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
Red herring. I wasn’t talking about illegals. If I was, I would use the word. If I don’t say illegal immigrants, I am talking about legal immigration.
It doesn’t push me that far, but I do wholly agree with Derbyshire that it’s reasonable to assume that people living in broken, unproductive societies bear some responsibility for the aforementioned brokenness and lack of productivity.
Again, this won’t always be true on an individual level, and individuals who can demonstrate skills and ambition to succeed in American society should be welcomed in. But it’s safe to assume that there are people who have the means and desire to come here, without the means or desire to successfully participate in our society.
Border Patrol agents clearly do what they can to discern whether you could be a threat. Perhaps if you entered Canada shirtless sporting the tattoos of a known Central American gang the situation might be different. From the few photos I’ve seen of you, Fred, you don’t come across as terribly threatening and a risk worth taking.
The other thing that you’re glossing over here Fred is that the reason we have immigration quotas is precisely because we have the ability (and we should) to be choosy about whom we want to invite in to dine at our table.
If you were throwing a party in your backyard for people who are your neighbors, but people from down the block decided to jump your backyard fence to come in and eat your hot dogs and drink your beer you’d rightly be pissed, ask them to leave and if they didn’t, you’d call the cops.
Unless your libertarian, open-borders sensibilities extend so far that you’d be unwilling to call the cops to enforce the petty crime of trespassing, that is. Maybe you’d take matters into your own hands and get your gun and ask the invaders to leave – as should be your right – but either way: you wouldn’t tolerate it.
The territory of the United States belongs to its citizens. Not to foreign invaders. I thought you were an advocate of property rights?
These both seem to be arguments for reforming immigration. There is a lot of distance between a government program is a complicated mess or we need more scientists/computer programmers and “open borders”. Both of these issues could be addressed with reform and still having a “closed border”.
Oh, well, in that case, all we have to do is have the thousands of children crossing the southern border present ID and then they can drive right through. Easy Peasy; glad we could get that resolved.
-E
I wholly disagree with Fred on this, but I don’t think that’s a fair criticism. What has Fred argued that is stealth-socialism?
First, not everybody in the world wants to move to America. Gallup conducted a poll. About 150 million people in the world want to move to the US. Not a billion, not 300 million, only 150 million.
So why aren’t they all here already? The problem is that it’s expensive to come here. The limitation is one of reality. People literally can’t afford to come here.
But let’s handwave that away. Let’s give everybody a free trip. And for the sake of organization, let’s say it takes 10 years to move all those people. So 15 million per year.
That would be 41,000 people per day. Carnival Cruise lines has several ships, most hold between two and three thousand passengers. Let’s call that 2500. You’d have to have 16 cruise ships per day, each carrying 2500 passengers, every day, for ten years, to get 150,000,000 people here.
What you’re arguing against is literally ridiculous.
Don’t you get it? The only way to save freedom is through more government. Only through government action can we avoid the perils of socialism.
I’m not attempting here to argue for completely open borders. I thought I’d take the “border control doesn’t require quotas and legal immigration should be easier” side in this little debate.
Given a choice between Fred’s open borders and Derb’s ethnonationalism I know which side I’m leaning towards. I’m not saying that I’m joining Derb over in tinfoil hat territory, but he makes reasonable points about how foolish our tolerance of the essentially open border that we have now is.
On the topic of people being unable to get here who might be a good fit? That’s a chance I’m willing to take.
The paradox I see here is: for an acolyte of Ayn Rand, surely Fred understands that we can barely afford the “Useless Eaters” that we have now – why then does he want to invite half a world’s worth of them in?
Here’s the thing: You’re not respecting my rights, of property or of association. You’re deciding for me on the guest list. You’re making the decision for everybody else. You’re removing from me my right to decide who gets to attend my party.
Did they also let you buy house, get a job, sent your kids to tax payer supported schools and enroll in tax payer supported health programs? I don’t think so. What would the Canadian response have been if your ID you showed them said your were from Honduras?
Is it at all possible that US/Canadian tourism from a border state is a totally different thing from showing up and you are a full member of society?
Canada and the US can — and should — have lax immigration and travel regulations. But this is because we share common values, similar standards of living, and a common language (some Quebecois being an exception).
The same is not true for the United States and Mexico, and it’s certainly not true for the United States and much of Central America.
Your asking me to pay for part of your party that your throwing in the public park.
You can be choosy without quotas, though. Requiring immigrants to have good health, good work prospects, no criminal record, etc, is being choosy, but is not the same as a quota.
True it is also not the same as “open borders”.
Fred would like a libertarian paradise, where competition is constant and borders are open and individuals are sovereign. So if you want to move towards that goal, is open borders the right place to start? Letting in the folks looking for social services? It isn’t some future libertarian utopia that is attracting immigrants from Central America.
Yeah, that’s the theory. What it ends up doing is protecting and perpetuating privileges of politically influential groups.
But it would be more open borders than what we have now.
You’re incorrect in two ways. First, you’re incorrect historically. That came as part of a trend line and a lot of progressiveness (prohibition for example) was a reaction to nativist fears about scary immigrants. Second, even if it were, as I tried to remind everyone in another thread correlation is not causation!
Yeah, and that’s what happens, basically, if you go to Tijuana for a day of drinking.
You are now conflating visiting Canada for a day with illegally crossing the border into the southern US. It’s totally different.
No. Read my comments in their context please.
Do you understand what the word, “coincidence,” means?
When compared to the whole population, or to citizens of comparable means? It’s not really apples to apples if you’re including the middle and upper classes.
Stop whining about being taken out of context. I am not taking you out of context. Your words are plain for all to see.
“Coincidence” in that context is often meant to hint that something isn’t a coincidence, as I’m sure you’re aware.
You’re right. My words are plain for all to see. I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here.
I am on the opposite side of the immigration issue from both the SEIU and the Chamber of Commerce. What “politically infulential groups” are you talking about. The only one I can see is middle class tax payers.
And this is why Libertarians are incoherent: their policy preferences would deliver us right into the hands of our political enemies. Paradoxically, all of the other policy aims of the Libertarian movement would be destroyed when overwhelming numbers of progressive voters are added to the voting rolls.
So long as the anarcho-capitalist flag is upheld on this topic, the rest of its program will assuredly be driven extinct.