Nick Gillespie: Keep America's Borders Open
"We should be building a wall around the welfare state, not the United States," Nick Gillespie argued at a recent immigration debate.
On April 11 in Dallas, I participated in a debate on immigration that was sponsored by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) and The Free Press. The proposition was "America should shut its borders," and columnist Ann Coulter and Compact magazine cofounder Sohrab Ahmari defended it. The Young Turks' Cenk Uygur and I opposed the motion, while The Free Press' Bari Weiss moderated.
The full video is currently only available to Free Press subscribers (a monthly subscription costs $8 a month; go here for details), but I'm happy to share video and a lightly edited transcript of my opening statement, with relevant links embedded.
I went second, after Ann Coulter, and a few of my comments below directly respond to her opening remarks and require a bit of context. She drew a distinction between immigrants and their descendants who were in the United States before 1970 (good) and those who came after (bad).
Most pre-1970 immigrants came from Europe and had entered the country before ultra-restrictive immigration laws were passed in the early 1920s that were explicitly designed to reduce the number of Jews, Italians, and other undesirable groups allowed to enter America. The Johnson-Reed Act completely banned immigration from Asia (including India) and sharply limited newcomers from Europe based on their country of origin. Under the new law, for instance, just 4,000 Italians were allowed to enter the country each year, down from an average of well over 200,000 in each year of the preceding decade. Jewish immigration plummeted by 80 percent.
National origins would remain the basis of U.S. immigration law until 1965, when those quotas were abolished and replaced by a system that emphasized family reunification and labor force needs. Along with Sen. Philip Hart (D–Mich.) and Rep. Emanuel Celler (D–N.Y.), Sen. Ted Kennedy (D–Mass.) was one of the sponsors of the new legislation. Since 1970, the vast majority of immigrants have come from Latin American countries, especially Mexico, and Asia.
The following transcript has been edited for style and clarity.
I'm the token libertarian on the panel, and I know that means you probably think I'm going to talk mostly about economics and drugs. And you'll be right, I am going to talk most about economics and drugs tonight.
In 1902, the nativist publication, Judge, which I'm pretty sure Anne Coulter had a column in, ran a cover image showing a giant horseshoe magnet suspended from a rope titled "American Prosperity." And then all sorts of stereotypically "bad" immigrants—Chinese coolies, fez-wearing Turks, weird people who were probably Persian, French actresses (!), bomb-throwing Italians, Russian peasants, European-looking people who were just carrying bags that said filth on them—were being sucked into the magnet. And the caption of the magnet on the cover of this Judge issue just said, "The only bad feature of our prosperity."
We're a nation of immigrants, but we have never, ever, ever been comfortable with the ones currently streaming across our borders. So it's fascinating to hear Ann talk about how the Jews were pretty good as pre-1970 people. Jews were locked out of this country to such a degree that millions perished during the Holocaust because they couldn't emigrate to America, including Otto Frank.
That was the law that Teddy Kennedy amended. We've never been comfortable with the people streaming across our borders. It was true in 1902, it's true in 2024.
Last year, saw what the AP called a record number of illegal crossings into America from Mexico. And that's not even the whole story, since the majority of people in the country illegally don't bum rush their way across the southern border. They come here legally and then don't leave. That's why South Asian Indians are the third-largest group who are illegal in America. Is that your vision of an illegal immigrant?
But what's really strange about these invaders, these people who are rushing into our country and destroying everything, is what do they do when they get here. They break into our country…and then they pick our crops, prepare our meals, cut our lawns, clean our toilets, and babysit our children. What strange armies of the night!
At the same time that we are creating panic on the border—and we need to deal with that—we've made it harder and harder for people to immigrate legally. Over 9 million people are waiting to get green cards and the wait time has skyrocketed over the past few decades from "just a few months to years, possibly decades."
Immigrants want to come to America now for the same reason they did 100 years ago when my grandparents came here from shithole countries (to use a Donald Trump phrase), from Italy and Ireland. They come here because of American prosperity. And they don't come here to destroy American prosperity, they come here to enjoy it and expand it and make it rich and new again.
Contra Donald Trump, illegal immigrants are not bringing drugs or crime. Illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes than native-born Americans. Legal immigrants commit fewer crimes than native-born Americans. Immigrants have a higher labor-force participation rate, and they're more likely to start a business than native-born Americans. In fact, immigrants and their children started 45 percent of today's Fortune 500 companies. But they're stealing from us, aren't they?
Even anti-immigrant economists like Harvard's George Borjas, himself a refugee from Castro's Cuba, conclude that immigrants on net are a boon because they expand markets and fill labor gaps. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has said that the deficit going forward will be a trillion dollars less over the next decade because immigrants have expanded the economy.
So what should we do? We should create a system that allows more people to come here legally and enter through the front door. Nobody can shut the border. Peter Savodnik in The Free Press wrote recently that even Donald Trump couldn't shut America's borders. He slashed, and I'm quoting here, "he slashed legal immigration by making it harder to get a green card or visa," even as "he failed to stop migrants from crossing the border."
What people who want to shut the borders really want is Prohibition, this time for people. Prohibition was passed 100 years ago at the same time that the first wide-scale exclusionary acts against Europeans were passed, driven by the same thing, fear of un-American immigrants like Catholics and Jews from Central and Southern Europe. It was costly and ineffective. Within a couple of years, Americans were drinking more liquor than they had before Prohibition was passed. We get the same thing with border control. Costs have tripled since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. The amount of money being spent on border security has tripled, and yet we seem to have less of it.
Let's create an orderly, regulated, and growing market for immigration just like we ultimately did for beer and booze. Let people who want to live and work peacefully here come and do so. We can vet them and have them apply in their own countries and then come here to wherever they want to be rather than getting clogged up at the southern border, or any one place in particular. Allow individuals, churches, businesses, and nonprofits to sponsor them. Immigrants are already barred from most forms of welfare, as they should be. We should tighten up that. But our national debt is out of control. We should be building a wall around the welfare state, not the United States.
We need to legalize immigrants pulled here by the magnet of our prosperity and get on with the business of building the future of our country rather than trying to restore a tattered imagined past.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
That's all fine to want to streamline legalized immigration as part of an overall plan of comprehensive immigration reform. But:
"We need to legalize immigrants pulled here by the magnet of our prosperity and get on with the business of building the future of our country rather than trying to restore a tattered imagined past."
The amnesty for current illegals, that cannot happen without the aforementioned comprehensive legal immigration reform, and part of the legal immigration reform needs to be an almost zero-tolerance policy with regard to illegal immigration going forward. A nation needs to be able to control its own borders.
Gillespie 1 Strawman 0
Congrats, Nick!
The entire discussion is dishonest.
All the “amnesty” proposals aren’t amnesty for breaking US immigration law, but *rewards* for breaking US immigration law.
Amnesty would be simply deporting illegal aliens with no further penalty. All the proposals want to reward illegal aliens by letting them cut in line for legal residence and citizenship.
Similarly, Nick writes ” labor force needs”, when what he’s referring to aren’t the needs of the US labor force, but the desires of the oligarchs to drive down wages, benefits, and job security for the US labor force.
Always remember where Nick and Reason stand with the Globalists and Jacobins:
Invasion USA is @Reason’s “core value”.
@nickgillespie:
In the 21st century, libertarians are going to have make common cause with the globalists of all parties, with the people whose core value is the right of individuals to move freely around the planet.
…
Watching The Brink made me think that for all the other differences Reason has with the socialist magazine Jacobin, it may matter far more that we share a belief in open borders.
https://reason.com/2019/04/12/steve-bannons-economic-nationalism-is-th/
Nick, Nick, Nick, you don't understand.
Immigration laws, like drug laws, are a litmus test for morality.
People who don't respect laws against drugs need to be locked up because that lack of respect extends to all laws including crimes against people and property. Every drug warrior knows this to be true.
Similarly illegal immigrants who don't respect immigration laws have no respect for any laws. That means they're all murderers and rapists. Ask anyone who wants to round up illegals and they'll tell you its true.
Besides that, you don't even know what your arguing for. You really want open borders because that's what pro-immigrant people want. Why even have a country if there are no borders?
Immigration laws, like drug laws, are a litmus test for morality.
Truer words have never been spoken, even if only accidentally.
When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law.
-Bastiat
I’d rather be around people with a moral sense than people with fealty to the law. Because you can't have both. It's just not possible.
People with moral sense would shun you.
Yes, THIS is why they killed Jesus, Gandhi, and MLK Jr.! Those who MAKE US LOOK BAD by making fun of naked, evil tribalism DESERVE TO DIE!!!
The intelligent, well-informed, and benevolent members of tribes have ALWAYS been feared and resented by those who are made to look relatively worse (often FAR worse), as compared to the advanced ones. Especially when the advanced ones denigrate tribalism. The advanced ones DARE to openly mock “MY Tribe’s lies leading to violence against your tribe GOOD! Your tribe’s lies leading to violence against MY Tribe BAD! VERY bad!” And then that’s when the Jesus-killers, Mahatma Gandhi-killers, Martin Luther King Jr.-killers, etc., unsheath their long knives!
“Do-gooder derogation” (look it up) is a socio-biologically programmed instinct. SOME of us are ethically advanced enough to overcome it, using benevolence and free will! For details, see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Do_Gooders_Bad/ and http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Jesus_Validated/ .
Then they crucified Jesus, 'cause Jesus made them look bad! ALSO because Jesus made them look bad FOR THEIR STUPID, HIDE-BOUND TRIBALISM! "The parable of the Good Samaritan" was VERY pointed, because the Samaritans were of the WRONG tribe, in the eyes of "Good Jews" of the day.
Instead of KILLING Jesus, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., etc., we’d be better off VOTING for these kinds of people! But we will NOT, ’cause they Hurt Our Precious Baby Feelings, by giving tribalism and do-gooder derogation the disrespect that they (we self-righteous tribalists) SOOO thoroughly deserve!
Property rights of the country and its citizens Trump any rights of uninvited aliens. That’s libertarianism 101.
Nick fail.
You mistakenly assume Nick is libertarian.
He ain't.
Let’s agree to disagree and keep the borders open. Meanwhile we’ll discuss ending the welfare state at a Soho Forum discussion and at a back table during the Southern California East of the 405 South of the 110 Journalisming awards.
This is why not even libertarians take libertarians seriously any more.
How about this proposal: Let's agree to disagree, tighten up the borders, then spend the next 90 years trying to claw back .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the welfare state. Once that's done, then we'll revisit loosening the borders.
Then you missed Nick's point which is that tightening the borders is expensive and ineffective, like Prohibition. Currently Border Patrol agents spend most of their time dealing with economic refugees who want to get caught, while the actual criminals with bad intentions waltz back and forth across the border with impunity.
Why not give the people who want to work a simple and legal way into the country? Then agents can concentrate on catching actual bad guys.
""Why not give the people who want to work a simple and legal way into the country?""
Legal way? Wouldn't that require following the law?
Can't I just ignore any legality you apply on moral grounds?
You’d have to have a moral sense to do that, and from what I can tell you lost yours. That's assuming your parents did their job.
A moral sense to have fealty to the law?
So finally realizing your arguments are illogical, you now decry moral arguments. Like most communists and Marxists. Lol.
It is immoral to force the people who have contributed to society to pay for people who did not. Full stop.
Remember how you claim you understand the cost issues? Current border enforcement costs is less than 1% of current welfare and benefits given to illegal immigrants. But you continue to deny this shit.
“Current border enforcement costs is less than 1% of current welfare and benefits given to illegal immigrants. “
Where’s that figure coming from?
“ economic refugees who want to get caught,”
Because we treat them with kid gloves rather than as invaders
This is why not even libertarians take libertarians seriously any more.
I suspect that was the objective.
This is why not even libertarians take libertarians seriously any more.
I LOL’ed at:
Illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes than native-born Americans.
Between the thoughts of “Nick, are you suggesting native poor kids are just as criminal and just as “mostly peaceful” as native white kids?” and “You mean the people who live in the area and who leave a paper trail get caught for their crimes more often than people who don’t live in the area and don’t have a paper trail? No way!” and “You do realize that the murder clearance rate nationally is like 40-50% right? That even if you suddenly had full documentation on every undocumented immigrant on par with every native, there’s still a massive amount of dead bodies that you’re stepping over in order to advance your narrative.”
"We did a study of tautologies and were surprised to discover that all the facts that came out it confirmed the assumptions we had going in!" - CATO
When immigrants cost no more taxes than the processing fees, I'm all in.
When we subsidize their entire existence what is the ROI?
A vote for Democrats and a spike in crime.
If you think all it takes are net productive meat widgets to make the freedom, peace, and prosperity of America, you're doing America wrong.
America is what it is because it once had a political culture that supported that freedom, peace, and prosperity. We're running on the fumes of that culture today,
Import Not Americans, become Not America.
The reality in 2024 is that the U.S. is a WELFARE and subsidy state with the highest PROGRESSIVE taxes in world. The reality is that US communities have their own issues to support safety nets for homelessness, feral children, veterans, violent crime, addiction the elderly and now terrorism sympathizers, all why dealing with inflation and living paycheck to paycheck. The reality is that if the federal government keeps spending billions on grants for public charge immigration NGOs, Medicaid, it will collapse under its own weight (there are ~2 billion people that want to come to the U.S.) And this is why the Marxists have joined forces with the libertarians. Using capitalist ideology to bring on the revolution. The illiterate migrants are just cannon fodder.
The “They scrub my toilet” comment was the height of hubris. What an self absorbed asshole.
“They scrub my toilet” is hardly EVER true of the native-born, or of the Sacred Fartilized Egg Smells!!! They are ALL too High and Mighty to be BOTHERED by such low-life concerns ass to GIVE A SHIT about the state of shit of my toilet, no matter HOW responsible I tried to be, ass a younger person, no matter HOW much money I saved for my old age!!!
Look, self-righteous assholes, my saved money will NOT wipe my ass on my deathbed, nor spoon-feed me, in my old age, butt illegal sub-humans CAN do that, so FUCK OFF, slavers, with your power pig assholeishness!!! WHEN will ye permit ME to decide whom I may pay for services rendered upon ME?
fuck off. No.
When you're forced to reference Ted Kennedy as some kind of hero you're going to lose me every time.
Reason... now adapted for Modern Audiences.
Good to see you back Paul.
Thank you. Marginally back... however. I've rolled back my commenting dramatically, and it's a slow Friday for me and I couldn't resist. Next week I'll probably return to my lurking with the rare post here and there.
Hit and run.
Reference Ted Kennedy *and* sided with Cenk Uygur.
For those unclear, imagine siding with someone named “Krieger Schmidt” who named his media organization “The Brown Shirts” or “The Protection Squadron” in a debate on immigration. Named Krieger and “The Brown Shirts” in an earnest, non-satirical, fashion… or, at least, as serious as can be determined from his insanity.
Being even more clear, when I say “insanity” you would think that I could simply sum it up by saying, “When he ran for Congress, Bernie Sanders had to walk back his endorsement of him.” but really that doesn’t do full justice as to why.
Talk about siding with the enemy.
What I see is Nick volunteering NYC, Chicago and MV for another 3 million illegal immigrants. What I see is somebody who is perfectly fine with increasing the costs and hardships of others so they can pretend to be a decent human being. Go to their countries, change their broken systems and stop demanding the importation of dysfunction you evil proggy twat.
Throughout American history, we have confronted successive waves of intolerance, insularity, and ignorance, often associated with race, religion, immigration, and/or perceived economic pressures.
Those targeted have included Blacks, Jews, gays, Italians, Catholics, women, the Irish, Hispanics, Muslims, eastern Europeans, Asians, other Hispanics, agnostics, other Asians, atheists -- most of America, at one time or another.
What makes America great is that our bigots don't win. Not over time. America has faced and overcome the onslaughts of bagels, linguini, fish frys, burritos, hummus, tacos, egg rolls, pad thai, greens, greens and beans, Tullamore Dew, pierogis, chicken with garlic sauce, sushi, brisket, other brisket . . . come to think of it, that sounds like the makings of a great menu at an American middle school cafeteria.
In America, reason, science, education, modernity, freedom, progress, and inclusiveness win. Superstition, dogma, ignorance, insularity, backwardness, authoritarianism, and bigotry lose. Modern, educated, skilled communities win; shambling, uneducated, insular, superstitious backwaters lose. Our strongest teaching and research institutions, operated by and for the liberal-libertarian mainstream, win. Nonsense-based, backwater religious schools lose.
The trajectory of American progress is longstanding and strong. This latest batch of bigots seems nothing special, its reliance on the charms and insights of Donald Trump, the Republican Party, the Federalist Society, and Fox News notwithstanding.
This latest batch of bigots seems nothing special, its reliance on the charms and insights of Donald Trump, the Republican Party, the Federalist Society, and Fox News notwithstanding.
Interesting you paint with the same bigoted brush common to those you reprove, Reverend. And liberal-libertarian? You should be ridiculed for your redundancy, but, as liberal and libertarian are today antithetical and so make impossible the existence of such a creature, you are probably best teased for making shit up.
Otherwise, fair comment.
^I approve this message.^
""somebody who is perfectly fine with increasing the costs and hardships of others so they can pretend to be a decent human being. ""
The definition of the modern liberal?
I love how much this idea angers the chuds. Also I wonder how many will disappear back to facebook when you gotta pay to comment? I'm guessing all of them.
Of course, why would anyone pay to comment on Reason? Seriously?
No shit. Reason should be paying the commenters.
Commenters are often the only libertarian angle here.
And the only fact-based, rational writing.
but maybe people could get Open Foundations to pay their subscription.... then they could comment away in a similar manner to how Wikipedia articles get written by CIA operatives.
Of course, then the comments will all take a certain 'tone' but maybe thats the aim.
I suspect it is paying a couple of them.
I’d be willing to bet that nobody that’s posted here longer than 6 months came here from Facebook.
"We should be building a wall around the welfare state, not the United States,"
You got your open borders, now let the excuses for the smoking crater begin.
I think I'd settle for a wall around the Reason Foundation.
"We should be building a wall around the welfare state, not the United States,"
Do that first, then let's talk. Until that's done, there's no need to import poverty.
Straw talk, big-time. This immigrant knows --- as G should also know --- that nobody wants a "closed border." But we also know that immigrain and illegal border-crossing are as different as love-making and rape.
(I specifically know this, because I crossed theHungarian-Austrian border in November 1956, knowing that I couldbe be imprisoned for that for 3 to 5 years. Legally, since that was the law on the books.
A similar law, enforced, would benefit the US, without "closing the border."
But, of course, G knows this. So why the empty talk?
Straw talk, big-time. This immigrant knows --- as G should also know --- that nobody wants a "closed border." But we also know that immigration and illegal border-crossing are as different as love-making and rape.
(I specifically know this, because I crossed the Hungarian-Austrian border in November 1956, knowing that I couldbe be imprisoned for that for 3 to 5 years. Legally, since that was the law on the books.)
A similar law, enforced, would benefit the US, without "closing the border."
But, of course, G knows this. So why the empty talk?
Nick, thank you for addressing the border option that was neither mentioned in the panel discussion, nor addressed. The question should have been: Should the Southern border be closed only to illegal migrants, should all immigration be stopped, or should there be free traffic across the border. But, well, you didn't really address the first fully either, did you...
Closing the border to illegals may require painful measures to deter and prevent. And properly administering legal entry has extraordinary practical difficulties. But it should definitely go along with deterring illegals.
Voting statistics show that 75%+ of immigrants vote for the welfare party and more than 1/2 (51%) are welfare recipients.
Do tell Nick; How are you going to butt out the welfare state when all you're proposing is to let more welfare state supporters and users in?
When there is a hole in your boat it only makes sense to let more water in and hope the water decides to fix the hole.
lol... perfectly put. +100000
I guess I was ahead of my time. I've been saying for years that we must build a wall....around Washington DC.
Nick Gillespie’s house party.
https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/149/034/071/playable/b8444998db28caae.mp4
Last year, saw what the AP called a record number of illegal crossings into America from Mexico. And that's not even the whole story, since the majority of people in the country illegally don't bum rush their way across the southern border. They come here legally and then don't leave. That's why South Asian Indians are the third-largest group who are illegal in America. Is that your vision of an illegal immigrant?
What even is this abomination of a paragraph? You're trying to twist things around to make it seem like the stats from four years ago apply today.
Eight. Million. Illegally across the southern border in the last 3.25 years. That might dilute the pool of visa-overstaying East Indians quite a bit, don't you think?
What are they promising you, Nick? That this isn't going to affect you personally, if you take the thirty pieces of silver?
The overstays don't help his case either. It's a lot of legal guests who decide to defy our laws and become illegal immigrants. That's more of an argument to increase enforcement or further limit visas.
The bottom line is that Gillespie, Reason, and other open borders advocates want America to not be culturally American. Advocating for everyone to come here destroys the circumstances that made it an attractive place to be.
Yeah, but we all know that the welfare state is not gonna be touched in any significant way, except to give more "entitlements".
So we are going to get more low skilled immigrants that don't speak English and more welfare, until the welfare gives out. And then we're basically going to turn into a failed narco state like most of Latin America.
"going to turn into a failed narco state like most of Latin America"
Reminds me of the phrase someone use to post, "Import non-American get non-American."
There being no native born Americans, the immigrants who swarmed ashore from the Bering Staits set the stage for the violent crime monopoly they enjoyed for 15,000 years by wiping out the indigenous megafauna.
Maybe being American isn't about ones ethnicity but more about believing in the principles in the US Constitution. Course that make poke holes in the [WE] identify-with RULES 'democracy' pity-me into entitlement crowd theories.
We arent a nation of immigrants (well, prior to 2021...)
75% of Americans are 3rd generation or higher. Yeah, everyone's ancestors migrated here 100-20,000 years ago, but so did every other country's. 90% of Americans are natural born Americans.
I'm a libertarian who's with Ann. You don't have a country to have libertarianism IN, without having a country. With borders and exclusions of the rest of the world.
We should get rid of the welfare, but that seems impossible given the foolish state of society.
We can, however, get rid of the foreign criminals who are killing citizens and collecting massive undeserved freebies.
I work for a legal (non-white, non-Hispanic) immigrant, by the way. He's quite subdued about it, a very soft-spoken fellow, but it's clear that even *he* thinks millions of illegals flooding in annually are nothing but unwanted, unworkable mayhem.
Execute the violent ones, stop giving them welfare, and I'm fine with more LEGAL immigration as long as they can pay their own way and aren't committing crimes (which LEGAL immigrants usually are NOT... unlike the illegal parasites).
No amnesty, never again. Reagan either sold us out or got suckered, but either way, NEVER AGAIN. And anyone who says otherwise is the mortal enemy of America and its ideals.
No one seems to like my reform idea, but here it is again: privatize immigration and treat America like it's a gigantic Disneyland: Have wide gates not high fences, encourage people to come in through gates and live/work in peace (as 99 percent of them will do), charge entrance fees on a sliding scale, collect basic info on immigrants, encourage sponsors (churches, etc.), give no welfare benefits, kick people out who do bad/criminal things. https://clips.substack.com/p/its-time-to-privatize-immigration?utm_source=publication-search