. That didn’t mean I was a victim of the schools. I was a victim of trespassers.

              Further, Shikha’s specific argument was that Immigration has only beneficiaries, not Illegal Immigration. Just as drug use is not the cause of high incarceration and a thriving, violent black market, it is the act of making it illegal. Likewise, immigration does not cause trespassing, it is instead the act of making it illegal.

              1. Further, Shikha’s specific argument was that Immigration has only beneficiaries,

                No, her argument was that illegal immigration has only beneficiaries.

                actually, in the case of immigration, the “crimes” are not only victimless, but have only beneficiaries

                A legal immigrant is committing no crimes. This can only refer to illegal immigration, which she sees as a victimless crime with only beneficiaries.

                She is looking at this very narrowly: not having the proper paperwork is victimless. She is ignoring all the other damage done by illegal immigrants.

                1. I’ll grant you that, but still she is saying the act of immigration has only beneficiaries, not the act of trespassing. And I guess then it comes down to what is immigration I suppose. If Immigration is the act of crossing a border, then I would agree that it doesn’t have beneficiaries or victims. If you define immigration as coming to a country to live and work, then certainly there are only beneficiaries in that specific act. Does the ACT of immigration specifically include crossing private property? I think that stretches the definition a bit far, but YMMV.

                  The act of schooling results in education. That a significant portion of the kids from that school trash my lawn does not mean schooling makes me a victim of trespassing and vandalism.

                  1. If you define immigration as coming to a country to live and work, then certainly there are only beneficiaries in that specific act.

                    Even that is overstating things a little, but she was completely unqualified in her assertion that illegal immigration is nothing but beneficial.

                    Does the ACT of immigration specifically include crossing private property?

                    Well, yes, apparently it does, for many illegals.

                    1. Well, yes, apparently it does, for many illegals.

                      Again, I think you are just being coy here. The act of immigration does not require you to trespass on private property (let’s leave aside public property since that wasn’t the point of this specific thread).

                      If I can immigrate without trespassing, then trespassing is not an act of immigration. It is a separate, correlated action that is not required for immigration to exist. You haven’t approached my analogy, either. If a majority of school kids trespass my yard to go to school, is SCHOOLING inclusive of trespass?

                    2. The act of immigration does not require you to trespass on private property

                      And you are missing the point that, even though it is theoretically possible to immigrate illegally without trespassing, in the real world illegal immigration entails a lot of real trespassing.

                      Refuting her point that illegal immigration has no victims and is a pure, unalloyed benefit to every single person in the US.

                2. She also completely ignores the damage done to the people patiently waiting in the legal immigration line. The quotas are adjusted to compensate for the illegals, so it really sucks for the upstanding Mexican or Guatemalan who is patiently waiting for legal access to the US.

                  This isn’t an argument against open borders, but an argument against the profoundly stupid assertion that illegal immigration is just unicorns and rainbows.

                  1. “She also completely ignores the damage done to the people patiently waiting in the legal immigration line.”

                    You’re right.

                    There wouldn’t be a line if we had open borders with Mexico.

                    They’d benefit too.

  9. VDH wrote a good piece on What True Immigration ‘Reform’ Would Look Like

    http://www.nationalreview.com/…..ma-america

  10. The application of the “power of the state” can be done in such a way that rights are violated but does not in and of itself violate civil liberties. Arresting a murder is an application of the “power of the state”. The suspect’s rights may or may not be violated in the process leading up to the arrest and eventual trial.

    Reason is very clearly for completely open borders. Thats fine and there are some justifications for that position. Many others, Rand included, are not for open borders. I’ve not read anything showing any civil rights are being violated, just Reason’s point of view.

  11. Today’s whining is off to a great start.

    1. The commentariat around here is getting mighty pink. I’ve been pondering what might account for this. And some of the answers are actually encouraging, in the long run. But it can be irritating.

      1. Some of it is old trolls, some of it is one-off morons. But fuck, is there ever a lot of it.

      2. The commentariat around here is getting mighty pink

        ?

          1. As in red state, I’m guessing?

              1. If there is a god, an R prez might rid us of this yokel plague.

                1. Once the GOP is in power, then comes the “liberalterian” plague. God have mercy on us.

          2. Goddamnit, this is getting too confusing. Commies are red and now socons are also red. There are so many colors to choose from, why do we always pick red as the insult color?

            1. you can thank red faced Tim Russert who knew exactly what he was doing, which was trying not to associate the Dems in people’s minds with their ideological yet unpopular soulmates, the Reds.

  12. There is no functional difference between the war on drugs and the war on immigration.

    Seriously stupid claim.

    As I said last week during the name calling session, Dalmia is the worst writer I’ve seen at Reason in the last 10 years.

    1. I haven’t made it past that sentence yet. I guess I will pick myself up off the floor and continue, but… just, wow.

    2. Serious question: Why is the claim seriously stupid?

      1. Because one war is leaving a pile of corpses up and down the western hemisphere and the other one is figment of her imagination?

        1. Ah. Corpses. So no corpses in the anti-immigration biz? Do tell.

          1. who has been killed legally immigrating into the country?

            1. The fuck? In that case, who has been killed by taking Advil?

          2. Well there was that woman in San Francisco.

            1. the woman was not killed by legal immigration.

          3. There’s corpses in bathtubs from horrible accidental freak drownings. This does not ipso facto prove the existence of the War on Bathtubs.

      2. If you want to argue that any government prohibition is equal to every other government prohibition, fine. Then there is only one discussion to have — Government versus Anarchy.

        Otherwise, every detail of the prohibition of scheduled substances (constitutionality, jurisdiction, penalties, etc) is completely fucking different than the details of immigration (national sovereignty, freedom of movement, etc).

        But yeah, Dalmia appears to be stupid enough to think that any time the government puts someone in jail, it’s the same as every other time the government puts someone in jail.

        1. any time the government puts someone in jail, it’s the same as every other time the government puts someone in jail.

          From the jailee’s perspective, it is.

        2. If you want to argue that any government prohibition is equal to every other government prohibition, fine. Then there is only one discussion to have — Government versus Anarchy.

          If Dalmia had said “There is no functional difference between the war on murder/rape/theft and the war on immigration” then I’d agree.
          What she is actually claiming is that one victimless crime is like another. If you want to claim that illegal immigration is not a victimless crime, fine. But don’t pretend that it’s somehow beyond the pale to equate the two.

          1. What she is actually claiming is that one victimless crime is like another.

            Except that is not what she said. She said there is no functional difference between the very real war on drugs – a war that intentionally incarcerates millions and results in the deaths of thousands – and an imaginary “war on immigration” that is not jailing or murdering anybody. These are functional differences.

            1. I’m not sure what you’re talking about, Rhywun. Immigrants are not jailed? The black market nature of immigration hasn’t led to people dying in the desert?

              1. I suppose they may be detained temporarily before being deported – but the end goal is to get them out of the country, not keep them in jail. As for dying in the desert, well you got me there. I think the numbers are insignificant compared to the Drug War but yeah it happens.

          2. Illegal immigration is not a victimless crime. American citizenship and residency both have value, and adding citizens and residents has costs. They are inflicting direct costs and opportunity costs.

      3. One is an unconstitutional attack on American citizens, one is a constitutional use of power to protect Americans, for starters

  13. There is no right to movement except on your own personnel property in a market based economy.

    All other movement is only done with the permission of the property owner and if the owner is not a fool, they will not grant unlimited rights of movement to unlimited numbers of people.

    Free movement of people is socialist, unlimited movement of people around the world is one world government socialism

  14. There is no right to movement except on your own personnel property in a market based economy.

    All other movement is only done with the permission of the property owner and if the owner is not a fool, they will not grant unlimited rights of movement to unlimited numbers of people.

    Free movement of people is socialist, unlimited movement of people around the world is one world government socialism

  15. There is no right to movement except on your own personnel property in a market based economy.

    All other movement is only done with the permission of the property owner and if the owner is not a fool, they will not grant unlimited rights of movement to unlimited numbers of people.

    Free movement of people is socialist, unlimited movement of people around the world is one world government socialism

    1. So, what you’re saying, DJF, is that I should be able to invite ANYONE I want to live, work, party on my property? Cool!

      So, what you’re saying, DJF, is that I should be able to invite ANYONE I want to live, work, party on my property? Cool!

      So, what you’re saying, DJF, is that I should be able to invite ANYONE I want to live, work, party on my property? Cool!

      1. Do you have a teleportation device? Can I buy one?

        1. I have an airplane. Will that work?

          1. Spare us your technical mumbo-jumbo, wizard.

          2. If you have an airplane and sufficient land for it, and sterilize all your workers and lock them on your property, I don’t see why not.

            1. and sterilize all your workers

              .
              Ah.

              1. Look, we both know you don’t have an argument you can win with, but you’re supposed to try harder than that.

        2. Well, there are these things called buses, the owners of which are often willing to transport anyone who can pay. And these things called roads which, by convention and law are generally open to the use of anyone. And if roads were private, I am sure some of the road owners would be happy to allow immigrants to make use of them. And that some people who own property along the border would be happy to allow people to come onto their property, perhaps for a fee.

          The private property argument against immigration is utter bullshit.

          1. And conversely, the private property argument FOR immigration is what makes it a central libertarian issue, IMHO.

          2. DJF lacks the insight as to how anyone would voluntarily cooperate with their neighbor to allow movement on their property that has mutual benefit to all parties.

        3. “Do you have a teleportation device? Can I buy one?”

          Are you aware that every time you teleport, you die, and you’re replaced with a doppelganger that has all your memories?

      2. So, what you’re saying, DJF, is that I should be able to invite ANYONE I want to live, work, party on my property? Cool!

        Fuckin’ LOL at this “LOOK AT ME I’M NOT A RACIST!!” signaling.

        Newsflash, CN–those mestizos you’re sucking up to hate your guts, too, and will always hate your guts, no matter how much you declare to love eating their food and listening to their music. To them you’re just another dumbass gringo to be resented for your privilege.

        1. Hey, Red Rocks. What the fuck are you talking about?

          1. I don’t even know any mestizos. I like hamburgers and bluegrass. But not NASCAR. I’d never go THAT far.

    2. There is a right to movement on the property of people who allow you there (and we do live in a world where there are such things as roads and other public rights of way). And restrictive immigration violates those rights. No one is saying that you should have to allow anyone on your property? Why do you think you get to make that decision for everyone else? The whole country is not collectively owned.

      1. But unfortuantely the roadways you mentioned are “publically owned”. And just as immigrants don’t have a right to your private property, nor do they have a right to access stolen private property either. Whatever the pragmatic benefits of immigration you might find, there is no natural right to immigration. Only a natural right to emigration.

        1. I would say that there is a natural right to immigrate to terra nullius. Of course, in our modern era, we have the hubris of the United Nations declaring sovereignty over the entire cosmos.

        2. I disagree. As with most rights, a right doesn’t guarantee you the right to do any particular thing (free press doesn’t mean you get a printing press, etc.). There most certainly is a right to immigrate, provided you have a place to immigrate to.

          As to roads, citizens don’t have a right to access stolen private property either. Yet here we are.

          Also, it is hard to emigrate without also immigrating. So I’m not sure how you can have the one without the other.

          1. I disagree. As with most rights, a right doesn’t guarantee you the right to do any particular thing (free press doesn’t mean you get a printing press, etc.)

            Well freedom of the press does guarantee a negative right to not be censored unjustly. Saying that you are guaranteed a printing press would be a positive right, which is of course illegitimate.

            There most certainly is a right to immigrate, provided you have a place to immigrate to.

            Well you are describing emigration, not immigration. There most certainly is a right to emigrate from anywhere, but there is no right to immigrate to anywhere in particular except by contract. You are always free to leave, but not necessarily free to arrive. Otherwise, if you did have a natural right to immigrate, that would be a positive right to the property of others.

            1. That distinction is kind of odd and I’m not sure it makes sense. Immigration and emigration are the same thing from different perspectives. you can’t leave one place without arriving in another.

              1. you can’t leave one place without arriving in another.

                So, does that mean your right to leave your property means you have a right to go on anyone and everyone else’s property?

                or does your right to leave one place have zero implications on your right to be anywhere else in particular.

                To put it more bluntly, does your right to leave Mexico give you the right to cut the rancher’s fences on your way out? If you have the right to be on his property (implied by your right to leave Mexico and thus be on someone else’s property), then his fence is violating your rights, is it not?

              2. you can’t leave one place without arriving in another.

                RC Dean a fine job of rebutting you so I’ll just add that, you might hear a bartender say “You don’t have to go home but you can’t stay here.” Does that mean you have a right to break into the house next door to the bar?

                The property rights of the location to which you are travelling do matter. Just because you have a natural right to emigrate from the United States doesn’t mean you have a natural right to pound on the door of the Prince of Monaco demanding to stay in his guest room.

        3. Persons don’t need a “right” to immigrate. You need a “right” to stop them.

          1. You need a “right” to stop them.

            Property rights. Done.

      2. and we do live in a world where there are such things as roads and other public rights of way

        Are you actually claiming that the roads and public rights of way in the U.S. were intended or can be rightfully used by anybody on the Earth?

        1. That is their claim, whether they realize they’re making it or not.

      3. There is a right to movement on the property of people who allow you there (and we do live in a world where there are such things as roads and other public rights of way). And restrictive immigration violates those rights.

        Zeb,
        help me to square these two statements because they appear contradictory. We have immigration laws, which you may see as restrictive but which, by definition, speak directly to “people who allow you there” saying ‘you are not allowed here.’ Those people have not conferred a right to movement; in fact, immigration policy is explicitly counter to that. Doesn’t mean you cannot move at all, just means there is a process for it.

        1. Immigration restrictions violate the rights of people who I want to allow on my property to move freely where they are permitted to be. And violate my rights to use my property as i wish. Even if they never leave my private property, illegal immigrants are subject to arrest and deportation. That violates their rights and mine.

          If you want to make the private property argument against immigration, then it goes both ways. And I reject the idea that we can collectively decide to exclude a class of people from public/government owned property. If I have the right (or privilege perhaps) to use the roads to pull a trailer full of rocks or cattle, then i have the right to use the road to pull a trailer full of immigrants (no I’m not comparing immigrants to rocks or cattle).

          1. Immigration restrictions violate the rights of people who I want to allow on my property to move freely where they are permitted to be.

            Where are they permitted to be? You have given them the ability to be on your property, but unless they have a teleportation device, they either need to cross other private land, or public property. Keeping in mind the SLDs about public property, it can certainly be argued that immigration restrictions are the rules about who is or isn’t “permitted to be” on public lands.

      4. There is a right to movement on the property of people who allow you there…

        You are conflating a right with a privilege here. If I give you permission to visit my property that does not confer a right of unrestricted movement about said property. Rather, it extends a privilege that may or may not be restricted and may certainly be rescinded at any time. As it is my property, I have the right to bar your access to my bedroom, my vault, my dungeon, my monocle factory, etcetera. The only movement that I cannot, legitimately and rightfully bar, is your movement to leave my property.

        1. No, I’m not. Access to my property is a privilege that i may grant. If I grant you that privilege, you have the right to exercise it.

          1. Indeed, you have the right to exercise it.

            If you can get to my property. Of course, doing so is going to require that you cross other people’s property. Now, does your right to be on my property negate their right to bar you from their property?

            1. Let’s vote on who gets to use the roadz today.

              1. Let’s say your property is a store without a direct frontage on a public road.

                So anyone who wants to get to it has to cross private property.

                Or, your home is in an HOA with private roads. Which exist. Because I live in one and pay for the roads myself.

          2. If I grant you that privilege, you have the right to exercise it…

            Let’s be very clear about distinctions here. “Rights” (e.g. Natural Rights), as I use/understand them are not granted and are unalienable. Privileges are not rights; they may be granted, revoked, or limited/restricted at will by the grantor. You appear to be referencing a “legal right” (as opposed to a Natural Right), which is an entitlement conferred, generally, by privilege.

            No. You do not have any Natural Right to movement on my property, just b/c I invited you in, barring the Natural Right to leave.

            Yes. By inviting you, I grant a privilege that extends a potentially limited entitlement to movement about the premises.

            If I can say, “No, you can’t go in there!”, then you do not have a Natural Right of movement on that property, regardless of whether I invited / allowed you onto my general property or not.

    3. “There is no right to movement except on your own personnel property in a market based economy.”

      Truly the dumbest anti-immigration argument ever invented. I think it was Hoppe that came up with this gem, wasn’t it? He doesn’t realize that all it would take is one person that doesn’t care and is willing to either let people cross his property for a hefty profit, or to transport people in their bus, boat, or plane to a place where their labor is needed and wanted.

      1. and is willing to either let people

        If someone has to be willing, then your “right to movement” is not universal is it? And then you have to assume that a country having public property automatically means you can have no restrictions on it’s use to make the rest of that work

      2. What good would that person accomplish by letting all those people onto his land when they couldn’t leave it?

        1. What’s it to you? What good is owning 50 guns? People get to do what they want with their property.

          1. He was making a claim that somehow one person allowing illegals to cross his property would allow them to wind up wherever they wanted to go. It was nonsense.

      3. Well that’s the whole point. In a free society, property owners are free to invite and evict people from their property as they see fit. But in a statist society with stolen property in the form of public property, and stolen liberty in the form of public accommodation laws, things necessarily get convoluted and complicated. That’s not necessarily the fault of Mr Property Owner. In a free society immigration would be called “moving”. But so long as there is public property, so long as there are public accommodation laws and so long as there are borders, unrestricted immigration does not qualify as an enhancement of liberty.

    4. There is no right to movement except on your own personnel property in a market based economy.

      This gets to the heart of the matter.

      Is government property owned by the people constituting that government, or not? If it is owned by those people, then them saying “Non owners may not make use of it” is not substantially different from those people saying “None of you are allowed on my personal property”. I don’t think Reasonoids would have a moral objection to an HOA that has a green area laying out rules like “Only residents of the HOA may use this land”.

      Based on that logic, I cannot see how people restricting the usage of property held in a trust they part own is morally different than people restricting the use of their own property.

      I’m still a guest worker type of guy, so I see a lot of pragmatic reasons to open our borders. I just have a hard time seeing the moral case for it.

      1. As I don’t want to have to show my national ID card every time I step out onto a public way, I would rather stick with the assumption that public ways are open to anyone who wants to make peaceful use of them. If roads were all private, we could see how it plays out. I would bet that many road owners would find significant benefit to allowing anyone who can pay the toll to use their roads.

        1. As I don’t want to have to show my national ID card every time I step out onto a public way, I would rather stick with the assumption that public ways are open to anyone who wants to make peaceful use of them

          That’s fine but it is not a moral case. You 1) give a pragmatic reason you want to lessen restrictions (you don’t want the hassle of showing an id) and 2) still feel comfortable putting other restrictions on the usage (peaceful use of the road).

          By your very statement, you acknowledge that as part owner of the road you get to define its usage according to your preferences. I personally agree with your sentiments, btw.

          However, that doesn’t get to the argument at hand. Certain pro-open-borders people are saying that restricting movement across your private property is different than restricting movement across property held in trust by the government of which you are a part owner. That is the distinction I am looking to answer. That is why I brought up the HOA example- in joining that HOA you may be a part owner of property that the entire HOA gets to restrict according to its rulemaking bylaws. Does the HOA get to control how a park is used? If not, what is different from you owning that park? If they do get to control it, how is that moral justification different from a large country being allowed to do the same?

        2. As I don’t want to have to show my national ID card every time I step out onto a public way, I would rather stick with the assumption that public ways are open to anyone who wants to make peaceful use of them.

          And yet, we live in a country where illegal immigration is illegal, and that’s still not a problem for you. So maybe your worries are misplaced?

        3. the assumption that public ways are open to anyone who wants to make peaceful use of them

          But this assumption isn’t true, or there wouldn’t be border entry checkpoints. So, knowing now that public ways are not open to anyone, you can make the case that non-citizens have a right to use citizen’s property.

  16. actually, in the case of immigration, the “crimes” are not only victimless, but have only beneficiaries

    Shikha, you are a lying sack of shit.

    1. I don’t know if she’s so much a lying sack of shit as she is wrong due to tunnel vision. Value is subjective. You could be made financially better off by whoring out your wife, but alas your cost-benefit analysis might lead to you to conclude that you’d be worse off in doing so despite the irrefutable economic gain. There is more to associations of human beings than just the economic benefits.

      1. There is more to associations of human beings than just the economic benefits.

        As you said, that is major tunnel vision, and it’s one of the areas where, unfortunately, communists and libertarians tend to converge. When a libertarian asserts that open borders is nothing but beneficial, it’s not only begging the question, it deliberately ignores the reality and long-standing history of the evolution of immigrant communities in this country. People are more than just homo economicus.

        When I see someone agitating for open borders, it’s usually two types of people–1) someone who is working to increase the numbers and political influence of their own ethnic group, irrespective of how that might affect the people who already live there, and/or 2) someone who hasn’t actually spent any substantive length of time living in neighborhoods dominated by first- and second-generation immigrants and refugees. They don’t see immigrants in any other fashion other than the most epicurean, superficial terms–“Oh, but then we wouldn’t have any delicious ______ restaurants!” “Well, then who’s going to do those shitty jobs? Not natives!”–as if employers wouldn’t adapt to having a smaller labor pool to work with. They don’t bother to honestly examine the stress on infrastructure, resources, public services, community trust bonds. Just the implicit assumption that ethnic and cultural balkanization makes us stronger, all evidence to the contrary.

        1. When I see someone agitating for open borders, it’s usually two types of people–1) someone who is working to increase the numbers and political influence of their own ethnic group

          You should include in this group, the political elites and vested interests who promote a different ethnic group from their own, for political gain or ideological fervor like “white guilt” et al. When a Republican looks across the Rio Grande, they sees hordes of illegal aliens. When a Democrat looks across the Rio Grande he sees a legion of undocumented Democrats.

          But we’re supposed to pretend that all cultures and values are equal and that we’re always better off to live with them. Which is why so many people are clamoring to go live and immerse themselves in the societies these immigrants are typically moving from.

  17. No one call Shikha any names or criticize her arguments in any way. She’s going through a rough patch right now, having recently made a string of bad arguments.

  18. Seriously, you FreeRepublic types: why are you here? You hate it here, you hate us. There’s an easy solution.

    1. Oddly enough, Warty, I think it may be ’cause we’re the cool kids now. A strange feeling, no?

      1. You are not cool, CN. Sorry to be the one to tell you.

        1. I’m not personally cool. It’s hanging around with you lot that gives me my cachet.

      2. I’m not cool. You take that back.

    2. I keep asking the same question. Over and over and over.

      Frankly, I think they’re gay for us.

      1. Current sexuality: cosmotarian.

    3. Just out of curiosity, when did you decide to become the new Bo?

      1. Good one, man. You really showed him. Yuck-yuck-a-yuck. Now call him a cuckservative cause he likes watchin’ his woman get fucked by porch monkeys!

        1. DL could have tried harder. I mean, psssshhh, lame. We have a reputation to uphold here.

          1. Is “porch monkeys” actually a slur that has ever really been used?

        2. Wait a minute. That wasn’t a very good one at all. And come to think of it, he showed little to nothing. Are you having some sort of sarcastic joke at his expense?

        3. Is your blood sugar too low again? Because you’re arguing like a prog.

          1. Oh, sweet summer child. Are you falling into the moron’s trap of confusing being insulted with being cared enough about to be argued against?

          2. You’re just like Hitler Trump.

            Boom. And that’s how it’s done. We can all move on now.

            1. You’re just like Mike Godwin.

              1. Nothing’d. Thread over.

          3. Progs have low blood sugar? I don’t get it.

            1. I believe the implication is that SF’s infirmity is causing him to argue in a stupid manner reminiscent of a progressive. It’s unclear. Perhaps he could elaborate?

              1. Well something must be wrong with me if I don’t think you’re just like a liberal troll. Blood sugar, crippled, I mean something, right?

                1. I think it means that you plan on redistributing everyone’s pancreases.

                  1. If you like your pancreas, you can keep it.

          4. This is arguing?

            1. Oh! I’m sorry! This is abuse!
              No, you want room 12A, next door

          5. I hear tell that Warty’s married to a Jew. Anyone that would do that is capable of any old depraved thing!

            Git ‘im, boys!

            1. RACE TRAITORRRRRRRRRRR

              1. Warty wants the wombs of white women shat in by the weak!

            2. Do you know who else was married to a Jew?

    4. Don’t know what a freerepublic is, but isn’t this just a rest stop on the road of the internet highway, available to all the world to travel?

      1. Rest stop implies: rest, move on.

        I’m not seeing much of either.

        1. Rest stops are for glory holes, idiot.

          1. They’re also for endlessly pissing, which is all they seem to do.

            Hit & Run: Giving Yokels Something to Suck on, Since 2014.

    5. Seriously, you FreeRepublic types: why are you here?

      Maybe because they like to argue? Maybe because they have an opinion and they want to share it?

      I do not go to FreeRepublic, but I do come to Reason because I like lively debate. Why do you come here Warty? Is it just to find your next victim while enjoying an echo chamber?

      It isn’t like these arguments are out in the extreme. There is a real question of whether or not the public has the same rights to control public property that they have in controlling their own private property. It is an interesting discussion that Libertarians should have an answer for.

      1. That’s all well and good, except that arguing isn’t what they like to do. Whining about cosmotarians, whatever that is, is what they like to do. Whining that reason doesn’t cater to them is their second favorite thing to do. I’m not even sure the subject is what matters to them, whinertarians just want to whine.

        1. While I certainly see whining (on both sides, actually) I see a good debate going. I really enjoy all of the banter and in-jokes here. But the main reason I come is to see some of these really hard questions debated from a libertarian perspective. The tension between freedom of movement/association and private/public property is an important one. It brings several founding principals into conflict and requires discussion.

          And while the freepers and their like don’t necessarily help us deal with those conflicts, they do test the stances we adopt with tons of the exact responses you will need to deal with if you ever intend to carry the message outside this thread.

          1. they do test the stances we adopt with tons of the exact responses you will need to deal with if you ever intend to carry the message outside this thread.

            Heh, you really think we libertarians lead rich social lives? That’s very generous of you.

      2. The argument and debate is great. The constant insinuations that Reason and it’s cozmo friends just want the libertal media establishment to think that they are cool and invite them to parties is stupid and tiresome.

        1. The constant insinuations that Reason and it’s cozmo friends just want the libertal media establishment to think that they are cool and invite them to parties is stupid and tiresome.

          Yet not without a grain of truth.

          1. I think Reason staff swims in the same waters as proggy DemOp journalists. And that, inevitably, the proggy DemOp assumptions rub off on them.

            To those of us who avoid those waters, its annoying to come here and get splashed by them.

            1. Calling it annoying is too kind.

        2. I guess I understand that. However, like with my kids, why not just ignore them?

          There were plenty of one liners bitches in this thread, but they were often followed up by more debate. Sometimes it takes a grenade to get things moving around.

          Additionally, I do not think Shikha has thought hard about her principles. Some of her recent articles seem to be reasoned backwards- starting with some sort of visceral dislike of immigration restrictionists then some stuff thrown in to support her claims. She never seems to want to get at the core principles that guide her belief, so she just throws together dumb stuff like the above. She seems, above any of the other writers, more interested in principals than principles. (c.f. her condemnation of conservatives who want to get the state out of marriage now.)

          I find that tiresome, and I’ll probably call her out on it more often than not because I think she is probably a smart person who could do better than that.

          1. She basically makes the case that economic benefit is the only thing that matters. That may win her a debate against economic protectionists but that’s hardly the only important factor and certainly not as black and white as she pretends. As I mentioned earlier up the thread, you can experience an economic benefit from whoring out your wife, and even though the economic gain is indisputable, you’d probably still have good reason to think that you didn’t come out ahead in that transaction.

        3. The constant insinuations that Reason and it’s cozmo friends just want the libertal media establishment to think that they are cool and invite them to parties is stupid and tiresome.

          I don’t think it’s any more stupid and tiresome than some of the shit articles that have made the cut recently. I don’t have a dog in the fight, i couldn’t care about cozmos and yokels, but I do care about libertarian journalism being well reasoned (drink), philosophically rigorous, and thematically distinguishable from Salon and Gawker.

          I think that this article (along with most of Shikha’s articles) is embarrassing, especially when 1500 character comments to the article show more depth and principle. It also plays into the “there’s only one right way to do libertarianism” BS that comes up with gay marriage, abortion, and other issues.

        4. Good thing you balance out all the “yokels.” That is the definition of anyone who disagrees, isn’t it? Doomcock, dungeons, sf pr0n, “the worst.” All the kool kids are doing it.

  19. There is no functional difference between the war on drugs and the war on immigration. Both use the power of the state to go after the supposed perpetrators of victimless “crimes” (actually, in the case of immigration, the “crimes” are not only victimless, but have only beneficiaries) while running roughshod over civil liberties and decimating minority communities.

    But is the war on immigration no different from Adam Lanza?

    In a world of half-ass comparisons, that’s the only one I’m really interested in.

  20. What does getting rid of birthright citizenship have to do with immigration?

    Are the Open Border types telling us not only do we have to let the entire world in, but now we have to give them citizenship as well?

    1. Dey own yer roadzzzzzzzzzzz

    2. The point is to eliminate “anchor babies.” Uncle Sam doesn’t like to deport the illegal mothers of citizens.

      There is also the idea that citizenship for the kids makes illegal immigration more attractive.

    3. “Are the Open Border types telling us not only do we have to let the entire world in, but now we have to give them citizenship as well?”

      Well, yes at least some of the types.

      As just letting them stay but not giving them citizenship creates “second class citizens” or “apartheid”. (Look at Hillary Clinton’s almost robotic response to Jeb Bush)

  21. This is an excellent example of the dilemma that being a libertarian in a crypto-total state creates.

    As with gay marriage, open borders is something that’s a good idea in isolation.

    Its when you put it in the context of a Total State that restricts your rights that it gets complicated. And doing something that, in isolation, is a good thing has knock-on effects that are not such good things.

    Its the difference between letting your fifteen-year-old practice their driving in an empty parking lot, and letting them practice their driving on the Interstate. In isolation on a parking lot, practicing your driving is a good thing. Practicing on an interstate, not so much.

    Context matters. Pretending it doesn’t is foolish.

    1. ^This. Libertarians are really bad at understanding the path to liberty. Progressives are extraordinarily pragmatic, and understand the exact path to their eventual goals. They fight for intermediate steps, all the while keeping their eyes on the prize.

      Let’s talk open borders when we have a nation conducive to open borders. Until then, let’s focus on the baby steps to get the nation prepped for open borders.

  22. Funny how a country that was built on free immigration now looks upon it with disdain.

    1. Same for slavery.

      1. Because allowing people to move freely across imaginary lines on a map is exactly the same as binding them in chains! You’re brilliant!

        1. Cool them jets now.

          Didn’t say they were the same, both were viewed as natural at one time, and the views changed over time.

          For better or for worse understandings change as context changes.

          1. I totally disagree that they were both viewed as natural. Slavery was going away in the rest of the world, and its continuation in this country was anything but natural. Likewise, restricted immigration was the norm around the world, which made the US unusual in that regard as well.

            1. Don’t call it natural then, doesn’t change anything in regards to people’s views shifting from what the country was built on.

              Both we’re accepted as the norm at a time in this country (legal in all 13 colonies as well as Canada), and slavery was accepted by the West, if not the world, as the norm.

              Although, I’m not sure that non-white immigration to the US was ever widely accepted up until recently.

              1. Use an alternative example, if slavery is too hair raising.

                When the US was founded, the English Standard of no-compulsory education was widespread (Boston being the famous exception) today you’ll be executed for not complying.

        2. How is a country’s border any more an imaginary line than, for instance, the lines on the surveyors map describing your yard?

          1. How is a country’s border any more an imaginary line than, for instance, the lines on the surveyors map describing your yard?

            Well it’s like asking the difference between a criminal protection racket and firm that rents out security guards. One takes your money by aggressive force, the other by contract.

            Assuming all else being equal for a moment, private property boundaries are determined by contract (w/ the exception of homesteading), the mutual agreements of voluntarily interacting actors. Political boundaries are determined by the aggressive force of expropriating gangs. One has legitimacy in natural law, the other doesn’t.

            1. True enough, I suppose, but incomplete.

              All private property rights are granted by the sovereign. I’ve seen the original grant documents for private property in Virginia, and they are really cool because they are a grant from the Governor-General to the newly minted landowner.

              The homesteading of the westward expansion is the same thing.

              Like it or not, private property rights are derivative of the sovereign’s rights. Its very hard to say that national boundaries are less legitimate than private property boundaries.

              All property boundaries are ultimately enforced with violence, whether national or private. Whether those boundaries were created by a violent seizure (as during a war), or by agreement (as by sale or treaty) isn’t terribly relevant, as far as I can tell, to their current validity and what may be done to enforce them.

              1. All private property rights are granted by the sovereign.

                That’s completely wrong. Setting aside all the historical examples to the contrary, we’ll just focus on the theory of property rights.

                All property rights in a given area might be guaranteed by a sovereign who has monopolized that particular economic good. Property predates the state, property itself could not be a subset of the state. Statism, ostensibly at least, is an attempt to protect property with it’s various monopoly powers.

                Property is a part of the person who made it into their property. Your finger, is your property, the state didn’t grant you that finger. It might presume to monopolize the legal system that protects your finger however, but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible or illegitimate to own that finger outside of a monopolized statutory legal system.

                All property boundaries are ultimately enforced with violence

                So what? Not all violence is the same thing. The difference is aggression. There’s a reason that someone who removes you from your home at gun point and claims it as his property, could not be considered the rightful owner. It’s the same reason that you would be within your rights as the property’s owner to evict him with force. Even if you kicked in that door and clubbed him over the head, he’s still the aggressor / transgressor.

    2. Funny how a country that was built on personal responsibility is now a welfare state that admits of no limits on its power to violate your rights.

      Free immigration to a country which won’t tax people to give you welfare, or jail people who would rather not associate with you, is very different than open borders to the country we have now.

      1. I agree 100%.

    3. Built on free immigration? When? When it was forcing people to come here? When it banned people from coming here? When, exactly?

    4. Funny how a country that was built on free immigration now looks upon it with disdain.

      We had a vast frontier when the country began. And later, a burgeoning industrial base that needed workers.

      What made practical sense in 1789 doesn’t necessarily still make practical sense in 2015.

  23. Honestly, statutes aren’t necessarily very large. Aside from the bill of rights, I’m not even sure there is a statute of liberty in this country.

      1. Thanks. Now I’ve been watching Kramer stuff on youtube for like half and hour.

  24. Shikha Dalmia is just another typist that gets paid to say exactly what the establishment media want to be said. Anything for headlines. What is left out is the fact that the vast majority of the headlines being typed have nothing to do what either the article says or what the person the article about has said or meant. I have read 100’s of articles and maybe 1 out of 50 actually quote the person they are typing about correctly. The rest of the times they twist what the quotes are to fit the opinion they are trying to establish. So my recommendation is to read what the candidates have said, written or have done not what someone else says what that candidate has said, written or done. You will find that the majority someone else’s opinion doesn’t match what your opinion is.

  25. “There is no functional difference between the war on drugs and the war on immigration.”

    Besides immigration law being delegated to the Federal government in the constitution, and drug laws not being so delegated.

    But yes, you’re completely right, just as there is no functional difference between disagreeing with your Open Borders ideology and being Hitler either.

    1. The US constitution does not authorize the USG to restrict immigration in any way.

  26. Shikha not love Rand Paul! Shikha not toe line! Us commenters angry!

  27. ” (actually, in the case of immigration, the “crimes” are not only victimless, but have only beneficiaries)”

    This statement is so wrong

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.