Just don't get it. Okay, I'll admit it, I'm in Canada and maybe we don't have the issues you do, though we do let in a lot more immigrants for our population size than the U.S. does. When I joined the libertarian movement back in the early 80s, there wasn't a single libertarian I heard that supported anything other than a complete open door policy...free trade and free migration. Now, you get tons of anti-immigrant material off of Lew Rockwell's site. And then there's Ron Paul's very anti-immigrant stand. Not only would he prevent them from coming in, he'd boot them out and remove citiizenship from their children who are born in the U.S. Of course he'd need a Constitutional amendment to do so, but does he just want to replace legislative laws with Constitutional meddling? Seems even worse to me.
But back on track. If the issue is that immigrants live off government programs, why not use that to help get rid of the programs? Or just deny such programs to non-citizens? That way, they have to make it on their own through hard work or go home. Moreover, I don't think there is any objective evidence that immigrants are on balance taking more out of the economy than their putting in. And by all means, if they commit a real crime they should be booted out. But is there any evidence that they are more crime prone than a native born American?
There hasn't been an immigrant into North America in my family for at least five generations. I wonder what the U.S. and Canada would have become had immigration ended around the time the last of my family arrived on North American shores? The "invasion" argument, imo, is just an excuse. There have been planty of waves of immigration in U.S. history. Irish, Italian, Jewish, Vietnamese, the list goes on. What's up?
If you want my view, it's that there's paleoconservative influence. While I'm no lover of neoconservatives, I'm not fond of the paleos either (who, in some areas, may tend to be just as bad or even worse then the neos). If some left-libertarians are guilty of putting their cultural biases before liberty, so too are many right-libertarians guilty of putting their personal preferances (such as religiosity, traditionalism, nationalism, etc.) before liberty. The virus of nationalism and protectionism infests even libertarian circles sometimes. Libertarians are of course free to not favor the influx of certain groups as they please, but they cannot, as libertarians, favor political means towards addressing those concerns. I think part of the problem is that they are viewing it from a pragmatist perspective, influenced in part by exaggerated (and sometimes frankly downright false) claims about the effects of immigration on the culture and economy (I.E. increased crime, disease, multiculturalism, "lost jobs", "welfare leeches" and so on).
I remember about five or six years ago when I first started coming to lewrockwell.com and saw subject headings about immigration and expecting to see good libertarian arguments in favour. When I actually read them, I thought I'd been bounced to some pro-union website, or maybe Ross Perot. Certainly not a "libertarian" site. Then I thought maybe it was some sort of satire. Sadly not.
The first anti-immigrant "libertarian" I ever encountered was about 1993 or so on Usenet. I tried to explain to him that his anti-immigration stance wasn't very "libertarian", then he started to rant about "dirty" Mexicans. It was pretty clear to me his motivation had less to do with how it fit with creating a libertarian society or even economic impact, but a strong dislike of Mexicans. He was going to twist libertarianism around to make it fit his xenophobic views. I never thought it would become mainstream among many libertarians, including Ron Paul. Isn't this how the socialists hijacked the liberal movement, by slowly eroding it with anti-liberal ideas?
BTW, It looks like Canadian supporters are loosing enthusiasm for Ron Paul. Used to be endless postings now nearly nothing. I wondered how many Canadian supporters where aware of his immigration policy. There's a thread in the Facebook "Canadians for Ron Paul" about Canadians moving to the States if Ron Paul where elected. They were all pumped up about living in a country driven by libertarian ideas, so I mentioned that they should look at the immigration policy before they pack their bags. The entire group seemed to die after that. Don't know if it's cause and effect or the Christmas season everyone is out shopping.
"Legal Immigration vs. Illegal Immigration/Undocumented Immigrants There needs to be a delineation between Legal Immigration and Illegal Immigration/Undocumented Immigrants. Legal Immigrants come her with intent and permission from the Federal Government to work in the US. I would conjecture that most libertarians/constitutionalist would be fine with Legal Immigration. They work hard, they pay taxes, and many are on a path to citizenship."
To divide legal from illegal immigration is to cave to a statist/collectivist concept, imo. It says our rights as individuals come from the state. If they're not committing aggression, they should be free to act as free traders on a free market. Taking welfare benefits, especially if they're not paying into them, would be an act of aggression. If they're not, they should be left alone by the state. So, it shouldn't be an issue of "legal" and "illegal" immigrant but stealing from the money of other people
"It is Illegal Immigration which causes a big debacle. The libertarian argument to Illegal Immigration is that the Federal Government provides incentives in the form of welfare, healthcare, foodstamps to illegal immigrants. Remove the incentives/subsidies, remove the problem of illegal immigration."
Exactly. But why punish those who are not aggessing against the rights of others? Get rid of the real problem, gov't benefits, and the problem is gone.
"Constitutional Birth Right? "Article 14 Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." The question here is in the definitions of "subject to the jurisdiction of". If an Illegal Immigrant comes to this country and has kids, do the kids get automatic citizenship? The initial answer at the writing of the amendment, according to Ron Paul, is NO. They are not under the jurisdicition of the US since they are illegal immigrants."
But only because the state is decided to define them as such. To me, an immigrant is an immigrant. To a libertarian, there is no "illegal" unless its an act of aggression. An immigrant is someone who's moved from one place to another, not an "illegal". And is it any better to manipulate the Constitution than have a law that's easly changed? I doubt he'll have any sucess on this one...so why worry?
"The parents are illegal, hence the kids are illegal."
I'd just call them folks.
"However, over the past century or so, the definitions has shifted to mean anyone born in the US is a citizen. Ron Paul wants to clarify the original intent of the Article through a bill through Congress, and/or a Constitutional amendment."
I can't imagine the framers of the Constitution ever intended it to be interpreted that way. People were coming in from all over at that time. Though they were also busy killing off natives at the same time, so who knows?
(sidenote, the posting software on this site is not...well...very good)
ViennaSausage:Legal Immigration vs. Illegal Immigration/Undocumented ImmigrantsThere needs to be a delineation between Legal Immigration and Illegal Immigration/Undocumented Immigrants. Legal Immigrants come her with intent and permission from the Federal Government to work in the US. I would conjecture that most libertarians/constitutionalist would be fine with Legal Immigration. They work hard, they pay taxes, and many are on a path to citizenship.It is Illegal Immigration which causes a big debacle. The libertarian argument to Illegal Immigration is that the Federal Government provides incentives in the form of welfare, healthcare, foodstamps to illegal immigrants. Remove the incentives/subsidies, remove the problem of illegal immigration.Constitutional Birth Right?"Article 14 Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." The question here is in the definitions of "subject to the jurisdiction of". If an Illegal Immigrant comes to this country and has kids, do the kids get automatic citizenship? The initial answer at the writing of the amendment, according to Ron Paul, is NO. They are not under the jurisdicition of the US since they are illegal immigrants. The parents are illegal, hence the kids are illegal. However, over the past century or so, the definitions has shifted to mean anyone born in the US is a citizen. Ron Paul wants to clarify the original intent of the Article through a bill through Congress, and/or a Constitutional amendment.
The legal/illegal distinction is entirely disingeuous. It's no different then making a distinction between legal and illegal drug use, and saying "I'm not against the right of people to use drugs, I'm against people illegally doing drugs". From what I can tell, an illegal immigrant is engaging in an act of civil disobedience no different then someone who wishes to smoke pot despite it being against the law. To my knowledge, libertarians are not supposed to support the law just because it so happens to be the law.
Opposing illegal immigration is to concede, by default, that you favor illegalizing immigration to some extent. It is to support the notion that you need special permission from the government, under the guise of regulations, in order to be allowed to live within the territory. There is no way around this. If you favor enforcing laws that restrict or illegalize immigration, you are anti-immigration to some degree. And in order to enforce such restrictions, you must support a government bereaucracy.
If you favor free association, you have no choice but to support me hiring illegal immigrants, allowing them into my home and selling them homes. Anything else will violate my property rights. Unless, of course, you wish to treat the entire territory as if it is the private property of the government, in which case you justify all sorts of aspects of statism. The "libertarian" case against immigration, legal or not, falls flat on its face according to the most basic elements of libertarian philosophy.
Brainpolice:If you favor free association, you have no choice but to support me hiring illegal immigrants, allowing them into my home and selling them homes. Unless, of course, you wish to treat the entire territory as if it is the private property of the government, in which case you justify all sorts of aspects of statism.
Not if I can't freely disassociate from them by not paying for their education and medical bills and what not. There is a difference between the ideal world and the practical reality we have to deal with on a day by day basis, BP. Technically a doctrinaire Libertarian or Anarcho Capitalist is compromising the second he drives on a government road, but he has to live. On a practical level waves of immigrants that come across the borders undocumented, waves which include the respectable and hard working and the criminal alike, are a concern. I have a friend who is a CO in a state prison. He gets illegals daily for robbery, rape, murder, burglary, assault, etc., at a much higher rate than regular citizens. He has to get vaccinated for all types of diseases and take precautions against rare parasites. Rare in the developed world, not in the third world hell holes the illegals are coming from. He regularly gets illegals who are pedos, and end up in jail because where they come from you can nail a 12 year old without too much of a problem. This is not a good thing overall.
Right now all property is not private and so the ability to disassociate with some people is being denied to a lot of people who would otherwise exercise that right. As a practical matter the ability to monitor the border within reason and to know who is coming over the border, what diseases/medical problems they may have, their criminal records, etc., and some restrictions on that movement is not unreasonable. What's more the government enables these people and subsidizes them, making them less likely to integrate and assimilate into the mainstream society and so instead they stay in the ghettos and ferment, and they will one day explode.
I'm all for opening the borders. After all entitlements are ended and enough property is private to make it generally hard to get here unless your potential neighbors want you here. And right now having any opinion on immigration is to sanction the state because one way or another you are giving tacit approval to either state controlled movement and restrictions there on, or state sponsored wealth redistribution and forced association/subsidization. It is not a question of principle but practical priorities. What do you deal with first? Personally I'd rather nix the welfare state before we allow another crowd of millions of potential leeches and criminals into the country. I'm well aware of the Mises quote about fire, but any fireman will tell you that you have to prioritize when fighting fires, and sometimes fire itself can be an ally in that fight.
And, to be blunt, seeing a crowd of people who can barely speak English parading down a US street chanting about how bad America is and waving foreign flags, well it pisses me off. And it makes me wonder about every other nation which seems to have pockets of unassimilated immigrants sucking off their respective welfare systems. It's not working too well in Holland my relatives tell me. Not so well in France either they say. Their inner cities and ghettos make ours look like the play area at McDonalds. One has to question the intelligence of, on principle over practicality, allowing a significant portion of people who profess an intense hatred of your country into your country, often to do little more than suck off the government teet in a marginally more pleasant way than they could in their home country, and fester with hatred in an isolated ghetto only to explode into a rioting mob some time later to the naive shock of all the people who thought open borders were a wonderful idea, the height of principles.
A simple plan follows:
Those are practical and achievable ends that can be subsumed into a larger plan for moving closer to a more libertarian society with respect to this issue. But this issue is not a simple matter. Especially when it's your kid getting raped, you or someone you love getting mugged, you or someone you love getting killed, all by some illegal alien who has ten DWI convictions and a criminal record longer and deeper than the Grand Canyon. In the real word principle has to take a back seat to practical reality sometimes. In principle I should be able to walk through Central Park at 3 AM waving thousand dollar bills over my head while singing Whitesnake hits from the eighties, and I should not be harmed. I'm not going to try it any time soon. On practical grounds.
I wish I said that! BrianPolice is the Man!
Until recently, I believed that views on immigration were firm: Illegal means illegal, no social assistance for illegal immigrants, send them home to do it right. My views were partly based on the belief that immigrants only provided cheap labor and gave no significant contribution to American society. This has changed since a recent trip to upstate New York. I met there a 28 year old female immigrant who illegally migrated to America with her mother and siblings 15 years ago. In 15 years, she has completed her high school diploma, her Bachelor's degree in Mathmatics, and her Master's degree in Higher Education. She currently teaches 2nd grade at a private school in the Capital Region. Not only that, while she was in college she began buying rental properties. She current has over 30 rental units, with five of her buildings being owned outright (no mortgage). She currently has plans to open a restaurant and lounge in the spring of 2009.
She began applying for citizenship at age 19. Due to the extensive paperwork process, she has yet to receive her citizenship. She believes that she is still about 6-9 months away from being done. Having said that, I will say that she speaks more to the reason for allowing immigration in America than most anyone. I would rather have her and those like her be given a bypass of the massive Federal bureaucracy lest they be rounded up with the rest and tossed back to their home country. The productivity of America is better when the work ethic of the best and brightest available talent is included.
Immigration to Canada is qualitatively much different than the U.S. Having no easy connection to poor third world countries, Canada also applies a highly elitist immigration policy that lets in only the most educated and cultured of foreigners. That makes immigration to Canada a civilizing trend.
Immigration in the United States, involving the least educated and least civilized of poor third worlders, is a menace to civilized society, which was already reeling from the forced integration of the civil rights act. With no right to appropriate and exclude others from their communities, Americans are appalled by failure of the government to expel illegal residents. The same thing is taking place in Europe with African immigrants.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Actually, with American's tossing illegals out, many are heading to Canada. Windsor Ontario has apparantly been flooded with them. I'm not sure what their fate will be...we have a Conservative government that probably won't welcome them with open arms. The immigrants I see where I live don't seem to be all of the "upper crust". You get in based on various categories, some which do involve investment and education. But lots come in as refugees and end up staying (though most end up getting the boot). I don't like our immigration policy either, but no one here is running as an advocate of Freedom. BTW, for the first time in about thirty years, the flow out of Canada into the U.S. has been dropping while the flow from the U.S. into Canada is increasing. Our neighbors below us are from the States. Tons of houses have been bought up by Americans pushing our housing prices through the roof (we sold our house for $380k, that house would now cost us $600k to buy in a three year period). Guess I should be mad and demanding a tightening of our borders?
I'm really curious what would happen if the shoe were on the other foot?
xahrx - I'm not a pragmatist, I'm a hopeless idealist. The day I become a pragmatist is the day I start voting for a socialist party, and we got lots of those here.
Sailor:I would rather have her and those like her be given a bypass of the massive Federal bureaucracy lest they be rounded up with the rest and tossed back to their home country.
Indeed, the good and the bad come across. You've experienced the good, are you ready to experience the bad? Has MS 13 decimated your neighborhood? Has an illegal with multiple DWIs run down your kids? Have you had work done on your home only to walk in and find uncollected bottles of urine on the floor, or seen such in your kid's schools? Have you had an 'immigration' march through your neighborhood with people waving foreign flags and turning over cars and spitting on your property chanting phrases like, "Kill all white people!"? Have you had the honor of seeing people celebrating in the street after a few thousand American citizens were wiped out on 9/11? Happened here in NY, not too far from my coworker's house. Do you want the equivalent of the French riots here in the US when these people, so dependent on the government, start pitching a fit at the slightest hint that you might not pay them as much as you used to for the dubious 'benefits' and hard work they bring to the US? The labor issue isn't even really the problem. The problem is the government is essentially subsidizing the destruction of the very culture that made America great. They're doing it enough with citizens an d welfare, we don't need to import more.
And the underside of the issue is one many people don't get to see every day. The stories I hear from the COs and the cops I know about what happened at 'immigration' marches and what kind of people are turning up daily in prisons, not to mention the precautions they have to take against rare diseases and parasites brought up here by illegals, turn my stomach. That hard working people who the United States should be proud to call their own come here illegally is not in doubt. But how do you allow them while not allowing the dregs and the criminals across? It is not by simply swinging the doors wide open and giving up on any attempt at monitoring the borders all the while ignoring the problems that entitlements are causing. If these people are coming here to work so hard and get more opportunity, why are they now fleeing to socialist Canada? It's not for job opportunities, it's for the liberal benefits the government gives. Housing, food, clothing, schooling, medical care, etc. A lot of these people do simply want to live on the dole for as long as possible, and they get pissed when denied what they think they have a 'right' to due to some imagined slight or historic injustice or just general hatred of anyone with a disimilar skin tone.
xahrx: Sailor:I would rather have her and those like her be given a bypass of the massive Federal bureaucracy lest they be rounded up with the rest and tossed back to their home country. Indeed, the good and the bad come across. You've experienced the good, are you ready to experience the bad? Has MS 13 decimated your neighborhood? Has an illegal with multiple DWIs run down your kids? Have you had work done on your home only to walk in and find uncollected bottles of urine on the floor, or seen such in your kid's schools? Have you had an 'immigration' march through your neighborhood with people waving foreign flags and turning over cars and spitting on your property chanting phrases like, "Kill all white people!"? Have you had the honor of seeing people celebrating in the street after a few thousand American citizens were wiped out on 9/11? Happened here in NY, not too far from my coworker's house. Do you want the equivalent of the French riots here in the US when these people, so dependent on the government, start pitching a fit at the slightest hint that you might not pay them as much as you used to for the dubious 'benefits' and hard work they bring to the US? The labor issue isn't even really the problem. The problem is the government is essentially subsidizing the destruction of the very culture that made America great. They're doing it enough with citizens an d welfare, we don't need to import more. And the underside of the issue is one many people don't get to see every day. The stories I hear from the COs and the cops I know about what happened at 'immigration' marches and what kind of people are turning up daily in prisons, not to mention the precautions they have to take against rare diseases and parasites brought up here by illegals, turn my stomach. That hard working people who the United States should be proud to call their own come here illegally is not in doubt. But how do you allow them while not allowing the dregs and the criminals across? It is not by simply swinging the doors wide open and giving up on any attempt at monitoring the borders all the while ignoring the problems that entitlements are causing. If these people are coming here to work so hard and get more opportunity, why are they now fleeing to socialist Canada? It's not for job opportunities, it's for the liberal benefits the government gives. Housing, food, clothing, schooling, medical care, etc. A lot of these people do simply want to live on the dole for as long as possible, and they get pissed when denied what they think they have a 'right' to due to some imagined slight or historic injustice or just general hatred of anyone with a disimilar skin tone.
The city of Windsor, Ont. is struggling to deal with a surge of Mexican migrants from the United States.
More than 200 Mexicans have arrived at the border city in the past three weeks, lured by assurances on websites that they can live and work in Canada without difficulty.
Carina Gonzalez is one of the Mexicans in Windsor, Ont., who were led to believe they could easily live and work here.(CBC)
But the Mexicans, some of whom paid $400 for completed Canadian refugee forms, have no special rights in Canada.
Citizenship and Immigration Canada has posted a notice on its website, warning in Spanish and English that "you cannot purchase admission to any immigration or refugee program to gain refugee status. You do not need to purchase forms."
The Mexicans said they had been forced to leave the U.S. because they were illegal immigrants there.
U.S. immigration authorities "were chasing Mexicans, sending them back home," said Carina Gonzalez, who drove to Windsor from Florida, where she had lived for years. She paid $400 for the refugee form and headed north.
But there is no room in the city's social-service agencies, spokeswomen for the YMCA and the Salvation Army said.
"Right now we are full and some of the latest additions are sleeping on mats in the gymnasium," said Maj. Patricia Phinney of the Salvation Army.
Mayor Eddie Francis is fed up. Many of the new arrivals have claimed social assistance, and the city has already spent more than $200,000 of its emergency shelter budget.
Francis has asked Ottawa to cover the bill, saying the emergency budget "wasn't set up to fund long-term refugee claims. That's something that falls squarely with federal jurisdiction."
So far, Ottawa has refused, and with a six-month wait for a hearing by the Immigration and Refugee Board, the city could be paying for shelter for months.
The odds of being accepted as a refugee are not good. Fewer than 500 of nearly 3,500 Mexican applicants were successful in claiming refugee status in Canada last year.
_____
Hence, no goodies from Socialist Canada.
Brainpolice:There is no way around this. If you favor enforcing laws that restrict or illegalize immigration, you are anti-immigration to some degree. And in order to enforce such restrictions, you must support a government bereaucracy.
xahrx: Brainpolice:If you favor free association, you have no choice but to support me hiring illegal immigrants, allowing them into my home and selling them homes. Unless, of course, you wish to treat the entire territory as if it is the private property of the government, in which case you justify all sorts of aspects of statism. Not if I can't freely disassociate from them by not paying for their education and medical bills and what not. There is a difference between the ideal world and the practical reality we have to deal with on a day by day basis, BP. Technically a doctrinaire Libertarian or Anarcho Capitalist is compromising the second he drives on a government road, but he has to live. On a practical level waves of immigrants that come across the borders undocumented, waves which include the respectable and hard working and the criminal alike, are a concern. I have a friend who is a CO in a state prison. He gets illegals daily for robbery, rape, murder, burglary, assault, etc., at a much higher rate than regular citizens. He has to get vaccinated for all types of diseases and take precautions against rare parasites. Rare in the developed world, not in the third world hell holes the illegals are coming from. He regularly gets illegals who are pedos, and end up in jail because where they come from you can nail a 12 year old without too much of a problem. This is not a good thing overall. Right now all property is not private and so the ability to disassociate with some people is being denied to a lot of people who would otherwise exercise that right. As a practical matter the ability to monitor the border within reason and to know who is coming over the border, what diseases/medical problems they may have, their criminal records, etc., and some restrictions on that movement is not unreasonable. What's more the government enables these people and subsidizes them, making them less likely to integrate and assimilate into the mainstream society and so instead they stay in the ghettos and ferment, and they will one day explode. I'm all for opening the borders. After all entitlements are ended and enough property is private to make it generally hard to get here unless your potential neighbors want you here. And right now having any opinion on immigration is to sanction the state because one way or another you are giving tacit approval to either state controlled movement and restrictions there on, or state sponsored wealth redistribution and forced association/subsidization. It is not a question of principle but practical priorities. What do you deal with first? Personally I'd rather nix the welfare state before we allow another crowd of millions of potential leeches and criminals into the country. I'm well aware of the Mises quote about fire, but any fireman will tell you that you have to prioritize when fighting fires, and sometimes fire itself can be an ally in that fight. And, to be blunt, seeing a crowd of people who can barely speak English parading down a US street chanting about how bad America is and waving foreign flags, well it pisses me off. And it makes me wonder about every other nation which seems to have pockets of unassimilated immigrants sucking off their respective welfare systems. It's not working too well in Holland my relatives tell me. Not so well in France either they say. Their inner cities and ghettos make ours look like the play area at McDonalds. One has to question the intelligence of, on principle over practicality, allowing a significant portion of people who profess an intense hatred of your country into your country, often to do little more than suck off the government teet in a marginally more pleasant way than they could in their home country, and fester with hatred in an isolated ghetto only to explode into a rioting mob some time later to the naive shock of all the people who thought open borders were a wonderful idea, the height of principles. A simple plan follows: End all entitlements for noncitizens. Yes just noncitzens. It will be easier to get through than an end to entitlements in general. End all bilingual education and other government enablement of nonassimilation, such as multilingual government forms. If you're going to come here, learn the language or limit your options, plain and simple. This one will hurt a bit, severely punish all employers who hire illegals. Yes it sucks. Yes it's against principle. But it's also the only practical way to go after over ten million people who can't be rounded up into a paddy wagon, many of whom should not be here and are forcing others to cover their bills no matter how hard they work selling fruit on the freeway. Lastly, streamline the legal process for coming here so it is generally easy to do so and so the only people who will try to do so illegally likely have an over riding reason for doing so. Those are practical and achievable ends that can be subsumed into a larger plan for moving closer to a more libertarian society with respect to this issue. But this issue is not a simple matter. Especially when it's your kid getting raped, you or someone you love getting mugged, you or someone you love getting killed, all by some illegal alien who has ten DWI convictions and a criminal record longer and deeper than the Grand Canyon. In the real word principle has to take a back seat to practical reality sometimes. In principle I should be able to walk through Central Park at 3 AM waving thousand dollar bills over my head while singing Whitesnake hits from the eighties, and I should not be harmed. I'm not going to try it any time soon. On practical grounds.
I don't believe it is hypocritical for a libertarian to drive on a public road. What is hypocritical is for a libertarian to advocate what amounts to a police state and a federal movement bereaucracy in the name of solving problems that they themselves admit are created by the welfare state, and in the name of exaggerated and sometimes completely false claims about the characters of a particular group of people and the effect they have on the culture and economy. What is hypocritical is to piously mouth ideas such as natural rights, and then act as if they only apply if someone has special permission from the government, filled out the proper paperwork and passed through the proper regulations. I guess people only have rights if they're "legal".
Yes, post-ponement logic. I'm familiar with it: "since we still have a welfare state, until it is done away with, we should support government intervention in the name of stopping the migration of people into the country". In short, since intervention X exists, intervention Y is okay as a solution to the problems created by intervention X. This is interventionism, plain and simple. The only libertarian solution would be to get rid of intervention X, in this case, the welfare state. Anything else just leads to a cycle of interventionism and a distraction from the root cause of problems. In practise, you will end up with a welfare state + more police powers and a larger immigration bereaucracy. That's just how these things work.
There is nothing remotely libertarian about police raids on employers. This is more of a paleoconservative position then anything else when it comes to labor. Furthermore, not a single illegal immigrant is forcing you to pay the bills. That's what the government is doing. You misplace blame entirely. As for laguage, that's a matter of personal preference. I could really care less what language someone speaks if they're not harming me. As for the idea that immigrants come with express purpose of sucking off the government teet, this is utter nonsense. The primary incentive is employment. If the welfare state were removed, you would see just as many if not more people flocking here. That's because they come here mostly because it's simply a wealthier country then theirs.
Furthermore, the exact same complaints apply not only equally but moreso to "legal" citezens, who vote for welfare all the time and constitute the vast majority of recipients. Under this same logic, children who use the public schools should be kicked out of the country - afterall, they are "free riders". Indeed, all complaints leveled against illegal immigrants apply to legal citezens in much larger numbers. Of course, anti-immigrationists have double standards of morality as soon as a group they don't like enters the picture. To apply the same principles to "illegal" immigrants that they do to domestic "legal citezens" is too much to bear apparently.
Forced association? And forced disassociation is better? Why is the gun in the room being ignored? Who is it that is forcing association here? Who is it that is taking your money at gunpoint? Who is it that rules over you? Who is it that spends your money on these welfare escapades and wars? For the most part, not immigrants. The government, yes. It's so easy to blame the victim, isn't it? You have a problem with immigrants not paying taxes? I say more power to them! We need more people to stop paying taxes. Of course, the fact of the matter is that most of them do end up paying taxes anyways, so the nationalist's complaints are mostly void.
"The border" is an imaginary line on a map that does not represent a legitimate property title. Crossing it is no different then crossing unowned land, since there is no discernable just owner of nations. It is not reasonable, from any rational property rights perspective, to enforce it as if it were private property. Not hiking up enforcement of such imaginary "borders" does not spell out the end of western civilization as we know it. Nor does it mean that you are necessarily "forced" to associate with people (I don't like half the people around me as it is, but simply because they live on my street or in my neighborhood does not mean I'm forced to associate with them in any direct way - I somehow manage to never come into contact with any of them).
I never give principle a backseat to pragmatism. Never. Call me an "idealist" all you want. I'm sorry if your personal dislike for certain groups and irrational fears and exaggerated claims allows you to put liberty in the backseat. The nationalist paleocons are hijacking this movement. I stick by this claim.
ViennaSausage: Brainpolice:There is no way around this. If you favor enforcing laws that restrict or illegalize immigration, you are anti-immigration to some degree. And in order to enforce such restrictions, you must support a government bereaucracy. My reference point for this argument is respect to libertarian/constitutionalist (minarchist) aka big tent libertarian, not from the view of an anarchro-capitalist. The assumption, from the minarchist point of view, is that government plays a small role in such restrictions. Ron Paul is obviously a minarchist flavor of libertarian.
I understand this. Of course, I'm not a minarchist or a constitutionalist, and I don't support Ron Paul. I don't believe the constitution has any legitimate authority, and I don't think that the government should exist, nor do I think that, even granting that the government currently does exist, supporting immigration bereaucracy and paramilitary border patrols is a sensible or principled strategy for reducing political power. I think that even from a "practical" standpoint, this will just increase the state's power, and we will still be left with a welfare state. On the other hand, I do not think that relaxing immigration controls and reducing border patrol will cause an increase in political power, or necessarily make the welfare state blow up by leaps and bounds. If anything, it would reduce political power while simply allowing more people to exist within the territory. Perhaps some of them will become welfare recipients. Others will not. Some will take jobs. Others will not. It most certainly would not spell out the end of the world as we know it.
Libertarians, minarchist or not, should be concentrating their efforts on eliminating current interventions. Not proposing new ones or expansions of already existing ones as a solution to currently existing ones. It seems pretty fundamental to me that libertarian strategy is a matter of simply taking whatever oppurtunity possible of reducing political means, even if we may not necessarily personally like all of the consequences. Not using political means to appease our personal preferences (such as cultural purity). I most certainly do not personally like many of the ways in which people use their liberty, but that is not going to stop me from supporting their liberty. I'm just going to have to tolerate the fact that people may use their liberty in ways that does not jibe with my personal preferences. Indeed, the consequences of liberty may not always look particularly pretty from a personal perspective. Big whoop. Learn to deal with it.
xahrx: Indeed, the good and the bad come across. You've experienced the good, are you ready to experience the bad? Has MS 13 decimated your neighborhood? Has an illegal with multiple DWIs run down your kids? Have you had work done on your home only to walk in and find uncollected bottles of urine on the floor, or seen such in your kid's schools? Have you had an 'immigration' march through your neighborhood with people waving foreign flags and turning over cars and spitting on your property chanting phrases like, "Kill all white people!"? Have you had the honor of seeing people celebrating in the street after a few thousand American citizens were wiped out on 9/11? Happened here in NY, not too far from my coworker's house. Do you want the equivalent of the French riots here in the US when these people, so dependent on the government, start pitching a fit at the slightest hint that you might not pay them as much as you used to for the dubious 'benefits' and hard work they bring to the US? The labor issue isn't even really the problem. The problem is the government is essentially subsidizing the destruction of the very culture that made America great. They're doing it enough with citizens an d welfare, we don't need to import more. And the underside of the issue is one many people don't get to see every day. The stories I hear from the COs and the cops I know about what happened at 'immigration' marches and what kind of people are turning up daily in prisons, not to mention the precautions they have to take against rare diseases and parasites brought up here by illegals, turn my stomach. That hard working people who the United States should be proud to call their own come here illegally is not in doubt. But how do you allow them while not allowing the dregs and the criminals across? It is not by simply swinging the doors wide open and giving up on any attempt at monitoring the borders all the while ignoring the problems that entitlements are causing. If these people are coming here to work so hard and get more opportunity, why are they now fleeing to socialist Canada? It's not for job opportunities, it's for the liberal benefits the government gives. Housing, food, clothing, schooling, medical care, etc. A lot of these people do simply want to live on the dole for as long as possible, and they get pissed when denied what they think they have a 'right' to due to some imagined slight or historic injustice or just general hatred of anyone with a disimilar skin tone.
Well, that was quite an impassioned response. Unfortunately it appears that you have personalized all of the negative immigration experiences into your own. I had that exact same view until I had the experience I discussed in my previous posting. To answer your questions: Yes, MS-13 is quite rampant in my area (Richmond-Hampton Roads, VA corridor); Yes, a illegal immigrant DUI (second offense) has killed members of my community; Yes, I've had rental property "tagged" by gang members as well as an investment property under renovation be riddled with bullets by gang members; Yes, we have had immigrant marches in this area although of the non-violent variety.
Regarding the French riots, I cannot say that I would support a violent uprising of any group of people when their cause is to continue a system of welfare and taxation. The issue of immigration and welfare are closely related. Who knows the added burden placed upon our already over-crowded welfare system due to the illegal immigrant population? We can only guess. I think the larger issue here is not so much immigration, but the blatant unwillingness of the federal government to fulfill its expressed powers all the while removing power from municipal and state government; dismantling the rights of states and disabling their ability to poroperly attend to the needs of its citizens. I believe that once that very fundamental issue is resolved, then all other sidebars will work themselves out.
Brainpolice:"The border" is an imaginary line on a map that does not represent a legitimate property title. Crossing it is no different then crossing unowned land, since there is no discernable just owner of nations. It is not reasonable, from any rational property rights perspective, to enforce it as if it were private property. Not hiking up enforcement of such imaginary "borders" does not spell out the end of western civilization as we know it.
"The border" is an imaginary line on a map that does not represent a legitimate property title. Crossing it is no different then crossing unowned land, since there is no discernable just owner of nations. It is not reasonable, from any rational property rights perspective, to enforce it as if it were private property. Not hiking up enforcement of such imaginary "borders" does not spell out the end of western civilization as we know it.
"good fences make good neighbours". even in the utopian anarchistic scenario of the american state ceasing to exist in a formal sense), it is not going to alter the fact that other nation-states have their own agendas. look at the number of wars caused by disputed border lines. i know the argument that an armed populace will fight to the last to defend its private property, and maybe that's right, but i just wonder whether the lack of border enforcement might actually invite encroachment by a hostile nation-state.
i mean if america unilaterally decided not to enforce its mexican border, what's to stop you wandering accidently into mexico, who may decide to prosecute you, for illegal entry.
here in australia, we spent the better part of a decade negotiating a sea-border treaty with indonesia, without which, no oil-drilling could have been possible for obvious sovereign risks. perhaps your theory would only work if all nation-states dissolved, but i don't like your odds.
xahrx:I'm all for opening the borders. After all entitlements are ended and enough property is private to make it generally hard to get here unless your potential neighbors want you here.
I'm all for opening the borders. After all entitlements are ended and enough property is private to make it generally hard to get here unless your potential neighbors want you here.
a great test-tube for illegal immigration is contemporary italy. entitlements don't exist for illegal immigrants, but the attraction of a wealthy society has proven enormous for criminal gangs from eastern europe in particular. the italian jail population disproportionately overweight illegal immigrants. and not for petty stuff (the italians often turn a blind eye, or at limit escort them to the border, from whence they often return to reoffend) - we're talking slave-trade operators in prostitution, home-invasion etc.
now this is counterbalanced to an extent by the countless albanian or philippino baby-sitters, or carers for the elderly, and the tireless illegals who pick the tomatoes under a cruel sun. however, the public mood has turned extremely sour over the massive social change, and sense of physical insecurity.
now of course there are xenophobes who seek to ride the fear of the other, but the penal statistics show there is a genuine problem. the realistic danger is that permissive attitudes over who enters the country can fan popular resentment, providing good wind to the ultra-nationalists sails.
I just heard Ron from some TV show yesterday and he talked about his shifting views on this question. He is on record in favor of wholly free immigration, but now wants some restrictions. He was completely reasonable. He said that if we had the right kind of economic system, we would be begging for immigrants (and in fact in some sectors, we are!). But right now, the welfare state skewing matters to the point that some types of immigrants are a drain on tax dollars. He said no more or less than Milton Friedman and even Julian Simon have said. There was nothing "hateful" about it. He is essentially a free immigrationist who regrets the need to deal with a very real problem by accomodating some restrictions until we can restore liberty. In this, he seems to reflect the views of most all libertarians.
Publisher, Laissez-Faire Books
Byzantine: The economic objection is that immigration in its current form privatizes profits and socializes costs. The cultural and political objection is that if you let in enough Haitians, e.g., eventually you end up with Haiti. It is also significant that the prior waves of immigrants did not have shelf upon shelf of civil rights laws to beat their hosts over the head with. This encouraged assimilation. But the Irish, Italian and Jewish influx were not without their own costs: labor union activism, municipal political machines, gangsterism, cultural Marxism, etc.
The economic objection is that immigration in its current form privatizes profits and socializes costs. The cultural and political objection is that if you let in enough Haitians, e.g., eventually you end up with Haiti.
It is also significant that the prior waves of immigrants did not have shelf upon shelf of civil rights laws to beat their hosts over the head with. This encouraged assimilation. But the Irish, Italian and Jewish influx were not without their own costs: labor union activism, municipal political machines, gangsterism, cultural Marxism, etc.
Negative consequences do not justify unethical means. Forcibly outlawing me allowing such people onto my property, selling them my property, and hiring them are unethical means that violate the most basic libertarian understanding of property rights. Of course, it's not as if immigration restrictionism is not without its own costs: more immigration bereaucracy, more executive powers, paramilitary border patrols, more controls on labor, national I.D. cards, tax-payer funded walls that require massive use of emminent domain, and labor union activism (of course, the unions overwhelmingly oppose illegal immigration - see Ceasar Chavez).
The difference is that, while open borders may have consequences you do not like, as a means in itself (I.E. simply not putting political barriers to entry up and not enforcing them) it is not unethical. Forcibly exiling people from the territory for the "crime" of not having legal permission is. Raiding and jailing employers for hiring willing workers is. Shooting people for crossing unowned property is. Taxing people to build berlin walls is. Combined, all of the things involved in strict border enforcement and immigration restrictionism imply quite a flexing of political power and would do absolutely nothing to address the welfare state itself.
You may very well object that OTHER currently existing laws in place are unethical, such as civil rights and welfare legislation, but that only means that there is a problem with those means, not open immigration in itself. Blaming open immigration (which we currently do not have, considering that illegal immigration is a direct consequence of the quasi-illegalization or prohibition of immigration due to the inadequacy of the process and the already existing limits that exist on it) for the problems created by other laws is distractionary and intellectually dishonest. The solution would be to repeal those laws, not restrict immigration to avoid the effects of those laws.
Kent C:Hence, no goodies from Socialist Canada.
Too bad my Canadian friends are flipping out because they're paying for those goodies and have been for a while, and several local and national US news agencies have documented such goodies being hande out. That the system is being strained I have no doubt, that's what happens eventually in al socialist systems. But peopel aren't fleeing there to bust their rumps hauling fruit when they can do that down here in the US with little effort. And I doubt it's the cold climate that's attracting them.
Brainpolice:You may very well object that OTHER currently existing laws in place are unethical, such as civil rights and welfare legislation, but that only means that there is a problem with those means, not open immigration in itself. Blaming open immigration (which we currently do not have, considering that illegal immigration is a direct consequence of the quasi-illegalization or prohibition of immigration due to the inadequacy of the process and the already existing limits that exist on it) for the problems created by other laws is distractionary and intellectually dishonest. The solution would be to repeal those laws, not restrict immigration to avoid the effects of those laws.
And smoking is not a problem either, but if the government has doused the entire US in gasoline it's not unreasonable to say perhaps people should avoid popping matches and flicking lighters for a while, at least until the gas dries up. Yes, those actions on their own should not be illegal. That principle will hardly be a comfort though to those whose property will go up in flames. We cannot act as if we live in an ideal world. We need to start from ideals and use them to inform practical moves. And a practical move right now is to let up on border enforcement after the incentives for people coming over here to suck on the government teet are reduced or repealed.
But BP, if you open the borders, we dirty, disease ridden foreigners will be coming in and raping xahrx's sister. Best keep them out.
xahrx: Kent C:Hence, no goodies from Socialist Canada. Too bad my Canadian friends are flipping out because they're paying for those goodies and have been for a while, and several local and national US news agencies have documented such goodies being hande out. That the system is being strained I have no doubt, that's what happens eventually in al socialist systems. But peopel aren't fleeing there to bust their rumps hauling fruit when they can do that down here in the US with little effort. And I doubt it's the cold climate that's attracting them.
The point is, the Feds aren't given it. And I don't know where you live, but here, its 42f and sunny and haven't seen snow yet this winter.
Byzantine: Here is the problem: allowing mass, indiscriminate immigration itself creates a constituency for the civil rights laws and transfer payments to which we both object. Government also has an inherent interest in expanding its clientele. In other words, so long as you're putting out the welcome mat for social democrats, don't expect social democracy to disappear any time soon.
Here is the problem: allowing mass, indiscriminate immigration itself creates a constituency for the civil rights laws and transfer payments to which we both object. Government also has an inherent interest in expanding its clientele. In other words, so long as you're putting out the welcome mat for social democrats, don't expect social democracy to disappear any time soon.
Here is the problem: encouraging the state to stop masses of people from entering the territory and taking jobs, as a means in it itself, requires the very transfer payments and central planning to which we both object. The lack of such enforcement, as a means in itself, does not. And I think it's a bit ridiculous to assume that immigrants must be social democrats. In some respects I view many immigrants as fleeing socialism. So long as you're all for a paramilitary state in the name of keeping the evil social democrats (who will surely rape your sister and become welfare leeches) out, don't expect neo-fascism to dissapear any time soon.
Kent C: But BP, if you open the borders, we dirty, disease ridden foreigners will be coming in and raping xahrx's sister. Best keep them out.
Oh yes. Surely they are all disease-ridden, jobless, job-stealing (gotta love opposing claims), welfare-sucking criminal hoodlums who believe in communism. Best we throw our principles out the window for the moment in order to stop this cultural scourge and keep the world safe for anglo-purity and job security. Afterall, so long as evil still exists we should use it for our advantage, lest we be infested with brown-skinned social democrats who dare to commit the crime of crossing unowned land, not signing the proper government paperwork, taking 5 dollar an hour jobs and buying homes. The outrage!
Brainpolice: Kent C: But BP, if you open the borders, we dirty, disease ridden foreigners will be coming in and raping xahrx's sister. Best keep them out. Oh yes. Surely they are all disease-ridden, jobless, job-stealing (gotta love opposing claims), welfare-sucking criminal hoodlums who believe in communism. Best we throw our principles out the window for the moment in order to stop this cultural scourge and keep the world safe for anglo-purity and job security. Afterall, so long as evil still exists we should use it for our advantage, lest we be infested with brown-skinned social democrats who dare to commit the crime of crossing unowned land, not signing the proper government paperwork, taking 5 dollar an hour jobs and buying homes. The outrage!
See...now you get it!
Oh, btw, I may or may not have "spoken" to Ron Paul this afternoon in Facebook. I'll pretend I did, and he gave a reply almost exactly like I'd expect him to. He doesn't see the inconsistancy of his position, or, he doesn't want to recognize it. Oh well. Still a major leap forward.
Brainpolice: So long as you're all for a paramilitary state in the name of keeping the evil social democrats (who will surely rape your sister and become welfare leeches) out, don't expect neo-fascism to dissapear any time soon.
So long as you're all for a paramilitary state in the name of keeping the evil social democrats (who will surely rape your sister and become welfare leeches) out, don't expect neo-fascism to dissapear any time soon.
large numbers of people will be drawn to seek opportunity in a wealthly country, even in the absence of transfer payments.
where there is capital structure growth, immigration can occur without sacrificing living standards. this happened here in australia, post world war two. enormous capital growth generated demand for unskilled immigration, but per-capita income grew. that would no be longer the case, as capital growth is stunted by punitive taxes, and a byzantine regulatory regime. unskilled immigration would only lower per-capita income.
freeing borders without having first pruned away large swathes of government to augment capital investment is not going to fly in democratic societies, people won't vote themselves a pay-cut.
newson: Brainpolice: So long as you're all for a paramilitary state in the name of keeping the evil social democrats (who will surely rape your sister and become welfare leeches) out, don't expect neo-fascism to dissapear any time soon. large numbers of people will be drawn to seek opportunity in a wealthly country, even in the absence of transfer payments. where there is capital structure growth, immigration can occur without sacrificing living standards. this happened here in australia, post world war two. enormous capital growth generated demand for unskilled immigration, but per-capita income grew. that would no be longer the case, as capital growth is stunted by punitive taxes, and a byzantine regulatory regime. unskilled immigration would only lower per-capita income. freeing borders without having first pruned away large swathes of government to augment capital investment is not going to fly in democratic societies, people won't vote themselves a pay-cut.
Yes, some people may lose out if labor is allowed to freely compete, just like some buisinesses may lose out if firms are allowed to freely compete. Whoopdeedoo. It certainly doesn't justify any kind of protectionism.
Of course, these are all consequentialist, utilitarian considerations. I find them irrelevant to the ethics of the matter. If the means in themselves are unethical, I simply do not care if it's done in the name preserving people's per-capita income.
I am not primarily concerned with preserving economic prosperity for certain groups, I am primarily concerned with justice. In the absence of justice, I could really care less about good consequences.
Of course, there is no reason why justice and prosperity cannot co-exist, with prosperity being a consequence of justice. But things such as per-capita income are not a proper measuring stick of justice.
Sometimes we need to take our utilitarian economics hats off for a moment and think about ethics. Utility is not justice.
Although I sometimes wonder if the anti-immigration libertarians are singling out the anglo who lost his job or has to pay for someone's welfare and are refusing to see the comparative advantages.
Brainpolice:I don't believe it is hypocritical for a libertarian to drive on a public road. What is hypocritical is for a libertarian to advocate what amounts to a police state and a federal movement bereaucracy in the name of solving problems that they themselves admit are created by the welfare state, and in the name of exaggerated and sometimes completely false claims about the characters of a particular group of people and the effect they have on the culture and economy.
Which might be analogous to advocating what amounts to a nationalization of the construction trade, specifically and most notably road building and the private property that is nationalized to facilitate that action perhaps? Your distinction here is a matter of degree, not logical consistency. As for the effect they have on the culture and economy, I've seen the negative and positive effects first hand. Well to do Mexican dentists aren't swimming across the Rio Grand or strapping the basement door to their rear ends to float over here through the Gulf of Mexico. And what gets reported and what actually happened at those 'immigration' rallies are two very different things. We are not getting the creme de la creme of Mexican society here. I do HR work for companies that work near the borders, I see first hand the people who come across for work and they aren't Rotary Club members.
What is hypocritical is to piously mouth ideas such as natural rights, and then act as if they only apply if someone has special permission from the government, filled out the proper paperwork and passed through the proper regulations.
Pray tell then, what natural right empowers them to the portion of my paycheck that pays for their housing and medical bills and their kid's educations? That is the reality of what goes on. I do oppose the welfare state. I also oppose making the problems the welfare state fosters worse by allowing more dependents on the dole than there otherwise would be while I'm working to dismantle it. Just as if I were putting out a fire, I'd attempt to stop those who for whatever reason seek to pour gas on it. Without the fire their pouring would not be a problem and certainly none of my concern. With the fire it becomes my concern.
I guess people only have rights if they're "legal".
No. But we do not live in an ideal world, and if there is an enemy coming over the hill and I have the choice of quoting the nonaggression axiom at them or paying taxes to support an army to repel them, I'm going to pay the taxes. That's practical reality. No where did I say all immigrants are a drain on our society, I said quite the opposite and perhaps if you had read my posts you would have seen that. And I do not think it unreasonable that people want to control the flow of gang members, burglars, robbers, rapists, pedophiles, the diseased and infected, the dole seekers, and other assorted low lives coming across the borders into their neighborhoods despite the fact that there are also hard working respectable people who we should welcome coming across as well. There is no false piety in that view, there is a practicality and realism often missing in libertarian approaches to problems. My focus is the dismantling of the welfare state. I'd rather not pay through ass and lose everything that's good about my culture while doing that because I failed to deal with a more immediate effect the welfare state was having.
Kent C:But BP, if you open the borders, we dirty, disease ridden foreigners will be coming in and raping xahrx's sister. Best keep them out.
But Kent C, it's easier to offer caricatures of arguments than deal with what people actually say. Oh, I'm sorry, you obviously already knew that.
Brainpolice: Oh yes. Surely they are all disease-ridden, jobless, job-stealing (gotta love opposing claims), welfare-sucking criminal hoodlums who believe in communism. Best we throw our principles out the window for the moment in order to stop this cultural scourge and keep the world safe for anglo-purity and job security. Afterall, so long as evil still exists we should use it for our advantage, lest we be infested with brown-skinned social democrats who dare to commit the crime of crossing unowned land, not signing the proper government paperwork, taking 5 dollar an hour jobs and buying homes. The outrage!
Strange, on Maher's boards you were quite a bit more reasonable. What occasions the change? I offer an easy solution. There are currently a good number of illegals in the local prison here for crimes as various as rape, assault, burglary, robbery, etc. Get a list of their victims and explain to them that the principle of fighting the welfare state outweighs the practical if not ideal concerns of dealing with a flood of criminals, many of who are coming here illegally from other countries.
Pray tell then, what natural right empowers them to the portion of my paycheck that pays for their housing and medical bills and their kid's educations? That is the reality of what goes on.
That is not the issue of immigration. It's the issue of taxation and national healthcare and public housing and public education. Complaining about that as an arguement against immigration is disingenuous. And, once again, the exact same complaint applies to legal citezens, who attend public education and accept subsidized healthcare. There is nothing exclusive to illegal immigrants about it. The vast majority of people guilty of what you're complaining about are not illegal immigrants, they are your average voter. So why don't we see you advocating evicting them from their homes and their deportation? Because this is obviously a matter of personal preference for groups of people, not a matter of principle.
I also oppose making the problems the welfare state fosters worse by allowing more dependents on the dole than there otherwise would be while I'm working to dismantle it.
I also oppose making the problems of the police state and federal bereaucracy worse by hiking up paramilitary presence at the borders and creating more immigration bereaucracy and regulations then there otherwise would be while I'm working to dismantle it. Cracking down on immigration and border enforcement will not do anything in itself to reduce the welfare state, but it will increase the police state while the welfare state remains just fine and cozy in place. You will, however, achieve the end of keeping the welfare state a little bit more exclusive then it otherwise may have been - big deal. Not much of a victory for liberty.
You see, I don't accept increases in political means as a libertarian solution to problems. And I don't care if not increasing those political means may lead to unutilitarian consequences, even though the bulk of such claims made by anti-immigrationists are nonsensical and protectionist fallacies, as well as mere matters of personal taste (such as what language people speak, as if this really matters).
No. But we do not live in an ideal world, and if there is an enemy coming over the hill and I have the choice of quoting the nonaggression axiom at them or paying taxes to support an army to repel them, I'm going to pay the taxes
Once again, where is the gun in the room? Who are the aggressors? People crossing the border, or those in your government? I vote the latter. This is victim-blaming. The state is the aggressor, and then you propose to use that very instrument of aggression to restrict immigration due to the effects of the state aggression. The enemy, if anything, are (sorry to use a cliche) mostly white Christian folks in suites and ties in your government.
Brainpolice: I am not primarily concerned with preserving economic prosperity for certain groups, I am primarily concerned with justice. In the absence of justice, I could really care less about good consequences.
Which is a typical idealist answer and the general reason why idealists are mostly ineffective at achieving their goals. A lack of regard for consequences essentially means a complete disregard for an interim plan to transition from reality to your utopia, which is in the end why people usually reject the idea itself. As for justice, how is allowing the continued growth of welfare roles at the expense of private property rights justice? Fighting against such increases does not preclude striking at the root of the problem. And in your utopia of anarcho capitalism, which I too see as the ideal world, there is no freedom of movement guaranteed beyond that which people are willing to permit on their own property anyway. The freedom of travel, of movement, is always limited by what people permit on their own private property, even in your ideal world . How then is protecting that property by restricting movement through the government as an interim plan a problem? Unless of course your view is it's either the ideal or nothing, in which case you may as well choose nothing anyway, as you'll never get to the ideal by definition.