Libertarianism in One Country

[Religious Dick]

December 11, 2006, 6:00 a.m.

Libertarianism in One Country
On the Brink and beyond.

By John Derbyshire

Brink Lindsey’s “Liberaltarian” piece in The New Republic is getting commented on all over. Here at NR/NRO, Ramesh has already taken a swing at it on The Corner, with a response from Lindsey posted here. Jonah is working up an article on it, I believe. I’m going to leave these heavyweights to take on Lindsey’s piece in the round. Here I’m just going to pass comment on one aspect of liberaltarianism.

Before reading through Brink’s piece, I did a find on “immigr,” and came up with the following sentences:
Just look at the causes that have been generating the real energy in the conservative movement of late: building walls to keep out immigrants, amending the Constitution to keep gays from marrying, and imposing sectarian beliefs on medical researchers and families struggling with end-of-life decisions.

Most obviously, many of the great libertarian breakthroughs of the [past half century] — the fall of Jim Crow, the end of censorship, the legalization of abortion, the liberalization of divorce laws, the increased protection of the rights of the accused, the reopening of immigration — were championed by the political left.

Both [liberals and libertarians] generally support a more open immigration policy.

Let me mention once, then leave aside, the sneaky little sleights of hand that we have now come to expect in anything written by those opposed to enforcement of immigration laws. The purpose of the wall in that first quote is not, as Lindsey claims, to keep out immigrants, but to keep out illegal immigrants. And if, by “the reopening of immigration” in that second sentence, Lindsey means the 1965 Immigration Act, well, no mention of that legislation should be allowed to pass without a note on the staggering differences between the promises made by the act’s sponsors, and its actual consequences. Those differences are thoroughly described in any honest book that deals with the topic, e.g. Pat Buchanan’s recent bestseller, Chapter 12.

Lindsey is surely right that both liberals and libertarians “generally support a more open immigration policy.” The difference is that liberals are, from their standpoint, correct to do so, while libertarians are, from their standpoint, nuts to do so. Let me explain.

* * * * *

A liberal, in the current sense of the term, is a person who favors a massive welfare state, expansive and intrusive government, high taxation, preferential allocation of social goods to designated “victim” groups, and deference to international bureaucracies in matters of foreign policy.

It is not difficult to see why such a person would favor lax policies towards both legal and illegal immigration. Immigration, legal or otherwise, concerns the crossing of borders, and a liberal regards borders, along with all other manifestations of the nation-state, with distaste. “International” trumps “national” in every context. The preferences a citizen might have for his own countrymen over foreigners, for his own language over other tongues, for his own traditions and folkways over imported ones, are all, in the minds of a modern liberal, manifestations of ugly, primitive, and outdated notions — nativism, xenophobia, racism. The liberal proudly declares himself a citizen of the world, and looks with scorn and contempt on those narrow souls who limit their citizenly affections to just one nation.

And in the realities of the world today, immigrants to the United States are mostly people of color, who can be recruited into those cohorts of designated “victims” that form such a key legion in the modern liberal alliance. This is especially the case with illegal immigrants, who come overwhelmingly from the Amerindian- and mestizo-peasant underclasses of Mexico and Central America. Any expression of unhappiness with mass illegal immigration can therefore easily be construed as racism, the most shameful of all sins in the liberal lexicon — a form of mental illness, according to some.

Further, modern liberals have come to an understanding with capitalism. The modern liberal is not a socialist. He understands perfectly well that common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange is a total no-hoper. The lavish government programs he favors need to be financed, and socialism is not capable of financing them — the 20th century proved that a hundred times over. Only a thriving capitalism can fund all the programs, all the departments, all the bureaucrats that modern liberalism wants.

How, then, can capitalism thrive in such a way as to necessitate a huge welfare establishment? Simple: Privatize profits, socialize costs.

Private profit is of course the essence of capitalism; but how to socialize costs? The cost of your labor force is their remuneration, which ought to be sufficient to allow them to pay for their housing, health care, children’s education, and so on. To the degree that your workers’ remuneration is not sufficient for those things, you are throwing your workers on the mercy of the welfare state — socializing your costs. Thus, in an odd historical reversal, liberals are keen on a capitalism that pays the lowest possible wages. To its everlasting shame, the labor movement, dominated nowadays by public-sector and welfare-state unions, is similarly inclined. The political Left is now the party of low wages kept down by endless mass immigration. Samuel Gompers (“America must not be overwhelmed...”) must be turning in his grave.

* * * * *

The affection of liberals for mass immigration, both legal and illegal, is thus very easy to understand. Why, though, do libertarians favor it? And why do I think they are nuts to do so?

So far as the first of those questions is concerned, I confess myself baffled. I think that what is going on here is just a sort of ideological overshoot. Suspicion of state power is of course at the center of classical libertarianism. If the state is making and enforcing decisions about who may settle in territories under the state’s jurisdiction, that is certainly a manifestation of state power, and therefore comes under libertarian suspicion. Just why libertarians consider it an obnoxious manifestation — well, that’s where my bafflement begins. (That some exercises of state power are necessary and un-obnoxious is conceded by nearly all libertarians.)

Perhaps libertarians simply haven’t thought about immigration. Until five years or so ago, very few Americans had. Charles Murray’s 1997 book What It Means to Be a Libertarian mentions immigration just once — to apologize for not having mentioned it! More recent libertarian productions show some dawning awareness. Bruce Bartlett’s book Impostor gives off a strong flavor of libertarianism, yet the author confesses himself “conflicted” on the immigration issue.

The free market economist in me wants to believe that we should have free flows of labor as well as free flows of capital, goods, and services. And I do believe that, historically, immigrants have been an enormously positive addition to the United States... I believe that our willingness to accept the best and brightest of other nations has incalculably added to America’s well-being...

But at the same time, I am disturbed by the way some illegal immigrants have abused our hospitality and the way some politicians have exploited them. It is insane that some communities have forbidden local police from enforcing the federal immigration laws, even when they could be used legitimately to expel criminals from our midst. I cannot comprehend why some states would allow illegal immigrants to attend state universities and pay in-state tuition, when the native-born from other states must pay more. I am concerned about the ease with which people can become citizens, simply by being born on our soil, when they have no meaningful connection to this country otherwise. And I am bothered by the ability of terrorists to exploit the holes in our immigration system.

For a long-time fellow-traveler of the Wall Street Journal “there shall be open borders” crowd, this is startling stuff.

As to why I think libertarians are nuts to favor mass uncontrolled immigration from the third world: I think they are nuts because their enthusiasm on this matter is suicidal to their cause. Their ideological passion is blinding them to a rather obvious fact: that libertarianism is a peculiarly American doctrine, with very little appeal to the huddled masses of the third world. If libertarianism implies mass third-world immigration, then it is self-destroying. Libertarianism is simply not attractive either to illiterate peasants from mercantilist Latin American states, or to East Asians with traditions of imperial-bureaucratic paternalism, or to the products of Middle Eastern Muslim theocracies.

There are a number of responses a libertarian might make to that. Not included in those responses, I think, given the current state of our national affairs, is the argument that Providence has inscribed a yearning for liberty on every human heart.

A libertarian might, though, say that while libertarianism could indeed be a hard sell to immigrants from very illiberal political traditions, it will appeal to their Americanized children, to the second generation. Possibly so. Even setting aside the great strengthening of the welfare state caused by the preferences of that first generation, though, to sell libertarianism to the second generation would need a tremendous missionary effort. According to Brink Lindsey, only 13 percent of Americans currently lean libertarian. If decades of libertarian proselytizing have only achieved that much success with a population rooted in the traditions of Pericles and Magna Carta, of the Renaissance, Reformation, and Enlightenment, of Washington, Jefferson, and Madison, how well should libertarians expect to do with the political descendants of emperors and caliphs, of Toussaint L’Ouverture and Mao Tse-tung?

* * * * *

The people who made Russia’s Communist revolution in 1917 believed that they were merely striking a spark that would ignite a worldwide fire. They regarded Russia as a deeply unpromising place in which to “build socialism,” her tiny urban proletariat and multitudinous medieval peasantry poor material from which to fashion New Soviet Man. Their hope was that the modern industrial nations of the world would take inspiration from them — that the proletarians of those nations would rise up against their capitalist masters and inaugurate a new age of world history, coming to the aid of the Russian pioneers.

When it was plain that none of this was going to happen, the party ideologues got to work revising the revolutionary dogmas. One of them — it was actually Joseph Stalin — came up with a new slogan: “Socialism in One Country!”

I think that libertarians should take a leaf from Stalin’s book. They should acknowledge that the USA is, of all nations, the one whose political traditions offer the most hospitable soil for libertarianism. Foreigners, including foreigners possessed of the urge to come and settle in modern, welfare-state America, are much less well-disposed towards libertarianism.

If less than one in seven American voters is inclined to libertarianism, then there is much missionary work to be done among present-day American citizens. To think that this missionary effort will be made any easier by a steady stream of arrivals from foreign parts, most of which have never known rational, consensual government, is highly unrealistic, to the point of delusion.

That is why I say that libertarians who favor mass immigration are nuts. If there is any hope at all for libertarianism, it rests in the libertarianism of my title: libertarianism in one country.

There is no contradiction between maximum liberty within a nation and maximum vigilance on the nation’s borders. Not only is there no contradiction between the two things, in fact, it may be that the second a precondition for the first.

National Review Online - http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTNiMDIxNTk3NGQ0NTUyYmExMWE0NGE2NTk1Mzc1Yzk=

[Universe Prince]

Their ideological passion is blinding them to a rather obvious fact: that libertarianism is a peculiarly American doctrine, with very little appeal to the huddled masses of the third world.

I think the author is somewhat misinformed. Libertarian ideas are more widespread than he imagines. There are international groups and many groups around the world who promote libertarian ideas. And there are men like Hernando De Soto who are promoting libertarian concepts like property rights for the benefit of the poor in second and third world countries. And while the author of the article may have found a study that claims only 13% of Americans "lean libertarian", there are many more who agree to varying degrees with libertarian ideas. For example, the backlash against the Kelo v. New London decision. No, there is no powerful libertarian movement sweeping the world, but the author is mistaken to discount libertarians as having little influence in American and the world.

There is no contradiction between maximum liberty within a nation and maximum vigilance on the nation’s borders. Not only is there no contradiction between the two things, in fact, it may be that the second a precondition for the first.

There is nothing true about that quote. Mr. Derbyshire is entirely incorrect.

[Religious Dick]

I think the author is somewhat misinformed. Libertarian ideas are more widespread than he imagines. There are international groups and many groups around the world who promote libertarian ideas. And there are men like Hernando De Soto who are promoting libertarian concepts like property rights for the benefit of the poor in second and third world countries.

I am sure there are a few eskimos in the Sahara, too. I'm equally sure they'd be the exception, not the rule.

And while the author of the article may have found a study that claims only 13% of Americans "lean libertarian", there are many more who agree to varying degrees with libertarian ideas. For example, the backlash against the Kelo v. New London decision. No, there is no powerful libertarian movement sweeping the world, but the author is mistaken to discount libertarians as having little influence in American and the world.[/color]

Since when it the concept of private property uniquely libertarian? I think the notion precedes libertarianism by quite a few years. The fact that libertarianism overlaps and shares assumptions with other political philosophies is hardly evidence of it's influence.

There is no contradiction between maximum liberty within a nation and maximum vigilance on the nation’s borders. Not only is there no contradiction between the two things, in fact, it may be that the second a precondition for the first.

There is nothing true about that quote. Mr. Derbyshire is entirely incorrect.

I'd say that so far the evidence is on Mr. Derbyshire's side, and a substantial part of the world is starting to find that out the hard way. Perhaps you'd like to explain the popularity of this fellow in the Netherlands. If you can point to any contrary examples (and not just libertarian theories about what should happen, curiously uninformed by any of the countless examples of what actually does happen), I'd sure like to see them.

Required reading - The Camp of the Saints, by Jean Raspail

[Universe Prince]

I am sure there are a few eskimos in the Sahara, too. I'm equally sure they'd be the exception, not the rule.

Well, if it makes you feel better to think only Americans care about ideas of individual liberty, I won't stop you. But I will point out that doesn't mean you're correct.

Since when it the concept of private property uniquely libertarian?

I don't believe anyone said it was.

I think the notion precedes libertarianism by quite a few years.

Possibly, but your statement prompts a question. When do you think libertarianism began?

The fact that libertarianism overlaps and shares assumptions with other political philosophies is hardly evidence of it's influence.

I did not say that it was. What I said was there are many people who agree to varying degrees with libertarian ideas. Libertarian ideas are more wide spread than I think you realize. And I will say their influence is also widespread. A contributor to the elimination of the military draft in the U.S. was Milton Friedman, a libertarian if a moderate one. Also, apparently not so much any more, but as recently as 2000, Republicans campaigned on libertarian leaning ideas of small government and non-intervention. And libertarianism is still influential enough that some liberals now see themselves as libertarian leaning, hence the whole "liberaltarian" conversation that prompted the article you posted. You can dismiss libertarianism if you like, but you're only ignoring the reality of the situation.

If you're interested in seeing libertarians from other countries, the International Society for Individual Liberty will be holding its World Freedom Summit in Williamsburg, Virginia this year, August 11-15. Among the speakers will be Elbegdorj Tsakhia, former Prime Minister of Mongolia; Jacques de Guenin, a former director of Peugeot-Citroën and former mayor of Saint-Loubouer in Les Landes region of France; and Franklin Cudjoe, the Director of The Center for Humane Education (IMANI) – a libertarian thinktank in Accra, Ghana. And just in case you're saying "yeah, but they're meeting in America," this years conference will be the first one in several years, as best I can tell, to be held in America. Past summits have been held in places like Prague, Puerto Vallarta and New Zealand.

There is no contradiction between maximum liberty within a nation and maximum vigilance on the nation’s borders. Not only is there no contradiction between the two things, in fact, it may be that the second a precondition for the first.

There is nothing true about that quote. Mr. Derbyshire is entirely incorrect.

I'd say that so far the evidence is on Mr. Derbyshire's side,

What evidence?

I'd say that so far the evidence is on Mr. Derbyshire's side, and a substantial part of the world is starting to find that out the hard way. Perhaps you'd like to explain the popularity of this fellow in the Netherlands.

I see nothing in that article at the other end of your link that supports Mr Derbyshire's assertion. Yes, I see that xenophobic anti-immigration is popular in many places. That hardly proves that there "is no contradiction between maximum liberty within a nation and maximum vigilance on the nation’s borders." Perhaps you'd like to try again?

If you can point to any contrary examples (and not just libertarian theories about what should happen, curiously uninformed by any of the countless examples of what actually does happen), I'd sure like to see them.

Contrary examples of what? Of xenophobic anti-immigration? I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but I'll swing in the general direction I think you're pitching. A contrary example might be the 2006 elections here in the U.S. One of the arguments being made for why so many conservative Republicans lost is that many of them were anti-immigration, and there was a serious backlash against that stance. I think the evidence supports that argument. If you're not familiar with it, this link will take you to an article that sums up the situation nicely.

Required reading - The Camp of the Saints, by Jean Raspail

You're advocating as required reading a book that, as near as I can discover, is some sort of novel about the peril of the end of the white race as a result if the overwhelming tide of non-white people from third-world countries. So, do you think this is about race? About protecting white people from being overrun or eliminated? Frankly, I don't care about what color someone else's skin might be. And I am not all that concerned about the demise of Western culture because I doubt it will die. It will more likely evolve, just as it has done for the past several hundred (or even several thousand) years. The Western culture of Shakespeare's time would seem nearly foreign to most Westerners today. Yet Western culture did not die. It changed, as have the cultures in China and Russia and Mexico, et cetera. I personally do not subscribe to the fear of cultural change that seems to motivate so many people to want to close our borders and hinder otherwise harmless immigration. Yes, I want to see change for the better and not for the worse, but that isn't a reason to trample on the lives of others.

And as best as I can figure out, there is no such thing as maximum liberty in a nation with closed borders. I have yet to see one proposal for closing the borders that does not involve some measure of infringing on the liberty of those native born who live within the nation. Closing the borders means laws about who can and cannot be hired for a job, laws requiring national identification papers/cards/chips, taxes to pay for constructing and maintaining and monitoring and guarding a physical barrier at the border—and that is just the beginning. Such things are entirely and obviously contrary to maximum liberty. And so far you have not produced a single iota of evidence or argumentation that indicates otherwise. So I say with complete assurance that you and Mr. Derbyshire are incorrect.

[Religious Dick]

I did not say that it was. What I said was there are many people who agree to varying degrees with libertarian ideas. Libertarian ideas are more wide spread than I think you realize. And I will say their influence is also widespread. A contributor to the elimination of the military draft in the U.S. was Milton Friedman, a libertarian if a moderate one. Also, apparently not so much any more, but as recently as 2000, Republicans campaigned on libertarian leaning ideas of small government and non-intervention. And libertarianism is still influential enough that some liberals now see themselves as libertarian leaning, hence the whole "liberaltarian" conversation that prompted the article you posted. You can dismiss libertarianism if you like, but you're only ignoring the reality of the situation.

Interesting you should bring up Milton Friedman in a thread defending open immigration.

He was agin it. As has been every other libertarian economist of note. I doubt you can name me a single counter-example. But I'll give you an example of the kind of economist that does support open immigration.

Interestingly, the difference of views has nothing to do with the economics of immigration, on which I think we all agree. Expanded immigration is likely to exert downward pressure on workers' wages in the U.S.  Where we  disagree is on whether the gains to the rest of the world make this still a worthwhile effort (in the context, of course, of efforts to cushion the adverse effects on U.S.). As Alex Tabarrok points out in a recent post, the differences have to do with what we think is the relevant moral community for making public policy decisions.  George thinks the purely national perspective is the right one, and he figures the aggregate gains for the U.S. are small relative to the distributional costs, which makes this bad policy.  For my part, I believe cosmopolitan considerations should enter our calculus when the gains abroad (or to foreign nationals) are sufficiently large, which they would be with temporary labor flows. (So I am not a strict nationalist on these matters, to revert to Tabarrok's terminology.)

In other words, this "libertarian" open immigration idea from the likes of Reason and the Cato Institute amounts to a international redistribution program at the expense of Americans who can afford it the least.

Libertarians, eh? Being charitable at somebody else's expense?

Stop me if you think you've heard this one before....

If you're interested in seeing libertarians from other countries, the International Society for Individual Liberty will be holding its World Freedom Summit in Williamsburg, Virginia this year, August 11-15. Among the speakers will be Elbegdorj Tsakhia, former Prime Minister of Mongolia; Jacques de Guenin, a former director of Peugeot-Citroën and former mayor of Saint-Loubouer in Les Landes region of France; and Franklin Cudjoe, the Director of The Center for Humane Education (IMANI) – a libertarian thinktank in Accra, Ghana. And just in case you're saying "yeah, but they're meeting in America," this years conference will be the first one in several years, as best I can tell, to be held in America. Past summits have been held in places like Prague, Puerto Vallarta and New Zealand. [/color]

You can spare me the lecture on libertarianism. I considered myself a libertarian for over 15 years, and have been active in a number of libertarian organizations I'm sure you've heard of. But that's when libertarians defined personal liberty as the right to fuck up your own life. Now that they apparently believe personal liberty includes the right to fuck up the country for everyone else, I'm off the bus!

There is no contradiction between maximum liberty within a nation and maximum vigilance on the nation’s borders. Not only is there no contradiction between the two things, in fact, it may be that the second a precondition for the first.

There is nothing true about that quote. Mr. Derbyshire is entirely incorrect.

I'd say that so far the evidence is on Mr. Derbyshire's side,

What evidence?

I'd say that so far the evidence is on Mr. Derbyshire's side, and a substantial part of the world is starting to find that out the hard way. Perhaps you'd like to explain the popularity of this fellow in the Netherlands.

I see nothing in that article at the other end of your link that supports Mr Derbyshire's assertion. Yes, I see that xenophobic anti-immigration is popular in many places. That hardly proves that there "is no contradiction between maximum liberty within a nation and maximum vigilance on the nation’s borders." Perhaps you'd like to try again?

If you can point to any contrary examples (and not just libertarian theories about what should happen, curiously uninformed by any of the countless examples of what actually does happen), I'd sure like to see them.

Contrary examples of what? Of xenophobic anti-immigration?

Xenophobic? Woohoo! Wave your hankie when you say that!

If you're implying that liking my country's language, customs, culture and political institutions just as they are, and don't see how a massive influx of third world poor will provide an improvement makes me some kind of a [fac,rac,national,class,a-zA-Z,]*ist, then it will just have to. I do, and I'm not apologizing for it.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but I'll swing in the general direction I think you're pitching. A contrary example might be the 2006 elections here in the U.S. One of the arguments being made for why so many conservative Republicans lost is that many of them were anti-immigration, and there was a serious backlash against that stance. I think the evidence supports that argument. If you're not familiar with it, this link will take you to an article that sums up the situation nicely.[/color]

And Weigel, as is his wont, was being disingenuous. What he fails to mention was that in most of those races, the Democrat also supported stricter immigration controls (although possibly not as strict as the competing Republican). In case you missed it, the decisive issue in the last election was the Iraq war, not immigration. If you want to know how people feel about immigration apart from all other issues, I can recommend a few polls. We'll start with this one:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/56_support_enforcement_only_immigration_approach

Required reading - The Camp of the Saints, by Jean Raspail

You're advocating as required reading a book that, as near as I can discover, is some sort of novel about the peril of the end of the white race as a result if the overwhelming tide of non-white people from third-world countries. So, do you think this is about race? About protecting white people from being overrun or eliminated? Frankly, I don't care about what color someone else's skin might be. And I am not all that concerned about the demise of Western culture because I doubt it will die. It will more likely evolve, just as it has done for the past several hundred (or even several thousand) years. The Western culture of Shakespeare's time would seem nearly foreign to most Westerners today. Yet Western culture did not die. It changed, as have the cultures in China and Russia and Mexico, et cetera. I personally do not subscribe to the fear of cultural change that seems to motivate so many people to want to close our borders and hinder otherwise harmless immigration. Yes, I want to see change for the better and not for the worse, but that isn't a reason to trample on the lives of others.

What you manage to ignore is that "change" and "displace" are two different things. When Europeans migrated to the Western Hemisphere, they didn't "change" Native American culture, they displaced it. I note you are posting in English, not Iroquois.

As per the "trampling", I submit any trampling being done is being done by the illegal immigrants. It's not massive numbers of Americans that are imposing themselves on their countries in contravention to their laws.

As per Camp of the Saints - you're missing the subtler point of the book. It's not so much about the destruction of the white race as it is about the paralysis of a culture so obsessed and preoccupied of things like liberty, equality, brotherhood and "fairness" that it couldn't act even to circumvent a migration which would surely overwhelm and destroy it, even when it could easily have done so.

And as best as I can figure out, there is no such thing as maximum liberty in a nation with closed borders. I have yet to see one proposal for closing the borders that does not involve some measure of infringing on the liberty of those native born who live within the nation. Closing the borders means laws about who can and cannot be hired for a job, laws requiring national identification papers/cards/chips, taxes to pay for constructing and maintaining and monitoring and guarding a physical barrier at the border—and that is just the beginning. Such things are entirely and obviously contrary to maximum liberty. And so far you have not produced a single iota of evidence or argumentation that indicates otherwise. So I say with complete assurance that you and Mr. Derbyshire are incorrect.[/color]

"Maximum liberty" isn't possible without closed borders. What you're essentially advocating by "open" borders is the elimination of borders. One World! (Again, this sounds familiar.) Let's give it a spin, shall we?

In the One World order you have a population of 300 million Americans, and a like number of Europeans (could be a bit off on that one), all of whom share a liberal political tradition. And you have a population of 900 Indians, 1.3 billion Chinese, and I don't know how many Middle Easterners, etc. who decidedly do not have liberal political traditions. Nor do they seem to have much interest in them. Tell me, absent any distinct and isolated political jurisdictions, whose views do you think are going to predominate? And what do you think this massive collision of cultures will produce? Well, we don't need to consult "libertarian" theory, we can consult the newspapers.

http://www.vailtrail.com/article/20070523/OPINION/70523007
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/9145429/detail.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/yugo/article/0,,1817494,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-Palestinian_conflict
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7411762

As per your contention that immigration laws are unenforceable without significant invasions of privacy and infringing on the liberties of citizens - horseshit!. Your blurring the distinction between a law and it's enforcement strategy. Somehow we manage to enforce our murder laws without the cops going door-to-door every day and looking under everyone's bed for bodies. The problem is that the penalty for knowingly employing an illegal alien is small enough that many employers will accept the risk as a cost of doing business.

Make it a felony with a prison term attached, and few employers will be willing to employ illegal aliens even if the chances of getting caught are small. Especially if a generous reward is offered for information to anyone who drops a dime. No ID cards, no chips, no papers required, other than the standard background check most employers already give perspective employees.

No more jobs available, no more illegal immigration. Simple as that.

[Universe Prince]

Interesting you should bring up Milton Friedman in a thread defending open immigration.

I was under the impression I was defending libertarianism. You're the one trying to make immigration the main issue.

He was agin it. As has been every other libertarian economist of note. I doubt you can name me a single counter-example.

The problem with talking about libertarian economists regarding immigration is that they view the matter from a private property perspective. And many of those notable libertarian economists also advocate(d) a stateless society, which would make all immigration an issue of private property. But immigration from one country to another is not now a private property issue any more then traveling from one state to another within the U.S. is a private property issue. So if you support the ideas of libertarian economists, are you also in favor of anarcho-capitalism, that is to say, a stateless society where private property is a paramount right? If not, then it seems disingenuous of you to claim those libertarian economists in support of your anti-immigration stance.

In other words, this "libertarian" open immigration idea from the likes of Reason and the Cato Institute amounts to a international redistribution program at the expense of Americans who can afford it the least.

I'm not sure how you get to your "in other words" from the quote you provided. In any case, you're being absurd. Open immigration amounts to allowing people the liberty to exercise their own rights in choosing for themselves with whom to enter into private agreements of exchange. The argument that poor people should be prevented from exercising this right is tantamount to insisting that poor people are, at best, second class citizens. There are reasonable arguments to be made against open immigration, but that poor people will immigrate is not one of them.

Libertarians, eh? Being charitable at somebody else's expense?

At whose expense? How does someone from Mexico working here remove property from you? What right of yours is infringed by someone else agreeing to hire a person from another country?  Your argument is nonsensical.

You can spare me the lecture on libertarianism.

I might if you started talking like you knew something about it.

I considered myself a libertarian for over 15 years, and have been active in a number of libertarian organizations I'm sure you've heard of. But that's when libertarians defined personal liberty as the right to fuck up your own life. Now that they apparently believe personal liberty includes the right to fuck up the country for everyone else, I'm off the bus!

Buh-bye.

You sound less like a libertarian and more like someone afraid of living with the concequences of allowing people freedom to decide for themselves. In other words, a fair-weather libertarian. You seem to think choosing for oneself is great so long as everyone thinks like you. You oppose allowing people who do not think like you to have the liberty to choose. Which is the worst sort of hypocritical libertarianism. Freedom for yourself and your friends, but not for others. That is closer to authoritarianism than it is to libertarianism.

Xenophobic? Woohoo! Wave your hankie when you say that!

Is that your best reply? Did you take debate lessons from Michael Savage? I asked you for evidence to support your claim, and your reply is "wave your hankie". Wow. You're an intellectual giant.<--sarcasm

If you're implying that liking my country's language, customs, culture and political institutions just as they are, and don't see how a massive influx of third world poor will provide an improvement makes me some kind of a [fac,rac,national,class,a-zA-Z,]*ist, then it will just have to. I do, and I'm not apologizing for it.

No, I'm saying directly that examples of support for a xenophobic anti-immigration position does not prove that there "is no contradiction between maximum liberty within a nation and maximum vigilance on the nation’s borders." But I'm glad to see you own up to being a bigot. At least there is no confusion about that.

And Weigel, as is his wont, was being disingenuous. What he fails to mention was that in most of those races, the Democrat also supported stricter immigration controls (although possibly not as strict as the competing Republican). In case you missed it, the decisive issue in the last election was the Iraq war, not immigration.

To quote Weigel, "In other words, the hard-liners have a bucket of red herrings." The Iraq war was one issue among many. Pinning everything on one issue is a silly oversimplification. Not everyone in America is a single-issue voter, and even among those there many different issues of priority. The Iraq war was a significant issue, but so, and perhaps more so, was immigration.

If you want to know how people feel about immigration apart from all other issues, I can recommend a few polls. We'll start with this one:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/56_support_enforcement_only_immigration_approach

Okay. Then explain this: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/25/us/25poll.html

What you manage to ignore is that "change" and "displace" are two different things. When Europeans migrated to the Western Hemisphere, they didn't "change" Native American culture, they displaced it. I note you are posting in English, not Iroquois.

Indeed. When the French conquered England, the English were not displaced. And the English language you and I use today is is a descendant, in part, of the collision of English and French languages back then. Ever seen anything written in Old English? The language sure has changed, hasn't it? And look at our fashion. Women in pants! Shocking. We even let women act and vote and crazy things like that. Wow. Gee, I guess the culture has changed as well. In point of fact much of American culture comes from the influence of immigrants from many other cultures. So immigration does not equal displacement. And cultural change does not equal bad.

As per the "trampling", I submit any trampling being done is being done by the illegal immigrants. It's not massive numbers of Americans that are imposing themselves on their countries in contravention to their laws.

No, Americans are much more civilized. We just send in troops when we want to impose our will on other countries. Anyway, I have yet to see any evidence of this trampling by immigrants. They come here and find work, pay for food, pay for housing, pay for transportation, et cetera. Meanwhile, we look for more and better (worse) ways to punish people for trying to make a better life in a place with more and better opportunities to that end than the place from which they came.

As per Camp of the Saints - you're missing the subtler point of the book. It's not so much about the destruction of the white race as it is about the paralysis of a culture so obsessed and preoccupied of things like liberty, equality, brotherhood and "fairness" that it couldn't act even to circumvent a migration which would surely overwhelm and destroy it, even when it could easily have done so.

The paralysis of white culture. Are you next going to suggest I read The Turner Diaries?

And as best as I can figure out, there is no such thing as maximum liberty in a nation with closed borders. I have yet to see one proposal for closing the borders that does not involve some measure of infringing on the liberty of those native born who live within the nation. Closing the borders means laws about who can and cannot be hired for a job, laws requiring national identification papers/cards/chips, taxes to pay for constructing and maintaining and monitoring and guarding a physical barrier at the border—and that is just the beginning. Such things are entirely and obviously contrary to maximum liberty. And so far you have not produced a single iota of evidence or argumentation that indicates otherwise. So I say with complete assurance that you and Mr. Derbyshire are incorrect.

"Maximum liberty" isn't possible without closed borders. What you're essentially advocating by "open" borders is the elimination of borders. One World! (Again, this sounds familiar.) Let's give it a spin, shall we?

You're not addressing what I said. You're just restating your opinion and again leaving it with no support. That faintest of whisper sound you hear is your insubstantial argument collapsing under its own lighter than gossamer weight.

What you're essentially advocating by "open" borders is the elimination of borders. One World! (Again, this sounds familiar.)

Hardly. We have almost completely open immigration within the U.S. And yet, contrary to your assertion, we still have firmly established state borders. So your One World argument is moot.

As per your contention that immigration laws are unenforceable without significant invasions of privacy and infringing on the liberties of citizens - horseshit!. Your blurring the distinction between a law and it's enforcement strategy. Somehow we manage to enforce our murder laws without the cops going door-to-door every day and looking under everyone's bed for bodies. The problem is that the penalty for knowingly employing an illegal alien is small enough that many employers will accept the risk as a cost of doing business.

Make it a felony with a prison term attached, and few employers will be willing to employ illegal aliens even if the chances of getting caught are small.

Give me a moment. I'm laughing.

No actually, I am not blurring anything. Again, you're not addressing what I said. I did not say immigration laws are unenforceable without significant invasions of privacy and infringing on the liberties of citizens. I said, "I have yet to see one proposal for closing the borders that does not involve some measure of infringing on the liberty of those native born who live within the nation." And you help illustrate this with your assertion that "The problem is that the penalty for knowingly employing an illegal alien is small enough that many employers will accept the risk as a cost of doing business." Even you seek to have law made and enforced that infringes on the liberty of legal residents of the nation. What you have tried to dismiss as "horseshit" you have instead shown to be true.

As for your example of murder, the problem is the goal of anti-immigration law is to prevent immigration. Most murder laws are not about the prevention of murder, but for catching and procecuting murderers after the fact. The goal of preventing murders ends up being the motivation for liberty infringements like gun control laws. So even there, your argument falls flat.

No ID cards, no chips, no papers required, other than the standard background check most employers already give perspective employees.

And except for the identification requirements for employment that already exist. Which have resulted in a thriving market for forgeries. But it is interesting that you, who have spent so much time trying to connect the open borders position with liberalism and the like, have come out in favor of the socialist position that the government needs to tell individuals how to run their businesses in order to protect society. How weird is that?

No more jobs available, no more illegal immigration. Simple as that.

Yes, because Prohibitions always work so well. Just like the crack down on drug dealers has completely eliminated illegal drug use in this country. No more drug dealers, no more drugs. I said it before and I'll say it again. You're an intellectual giant.<--still sarcasm

[Religious Dick]

The problem with talking about libertarian economists regarding immigration is that they view the matter from a private property perspective. And many of those notable libertarian economists also advocate(d) a stateless society, which would make all immigration an issue of private property. But immigration from one country to another is not now a private property issue any more then traveling from one state to another within the U.S. is a private property issue. So if you support the ideas of libertarian economists, are you also in favor of anarcho-capitalism, that is to say, a stateless society where private property is a paramount right? If not, then it seems disingenuous of you to claim those libertarian economists in support of your anti-immigration stance.

That is not at all how libertarian economists have formulated the immigration question. You are referring to Rothbard's construction of a hypothetical right of migration (or rather the lack of one), which he did in the context of an anarcho-capitalist society, his ideal model of a free society. His point was that if a right to migration did not exist in a perfectly free society, then it certainly didn't exist in a less than perfectly free society, either. Here is exactly what he said:

IV. THE PURE ANARCHO-CAPITALIST MODEL
I raise the pure anarcho-capitalist model in this paper, not so much
to advocate the model per se as to propose it as a guide for settling vexed
current disputes about nationality. The pure model, simply, is that no
land areas, no square footage in the world, shall remain "public"; every
square foot of land area, be they streets, squares, or neighborhoods, is
privatized. Total privatization would help solve nationality problems, often
in surprising ways, and I suggest that existing states, or classical liberal
states, try to approach such a system even while some land areas remain
in the governmental sphere.

....

However, on rethinking immigration on the basis of the anarcho-
capitalist model, it became clear to me that a totally privatized country
would not have "open borders" at all. If every piece of land in a country
were owned by some person, group, or corporation, this would mean
that no immigrant could enter there unless invited to enter and allowed
to rent, or purchase, property. A totally privatized country would be as
"closed" as the particular inhabitants and property owners desire. It seems
clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the
U.S. really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the
state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not gen-
uinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors.

From Nations by Consent: Decomposing the Nation-State

Likewise, neither did Friedman express his objections to open immigration as a violation of private property. He objected to it as incompatible with the welfare state. Here is what he said:

"If there were no welfare state," he continued, "you could have open immigration, because everybody would be responsible for himself." Was he suggesting that one can't have immigration reform without welfare reform? "No, you can have immigration reform, but you can't have open immigration without largely the elimination of welfare.

From The Romance of Economics

And no, I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, communist, libertarian, socialist, or any other kind of ideological camp-follower. The closest you could come to describing my philosophy would be as (small c) conservative in the Kirkian sense, that is, organically grown political systems reflecting the habits and customs of the population are to be preferred over ideologies sprung from the heads of Bright People With Big Ideas, as those seem to have a tendency toward getting lots of people killed, without much else to show for themselves.

Open immigration amounts to allowing people the liberty to exercise their own rights in choosing for themselves with whom to enter into private agreements of exchange. The argument that poor people should be prevented from exercising this right is tantamount to insisting that poor people are, at best, second class citizens. There are reasonable arguments to be made against open immigration, but that poor people will immigrate is not one of them.

That one is so wrong I don't know where to start. In the first place, foreign nationals are not second class citizens, because they are not citizens at all. Second, all societies, from your bowling team to the United Nations, have a right to define the conditions of membership. There's no such thing as a right to be in a country you are not a citizen of, any more than there's a right to be on property you are not the owner of. Third, given that minimizing the presence of an underclass is one of the primary objectives of virtually every government on earth, it would seem counter-productive to encourage the importation of one. Given those criteria, the argument is a very good one indeed. 

At whose expense? How does someone from Mexico working here remove property from you? What right of yours is infringed by someone else agreeing to hire a person from another country?  Your argument is nonsensical.

If I buy a pair of $300 speakers from a fence for $25, rather than pay the full price at Circuit City, what right of Circuit City's is infringed?

You're ignoring that illegal labor, like my fenced speakers, is a bargain specifically because it's illegal. Legitimate providers of goods and services can't compete on the same terms as those who provide them illegally.

You sound less like a libertarian and more like someone afraid of living with the concequences of allowing people freedom to decide for themselves. In other words, a fair-weather libertarian. You seem to think choosing for oneself is great so long as everyone thinks like you. You oppose allowing people who do not think like you to have the liberty to choose. Which is the worst sort of hypocritical libertarianism. Freedom for yourself and your friends, but not for others. That is closer to authoritarianism than it is to libertarianism.

First, I don't claim to be a libertarian, and second, I confine my political concerns to my own country, I'm not trying to incite the New World Revolution. Like the Marxists, you are making the assumption this would be a wonderful world if only it would conform to your preferred political preferences. The reality is, it won't, and most likely never will. It is not a free world, never has been, and most likely never will be. At best, you can hope for an occasional oasis of liberty, and if you happen to be lucky enough to find yourself in one, it behooves you to preserve it as long as you can, as free societies tend to be unstable and usually short lived in the larger context of history. Tyranny is the normal case, liberty is the exceptional one. My concern is maintaining freedom in my own country. Establishing it or maintaining it in other countries is rightfully the concern of the citizens of those countries.

Xenophobic? Woohoo! Wave your hankie when you say that!

Is that your best reply? Did you take debate lessons from Michael Savage? I asked you for evidence to support your claim, and your reply is "wave your hankie". Wow. You're an intellectual giant.<--sarcasm[/color]

I've never heard Michael Savage, but if he's using my line, I want royalties...

Einstein I may not be, but I at least take the trouble to acquaint myself with the works of those whose views I propose to either represent or critique. An example which you might profitably follow.

If you're implying that liking my country's language, customs, culture and political institutions just as they are, and don't see how a massive influx of third world poor will provide an improvement makes me some kind of a [fac,rac,national,class,a-zA-Z,]*ist, then it will just have to. I do, and I'm not apologizing for it.

No, I'm saying directly that examples of support for a xenophobic anti-immigration position does not prove that there "is no contradiction between maximum liberty within a nation and maximum vigilance on the nation’s borders." But I'm glad to see you own up to being a bigot. At least there is no confusion about that.

I gave you links to about a half-dozen news accounts of situations where the liberty and security of the affected populations would be profitably enhanced with a border. You've yet to give me an single example of anyone's liberty being enhanced by the removal of one.

And again, if the assertion that my country and culture have accomplished some admirable things and therefore merit an effort to preserve them makes me a bigot, then I'll gladly plead guilty.

And Weigel, as is his wont, was being disingenuous. What he fails to mention was that in most of those races, the Democrat also supported stricter immigration controls (although possibly not as strict as the competing Republican). In case you missed it, the decisive issue in the last election was the Iraq war, not immigration.

To quote Weigel, "In other words, the hard-liners have a bucket of red herrings." The Iraq war was one issue among many. Pinning everything on one issue is a silly oversimplification. Not everyone in America is a single-issue voter, and even among those there many different issues of priority. The Iraq war was a significant issue, but so, and perhaps more so, was immigration.

And he provided not one iota of evidence in support of his opinion.

If you want to know how people feel about immigration apart from all other issues, I can recommend a few polls. We'll start with this one:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/56_support_enforcement_only_immigration_approach

Okay. Then explain this: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/25/us/25poll.html

Well, let's see what your poll and the article actually says:

Taking a pragmatic view on a divisive issue, a large majority of Americans want to change the immigration laws to allow illegal immigrants to gain legal status and to create a new guest worker program to meet future labor demands, the poll found.

At the same time, Americans have mixed feelings about whether the recent wave of immigration has been beneficial to the country, the survey found, and they are sharply divided over how open the United States should be to future immigrants.

...

 The poll showed that Americans are uncertain about the benefits of the most recent wave of immigration, and divided over how many immigrants should come in the future. Fifty-seven percent said recent immigrants had made a contribution to the United States. But 35 percent said that in the long run, the new immigrants would make American society worse, while only 28 percent said they would make it better.

A plurality of 48 percent favored imposing some controls on immigration. But large minorities on either side disagreed, with a quarter of respondents saying the United States should open its borders to all immigrants, and a quarter saying that the borders should be completely closed. These polarized positions may help explain the acrimony of the immigration debate across the nation.

By large margins, people in the poll are aware that the majority of the immigrants who have arrived in recent years are illegal, and 61 percent said that illegal immigration was a very serious problem. A large majority, 70 percent of respondents, said they believed that illegal immigrants weaken the American economy because they use public services but do not pay corresponding taxes.

8. Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the issue of immigration?

              App Disapp DK/NA
10/3-5/05 CBS  21   53    26
4/6-9/06 CBS   26   53    21
4/28-30/06 CBS 28   56    16
5/4-8/06       26   58    16
5/16-17/06 CBS 38   53     9
6/10-11/06 CBS 33   56    11
5/18-23/07     27   60    13

45. Overall, do you think most other people would say most recent immigrants to the United States contribute to this country, or do most of them cause problems?

            Contribute Cause problems Both(vol.) Depends(vol.) DK/NA
5/18-23/07       32         53           3           1           10

46. In the long run, do you think the people who are emigrating to the United States today will make American society better, will make American society worse, or do you think today's immigrants won't affect American society one way or the other?

                         Better Worse Won’t affect society DK/NA
1/3-5/94 CBS          16     41          32            11
10/23-27/96 CBS     22     40          27            11
5/18-23/07             28     35          29             8

47. Do you think most of the people who have moved to the United States in the last few years are here legally, or are most of them here illegally?
           Legally Illegally Half & half (vol.) DK/NA
6/19-23/86    32      49          6              13
6/21-24/93    17      68          5               9
12/7-10/01    29      53          3              16
5/18-23/07    16      75          2               7

I dunno. Those numbers look pretty consistent with the poll I posted. What was your point?

As per Camp of the Saints - you're missing the subtler point of the book. It's not so much about the destruction of the white race as it is about the paralysis of a culture so obsessed and preoccupied of things like liberty, equality, brotherhood and "fairness" that it couldn't act even to circumvent a migration which would surely overwhelm and destroy it, even when it could easily have done so.

The paralysis of white culture. Are you next going to suggest I read The Turner Diaries?

Would you have been happier if Raspail had used a Klingon invasion of Vulcan to illustrate the dilemma? And would his point be any less salient if he had?

Tell me about the Turner Diaries when a bastion of right-wing nuttery like the Atlantic Monthly takes them seriously enough to devote a cover story to them.

So what else do those who call themselves libertarians do for jollies these days - purge and burn copies of Huckleberry Finn from school libraries?

Oy!

And as best as I can figure out, there is no such thing as maximum liberty in a nation with closed borders. I have yet to see one proposal for closing the borders that does not involve some measure of infringing on the liberty of those native born who live within the nation. Closing the borders means laws about who can and cannot be hired for a job, laws requiring national identification papers/cards/chips, taxes to pay for constructing and maintaining and monitoring and guarding a physical barrier at the border—and that is just the beginning. Such things are entirely and obviously contrary to maximum liberty. And so far you have not produced a single iota of evidence or argumentation that indicates otherwise. So I say with complete assurance that you and Mr. Derbyshire are incorrect.

"Maximum liberty" isn't possible without closed borders. What you're essentially advocating by "open" borders is the elimination of borders. One World! (Again, this sounds familiar.) Let's give it a spin, shall we?

You're not addressing what I said. You're just restating your opinion and again leaving it with no support. That faintest of whisper sound you hear is your insubstantial argument collapsing under its own lighter than gossamer weight.

I'll repeat: I gave you links to about a half-dozen news accounts of situations where the liberty and security of the affected populations would be profitably enhanced with a border. You've yet to give me an single example of anyone's liberty being enhanced by the removal of one.

What you're essentially advocating by "open" borders is the elimination of borders. One World! (Again, this sounds familiar.)

Hardly. We have almost completely open immigration within the U.S. And yet, contrary to your assertion, we still have firmly established state borders. So your One World argument is moot.

So you're comparing open borders between the several states with open borders between countries? And you don't see the distinction? Let me give you a cultural quiz:

Stoning a woman to death who's committed adultery is a practice of some religious sects in:

A.) New Hampshire
B.) California
C.) Afghanistan
D.) Hawaii
E.) Arkansas

How did you do?

No actually, I am not blurring anything. Again, you're not addressing what I said. I did not say immigration laws are unenforceable without significant invasions of privacy and infringing on the liberties of citizens. I said, "I have yet to see one proposal for closing the borders that does not involve some measure of infringing on the liberty of those native born who live within the nation." And you help illustrate this with your assertion that "The problem is that the penalty for knowingly employing an illegal alien is small enough that many employers will accept the risk as a cost of doing business." Even you seek to have law made and enforced that infringes on the liberty of legal residents of the nation. What you have tried to dismiss as "horseshit" you have instead shown to be true.

If you're going to put it that way, I have yet to see one proposal for prohibiting burglary that does not involve some measure of infringing on the liberty of those native born who live within the nation. But you've yet to establish that the liberty to commit burglaries or aid and abet people who are in the country illegally is a legitimate right.

And except for the identification requirements for employment that already exist. Which have resulted in a thriving market for forgeries. But it is interesting that you, who have spent so much time trying to connect the open borders position with liberalism and the like, have come out in favor of the socialist position that the government needs to tell individuals how to run their businesses in order to protect society. How weird is that?

Identification requirements and background check are not necessarily done at the behest of the government. They're generally done because most employers have an aversion to hiring embezzlers, drug addicts and habitual criminals. To be in this country illegally is obviously a crime. I didn't say the government should mandate identification. The government should increase the penalty for knowingly aiding and abetting someone who has committed the crime of entering the country illegally. How the employer does his due diligence is his affair.

[Universe Prince]

The problem with talking about libertarian economists regarding immigration is that they view the matter from a private property perspective.

That is not at all how libertarian economists have formulated the immigration question. [...] Here is exactly what he said:

However, on rethinking immigration on the basis of the anarcho-capitalist model, it became clear to me that a totally privatized countrywould not have "open borders" at all. If every piece of land in a country were owned by some person, group, or corporation, this would mean that no immigrant could enter there unless invited to enter and allowed to rent, or purchase, property. A totally privatized country would be as "closed" as the particular inhabitants and property owners desire. It seems clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the U.S. really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors.

Looks like a private property perspective to me.

Likewise, neither did Friedman express his objections to open immigration as a violation of private property. He objected to it as incompatible with the welfare state. Here is what he said:

"If there were no welfare state," he continued, "you could have open immigration, because everybody would be responsible for himself." Was he suggesting that one can't have immigration reform without welfare reform? "No, you can have immigration reform, but you can't have open immigration without largely the elimination of welfare.

I've been arguing all along that the real problem has been the welfare state. That's why when people complain about immigration affecting the government run social programs I explain that is a problem with the programs and not the immigrants. Though personally, I think immigration as a means to bring about the collapse of the welfare programs is a good thing. The sooner we get away from those programs the better. What I don't understand is why the people complaining about immigration ruining our government run social programs are trying to punish the immigrants rather than get rid of the programs. It's like propping up a Ponzi scheme and complaining that too many people want in on the deal. Is the problem the people or the scheme?

In the first place, foreign nationals are not second class citizens, because they are not citizens at all.

Fair enough. I used the wrong word to express myself. Rather than second-class citizens I should have said second-class humans.

Second, all societies, from your bowling team to the United Nations, have a right to define the conditions of membership. There's no such thing as a right to be in a country you are not a citizen of, any more than there's a right to be on property you are not the owner of.

Whoa there. Membership would be citizenship, and no one has argued that the U.S. doesn't have a right to establish it's own rules for citizenship. Setting that strawman aside, to say that one has no right to enter a country of which one is not a citizen by comparing it to tresspassing on private property implies that the country is private property. But of course, it isn't, unless you grant ownership to the government. Is that your assertion then? That the government owns the country?

Third, given that minimizing the presence of an underclass is one of the primary objectives of virtually every government on earth, it would seem counter-productive to encourage the importation of one.

I don't recall seeing that in the Constitution. So I don't accept that as a given. Also I don't accept that government has any business trying to solve the problem of class, underclass, overclass, or any other kind. That you do is interesting. Your case is looking more and more like a defense of socialism.

If I buy a pair of $300 speakers from a fence for $25, rather than pay the full price at Circuit City, what right of Circuit City's is infringed?

None.

You're ignoring that illegal labor, like my fenced speakers, is a bargain specifically because it's illegal. Legitimate providers of goods and services can't compete on the same terms as those who provide them illegally.

No, you're assuming all immigrant labor is illegal, and that is not the case. How does someone legally from Mexico legally working here remove property from you? The answer: he does not. What right of yours is infringed by someone else legally agreeing to hire a person legally from another country? The answer: not one.

Like the Marxists, you are making the assumption this would be a wonderful world if only it would conform to your preferred political preferences.

No, I have not made that assumption at all. Nor have I made an argument that libertarianism would make everything wonderful, so I am left wondering where you got your assumption.

Tyranny is the normal case, liberty is the exceptional one.

A situation that deserves some effort to rectify.

My concern is maintaining freedom in my own country. Establishing it or maintaining it in other countries is rightfully the concern of the citizens of those countries.

Indeed. This is why I am not arguing for trying to change other countries. I am arguing for liberty in this one, the U.S., the one in which I live. Another strawman put to rest.

Einstein I may not be, but I at least take the trouble to acquaint myself with the works of those whose views I propose to either represent or critique.

[...]

I gave you links to about a half-dozen news accounts of situations where the liberty and security of the affected populations would be profitably enhanced with a border. You've yet to give me an single example of anyone's liberty being enhanced by the removal of one.

As best I recall, the events those news accounts report occurred in places that already have a border. Hmmm.

Anyway, time to put down another strawman. I have not argued in favor of eliminating borders, and so naturally I have not provided any examples of a position which I have not taken. You on the other hand have yet to provide a single example of closed borders protecting maximum liberty within the nation. Not one. Not any. None.

And again, if the assertion that my country and culture have accomplished some admirable things and therefore merit an effort to preserve them makes me a bigot, then I'll gladly plead guilty.

Nice whitewash. Let me know when you actually get around to making that assertion.

And [Weigel] provided not one iota of evidence in support of his opinion.

I guess you didn't read the article.

Well, let's see what your poll and the article actually says:

[...]

I dunno. Those numbers look pretty consistent with the poll I posted. What was your point?

Wow. That was some really selective editing you did there. I suppose I was too busy looking at these:

• Would you favor or oppose a guest worker program?
  • Oppose: 30%
  • Favor: 66%
• What should happen to illegal immigrants who have been in the U.S. for at least two years?
  • Should be deported: 33%
  • Should be allowed to apply for legal status: 62%

Is the point getting any clearer for you?

Would you have been happier if Raspail had used a Klingon invasion of Vulcan to illustrate the dilemma? And would his point be any less salient if he had?

You're assuming his point was salient. You also seem to be assuming that his work of fiction somehow proves something non-fictional. You might as well suggest that Harry Turteldove's alternate histories prove what really would have happened. Yes, fiction can be used to make points about real world situations. The Camp of the Saints hardly proves that Raspail's point of view, or yours, is the correct one. It merely proves that someone can write a novel about it.

So what else do those who call themselves libertarians do for jollies these days - purge and burn copies of Huckleberry Finn from school libraries?

Where did that come from? Disagreeing with a book is hardly the same as calling for a book burning. So many strawmen, so little time.

So you're comparing open borders between the several states with open borders between countries? And you don't see the distinction?

Yes, of course I do. But it doesn't change the fact that your assertion of "open borders" equals "no borders" is a complete fallacy.

Let me give you a cultural quiz:

Stoning a woman to death who's committed adultery is a practice of some religious sects in:

A.) New Hampshire
B.) California
C.) Afghanistan
D.) Hawaii
E.) Arkansas

How did you do?

That does nothing to prove your One World complaint. In fact, I'm not sure what it has to do with this conversation at all. Yes, people in other countries have different cultures, some far more strict than our own. I'm glad you noticed. But last I checked, America was not suffering an influx of adulteress stoning Muslims. They seem to be not generally interesting in coming here to live. And of course there are several predominately Muslim countries in the Middle East, all of which seem to have their own distinct borders. So again, it not only does not prove your point, it contradicts your point.

If you're going to put it that way, I have yet to see one proposal for prohibiting burglary that does not involve some measure of infringing on the liberty of those native born who live within the nation. But you've yet to establish that the liberty to commit burglaries or aid and abet people who are in the country illegally is a legitimate right.

I don't recall arguing that people had a right to commit theft. So I see no reason to attempt to defend that bizarre position. And I also don't recall saying that people had a right to aid or abet people here illegally. What I do recall is that I have not been arguing in favor of illegal immigration, but rather in favor of open borders, which would end most illegal immigration by eliminating the needless legal barriers to most immigration. For those keeping count at home, that is one more strawman on the trash pile.

I should point out here that immigration is not like murder or theft. Murder and theft and the like violate other people's rights, interfere with their lives against their will. Immigration does not. There is nothing inherently criminal about moving from one place to another. Moving from, say, Mexico to the U.S., or vice-versa, does not infringe on anyone's rights. There is no moral imperative for having laws against immigration as there is for laws against murder and theft. So suggesting the immigration should be easier is not really like saying theft or murder should be easier. Saying the borders should be open is more like saying all people should be free and there should be no slavery.

Identification requirements and background check are not necessarily done at the behest of the government. They're generally done because most employers have an aversion to hiring embezzlers, drug addicts and habitual criminals. To be in this country illegally is obviously a crime. I didn't say the government should mandate identification. The government should increase the penalty for knowingly aiding and abetting someone who has committed the crime of entering the country illegally. How the employer does his due diligence is his affair.

I see, you want to make businesses do the work of law enforcement. But you're missing an important distinction. A business deciding to perform background checks is not the same as government telling businesses who they can and cannot hire. And for many businesses and jobs, a person's country of origin has little bearing on whether or not he can do the job. And getting back to the liberty part of this, the liberty involved here is that of people to decide for themselves with whom to make an agreement of exchange. There is nothing criminal about that, and it violates no one's rights. Interfereing with that, however, does violate people's rights. If you don't want to do business with poor people from other cultures, that is your business. But you don't have grounds to deny someone else the ability to do business with people you don't like.

And again, I can't help but notice that your position looks a lot like a socialist one. Protecting the nation from enemies of the people, from the undue influence of other cultures, et cetera. You say you're interested in maintaining the freedom in your country, but you want the government to tell people how to run their businesses. You say this country and culture have accomplished some admirable things and therefore merit an effort to preserve them, but you seem to be ignoring this country and culture are both mixtures of influences from people of many different countries and of different cultures.

You seem to be ignoring that some of this country's achievements were made possible by its openness to immigrants, not by being closed to them. There are a lot of arguments for a closed border that talk about fear of what immigrants will do, but I can find no reason to live in that fear.  I see nothing courageous about attempting to wall ourselves in with closed borders and strictly controlled immigration. Even if we could do such a thing, what then? Do you really think this fear of subversive influence on our culture would go away? I doubt it. No, the country and the culture of the U.S. would not be protected by a closed and strictly controlled border, but rather harmed by it and grievously so. America is not a great country in spite of immigration, but (if only in part) because of it. To turn our backs on that seems mighty foolish to me. And so far, I have not seen even a single argument to give me cause to doubt that.





(Frak, that is one gorram long post.)

[Universe Prince]

More from the NYT/CBS poll:



I see that approximately 57% said immigrants will in the long run make society better or have no effect compared to only 35% who said immigrants will make society worse. And 57% said most immigrants contribute to this country rather than cause problems. And 59% said they think illegal immigrants take unwanted jobs. What I am seeing there is not a hard-line stance against immigration or even illegal immigrants. To my thinking, the poll does not support the idea that most Americans want a closed and strictly controlled border. It might, however, support the idea that anti-immigration positions were a significant contributing factor to Republican losses in the 2006 elections.

[Plane]

I would like to try a thought experiment.


If all the world were tightly regimented but for Lichtenstein, which was free, should there be a right for all the worlds people yearning for freedom to stack themselves in Lichtenstein?

At some point before the whole world arrived, Lichtenstien would run out of space , or resorces.

The US covers a lot of space and has a lot of rescorces but it is possible to overuse it.
 
Freedom is better than any alternative for each individual , but any social unit will limit individual freedom as much as it must to exist .
{Or more}


Allowing every freedom yearning person of the world to settle in the US produces problems here and there.

Here we strain our hospitality , there they run short of the yearning for freedom type of guy.

I guess I would rather have a resorce shortage than a dearth of freedom loveing people.

But isn't it best to cause neither sort of problem?

[Universe Prince]

I would like to try a thought experiment.


If all the world were tightly regimented but for Lichtenstein, which was free, should there be a right for all the worlds people yearning for freedom to stack themselves in Lichtenstein?

At some point before the whole world arrived, Lichtenstien would run out of space , or resorces.

You're assuming that such a situation would result in vast numbers of people wanting to live in Lichtenstein. I doubt it would. Some people, yes. Everyone, no.

Freedom is better than any alternative for each individual , but any social unit will limit individual freedom as much as it must to exist .
{Or more}

I disagree. They will limit individual freedom as much as the people in power feel is needed to maintain control.

Allowing every freedom yearning person of the world to settle in the US produces problems here and there.

You seem to be assuming that immigration is all about moving from oppression to freedom. I don't think it is. Mexico is not exactly an oppressed nation. What the Mexicans coming here lack usually is not liberty, but money and the opportunity to earn it. And the ones who risk coming here illgally are probably more oppressed by their situation here (having to hide from the law) than they would be in Mexico. In fact, there are American expatriates in Mexico who believe they have more freedom there than in the U.S.

I guess I would rather have a resorce shortage than a dearth of freedom loveing people.

But isn't it best to cause neither sort of problem?

Probably. Which is why I advocate free trade. Focusing on stopping people from crossing the border is like treating the symptom of a disease but not the cause. Treat the cause(s) and the symptoms will go away. Treat just the symptoms, and the situation will only get worse. Not that immigration is a disease, because it isn't. But we won't solve the immigration issue by building a fence and cracking down on illegal immigrants. When the overall economic situation in Mexico improves, it will remove a major motivation for coming to the U.S. to get work. No, free trade isn't a panacea, but it would be helpful.

[Plane]

I would like to try a thought experiment.


If all the world were tightly regimented but for Lichtenstein, which was free, should there be a right for all the worlds people yearning for freedom to stack themselves in Lichtenstein?

At some point before the whole world arrived, Lichtenstien would run out of space , or resorces.

You're assuming that such a situation would result in vast numbers of people wanting to live in Lichtenstein. I doubt it would. Some people, yes. Everyone, no.

Even if it is only that number that feel chafed by the halters of  their government , it could amount to swamping Litchtenstien quickly and perhaps the US slowly.

Freedom is better than any alternative for each individual , but any social unit will limit individual freedom as much as it must to exist .
{Or more}

I disagree. They will limit individual freedom as much as the people in power feel is needed to maintain control.

You are not disagreeing , you are restateing the same thing in milder terms , let me restate it again in other terms still, a soicial unit may impose greater than the needed restriction on personal liberty , but it shall not impose less restriction than it needs to cpontinue to exist.

Allowing every freedom yearning person of the world to settle in the US produces problems here and there.

You seem to be assuming that immigration is all about moving from oppression to freedom. I don't think it is. Mexico is not exactly an oppressed nation. What the Mexicans coming here lack usually is not liberty, but money and the opportunity to earn it. And the ones who risk coming here illgally are probably more oppressed by their situation here (having to hide from the law) than they would be in Mexico. In fact, there are American expatriates in Mexico who believe they have more freedom there than in the U.S.

I hereby acnoledge that I was consentrateing on only half of the reasons for leaveing the rest of the world and comeing here , thereby minimiseing the problem , thank you for pointing out that economic reasons are equally compelling and that the problem is twice as bad as I was describeing.

I guess I would rather have a resorce shortage than a dearth of freedom loveing people.

But isn't it best to cause neither sort of problem?

Probably. Which is why I advocate free trade. Focusing on stopping people from crossing the border is like treating the symptom of a disease but not the cause. Treat the cause(s) and the symptoms will go away. Treat just the symptoms, and the situation will only get worse. Not that immigration is a disease, because it isn't. But we won't solve the immigration issue by building a fence and cracking down on illegal immigrants. When the overall economic situation in Mexico improves, it will remove a major motivation for coming to the U.S. to get work. No, free trade isn't a panacea, but it would be helpful.

Allowing people to leave places that are awfull to live in like Mexico and Cuba robs these places of their talented and ambitious persons wholesale , there is a new exodus of persons from Venizewela right now and it seems as if we will gain a lot of acting talent from it as well as anyone who is good with money or science. Germany won most of the Nobel prizes untill Natziism started a huge brain drain , they haven't entirely recovered after eighty years even with many advantages that Cuba and Veniswela will never have. The US may indeed be well served by skimming the most  healthy , intelligent , ambitious , welthy , well educated and religious persons from around the world , but it is robbing most of the world of exactly what they need to advance as we already have.

[Amianthus]

Germany won most of the Nobel prizes untill Natziism started a huge brain drain , they haven't entirely recovered after eighty years even with many advantages that Cuba and Veniswela will never have.

Germany has won or shared a total of 94 Nobel Prizes.

Before 1940, Germany won or shared a total of 43. After 1942, Germany won or shared a total of 51. None were awarded during the years of 1940-1942.

Granted, more of those prizes have been shared since the war, but a large part of that is due to most theoretical research being performed by teams of scientists rather than one lone genius. More of the science Nobel Prizes have been shared prizes recently as well, no matter who won.

[Universe Prince]

Allowing people to leave places that are awfull to live in like Mexico and Cuba robs these places of their talented and ambitious persons wholesale,

Wait just a minute. Um, no, it does not rob these places. It is not our fault in those places have allowed and/or created situations that prompt their own people to seek some place else to live. The living situations in those nations may cost them talented and ambitious people, but we are not robbing them.

The US may indeed be well served by skimming the most  healthy , intelligent , ambitious , welthy , well educated and religious persons from around the world , but it is robbing most of the world of exactly what they need to advance as we already have.

Again, we're not robbing other countries by allowing immigration. But you seem to be ignoring my point about free trade. Removing needless restrictions on trade would allow more job opportunities in Mexico, and would in the long term result in increased overall prosperity for Mexico, thus substantially reducing the motivation for people come here to the U.S. seeking employment. As I said before, if you treat only the symptoms and not the cause(s) then you're not going to solve the problem.

[Plane]

Allowing people to leave places that are awfull to live in like Mexico and Cuba robs these places of their talented and ambitious persons wholesale,

Wait just a minute. Um, no, it does not rob these places. It is not our fault in those places have allowed and/or created situations that prompt their own people to seek some place else to live. The living situations in those nations may cost them talented and ambitious people, but we are not robbing them.

The US may indeed be well served by skimming the most  healthy , intelligent , ambitious , welthy , well educated and religious persons from around the world , but it is robbing most of the world of exactly what they need to advance as we already have.

Again, we're not robbing other countries by allowing immigration. But you seem to be ignoring my point about free trade. Removing needless restrictions on trade would allow more job opportunities in Mexico, and would in the long term result in increased overall prosperity for Mexico, thus substantially reducing the motivation for people come here to the U.S. seeking employment. As I said before, if you treat only the symptoms and not the cause(s) then you're not going to solve the problem.

Restricting Immagration very little, treats a symptom , but does not help the root causes much. Mexico is corrupt and socialist their economy suffers as a consequence , but they don't need to improve if they can send their best people into a strong economy to earn their money , sending the resulting creation of wealth home .

If the USA were not so accessable they might have to evolve forward and learn to create wealth close to home .  The USA is keeping Mexico afloat with direct infusions of job oppurtunitys and preventing a much needed bloody revolution in Cuba by allowing millions of malcontents to seek freedom and prosperity with a mere two days swim (in shark infested seas harried by ship and aircraft).

If Mexico didn't have this money flow they would have to invent it , exactly as they ought to do.

If Cuba didn't have this pressure release , they would have to change governments once in a while as civilised people do.

The problem is that you do not have to wash what you can throw away and the people of Mexico and Cuba who have the talent, intelligence and strength to fight city hall are tossing their futures close to home in the trash.