Bryan Caplan  

The Case Against Libertarian Hispanophobia

PRINT
Krugman's Baby-Sitting Analogy... Must-Read Hanson...
When libertarians (as well as economically literate conservatives) worry about immigration, they usually focus on its undesirable political consequences.  As my co-blogger Arnold puts it:
The demographic picture, in which traditional Republican voting groups are shrinking as a proportion of the electorate, means that the Democrats have to worry less and less about alienating economic elites, as long as they can maintain an identity politics that appeals to non-whites.

Given this view, libertarians may have the basic economics right when it comes to open borders. Other things equal, more immigration is much better for the immigrants and somewhat better for the native population.

But other things are not equal. Taking into account the effect of immigration on the political equilibrium, Steve Sailer may have it right.
I've already criticized what I'll call "libertarian Hispanophobia," (see here and here for starters) but now I'd like to spell out my critique in greater detail.

1. The simplest libertarian political case against Hispanic immigration is that Hispanics are disproportionately Democratic.   The obvious problem with this complaint is that - as the Clinton and Bush years illustrate - it's not obvious that Republicans actually offer more free-market politics than Democrats do.  Sure, Republican rhetoric is more libertarian, but Republican practice is at best only slightly better.  Let's not forget how readily Bush paved the way for everything Obama's doing - or neglect Obama's premeditated flip-flop on NAFTA.  In contrast, Democratic foreign policy has been noticeably more libertarian than Republicans' for decades - at least if you buy the standard non-interventionist line.

2. Arnold worries that Hispanics (plus other demographic shifts) will turn the U.S. into a one-party state.  A more plausible prediction is merely that Republicans will modify their platforms and rhetoric to stay competitive.  As far as I can tell, though, the main way that Republicans (like Bush and McCain) try to improve their Hispanic vote share is (a) supporting more liberal immigration policies, and (b) showing respect for and sensitivity to Hispanic culture.  In the absence of some other change in Republicans' positions, libertarians should be happy about these adjustments.

3. Well, maybe Republicans will also woo Hispanic voters by increasing support for the welfare state.  I admit there's some plausibility to this.  However, there is an important countervailing mechanism: Ethnic heterogeneity reduces mainstream support for the welfare state.  Ethnically homogeneous countries like Sweden tend to have large welfare states, because voters are happy to help people "like them."  Ethnically diverse countries like the U.S. have smaller welfare states, because voters aren't so happy to help "the other."  As far as I know, no one has done a good job of estimating the net effect of immigration on support for the welfare state, but the answer is far from clear.

4. Almost 70% of American voters under the age of 30 voted for Obama.  Why isn't anyone calling for the deportation of America's youth, or limits on fertility to raise our average age?  The reason, presumably, is that people realize that this would be a grotesque over-reaction.  Even if young voters are making America a little more socialist, the "cure" of mass exile is far worse than the disease.  Libertarians should view arguments against Hispanic immigration in exactly the same way.  Even if Steve Sailer were completely correct about the political consequences of Hispanic immigration, they're a small evil compared to the massive injustice of immigration restrictions. 

In fact, the moral imbalance is shocking.  On the one hand, we have some libertarians fretting about the vague possibility that Hispanics might moderately increase the size of the welfare state.  On the other hand, we have millions of Hispanics worrying that they might get deported back to the Third World, and tens of millions more languishing in dire poverty in their home countries when American employers would be happy to hire them.  If anyone is "more sinned against than sinning," it is the maligned Hispanic immigrant.  Shouldn't libertarians be standing up for him, instead of respectfully weighing flimsy excuses for his continued persecution?


Comments and Sharing





TRACKBACKS (1 to date)
TrackBack URL: http://econlog.econlib.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1861
The author at The Volokh Conspiracy in a related article titled The Case Against the Libertarian Case Against Hispanic Immigration: writes:

    Economist Bryan Caplan, my George Mason colleague, has an excellent post taking apart the most important argument offered by those libertarians who ...

    [Tracked on May 19, 2009 5:00 PM]
COMMENTS (40 to date)
GU writes:

These are all very good points. I still think the bigger problem with non-Western immigrants is cultural, not political. Cultural mores have real effects on the rule of law, and life generally. I currently live in Los Angeles; I like the Midwest's "culture" better, and I think it is more conducive to a productive, free society.

In the end, at least on utilitarian grounds, open borders is probably justified, since the massive increase in utility (poor) immigrants get from immigrating to the U.S. almost certainly outweighs the decrease in utility that the natives see. Over the long run though, overall well-being could be lower in the U.S. thanks to the erosion of Anglo-American-Western culture.

John Thacker writes:
The obvious problem with this complaint is that - as the Clinton and Bush years illustrate - it's not obvious that Republicans actually offer more free-market politics than Democrats do.

Although the case for free-trade is certainly better. A majority of Democrats voted against NAFTA under Clinton, and it's only gotten worse. Nothing Bush did on Mexican trucking prepared the way for Obama, nor on "Buy American" in the stimulus package. Obama has been a disaster on free trade so far.

Clinton always had to buck his party on free trade. Obama has refused to do so.

Dave writes:

These points are hopelessly naive. Establish political and economic freedom first, and then we can talk about opening the borders. Don't open the borders and then hope freedom will follow, because it won't.

Fabio Rojas writes:

Whew... for a second, thought that Bryan was going to burn through his friendship stock!

manuelg writes:

> Ethnically homogeneous countries like Sweden tend to have large welfare states, because voters are happy to help people "like them." Ethnically diverse countries like the U.S. have smaller welfare states, because voters aren't so happy to help "the other."

Thank you for reminding us of this point. I think this particular argument shows most clearly that there is very little worry that the on-going demographic shift will lead to a Scandinavian welfare state.

Frankly, 1st and 2nd generation immigrants are the first to laugh in the faces of the very worst of mindless left-wing thinkers. 1st and 2nd generation immigrants often have direct exposure to the follies and horrors of communism, left-wing dictators, and violent left-wing militants, which makes them the loudest proponents of the American style of reduced entitlements. They see, clearly, the direct path between promises of mass entitlements and left-wing confiscation and violence.

In my own household, I would suppose I am the most left-wing. My deceased father-in-law was tortured in a communist Vietnamese re-education camp, so if I make a statement that smacks of Marx, I can expect anything up to, and including, a slap across the face from my wife, for which I am grateful, for I can repair my political stance. All the Hispanic immigrants I have encountered (outside of university) are the first to call out Castro and Hugo Chávez as dangerous monsters and laughable clowns, which is much more than the very worst of mindless left-wing thinkers in America, and their intellectual enablers, are willing to do.

Again, thank you, Bryan Caplan, for making the argument that libertarian angst at American demographic shifts is overwrought and silly. All your points are sound, and I would only emphasize the solidly libertarian tendencies of 1st and 2nd generation immigrants with direct exposure to the follies and horrors of communism, left-wing dictators, and violent left-wing militants.

GU said that "Over the long run though, overall well-being could be lower in the U.S. thanks to the erosion of Anglo-American-Western culture."

Anyone who want to make such a claim needs to present some evidence that this is occurring, or at least spell out a plausible causative model. Otherwise, a lot of people are going to quite reasonably assume that you're just a racist.

Precisely what aspects of Anglo culture promote well-being better than Hispanic culture? Do these bad cultural traits persist post-immigration, or do immigrants adopt the best cultural traits of the place they move to? Even if immigrants hold on to malignant cultural traits, do they adversely affect natives by doing so?

H writes:

America would become more socialist (mixed) even without immigration or the financial crisis. It is almost impossible to significantly roll back the welfare state. It has never happened.

The era of relatively free markets is over and the US will finally join the rest of the developed world.

Libertarianish interlocutor writes:

"Let's not forget how readily Bush paved the way for everything Obama's doing"

But a significant part of that was specifically aimed at swinging the Hispanic vote, including the 'Ownership Society'/no-money-down mortgage push.

A demographic shift towards a group that the GSS and other sources show is more supportive of statist intervention (in both social and market areas) will push, and is pushing, both parties towards economically statist policy by shifting the median voter.

TimG writes:

@Jacob Wintersmith
Anyone who want to make such a claim needs to present some evidence that this is occurring

Look at California, immigration has basically bankrupted the state despite its high tax revenues.

GU writes:
Otherwise, a lot of people are going to quite reasonably assume that you're just a racist.

Yes, Western culture originates with white people. However, "Hispanic" is not a race, and for many Hispanics, "white" is the most descriptive racial category. Moreover, the people in the Middle Eastern Muslim countries are white, but they are not part of the "West."

Arguing in favor of Western culture is just that--its an argument about culture, not race. One can be against female genital mutilation that occurs in many places, Sudan for instance, without hating blacks.

If you don't think that the "eroding Western culture" argument against immigration is valid, fine, say so. There is no need for the ad hominem postscript.

Blackadder writes:

Precisely what aspects of Anglo culture promote well-being better than Hispanic culture?

I'm sympathetic to Bryan's overall point. However, if you look at something like the Index of Economic Freedom, you do find that the Anglosphere takes up six of the top ten positions, with another two (Hong Kong and Singapore) arguably being due to Anglo-influence.

Maybe that's just a coincidence. Or maybe the features of Anglo culture that are conductive to support for economic freedom are ones that immigrants are likely to assimilate too. Unfortunately, since we don't have any good data on which elements of Anglo culture (if any) are behind the unusual support Anglosphere countries have for economic freedom, there's no way to know that Hispanic culture is "safe" for liberty.

Ultimately I think it comes down to where you place the burden of proof. If the presumption is that people should be able to immigrate unless we know that they won't be "safe for liberty," then open borders is a great idea. If the presumption is that we shouldn't let people into the country unless we know that they are "safe for liberty" then the idea is not so hot.

eccdogg writes:

I find it hard to believe that some think there are not ANY limits we should put on imigration.

As others have mentioned most of the rest of the world does not share the same value system that Americans do. Values about the rights of the individual in particular.

For reasonably large levels of imigration the US has proven good at imparting thes values onto new imigrants. However it is my belief that there is some (High?) level of imigration at which this mechanism fails to work.

Imagine if all of the sudden 200 million Chinese imigrated to the US. Do you think our institutions and liberal (in the classical sense) values would remain in tact?

I am generally for immigration and for higher levels than currently are allowed today. But I do not believe we can go entirely without some restrictions. And once we have decided what the restrictions are we can't just let people blantantly break the law.

8 writes:

As for the youth vote, I'd be in favor of raising the voting age to 30 or 35.

Billy writes:
In contrast, Democratic foreign policy has been noticeably more libertarian than Republicans' for decades - at least if you buy the standard non-interventionist line.

I'm not sure I buy this. The Democrat's foreign policy has seemed to be anti-Bush and against unilateralism. Many Democrats seem to be fine with intervention as long as it is made under the direction of the UN or NATO. Democrats backed the Kosovo War and many would send U.S. troops to Darfur if they could.

Richard A. writes:

"Ethnically homogeneous countries like Sweden tend to have large welfare states, because voters are happy to help people "like them." Ethnically diverse countries like the U.S. have smaller welfare states, because voters aren't so happy to help "the other.""

Does this mean that Japan is an ethnically diverse country?

Prakhar Goel writes:

Since nobody seems to have mentioned this, let me point out the problem of crime.

Minority populations in the US (not just Hispanics but blacks as well, etc...) have significantly higher crime rates. Ideally, the solution would be a more stringent criminal justice system but the political climate is not conducive to that solution (and probably never will be). Thus, restricted immigration to people who demonstrate good behavour would be very beneficial.

Snark writes:

As far as I know, no one has done a good job of estimating the net effect of immigration on support for the welfare state, but the answer is far from clear.

Open borders would most certainly strengthen support for the growth of the welfare state.

Shouldn't libertarians be standing up for [the Hispanic Immigrant], instead of respectfully weighing flimsy excuses for his continued persecution?

Are you suggesting that restrictions on immigration are a form of persecution?

Richard A. writes:

Poorly educated immigrants when they vote block vote for Democrats. Educated immigrants don't block vote for Democrats. The defense of Republicans of the flow of unskilled poorly educated labor into this country is not only killing the future of the GOP, it is also killing the future of an honest center right.

Do you think the underclass we are importing will vote for free trade? With their limited education expect them to vote for protectionists.

Richard A. writes:

What is wrong with a selective immigration policy tilted towards educated immigrants? Educated immigrants have normal political beliefs. Their kids are at low risk of joining violent gangs and instead tend to do well in school.

Steve Sailer writes:

As of 2006, CIA World Factbook data showed that 5,043,000,000 people (i.e., 5 billion) lived in countries with lower average GDPs (PPP) than Mexico. If American policy was a morally pure as Bryan insists, how many would move to the U.S.?

Well, we already know that about 25% of all the Mexicans in the world live in the U.S., so that suggests over a billion. Of course, by the time a fraction of that billion had arrived here, the standard of life in U.S. would have fallen as low as in the Third World, so nobody would bother coming anymore. That's the reductio ad absurdum of Open Borders.

H writes:

Why don't you anti-immigrationists just prevent leftists from entering the country? Is a socialist Swede better than a libertarian Mexican?

shecky writes:

Fantastic post, Caplan.

Can immigration be a libertarian litmus test? I'm always amazed at how much faith "libertarians" have in government when it comes to protecting our culture, whatever that means.

Alex writes:

Steve Sailor,

You're laughably ignorant post smacks of Malthusianism. Perhaps you should look at the history of the last few hundred years and see the correlation is OPPOSITE of what you suggest it is. Also, try checking out Julian Simon.

Alex

Frightwig writes:

If any appreciable fraction of the world's poor were to migrate into the USA the very conditions which attacted them would evanesce.

The more peasants in the vicinity, the lower the wages they command. Poor peasants are sullen peasants. Sullen peasants must be managed either by welfare or oppression. Either solution destroys the economic and moral structure of the middle-class community.

We already know what countries full of low-IQ people from low-trust cultures look like: they look like Botswana or Bolivia or you-name-it.

Your proposed solution to world poverty is self negating, therefore (a) pointless, and (b) a real attack on the current citizens of the USA.

If you really cared about the welfare of poor people around the world you would tell them to work for better conditions in their own homes and assist them by offering to invest-- at commercially-rational interest rates-- in their enterprises.

Your open-borders program is not "libertarian," it is socialist-utopian. You propose to feed the USA's seed corn to the poor of the world. If you succeed, that will be the last meal anyone ever eats. Without capital there can be no growth, and unlimited immigration would destroy the cultural, economic, and human capital position of the USA.

If any appreciable fraction of the world's poor were to migrate into the USA the very conditions which attacted them would evanesce.

The U.S. had effectively open borders from its founding until the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1892. How do you explain the fact that, despite the free movement of poor, uneducated immigrants, the U.S. experienced rapid growth and an increase in standard of living for the 100+ years we had open borders?

Your open-borders program is not "libertarian," it is socialist-utopian.

In the absence of immigration restrictions, there would still be borders -- the property lines of every individual property owner in the U.S. Those individuals would be free to decide for themselves who could cross the borders of their property.

Would you allow your local police chief to prevent you from inviting black people to your house, out of fear that those people might "vote Democrat", go on welfare, or commit a crime?

If not, why would you allow some officious committee in Washington to decide the very same thing?

Is it not the socialists who denigrate both property rights and individual choice, and demand that their preferences be imposed on every single person in the U.S.?

Dog of Justice writes:

What is wrong with a selective immigration policy tilted towards educated immigrants? Educated immigrants have normal political beliefs. Their kids are at low risk of joining violent gangs and instead tend to do well in school.

This isn't all too far from our legal immigration policy. All we have to do is enforce it. (Well, streamlining the process would be a very good idea too.)

Can immigration be a libertarian litmus test? I'm always amazed at how much faith "libertarians" have in government when it comes to protecting our culture, whatever that means.

If so, I'm proud to say that I'm NOT a libertarian despite many, many points of agreement with you guys.

I don't expect government to "protect our culture", but I do expect it to enforce fundamental laws. If you don't think any of the restrictions imposed by our current immigration law have any fundamental value, your job is to help convince our voters to support a change in the law. Not support its large-scale violation. If you don't believe in the rule of law, move out of this country and perform your risky social experiments elsewhere.

Dr. T writes:

Why all the negativity towards libertarians? Most libertarians I know (myself included) favor open immigration. However, open immigration does not mean open citizenship. The presence of millions of guest workers will not greatly alter elections, because the guest workers cannot vote. That's why most libertarians are not panicking about open immigration and are not "hispanophobes."

Dog of Justice writes:

You propose to feed the USA's seed corn to the poor of the world. If you succeed, that will be the last meal anyone ever eats. Without capital there can be no growth, and unlimited immigration would destroy the cultural, economic, and human capital position of the USA.

This is an overstatement. It is very unlikely that China or Japan will make the same mistake, and as a result I expect them to keep enough seed corn around. Open US borders would probably deal a major blow to worldwide liberty because it would vastly accelerate authoritarian China's rise in relative power (while decreasing the pressure we can exert on it to liberalize), but it will not mark the last meal we all eat.

The U.S. had effectively open borders from its founding until the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1892. How do you explain the fact that, despite the free movement of poor, uneducated immigrants, the U.S. experienced rapid growth and an increase in standard of living for the 100+ years we had open borders?

During most of that period, transportation bandwidth was low and the amount of valuable unsettled land was high. The 1890s marked the end of the American frontier; immigration continued to rise with transportation bandwidth for a little while, but popular unrest quickly rose. By 1924, the borders were almost closed.

That may have been a really dumb thing for the US to do, but the onus is on you to prove that. As is, the US managed to become the world's preeminent superpower during the following four decades of serious immigration restriction, so I don't envy your position.

(I am actually rooting for you, at least a little, since I'm a second generation immigrant and I'm not sure my parents would have been admitted if the laws hadn't changed in 1965.)

Is it not the socialists who denigrate both property rights and individual choice, and demand that their preferences be imposed on every single person in the U.S.?

You are welcome to convince voters to support a liberalization of immigration law, or move somewhere else, if you have a problem with existing law. As is, what you call a "right" is something I call a source of potentially huge negative externalities, which you completely fail to reflect in your analogy.

I have no problem with a neighbor inviting pretty much whoever they want to their place. But once they start playing loud music at 3 AM, my indifference ends. Especially if, simultaneously, the police's reliability in quickly ending such disturbances declines.

In an ideal world, no immigrants would produce those sorts of negative externalities; but that's not the world we live in.

Kurbla writes:

We already passed through that few times.

Allowing immigration is free, but increasing standard of immigrants is not. Some resources have to be allocated for that purpose. If these same resources are invested directly in poor countries, the effect will be much better.

shecky writes:

I don't expect government to "protect our culture", but I do expect it to enforce fundamental laws. If you don't think any of the restrictions imposed by our current immigration law have any fundamental value, your job is to help convince our voters to support a change in the law. Not support its large-scale violation. If you don't believe in the rule of law, move out of this country and perform your risky social experiments elsewhere.

I'm not terribly persuaded by this line of thinking. It's like the passive aggressive "I'm all for immigration, I'm just against illegal immigration" argument. Imagine saying, "I'm all for smoking pot, I'm just against smoking pot illegally". I suppose if you ever willingly jaywalk, or go over the speed limit, you, too, should just find yourself another country where you can indulge your anarchist ways?

Ignoring stupid laws is entirely reasonable, because that is what freedom loving people do. This is usually the case. Large scale violation like the US has experienced is the best motivation to liberalize immigration, showing the futility of regulation and benefit of increased human resources. It satisfies a demand and is essentially a victimless crime where the violators (immigrants and their employers) are consensual, and the most insidious harm comes from the fact that government has decreed it wrong. That the current system is so broken is not a negative reflection on illegal immigrants. It's a negative reflection on the country that cannot come to grips with the reality of immigration, the market that demands the labor, and the immigrant willing to supply.

Dog of Justice writes:

I suppose if you ever willingly jaywalk, or go over the speed limit, you, too, should just find yourself another country where you can indulge your anarchist ways?

There is a reason I put the word "fundamental" before "laws". The examples you give are, by design, statistically enforced; it is tacitly accepted that jaywalking and going over the speed limit are often efficient decisions. They just have small statistical negative externalities (by increasing the probability of an accident), so it's appropriate to raise their cost in some manner.

The negative externalities following from a single act of illegal immigration plausibly exceed those following from every act of speeding and jaywalking I have committed in my entire life. Not all laws are equal. (I am sympathetic to changing marijuana laws, by the way.)

The onus is on you to explain why every other major country still tries to enforce its immigration laws; indeed, most do so more effectively than us. The onus is on you to explain why Mexico, even while it does everything it can to convince us to accept its illegal immigrants, does not tolerate illegal immigration on its own southern border! Now, the latter does not prove illegal immigrants are a net negative. But it most assuredly means that the Mexican government thinks they are.

American society is not just a labor market. It also is supposed to be a literate democracy. If you insist on concerning yourself with the former and not the latter, argue for a guest worker program. Not open borders.

HispanicPundit writes:

This is one of the many reasons why Bryan Caplan is one of my favorite bloggers.

Molyuk writes:

Illegal immigrants do not pay their share of taxes. Official data for their rate of payment does not exist. Nonetheless, it is no great leap to assume that people who ignore our immigration laws will not follow our tax laws either, particularly if they are afraid of government attention. Even those who do pay taxes - however many that may be - are a net tax loss. How many illegals do you suppose have jobs which pay well enough to put them in a high tax bracket?

Illegal immigrants are disproportionately involved in violent crime. Again, no solid data exists. But we do know that crime rates in most third-world countries are high, that poverty is a factor in turning to crime, and that the overwhelming majority of illegals are poor.

Illegal immigrants are an enormous burden on the health care system. Unless you assume they are buying health insurance, their primary care is through the emergency room. Pardon me if I don't make that assumption.

In a perfect world, free immigration would be an undeniable positive. In an actual nation-state with actual borders, actual tax laws, and an actual welfare system, they are a financial drain on a failing economy.

I don't care what color they are. I don't care what language they speak. They can follow the laws the rest of us are required to follow, or they can leave.

H writes:

Illegal immigrants are disproportionately involved in violent crime.

So are poor legal immigrants. Look at Europe (a study, pdf). Should we prevent poor people from looking for a better life?

In a perfect world, free immigration would be an undeniable positive. In an actual nation-state with actual borders, actual tax laws, and an actual welfare system, they are a financial drain on a failing economy.

Change tax laws. Tweak the welfare system. Focus on the system, not immigration. Immigration is a secondary problem.

Jeremy, Alabama writes:

I believe immigration is an issue where libertarians are tools of the Democrats. If everything else were libertarian - low taxes, few social services, weak Federal govt with a small budget etc - then libertarian-style immigration would be great.

But it's not that way. I believe Democrats have a deliberate policy of immigration of people that support growth of government, by granting non-citizens the vote and social welfare etc. Rather than confront this, Republicans have already moved left to accommodate it, hoping to scoop up a few pathetic percent.

If the massive immigration from Mexico were right-of-center, the Democrats would have built a fence years ago, and incarcerated the mayors of "sanctuary cities".

Libertarian defense of "free immigration" inside the Republican camp weakens Republican resolve. But the conservative position is "build a fence, bring immigration under deliberate control, and then have a debate".

This is not libertarian, but it accepts the fact that there are no random forces in the world. Immigration policy has been hijacked by the left, and anybody who stands against it portrayed as a bigot.

lukas writes:

Democratic foreign policy has been non-interventionist? For decades? With all due respect, which world are you living in? The presidents who intervened in WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam and Yugoslavia were all Democrats. The invasion of Afghanistan had broad, bipartisan support in Congress. Many House Democrats supported even the invasion of Iraq...

cls writes:

We have a welfare system, not because immigrants begged for it, but because lazy Americans wanted it. Try to abolish any of those benefits and it won't be immigrants screaming about it, but native born Americans.

To punish would-be immigrants because of own moral shortcomings and stupidity is clearly unwarranted.

khazeh writes:

GU - if you prefer Midwestern culture, then move. I don't say that as an angry, GTFO accusation, but what you're doing is exactly the kind of cultural invasion that you're concerned about. Namely, bringing the culture of your homeland to your new state, and wanting it to be more like where you came from. Carpetbagging is carpetbagging, no?

Louise writes:

As someone who has been involved in official immigration work, I can confidently say that one of the biggest problems with "illegal" immigration is that once here, illegal aliens must stay in the US -- or risk never being able to return. This means they must stay during times they might normally return home to weather a crisis, such as during illness or a family emergency. This actually encourages illegal aliens to use US services they might not normally use. Most people WANT to be home with family during a health or other crisis.

A system that would allow immigrant workers to build up a nest egg, educate their children and return to a comfortable retirement in their home country should be explored. Many older legal immigrant workers from foreign countries already go back to spend their twilight years back "home."

If anyone in this special group wanted to change to a permanent status later, they would have to "queue" in their home country, like everyone else. Quotas would be established and businesses would have to fight it out in Congress just like technology companies have to do now.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As for the comment about Anglo-American Western culture in the United States -- it wasn't "racist." It was bigoted and ignorant.

My New Mexican grand-mother would have been too polite to say anything to GU's face, but she might have said a rosary or two for his soul.

Anonymous writes:

Caplan's conclusion in #4 is incorrect. It is in accordance with Libertarian interests and principles to deport those who, by their powers as voters, act to violate the rights of their neighbors.

Comments for this entry have been closed
Return to top