MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

The 5 Best Arguments Against Immigration—and Why They're Wrong

No issue is more hotly contested today than immigration, with restrictionists calling for the deportation of illegals and a 50 percent cut in legal immigration.

Here are the five strongest arguments against immigrants and immigration—and why they're wrong.

A migrant worker picks artichokes in Brawley, CA/Todd KraininA migrant worker picks artichokes in Brawley, CA/Todd Krainin

They take our jobs and lower wages.

President Donald Trump has said that illegals, who are mostly low-skilled, "compete directly against vulnerable American workers" and that reducing legal immigration would "boost wages and ensure open jobs are offered to American workers first."

But as the president himself likes to point out, unemployment across virtually all categories of workers is at or near historic lows, so displacing native-born workers isn't much of an issue. Virtually all economists, regardless of ideology, agree that immigrants, both legal and illegal, have little to no effect on overall wages. The most-vulnerable workers in America are high-school dropouts and economists say that low-skill immigrants from Mexico reduce that group's wages by less than 5 percent—or that they increase drop out wages by almost 1 percent. But it's also true low-skilled immigrants make things cheaper for all Americans by doing jobs such as picking fruit or cleanup on construction sites. And consider this: In the developed world, "There is no correlation between unemployment and immigration rates." Immigrants go to hot economies and they leave when the jobs dry up.

More important, immigrants grow the population, which stimulates economic growth, the only way over the long term to improve standards of living.

They're using massive amounts of welfare.

Since the late 1990s, most legal immigrants and all illegals are barred from receiving means-tested welfare. The only real taxpayer-funded services most immigrants use are emergency medical treatments that account for less than 2 percent of all health-care spending and K-12 education services for their children, who often times are U.S. citizens. For those immigrants who do qualify for programs such as Medicaid, food stamps (SNAP), or supplemental Social Security income (SSI), they use all these programs at lower rates that native-born Americans or naturalized citizens. It's also worth noting that immigrants come here to work, not collect WIC. Legal immigrant men have a labor-force participation rate of about 80 percent, which is 10 points higher than that of natives. Illegal immigrant men have a participation rate of 94 percent, precisely because they can't access welfare.

They don't pay their fair share.

Whether legal or illegal, all immigrants pay sales taxes and property taxes (the latter are factored into the cost of rental units for people who don't own homes). And all legal immigrants pay all the payroll and income taxes that native-born Americans do. Amazingly, most illegals also cough up income and payroll taxes too. That's because most of them use fake Social Security cards and other documents to get hired. Somewhere between 50 percent and two-thirds pay federal income and FICA taxes. In 2010, for instance, administrators of Social Security said that "unauthorized immigrants" contributed $12 billion to Social Security trust funds that they will never be able to get back. According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, about half of illegals paid state and local taxes worth over $10 billion.

They broke the law to get here and they're bringing all their relatives.

Critics of illegal immigration often say that unauthorized entrants refuse to stand in line and wait for their turn. That's true but misleading. For many immigrants, especially low-skilled immigrants from countries such as Mexico, there is really no line. In 2010, for instance, just 65,000 visas were given to Mexicans, with the overwhelming majority going to close family members such as spouses and minor children. The wait list had 1.4 million people on it, effectively meaning there is no chance of ever getting in the country. Similarly long wait lists exist for the Philippines, China, India, and other countries.

And for all the fear of what restrictionists call "chain migration," legal immigration under the rubric of family reunification consists almost exclusively of U.S. citizens bringing their spouses and unmarried minor children to live here. The only other people that can be brought over are parents, adult children, and siblings. However, due to the backlogs for most countries, that typically takes between 15 and 25 years. If you start trying to bring your sister over when she's 25, you'll be lucky to welcome her by the time she turns 40.

They're not assimilating.

"The melting pot is broken," say anti-immigrant activists, who worry that more foreigners in our midst will destroy American culture because they aren't assimilating the way past waves of newcomers did. The evidence for such pessimism is weak at best. About one-third of Mexican immigrants marry outside their ethnicity or race, the same percentage as in 1990. Successive generations also see massive gains in household income and home-ownership rates, too. And when it comes to learning English, all signs are that Hispanics are less likely to speak Spanish at home than in years past and have higher and higher levels of proficiency in English. By the third generation, just 25 percent of Hispanic households say that Spanish is the dominant language at home.

Americans have always been of two minds when it comes to immigration. On the one hand we all recognize that either we or our ancestors came from somewhere else. On the other hand, we're suspicious of newcomers, especially from different parts of the world than we're used to. With India and China now displacing Mexico as the largest sender countries, that sense of discomfort may continue. But it's also true that 49 percent of Americans believe that immigration helps the economy (versus 40 percent saying it hurts), 60 percent saying it has had no effect on their job, and 72 percent saying that immigrants "take jobs Americans don't want."

Produced by Todd Krainin. Written and narrated by Nick Gillespie. Camera by Jim Epstein.

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.

  • BYODB||

    I'd love to know where that statistic on illegal immigrant labor force participation came from.

  • BYODB||

    I also note the article doesn't mention anywhere that illegal immigrant labor isn't beholden to the minimum wage or other federal regulation, meaning that they are exempt from lots of the onerous regulation that's enforced on legal residents.

    Where is the part of the article that demands that labor protections and wage floors need to go the way of the dinosaur to protect illegal immigrant labor from unethical businesses? Or are we going to go the other way, and demand those apply to illegal immigrants as well thus removing their main benefit? (And just for what it's worth, even Milton Friedman admitted that this was at least one of their benefits.)

    Oh, right. We want to have our cake and eat it too. I forgot.

  • wuracituj||

    I'm making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

    This is what I do... www.onlinecareer10.com

  • Domestic Dissident||

    Good question.

    Also, the claim in there that illegals "can't access welfare" is bullshit. The only way to plausibly make this claim is to pull off one of Gillespie's favorite (and yet most dishonest) rhetorical tricks, which is to use the absolute narrowest possible technical definition of "welfare", like one very specific program.

  • BYODB||

    No, what was done is they used a CATO study that measured immigrants and then they turn around and quietly hope that you don't notice that they're not specifically talking about illegal immigrants. They are lumping together lawn care workers working under the table and legally licensed citizen doctors. Seems legit?

    If it were me, I might want to mention that so that it doesn't appear that I'm lying using statistics but that might be a little too honest for the people who are desperate to admit even more than our current ~1,000,000 legal immigrants per year. Whoopsie.

    Tell me, what is the 'proper' number of immigrants that should be admitted for a nation of only ~325,000,000? Honest question. If the answer is 'as many that can get here' just say so but realize that if that is your answer that other systems must be torn down to get there.

  • EirkKengaard||

    Well said.

  • BYODB||

    The worst thing is that this isn't even the first time I've had to mention that about this exact study.

  • retiredfire||

    CATO is committed to open borders.
    Any "study" done by it is suspect, at best.

  • PTSD||

    Yeah, those Cato guys are a bunch of fucking libertarians, with all their "free minds" and "free markets" bullshit. What kind of fucktards could possibly go along with that shit?

  • I can't even||

    Yes - Nick is simply lying on this. California is particular is paying $billions in welfare to illegals.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....years.html

  • ||

    And from an unimpeachable source like Fox News, no less!

  • Azathoth!!||

    It's FOX, not CNN, MSNBC, Vox, or the WaPo, so yes, an unimpeachable source.

  • Tony||

    This is why the US is becoming a shithole country.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You are right. This country is partly shitty because media is pooping propaganda rather than objective news.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Tony, commit suicide, it would be a great Valentine's present to everyone.

  • PTSD||

    I've said it here before, but I'll say it again: citizenship is a privilege, not a right. What we need in this country is a citizenship olympics, where all people within our borders are required to perform a battery of tests every four years to see who is most competent. There will be a written section, a math section, and a 5-mile run. We'll also require people to frame a house, plumb a toilet, and write some code. People who perform in the bottom 25% will be put on a garbage barge and sailed around the world until some godforsaken port decides to take them. Or they die of scurvy. All the obese, illiterate sister-fuckers, who currently comprise 40+% of our population, will not do well, but that's really the point. We won't care where you were born, or whether you can sing all the lyrics to that faggy Lee Greenwood song. You're out. Sayonara. This country isn't for losers.

  • I can't even||

    So which of those numbers is wrong according to your research?

  • ||

    Did you read the article closely enough to suss out its methodology?

  • Sigivald||

    Its methodology was "quote studies from think tanks", like every news source.

    (Note that LA county itself says "you do not need to be a citizen to receive some benefits".

    So the number can't be zero, wot?)

    Maybe the claim is utterly wrong - but you haven't come close to arguing that point, just saying "but Fooooooox!".

  • ||

    Responding to "Fox News said so" with "that doesn't make it true" =/= saying "Fox News said so, therefore it is false."

  • I can't even||

    I read it closely enough to see Nick's shell-game trick.

    The "they don't get this specific federal welfare benefit, so they don't get any public assistance" argument is bullshit. The state of California is paying out $billions in public assistance to illegals.

  • ||

    Yes, but the actual amount when they themselves also pay taxes does sort of matter, no?

  • BYODB||

    Expecting rational results of polling or questionnaires of a populace with a vested interest in lying about those things is fairly illogical no matter how you slice it.

  • Mark22||

    Per capita government spending is about $25000. People who don't pay at least that much in taxes are a net drain. Most illegals don't even earn that much.

  • Ecoli||

    LOL

  • Kwix||

    I call bullshit on "California is paying $billions" line.
    From the article:

    He said the costs of education, police and fire, medical, and subsidized housing can total $24,000 per year in government spending per family, much more than would be paid in taxes.


    Education, police and fire are handled via property taxes. These are accounted for in rental fees.
    Medical is addressed in the Reason article above.
    That leave's the City of Los Angeles subsidizing housing and who's fucking fault is that?!

  • Lawn Darts||

    Property tax is NOT accounted for in the rental rates of any place that has rent control. San Francisco, aka Sanctuary City is one example. The landlord is subsudizing everyone who has lived in their place for a while.

  • Mark22||

    Per capita federal spending is $15000. In order not to be a net drain on the federal government, people have to pay at least that much in federal taxes. I seriously doubt most illegals do that.

    And just because illegals pay sales and property taxes doesn't mean they pay enough to account for what they use in services.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Also, roughly half o the CA prison population are illegals. That costs $ billions per year by itself. Not to mention the monetary cost of their crimes.

  • EirkKengaard||

    Lying comes naturally to propagandists.

  • BambiB||

    Nick,

    America graduates 300,000 STEM majors each year - many cannot find jobs. The H-1B program is used to drive down wages and force Americans out of the market. While a manager at Amazon, the company sent me a "specialist" to advise me on how to avoid hiring an American to ensure a successful lateral transfer of a non-citizen employee - how to comply with the letter of the law while opposing the substance. The trend has only gotten worse.

    In addition to the issues you raise, you neglected:

    Crime: 25% of our prison population is foreign-born. This is one argument that's simple enough: If they're not here, they cannot rob, rape, beat, or kill someone. Sort of makes Trump's wall look like a bargain. $20 billion per year to look up criminal savages from other countries? Or $25 billion one-time for a wall to keep them out?

    Abnormally High Immigration Rate: The immigration rate today is higher than it was for most of the 19th and 20th centuries. That's a strain on infrastructure and adds to costs for Americans. Cut the legal immigration rate in half to return to historical norms... and sanity.

    Voting Patterns: What better way to swell the roles of Demoncrap voters than to import millions of socialists? America is different - better - than other countries because of our policies over most of the last 250 years. But our current immigration policy is a stark departure from that record of success. If not curtailed, it will eventually destroy America.

  • Dizzle||

    http://www.washingtonexaminer......le/2642257

    Basically all illegal immigration costs associated with schooling, securing, and keeping them healthy costs states 89 billion and the feds 46 billion, for a total of 135 billion in cost. Those numbers include offsets of taxes paid which are roughly 3.5 billion to states and 15 billion to the feds.

    So the actual cost of servicing illegals is 153.5 billion dollars, minus 3.5 billion in state taxes and 15 billion in fed taxes they pay.

  • mpercy||

    Also there's a difference between "can't access welfare" and "are not supposed to be able to access welfare".

    A little fraud goes a long way in getting benefits.

    Same as the argument "illegal aliens can't vote". The reality is that illegal aliens are supposed to be able to vote (in federal elections), but does anyone think the number of illegal aliens who manage to vote is zero?

  • SunkCost||

  • EirkKengaard||

    The only way for Gillespie to plausibly make this claim is to look just at immigrants, not immigrants households, plus all the other usual tricks of propagandists.

    Welfare use varies among immigrant groups. Households headed by immigrants from Central America
    and Mexico (73 percent), the Caribbean (51 percent), and Africa (48 percent) have the highest overall
    welfare use. Those from East Asia (32 percent), Europe (26 percent), and South Asia (17 percent) have the
    lowest. http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/f.....-final.pdf

  • Headache||

    Virtually all economists, regardless of ideology, agree that immigrants, both legal and illegal

    The letter sent by cited economist, did not mention illegal immigrants.

    Migrants pick most of the produce, not immigrants. (migrants go home at the end of the season)

    Youth labor laws prevent younger Americans from participating in agriculture.

    Illegals put a stain on the housing market, reducing availability and increasing rents for low skilled Americans. You can find them in mom's basement or on the street.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    In. S they also make up half of the prison population. Which also costs the taxpayers their $ billions. Plus all the losses from murders, assaults, property crime, etc. related to the aforementioned convicts.

    The only way anyone actually believes illegals are somehow a net positive to the economy are the people that need to believe that to justify their irrational belief in Open Borders No Matter What.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Should have read "In CA".

  • BambiB||

    Not on welfare? Those who broke the law to GET here aren't cheating on welfare? You admit that criminal aliens use STOLEN identity documents for employment - but don't address using the same documents to game other parts of the system.

    Using the article that you cite, the costs for medical care may actually be as high as 10%, but even at 2% we're talking about $47 BILLION. The pain isn't spread uniformly. Los Angeles County lost over 60 hospitals due to costs of unpaid emergency room care. The point is: The cost of criminal aliens should be ZERO. Unless you're willing to reach into your pocket and pay for their cost - you should just shut up because any moron can spend other people's money.

    When it comes to payroll taxes, you're is clueless. I have some experience working in agriculture - and I know that a sizable chunk of the labor pool is paid under-the-table. No taxes.

    You just try to finesse the fact that invading America is a crime. You just try to finesse it by arguing that it's not fair to let OTHER immigrants wait! Know what, Nick? Too damned bad. If a billion and a half Chinese, Indians and Africans wanted to move in tomorrow, turning America into a third-world shithole like the ones they came from - you'd have no problem with that.

    But I do.

    I say put a bounty on them and lock them up in a tent prison in Arizona for two years, then deport. And those caught crossing the border? Shoot them. They're invaders.

  • ThomasD||

    Oh Hell, look how close they set their own goalpost - "They're using massive amounts of welfare."

    Given that welfare is not remotely libertarian the libertarian position should be that immigrants do not use any.

    But instead Reason will settle for some number less than "massive" as acceptable.

    Nor do they note that, while techincally 'barred from receiving means tested welfare', actually preventing it from happening is something that has proved about as hard to enforce as, oh I don't know, illegal immigration itself.

    Hackery thy name is Gillespie & Krainin.

  • ||

    Given that welfare is not remotely libertarian the libertarian position should be that immigrants do not use any.

    No one should use any - so why separate out illegal immigrants as some special case?

  • BYODB||

    Exactly.

  • ThomasD||

    Why? Because adding them to the rolls is a choice.

    One we do not have to choose.

    Pretending it is not a choice is fundamentally dishonest.

  • EirkKengaard||

    The best argument for restricting immigration is that overpopulation has driven the price of rent and real homes sky high.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Well fortunately the solution for high housing costs is to eliminate regulations that artificially restrict building new supplies. That way you can reduce housing costs and still get all the immigrants you want, so everybody wins.

  • BYODB||

    Sounds good, I imagine San Francisco would be happy to do that as soon as hell freezes over.

  • Sam Haysom||

    Fresh off assuring the world that they aren't autistic maybe libertarians could get to work repealing some of the regulations before we flood the country with immigrants.

  • JFree||

    Regulations are at best secondary to increasing housing supply that actually lowers housing/rent prices. The cost of land lots is the main thing - by far - that drives those costs higher.

    Most people have little interest in living in a tiny home. But the reality is that they are available - for near nothing. Buying a lot to put them on will cost 40-100x the cost of that house in most places with exorbitant rents.

    Just googling - a 6000 sq ft lot here in Denver costs from $300,000 - $1,500,000. A tiny house costs from $10-20k.

    It is not regulations that drive the cost of land. It is taxes. And the dynamic is exactly what Henry George wrote - and what many libertarians (and zero conservatives beyond William F Buckley) don't remotely comprehend.

  • EirkKengaard||

    @ JFree - Peter Turchin has a fairly realistic perspective - see War and Peace and War.

    Until 1950, there was plenty of affordable land in California for development. It was population increase that consumed developable land, and drove prices higher.

    Henry George's ideas would require a socialist society for implementation.

  • JFree||

    Until 1950, there was plenty of affordable land in California for development.

    That was the case until the late 1970's. Then Prop13 created the perverse incentives and loopholes that led to where they are today.

    Henry George's ideas would require a socialist society for implementation.

    No they don't. The land tax is basically a flat tax with location zones. Same tax on a skyscraper as on the parking lot next to it. That tax structure makes it deadly to just sit on land on margin and speculate about future prices - but it means there is no additional tax burden to develop the land and make it more productive. And with high land taxes, there is little incentive to create regulations on top which would do nothing but eliminate the ability of owners to pay those taxes.

    The closest example to a Georgist tax system in the US today is Texas and New Hampshire (hardly socialist hellholes). They are both property tax rather than land tax but still. The high property tax keeps land prices low - and both govts live mostly within that revenue stream so less need for income/sales/etc taxes.

    The only thing a Georgist system does is make banks more likely to demand higher downpayments since their land collateral in case of default won't rise in price as much over time.

  • retiredfire||

    "Same tax on a skyscraper as on the parking lot next to it."?
    That's a load of bullshit.
    The property tax is based on the value of the land and the structure.
    The fact that my post-prop-13 property tax went up, when I did a small bathroom upgrade, last year, is testament to that.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Lockean Proviso

    So much of the economy is rent seeking

    Failure to account for this is the biggest theoretical error in most "small government" types

    They think government enabled rent seeking is ok, as long as you call it private property

  • EirkKengaard||

    It's the scarcity of land that is creating high prices.

  • Bubba Jones||

    I have trouble believing that illegal immigrants are driving up the "sky high" cost of rent.

    I do think it likely that they are driving down the standard of living for those of us near the bottom of the wage scale.

  • EirkKengaard||

    The high price of housing is a major factor in poorer quality of life for the middle class and the poor. Population density is the main driver of the price of land, and thus the price of housing. High immigration is the main driver of population density.
    See, for example, Immigration and the revival of American Cities by Jacob L. Vigdor for the Americas Society/Council of the Americas and the Partnership for a New American Economy, in which he claims that more than 40 million immigrants currently in the united states have increased housing prices nationwide by $3.7 trillion. Or, get the population and housing price data for 1900 to 2010 from the Bureau of the Census and do your own analysis. You won't find many op-eds or studies on this politically incorrect subject. There was one at http://www.howmany.org/taboo.php but the elite had it removed - didn't suit their agenda.

  • JFree||

    Overpopulation has not driven the price of rent/housing high.

    The reality is that subsidized interest rates and tax distortions has driven housing prices high - and very low land taxes (not prop taxes they're not the same thing) in most places has driven raw land lot prices high.

  • Headache||

    So, what you are saying, "the law of supply and demand, does not apply to housing"

    BULLSHIT!

  • buybuydandavis||

    It doesn't apply to the labor market either, at least where immigration is concerned

    Reason told me so

  • JFree||

    Land is not the same as capital or labor. It is different precisely because it cannot be created outside serious outlier places like Netherlands. Failure to understand that is the biggest failure of neoclassical economics.

    And housing is significantly driven by its land component rather than its capital component

  • Marty Feldman's Eyes||

    is that overpopulation has driven the price

    What is this "overpopulation" you speak of? Have you *never* driven through fly-over country?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Exactly, we can fit trillions more people on Earth.

    We'll stack them like cord wood.

  • EirkKengaard||

    People want to live on the coasts.

  • EirkKengaard||

    "The only real taxpayer-funded services most immigrants use are emergency medical treatments that account for less than 2 percent of all health-care spending and K-12 education services for their children, who often times are U.S. citizens. . . . " arrant nonsense: why does the USDA advertise Food Stamps in Spanish?

    Welfare use varies among immigrant groups. Households headed by immigrants from Central America
    and Mexico (73 percent), the Caribbean (51 percent), and Africa (48 percent) have the highest overall
    welfare use. Those from East Asia (32 percent), Europe (26 percent), and South Asia (17 percent) have the
    lowest. http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/f.....-final.pdf

  • Sigivald||

    Per the Census [pg. 9], as of 2011, 10% of native born citizens spoke a language other than English at home, as do 80% of naturalized citizens.

    So, yeah, quelle surprise, advertising in Spanish is sometimes an obvious thing to do.

  • EirkKengaard||

    Hmmm . . . I don't see Norwegian listed, nor Swedish, . . . . so the obvious reason to advertise in Spanish is that millions of Hispanics are using welfare.

  • EirkKengaard||

    https://www.fns.usda.gov/ documents-available-other-languages

  • Bill||

    Hmm, maybe it's because we are close neighbors with dozens of countries that speak
    Spanish? And Mexico has a f**k of a lot bigger population than Denmark, etc.

  • The Laissez-Ferret||

    Apparently Nick has conveniently forgotten hidden costs. Having worked in the healthcare industry I can say that whenever most illegals come into the ER (which they do frequently for such gross maladies as a fucking head cold) those costs are written off by the hospital. Their solution is to charge people who have health insurance to the hilt to offset the cost. I've seen budget reports from three hospitals in my area and they each write off millions each year. See, illegals don't hit their budget and citizens pay triple the amount...magic!!!

    And the welfare program data is bullshit too. My mom worked for social services for twenty years and can testify to the acrobatics used to get illegals welfare, food stamps, etc. If one can get an ID (real or fake) they "qualify" for services and can claim as many dependents as they like. Nick's assertion that illegals can't get bennies because it's illegal makes about as much sense as raising the drinking age to 21 so college kids won't drink anymore

  • EirkKengaard||

    Just Facts on Immigration:

    Immigrants benefit economically in a major way from the skills, values, and institutions that make the U.S. the most prosperous nation in the world.
    Modern immigrants are not assimilating or advancing financially like previous generations of immigrants.
    Instead, they are keeping the cultures of their homelands, even though the cultures they left are rife with poverty.
    Such immigration is likely reducing consumer prices for wealthy Americans, decreasing wages for poor Americans, and increasing taxes on most Americans.
    These immigrants benefit from lower violent crime in the U.S., but they are more prone to commit serious crimes.
    Immigrants are moving the U.S. toward the political left."

    Agresti, J. D. (2018, January 30). Effects of Immigration From Impoverished Nations. Retrieved from https://www.justfactsdaily.com/ effects-of-immigration-from-impoverished-nations/

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Immigrants are moving the U.S. toward the political left."

    Not just "to the Left", but to Bigger Government.

    You know, Less Liberty.

    Funny how "libertarian" Reason fails to talk about Liberty of Americans in their argument. You'd think if they were honest, that would be the most important point to them.

    PEW Research report on Muslim Americans
    https://goo.gl/qDTvwU
    Muslims Lean Democratic over Republicans over 6 to 1
    Muslims Want bigger government over smaller government over 3 to 1

    PEW Research on Hispanic Americans
    https://goo.gl/WBi1BV
    Hispanics Lean Democratic over 3 to 1
    https://goo.gl/hxSJHi
    Hispanics Want Bigger Government Providing More Services over 3 to 1

  • vek||

    Almost every argument on earth has pros and cons. I DESPISE people who will not look at the pros and cons honestly. On immigration, because cosmotarians somehow believe open borders are a moral imperative, they exclusively look at the pro side of the argument, completely disregarding any and all negatives that might come along with it. This is the worst way to argue your point because it shows you are disingenuous, and this is why I despise the line towing Rs and Ds so much, because they do the same thing on nearly every issue. They never admit pros and cons, and then say we think option 1 is the better way because ABC facts outweigh XYZ facts.

    As someone who is against our current immigration system, I can look at both sides fairly. On balance I think we need to AT LEAST shift to more skilled immigration, because as it is I believe the downsides outweigh the good. I think with basically zero low skill immigration the good would outweigh the bad.

    If you go to extreme of true open borders it is impossible for any sane and rational person to not admit that there would be massive negative repercussions for the standard of living of most middle class and lower class Americans, although the upper class may still come out ahead, if you love socialism anyway.

  • EirkKengaard||

    Nothing has done more to diminish the quality of life for the United States middle class through higher housing (land) costs, competition for jobs, low wages, greater poverty, mortgage fraud, medicare fraud, crime, disease, cost of public schools, cost of college, depletion of resources, burden on the taxpayer and overall congestion than the INCREASE of and change in the nature (more poor, more criminals, e pluribus multum) of the POPULATION since 1965, driven almost entirely by entry of alien migrants (immigrants, h1b visa holders, visa overstays, refugees, etc) their families and descendants.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    5 Best Arguments Open Borders- And Why They're Wrong:
    Government cannot regulate immigration.
    US Constitution Article I, Section 8 enumerates the power to regulate Naturalization and Section 9 authorizes Congress to regulate slaves and migrants after 1808. Various portions of the Constitution also allow Congress to protect its territory via an army and navy.
    They broke a minor law to get here.
    Illegals broke American rule of law by entering the USA illegally, enacted by a majority of Americans and then continue to dismiss this argument as if Americans are in the wrong. Minor laws or not, American tend to frown upon the game being changed as we are playing it.
    Americans are racist which is why they don't want a flood of immigrants to enter.
    Being American is not a race. Americans come in all sorts of races and creeds. Americans wanting to have their rule of law respected and control people entering their country is nothing but reasonable.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    They pay more than their fair share.
    So what. While immigrants pay various fees and taxes without often recovering some benefits like social security, they use roads, schools, hospitals, and other taxpayer subsidized services. Furthermore, there is a cost to deal with illegals that is rarely mentioned. Many Americans pay more into the system than they receive back. Chock it up to the cost of invading the USA illegally and then making magnitudes more than you would back home.
    Americans should not be able to say who enters the USA.
    Wrong. Most Americans agree that our borders should be more restrictive, which is another reason we have Trump as President.

  • Libertymike||

    Why not a moratorium on immigration?

    Why not a return to the 1925-65 immigration policy?

    Why not a prohibition on accepting immigrants from third world hellholes?

    Why not a prohibition on accepting Muslims?

    Why not a policy of refusing entrée to any individual who is not an entrepreneur and who is not hostile to socialism and who is not hostile to progressivism?

  • Sigivald||

    "Entree"?

    Entrance is a perfectly good English word, and doesn't make it seem like we;'re only serving them appetizers and dessert.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Why not?

    Because that would benefit the mass of Americans, and not their Reptilian Overlords.

  • chemjeff||

    Why should you, or any third party, have the power to decide who comes or who goes?

  • Leo Kovalensky||

    I won't respond to your 5 best arguments for open borders, because they're not the best. They aren't principled arguments for open borders. Again, Reason fails to lay out the case, so I'll try:

    It's impossible to be for the NAP and for restricting people from immigrating to a country to peacefully live and work. It's impossible to limit this movement without resorting to state-sponsored aggression against otherwise peaceful people.

    It's impossible to be for private property rights and for the government restricting who has access to private property.

    It's impossible to be for freedom of association and for the government limiting who citizens are allowed to associate with based solely on which side of a line they were born on.

    It's a statist position to believe that natural rights come from a government, and thus can be given to citizens and restricted from non-citizens. We have rights because we're human, not because we're American.

  • ||

    ^ This.

  • Libertymike||

    It is impossible to be for the NAP while forcing A to associate with B.

    It is impossible to be for the NAP while forcing A to subsidize B's move to A's homeland.

    It is impossible to be for the NAP while forcing A to subsidize the education of B and his or her children.

    It is impossible to be for the NAP while forcing to A to subsidize B's healthcare and that of his or her children.

    It is impossible to be for the NAP while forcing A to suffer the costs of B's dysfunction.

    It requires a police state to accommodate the demographic destruction of A's homeland.

  • ||

    Agreed.

    Who here other than the restrictionists is advocating any of these things?

  • Sigivald||

    It's impossible to be for the NAP while having a State, then?

    (Because what "States" do is "force A to subsidize B", even if it's just "defense and police".

    And we don't have to be Rothbardian anarchists to be libertarians.

    I'll just be standing by Hayek over here, thanks.)

  • Libertymike||

    Hayek is a lot closer to Rothbard than Robert Reich.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "It's impossible to be for the NAP while having a State, then?"

    Those with the prime political motivation of avoiding the sin of aggression will be against States. Clericolibertarians. They are useless in a discussion of border policy. They don't believe in States, therefore, they don't believe in borders. Duh.

    Imagine all the people...

    The argument with them is over the legitimacy of States - any particular policy discussion is pointless coming from different perspectives on that.

    People who want to preserve and protect Liberty know we haven't come up with something better than libertarian States to do so. We're all not in a worldwide gulag because the libertarian US prevented it. Not bad for "Statists".

    One Rule to Rule them All deontologists by construction don't care about consequences, and hence, reality.

    If you care about the reality of Liberty in the world, you'll go with the best means we've found to maximize Liberty. Some prior restraint and threat of force to avoid larger aggresions.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I know. I wanted to get my article out fast like Reason writers and am not an open borders person, so I have limited knowledge of the 5 best reasons.

    I think it reflects my opinion on the matter pretty good though.

  • BYODB||

    I agree overall, but this bit here needs to be addressed:

    We have rights because we're human, not because we're American.

    I don't think this has been terribly well thought out. I agree with it in principle, but does this or does this not justify war with places like North Korea? They murder their populations, and do not respect their natural rights, so why is the only solution to allow their populace to come here rather than toppling their murderous governments?

    I suppose the logical solution is to let whichever people here in the U.S. that care form militias to invade North Korea, but on the face of things it does make me wonder why immigration is the only 'remedy' to this particular problem. If we're all 'citizens of humanity' with the same rights, it's hard to ignore that the vast majority of humanity does not agree on that point.

    It also becomes an interest to our citizens when their problems are being shipped over to us. It's not like we're isolated from the world, and it's interesting how many of our past wars were justified In exactly the way I describe. Replace 'natural rights' with 'freedom' and you'll note it was one of the underpinning ideals behind many of our past military adventures.

    I suspect this is one reason why libertarians are specifically very weak on foreign policy and immigration. For the libertarian ethos to make practical sense, the rest of the world really can't exist so many libertarians pretend they don't.

  • BYODB||

    Or, shorter version, if borders shouldn't exist and nationality doesn't matter in terms of human rights than why does it matter when defense of human life comes into play?

    Their governments are violating the NAP against their people, but for some reason that doesn't morally obligate libertarians to defend those people's natural rights. Citizenship apparently only matters to libertarians in particular circumstances and not in others for reasons that seem self serving. To me it smells like just another brand of NIMBY.

  • ||

    They murder their populations, and do not respect their natural rights, so why is the only solution to allow their populace to come here rather than toppling their murderous governments?

    Because one of these two things violates the NAP, and the other does not.

    If we're all 'citizens of humanity' with the same rights, it's hard to ignore that the vast majority of humanity does not agree on that point.

    All the evidence would suggest that the vast majority of humanity does agree on that point. It's the vast majority of governments that don't.

    For the libertarian ethos to make practical sense, the rest of the world really can't exist so many libertarians pretend they don't.

    Yes, they can. Leading by example is more effective than leading by force, especially when it comes to principles of liberty and the NAP (i.e. the original meaning of 'Manifest Destiny'). Allowing peaceful people freedom of movement is not the same as giving up the right to self defense.

  • BYODB||


    Because one of these two things violates the NAP, and the other does not.

    Would you also say it's a violation of the NAP to go against a tyrannical government then? That seems an odd claim to make, but it seems to be what you're saying.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Some people view the NAP where one cannot pre-emptively defend oneself. According to them you have to wait to actually be hurt or killed. Viable threats are not enough.

    It does not work, mind you, since its harder to defend yourself when you're wounded or killed.

  • ||

    Viable threats are not enough.

    No - perceived threats are not enough.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Square = Circle|2.14.18 @ 2:26PM|#
    "Viable threats are not enough."
    No - perceived threats are not enough.


    North Korea threatened to nuke Hawaii, Guam, and Alaska, and D.C.

    North Korea has lobbed missiles easterly toward the USA.

    Yeah viable. What YOU perceive to not be a threat is a threat.

  • BYODB||

    I don't think that's what is being said, although some people do say that.

    What I find difficult to understand is why nations only appear to matter when it involves a foreign government. It seems to be that in those cases the NAP prohibits us from doing anything, but when it's our own nation it does not. Which is odd, since explicitly many Libertarians don't believe in borders at all. Thus, if there are no borders and governments aren't terribly legitimate at all, why is invading North Korea a bad thing when we're all human and they're violating people's natural rights?

    I honestly don't get how people can believe both things simultaneously. If the argument of 'we're all human' works for immigration, why doesn't it work when protecting people from tyrannical government on the other side of the planet?

    The answer of course is because we've already seen that other countries don't give a fuck about natural rights, and think it's ridiculous, so we're essentially trying to save them from themselves which doesn't work.

    Of course, then it becomes somewhat ridiculous to claim that letting millions of people into the U.S. each year is a good thing when we know most people on Earth laugh at the very concept of natural rights.

    Makes me feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

  • ||

    Would you also say it's a violation of the NAP to go against a tyrannical government then?

    I don't think that's as simple of a question as you're making it out to be. Do you want to move to North Korea and aid whatever resistors-of-tyranny you may come across? Feel free.

    Do you want the US government to invade another country on the pretext that their government is tyrannous? Yeah - you're violating the NAP.

  • BYODB||


    I don't think that's as simple of a question as you're making it out to be. Do you want to move to North Korea and aid whatever resistors-of-tyranny you may come across? Feel free.

    That's just it though, we are not free to do that. Because of the immigration system of North Korea. Thus we must invade to correct the problem, which would theoretically be allowed by the NAP as their regime is explicitly anti-libertarian in the extreme.

    The 'U.S. Government' is the only vehicle we have available to respect the natural rights of our planetary brothers in North Korea. Just because they're on the other side of an imaginary line, you don't want to save them?

    In essence we're saying that some imaginary lines are less imaginary than others, and I feel like this is a legitimate failing of libertarian thought. I'm not even in favor of invading North Korea, it's just an example of how the NAP can be used to excuse things that you or I may not like when considered in terms of 'open borders'.

    Again, the more logical assumption is that we could form a militia of like-minded Americans to invade North Korea but lets not pretend that would ever be allowed.

  • ||

    Just because they're on the other side of an imaginary line, you don't want to save them?

    Again, if I want to save them, I don't see any reason why I shouldn't be able to take action to do so. I understand that the North Korean government would resist me doing that.

    What I don't see is why I should be able to force you to do the same if you don't want to, or to fund and face the consequences of such an action if you don't want to.

    The Chinese government once had a notion it could save the people of Tibet from the theocratic dictatorship they lived under - was that not a violation of the NAP?

  • BYODB||


    All the evidence would suggest that the vast majority of humanity does agree on that point. It's the vast majority of governments that don't.

    On this I must vehemently disagree, but I admit this is the line that most libertarians have to believe.

  • ||

    If it weren't true, we wouldn't see a general arc of history moving toward individual liberties and free markets, even in traditionally strongly authoritarian countries like China.

  • BYODB||

    'Freedom' waxes and wanes, there is no 'historical movement' towards individual liberty and free markets.

  • ||

    'Freedom' waxes and wanes, there is no 'historical movement' towards individual liberty and free markets.

    As someone who used to study pre-modern history professionally I have to respectfully disagree.

  • BYODB||

    Consider that at least parts of the middle east were more free just a few decades than they are now, and that the same could be said of the United States and many other places. Certainly some places get better, and some places get worse, but to assume some planetary trend would be unfounded.

    In short, I tend to agree more with Tytler than others. Things like 'freedom' are cyclical rather than a trend line.

  • ||

    Consider that at least parts of the middle east were more free just a few decades than they are now, and that the same could be said of the United States and many other places.

    Things do ebb and flow, but there is still a clear overall arc to be identified that is the result of the fact that all people everywhere have valued their own individual liberty and done what they thought was best/most practical to achieve it.

    The Middle East is a mess right now because the Ottoman Empire collapsed just about exactly 100 years ago. Just as medieval feudalism didn't arise in a vacuum out of some diseased political philosophy but was the pragmatic outcome of the collapse of the Roman Empire, what's going on in the ME today is the largest mass re-organization of power structures that has happened in the region in about six centuries. That doesn't happen cleanly - it involves a lot of conflict and tyranny before things smooth out again. But smooth out again they will, undoubtedly.

  • BYODB||

    If you go all the way back to the Roman Empire, I would submit that your 'graph' of freedom would be essentially flat until, say, sometime in the late 1500's or early 1600's when it suddenly spikes. Should I infer from such a graph that in a few short years the planet will be entirely free since the trend line is so clearly spiking, or should I assume it's an aberration from the 3000 year mean?

    Hmm...Tytler is still looking more rational. The cycle is certainly accelerating along with improvements in information transmission, but to assume mankind is becoming 'more free' from their animal mean seems false and implies a mental evolution of mankind that I do not see worldwide.

    Perhaps I'm simply a victim of my own preconceptions, but I do not believe mankind really evolves very much millennia to millennia. That is definitely a belief of mine, rather than a fact, but you'd be hard pressed to change my mind.

  • ||

    I would submit that your 'graph' of freedom would be essentially flat until, say, sometime in the late 1500's or early 1600's when it suddenly spikes.

    And I would disagree. Individual freedom waxed and waned even over the Roman period - with the third century AD being a low point. As another example from later on, freedom increased tangibly in the twelfth century with expanding trade and growing urban populations, and decreased in the thirteenth when the Church reacted to the resulting threats to its sovereignty. Then people started pushing back against the Church, etc, etc.

    The late 1500s and early 1600s, by contrast, brought us the Spanish Inquisition and ushered in the literal "Witch Hunt" era.

    Your perception that something has spiked since the 1500s is an effect of seeing more recent things in more detail.

    I do not believe mankind really evolves very much millennia to millennia

    I agree - what changes is not mankind's valuing of liberty - it's having the means to achieve it. Arguably the most restrictive societies in existence are tribal societies where everyone depends on the group unit absolutely - as that changes, individual liberty inevitably results, each and every time.

  • BYODB||


    I agree - what changes is not mankind's valuing of liberty - it's having the means to achieve it.

    I don't consider that a given, since the 'means' we're mostly talking about are the transfer of information (language, printed word, printing presses, typewriters, internet, braincast, etc.) which has been fairly well proven to be just as useful of a tool to the authoritarians as it could be to others. In fact, I'm not yet convinced that it's more useful to authoritarians than it is to the alternatives since the trend seems to be conglomeration over dispersion of control.

    I will however say that I think it is the valuation of liberty that changes. Some cultures simply do not encourage or value independent thought, and while cultures change they do not consistently change in favor of more independence or liberty. Your own example of the Ottoman empire and the consequences of it's fall are demonstrative of that fact, I'd say.

    I can't reconcile past ups and downs on an imagined mathematical graph of 'freedom' as we know it now, I can only interpret it as a cycle of human thought and behavior. Perhaps that's my own limitation, or the difference between Rose and Onyx colored glasses, but it is what it is.

  • ||

    Some cultures simply do not encourage or value independent thought, and while cultures change they do not consistently change in favor of more independence or liberty.

    How do you reconcile this with your belief that the human mind has not changed in millennia? What is it that makes one culture different from another? One group of people to value liberty more than another?

    Your own example of the Ottoman empire and the consequences of it's fall are demonstrative of that fact, I'd say.

    I would not. That's not a matter of people deciding "we didn't want that government because it's too individualistic, and now we want something more authoritarian." It's "holy shit, our whole government just went kaput, and now we need some means of defending ourselves (and our liberties) against the rising tide of lawlessness and chaos (which is also exactly how feudalism came about).

    The most actually restrictive cultures in the ME are those that are the most directly tribal - i.e. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Libya, Sudan, and the like. The more urban and market-oriented a society becomes, the more individual liberty expands.

    Once basic stability returns, people go back to thinking about their personal freedom.

  • BYODB||


    How do you reconcile this with your belief that the human mind has not changed in millennia? What is it that makes one culture different from another? One group of people to value liberty more than another?

    Without having read past this, it's because when I say 'doesn't evolve very much' it does not mean it does not evolve and does not change at all and I'm referring to the present rather that the past or future. In the future a culture that was democratic could become authoritarian, then theocratic, then a republic but it doesn't happen overnight. It seems pointless, though, to theorize on what they might become even while what they have been could be informative.

    Of course things change, just slowly over long, long periods of time with occasional bursts (think punctuated equilibrium in biology), and really it might be more accurate to say they change between the same old things at variable pacing with an occasional innovation (usually something informed by the past, or technology related.)

    I'm sure there are many flaws in the concept of a cycle of government, but it seems to me that people are eager to retry things that are proven failures. Myself included, for that matter. Usually for similar or identical reasons as it was originally tried, too, because it's being informed by basically the same organic instrument that was trying to solve a perceived problem the last time.

  • BYODB||

    And as an addendum, I forgot to mention in this bit:

    In the future a culture that was democratic could become authoritarian, then theocratic, then a republic....

    ...it could also then cycle right back around to democratic. It's not a line, in other words, but a circle or more likely some bizarre non-mathematical squiggle. I think Tytler was mostly right, in other words, but it's a good starting point and better illustration.

    In terms of why a culture might change to value freedom more or less, it's been theorized that complacency has something to do with that among many other potential socio-economic-political reasons. Doubtless many of them rather than one particular cause, and this seems to follow generations or large events outside mans control. Rome seems illustrative of some potential causes and it's often cited. I'm certainly no expert, but I go with what makes logical sense to me I suppose.

  • Leo Kovalensky||

    I don't think the NAP requires you to try to right all the world's wrongs. As history has taught us nation building by outside forces almost never works. Deposing a tyrant like Kim, just leaves a vacuum to be filled by the next tyrant. I often wonder if, in the age of advanced weaponry, the idea of a truly home-grown revolution is indeed dead. Could the freedom-loving North Koreans truly ever rise up like the freedom-loving Americans did 250 years ago?

    You could argue that our national policy could be to light the fires of liberty among the oppressed in North Korea. Even home-grown revolutions are not guarantors of improving liberty. Look no further than Russia, Cuba, Afghanistan, etc. I don't trust my government to choose the right side, necessarily. Just look at our track record on that.

    I think the best thing we can do is to truly promote liberty at home, and serve as an example of what freedom does to people. Throughout history this seems to be the most effective method. Show the world the prosperity that freedom brings to all. The rest is up to them.

  • ||

    I think the best thing we can do is to truly promote liberty at home, and serve as an example of what freedom does to people. Throughout history this seems to be the most effective method. Show the world the prosperity that freedom brings to all.

    Exactly this. There is a reason countries like North Korea, China, and Iran restrict access to information from/about the outside world. The more these countries get connected (China and Iran as examples) the more slippery the Fist of Tyranny gets.

  • BYODB||

    I specifically pointed out in my own post that it doesn't work, so using that as a 'gotcha' isn't very effective. I'm just pointing out the NAP doesn't prohibit what people seem to think it prohibits. Different readings will result in different outcomes, and in the past it was believed that oppressive regimes, if topped, would become more free after they were shown the path.

    Of course, that isn't how it worked out. It did seem to work out in some places, but in others it was an abject failure.

    I do appreciate that the responses to this do indeed indicate a strong vein of NIMBY running through a lot of libertarians though. It's a sort of bastardized American exceptionalism.

  • vek||

    "I don't think the NAP requires you to try to right all the world's wrongs. As history has taught us nation building by outside forces almost never works."

    So question: if the NAP, which might support helping foreigners gain their rights against tyrants, is a legitimate concept at least, but in practice this has generally failed... Would that not also mean that although mass migrations may be acceptable (or even required by a strict reading of the NAP), that since history shows mass migrations almost always result in massive tensions, and often eventually wars, that perhaps we should consider its real world success rate as well?????? Like it's a nice idea in theory, but in practice it ain't worth it? Is that not a reasonable position to take?

    Open borders advocates are taking a principle, applying it at its utmost extreme, and ignoring the entirety of human history to blindly support their "moral imperative." EXACTLY like the "Let's spread freedom everywhere by fighting tyrants!" crowd! There is no difference. Supposed moral high ground trumps all empirical evidence to the contrary, even though there is much evidence it basically never has good outcomes for the original host population.

  • Azathoth!!||


    It's impossible to be for the NAP and for restricting people from protecting their selves, loved ones and property from harm.

    It's impossible to be for private property rights and for the government allowing people to haphazardly ignore private property rights.

    It's impossible to be for freedom of association and for the government dictating that citizens must associate with non-citizens whether they want to or not.

    It's a statist position to believe that rights can include forcing people to supply goods and services to others, and thus can be given to whoever advocates the statists goals.

    It's a statist position to believe one can arbitrarily ignore everyone else's hard won territorial boundaries in favor of importing a slave class.

    We have rights because we're human, and we have no right to the territory, labor or goods of others.

    Fixed that for you, slaver.

  • ||

    What is concerning is the sudden wave of straw men migrating into this thread!

  • Leo Kovalensky||

    The biggest issue in communication between the open-borders libertarians and those advocating for strict immigration control is indeed that we're talking past each other. Let me try to reiterate my position further:

    People should be free to move across borders and associate freely with each other. This doesn't mean that people are forced to associate. This doesn't mean that people who cross a border become citizens of the place they've entered.

    People have natural rights to life, liberty, property. This doesn't mean that people have natural rights to free healthcare, food stamps, etc. Those things are privileges that a society can legitimately limit to their citizens if they want. That's why this whole article from Reason is stupid, and confuses the open borders position. No rational open borders advocate is suggesting that anybody who wants to be a citizen automatically gets to be a citizen.

    My rights to my property demand that government doesn't interfere if I want to let immigrants onto my property. Your rights to your property demand that government interferes to protect your property if you don't want immigrants (or citizens for that matter) to be on your property for any reason you choose.

    See how simple that was? No straw men needed, and we find that we probably agree on far more than we disagree on.

  • Libertymike||

    Most of the Gillespies and Hornbergers and bleeding heart libertarians are enthusiastic proponents of the NAP when the same is applied to the free movement of labor and peoples but they are most uncomfortable with a strict application of the NAP to matters of gender, race, or religion.

  • BYODB||

    Seems pretty rational to me. I suspect, though, that many on the left and the right would have a problem with what the end results would be.

  • Leo Kovalensky||

    In reality, neither side that I can tell is advocating for this. But, that's what makes us libertarians and not Republicans or Democrats.

    I'd love to see a compromise be made on immigration. But it seems that both sides are hung up on citizenship. The left wants to make more citizens that they expect to vote for them, and the right wants to prohibit more citizens, for a multitude of reasons, but primarily it's the voting thing again.

    In reality the debate shouldn't even be about citizenship. That's an entirely different thing than immigration, but the two have become so conflated that we can't even have a debate about one without everyone thinking it's about the other.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The left will not cave on immigration.

    The Libertarians and Republicans would be open to concessions based on limited amnesty, preventing future disregard of immigration laws, more border security, etc.

    This is where we are at.

  • Leo Kovalensky||

    "The Libertarians and Republicans"

    These two things are not the same thing, contrary to popular belief around here.

  • Azathoth!!||

    But the natural right to migrate so often cited isn't real.

    No animal on the planet has a natural right to migrate.

    They have the ability to attempt to take territory from other creatures--and they do this endlessly.

    Humans did this as well--with all the killing that colors the rest of life in this universe--but then they invented 'borders', and then 'property lines', and attempted to take the blood out of the equation.

    People are NOT free to ignore all the work that goes into keeping human migration bloodless without admitting that what they are doing is undermining peaceful migration.

    You, Leo, are in favor of undermining peaceful migration because you think the bloodless, hard won process of immigration is the natural state. It is not. Those borders and processes keep us all safe.

  • Leo Kovalensky||

    I don't even know where to begin. Your contention is that borders ended bloodiness (ie war)?

    Do you even history, bro?

  • chemjeff||

    No, it's that the alt-right crowd represented by the Azathoths around here reject even the Enlightenment concepts of natural rights. Liberty comes from "tradition" instead. We only have rights because we've always had rights. Kinda circular, but whatever.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Do you read what you write? Do you comprehend it?

    No, it's that the alt-right crowd represented by the Azathoths around here reject even the Enlightenment concepts of natural rights. Liberty comes from "tradition" instead. We only have rights because we've always had rights. Kinda circular, but whatever

    We are born with the natural rights described during the Enlightenment. We have them, because we are.

    How do you think that is different from this--

    We only have rights because we've always had rights.

    ....because you clearly do. Pompously, even.

  • Azathoth!!||

    My contention is that borders, property lines, private property laws are all attempts to take the one on one bloodiness out of the actual animal struggle for territory that humans still engage in (though they tell themselves that they do not).

    No migration is peaceful. But we've changed most 'migration' into simply 'moving'.

    And we've been doing it for so long that far too many people forget that it is an elaborate construction that masks those fights for territory you see on the nature channels.

    Hell, watch dogs pass each other, mark territory--and fight over it. 'War' is pretty constant for most of the animal kingdom.

    We ARE talking past one another. I look at how much progress has allowed humans the luxury of forgetting, and you seem to revel in the forgetting itself

  • vek||

    I would be more amenable to creating a new class of "working visa" of some sort compared to making citizens out of a lot of these people. You still have many of the issues, but it also removes many of the issues. Provided these people REALLY don't get access to most government services, other than roads and other things that can't be avoided, it would deal with a lot of the bigger issues. Like voting, etc.

    But as you say the Dems want all the new leftist votes, which is exactly what all new immigrant groups are, and the Rs don't want that. So it'll never happen. Even if there was a limited new class specifically designed ONLY for Mexico or something that didn't give citizenship, that wouldn't be too bad. You could include in it that anybody with such a visas children did NOT gain birth right citizenship to prevent future stupidity.

    But it'll never happen because it would be sane and make sense.

  • Teddy Pump||

    Nations like individuals have souls & cultures & ethos, etc...They make karma good & bad....Borders need to be layed out & protected as sovereign by the people who make up their nations as they see fit & according to their cultures & mores, etc..,.... For as Trump said when he was running, "you either have a country or you don't"....Limiting people from other nations to come traipsing in & out freely is not aggression at all, but simply common sense!

  • Mark22||

    It's impossible to be for the NAP and for restricting people from immigrating to a country to peacefully live

    The US government aggresses against US citizens on behalf of low-skill immigrants and migrants by violating property rights and rights of freedom of association of citizens. It is entirely appropriate and proportional for citizens to defend themselves by voting to enforce border security and immigration law and insist on making immigration restrictive and selective. Defense against aggression is not a violation of the NAP.

    And in the case of enforcing immigration law and border security, this defense isn't just compatible with libertarian principles, it is even compatible with internationally recognized human rights and the US Constitution.

  • John||

    The first one is a tautology. If the government cannot regulate immigration, then why are we having this debate. If open borders are the reality no matter what, then there really isn't much point in arguing for them is there?

    The second one is just begging the question. "Minor" is a subjective term. Whether immigration laws are important is the entire question.

    The third is just ad hominem. So what if they are racist? Someone can be right for the wrong reasons.

  • Domestic Dissident||

    The real reason for this phony bullshit "debate" is because the leftists desperately want to shove another no-strings-attached mass amnesty down America's throat, just like they did back when they snookered Reagan.

    The sad part is that we could have a truly fair and bipartisan immigration deal tomorrow if the left would stop demanding that they get whole enchilada once again like a spoiled little brat. A deal would include legal protection for the "Dreamer" children, amnesty and a pathway to citizenship for a big chunk of the illegals already here, and real border security.

    But the spoiled brat crybaby left refuses to agree to the "real border security" part under any circumstances, so they would rather just go along with the status quo and do nothing than make a fair deal. Partially because they truly believe that all they have to do is wait long enough and they'll eventually get everything they want again.

  • Libertymike||

    What's wrong with a moratorium on any immigration?

    What's wrong with maintaining some demographic integrity true to our founding and most of our history?

  • John||

    Those are all good questions. Reason and most open borders advocates get around answering them by arguing from the assumption that no country has a right to control its borders for any reason and therefore anyone who says otherwise is making an illegitimate argument unworthy of response.

    All of these immigration threads are just people talking past each other. One side operates from the assumption that controlling immigration is a right of national sovereignty and the question is what controls are the most optimal and the other side operates on the assumption that there is no sovereign right to immigration control. You can't have a debate if the two sides start from fundamentally opposed assumption. You can only have a shouting match, which is what most discussions of immigration are.

  • Libertymike||

    John, I am fundamentally torn on this issue.

    On the one hand, Leo, above, makes good points on the NAP.

    On the other hand, the NAP applies to the points I made.

  • John||

    I am torn as well. I have nothing against immigration. At the same time, I do not think you can have a free society unless you have a culture that values freedom. If we still had a confident culture that demanded immigrants assimilate to it, I would be much more supportive of open borders. Instead, we have a culture where most of our elites virtue signal their moral superiority over others by loathing their own culture and telling immigrants their culture is superior and there is no need to ever assimilate.

  • Leo Kovalensky||

    "On the other hand, the NAP applies to the points I made."
    No it doesn't.

    "What's wrong with a moratorium on any immigration?"
    The only way to enforce this is through state-sponsored aggression. Also, history tells us that any time government tries to ban something that free markets demand (labor in this case) then you create a black market for that thing. That is precisely the situation that we are currently in. Illegal immigration is to immigration laws as bathtub gin and speakeasies are to prohibition.

    "What's wrong with maintaining some demographic integrity true to our founding and most of our history?"
    Other than it sounds like a code for racism? Other than that one point, again, you can't enforce this without state-sponsored aggression. Even if you look past that aspect of it, you're advocating for central planning on population... otherwise known as National Socialism?

  • Ghatanathoah||

    @John

    I don't think that's entirely true. Reason also makes lots of arguments about how immigration makes America better. In this video they talk about how immigrants make things cheaper and create jobs. They are basically arguing that restrictionists are repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot. In essence restrictionists are keeping out people who will improve the country and make life better for everyone living in it, including said restrictionists.

    I believe that I have a right to purposefully shoot myself in the foot. I am also never going to purposefully shoot myself in the foot because doing so would be a really stupid thing to do. Similarly, there is no contradiction between thinking a country has a right to restrict immigration, and that restricting it is a moronic idea. Just because you have a right doesn't mean it's smart to exercise it.

    I view the immigration debate similar to talking a mentally ill friend out of self-harm. Restrictionists are trying to hurt the country in the mistaken belief that it will help. Open-borders people play the role of the friend trying to help them see that self-harm isn't the answer.

  • John||

    They are not trying to hurt the country. What is "hurting" the country is a value judgment. They have different interests and want a different country than you want. That doesn't make them wrong or you right or vice versa. It just means they have different interests and values than you do.

    What is a better place to live if you are a native, a place like Switzerland or Tokyo where things are very stable and there is little immigration or a place like Miami where there is lots of immigrants and insecurity and you can go from being in the majority to the minority in less than a generation?

    There is no definitive answer to that question. It just depends on what you value.

  • Mark22||

    I view the immigration debate similar to talking a mentally ill friend out of self-harm.

    Good analogy. And the mentally ill people are those who delude themselves into thinking that opening the borders to third world countries is harmless or even beneficial. The open borders position is completely nutty.

    As an immigrant myself, I have to conclude that open borders advocates in the have lived such sheltered and privileged lives growing up in the US that they simply have no idea what the real world is like. It's the same kind of nuttiness that you get from leftists who think Europeans get US-quality healthcare "for free". You people are utterly disconnected from reality.

    Snap out of it!

  • Mark22||

    by arguing from the assumption that no country has a right to control its borders for any reason

    That's not sufficient for their position. Libertarians at the extreme end of minarchism or anarchocapitalism believe that nations have neither a right to taxation nor a right to closed borders.

    But the position that the open borders crowd advocates is that the freedom of non-citizens to enter the US is of much greater importance than the protection of private property rights within the US. That simply is not a consistent libertarian position. In fact, it is really just traditional Marxism masquerading as libertarianism.

  • Ghatanathoah||

    "What's wrong with a moratorium on any immigration?"

    It will make Americans poorer. Immigrants grow the economy.

    "What's wrong with maintaining some demographic integrity true to our founding and most of our history?"

    If that was the case the answer wouldn't be a moratorium on immigration, it would be importing lots of Native Americans from Canada and Latin America.

  • John||

    It would not make us poorer. It might make us less wealthy than we might have been. But even that is debatable. Labor is just a commodity like any other. Give an economy less access to labor and it will adjust by investing in more capital. There is nothing to say that we will be less wealthy after that adjustment.

    One of the great fallacies put out by open borders advocates is that total GNP is an accurate measure of wealth. It is not. Per capita, GNP is an accurate measure of wealth. India has a much larger GNP than Switzerland but it is no way a wealthier nation. Immigrants increase out total GNP. They do not necessarily increase our per capita GNL.

  • DarrenM||

    It will make Americans poorer. Immigrants grow the economy.

    Well, that would be pretty selfish of us to take in immigrants then. Any emigration from poorer countries just makes them poorer. They need them much more than we do.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    "It will make Americans poorer. Immigrants grow the economy."

    You really need a citation on this. This is a false assumption. If this were true than heavy immigration areas of countries would be richer than native areas and they usually are not.

    Do new ideas, technologies, and business make an economy stronger? Usually. Those can come from natives, immigrants or both.

  • Mark22||

    You really need a citation on this. This is a false assumption.

    He is correct that immigration grows the economy. He is wrong in assuming that that makes Americans better off. What matters is whether an immigrant improves the per capita wealth and productivity of the US, not whether the immigrant improves the total.

    American voters correctly intuit that if you admit large numbers of people from poorer countries, then the US will resemble those poorer countries more and the wealth of Americans decreases.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    It will make Americans poorer. Immigrants grow the economy.

    Open-borders supporters would sell their own kids in to slavery if it meant the GDP increased in the process.

  • Mark22||

    It will make Americans poorer. Immigrants grow the economy.

    China has a much bigger economy than Norway, but the Chinese are not wealthier than the Norwegians. Obviously, growing the economy doesn't automatically make Americans wealthier.

    The only thing that makes Americans wealthier is if per capita productivity goes up on average. The only way to achieve that via immigration is to selectively admit people who are more productive than the average American. Admitting people who are less productive than the average American makes America poorer. Most illegal migrants are doing just that.

  • vek||

    "It will make Americans poorer. Immigrants grow the economy."

    Do they now??? Overall GDP? Yup. But most low skill immigrants, the only ones most people have a problem with, ACTUALLY make the USA POORER on a per capita basis. They also increase taxes for native born people. Average Hispanic income (legal, not even illegal which is probably lower) is about $32K a year. Which means the statistically average Hispanic is a NET NEGATIVE drain on everybody else in terms of taxes, just like all native born poor. The difference is we're stuck with the native born poor, but we don't have to import more low skill people to drag everybody else down. Not when we can import Indians with an average income of over 100K a year!

    The difference between 1 million Indian IT people and 1 million half illiterate Mexicans is fucking massive. I say this as someone who is part Mexican myself... Fuck those people. Mexican doctors or engineers are fine, but we don't need more janitors or dish washers.

  • Hugh Akston||

    What's wrong with maintaining some demographic integrity true to our founding and most of our history?

    You mean back when the country had 13 states covering about 340k square miles? Or are you saying that America should import a few million more Africans to bump the proportion back up to 20% where it was in the early days?

  • Libertymike||

    Hugh, what conception of "maintenance" embraces importing millions of more Africans?

  • vek||

    You mean back in 1965 when the country was still around 85% white? Yeah that was soooooo long ago.

    Personally I think multiculturalism is a failed experiment. The actions of blacks, Hispanics, and every other group shows that THEY are even MORE racialist in their views and opinions than white people are. End result of throwing together a bunch of warring factions??? Why warring of course! Maybe not literal war, but it could come to that too. This country is being torn apart by racial divisions, WHICH WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED if we had not passed the 1965 Immigration Act, which was specifically designed to import more non whites.

    How do I know we wouldn't be having all these issues? See Japan, China, basically the entire rest of the world that has homogenous populations... They don't have racial problems.

    You can WANT multiculti to work in your imagination, but it clearly isn't in practice. All groups have been scientifically proven to have in group preferences for their own ethnic group, this includes blacks preferring to be around blacks, Asians around Asians... AND YES whites around whites. There's no getting around it. It is failing before your eyes, the only question is will we stop making it worse before it reaches the point of no return?

  • LynchPin1477||

    What's wrong with a moratorium on any immigration?

    Immigrants can supply skills and services that are in demand. They are also human beings and while I agree government has the legal authority to regulate immigration, why should they keep people out who are not a threat to public health and safety? Welfare? OK, fine, demand evidence of a job offer or ability to support one's self for some period of time.

    What's wrong with maintaining some demographic integrity true to our founding and most of our history?

    Because it's collectivist and dehumanizes individuals. And what exactly is this demographic integrity that you think we've had for most of our history? White? European? It would come as one hell of a shock to my Slovak and Irish ancestors to hear that they were demographically equivalent to German, Italian, French, English, Scottish, Polish, and Russian immigrants just because they had somewhat similar skin tones and came from a mostly contiguous landmass.

  • vek||

    To your second point about your Slovak/Irish ancestors, the difference is that Europeans are all pretty closely related genetically, and after literally one generation of mixing it's basically impossible to tell us apart. Culturally we were all similar, but of course not identical. Again not a TON of friction. Other groups, like blacks, still SELF ENFORCE their own identity because THEY DON'T WANT to integrate into the dominant white culture.

    This is why I would say Japan should accept in slow and steady numbers of saaay Chinese immigrants, but to allow in Africans or Arabs would be far more problematic. The Chinese would likely integrate almost fully within a generation or two, whereas 200 years on the Africans still would not most likely. Chinese and Japanese cultures share much common ground, and ethnically they would just melt in. Blacks/Arabs would not.

    To ignore obvious differences is stupid. It's like saying a Corvette would fit in better at an all Jeep off roading event than a Land Rover... Obviously neither is a Jeep, but the LR is a hell of a lot closer, and likely to fit into the crowd easier.

  • Rebel Scum||

    if the left would stop demanding that they get whole enchilada once again like a spoiled little brat.

    To a leftist "negotiate" means "give in to all of my demands".

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Under threat of death or actual death.

  • retiredfire||

    They broke a minor law to get here.
    But the law they broke "to get here" is only the tip of the iceberg.
    Anyone else, using a stolen, or phony(?) Social Security number would be charged with identity theft.
    It is against the law to take a job, if not permitted to do so. Many visa-holders are not even permitted to work, while not considered illegal aliens.
    Accessing any kind of government benefit is a violation of the law (welfare fraud), for which a citizen would be prosecuted.
    The simple fact that one is here, without having gone through, or having violated, immigration restrictions is constantly a violation of the law. That's why a president can't do a blanket pardon. The crime continues, even after being absolved of all past wrongs.
    The simple fact is that many laws were passed, to make the initial border-crossing or visa-overstaying, not the only laws they have violated. Every effort an illegal alien makes, except for spending money they brought with them, to be able to survive, is some kind of illegal act.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    Best argument for highly restrictive immigration: California?

  • Hugh Akston||

    California has the highest GDP in the US, and the fifth highest among all economies globally, but it's not clear that they got that way by restricting immigration.

  • Mark22||

    California is a shithole and an economic disaster. People are leaving it in large numbers.

  • vek||

    My entire family has left California as it has turned into a third world shit hole. I mean that literally. It is basically just like the third world.

    It has a wealthy elite that has plenty of money, and a servant class that does all the menial jobs. Everything else has been pushed out of state because of taxes, regulations, and wanting to escape the immigrant invasion. I say this as a part Mexican even!

    It's basically no different than Brazil or Mexico anymore at this point. That might be cool for the rich folks who get cheap maids, but it hasn't been good for anybody else. The standard of living adjusted for cost of living is one of the lowest in the country, and there are more people in poverty there than in any other states. Sounds JUST like a third world shit hole to me.

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    Yeah? We're running an 18 billion dollar surplus here in part due to the agricultural industry that depends on immigrant labor. How are you doing?

  • KevinP||

    Economist Joel Kotkin: California Is So Over


    Quote:

    California has met the future, and it really doesn't work. The great American land of opportunity is devolving into something that resembles feudalism, a society dominated by rich and poor, with little opportunity for upward mobility for the state's middle- and working classes.
  • Libertymike||

    While I was watching some of the golf at Pebble Beach and the shots of the gorgeous Monterrey Peninsula over the weekend, I wept because California has become such a third world, progressive cess pool.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its why many people moved West. California used to have reasonably low taxes, open land for farming and homes, and quite a few good recreation areas.

    Now Commifornia has massive unacknowledged debt, massive tax rates, massive regulation, oppressive farming rules for small farmers, pollution, straw bans, massive populations of illegals, huge gang problems, largest prison population in the USA, and bad roads.

  • Mark22||

    A typical home on Pebble Beach will cost you around $3M. Just like shithole countries around the world, California is a bunch of enclaves for the ultrawealthy plus a lot of slums for the poor. If you drive into the central valley, it's all the dust, stink, and toxins that will make you weep.

  • vek||

    My father, who moved us to Washington from the Bay Area, and I both are still fuming mad about how California has been ruined. I remember it being janky but OKAY when I was a kid. He tells me stories about how heaven on earth it was when he was growing up there, and then just literally watching the greatest place on earth get progressively (pun intended?) ruined.

    It does indeed almost bring tears to my eyes. I want to move back to Northern California SOOOOOOOOOO bad. The weather is perfect, it is beautiful, some sides of my family go back to the 1800s there. We have a fucking TOWN named after us that is still going strong. But I just can't do it. It saddens me to no end. I always hope that someday the state will be cleansed and I can move back... But I'm not holding my breath.

  • BYODB||

    D'aw, look at the socialist advocating for below-the-board labor that's exempt from labor protections and can be arrested and shipped off if they make too much noise about their below-minimum-wage pay scales with no benefits.

    That's simply adorable. California loves their slave labor, huh?

  • Hugh Akston||

    So your solution is to eliminate labor protections and minimum wage laws so everyone is on equal footing? Sounds good to me.

  • BYODB||

    Actually, yes, that would be my solution. The obvious problem with that is that the vast, vast majority of American's are entirely unwilling to do that.

  • ||

    Personally, I've known a lot of illegal immigrant laborers, and none of them made less than minimum wage.

    You know all the stuff about how CA government doesn't check people for immigration status? That also applies when they go around to farm fields checking working conditions and labor law compliance.

    Actually, the anti-illegal-immigrant people should focus on the Chinese, not the Mexicans, since they're largely the ones in the situation that you describe.

    They won't be stopped by a wall, though.

  • BYODB||

    Given your background I'm assuming those are builders rather than Ag workers? Honestly curious since I would expect a construction worker to make near minimum or higher given it's relatively skilled labor (at least partially) vs. someone who picks vegetables/fruit.

    Either way it's anecdotal but it's still interesting.

  • ||

    My direct experience is with construction workers, yes. But CA watches farm workers pretty closely, too.

    I think the issue is inflected largely by regional concerns. In CA you have the basic fact of a very arbitrary cutoff between Baja and Alto Californias. Baja's economy is arguably much more closely tied to CA's economy than it is to Mexico's, and the movement back-and-forth across the southern border is just part of life in CA. Restrictionist measures wreak havoc here in ways that are intended to help perceived problems in other parts of the country.

  • BYODB||

    Interesting, that's about what I would expect. It's much the same in Texas, in that your roofer or other 'construction' type guy is going to earn more than minimum but still potentially less than someone who could, say, collect on disability or workman's compensation.

    I do wonder how California 'watches farm workers pretty closely' when they have no jurisdiction over those workers in the first place beyond deporting them, but lots of things that shouldn't be law, are; at least in California.

  • ||

    I do wonder how California 'watches farm workers pretty closely'

    I mean in the sense that they inspect farms to make sure they have adequately-shaded rest spots available, drinking water, that they give sufficient break time, etc. They don't check the immigration status of the workers while they do that (since they already know what it is, by and large).

  • BYODB||

    Reasonable enough I suppose. It's nice they don't let their slaves dehydrate or work too many hours, but I'm told slaves have always been relatively valuable commodities.

    Obvious hyperbole, of course, but that's more or less how I see it. I thought from your implication that they were watching their pay scales, benefits, or tax scheme's and/or legal status.

  • ||

    I do believe that pay scales are another of the items on the "are you treating your workers properly" checklist. Contrary to popular belief, not all of the people out there picking strawberries are illegal immigrants, and (completely in line with conservative beliefs about CA) the state government is happy to go about securing the rights of non-citizen laborers if when they are out there and everyone knows it.

    And they pick and go home whenever they want to.

    No one is advocating slavery or wanting to keep a permanent underclass for economic reasons. Californians, by and large, even California Republicans, are happy to let Mexicans come and go as fully legal migrant farm and construction laborers (Pete Wilson proposed a specific plan to allow this without them becoming citizens). It's the national Republican Party that is obsessed with those sealing the border, and this is no small part of why they can't get traction in California.

    Again, if you're working the "effectively imprisoned slave labor" angle, you're talking about Chinese immigrants, not Mexicans, and should be concerned about the ports, not the southern border.

  • BYODB||

    That's good to know that those are factors they look at as well, although I am somewhat disappointed that there's an agency who's job appears to be monitoring the illegal workforces working conditions (although yes, I do understand that's a side-effect of simply monitoring the industry as whole. It's a cost that would likely exist in either scenario regardless of the nationality of the workers).

    There is one fact that seems to go over a lot of people's heads that I appreciate that you brought up though, and that's the fact that migrant workers tend to go home. A huge volume of money goes through the Post Offices at the southern border for this very reason, and it's a noticeable source of GNP in Mexico last I checked.

    No one is advocating slavery or wanting to keep a permanent underclass for economic reasons.

    Not openly, and not explicitly, but functionally that is what a lot of people are saying. In fact it's something a lot of people have been saying for close to 40 years now.

    You don't necessarily need to be 'trapped' in a place to be considered an underclass slave, merely not have the equal rights and protections as a citizen of the nation you're working in. At least, that would be my point of view.

    Or, shorter version, it's movement towards a caste based society rather than a movement towards a classically liberal society.

  • ||

    Not openly, and not explicitly, but functionally that is what a lot of people are saying.

    I would definitely concede that there is a certain type of bourgeois leftist who wants to "offer the poor undocumented immigrant a chance in a new country" while also "protecting the wages of the hard-working American Poor" such that in effect they are maintaining an ethnic caste system without admitting to themselves that this is what they are doing. Marx referred to these people as "Bourgeois Socialists." And yeah - they suck.

  • Mark22||

    Personally, I've known a lot of illegal immigrant laborers, and none of them made less than minimum wage.

    Minimum wage is nowhere near sufficient. In order to make a net positive contribution to the US and US economy, immigrants need to make substantially above median wage.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Americans won't cooperate with being slave labor anymore, so illegals are needed by Democrats.

    They lost the Civil War but they will really try and win this one.

  • damikesc||

    Surplus assuming CALPERS has returns it never has managed before in its investments and manages to generate them forever.

    Pensions are going to obliterate California.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    They don't call pensions debt in California.

  • damikesc||

    Nope. They call the defaults and bankruptcies "bad luck".

  • shortviking||

    We do not have a surplus lol.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    BOOM.

  • Duke of url||

    I second your "BOOM".

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    DESTROYED.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    DROPS MIC?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Locke was right: If you want the best arguments for a position, you have to get them from people who hold that position, not people who oppose it.

    So, don't encourage us to be fools who'd count on somebody to give the best case for something they're against.

    There ARE libertarians who oppose open borders, or at least were when I was still active in the movement. Find one and organize a debate. Act like you don't think we're idiots.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Step 1) Conflate legal and illegal immigration.

  • I can't even||

    Notice on the assimilation point they conflate Latino immigration with all immigration? Sure given time and not overwhelming numbers Central and South American Catholics will assimilate into American society.

    No mention and Muslims integrating. How's that working out in Western Europe?

  • John||

    Exactly that. In many ways, open borders Libertarians are cultural Marists in that they believe in a form of economic determinism. Marx discounted culture and values as opium for the masses and thought a person's destiny was determined by economics and their economic class. Many libertarians make the same mistake. They assume that the invisible hand of economics will cause everyone to abandon their culture and adopt Libertarian values. Sadly it doesn't work that way. Culture is not destiny the way the fascists claim. But it isn't nothing either. At the personal level culture is not destiny. At the macro level, it often is.

  • vek||

    I think the obvious reality is that the more closely any two groups resemble each other, physically, religiously, culturally, etc the easier it will be for them to integrate. This is common sense.

    Anyone who doesn't "get" that a Turk would find it easier to integrate into Saudi society, versus a Swedish Christian or a Japanese Buddhist man, is an idiot. Chinese will integrate in Japan easier than a Somali. A Pole will integrate into Sweden easier than a Syrian.

    These are such OBVIOUS things, that anyone who ignores them is clearly either an idiot or completely disingenuous.

  • BYODB||

    There indeed are many libertarians who think that way, but I suspect there are more of them that are for open borders. Which is fine, I don't necessarily have a problem with that. Honestly, I get their arguments and I generally agree with them.

    What I have a problem with is that they seem to be pretending that we can just do this one thing in isolation and nothing else will come crashing down around us. That is simply untrue, and the fact that people like Nick never seem to acknowledge that worries me. If they're siding with the Progressives on immigration, it will be highly destructive. If they go against the Progressives on domestic policy first, open borders would seem to be a logical conclusion.

    Yet that's not their order of operations at all, they're saying open borders with no mention of the many systems erected as a barrier to immigration over the past 100 years, so I must assume they're either lying or dumb enough to believe their own bullshit.

  • Deven||

    I just assume that they're either bought and paid for, or virtue-signaling morons.

    Immigrants and their offspring overwhelmingly vote for statist policies. Any economic impact they may have in the short term will be destroyed in the long run by the state. Liberty will not stand a chance.

    If a libertarian can't understand that, what use is libertarianism as an ideology? A bunch of idealists who are too cowardly or stupid to face reality if it doesn't mesh with their fantasy libertopia?

  • BYODB||

    Not to put too fine a point on it, but the only safeguard for liberty as foreseen by the founders of the United States was the citizenry being willing to die for it. That's it. That's the only safeguard possible. And it makes sense in context, since that's literally what they did.

  • Deven||

    I sincerely hope they were wrong on that. I still am holding out for free speech.

    While they were no doubt brave men, they didn't have to deal with drone strikes and FISA surveillance.

  • Mark22||

    There indeed are many libertarians who think that way, but I suspect there are more of them that are for open borders

    As a libertarian, I am for open borders: bidirectional open border between libertarian societies.

    I am strongly against open borders while living in a non-libertarian social welfare state like the US adjoining shithole full of drug cartels and racists.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    I don't know if they're the "best" arguments, but these are certainly the most popular ones.

  • Azathoth!!||

    libertarians oppose open borders

    Leftists masquerading as libertarians don't.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Step 2) Start from a position that non-Americans have a right to govern what America does over the wishes of the American majority.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The communities that tend to oppose immigration -- those weakened by bright flight for generations -- could benefit greatly from the motivation, entrepreneurship, and optimism immigrants could contribute to those depleted, disaffected communities.

  • John||

    The communities who oppose immigration are the ones who suffer from the negative consequences of immigration. The communities that support immigration are the ones who benefit from immigration. Neither side's interests are illegitimate. And working out compromises between competing interests is why we have a representative government.

    You do your case no favors by pretending that everyone's interests but your own are invalid and the product of their intellectual inferiority. In fact, doing so makes your claims to intellectual superiority more than a little ironic.

  • Sam Haysom||

    More to the point pretty much everyone supports rationally restrained population replacement when they realize just how many people are coming in. Part of the reason Reason melts down on this issue is because they are terrified of people grasp just how inundated this country is by immigrants.

  • John||

    Pretty much. They are never honest about the costs of immigration because doing so would require defending their support for open borders on its merits. And that is just not a good role for them.

  • vek||

    Yup. They will never admit there being pros AND cons. Almost everything has upsides and downsides, and then a rational person must think things through and decide if accepting the cons are worth it for the upsides. Leftists and cosmotarians refuse to admit there are ANY downsides, which is utter bullshit.

    They will never address the myriad of legit issues brought up in the comments section by intelligent people on the subject. If Nick or Shitma and I were to have a fair face to face debate where I could hold their feet to the fire, they would literally just have nothing to say on some of these issues, unless of course they were honest enough to concede they were downsides. But they'll never do it in articles. NEVER. Because it would pop their utopian fantasy land dreams.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    There are numerous other reason communities (countries) are weakened.

  • Bubba Jones||

    NO IRISH NEED APPLY

  • Mark22||

    Private businesses engaging in discrimination is perfectly consistent with libertarian positions.

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    Look at all the libertarians who desire a police state to address a problem that is--at the worst-- a wash.

  • John||

    When I am on the internet and I see things like this, I can't help but wonder if apes should not be studying humans instead of the other way around.

  • Tony||

    Libertymike is being pretty honest. He just doesn't like brown people.

    Everyone is entitled to exceptions to their principles for more important priorities.

  • John||

    Yeah, the apes totally should be studying us.

  • Sam Haysom||

    Tony wants to put Christians in camps.

  • Tony||

    I've been to Christian camp. I mean it's not terrible. You just make crosses out of popsicle sticks and stuff.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony, have you ever been to a Turkish prison?

  • Tony||

    Is that like a Turkish bath?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I guess that's a no then?

    You will be in for a shock when your fellow socialists put you in a gulag then.

    I was rooting for you to have what it took to survive a Turkish prison.

  • Libertymike||

    Tony, do not conflate racism with race realism. Is that too much to ask?

  • Tony||

    As long as you don't conflate realism with whatever the fuck is going on inside your head.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    *making swirling finger gestures based on what Tony says

  • vek||

    Whatever causes vastly lower IQs in some ethnic groups than others, saaay the 15 point gap with blacks, it is a real thing. Even if we pretend it is 100% environment, which is not what the evidence points to, it would still explain the crime rates they have, the lower wages they have, and proves that it's not primarily racism causing their misfortune.

    So even if it's not genetic, it is a very relevant talking point that the right and libertarians should be using to dispel the false notion that white racism is holding down minorities. They all do exactly as well as their IQs would predict.

  • gclancy51||

    The 1950's called to thank you for still using IQ as the only indicator of intelligence. Confirmation bias much?

  • vek||

    Hey, Reality called to tell you to read up more on the subject!

    IQ is definitely NOT the only measure of intelligence. It also doesn't measure many other useful traits/personal habit, like work ethic, or being personable... But to deny that IQ is a VERY useful measure is idiotic. It's straight up SJW bullshit.

    IQ will tell you how much money someone is likely to make, what education level they will achieve, if their marriage will last, if they will be a criminal. And on and on. It works better than their childhood environment and socioeconomic status for predicting all those things. It is a powerful statistic. It doesn't measure ALL forms of intelligence, but NO test ever could. However it is the most useful form of intelligence testing ever devised, and is amazing for predicting real world outcomes.

    Also, FYI, the EXACT SAME hierarchy of results with Jews being at the top, East Asians next, Europeans next, others in this zone, and Africans at the bottom shows up in ALL forms of intelligence tests. SATs, military skills tests, all of them. That IQ matches perfectly to life outcomes for blacks, whites, Asians, etc at the same IQ levels is basically impossible if it's not measure a decent cross section of real intelligence. The only reason people don't like it is because it shows pretty big gaps between ethnicities, and this is not PC. If we were all within 5 points it'd be accepted science like it should be now.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony hates everyone who isn't a socialist.

    He likes the same political ideology as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Mussolini - Socialism.

  • Mark22||

    Libertymike is being pretty honest. He just doesn't like brown people. Everyone is entitled to exceptions to their principles for more important priorities.

    I don't see how "not liking brown people" would be inconsistent with libertarian principles.

  • Rebel Scum||

    The Five Best Arguments Against Immigration—and Why They're WRONG

    I've never heard anyone argue "against" immigration. I think you're being disingenuous right out of the bag here.

  • Dick Puller, Attorney at Law||

    An Argument Against Open Borders and Liberal Hubris

    http://quillette.com/2017/08/2.....al-hubris/

  • KevinP||

    You cannot have open borders and a welfare state at the same time:
    Pew Research Center: Hispanic Politics, Values, Religion


    Quote:
    Support for a larger government is greatest among immigrant Latinos. More than eight-in-ten (81%) say they would rather have a bigger government with more services than a smaller government with fewer services.
  • John||

    If you lived in Libertopia and there was no such thing as public services of any kind, immigration would be a problem that solved itself. If everyone had to pay their own way, no one who couldn't or had someone who could would ever come here. As long as we don't live in libertopia, and chances are we never will, immigration will not be a problem that solves itself.

  • Tony||

    On the contrary it becomes more difficult to maintain a welfare state with an aging population--a problem that immigration mitigates, since immigrants skew young, and undocumented ones even do us the favor of paying the taxes without taking the services.

  • BYODB||

    And here is another socialist making the explicit case that we need slave labor.

    That's two so far.

  • Tony||

    I assume slavery is off the table in a laissez-faire paradise, but it should be pretty nonnegotiable that labor supply and demand be allowed to meet freely. We wouldn't want a distorted market.

  • Libertymike||

    Tony, if you think that I don't like brown people, harmonize that with the fact that Sanford & Son is my favorite comedy of all time.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Democrats would love to have slavery back just like in the days that controlled the Slave states.

  • BYODB||

    It is, but we're talking about something else entirely.

  • Mark22||

    You're not going to maintain a welfare state with semi-literate migrants from third world countries.

    And of course, we don't want to maintain a welfare state at all.

  • vek||

    Hey Tony, how are groups like Hispanics, with their average income of only $32K a year... Which makes them a NET NEGATIVE taxpayer group going to support all the welfare? They literally don't even make enough money to pay for their own current use of government services, let alone enough for old white people to suckle off their tits.

    Math. It's a bitch. But it does answer some questions. Now Indian immigrants on the other hand, what with their 100K a year average income, THEY could support old white folks. Which is why I'm a loooooot more open to letting them in than uneducated Mexicans, even though I AM part Mexican. Call me racist against Mexicans, I dare you!

  • gclancy51||

    You're racist against Mexicans? Being part of a minority doesn't preclude you from racism. I'm fully Irish and hate the fuckers

    And only an imbecile or teenager writes in all-caps. Which one are you?

  • vek||

    So no argument, so you insult me? I use caps because I'm too lazy to use HTML tags for italics asshole! If reason had a decent posting setup I wouldn't have to use caps.

    Question: Is it racist to point out true facts that are not nice about people? Like realizing that obese people are obese? Or that people with buckled faces have buckled faces? I don't think so. I think it's an accurate assessment of reality. I usually don't tell fatties they're fatties to their face, because that would be rude... But if I were to trick my own mind into believing they actually weren't fatties, that would make me delusional.

    The fact that all cultures around the world are not the same, and DO have measurable and observable differences in them is not racist in my opinion. It's just reality. Pointing out inconvenient facts does not make one racist. If I hated and wanted to kill every Mexican in the world, THAT would make me racist.

    But I don't. However I think that whatever Mexicans we're going to let into the USA should be from the middle and upper class of Mexico, so we don't import the bad habits AND negative economic burdens from their lower classes.

  • GILMORE™||

    Narrator: "And no good arguments were actually discussed"

    --------------------------------

    not an argument but an observation:

    - the hardon Reason has for immigration is driven by something other than 'libertarianism'

    the reality about immigration in america is that it ebbs and flows, and administrations try to do superficial things on the margins to manipulate a base easy swayed by discussions of it.

    e.g. even if a "wall" were built it would have little real impact on the issue itself. but people will furiously debate "wall or no wall!?" as tho it were the most important aspect of policy.

    Its all red-towel-waving by shitty toreadors

    What is the hardest to decode is why anyone (e.g. Reason) is trying to keep the status quo the same, because it objectively sucks

  • Hugh Akston||

    - the hardon Reason has for immigration is driven by something other than 'libertarianism'

    What, exactly?

  • GILMORE™||

    you are free to speculate.

    but you sure as hell not doing anything to advance the interests of american libertarians by expending half your resources fulminating about the interests of a silent group of noncitizens who primarily serve as a beach-ball for partisan outrage-mongers

  • Hugh Akston||

    You're the one making the claim that "the hardon Reason has for immigration is driven by something other than 'libertarianism'", so rather than trying to peer into your pitted soul at the moment you typed that sentence fragment, I am asking you what you meant by it.

  • GILMORE™||

    "I am asking you what you meant"

    what i wrote

  • GILMORE™||

    Its no different than observing (correctly) that the

    "upper middle class white college girl who tweets incessantly about racism on twitter"

    isn't really doing it because she's truly motivated by the plight of black people in america and has sincere interests in changing the status quo of ghetto residents.

    determining what single or combination of factors motivates crazy-sjw-white-girl to shriek "RACISM"!! is a more complex task than determining that its nothing to actually do with the apparent topic.

    this may be an unsatisfying point to you, but that's not my problem.

  • Hugh Akston||

    So what if it's not 'libertarianism' driving Reason's hardon for immigration, then what is it?

  • GILMORE™||

    repeating myself would eventually lead to me saying unkind things about you.

  • Sam Haysom||

    In your and Tony's case sexual frustration and born of high school resentment. You think you are sticking it to everyone in high school who was getting some and wasn't social isolated.

  • ||

    the reality about immigration in america is that it ebbs and flows, and administrations try to do superficial things on the margins to manipulate a base easy swayed by discussions of it.

    e.g. even if a "wall" were built it would have little real impact on the issue itself. but people will furiously debate "wall or no wall!?" as tho it were the most important aspect of policy.

    ^ This.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Reason is for the status quo on US immigration policy?

    That's why all these commenters freak the fuck out?

  • GILMORE™||

    my point above was about the magazine tilting at windmills

    my point farther below was mainly about how 'its useful because it makes people on either side freak out', as you observe

  • Mark22||

    The status quo is intolerable and needs to get fixed.

  • Sam M||

    But wait. I thought libertarians were pretty firm believers in microeconomics, and the power of supply and demand. If you increase the supply of low skill labor, the cost of low skill labor should go down, right? Also, I think you are kind of weak-manning the argument. Not a lot of people are against "immigration." A lot certainly seem to believe that while immigration is OK, current levels are unsustainable or counterproductive. This article lumps people who think the number ought to be REDUCED in with the people who think the number should be ZERO. Certainly we could construct a hypothetical in which some level of immigration would trigger some negative consequences? Like, let's say tomorrow there were 4 billion people in line at the borders. Just open it up and let them have at it? Similarly, I don't think anyone is arguing that letting in 5 guys is going to depress national wages. The discussion is not immigration or not immigration, it's how much.

    People are acting like Trump is a zero immigration guy. But even he is trying to open it up to the same current level PLUS an extra 1.8 million Dreamers. Heck, even Mark Krikorian is willing to make a deal. You are arguing against a ghost.

  • ||

    Like, let's say tomorrow there were 4 billion people in line at the borders.

    Yes. Let's say that everyone on the entire planet wants to live in this country no matter what and leave the rest of the world abandoned, and proceed to treat the issue as if this is a real thing that could happen.

  • Sam M||

    Yes. It's about as fair as arguing that there are scads of people making plans to ZERO immigration. There certainly are some actual "open borders" people, and there are certainly some people who would like to see it be zero. Nick makes his argument easy by assuming the worst. Why can't I? Let's say not 4 billion. How about 20 million? 10 million? The real argument is about where that tipping point is. Nick just assumes that the current levels do not reach these thresholds. The WSJ, which is about open borders as it gets, ran a study saying that when Arizona cracked down on immigration, wages for unskilled labor increased quite a bit. Of course it's complicated, and the long term impact might be less problematic. But to just assume that ANY level of immigration is going to be insulated from the laws of supply and demand is a fantasy.

  • ||

    The argument isn't for importing people. It's an argument against the government restricting people's freedom of movement. You want to keep people off of your own property? Feel free to do what you must.

  • retiredfire||

    To the extent that I control my own property, I will keep people, that I don't give permission to, off of it.
    To the extent that government controls all of the land, including your property - that weed garden you know would get you thrown in jail being proof of its reach - it has the right to keep people it doesn't give permission to, out of it.
    When it comes to those not granted permission to enter, government does have the authority to restrict people's freedom of movement. The Constitution says so.
    Don't like it? Go somewhere that the laws don't give that power to government. Good luck with that.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I can never get an answer on how immigrants is enough for the USA since Americans are evidently not allowed to decide this issue.

    1 billion? 500 million?

  • ||

    I can never get an answer on how immigrants is enough for the USA since Americans are evidently not allowed to decide this issue.

    Doesn't this sentence answer its own question, really?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    No. Which is why its an actual question not a rhetorical question.

  • Leo Kovalensky||

    I would let the market decide. You would let the government. What does that say about your position?

  • retiredfire||

    What "market"?
    The highly regulated one we live under?
    The one where those jobs that Americans won't do are largely because there is competition for those workers by the welfare state, that will pay about as much, if not more, for not doing any job?
    The government decides a great many things in "the market", addressing this down-the-priority-list one as being dispositive of that is disingenuous.
    Admit it, it is all about feelz. Something libertarians are supposed to eschew.

  • vek||

    Of course it's all about the feelz.

    Anyone employing logic would realize there is an upper limit to immigration while maintaining a society as anything resembling the original one. Logic would also dictate that for SOME freedoms you have to do ABC before XYZ is possible. Like the welfare state and all the other market distortions that make these low skill immigrants supposedly valuable/useful. If you have a massive welfare state for citizens, then every single generation you MUST import new people with no skills and lower standards to keep filling jobs low education natives would be forced to do lacking the welfare state.

    The whole thing is all feelz and moral superiority. I am also convinced many cosmotarians have the whole white guilt/hate America streak in them too just like the left, but not to the same degree as the left of course. But enough for them to derp out on many issues.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Let's say that everyone on the entire planet wants to live in this country

    Based on information sources from outside the US--and the opinions put forth by the 'libertarians' at Reason, most of them do.

    'Most', not 'all', so about maybe 4 billion, instead of the full sevenish (sixish?).

  • EscherEnigma||

    Want? Sure, but "Wants to, is willing to abandon their prior life, and is able to make the journey" is a much smaller set. It's the same reason why even when we had much less restrictions on immigration, not everyone showed up. Because it's a big step, a big risk, and for many, not worth the risk.

    Or to put it simply... there's a reason even within America, we don't have mass immigration from states that do poorly on any number of measures to states that do better. As much as you folks like to complain about California, it's still the most populous state in the Union. As much as I like to complain about Alabama, it's in no danger of being depopulated. Moving is difficult and risky. And people easily become complacent.

    So yeah. Even if we had no border restrictions at all (not even "valid passport"), we wouldn't have 4 billion folks show up trying to get in. It's not a realistic scenario.

  • BYODB||

    Since the United States admits somewhere around one million legal immigrants each year, and there are far more who want to come each year that aren't allowed to, it seems reasonable to assume that the number of people who "Wants to, is willing to abandon their prior life, and is able to make the journey" is a much, much larger number even while it probably only approaches around 10-50 million people each year.

    Recall that India all by itself has over a billion people in a landmass much, much smaller than America. We only have around 325 million people here. You could fit the entire population of Earth inside the United States. How badly would that overload our social systems? We don't know, but it will overload our social systems. Definitely.

    Yet where are all these 'honest' libertarians making the case that we need to destroy welfare to save immigrants? No where. Because no one gives a shit about doing it right, they just want to feel good and the hard decisions can always just be kicked down the road.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Yet where are all these 'honest' libertarians making the case that we need to destroy welfare to save immigrants? No where. Because no one gives a shit about doing it right, they just want to feel good and the hard decisions can always just be kicked down the road.


    You don't really need to sell me on libertarians being more bark then bite.

    I was just pointing out that 4 billion new immigrants on the border is an utterly ludicrous scenario. 50 million? Yeah, I could see that. And after a peak year the numbers would crater as we quickly hit saturation levels that made us unattractive to immigrants. The new status quo would definitely be new, but there's no reason to fear four-sevenths of the world's population showing up at our door.

  • BYODB||

    Why would it crater? Have you ever looked at global birth rates? They could very conceivably continue to ship in that number every year. The rest of the planet has a lot of babies.

    That said, it would take a long, long fall for the United States to become 'not as attractive' as 3rd world shitholes. It would take us being just another 3rd world shithole, in fact, which would be a likely consequence. Eventually, that is. Not tomorrow, for sure.

    Regardless of the scenario, uncontrolled immigration from the rest of the planet would certainly overwhelm every American institution within a few years. That much is entirely certain.

    Those are just observable facts, and I don't know of anyone in particular that's said otherwise. Reason is about as fringe of a publication as I read, to be honest, so I suspect there are people that say otherwise that I just haven't come across.

  • Mark22||

    Want? Sure, but "Wants to, is willing to abandon their prior life, and is able to make the journey" is a much smaller set.

    About a billion people on the planet live in such abject poverty and under such serious risk to life and health that it would be worth for them coming to the US at any cost: their alternative is death. And for most of the remaining six billion people in the world, coming to the US would still be a massive economic improvement.

  • John||

    The fundamental question here is whether people have a right to form governments that can then control who lives within the area which they control. Libertarians say they do not. But they never bother to explain why they do not other than "because".

    That is the debate here. If you say the government doesn't have the right to do it, then it doesn't matter what the merits are, they can't do it. If you say they do, then the people have a right to control it any way they like. People have a sovereign right to enact policies for any reason they want. What Libertarians forever fail to take into account is that there are legitimate values beyond economic wealth. There are values like stability and security that also are legitimate and matter to people. That a given policy makes a nation wealthier doesn't necessarily mean it is the "best" policy. Best is a relative term. If for example, the price of immigration and whatever overall wealth that produces is a forever loose labor market where every person outside of a few superstars is in constant danger of being replaced by a cheaper alternative and employees have very little bargaining power with their employers, people have every right and are perfectly rational for forgoing the wealth in exchange for a measure of security.

  • John||

    So what if mass immigration makes products cheaper if it results in your income going down more than the savings? Immigration advocates are forever in the group whose wages won't be affected but act like the people whose wages are, are just a bunch of deadbeats. You see their interest in wanting cheap labor is legitimate. Other people's interests otherwise are not. Bullshit.

  • Tony||

    I think it's absolutely valid to point out the problem with the argument that our economy needs cheap (undocumented) labor. Liberals should be in favor of improving these people's lives, not using their willingness to be abused to prop up the economy.

    There is the tricky reality that the American economy has never been without mass cheap labor beyond the scope of labor protections, be it slavery, low-paid migrant workers, or factory drones in China. There's a difficult question of whether our economy, especially as it's currently organized, can work without it. We are pretty happy with our cheap food and cheap clothes.

    That is definitely a hypocrisy on the left when they make this argument. They're best sticking to short-term alleviation of the major problems in the system. Let's stop throwing human being in concentration camps for a minor infraction, as a start. Maybe let's not spend resources deporting people when there's absolutely no social purpose in doing so.

    Of course that in no way approaches the hypocrisy of the opposing argument, which outright lies about how immigration causes harm to the economy in order to justify an essentially racist and nativist position.

  • John||

    The fact is Tony that if we truly had open borders and full free movement of labor, everyone but the highest skilled workers would have very little job security or leverage with their employers. Most people have pretty replaceable skills. The unique virtue most people offer their employer is that they are there. Have truly open borders and that isn't much of a virtue anymore.

    I honestly don't care if people like me have to pay a bit more for the mountains of consumer goods that we all consume. I do, however, care a lot if the average American goes to work every day knowing that his employer can treat him however he wants and if he doesn't like it there are ten people from Pakistan waiting to take his job who will tolerate it. I don't want to live in a society like that. I want to live in a society where people have to work for a living but also have an opportunity to do so and can with some effort obtain a measure of security and satisfaction from supporting themselves and not being on the dole.

    And I do not see how that can be achieved with fully open borders.

  • Tony||

    Nobody is advocating fully open borders. Actually, some libertarians are, because some libertarians have consistent principles. But nobody who's taking part in the real debate. So that's just a classic straw man we can dispense with right now.

    All I ask, as a start, is that we get our facts straight before we start debating. The status quo is very good for American citizens because it provides them cheap goods and services. They're not taking anyone's jobs either. It really seems to be the case that citizens of a wealthy society like ours simply will not do hard labor for anything close to a marketable wage. You'd have to start in the six figures before I'd consider picking strawberries or working in a factory. And I really hope that in the future I'm not forced to do so for pennies because there's nothing else available.

    In short, immigration, legal and illegal, is good for citizens. People arguing otherwise using gut intuition rather than data are using the economy as a mask for their real motivations. It remains to be seen if we are going to start caring enough about worker conditions of noncitizens here or overseas to do anything about it.

  • John||

    Citizens will do hard work. And it is a myth that illegal aliens come here to do these horrible jobs most people won't do. Most illegal aliens work in the restaurant industry cooking and bussing tables and such. They are not out picking grapes. In fact, the large-scale agricultural operations that do the kinds of things people associate with illegal immigration, are very closely policed by the feds and rarely employ illegal aliens. Illegals work for small businesses like restaurants and contractors who are too numerous and insignificant to garner the feds attention.

    Illegal immigrants take the jobs and make lives harder for low skilled and younger workers. Think about what we have done to the black community between the drug war and immigration. We throw huge numbers of blacks in jail leaving them with criminal convictions and then fill all of the low skill jobs with illegal immigrants. It is a scheme so nasty the worst Old South racist would be repulsed by it. But that is what we do.

  • Tony||

    So we can attribute our current full employment to Obama's deportation efforts? Shouldn't we not be ramping that up even more in case we end up with a labor shortage? Especially what with Trump focusing on the best of the best who were naive enough to make themselves known. But I suppose we can hire more Arpaios to hunt down the others.

    It's touching that you'd rather see young black people doing hard labor than in prison, but if society treated young black citizens the way it treats white citizens, presumably they'd have the same preferences on jobs.

  • John||

    We don't have full employment. Our labor force participation rate while improving is still way low to call what we have anything approaching full employment.

    And the black community is nowhere near full employment. It has however improved a lot in the last year. And yes, the drop in illegal immigration that occurred after Trump took office probably has something to do with that.

  • Deven||

    If Democrats didn't racially target blacks with their socialist policies, black outcomes would probably be much more like white outcomes and less like any run of the mill socialist country outcomes.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The black folks that don't buy into lefty racist policies seem to do very well.

  • vek||

    Tony, I actually agree with some of what you say in your first post in this thread. But one thing you missed is that during the "golden age" of America we DID NOT in fact have slaves, or masses of cheap immigrant labor, OR Chinese near slave labor. From WWII into the 70s/80s, we were the wealthiest country on earth, we produced most things here, people got paid reasonable wages to do so.

    So we don't NEED near slave labor. Given the massive number of cheap foreign laborers our business class has decided to exploit it, but we were still very wealthy and our system functioned perhaps the best it ever did without any extremely cheap labor.

  • hpearce||

    Assuming Gillespie's still supporting open borders, the STRONGEST argument against illegal immigration is property rights violation - trespassing.

    Open borders requires that all public property in the U.S. like streets , sidewalks etc is public not only to the the U.S. citizenry but also public to the world. This I consider a socialist view of public property given that it is the U.S. citizenry that pays for the creation and maintenance of these projects.

    Without that socialist view, "quests" need permission to be here else there illegal immigration constitutes trespassing on the public property of U.S. citizens

    Of course one can claim that public property is really owned by the state and that it may do as it pleases - but this would force Gillespie to admit that he believes in the concept of state property rights - one that I doubt he does.

    As for me, I reject the concept of state owned property and will take the concept of public property as property owned by the (U.S.) public and only managed by the state.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    As for me, I reject the concept of state owned property and will take the concept of public property as property owned by the (U.S.) public and only managed by the state.

    ...What do you think that is called?

  • ||

    Libertarianism is the state-managed property that we all own together!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Private property and a small limited government governed by the people is more like it.

  • hpearce||

    It means that public property DOE NOT belong to the state but to the public - in this case the U.S. public that pays for the creation of things like sidewalks and their maintenance.

    Immigration into the U.S. without permission will always be trespassing - even if the state violates it duty to remember the property is owned by the U.S. public - not owned by the state or the world public

  • ||

    So the sidewalks that the County poured in my neighborhood are owned by the Federal Government? Was this another Obama executive order?

  • Mark22||

    So the sidewalks that the County poured in my neighborhood are owned by the Federal Government?

    Your county pays for them, the federal government decides who can use them. In particular, the county cannot say that those sidewalks are restricted to citizens.

  • Azathoth!!||

    There are two very different views of the US that are put on display in this debate.

    One is the notion that the US is the property of the citizens, managed by the representatives the citizens elect. It is wholly owned by the citizenry of the US in much the same way as any incorporated group can own property together.

    The other is the notion that there is a mysterious 'state' that has decreed imaginary lines upon a map and employs 'government' to make sure that people can't freely associate.

  • ||

    One is the notion that the US is the property of the citizens, managed by the representatives the citizens elect. It is wholly owned by the citizenry of the US in much the same way as any incorporated group can own property together.

    So, would you call this "Democratic Socialism," or full-blown "Democratic Communism?"

  • Azathoth!!||

    It's called 'Constitutional Republicanism'.

    Who is this other owner you seem to think exists?

  • ||

    Who is this other owner you seem to think exists?

    Owner of Everything? Is it really the case there must be one?

    I own what's mine. You own what's yours. There is no "ours."

  • Leo Kovalensky||

    Because "muh roadz" is the new conservative argument against immigration.

    It used to be "terk er jerbz"

  • Azathoth!!||

    But you seem to think that you get to tell me that I have to allow access to my property any time YOU want to import slaves.

    Sorry, no.

  • GILMORE™||

    Both the concepts of "open" borders and "closed" borders are entirely fictitious. Neither is even remotely possible even if limitless resources were applied to either goal.

    And pretending to be having a debate about these fake polar-opposites is mendacious and serves no other purpose than to distract people from the reality about policy - which is that it will only ever be altered slowly, superficially, for political reasons, and even then not be guaranteed to have any distinct effect. sure, "less" or "more" might happen, but the percent change would be driven far more by factors at the source rather than the destination.

    Immigration is simply a fact: we don't control the ebb and flow of people who come into the US.

    We create huge stupid institutions to be pretending to do something about it, but they mostly don't. But they do cause a lot of probably-unnecessary violence and misery

    There is a good argument to get rid of the huge stupid institutions based on that fact alone. But not because removing them would be some great boon to American citizens.

    Politicians gain power by creating the illusion of control. They wave their hands and pretend that shit that happens (see: stock market) happened because of the hand-waving.

    The 'political' subject of Immigration is no different. Everyone thinks politicians are going to 'do something' about it. They only pretend they can because it makes voters vote.

  • John||

    Unless you are going to claim that even terrorists and invading armies must be allowed to enter the country, then there will always be some form of immigration control. And once you admit that yes, in some cases the government has a right to keep someone from coming here, then you can no longer write off opposing views as invalid. I say some guy from Mexico can't come here. You say he can. Okay, why are your right and I am wrong? Don't tell me it is because he has a right to come here because he doesn't necessarily have one by your own admission. If he were a terrorist or a soldier in an invading army, he wouldn't have a right. So the question is why is it a good idea to let him in.

    Whether letting him in is a good ide are not depends on your values and interests. If that guy is coming to do something for me, it is a great idea. If that guy is coming to make life harder for me, then not so much. It is not that either side is right or wrong in any ultimate sense. Both sides have legitimate claims and interests. What infuriates me about open borders advocates is that they refuse to accept that there can be legitimate reasons to object to immigration, even though they don't find those reasons compelling.

  • GILMORE™||

    not what i was talking about

  • John||

    So what. It was what I am talking about. Yes, there is no such thing as fully open borders. You are right. And that has other implications which I describe.

  • GILMORE™||

    "So what. It was what I am talking about."

    yes, but you're stupid and boring

  • John||

    Wow, you really know how to destroy someone's argument Gilmore. I had forgotten just how cutting and brilliant your logic can be.

  • GILMORE™||

    (shrug)

  • John||

    Get back to me when you have anything to say.

  • GILMORE™||

    I assure you, i have no interest in your opinion.

  • John||

    Then go away and stop talking. That seems to be a good role for you.

  • GILMORE™||

    i think you'd be happier fighting with tony

  • John||

    Tony seems to be making reasonable points today. I am not sure what got into him but he is. You meanwhile are just flinging shit. I guess things really do change.

  • GILMORE™||

    You never change.

  • John||

    No, I don't. I will never tolerate stupidity and never be impressed by people who think platitudes and smugness constitute an argument.

  • GILMORE™||

    I hope you didn't think i was having an argument with you.

    I just don't think what you say had anything to do with my original comment.

  • chemjeff||

    John, going from "the state should stop a very few categories of people from coming in based on specific criteria (e.g. terrorists, armies" all the way to "the state should stop very large categories of people from coming in based on arbitrary criteria (e.g., "Muslims", "day laborers") is a big leap.

  • vek||

    What about people with criminal records, like stealing cars perhaps? That's reasonable no? It's not violent, but it's a potentially pretty big monetary drain on the society, so seems reasonable to exclude them.

    NOW what about letting in people from Mexico with no education as day laborers? Current illegals have an average education of 8th grade equivalent FYI. Somebody with such an education in the USA will make so little money that they, and their family, will have a net drain on the other tax payers that have to make up for their lack of productivity to the tune of 10s of thousands a year... Incidentally no larger than a car thief who steals a few mid sized sedans a year for side cash.

    So why the "moral" distinction between the one person who will have a massive negative economic impact via non violent theft versus via our tax system? Things to ponder... Poor people are a problem every society has to deal with... Importing a known problem seems like a pretty fucking dumb idea.

  • BYODB||

    Agreed. Much would be gained by simply exploding the expansions of the state that occurred over the last 100 years but notably I see that as a virtual impossibility these days.

  • GILMORE™||

    - "I see that as a virtual impossibility"

    politics is called "the art of the possible" for a reason.

    of course overnight change is impossible. but incremental moves in priority areas is.

    my point above (in both places) is that there is an editorial choice here to yammer most about a subject where that is least-likely.

    hell, its least-likely to even prevent it getting worse. if the true motivation were to make gains where gains are possible, this would not be the emphasis.

  • BYODB||

    I agree again. It's simply a fact that the vast majority of American's don't give enough of a fuck about immigrants, legal or otherwise, to make any of the necessary changes that would enable their supposedly preferred end-goal so it's mostly mental masturbation and social signaling.

    It's also why I come into every one of these articles that I see in order to say we should probably focus on those institutions that were erected to hinder immigration over the past hundred years rather than trying to take a shot at the end result of those programs.

    It's just illogical and stupid for Reason to talk about immigration since it's an end result of the system, not a cause.

  • GILMORE™||

    yes, good point

  • Azathoth!!||

    Both the concepts of "open" borders and "closed" borders are entirely fictitious. Neither is even remotely possible even if limitless resources were applied to either goal.

    The Poles seem to be doing a pretty good job of it. Without limitless resources, I might add.

    Frankly, if we were serious about securing our southern border a few snipers could make it clear to all and sundry that crossing anywhere but at a legal crossing is fatal--coupled with a bounty on the heads of illegals and we'd have effectively closed borders without to much expense. And the best think is that we wouldn't really have to do much of it. A few videos of criminals getting their heads blown off in the desert, a big announcement of the bounty(but no actual implementation) on illegal Mexicans, and not only would the crossings slow to a drip--but people would be self deporting like mad.

  • John||

    It is not hard. You just go after employers. If there are no jobs, people have fewer reasons to come and self-deport.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Or they stay with family that has jobs and commit crimes.

  • mpercy||

    You wouldn't even have to pay bounties. Instead, I'm fairly certain that there are people who would pay good money for a license to hunt in the restricted zone. That is, they would pay money to get a chance to be those snipers.

  • BYODB||

    A sick, but entirely true, plan. No one seems to be that serious, and I would add 'thank god' to that.

  • ||

    No one seems to be that serious, and I would add 'thank god' to that.

    Azathoth!! is being perfectly serious. He exemplifies his namesake more truly than he knows.

  • BYODB||

    I didn't read his commentary as a recommendation, but rather an observation of what it would take and an implied statement that no one really cares about it enough to enact the one method that would certainly be effective.

    You could very well be correct, but hopefully he's not an actual psychopath.

  • Azathoth!!||


    Azathoth!! is being perfectly serious. He exemplifies his namesake more truly than he knows.

    Why thank you, little insect, I do try.

    It is a shame that your limited intellect lacks the comprehension needed to note such subtleties as "NO ACTUAL IMPLEMENTATION"--sorry, sometimes, I just have to scream to be heard over the endless piping.

  • ||

    Yes, the Master of Subtlety is Azathoth!!

  • Azathoth!!||

    Such a clever vertebrate!

  • Leo Kovalensky||

    In one single thread, on a libertarian website, we have people advocating snipers shooting whoever dare cross into "muh country" and someone else advocating "going after employers"

    Nationalism is a strong drug...

  • Leo Kovalensky||

    Couldn't we get Mexico to pay for the snipers?

  • vek||

    That's because NATIONS are an important thing. We wouldn't have to have snipers, or anything too draconian on employers to deal with the problem. Just slow steady enforcement and eventually people would realize that since they have a 95% chance of being nailed for illegal immigration within a couple year period, it's just not worth it. We've completely NOT enforced it reasonably, which is why they did it with impunity.

    What if speeding laws were enforced 100% of the time, which they definitely are not where I live, but no extra cops anywhere, just enforcing it every time it is noticed... There'd be a lot more tickets handed out at first, then people would probably stop speeding as frequently. Then there would be equilibrium at far lower rates of speeding. Immigration would be the same.

  • Rhywun||

    And all legal immigrants pay all the payroll and income taxes that native-born Americans do.

    "All"? Not true based on my experience. I've seen a lot of working-under-the-table.

  • John||

    That is just complete horseshit. I am sure some do. Hell, maybe most do. But no way that all of them do. I don't understand why Reason insists on saying such bullshit. The truth that they don't all pay that is not just true but actually helps their point. The reason why illegals don't pay taxes is that they are not recognized under the law. Getting them to pay taxes is a pretty good argument for legalizing them and making them legitimate.

    It is like they have some kind of compulsion to lie and pretend all illegal immigrants are hard-working gay couples who have adopted a handicapped child or something. They lie even when doing so hurts their case.

  • Tony||

    Why does it need to be all? The Social Security Administration receives billions of dollars in payments from employers withholding for people with phony social security numbers, i.e., undocumented immigrants. Either the employers don't know the SSNs are phony or they don't ask questions, but they do see to it that their own paperwork is in order. So that's billions of dollars in from people who likely won't see benefits. They're helping prop up Social Security, and that's just math.

  • John||

    They are also stealing people's identity and tax IDs and causing all kinds of problems. To the extent they are not paying taxes, that is largely the result of their not being here legally. It is the same reason cocaine dealers don't pay taxes. It is hard to pay taxes on proceeds from illegal activity.

    The point is that even if what reason were saying were true, which it's not, it cuts against their argument. If they are all here happily working paying taxes, there isn't much of a pressing need to legalize them is there?

  • Tony||

    Not for people who benefit from the status quo, which is businesses who employ undocumented workers on the cheap, politicians who exploit nativism to get elected, and citizens who get cheap food and clothes.

    I'm afraid we're currently going in the opposite direction of compassion and human rights for what are, in fact, human beings, so need to worry about that. We heard it straight from Omarosa herself. "The round-up plan is getting more and more aggressive."

  • Libertymike||

    Egomaniacal reality TV vixens are now the epitome of credibility, huh Tony?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony wants us to be enslaved, so what do you expect.

  • Tony||

    I didn't see Trump supporters calling for her to be fired from working in the most powerful office in the world. They only turned on her when she started spilling some truth. And we all know she's telling the truth.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Just like Comey.

    Lefties hated him, then loved him, and now just ignore him.

  • Tony||

    All people are complex, neither all good nor all bad. Comey would make a great subject for a modern tragedy, I think.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony, see that's where I differ in you logic.

    Bad people are bad. They want to enslave people. They want to hurt people. They want to take from other people. Hence, the moniker "bad people".

    Good people don't want to do those things.

    I know that you need to justify socialism and its bad history like Hitler and Stalin murdering millions but they were bad. So was FDR for putting Japanese-Americans in concentration camps.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Comey was a shitbird and has probably always been that way. He was bad at his job and deserved to be fired. Obama should have fired him.

    He is spineless, corrupt, and at the least violated his oath of office.

  • Libertymike||

    Not only a shit bird, but a big bird, being 6'8 and all.

  • Mark22||

    I'm afraid we're currently going in the opposite direction of compassion and human rights for what are, in fact, human beings, so need to worry about that.

    There exists no human right to enter or live in any country you are not a citizen of.

    And compassion is something individuals experience; immigration laws don't experience compassion. Furthermore, alleviating your vicarious discomfort at the date of other people through passing laws is not a good basis for public policy because it often increases suffering overall.

  • mpercy||

    And the IRS pays out billions of dollars to ITN-based filers (largely illegal aliens) in child care tax credits that are fraudulent because asking for SSN for kids is racist.

    Forbes:

    According to Senator Coats:

    What we learned is that ... the IRS continues to process tax returns with false W-2 information and issue refunds as if they were routine tax returns, and say that's not really our job. We also learned the IRS ignores notifications from the Social Security Administration that a name does not match a Social Security number, and you use your own system to determine whether a number is valid."

    Commissioner Koskinen was asked to explain this. He suggested that as long as the information is being used only to fraudulently obtain jobs, the IRS was OK with it. In fact, he said that the IRS actually had an interest in helping the illegal immigrants to crook these rules.

  • mpercy||

    Forbes:

    You'll love this next part. The IRS chief tried to distinguish between the various bad uses and misuses of someone else's personal data. It is at least vaguely reminiscent of the flap a year ago that differentiated President Obama and Donald Trump over immigration and taxes. Mr. Trump said illegal immigrants get $4.2 billion in tax credits. A 2011 audit by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration confirmed that individuals who are not authorized to work in the United States were paid $4.2 billion in refundable credits.

    Of course, undocumented immigrants cannot legitimately get Social Security numbers, but it seems the IRS doesn't care. Besides, they can file taxes with an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number. ITIN. They are not supposed to get the Earned Income Tax Credit, but they can receive the additional child tax credit. If the President succeeds in legitimizing the status of illegal immigrants, they could even get the Earned Income Tax Credit that is responsible for billions in fraudulent refunds.

  • mpercy||

    Forbes:

    The recipe goes like this. First, get a Social Security number, then claim the Earned Income Tax Credit for the last three years. Then, wait for the IRS to send you three years of tax refunds. The gambit could apparently work even if you never paid taxes, never filed a return, and worked off the books. And the IRS says this is the way the Earned Income Tax Credit works.

    Cautious IRS Commissioner Koskinen himself explained the seemingly bizarre result to Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) in 2015. Illegal immigrants covered by the President's amnesty deal can claim back tax credits for work they performed illegally, even if they never filed a tax return during those years. This written response clarified the IRS chief's earlier statements, confirming that illegals can get back taxes.

    In 2015, IRS Commissioner Koskinen said that to claim a refund, an illegal immigrant would need to have filed past tax returns. But the IRS chief later corrected himself and said that they can claim the money even if they never filed tax returns in the past. According to the IRS, illegal immigrants granted amnesty and Social Security numbers can claim up to three years of back tax credits.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "I don't understand why Reason insists on saying such bullshit. "

    The Big Lie

  • John||

    One of the great fallacies in this debate is conflating legal immigrants with illegal ones. The fact legal immigrants are as a rule less criminal and more productive than natives is not an argument against immigration control. It is an argument for immigration control in that it is evidence that our current system is letting the right people in.

  • DarrenM||

    Many seem to choose to ignore laws just because they don't agree with it. This undermines the whole point of having laws in the first place. If open borders is that important, are they willing to die for it? Is it better to have laws that must be enforced by the government or laws that the population are OK with and are willing to follow without coercion? This is leading more and more to a society where the only thing that matters is power and the ability to coerce others by force to do what you order them to.

  • EscherEnigma||

    I'll believe that folks against illegal immigration are serious when they start talking about enforcing penalties on employers of illegal immigrants.

    Simple fact is, walls, border patrol, ICE, etc. and so-on... that's all treating the symptoms. You want to put a serious dent in illegal immigration? Go after the reason folks are coming here: jobs.

  • Tony||

    Some employers, I assume, are good people.

  • John||

    I am serious. And I totally agree that the way you stop it is to go after employers. But the wall really isn't about stopping illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants as a group don't come here by sneaking across the border. They usually come here legally on some kind of a VISA and then overstay. The wall is about stopping no kidding criminals who can't get a VISA and so have to sneak in.

    Both sides seem to have bought into the fallacy that the Wall will stop most illegal immigrants or that doing so is the purpose of building it. It won't and doing so is not the reason for doing it.

  • Tony||

    Luckily the worst criminals never heard of ladders or tunnels.

  • John||

    It is a bit harder to do that than you think. Suicide bombers in Israel can't seem to do it despite having a government behind them. So I doubt your typical MS 13 member would fair much better.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Israel also has a much smaller area to wall, mandatory civil/military service for all men and women coming of age, and has no problem killing innocents.

    Those are crucial advantages to militaristically securing a border that we lack.

  • John||

    That is actually not true. Most of the US Mexican border is an impassible dessert. The number of places where significant numbers of people actually can cross is much smaller.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    There is no desert in the USA that is impassable. Difficult maybe but not impassable.

  • ||

    There is no desert in the USA that is impassable. Difficult maybe but not impassable.

    ^ This. And, in my experience, most of the people coming here (to CA, anyway) are coming from those parts of Mexico that are largely desert, so they do okay.

  • ||

    But, as I mention above, if we have an illegal immigrant population that actually has the economic effect that the nativists claim, it's the Chinese, not the Mexicans. And they come in shipping containers. People should be screaming about port security, not border walls.

  • John||

    It is effectively impassable on foot. You can't carry or find enough water to live long enough to cover the distances required.

  • ||

    It is effectively impassable on foot. You can't carry or find enough water to live long enough to cover the distances required.

    You should tell that to the carpenters I used to work with.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Which part is not true?

    The Mexico-United states border is about 1954 miles.
    Israel's west-bank wall is 464 miles, it's Egypt wall is 150 miles, and the Gaza strip wall is 32 miles. Unless I missed one of their walls (and it'd have to be huge), their walls aren't bigger then Trump's imagined "border wall" would be.

    Israel does have mandatory civil/military service. That really isn't controversial.

    Israel is also kind of famous at this point for being willing to accept (not their own) civilian casualities to secure their border. Lacking Mexicans firing rockets into San Antonio, it seems doubtful that Americans would be willing to accept the same from our own government.

    So which part is wrong? And don't tell me about "impassable", Trump made it damn clear that the fence was not acceptable, and that the current gaps in the fence (most of which are in your "impassable deserts") were unacceptable too.

  • John||

    What is wrong is that the people we are trying to stop are not homicidal lunatics backed by a government. So, if a wall works there, it will work here.

  • EscherEnigma||

    But the wall really isn't about stopping illegal immigrants. [...] The wall is about stopping no kidding criminals who can't get a VISA and so have to sneak in.


    Half-right.

    You are correct, it isn't really about stopping illegal immigrants. But it's not about stopping criminals either. What it's "really" about is a symbol folks can latch onto, regardless of the realistic potential for change.

    That said, regardless of what it's really about, it is notionally about illegal immigration. That you've rationalized a different purpose doesn't change that.

  • John||

    To the extent the wall is symbolic, it is symbolic of the fact that the country has a right to control its borders. Open borders people swear the wall won't have any effect. Okay, then why are they so angry about it being built? Sure that would make it a waste of money but the government wastes hundreds of billions of dollars a year on worse things. Hard to see how a few billion on a wall is worth getting angry about.

    So why are open borders advocates so angry about the wall? If it is so ineffective, why won't they give it to Trump in exchange for more legal immigration and legalizing illegals that already are here? Isn't letting more people in in exchange for a wall that won't stop anyone a hell of a good trade?

    They won't for two reasons. One, they are lying when they say it won't be effective. Two, building it shows that the country can and that it has the authority to control its borders, which is something they deny.

  • Tony||

    Angry about the hypocrisy of budget and liberty scolds being super OK with a massive land-grabbing waste of money.

    Angry about building a lasting symbol to an unfortunate period of racist hysteria in America.

  • John||

    So what? Trump is willing to legalize 1.8 million people in exchange for the wall. If you really believe that those people have a right to stay, how can you in good conscience not take him up on that offer?

  • Tony||

    Some Democratic lawmakers have said they're willing to take such a deal. I'm certainly a pragmatist. If you're forced to negotiate with the stupid party, you're going to have to make some stupid concessions.

  • Deven||

    Like building a wall would be the dumbest thing Democrats ever agreed to. Give me a break.

  • EscherEnigma||

    If you really believe that those people have a right to stay, how can you in good conscience not take him up on that offer?


    Just because you're "for" something doesn't mean that it's your #1 priority or that any compromise to get there is acceptable.

  • Deven||

    It has nothing to do with compromise or 20 billion.

    They don't want to give Trump a campaign promise.

    That is their priority.

  • Tony||

    If Mexico doesn't pay for it then he gets no points.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Trump getting his campaign promises accomplished or Democrats being the reason for not accomplishing the promises will still get Trump re-elected in 2010.

  • Deven||

    Which is why if Democrats were smart they would give him the wall, then attack him for Mexico not paying for it, as Tony said.

    Instead, they're going for straight out obstruction. At least when the Republicans obstructed they conned the populace into believing it was on principle. Democrats just seem like toddlers at this point.

  • Tony||

    Latinos are an important part of the Democratic voting base. Not everything is about you.

    Trump's plan simply doesn't have 60 votes in the senate. I'm not sure how many Republicans vs. Democrats would be responsible for that.

  • Tony||

    The only way Trump gets reelected is if the Russians go all-out on his behalf and nobody notices. He's deservedly the least popular president at this point in the history of polling. Despite a mostly good economy. You should be ashamed for backing such a terrible person.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony, you are in for another barrel filling cry session come election 2020 then.

    You are really gonna shit your pants when the Republicans gain 2 more state Legislatures to hold an Article V Constitution convention.

    Trump's great for the USA and has yet to do anything most Americans would call terrible. Pretty much a red-blooded American.

    Now Hillary is a terrible person.

  • Tony||

    I thought you loved the constitution. WTF?

  • vek||

    The reality is the wall WILL work to SOME degree. What if it only cuts the numbers by 10%? That might well be worth it. But what if it is 50%? Definitely worth it.

    No law is obeyed 100% of the time, but putting up barriers DOES often reduce the number of offenses at the margins.

    Not everybody is willing to go all out against a system that is hard to beat. Every extra trouble in the process will hold back a certain number of people. A wall would probably cut down illegal crossings by 10s if not 100s of thousands a year. That would be a win for people who oppose immigration, and it would also probably pay for itself in the taxes saved since the entire LEGAL Hispanic population isn't even net tax payers, let alone illegals which inevitably must have even lower incomes.

  • Ricport||

    After reading this, I'm reminded of that old saying:

    "There are lies, d@mn lies, and statistics."

    As others here have mentioned, the authors totally conflate LEGAL and ILLEGAL immigration. We are a nation of LEGAL immigrants who have abandoned their native cultures, languages, and customs to unite under our common culture, language and customs. If the current crop of illegal immigrants were so eager to do the same, why the healthy proliferation of non-English media, the need for state/local government documents to be translated into a variety of different languages, etc.?

    Is the current immigration system archaic and in desperate need of overhaul? Probably. Is it completely unfeasible to deport all illegals? Likely. Nevertheless, walk into any ER or police station in southern California, and you'll see for yourself that ILLEGAL immigrants are a net burden, and this situation has festered unabated for far too long.

    I'm generally Libertarian, but I'm totally perplexed by a significant segment of the party who are vociferously advocating for non-U.S. citizens who have broken our laws and are living here. Gary Johnson was an especial prick on this subject, using the tired, old cries of racism to stifle any dissent on this issue. I think it's an entirely Libertarian position to demand that our laws and efforts be centered on our own.

  • GILMORE™||

    "'Is the current immigration system archaic and in desperate need of overhaul? Probably.""

    - this is an excellent illustration of how the "pro/anti immigration" debate largely serves to distract people from the reality, which is that what we call our 'system' sucks and needs reform.

    regardless of whether you want "more" or "less", or the stupid reasons why you think we should have more or less (which are generally irrelevant anyway - people are going to come and little you can do has any effect on that)... we can probably agree that reform is needed.

    but that discussion never happens because it is too politically-convenient to use this subject as a political laser-pointer to make the voter-cats run in circles.

  • John||

    No one likes the current system. No shit. But change it to what? If you really believe in open borders, then you don't want it changed to some merit-based system. And if you object to open borders, you likely do. The current system pleases neither side. Most things don't.

  • GILMORE™||

    "But change it to what?"

    incremental change is possible without wholesale reinvention.

    the point of politics is to find areas of agreement. in the case of immigration, most people agree that a huge undocumented population has inherent problems. the achievable political solution is to find some way of making the undocumented, documented.

    the right calls this "amnesty" and the left has their own rhetorical issues with it... both seem happier to leave a bad thing remaining bad because "doing something" carries political risks.

  • John||

    No. You can agree that illegals are a problem but that in no way means you agree on how to solve that problem. You can solve it by making them legal, sure. You can also solve it by deporting them or making life for them intolerable enough that they self-deport.

    Can you deport all of them? Probably not. But there is nothing that says a 100% solution is the only solution. You can likely deport and get enough to self-deport to greatly reduce the problems associated with them. That too is a solution to the problem. And a solution that a good number of people would support.

    Which one is the better solution is a matter of opinion. But, you are wrong to say that there is only one solution or that one solution is what most people would support.

  • GILMORE™||

    ""you are wrong to say that there is only one solution""

    which is why i didn't say that.

  • GILMORE™||

    *noted:

    dealing with the undocumented pop in the us could be done in a political trade-off on borders.

    i.e. right concedes on 'amnesty', left concedes on border

    which, if i recall, was probably the m.o. of the last attempt at 'comprehensive immigration reform' which burned the fingers of the GOP so badly in 2006-2007, and which is why no one even remotely tries to pretend to be doing anything to fix the status quo. its too rewarding simply to posture and do nothing.

  • BYODB||

    Fuck, this is exactly what happened during the Clinton years if memory serves and look how that turned out. A promised wall that still isn't built, but there was a sort of amnesty. I mean, where do you think Trump is getting all these wall delusions anyway?

    Proof positive that such a concession isn't a real concession.

    That isn't a value judgment from me, that's just what happened.

  • GILMORE™||

    -"Proof positive that such a concession isn't a real concession.""

    Maybe you're mistaking these things as 'important and real distinctions' as opposed to mostly symbolic legal gestures.

    I refer here to "the wall" as an idiotic example of a policy that will be expensive, do nothing, but is wildly popular politicially

    similarly, "Amnesty" is a completely horshit concept which remains in denial about the reality of 10-12 million undocumented people living in the US who will never, ever, ever, be deported or leave voluntarily. Many - e.g. the stupid DACA thing - literally know no other country.

    iow, both are completely horseshit.

    the reason each needs to "concede" on each other's horseshit is to enable some sort of meaningful reform of policy structure.

  • BYODB||

    Ah, I misread your point then. There is more than a little daylight between 'amnesty and citizenship' versus 'eternal legal limbo' but, in my view, we already know what such a concession results in: an amnesty and no functional reform.

    It's one reason why Republican's that blow-hard on 'eternal amnesty' aren't terribly far off the mark.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The immigration system is a series of ad-hoc rules and political can-kicking for decades.

    Trump represents a side of this policy and he is pushing to implement that the USA wants to secure its borders. That is a huge change. People can mostly like it or people can hate it.

    It beats the status quo which is that nearly everyone agrees the immigration system is fucked.

    One things for sure. The harder open border people push, the more secure border will win.

  • Tony||

    Open borders is a straw man. Secure borders is a fantasy.

  • GILMORE™||

    an original thought

  • Libertymike||

    Yes, but those two sentences Tony coined are pretty pithy.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    If more secure borders are a fantasy then why are lefties absolutely losing their minds over it?

    If lefties are upset something Trump does, it must be working.

  • Tony||

    They're losing their minds over the Gestapo-like tactics being used to round up, cage, and deport people for being a immigrants from a population with the incorrect amount of melanin in its skin.

  • BYODB||


    They're losing their minds over the Gestapo-like tactics being used to round up, cage, and deport people for being a immigrants from a population with the incorrect amount of melanin in its skin. with illiberal ideals.

    You'd get more traction if you were less of a liar.

  • Tony||

    "You can only immigrate here if you promise to vote Republican."

    I'd say I can't believe I'm reading this crap, except I can.

  • BYODB||

    I can't believe you're reading that either, because no one has said that but you. I was just pointing out that each time you call someone a racist that isn't a racist, you cheapen claims of racism.

  • Tony||

    Der Orange Fuhrer himself said he's fine with people from Norway. Talk about not Republicans. I think there's some sincerity to not wanting more Democratic voters, but it's definitely secondary. I mean... if your ideas are so good, why not just convince them of your position? Socialism isn't in Mexican DNA you know.

    Which is why that laughably stupid position can only be a cover for something else.

  • BYODB||

    So you're saying that someone from Norway is exactly the same with the same values as someone from Pakistan?

    Please, by all means elaborate. Notably, there are more differences than skin tone bro-tini.

    I'm sort of sick and tired of retards referring to dislike of a particular culture as 'racism'. Your culture is notably not a function of your genetics, as far as we know, even while it could have influence.

    Thus it is not an immutable characteristic of your race at all, but rather a summation of your beliefs and nationality which are things we happily debate in America. Fuck.

  • vek||

    Tony, note that most people who want to end illegal immigration don't mind skilled Japanese people moving here? Could it be because they're from a civilized society that has social norms that are similar to ours, and that they seem to mostly fit in well right off the bat, and integrate pretty well?

    Note, Japanese people aren't white. The same can largely be said for Indians... Yet they too aren't white. People have problems with janky ass groups of people that seem to have clear problems they bring with them. I'm part Mexican, and I STILL don't want hordes of half illiterate Mexicans moving here. Tell me it's because I'm racist against Mexicans, I dare you!

    Different places are different. Some fit in better than others. If we'd been letting in nothing but Mexican doctors for the last 40 years, I can assure you people wouldn't have much of a problem with Mexicans immigrating... Likewise if we let in anybody from India, which has a huge fucked up lower class, people probably would have more of a problem with Indian immigration than we do now. Letting in the cream of the crop is what most people want, including black people and Hispanics according to polling! Merit based is widely desired.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Didn't Kenyan King Obama round up, cage, and deport people for being an immigrant?

    Didn't FDR round up and cage people for being Americans of Japanese descent?

  • Tony||

    Yep. They were wrong too.

  • DarrenM||

    The answer is to change the current system legally via the process currently in place, not just ignore it. What's the point of having any laws at all if you can pick and choose which to follow and which to ignore? If a person is serious about wanting open borders, get someone in Congress to offer up legislation to make that a legal reality. Don't whine about it.

  • LynchPin1477||

    We are a nation of LEGAL immigrants who have abandoned their native cultures, languages, and customs to unite under our common culture, language and customs.

    Not really. During the major waves of late 19th century/early 20th century immigration, immigrants often retained their cultures and languages. They had their own neighborhoods with churches, stores, and social clubs run by people from the same country as them. Of course they learned some English and didn't stay in their enclaves all the time, but they hardly abandoned their mother tongues or cultures. Believing otherwise is a fantasy.

    Now, their children almost all spoke fluent English, and some of their parents' native language. They often kept their parents' cultural traditions for a while but also were thoroughly a part of the larger culture(s). And the grandchildren of those immigrants kept very little of their grandparents' language and traditions.

    That's still largely true today.

  • vek||

    Different groups have in fact integrated differently.

    European immigrants mostly integrated pretty quickly. But others, like blacks, STILL haven't integrated, and a lot of it has been their own choice in explicitly rejecting the generic white American culture.

    Hispanics USED TO integrate reasonably well... But it has stalled. I'm part Mexican and from California. Other than my grandpa looking like a little Mexican dude to a decent degree, there was zero Mexican about him. They integrated. So did my best friends family who had come to the USA generations earlier. BUT the new ones have not been, probably because it has been such a large and fast immigration... AND because it has never ceased.

    If Italian immigration had continued at an insane, breakneck pace since forever, I would bet my life that Italians would still be far more likely to live in ethnic enclaves. If having too many come in too fast hurts immigration, as it obviously has from personal experience growing up in Cali, perhaps it makes sense to meter it out a little more! That's not even to mention the Reconquista movement or other elements of some Hispanics that no other previous immigrant group really had.

  • mpercy||

    "Critics of illegal immigration often say that unauthorized entrants refuse to stand in line and wait for their turn. That's true but misleading. For many immigrants, especially low-skilled immigrants from countries such as Mexico, there is really no line. In 2010, for instance, just 65,000 visas were given to Mexicans, with the overwhelming majority going to close family members such as spouses and minor children. The wait list had 1.4 million people on it, effectively meaning there is no chance of ever getting in the country."

    Circular logic. They *have* jumped the line. Telling me how long the line was that they jumped doesn't change the fact that they jumped the line and are demanding to be rewarded for doing so, largely to the determent of those still patiently waiting in line.

    I don't care if we the US were to allow unlimited legal immigration, but I would still have to insist that current illegals return home and apply for their legal immigration. I'm willing to ignore their previous illegal status and the immigration-related crimes they may have committed, but they need to enter the line, stay in line, and wait until they get the paperwork cleared.

  • Tony||

    So we're just going to totally ignore the fact that such a ridiculous demand of people will change their incentives radically? And we're going to spend trillions of dollars to enforce this ridiculous system rather than change the rules a little so that labor supply and demand can meet a little more freely?

  • mpercy||

    You know, it's hard to get a concealed carry permit, too. Takes some effort, gotta go get fingerprinted, get background investigation, wait weeks or months to get the OK or rejection.

    Should people who want to carry a weapon just ignore the law because it's inconvenient?

    We should change the rules to make it easier for those who want to carry to do so so that fewer people feel a need to break the law.

  • Tony||

    People do ignore the law flagrantly. If there were a million people ahead of you in line to get a gun permit with no hope of it ever getting to you, the law would be essentially meaningless.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Luckily, thanks to most Americans following laws the lines are that big.

    Besides, the concealed weapons permits are unconstitutional as the 2nd Amendment prohibits infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.

  • Tony||

    Permits might reasonably be considered to be constituent of "well-regulated."

  • Sevo||

    "Permits might reasonably be considered to be constituent of "well-regulated.""

    Only be imbeciles who think the constitution grants rights.
    Imbecile.

  • Deven||

    Dumbass, "well-regulated" meant well functioning or properly operating in that time period (and still today). Not bureaucrats making rules without representation.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    That term is under the militia part of the clause.

    "Well-regulated" meant properly trained and supplied by the states to fight.

    What else you got?

  • Tony||

    Seems like the amendment isn't at all about people being able to buy guns willy-nilly, doesn't it?

  • Lawn Darts||

    Only if you are confused by the sentence structure. If we change the fraught words to nice words, but keep the same structure, it becomes easier to parse. "A well informed electorate, being necessary to the functioning of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed." Nowhere in there does the first clause preclude reasons not mentioned in the second. For example, it does not forbid non-voters (children, non-citizens) from keeping or reading books for fun. It merely states the authors most pressing reason to acknowledge the right.

  • Azathoth!!||


    Seems like the amendment isn't at all about people being able to buy guns willy-nilly, doesn't it?

    What the amendment is saying is that if the state or federal government wants a well regulated militia, people have to be able to buy the arms they want.

  • GILMORE™||

    "go after employers."

    its like a contest to see who can disavow libertarianism the fastest.

    its not enough that freedom of movement is imperfect and unfortunately requires a modicum of interference; no, we need to go after the productive sector as well

  • Deven||

    I get a little bit annoyed with the purity tests on this subject. Open borders and our current "system" is an anarchist ideal, not a libertarian one. Sure, in libertopia, we'd all be anarchists, problem is that requires the libertarian equivalent of the New Soviet Man, and it requires the entire world to think the same as we do.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Libertarians are still for small limited government, so we're not anarchists.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    No, it's a libertarian one. That's why a recent study showed that 90% of people who self-describe as libertarians are against restrictive immigration policies. Fiscal conservatives who are upset with how badly their party has sold out and who want to hop on the libertarian train -- well, they don't like foreigners, so they introduce these restrictions.

    The bottom line is that free association and economic freedom are central tenets of libertarianism. Conservatives suggest restricting both in order to tackle the immigration "problem". There's really no debate on this subject from a libertarian standpoint. It's ok if you want to side with libertarians on other issues -- none of us would chase you away for it! -- but don't come in with your own nationalist standards on immigration policy and call it "libertarian".

  • BYODB||

    Yeah, that bit always makes me shake my head. As if a private business should also be a tax collector, an immigration enforcer, and a force for social change. How about they just provide products and services that they want to provide?

    It's actually one of the primary reasons why I broke with conservatives on their immigration idea's. What they want can't be achieved reasonably. It just can't. Of course, the same can be said of far-leftists and libertarians so it seems no one actually cares who has a voice.

  • Mark22||

    It is very easy for employers not to employ illegal workers. No additional paperwork or hassles or costs. They don't need to be enforces of anything.

  • vek||

    Basically having harsh laws on the books is a lot like the fact that the IRS audits people... The fear of God is instilled, so most people just don't risk it. The IRS hardly audits anyone, but everyone knows they could be one of the ones they do, so they mostly stay on the up and up. A small handful of enforcement operations against major breakers of the law would make 95% of people only hire legal residents.

    People waaaay overblow the level of police state that would need to exist to cut illegal immigration by 90%+. Seeing how much the numbers coming into the US have dropped just with Trump taking office alone, and NO actual stepping up, shows that it just needs to be a credible threat and it will slow dramatically.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Basically having harsh laws on the books is a lot like the fact that the IRS audits people... The fear of God is instilled, so most people just don't risk it.

    Studies in criminal justice, economics (game theory), sociology, and psychology have shown the opposite to be true. In fact, this year's nobel prize winner in economics was awarded based on the work he's done to describe how people are irrational in this way.

    Harsh laws don't do much aside from increase government spending astronomically, imprison the workforce leading to a net economic drain, oh... and restrict freedom.

    People waaaay overblow the level of police state that would need to exist to cut illegal immigration by 90%+

    Is there a model to describe what you're talking about? Or is this all hand-waving? Because we know what our outrageously restrictive immigration policy costs right now, and we know how incredibly ineffective it is.

    Restrictionists are exactly the same as prohibitionists. Yes, trillions of dollars later we still haven't put a dent in the drug problem, but we need to keep trying!!

  • EscherEnigma||

    (A) I'm not a libertarian, so I'm not disavowing libertarianism as I never "vowed" it to start with.
    (B) That's my litmus test for whether or not to treat someone's anti-immigrant sentiment as sincere or not. If you aren't willing to go that far, then your stated goal is not achievable.

  • GILMORE™||

    EscherEnigma|2.14.18 @ 3:36PM|#

    (A) I'm not a libertarian

    For future reference? I'm never referring to you. ever.

  • Ken Shultz||

    You don't have be a libertarian to think that throwing single moms in jail for hiring someone cheap to watch their kids while they're at work is a bad idea.

    You don't have to be a libertarian to think that throwing an elderly couple in jail because they hired someone to do the yard work they can't do themselves anymore--since hiring illegal aliens is so cheap.

    You don't have to think that throwing people in jail for doing something that doesn't have anything to do with you--like hiring someone to work for them--is stupid.

    If you want to use the government to go after people for things they do to you, nobody's going to criticize that. But thinking you should go fuck yourself rather than using the coercive power of the state to threaten people just because they hired someone else rather than you is stupid--libertarian or no libertarian.

  • Tony||

    You're never going to kill demand for immigrant labor without going after the demand side. Are you so concerned with draconian measures when it comes to the actual immigrants?

  • BYODB||


    You don't have be a libertarian to think that throwing single moms in jail for hiring someone cheap to watch their kids while they're at work is a bad idea.

    But do you need to be a libertarian to think that the single moms that demanded eighty levels of credentialing to watch their snowflakes might be to blame for driving up the costs of watching children to the point where they can only 'afford' someone that doesn't meet any of the regulatory states idea of what a 'legal' child watcher is?

    Is this related to white liberals fleeing places where their preferred policies are enacted?

    Should people be forced to live with the consequences of their own preferred policies?

  • vek||

    Because nobody has ever heard of teenagers babysitting or mowing lawns? Because we don't have a lower labor force participation rate than we have for decades before the Great Recession? Because Mexicans work for $2 an hour, but low skilled native born would demand $100 an hour???

    Gimme a break. My lawn guy for over 10 years was a legal immigrant. He charged reasonable money, but not too crazy. He went away last year, not I have a not so bright white guy who does my lawn. It's a $15 difference, and I'm sure I could have found somebody else who was just the same price as my old one if I had tried, but I have a neighbor who owns a lawn company so I didn't shop around.

    Your benefits are overstated, and the negatives are overstated. The real argument is a lot less severe than in your made up fantasy land of $2 an hour Mexican nannys and $100 an hour native born ones. It's really $35 lawn guy or $50 lawn guy, keeping in mind even the cheaper one WAS A LEGAL IMMIGRANT. You think an illegal Mexican would do it for $5??? Maybe $25, but I doubt even that.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    "They broke the law to get here and they're bringing all their relatives."

    I thought one of the arguments was that they're breaking the law to get here thus jumping ahead of people who didn't.

  • khm001||

    The many reasons Reason erects strawmen and outright lies:

    Strayman #1: NO ONE is "against immigration". People are against ILLEGAL immigrations, which is typically known and invasion.

    1. Bald faced lie #1. "Virtually all economists, regardless of ideology, agree that immigrants, both legal and illegal, have little to no effect on overall wages."

    All competent economists know "overall" is a fools game. All competent economists know the real analysis happens at the margins, hence the marginal revolution. By the basic laws of supply and demand, immigration still lowers wages, even when unemployment is at record lows. Further, labor force participation rates are still fairly low for the past three decades, meaning your unemployment statistic is an example of how to lie with statistics.

    2. Bald faced lie #2: "most legal immigrants and all illegals are barred from receiving means-tested welfare"

    Who cares what a piece of paper says. This is like saying, there can be no cocaine addicts, since cocaine has been prohibited for decades. You're an idiot for even writing the above and an even bigger idiot for thinking others would take you seriously for having written it. The reality, right now, is immigrants are net takers with respect to welfare and in a big way despite the law.

  • khm001||

    3. Bald faced lie #3: "all immigrants pay sales taxes and property taxes"

    Illegal immigrants operate, by definition, in the gray and black markets, where taxes of ALL kinds are not paid.

    4. Bald faced lie #4: "most illegals also cough up income and payroll taxes too"

    The data on this sketchy to say the least. John R. Lott did the most credible research as of late and drew the opposite conclusion. That's what happens when you do real research, using quality data sets, rather than shoddy data sets built from anti-American, pro-illegal assumptions.

    5. Bald faced lie #3: "That's true but misleading."

    The fake, but true line? Fuck you, Reason.

    6. "more foreigners in our midst will destroy American culture because they aren't assimilating the way past waves of newcomers did. The evidence for such pessimism is weak at best."

    Like your "evidence" for bald faced lie #4, you haven't even looked at the evidence. You and your pathetic ilk simply take your assumptions for reality. It is clear by organizations, like La Raza, and actual no-go zones in the US, you're lying through your shitty teeth. Also, all immigrants vote overwhelmingly for policies depriving people of life and liberty. These people immigrate from their shithole countries and bring their shithole politics with them. Almost all these people, legal and illegal, are some flavor of socialists, not believing in economic liberty, much less medical liberty.

  • Tony||

    Should we just have a political belief test on immigrants, or should we go ahead and kick out the citizens who disagree with you too?

  • Lucius Fergeson||

    No, we should just kick you out, Tony, since your just being your old useless self and only attacking the part of the rant you could actually read

  • Tony||

    It's my favorite part though. Let's just not have any principles at all, we want to win elections!

    And old? I'm actually one of those millennials you've heard about. Though that is increasingly approaching old, as things do.

  • Mark22||

    Should we just have a political belief test on immigrants

    No, we should merely test immigrants for whether they are documented, and deport them if they are not.

    or should we go ahead and kick out the citizens who disagree with you too?

    A flat tax, eliminating entitlements, and cutting welfare back to a bare minimum will do, thank you very much. At that point, people like you will recognize the absurdity of your beliefs and change your views.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    3. Bald faced lie #3: "all immigrants pay sales taxes and property taxes"

    Illegal immigrants operate, by definition, in the gray and black markets, where taxes of ALL kinds are not paid.

    I agree with your #2, but I don't agree with your #3. Illegal immigrants DO pay sales taxes which is why I've always advocated for a national sales tax to replace an income tax. yes, they tend to operate in the 'gray' markets, but what IS the gray market. They're buying food at the grocery store, goods at Walmart, toiletries etc. These are subject to sales taxes. Where I do agree is they don't probably pay much in income tax because most are probably paid in cash or off the books.

  • Mark22||

    They're buying food at the grocery store, goods at Walmart, toiletries etc. These are subject to sales taxes.

    They don't pay US sales tax on remittances. Furthermore, I suspect there is probably a thriving underground retail, barter, and smuggling economy as well.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The 5 Best Arguments Against Using Staw Men—and Why They're Wrong

    1) It's irrational

    Who cares about rational?

    2) Change comes from changing people's hearts and values. Straw Men are persuasive for about two minutes.

    Who cares about change? We're into lifestyle now!

    3) Playing to people's base instincts corrupts them, makes them susceptible to further corruption from socialists and authoritarians.

    Playing to base instincts also leads to reproduction!

    4) Willful irrationality is immoral, and libertarianism is at its core a moral philosophy.

    Moral philosophy?! What about butt sex and pot?

    5) Rationality is what makes us distinctive. Without it, we're just like everybody else.

    Trumpkin Alert!

  • J_Brisby||

    Oh no no no no no....

    This is both hopelessly wrong and incredibly naive. For starters, when you say 'all economists agree' that immigration doesn't lower wages, what you really mean is 'all rich people agree'. Of course the people who benefit from a policy will try to tell you the policy is good.

    You might as well believe Marie Antoinette when she says all economists agree the poor should eat cake.

  • vek||

    Right? I painted houses for awhile when I was in my early 20s. I worked with a guy in his late 40s who had painted his whole life, a pro. He said his wages hadn't gone up a penny in about 15 years, and it is painfully obvious that was as the area was flooded with illegal Mexican immigrants. Everything went flat because the Mexicans were willing to work for less. Entry level wages for painting cratered, but old pros like him still made decent money as lead guys, but even their wages had not gone up at all for more than a decade. Supply and demand, their ain't no way around it!

    CEOs, doctors, and engineers don't compete with illegal immigrants, hence their wages haven't been effected. Basically everything that is HS education only probably has been in areas with heavy immigration. It's somewhat naked self interest from both sides as far as the economic aspect of low skill immigration, but I'm inclined to side with the working class since there are a hell of a lot fewer people being hurt is a doctor has to pay a few bucks more for his nanny, etc. Keep in mind I say this as a business owner who LIKES cheap labor, but even I can pull back from the situation and my own naked self interest and see it's kinda fucked.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Right? I painted houses for awhile when I was in my early 20s. I worked with a guy in his late 40s who had painted his whole life, a pro. He said his wages hadn't gone up a penny in about 15 years, and it is painfully obvious that was as the area was flooded with illegal Mexican immigrants.

    Good. Unskilled workers don't deserve special accommodations, protectionism, minimum wage increases, or any other intervention by the federal government based on force. When you do those things, it wreaks havoc with the economy.

    Central planning is a terrible idea. It's a bad idea when the leftists suggest it re: minimum wage, and it's a bad idea when the righties suggest it re: protectionism.

  • vek||

    Ugh. I'm for getting rid of the minimum wage. I'm also for getting rid of the welfare state, which is an even bigger problem as far as labor manipulation issues.

    People like carpenters, painters, etc aren't high skilled like doctors, but they're not unskilled either. I bet I know carpenters who make more money than you do, because they're that good. They're fucking artists. Same with many other jobs you have to learn and get good at, but don't need a PHD to do. Not everybody is cut out to be a rocket scientist, and I don't hate people who are 40 or 50 IQ points lower than me, because they were born that way. They have no other option than learning a skilled trade, because they aren't capable of becoming PHDs.

    The fact that you're specifically saying "Fuck those people over there, I don't care about their interests! I'm pushing for the law that will help out MY financial interests instead!" Is exactly the problem with this shit. Like I said, cheap labor is GOOD FOR ME. But I can still see how the current system, with welfare, and minimum wages, is completely distorting the situation and specifically fucking a large swath of our native born population. It's fucked.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    If someone can do the job for pennies, then they're unskilled. Unskilled doesn't mean that it doesn't take skill to do it. It just means that way more people can do the job than there are jobs. When that's the case, employers should have the right to hire whichever one they want. Asking the government to intercede in the free association between employer and employee is, by definition, manipulating the economy. It's one of the tenets of central planning.

    As I said in another post, this is one of the (many) areas where libertarians fundamentally disagree with conservatives. Conservatives want to use the force of the state to manipulate the country to conform to their world view (white culture preservation, economic protectionism, restrictions on the practice of religion, trickle down economics via taxation and subsidies, incarceration as a solution to the country's ills, etc.). Libertarians oppose all of those things because every single one of them is an affront to the non-aggression principle.

    We can't find common ground with conservatives. Politically, they're the opposition, not an ally. I respect you for coming to a libertarian website and debating with libertarians. It's a pretty gutsy thing to do and not everybody has the stomach for that kind of thing. But you should understand that libertarians don't hold the view they do simply out of self-interest. So I take exception with your accusations that I'm selecting policy based on "what's good for me".

  • vek||

    If we're going to err one way or another with immigration, I'd rather keep wages a smidge higher rather than flood the country to the point of having people making $2 an hour and living in shacks. It's somewhat for my own self interest too, I don't want to have to look at poverty on that level in my country. I don't want to have to worry about getting kidnapped for ransom money, or murdered on the street, or having to live in a gated community just to feel safe. That's Brazil, and half the rest of the world, as it exists now... And the same exact thing would happen here without immigration controls.

    Maybe you do want to live in that situation because you think you'll be big pimpin' still and exploiting the near slave labor... But I'll still call you an asshat for thinking turning the US into a 3rd world shithole is preferable to the way it is now!

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    You've repeatedly made two points. You've said that there is currently a flood of immigrants into the country and you've said that violent crime has increased as a result. But you have no data to back it up. Most studies have shown the opposite to be true.

    You seem to be suggesting in your post above that by making immigration legal, this would suddenly result in increased violent crime. But this makes no sense. By making immigration legal, the only people this would encourage to enter the country are otherwise law-abiding immigrants - the ones who don't want to enter the country illegally now, even though it would be easy for them to do so. So your conclusion is that even though illegal immigrants haven't turned the US into a "3rd world shithole", allowing these law-abiding immigrants to enter would. You'll have to explain that logic.

    The left makes all the same arguments (and logical mistakes) you just did, but they do it on the topic of gun control.
    1) guns are flooding the streets, even though there are overbearing gun laws presently in place
    2) despite the clear failure of gun control laws to be effective, their proposed solution is more gun control laws
    3) they predict that getting rid of gun control laws entirely would make the US a 3rd world shithole, even though the only people that gun control laws effect are people who are law-abiding. Criminals already ignore gun control laws.

    Do you see the parallel between their logical fallacy and yours?

  • EZepp||

    There are two additional considerations not often mentioned regarding our immigration situation.

    Directly opposite the effects of most government policies, in the case of immigration, the costs are localized while the benefits are socialized. Schools and emergency health care are locally funded, and because there are few alternatives, the latter is abused, further inflating the costs borne by the local community.

    Secondly, when someone is illegal, he is unable to enforce the terms of his employment. Abuses result, and being underpaid "off-the-books" is often the result.

    Making (at least) work permits readily available, will lessen the second abuse, while the first will require some cost-sharing at the State and federal level.

  • ranrod||

    Immigration Anarchists' Lies Debunked....
    Illegal aliens are not supposed to work, and knowingly providing shelter for illegal aliens can be construed as harboring and shielding, elements of a felony under federal law, Title 8 U.S. Code § 1324.
    Because humans think with words, control of language ultimately results in control of thought. This was the underlying principle of my recent article, Language Wars, The Road to Tyranny is Paved With Language Censorship.
    "The Big Lie" can alter the public's understanding of critical issues. Immigration has proven to be particularly vulnerable to this tactic. Under that principle, officials intentionally concoct falsehoods and repeat them at every possible opportunity to convince the masses that the lies are the truth. This principle was adopted by Nazi Germany in order to con the German populace into accepting the unfathomable depravity of the Third Reich.

    The "reforming" of our immigration laws for Alan Greenspan and his globalist cohorts is an effort to actually re-form our immigration system to speed the destruction of the middle class.

  • ranrod||

    Schumer has called for creating a federal law with a maximum penalty of 5 years in prison for those who trespass on critical infrastructure or national landmarks. Yet Schumer demands that aliens who trespass on America be granted United States citizenship. A child could see through their lies.
    https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/ 269299/immigration-anarchists-lies- debunked-michael-cutler

  • ranrod||

    THIS SITE HATES LINKS TO BE POSTED

  • ranrod||

    Illegal alien numbers - Youve been lied to for decades!

    Fox News and other sources repeat the same old media/politicial lie of only 11-12 illegal aliens in the USA!!

    Whenever these politicians and the media regurgitate these lies you will know them for their cover up!!

    Univision boasted 50 million
    Retired INS M. Cutler writes of 40-50 million would receive amnesty if ever it is granted...
    Debbie Schlussel writes of 40 million..
    CAPS Study 2007 reports of up to 38 million..

  • BYODB||

    I think they mean 'per year', sadly.

  • ranrod||

    Most Illegal Immigrant Families Collect Welfare - Judicial Watch
    Surprise, surprise; Census Bureau data reveals that most U.S. families headed by illegal immigrants use taxpayer-funded welfare programs on behalf of their American-born anchor babies.Even before the recession, immigrant households with children used welfare programs at consistently higher rates than natives, according to the extensive census data collected and analyzed by a nonpartisanWashington D.C. group dedicated to researching legal and illegal immigration in the U.S. The results, published this month in a lengthy report, are hardly surprising.
    On the other hand, legal immigrant households take advantage of every available welfare program, according to the study, which attributes it to low education level and resulting low income.The highest rate of welfare recipients come from the Dominican Republic (82 %), Mexico and Guatemala (75%) and Ecuador (70%), according to the report, which says welfare use tends to be high for both new arrivals and established residents.
    https://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/ 2011/04/most-illegal-immigrant- families-collect-welfare/

  • buybuydandavis||

    Thank God it isn't Shikha.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "They take our jobs and lower wages."

    "unemployment across virtually all categories of workers is at or near historic lows, so displacing native-born workers isn't much of an issue."

    The overall Labor Force Participation Rate has fallen to levels not seen since around 80, before women fully entered the work force, and currently are significantly below the rates seen through the 90s.
    https://goo.gl/PHK7Y1

    Male labor participation rates are at all time lows, down about 20 points from 1950.
    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300001

    Even women's rates are down from the rates of the 90s and 2000s.
    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300002

    " Virtually all economists, regardless of ideology, agree that immigrants, both legal and illegal, have little to no effect on overall wages."

    The Laws of Supply and Demand are repealed when it comes to Labor, because economists say so. Sounds legit.

    "More important, immigrants grow the population, which stimulates economic growth, "

    Of course if you add working bodies, the *aggregate* economy *including them* grows. If we declared China the 51st state, we could *double* GDP. yay!

  • buybuydandavis||

    The question is whether economic conditions improve *for Americans already here*. And not just the aggregate, *for them*, but even if the aggregate shows an increase, who got the increase? Is *everyone* made better off?

    Last I heard, immigration was a net transfer of half a trillion dollars from workers to owners, plus about 50 billion in extra economic growth.
    https://goo.gl/6XHV8x
    "The immigration surplus of $35 billion comes from reducing the wages of natives in competition with immigrants by an estimated $402 billion a year, while increasing profits or the incomes of users of immigrants by an estimated $437 billion."

    Similar pattern here, with numbers reduced across the board.
    https://goo.gl/GsSNBk

    Why should immigration policy be used to impoverish American workers for the benefit of American capital?

    So, first argument, complete fail.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Why should immigration policy be used to impoverish American workers for the benefit of American capital?

    Left wingers make the identical argument in support of minimum wage laws.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Reason hasn't bothered to deal with the most *important* aspect, which *should* be the most important aspect to Reason as well.

    What effect will immigrants have on the Liberty in the US?

    Shouldn't libertarians care about that?

    How do immigrants vote?

    When you import immigrants, you import their politics with them. The data is clear. And is just as you'd expect. Import people from Big Government political cultures, and they bring their preferences for Big Government with them.

    Immigrants want Bigger Government. Overwhelmingly.

    More immigrants, Bigger Government, Less Liberty.

    PEW Research report on Muslim Americans
    https://goo.gl/qDTvwU
    Muslims Lean Democratic over Republicans over 6 to 1
    Muslims Want bigger government over smaller government over 3 to 1

    PEW Research on Hispanic Americans
    https://goo.gl/WBi1BV
    Hispanics Lean Democratic over 3 to 1
    https://goo.gl/hxSJHi
    Hispanics Want Bigger Government Providing More Services over 3 to 1

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    What effect will immigrants have on the Liberty in the US?

    Shouldn't libertarians care about that?

    How do immigrants vote?

    You could have made the EXACT same argument decades ago to oppose the right of black people to vote.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Also, your data begs the question...

    Why on earth are you assuming that Republicans preserve liberty more than democrats??? Reason has (in my view) done an ample job of demonstrating that Republicans are huge proponents of big government, government spending, the war state, restrictions on privacy, increases in incarceration of its own citizenry, and curtailing 1st, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 10th amendment freedoms.

    I mean, democrats do too...

    A better metric might be to see how likely latinos are to support libertarians. And according to Cato, the answer is that they are twice as likely to support the libertarian.

  • vek||

    The polls done don't even ask R vs D. They ask "Do you want a bigger government that provides more services?"

    And on that question basically all immigrant groups want bigger government, and most natives (white people if we're being honest) want smaller government. The traditional population is literally being overwhelmed in their own country by all the new immigrants. We'd probably still be having Bill Clinton like Ds fighting Ronald Reagan like Rs if we hadn't pumped in so many immigrants from places with no tradition of liberty.

    I'd prefer Ronald Reagan arguing with Ron Paul myself, but I'd take Bill vs Ron over the shit show we have now for sure!

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    And on that question basically all immigrant groups want bigger government, and most natives (white people if we're being honest) want smaller government.

    If most natives wanted smaller government, we wouldn't have the largest government in the history of mankind. The vast majority of those who vote are, in fact, natives. When you analyze the periods in which government grew the fastest (e.g. under FDR's reign), it was natives who were responsible. You can blame the ills of the world on immigrants all you want, but you have nothing to back it up.

    It's interesting though that you cited one of the biggest "big government" proponents in the history of the country, and you want him to argue with Ron Paul? Conservatives truly have no clue what a smaller government actually means. When Reagan, who presided over the biggest increase in federal spending per capita since FDR, did nothing to halt the progress of big government, and vehemently pushed IN FAVOR of government intrusion in the lives of Americans, conservatives deified the guy.

    It tells me that we as libertarians cannot seek an alliance from conservatives such as yourself in the quest to reduce the size and scope of government.

  • Mark22||

    The article is the usual mix of conflating illegal and legal immigration and misuse of statistics. For example, the claim that "they use all these programs at lower rates that native-born Americans" only compares people below 200% of the poverty line, a meaningless observation; what matters is that Hispanic immigrants (legal or not) are generally destined to be poor for generations to come. It is also utter folly for people who ostensibly want the US to become more libertarian to let in large numbers of people into the country who are overwhelmingly statists and socialists; and, no, they are not going to assimilate into small government Americans for many generations to come.

    But there is an even simpler reason I oppose high levels of immigration from third world nations. I immigrated to the US because it was dominated by protestant, Anglo-Saxon culture, with its emphasis on individual liberties and small government. I will exercise my right to vote to prevent that. And if it isn't preventable, I will leave the country because I really don't want to spend my retirement in the kind of leftist third world shithole that some US intellectuals are hell bent on creating.

  • Mark22||

    Correction: "I will exercise my right to vote to prevent that from changing."

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Exercising your vote to protect and preserve US liberty is so statist! And racist!"

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    It's not?

  • Nullus Maximus||

  • vek||

    So much stupid I don't even know where to start. So why not this little gem?

    "The most-vulnerable workers in America are high-school dropouts and economists say that low-skill immigrants from Mexico reduce that group's wages by less than 5 percent—or that they increase drop out wages by almost 1 percent. But it's also true low-skilled immigrants make things cheaper for all Americans by doing jobs such as picking fruit or cleanup on construction sites."

    Literally back to back contradictory statements! If they're not lowering wages... How are they making anything cheaper?????????????? LOLOLOLOL

    So fucking stupid. And somehow Reason resorts to the same nonsense that supply and demand doesn't exist in labor. We have an excess of low skilled labor in the USA today. Millions on welfare, millions who have dropped out of the labor force since the recession. What we need to do is knock these welfare kings and queens off their perch and tell them to go and fucking work... And if they don't LIKE the job, then too fucking bad. We don't have a shortage of unskilled labor, we have bad incentive systems in place.

  • vek||

    I've said it before, but I'll say it again: All of you utopians are DREAMING. The perfect multicultural future you believe will exist in your heads is pure fantasy. Look at the history of mixed ethnicity/culture societies. They're ALWAYS embroiled in endless infighting politically, and usually eventually actual bloodshed. Look at what is ACTUALLY happening today. The amount of white hatred is through the roof, and it is only getting worse. Almost everybody here on this board is a white male, pushing for what will amount to a living hell for future generations of people like yourself.

    I am 32, most of you are older and will dead by the time the worst comes to pass probably. But I won't be. You think things are bad now, imagine when whites are 50% of the population. Then 40%. You think that magically once we're a minority who doesn't hold all the power that everybody else will magically start being civil and nice??? Hell no! Many are openly calling for REVENGE now, and this will only increase as non whites gain the upper hand politically. This is REAL WORLD politics, not dream land.

    Whites won't be getting any minority protections, like we so kindly granted to everybody else when we were the majority. They'll keep sticking it to us, only 10x harder because they'll hold the power. THIS will be the reality that your kids and grand kids will be living in because of your lack of knowledge of history and ignorance of all of the signs of what is to come that are right in your face.

  • vek||

    This is on top of all of the other non race related issues to low skill immigration from the third world. Wake up from your utopian vision. It was a nice thought to try, but it is clearly failing. You stop failed experiments, not double down!

    Thankfully I can always bust out "But I'm part Mexican!" which I had to do as a child growing up in California to avoid getting harassed by Mexican gang bangers. SOMEHOW even these color blind, woke, non whites magically completely changed their opinion of me upon finding out I share some blood with them... Wonder what's up with that? I mean non whites can't be racist, so it just TOTALLY confuses me...

    People without this cop out won't have that card to play in 2060 America. It's gonna be a shit show. Any of you still alive when this all comes to pass remember I was smarter than you and warned you when America was still savable.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Thankfully I can always bust out "But I'm part Mexican!"

    You really can't. That has always been a logically bankrupt position. Some of us even make jokes about it when we sardonically say things like "Some of my best friends are black." It's poking fun at a logical fallacy.

    People of Mexican descent have historically been one of the groups that harbor the most racism against Mexicans.

  • vek||

    You can say that all you want, but I know for a FACT because it happened to me PERSONALLY, that once I told Mexican bangers my moms side of the family is part Mexican, suddenly they stopped being hostile and were cool with me. Why is that? It's obviously human nature at play, ethnic unity/preference/affinity whatever you care to call it.

    They will not have that same affinity to a blond guy with blue eyes who doesn't tan well like I do. The left/cosmotarians ignore that whites aren't the only group that have in group preference... ALL groups do. Blacks and Mexicans in the bad parts of LA get along about as well as cats and dogs... Maybe some cats and some dogs will cuddle, but most of the time the dog will try to chase the cat down and murder it for fun. That's the real world dude. You live in a fantasy, and all the examples you use of people living perfectly together are the statistical outliers.

    People self create ethnic enclaves because they prefer being around their own. That the USA is going to turn into 15 different parallel cultures that hate each other doesn't seem to bother some... But look at how much trouble was caused by having only 2, namely Europeans and blacks. Now imagine those frictions on steroids. That's the future that is coming. You heard it here first!

  • vek||

    And it's not just with gang bangers either BTW. I've had peoples interest in me change 180 degrees almost instantly when talking to Mexicans and it comes up that I'm part Mexican. All of a sudden people go from being neutral to being totally into talking to you etc. I've had Mexican chicks instantly become interested in me over this, as ridiculous as that sounds. In Washington where I live now it used to be pretty sparse as far as Hispanics go, so that probably made them even more likely to glom onto anyone who was not a straight up blanco.

    Maybe you're not part minority of some sort so you've never been able to see this first hand... But if you think black people don't treat other black people, or even 1/2 or 1/4 black or whatever differently than straight up white folks... You're high. They do. So do Mexicans, Asians, everybody does.

    I look white enough that when I don't have a tan most people wouldn't guess I'm Mexican off the bat (although Italian does come up), but I look tan enough that people aren't surprised either. This has 110% made a real and noticeable difference in my interactions with Hispanics my entire life, even though I don't speak Spanish and mostly consider myself white. It's real world shit yo.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    But if you think black people don't treat other black people, or even 1/2 or 1/4 black or whatever differently than straight up white folks... You're high. They do. So do Mexicans, Asians, everybody does.

    Of course they do. That wasn't my point. My point was that you can be both Mexican and hold racist attitudes against Mexicans. You can be black and hold racist attitudes against blacks.

    [note the rampant ethnic superiority in the black community re: skin color and country of origin...]

  • ||

    None of these are the best argument against immigration. None of them are even close.

    The best argument against immigration is a simple one: Immigrants overwhelmingly vote for big government.

    The power to control naturalization is one of the few that are actually within the Constitutional limits of the federal government, that it actually has the authority to use.

    When it isn't, then you have your cause for the unconstitutional single-payer healthcare, and more of the plethora of big-government programs that are going to be coming in in the next few decades.

    It's not as if it's a panacea, the populace is still too hooked on the idea of big government, have been ever since the Depression, or the Progressive movement before it, but the more liberal the immigration policy, the more liberal the growth of government is going to be.

  • ||

    (And before anyone comments, this has nothing whatsoever to do with race. Europeans from socialist France naturalizing in the United States aren't voting for a smaller, Constitutional government either.)

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    The best argument against immigration is a simple one: Immigrants overwhelmingly vote for big government.

    Then why not advocate to expel black, gay, and Jewish people from the country? If your goal is to reduce the number of people who would otherwise vote for big government, that seems like a far more effective approach.

    Another approach would be to just accept immigrants into the country but not allow them to vote. Then you don't have to deal with the cognitive dissonance of advocating for a big government program in an attempt to reduce big government.

  • vek||

    1. I think many people would be MUCH more okay with temporary worker permits than permanent citizenship. But the political class seems unwilling to discuss such an idea, both sides of the isle.

    2. As far as booting people out, that would in fact probably be the only way to fix the country in any reasonable period of time. Thing is those people were born here, and are citizens. So throwing people out of their country of their birth, where their parents were legal citizens is a faaaaaaaar more morally fucked up thing to do than to simply not allow in undesirables in the first place.

    Think about it like this. You have kids. One of them ends up being a crack head. FUCK, that sucks. But you have to deal with them... BUT do you have a moral obligation to ADOPT a crack head, knowing full and well they're going to be a problem before you make the adoption? NO. That's ridiculous.

    "Forcing" people to stay in their country of birth is an entirely different thing than throwing people out of their country of birth. Anyone who trys to say they're the same is a stupid fucking moron. Seriously.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    I think many people would be MUCH more okay with temporary worker permits than permanent citizenship.

    Ok. Now we're getting somewhere. But how about instead of "temporary" we make it permanent, and instead of "worker permits" we just make it permits. And while we're at it, we should cut out all the red tape and bureaucracy associated with getting licenses, permits, and all the other nonsense we seem to love in America.

  • ||

    this may not seem related but it is...

    the Libertarian Party's biggest problem?

    fanatical, nearly maniacal atheism, an unreasonable and illogical aversion to anything that comes close to a moral code based on a belief in any form of a higher power.

    like modern Democrats they demand that there be no moral limitations

    and this is why they can't have nice things or be allowed to play with sharp objects.

    how do this relate to the topic at hand?

    because this is another issue where Libertarians fail to understand or acknowledge the moral bankruptcy of their position.

    it is not moral to ask people to commit cultural genocide on themsleves.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    It's not moral bankruptcy. We just reject the notion of "cultural genocide". That was covered in point #5 of the article.

  • vek||

    But it is cultural genocide.

    If we had open borders in the USA, we would probably get faaaaar too many immigrants to integrate. Maybe it'd be 5 million a year. In 1 decade as many as the previous 50 years. Imagine the 2nd decade of that, or the 3rd. We couldn't absorb that. Everything that America traditionally stood for politically would surely get kicked to the curb. Many non whites are already endlessly screaming about not only getting rid of Lee statues, but Washington and Jefferson because they're evil white slave holders. Would America be America if we literally scrubbed Thomas Jefferson from our history to please non whites???

    It would only slow when America was as poor as the places the people were coming from. That wouldn't be a bad thing?

    You literally are delusional. Just because you WANT something to work a certain way, doesn't mean it's going to. I WANT the multicultural utopia to work the way the left and you do... It would be awesome. But it's simply not going to happen. It's against human nature, and history shows it will never work. You can't believe something when all the evidence points to you being highly likely to be wrong.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    But it is cultural genocide.

    So?

    If we had open borders in the USA, we would probably get faaaaar too many immigrants to integrate.

    1) Who cares? Integration is overrated.
    2) If the borders are as porous as restrictionists like to present it, then we shouldn't expect a dramatically higher influx of immigrants.

    I WANT the multicultural utopia to work the way the left and you do...

    A multicultural utopia may be one of your goals, but it's not one of mine. The difference between you and I is that you want to use the power of the state to cage people innocent of harming others, and you want to steal my tax dollars to do it. If you're going to embark on a policy of caging people, at least pay for it yourself.

  • Kroneborge||

    So extra supply of labor doesn't suppress wages? The laws of economics have been repealed, hooray!

    Also, most of us care about per capita GDP growth not just GDP growth

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    And many of us care about neither.

  • John Rohan||

    I take strong issue with several of these statements, but the article ignores the #1 argument against immigration, at least in the United States. WE ALREADY HAVE 312 MILLION PEOPLE HERE!!!!!!

    Every serious environmental study says that the US is already well over it's environmental carrying capacity. And I'm not just talking about carbon emissions. The biggest problem is lack of fresh water, especially in the SW USA, where the water tables go down every year and so the situation is not sustainable for the population there now, much less an increased population in the future.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Environmental scare tactics don't (and shouldn't) work. All of the things you've said are as untrue as the notion that we will all die because of automobile emissions. And I'm not a "climate change denier" by any means -- but I know sensationalism when I see it. And this idea that we're going to run out of water and there's nothing we can do to stop it aside from getting rid of people is a little nutso.

    But let's say you are correct, and that we face a massive and imminent crisis of fresh water and carbon emissions. Do you honestly think that the most efficient and effective way to deal with that problem is to spend trillions of dollars -- not on fixing the problem directly -- but on restricting immigration? That's like trying to fix roads in disrepair by enacting a massive government agency to force people to sell their cars.

  • vek||

    God you're so dense! Changing immigration policy WILL NOT cost trillions of dollars a year. People keep saying that, but we could fix the problem with the budget that we presently have, if we actually cared to enforce the law.

    As far as the environment, I hate hippies. Most of their doom and gloom stuff environmentally is nonsense.

    But it is a fact that large parts of the country, namely the Southwest, ARE beyond their carrying capacity. We would have to spend tens or hundreds of billions of dollars on infrastructure to create the greatest series of aqueducts in the history of the world to support population growth there. We could do it, and I would say we probably should do at least some amount of that stuff. But increasing the population dramatically WILL put more strain on the environment.

    I'm not a tree hugger. But I don't think the USA would be a BETTER place if we had saaay 600 million people here, or 1 billion. The traffic, the loss of a lot of nature for more farmland, houses etc would not be awesome. It wouldn't be the end of the world either, but it's not a plus to me or most current Americans. This is OUR country, and we have no obligation to make it crappier for ourselves so that some foreigner can have a better income. That's the kind of altruism Ayn Rand wouldn't have been keen on.

    Let Mexicans fix their own country so it doesn't suck. Somalians can do the same! We can't save the whole world, other people have to fix their own shitholes sooner or later.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Changing immigration policy WILL NOT cost trillions of dollars a year.

    Please don't set up strawmen. Nobody said "per year." I'm happy to respond to your rebuttal if you give it another shot and not intentionally warp what I said.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Critics of illegal immigration often say that unauthorized entrants refuse to stand in line and wait for their turn.

    The "stand in line" analogy is inherently flawed because it's an artificial line. A line is something that forms when there are more people than can be processed. You stand in line at the bank because the bank decided not to employ enough tellers to accommodate the rush. They do this because the rush is dynamic -- it's slow at some parts of the day and fast at others. The immigration rush is less dynamic and far more predictable. The government could employ more "tellers" to process immigrants more quickly, but they don't. And that's on purpose.

    Some immigration proponents suggest hiring more "tellers". Others suggest making the process more efficient so that the same number of "tellers" can process more people.

    Libertarians suggest getting rid of the lines altogether. So when somebody objects to immigrants "cutting in line", we have the perfect answer for them. Self-service.

  • vek||

    And working class and middle class people are supposed to jump on board with the idea of seeing their standard of living slashed? Why exactly?

    You can debate all day long about limited amounts of immigration... It's hard to get exact stats that are solid on how much it changes certain things like wages, etc with any precision. General ideas maybe, but precision is tough. But true open borders would have such a flood coming here that denying it would dramatically reduce wages for low and mid skill employment is completely disingenuous.

    We would look just like Mexico, or Brazil, or India if we had that. Large teeming masses of poor, a smallish middle class that is far poorer than they are today, and a super wealthy upper class. This MAY be desirable for some of the upper class, because their money would go farther. But it's horrible for everybody else.

    Cooks at restaurants would be earning a buck or two an hour, living in buildings that would barely be considered a decent shed by todays standards. Mid tier jobs like being an entry level accountant might pay $15-20K a year! So you might be able to afford a used sub compact car, just like the middle class in most of the world. No more loaded Ford Expedition or BMW 3 series for you mister!

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    And working class and middle class people are supposed to jump on board with the idea of seeing their standard of living slashed? Why exactly?

    Because of free market principles. Employers shouldn't be forced to overpay employees because the government artificially is engaging in favoritism and protectionist policies. If another worker is willing to do the same job for a lower price, then an employer should have every right to hire him.

  • vek||

    It literally couldn't even work with all the laws and standards we have for wages, building codes etc... But those might finally be axed (win!) for all the wrong reasons if under the table employment were so huge the market demand for shanties couldn't be denied anymore.

    Even many in the upper class or upper middle class, people like myself, would still prefer NOT to live in a country filled with shanty towns, and people getting kidnapped for ransom money like in Brazil. I don't want to have to hire 5 $2 an hour body guards to follow me around everywhere so I don't get murdered or kidnapped. I don't want to HAVE to live in a gated community to feel safe.

    This is the inevitable result from true open borders. Equilibrium would be reached with the rest of the world in terms of wages. There is no other possibility in a truly FREE MARKET of labor internationally. Most people DON'T want this outcome, which is why people are against it.

    If you want that lifestyle, move to most of the rest of the world where it is already like that, and leave us alone!

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Everything you said = central planning.

    Your attempts to improve the US all require force. They require restrictions on movement. They require taxation. And they require intervention in the economy.

    I understand that this is an axiomatic difference between libertarians and conservatives. Libertarians are opposed to central planning, even when central planners claim that there will be a positive outcome. Conservatives, on the other hand, are huge proponents of central planning. This is a fundamental difference that you and I are never going to see eye to eye on. I'm afraid you'll find that my stance is pretty rigid on the topic of central planning, but it's for good reason.

  • coper||

    not a real top 5 list, followed by false arguments. plz keep dailybeast out.

  • Ted Striker||

    To say that family based immigration consist almost exclusively of citizens bringing spouses and minor children is simply not true. Yes, the spouse/minor children cohort is the largest, but it hardly represents almost all of family based immigration.

    Over 200,000 legal immigrants come via other categories of family based visas, and that doesn't include the parents of citizens, which for some reason the authors omitted from their dismissal of chain migration concerns. Add that group to the previously mentioned 200,000 and it's close to 400,000 a year. That's a far cry from what the authors suggest is an insignificant number.

    Also, the authors leave out one of the best reasons to reduce immigration, which is that it would lessen the annual influx of future Democrats. While libertarians may or may not agree with the Left's judicially imposed social and cultural agenda, it's my understanding that they largely still support a smaller and less intrusive government (again, unless the intrusion is to force bakers to bake that cake, in which case they may be for it). But the polling data is clear that most Hispanics and Asian Americans support a bigger, more activist government. It's one of the major reasons they consistently vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. There is no reason to expect that to change. So reducing legal immigration would lessen the influx of those who will never support a libertarian agenda.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    But the polling data is clear that most Hispanics and Asian Americans support a bigger, more activist government. It's one of the major reasons they consistently vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. There is no reason to expect that to change. So reducing legal immigration would lessen the influx of those who will never support a libertarian agenda.

    As I pointed out in another post, you're conflating two things. You assume that conservatives and libertarians are on the same team. Otherwise, you would have replaced the word "libertarian" above with "republican". The way it stands now, it doesn't make sense.

    From a libertarian's perspective, immigrants are more likely to support a libertarian, so then -- according to your logic about stacking the deck to achieve political gain -- libertarians should be encouraging immigration. Which works out nicely, because they are.

  • Ted Striker||

    Also, analysis of welfare mass use should look at the whole range of public assistance programs across state and federal levels, and should consider welfare that is accessed by citizen children in immigrant headed households.

  • ||

    Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everyone.Work for three to eightt hrs a day and start getting paid in the range of 5,260-12,830 dollars a month. Weekly payments.54u
    Find out more HERE

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homework5.com

  • macsnafu||

    Oh, look, the anti-immigrationists are crapping in the comments again. Why don't they go back to the statist conservatives, and leave real libertarians alone?

Click here to follow Reason on Instagram

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online