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
The 9-11 commission report would seem to contradict this. The Commission called for strengthening border control and better visa checking to combat terrorism. The existence and extent of terrorism would seem to directly relate to an argument to go in the exact opposite direction of the 9-11 report. While terrorist groups plainly state they want to attack us again, the open borders position is “no they don’t or it is not a big deal”, this deserves discussion. Terrorism need not be the primary focus of the conversation but it should get a seat at the table.
I think it is on topic — as Jaeger describes above — though it’s not accurate.
Followed by:
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.
Clearly what is needed then is a program to eliminate the cost of travel for those “immigrants” who are constrained by lack of proximity due to the sheer bad luck of living in Africa, Asia, Europe or Australia rather than Mexico and Central America.
For those who’ve quoted Milton Friedman, please quote him accurately and in full. He went to say:
Look, for example, at the obvious, immediate, practical example of illegal Mexican immigration. Now, that Mexican immigration, over the border, is a good thing. It’s a good thing for the illegal immigrants. It’s a good thing for the United States. It’s a good thing for the citizens of the country. But, it’s only good so long as its illegal.
That’s an interesting paradox to think about. Make it legal and it’s no good. Why? Because as long as it’s illegal the people who come in do not qualify for welfare, they don’t qualify for social security, they don’t qualify for the other myriad of benefits that we pour out from our left pocket to our right pocket. So long as they don’t qualify they migrate to jobs. They take jobs that most residents of this country are unwilling to take. They provide employers with the kind of workers that they cannot get. They’re hard workers, they’re good workers, and they are clearly better off.
You vote against taxes, and they still occur. You vote against immigration, and it still occurs. You’ve got the same say you’ve always had, it’s just government doesn’t have to listen to you, independent of what the voters say.
I lived with dozens of Central Americans. About half were hard working families, lots of gangsters into che guevarra.
My four decades experiences with the reality of this invasion totally eradicated my happy thoughts I used to share with Fred.
We The People, is The People of the US. The world does not share our ways and the border is there for a very good reason.
I have lived with dozens of Central Americans. About half were hard working families, lots of gangsters into che guevarra.
My four decades experiences with the reality of this invasion totally eradicated my happy thoughts I used to share with Fred.
We The People, is The People of the US. The world does not share our ways and the border is there for a very good reason.
If this were fully true this thread would not exist. I have voted against amnesties and open borders. There are not open borders, just poor and inconsistent enforcement. I dislike blanket amnesties and politicians Right and Left trips over themselves to claim their reforms are not amnesty.
The system needs work but it is not “open borders” and the polling shows it will not be “open borders” for the near future at least.
That’s very interesting.
Next time you cross that border into Canada, when they ask you the purpose of your visit (which they always ask me when I cross over), instead of “tourism”, tell them you’re looking for a job. I bet your treatment will be different.
Note, though, that he’s not saying that illegal immigration is of itself a good thing. Rather, that, given a government willing to provide welfare to its citizens but not to illegals, illegal immigration is a good thing because it imports people who’ll do productive work.
If the government either stopped providing welfare to its citizens or started providing welfare to illegals, too, then the advantage illegal immigration has over legal immigration would disappear.
I found an even more complete quote here, but a sensitive person opposed to open borders could easily be offended by the harsh language the man quoting Friedman uses.
I agree. I’m arguing from the position of where I think we’ll be perhaps 50 years from now. I still think it’s the morally correct thing to do, but I don’t expect it to happen soon.
Fred and Mike H, this is what I meant when I said that you (both) seem to feel that Americans do not have a right to America. I may have missed a response to a previous clarification, and I can see you have your hands full with responses to this, but is my characterization accurate? I realize this is probably not the phrasing you would use, but is it inaccurate? Do Americans have a right to America? Or do Americans not have a right to America?
If we let in all immigrants, should it include those on the terrorist watch list? Maybe they just want to come here to “not rob banks” any more.
I say this to all open-borders supporters: put your money where your mouth is and move down to the U.S.-Mexico border, preferably in a rural area.
What, specifically, does having a right to America mean?
Does it mean anything more than having a right to vote once you’re of age?
Does it mean having a right to a speedy trial if accused of wrongdoing (though the right to a speedy trial has been held to apply to citizens and non-citizens alike)?
Or does it mean having a spurious “right” to the benefits of American entitlement programs?…
I’m genuinely curious.
OT – all these 504s must mean things are gettin’ gooder and gooder
That’s a loaded question. Any answer we give will be used against us. When did you stop beating your wife?
Also, I second Midge.
Think of it in terms of property rights. Fred and Mike treat public lands as if they are owned by no one. That’s useful when trying to describe their mismanagement compared to privately owned land, but public land is owned by all citizens in a free country.
Since neither Fred nor Mike is going to deny the right to own property, and therefore, a moral case against trespassing, how do they justify placing this right to freedom of movement across borders above property rights?
As I said above, I think it’s because they don’t consider public ownership to be true ownership.
While the statement is clumsy, I think describing it as “They don’t believe Americans have a right to America” is reasonable.
Albert, I’d like to introduce you to fellow member Xannady:
Now you know one. I assure you, there are more.
Right to live in a country subject to the rule of laws passed by a representative government, including immigration law.
Seriously? A “Yes, of course American have a Right to America” answer will be used against you? By whom?
Tell us Fred, how many of those disease infested, gang bangers, sexually abused, and coyotes are you gong to take into your home? You can actually be paid $6,000 a month of tax payer’s money, for taking in some of these kids. Of course, the cost of keeping your children healthy, and educating your own children in a healthy environment may cost you more.
OK, Americans have a legal right to pass immigration laws. Does that help?
And that is a bad thing(tm) because why?
What is wrong with closed borders, exactly? Is it that the population will age? We eon’t have enough gifted workers? I am on a zero guy myself, but what, exactly are the problems with that stance. They seem assumed?
I do get the “rights” one. If American’s don’t have a right to say who comes in and out, then we are violating rights at “0”. But why is ti bad from a utilatarian stance?
I appreciate the position of those who do not support open borders. There are certainly more problems with it now than say 50 years ago.
But the problem to my mind is not an open border policy. The problem is we have a government that does not enforce the myriad of immigration laws already on the books; is too generous in dispensing welfare payments ; does not ensure the integrity of elections; and has adopted policies that promote social and cultural balkanization and not assimilation. We need to strengthen what it means to be an American, and strengthen the importance and benefits of being a citizen versus just a resident.
Given the current state of our government and intellectual elite, I understand that the likelihood of what I desire is fanciful. However, it is just as fanciful to believe that United States government is capable of and/or interested in securing the border in anything close to a meaningful way.
Given the choice then between the two “dream” scenarios, I prefer the one that gives the government less power over the one that gives it more.
The question seems to be asked so that anything other than “Yes” would be used to delegitamize any of our positions while a “Yes” answer would be used as some sort of got-ya “proof” of why we are wrong.
I’m not sure how this is relevant. Do many immigrants settle on public lands?
I would imagine most newly-arrived immigrants would either rent from a private landlord, or else move in with relatives or friends. In either case there is no trespassing, since the immigrant has the permission of the private landowner to live there.
Agreed. And thanks for the link. I meant to include that in my post.
OK. So it means the right to expect that America will enforce the laws she has on the books, especially when the laws enjoy broad public support.
Laws that aren’t enforced can be pretty crazy making, particularly when the laws enjoy broad public support. I think that’s one reason why debates over immigration tend to get a bit, er, heated.
That’s not a bad answer, MWM. It’s certainly an answer that anyone who’s gone out of the way to follow the rules, only to see someone who hasn’t surpass him, can appreciate.