Vipul Naik's Analysis of the Open Borders Persuasion Bleg

I agree with Milton Friedman. The measurement you site on immigrants using social services was, by definition, before we had "open borders". So it is truly a static analysis, and does not take into effect the drawing power of social services.

An example of how open borders would work without simultaneous controls on use of social services was NYC in the 1960s and 1970s. John Lindsay implemented, in effect, a domestic open borders for social services for all those who came to NYC. It's outcome was disasterous and cost him his political career.

I am for extreme increases in legal immigration. I am even against favoritism for those who have degrees (I am also against biases for those from Europe) and am for immigration from almost anywhere.

But I am equally strong minded on cultural assimilation. While I of course support people being proud of their heritage, their first allegiance is to the US as a nation.

I dislike the term borderless. For me, the term borderless starts sounding a lot like nationless. This sets the stage (in my mind at least) for the possibility of the worst of all global horrors one could imagine-----one world government.

I do not know the solution to the social services problem and immigration--have some thoughts---but as a nation our ability to assimilate many peoples from many countries (certainly their progeny) is our greatest strength. But we want to incentivise the strong minded to come and de-incentivise those who are looking for free rides.

I haven't followed much of this discussion, since you are arguing for a position I already support, but I wonder whether, in your "keyhole" solutions, you include the one I proposed about forty years ago. New immigrants are entitled to neither welfare nor votes for an extended period of time--but they are also exempt from the taxes that pay for the welfare. That seems fairer than the version without the final provision.