Primary

Immigration for Republicans

This essay is not intended to address a crisis that may be occurring on the border at this time. I make no comment on that. Nor does it discuss the issues around war, such as how to deal with citizens of enemy nations. This essay is not a policy proposal, it does not set out, for example, when an immigrant can become a citizen and attain the vote or what to do to immigrants who commit crimes. It has but one purpose: to enumerate and respond to the common arguments used in favor of an impenetrable and guarded border fence to shut down immigration.

 

Suppose you were born in a country that outlawed normal life. North Korea comes to mind. Venezuela is a slightly less extreme example, and there are many other examples which are slightly less bad than that socialist worker’s paradise.

I phrase it in these terms, because this is the essence of the issue. People are rightfully fleeing places where they cannot live.

Anyway, suppose you are in a place where life is a living hell. Every day, you are forced to beg and steal scraps of food to somehow stay alive. The best you can hope for is to subsist, one day at a time. You must avoid the gangs and the secret police.

If you could somehow scrape together the money to escape to America, would you?

You would take a job paying minimum wage—or less—doing long days of unskilled manual labor, if necessary. At least in America, you can work and you can begin to build a better life for yourself and your family.

But you notice that people call you “illegal.” They don’t refer to any crime you commit, because you are no criminal. You never steal from anyone, hurt anyone, and or do anything else that could objectively be called a crime. You work hard for every penny you earn. But they call you “illegal” anyway.

You come to realize that when they say illegal, they refer to you, not your actions. Your very existence so utterly offends them that they think you are crime incarnate.

You notice that most of them drive faster than the posted speed limit. Many don’t register their old handguns or refuse to pay tax when they sell a gold coin. They traffic in old toilets, which flush more than 1.6 gallons. They break the law in numerous ways.

On Facebook, there is a common meme that laughs at the statistic that everyone commits three felonies per day. Their crimes don’t bother them in the slightest, because they aren’t hurting anyone. They do get the concept of victimless crime, at least when they themselves are made into criminals by nonobjective law.

However, for you, amigo, none of that matters. “The law is the law,” they assert. “The law must be obeyed,” and they don’t mean the speed limit law here. They mean the law that does not allow you to live.

Obviously, you are not going to oblige them by dying. This is the issue for you. Going back to hell may well be your death, or the death of your family.

This is the monstrous injustice of anti-immigration policy. Now let’s look at the arguments used to justify it.

 

“Immigrants bring bad ideas with them”

The most intellectual argument is that immigrants bring bad ideas with them. Though I have not seen it phrased this way, this implies that we could build a Great Wall (or a Berlin Wall) to keep out socialism, fascism, cronyism, corruption, and the ideas of Kant and Marx. Surely, there would be no Che t-shirts if the wall were tall enough.

I find this argument unconvincing. In this era of radio, television, and the Internet, it’s the policy equivalent of locking the barn doors after the horses are not only out, but sold to the Saudis, and earning big purses racing in Abu Dhabi. Rotten ideas are not only here in America, but they have predominated for decades in our universities, media, and popular culture.

A lame duck president said, “I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.” When our current president was a candidate he said, “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” We have a pejorative term for the wealthiest percentile of people, and one for bankers. Hollywood celebrities pose for pictures with socialist thugs like Hugo Chavez. These ideas are mainstream. Even conservatives will defend half a dozen of Marx’ ten planks.

If rational ideas prevailed in our culture and most people held to a rational philosophy, then evil ideas would find no fertile ground here. Proud people of healthy self-esteem who understand liberty, find nothing attractive about socialist utopias, death cults, thieving parasites, or paralyzing bureaucracy.

If you are un-persuaded, and you still believe that we have to keep out people with bad ideas, then you have to answer the following question. Are bad ideas intrinsically compelling?

Suppose a Marxist chants slogans on a street corner, or finds a willing American newspaper to publish his letter. Is this a threat to Western Civilization? Are reality and reason and liberty so weak and so un-compelling, that they are blown away by mindless communist propaganda?

At best, I think this argument reduces to another one that’s much more common. This argument does not address ideas, but voters.

 

“Immigrants vote socialist”

Immigrants vote socialist, opponents of immigration tell us. But do they? I rather doubt that it’s nearly so prevalent as we’re told, though I don’t have the statistic. It doesn’t make any sense to me. These are people who have scrimped and saved to go to a foreign country. Many have risked their lives, and most of them are not fluent in the language. What motivates them to do this? I doubt it’s typically a desire to bring to the US the same socialism that forced them to flee.

What if immigrants are not voting for Democrats for their socialist policies, but for their pro-immigration stance? That would be a tragic irony to this argument. If the Republican Party stakes out the anti-immigrant position, then no one should be surprised when immigrants vote Democrat, along with their extended families, friends, and supporters.

The presumption that immigrants vote Democrat leads Republicans to oppose immigration, which leads immigrants to vote Democrat. Mr. Foot, meet Mr. Gun. Blam!

Incidentally, while I am criticizing the Republican Party, this very same issue is hurting them elsewhere too. Do gays all want socialism? Or do they want legalized marriage? Do women all want socialism? Or do they want legalized control over their own reproduction? Do biologists and other scientists want socialism? Or do they want legalized stem cell research and other scientific inquiry? Many members of these groups turn to the party that promises what they want.

 

“Immigrants are like a trespassers who break into your house”

Moving on to the next argument, I hear often that an immigrant is like a trespasser or a burglar who breaks into your house. Think about what this argument says.

It says that the nation is owned collectively. If you are in the group, then you are part owner. If not, then you are a threat to the tribe. Today, it’s phrased in terms of criminal trespass, but it’s a primitive view of belongers vs. outsiders.

Of course the country as a whole is not owned, and certainly no collective has a right to violate anyone’s rights. Rights are neither a group benefit, nor a grant made by the government.

 

“Immigrants are taking our jobs”

A related argument is that immigrants are taking our jobs. This argument is thoroughly Marxist. Thus, it’s ironic that it so often comes from conservatives, Republicans, and even some libertarians.

Our jobs? A job is a contract with an employer, not a birthright for an individual or a group privilege. If someone else is hired, but you are not, there is no injustice. If members of one group get hired and members of another group do not, then there is no cause for the government to interfere.

Jobs are not zero-sum. Under certain conditions, jobs are created and wages are rising. Under other conditions, jobs are stagnant or even destroyed. What conditions? Left free from coercion, people find ever more ways of coordinating their productive activities. Increasing production means hiring more people and paying them better wages.

However, when the government intrudes it reduces coordination, which means it reduces productivity, employment, wages, and quality of life. I proved this in my dissertation. One form of government intrusion is to block people, goods, or capital from crossing the border.

It may have taken a genius like Adam Smith or Frederic Bastiat to provide the original arguments to debunk state control, central planning, and government favoritism for cronies. However, today, a smart 8th grader can understand and make a cogent argument against this nonsense.

I don’t think anyone believes in bad economics for the sake of bad economics. No, there are two reasons people support junk economics. One is they want to get something they couldn’t earn in a free market. They seek protectionist measures to keep out competition. The other is they can see that the economy isn’t working properly. It is a fact that employment is far below its prior level. Such jobs as do exist pay lower real wages. Most people feel it at some level, and they’re angry.

They should be angry, but we should place the blame where it belongs. Taxes, regulations, litigation, and especially the Fed are the cause.

Please don’t take out your anger on poor immigrants.

The idea that the economy is zero-sum is a Marxist idea. Lovers of America, the Constitution, and liberty should have nothing to do with it.

 

Immigrants come to benefit from America’s socialist institutions (“welfare”)

The next argument is that immigrants come here to collect. We should not allow immigrants because they will only end up on welfare.

Compensation is when you deliberately and knowingly do the wrong thing, supposedly to fix a problem elsewhere that you cannot or do not wish to fix. My example is to let the air out of three tires if you have a flat. Shutting down immigration is compensation for the welfare state. We who don’t want to see the taxpayer bankrupted will do better to fight welfare, than to fight immigration.

This leads to a question I have asked several times, and received no answer. Why does Immigration and Customs Enforcement go after employers?

We’re told that immigrants are here to sell drugs and commit crimes. However, it’s obvious that you won’t find drug dealers, welfare queens, pimps, and bank robbers working at or below minimum wage in the hot sun. So why go after employers? There is only one reason.

It is to protect us belongers from losing our scarce jobs to those outsiders.

Can any of these arguments be applied to block immigration between the states? On Facebook recently, I saw someone post (half) jokingly that Texas should pass a law to keep out anyone from California who voted for its welfare schemes or high-speed rail boondoggle.

Logically, there is no reason they couldn’t be applied to interstate immigration. North Dakota has low unemployment. If they continue to allow open immigration, then pretty soon their unemployment will rise to the unfortunate heights of the rest of the country (maybe they should thank their harsh weather for putting the brakes on this).

The next step is to apply it to immigration within a state, from city to city. We wouldn’t want all of those Tucson people coming here to take our Phoenix jobs, would we? The end game is the socialist dictatorship, which clamps down on the right of people to move as they wish.

The elephant in the room that must be named is some people of the anti-immigrant persuasion are motivated by racism. I don’t believe this is the majority, but it exists. They don’t dare openly declare their feelings, at least not in any forum I read. Instead, they couch it in another argument.

 

***

One reason I started this essay off with a story was to establish the context and put the reader into the shoes of a recent immigrant. I had another reason as well: to illustrate the problems in the anti-immigration position. No one who fled a living hell will go back willingly. So what will be accomplished by demonstrating one’s resentment by slinging the name “illegal” at a man? He will react. He will feel like he is in a no-win situation. He may himself become resentful, and in that state he may adopt bad ideas that he did not originally hold.

What will happen if the law attacks his employer and renders him unable to keep a job? What would you do if you were permanently rendered unemployable by law? He will take welfare if he can get it. The only alternatives are to starve, to go back to hell, steal cars, or sell drugs. Nothing good can come from forcing someone to make that kind of choice.

Though it’s not my purpose in writing this essay, if your concern is whether the GOP will win elections, it’s hard to think of a more effective way to repulse a large voting bloc. However, I think there’s something much more important at stake. It is the theme of most of my writing on the gold standard. We need to rediscover and return to the principle on which America was founded. It is the principle that everyone has the individual rights of life, liberty, and property. Let’s fight for those rights. Let’s fight to repeal welfare and to restore the Constitution and the Republic that was built on it.

It’s the right thing to do, and it also works.

  • Kathy Gornik

    I am deeply appreciative for this article. Having waged my own campaign in defense of immigrants and against our horrible polices with respect to them, even my libertarian friends look at me like I have three heads. I am sharing this article with as many people as possible. I hope you will repost it from time to time. It is a timeless article (relative to the speed of information flow these days) and we need to continue to teach and explain and champion both the people and the ideas. Huge thanks to you, Keith Weiner!! I would so dearly love to stop the suffering we are inflicting on immigrants!

  • writeby

    Kathy, you may find of interest, too, my own CapMag article on this issue. And I do provide a few stats.

    http://capitalismmagazine.com/2005/12/america-open-up-that-golden-gate/

  • writeby

    Bravo, Mr. Weiner, bravo.

    Signed,
    United States Veteran, 101st Airborne

  • DogmaelJones1

    This is one of the silliest, most delusional, and non sequitur-riddled arguments for “open borders” I’ve ever read, anywhere. It doesn’t even account for the fact that Islamic jihadists are infiltrating the U.S. (and ISIS is determined to damage this country somehow, some time) posing as Latinos. I have no idea how Weiner would deal with that very real and perilous problem. He denies that our welfare state is a magnet to welfare state mentalities from failed welfare states to the south who come here to partake in the looting of the productive segment of the economy. That’s similar to the phenomenon of liberals and leftists, unable or unwilling to endure the consequences of their statist policies, moving from the failed states of California and New York to relatively stable and productive states like Colorado and Nevada with the express purpose of turning them into failed states, as well, or with the hope that “this time our policies will work” — but which never do. I’m not going to get into an argument with Weiner, but other readers should take seriously: caveat emptor.

  • http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/ Capitalism Magazine

    Ed, Keith is not against screening for jihadists. Why do you assume this?

  • http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/ Capitalism Magazine

    As for the welfare state it doesn’t matter much if the moocher is a citizen or foreigner — they are a moocher.

  • DogmaelJones1

    Because if you’re screening for jihadists or anyone carrying a communicable disease or who advocates of overthrowing the government, how can that be “open borders”? Also, I guess we’re just supposed to overwhelm an already costly welfare state with countless non-citizen moochers, who won’t even be bothered to study for citizenship, and won’t be encouraged to because that would be “racist” or “discriminatory”? I really wish people would look at the bigger picture and think things through.

  • Paula Douglas

    Agreed. This is nuts. My grandparents were immigrants. Nobody has a problem with immigrants. They have a problem with *illegal* immigrants. They have a problem with welfare statists pouring into the country for the express purpose of sucking the teats of the productive class, enabled by RINOs and leftists who want to remain in power by expanding the dependent class. They have a problem with porous borders, especially in the context of ascendant Islam that would like to kill us all. The question is not whether we should allow immigrants into America. The question is what kind of immigrants we’re going to allow. When the orderly immigration of law-abiding professionals is blocked and delayed while the influx of criminals and the unemployable is facilitated and continues unabated, then there’s a problem. What kind of people we allow in should absolutely be a consideration: Open borders means welcoming ISIS in along with the poor, misunderstood, hard-working, blameless fence-jumpers who get so upset by my resentment that they start committing crimes out of spite, apparently. You cannot introduce the topic of immigration and then context drop so determinedly that you refuse to address the risk of allowing our literal destroyers in. Well, you obviously can do that, but you can’t do it in reason. I’ve read things on this site that I’ve disagreed with before, but I’ve never read anything so thoroughly ridiculous and context-free.

  • Keith Weiner

    I wrote this essay because I felt I needed to say something. I thought I would publish it on my own blog and one economics site, where I am a regular contributor. I did not expect that it would “go viral” as it did. Nor did I expect to be so polarizing.

    I will just say thank you to writeby and Kathy, thank you for your kind words!

  • Mitchell McConnell

    At what point would the author stop a “Camp of the Saints”-like non-stop flow of people into America? If there were no borders, and instead of 10 (or whatever) million Latino-americans, it was 100 million coming non-stop from all over the world?

    Clearly, every nation would consider this an invasion to be repelled by force, and rightly so.

    Thanks, CapMag for reminding me why I left the LP.

  • Kronan

    I also agree totally with DogmaelJones1 and Paula Douglas above. The article is a collection of straw man arguments in the service of rationalizing floating abstractions divorced from all real-world consideration of context or consequences. One only has to look to Europe to see how even relatively unchecked, indiscriminate immigration works in practice.

    Mr. Weiner seems to be very altruistically concerned with the welfare of would-be immigrants, as opposed to the survival of his own civilization. His argument amounts to a “delusional, non sequitur-riddled” plea for intrinsicism: “it’s the right thing to do in and of itself, regardless of consequences or context,” but somehow it will all work out in the end. Tell that to the native citizens of Norway, Finland and Sweden, who are being engulfed and overwhelmed by a Muslim invasion.

    Open borders today would be a disaster and only someone lost in a rationalist haze can fail to see that. That Cap Mag published this very poorly reasoned article is disturbing. Is Objectivism becoming indistinguishable from Libertarianism?

  • Kronan

    It matters in that moochers can be imported much faster and in much greater numbers than they can be bred. If you want to overwhelm the welfare state in order to bring about the collapse of what’s left of capitalism, immigration is definitely the most expedient method. The combination of a welfare state, multiculturalism and open borders is a recipe for economic and cultural suicide.

  • http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/ Capitalism Magazine

    “Open immigration” in the context of capitalism means open to non-criminals and open to non-jidhadists. It does not exclude screening for criminals (those who violate rights), those with contagious diseases, and terrorists.

    This is how Yaron Brook and Craig Biddle use the term. (I believe Binswanger is for “open borders” eventually — so I am not sure how he
    will handle jihadists).

    Those who paint advocates of open immigration, such as Brook, Biddle and Weiner as leaving borders open with no screening (for jihadists and diseases, etc.) are dishonest.

    Dr. Brook explicitly states screening is required in his definition of open immigration in his video. Link is here:
    http://openimmigration.net/category/video/

    Biddle states in his essay on open immigration and individual rights:

    “Open immigration does not mean that anyone may enter the country at any location or in any manner he chooses; it is not unchecked or unmonitored immigration. Nor does it mean that anyone who immigrates to America should be eligible for U.S. citizenship–the proper requirements of which are a separate matter. Open immigration means that anyone is free to enter and reside in America–providing that he enters at a designated checkpoint and passes an objective screening process, the purpose of which is to keep out criminals, enemies of America, and people with certain kinds of contagious diseases.2 Such a policy is not only politically right; it is morally right.”

    http://capitalismmagazine.com/2008/03/immigration-and-individual-rights/

    There are many differing arguments for open immigration — each with their different nuances — many of those arguments for open (and closed) immigration are wrong. So be careful when you lump them all together.

    Don’t get caught up in the open to everyone vs. closed to everyone dichotomy on this issue. So people be careful when you paint with your overly large brush when demonizing an imagined enemy.

  • Keith Weiner

    To those who accuse me of non-sequitor or worse, may I suggest that you re-read what I actually wrote? I welcome substantive arguments. However, putting words into my mouth is not an argument, but a straw man.

    Merely repeating one of the anti-immigration arguments that I just debunked is also unhelpful.

  • http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/ Capitalism Magazine
  • http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/ Capitalism Magazine
  • http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/ Capitalism Magazine

    Import producers and end the welfare state.

  • http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/ Capitalism Magazine

    The most expedient method is what is going on without immigrants. America’s most dangerous enemies are the American citizens destroying America one vote at a time.

  • http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/ Capitalism Magazine

    First off, capitalism publishes views which are not full consistent with Objectivism, i.e., Thomas Sowell, John Stossel and Walter Williams.

  • http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/ Capitalism Magazine

    Secondly, open immigration does not necessarily equal open borders.

    http://dollarsandcrosses.com/2014/08/open-immigration-does-not-necessarily-equal-open-borders/

  • Tony Palmeri

    While I agree with many of your particular points (eg: I am completely sympathethic to those who wish only to live a better life; I also absolutely would try to come to America, even illegally, under the circumstances many of them face; I don’t say “they take ‘our’ jobs,”; I don’t blame *them* for the fact that social welfare benefits are offfered to them [I blame our domestic altruists who force it]), I am opposed to the “open borders” policy put forth by Harry Binswanger, Craig Biddle, and other prominant Objectivists (which essentially advises allowing entry to anyone, so long as they are not a known criminal/terrorist, or carrying certain communicable diseases, or are from an identifiable enemy nation).

    I believe such a policy will ulimately be a complete disaster for Freedom in America.

    I do not accept the oft asserted “natural right” for any individual to cross any national border as an absolute, contra a nations’ right (more specifically, the individual rights of all the individuals within a nation, materially put into action via their institution of government) to protect and to preserve the very Republic that is meant to protect and preserve *their* hard-won rights (not those of the whole rest of the world).

    Yes, everyone is vested, by their nature as a human, with certain inalienable rights, but I disagree with the notion that everyone is automatically vested with an *entitlement* to have their rights materially defended/protected/preserved at the expense of others. In exactly the same way that a right to protect and preserve one’s own life does not imply an ‘entitlement’ to health care, there is no natural/inherent ‘entitlement’ to be a participant in a particular society that has (at great cost) *materially* secured a geographic region against tyranny.

    Am I saying “close the borders?” Certainly not. Am I a racist, a xenophobe, a bigot (all accusations that have unthinkingly and despicably hurled at me)? I’ll leave that for intellectually honest people to judge, in response to my actual words here and elsewhere.

    My opposition to the completely open borders policy (advocated by many Objectivists) is that, similar to Libertarianism’s out-of-context treatment of the ‘non-agression-principle’, it seems to fiercely cling to a certain notion of Individual Rights as a platonic ideal that cannot ever be questioned, regardless of the obvious ways that adherence to that ideal (in some particular fashion) actually undermines the foundations necessary to sustain the American Republic.

    Our Republic, our institution of government which is meant to preserve and protect our individual rights, is not some kind of disembodied entity that naturally/spontaneously came into existence as the default option or whose continued existence is unconditional. Moral men took a principled stand against tyranny, and pledged their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor to the project. They conscientiously enunciated the moral and philosophical case for freedom, and they *materially* acted to secure this land for freedom, for themselves and for their posterity. In subsequent generations, hundreds of thousands of men died in battle to fend off the threats to our Republic. Americans paid a dear price to secure this land.

    While it is true that the geographic region of a nation is not exactly the same thing as “private property” (and cannot automatically be regarded as such in argumentation on the immigration issue), it is not exactly the opposite thing in all respects, either. Just because there are some ineffective and ill-conceived arguments coming from the Right that equate the nation to “private property” (and speak of trespass), this does not invalidate all notion of the rightful determination of a nation to secure it’s borders and control who may enter, in the interests of preserving the Republic.

    As Objectivists, we understand that what justifies the notion of private property is the fact that an individual, through his own intellectual and *material* effort, *increased* the value of some natural resource. We understand that one’s rightful claim to dominion over certain material objects or a plot of land is that *he* acted to create those objects or to secure that land for his own life-serving purposes.

    In a similar vein: moral, decent, life-loving, rights-respecting men pledged their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor, and *materially* acted to secure this land for themselves and their posterity. Against all odds and against all the forces opposing them, they created something that had not existed before, something that was not the default, something that would never ‘naturally’ occur on it’s own in a thousand generations. They loved life. They wanted to live. They objectively assessed the requirements for life – a proper life for man, and they acted to gain and to keep that life.

    Once they have materially secured this land, they have dominion over it. But not in the collectivized sense of “all land is ‘public'” but rather in the sense that the individuals who morally and materially support the preservation of Individual Rights for themselves are righteously entitled to *keep* it secure.

    But how?

    By moral and material support of the American Republic.

    Our Republic is an institution for the *material* preservation and defense of our lives and our rights against the *incessant* forces *against* it (which are the ‘default’ option, judging by all human history).

    This institution can only be created by individuals who understand and respect the moral foundations of Individual Rights. This institution can only be *preserved* by individuals who understand and respect the moral foundations of Individual Rights and who actively, conscientiously, morally and *materially* act to preserve those rights.

    Can such a Republic exist in the middle east, given the actual dominant cultural notions there? Did America succeed in changing Iraq into a rights-respecting Republic by force of logic and reason? Was there a critical mass of individuals in that country that had an intellectual understanding of individual rights and “yearned to be free” and *acted* to create a rights-respecting Republic?

    Obviously not.

    Can the American Republic withstand the utterly *indiscriminate* injection of many millions of individuals from all over the world — anyone with the wherewithal to physically make it here? What will the character of America be? What effects would it have on our culture, at large? Will we *still* have the necessary critical mass of individuals who morally and materially support the essential principles upon which America was founded and which our Republic is meant to protect, defend, and preserve?

    Honestly, it seems completely delusional and detached from reality to think so.

    So, what does this mean for immigration policy?

    Peter Schwartz wrote “The Foreign Policy of Self-Interest: A Moral Ideal for America,” where he advocates a policy under which a nation’s interests are measured by only one standard: the individual liberty of its citizens. I say we need an “Immigration Policy of Self-Interest” for exactly the same reason. Note that it’s not the individual liberty of the citizens of *other* nations that is the standard. It is the individual liberty of American citizens that our institution of government should *primarily* be concerned with. If this means controlling who is admitted into our nation (for the reasons I gave above), then it is both practical and moral.

    Yes, it is despicable and disgusting that so many individuals live in horrible conditions throughout much of the rest of the world, but we are under no moral obligation to altruistically offer safe haven *if* that ultimately means the obliteration (or gradual withering away) of our hard-won Republic.

    Note: the above is not quite as organized as it would be if I intended it as an official publishable response, it was mostly an off-the-cuff presentation of points I’ve made elsewhere on the matter. I certainly expect people to object to some of my points and welcome the debate, but I expect intellectually honest people to discount any attacks on the basic style of my writing. Also, I will regard *any* insinuation of racism, xenophobia, or bigotry as some kind of projection cast by anyone who would go there. I’m not necessarily saying that they are secretly racist xenophobic bigots, but rather that they may be projecting their own tendency to see all opposition on this issue (no matter how principled) as necessarily rooted in bigotry.

  • http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/ Capitalism Magazine

    Where do Biddle and Brook argue for “open borders”, i.e., no screening? (Binswanger does).

  • http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/ Capitalism Magazine

    Here is where they say they are for screening for disease and terrorists and against “open borders”:

    http://dollarsandcrosses.com/2014/08/open-immigration-does-not-necessarily-equal-open-borders/

  • Tony Palmeri

    Fine, replace the words “open borders” in everything I wrote above with “open immigration” (as you elsewhere suggested was their actual position), and let me know whether it invalidates any point I made.

  • Tony Palmeri

    Was that accusation of dishonesty aimed at me? Fine, I acknowledge that “open borders” is not the same thing as “open immigration.” So feel free to replace the words “open borders” with “open immigration” in anything I wrote above, or elsewhere, and then let me know if that invalidates any essential point I made.

  • writeby

    PS. Dr. Binswanger argues against screenings, with which I respectfully disagree.

    “This is a defense of a policy of absolutely open immigration,
    without border patrols, border police, border checks, or passports” (http://www.hblist.com/immigr.htm).

    As for the negative comments here, speaking for myself, I never assumed the author was calling for open borders, just as he never called for automatic citizenship, this last an entirely different issue.

    As for Islamics infiltrating the U.S.–when they aren’t just walking in the front door–the easiest, surest way to put a stop to that, as Ed Cline mentions in one of his essays, is to declare war on Saudi Arabia and Iran and nuke Mecca.

    Until then, though, open immigration as implied by this author and as described by myself in my CapMag article (http://capitalismmagazine.com/2005/12/america-open-up-that-golden-gate/) poses no threat to the security of the United States. Indeed, past actions by CBP and recent actions by other federal agencies regarding immigrants poses the threat.

  • writeby

    Where does the author call for open borders in the context of no screenings? He calls for open immigration–as do I:

    http://capitalismmagazine.com/2005/12/america-open-up-that-golden-gate/

    The straw man here is the erroneous assumption Mr. Weiner is calling for, essentially, the elimination of borders, rather than the elimination of non-open immigration.

  • writeby

    Bingo, Mark.

  • writeby

    Immigrants make up a tiny percentage of moochers. See my stats at: http://capitalismmagazine.com/2005/12/america-open-up-that-golden-gate/

  • writeby

    See my article, Ed: http://capitalismmagazine.com/2005/12/america-open-up-that-golden-gate/

    He’s not calling for the elimination of borders (open borders essentially being that). And immigrants make up a very small percentage of moochers. Moreover, to actually get some of the loot requires being “legal” and waiting five years.

    LPRs [Legal Permanent Residents] entering after Aug. 22, 1996 are not
    eligible for food stamps or SSI [Social Security]. However, they can
    apply for Medicaid and TANF [Temporary Aid to Needy Families] benefits five years after entering the country legally … [emphasis added] (Sources: Richardson and Wassem 2002, National Conference of State Legislators).

    Let’s get our facts straight before we quick draw our criticism.

    PS. You also may want to respond on HBL to Harry’s position:

    “This is a defense of a policy of absolutely open immigration, without border patrols, border police, border checks, or passports.”

    http://www.hblist.com/immigr.htm

  • writeby

    See the following for your requested invalidation: http://capitalismmagazine.com/2005/12/america-open-up-that-golden-gate/

  • writeby

    Critics shooting from the hip, Keith. Ignore them.

  • writeby

    Open borders is not the same as open immigration. The first is essentially the elimination of borders; the second, of abolishing restrictions other than criminal/public health.

    The only Objectivist theoretician/intellectual I know of who advocates anything close to that is Dr. Harry Binswanger:

    “This is a defense of a policy of absolutely open immigration,
    without border patrols, border police, border checks, or passports.

    “After a phase-in period, entry into the U.S. would be unrestricted,
    unregulated, and unscreened, exactly as is entry into Connecticut from New York.

    “(Note: I am defending freedom of entry and residency, not the
    granting of voting rights, not even after decades of residency.) …”

    http://www.hblist.com/immigr.htm

  • writeby

    Jesus, how many times must one repeat oneself before the readers grasp fully the author’s actual point?

    This is absurd.