So if you had the power, you would open the borders, completely with no restrictions, right now?
I would terminate or reassign all border patrol and customs agents, yes.
The practical implications of this would be absolutely devastating and the adoption of this policy would destroy any hope of shrinking government. As stated before, immigrants all over the world would swarm here (millions from Central/South America), primarilly for benefits and they would keep demanding and voting for more. Why would they work? They would have a better life in the US going on the dole as opposed to working in their country. Bring the kids and the rest of the family because they could all go on welfare too! Why not?
Also, culture wars would increase. Southern California would basically become Mexico; this could lead to possible genocidal acts in that area. An open borders policy would likely lead to many Mexicans wanting to “take their land back.” Such a policy would be an unmitigated disaster. The government would grow dramatically under this situation. Are you expecting that a bunch of immigrants, under an open borders situation, would miraculously see the errors of statism and vote to negate it?
so you think the government would just cut checks for all those millions, and they would drive around in low riders buying up all the land and shooting the jobs? These scummy subhuman wretches who want ipads and dominos would show up, and the bureaucrats just write a bunch of checks and get even more powerful? Is that how it works?
I dont see what their voting has to do with it. In my opinion, you have just libeled a large group of people and failed to praxeologically demonstrate the final point of your syllogism (the part where government gets more powerful). I think people would be forced to hire security firms. This is already the case, actually, because the calculation problem includes security.
at the very least, the cultural influx would add human capital at sub-market rates in a large enough volume that the government simply would not be able to enforce laws restricting freedom of labor. This additional human capital would make goods and services across all markets more plentiful and less expensive. The immediate decrease in import and export restrictions would be quite bountiful as well.
That rhetotric post is truly exceptional! I think Bryan is somewhat egalitarian who believe in principle and should equally enjoy the social, eonomic and politcal rights and oppurtunities.
No. The government would be forced to cut more checks when it has to foot the bill for more education facilities, teachers (their pensions/benfits too!), etc, to accommodate the MILLIONS of immigrants that come as a result of this open borders policy. As per their legal status they would be entitled to all the services that citizens are entitled to. Think of the colleges loans; home mortgage guarantees; unemployment benefits; food stamps; welfare, and more; this would be a massive strain on the system. Many of these immigrants would probably end up working for the government. The immigration situation may take on a slightly different meaning IF all welfare is non-existent; but we don’t live in that world.
It’s impossible to praxeologically demonstrate this; just as it’s impossible to praxeologically demonstrate that the government doesn’t get more powerful under this scenario.
I agree with your economic analysis, but you’re failing to acknowledge the sociological and cultural effects; that’s the larger problem here. It is not of praxeological nature of course, but adding millions of immigrants, primarily Latinos (who vote for more government by a wide margin) is going to wreak havoc. This can’t be shown in a praxeological sense, but it’s just common sense.
Look, we’re both after the same goal: the abolishment of the state; it’s just that opening borders before the state is dissolved is going to have negative consequences.
Ok, assuming all the pols and bureaucrats simply cannot change the laws, somehow, again, what is the problem? You think that all of those services are going to be provided? Those checks arent going to be worth anything
I am going to continue to ignore your obvious stereotyping as long as its convenient, but I seriously dont care if they are martians. Open the borders.
No laws have to be changed. As legal citizens they are entitled to all the services I listed above. Do you think the government is going to magically say “hey, let’s reduce the welfare state and services.”
Most libertarians are blind to the cultural and sociological aspects of society. You’re falling into the trance that critical theory has hypnotized you with. The majority of latinos vote for more government. The majority of blacks vote for more government. Both by a wide margin. An increase in either of these groups will lead to more government. You’re being naive. Have you ever noticed that the Ron Paul movement is made up mostly of whites (primarily white males)? Or is that stereotyping too?
The majority of latinos vote for more government. The majority of blacks vote for more government. Both by a wide margin.
Funny, all the non-Caucasian representatives combined make up only 15% of the House and Senate members. Sounds like white people learned to love more government, too (by a wide margin).
An increase in either of these groups will lead to more government.
Ah, harkening back to those wonderful “racial suicide” days.
Have you ever noticed that the Ron Paul movement is made up mostly of whites (primarily white males)?
Have you ever noticed that whites make up over 2/3rds of the total population in the U.S.?
Or is that stereotyping too?
Clearly, since you seem to conveniently forget that there are differences in support for Paul amongst whites by age, income level, family status, etc.
None of what you’re saying is related to any of my arguments.
15% of reps are non-caucasian. So what?
Racial suicide? What?
Whites make up 2/3rds of the population. So what?
Ron Paul has support amongst a diverse classification of whites? So what?
@ Eric080, FunkedUp, House Clearance,
Guys please read the article I linked above. Bryan deals with every objection you have.
1: Most fears of immigration are not justified. Immigrants don’t take away jobs, lower the incomes and abuse social systems in the scale most people think. And for every fear there is better solution than a closed border. Don’t give them the right to vote (You do not get it anyway the moment you enter America, which by the way is the same everywhere in the world. First you have to become a citizen, which means you need to fulfill certain conditions. Crossing the border ones is not sufficient! ) Secondly, don’t give them welfare benefits at all, or only after a few years of working or whatever. Everything is better than to close the borders for them completely… If you want to have open borders or not has nothing to do if you have an entitlement system. The entitlement system can run as good or as bad with and without open borders.
2: Bryan argues here in a world of second best solutions. He also is an anarcho capitalist, but that doesn’t mean that the only thing he has to promote is anarcho capitalism itself. There is no problem at all if he promotes policies that at least in this world of the second best makes the life of people better, and gives them more opportunities. And within this he is perfectly fine not to give everyone automatically the same political rights like voting, access to welfare etc. So he is not even egalitarian on principle here.
It’s not that long, just read it.
15% of reps are non-caucasian. So what?
It’s easy to cherry-pick the right statistics to make your case. I cherry-picked an example where “a majority of whites” are the culprit to make that point, but to be honest I wouldn’t need to do much cherry-picking to make a solid case that whites are more to blame than anyone else.
Racial suicide? What?
“Racial suicide” was the rallying cry of the white eugenics/social “efficiency” (read: social Darwinism) crowd from the early 20th century. Since your argument makes a veiled implication in that direction I thought I’d point you towards your historical sources.
Whites make up 2/3rds of the population. So what?
You’re trying to make a point that whites make up a majority of Ron Paul’s supporters…well, whites make up a majority of everybody in this country, so it’s not really that much of a surprise. Do you honestly thinks blacks and latinos made up the majority of supporters for Obama?
Ron Paul has support amongst a diverse classification of whites? So what?
No, he doesn’t, but you implied that he does through your broad-sweeping generalization of “whites”. And I think you vastly underestimate the amount of black and latino support that has turned its energies towards Paul since the last election cycle. The abortion issue is getting really old for most blacks and latinos, they’re tired of having Planned Parenthood centers shoved into their neighborhoods to encourage moral hazard. They also like their religious traditions and don’t wish to be told otherwise about their beliefs. Paul is the only option that respects both of those.
There’s no need to broaden the principle that Michael J Green is referring to. People travel through land, but not normally through gardens, houses, or flats. They certainly don’t travel through wives.
What Michael J Green is referring to is known as the common-law right of travel. This right was highly limited in that it required no damage be done to the other person’s property.
In fairness, I don’t think FunkedUp was necessarily making that implication, veiled or not.
In fairness, I don’t think FunkedUp was necessarily making that implication, veiled or not.
He was certainly moving toward it with the idea that we should not let brown people into the US because they’re for larger government. Do note that a lot of Latinos believe in hard work and in the American Dream - unlike some of their caucasian counterparts (who often believe in government).
As a side note, it’s fun to note how many progressives were eugenicists:
http://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/publications/working_papers/1004ExcludingUnfitWorkers.pdf
Just so you know, I was already aware of the second point you made. My point was simply that it’s in no way clear that FunkedUp was intentionally making any sort of veiled implication about “racial suicide”.
To suggest that I’m in favor of racial suicide is completely disingenuous. You’re pulling a marxist e-motive argument. It’s like when I argue against affirmative action. RACIST! When I argue against the Civil Rights legislation. RACIST. When I argue against open borders. RACIST!
I did read it. Again, I agree with much of the economic analysis, but it completely ignores the sociological and cultural context (his cultural argument basically only deals with the English situation which is irrelevant). Most libertarians do this, because they’re social egalitarians.
The problem I see is that he’s bending over backwards to allow more immigration. He’s arguing for a (near) “perfect world” scenario. He basically says “Let’s allow immigration and open borders, but we have to do this, this and that.” To me, it’s like arguing for universal health care. If only we “do this, this, and that” then we can have a viable system! I cannot see Democratic politicians taking any of these steps that Caplan proposes, and I cannot see Republicans stopping them.
I like Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe, and Ron Paul on this issue more:
@ FunkedUp
I read Nation, state and economy of Mises quite some time ago. As far as I remember in it Mises does not speak about forced integration through completely unrestricted open borders with immediate access to welfare etc as Rothbard does at the end of the article you linked or Hoppe on lewrockwell.com, but mainly about the distinction of a nation-state and nations as defined by language and culture and the problems arising from that if you don’t allow secession.
For Rothbard, Hoppe and Ron Paul at the end within the current system they all come to the same conclusion as Bryan Caplan. Restrict voting rights, citizenship and welfare benefits accordingly if thats a problem. None of them said close the borders completely. They approach this issue from different angles. Bryan in contrast to Hoppe and Rothbard tries to convince the real border hawks who don’t want any immigration and explodes very convincinvgly the common fears of these people, while Rothbard and Hoppe promote especially their first best solution which is anarcho capitalism. So it really is for all of them “Let’s allow immigration and open borders, but we have to do this, this and that.” as a second best solution.
Just watch Ron Paul here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y3zEP75kFM&feature=related
I think they are much closer than you think.
Right. I agree. (Mises, more or less, makes the argument that multiculturalism doesn’t work in a democracy).
We all agree that this problem is caused by the state, that forced integration and forced segregation is no good. The debate here is largely about strategy, something that Libertarians are arguably the worst at out of all the political sects; this is exactly why we don’t get anywhere because unlike the marxists, who devote 90% of their time to strategy and 10% to practical theory, the libertarians are exactly the opposite.
The question is “how do we go from our current situation to our ideal situation.” I maintain that all this talk about open borders cannot even begin to be taken seriously until the welfare state is completely abolished. Attempting to feng-shui around this problem, as Caplan and many other left-libertarians suggest, is completely unrealistic. It will backfire.
I’m not anti-immigrant and I’m not for shutting down the borders, but if it were between opening them completely or shutting them down completely then I would unhesitatingly choose the latter. However, I am for “open borders” once all forms of welfare are abolished - completely. That goes for all the native citizens too. Until then, restrict the borders; discriminate against the bums and the parasites, but let the accomplished ones in; let the students that gain acceptance to universities in; let those who already applied to American companies and gained employment in, etc.
To suggest that I’m in favor of racial suicide is completely disingenuous.
Oy…before you make such statements about a phrase at least do some research. Try starting here (and work your way into the original literature if you can stand it).
You’re pulling a marxist e-motive argument.
No, I’m pointing out an obvious implication behind something you said. Autolykos seems to think you didn’t intend what you implied, and based on that I’m willing to grant the benefit of the doubt. But at the very least you need to be much more careful with your words.
It’s like when I argue against affirmative action. RACIST! When I argue against the Civil Rights legislation. RACIST. When I argue against open borders. RACIST!
Well, you surely knocked down that mighty straw man.
Nonetheless, the specific thing I addressed was not about you being against open borders, but certain points you used to justify your position. And I wasn’t alone in what I perceived, so if it wasn’t your intention to appear that way, it might be worthwhile to give your words a twice over before submitting next time.