Immigration

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.

|

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: Trump's Farm Bailout Has Cost Over $10 Billion This Year

HD Download

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’d certainly be interested in how Friedman is “refuted” on this point, his reasoning is pretty solid.

    1. 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.

      1. Let’s not pretend any arguments would lead you to change your opinion on this.

        1. I’m not pretending. I refuse to accept poorly written cartoons as sophisticated arguments.

          1. 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.

            1. 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.

            2. 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.

              1. 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.

            3. 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.

        2. Real open borders and a welfare state has never been tried

          1. 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.

          2. 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.

        3. Will any arguments change your opinion on this?

          1. 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.

            1. 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”.

            2. 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.

              1. So if I want to invite someone from Iran to live in my house, who are you to infringe on my moral sovereignty?

                1. 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.

                  1. 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.

                    1. 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.”

                    2. 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.

                2. 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.

              2. 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.

                1. 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.

                  1. 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?

                    1. Fuck off you Canadian pederast.

                2. 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.

                3. 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.

                4. 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.

                  1. Hannah, do you have an actual point to make it do you just like to spout off legal terms for no good reason?

              3. 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.

                1. Government is a meaningless concept without control over defined territory

                  1. 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.

                    1. 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.

              4. 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.

            3. 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

              1. Yeah, “fundamental moral sovereignty of the individual” describes Satanism, not Libertarianism.

                1. 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.

    2. Videos are for the arguments they don’t want you to look at too closely.

      Just harder to comment on a video.

  2. 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

    1. “I just don’t like black and brown people.”

      Not buying it.

    2. 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.


      1. 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.

        1. 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).

          1. 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.

            1. Well, that argument flies just as well with Americans on welfare…

              1. Tha Ed’s to be corrected too. But at least they’re actually Americans.

          2. Creating a separate class of resident has already failed in court.

        2. “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.

          1. 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.

            1. You’re it a libertarian. You’re a Canadian twat, and a progtard.

            2. 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

              1. Wait, I thought I was a SJW leftist progressive. Now you think I’m an anarchist? Why don’t you make up your mind.

                1. You simply don’t have a consistent world view, beyond, of course, that you’re always right!

            3. 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.

            4. 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.

        3. 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.

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

        1. 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?

      3. “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?

        1. 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.

          1. It’s impossible to restrict government services that way, that’s why it won’t happen.

            1. It’s not impossible, it’s just difficult.

              Just as it’s not impossible, it’s just difficult, to deport every single illegal immigrant.

              1. 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.

        2. “Which will never happen, and already doesn’t happen.”

          Being an anarchist means never having to constrain your preferred policies by reality.

          1. “Being an anarchist means never having to constrain your preferred policies by reality.”

            That, and advancing communism

      4. “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.

      5. …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.

    3. See? This sums up what passes for thinking in national LP HQ–to the dismay of LP candidates in SoCal, AZ, NM and Texas!

    4. “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!!!

    5. What bullshit. Everything you wrote is wildly inaccurate.

    6. 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!

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

    1. It gets way worse than this guy and his libertopian day dreams turned cartoons

      1. Oh I know. Even back in the mid 90’s GMU had some pretty “special” professors.

    2. 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.

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

    1. Fucking squirrels.

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

    1. 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.

      1. The mainstream movement for Open Borders is called the Democratic Party.

        1. 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.”

          1. Sanders was denied the nomination of the Democratic party.

        2. 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.”

          1. 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.

          2. 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.

            1. ^^^ 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.

          3. 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.

          4. Warren is a habitual liar. And here she is just using weasel words.

        3. “The mainstream movement for Open Borders is called the Democratic Party Elites and Radicals.”

          FIFY. Rank-and-file Democrats do not support open borders.

          1. 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.

            1. 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.

        4. Libertarians agree 100%, to the extent that this very magazine has said that open borders is literally the single defining characteristic of libertarianism.

      2. 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.

        1. 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.

    2. 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.

  6. They’re both wrong and open borders are an assault on private property

    1. Bullshit. National borders are not private property. Put that Hoppe book down.

      1. So you’d have no problem with private landowners buying up all the border property then banning movement into or across their property? Curious.

        1. sure, but people could fly over it then, or sail around it.

      2. 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.

        1. Ok, but that argument suggests that there are no grounds to prevent people from entering via air or sea.

        2. 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?

          1. The limits are in the Bill of Rights, moron. Did you complete eighth grade?

            1. Vernon forgot about the 9th amendment. People have the right to move around on public property.

              1. Not “people”. The amendment says “the people”. Meaning the people of the USA, not everybody in the fucking world.

              2. Citizens have the right to move around on public property, not arbitrary humans.

            2. 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?

              1. Right. But immigrants do not become part of The People unless granted that privilege.

                1. 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?

                  1. 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.

                  2. 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.

                  3. Wait, so human beings have no right to demand that their human rights be respected?

                    1. Sure they do. But when they are intruders, the response to that demand might be “go fuck yourself”.

                    2. 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.

                  4. 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.

            3. Pedo Jeffy is a complete ignoramus. This is the best argument he can make.

        3. 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.

          1. Here eunuch demonstrates the fundamentally progressive misunderstanding of rights

          2. 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.

          3. 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.

      3. 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.

  7. 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.

    1. What about peyote-flavored toothpaste? “Give your friends a foretaste of how voters will react!”

      1. You got me laughing.

  8. 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.

    1. 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.

      1. 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.

        1. 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.

      2. 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.

  9. 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/

    1. What do you know about thought?

      1. 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?

        1. Die you little piece of shit. Everyone is sick of your bullshit here. Arguing with you just enable you.

        2. 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

          1. Is that what you think immigrants are? Rapists and murderers?

            1. 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.

    2. 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

      1. 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

        1. 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”?

          1. They’re OUR FUCKING CHILDREN, idiot. We’re kind of stuck with them for better or worse.

            1. 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?

              1. They’re OUR FUCKING CHILDREN, idiot. We’re kind of stuck with them for better or worse.

                1. That doesn’t answer the question. But you know that.

                  1. No, it just points out why the question is retarded.

                    1. 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?

                    2. 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

                    3. 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.

                    4. 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”.

                    5. TJJ2000 – what is your point? That only native-born citizens can be “real Americans” in a cultural sense?

                    6. 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.

                    7. 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.

                2. 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.

      2. 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.

    3. 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.

  10. 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?

    1. “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”

      1. 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?

        1. 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?

          1. You’re not American. Your opinion means nothing. Kill yourself.

      2. “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.

  11. 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.

    1. 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?

      1. 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.

        1. Collectivistjeff is pathologically incapable of comprehending what you just said

      2. “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.

        1. 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?

          1. “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.

            1. 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.

              1. 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.

  12. 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.

    1. 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.

      1. Well spoken Vernon. But responding g to Pedo Jeffy is it’s own kind of punishment

        1. I responded for anyone who wants to discuss it. I realize Jeffy’s stupidity is impenetrable.

          1. His body isn’t though. Pity he won’t take the honorable way out and off himself.

      2. 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.

        1. 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.

        2. 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?

          1. Great parody of the leftist position. OBL would be proud.

    2. 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.

      1. the nation =/= your house

        1. and it CERTAINLY =/= illegal immigrants house.

        2. The nation is our house, the citizens of the country, and we determine who shall enter.

    3. The default state of any state is they can control their borders.

      Otherwise it’s not really a state.

  13. 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

    1. Better to rid ourselves of the progressives.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

      1. Yes, many cultures have harvest feasts, each of them unique. Ours is no less unique.

      2. 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.

  14. 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

  15. 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!

    1. Probably when they started being boosters for communism.

  16. 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/

  17. 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

  18. Hand waving is so much more effective in cartoon form.

  19. 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.

    1. 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.

      1. 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.

        1. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

    1. 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.

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

  23. 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.

    1. 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.

  24. “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.

    1. 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.

  25. 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.

  26. 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

Please to post comments