Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
No, I Don’t Have An Immigration Limit In Mind And Neither Should You
I am an unashamed, unabashed “open borders type.” I’m not a communitarian, so I don’t see the issue in utilitarian terms (although if I did, I’d still be an “open borders type”). I am an individualist, so I see things through the lens of the rights of the individual: an individual’s right to engage in non-violent actions, including to move without restriction, and my right to associate freely with whomever I damn well please.
In another thread, the question was put to me what, if any, maximum number of immigrants would be acceptable. The implied alternative to a numerical limit would be an infinite number. I don’t have a specific number in mind, nor should I.
We’re talking about people who come to America to work and live in freedom and peace and be productive. They leave their homes and travel to another nation because their home country is so terrible and America is awesome.
But why does there have to be a number? Frankly, any number would be arbitrary.
And no, it’s not infinite. It couldn’t possibly be infinite. As pointed out in that other thread, 40% of illegal immigrants come here by plane and hundreds of millions of people would come to America if they could.
Well then, why haven’t they? If the borders are as open as immigration hawks claim they are, why hasn’t everyone else in the world come here already?
The answer is that magic doesn’t exist. There are costs involved in immigrating to the United States. If you live in some terrible third world country on a dollar a day or less, you can’t afford a ticket to LaGuardia. It’s obvious, but I guess it needs to be said, that the number of people who immigrate to the United States in a given year is constrained by reality.
But even the idea of a specific arbitrary number is statist nonsense. In any other context, if we weren’t talking about illegal immigration, an arbitrary numerical limit would be seen for what it is. Andrew Cuomo think that six is enough rounds in a magazine. Barack Obama thinks that at a certain point you have enough money. There are plenty of liberals who think that people who own more than one gun are terrifying. Each of those is an arbitrary numerical limit on freedom.
People want to come to America. It’s awesome here and we all know it. A man can say and believe anything he wants. He can work at a trade and be prosperous. Anybody can own a plot of land with a house on it.
The whole seasteading movement is really a way to get around limits on visas for high tech work. Think about that: It’s the policy of the United States to keep people out who:
1. Want to come here
2. Want to work
3. Possess labor so valuable that there’s a movement to create artificial islands to get them here.
People are going to come to America. We can make it easy for them or we can impose arbitrary limits and keep out people who we actually want to come here.
I get it. Freedom is scary to people. They want the government to come in and limit things. I understand the psychology behind it. Just don’t expect me to agree with it or to participate in applying your statist shackles to freedom.
Published in General
No. We’re responsible for our own citizens.
Who in their right mind would take them?
That’s a fair counterpoint, though the incentives for you to leave the Midwest are an order of magnitude different than those affecting someone in much of Central America.
I think Fred believe it’s not worth a lot of effort to try to root out the relatively low number of criminals (which I’m sympathetic to), but if it’s that easy to spot one we should probably just send them to the authorities of his home country.
What of immigrants with communicable diseases or other ailments? Should we demand that they have the financial wherewithal to be treated in a hospital or clinic? Or should Americans, already compelled by the federal government to have their own health insurance or face a financial penalty for not having it, be also compelled to cover anyone who enters this country? So, our nascent form of socialized medicine (wealth redistribution) now extends to any foreign national anywhere so long as they appear on American soil and even if they decide to return to their own country since the border is open? Would that be a Libertarian position? Are there no limits at all to the open borders policy you propose?
In fairness your version of immigrants is something of a stereotype as well. Not all would be immigrants have highly desired education and skill sets or are hard working freedom loving people. Immigrants like all people come in all shapes and sizes.
And the distance is much farther, and likelihood of them seeing their hometown and family is much lower. It still falls much on the side of many people wanting to come here, but that’s the reason we’re having this debate. If they wouldn’t come, it wouldn’t be a problem. But I believe the swamping fear is overblown. As they came, and rented out the glut of housing inventory, it would become more expensive for each addition immigrant to move here as well, and increase the value of our homes.
I understand legally, but how is it morally different? Who would stop us? We’re America. We could just drop them off similarly to how we deport people and not let them back in. No one has to “take them.”
Fred, your original post is at the top for everyone to read, so cry me a river about how I took you out of context. You “selectively” quoted my comment. So what? It was probably for space considerations.
Yeah, you are, because you call yourself an “open-borders type” and talk about how “We’re talking about people who come to America to work and live in freedom and peace and be productive.” No. We’re talking about law-breakers who have crossed our borders without permission. “People who come to America to work and live in freedom and peace and be productive” look like NR’s Charlie Cooke, who is going through the legal process of immigration.
Tell that to the border ranchers who find hundreds of corpses on the property, who get threatened by the “coyotes,” who are afraid to go outside at night in case they get murdered.
You know nothing, Fred Cole.
Hilarious! :)
Yes of course we have to give any and all immigrants (people who show up in the Country) medical coverage, education, police protection, access to any and all government provided services that the tax payer funds.
Fred has the right to associate with whomever he wants that means he gets to spend your (tax payer) money. You don’t have a right to complain about how your money is spent.
Fred, when you write stuff like this it reinforces my desire to join John Derbyshire in the camp of ethno-nationalism. The policy you’re advocating here is suicidal for our nation, and the freedoms you say you love would quickly die if we allowed each and every person in the world to immigrate here who wanted to.
Do you seriously believe that the American Republic (given its unhealthy state today) could long survive half a billion immigrants from third world countries where poverty, disease, illiteracy and the inability to speak English reign supreme? Having 300 million people in the US is a lot. Having 600 million wouldn’t make the nation significantly better in my opinion.
We would lose this exact identity – the thing that enables liberty – if we listened to your plan.
Right. My comments about high education related to the fact that we cap skilled visas, which seems ridiculous to me. It’s so ridiculous that people want to build sovereign artificial islands to get around it.
Immigrants to the United States have two things in common, as I see it:
1. They’re human beings
2. They want to come to the United States.
And our own James of England, who’s still stuck in immigration limbo. He is indeed going through a process – like Josef K went through a process.
Why do we make it so hard for them?
In the 1910 census, something like 10% of the population of the United States were foreign born. Among them were tribalists and socialists and every other scary label you want to throw out there. Our society, free as it is, is highly adaptable and could absorb far more immigrants than it does now and still thrive.
Well, this is quite profound. Just waiting for the ‘ergo’ to drop.
Actually Fred, no one is restricting your “right to associate with whomever I damn well please”. You travel to Honduras or El Salvador and associate with whomsoever you wish to your hearts content.
But I also have a right to have a say on who I am compelled to associate with, and support. Until this mess gets straightened out, I’ll be paying out a lot more in taxes for ESL instruction, food stamps, medical care etc for a low skilled influx.
I believe it was Milton Friedman who commented that no nation could simultaneously sustain open borders and a welfare state. I suspect that a significant portion of the influx is more about the welfare state bit than the “wanting to work”bit.
Last thing.. do you see any limiting principle on who can show up and live here?
I agree with you Franco! We agree! We have common ground!
Ahem. Every single person who crosses the border illegally is a criminal.
You’re right. I am 100% opposed to a draft. Under all circumstances.
Nfn, but what the hell does that have to do with anything? I wrote 565 beautiful words. (Do you know what that would fetch me on the free market?) Argue against them instead.
All of which are consequences of artificial limits on immigration.
You don’t get to use the consequences of immigration restriction as argument in favor of immigration restriction.
No kidding I don’t represent everyone, but the government does represent all US citizens and its only job is to ensure that the rights of it’s citizens (and only it’s own) are protected.
If the only problem here was the “presence” of different people then this would be an entirely different discussion. What is happening now at the border is nothing like “peaceful association”.
Frankly, Fred, your ability to obfuscate and ignore facts while championing your World Socialism-dressed-up-as-Libertarianism is breathtaking.
-E
Back in May, I went to Niagara Falls. It’s right on the border between the US and Canada. I crossed that border. You drive through. You show some ID. They let you in.
Naive and dangerous, isn’t it? How do they know I’m not a bank robber? How do they know I’m not a serial killer? How do they know I don’t have AIDS or TB?
That’s naive and dangerous, isn’t it?
Better they take the time and energy and expense to take my car apart, run a full criminal background check on me, give me a full medical screen and then quarantine me for a few months. I might have head lice after all.
This ought to be too obvious to need pointing out, but there are other ways of controlling borders besides setting a cap on the maximum number of legal immigrants allowed in the country.
In terms of logical consistency, it’s perfectly possible for a person to believe that immigrants should pass a basic background check and health exam, or that each immigrant should have a sponsor of good character, or whatever, without believing in a numerical cap. There are lots of possible border restrictions that aren’t absolute caps on the number of people who can immigrate.
Criminalizing an activity makes the activity relatively more attractive to criminal types. The “hordes of diseased-ridden, filthy criminal types” who come here illegally are unlikely to be the same demographic we’d attract with a more open, legal immigration policy.
You’re right. So is anybody who refuses to buy health insurance under Obamacare.
What Mike and I were talking about were violent criminals. Not people who violate whatever arbitrary law you think should exist.
We didn’t have state welfare back then. See:
You forgot #3: they breathe air.
Wow, good thing we cleared that up. I thought they were shark robots.
Again, you’re conflating immigration, which I dare say no one has a problem with, and illegal entry into the country.
If you look at prison population, you’ll find that illegal immigrants make up a disproportionately large segment. We don’t send them home. We provide food, clothing, accommodation, medical care, and free legal representation and house them for indeterminate periods.
In fact, by law it is not a crime to refuse to purchase health insurance. You get fined. Or taxed. Or whatever. And there is currently, as far as I am aware, no mechanism in place to enforce the collection of that fine, or tax, or whatever John Roberts calls it.
Immigration law is, in fact, not an “arbitrary law that [I] think should exist.” It is, in fact, a law that exists.
You don’t find it an interesting coincidence that the very next election cycle ushered in a nearly unbroken trend in decreased liberties and increased statism?
-E
Hahaha! Awesome observation.