Dave Smith vs. Chris Freiman: What's the Ideal Immigration Policy?

Podcast host Dave Smith and philosopher Chris Freiman debate open borders on the latest episode of Just Asking Questions.

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

Dave Smith vs. Chris Freiman: What's the Ideal Immigration Policy?

Immigration ranks as the second-most important issue among registered U.S. voters and the top issue for Republican voters, according to a Marist Poll/PBS NewsHour/NPR poll released last month. Perhaps that's because of the 3.2 million border encounters documented by Border Patrol in 2023—a new record high that's so far being outpaced this year.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who continues to erect razor wire fencing at the border despite a Supreme Court ruling prohibiting Texas from stopping federal agents from cutting through the barriers, has likely also heightened the salience of the issue for Republican voters. Even politicians in blue cities like New York are calling the influx a problem, with Mayor Eric Adams saying that the arrival of 110,000 asylum seekers over a year and a half would "destroy New York City" as shelters become overwhelmed. 

What do libertarians, traditionally in favor of permissive immigration laws, have to say about this? The truth is, there's a divide. Today's episode of Just Asking Questions features two thinkers on either side of that divide laying out what they each believe is the ideal immigration policy.

Libertarian podcaster and comedian Dave Smith said on the Liberty Lockdown show last month that "all of our troops should come home and be stationed around our borders." He continued saying that "if you believe in open borders right now, under current circumstances, you're an insane person, and you're as bad as a communist."

That sparked a social media firestorm, which included exchanges between Smith and today's other guest, Chris Freiman, a professor at the John Chambers College of Business and Economics at West Virginia University and author of several notable papers about the ethics of immigration. 

Watch the full conversation on Reason's YouTube channel or on the Just Asking Questions podcast feed on Apple, Spotify, or your preferred podcatcher.

Sources referenced in this conversation:

1. NPR/PBS NewsHouse/Marist Poll, Feb. 1, 2024 
2. Nationwide Encounters | U.S. Customs and Border Protection (cbp.gov)
3. Gallup: Nearly 900 Million Worldwide Wanted to Migrate in 2021
4. The Fiscal Impact of Immigration in the United States, by Alex Nowrasteh, Sarah Eckhardt, and Michael Howard, April 2023
5. U.S. Naturalizations: 2022 Annual Flow Report (dhs.gov)
6. State Dept: Total immigrant visas issued, 2014-2022
7. Alex Nowrasteh's thread on X: "Immigration reduced the growth of the federal government…"
8. September Startling Stats (house.gov)

Comments

[Minadin]

Southern border: 10m tall, 2m wide, solid concrete wall with machine gun turrets spaced every 100m. 10m wide, 10m deep moat / trench in front. If filled with water, also filled with alligators.

Northern border: A well trimmed hedge with an occasional sign that says 'No Crossing, Please'.

[mad.casual]

To be fair, despite the "MUH SOSHUL KONSTRUCTS!" mentality, 50-75% of the time at the northern border alligators wouldn't last 30 min. and you could walk across the moat.

[Minadin]

Attack mooses? Parts of the northern border are probably too warm for polar bears.

[Dillinger]

mooses are terrifying and exciting when they run past on the ski slopes.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

10m tall, 2m wide, solid concrete wall with machine gun turrets spaced every 100m.

I've heard of this wall! Didn't it used to be in Berlin?

[Minadin]

No, that wall was a different sort. I've sat on top of it. It was a 2- or 3- layered wall design with large gaps (up to 50m) of 'no-mans-land' in between.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Wall#/media/File:Structure_of_Berlin_Wall.svg

That's the difference between a 'keep people in' wall and a 'keep people out' one.

[I…….. Fudd]

Jeffy wants the former. His progtopia is like a roach motel. Except it would ultimately be the whole world.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Oh I see. So because it's a single-ply wall instead of a double-ply wall then it's totally fine.

So you think the US Army is going to shoot unarmed civilians at the border?

[Don't look at me!]

I’d guess we could get volunteers. Or maybe a subscription type thing.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Do you think there is going to be widespread public support for the US Army, or anyone, shooting unarmed civilians at the border? If people freaked out over "kids in cages", what do you anticipate the public reaction is going to be from this type of policy?

[Nobartium]

People didn't freak out over it, they pointed out that the Obama administration (who practiced borders similar to Joe today) was full of shit.

[I…….. Fudd]

Pearl clutching leftist shills like you freaked out over it. As a way to dishonestly attack Trump. When the reality is that you people don’t really care about anyone, except when you can use it as leverage to advance a narrative.

[Vernon Depner]

So you think the US Army is going to shoot unarmed civilians at the border?

At this point I think it's almost inevitable that that will eventually happen. The situation is that out of control.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Isn’t it a war crime for a soldier to shoot unarmed civilians in a combat zone? Wouldn’t it be even more of a war crime for a soldier to shoot unarmed civilians in any other context? (self defense excepted, of course)

[Don't look at me!]

It won’t be soldiers. We will be selling the rights to man the turrets to the highest bidder.

[Dillinger]

0 --> 100 with the wall = shootings nonsense ...

[Minadin]

Well, if it's illegal for soldiers:

Fully automated, like a Phalanx CIWS R2-D2 bot, or maybe a few of those sentries from Portal / Portal 2.

https://youtu.be/CSrwLizPMFQ?si=Dx_GwFIYsqdYVNjC&t=65

[Vernon Depner]

With modern weaponry and fire control technology, the turrets could be miles apart.

[Minadin]

Depending on terrain, I'm willing to entertain some value-engineering.

[n00bdragon]

I’d settle for a little booth in each town on the border that stamps your passport or, if you don’t have one, takes your photo, fingerprints, and (assuming you pass a quick scan for known criminals) gives you an ID card and sends you on your way to do whatever you feel like doing.

If you think that costs too much, slap a $25 fee on it for the card and the background search.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

And border property owners who don't welcome trespassers can shoot them.

[n00bdragon]

That problem would vanish overnight. There's no reason to sneak across a patch of desert where the very best thing that can happen to you is getting arrested if the border checkpoint will let you in legally free and clear and maybe even direct you to a website where you can sign up for a work permit (and accompanying taxpayer ID).

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Yes, but those who are turned back by the border checkpoint don’t always just shrug their shoulders and go back home.

[n00bdragon]

I wouldn't be super worried about people like that. When everyone has a legal ID, the people who don't are going to get sorted out of society really fast. If you want to mow lawns or work on a construction site, no one asks for immigration papers now because that would mean turning away 95% of your prospects. Now that one guy sticking out is going to look really suspicious. You won't be able to get a job, have a car, if you ever get pulled over by the cops now they can go about making being undocumented a real crime. Politically, it will be much more palatable to turn the screws on those people.

[Don't look at me!]

Those people
A lovely turn of phrase.

[I…….. Fudd]

Lack of an ID keeps you from most important things now. Except voting.

[mad.casual]

Again, his whole scheme rests on a pre-existing global criminal database of high fidelity. Once that's in place, we'll simply query who is and who isn't an illegal. Simple. You people and your arbitrary social constructs do nothing but complicate immigration.

[I…….. Fudd]

Yes, the concerns of the peasants… I mean citizens….. are of no concern.

[mad.casual]

He lost me at "I don't have a name, address, phone number, SSN, or country of origin for this person but, assuming they pass a background check, we let them in."

What country are you going to run the background scan with? Are you really going to use the name Jose Smith? Are you, one way or the other or the other, going to trust the government of (e.g.) Venezuela to give you an honest reply on someone who is fleeing Venezuela?

[mad.casual]

(assuming you pass a quick scan for known criminals)

[facepalm]
JFC.

OK, I need your name, address, and SSN or country of origin and documented proof of each in order to add you to the criminal database for tautology abuse accurately and appropriately.

You probably answer the question "What is a woman?" using the word 'woman' too, don't you? Fucking degenerate shit hole dwellers.

[Don't look at me!]

The phrase will be “papers please”.

[mad.casual]

For all the discussion about "There isn't actually a physical line of immigrants anywhere waiting to get into the country, it's just a metaphor." the idea that one simply checks their criminal history and vaccination/infectious disease status before letting them into the country is stubbornly persistent.

"Well, uh, you clearly aren't a pangolin, horseshoe bat, or raccoon dog and presumably aren't a food or agricultural product otherwise... so... uh... in you go, I guess!"

[Vernon Depner]

If we did that, we would inundated with hundreds of millions of "newcomers" and our culture and standard of living would be destroyed.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

I'm an open borders fan, but that's under the assumption that governments butt out.

* Don't invite refugees and tell them where they will live.

* No welfare, no shelter, no government support of any kind.

* Crimes are punished just as with criminal citizens. No deportation; that's just an excuse for the foreign country to let them go again.

* Border property owners are free to shoot all trespassers, whether native criminals or foreign wannabe immigrants.

In other words, if they come of their own volition, depend on friends and family while they get themselves sorted out, and enter at border points where the property owners process them as they see fit (diseases, criminal background, language and job skills).

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

Require them to be sponsored by an American citizen or corporation that is financially liable for their welfare and to cover the cost for any harm or misbehavior. If federal and state taxes were not covering schooling, social services, and policing and consumer insurance premiums were not covering medical care, car accidents, and theft, we would see a radically different approach to who gets through the border.

[I…….. Fudd]

Now we’re flying them here from their countries of origin.

[Uncle Jay]

"What's the Ideal Immigration Policy?"

I recommend employing Mexico's immigration policy.

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

A tunnel from Eagle Pass to Winnipeg?

[Uncle Jay]

No.
Mexico will not allow to immigrate to their country unless you can prove you can support yourself financially.
Also, you must have a skill that will benefit Mexican society if you choose to go to work there.
Otherwise, Mexico will not allow you to immigrate there.

[I…….. Fudd]

Amd they prefer to send their citizens who do not meet that criteria north, to us.

[KARtikeya]

Hey look at that! One of the “standard group of libertarians” Dave Smith.

[John Rohan]

The best place to start is to determine our optimum population number. The number at which our resources can sustain us indefinitely while still allowing wildlife to flourish. Whether it’s 30 million, 300 million, or 3 billion (although at 330 million, most scientists believe the US is well beyond it’s current carrying capacity).

[Vernon Depner]

John Rohan's Brave New World.

[Social Justice is neither]

No. The correct place to start is no. When it comes to illegals, the correct answer is FUCK NO. Now you get rid of the the entirety of the welfare State then we can talk about broad yes as long as we can ID you as broadly threat or not.

[Brandybuck]

Dave Smith: NOT a libertarian.

Not every libertarian is an anarchist, although Dave Smith says he is, so providing some role for government and borders is legitimate to them, Dave Smith (the anarchist) takes it to the extreme and wants troops stationed on the border.

Again, Dave Smith: NOT a libertarian. Also confused about anarchism.

[Real American]

it certainly doesn't include letting anyone in anytime they want without questions.

[TJJ2000]

The 'ideal' is reached when immigrant voters no longer vote for a [Na]tional So[zi]alist empire conquering of the USA.

[Andy Hawks]

Liz, my view on immigration is apparently quite similar to yours. The term that I use to capture this view is not "open borders" but "welcome borders."