I think this article conclusively refutes the closed border position in the immigration debate:
Root Causes and the Libertarian Immigration Debate
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
So long as government commands a monopoly over all land, the closed border position is defensible.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
So long as government commands a monopoly over all legislation, the drug war is defensible.
So long as government commands a monopoly over all financial regulation, the fiat money regime is defensible.
Et cetera.
I'm a proponent of free trade and travel.
Fiat money and the drug war are very, very poor examples because both are incredibly costly and serve no purpose whatsoever (in fact if I were to choose a 2nd-best it'd be the gold standard, not fiat money.) The logic behind the closed borders position is restricting access to the welfare state. Of course, a better solution is to simply abolish it first.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Stranger: So long as government commands a monopoly over all land, the closed border position is defensible.
Just the opposite: so long as a government commands over a monopoly on land, you cannot take a closed border position without implicitly assuming the validity of that land monopoly. A "closed border" position reduces to a defense of the power of the state to be exclusive with land that it doesn't legitimately own to begin with. You're stuck lapsing into an interventionist, nationalistic kind of reasoning in order to defend it, since you're left with "intervention X exists, therefore we need intervention Y to stave off the effects of intervention X" and appeals to a nationalistic sense of ownership over the "nation" by legally recognized citezens.
We've beaten this dead horse a million times over now, and clearly the nationalists won't back down.
Brainpolice:Just the opposite: so long as a government commands over a monopoly on land, you cannot take a closed border position without implicitly assuming the validity of that land monopoly. A "closed border" position reduces to a defense of the power of the state to be exclusive with land that it doesn't legitimately own to begin with. You're stuck lapsing into an interventionist, nationalistic kind of reasoning in order to defend it, since you're left with "intervention X exists, therefore we need intervention Y to stave off the effects of intervention X" and appeals to a nationalistic sense of ownership over the "nation" by legally recognized citezens.
Demanding that the post office deliver the mail is not demanding an intervention. Demanding that it stop is.
Without the government monopoly on land, open borders activists would have to spend enormous efforts to acquire all the rights to all the land in order to allow everyone open access. With government, they can repeal all immigration limits through a single legislative act. This is what they are demanding instead of a market in land.
Jon Irenicus:The logic behind the closed borders position is restricting access to the welfare state. Of course, a better solution is to simply abolish it first.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
How does one restrict access to it then? Citizenship is one way that they do so, and it follows if requirements for citizenship become more stringent that it is all the more difficult to access the welfare state. And of course there are socialized goods such as roads, public parks &c. where restrictions are all the more difficult to justify, implement and enforce. So yeah, there is a definite logic behind it, however inferior it is to outright abolition.
Jon Irenicus:How does one restrict access to it then?
And of course there are socialized goods such as roads, public parks &c.
So yeah, there is a definite logic behind it, however inferior it is to outright abolition.
Brainpolice: We've beaten this dead horse a million times over now, and clearly the nationalists won't back down.
That's not necessary. I have a similar position to Stranger, and I am no nationalist.
It would be one thing if the immigrants don't recognize the authority of the state when they move to a region. But in most cases, specifically the Canadian and American ones, immigrants come seeking the state, and what the state offers.
It is never a good idea for an anarchist or libertarian to welcome statists into his territory, so that they are even in greater in number to oppress him.
I'm for statelessness. But as long as we have the state, encouraging pro-state immigration is counterproductive.
I don't see any reason to close the borders. In fact I do see a golden oppurtunity for new recruits, I mean think about it this may be a good way to spread the movement outside of the country in a incredibly fast way. I mean these are the two general outcomes:
A. The "illegal immigrants" stay in the U.S and we have a larger and stronger movement, which, in effect makes us more politically relevant in the U.S.
B.The "illegal immigrants" are deported back to their countries where at least some of them spread Libertarian ideals with their family and friends. Thus beginning new Libertarian movements.
Who knows we may inspire the next great Libertarian thinker. And we gain better control of a tongue (spanish) in the process. Along with some new literature.
Very very easily. If you can't prove that you're a so called 'citizen' then you've no access to welfare.
Which is what the border control advocates argue... tightening citizenship criteria.
...I'm pretty sure that so called 'illegal' immigrants pay some taxes. For instance sales taxes, gas taxes and so on. I'm sure that that's enough to pay for their usage of roads and parks...?
Shouldn't be hard for you to find out then.
There's no logic behind it. Only (bad) emotions.
Which has not been demonstrated.
Jon Irenicus:Which is what the border control advocates argue... tightening citizenship criteria.
LibertyStudent:But in most cases, specifically the Canadian and American ones, immigrants come seeking the state, and what the state offers.
Juan: LibertyStudent:But in most cases, specifically the Canadian and American ones, immigrants come seeking the state, and what the state offers. Whoa. You're omniscient and know that immigrants come seeking the state. You're a true individualist, are you not ? There are tens of millions of illegal immigrants and you know that they are statists -- not only that but they are more statist than the locals...Your mind reading abilities are awesome...
Ask yourself something. Why would an anarchist move to America? Or Canada for that matter?
Look, it's easy. You DON'T need to be a citizen to enter a country. You enter the country as a 'guest' - the state issues some paper which tags you as a 'guest' and that's the end of the story. As a guest you're entitled to no welfare benefits
Tangential. The point is, as you have already admitted, that one can restrict access to the welfare state by limiting it to citizens, whence it follows more stringent requirements are more restrictive of access. Then again none of the libertarians arguing in favour of border controls as a second-best measure that I know of, advocate prohibiting guest workers. In fact quite the opposite, unless you're referring to paleocons, or Ron Paul, or individuals whose policy recommendations do not interest me.
It was a rhetorical question. It is obvious that if you buy gas you're paying taxes -- whether that's enough to pay for the roads or not is an open question which also is valid with respect to 'citizens'. Besides, as far as I know roads are not considered part of the welfare state (though of course they are mostly socialized)
Roads are in this instance being taken into consideration too, as is all "public" property.
Of course it has. As I said there's no need to restrict immigration in order to restric access to the welfare state. To believe otherwise is to believe in a non-sequitur -- and, as you know, there's no logic in non-sequiturs. People who want to close the borders are driven by tribalism not by reason.
No, it hasn't. Tightening citizenship criteria is, in effect, a restriction of access to the welfare state.
LS:Ask yourself something. Why would an anarchist move to America? Or Canada for that matter?
Jon Irenicus:Tangential. The point is, as you have already admitted, that one can restrict access to the welfare state by limiting it to citizens, whence it follows more stringent requirements are more restrictive of access.
Tightening citizenship criteria is, in effect, a restriction of access to the welfare state.
Juan, wrote a long response but it's too personal for me. I'll pass.
liberty student: It would be one thing if the immigrants don't recognize the authority of the state when they move to a region. But in most cases, specifically the Canadian and American ones, immigrants come seeking the state, and what the state offers. It is never a good idea for an anarchist or libertarian to welcome statists into his territory, so that they are even in greater in number to oppress him. I'm for statelessness. But as long as we have the state, encouraging pro-state immigration is counterproductive.
Well than Liberty Student, will simply have to deprogram these pro-state immigrants. I mean we were once statists but through a combination of appealling to emotion and rationality we were able to see through the mirage of the nation-state.
Not tangential at all. What it does NOT follow is that 'stringent requirements' is the only possible way to deal with the problem. The method I suggested is way better.
Where did I say it is the "only" possible way? I'm under the impression you're not strongly aware of the position you're arguing against (and are probably arguing against more comprehensive positions, most likely such as Pat Buchanan's.) Tight restrictions on citizenship plus the possibility of guest workers are more or less what is being advocated... in the latter case, with the interested parties bearing all the costs.
The people who want tightening citizenship criteria do so because they are driven by emotion not by logic.
Wait, so making it harder to qualify for access to the welfare state is not a means of restricting access to it? What?
Nick. B: Well than Liberty Student, will simply have to deprogram these pro-state immigrants. I mean we were once statists but through a combination of appealling to emotion and rationality we were able to see through the mirage of the nation-state.
Many of them are looters, just as many members of the citizenry are looters. They receive a net benefit from the state. In Canada, literally millions of people get "free stuff" and while they don't pay or barely pay any taxes, will argue that taxes are necessary to keep their personal gravy train going.
Left-libertarians would like to pretend that all immigrants are not looters, but I'd guess the percentage of looters in immigrants and existing citizens is probably similar. Canada has a very generous immigration policy, and a very generous welfare state, and business is booming!
I agree we have to give the "illegal immigrants" the benefit of the doubt. I mean the majority of them are of average intelligence if not more and can be converted to our side if we play our cards right. They can be our allies if we reach out to them in a sincere and meaningful way. And that alliance would be an enormous asset to the movement in the future.
liberty student: Left-libertarians would like to pretend that all immigrants are not looters, but I'd guess the percentage of looters in immigrants and existing citizens is probably similar. Canada has a very generous immigration policy, and a very generous welfare state, and business is booming!
Canada has a very elitist immigration policy. It is possible to pay (in the range of several hundreds of thousands of dollars) in exchange for residency right.
Stranger: Canada has a very elitist immigration policy. It is possible to pay (in the range of several hundreds of thousands of dollars) in exchange for residency right.
I don't know about that. IIRC, it is pretty similar to Australia and New Zealand. What stands out to me, is that if you get here, and claim refugee status, it is almost impossible to be sent out. And if you play your cards right, you never have to work again. And if you want to make a nice income, you can work and avoid taxes while collecting the dole.
I have had a lot of immigrant friends. I have helped people immigrate, my parents and grandparents were immigrants.
I have no problem with immigrants. I have a problem with the social welfare system. Unfortunately, it is a big draw for people looking to eventually import their entire family, including their aged parents and parents-in-law to suck off the already piss poor medical system.
Jon Irenicus:Where did I say it is the "only" possible way?
Tight restrictions on citizenship plus the possibility of guest workers are more or less what is being advocated
liberty student: Nick. B: Well than Liberty Student, will simply have to deprogram these pro-state immigrants. I mean we were once statists but through a combination of appealling to emotion and rationality we were able to see through the mirage of the nation-state. Many of them are looters, just as many members of the citizenry are looters. They receive a net benefit from the state. In Canada, literally millions of people get "free stuff" and while they don't pay or barely pay any taxes, will argue that taxes are necessary to keep their personal gravy train going. Left-libertarians would like to pretend that all immigrants are not looters, but I'd guess the percentage of looters in immigrants and existing citizens is probably similar. Canada has a very generous immigration policy, and a very generous welfare state, and business is booming!
Yes I agree all of them are looters, but there are two type of looters: 1. the desperate-and-2.the freeloader. The freeloader I give you is a loss cause. BUT the desperate are very receptive if you approach them correctly. You explain to them in a savy manner how they themselves are being exploited by both their homeland AND by their host nation-state. You then turn them against the freeloader by explaining to them that there are finite resources and the freeloader will gladly screw them over for just a little bit more luxury, you get the desperate to become angry and at the same time feel that you're their only real friend in this foreign land that they now inhabit. During this period of anger and insecurity you began to RADICALIZE THEM! Make them not have faith in religion, the state, or others that look like them, but instead, rely on you and eventually ONLY ON THE LIBERTARIAN IDEAOLOGY! If we do it correctly we spread the virus of freedom rapidly like a plague!
Nick, your inspiration is great.
liberty student:Nick, your inspiration is great.
lol. Well I hope you mean that in a good way.
Also I've seen that you posted on the" IWW matter" discussion board which is part of the Apolitical Libertarianism Group. I hope you read my post, if you did tell me what you think of my Umbrella Network Model theory, I can alway use the opinion of an educated man.
Any comments on the article itself?
The problem I have with the immigration arguments of statists are their inconsistencies. On one hand they think it is ok to restrict access to the country, on the other hand though they do not think it is ok for states and cities to restrict access. So how can one argue with them, when on the one hand they agree with us, that immigration laws are bad (strangely only for cities and states though), but on the other immigration laws are good (between countries).
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
scineram: So long as government commands a monopoly over all legislation, the drug war is defensible. So long as government commands a monopoly over all financial regulation, the fiat money regime is defensible. Et cetera.
Closed borders is very much like gold money to me. We don`t really want government golden money, we want no government money at all, but it is better than the alternative because it puts a greater restriction on the state. The same with immigration. Why should the state be allowed to invite people in?
The same with immigration.
Juan:The same with immigration. Because you say so.
Well, perhaps it is no exactly the same. It is very obvious that golden money puts a greater restriction on the state than the fiat money does, because golden money does not break any moral rules that fiat money does not. Things are more fuzzy with immigration however.
The problem with open borders is they deny the rightful owners of "public property" - the taxpayers - their right to govern their property. In most cases people do not want more immigrants, and if public property was broken up in many tiny pieces and handed over to the taxpayers they would not invite immigrants onto that property in a free market.
The problem with closed borders is they deny other owners the right to invite "immigrants" onto their property. For example under closed borders there would be families that could not invite their relatives from abroad to move in with them.So yes, moving from open borders to closed borders would not constitute an improvement in absolutely every way (while moving from fiat money to golden money would), but in my opinion it would constitute an improvement because the results would in my opinion be closer to what would occur under market conditions.So why I prefer closed borders is that I think closed borders are more restrictive on the state and guard the rights of more people. You can hold an opinion that open borders are a greater restriction on the state and therefore favour that, without being a statist, but you have to cut me the same slack.BTW, I started my post with a sentance that included the words "to me". So to respond with "because you say so" is I think somewhat silly.
Marko:BTW, I started my post with a sentance that included the words "to me". So to respond with "because you say so" is I think somewhat silly.
In most cases people do not want more immigrants, and if public property was broken up in many tiny pieces and handed over to the taxpayers they would not invite immigrants onto that property in a free market.
So why I prefer closed borders is that I think closed borders are more restrictive on the state and guard the rights of more people.
Juan: Which 'rights' are those ? The 'right' to not see asians/blacks/whites/whatever in 'your' public streets ?
So, why bring it up ? Borders can be completely opened right now. There's absolutely no legitimate way for the state to enforce borders because doing so means violating the NAP. The only excuse that some 'libertarians' came up with was that free immigration means that immigrants will use the welfare state and become net tax consumers. IF that was true (which is probably not), then the solution is to simply not give welfare benefits to non-citizens.
See below. The scare quotes are unnecessary.
Which is barely a 'libertarian' solution. The concept of citizenship should be nonsensical for any libertarian worth his salt. And what is a 'guest worker' anyway ? People should be free to enter any country whenever they please and live wherever they please. Of course provided they pay for their homes transportation and all the rest.
It is nonsensical. However, states employ it regardless as a criterion for access to welfare. The guest worker scheme eludes this problem by allowing non-citizens to work in an area without thereby benefiting from welfare schemes. If the criteria for citizenship are so low that anyone would rather opt to become a citizen than to be a guest worker, to benefit from welfare, the problem remains.
Marko:The right not to see any Danish people on my part of street. I don`t like Danish people. You have a problem with that?
I`ll stop arguing with you. You are being disingenious. Instead of making an attempt to understand my viewpoint you attempt to twist it to suit your needs.