The Case for 50 Percent Open Borders
A call for restricting immigration in The Culture Transplant accidentally makes the case for radical liberalization.
The Culture Transplant: How Migrants Make the Economies They Move to a Lot Like the Ones They Left, by Garett Jones, Stanford University Press, 228 pages, $25
Almost everyone will take Garett Jones' The Culture Transplant as a forthright defense of not just maintaining existing immigration restrictions but tightening them. Every chapter strongly implies that liberal immigration policies are naive and myopic. Jones, an economist at George Mason University (where I also teach), concludes by warning that admitting millions from the poorest nations will impoverish all humanity: "Innovation would decline overall, and since new innovations eventually spread out across the entire planet, the entire planet would eventually lose out." Even his support for high-skilled immigration is restrained: Jones wants to welcome "immigrants who have substantially more education, more job skills, more pro-market attitudes, than the average citizen" (emphasis mine), and he advocates "instantaneous citizenship" for "one-in-a-thousand minds" such as "Nobel laureates, great writers, and innovative scientists."
Yet Jones' evidence argues for radical liberalization of immigration: if not fully open borders, then at least 50 percent open borders—at a time when borders are somewhere around 2 percent open. Using Jones' hand-picked measure of cultural quality, immigration from all of the following countries to the United States would be, by his argument, a clear-cut cultural improvement: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Costa Rica, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, South Korea, Moldova, Russia, Singapore, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Tunisia, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, Uruguay, and Vietnam. Using a slightly different cultural measure adds the 1.7 billion inhabitants of India and Pakistan to the list. According to the research upon which Jones rests his book, we should expect migration from this long and populous list of countries to (a) substantially increase per-capita U.S. gross domestic product (GDP), (b) drastically increase gross world product, and (c) drastically increase global economic growth.
This research is called the "Deep Roots of Growth," or just "Deep Roots." Its punchline is that countries now inhabited by people whose ancestors were relatively economically advanced in the distant past have a strong tendency to be absolutely advanced today. "Now inhabited" is key; according to Deep Roots research, a major reason the United States is rich today is that modern Americans are mostly descended from people who were rich by the standards of their time. Economically, it doesn't matter that in 1500 A.D., the current area of the United States was largely populated by hunter-gatherers, because the descendants of these hunter-gatherers are now (for horrifying reasons) a tiny sliver of the population.
The initial Deep Roots papers focus on the emergence of agriculture and government. They conclude that the earlier a country's ancestors adopted farming and states, the richer the country is today. Later work, which Jones prefers, focuses on the adoption of key technologies. Above all, if a country's ancestors were technologically advanced in 1500 A.D., their descendants tend to be much richer today. Critically, this isn't merely fortuitous for the descendants. Jones spends a whole chapter on the world's innovation leaders: China, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, the U.K., and the United States. He calls them the "I-7." Thanks to the product of august ancestry and high population, he argues, these seven countries deliver almost all the innovation that fuels the progress of humanity. If they let migration degrade their cultural quality, he argues, the domestic damage will spill over to the whole world.
Jones concedes that these are long-run results: "In the short run—a couple of decades, say—admitting an extra ten million people each year from the world's poorest countries into the high-innovation I-7 nations would surely improve the lives of almost every immigrant. After all, government and culture rarely change much in the short run." He admits Deep Roots predictions aren't perfect—most notably, China and India, the world's two most populous countries, are far poorer than the models predict. Still, he thinks the smart money should bet on the adage that "the best predictor of a people's success in the long-run future is success in the people's long-run past."
Given this adage, the disconnect between Jones' social science and his recommended immigration policies is vast. The most restrictive immigration policy the research supports is: "Freely admit anyone who improves your country's Deep Roots." This isn't predicted merely to raise living standards in the receiving countries but also to fuel global growth by filling the I-7 with high-potential workers. For most of the world's richest countries, this implies radical deregulation—especially for the United States, because despite our high living standards, our ancestry scores are mediocre.
Throughout The Culture Transplant, Jones talks about researchers "hiding the ball": dazzling readers with technical prowess instead of patiently pondering what they've really shown. I submit that treating Deep Roots as an argument for anything other than radical liberalization of immigration is an egregious case of hiding the ball. And it gets worse: The mathematics of the seminal Deep Roots paper implies that if the entire population of the Earth moved to the United States, gross world product would still multiply. That's even more dramatic than Michael Clemens' famous result that open borders would "double global GDP," which Jones also neglects to cite. If that isn't "hiding the ball," what is?
***
At this point, a reasonable reader will wonder, "How solid is the research upon which Jones relies, really?" While Jones vocally "kicks the tires," he should have kicked harder and longer. I started documenting major doubts about Deep Roots research almost seven years ago, and he replies to virtually none of them.
Jones responds to just one of my objections: that Deep Roots gives deeply false predictions for China and India, the world's two most populous countries. (In fact, it gives deeply false predictions for the three most populous countries, because the United States sharply overperforms.) His reply: Since China and India are growing quickly, the anomaly is shrinking. Fair enough, but the anomaly can only shrink rapidly because the Deep Roots story flopped for both countries for centuries. Furthermore, with the help of the original researchers and the economist Nathaniel Bechhofer, I was able to show that if we statistically weigh countries by their populations and redo the entire analysis, the original Deep Roots results vanish. This doesn't necessarily mean the Deep Roots literature is worthless, but it does raise doubts about Jones' tire-kicking.
The Culture Transplant explores several other related topics, especially the speed of cultural assimilation and the dangers of diversity. Much of this research was new to me, so I'll refrain from criticism until I have had the time to kick the tires to my own satisfaction. But I fear that I'll find that Jones is again hiding the ball. Why? Because when I know a piece well, I often see the ball he's trying to hide. Most strikingly, when he discusses Robert Putnam's famous article on the effects of ethnic diversity on social trust, he neglects to mention that moving the U.S. from its current diversity to the maximum possible diversity would reduce trust by a microscopic 0.04 on a 4-point scale. Much ado about next to nothing.
***
The Culture Transplant is enviably well-written. Jones affirms ugly truths like: "The many lives…that would be dramatically extended over the next half century if Indonesia's 300 million citizens became twice as rich are, in my personal estimation, worth the genuine risk of an ethnic riot every decade that kills two thousand people." We should all have such courage and eloquence.
This book is the most intellectually serious critique of the libertarian open borders position. As such, I expect that intellectually serious critics of the libertarian open borders position will hail it as a decisive refutation of a dangerous conceit. But even if you accept its evidence, those data argue for the radical liberalization of immigration, including from many Third World countries, though arguably with a different mix than we see today.
Jones is not a lifelong opponent of immigration. He signed a 2006 pro-immigration letter—and 10 years later, his book Hive Mind affirmed, "I've always been glad I signed this letter: it sums up the great promise of immigration. It's always worth reminding citizens of high-productivity countries that immigration is still the most reliable way to raise the living standards of people in low-productivity countries." The first sentence of Jones' first chapter is a callback to his pro-immigration past: "This book tells a true story that this economist sincerely, truly does not want to believe."
The good news is Jones can accept all the evidence he presents while renewing his earlier support for much more immigration. The bad news is that much of his evidence is overstated and undervetted, so neither he nor anyone else should use it to dramatically revise their views on immigration one way or the other.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Totally eliminate the welfare state and we’ll talk. And Happy New year.
“Totally eliminate the welfare state and we’ll talk. And Happy New year.”
It sure would work a whole lot better if the only incentive to come here was to work hard to better your yourself.
Mandatory food trucks!
For 2023 one of my New Year wishes is for everyone At Reason, writers (sorry, editors) and commentariat alike, to stop all this talk about food trucks!! Everyone who is highly educated, socially conscious and DEI-aware knows that the correct term is “roach coaches.”
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,000 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,100 dollars, its simple online operating jobs
.
.
Just open the link—————————->>> http://Www.RichApp1.Com
How dare you de-center “gaggin’ wagons”?
Never heard that one before. heh
Speaking of funny rhymes, I found something you might like amidst all the 50% off Christmas clearance, a Jewish counterpart to Saint Nicholas’ sickening-sweet enforcer The Elf on the Shelf:
Now there is The Mensch on the Bench.
He’s a slightly hefty Orthodox-attired fellow with the hat, beard, shaw, and a bench for sitting on the shelf. Instead of policing the kids for thoughtcrimes like shouting, crying, and pouting, The Mensch on the Bench is there to keep the Menorah lit and safe. Despite his garb, he’s obviously more Humanist than Orthodox, since he’s not waiting for a miracle to occur.
A wonderful concept! A little Galil or Uzi would make him perfect!
🙂
This reminds me of one the jokes on one of Redd Foxx’ X-Rated “Party Albums.”
Redd got a parking ticket in Mexico City…He parked on top of a Mexican.
The Judge said: “You should have seen him, Señor! He had his tamale waggon!”
Redd then replied: “Tamale waggon? Hell, I didn’t know his fly was open” 🙂
Home earnings allow all people to paint on-line and acquire weekly bills to financial institutions. Earn over $500 each day and get payouts each week instantly to account for financial institutions. (bwj-03) My remaining month of earnings was $30,390 and all I do is paint for as much as four hours an afternoon on my computer. Easy paintings and constant earnings are exquisite with this job.
More information→→→→→ https://WWW.DAILYPRO7.COM
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit.. ???? AND GOOD LUCK.:)
https://WWW.WORKSCLICK.COM
Reminder: it’s native-born citizens who consume the vast majority of welfare, not immigrants
Also, even illegal immigrants pay lots of taxes.
But the bigger point to make is that making more immigration legal (including more legal temporary immigration in the form of work visas) would make it easier to constrain who receives welfare and social services, how much they consume, and how much they contribute toward their cost.
Yup. As I demonstrated just the other day – using one of Jesse’s own cited sources, natch – when comparing people of similar education levels, immigrants are a greater net positive to public finances than native-born citizens are. That is because, in that same category, both immigrants and native-born citizens pay roughly the same amount in taxes, but immigrants are barred by law from accessing some welfare benefits that native-born citizens do have access to.
If the empirical goal here is to have more economic growth and to reduce spending on welfare, then empirically, the solution is to have more immigration, not less.
What is the annual cost for education for one child of an illegal alien? Choose your own state for the per capita cost of a public education.
It is roughly the same as the annual cost for education for one child of a native-born citizen living in the same area. Perhaps a little more if you factor in ESL costs.
Now, take those same two individuals, and let’s suppose they both get a bachelor’s degree and earn a middle-class salary. Both of them will pay roughly the same amount in taxes. But the immigrant won’t be able to collect SSI for a disability, won’t be able to qualify for certain Obamacare subsidies, wouldn’t have been eligible for government-subsidized student loans, etc. So over time, the immigrant will make a greater net positive impact to the public fisc than the native-born citizen will.
That analysis doesn’t work for several reasons.
First, illegal aliens arriving in the country have never paid taxes before arriving, and neither did their parents. They arrive and immediately benefit from what others paid for.
Second, illegal aliens will pay much less in taxes on average than American citizens.
Third, children of illegal aliens go on to high earning jobs at a much lower rate than Americans, so future earnings of the descendants of that population also earn less.
Illegal immigration into the US is a huge net drain on taxpayers and on the wealth of the nation.
First, illegal aliens arriving in the country have never paid taxes before arriving, and neither did their parents. They arrive and immediately benefit from what others paid for.
Okay? So, let’s compare apples to apples then. Let’s compare the welfare costs of a 30-year-old illegal immigrant who sneaks over the border, to the welfare costs of a 30-year-old native-born citizens with a similar level of educational attainment, from the current moment going forward. It’s still net less for the immigrant than for the native-born citizen, for the reasons that I stated above.
Second, illegal aliens will pay much less in taxes on average than American citizens.
For those in the same socioeconomic bracket – no, it is about the same. In fact, the illegal immigrant might end up paying more in taxes. First, everyone pays property taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, etc., regardless of immigration status. Second, the progressive nature of the income tax code means that it is actually a wealth redistribution scheme by itself, from high-tax payers to low- or no-tax payers. For those at the very bottom of the income scale, they actually get back more than what they put in, due to refundable tax credits and the like. So the illegal worker working under the table won’t pay income taxes or FICA taxes, but that worker also won’t get the redistributive income tax refund either.
Third, children of illegal aliens go on to high earning jobs at a much lower rate than Americans, so future earnings of the descendants of that population also earn less.
After about the third generation, it is a wash.
“They arrive and immediately benefit from what others paid for.”
OK then, make it easier for that same person, say, to come to the US, legally, on a work visa. Since he is here legally you can attach all kinds of restrictions on government benefits he can receive.
I get so annoyed by anti-immigrant people who harp on the illegality of illegal immigrants but are not willing to change the laws to make their status legal.
Yeah; I get annoyed when people kick me out of their houses at the end of the day too! /s
So sense I’m such a good honest hard-working person; I just hide out in their garage till they leave for work the next day — then it’s back to eating their food, watching their TV………. blah, blah, blah…
Decent people will ask for permission before invading.
Self-centered slime run around believing they’re entitled to everything.
But think of your potential!
Cash generating easy and fast method to work in part time and earn extra $15,000 or even more than this online. by working in 1ce85 my spare time. I made $17250 in my previous (ste-03) month and i am very happy now because of this job. you can try this now by follow
details here…….…….…….…….…….…….… http://Www.workstar24.com
Educating a child is always a good thing, no matter who their parents are as society will always benefit.
I totally agree that education is always a positive. But it is much more efficient to educate them in Haiti or Bangladesh than it is to bring tens of millions of them here living on benefits while we try to educate their children.
But the children are here and educating them is an investment in our country and our world.
Google pays $100 per hour. My last paycheck was $3500 working 40 hours a week online. My younger brother’s friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 30 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once.
For more details visit this article.. http://Www.onlinecash1.com
Education in the US is ridiculously expensive. So, educating a child in the US is far less efficient than education a child in a developing nation. On top of that, educating children who are not legally in the US is of little benefit to US society.
I totally disagree. If we educate the child and they eventually settle in the US, they will be an asset getting a job and paying taxes. If that child leaves the education will help them in whatever country, they settle in and if that is a poor country, they can work to better the system.
Education has been a bedrock of civilization since its beginning because people see the value of educated members to the society.
Parody ^
And the proportion of “similar education levels” immigrating?
Oh yeah; that’s right – they aren’t similar so you haven’t even supported your case.
Illegal aliens don’t pay enough taxes to account for the costs they impose on government. It’s a net loss.
Illegal aliens also are less productive on average than Americans, decreasing our per capital GDP and making the nation poorer.
Illegal aliens are also not “immigrants”; immigrants are people with a legal right to stay in the US.
Illegal aliens don’t pay enough taxes to account for the costs they impose on government.
Wait, are we talking about welfare, or “the costs they impose on government”? Because they are two different things.
If you are referring to the costs of welfare, then your statement is not true.
But if you are referring to, say, border control or ICE, then those are not costs that illegal immigrants impose on citizens, those are costs that the government imposes on ITSELF because of ITS OWN choice to pursue its current border enforcement strategy.
Illegal aliens also are less productive on average than Americans, decreasing our per capital GDP and making the nation poorer.
You can’t just say “on average”. That is not a fair comparison. A much fairer comparison is to compare immigrants with native-born citizens of similar educational levels. And comparing the two in this way, they are about the same.
Illegal aliens are also not “immigrants”; immigrants are people with a legal right to stay in the US.
Immigration literally means “migration inward”. That is what immigrants do, legally or not.
Full of shit!
See “The Truth About Undocumented Immigrants and Taxes” (in quotes) in your Google search window will take you straight there, hit number one… AKA http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/undocumented-immigrants-and-taxes/499604/ For details about us natives mooching off of the taxes of the illegal sub-humans, for Social Security…
That only talks about Social Security, not total fiscal impact. Try again.
Also see this:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2020/05/23/social-security-has-an-immigration-problem.aspx need more legal immigrants, illegal immigrants, what have you; bring them ON!
https://www.marketplace.org/2019/01/28/undocumented-immigrants-quietly-pay-billions-social-security-and-receive-no/
Undocumented immigrants quietly pay billions into Social Security and receive no benefits
Social Security is a pyramid scheme; it is inherently unsustainable. Even adding low skill workers who pay in but don’t take anything out wouldn’t fix it. What makes it even worse is that those low skill workers are already a net-drain on government, so even the small amount they may pay in social security (many don’t pay even that) doesn’t make up for the costs they impose on taxpayers.
https://reason.com/2020/03/26/u-s-population-growth-rate-lowest-in-a-century-says-new-report/
No matter how responsible we are, and how hardworking we are, and how much money we save, our money will NOT feed us, change our bedsheets, or wipe our butts, while we linger on death’s doorstep, in our old age!!! Only PEOPLE can do these things! People = humans, not saved money!)
Meanwhile, the illegal sub-humans will pay and pay and pay taxes into our system, and never benefit, till we grind them into the dirt, and very-very few are left to work their asses off to support us in our old age!
Here is the latest version of that:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/26/perspectives/stimulus-checks-undocumented-taxpayers/index.html
These taxpayers won’t get stimulus checks. That’s unjust
Ah, Chemjeff, lying with statistics again. Welfare is a tiny fraction of what government spends on people inside the US.
Illegal aliens are a huge net drain on government spending, increasing the tax burden on Americans.
Illegal aliens decrease our per capita GDP, making the nation poorer.
I don’t call him Lying Jeffy for nothing.
Jeff got embarrassed yesterday on the same claims. He used to claim he wasn’t for welfare of immigrants, at least the mask is off and he doesn’t even pretend anymore.
Ha! LIE much? You were just caught in this lie the other day..
Now you know your LYING but you just keep doing it.
Good luck getting the Reason of today to ever support that. They want the welfare state expanded!
And Happy New Year to all the commenter (except the staff sockpuppets). Hopefully 2023 sucks ass a little less than 2022 did!
“Hopefully 2023 sucks ass a little less than 2022 did!” From your mouth to God’s ear, and Happy New Year.
Anyone care to hazard a guess as to the likelihood it’ll turn out that way?
From his mouth to The Void is more like it.
Just so you know, Utkonos, you’ve been a real pal ever since I’ve encountered you and your wicked wit and I hope you and yours have a Happy New Year, both in the Lunar and Solar Calendars!
I hope to see more of you in the coming New Year. So you know, though, depending on the Terms of Service and F.A.Qs, I may Go Glib and spend time there as well. Glibertarians looks like a friendlier, more positive place than this place has turned into over the years. More to come on this later.
I finally found that Glibertarian site but it looked like you need to create an account before even being able to see what’s going on there so I just left.
I’ve read articles there and read the comments with no trouble.
Naturally doing these things yourself on there would require an account.
I’m just needing a better online intellectual and entertainment outlet than this one–not that you aren’t among the best ones here, of course.
It’s just that it seems like everything that can be said here has been said and is repeated nearly every day. And rather than being a source of better ideas on Liberty and Reason and all related concepts, it seems all the worst, most antithetical ones have gravitated here.
Again, I’ll have to see what the deal is with Glibertarians before I decide for sure.
Again, I’ll have to see what the deal is with Glibertarians before I decide for sure.
LOL, news flash, they’re largely of the same political mind as the ones here you don’t like. They simply have their own community and aren’t real fond of interlopers or people who won’t try to fit in.
That’s why Laursen and sarcasmic continue to hang out here instead of there, and John was banned, while people like Rufus are over there almost exclusively now.
One thing is for sure: So far, I haven’t yet seen any creepy, closeted Alt-Right Culture Warriors over that way, nor have I seen Putin apologists, Eco-Wacko Tankies, homeless, med-less wordsmiths, biz-opp spam, CP or Qanoners (notice they tend to fall together,) and the article writers are much better quality than most here, so it is a step up in that respect.
https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1609613936327786502?t=q53nhN93cxpSMByp87ko9w&s=19
Are you ready for the push for “global citizenship” education? Do you know why there’s no such thing as “global citizenship”? Do you know why there shouldn’t be? Do your representatives understand this? Welcome to 2023. Here’s one of your fights.
I’m sure they’ve made all these slick graphics for “global citizenship” education just because they think graphic design is fun and the idea seems cute.
Fancy Eye of Sauron wheel of destruction they keep using in their “global citizenship” graphics!
Again, I ask you: are you ready for “global citizenship” education, which is a huge initiative to remake education in line with the “Sustainable Development Goals” (“17 goals to transform our world”) of the UN’s Agenda 2030?
It’s about growing into a “transformative” global agenda by brainwashing your kids to be “global citizens” with the UN’s totalitarian vision as the guiding light for what “global citizenship” entails: fealty to their new world government and its Neo-Communist agenda.
It’s obvious what this is all about. This will be the biggest thing in education this year and next: “global citizenship” for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Notice how the whole program is centered on the schools. Notice how it’s about getting it into students.
STEM education: a vehicle to the “Sustainable Development Goals.” Lysenkoism in the name of sustainability, no matter how many people it kills, just like it already has through history.
“Kill, James? Now you’re just crazy! You always have to take things too far.”
But, “no sustainable development without a sustainable population” because “population matters.”
[Links]
Mexican immigrants coming to the US have an average of six years education. Reason often has articles predicting the future of work and, if those predictions are to be believed, there will be no place for most of those immigrants.
Self-solving problem, then. If they continue to have only six years of education and jobs for poorly-educated people dry up, they will stop coming.
Except why would jobs like gardener, nanny, housecleaner, etc. suddenly change to require advanced education?
You can’t be this stupid. They will stop coming? Even with them ending up homeless in MV?
Just feed them pizza, problem solved.
A Slice of the Pie has always been the American Dream!
“Except why would jobs like gardener, nanny, housecleaner, etc. suddenly change to require advanced education?”
This comment gets to the heart of what illegal immigration advocates really want. Cheap slaves.
They don’t want to turn them into, or make it easier to become, legal immigrants because that would make their services as costly as those provided by legal immigrants and citizens.
They need them to operate in a gray zone, without fear of being kicked out, but also not subject to taxes, regulations and licensing.
Bob and his lawncare op, which has to pay those taxes and licenses, an accountant for taxes, and employees Jimmy and Billy Bob’s minimum wage plus whatever else he’s required to tack on, can’t compete.
He’s not on a level playing field with the illegals who can charge half the price and still go home with more untaxable money in their pockets than Bob could ever hope to.
But it’s not sunshine and lollipops for the illegals either. Particularly housekeepers and nannies who have no legal protections and frequently end up in debt bondage or even slavery to their masters, under threat of their families being reported.
You can’t be libertarian and advocate for open borders without first changing laws and eliminating most regulations.
Either make the legal immigration process much easier and enforce borders, or don’t enforce borders but eliminate the rules, taxes and regulations that make it impossible for the working class to compete.
But the current situation only benefits upper-middle-class blue checks and shady companies (e.g. Koch Industries) who want slaves.
I suggest there is another motivation for unrestricted immigration: compulsive compassion. For many people, this defines their social connection with humanity, and IMO underlies much of modern progressive liberalism. Several authors have documented the correlation and likely causation of compassion/empathy with leftist politics.
But many of these compassionate people are relatively clueless about what is responsible for the “misery” they seek to address, and if/how their proposed actions will accomplish any improvement (and not make things worse). Of course, they are also eager to spend other people’s time and money to fulfill their holy mission.
No no no. Only the worst possible motives must be considered.
Those who favor open borders only do so because they want SLAVE LABOR.
Those who oppose open borders only do so because they are RACIST BIGOTS.
That’s all you need to know, really!
Every idea your Nazi ass has ever pushed here is motivated by evil. You’re uniquely unqualified to pretend that your motives aren’t the worst motives, Jeff.
Scratch a “compassionate liberal” and find a monster using compassion as a skin-suit to get what they want. Whether it’s the acclaim of their peers or slave labour.
They’re almost always terrible, awful, evil people who are using injustice as a cover to indulge their desires.
Those hiding behind “compassion”, like chemjeff, are misanthropes who resent those they know and feishize the “other”.
It’s an expression of self hatred and resentment.
From a James Taranto article some years back:
Oakley defines pathological altruism as “altruism in which attempts to promote the welfare of others instead result in unanticipated harm.” A crucial qualification is that while the altruistic actor fails to anticipate the harm, “an external observer would conclude [that it] was reasonably foreseeable.” Thus, she explains, if you offer to help a friend move, then accidentally break an expensive item, your altruism probably isn’t pathological; whereas if your brother is addicted to painkillers and you help him obtain them, it is.
As the latter example suggests, the idea of “codependency” is a subset of pathological altruism. “Feelings of empathic caring . . . appear to lie at the core of . . . codependent behavior,” Oakley notes. People in codependent relationships genuinely care for each other, but that empathy leads them to do destructive things.
Ostensibly well-meaning governmental policy promoted home ownership, a beneficial goal that stabilizes families and communities. The government-sponsored enterprises Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae allowed less-than-qualified individuals to receive housing loans and encouraged more-qualified borrowers to overextend themselves. Typical risk–reward considerations were marginalized because of implicit government support. The government used these agencies to promote social goals without acknowledging the risk or cost. When economic conditions faltered, many lost their homes or found themselves with properties worth far less than they originally had paid.
Government policy then shifted . . . the cost of this “altruism” to the public, to pay off the too-big-to-fail banks then holding securitized subprime loans. . . . Altruistic intentions played a critical role in the development and unfolding of the housing bubble in the United States.
The same is true of the higher-education bubble. As we’ve argued, college degrees became increasingly necessary for entry-level professional jobs as the result of a well-intentioned Supreme Court decision that restricted employers from using IQ tests because of their “disparate impact” on minorities.
————————
At the time this came out, I was a bit pleased with myself, having written something similar only a few weeks before:
The student loan industry is a mirror image of the mortgage industry and is likely to face a similar explosion. Government creates a perverse incentive (usually in the name of diversity) to loan money to people who cannot pay it back. As a government supported program, private lenders are willing to take more and more risk, pocketing the profits and turning to the Government to cover to losses….
Our Government is a classic enabler and we are all codependent. An enabler is a person who by their actions make it easier for an addict to continue their self-destructive behavior by rescuing the addict. The codependent party exhibits behavior that controls, makes excuses for, pities, and takes other actions to perpetuate the obviously needy party’s condition, because of their desire to be needed and fear of doing anything that would change the relationship.]
It also explains how truly racist the left is as they dedicate immigrants to those jobs. Just like when Pelosi said farmers in Florida needed the illegal immigrants.
That is why border security is a prerequisite for beneficial immigration reform. It doesn’t matter what our immigration and guest worker policies are if migrants can just walk around them and enter illegally. Aliens here legally will not be able to compete with those here illegally. Why offer good pay and benefits when you can buy a slave?
I can only imagine what insightful comments JesseAz and Mother’s Lament are adding to this conversation about immigration.
I bet it goes like this, “herp-derp, booble-babble”.
You wouldn’t mute us if you weren’t afraid of our arguments. You prefer to fantasize that we’re arguing like your favorite strawmen stereotypes, rather than find yourself having to defend your statements.
The one about you being ignorant in regards to the topic as usual? You’ve literally added nothing to the conversation Mike. Just leftist narratives that are largely false once one actually looks at the data.
Why would they stop coming? Free government services in the US make it more attractive to be an out of work illegal in the US than staying in their home country.
Plus the benefits of the much lower level of violence and crime here than in most of the fled countries.
The only times that immigration has slowed down were Welshmen the economy was so shitty they couldn’t get work and if I remember correctly, when Trump cracked down on border crossings.
Self-solving problem, then. If they continue to have only six years of education and jobs for poorly-educated people dry up, they will stop coming.
I remember an interview with Victor Davis Hansen where he said he found himself stunned by Bush Whitehouse officials who said “Just let the market adjudicate the border… when wages drop to $1 an hour, they’ll stop coming”.
I guess unlike Reason writers, Bush whitehouse officials were at least smart enough to realize that when you increase the supply of something, the price goes down.
Mexico has a huge economic opportunity to grow its manufacturing and electronics assembly sectors with the deterioration of the relationship between China and the U.S. A big question is will they take advantage of the opportunity to improve education levels.
If they do the smart thing and grow economically, leaving home to find work will become less attractive.
Welcome to the last 4 decades of unicorns about Mexico. Keep repeating the past.
That’s a good reason to secure the border and deprive the crime lords in Mexico of much of their income and power. As long as much of their country is run by the criminal traffickers, the resulting corruption will make economic development difficult.
Not OBL…
https://twitter.com/free_equal/status/1609203172953784322?t=JIIsG_jBiWTAwmIyK12LWg&s=19
Trans women have the right to recognition of their self-identified gender – but in most countries, this is not available or subject to abusive restrictions. Making even everyday tasks difficult & potentially dangerous. Let’s demand change! #StandUp4HumanRights #TransWomenAreWomen
#TransWomenAreEunuchs
Only if they’ve had their balls removed. Otherwise,
#TransWomenAreJustMenPlayactingAsWomen
I would think women pretending to be men would face far more difficulty in most of the world.
What are you talking about, they’re escaping their oppression.
That’s the problem. They can’t allow women to escape their oppression by claiming to be men.
https://twitter.com/aimeeterese/status/1609532382583091200?t=7Zwpf2UqwUjJxG_Fy6Fzog&s=19
Leftists want to be the middlemen who convert whoreing, trafficking, porn and the like into unionised armies of dues paying liberal voters and rioters for the democrat party. They don’t give a single fuck about trafficking, they just want the facade + middle managers to be woke.
[Link]
I’ve made $1250 so far this week working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’AM made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Here’s what I do for more information simply.
Open this link thank you…………>>> http://Www.onlinecareer1.com
Economically, it doesn’t matter that in 1500 A.D., the current area of the United States was largely populated by hunter-gatherers, because the descendants of these hunter-gatherers are now (for horrifying reasons) a tiny sliver of the population.
Dear Illustrious Professor Caplan,
There are several horrifying *mechanisms* by which the hunter-gatherers are now a tiny sliver of the population. There are also a number of non-horrifying mechanisms. All these mechanisms have *one* underlying reason. The fact that, seemingly, you’re too scared to look at this reason makes your argument(s) against Mr. Jones seem less edifying and more like a pre-teen pot calling a fellow pre-teen kettle retarded.
Ultimately, you’re both doing a great job in convincing me that my kids, as teenagers, would be grossly under served and overcharged by George Mason University as I would expect a more honest, even-handed, and unflinching debate between any two of them on the topic than what you’ve engaged in with Mr. Jones. And, to be clear, I say this not to espouse my own intellectual or professorial superiority. Quite the opposite, it would seem that your average teen can glean a sharper wit and better debate skills off the street, from public schools, or of their own accord than George Mason can provide to them.
Thanks for publicly announcing your childish retardation to anyone considering choosing George Mason University. May their liberal 50+% open-admissions policies allow the native intellect to stand in perpetuity.
Sincerely,
mad.casual
I suggest that whatever horrors turned indigenous hunter-gatherers into a sliver of our current population are at least matched by the horrors that sliver inflicts on itself by pursuing preservation of cultural identity. But diversity over quality, right?
Economically, it doesn’t matter that in 1500 A.D., the current area of the United States was largely populated by hunter-gatherers,
That is false. By that time, most Native Americans in the area of the USA were primarily farmers.
And working from home!
Another Jewish economist promoting population replacement? Well, knock me over with a feather! That never happens!
Another Herr Misek sock? OY vey!!
You know who else liked P.P.?
Russian hookers if the price is right?
https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1609558709646024704?t=3MlQprHmdLOZihWPqbExqQ&s=19
One of the best moments of 2022 was when 50 illegals ended up on Martha’s Vineyard and the elites treated it like it was their Pearl Harbor
But pizzas!
And they slept on a church floor! Liberals are the best of people.
Bundled them out of town and somewhere else the very next day. Apparently sanctuary cities aren’t big into being sanctuaries… but they did get that pizza.
So compassionate.
Yet Jones’ evidence argues for radical liberalization of immigration: if not fully open borders, then at least 50 percent open borders—at a time when borders are somewhere around 2 percent open.
Your citation for this “2%” claim fell off.
[1] His Ass
Yeah, not the most well-written blog post. Not only no cite, but no definition of 2% or 50% … of what?
My guess is that it’s referring to the Schengen Zone.
Had to look that one up.
I’m confident Caplan knows what he is talking about and can back up everything with cites. That’s Caplan. It’s probably covered in other things Caplan has written.
But A Thinking Mind does have a point that it is poorly explained above.
You had to look up the Schengen Zone?
Wow!
Maybe your constant demands for citations on widely known facts really are born of ignorance, rather than just being cheap sealioning attempts.
I still don’t understand how it becomes a percentage based on the Schengen Area. Is it a comparison? There’s something I’m not getting about how this is derived as 2%, 50%, etc.
The big problem I have with the Deep Roots theory isn’t about numbers, anyway. Jones may well be completely correct about deep roots contributing to the collective wealth of a nation.
But entire cultures don’t emigrate. Individuals do. I really, really disagree with people who try to stick individuals with the characteristics of whatever place they happen to be from.
But entire cultures don’t emigrate. Individuals do.
Yup, exactly. In fact it is entirely possible that the people who most desperately want to immigrate to this country are the ones who REJECT the culture of their native land, and that is why they want to come here.
Perhaps, but it also seems that a huge number of them immediately set about recreating their home-country society within ethnic enclaves. Thus we have Chinatown, Koreatown, Little Italy, …, where they can be comfortable in their uniformity, not making much if any effort to assimilate. And within those enclaves they bring with them the organized crime syndicates from their homelands, but at least they’re familiar with MS-13, Russian mob, Triads, etc.
Individuals aren’t impacted by the culture they’re from?
And they certainly do not have to adapt to the culture they “join”.
Not when they’re coming by the millions and can maintain their own communities.
Rather than update the web version of the print article, the editors (of which here there are many) can’t be arsed to make links happen.
Huh? If the print article had citations they would be in text.
He probably means that “the rate of immigration into the US is about 2% of the total population each year”. Apparently, he wants it to be 50%
In order to accept any of the conclusions of the book, you have to accept the premise that long-term trends are more important than more recent experience. Not only is this counterintuitive, it totally ignores the likelihood that there have been one or more major game-changing shifts – both technological and in socioeconomic organizing principles – in the history of the planet. Not buying it. Immigration (at least for the USA) has been an almost unmitigated blessing for the United States in the medium term and, aside from temporary social problems for the immigrants, a decidedly net positive for the rest of us and for the rest of the world. I choose to give very little weight to the author’s assertion of the importance of 1500 A.D. in making current immigration policy.
I suppose it can be true that 1500 AD gave certain cultures an economic boost, as Jones’ data shows, AND not be true (as Jones assumes) that 1500 AD still has a big influence on those cultures.
Premise: current trends that increase ideological polarization make truly diverse societies too difficult. I.e., too many of us reject the free parts of speech, assembly, religion, and markets to actually coexist in live-and-let-live communities. In fact, too many spend all their efforts eagerly forcing their preferred ideologies on others, and redefine established societies.
Fantasy solution: let’s re-divide the world into nations defined by economic, political, and religious philosophies, and invite (demand?) people to live where the local society matches their preferences. If people are not happy, they can move freely but not instigate changes in defined national ethics. Trade would be encouraged, war outlawed.
Fatal flaw: no angelic beings to implement and enforce the system. But maybe an interesting movie?
The issue with diversity isn’t the diversity per se, it’s the coercion. There is no a priori reason why, say, a devout Muslim family can’t live side-by-side next to an atheist libertine hippie family. The problem only happens when one tries to force the other to conform. Remove the coercion and you won’t have the forcing. There will always be tension between different people who believe different things, the two families may not like each other, and that’s okay, but as long as they can’t use coercion to force the other to comply, there’s no real problem.
Diversity is only a “problem” if one were to assert that there is some collective right for a community to enforce a set of moral standards upon all of its members. And I don’t think there is.
Yet, every community does exactly that. What, you don’t think outlawing theft and murder are moral choices?
Fine, then let me be more precise. There are some universal moral truths, that even libertarians would accept, such as the NAP. Then there are moral standards that are based more on personal conviction than on any sort of universal truth. Such as, a requirement that a woman must wear a hijab in public. It’s these personal convictions that a community does not have the right to enforce on every member of that community.
Sez who? There are communities that enforce exactly those requirements. By what authority are you claiming they don’t have that right?
Because rights are individual, not collective.
If you believe in collective ‘rights’, then where do those rights end? Who decides? Can a community decide to enforce any manner of authoritarian requirements on its members?
Because rights are individual, not collective.
Again, by what authority? Who sez? I find the problem with fine-sounding platitudes is that the finer they sound, the less connected they are to reality.
If you believe in collective ‘rights’, then where do those rights end? Who decides? Can a community decide to enforce any manner of authoritarian requirements on its members?
I believe those are the central questions dealt with by the field of “politics”. And since, as they say, all politics are local, the answer is, “It depends”.
Again, by what authority? Who sez?
This is the heritage of the Enlightenment. That rights are individual and inherent and inalienable in all human beings.
I suppose we could consider other models for rights and liberties. Which ones would you like to consider?
Divine Right of Kings – you only have the rights that an authoritarian dictates to you
Theocracy – you only have the rights that an old and musty book says that you have
Communism or Pure Democracy – you only have the rights that the collective says that you have
Anarchy – you have no rights, you have the authority to do whatever you are physically able to accomplish
Which would you prefer?
This is the heritage of the Enlightenment.
That and $5 will get you a Grande Latte.
That rights are individual and inherent and inalienable in all human beings.
Then presumably, there’s no such thing as legitimate authority. Have it your way, just don’t try that one on a cop.
I suppose we could consider other models for rights and liberties. Which ones would you like to consider?
Let’s go with “Theocracy”. At least the musty old book doesn’t get rewritten every time I turn around.
The Enlightenment did not understand individual rights the way you do. It did not advocate the abolition of all national borders or a right to migrate wherever you wanted to.
Your view of individual rights is that of communists, Enlightenment liberalism.
Then presumably, there’s no such thing as legitimate authority.
Sure there is. Read the Declaration of Independence.
Let’s go with “Theocracy”. At least the musty old book doesn’t get rewritten every time I turn around.
Well in practice, “theocracy” was actually “autocracy”, as the people who “interpreted” the old and musty book were the ones who had real power, not the book itself.
So you want to be ruled by a dictator who wields authoritarian power in the name of religion.
Why are you at a libertarian forum again?
Your view of individual rights is that of communists
Communists would expropriate the idea of liberty to justify their own tyranny. That doesn’t mean that people who support individual liberty are literal communists.
Individual rights includes the right to form communities, voluntarily give up those rights, and exclude others from those communities.
To an extent. I might question the extent to which an *inalienable* right really can be given up by contract. But even if they could, one would have to expressly consent to such a thing. Simply moving to another town is not express consent to giving up one’s inalienable rights.
Making the choice to move into a community is very much express consent to abide by the rules and laws of that community.
I agreed to abide by US laws when I moved to the US. If I had moved to the UK, I would have made the choice to abide by UK laws.
Your universal truths aren’t shared universally.
Women not wearing the hijab assault men into behaving lustfully. Thats a violation of the NAP right there.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, is that you?
Fuck Off, Islamofascist!
The burden of living in a diverse community never falls equally. If a 1%er biker bar moved in next to an Amish farm, the working and praying of the Amish would in no way interfere with the bikers, but the drunkenness, violence, all-night partying and public sex of the bikers would be severely disruptive to the Amish.
Your premise is seriously flawed. There has never been a time in the history of the Western Hemisphere when there was NOT ideologically polarized diversity in society. America thrived and prospered despite all that – or perhaps because of it, at least partially – and liberty will win out because it is impossible, ultimately, for anyone to impose their rejection of liberty on armed, trained and organized free citizens. The US is large enough so that the socialists have segregated themselves into Democrat-controlled blue cities floating in a sea of red counties and states where their idiotic corrupt city dictators have very little impact on the rest of us. The danger is when the socialists gain control of state or national governments and start to PUSH. I do not look forward to the day when that reaches the tipping point.
I argue that what happened in the US, and other “western” nations, over a few centuries was substantially anomalous given human history and psychology. And you seem to have argued to the point where I started.
Both Team Red and Team Blue are doing plenty of pushing. And neither team has a monopoly on bad ideas.
America’s best hope is for the vast majority of Americans to tell both Teams Red and Blue to get lost.
Fatal flaw #2: Your hypothetical consigns groups of people to geographical areas by ideology. Who gets the nicest real estate with the best climate, farmland, natural resources?
If the argument of “we can’t have more immigration because otherwise they will just consume welfare and make us all poorer” is a valid argument, then why doesn’t the same argument also apply to native-born citizens? After all, it’s native-born citizens that consume the vast majority of welfare, and in crude terms, what is childbirth other than simply immigration via a vagina, instead of by crossing a border?
So if you insist “we can’t have more immigration because welfare” is a valid argument, then I’m going to insist “we can’t have more child birth because welfare” is also a valid argument. For every restriction you want to place on immigration, let’s place a similar restriction on childbirth of native-born citizens.
You only want high-income, high-skilled immigrants who will be net positive contributors to the public fisc? Okay, then the state should only permit legal childbirth from high-income, highly-skilled parents whose children are also to be net positive contributors. You want to have a “public charge” test for immigrants? Okay, then let’s have a “public charge” test for childbirth – only those parents who can guarantee that they can raise their kids without any government subsidies or welfare at all should be legally permitted to have kids.
Sound good? If not, why not?
If the proposition is that incoming immigrants will be beneficial to our country, how come they don’t seem to be able to be beneficial to their own?
Who says they’re not?
And why don’t you answer the question?
Because it’s a non-sequitur. How we chose to treat citizens in no way obligates us to treat non-citizens likewise.
Okay, then let’s have a “public charge” test for childbirth – only those parents who can guarantee that they can raise their kids without any government subsidies or welfare at all should be legally permitted to have kids.
No complaints here.
How we chose to treat citizens in no way obligates us to treat non-citizens likewise.
If the *goal* is to reduce welfare spending, and if the *plan* for reducing welfare spending is to restrict immigration, based on the (false) premise that “immigrants consume all this welfare”, then from an *empirical* perspective, since native-born citizens consume way more welfare, why wouldn’t the same plan be applicable to native-born citizens?
If it is morally justifiable to say to an immigrant, “you can’t come into this country unless you meet a certain income threshold”, why isn’t it then morally justifiable to say to a set of prospective parents, “you can’t bring a new ‘immigrant’ (baby) into this country unless you meet a certain income threshold”?
My goal is to restrict immigration because I prefer to have no more immigrants. That’s all the reason I need. I have no moral obligation to aspiring immigrants whatsoever. Simple as that.
Why don’t you want more immigrants?
Because I prefer to live in country with people who share my values, culture, aesthetics, religious orientation (or at least close enough to be culturally compatible) and, yes, race and ethnicity (or at least close enough to be culturally compatible).
If you have a problem with that, feel free to pound sand.
I believe you should have the right to associate with whomever you please. If you wish to only associate with White Christian Nationalists then knock yourself out. Go ahead.
But you don’t get to dictate your preferences to everyone else.
Insisting that the *entire country* must share your preferences for values and religion is the same as denying to everyone else their own freedom of association rights to associate with whom they please. Not to mention violating their own freedom of conscience to believe what they wish to believe.
But you don’t get to dictate your preferences to everyone else.
What’s the difference between that you dictating your preferences to me?
Insisting that the *entire country* must share your preferences for values and religion is the same as denying to everyone else their own freedom of association rights to associate with whom they please. Not to mention violating their own freedom of conscience to believe what they wish to believe.
That’s been the basis for *creating* most countries, if you hadn’t noticed.
Mine expands liberty. Yours restricts it.
You’re coming close to arguing that pushing someone in front of a moving bus, and pushing someone out of the way of a moving bus, are morally equivalent because they both involve pushing a person.
So your rationale for “let the state impose majoritarian tyranny on everyone”, is “because that’s the way it’s always been”?
It looks like you’re shit outta luck if you’re in the U.S. especially. No person this side of a prison wall lives by the “values, culture, aesthetics, and religious orientation” of Witch-Burning.
As for “race” and “ethnicity,” Robert A. “Papa” Heinlein pointed out that no one can claim purity beyond 5 generations, and like the Atheist/Evolutionist bumper sticker says: “We Are All Africans!”
If you don’t like that and if you seek to remake the U.S.A. in your demented image, maybe you’ll be the one pounding sand with a final thud.
Fuck Off, Witch-Burning Nazi!
Poor immigrants are easy to convert/bribe into supporting left wing politics. So we oppose mass immigration of unskilled labor for the same reason you support it.
They also keep wages low for unskilled workers already here.
Poor immigrants are easy to convert/bribe into supporting left wing politics.
I see. So poor immigrants are dumb idiots, unlike poor native-born citizens, who are rational God-fearing savants. Is that about right?
So poor immigrants are dumb idiots, unlike poor native-born citizens,
It’s obvious this statement can neither be logically supported by mine nor, even if it were, is it in any way relevant. The only “dumb idiot” is Jeffey.
Notice that when Jeffey is faced with inconvenient points he reacts with nonsense to draw the focus away from them. He’s simply incapable of honest debate.
No complaints here.
So how would you enforce this rule?
You proposed it.
I simply said I’d have no complaints about implementing it, if you’re adamant about it.
That said, implementing it is your problem. I don’t personally care.
Well let’s see. If we were to enforce this policy – which I don’t support, by the way, but if we were to imagine how it might be enforced analogously to how immigration rules are enforced – then it would be illegal for a native-born couple to give birth to a child if the couple did not pass some “public charge” test. A couple which violated this law would be guilty of “illegal immigration”. For ordinary immigration over borders, an “illegal immigrant” is typically deported back to the country of origin. But an unaccompanied minor can’t just be dropped off in downtown Guatemala City with no way to fend for him/herself, there is an obligation to try to deport that minor to some adult caregiver. In the case of the couple giving birth to an “illegal immigrant”, then, it would be something like the state taking the child away from the parents and putting it in an orphanage.
Still okay with the idea?
Knock yourself out. As I said, it’s not my problem.
That is so stupid. The state would be worse off making a child a ward than allowing its parents to care for it. What you propose is just idiotic, it would cost the state more to raise a child, not to mention the social cost of having a sub culture of parentless children to society.
Well of course it would be expensive to house all those babies in orphanages. That is why the state would have to have strict enforcement of its anti-illegal-immigration laws so there wouldn’t be so many in the first place. There would have to be monitoring of workplaces and public areas to make sure that pregnant women lacking the correct permission from the state weren’t skirting the law. Employers would have to verify with the state that they weren’t employing pregnant women carrying illegal immigrant babies. And “sneaking across the border” would be like giving birth naturally at home with a midwife. That would have to be illegal of course, with strict monitoring.
And as a deterrent, the conditions of the state-run orphanages would have to be rather squalid. Overcrowded, filthy, full of crying dirty sick miserable babies. This should be widely publicized so as to deter would-be parents from thinking about breaking the law. They wouldn’t want to be forced to give up their baby to one of those places, would they? Plus, if the orphanages are run with insufficient resources, it would save taxpayer money. A win-win!
Hey, It’s A Hard Knock Life
Jeff forgets he’s fifty-centing to libertarians sometimes.
The mask is forgotten in his fridge more and more often.
Indeed governments have a legitimate incentive to be hypocritical to their own citizens.
But apparently consent of the governed be damned.
I’m proposing a thought experiment.
If the goal is to reduce welfare spending via immigration, then why not apply the same techniques to childbirth?
Because there is no reasonable basis to equate thise 2 things. This isn’t a thought experiment if it is neither logical nor feasible. You just can’t be anything but a contrarian and you will come up with all manner of random crap in the service of the contrary
You’re talking to someone who came up with driving around town with a bear in your trunk mauling people as a “thought experiment”.
Because it’s immoral for the government to do so to the people it actually is charged to. Conversely, illegal aliens aren’t charged to the government, and as such, they enjoy less protection than citizens.
This is literally the basis of civilization, that membership confers benefits. The only way your thought experiment can conflate the two is if you assume all of humanity is a singular civilization (an objectively untrue statement).
All of humanity is composed of individual human beings, each with inalienable human rights, regardless of citizenship status or place of origin.
Agreed?
No.
Indeed, most people, the world over, reject that statement.
Again, it only works if you assume we are one civilization. But since you already accept the concept of a one world government….
I see.
So in your view, who does have rights? Do people even have rights at all?
People have rights to the extent that they can make their government recognize them.
Just as an example, I cannot emigrate to Japan (easily) because their citizens don’t extend that right to their enforcement arm (their government).
I’ve advocated that many times here. We should stop subsidizing the reproduction of those least competent to be parents. With our current social welfare policies, we are in effect practicing dysgenics.
“we are in effect practicing dysgenics”
Which is also what open borders does…
I see you still don’t accept that jurisdiction has a physical limit. Get back to us when you figure out that.
OK, jurisdiction has a physical limit. So what? The people in that jurisdiction still have to decide what laws to have within that jurisdiction, including who to allow as immigrants. Doesn’t change the issue being discussed at all.
Yes, and Americans have decided that they want strictly limited immigration.
But America’s elites are undermining the will of the people.
This is why the USA needs to be able to trade players like a sports team. We could have a manager, contracts instead of citizenship, eventually you get to be a free agent.
How about we trade you for a couple Somalis?
Can they play D?
We could hold immigration try-outs.
You would have to turn off the trade AI to get another country to take Mike.
I haven’t seen anyone opposing unfettered immigration strictly due to welfare. I did see a call to abolish the welfare state, but no indication that there was a wish to restrict that to immigrants, generally the term abolish means to get rid of ebtirely, so I would assume that applied to citizens as well.
No, that is not the argument. Welfare is a red herring you keep bringing up.
What makes America poorer is bringing in low skill workers that will, on average, decrease per capita GDP for generations to come.
Welfare is a red herring you keep bringing up.
lol look at the very first comment to this article
Oh, I see your confusion. The term “welfare state” refers to any state that spends a large amount of its GDP on social welfare: public schools, public universities, public roads, subsidized healthcare, redistribution of income, public retirement programs, public insurance programs, etc.
The term “welfare” in the US has a secondary meaning in terms of a specific government program that pays cash to some poor people; this is not a defining property of “welfare states”. US welfare programs are a small fraction of the overall US social welfare spending. The US would remain a massive welfare state even if we completely eliminated the “welfare” program.
Hope that clears up your confusion.
Lol, eliminating the welfare state would BY DEFINITION include eliminating it for natural born citizens. So your argument is, in fact, a red herring.
“For every restriction you want to place on immigration, let’s place a similar restriction on childbirth of native-born citizens.”
Ok, I agree to this. Dismantle the welfare state (including public school systems), now immigrants and native-born get no welfare from the government and must pay their own way.
Now what?
https://twitter.com/LouiseMensch/status/1506247577292865537?t=OC5daEZALcvHJ8J5sWiz2A&s=19
As far as I am concerned we are not only assisting Ukraine, we are taking revenge for Afghanistan and for 2016, for the interference in Brexit, for Extinction Rebellion, the Yellow Vests and IndyRef, for Canada 2015 and the Trucker Convoys, and COVID misinfo.
“we are taking revenge”
They really are.
…well maybe elected officials are just parlaying billions in “aid” into their stock dividends, but Mensch and her blue-check friends are safely taking emotional revenge on the working class.
Even America’s limited open borders have made the country so unattractive that I wouldn’t immigrate here again. So, the open borders idiocy is self limiting.
The fact that this idiocy seems to be an official part of LP policy also makes the LP a joke as far as I’m concerned.
Of course, as a lofty member of the intelligentsia, Bryan Caplan will never have to pay the price for the policies he advocates: he will perpetually be supported by the state no matter what.
Help me understand what Garett Jones is saying. If a hard-working, peaceful man lives 10 miles south from a lazy, combative man, but there’s an imaginary line between them and we call one side the United States and the other side Canada, total innovation doesn’t suffer? But if we move the line five miles north of the culturally inferior man, then innovation declines?
Per capita, obviously.
No, he is saying that if the “10 miles of the US border” is filled with 10 million low-skilled, low-income workers, then he observes correctly that moving the border by 10 miles to include those people into the US will make the US poorer overall.
In addition, “hard-working, peaceful” has nothing to do with it. A lazy, combative, high-skilled man can (and often does) contribute a lot more to the US economy than a hard-working, peaceful, low-skilled man.
I don’t think Garett Jones is making the merely mathematical point that if you add a lower-than-average value to a set, the average decreases. I think he’s trying to say moving people across a border can bring down innovation globally.
Look, you picked an absurd example based on a statistically unrepresentative construction, and I explained to you one way in which that example fails.
We can extend that example. Assume that those 10 million workers within 10 miles of the border are low skill by US standards by high skill by Mexican standards. By moving the border to include them, you not only make the US poorer, you also make Mexico poorer.
Of course, talking about this in terms of “moving the border” is an absurdity of your example, but at the population level, the above thing is what happens in practice: the US attracts the highest skilled and most entrepreneurial people from poor countries as (il)legal (im)migrants, but that same population of people is poor and unskilled by US standards. As a result, both countries are worse off.
If we move the 10 million Mexican workers from your example to the US, and we assume their productivity doesn’t change, then average US productivity declines and average Mexican productivity declines. Total production in Mexico declines, and total production in the US increases by the same amount. Who’s worse off? Maybe people in Mexico, if there are trade barriers that prevent them from accessing goods and services from America. Not people in America.
If, however, the 10 million Mexican workers are more productive in the US than in Mexico due to better capital and institutions, then total production in the US increases by more than it declines in Mexico. The world is better off, not merely people living in the US.
Anyway, it seems like Garett Jones concedes all of this, in the short run. But apparently he thinks in the long run, immigration from countries with inferior cultures dampens innovation in the receiving country. I just don’t understand how that’s supposed to happen.
You erroneously assume that the US is better off if total GDP increases. But the wealth of a nation is determined by per-capita GDP, and that simultaneously decreases in both countries.
The decrease in innovation in the destination country is an additional, separate effect: the availability of large numbers of cheap, low skilled workers means that there is little incentive in investing in innovation.
This is something I don’t understand: “But the wealth of a nation is determined by per-capita GDP . . . .”
Let’s try a thought experiment, drained of nationality. We have two rooms, A and B. Both rooms contain people. The average height–the “per-capita height,” if you will–of the people in room A is 5’2″. The average height of the people in room B is 6’1″. Now imagine a 5’4″ person leaves room A and enters room B. What happens to the average height of the people in room A? It decreases. What happens to the average height of the people in room B? It decreases. Is any human being in either room shorter? Not even one millimeter.
Similarly, consider a person whose productivity is above average for Mexico but below average for the US. If he moves from Mexico to the US and his productivity doesn’t decrease, then averages decrease in both countries but no actual human being is poorer. If his productivity increases, however, he is richer, and so is everyone who consumes what he produces, in any country.
I’m getting the sense that you’re not thinking about actual individual human beings. Rather, you’re worried about reified nations, and taking GDP as some sort of score that measures their status.
Why do you think illegal aliens (or legal immigrants like myself) come to the US? We could be individuals in our own countries, after all. In fact, we usually exchange high status and high income in our own countries for low status and (relatively) low income in the US.
We come because the US is full of smart, skilled people with the capital resources to start new businesses and innovate. And they have the incentive to innovate because they can’t just fix problems by throwing low cost labor at it.
Even in a truly libertarian society, per capita GDP matters for those reasons. But it matters even more in the kinds of high tax nation states that we have these days, because per capita GDP determines how much government can provide in education, infrastructure, public safety, etc.
The US is not (yet) like the kind of sh*tholes most immigrants come from, where there is a small wealthy elite and a large number of low wage, low skill peasants.
That is why per capita GDP is often used as a measure comparing the level of development and the wealth of different nations. Other, closely related, measures are literacy rates, levels of education, health status, etc. All of those get worse as you bring in low skilled, low income (im)migrants.
You are forgetting the main thing that made other countries sh*tholes: Leftist and kleptocratic governments.
Mostly countries just start out as sh!tholes. It didn’t take any leftists to make them that way.
To end up with a prosperous, safe society and nation requires a lot of factors to come together.
It’s always worth reminding citizens of high-productivity countries that immigration is still the most reliable way to raise the living standards of people in low-productivity countries.
“Reminding” people of this is useless. I don’t think anyone doubts immigration is good for immigrants. The question is whether immigration is good for the people who are already here.
It has to be effectively managed for it to be good for the people already here. The first step is improving border security.
since open borders libertarian hung up their hat ill make a stab at it:
America is a such a deeply racist and mysongynistic place that we should take no immigrants until we fix those issues.
Because immigrants are likely to be more racist and misogynistic than Americans? That’s certainly true.
Happy New Year to everyone in the much-deplored Reason commentariat.
You know who else was much-deplored?
Justin Bieber?
Half of America during Hillary’s campaign?
Hillary’s half?
There’s a demographic Continental Divide between nations that have historical track records as net exporters of cultural innovation and those that do not .
China’s depth and breadth in that department is such that it takes volumes to merely catalog it- Needham’s Science and Civilization in China started in 1954, has grown into an academic industry whose seven volumes passed the ten thousand page mark a decade ago.
Venezuela not so much.
https://twitter.com/ScotExpress/status/1608796586443960322?t=Z3k2A2njmrGP1PutW61DXg&s=19
Anger as Police Scotland rebrands paedophiles as ‘Minor-Attracted People’
[Link]
That explains all those kilts.
That’s why there are so few paedophile convictions in Scotland—they get plaid out!
As for all the universal ethics that support unrestricted immigration, what if a few million Americans walked into Venezuela? What are they entitled to?
They aren’t entitled to anything, and so the only way a few million Americans would move there is if they knew they could find work.
The same dynamic holds for people coming to America. They are not going to come unless there is work for them here.
I understand Open Borders in theory, but in practice it can literally only work if every country on earth eliminates its borders, becoming one Earthican nation.
This seems like a fairy tale that most open borders advocates can’t acknowledge.
Well, when we talk about “open borders”, we’re talking about the policy of unilaterally opening US borders to large numbers of migrants.
As for all the universal ethics that support unrestricted immigration, what if a few million Americans walked into Venezuela? What are they entitled to?
One does not have to scratch very hard or deep on an open borders advocate to discover that they aren’t for universal liberty as much as they support more convenient worldwide subjugation.
If greenies are watermelons because they’re red on the inside and don’t actually care about the environment, the open borders people are red onions. Rather transparently, no actual care about borders or culture or freedom, just layer after layer of red, and they all stink.
Years of consistent bleeting about the southern US border, but the CCP’s takeover of Hong Kong was just a blip on the radar that has gone silent. For all the talk of diversity, no discussion about Venezuelans, Guatemalans, and Mexicans returning to their own country, taking control of the government, and preserving their culture there and producing several distinctly diverse cultures across several continents rather than one nondescript culture on one continent.
Ironically; Open Borders opens-up to the worst immigrants not the best.
A point Reason thinks they can propagandatize over as expected.
The USA *******already******* has MORE immigrants than any other nation… I guess some just aren’t going to be happy until the USA is completely invaded, conquered and destroyed.
No immigrants, just a Lilly white Johnny Jihad
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11590105/PICTURED-Times-Square-jihadist-19-stabbed-rookie-NYPD-cop-machete-New-Years-Eve.html
Mind you, mental illness may have played a role. Rumor has it he heard multiple voices in his head (at least two of whom were FBI informants)
I’m sure Trevor would have become a Muslim even if the US had remained 100% Christian, right? /sarc
Wet dream much? As if ideas cannot cross borders from one Stepford Subsidiarity to another?
All that as may be, though history suggests that Islam’s Allah has been whispering Abrahamic, psilocybin-fueled fever dreams for over 1300 years before J. Edgar Hoover was a long, cool woman in a black hijab. 😉
Kind of like the case for a 6″ hole in the bottom or your cars gas tank.
I’ve made $1250 so far this week working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’AM made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Here’s what I do for more information simply.
Open this link thank you…………>>> http://Www.onlinecareer1.com
I’m currently generating over $35,100 a month thanks to one small internet job, therefore I really like your work! I am aware that with a beginning cdx05 capital of $28,800, you are cdx02 presently making a sizeable quantity of money online.
Just Check ———>>> http://Www.Salaryapp1.com
zxv
I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..
HERE====)> http://WWW.RICHSALARIES.COM
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> http://WWW.WORKSFUL.COM