Bryan Caplan Says Milton Friedman Is Wrong About Open Borders

The George Mason economist partnered with Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal's Zach Weinersmith to offer a thoughtful look at immigration policy in comic form.

Katherine Mangu-Ward | 11.27.2019 2:45 PM

HD Download

George Mason economist and recreational controversialist Bryan Caplan has teamed up with artist Zach Weinersmith of Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal fame for one of the most ambitious crossovers in nerd history. The result of their partnership is a surprisingly readable visual case for open borders, in which a cartoon Caplan grapples with zombies, hangs out with basketball players, and quarrels with Milton Friedman.

The arguments in Open Borders: The Science and Ethics of Immigration are rather sophisticated and extremely entertaining—much more so on both fronts than skeptics of the genre might expect.

Of particular note is a lively debate about Friedman's claim that "you cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state," and other libertarian arguments against open borders. The bespectacled cartoon Friedman looks enough like Caplan himself that Weinersmith has distinguished the two by draping a Nobel Prize around Friedman's neck, a charitable gesture to the person he's arguing against.

Katherine Mangu-Ward sat down with Caplan to talk about why he can't stop picking fights, common arguments against open borders, and what his family owes to immigration.

Camera and intro by Meredith Bragg. Additional camera by Austin Bragg. Edited by Ian Keyser.

photo and music credits:
"Backbay Lounge" by Kevin MacLeod (https://incompetech.com)
License: CC BY (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
photo: Christina Xu CC 2.0

NEXT: Judge Napolitano: Enough Evidence 'To Justify About Three or Four Articles of Impeachment'

Hide Comments (232)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

Brett Bellmore 5 years ago

I'd certainly be interested in how Friedman is "refuted" on this point, his reasoning is pretty solid.

Log in to Reply
1. mad.casual 5 years ago
  
  It's pure sales schlock.
  
  Reason already ran some pages from the book and even the sales pitch on the content is packed with lies. The arguments are 'rather sophisticated', but actual book's composition and content barely rise to the sophisticated end of the comic book genre.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Chipper Morning Wood 5 years ago
    
    Let's not pretend any arguments would lead you to change your opinion on this.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. mad.casual 5 years ago
      
      I'm not pretending. I refuse to accept poorly written cartoons as sophisticated arguments.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. Halykan 5 years ago
        
        I've read the entire book. I think it's quite well argued for the compressed format it's placed in, but it includes a copious bibliography with a lot of notes detailing how certain conclusions were reached based on the evidence, if you're curious.
        
        As a side note - Caplan isn't arguing in favor of a welfare state here, his argument is simply that Friedman is incorrect in saying that our current level of public benefits couldn't coexist with unlimited immigration, simply because the economic benefits of immigration would produce far more revenue than the additional costs in benefits. Thus, his broader point is that we could reform immigration without having to also tackle our welfare state.
        
        Personally, I think we should hit both, and I prioritize the welfare spending over the immigration, but I think it's reasonable to disagree on this point.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Hannah Teter 5 years ago
        
        As a side note – Caplan isn’t arguing in favor of a welfare state here, his argument is simply that Friedman is incorrect in saying that our current level of public benefits couldn’t coexist with unlimited immigration, simply because the economic benefits of immigration would produce far more revenue than the additional costs in benefits.
        
        Which is, of course, patently untrue and has been demonstrated as such in many studies, as well as by simple government demographic data.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        XM 5 years ago
        
        If you think welfare state (as we commonly use that term) is compatible with open borders, then you believe that immigrants are a infinite or reliable source of revenue that will fund the very programs libertarians fear will bankrupt future generations.
        
        This is the kind of rationale the liberals use to advance their utopia. Who funds medicare for all? Some billionaire in some corner of the country. Slap a super wealth tax on him and he pays for everything, but the middle class won't have to pay a cent.
        
        How can a welfare state coexist with open borders? The welfare state will not allow free market solutions that will address housing shortage created by population increases. The welfare state will crack down on the gig economy and other innovation that will sustain the foreign population, in a time when brick and mortar are going away. The welfare state pays out 3 times what they take in.
        
        Convince that unlimited immigration will seriously decrease the deficit. Make the argument. The closest thing to that is this notion that immigrants fund social security programs, even though that program pays out more than it takes in.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        MoreFreedom 5 years ago
        
        What I heard Caplan say in the video was that our level of welfare wouldn't break the bank. Not very reassuring IMHO, nor is that inconsistent with higher taxes (or other reduced government services).
        His best argument IMHO, is why government should have the power of prohibiting immigration anyway, and if we give it power over who can live here what power won't we give it. He makes good enough arguments to interest me in his book, but I'm not convinced.
        
        I think it's reasonable to prohibit convicted criminals from immigrating, and to deport recent immigrants who do commit crimes against people, because government's purpose is to protect us from them. Is it unreasonable to quarantine an area with a dangerous contagious disease? Limiting government to protecting us from people who'd harm us (a libertarian position IMHO) is consistent with restricting immigration. This counters Caplan's argument that if we give government power over the borders we'd give it any power.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        mad.casual 5 years ago
        
        I’ve read the entire book.
        
        I red the six panels posted in Reason. In the ~10 sentences contained in those half-dozen or so panels the writing managed to conflict with itself twice and concoct an absurd analogy that 10-yr.-olds wouldn't buy. And this was, presumably, a highlight.
        
        Log in to Reply
    2. Ryan (formally HTT) 5 years ago
      
      Real open borders and a welfare state has never been tried
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. Hank Phillips 5 years ago
        
        But suicide has. Uninspected entry is the sort of plank that needs to be in a looter party platform, not the LP's. The most damaging act of naked vandalism against the LP since the late 1980s has been the 2017 infiltration of the Platform Committee by a Dalmia clone to cause the LP to endorse uninspected entry of terrorists, infected cattle and plague vectors.
        
        Log in to Reply
      2. Brett Bellmore 5 years ago
        
        I don't have to ask if swallowing a pound of cyanide would kill me, once I know an ounce will make me deathly ill. Even sorta open borders interact terribly with welfare states.
        
        Log in to Reply
    3. Nardz 5 years ago
      
      Will any arguments change your opinion on this?
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. Metazoan 5 years ago
        
        I know this isn't directed at me, but given that I think I share CMW's view on immigration, I will answer as well. An argument that changed my mind on this issue (ie, to become pro-closed-borders) would basically have to change my mind about the fundamental moral sovereignty of the individual.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Vernon Depner 5 years ago
        
        Most of us would prefer not to put our country in a suicide pact with your devotion to the "fundamental moral sovereignty of the individual".
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        BigT 5 years ago
        
        The moral sovereignty of the individual resides in that person’s ownership of him/herself, and the fruits of his/her labor, I.e. property rights. People can share ownership, as a couple who own a house, partners who own a company, or citizens who own a country. So illegal immigration is immoral since it infringes the people’s sovereignty.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Chipper Morning Wood 5 years ago
        
        So if I want to invite someone from Iran to live in my house, who are you to infringe on my moral sovereignty?
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Vernon Depner 5 years ago
        
        At one time in this country, we were allowed to bring in people from other countries and confine them to our houses. It was called "slavery". Now, if you are planning on harboring someone from another country in your home whom you expect to have the run of the entire country as if they were a citizen or legal resident, then you need to consult with the rest of us, by following the rules we have set through our democratic institutions regarding entry of foreigners and immigration. You do not enjoy "moral sovereignty" over a decision that belongs to all of us.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Halykan 5 years ago
        
        Saying the decision belongs to "all of us" is some slick statist sophistry. It correctly belongs to each of us, insofar as we choose to allow or disallow a person on our private property. You have no ownership interest in my property, and thus have no authority to tell me who should be allowed to be there.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Red Rocks White Privilege 5 years ago
        
        I have ownership in it if they're taking advantage of taxpayer-funded programs. When a school goes from 25% free/reduced lunch use to 75% in 20 years thanks almost solely to Central American immigration, you damn well better accept that people who are paying for it are going to tell you to fuck off with your false argument about what you're allowed to do on your "private property."
        
        Vernon Depner 5 years ago
        
        Correct. Once they are in our country legally, the rest of us have no right to tell them who they may or may not visit. The decision to admit them to the country, however, is a national decision that should not be arrogated by on property owner.
        
        NOYB2 5 years ago
        
        The US is not a libertarian country and you don’t have absolute ownership in your house; you have obligations to your city, state, and country, and in return your city, state, and country have obligations to you and anybody in your house.
        
        In a libertarian country, you probably still wouldn’t have absolute ownership in your house either, since you would be bound by numerous covenants. In a libertarian world, roads and HOAs would likely require personal liability insurance, health insurance, and anti-terrorism insurance from anybody before being permitted on property.
        
        What you want is more like the post-socialist state according to Marx. Well, that’s not feasible, sorry. And it’s certainly not libertarian.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        chemjeff radical individualist 5 years ago
        
        If citizens actually "own" the country, as in exercise property rights over it, then that negates the very existence of individual property rights.
        
        Do "the citizens" own the house I live in? Do they own me?
        
        This whole "citizens owning the country" thing sure sounds awfully communistic.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        JoeB 5 years ago
        
        So you must be in favor of voluntary taxation? Or you just don't pay any taxes. Or you're so effing rich you have a lower tax rate like Pelosi, you send your kids to private school, and won't ever need an emergency room.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        chemjeff radical individualist 5 years ago
        
        What exactly is your argument? That property taxes are just because the citizens actually own my property, not me? Is that what you're trying to argue?
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Last of the Shitlords 5 years ago
        
        Fuck off you Canadian pederast.
        
        BigT 5 years ago
        
        If citizens actually “own” the country, as in exercise property rights over it, then that negates the very existence of individual property rights.
        
        Not at all. You have title to your piece of land, but any land not titled to an individual or group is owned collectively by the citizens, and our representatives determine how to manage it. Think of the public space as a country club; the members may own it, but a board runs it.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        NOYB2 5 years ago
        
        This whole “citizens owning the country” thing sure sounds awfully communistic
        
        Well, we don’t live in a libertarian society. In our society, we have one arrangement of property ownership, political power, and government services. A libertarian society has a completely different one. You can’t mix and match and end up with a working society.
        
        In a libertarian society, you would probably not “own the house” either; instead, all properties would be bound up in numerous covenants and restrictions, many of which would restrict who you can bring onto your property.
        
        Libertarians isn’t the absence of restrictions, it’s the substitution of private, contractual restrictions for politically chosen governmental restrictions. But restrictions exist either way.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Hannah Teter 5 years ago
        
        It's hilarious that you live in a fucking commonwealth country and have absolutely no clue what fee simple title is or how it is differentiated from allodial title.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        NOYB2 5 years ago
        
        Hannah, do you have an actual point to make it do you just like to spout off legal terms for no good reason?
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Echospinner 5 years ago
        
        So anything the majority of citizens are in favor of since the “own the country” is OK then right? In any case the citizens do not collectively own anything. Nobody owns the government which is a system of laws, not property. Government is granted power as agents of the people to pass and enforce laws. Those can include immigration laws which can be changed any time.
        
        Many laws are immoral or undesirable and we seek to change those. The debate on immigration rests there with very different opinions on both sides.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Nardz 5 years ago
        
        Government is a meaningless concept without control over defined territory
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Echospinner 5 years ago
        
        You can have government without sovereignty it is just a matter of enforceability. From the point of view of China , Taiwan is not sovereign and importantly is not recognized as such officially by the international community. Yet it has a functioning government and on a practical level acts as a nation state.
        
        It also does not preclude a discussion of more or less restrictive control over borders and the status of those individuals.
        
        I favor a far more open system. One in which a path to citizenship is clearly defined. I also envision a much more limited federal government overall. Clearly my team is losing.
        
        I cannot define culture. I have lived and worked with people from the world over. I just don’t see the difference. To me we are all the same breed.
        
        What I do see is that the state is the largest obstacle to individuals seeking to maximize their own goals and pursuits. More in one place than another.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Red Rocks White Privilege 5 years ago
        
        You can have government without sovereignty it is just a matter of enforceability. Taiwan is not sovereign and importantly is not recognized as such officially by the international community. Yet it has a functioning government and on a practical level acts as a nation state.
        
        What a stupid fucking example. It doesn't mean jack shit if China or the "international community" (piss be upon them) doesn't recognize Taiwan's sovereignty, because the people of Taiwan clearly do and have operated as such for decades. And that sovereignty is maintained primarily because the US supports Taiwan, and China doesn't want to risk pissing us off by invading the island and taking it over.
        
        To me we are all the same breed
        
        Nope, sorry, I'm better than some MS-13 or ISIS piece of shit.
        
        Echospinner 5 years ago
        
        Big T
        
        That breaks down to socialism. In true socialism the citizens own everything collectively. There is no private property. If the citizens own “the country” there can be no private ownership. That is exactly what Marx proposed and eventually the state would no longer be necessary.
        
        Since your house is part of the country, you may have some personal rights to it so far as “the country” allows but that is it. After all I have an equal share in the country.
        
        If an immigrant comes here and rents an apartment from someone in New Jersey your claim is he has no right to because the apartment, like your house, is actually collectively owned by “the country”. If I hire Robert the immigrant to work at my store that can be stopped because it is not really my store it is owned by “ the country”.
        
        There are arguments to be made about immigration. Those are mostly consequential and not to be dismissed. Property ownership is not the best one.
        
        Libertarians have long argued against this sort of thinking.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Nardz 5 years ago
        
        The "fundamental moral sovereignty of the individual" would have no room to prohibit or condemn murder, or any other act, as individual moral sovereignty would be each individual deciding their own morality - which very well may include their absolute right to kill, rape, and steal
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Vernon Depner 5 years ago
        
        Yeah, “fundamental moral sovereignty of the individual” describes Satanism, not Libertarianism.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Echospinner 5 years ago
        
        True enough until you take the word moral out of it. Since libertarians have a moral principle sometimes stated as ‘my rights stop at your nose’. Or as someone (Hillel) said long ago “do not do unto your neighbor what is hateful unto thee”.
        
        Each of us is responsible for actions and determination of what is moral with one stone wall in front of it.
        
        Example. Some people think homosexual relations are immoral, others do not. I don’t care really. Lived a while now. Never had anyone’s gayness cause me one drop of harm. I don’t care about cake bakers either.
        
        Log in to Reply
2. buybuydandavis 5 years ago
  
  Videos are for the arguments they don't want you to look at too closely.
  
  Just harder to comment on a video.
  
  Log in to Reply
OpenBordersLiberal-tarian 5 years ago

Literally every argument against open borders amounts to "I just don't like black and brown people." And it's impossible to reason with racists.

OTOH the arguments for open borders are numerous and convincing:

1. Enforcing a border is morally comparable to enforcing fugitive slave laws (click on my username).
2. The US must have open borders because we're guilty of the ORIGINAL SIN of slavery.
3. It's totally not fair that Charles Koch's net worth is stagnating in the $58,000,000,000 to $62,000,000,000 range in the low-immigration Drumpf economy.
4. Scientific studies show that diversity has countless benefits and no drawbacks whatsoever.

#OpenBorders
#ImmigrationAboveAll

Log in to Reply
1. Turkey River Rat 5 years ago
  
  “I just don’t like black and brown people.”
  
  Not buying it.
  
  Log in to Reply
2. Dan S. 5 years ago
  
  Knock it off with the talk about Charles Koch. Libertarians have believed in open borders as long as libertarians have existed, and Koch had nothing to do with founding the libertarian movement.
  
  Can you simultaneously have open borders and a welfare state? Only if the welfare state is only available to existing citizens or residents, not to newcomers. It means that, in theory, people could literally die in the streets. Almost certainly, they won't, because they will either return to their own countries if they can't support themselves here, or receive help from private charitable groups. But we would have to be very clear that there are no guarantees, and mean it.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. BYODB 5 years ago
    
    Only if the welfare state is only available to existing citizens or residents, not to newcomers.
    
    Something something taxation something representation.
    
    I do so enjoy people pretending that welfare won't be open to immigrants though, after all they're only intended to support the native population's unemployment. That certainly sounds like a type of society we've already tried that failed miserably though.
    
    Shall we also bar immigrant children born in the U.S. from becoming citizens? I'm assuming so in this 'perfect world' we've constructed in our heads. After all, we can't have those mouthy immigrant children rising to another caste.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Dan S. 5 years ago
      
      What I had in mind was that newcomers would be barred from welfare programs for a certain length of time, not forever. Something like five years (which I think is actually the law today in many cases).
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. BYODB 5 years ago
        
        So five years of paying into a system without drawing benefits is enough to make said system solvent. Medicare and social security would like to have a word with you on that point.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Metazoan 5 years ago
        
        Well, that argument flies just as well with Americans on welfare...
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Last of the Shitlords 5 years ago
        
        Tha Ed’s to be corrected too. But at least they’re actually Americans.
        
        Log in to Reply
      2. JoeB 5 years ago
        
        Creating a separate class of resident has already failed in court.
        
        Log in to Reply
    2. buybuydandavis 5 years ago
      
      "Only if the welfare state is only available to existing citizens or residents, not to newcomers."
      
      The giveaway that what many "libertarians" want is a two tier society of citizens and an unenfranchised servant class.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. chemjeff radical individualist 5 years ago
        
        What this libertarian wants is a society that is determined by individual choice, as free from oppression as possible.
        
        I don't expect that this society will be some sort of utopia. I think it will have all sorts of problems, but problems that can be solved via individuals cooperating freely.
        
        What I certainly don't want is a top-down engineered society where those with power dictate to everyone else who gets to stay and who goes.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Last of the Shitlords 5 years ago
        
        You’re it a libertarian. You’re a Canadian twat, and a progtard.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Nardz 5 years ago
        
        It's funny that you don't have the balls to come out as an anarchist content with warlordism.
        Fine by me.
        Everything that you have, I will take
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        chemjeff radical individualist 5 years ago
        
        Wait, I thought I was a SJW leftist progressive. Now you think I'm an anarchist? Why don't you make up your mind.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        NOYB2 5 years ago
        
        You simply don’t have a consistent world view, beyond, of course, that you’re always right!
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        BigT 5 years ago
        
        What I certainly don’t want is a top-down engineered society where those with power dictate to everyone else who gets to stay and who goes.
        
        No representative government?
        
        There are issues that are the proper sphere for government. Managing our collective property is one of them.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        NOYB2 5 years ago
        
        What this libertarian wants is a society that is determined by individual choice, as free from oppression as possible
        
        Ah, there is your problem: you’re a communist or an anarchist, not a libertarian.
        
        In a libertarian society, you probably have less individual choice than you do in our current form of government, which is halfway to democratic socialism.
        
        Libertarianism is about constraining choices through voluntary private arrangements rather than government; it is not about removing constraints.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Dan S. 5 years ago
        
        I was looking over this article and its comments, and I want to say
        
        1) I am amazed at how much of the discussion was in a thread started by an earlier comment of mine, and
        
        2) Yes, libertarianism certainly is about minimizing constraints on human freedom of action. Having the NAP as the only constraint. A society in which "you probably have less individual choice than you do in our current form of government" would certainly not be libertarian, and I can't see how anyone can claim it would be. Libertarians are advocates of liberty.
        
        3) There was a post in these comments as recently as January 17, albeit an off-topic one, so I think adding an on-topic one should be OK.
        
        Log in to Reply
    3. Presskh 5 years ago
      
      Yes, children born in this country without at least one of their parents being a US citizen should not automatically be a US citizen. It is totally asinine and illogical to interpret the 14th ammendment, which was written to protect the citizenship of children of slaves already here, as extending to children of any immigrant that manages to legally or illegally cross the border.
      
      Log in to Reply
  2. Chipper Morning Wood 5 years ago
    
    Dinglehoppers like OBL believe that the libertarian movement started in 2008.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Hannah Teter 5 years ago
      
      The same leftist billionaires have been bankrolling it since it actually began in the 1970s, and what difference would it make to you since you're a rabid partisan Democrat and you think history began in 2003 with the Iraq war?
      
      Log in to Reply
  3. Ryan (formally HTT) 5 years ago
    
    "Only if the welfare state is only available to existing citizens or residents, not to newcomers."
    
    Which will never happen, and already doesn't happen. Our hospitals cannot turn away patients. Our schools cannot turn away students. Now that we've played a game of "your stupid theories don't match reality" what else ya got?
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Metazoan 5 years ago
      
      Which will never happen,
      
      I always thought the "which will never happen" arguments were ridiculous. The same could be said about stopping illegal immigrants from entering. Realistically, short of Soviet-style borders, it will never happen.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. NOYB2 5 years ago
        
        It’s impossible to restrict government services that way, that’s why it won’t happen.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        chemjeff radical individualist 5 years ago
        
        It's not impossible, it's just difficult.
        
        Just as it's not impossible, it's just difficult, to deport every single illegal immigrant.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        NOYB2 5 years ago
        
        No, it is impossible in the US; it violates basic Constitutional principles and legal traditions.
        
        But tell you what: Canada, where you live, is bigger than the US. Why don’t you take 20-30 million illegals off our hands, and then we can redirect all future migrants into your vast, resource rich country.
        
        Log in to Reply
    2. buybuydandavis 5 years ago
      
      "Which will never happen, and already doesn’t happen."
      
      Being an anarchist means never having to constrain your preferred policies by reality.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. Nardz 5 years ago
        
        "Being an anarchist means never having to constrain your preferred policies by reality."
        
        That, and advancing communism
        
        Log in to Reply
  4. Brett Bellmore 5 years ago
    
    "Libertarians have believed in open borders as long as libertarians have existed,"
    
    But at one time libertarians also believed in path dependence, and understood that open borders had to come after the welfare state was eliminated, not before.
    
    Log in to Reply
  5. Vernon Depner 5 years ago
    
    ...people could literally die in the streets...we would have to be very clear that there are no guarantees, and mean it.
    
    There is not a chance in hell of that happening. If we let them in, they will eat, they will be housed and clothed, they will receive medical care. Any policy proposal that does not recognize that is a fantasy.
    
    Log in to Reply
3. Hank Phillips 5 years ago
  
  See? This sums up what passes for thinking in national LP HQ--to the dismay of LP candidates in SoCal, AZ, NM and Texas!
  
  Log in to Reply
4. TJJ2000 5 years ago
  
  "Literally every argument against open borders amounts to 'I just don’t like black and brown people.'" -- Sounds like a personal psychological problem to me.
  
  I guess that's just the ONLY argument you want to hear. Racist!!!
  
  Log in to Reply
5. Truthteller1 5 years ago
  
  What bullshit. Everything you wrote is wildly inaccurate.
  
  Log in to Reply
6. Nemo Aequalis 5 years ago
  
  Literally every argument against open borders amounts to “I just don’t like black and brown people.” And it’s impossible to reason with racists.
  
  All I can tell you about that is that when it comes to predictions, the racists have a hell of a better track record than the economists!
  
  Log in to Reply
Leader Desslok 5 years ago

As a GMU alum it gives me the sadz that the likes of Bryan Caplan are the sort of professors that now teach there.

Log in to Reply
1. Ryan (formally HTT) 5 years ago
  
  It gets way worse than this guy and his libertopian day dreams turned cartoons
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Leader Desslok 5 years ago
    
    Oh I know. Even back in the mid 90's GMU had some pretty "special" professors.
    
    Log in to Reply
2. Metazoan 5 years ago
  
  Why, because he makes arguments for open borders? You have to at least give him credit for his work in other areas, like on the irrationality of voters.
  
  Log in to Reply
Chipper Morning Wood 5 years ago

Dinglehoppers like OBL believe that the libertarian movement started in 2008.

Log in to Reply
1. Chipper Morning Wood 5 years ago
  
  Fucking squirrels.
  
  Log in to Reply
Marshal 5 years ago

Wait a minute. I'm reliably told no one wants open borders.

Log in to Reply
1. Metazoan 5 years ago
  
  Different people want different things. There is no mainstream movement for open borders. Bryan Caplan is allowed to personally desire and argue for open borders. No contradiction.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. buybuydandavis 5 years ago
    
    The mainstream movement for Open Borders is called the Democratic Party.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. chemjeff radical individualist 5 years ago
      
      You mean like Bernie Sanders?
      
      https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/08/bernie-sanders-open-borders-1261392
      
      During a town hall in Oskaloosa, Iowa, Sanders was asked by an attendee about how the United States can afford to fund social services such as health care, with an open borders policy.
      
      The attendee also claimed the Vermont senator is "an advocate for open borders."
      
      “I’m afraid you may be getting your information wrong. That’s not my view,” Sanders said.
      
      "What we need is comprehensive immigration reform,” he continued. "If you open the borders, my God, there's a lot of poverty in this world, and you're going to have people from all over the world. And I don't think that's something that we can do at this point. Can't do it. So that is not my position.”
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. NOYB2 5 years ago
        
        Sanders was denied the nomination of the Democratic party.
        
        Log in to Reply
    2. chemjeff radical individualist 5 years ago
      
      You mean like Elizabeth Warren?
      
      https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/11/elizabeth-warren-legal-immigration-refugee-cap-1407229
      
      Perhaps anticipating criticism from the right that she and other Democrats support “open borders,” Warren said that her plan would be “a rules-based system that is fair, humane, and that reflects our values.” And in a nod to concerns from some labor unions about increasing immigration levels, Warren wrote that “[w]e should put American workers first by ensuring that workers already here get the first opportunity to fill any available positions.”
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. Last of the Shitlords 5 years ago
        
        Uh huh, basically openers. With free Medicare for all. Which she promised in the last debate. Like you, people,e like her are the problem, Pedo Jeffy.
        
        Log in to Reply
      2. buybuydandavis 5 years ago
        
        In Warren's rules-based system, how many of the current 20 million illegal aliens country does she plan to deport?
        
        How many would she reward with the right to remain in the US legally for violating US immigration law?
        
        How about Bernie?
        
        The Invasion USA crowd always like to pretend they're not for Open Borders, but never want to actually enforce immigration law or prevent further illegal immigration.
        
        Have I popped the bubble of your youthful faith in the truthfulness of politicians?
        
        Good.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        TJJ2000 5 years ago
        
        ^^^ EXACTLY!!! Words and Actions are two different subjects - and DACA was an actionable event. The [D] party trying to extend DACA limitlessly is an actionable event.
        
        Log in to Reply
      3. Hannah Teter 5 years ago
        
        And yet both of these candidates wish to abolish ICE and have no enforcement of immigration laws. It's almost like they're lying pieces of subhuman shit just like you are.
        
        Log in to Reply
      4. NOYB2 5 years ago
        
        Warren is a habitual liar. And here she is just using weasel words.
        
        Log in to Reply
    3. Vernon Depner 5 years ago
      
      "The mainstream movement for Open Borders is called the Democratic Party Elites and Radicals."
      
      FIFY. Rank-and-file Democrats do not support open borders.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. buybuydandavis 5 years ago
        
        Fair enough.
        
        Nevertheless, the Democratic Party rank and file are still supporting and enabling the elites and radicals who are enacting the Open Borders policy.
        
        For that matter, until Trump came along, so were the Republican Party rank and file.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Vernon Depner 5 years ago
        
        Yes, there is a strange bedfellow coalition of wealthy elites and leftist SJWs who agree that immigration laws should not be effectively enforced, for their own reasons. The elites want a continuing supply of cheap/compliant/slave labor, and the SJWs want the destruction of liberal values in our society.
        
        Log in to Reply
    4. Hannah Teter 5 years ago
      
      Libertarians agree 100%, to the extent that this very magazine has said that open borders is literally the single defining characteristic of libertarianism.
      
      Log in to Reply
  2. Marshal 5 years ago
    
    There is no mainstream movement for open borders.
    
    If that's true why do I keep seeing their arguments every time I I turn around? It almost seems like people keep arguing for open borders but then deny that's what they're doing.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Brett Bellmore 5 years ago
      
      Support for open borders is heavily concentrated in media circles; When the media agree on something, they're pretty good at creating the illusion that everybody agrees on it.
      
      Log in to Reply
2. D-Pizzle 5 years ago
  
  It's true. No one wants open borders. They just don't believe that we should enforce our immigration laws. The two positions are totally different, or so I'm told.
  
  Log in to Reply
SteelCityAncap 5 years ago

They're both wrong and open borders are an assault on private property

Log in to Reply
1. Chipper Morning Wood 5 years ago
  
  Bullshit. National borders are not private property. Put that Hoppe book down.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. BYODB 5 years ago
    
    So you'd have no problem with private landowners buying up all the border property then banning movement into or across their property? Curious.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Metazoan 5 years ago
      
      sure, but people could fly over it then, or sail around it.
      
      Log in to Reply
  2. BigT 5 years ago
    
    All of the country is private property, just some is owned by the entire citizenry, who have every right to restrict its use by others.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Metazoan 5 years ago
      
      Ok, but that argument suggests that there are no grounds to prevent people from entering via air or sea.
      
      Log in to Reply
    2. chemjeff radical individualist 5 years ago
      
      who have every right to restrict its use by others.
      
      Does this right have limits?
      
      For example, supposed the collective will of the people was to forbid the transportation of guns on public roads. Would that be a legitimate exercise of the public's will as it pertained to public roads?
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. Vernon Depner 5 years ago
        
        The limits are in the Bill of Rights, moron. Did you complete eighth grade?
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Chipper Morning Wood 5 years ago
        
        Vernon forgot about the 9th amendment. People have the right to move around on public property.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Vernon Depner 5 years ago
        
        Not "people". The amendment says "the people". Meaning the people of the USA, not everybody in the fucking world.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        NOYB2 5 years ago
        
        Citizens have the right to move around on public property, not arbitrary humans.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        chemjeff radical individualist 5 years ago
        
        I see. So when the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting... the right of the people peaceably to assemble", this prohibits the government from stopping people from assembling on public lands, right? Including immigrants?
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Vernon Depner 5 years ago
        
        Right. But immigrants do not become part of The People unless granted that privilege.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        chemjeff radical individualist 5 years ago
        
        So immigrants are not people?
        Or you claim that the Bill of Rights does not apply to immigrants?
        So the state may justly deprive immigrants of all rights?
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Last of the Shitlords 5 years ago
        
        Pedo Jeffy, this has all been covered here, and with you, many, many times.
        
        Then you pretend it hasn’t and make the same discredited argument. Which I’ve even pointed out many times that you do this.
        
        So stop, and just die. You deserve to be raped to death by cartel thugs. Except that’s unlikely up where you live in Toronto.
        
        Oh, and FYI, you are one of the. It’s hated posters on this site, and a total joke.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Vernon Depner 5 years ago
        
        Of course the Bill of Rights applies to legitimate immigrants. Immigrants have the same rights as any other citizens or legal residents.
        
        The state may justly expel those who enter and remain in our country without permission. While they are here illegally, it is our practice to respect their human rights in all other respects, and I support that, but they have no right to demand that.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        chemjeff radical individualist 5 years ago
        
        Wait, so human beings have no right to demand that their human rights be respected?
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Vernon Depner 5 years ago
        
        Sure they do. But when they are intruders, the response to that demand might be "go fuck yourself".
        
        NOYB2 5 years ago
        
        You mean human rights like...
        
        Article 13.
        
        (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
        (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
        
        Note that there is no right to move into other states.
        
        NOYB2 5 years ago
        
        The Bill of Rights applies to all people lawfully present in the US, provided they are not currently being punished for crimes after a lawful trial or have joined the military.
        
        Therefore, it applies to legal immigrants, but it does not apply to illegal migrants.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Last of the Shitlords 5 years ago
        
        Pedo Jeffy is a complete ignoramus. This is the best argument he can make.
        
        Log in to Reply
    3. Chipper Morning Wood 5 years ago
      
      BigT, you really want to take the stance that public property is owned by the entire citizenry? Cause then you can kiss the right to bear arms goodbye, or any other right the majority votes to negate on public property.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. Nardz 5 years ago
        
        Here eunuch demonstrates the fundamentally progressive misunderstanding of rights
        
        Log in to Reply
      2. BigT 5 years ago
        
        Why would bearing arms be endangered? 2A guarantees it, and that forbids the government from such actions on its property. The citizenry taken as a whole are the government, don’t forget.
        
        Log in to Reply
      3. NOYB2 5 years ago
        
        It’s owned by the entire citizenry and can be administered subject to constitutional and legal restrictions on government action.
        
        So, government can’t violate the 1A or 2A. But it can restrict movement of non-citizens on public property. In fact, it can restrict movement of non-citizens on private property too.
        
        Log in to Reply
  3. SteelCityAncap 5 years ago
    
    Have you ever even read Hoppe or do you just automatically hate him cause lolberts tell you to? Open borders require a state to maintain, private borders are all around us and are consistent with libertarian legal theory.
    
    Log in to Reply
Fats of Fury 5 years ago

In the back pages of that comic book is an ad for these amazing X=ray glasses that lets you see right through his argument.

Log in to Reply
1. Hank Phillips 5 years ago
  
  What about peyote-flavored toothpaste? "Give your friends a foretaste of how voters will react!"
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. SoupSandwich 5 years ago
    
    You got me laughing.
    
    Log in to Reply
jimntempe 5 years ago

It is the least impressive alleged non-fiction book I've ever read. It's worse than a book I read that claimed to be presenting cogent arguments for flat earth theory. Yes, it is actually that bad. While supposedly presenting arguments for it's case it sets up strawman arguments and then knocks em down. It talks about people who desire border control as if they are anti ANY immigration when the fact is they are only against illegal immigration. It fails to use proper categorical data (such as legal vs illegal immigrant crime rates) because doing so would expose the fallacies in it's arguments. To detail the books shortcomings would literally require writing a book.

Log in to Reply
1. Chipper Morning Wood 5 years ago
  
  I call bullshit on that. Scratch any activist that complains about illegal immigration, and you will find that they want to restrict legal immigration as well. And yes, homie, the data shows that immigrants have lower crime rates. Deal with it.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. buybuydandavis 5 years ago
    
    I'll agree with that. It's not meaningful to say "I'm only against illegal immigration." Being against illegal immigration is being against some subset of immigration.
    
    That's the relevant question. Are there types of immigration you want to be illegal?
    
    Note that Coulter will point this out at every opportunity.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Brett Bellmore 5 years ago
      
      Well, sure, if you were only against illegal immigration, then just legalizing all immigration would satisfy you. Basically nobody actually holds that stupid position.
      
      Rather, there are people who think immigration should be restricted, and people who think it shouldn't, and the former view illegal immigrants under the current system as a self-selected example of the sort of people who should be restricted from entry, because just by being here illegally they've already demonstrated that they don't respect our laws. They can only get worse from there.
      
      Log in to Reply
  2. JoeB 5 years ago
    
    So FOS.
    
    Log in to Reply
  3. NOYB2 5 years ago
    
    Of course people want to restrict legal immigration as well. The very point of legal immigration is to restrict immigration. If legal immigration was unrestricted, it would be the same as open borders.
    
    Legal immigrants have lower crime rates because legal immigrants are subject to massive restrictions, registration, biometric identification, and removal when they commit their first crime.
    
    Log in to Reply
chemjeff radical individualist 5 years ago

Let's consider a thought experiment.*

Suppose there were open borders, BUT, each new immigrant was charged an "immigration surtax". This tax would be formulated such that it would pay for all of the welfare and infrastructure that the immigrants themselves used. It could be crafted any feasible way - a flat percentage, a progressive tax, a user fee, however you wish.

If we had this type of open borders arrangement, such that there was no net cost to native-born citizens due to immigration, would this alleviate your concerns with regard to the welfare state? If not, what more would it take?

* Credit where credit is due - this idea came from this debate
https://reason.com/podcast/immigration-libertarian-krikorian-powell/

Log in to Reply
1. Vernon Depner 5 years ago
  
  What do you know about thought?
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. chemjeff radical individualist 5 years ago
    
    Something tells me, if my thought experiment was easy to refute, you'd refute it. But instead you resort to ad-homs. Hmm I wonder why.
    
    Could it be because the argument of OMG THEY'RE USING WELFARE is a motte-and-bailey tactic?
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Last of the Shitlords 5 years ago
      
      Die you little piece of shit. Everyone is sick of your bullshit here. Arguing with you just enable you.
      
      Log in to Reply
    2. Nardz 5 years ago
      
      Thought experiment: Suppose there were open borders, BUT, each new immigrant was charged an “immigration surtax”. This tax would be formulated such that it would pay for all of the welfare and infrastructure that the immigrants themselves used. It could be crafted any feasible way – a flat percentage, a progressive tax, a user fee, however you wish. And every single person who entered this way killed and raped those they then encountered
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. chemjeff radical individualist 5 years ago
        
        Is that what you think immigrants are? Rapists and murderers?
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        retiredfire 5 years ago
        
        Is that what you think immigrants are? Rapists and murderers?
        If we don't have control over who comes in, which you can't have with open borders, some will certainly be.
        We have enough trouble dealing with the "natives", who are so inclined. We don't need to add to that.
        
        Log in to Reply
2. buybuydandavis 5 years ago
  
  There's a net cost when immigrants vote. A cost in bigger government.
  
  PEW Research on Hispanic Americans, breakdowns by immigration and foreign birth
  https://goo.gl/WBi1BV
  Hispanics Lean Democratic over 3 to 1
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. buybuydandavis 5 years ago
    
    https://goo.gl/hxSJHi
    Hispanics Want Bigger Government Providing More Services over 3 to 1
    The trend is the same across immigrants generally.
    Import Not Americans, Become Not America
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. chemjeff radical individualist 5 years ago
      
      Import Not Americans, Become Not America
      
      So what makes you think these "not Americans" cannot become Americans? Clearly you think there is more to being an American than just having the correct immigration papers. What is it?
      
      And if you think they can't ever become "Americans" in your view, then what makes you think new native-born children WILL become "Americans"?
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. Vernon Depner 5 years ago
        
        They're OUR FUCKING CHILDREN, idiot. We're kind of stuck with them for better or worse.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        chemjeff radical individualist 5 years ago
        
        Okay? So what makes you think they will turn out to be any more "American" than the immigrants who come here? And by "American", I don't just mean having the correct birth certificate or the correct naturalization papers, but "American" in a cultural sense.
        
        If you cannot convince immigrants to become culturally American in the way that you think they ought to be, what makes you think you can convince the next generation of native-born citizens to become culturally American in the way that you think they ought to be?
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Vernon Depner 5 years ago
        
        They’re OUR FUCKING CHILDREN, idiot. We’re kind of stuck with them for better or worse.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        chemjeff radical individualist 5 years ago
        
        That doesn't answer the question. But you know that.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Vernon Depner 5 years ago
        
        No, it just points out why the question is retarded.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        chemjeff radical individualist 5 years ago
        
        No, it isn't.
        If you can't convince immigrants to adopt the values that you think they ought to adopt, then why do you think you can convince new native-born children to adopt the values that you think they ought to adopt?
        
        Perhaps your argument is "American children, by definition, define what America's cultural values will be", but what if the next generation's cultural values turn out to be just as socialist as the values of the immigrants that you are so scared of today?
        
        Nardz 5 years ago
        
        Jeff,
        You're a perfect example of the problems with immigrants becoming American, as the dominant thrust of the culture war is set up to produce people such as yourself.
        You obviously think you're American, but your values are fundamentally anti-American
        You value fantasy over reality, harbor severe hatred for the native born population, and abhor personal responsibility
        
        chemjeff radical individualist 5 years ago
        
        You obviously think you’re American, but your values are fundamentally anti-American
        
        Man, you've totally bought into the "Real Murican" schtick from the right, haven't you?
        
        Okay, why don't you list all those things that you think constitute "American values". Because for every single one that you list, I guarantee I can find examples of actual Americans who disagree with it.
        
        TJJ2000 5 years ago
        
        Chemjeff - you're are in a no win situation with your argument.
        
        To convince immigrants to adopt American Values would be to convince them that the 14th Amendment means something - of which specifically says "native born".
        
        chemjeff radical individualist 5 years ago
        
        TJJ2000 - what is your point? That only native-born citizens can be "real Americans" in a cultural sense?
        
        chemjeff radical individualist 5 years ago
        
        Oh and by the way -
        
        harbor severe hatred for the native born population,
        
        That would be YOU, Nardz, since the only "native born population" that you are willing to recognize as legitimate, are the ones that already share your values. All of those other native born citizens, who don't share your values, they are not "real Americans". YOU are the one who cannot stand a good portion of the native born population just because they don't share your particular values.
        
        BigT 5 years ago
        
        The values I would call American are those de Tocqueville commented on in Democracy in America:
        
        Tocqueville believed that the Puritans established the principle of sovereignty of the people in the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut. The American Revolution then popularized this principle, followed by the Constitutional Convention of 1787, which developed institutions to manage popular will. While Tocqueville speaks highly of the U.S. Constitution, he believes that the mores, or "habits of mind" of the U.S. people play a more prominent role in the protection of freedom. These include:
        Township democracy
        Mores, laws, and circumstances
        Tyranny of the majority
        Religion and beliefs
        The family
        Individualism
        Associations
        Self-interest rightly understood
        Materialism
        
        He was warning against the Tyranny of the majority. The remainder of these and equality he felt were why”America is great because America is good.”
        
        These would be considered conservative or libertarian ideals today, in contrast to the oppressive statism of the left.
        
        Last of the Shitlords 5 years ago
        
        Vernon, he doesn’t get it. And he makes these stupid spits arguments where you have to define and prove everything that is already defined and proven. He should beaten or ignored.
        
        He is a stupid, dishonest piece of shit. And he’s not even American in the first place.
        
        Seriously, he isn’t worth the key clicks.
        
        Log in to Reply
  2. BigT 5 years ago
    
    buybuy is right to an extent. Immigrants from E Europe and Cuba who have first hand experience with socialist states lean conservative and strongly support liberty. That’s why - not race - we need to manage immigration. Import non liberty-lovers, lose liberty.
    
    Log in to Reply
3. NOYB2 5 years ago
  
  Of course it would. That immigrant surtax amounts to about $20000/year. Any non-citizen who pays that much per year to the US government should be welcome to stay.
  
  That’s effectively the arrangement we currently have for job-based visas and immigration, since you can come to the US if you have a profession that makes about $100000/year.
  
  Log in to Reply
billwald 5 years ago

We cannot have open borders and a sovereign nation. A nation is defined by its borders. Isn't that why The Vatican is a sovereign nation?

Thought experiment: Say the USA had a contiguous 3,000 mile flat, dry land border with North , South, or Central Africa. Would you change your mind about advocacy of open borders with Africa as the closest and most populated neighbor?

Log in to Reply
1. chemjeff radical individualist 5 years ago
  
  "open borders" does not mean "no borders".
  "open borders" is shorthand for "maybe the borders shouldn't be a militarized liberty-free zone that consumes endless tax dollars"
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. buybuydandavis 5 years ago
    
    The pomo tactic is to always tell you what things shouldn't be, never what they should be.
    
    How exactly would the border of racebaiterjeffistan work?
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. chemjeff radical individualist 5 years ago
      
      Since you seem intent on putting words in my mouth, why don't you tell me what I favor? "I hate borders and I hate America and I hate you", is that it?
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. Last of the Shitlords 5 years ago
        
        You’re not American. Your opinion means nothing. Kill yourself.
        
        Log in to Reply
      2. Nardz 5 years ago
        
        See above
        
        Log in to Reply
  2. Vernon Depner 5 years ago
    
    "Open borders" means allowing foreigners to come and go from our country without restrictions. If you impose any restrictions, then the borders must be guarded and defended in order to enforce the restrictions.
    
    If you mean something else when you say "open borders", then you are making up your own definition and should not blame others if they misunderstand you.
    
    Log in to Reply
JoeB 5 years ago

Some cultures are better than others. Cultures which promote larger government and which devalue individual rights for more goodies are inferior, but constitute the majority of the current immigrant population, both legal and illegal.

Log in to Reply
1. chemjeff radical individualist 5 years ago
  
  Some cultures are better than others.
  
  Therefore, every individual that grew up in a particular culture is to be judged guilty of every sin of that culture?
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Vernon Depner 5 years ago
    
    If we have open borders and let everyone in who wants to come, we lose any ability to judge them as individuals. But of course, in the real world, the resources do not exist to make detailed, personalized evaluations of the hearts and minds of every potential immigrant, so we're forced to use cruder methods for choosing who we allow in. Looking at the nature of the culture they come from is one such useful method.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Nardz 5 years ago
      
      Collectivistjeff is pathologically incapable of comprehending what you just said
      
      Log in to Reply
  2. TJJ2000 5 years ago
    
    "Therefore, every individual that grew up in a particular culture is to be judged guilty of every sin of that culture?"
    
    The judgement comes when the "N-400 Application for Naturalization" is either approved or rejected.
    
    NOT pretending that the individual who broke the law by crossing "illegally" 100-times before is somehow going to respect the "law" now.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. chemjeff radical individualist 5 years ago
      
      Tell me TJJ2000, why do you think some people decide to break the law and cross the border without permission? Do you think it is because they are fundamentally bad people?
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. TJJ2000 5 years ago
        
        "fundamentally" in the sense of a collective rate - Politically bad - "Yes".
        
        If "fundamentally" the collective wasn't "Politically bad" then they wouldn't have any EXCUSE to break the law and cross the border in search of "better politics/culture" now would they?
        
        Individually is also - a MORE-SO YES. If "bad" is being completely relative between two subjects that were told to take out the garbage, clean their rooms, and mob the floor and one person did all three and the other did two but refused to mob the floor which one by comparison would be the "bad" one?
        
        Can the "bad" one have good qualities like taking out the garbage, cleaning the room?? Well, Yes too. Maybe such negligible items should be answered on the N-400 Applications.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        TJJ2000 5 years ago
        
        When mister "Refuse to mop (excuse my spelling)" demands to have 1st consideration on the N-400 application than the one who does mop we have UNFAIRNESS and encouragement for defiance..
        
        But to summarize the detail -- Unless Mexico individuals are refugees of a natural disaster they are runners of either their own political creation or one in which they allowed to happen (which the USA in on the verge of "allowing to happen" to them with the [WE] party). And if it does; we will be just like Mexico and many of us will want to "run" away from that mistake instead of facing it head on. Does running away make 'us' deserving of the hospitality others currently have?
        
        "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- If Mexico is such a hell-hole maybe it's time for its citizens to stop running away (making ours the same) and adjust their own political system mistakes.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        BigT 5 years ago
        
        Very true. Look how the leftists have destroyed California and are now looking for better places to live. They will import the same stupidity and destroy those places - see Colorado - and then move on again. We don’t want that kind of immigrants.
        
        Log in to Reply
Victoria 5 years ago

Interesting.

Log in to Reply
chemjeff radical individualist 5 years ago

Part of the problem here is that the two camps come from two different moral frameworks.

The "open border" camp tends to view free migration as the default state, and that the burden of proof should rest on the government to have to prove why a particular individual should not be allowed to migrate.

The "closed border" camp tends to view restricted migration as the default state, and that the burden of proof should rest on the individual to have to prove why he/she should be permitted to migrate.

The "open borders" type rationale - placing the burden of proof on the state - is how all of our other rights work. I have the right to speak freely, and the burden of proof rests on the state to try to prove why I shouldn't. I have the right to own a gun, and the burden of proof rests on the state to try to prove why I shouldn't. I have the right to have a party on my property, and the burden of proof rests on the state to try to prove why I shouldn't (if, for example, it gets too loud and starts impacting my neighbors). Importantly, I have the right to associate with whom I choose, and the burden of proof rests on the state to try to prove why I shouldn't.

On the other hand, the "closed border" rationale - placing the burden of proof on the individual - is how *privileges* work, not inherent rights. It implicitly turns freedom of association into a privilege, not a right. That I must ask permission to associate with a foreigner, and the burden of proof rests with me and the foreigner as to why we should be permitted to associate with each other on private property.

If you believe freedom of association is a right, then you must also accept that this position leads to an "open borders" type of position. It doesn't have to be 100% all the way, but it must at least recognize that the burden of proof must rest on the state to have to justify why certain people should not be permitted to associate with each other.

Log in to Reply
1. Vernon Depner 5 years ago
  
  the burden of proof should rest on the government to have to prove why a particular individual should not be allowed to migrate.
  
  But we’re not talking about an individual. We’re talking about millions. It is a practical impossibility to make an individualized decision about who should or should not be allowed to enter our country or remain here. Instead, we make rules.
  
  The “closed border” camp tends to view restricted migration as the default state, and that the burden of proof should rest on the individual to have to prove why he/she should be permitted to migrate.
  
  There is no “closed border camp”. There are differences of opinion among most Americans about how entry of foreigners and immigration should be managed. On the other hand, there is an open borders camp that opposes any restrictions.
  
  There is no “burden of proof” on foreigners who wish to enter or immigrate other than to show that they comply with the rules and standards we set. They are not asked to make an individualized argument about why they personally should be allowed in. The American people, through our representative government, enjoy the privilege of deciding what, if any, foreigners we allow in and under what terms.
  
  placing the burden of proof on the state – is how all of our other rights work.
  
  That’s right—OUR rights. They are not the rights of everyone in the world.
  
  I have the right to associate with whom I choose
  
  Of course, but that is a separate issue from setting rules for border crossing and immigration. If you wish to associate in person with your Mexican buddy, he is free get a visa and come visit, as hundreds of thousands of Mexicans do every year. You are free to do the same and visit him in Mexico—or in any other country that allows you entry. You can call each other, you can write to each other, you can Skype all you like. But if one of you wishes to emigrate to the other’s country, there are rules to follow.
  
  On the other hand, the “closed border” rationale – placing the burden of proof on the individual – is how *privileges* work, not inherent rights.
  
  Correct. Entering a foreign country is a privilege, not a right.
  
  It implicitly turns freedom of association into a privilege, not a right.
  
  No, it doesn’t. Associate with foreigners as much as is practicable for you. Nobody cares.
  
  That I must ask permission to associate with a foreigner, and the burden of proof rests with me and the foreigner as to why we should be permitted to associate with each other on private property.
  
  No, you don’t. You must ask permission to enter or settle in each other’s countries. You can do plenty of associating without either of you emigrating. Associate till you bleed. Nobody cares.
  
  If you believe freedom of association is a right, then you must also accept that this position leads to an “open borders” type of position.
  
  “Open borders” is not a “type of position”. It is a specific position. It is in no way necessary to exercising the the right of association. To say that imposing restrictions of border crossing and immigration completely abrogates the right of Americans to associate with each other freely is absurd.
  
  it must at least recognize that the burden of proof must rest on the state to have to justify why certain people should not be permitted to associate with each other.
  
  There is nothing in border control or immigration law that either permits or forbids any particular individuals from associating with each other.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Last of the Shitlords 5 years ago
    
    Well spoken Vernon. But responding g to Pedo Jeffy is it’s own kind of punishment
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Vernon Depner 5 years ago
      
      I responded for anyone who wants to discuss it. I realize Jeffy's stupidity is impenetrable.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. Last of the Shitlords 5 years ago
        
        His body isn’t though. Pity he won’t take the honorable way out and off himself.
        
        Log in to Reply
  2. chemjeff radical individualist 5 years ago
    
    I have the right to associate with whom I choose
    
    Of course, but that is a separate issue from setting rules for border crossing and immigration.
    
    No, it isn't, and here's why.
    
    Suppose Alice and Bob are peaceful people - not criminals, not terrorists, etc. - and have adjacent parcels of land, and Alice invites Bob onto her property. They are choosing to exercise their freedom of association. We would both agree that no third party should stand in their way to prevent them from exercising their right to associate, correct? They don't have to justify to the state, nor to anyone else, why they wish to associate with each other.
    If the state did want to forbid them from associating, then the burden of proof is on the state to try to justify why it ought to be prevented.
    
    BUT, now put an international border separating their parcels of property, and now their "right" to freedom of association becomes conditional on the permission of a central authority, with visas and passports and immigration papers and all the rest. Why is that? What has changed between Alice and Bob, to suddenly cause the exercise of their rights to become conditional upon the approval of the state? Now the burden of proof is on Alice and Bob to prove to the state why they should be permitted to associate with each other. How is that just?
    
    The land hasn't changed. Alice and Bob haven't changed. The only thing that has changed is this imaginary line representing an international border. Somehow this imaginary line takes away Alice's and Bob's right to freely associate, and turns it into a privilege to be begged for. Why?
    
    If Alice has the right to associate with Bob, then Alice HAS THE RIGHT to associate with Bob, with or without the presence of the international border.
    
    You can do plenty of associating without either of you emigrating.
    
    Immigration law doesn't forbid ALL means of associating, but it does forbid some of them, and just forbidding some of them represents an infringement on people's liberty. After all, by way of example, if the government did some day ban so-called "hate speech", it would be a violation of your free speech rights, even if the government ban didn't take away ALL of your speech rights, but only some of them.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. BigT 5 years ago
      
      Crossing the property line within the country is perfectly ok. That’s exactly why when there is an international border on that line that crossing it is controlled. After crossing that border the immigrant is permitted free access to all of the publicly owned property, and our representatives have determined that this person should not be granted access.
      
      Log in to Reply
    2. Vernon Depner 5 years ago
      
      The only thing that has changed is this imaginary line...
      
      Why do you get to decide who may or may not enter your property? The only thing that makes it "yours" is an imaginary line on a map. If I choose to exercise my right to freely travel, and "your" land is in my way, then my right has been reduced to a privilege to be begged for. Sure, I can choose to pass through instead on the public road in front of your property, but if your property is between me and my destination, for you to forbid me to cross is an infringement on my liberty. Why does your imaginary line take away my rights?
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. BigT 5 years ago
        
        Great parody of the leftist position. OBL would be proud.
        
        Log in to Reply
2. TJJ2000 5 years ago
  
  Do I have to prove why a particular individual should not be allowed in my house???? --- OR --- Does that individual have to prove why they should be permitted in my house???? --- AND --- Who should decide?
  
  Open Borders is the very definition of a global communist society one in which NO ONE (NOR ANY COUNTRY) has any individual or group claim on their own sovereignty or to anything else.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. chemjeff radical individualist 5 years ago
    
    the nation =/= your house
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. TJJ2000 5 years ago
      
      and it CERTAINLY =/= illegal immigrants house.
      
      Log in to Reply
    2. BigT 5 years ago
      
      The nation is our house, the citizens of the country, and we determine who shall enter.
      
      Log in to Reply
3. ThomasD 5 years ago
  
  The default state of any state is they can control their borders.
  
  Otherwise it's not really a state.
  
  Log in to Reply
Nardz 5 years ago

Note: there was a video of college students stating that they think Thanksgiving should be done away with.
Thanksgiving - the fundamentally and uniquely American holiday.
Some want to focus on genocide of indigenous peoples instead, others want to celebrate indigenous peoples. The indigenous people they're referring to are not those who are living and were born here today. They are the Other, whose territory we Americans unjustly possess.
And this is what it means to be American to progressives like chemjeff.
No wonder they want more immigrants, with easier paths, to spread their gospel to

Log in to Reply
1. Last of the Shitlords 5 years ago
  
  Better to rid ourselves of the progressives.
  
  Log in to Reply
2. Echospinner 5 years ago
  
  Aha a video of college students.
  
  Seen a few of those.
  
  Well ain’t gonna take away from the turkey, gravy, mashed potatoes and Aunt Charlotte complaining about something or other. Kids running around wreaking havoc.
  
  No dumb college video gonna take that away. Frightful as it is.
  
  Log in to Reply
3. chemjeff radical individualist 5 years ago
  
  Thanksgiving – the fundamentally and uniquely American holiday.
  
  Is it now?
  The Canadian version actually started before the American one.
  And both the Canadian and the American versions have their roots in the English Protestant tradition. The English were celebrating their own version of Thanksgiving even before Plymouth Rock.
  The uniquely American part of Thanksgiving is what we have turned it into. But Americans didn't invent the holiday.
  
  Now you are probably going to call it "anti-American" to point this out. But it is not "anti-American" to be HONEST about what our history actually is.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. BigT 5 years ago
    
    Yes, many cultures have harvest feasts, each of them unique. Ours is no less unique.
    
    Log in to Reply
  2. Last of the Shitlords 5 years ago
    
    Pedo Jeffy speaks with authority about Canadian holiday, as he is Canadian.
    
    He is also too much of a coward to respond me. Just a gutless pedophile coward.
    
    Log in to Reply
cadojo4401 5 years ago

I am making 10,000 Dollar at home own laptop .Just do work online 4 to 6 hour proparly . so i make my family happy and u can do ........ Read More

Log in to Reply
Nemo Aequalis 5 years ago

When did economists get out of the business of explaining how we get the things we want, and into the business of telling us what we ought to want?

When they need to trot out the economists to explain why a self-evidently bad idea is good for us, go with your first instinct - it's a self-evidently bad idea!

Log in to Reply
1. Last of the Shitlords 5 years ago
  
  Probably when they started being boosters for communism.
  
  Log in to Reply
I like your site 5 years ago

Hello.

Hii.
I am new here and I am a software engineer Microsoft.

If you want to activate windows 10 in a device, but you don't know how to activate windows. here's provide proper information about activating windows 10.

Website: https://getassist.net/how-to-activate-windows-10/

Log in to Reply
tidax38745 5 years ago

You have to work and use the computer and internet, and if you can do that and dedicate some time each day then you can do this with no problem.
I have been working with this for a month and have made over $2,000 already. let me know if you need more help.

...... Read More

Log in to Reply
ThomasD 5 years ago

Hand waving is so much more effective in cartoon form.

Log in to Reply
docduracoat 5 years ago

I don't see open borders immigration as an economic argument at all.
Even if immigrants were an economic resource that increases wealth for all, the problem is that some are criminals and terrorists.
Even if it is 10%, 1%, or 0.1% of the millions of people flooding in.
These people need to be vetted, and the ones with a history of crime or terrorism should be kept out.
To do that, there needs to be a border with controls.

Log in to Reply
1. Echospinner 5 years ago
  
  That is not difficult. You get a background check every time you buy an airline ticket or a gun and most jobs. The process should be no more difficult than a drivers license.
  
  You could even have a quick health check. All you need is questionnaire and a nurse with a thermometer and a stethoscope.
  
  I don’t think anyone is really suggesting a walk on through process. I see something more like Ellis island.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Vernon Depner 5 years ago
    
    But in order to make all that happen, the border needs to be secured, entry needs to be restricted, and illegal immigrants need to be pursued and deported. Easier legal entry is not an alternative to effective entry and immigration enforcement—you need to do both for an improved entry and immigration process to work.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Echospinner 5 years ago
      
      Almost nobody is going to risk their lives to cross the desert if all they need to do is walk up and get legal entry cards. Border enforcement should be a breeze and much less costly. You would not need costly detention centers. To be effective it would have to be efficient. No waiting for weeks in tents. Hire some of the guys from Amazon or something to design it.
      
      Deporting all 10 mil or so of those here is never going to happen. It is impossible you don’t know who or where they are and we don’t have the resources. Give them the same option. Apply for a legal permit. Not all will but you will at least cut down the numbers.
      
      Some people will slip through the cracks but something like this would be a vast improvement.
      
      Citizenship is another matter. You don’t want a permanent underclass. You would not need to change the rules much for that. After say 5 years you can apply. The permits could be for something like 2 years and renewable. You could make conditions like no SS or other benefits until you are a citizen.
      
      Log in to Reply
conservativeprof 5 years ago

Open borders for citizens and legal residents of USA is crazy. There are many studies demonstrating the welfare usage (direct and indirect) by poor immigrants. Welfare usage for education, housing, food, health care, ... dominates benefits of increased labor supply. The increased labor supply threatens the livelihood of the existing labor force. Prices of certain goods and services may decline, but a good part of the existing labor supply will have sharply declining compensation. Skilled blue collar work was severely displaced by large levels of immigration. Just look at wage rates for building trades from the 1980s to 2010s.

Log in to Reply
conservativeprof 5 years ago

Here are two other arguments against open borders. The first argument is limited housing and transportation resources. Although the USA has plenty of open space, most individuals want to live in major population centers. Increasingly, most population centers have experienced shortages in housing and transportation infrastructure. Open borders will make the shortages much more severe.

The second reason is climate change. If you feel that climate change is a major existential threat, open borders will make the situation much worse. Open borders means substantial increases in population in developed countries with much higher usage of energy. The left is showing its hypocrisy by advocating open borders while also screaming about climate change.

Log in to Reply
1. Echospinner 5 years ago
  
  Housing. Let’s see. So Mexicans cannot possibly build houses. Been there?
  
  Energy. Yeah you really claiming that migration where people can move in or out of developed or less developed areas incorporating new technologies negatively impacts climate change. You big on climate change? Guessing no.
  
  Log in to Reply
Echospinner 5 years ago

Downloaded the book now. Have not finished it yet. Very interesting so far and I like the format.

Log in to Reply
hpearce 5 years ago

ALL coercive monopolies inculcating the state depend on borders to define their monopoly.

That Reason believes in open borders and a coercive monopoly state at the same time is a contradiction.

And probably a hypocritical one at that.

Log in to Reply
1. NOYB2 5 years ago
  
  That Reason believes in open borders and a coercive monopoly state at the same time is a contradiction.
  
  As long as a coercive monopoly state is the only option I have for living under, I am going to use the limited political power I have to minimize the amount of coercion I'm subject to. That's not a contradiction.
  
  Once the US is more or less a libertarian nation, we can open the borders, but not as long as the state controls 50% of the economy and enslaves me for 50% of my working hours.
  
  Log in to Reply
Brandybuck 5 years ago

"you cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state"

That's NOT an argument against immigration, it's an argument against the welfare state! Everytime a conservatarian invokes Milton as an excuse to wall off the border, understand that they're really saying they want to preserve the welfare state.

Log in to Reply
1. awildseaking 5 years ago
  
  Not really, they're just pointing out the reality of what will happen right now. You're delusional if you think that we could ever get an end to the welfare state in exchange for amnesty.
  
  Log in to Reply
2. gold std 5 years ago
  
  not at all, dullard
  
  Log in to Reply
DanR 5 years ago

The question that I haven't seen answered is how many people can the USA economy and resources, both natural and social, support? It surely has an upper limit. This has nothing to do with race, creed, etc. it's simply a fact that a given area can only support a maximum number of people. So two things need to be considered. How many people can the USA support and how many new immigrants in a given period of time can we support. The second question is important because a large influx in a short period of time would overwhelm local communities. So are these just hypothetical questions? I don't think so. Why? It is obvious that there are millions of people who want to come to the USA. There are after all 10 to 12 million people who are already here illegally and ten's of thousands more make the perilous journey every year. If we opened the borders how many of Central America's poor would do whatever they could to get here and how many would it take to overwhelm our economy and resources or are may libertarian brothers and sisters willing to let them starve on the streets? There are about 60 million people living in extreme poverty in Central America and about 180 million living in poverty. How many of them would come? What about the world's 3 billion poor? How many of them would come? What would happen to the economy if 20 million, 40 million or more people immigrated to the USA? What would happen if a million people immigrated in the first few weeks after we opened the border. These are humanitarian questions not questions about race, creed etc as others have suggested.

Log in to Reply
DanR 5 years ago

He has also misrepresented some the facts. For example, his idea of "pre-assimilation" is horribly misrepresentative. Yes, there may be a billion people that speak English in countries where English is not the official language and who are culturally and economically prepared to live here (i.e. they have skills that are needed in a modern economy and are familiar with the Rule of Law and Democracy etc.), but there are billions who are not linguistically, culturally or economically prepared to live here. Notice he doesn't mention them. Also notice that he used Italy, a first world country, as his example not say Nicaragua, Honduras or El Salvador. Who is most like to move to the USA if the borders were opened? We would certainly see immigration from all socio-economic classes, but the preponderance would be the poor. Why? They have the greatest incentive to move and they have less tying them to their current country than the middle class, upper middle class and wealthy do. The poor people of Central America and the world are not linguistically, culturally and economically prepared to hit the ground running.

Instead of opening the borders lets stop spending 100's of billions on useless and counter productive wars and instead help build schools, vocational training and entrepreneurial training in countries like Mexico, Nicaragua, Honduras or El Salvador

Log in to Reply
samuelddarden 5 years ago

google

Log in to Reply
rishi 5 years ago

simplify-multi-site-network-deployment

Log in to Reply
printeralign 5 years ago

Hi,
This Max Invade. I am technical blogger and provide technical troubleshooting blogs for Printer Issues. So if you have any issues, you can visit the website and get a way to fix your problem.
Website: https://bit.ly/35nygec

Log in to Reply
weblyen 5 years ago

There is a no official feature to use dual WhatsApp Account from WhatsApp, but you can use Two WhatsApp Account from the same Phone.
Read more: https://www.weblyen.com/use-two-whatsapp-accounts-in-a-single-phone/

Log in to Reply
Ritesh Patil 5 years ago

https://mobisoftinfotech.com/services/mobile-application-development-company

Log in to Reply
Healthroid 5 years ago

To better understand the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), we analyzed 3.74 million words of content, smashed them together, shook them up, and came up with some astonishing insights. Our focus was to understand exactly how Coronavirus spreads and how it can affect your health.

Check here: https://www.healthroid.com/conditions/covid-19/

Log in to Reply
weblyen 5 years ago

To recover your Facebook password without an old password, you can use your phone number or email address. Enter the email address or phone number linked to your account and you will receive a code on the same that you have to enter for verification and this way you will be allowed to set a new password.
Read more: https://www.allneedy.com/recover-forgotten-facebook-password/

Log in to Reply
weblyen 5 years ago

To fix HP printer paper jam, clear it from the outside. Inspect the output tray and take out all the jammed paper. After that, check the ink and toner cartridges carefully and remove all the paper that is stuck in the access door to completely fix the paper jam.
Read more: https://www.printeralign.com/how-to-clear-paper-jam-on-hp-printer

Log in to Reply
tech 5 years ago

ThopTV for PC: Are you searching for a ThopTV Download for PC or Windows 7, 8, or 10?. If your answer is yes, at the exact location, you landed. Download…
read more:
https://arenteiro.com/download-thoptv-for-pc-windows-10-8-7-mac/

Log in to Reply
tech 5 years ago

Download Bhai Khata Book software for pc: Khata Book is a Ledger Account book. By using the traditional bahi Khata the users have to spend hours tallying and recording the transactions.

Read more: https://arenteiro.com/download-bhai-khata-book-software-for-pc/

Log in to Reply
Vimlesh 4 years ago

https://vyaparapp.in/invoice-generator

Log in to Reply
Kamal 4 years ago

Open borders for citizens and legal residents of USA is crazy. There are many studies demonstrating the welfare usage (direct and indirect) by poor immigrants. Welfare usage for ed

https://ledgertap.in/about

Log in to Reply
Solution Nation 4 years ago

https://thesolutionnation.com/

Log in to Reply
peter michael 4 years ago

I faced small issues in taking backup of Microsoft Outlook emails. Here I would like to explain step by step procedure for taking backup of Microsoft Outlook email folders like Inbox, Sent Items, Drafts, Deleted Items, Archive, Outbox, Junk folder, RSS feeds and more. This article how to backup outlook emails is applicable for MS office 2007, 2008, 2010 and 2013.

https://www.trainingsadda.in/how-to-take-backup-of-outlook-mails/

Log in to Reply
Sandra Drago 4 years ago

ttps://allneedy.wordpress.com/2021/01/27/how-can-i-watch-live-sports-for-free/

https://allneedys.blogspot.com/2021/01/how-do-i-live-stream-stream2watch.html

Log in to Reply
Jessica Davies 4 years ago

Read this blog to get the satisfied answer to solve your all problems related to HP Support Assistant . Follow the step by step easy instructions to solve your queries.

for More Information Visit:-
https://www.printercustomerservice.co/hp-support-assistant/

Log in to Reply
priya2312 3 years ago

The 13377x is a preferred app to use when we don't have access to torrent files.

Log in to Reply

Please log in to post comments

Bryan Caplan Says Milton Friedman Is Wrong About Open Borders

The George Mason economist partnered with Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal's Zach Weinersmith to offer a thoughtful look at immigration policy in comic form.

Latest

Rise of the Samurai Lawyers

Marco Rubio Says He's Revoked 300 Student Visas Over Campus Activism

Pam Bondi Aims To Revive a Moribund Legal Process for Restoring Gun Rights

Trump Is Sabotaging His 'Drill, Baby, Drill' Agenda

How Backpage Became MILFS.com

Recommended

Login Form