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
Hey Fred,
Newsflash: It’s not 1910 anymore!
Several important changes have taken place politically, culturally and tecnologically since then.
Open the borders to jump start the housing market? Good grief.
Do you not see your complete lack of intellectual consistency? On the one hand, you give immigrants a completely free pass because they (1) are human and (2) want to come here, with no considerations for criminality, disease, social and fiscal costs, and general societal stability; then on the other hand you completely discard the entirely legitimate purposes of the government chosen by the people because it is not perfect.
-E
Gallup successfully polled people living in destitute poverty? This is historically difficult. I checked their methodology and they don’t detail how they avoided getting a non-representative sample in terms of wealth.
They do state where their over samples existed. They are (naturally) exclusively urban. The hinterlands tend to be poorer, and thus more likely to be looking for a way out.
You’re right. Street violence and riots are a hell of a lot less common. We don’t have as many race riots. In 1910, when a black boxer beat a white boxer, there was a race riot. (Also, in 1906, 1907, 1908, etc.) We don’t have as many labor riots. There was a big one in Philly that year.
Generally speaking, we’re a more peaceful, more tolerant society.
Is it possible that the dispersed, impoverished existence that makes hinterland-dwellers difficult to poll also makes it harder for them to emigrate?
Does the name Pinochet ring a bell. None of the English speaking nations have had a dictator like him, hopefully never will.
Well, it’s not about government being “imperfect.” There’s no such thing as perfection. It’s just that there’s also no such thing as legitimate political authority, either. And people will flip out that I suggest that, but using simple examples of smaller groups of people shows it can’t follow logically. On the other hand, it takes a book to really flesh out the truth, and it goes against everything everyone has always known to be true, along with coming to a conclusion people will reject out of hand, which is why I hesitate to bring it up in the first place.
And that’s not to say democratic governance isn’t useful and a million times better than things that came before it. Just that it’s wrong to call it legitimate.
Check out these illegal immigrants:
Well, okay, these can stay.
Now you’re moving the goal posts to all of history?!
I read #53 in it’s entirety, and I think Arthur’s point is valid. Comparing the situations of our northern and southern borders is comparing apples and horseradishes. Canadians aren’t attracted to the American welfare state because they have a perfectly good welfare state of their own. Canada has a functional public health service that controls diseases like TB.
We can therefore expect that a Canadian trying to immigrate to the US:
The same cannot be assumed about most other countries’ immigrants.
Ergo we should open our borders to criminals and terrorists.
Or vise verse. My sister went to Canada on a student visa. Then got a work visa. Then married a Canadian and had children. She’s now a Canadian citizen. But all along she had to go through the legal process. It took 15 years. So for Fred to suggest that moving to Canada is no more difficult than showing your id at the border is silly.
I haven’t gotten to the end of the comments yet, but, Fred, you brought up Canada:
You’re right. I wish travel were that easy.
But there is no pressure on the Canadian border right now. Hence no one is paying attention to it.
Even that changed, however, when the terrorists discovered how easy it was to get into the United States through Burlington, Vermont. Now you do have to show a passport.
Why was Ellis Island put together in the first place? Because when a country collapses for whatever reason, there will be massive migration pressures created.
(The Statue of Liberty is actually holding up a Stop sign. Just kidding.)
To think that an open border will not be an invitation to millions of people to move here is to ignore the history of human migration.
Why does the government confiscating your money give you the right to limit his association? He doesn’t want the government to give your money to anyone else, either. They’re both wrongs, but neither of them can be used as a justification of the other wrong.
Because, you see, Fred loves individual liberty, don’t you know.
Fred thinks Islamic extremism is a bogeyman created by neocons during the 2000s.
Oh, for crying out loud.
Fred said the perception of Islamic extremism as an existential threat is a creation of neo-cons. He may or may not be right about that that — I’m a bit divided — but it’s entirely different than saying that the terrorists themselves are a creation.
Well, here’s the exchange:
People can draw their own conclusions.
Unfortunately, this is on the verge of becoming far less true. I lived in Tucson a number of years ago at a time when Raul Grijalva was becoming a local Irresistible Force. Now, twenty-some years later, signs
line Southern Arizona warning against the use of public lands. Why? The Mexican drug cartels control those lands. Why not take back control, even militarily? To the Raul Grijalvas of the world, this would have a “disproportionate impact” on Hispanics, and thus be ipso facto racist. Border agents are having to release tatted-up members of ultra-violent MS-13, just because they are minor OTMs. MS-13 is not here to “not rob banks any more,” but to expand their influence and control of US criminal activity.
And I agree with those above who have indicated that a large enough percentage of immigrants are coming here primarily for publicly-paid social services (the Mexican Govt produced a pamphlet, passed out in staging towns, instructing people how to apply for social services in the US), and to provide remittances to home countries, that it is fiscally untenable for the nation.
I wish you would make the argument in full instead of this drive by shooting style of post Fred.
-If you believe that living in whatever country you want is a natural right, you need to explain the origins of this right and how it fits in the hierarchy of natural rights.
-If you want to make the utilitarian argument, you can’t draw it up on in a sterile, theoretical environment, you have to address the real world concerns that I and others have presented you with, and allow these problems to modify the equation.
It is not enough to say that in your ideal world, there would be no borders, therefore removing our border brings us closer to an ideal world. That’s like building half of a bridge to Utopia. That doesn’t make your society 50% better, it makes it 0% better.
Removing the border is counter productive to every goal you have of making the government smaller. This is like trying to build half a bridge to Utopia, but starting in the middle of the river instead of from land. You get no points for effort when the structure floats away down stream.
This doesn’t belong in this thread. Way off topic, man.
Thanks for posting it; I was trying to remember where this happened. For the record, the fourth comment in that screenshot (“Right. I’ve watched as they were established…”) backs my interpretation up.
Here’s the thing: Once again, you’re bending out of all recognition what your “rights” actually are, and as consistently occurs, you gratuitously overestimate the extent to which those rights are absolute, inviolable and cost-free.
This extends to a lot of the other issues that you bring up like the Draft – you presume (incorrectly) that the rights which you enjoy are a) absolute and b) free for the taking and then blow that straw man down when somebody seeks to point out otherwise.
It’s an entitlement mentality. The rights you enjoy are neither absolute or free for the taking. They are constrained and they were first earned for you by the blood of the volunteers, conscripts and mercenaries who fought multiple, bloody battles for this nation to secure them for you.
If I said, “You can’t invite Ted Kaczinski to your party either” have I equally violated your right of free association, because a notable border exists between you and Uncle Ted?
I’d like to like this two or three times; four times would be excessive, but definitely more than once.
Agreed. Fred, on this you lean towards calling the things you think are good “rights”, instead of just of just arguing that they are good things.
I have a post about this half written in my head. Maybe I’ll write it tomorrow.
Fred’s characterization of the threat of Islamic extremism as a bogeyman created by neocons is directly related to his inability to see the danger of an open border.
Are you arguing that the Government( Federal, State and Local) has no legitimate ability to tax or spend?
He many not want to give my money to anyone else but he is. Unless part of your open borders proposal is to eliminate the government, my taxes are providing Fred’s immigrant with “benefits” , even “benefits” that I don’t agree should exist for anyone.
The government takes my money and spends my money, but I get at least some input through voting. ( I have voted against, and campaigned against, a bond issue that would spend my money wastefully). We (voters) collectively make decisions about taxes by voting for our representatives or in direct local elections. Open borders just gives my tax money away without any possible input from me.