Should America Open Its Borders?

Reason Presents a Debate on Immigration

|

Does America need more or less immigration? Should we let the free market decide how many immigrant workers the economy can support? Or should a responsible government manage the flow of labor?

On Tuesday, April 22, Reason Foundation Managing Editor Tom Clougherty moderated a debate on immigration reform featuring Cato Immigration Policy Analyst Alex Nowrasteh, Professor of Economics at George Mason University Bryan Caplan, and Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies Mark Krikorian.

Each participant spoke for 10 minutes on what open borders would mean to wages, unemployment, and the labor market in America.

About 35 minutes.

Cameras and audio by Meredith Bragg and Joshua Swain. Edited by Swain.

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to ReasonTV's YouTube Channel to receive notification when new material goes live.

NEXT: Three Supreme Court Cases to Watch

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. So the libertarian one-world agenda finally rears its ugly head. And on Mother’s Day of all things.

    1. I mentioned this once, as well.

      No borders. But SOME government will be required. For all people. Top Men.

      One World Government.

  2. No. At least not yet. Until there has been a major overhaul of the laws, opening the borders is a gesture, not a policy.

    I dislike coming here and sounding like an anti-Hispanic hysteric, but we need to START by enforcing the laws we have now. It has been so long since anyone actually tried to do that that we have scant idea what it would mean. The situation we have now, where the laws are enforced on a whim-and-whatever basis is an immoral trap which puts immigrants in a legal limbo where they can be exploited. An amnesty without a change in the laws will simply suck in more immigrants into the same trap. Enforcing the laws as they stand will force people who have been exploiting that trap into the open where they can be shamed, and possibly punished, and allow us to restructure the system more fairly. If that restructure is to open the birders,then so be it.

    1. Oops. Sorry for the double post.

  3. No. At least not yet. Until there has been a major overhaul of the laws, opening the borders is a gesture, not a policy.

    I dislike coming here and sounding like an anti-Hispanic hysteric, but we need to START by enforcing the laws we have now. It has been so long since anyone actually tried to do that that we have scant idea what it would mean. The situation we have now, where the laws are enforced on a whim-and-whatever basis is an immoral trap which puts immigrants in a legal limbo where they can be exploited. An amnesty without a change in the laws will simply suck in more immigrants into the same trap. Enforcing the laws as they stand will force people who have been exploiting that trap into the open where they can be shamed, and possibly punished, and allow us to restructure the system more fairly. If that restructure is to open the birders,then so be it.

    1. What laws aren’t being enforced? (No snark or sarcasm. I don’t know much about this issue.) I remember reading that Obama had deported a record number of people, so it seems some sort of enforcement is in place.

      open the birders

      Hey now, be nice to the Audubon society geezers.

      1. The fact that SOME enforcement is in place is exactly his point. They enforce it in accordance with their political agenda.

      2. “What laws aren’t being enforced?”

        The deportation of Obama’s aunt?

        /snark intended

    2. “The situation we have now, where the laws are enforced on a whim-and-whatever basis is an immoral trap which puts immigrants in a legal limbo where they can be exploited.”

      I absolutely agree with this. Amnesty is basically “you can stay, but only on our shady political terms” It’s the approach to immigration with the least honesty and integrity. Keep the laws and enforce them, or get rid of them.

    3. The situation we have now, where the laws are enforced on a whim-and-whatever basis is an immoral trap which puts immigrants in a legal limbo where they can be exploited.

      If you come here you may be harmed, therefore I’ll threaten you with harm if you come here…

    4. I’m sure nothing will be so beneficial to unauthorized immigrants than rounding them up and preventing them from earning the monies that can better their lives. How benevolent of you.

  4. Here are some links I posted yesterday.

    The Illinois State Military Museum is keeping the artificial leg of Antonio L?pez de Santa Anna. The leg was captured by Illinois Soldiers during the Mexican War.

    The head of the San Jacinto Museum in Texas wants the artificial leg and even attempted an abortive petition to the White House. As it happens, Santa Anna hadn’t lost his leg at the time of San Jacinto – he lost it two years later at the hands (so to speak) of the French.

    Meanwhile, some folks are starting a Kickstarter campaign to make a comic book about Santa Anna’s *real* leg, the flesh-and-bone leg he lost and then buried with full honors. Seems the leg is coming back from the dead to save Mexico from its enemies.

    https://reason.com/blog/2014/05…..nt_4504279

    1. “..Seems the leg is coming back from the dead to save Mexico from its enemies.”

      What about its *evil* twin?

      1. It’s hopping mad.

        1. The Walking Dead Leg.

    2. Send in Cotton Hill.

  5. ” Should we let the free market decide how many immigrant workers the economy can support? Or should a responsible government manage the flow of labor?”

    These two questions hit the nail on the head in a way the writer did not intend.

    Why must there be a false dichotomy?

    Let the free market determine how many immigrants come here to work, and let the government document and manage the flow, which is one of its proper functions.

    I’m starting to think the need to always pick a side is a conspiracy in the news media so that they never run out of conflicts to write about.

    1. The only proper function of government in this regard is to keep out criminals, foreign agents, terrorists, and the dangerously infectious. They have NO RIGHT to bar anyone else.

      1. Your list of exclusion is so broad that the government can effectively bar anyone it wants.

      2. the dangerously infectious

        So I lose my fundamental RIGHT to freedom of movement because some people have weak immune systems? Next, are you going to tell me that my kid cannot bring a peanut butter sandwich to school? Or maybe the government could keep out people with peanut allergies.

        1. You don’t need a weak immune system to contract typhoid fever.

  6. We did fine for many years with wide open borders, and even had an official program to assist migrant workers come here legally. It all worked fine until LBJ and the unions decided to put politics ahead of sound economics.

    For goods and services of roughly the equivalent value, the purchaser will always try to get the best price. You can try to legislate away reality, but in the end economic reality will win out.

    Further, it is a disingenuous argument to talk about “first enforce the laws that we have” when those laws are contrary to reality in the first place. Just like interracial marriage or gay sex, these things simply are a natural part of human interaction; you can outlaw them, but you won’t stop them. So why try to outlaw people looking to come to a place where there is greater opportunity?

    (Abuse of the welfare state is a red herring since by definition the welfare state is abusive to those who work in the first place. The solution to “illegal aliens” claiming welfare benefits is not taller fences, but getting rid of the welfare state.)

    1. “(Abuse of the welfare state is a red herring since by definition the welfare state is abusive to those who work in the first place. The solution to “illegal aliens” claiming welfare benefits is not taller fences, but getting rid of the welfare state.)”

      Your definitions are all mixed up. You are arguing two sides and rebutting yourself all at the same time.

    2. Abuse of the welfare state is a red herring

      No, it isn’t. If your desires wrt open borders are economic in nature (let labor markets find an equilibrium), then welfare provides a hugely distortionary effect on supply of said labor. Welfare is, in economic terms, the government purchasing the rights to a person’s labor; it establishes itself as a competitor for low-shelf labor while explicitly structuring itself to prevent the person on welfare from moving on. Since it competes for low-rent labor, immigrants with limited skills may find the government’s welfare is the best deal in town relative to the alternatives, and in general it incentivizes an oversupply of said labor. The effects are obvious — Sweden being the worst case, but the difference in welfare provided also being reflected in the very different demographics of Texan immigrants as opposed to CA immigrants.

      (This is without considering the effects that second-generation welfarite immigrants exert on our political system.)

      1. I think the point was, the abuse of the welfare state is a red herring WRT the immigration argument. As if you oppose immigration on those grounds, your battle isn’t with immigration itself, but with the welfare state.

        Same as opposing gay marriage because you’re against entitlements for married people.

        Fight the right battle.

        Forgive me if I put words in your mouth GT.

        1. If that’s his point, then he missed it.

          We already know people who work “on the books” are abused by the welfare state.
          And we already know that productive working Americans are not the ones mooching off the state.

          But under our current system, what do we know about “illegal” immigrants? That is the point of the statement: First enforce the laws that we have now.

          I’m thinking GT hasn’t traveled or “entered” very many foreign countries or he would know that immigration control is a fundamental function of a sovereign state. Most places I go, I can get a visa for a maximum of 30 days, pay for the privilege, cannot work for money in any way, and get my ass jailed or fined for any violation or overstay.

          1. I’m thinking GT hasn’t traveled or “entered” very many foreign countries or he would know that immigration control is a fundamental function of a sovereign state.

            That’s exactly the point being debated. Is it? Or should it be based upon market forces?

            Just because that’s how other states do it doesn’t make it right or even efficient.

            If there was no welfare state, the right answer for immigration would be for the market to sort it out. As labor is required it would move here to fill demand. In hard times it would move out. The welfare state distorts that.

            SO, if you are arguing in favor of a suboptimum solution to immigration (fences) because of another suboptimal solution (welfare) isn’t the right thing to do to get rid of welfare and allow the optimal solution on both issues?

            1. The interim solution is to enforce the idea (law) that “welfare” exists solely for citizens, not visitors.

              Even if we never get rid of welfare, it can still be denied to the non-citizen.

              The problem very obviously is that there is a significant portion of the political elites who want as many people on welfare as possible:
              1. citizens so that they are dependent on the government, and will then vote for welfare gov candidates.
              2. “illegals” so that they can become assimilated into our society to the point that every 10 years or so, the only easy solution is a mass amnesty which produces a new crop of welfare gov. voters.

            2. By the way, I was not arguing above that the USA adopt the specific restrictions that many other countries do. I am very favorable toward liberal visitation of foreigners to the USA, including liberal allowances to work and live in the USA. But I do believe it is worthwhile to discriminate (in the proper sense of the word) between a citizen and an alien.

        2. GT is this your point?

          The Welfare State is morally and economically unsound.

          Our goal should be to dismantle it.

          Therefore, until we do dismantle it, we should be unconcerned about how many people are abusing it.

        3. Well, that’s true but it doesn’t take away from the fact that immigration under these conditions would be harmful.

          Would eliminating (or severely curtailing) the welfare state solve that and other problems? Of course, but there’s no way in hell that happens. There is, OTOH, a possibility that we adopt an immigration scheme which substantially strengthens the welfare state, or an amnesty which makes voters of a large number of welfarites in CA with no connection to the rest of the country.

          Norms matter.

          1. the fact that immigration under these conditions would be harmful.

            How many times does it have to be said? There is no evidence mass immigration strengthens the welfare state.?

  7. ITS NOT ABOUT MANAGING LABOR OR THE FREE MARKET. JESUS FUCKING CHRIST.

    It’s about whether or not our VAST social welfare state can handle an unlimited number of new citizens, because lets face reality here, a great deal of these new immigrants aren’t going directly into the workforce and assimilating into American citizens, but rather onto some form of government assistance and into balkanized ghettoes — and then voting for the party which promises them even more assistance and identity politics to match.

    As libertarians, our FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS must be to dismantle the welfare state. ALL of our other priorities will backfire horribly until we get the welfare state under control. We can’t just open the borders without FIRST ensuring that new immigrants have no choice but to support themselves and assimilate as Americans. THAT is why our previous eras of immigration were so wildly successful. Open borders were only PART of the reason; the other half of the equation was critical.

    1. Yup. Duh.

    2. There’s something to this, but it can apply so widely. Should we not legalize drugs because if we do many new addicts might turn to our welfare state?

    3. lets face reality here, a great deal of these new immigrants aren’t going directly into the workforce and assimilating into American citizens, but rather onto some form of government assistance and into balkanized ghettoes

      Bull. Shit.

  8. OT: I need some advice, guys.

    I have a friend who is a liberal. Votes democrat, feels rather than thinks, the whole kit-and-liberal-kaboodle. We were arguing the other day about Wal-Mart. He’s latched onto the idea that Wal-Mart should double the pay of every employee it has. And he seems to have come to this conclusion because the average Canadian Wal-Mart employee makes $15 an hour.

    I tried explaining to him that the minimum wage is higher in Canada. won’t listen. I tried to explain that the tax rate is higher in Canada, and they take home proportionally the same amount of money. Won’t listen. He decided that Wal-Mart is responsible for the welfare of it’s employees and has to give them more money to survive.

    I finally lost my shit. I told him that they don’t HAVE to work at Wal-Mart, or take the shitty wages they offer. They can learn skills and find better careers, or move to a place where the cost of living is lower. I told him that they wouldn’t have so much trouble if the damn government didn’t tax the piss out of us, and that INCLUDES Wal-Mart, because everyone would have more goddamn money!

    1. My advice:

      Either (a) don’t talk politics, or (b) get a new friend.

    2. Canada does not have a federal minimum wage. Only provincial.

  9. I asked him what he thought we should do to help. And he had no ideas. So, I put myself out there for him. I told him that since he cared about the welfare of the poor, we should go and volunteer at a local charity. I even offered to take vacation time from work to make sure I could be there to support him as he helped the poor and downtrodden.

    And he just told me “No, I don’t actually care THAT much.”

    WTF? He gives enough of a shit about Wal-Mart giving away money that he’ll shout it at my face, but not enough to actually HELP? What can I possibly do in the face of that kind of willful ignorance?

    1. Have you considered euthenasia?

      1. Sorry, spelling: euthansia

        1. never mind, it can only get worse.

    2. Shame him. Point out his immorality. He’s too lazy to walk it like he talks it but has absolutely NO problem promoting the theft of the property of others to achieve his ends. That’s disgusting.

      These people are morally bankrupt.

      1. That’s the worst part. It doesn’t seem to matter to him WHAT I say, he just doesn’t want to listen.

        After a certain amount of me being right at him, he just starts going off about how I’m such a hardline republican, and this is why he hates talking politics with me.

        And there doesn’t seem to be any way to make him understand the concept of a libertarian. We’re all just republicans.

        It is actual and honest-to-god denial. It sometimes occurs to me that these are the kind of people that made the world the way it is now. And I haz a sad.

        1. “.. he just doesn’t want to listen.”

          Then stop talking. Some people are open, some just aren’t. Don’t waste emotional energy on those that won’t hear you and focus on those that are willing to argue in good faith.

          If he’s a good friend focus on the interests you share and let politics slide.

          In may experience, young people (20-30ish) are most open to libertarian ideas, and, I hate to say it, but mostly men.

          I have a collection of libertarian themed t-shirts (yes, I’m and embarrassing goof-ball) that are conversation starters. Mostly those conversations happen with youngish guys who will comment on them.

          1. That’s what I’ve been doing since this argument. He’s a good person and an excellent friend. He just buries his head in his ass when he talks politics.

            And those young men asking about your t-shirt? They’re staring at your boobs. 😀

        2. Send him this.

          You can’t force him to be reasonable. If it’s something you can’t live with, don’t associate with him. If it is, accept it and don’t talk politics. As with all things, cost/benefit.

        3. You’re friend sounds like he’s hopelessly Enlightened. I’m afraid that the only thing for it is a good punch in the face. It won’t do him any good, but you’ll sure feel a lot better.

        4. “What can I possibly do in the face of that kind of willful ignorance?”

          First step is to understand the psychology behind people’s moral foundations. I’d buy this book for him. So far this book is my favorite piece of non-fiction other than the constitution and the bill of rights, and has helped me immensely in the understanding of how people think.

          “And there doesn’t seem to be any way to make him understand the concept of a libertarian. We’re all just republicans.”

          this should do

          1. Also, if either of you are feeling lazy, the Author, Jonathan Haidt, has a few videos on teh you tubes as well as reason videos/articles.

            Bonus: http://dailycaller.com/2012/07…..r-dummies/

    3. You should ask him if he uses a cleaning service and if so, why he doesn’t pay them more. He’ll say he can’t afford it! Then ask him what would happen if the law required him to pay more. The answer is he would stop using the service or reduce the hours. Minimum wage kills job. QED.

      If he’s too poor to have maids, you should ask him if he ever used a moving service, and if so, why he didn’t pay them more.

      Etc., etc.

    4. Ask him if he supports throwing Walmart and any employer who offers less than he thinks fair in jail, because that’s where his position ultimately leads

  10. I do not understand why we should open the floodgates? What is so unlibertarian about regulating the flow of immigration?
    I understand and agree with a true free market system free from entangling alliances and detrimental trade agreements, and the benefits to an economy that a dynamic growing population with increased immigration would bolster,
    but there are legitimate concerns with preventing criminals entering and the prevention of the reintroduction of diseases and illnesses that have long been eradicated from our soil, furthermore if we open the gates without our neighbors opening their gates wouldn’t that defeat the purpose?

    1. Agreed. Reason (eg., Gillespie) is quite snarky about anyone who suggests that it might be beneficial to have some control of immigration.

    2. Most open border proponents recognize some restrictions for security or public health. But other than that any restrictions go to first principles of freedom of movement and association

      1. I’m all for moving and associating. But if you are not a citizen of a given country, you aren’t part of that civilization. You are not a member. You are a visitor, a guest at best.

        1. And if I, a citizen, want to have a non citizen come associate with me indefinitely?

          1. Again, no problem. But that non citizen is still a visitor, not a member. If that person wants to feed at the welfare table, that person should go to the welfare club where he/she is a member.

            1. I would have no welfare club at all but I would be fine with restricting non citizens access to one. I do think there should some citizenship process available to those who have been here for a while, but until then I’d support restricted access to most government benefits

    3. What is so unlibertarian about regulating the flow of immigration?

      Because a free society requires open borders.

      I do not understand why we should open the floodgates?

      Freedom, the massive economic benefits, take your pick.

      1. How long would a free society remain “free” if the immigrants marched in with the intent of destroying its freedoms? Say, by imposing religious based law or warlord political systems. Or by forming street gangs and terrorizing cities.

        The USA does have millions of illegal immigrants, and yet we are becoming a less free society. One reason is that these immigrants (or their children) can take advantage of affirmative action, minorities-only programs, hatecrime laws, and much more which dispossesses most American citizens.

        As for massive economic benefits: these may accrue to an upper strata who can take advantage of cheap labor. But what of the working middle class which loses its jobs and hence its ability to raise it standard of living?

        Here’s a last point: exactly why has open borders become a libertarian issue at all? Is it because on every other front the state is expanding, and this is the only issue which elites will let libertarians think they can win?

    4. “What is so unlibertarian about regulating the flow of immigration?”

      Nothing. Immigration is another political blind spot of clerico libertarianism.

      In the real world, countries are political units that may or may *not* leave you free. Freedom of association is also freedom not to associate. You have a right to defend yourself against statists.

      I don’t want to vote on whether a blasphemer should be thrown off a building or stoned to death with 100 million Pakistanis. There’s already little hope of turning back state power with the statists we already have.

      People in different cultures tend to have different values. Most people in the world who want to immigrate to the US, want it for the prosperity. They’re not coming because they’re great fans of Thomas Paine.

      The US is one of the few countries on earth where Libertarianism has any traction or history at all. Open borders means a less Libertarian America. I’m against that.

  11. “No, I don’t actually care THAT much.”

    No shit.

    “Why should I part with MY precious time and money when it’s so much more satisfying to advocate for the government to force Evul Walmart to pay more?”

    Fucking cargo cult economics.

  12. It doesn’t seem to matter to him WHAT I say, he just doesn’t want to listen.

    It’s a religious cult. That’s why I refuse to engage in debate with those fucking numbskulls. I have better things to do.

    1. No bias in that article at all…

      1. …sez the Reason subscriber.

        1. Not sure what that is supposed to mean.

          I am merely commenting on the fact that it’s an opinion piece posing as a news article. Maybe the writer spent some time at the NYT.

    2. Denmark is poorer than America for several reasons. Lack of immigration is one of them.

  13. I believe that we must have secured borders. I also believe that we should have ports of entries where people can apply for entry once they pass a criminal and health background check.

    But we cannot afford open immigration and a welfare state. We should allow entry but stipulate that immigrants are not eligible for any means tested benefits. We should also specify that these immigrants are subject to fast track deportation if they violate certain criminal laws.

    1. What we can’t afford is open immigration and *democracy*.

      Open immigration means letting in people more accustomed to and amenable to statism than the average American.

      The world is less Libertarian than the US. Let more in, become less libertarian.

  14. Here’s the problem:

    If you say America should “open its borders”, does that mean no immigration controls at all? Criminals, the sick, everyone just gets waved through?

    If you say, no, we’ll screen from criminals, etc. and not let them through, then you now have to have an immigration enforcement agency, will have illegal immigrants, etc. You don’t, in other words, have open borders.

    What open borders generally means is really “high fence, wide gate”. Let’s talk about how high the fence and how wide the gate, rather than going in circles on a hypothetical that no one is really pushing.

    No direct public assistance should be available to anyone who isn’t a full-fledged citizen. Indirect public assistance (schools, etc.) shouldn’t be available to illegals. This gets to be much less of an issue with some kind of EZ guest worker program. Wide gates reduce the number if illegals. High fences mean the remaining illegals are likely bad actors of some kind, deserving of strict enforcement.

    1. Right on the money. Also worth noting that citizenship is inextricably linked to immigration; it is simply not wise to integrate as citizens people who do not share our political values and norms. If that sounds collectivist, it’s because it is — voting ultimately involves feuding collections of the citizenry; deal with it or butt out of the debate.

      1. Thank you. Someone else gets it.

        Immigration is about more than getting cheap labor. It’s about who is going to *vote*.

  15. SlapSammy So So said that aint gonna happen dude.

    http://www.YourAnon.tk

  16. I think I’m riffing on a position others have already stated pretty succinctly, but bear with me.

    Considered in theoretical isolation, I am 100% in favor of completely open borders. I don’t think it makes sense to restrict the movement of free people from an ethical standpoint, and I genuinely believe that freedom of movement will tend to produce stronger economies and frankly more interesting societies.

    That said, there are so many great arguments against the actual implementation of open borders (or the elimination of borders, really) it’s not even funny. For one thing, there’s a fantastically libertarian argument WRT property rights. To whit, the owner of land has an absolute right to prevent trespass, right? Even “public” streets are paid for with the taxes of the people who use them (ideally, if not always realistically). Therefore, even in an ideal minarchist state (hell, an ancap one) property owned and managed communally is nevertheless owned by a specific community, and that community has the right to prevent trespass or theft as with any other property.

    (cont.)

    1. More practically, our welfare state can’t support a sudden influx of dependents, and that’s what we’d have for at least one generation. One proposed solution is to limit benefits to actual citizens while simply allowing migrant workers to remain as non-citizens. Again, while my ancap side really loves this idea, implementation becomes an issue. It’s easy to just not pay welfare benefits to non-citizens, but children born in the US are automatically citizens and as such become entitled to an array of public assistance, nevermind public education.

      Grant citizenship to anyone who wants it? Enlarge the tax base? You’ll still run into a huge welfare burden because most immigrants aren’t in a financial position to be net revenue generators when they first arrive, and likely won’t be for several years. Many never will be. It might come out in the wash over a generation or two, but, then again, it might not. As an old prof of mine used to say, “Hope is not a strategy.”

      Elimination of the welfare state should be considered a first step to any discussion about open borders, or anything else for that matter. I don’t think that you can really consider open borders without first shrinking the state’s involvement in “need-based” redistribution.

      1. You know the 14th amendment exists right? And that Mexicans here illegally are reproducing above replacement rate?

  17. It’s incredibly disturbing that a large number of libertarians are against immigration freedom for one fallacious reason or another. Did you people get lost on your way to NRO? The least stupid but still wrong fallacy is that the welfare state precludes open immigration. I don’t know how many times it has to be said but there is no reason to believe immigration would bolster the welfare state. NONE. Even if it did, that sacrifice would be asinine. Are you also going to argue against drug legalization on the basis that it would burden the hospitals and put the taxpayer on the hook?

    1. I think you’re mixing up arguments. Nobody’s saying that it would expand the welfare state, at least I don’t think so. They’re saying it would put an enormous burden on it that would be a crushing blow to the economy. Even proponents of open borders don’t argue that there wouldn’t be an increased strain on the welfare state for at least one generation. If you’re going to offer means-tested assistance to anyone below a certain income level, and that population increases, then the cost of that assistance increases as well. That money has to either come from elsewhere in the budget (which will never happen) or through increased revenue.

      Also, the hospital/legalization analogy doesn’t work, because your talking about laws affecting people who are already citizens. There also isn’t a strong logical connection between the idea of legalization and increased hospital usage, while there is a very strong logical connection between a dramatic increase in an economically-vulnerable demographic (new immigrants) and increased burden on public assistance.

      1. “They’re saying it would put an enormous burden on it that would be a crushing blow to the economy.”

        Many people assert this, but I’ve never seen anyone actually back it up with evidence.

      2. “Nobody’s saying that it would expand the welfare state, at least I don’t think so. ”

        I am. Anyone with more than a couple of neurons to rub together can see this.

        The world is poorer, less educated, less free, less prosperous than the US.

        Government dependents tend to be in favor of government handouts. Duh.

        And as much as we bitch about the statism in the neighbors we already have, they’re Thomas Jefferson compared to all the poor, illiterate people in the world who would come to the US in a heartbeat to live as a “poor” American.

        Open borders means open *voting*.

    2. Why exactly should we open our borders to those who have nothing more to offer our society than tuberculosis and minimal, if not nonexistent job skills? How exactly does that benefit this nation?

      If you seriously think that introducing tens-of-millions of unskilled workers into an economy already experiencing high unemployment and wage stagnation won’t further burden the welfare system, you’re delusional.

  18. OT: No one rips progressives a new one like Don Boudreaux. Even better when the target is a Salon author who discovered the name Mises on Friday before rushing to finish his Saturday article.

    http://cafehayek.com/2014/05/straw-mises.html

  19. Yes. I should be able to hire whomever I want, and rent my apartments to whomever I chose. If you’re worried about the welfare state, abolish it.

  20. Unemployment is over and we have no welfare state, so, sure, open those borders. What could go wrong?

  21. When the whole world is Libertopia, sure have open borders. I don’t see it before then.

  22. The Mexican-American War of 1846-1848 has come home to roost. Just think of Mexicans (and other Hispanic peoples) flooding across our artificial southern border as conducting a reconquest of what was taken from them by the forced Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo in 1848.

    In 1846, President James Polk decided to invade the sovereign nation of Mexico as a response to the propaganda called “Manifest Destiny”. After a bloody two year war opposed by a substantial percentage of Anglo-Americans, Mexico lost what is now New Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah, and half of Colorado which were incorporated into the United States of American.

    Subsequently and consequently, a large number of Mexicans became U.S. citizens by default, and were treated as inferior people as a result of “Gringo” racism. This has now been rectified by the continuing “migration” of Hispanic peoples across that phony border into the U.S.

    Anyone who is against this and talks about immigration reform is a yapping dog. Unless the border is sealed and militarized this flood of humanity will continue for an indefinite period. There are already 30 million plus “undocumented/illegals” in Los Estados Unidos.

    The Mexican-American War of 1846-1848 has indeed come home to roost. HA!

  23. Use your imagination and envision what might have been, had Polk decided not to invade Mexico in 1846. If nothing else, just consider that the drug cartels would not have to transport all those drugs as far to feed all of those Anglo and other addicts. HA!

  24. I’m a radical. I do not believe that ANY man was created to rule me in any way and I was NOT created to rule anyone else. The desire to go where you want is inherent and a natural law and hurts no one other than those that want control over people.
    An argument that my movements should be controlled because there are terrorists (that ALL people should be treated like terrorists) can be used for any infinite laws that any government would like to enact.
    Who is any man in this world that they believe they have the right to tell me (or anyone else) where they can and can’t go? Who here is my god?

    1. The problem with your belief is that there are a few million people who don’t give a fuck what your belief is, and they’ll enslave you in a second if given the opportunity.

      1. True – and they have. When you work and the fruits of your labor go to another man, I believe that is slavery. When another man tells you where you can and can’t go, that is slavery.
        It is interesting now as our wonderful fellow citizens are trying to also tell us what we can and can not think.
        Oh, you get to keep some of what you earn? That is usual of slavery. You are not beaten? slavery does not have to involve beatings, but don’t think you won’t be beat if you disobey your masters – just try not giving them the fruits of your labor.

  25. Start working at home with Google. It’s a great work at home opportunity. Just work for few hours. I earn up to $500 a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. http://www.Pow6.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.