
Is There a Right to Immigrate? (2010) - monort
http://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/immigration.htm
======
WillyOnWheels
The United States has plenty of moral responsibility to accept immigrants from
countries in Central America after spending billions screwing them up with
dirty secret wars in the 70s and 80s.

~~~
MichaelGG
How does that help? Letting in a small percentage of the population while the
rest still lives in terrible conditions isn't much of a solution.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like much short of near colonization will fix
these places on any reasonable timescale. Simply sending money/aid programs
might alleviate a bit but an outside solution is needed to properly
coordinate/manage resources.

~~~
wz1000
>Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like much short of near colonization will fix
these places on any reasonable timescale. Simply sending money/aid programs
might alleviate a bit but an outside solution is needed to properly
coordinate/manage resources.

This view is simply ignorant of history.

The US doesn't need to colonize countries to "manage resources" for them in a
benevolent way. The first thing it needs to do is stop actively sabotaging
them and their economies. Interestingly, "benevolent" management of resources
that "primitives" mishandle has been a justification for nearly all
colonization programs in the past few centuries, except perhaps what the
Belgians did in the Congo.

Economic sanctions against countries in Latin America, purely for ideological
and political reasons, as well as massive American agriculture subsidies, have
devastating effects on their economies.

This is, of course, when they aren't straight up invaded or sabotaged by
America.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Pana...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Panama)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominican_Civil_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominican_Civil_War)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Grenada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Grenada)

~~~
MichaelGG
That's great, meanwhile what's an actual solution for today? You've got
hilariously corrupt governments and incompetence at every level of society.
Stuff doesn't work and people are resigned to it. High performers will do
their best to insulate themselves or emigrate.

Just because the US went halfway in meddling before doesn't mean that a proper
setup (replacing local government with a governor) would not work. If the goal
was to create a decently running society versus extracting resources there
should be no problem.

At some point, you gotta admit that hey, these countries are messed up.
Whatever the reason, the current situation isn't working. Just like if you
stabbed someone and really injured them. The correct response isn't to say
"wow I should just stop interfering with you completely" but to realise
they're bleeding out and, even if they protest, get them medical care until
they're healthy again.

Or, you know, pretend that their independence matters, that every country can
just do fine if only they're left alone, and ignore the terrible conditions
most of their population lives in.

~~~
wz1000
Like I said,

> Interestingly, "benevolent" management of resources that "primitives"
> mishandle has been a justification for nearly all colonization programs in
> the past few centuries, except perhaps what the Belgians did in the Congo.

Even US foreign aid is distributed in a way completely subservient to US
geopolitical interests. The perhaps most chilling example(and there are many
examples) of this would be when the US denied food aid to Bangaldesh in '74,
when the country was undergoing a massive famine(which ultimately led to the
deaths of 4 million people). This wasn't just a simple denial, but an act of
ransom against an impoverished, suffering people who just won their
independence from a genocide-committing, US-backed Pakistan. The Americans had
initially promised food aid to Bangladesh, and this aid was ready to deliver,
when the Bangladeshis were told that they had to immediately cease all trade
relations with Cuba to see any of it. Not only was Cuba one of the few trading
partners of Bangladesh at the time, but also one of the first few countries to
recognize their independence and status as a nation. By the time Bangladeshi
leaders agreed to this demand, the famine was largely over and had claimed the
bulk of its victims. US aid finally arrived too late to be of any use.

All of this was at the same time as when America was giving massive quantities
of grain as food "aid" to South Vietnam, which was on its own a surplus food
producing country. The grain given to South Vietnam was used(indeed, meant to
be used) as barter in exchange for weapons from other countries. Just another
instance of when American "charity" is used for American geopolitical
interests rather than any meaningful form of charity.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that a nation state, especially one
with the track record of the US, can be trusted to "benevolently" interfere
with other countries. The only thing it will do, indeed _can_ do, given the
power structures that comprise it, is act in its own best interests, which are
often as not to the detriment of the host country.

------
phy6
Sam has stated for many years that Marvin is not allowed into his marketplace
unless by written invitation. Marvin, being a citizen of his own town, can
seek a marketplace in his own town, work with others to create one for himself
like Sam did, or violate Sams borders knowing the consequences (as Sam has
already told him what will happen). Just like standing at the bottom of the
ocean will drown you, Sam has stated the consequences of violating his border.
Sam detaining Marvin from Sams marketplace isn't violating Marvin's rights any
more the sea denies your right to breath if you stand beneath it--Marvin is
responsible for the risks he takes when the consequences are known. If Sam was
Sam Jung Il, you may be shot dead. If it's uncle Sam, you can expect to be
returned to your town.

Edited because I was distracted by children.

~~~
exit
in reality, sam isn't the sole associate of "his marketplace", and sam can't
form a consensus with the others there.

i flatly do not care for americans more than i care for people with other
passports, and i am not willing to support any special privileges built on
this notion of us being one tribe.

~~~
phy6
We are stretching the (possibly false) analogy that Sam is an individual and
that Marvin is also an individual. In reality, US Sam is an evolving (or
revolving) representative electorate of a lands citizens, and 'Sam' controls
the town, land, infrastructure and laws which support the marketplace,
including the land, towns infrastructure and laws of the buyers. Sam doesn't
need to be an associate, as he owns and operates the ecosystem that makes the
market exist, except for the vendors and their tents.

------
lngnmn
There, perhaps, is the right to leave and to refuse to obey, but there is no
right to be accepted in any country you wish and no right to demand anything
once you left your country. There is definitely no Right to become a burden to
others.

~~~
Doxin
IMO there's no right to be accepted, but any country capable of supporting a
person has a moral obligation to do so. Every human deserves a decent life, or
at the very least an okay life.

------
75dvtwin
The author, in my view, appears to be making 2 logical fallacies (that,
therefore, invalidate the argument) summarized here

"... _A prima facie rights violation is an action of a sort that normally—that
is, barring any special circumstances—violates someone’s rights. For example,
killing a human being is a prima facie rights violation: in normal
circumstances, to kill someone is to violate his rights._ ...."

Fallacy one, is that killing a person is an binary, killed or not. It is not
equivalent to a country establishing suverenity over its territory, borders,
and laws. And denying a right to immigrate into a particular list of first
world countries, is not equivalent to killing.

Fallacy two, is that the author oversimplifies.

First it is postulated, that immigration is a right. However, it is not the
case. Every right granted within a sovereign country does not necessarily
extend beyond its borders. Eg 2nd amendment right in US does not extend to
Russia. Same can be said about abortions right grants -- these are not
applicable at 'global level'. So lack of examining significantly complex
analogies, is a simplification fallacy.

Second example of oversimplification fallacy, is that there are many more
variables (rights, privileges, letter of law, reasons to enforce laws, etc)
than just "US government" vs "an immigrant".

~~~
fleitz
The idea that all 7 billion people In the world have a right to live In the US
is rediculous. Even if it were those people's right, it's virtually impossible
to make that happen

------
coldtea
Only when one believes in "God given rights" or similar, that exist
independently of man-made laws and customs.

Otherwise, what's a right is what people define as one.

Here's a related question: is the will of a collection of people A (e.g. "no
immigration to our parts") more or less important than the will of other
people to immigrate there?

And two PS notes, as most people will focus on the wrong aspects of the
question.

P.S 1: To bypass any kind of hypocrisy charges etc, e.g. "how you A people
think you ended where you are now?", we can make A's proclamation as "no
further immigration to our parts" \-- this is selfish maybe, but not
hypocritical.

P.S 2: Since few/no groups A have a uniform will, we can define A's will as
the usual majority/plurality will, especially as expressed through their
typical form of elections.

~~~
jerkstate
The right to determine immigration policy is a sovereign power, in the US it
is granted by law to the executive branch (subject of course to many other
natural and national laws.)

~~~
coldtea
Sure, but we are discussing above and before those concepts now.

On a meta-level, e.g. are they justified to exist at all, and if so why, etc.

~~~
jerkstate
It's useful to go back to the Enlightenment to gain context about the origins
of that meta-level philosophy and try to articulate what's changed and why
those laws of nations are no longer valid. It could be the basis of a new
Enlightenment.

------
booleandilemma
I would argue that if there was a universal human right to immigrate into the
US, then US would collapse under all of the external pressure of so many
people pouring in.

Let's say my neighbor has a nicer house than me, with an inground pool, cenral
air, and a bowling alley in the basement. As much as I'd like to live there,
and no matter the condition of my own house, I can't just move in because I
feel like it.

~~~
arcticbull
Think about it this way. If New York City is so awesome (and it's pretty
awesome) why doesn't everyone in America move there?

There's plenty of reasons the population of NYC isn't 300M. The reality is
that people are tied to their communities for many different reasons.
Language, culture, family, friends, jobs. These aren't unique to the first
world. Sure many would come, but many more would stay, and these things reach
equilibrium.

One thing is certain, there'd be a much bigger labor pool and a more dynamic
economy, IMO.

~~~
ap3
Or it's not so awesome

------
jerkstate
No. A nation may place whatever restriction they like on foreigners entering.
This has been a right of nations since the beginning of recorded history.

~~~
ubernostrum
_This has been a right of nations since the beginning of recorded history._

This is an interesting claim to make.

For most of recorded history, borders were usually uncontrolled except in time
of war/threat, and barriers to migration were at least as likely to be imposed
at origin as at destination -- people capable of doing labor were an asset,
and if they could get away from their current ruler/owner, another ruler would
often be happy to take them. European monarchs, for example, would happily
poach each others' dissatisfied subjects and even offer them land and
religious toleration.

And in those times, the rights being exercised over movement were rights of
_rulers_ , not rights of _nations_. The idea of a "nation" as a thing capable
of having rights didn't really exist until the 17th century, and was nebulous
for some time after.

~~~
jerkstate
I agree with all of that. Whether or not we are in a time of war/threat seems
to be at the heart of the current immigration debate.

------
coldtea
> _1\. Individuals have a prima facie right to immigrate (that is, a right not
> to be prevented from immigrating). This is because: a. Individuals have a
> prima facie right to be free from harmful coercion. b. Immigration
> restrictions are harmful and coercive. 2\. The prima facie right to
> immigrate is not overridden. In particular: a. It is not overridden because
> of immigrants’ effects on the labor market. b. It is not overridden because
> of the fiscal burden of providing social services to immigrants. c. It is
> not overridden because of the state’s special obligations to its citizens in
> general, nor its special obligations to its poorest citizens. d. It is not
> overridden because of the threat immigrants pose to the nation’s culture.
> 3\. Therefore, immigration restrictions are wrongful rights-violations._

The paper makes absolutely no sense as it is.

First of all, there are no "prima facie" rights. Even the declaration of human
rights is about declaring and enforcing man made rights, not prima facie
rights that everyone automatically has in nature. Animals in nature have no
rights (not in the sense that we can do anything to them: in the sense that
there are no rights between them: one animal can do anything it likes to
another, if it has the power to do so).

But, even accepting the notion, the conclusions are not coherent with the
whole idea.

Immigration presupposes nations (the places where you immigrate to).

First, because else it's just movement (e.g. from California to Texas), not
immigration.

And second, because what prospective immigrants want is to exchange one
nations prospects (stability, economy, government, laws, jobs, culture,
opportunities) for another's. If there were two different countries with the
exact same prospects in all those areas, immigration between them would not
make any sense (except in changing landscape, e.g. from snow to sunshine --
but that's seldom the reason people leave their country, friends and families
for).

But "free boundless immigration as a fundamental right" means no nations, just
a huge global state. What would there be to constitute a nation (with separate
laws, government, economy, etc) if anybody can come in and leave at anytime
for greener pastures?

------
return0
Why do people get away with pretending that rights come from the sky?

~~~
classicsnoot
To treat them any other way is to call into question the foundations of
progressive/enlightened ideology. Movements, ideologies, and factions all must
have a point of departure, and this point is predicated on assumptions.
Liberal Western thought wanted equality but needed to remove god (as equality
under a godhead was undesirable). Enlightenment thinkers felt free to say and
do as they wished, so they formalized the feeling into an argument of the
universality of rights. Whether they are god given or inherent, they must
exist for the rest of the progressive framework to maintain its structure.

The question i find interesting is, "how long will people like me get away
with believing that rights come from rifles?"

------
gonmf
There are many minor inconsistencies in this otherwise interesting and
accessible piece, but I think a fundamental one is that the citizens of a
country are not valued the same as foreign citizens. It could be argued one of
the purposes of the state itself is to put its citizens above all else. So it
stands to reason that one can conceive of letting foreigners suffer economic
privation rather than cut local salaries 1%; or spy on foreigners freely but
require court orders for locals, etc.

------
exit
the most fundamental form of democracy is voting with your feet, and the
passport regime has destroyed that.

nationality is segregation.

~~~
Banthum
No, nationality is property rights.

Voting with your feet was not significant before passports as the masses were
too poor to move (which is why nobody had passport systems to begin with).

~~~
thescribe
I hadn't though of nationality as property rights, but it makes a ton of
sense. Thank you.

------
Koshkin
It is a highly philosophical question. Therefore, the answer to it will always
depend on, well, one's philosophy.

For example, if you see your country as your home, then ask yourself: is there
a _right_ to immigrate into your home?

If, on the other hand, you see the planet we live on as something that people
have a natural right to roam at will, then the borders between countries would
seem illegitimate, and one should be free to settle in any country, given the
means, ability to provide for themselves, and the will to abide by the local
laws and customs.

------
microcolonel
>I then examine the most popular justifications offered for restricting
immigration, finding that none of them offers a credible rationale for
claiming either that such restriction does not violate rights or that the
rights violation is justified.

This is completely backwards. He should be in the position to prove that
restrictions _do_ violate rights, not that none of the ones he addresses _don
't_ violate rights.

With the goalposts shifted so far, I see this as pseudo-intellectual
bloviation.

------
wz1000
An argument for immigration based on ethics seems to be interesting to discuss
in theory, but is so far removed from the major ethical concerns regarding US
behavior that it seems like a joke to argue for libertarian immigration policy
reform on this basis.

Active invasion, murder, genocide and sabotage are ethical concerns that
immediately out-shadow ethical considerations of immigration. It's a bit like
complaining about animal rights in DPRK.

------
CuriouslyC
The only legitimate authority is that which it is granted by the people over
which it is exercised. Thus, a democracy is only legitimate to the extent that
people choose to participate in it. By restricting migration, you effectively
eliminate people's choice (at least at the national level), and what you end
up with is subjugation in a pretty package.

~~~
coldtea
This doesn't make any sense.

"A democracy is only legitimate to the extent that people choose to
participate in it" is correct, but only applies to the people within the
bounds of the democratic state -- those upon which the effects of the
democratic decisions will be applied to. Not to arbitrarily anyone.

So refusing the vote to blacks or women etc, within a state is undemocratic,
refusing the entry to the state (and thus the vote) to those outside is
another thing altogether.

Let's conduct a thought experiment. Given totally free entry and vote to the
USA, what's to stop, say, 400 million devout muslims from migrating there, and
voting at the very first elections they can vote in, for islamic law (or
gradually introducing it)? That's, after all, the will of the (new) 400+350
million strong people.

You could substitute muslims for any other group. Or you could do the reverse
experiment, migrating 100 millions americans to a muslim country of, say,
50-70 million people, and having the vote to change the laws and customs to
americanized preferences of living.

It's only because a lot of people in the US think that how the US lives and
operates is some kind of universal law or ultimate preference of mankind
(forgetting that there are two fractions even in the us itself) that they
cannot see the possibility of such experiments/distortions.

Meanwhile, people in places like Lebanon, that had these things painfully
happen to them, are much more aware of the diversity of what people will.

~~~
MichaelGG
This is what I never see addressed, and it certainly must be helping the
"right wing" groups because it seems so obvious.

Given a choice, the majority of the world would choose to move to Europe or
North America. I'd bet if you polled, say, Guatemala, and offered everyone
free residency and resettlement in the US, you'd have acceptance numbers over
80% at least. And a lot of the people choosing to stay would be those that are
well off.

So what's the actual plan to deal with resettling a couple billion people
(with significantly different values and standards)? And if we can magically
provide a safe and wonderful country for them in tier 1 countries, why can't
we do the same in their country of origin?

Or more directly, what's allowing tier 1 countries the ability to absorb so
many people?

~~~
CuriouslyC
In my travels in third world countries, I've observed that the people are
often tremendously proud of their national identity, and strongly connected
with their culture. Emigrating is not a step people take lightly. Of course,
if you take someone who's sick and starving and offer them a free lunch and
medical care they're going to jump at the opportunity, but I am willing to bet
that if in most cases they would prefer to get those things in the context of
their own country rather than having to relocate.

It is worth noting that the trend in migration from Mexico to the USA has
actually reversed lately.

~~~
masonic

      It is worth noting that the trend in migration from Mexico to the USA has actually reversed lately.
    

No, it hasn't.

The only study that even _claimed_ that misinterpreted the two studies that
produced the raw numbers.

The inbound figures counted only working-age adults. It ignored _all_ children
and infants, including the huge number of unaccompanied infants.

The outbound figures counted _everybody_ , including children and infants.

There was a net _increase_ overall.

------
ap3
My question: do I have a right to immigrate to your house?

------
yellowapple
Is there a right for a person to move into my house?

Conversely, is there a right for me to invite people to move into my house? Is
it even "my" house in the first place?

------
Mikeb85
First, let's start with the fact that "rights" are a human construct, and have
only been allowed insomuch as there's no conflict with society or governments.
My belief is that immigration SHOULD be unlimited in an ideal world, but given
the current state of the world, should be very limited.

The main problem is that immigration creates definite winners and losers. Even
if you believe in the "right" of someone to move to a place that has more
economic opportunity, what happens to the social dynamic and economy in the
place they immigrate, and more importantly, from where they emigrate? Once
upon a time people talked about "brain drain", but it seems we've either
forgotten about it, or just don't care anymore, content to impose a second
round of colonisation on the developing world.

The fact is, excessive immigration steals the brightest minds from developing
countries and prevents their further development. It's great for the west
(notwithstanding social effects); we get a never-ending source of labour
that's willing to work for less than the indigenous population in the same
field (salary arbitrage), while being able to draw from a pool of skilled
workers far larger than our actual population.

So then this leads to the problem: it's great for the west, so our governments
push migration. It prevents development of developing nations, keeping their
living standards low. So what's the end game? I personally want to believe in
a Utopian future where Accra could be every bit as developed as say, New York
or Paris. Where migration isn't an economic issue. However if we continue as
we have, migration will only cause more nations to become like Somalia, Libya,
Syria; we steal all their human capital and, impoverished with no capacity to
develop, they radicalise, we kill them with drones, and we're essentially
living in a completely stratified world.

Anyhow, this worst case scenario probably won't happen because realistically,
no single country can take in all the economic migrants of the world, but we
do need to realise that when it comes to immigration, there are definite
losers. Immigration is basically colonialism round 2. But it continues
because, to the immigrants, it's an optimal personal decision to immigrate.
For the host nation, they're accumulating human capital. The nation they're
leaving loses.

And I'll finish with a quote from Thabo Mbeki, past president of South Africa,
which I shamelessly ripped from a relevant Wikipedia page:

 _" In our world in which the generation of new knowledge and its application
to change the human condition is the engine which moves human society further
away from barbarism, do we not have need to recall Africa's hundreds of
thousands of intellectuals back from their places of emigration in Western
Europe and North America, to rejoin those who remain still within our shores!

I dream of the day when these, the African mathematicians and computer
specialists in Washington and New York, the African physicists, engineers,
doctors, business managers and economists, will return from London and
Manchester and Paris and Brussels to add to the African pool of brain power,
to enquire into and find solutions to Africa's problems and challenges, to
open the African door to the world of knowledge, to elevate Africa's place
within the universe of research the information of new knowledge, education
and information."_

And a page that touches on the issue of human capital flight:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_capital_flight](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_capital_flight)

------
fixxer
The author:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Huemer](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Huemer)

Seems like a very nice argument when isolated away from reality. Reality of
mass immigration from Muslim countries into the UK has been a lot more people
in the UK support Sharia law and want to ban homosexuality.

[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-
musl...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-
strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law)

I like libertarians, but there are some feedback loops that prevent me from
universally embracing libertarianism.

Also, the author describes this right to immigrate from the context of
"normal" immigrants. What is normal and who gets to define it? Seems like a
fluid definition that evolves as a function of past immigration. For example,
parts of Sharia law might fit in OK (usury, for example) with Western values,
so maybe we let that slide for a bit. Then, after a few decades and more
norming of other aspects, all these other social values become part of a
voting block and get pushed into action. I don't see great examples of
government in the middle East, so why would I want to normalize those social
values and evolve my government to suit?

I don't consider myself anti-Islam (just anti fundamentalists, including
Judeo-Christian sects) and I know a ton of secular Muslims with my values
(most don't want open door immigration either!).

In thirty years of traveling to Europe to visit family, I just don't look at
how they've managed immigration with a lot of enthusiasm. Nor do I want to
replicate those policies here.

~~~
verbify
That poll only surveyed areas where at least a fifth of the population was
Muslim. From my experience growing up as an Orthodox Jew, areas with a higher
concentration of an ethnicity also tend to harbour the more extreme views.
Whether that's because extremists tend to only want to hang out together or
because hanging out with only your own kind makes you more extreme is
irrelevant - that poll isn't an accurate reflection Of British Muslim views or
any of the British Muslims I work with.

[http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_570badf0e4b0fa55639d65a9](http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_570badf0e4b0fa55639d65a9)

But also consider this:

a) Immigrants tend to adopt the mainstream culture over time b) By stopping
people from immigrating, you're just keeping homophobia away from you, you're
not preventing it existing. A gay child Of Muslim parents is better off in the
UK than Pakistan even if his parents are going to continue to be homophobic.
I'm not a fan OF NIMBYism.

~~~
fixxer
NIMBYism is rationalism. It is irrational to think you can/should have
policies in your system to serve people from a separate system. It presumes
that you can establish a metric for right and wrong that applies to others,
which is really just jingoism.

Edit: wrt your 'A', there is a massive amount of things not said about how
immigrants take on the values of their new country. Cato has published a few
papers on that and it is always in the context of large aggregate stats
dominated by immigrants from similar cultures (some might disagree, but Mexico
is VERY similar to the US; Syria not so much)

~~~
mozumder
Economics is rationalism. Literally.

And economics has no concern about the well-being of any social group.

If another social group creates more wealth than yours do via immigration,
guess what? Your social group dies.

If a bunch of marauding dark-skinned anti-gay Muslims practicing Sharia law
creates more wealth than sweet, huggable white libertarians with flowers in
their hands, guess who's going to dominate?

There's no faking it in economics. Adapt or die.

And white nationalists are going to learn the hard way that immigrants are
what creates wealth in this country, since they work hard and have a lower
crime rate than natives.

~~~
fixxer
White nationalism doesn't exist. This is just a label invented to explain why
the Democrats have lost influence among middle-class America in places like
Wisconsin, Indiana, Iowa...

The left, however, is a real thing. When I worked with Obama's people, I
worked with people that identified as "anarcho-socialists" that openly
discussed entitlement expansion as a means to break the system. I could not
invent the crap I heard these people say.

~~~
mozumder
I agree that white nationalism exists, especially with white-nationalists like
Bannon in control of our government. They are truly a dangerous group that
doesn't represent America's multi-cultural values.

We have to make sure that white-nationalism is purged from this country, and
an open-borders society is probably the best way to fight-off white-
nationalism.

We need to make sure a Sharia-law supporting Muslim is able to freely
immigrate into this country and sit freely and peacefully alongside a
Brazilian transgendered activist on our subways.

That is the multiculturalism that we Americans want.

~~~
fixxer
You do a lot of virtue signaling in your commentary and presume to speak for
"the masses". It is... amusing.

I get that you have an opinion and it is fairly orthogonal to mine. Your
opinion doesn't offend me or make me feel threatened, but the presumption that
you speak for anyone beyond yourself is awkward.

I want to understand your side, but your presentation is pitting you against
good taste... I feel like I'm talking to that guy at the gym who went off his
bipolar meds.

Tone down the preaching of universal truth, perhaps?

------
unlmtd
The State is illegitimate. It is up to the rightful landowners to allow
whoever they want on their premises.

~~~
coldtea
First, if the state is illegitimate, then there are no landowners.

You are a landowner only in as much as the state guarantees your right to the
land, or (the only other alternative) as much as you can protect and enforce
your rights to your land.

So, without a state, some big bullies with access to better guns will have you
for breakfast.

Besides, who gave you this "right" to the land in the first place? Only a
series of contracts, and before it all, stealing it from the Native Americans,
who got there first (in as much as we can recognize "getting there first" as a
legitimate right to a piece of land).

Second, even if it "is up to the rightful landowners to allow whoever they
want on their premises", that doesn't extend to outside their premises.

So, either those immigrants you accepted in would have to live only on your
premises, or you have to negotiate with the other landowners to have the
immigrants be able to walk around their land, define some common areas which
no one has exclusive rights to, etc. And this collective agreement, which
you'll also need some way to enforce it, is exactly a primitive form of
govermnet as well.

~~~
fiatjaf
> You are a landowner only in as much as the state guarantees your right to
> the land, or (the only other alternative) as much as you can protect and
> enforce your rights to your land.

You think you are so clever to come up with this argument that you imagine
will end the discussion, isn't it?

In the following passages you recognize that it is difficult to know who is
the "right" owner of something, but before you were saying that the State de
facto owns everything. So what is it?

~~~
coldtea
> _You think you are so clever to come up with this argument that you imagine
> will end the discussion, isn 't it?_

No, I just think the argument I responded to was obviously half-thought, to
put it mildly.

Mine is not particularly clever, not very original. It's just a statement of
fact.

> _In the following passages you recognize that it is difficult to know who is
> the "right" owner of something, but before you were saying that the State de
> facto owns everything. So what is it?_

I fail to see the contradiction. Confused much?

The fact that, as I acknowledged, it's difficult to know who is the "right"
owner of something, e.g. some land, it's totally orthogonal to my other point.

I didn't say the State enforces the "right" ownership. Just that it enforces
the existing ownership rights -- whether they are "right" (ultimately
justified) or not. It's a fact that the State has the power to, and does,
enforce the property rights currently in existence in the US. That's a
statement of fact.

Second, I never said that "the State de facto owns everything" (although they
could). Just that they de facto enforce all property rights. Anyone claiming
to own a piece of land in the US, must pass through the state procedures to
prove so -- else it is not considered theirs, and is taken away from them.

------
Hydraulix989
Utopian fantasies aside, borders are what maintain our standard of living.

~~~
arcticbull
Is that true of the US/Canada border? I ask because it seems to work fine
inside continental Europe to have open borders. Even opening up the eastern
bloc hasn't had devastating consequences and instead leads more to
normalization/improvements in underdeveloped areas.

~~~
Hydraulix989
Is that actually true though? I don't think I can just pack up my bags as a US
citizen tomorrow and move to the EU.

~~~
arcticbull
Sorry for the confusion I mean movement within the EU as an EU national, and
in turn, I was referring to the hypothetical open border between the US and
Canada for their own nationals.

~~~
Hydraulix989
Right, and if you can't see how the assertion is true, then you don't
understand basic economics -- specifically, the concept of paucity.

Downvote my post all you want, but Malthus didn't have a downwards facing
arrow next to his.

