Immigration

America Needs a 21st Century Equivalent of the Ellis Island Open Border Immigration Policy

A country that committed the original sin of slavery to forcibly bring foreign labor to America should not be going to such draconian lengths to throw voluntary foreign labor out of America.

|

Last week I debated National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru on immigration at American University. I argued that immigration has been very good economically for America and that we need to strive for a 21st century version of the open borders policy we had for the first 150 years of the country's existence. Ramesh, himself a son of Indian immigrants, made a case for a more selective, high-skilled immigration policy along the lines of Canada's.

Our remarks were followed by a vigorous Q&A with the assembled students and faculty.

Here is a video link of the entire evening. Below is a rough transcript of my speech.

What should U.S. immigration policy be? That is the question for this discussion.

In a country that understands itself as the land of immigrants, and where the Statue of Liberty stands tall at its gate, one would think that the answer to this question would not be difficult: a policy of a wide and warm embrace of immigrants. In fact, it would seem odd that this is even an open question. But the interesting thing it seems is that in every century, there is one president who seem to get the answer "right"—or mostly right. And, spoiler alert, it's not Trump for our century.

In the 19th century, the president who stands out on this issue is Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was a big proponent of maintaining America's open border immigration policy of the time—and opponent of the Know Nothing nativist movement. Even before he became president, in 1855, he wrote in a letter: "As a nation, we began by declaring that 'all men are created equal.' We now practically read it 'all men are created equal, except negroes.' When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read 'all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.' When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty—to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy." After he became president, on the Fourth of July, 1864, Lincoln singed into law a bill titled An Act to Encourage Immigration.

How quaint that sounds in Trump's America where deportation squads are doubling down to round up peaceful and productive immigrants with long roots in the country in the name of interior enforcement. Or where Trump demanded a 40 percent cut in legal immigration as a condition for legalizing Dreamers. It is striking that a country that committed the original sin of slavery to forcibly bring foreign labor to America should now be going to such draconian lengths to throw voluntary foreign labor out of America.

In the 20th century, the president who came closest to getting the answer right was Ronald Reagan. Trump thinks he invented the "Make America Great Again" slogan. In fact, Reagan beat him to it. He ran on a "Let's Make America Great Again" campaign, except that he used the phrase to argue not for pulling up the drawbridge to promote an ethnonationalist state, as Trump is doing, but the opposite: He said we should throw open America's "golden gate" to immigrants because the immigrants, in his view, "brought with them courage and the values of family, work, and freedom." In other words, without immigrants America wouldn't have any golden gates to slam.

Which brings me to the economic case for immigration to America.

There is an overwhelming consensus among economists that immigration is a great blessing, a win-win for both immigrants and the host country. Every economist of every persuasion—Adam Smith, Keynes, Ludwig von Mises—believed that allowing labor to move wherever it is most productive would be a great boon for everyone. Curiously, the one prominent exception historically has been Karl Marx. He regarded England's decision to absorb the "surplus" Irishmen being driven out of their country during the Great Famine not as a benefit but a ploy by the English bourgeoisie to "force down wages and lower the material and moral position of the English working class." The popular, modern-day retrictionist canard that immigration from the Third World to rich countries is tantamount to "importing poverty" has its genesis in Marxist thought. So it's interesting that we find conservatives today channeling Marx.

The primary reason that people find this kind of thinking appealing is that the case for immigration is indeed counterintuitive. It is hard to see how in a world of finite resources, allowing more people into a country would enhance its prosperity instead of leading to overcrowding and congestion and unemployment. President Trump perfectly encapsulated this mentality when he declared that "our country is full." But if our country is full, should we also restrict childbirth like China did at the height of the population explosion fear? This is a Malthusian worldview that has been thoroughly refuted.

At the heart of this issue is the question: Are humans a liability who deplete resources or an asset who themselves are a resource—indeed, to use the parlance of the late, great environmental economist Julian Simon, the "ultimate resource"?

It is the ingenuity of human beings that turns fallow land bounteous, dirt into valuable metals, and sand into computer chips. There is no given or fixed set of natural resources out there, Simon pointed out. Useless materials become resources once human creativity finds a way to harnesses them. Oil was just a toxic black liquid in the ground till humans discovered that it could be burnt for light and power. The development of high-yield grains increased the productivity of land exponentially while human population grew only arithmetically—the exact opposite of what Malthus predicted.

The most important factor limiting a country's economic progress, then, isn't insufficient physical resources but insufficient human resources. Hence, contrary to Malthusian—or Trumpian—thinking, population increases through immigration are nothing to fret over when you have institutions able to harness human talent. Immigrants are not only mouths that need to be fed but also minds and hands that grow the economic pie. They certainly consume resources. But they produce far more than they consume over the long run when given an opportunity. To the extent that immigrants, whether high- or low-skilled, have jobs, it's because they produce more wealth or value for their employers than they consume in wages.

Imagine for a moment that there were foreign planes periodically airdropping free goods on American homes. Wouldn't it be colossally stupid to send missiles to shoot them down? Yet why is it not equally foolish to shoo away the real source of this wealth, namely, Mexicans whose sweat makes affordable housing possible for Americans and puts cheap goods in these houses? Or when it turns away Chinese computer engineers whose smarts virtually spin gold from sand?

In the modern world, we seem to think migration is something we've invented through plane travel and fast communication. Actually, large movements of people—even between settled civilizations, not just nomadic cultures—have always been part and parcel of human history. What's relatively new are the political barriers to mobility. And these have become tenacious. About 3 percent of the world's population lived outside its birth country in 1900. And 3 percent does so now. Not a deluge, not a tsunami, but a trickle, despite the canard of "mass immigration" that nativists and restrictionists have weaponized to launch their anti-immigration populist backlash around the world.

Refugee flows, as distinguished from economic migrants, are dominating our political consciousness right now. But these are episodic and brief, because they are the result of turmoil. The vast majority of migration is economic in nature, driven by the differential levels of productivity between developed and developing countries. The lower productivity of the latter means, for example, that Mexicans can earn twice more, Indians over 5 times more, Haitians 10 times more, and Nigerians 15 times more for the same work in the United States.

Trapping immigrants in low-productivity countries results in huge losses not just for them but for global productivity. How huge? The Center for Global Development's Michael Clemens has estimated that if everyone could take a job anywhere they wanted, our $75 trillion global world product would experience an instant boost of 50 to 150 percent annually. Using the lower number would mean adding $37 trillion of wealth to the world. Even if you discount Clemens by 50 percent, we are still talking of $17 trillion, or the size of U.S. economy, added to the world every year, which would end global poverty while enriching First World natives.

Even the meager immigration the U.S. has allowed has made this country immensely richer. Reasonable estimates suggest that the total annual contribution of foreign-born workers to the U.S. economy adds up to roughly $2 trillion, or about 10 percent of annual GDP. Optimistic ones put that number higher. And even an immigration pessimist like Harvard University's George Borjas puts it at $1.6 trillion.

Not too many people outside hardcore nativist circles believe that high-skilled foreigners are anything but an unmitigated economic blessing. Even Ramesh and his colleague Reihan Salam accept that. According to one estimate, 50 percent of productivity growth in the United States between 1950 to 1993 could be attributed to the growth in the number of foreign scientists and engineers. Between 2000 and 2017, immigrants won nearly 40 percent of the American Nobel Prizes. An Indian-American economist won the Nobel just last week. Highly educated immigrants obtain patents at double the rate of highly-educated natives.

Immigrants and their children were responsible for founding 46 percent of all the Fortune 500 companies in America in 2017. A quarter of all startups have been started by immigrants. Fifty-five percent of $1 billion–worth startups had an immigrant founder. Apple was founded by the son of Syrian refugees. It is hardly an exaggeration to suggest that if America's economy has become the innovative hub of the world, dominating virtually every industry in the 21st Century from IT to Media/Entertainment, it is because of immigration.

But does all this success by high-skilled immigrants steal jobs and wealth from native-born Americans? No! The rise in GDP due to immigration has boosted native earnings. What about employment? Do high-skilled workers take away native jobs? No again. One additional young, high-skilled immigrant worker creates 3.1 jobs for U.S.–born workers. And because foreign high-skilled workers also earn a high income, they pay far more in taxes than they consume in welfare.

The real immigration controversy is over low-skilled workers. The fear with respect to them is that they don't create jobs for natives—they compete with them and lower their wages and drain social services.

But there is very little support for these fears in the economics literature.

There are three reasons that low-skilled foreigners don't, on the whole, depress native wages:

1. The vast majority of Americans are not competitors of low-skilled immigrants but their customers. And the real wages of these customers are increased because the prices of goods and services go down, allowing them to buy more with the same income, which is tantamount to getting a raise without doing anything extra. Also, these low-skilled workers boost the productivity of high-skilled natives by freeing them for tasks that generate higher returns, monetary or psychic. Lawyers can spend more time on billable hours rather than ironing if they can take their shirts to the affordable corner Korean drycleaner. Or spend more time on bedtime reading for their kids if they can get Chinese takeout. In fact, even Reihan in his book panning low-skilled immigration admits that these immigrants have allowed him to enjoy the lifestyle of a Rockefeller in New York by putting affordable dog walking, housekeeping, nannying, cleaning, cooking, and transportation services at his beck and call.

2. More low-skilled immigration doesn't mean fewer jobs for the native-born, as restrictionists claim, because jobs are not a zero-sum game. To the extent that the foreign-born offer cheaper labor, they allow more businesses to form. And more businesses means more jobs for Americans.

Restrictionists often argue that with less immigration, the labor market would tighten—compelling American businesses to pay native workers more. That may happen in some cases. But what will also happen is that businesses will be compelled to charge higher prices, thus shrinking demand. Some businesses will go broke or shrink or never get off the ground in the first place, thus diminishing jobs for natives.

3. Immigrant workers are complements of native workers, not their substitutes, at both the high-skilled and low-skilled level. If you look at the distribution of immigrants in the economy, it resembles an hourglass with foreigners occupying the higher-rung of jobs in STEM fields where Americans are available—or lower-rung jobs where Americans are unwilling. Americans are concentrated in the mid-skilled service jobs.

In sum, economists who have examined the issue, even Borjas, have found a positive impact on the wages of every cohort of natives whether high school grads or college grads. The only negative impact that anyone has reported is Borjas on the wages of native high-school dropouts, a vanishing subset of the population. But other economists have reported a positive impact even on that cohort. So even if you accept Borjas' negative assessment, well over 90 percent of American workers experience wage gains, not losses, due to low-skilled immigration.

The economic arguments against shutting America's door to low-skilled immigrants are exceedingly weak. But what about the fiscal argument that they strain the welfare state because they consume more in social services than they pay in taxes?

Even that's kind of weak. For starters, contrary to the right-wing stereotype of Hispanics being welfare queens, the fact is that the rate of welfare use among low-skilled immigrants, even their American-born children who are entitled to all the benefits, is lower than it is for natives in the same socioeconomic bracket. As is the value of benefits they receive.

But the big point is that if you look at the social spending in this country, a small portion of it goes toward means-tested benefits for the poor: about $800 billion. About twice that amount, or $1.5 trillion, is spent on the old in the form of Social Security and Medicare. And over $1 trillion is spent on school and college of the young.

But the vast majority of low-skilled immigrants come in their twenties—just after another society has borne the great cost of educating them and before they become entitled to old-age benefits. This means that we get the benefit from their most productive years, just when they start working and paying taxes. So we get a generational windfall. We would have to spend much, much more as a country if we relied entirely on childbirth by natives to maintain our population levels and labor force.

Given these huge economic upsides of immigration to the immigrants, America, and the world, what should U.S. immigration policy be?

In an ideal world, America would implement the 21st century equivalent of the Ellis Island days prior to 1924, when Congress passed the Johnson-Reed Act and made restrictionism rather than open borders America's default policy. That act limited the number of immigrants allowed entry into the United States through a national origins quota system that was designed to keep out Asians and Eastern Europeans. Prior to that foreigners (with some notable exceptions, like the Chinese) could more or less show up by at America's ports, where they were instantly handed papers if they were able-bodied and not "idiots, lunatics, convicts" or suffering from some contagious disease. And right next to the immigration booth when they walked off the ship were companies waiting to hand them employment papers and put them to work.

The beauty of that system was that our immigration policy wasn't in the hands of bureaucrats in the Swamp trying to centrally plan the labor market for the entire country. Rather, employers and the country's residents were calling the shots. Their needs decided how many and what kind of immigrants came to America—not the arbitrary whims of bureaucrats. The government played a legitimate role in keeping out foreigners who posed a genuine security or public health threat. But beyond that, it did not come between willing employers and willing workers. It didn't matter whether the immigrants were coming to work in farms, factories, or hospitals.

That is a far cry from how our system currently works. The best way to describe our current system is that it effectively imposes a blanket ban on immigration which it then arbitrarily relaxes based on predefined bureaucratic categories or some political whim of the moment—whether it is encouraging family reunification or enhancing ethnic diversity or helping some industry that central planners deem important. For 30 years, until Trump came along, central planners had been looking relatively kindly toward foreign techies and made 85,000 H-1B guest worker visas available to them annually. (The demand is twice or three times as much.) Trump is in the process of gutting even this meager program.

But one positive thing about H-1Bs visas is that they are dual-intent visas that allow their holders not only to work here but to apply for permanent residency or green cards. The H-1B equivalents for agricultural and seasonal low-skilled workers don't allow that. They expire, and the immigrants are required to go home. They are also tangled up in red tape and aren't very usable. This is the great source of our problem with undocumented workers. Restrictionists say these people should obey the rule of law and wait in line for their turn. But there is no line for them to wait in, and the rule of law is a sham.

A 21st century equivalent of Ellis Island is a political impossibility in my lifetime. The next best thing would be to try and get our immigration bureaucracy to approximate that model. Get rid of the high-skilled and low-skilled category or at least raise the quotas in these categories and deregulate them to make them more usable. Make all of them dual-intent, not just H-1Bs so that everyone has an option of staying. To placate concerns of native workers, perhaps charge a hefty fee to issue these visas. Some Central American migrants are paying $10,000 to $20,000 to coyotes to sneak them into the country illegally. Some of that could be captured through fees to offset any fiscal impact or create a compensation fund for the natives affected.

But the single best thing that we could do would be to let states write their own immigration programs and hand out visas based on the needs of their own industry and economy. In effect, create their own guest worker programs. Uncle Sam can continue to control the grant of citizenship. Canada is already doing this through its Provincial Nominee Program. This is the real Canadian model we ought to follow, not Ontario's industrial policy point system that Ramesh, I believe, favors.

If we stay on our current course, not only will we hurt immigrants, but we will cripple our economy and, as this president is showing, erode our humanity.

NEXT: Does the Pending Federal Ban on Flavored E-Cigarettes Endanger Trump's Re-Election?

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. A country that committed the original sin of slavery to forcibly bring foreign labor to America should not be going to such draconian lengths to throw voluntary foreign labor out of America.

    Certainly a good, solid way to start your argument.

    1. Is she talking about England?

        1. Egypt – Israelites maybe?

      1. Good question. The old slave trade reportedly had multiple destinations – Brazil being the top of the list:

        Portuguese America (modern Brazil) 38.5%
        British America (minus North America) 18.4%
        Spanish Empire 17.5%
        French Americas 13.6%
        British North America 6.45%
        English Americas 3.25%
        Dutch West Indies 2.0%
        Danish West Indies 0.3%

        Of course, slavery still goes on, so maybe she’s talking about India (reportedly has the most slaves), China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Uzbekistan, North Korea, Moldova, Nigeria, Russia, Bangladesh…

        But, MOST likely, Shikha has NO IDEA what she’s talking about.
        She’s a prime example of the libturd mechanism of reaching a conclusion, then smashing bits of shit together until she thinks it looks like a supporting argument.

  2. Excellent! The world’s most eloquent voice for billionaire-funded open borders advocacy hits another home run. I especially like this framing:

    “A country that committed the original sin of slavery to forcibly bring foreign labor to America should not be going to such draconian lengths to throw voluntary foreign labor out of America.”

    If anybody here has African American friends who are skeptical of the Koch / Reason open borders agenda, make sure to quote this line. I guarantee it’ll change their minds.

    #ImmigrationAboveAll
    #BlackPeopleLoveOpenBorders
    #(YouJustHaveToPhraseItRight)

    1. Of course a Koch-billionaire shill would argue for unlimited immigration to drive down labor costs. You fiend, you’ve finally truly exposed yourself! Wishing to inflict modern day wage slavery on millions of poor, innocent people rather than slavishly offering up the fruits of others labor. Harrumph, enough of you, crawl back into that drawer and dare not show your frayed and pathetic holey sole again.

    2. I have to say, your writing has really improved over the past few months. I’d say that this was an excellent post of sarcasm and satire that I can legitimately call “biting” that is essentially impossible to misinterpret ( a serious problem with your earlier work, and most satire in general).

  3. Maybe Shikha should study the rules on immigration in the latter 19th century. Quotas (race driven), mandatory inspections/physicals, mandatory quarantines etc.

  4. “Prior to that foreigners (with some notable exceptions, like the Chinese) could more or less show up by at America’s ports, where they were instantly handed papers if they were able-bodied and not “idiots, lunatics, convicts” or suffering from some contagious disease.”

    Could you imagine what the left would do if we wrote “able bodied only” into our immigration policy? Seriously, imagine the thousands of twitter feminazis foaming at the mouth about that phrase alone, let alone the actual policy.

    As for idiots, there’s plenty of evidence that most third world countries have an average ID that wouldn’t even qualify for basic manual labor (around 80). I wouldn’t ban idiots but if that’s the system you want then we’re still going to be turning away a ton of people.

    Good luck screening lunatics. I’m sure there’s plenty of smart and talented people that currently kill and roast donkeys on the streets of their hometowns in South America, but I’ll never know because if I see that shit here I’m calling it in.

    This really isn’t as far from what currently exists as Shikha thinks it is. The difference is in the tone of the conversation rather than the actual policy.

    1. Good luck screening lunatics.

      If we could send our own lunatics back with the rejections we could have a new immigration policy tomorrow.

  5. My family came here in 1906 and it wasn’t easy. A sponsor, a skill, and a place to work were among the requirements for my grandfather to enter. If you request that of people today it is considered to be racist/bigoted, etc.

  6. To be perfectly fair to Ms. Dalmia, this was a much better article in terms of quality and information than I have seen from her for several months now. Not that I agree with her position. Mostly I disagree.

    Entry to the US, as a value proposition, is something we simply ignore. Totally wrong. The ability to come here is worth something. As such, I am only interested in letting in the best and brightest the world has to offer. To me, I would happily let in 5MM annually of the world’s best and brightest for the next 20 years. These are the people we want coming here, and building the America of the future.

    We’re crazy if we don’t use this value proposition to our advantage.

    1. Teleconferencing. Don’t leave home without it.

    2. I am only interested in letting in the best and brightest the world has to offer.

      And what you’re interested in is what really matters here.

    3. To me, I would happily let in 5MM annually of the world’s best and brightest for the next 20 years.

      Disagreed. I’ll take 20 honest, straightforward ditch diggers to fill 20 career ditch digging slots for every wandering crony ‘visionary’ like Elon Musk or George Soros.

      1. casual…We disagree about Elon Musk. That man is something special. We need a bunch more like him. Employs tens of thousands of people. Creates new value. Has a hell of a sense of humor.

        Soros, I have no use for.

        1. The problem is that Elon Musk is a welfare queen.

          1. You know, the other way to look at that is Mr. Musk had his lawyers look at the law, and they complied in a way that was beneficial to his business. This happens every single day a gazillion times.

            Is that being a welfare queen, or a smart businessman?

            1. Our enablement of this situation is the core problem, of course.

            2. “Is that being a welfare queen, or a smart businessman?”

              The issue is whether Musk is actually “creating value,” rather than just causing money to be moved to lower value uses than the other alternatives. Given how dependent he is on the government teat, I would suggest it’s the latter.

          2. There is that. But at least Musk usually coughs up cool and useful stuff for the money. As far as tax soaks go, there are plenty I’d cut off from the trough before Musk.

    4. Who cares about best and brightest. If we’re going to have to let in however many people we should be focused on the type of government-skeptic, freedom-minded, personally-responsible people that reflect the values our nation claims to have.

      Importing 10 million Nazis isn’t a benefit, even if they all have STEM degrees.

  7. A country that committed the original sin of slavery to forcibly bring foreign labor to America should not be going to such draconian lengths to throw voluntary foreign labor out of America.

    Uh… it’s well known that the Europeans didn’t bring slavery to this country.

    1. The fact of north american residents prior to Europeans keeping slaves is to be ignored.
      The millennia of slavery of all races, by all races, in all places, prior to Europeans arriving in north america is to be ignored.
      The fact that blacks kept slaves is to be ignored.
      The fact that blacks kept black slaves is to be ignored.
      Slavery was not an original sin in any country except north america, and only the time after Europeans arrive counts as bad.

      1. Slavery was not an original sin in any country except north america, and only the time after Europeans arrive counts as bad.

        Oh, yeah, even the Wikipedia article goes on to deftly note that there’s slavery and then there’s racist slavery:

        Whereas Europeans eventually came to look upon slaves of African descent as being racially inferior, Native Americans took slaves from other Native American groups, and therefore did not have the same racial ideology for their slavery.

        Sure, the native Americans tortured, ritually sacrificed, ate, and bathed in the blood of their enslaved countrymen and captured prisoners of war, they didn’t look down on them racially. Babies were sold for food but, obviously, all those babies went on to live healthier, happier lives with wealthier parents. None wound up as sex slaves or prostitutes and those that did were at least fully equal sex slaves.

        1. Babies were sold for food

          Babies were sold in exchange for food but, plenty of people and not a lot of written history so I suspect at least a few babies were sold as food.

        2. Look at how many tribes names for themselves translates into “the people” or some derivative of that phrase. And the words for other tribes, see what they meant.

          1. ^ This.

            “Native Americans took slaves from other Native American groups, and therefore did not have the same racial ideology for their slavery” is laughable in its lack of self-awareness.

            The presumption is that Native Americans look at each other through the same lens Europeans look at them.

            I don’t think a Yuma would have seen a Cherokee as any less foreign and subhuman than he would see a Frenchman. A distinction without a difference from the Yuma perspective.

            1. Hell I grew up on a reservation, they still look at other tribes line that. Some of the most racist people I’ve ever met were American Indians.

            2. The colonialism of native tribes is essentially ignored. Notably South American ‘tribes’ (really nations by any modern way of defining them) were super expansionist and incredibly brutal. They didn’t just take slaves, they used them in human sacrifices and in at least some cases ate them. Super noble compared to European colonialists, I’m sure.

              For some reason, the ‘noble savage’ portrayal is rampant. Probably because Americans feel vaguely guilty about winning all those wars with the tribes. As if it’s our fault they didn’t figure out guns and horses until way, way too late. Or it’s the Europeans fault that disease likely did most of their work for them in an age when disease wasn’t even partially understood. Recall that most of their ‘cures’ actively killed people during this period, and ‘evil spirits’ were considered to be the cause of many ailments. This was on the part of the supposedly superior culture of Europeans. I’m sure native medicine was essentially the same.

              By that measure, it would seem what the European colonizers did to the Americas was to civilize them long term. Such assholes, introducing little things like rights and law to such noble enlightened peoples.

              Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think what the Europeans did to the Americas was ethical or right by today’s measures but in terms of magnitude of unethical behavior…well it’s basically a wash. They were brutal times for everyone involved. To single out any particular good actors is essentially mental masturbation.

              It boils down to we were wrong because we won. I’m certain that, had we lost, their tune would be substantially changed. How ‘open’ to Aztec culture would modern Progressives be, one might wonder.

              1. Yes, Cortez could never have been successful if so many tribes weren’t willing to ally with him. The Lakota and Cheyenne had mistreated the Crow so bad (the Powder River country was Crow and Shoshone territory until the late 1860s) that the Crow aided the US Army to fight them.

          2. “Look at how many tribes names for themselves translates into “the people” or some derivative of that phrase.”

            In modern times, would that derivative be something like “People’s Republic?”

            1. No, no it wouldn’t. Some tribes, such as the Commanche, considered all other tribes as sub human. This was common.

            2. Additionally, the five nations kept African slaves for decades after the end of the Civil War and from all accounts were far worse owners then their white contemporaries.

              1. I guess you didn’t get the joke. The subject is slavery.

        3. Sure, the native Americans tortured, ritually sacrificed, ate, and bathed in the blood of their enslaved countrymen and captured prisoners of war, they didn’t look down on them racially.

          Even this isn’t true. They considered different tribes to be racially different and often looked considered them inferior.

  8. Wait, what??!!
    Shikha is calling for entry only at designated points of entry?
    She wants immigrants to be screened by the federal government?
    She wants the sick, crazy, and feeble to be (dare I say it?) DETAINED?
    Did I mess up bookmarks and switch Reason and the Babylon Bee?
    Quick calendar check – Nope, not April first. A Mystery.

    1. Not only screened for criminal behavior, but for competency. Who knew Shikha has been alt-right this entire time?

      ONE OF US!
      ONE OF US!

    2. She’s selling the over-romanticized and essentially false version of Ellis Island that’s been sold to poorly educated Americans for most of their lives.

      Not the real Ellis Island that actually existed.

      Basically she wants all of the theoretically great parts while excising all the parts she can’t agree with historically. An essentially cherry-picked point of view based in feels rather than political reality.

  9. What about Europe, Asia, Africa [ where they sold captives to Europeans and Arabs] the Middle East. And let us not for get the ‘original’ people of North and South America.

  10. Well, it depends on how you define welfare. Call it what you want, but spending on K-12 education of their children should be included in how much the immigrants cost the taxpayers. K-12 education is a massive chunk of state budgets. Unskilled immigrants from central and south america have way more kids than US born americans and thus cost the taxpayers a lot in educating them but bring in very little in tax revenue. Open borders is fine when you eliminate the welfare state (and I include public education in that) . That won’t happen any time soon so letting in anyone regardless of their ability to fend for themselves (and fully provide for their children) isn’t far off from giving a fat guy a free pass to an all you can eat buffet.

    1. Education, hospitals, roads, etc. People think of the welfare state far too narrowly.

      1. In Shikha’s case, she’s presenting it in the manner that best suits her argument, accuracy be damned.

    2. The education of a child is never a bad investment.

  11. Another bullshit Shikha screed, filled with her trademark ad hominem and appeals to humanity.

    Not to mention this gem: “A country that committed the original sin of slavery to forcibly bring foreign labor to America should not be going to such draconian lengths to throw voluntary foreign labor out of America”. A) No one alive committed that sin, and B) Therefore, we should not be in the business of handing out free bennies for life to every slob who manages to sneak past the Border Patrol.

    Finally, C) “Voluntary foreign labor” is just another restatement of the crap “hardworking immigrant families” label used to soften the impression of a de facto criminal class (you don’t volunteer to labor here legally without also volunteering to get a freaking green card), and hide the fact that said criminal class are a massive net drain on governmental coffers at all levels.

  12. So, in short, the Irish need not apply?

  13. By the late 1960s cheap and available land began to become scarce. tierraproperties.com/short_history_of_los_angeles
    The land shortage is especially acute in coastal and mountainous areas like those around San Francisco and Seattle.

    And recently, a study showed that children growing up in environments with lots of trees were mentally healthier than urban children. Nature relieves stress:
    sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190404074915.htm

    Immigrants and Their Descendants Accounted for 72 Million in U.S. Population Growth from 1965 to 2015; Projected to Account for 103 Million More by 2065 – Pew research
    pewhispanic.org/2015/09/28/modern-immigration-wave-brings-59-million-to-u-s-driving-population-growth-and-change-through-2065/ph_2015-09-28_immigration-through-2065-02/

  14. Nothing has done more to diminish the quality of life for the United States middle class through higher housing (land) costs, greater competition for jobs, lower wages, higher taxes to pay for greater poverty, mortgage fraud, medicare fraud, tax fraud, identity theft, other crime, higher taxes to pay for indigent healthcare (hospital closings), higher taxes for cost of public schools, price of college, degradation of the military, depletion of resources, paving of farms,burden on the taxpayer and overall congestion than the INCREASE of POPULATION and change in its nature (more poor, more criminals, e pluribus multum) since 1965.

  15. What should U.S. immigration policy be?

    Everyone fights, no one quits. You don’t do your job, I’ll shoot you.

    1. Short and sweet. Works for me.

  16. Open borders are an assault on private property

    1. So are open vaginas.

      It’s time that libertarians demand state permission before couples are permitted to have children. If worthless shithole people shouldn’t be allowed to come here to steal our property via their welfare leeching, why should the same privilege be afforded to the people already here?

  17. A country that committed the original sin of slavery to forcibly bring foreign labor to America should not be going to such draconian lengths to throw voluntary foreign labor out of America.

    People travel from all over to be near the comforting warmth of our racism, it’s the best.

    1. oops, the second part wasn’t supposed to be in italics

    2. What is funny is the US banned the importation of slaves fairly early on. While it didn’t free existing slaves, it ended importation of them. Most slaves were imported before the US even existed.

  18. This article itself actually makes a lot of sense. And I can’t seem to find any mention of the “original sin of slavery” part – which suggests it might not have been Dalmia that actually wrote it. But whoever wrote it needs to be fired and/or beat with a stick because the whole concept of “original sin” is anathema to libertarianism, individualism and liberal thought altogether. What’s next, the libertarian case for reparations? The idea that I’m somehow responsible for something some other random person did a couple of centuries ago is so far beyond fucked up that I had to gnaw my own foot off trying to make sense of it.

    1. It’s in the paragraph that begins “How quaint that sounds in Trump’s America…”

      1. Ah, thanks for that – so, yeah, Dalmia needs whacked upside the head and to have somebody explain the term “original sin” to her. If you’re going to use Christian terms, you should know a little about Christianity. While libertarians can be Christians and vice versa, there are certain tenets of the faiths that are incompatible with one another. Jesus may have died for my sins, but you can kiss my ass if you think that somehow obligates me to die for somebody else’s.

    2. The title is to throw off the progressives who don’t actually read any articles. If they did read it they’d be flipping their shit

  19. More low-skilled immigration doesn’t mean fewer jobs for the native-born, as restrictionists claim, because jobs are not a zero-sum game.

    Somebody please introduce Shikha to the robots that are now doing the jobs that used to be done by low-skilled workers. While you’re at it, introduce her to Ron “low-skilled workers can be trained to do skill jobs” Bailey.

    1. I will be content if someone introduces her to a history book.

      1. “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”

        -George Orwell

        “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”

        ― George Orwell, 1984

        Hence leftists historical revisionism.

    2. I agree, Shikha’s job can be done by a robot.

      1. No robot could exist with such limited intelligence.

    3. “Somebody please introduce Shikha to the robots that are now doing the jobs that used to be done by low-skilled workers. ”

      You mean washing machines?

  20. Is Shikha capable of making a non-fallacious open borders argument that isn’t an appeal to authority and/or feelz? Or how about just acknowledging that open borders would trample all over property rights? It’s like the writers here don’t even feel the need to allude to actual libertarian principles anymore.

    1. Libertarian principles don’t get likes or shares.

  21. The popular, modern-day retrictionist canard that immigration from the Third World to rich countries is tantamount to “importing poverty” has its genesis in Marxist thought. So it’s interesting that we find conservatives today channeling Marx.

    Who is surprised Dalmia openly embraces the smear by association tactic Reason routinely criticizes from anyone else? Well it’s not like we expect the far left to abide by the standards they hold others to.

    1. The popular, modern-day retrictionist canard that immigration from the Third World to rich countries is tantamount to “importing poverty” has its genesis in Marxist thought. So it’s interesting that we find conservatives today channeling Marx.

      Hey Shikha, Google or, even better, visit Immokalee, Florida, then tell us this idiotic theory of yours again. I invite all open borders advocates to check it out sometime. I’ve been there. It’s nearly 100% third world immigrants. The only place there that remotely resembles the first world is the f’ing post office.

      1. Damn, copy and paste does not carry over the italics.

  22. At the heart of this issue is the question: Are humans a liability who deplete resources or an asset who themselves are a resource—indeed, to use the parlance of the late, great environmental economist Julian Simon, the “ultimate resource”?

    The obvious answer is that some are one and some are the other. Framing the question to underhandedly assert if anyone is an asset then everyone must be is dishonest which is why no one accepts arguments from Dalmia or other extremists.

  23. An Ellis Island policy?

    Great idea! Health inspections, and no welfare for the arrivals…

  24. Reasonable estimates suggest that the total annual contribution of foreign-born workers to the U.S. economy adds up to roughly $2 trillion, or about 10 percent of annual GDP.

    This shows Dalmia’s measure of success is total GDP. But the argument is what happens to ATI for the people who were here beforehand. Her evidence never supports the conclusion.

    1. The real point that she misses is the concept of political change via demographic change. I’m sure she’s heard of the free state project. When you import people you also import their beliefs. It’s one of those convenient omissions that lets the reader know how disingenuous she’s being.

      1. The “Road to Serfdom” is paved with open borders.

    2. If an immigrant earns so much as one dollar, they contribute to total GDP, but that’s not the issue. The issue is their contribution to per-capita GDP. While some immigrants do improve per-capita GDP, those coming across our southern border most certainly do not.

  25. Not too many people outside hardcore nativist circles believe that high-skilled foreigners are anything but an unmitigated economic blessing.

    This is the bait and switch of the open borders sect. They point to this “high-skilled” immigrant profile as an asset but then make no effort to distinguish between productive and unproductive immigrants. This is another tell they aren’t serious about the issue.

    This economic reality is important and not just because it helps the GDP. It also integrates them into our economy which keeps them out of MS13 and gives them a path to assimilation. This last is probably why open borders supporters want uneducated immigrants as they are more likely to vote Dem.

    capitalgazette.com/news/crime/ac-cn-ms-13-murder-pleas-20191007-slewnx5efvf5jfcvsz57m4aiee-story.html

  26. All people are born with certain unalienable natural rights, and those are universally equal rights in the eyes of persons who treat others with respect. Rights, including the right to emigrate or immigrate, do not come from governments. So those who respect individual rights are not going to participate in deciding which other people get to exercise their right to live freely in America.
    Shikha, you should be ashamed for advocating that states should be authorized to determine which people deserve the right to be free.


    1. Rights, including the right to emigrate or immigrate, do not come from governments.

      So, you’re saying we should go to war with all those countries that curtail on American citizens right to live in their countries? Curious that suddenly when I suggest this that even ‘open borders’ types notice borders.

      How, exactly, is this functionally different from colonialism circa 1600?

      It never really gets old for me to ask why it is that open borders is something that only the United States should practice. By this argument, it opens the door to precisely the same abuses seen in the prior century, along with the exact same proxy wars.

      This ‘exporting freedom’ argument is something we’ve used time and time again with Neocon types, yet here we have a libertarian argument for precisely that behavior. Weird, huh?

      1. So, you’re saying we should go to war with all those countries

        No one here is arguing this position. That is a strawman.

        why it is that open borders is something that only the United States should practice

        No one here is arguing this position either. That is also a strawman.

        1. So you’re incapable of deduction. That tracks.

          The problem you and your ilk have is that you’re utterly incapable of noticing that immigration and emigration both deal with the same issue. I like to illustrate that by making largely the same arguments your type make for immigration in the context of emigration.

          No surprise that’s over your head though.

          1. So you’re sticking with your strawmen then. Got it. Find me anyone in this forum arguing in favor of going to war with every country on the planet. Good heavens. Being antiwar is about the only thing libertarians can agree on nowadays.

  27. It seems most people aren’t stupid enough to go along with the patently illogical position that increasing the domestic labor supply by the worlds population doesn’t have any effect on domestic labor demand. Not to mention demand for related things like food, housing, or public services. You think it costs a lot to buy a house now? Just wait until you get what you want good and hard.

    I also find it to be hilarious that we spend so much time, effort, and money on a public school system that apparently is such a massive failure that we need to import foreign labor to meet domestic needs. We’re spending trillions to classically educate barristas and claiming victory. ‘Market failure’ indeed. I suppose we should continue to ignore the pool of American labor that exists outside the unemployment metrics as well. Maybe transfer payments are preferable to being trash haulers, and maybe this has some bearing on domestic labor? Also, wouldn’t a second generation immigrant be a product of the same institutional failures that resulted in the need for more immigrants? It’s a gift that keeps on giving.

    Essentially, advocates of open borders want to put the carriage before the horse. Domestic deregulation isn’t something they can change, so they want to explode society to get their way and damn the consequences. No thanks to that brand of libertarianism.

    More open immigration would be an inevitable response to domestic deregulation, but opening up immigration in a welfare society is tantamount to suicide. You can easily see which option people like Dalmia seem to prefer.

    1. Domestic deregulation isn’t something they can change, so they want to explode society to get their way and damn the consequences. No thanks to that brand of libertarianism.

      Ending the welfare state isn’t something they can change, so they want to take away even more of people’s liberties with restrictive immigration policy, and damn the consequences. No thanks to that brand of libertarianism.

    2. “Not to mention demand for related things like food, housing, or public services. You think it costs a lot to buy a house now? Just wait until you get what you want good and hard.”

      The newly created third world shithole will have plenty of dilapidated property in which to invest

  28. If immigration is to be restricted because “otherwise they’ll just use welfare”, then to be consistent, native-born births must also be restricted because “otherwise they’ll just use welfare”.

    If individuals who wish to import a foreigner here must demonstrate that those foreigners will not be a burden on society before being permitted by the state to arrive here, then individuals who wish to import a newborn here must demonstrate that the newborn will not be a burden on society before being permitted by the state to arrive here.

    The justification for restricting and regulating childbirth is even stronger than the argument for restricting and regulating immigration, since native-born citizens and their children consume far more welfare, in absolute dollars, than immigrants do.

    Instituting a system for regulating childbirth would be detrimental to liberty in the short run, sure, but it would pay for itself over time in terms of diminished welfare consumption. And what libertarian doesn’t want to see less welfare consumption?

    Furthermore, those children who grow up in a welfare-dependent household, currently, come to think of welfare as a normative state of life. They’re more likely to support big government welfare schemes, as opposed to libertarian ideals, and we really don’t need any more of “those people” here anyway. From this point of view, regulating childbirth just makes common sense.

    So who’s with me?

    1. Not I…

      since native-born citizens and their children consume far more welfare, in absolute dollars, than immigrants do.

      Care to back that one up with some hard, verifiable numbers?

      Most of the welfare babies against which you (rightly) rail are not mainstream kids….. no, they are the progeny of welfare queen mamas whose livelihood is earned on their backs, knowing that as soon as another money maker has been launched into her life, her monthly income will increase once more. What enables this pattern? Simple… back in the late 1960’s I believe it was, laws changed, and welfare would no longer be paid if there was a father (or other male) present in the hovel they call home. SO… one male comes round for long enough to get her with child, then he leaves, often permanently. Once the addition has arrived, a different male takes up residence, with priviledges, and lather , rinse, repeat.

      It does happen that a family (I mean married couple with some children, same daddy sama momma) fall on hard times.. workplace injury, disease, car crash, etc, renders the money maker unable to feed the family. Current laws most often preclude that family getting any help as long as HE is around. And in some “communities’ this pattern is endemic, such that the young women won’t even get married, because then they know they’re not gonna get any freebies when hard times come round….

      So STOP subsidising single motherhood, and it will decrease. One of the first laws of economics. Sibsidise anything, you WILL get more of it.

      1. since native-born citizens and their children consume far more welfare, in absolute dollars, than immigrants do.

        Care to back that one up with some hard, verifiable numbers?

        https://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/tr18summary.pdf

        Social Security and Medicare alone cost over $1.5 trillion per year. No other welfare program comes close to approaching this figure, whether it serves immigrants or not.

        So STOP subsidising single motherhood, and it will decrease.

        But the welfare state is not going away. Our only real resort, as good libertarians, is to prevent those welfare mommas from having kids in the first place, by requiring prospective parents to get permission from the state before being eligible to have a kid. They should have to prove that the children that they have won’t be a burden on society. By permitting couples to have children willy-nilly without any rules or regulations, they are infringing on our property rights when they inevitably steal our tax dollars for welfare. So how can you not be in favor of this?

        1. Our only real resort, as good libertarians, is to prevent those welfare mommas from having kids in the first place, by requiring prospective parents to get permission from the state before being eligible to have a kid.

          I assure you that those welfare queens on Social Security and Medicare, the most expensive welfare programs, are not having many kids.

          1. Nope, but the rest of the welfare moochers are.

            So why don’t you support my proposal? Demand that prospective parents get government permission before importing new welfare-sucking leeches into society, that WE ALL have to pay for. Otherwise you’re just enabling the continued growth and expansion of the welfare state.

    2. Good points. In fact, adult immigrants can be productive right away. Children (domestic or imported) take 18 to 22 to 30 years to become net taxpayers.

      1. And even then, it is unlikely that these kids are going to grow up to be net taxpayers, given the structure of the tax code and the pervasive nature of the welfare state. So they’re going to spend the first 20 years of their lives as welfare moochers, then go out in to the world as “adults” and continue to suck on the public teat for the rest of their lives.

        Even more reason to require childbirth restrictions, since the welfare state isn’t going away. It is an outrage we have to pay for all this.

      2. Taxpayers who are citizens have earned the right to have kids, which they have anyway.

        1. “Taxpayers who are citizens have earned the right to have kids”

          THAT’S WHAT I’M SAYING. Taxpayers who are citizens should have to earn the right to have kids by demonstrating that their spawn won’t be public charges. Citizens who don’t even earn enough to pay taxes, let alone mooch off the public dole, haven’t earned any right to have kids and shouldn’t be permitted to have them. To permit them to have kids will diminish all of our liberty as they continue to sponge off our tax dollars.

    3. “Furthermore, those children who grow up in a welfare-dependent household, currently, come to think of welfare as a normative state of life. They’re more likely to support big government welfare schemes, as opposed to libertarian ideals, and we really don’t need any more of “those people” here anyway. From this point of view, regulating childbirth just makes common sense.”

      Given that regulating childbirth is not going to happen (thus rendering it one of those “strawmen” you seem to loathe so much), the fact that many third world immigrants collect welfare through their American-born children argues for exactly the opposite of what you try to argue in the above paragraph.

      1. Which is more likely to happen – regulating childbirth, or abolishing the welfare state? With the way things are going, I’m thinking regulating childbirth is the likelier of the two.

        the fact that many third world immigrants collect welfare through their American-born children argues for exactly the opposite of what you try to argue in the above paragraph.

        How so? That immigrants collect welfare through their American-born children only suggests that we ought to regulate ALL forms of immigration – via borders as well as via vaginas. They’re exploiting a loophole and regulating childbirth will close that loophole.

        1. Children born of U.S. citizens are immigrants? You beclown yourself.

          1. Conceptually they are, yes. Both newborns and border crossers are brand new residents in the country.

    4. “Furthermore, those children who grow up in a welfare-dependent household, currently, come to think of welfare as a normative state of life. They’re more likely to support big government welfare schemes, as opposed to libertarian ideals, and we really don’t need any more of “those people” here anyway. From this point of view, regulating childbirth just makes common sense.”

      You just described Planned Parenthood, the single greatest killer of minorities in the history of the country

      1. I describe a number of common-sense patriots who think that entering this country without permission is a violation of national sovereignty, and that it is the role of the state to control who is able to come here.

        1. “I describe a number of common-sense patriots who think that entering this country without permission is a violation of national sovereignty…”

          No you don’t, and you know it. Stop being so obtuse.

  29. It is a good rule to never accept undeserved guilt, and be very suspicious of anyone trying to push it onto you. No one alive had anything to do with slavery in this country, and no one under age of 78 could have voted before 1964 for politicians who blocked the repeal of Jim Crow laws until that year. Besides it is just a little creepy and lot sad for those of us who remember what the magazine once was to see blathering about original sin in Reason.

    1. “Feel White Guilt NOW and OBEY!”

  30. How did their welcoming, open door immigration policy work out for the indigenous people of the Americas?

    That of course is a rhetorical question, because we all know what the answer is. Those tribes that weren’t wiped off the face of the earth forever and are still barely managing to hang on are the poorest, worst off people in the western hemisphere.

    1. Native Americans could have used a big, beautiful wall!

    2. Had they assimilated, they would not be among the poorest people in the western hemisphere, and would in fact be much better off than they would be than if the Europeans not come here. Reservations sequester poverty.

  31. At least Dalmia’s giving up the pretense this isn’t about open borders. Sucks for the other left wingers still trying to argue that though.

    1. I like that she’s being increasingly open about hating America.

      “Evil Americans, you can only atone for your sins by aiding in the destruction of your country!”

  32. Oh Shikha. you JUST DON”T GET IT, do you?

    The article says: “America should not be going to such draconian lengths to throw voluntary foreign labor out of America”

    You DO NOT UNDERSTAND what the border issue is. It is NOT about “voluntary foreign labour” coming in. It is about UNVETTER PEOPLE with no claim to residency coming here to suck off the welfare/benefits teat. The one WE TAXPAYERS fund……..

    When I was in grade school we all learned about Ellis Island, who came ther,e why, and how they were handled, treated, processed, whatever. ALL were examined by medical doctors, and many were quarantined to make sure they did not have diseases we did not need here. ALL had PAID their passage by steamship to get here from their former homelands. Some paid by indenturing themselves to their benefactor, often under not very good terms, but it remained for them to be released upon a certain date after arrival. There WAS no welfare system in place, so folks came prepared to support themselves, either with a money poke full of cash, jewelry or gold to sell, most had trades.skills to ply, many had friends or relatives who had written letters assuring them they had a place to stay and often work to get them started. ALL came with a desire to become PART of America and what she was becoming. Almost all came with a judeo-christian upbringing, living by moral and social values similar to most of what was here in the US. ALL were willing to work to support themselves, as they knew there WAS no “safety net” once here.

    I have a number of ancestors who came through Ellis Island, and have looked up the records of their arrival. I have other ancestors who came here before Ellis Island was the port of entry for overseas emigrants. Some came over on the Mayflower arriving November 1620, and, as I am descended from them, they survived and prospered. A few were here before the Mayflower arrived.

    There is no problem with people in these classes or categories.

    The ISSUE with “immigration” today is not even with true imigration, which is the process of a foreign national deciding to leave their current country of lawful residence and, coming here, often wiht prior arrangements and permissions and documents, to become a PART OF the United States compying with all the laws, policies, proceedures and gaining lawful permanent residence, or at least a precursor status to gaining that one.

    I have gone through this process to emigrate from the US to another foreign country, and I assure you it was a tedious and involved process, taking well over a year. Criminal background check, verification lf all residence addresses for the past ten years, US PAssport, financials, proof of work experience and skillset possessed, extensive medical examination, proof of sufficient funds to immigrate to that country and support myself whilst I got my legs back under me in the new country, and a stern warning that if I ended up on public assistance of any kind within the first two years of my residency they would be so considerate as to kindly acquire for me a one way ticket in coach/economy class back to the area where I lived before I left to establish the new life I wanted.

    No, the ISSUE is those who come OUTSIDE the legal pathways, . by stealth, bribing, false documents, sneaking across, false pretences (“fear” for my life back home…..) false ID or name, avoiding all screening, identifying, record of entrance, documentation, medical examination, are involved in smuggling of contraband or other illegal persons, and have no intention of assimilating or integrating into our culture.
    And our President, tne one WE elected to do precisely this (amongst other things) is working hard to assure that dangerous and burdensome individuals are NOT allowed to invade our nation, quickly finding the local publically supported teats, and latching on permanently.

    1. It is about UNVETTER PEOPLE with no claim to residency coming here to suck off the welfare/benefits teat. The one WE TAXPAYERS fund……..

      So, time to clamp down on all of those unrestricted, unvetted births by native-born citizens. They just come here and mooch off the welfare teat.

      1. I love that you stole the commenter Cathy’s talking point.

      2. That is a rather stupid argument as has been pointed out multiple times. Native born vs immigrant, false analogy.

        1. Why? What is the false analogy part?

          What is the *conceptual* difference between arriving via border crossing, and arriving via childbirth?

    2. :…whilst I got my legs back under me in the new country…”

      Let me guess, you emigrated to England or another Commonwealth country. Use of the word “whilst” is a dead giveaway. You seem to have assimilated quite well.

  33. Ask Eurabians ‘bout that… It’s because of bullshit like this that I finally dropped my subscription to the magazine.

  34. It is striking that a country that committed the original sin of slavery to forcibly bring foreign labor to America should now be going to such draconian lengths to throw voluntary foreign labor out of America.

    These two things have nothing to do with each other.

    1. They’re very related.

      Whether slavery in the past or mass immigration today, they both impoverish the American working class to the benefit of the ruling class.

      Ben Franklin made exactly that point.

  35. All you people actually still read Shikha’s articles? Why?

  36. KMW, time to unload this worthless bigot. I used to recommend that people read Reason. No longer. And that’s why you are being forced to whore the podcast and everything else. Word of mouth is your best advertising, and you are driving it away.

    Remember the Glibs?? Yeah, they were a significant source of readership. No longer.

  37. Why mention slavery at all? Open immigration is a good idea economically and defensible on the basis of human freedom. No need for assuming any guilt for something other people did far in the past.

    1. “Why mention slavery at all?”

      Because pathological White Guilt is how the Left has been effective in getting White Americans to submit to invasion, and everything else.

      “Please, I’ll do anything, just stop calling me a racist!”

  38. Hate to burst your bubble, but we’ve NEVER had an “open doors policy” with respect to immigration.

    Prior to our formation as a country, immigration was strictly controlled by those who held title to each of the colonies.

    After our formation, Article I Section 9 of the Constitution: “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight.” That’s 1808, which has long passed.

    In the mid-1800s, my great-grandparents immigrated AFTER they had applied and were accepted. In fact, they had to be sponsored by citizens already in the U.S.

    By the turn of the 20th Century (1900) immigration law was growing more restrictive, requiring affidavits from departing constabularies attesting to the lack of any legal encumbrance on the part of the person. The U.S. had received far too many requests for extradition for criminals who’d immigrated to the U.S. instead of standing trial in the old country. Not only was it becoming prohibitively expensive to ship them back, but it served the interests of the departing countries to be able to administer justice rather than allow criminals to escape.

    The idea we’ve ever had an “open borders” policy is farcical left-wing, liberal, Democrat NONSENSE.

    This is WHY it’s so important we study history, folks. It’s not merely to avoid being doomed to repeat it, but also, to counter the flat-out lies of those who’re pushing for a very dangerous agenda of eliminating all quality control of those who enter our country.

    Would you leave your doors unlocked 24/7/365?

    Heck no! We are NOT going to fail to secure our country, either!

    1. We are NOT going to fail to secure our country, either!

      Damn straight. We need to secure our country against the welfare-sucking moochers who invade through the southern border, and we also need to secure our country against the welfare-sucking moochers who invade through welfare momma vaginas. Demand that prospective parents get government permission before being permitted to have children. It is the only way to save the Republic.

      1. “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

        Children of Americans count as “our Posterity”.

        1. The Blessings OF LIBERTY. How exactly is permitting welfare mommas from popping out moochers securing anyone’s liberty?

      2. Because the children of native-born Americans can, but are unlikely to, become welfare dependent, we should have open borders. Got it. Brilliant argument.

        1. No no. Just the opposite. We need strict immigration restrictions on ALL types of immigration – immigration via border crossing, AS WELL AS immigration via vagina crossing. Both types of immigrants will suck off the public teat and therefore since we can’t end the welfare state, we must sharply restrict who has access to it. Demanding that immigrants, ALL immigrants, get permission from the state before coming here is just common sense.

          1. There is no such thing as “immigration via vagina crossing.” Your argument t in this vein is ridiculous, and I’m done responding to it.

            1. “immigration via vagina crossing.”

              It’s called childbirth.

              What is the conceptual difference between a new resident arriving by crossing a border, and a new resident arriving by crossing a vagina?

    2. “The U.S. had received far too many requests for extradition for criminals who’d immigrated to the U.S. instead of standing trial in the old country. ”

      They weren’t sending their best?

  39. “The beauty of that system was that our immigration policy wasn’t in the hands of bureaucrats in the Swamp trying to centrally plan the labor market for the entire country. Rather, employers and the country’s residents were calling the shots. ”

    Americans should be shooting invaders themselves, instead of waiting for the federal government to enforce immigration law?

    Who says Reason never has a fresh idea on immigration?

  40. Shikha is great. She gets you right-wingers so WORKED UP!

    1. Which is why KMW won’t can her – the clicks.

  41. Counterpoint: Go fuck yourself.

  42. At least you finally admitted open borders is nothing more than religious guilt tripping.

  43. Republican used to say “I’m not against immigration, I’m just again illegal immigration”

    What happened to those Republicans? Where did they go. Because from where I sit every time Trump moves to restrict LEGAL immigration the Republicans cheer.

    1. The same place the “common sense gun control” Democrats went.

      Believe it or not, most principles are a lie and nothing more than a convenient argument to advance a cause.

  44. “A country that committed the original sin of slavery to forcibly bring foreign labor to America should not be going to such draconian lengths to throw voluntary foreign labor out of America.”

    So, all the blood lost to end the practice is immaterial?

    What about the African countries that STILL engage in slavery?

  45. This is the purely economic argument. Is economics all there is?

    Are people interchangeable cogs? We should let in as many African Muslims as want to come? No problem seeing female genital mutilation established in this country?

    How about the right to bear arms? OK to let that slide too?

    H1B’s… my wife, herself an immigrant from Hong Kong, can see this program boils down to a bunch of Indian job shops throwing (poorly-performing) bodies at programming jobs, likely giving kickbacks to the managers who award them exclusive contracts. This in an environment where government forces on companies so many employment restrictions that they simply give in and stop hiring individuals any more. Sure, letting foreigners compete is not a bad idea, but going back to a free market should be a general move, not something restricted to H1B policy with all the other statist mandates left in place. Maybe white Americans should move to India and get Indian citizenship, and put blackface on, just so they can compete for those jobs!

    I’m not happy about government doing any job, because any thing it does will be done badly. But I don’t think economics is all there is. Here I make a libertarian case for restricting immigration:
    https://ncc-1776.org/tle2019/tle1008-20190217-05.html

  46. There is not a person alive that was a victim nor perpetrator of slavery in the US. The descendants of people long ago should not be paying the price of others actions. The majority of people in the US are not even descended from those in that time period. It is an idiotic point to bring up in this article.
    As for Ellis Island type immigration, yes. Check people out before letting them in as was done makes perfect sense.

  47. Fine as soon as we get rid of welfare and all the other tax funded social programs just like in 1900.

  48. I often wonder about the myopic view of the Trumpers and some of the commenters. Do you see that as you are leaving the office the person coming in to clean it for you. If you visit a friend or relative at a nursey home do you see the staff. Do you look behind the counter at the fast food restaurant to see who putting together your sandwich. In most cases they are probably immigrants. They are invisible but you really can’t live without them.

  49. Let a few immigrants in and then they’ll promote letting more in. Predictable and disgusting. Immigrants are a virus.

Please to post comments