Bryan Caplan  

Talking to Mark Krikorian

PRINT
Cuba's Wage Policy: Modified N... There's only one sensible way ...
At last night's debate, I finally got to talk to the Center for Immigration Studies' Mark Krikorian.  Some thoughts:

1. Mark has good manners and radiates little anger.  Immigration opponents would be more influential if they emulated him. 

2. Fortunately, such emulation is highly unlikely to happen.  The Occupy Wall Street people would rather alienate receptive audiences than wear suits and cut their hair.  Anti-immigration people would rather alienate receptive audiences than be polite and control their tempers.

3. Lawyers' classic strategy is, "When the facts are against you, argue the law.  When the law is against you, argue the facts.  When the facts and the law are against you, change the subject."  Mark argues like a lawyer. 

Exhibit A: I made strong claims about the likely effect of open borders on total production and average living standards.  Mark never disputed my claims.  But neither did he say anything like, "The overall economic benefits of immigration are indeed astronomically positive.  But the downsides are even more astronomical."

Exhibit B: Mark began by claiming that open borders would clearly and massively expand the size of government.  But when I raised the view - voiced by many leftist European social scientists - that immigration undermines the welfare state by reducing social cohesion, Mark did not demur.  Instead, he said that reducing social cohesion is very bad.

Exhibit C: Mark rightly rejected the "Jobs Americans Won't Do" (JAWD) argument.  I agreed, then pointed out how to repair the argument.  Namely: While sufficiently high wages could indeed persuade Americans to do virtually any job, employers respond to higher wages by hiring fewer workers.  Call this the "Jobs that Won't Be Done At All if Only Americans Can Do Them" (JTWBDAAIOACDT) argument.  If nannies earned $30,000 a year, for example, most families that now have nannies would do without.  Mark's response was basically, "Who cares if upper-middle class families have nannies?"

Exhibit D: Mark pointed to California to demonstrate that high immigration leads to a bloated welfare state.  When I asked about high-immigration, low-welfare Texas, he didn't respond. 

4. Can I honestly say I'm any less lawyerly?  Yea.  I'm happy to admit that the evidence on the immigration-welfare state connection is mixed.  I'm happy to point out the flaws in the JAWD argument.  Indeed, I'm happy to deliver an opening statement that I know most Americans would find unpersuasive, if not frightening.  Why?  Because I think my opening statement is true.  Getting people to the right conclusion for the wrong reasons is not good enough for me - and getting anyone to the right conclusion for the right reasons is good in itself.

5. I would like to have lunch with Mark and one of the illegal immigrants I know.  I'd open the conversation with, "Why do you want the government to force this person to leave the country?"  Would Mark really tell him, "Sorry, your presence undermines our patriotic solidarity, so you have to go"?  Or what?

6. If Mark brought me to lunch with an unemployed low-skilled native, I really would tell him, "Sorry you lost your job, but foreigners have as much a right to work as you do."  It needs to be said.

7. The debate would have been better if we cross-examined each other instead of delivering opening statements.  Some questions I wish I'd had time to ask:

a. How much would open borders have to raise living standards before you'd reconsider?  Doubling GDP clearly doesn't impress you.  What about tripling?  A ten-fold increase?

b. Suppose the U.S. had a lot more patriotic solidarity.  In what specific ways would it be better to live here? 

c. Aren't there any practical ways you could unilaterally adopt to realize their benefits?  Are you using them?

d. Do you really think low-immigration parts of the U.S. are nicer places to live?  If so, why aren't more natives going there?  Why don't you?

e. Doesn't patriotic solidarity often lead people to unify around bad ideas?  Think about the Vietnam War or Iraq War II.  If so, why are you so confident that we need more patriotic solidarity rather than less?

f. I'm sincerely puzzled.  How exactly is discriminating against blacks worse than discriminating against foreigners?

g. Suppose you were debating a white nationalist who said, "I agree completely with Mark, except I value racial solidarity rather than patriotic solidarity."  What would you say to change his mind?  Would you consider him evil if he didn't?

h. Suppose you can either save one American or x foreigners.  How big does x have to be before you save the foreigners?

i. In what sense is letting an American employer hire a foreigner is an act of charity?

j. Suppose the U.S. decided to increase patriotic solidarity by refusing to admit Americans' foreign spouses: "Americans should marry other Americans."  Would that be wrong?

8. Mark denies being "anti-immigrant."  We wouldn't call a morbidly obese man "anti-food" for going on a diet.  Why is he "anti-immigrant" because he wants fewer immigrants?

Simple: Because we subject complaints about human beings to stricter scrutiny than complaints about inanimate objects.  If someone said there were "too many" blacks, Jews, or gays in America, everyone would identify them as anti-black, anti-Semitic, or homophobic.  When Mark says there are too many immigrants, we rightly label him as anti-immigrant.

9. Though anti-immigrant, I doubt Mark actively hates them.  What I sense, rather, is strong yet polite distaste for foreigners.  He's like a husband who makes nice with his mother-in-law, yet groans whenever he finds out she's visiting.  The key difference: Mark is hypersensitive.  The husband feels fine once his mother-in-law is out of his house, but Mark's distaste for foreigners is so intense that he wants them out of his entire country.



COMMENTS (47 to date)
ali writes:

One could rightly say that pro-illegal immigration types like the author would be more effective if they (1) didn't misrepresent who and what we're talking about (opposition to amnesty and illegal immigration is NOT "anti-immigrant") and (2) didn't rely on emotion, sob stories and appeals not to "break up families" when it's said illegal aliens who are choosing to "break up families" by their irresponsible actions.

Gene writes:

Ali

Bryan is advocating for open borders. There would be no such thing as illegal immigration under his proposal, therefore he's not pro-illegal immigration.

Outlawing immigration for nearly everyone who would like to do it, and refusing to decriminalize those outlawed immigrants is in fact "anti-immigrant."

Imagine outlawing nearly all gun ownership, and criminalizing all hand guns, then standing in the way of any efforts to change the policy. That would be correctly described as being anti gun.

It's illegal aliens that are breaking up their families, by "forcing us to outlaw and deport them?" I bet you can't even say that with a straight face.

Steve Sailer writes:

So ... these are all the killer lines you came up with after the debate that you now think: If only I'd said this during the debate!

Ali:

"(opposition to amnesty and illegal immigration is NOT "anti-immigrant")"

In the same vein, I guess you could argue that "(opposition to abolition of slavery and and black freedom is NOT "anti-black")"

Richard A. writes:

Immigration policy deals with who and how many immigrants we let in. Krikorian certainly favors a more selective immigration policy. Immigrant policy deals with how we treat immigrants once they're in. Krikorian does not favor discriminatory treatment against legal immigrants. Krikorian is not anti-immigrant.

Bedarz Iliaci writes:

Economics, by insisting upon methodological individualism, can not understand the concept of nation and thus is unqualified to talk about immigration and borders.

The open borders is a political argument and not an economic one.

The immigration restrictionists would do better in countering the economists if they could appreciate why a national territory is not a property that is owned (a) by citizens or (b) by the Govt.

Simply put, a property is something that is ultimately secured by the nexus of laws in a particular nation. But the national territory is secured by brute force, not by the national laws, since the foreign nations are not obliged to follow laws of your nation.

Thus, the private properties exist within the national territory and could not exist without the laws that prevail in the territory.

The economists talk as if the private property had no connection or reference to the national territory and thus they argue from the sovereignty of individual property owner.

But this is simply a false position. Sovereignty resides in nations, not in individuals.

Robert Anderson writes:

When I go to a restaurant and buy a steak, I always put some salt on it.

Mr. Caplan would have me believe that I am anti-salt because I think dumping the entire shaker on my meat would be too much salt.

Keith K. writes:
But this is simply a false position. Sovereignty resides in nations, not in individuals.

That's kind of a bizarre statement isn't it? What is a nation except an arbitrarily determined line on a map in which all the people within those lines live? Sovereignty ALWAYS resides in individuals or specific collections of individuals. The United States government is simply the collection of people who enforce the laws on the rest of us. Since this group is nothing but a collection of people, it is obviously this collection of people who have sovereignty.

Thus, the private properties exist within the national territory and could not exist without the laws that prevail in the territory.

This seems incorrect. If this was true, then cross national trade would historically never have occurred because without security of some kind no one would engage in trade.

Jonpez2 writes:

7f is excellent. Mood affiliation FTW.

Pajser writes:

Caplan doesn't adress the main criticisms of his idea as given both from the left and the right side - brain drain, negative externalities, reduced GDP/capita, increased poverty of American working class and weaker institutions. I find it odd. I'll cherry pick one of his arguments:

I really would tell to native, "foreigners have as much a right to work as you do." Sounds strong. But I doubt that Caplan really believes it and, consequently, that he would accept replacement of all American soldiers with Russians because they are capable of running such a sophisticated army and they are much cheaper than Americans? Would he?

Hugh writes:
1. Mark has good manners and radiates little anger. Immigration opponents would be more influential if they emulated him.

2. Fortunately, such emulation is highly unlikely to happen.........

Bryan,

Opinion polls are showing that, outside your bubble, immigration opponents are doing quite well. Maybe they radiate common sense?

Bedarz Iliaci writes:

Keith K,

To a libertarian, nations are, at most, administrative (in)conveniences. But the libertarian view of nations as arbitrary lines on a map has as much substance as looking at marriage as just a document issued by a city clerk.

Bostonian writes:

'If Mark brought me to lunch with an unemployed low-skilled native, I really would tell him, "Sorry you lost your job, but foreigners have as much a right to work as you do."'

I think open borders advocates do not value the welfare of American citizens much more than the welfare of foreigners. Most Americans do, which party explains why they oppose open borders. The welfare of my family matters much more to me than the welfare of strangers. It is natural to value the welfare of people who are closer to you more than the welfare of strangers.

Lance Sjogren writes:

[Comment removed pending confirmation of email address. Email the webmaster@econlib.org to request restoring this comment. A valid email address is required to post comments on EconLog and EconTalk.--Econlib Ed.]

Wes Winham writes:

Robert Anderson:

Mr. Caplan would have me believe that I am anti-salt because I think dumping the entire shaker on my meat would be too much salt.

From this very article:

Simple: Because we subject complaints about human beings to stricter scrutiny than complaints about inanimate objects. If someone said there were "too many" blacks, Jews, or gays in America, everyone would identify them as anti-black, anti-Semitic, or homophobic. When Mark says there are too many immigrants, we rightly label him as anti-immigrant.

Hugh:

Opinion polls are showing that, outside your bubble, immigration opponents are doing quite well. Maybe they radiate common sense?

Certainly restriction on foreigners is popular, as Bryan acknowledges in The Myth of the Rational Voter and in this quote:

I'm happy to deliver an opening statement that I know most Americans would find unpersuasive, if not frightening. Why? Because I think my opening statement is true. Getting people to the right conclusion for the wrong reasons is not good enough for me - and getting anyone to the right conclusion for the right reasons is good in itself.

People have a natural tendency to not like foreigners, where "foreigner" has historically included people of different race, ethnicity, religion, etc.

That does not make that moral or beneficial.

natural to value the welfare of people who are closer to you more than the welfare of strangers.

Which, I'm sure you would agree, does not justify all acts against strangers. You're probably not in favor of the murder of strangers, for example. From Bryan's post yesterday:

I love my children more than I love the rest of you put together. This is a good reason to worry that I'll treat you unjustly if there's ever a conflict of interest. But it's no excuse for me to treat you unjustly. "I want my beloved son to get this job" does not justify slashing rival candidates' tires the morning of the final interview. The same goes for immigration policy. Your love for Americans may tempt you to treat foreigners unjustly, but it's no excuse for treating them unjustly.
RPLong writes:

@ Bostonian

Who's welfare do you value more:

1 - That of an American you have never met and likely never will meet, who lives on the other side of the country among other people you will never meet,

or,

2 - That of a Congolese you have never met and likely never will meet, who lives on the other side of the world among other people you will never meet?

Follow up question: Why?

Taeyoung writes:
1. Mark has good manners and radiates little anger. Immigration opponents would be more influential if they emulated him.

I dunno. I think he's generally representative of the tenor of opponents of illegal immigration. And that's probably why these illegal immigration amnesty bills keep failing -- the pro-immigration side is represented in the public debate by people who veer between sober denunciations of anyone who opposes amnesty as "anti-immigrant" or racist and hysterical denunciations of anyone who opposes amnesty as "anti-immigrant" or racist. Plutocrats and politicians are mostly very keen on amnesty. In the past decade, it's always been a revolt by the middle classes that has forced them to shelve their plans.

Put in other terms -- it's not the immigration restriction side that has a major tone problem. They're actually extraordinarily influential outside the bubble of wealth and privilege. It's the pro-immigration side that needs to work on its messaging and its tone. Sob stories and argument from anecdote work, but not when they're married to barely-concealed spitting hatred of those dirty stinking Middle American natives, who have the effrontery to reject the missionaries and the blessings of superior progressive civilisation.

Pav writes:

My family does "those jobs Americans won't do".
My mother's family left Appaliachia to find jobs. The fiber glass factory she worked at 6 days a week into her 60's had an immigration raid. The area's unemployment rate was 18-20%. Citizens lined up for work when illegals were removed from jobs.

zgatt writes:

Isn't a natural extension of the moral argument that we should extend benefits (medical, disability, etc) to anyone in the world who requests them, on the same footing as citizens?
Or are you open to the distinction between who is contributing to "our" economy, and therefore who is entitled to draw support off of "our" economy?

aez writes:

"Sob stories and argument from anecdote work, but not when they're married to barely-concealed spitting hatred of those dirty stinking Middle American natives, who have the effrontery to reject the missionaries and the blessings of superior progressive civilisation." Deft, Taeyoung, and spot-on. Thank you.

MikeP writes:

Isn't a natural extension of the moral argument that we should extend benefits (medical, disability, etc) to anyone in the world who requests them, on the same footing as citizens?

Not at all.

Freedom of travel, residence, labor, and association are unalienable individual rights. Governments that prohibit free migration abrogate those rights.

Government "benefits" are not individual rights, so not giving them to anyone in the world who requests them is not abrogating any rights.

But you have stumbled upon the moral argument against welfare. If you really believe that welfare is supposed to help the poor, then every single dollar spent on welfare in the US should instead be routed to the truly poor in desperately impoverished parts of the world. The recipients in the US are in no way poor compared to them. Pragmatically, that is impossible. So stop pretending that welfare is morally justified.

Cody S writes:

Is there a concept of citizenship in a nation with open borders?

Honest question.

Josh D writes:
Is there a concept of citizenship in a nation with open borders?

Honest question.

I'm actually quite interested to see pro-immigration responses to this.

I think that if we did have open borders, the standards for suffrage should become much stricter. Of course, I already think that...

BZ writes:

When libertarians say a national border is arbitrary, they don't mean "of no practical effect". Libertarians are acutely aware of the ways of state power, and its limits, few though they may be. What they do mean is that national borders are unimportant, that their existence is born in conquest, and maintained by fear of the state that claims it, and as such, without a moral right to exist to those who believe in individual human rights. Since a libertarian, by definition, is always looking to clip the authority behind coercion, wherever it is found, it should be no surprise that borders make the list.

MikeP writes:

Is there a concept of citizenship in a nation with open borders?

Absolutely. Citizenship is a construct whereby a nation selects members of the population to maintain the political power within the population -- e.g., only citizens can vote or serve in elected office. But it is a pragmatic construct, designed to serve the political needs of the nation.

In contrast, open borders -- or, more generally, free migration -- is simply the recognition that the condition of one's being born on the other side of a border does not endow him with fewer unalienable individual rights.

Free migration is a right endowed equally on all people and ideally secured by government. Citizenship, like the "right" to vote, is an entitlement granted by government for the service and continuation of government.

What open borders could look like in practice is a new class of visa that grants immigrants unlimited entry, residence, and employment within the US, but that explicitly lacks a path to citizenship for them or any targeted welfare for them or their citizen children, at least for a couple of decades. Holders of this visa may apply for a citizenship-track visa if they wish. "Amnesty" is essentially granting this visa to anyone illegally in the US.

MikeP writes:

What they do mean is that national borders are unimportant, that their existence is born in conquest, and maintained by fear of the state that claims it, and as such, without a moral right to exist to those who believe in individual human rights.

National borders are not bad because they are the result of conquest. Indeed an anarchist territory residing among dominions of governments would have borders. And these borders would be critically important to the anarchist society, being the greatest extent of states that may want to conquer the stateless territory.

National borders, and sovereignty in general, serve a very important purpose: They keep other nations' worse laws and enforcement out. Thus they help secure individual rights by restraining governments less likely to "secure these rights". But, as far as individual rights go, that's all they do. They do not define rights, nor do they define who possesses rights.

This is why arguments against immigration based on concerns of "sovereignty" or "erasing borders" hold no water. The vital purpose of borders is to stop laws, not to stop trade or to stop people.

Josh D writes:
The vital purpose of borders is to stop laws, not to stop trade or to stop people.

In your ideal world, perhaps. I think you will find that practically speaking there's plenty of stopping trade and people. Largely because people seem to want it that way.

MikeP writes:

Largely because people seem to want it that way.

Might makes right is always a valid claim in a normative discussion. Kind of ends it right there, though, doesn't it.

Josh D writes:
Might makes right is always a valid claim in a normative discussion. Kind of ends it right there, though, doesn't it.

The point is that they seem to serve more than the purpose you give them. People everywhere and everywhen have typically been highly concerned with stopping others from wandering into their country (or, conversely, finding other people and blithely ignoring their borders to grab shiny things on the other side).

It also seems somewhat disingenuous to say that laws stop where people don't. People will cross a border and change the law on the other side to fit them if they can. Today we have the example of Latin American immigrants in the US, Muslim immigrants throughout Europe, etc. Even migration within the United States - witness the political shifts in Virginia or Colorado over the past couple of decades.

Fake Herzog writes:

RPLong,

Wassup my man! We haven't chatted in a bit so I thought I'd bite on the questions you posed to Bostonian:

Who's welfare do you value more:

1 - That of an American you have never met and likely never will meet, who lives on the other side of the country among other people you will never meet,

or,

2 - That of a Congolese you have never met and likely never will meet, who lives on the other side of the world among other people you will never meet?

Follow up question: Why?

(1) & (2) From the standpoint of "whose welfare I value", as a Christian that question really doesn't make sense. We are all equal under God ("all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...")

On the other hand, what I think you are trying to say is who would I try and help first if both were to appeal to me for assistance. In that case it isn't even close -- the American because we are both bound together by "mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land." The Congolese guy -- not so much. If I'm able to help them both (and they both deserve help) then great.

I love Americans because they are my people and it is natural and right to love your people. That doesn't mean you can't (and shouldn't!) love others, but it also means you shouldn't ignore the duty you have to your countrymen.

MikeP writes:

People everywhere and everywhen have typically been highly concerned with stopping others from wandering into their country

The US in the 19th century begs to differ.

People will cross a border and change the law on the other side to fit them if they can.

That is a fair point. Hence the decades -- if ever -- before immigrants should be given citizenship.

Your last point is very good. As another example, we might not see such insane anti-immigration laws in Arizona if only long-time residents could vote in Arizona's races.

zgatt writes:
truly poor in desperately impoverished parts of the world. The recipients in the US are in no way poor compared to them. Pragmatically, that is impossible. So stop pretending that welfare is morally justified.

Who said that? Avoiding the question fail.

The question is: is there a moral obligation to provide benefits to non-citizens who are in need?

Anonymous writes:

[Comment removed pending confirmation of email address. Email the webmaster@econlib.org to request restoring this comment. A valid email address is required to post comments on EconLog and EconTalk.--Econlib Ed.]

Ross Levatter writes:

Fake Herzog, replying to RP Long to a question posed to Bostonian: "I love Americans because they are my people and it is natural and right to love your people."

Well, I'm no RP Long, but let me offer a response: How does this differ from saying "I love whites because they are my people and it is natural and right to love your people." Many would call someone making that statement a racist, especially if he went on to claim that he had a special duty to help fellow whites over others. So the obvious follow up question is why you find nationalism, which you are advocating, less abhorrent than racism?

MikeP writes:

is there a moral obligation to provide benefits to non-citizens who are in need?

There is no moral obligation to provide benefits to citizens who are in need. There is no moral obligation to provide benefits to non-citizens who are in need.

Josh D writes:
The US in the 19th century begs to differ.

The US of the 19th century was only open compared to other nations of its time.

Even then, there were various laws aimed at preventing Asian immigration, laws banning political undesirables, a law requiring English fluency, and racial quotas. Beyond the official barriers, there were political groups aimed at resisting immigration and open and widespread distaste for Irish, Eastern Europeans, and other groups moving to the country.

Nations barring or restricting immigration are the norm. Compared to the extent of history our current attitudes are an considerable anomaly.

MikeP writes:

Even then, there were various laws aimed at preventing Asian immigration, ...

After 82% of the 19th century had gone by.

...laws banning political undesirables, ...

After 103% of the 19th century had gone by.

...a law requiring English fluency, ...

Huh?

...and racial quotas.

When did 1921 become part of the 19th century?

Josh D writes:
After 82% of the 19th century had gone by.

Which is when immigrants started being considered a real problem by the people already there.

I did extend things a bit past 1899 to show that the US got increasingly anti-immigrant for a while - as more immigrants unlike the majority of the people already living there started showing up, the more the people living there felt like they needed to do something about it.

Josh D writes:
After 82% of the 19th century had gone by.

Which is when immigrants started being considered a real problem by the people already there.

I did extend things a bit past 1899 to show that the US got increasingly anti-immigrant for a while - as more immigrants unlike the majority of the people already living there started showing up, the more the people living there felt like they needed to do something about it.

Bedarz Iliaci writes:

MikeP,
Citizenship is a construct whereby a nation selects members of the population to maintain the political power within the population

What is a nation in your understanding?

I wonder if you are thinking of nations as, at best, administrative (in)conveniences.

WillieD writes:

The rationale mentioned for calling someone "anti-immigrant" would also justify labeling open borders advocates "anti-American," given that they / we are advocating policies that will reduce the ratio of Americans to non-Americans present in the country.

Ultimately, of course, the anti- label is simply a method of smearing your opponent.

RPLong writes:

Hahaha good to hear from you, Fake Herzog. I think you've lent credence to Bostonian's claim when he writes:

I think open borders advocates do not value the welfare of American citizens much more than the welfare of foreigners. Most Americans do, which party explains why they oppose open borders.
For me the question isn't who you help "first," because the welfare of my fellow Americans is improved by the welcoming of additional immigrants. Restrictionists have a tough burden of proof for substantiating the notion that immigration is a net cost to natives.

Fake Herzog writes:

RPLong,

You are delightful (and an excellent critic of Hindi films...speaking of foreign films, has everyone here seen "The Raid 2"? If not, run, don't walk to the nearest theater -- but only if you can handle extreme violence).

Anyway, back to the subject at hand. Well, at least we agree (I think) on the substantive issue at hand -- is immigration a net cost to natives? Of course, that question is way too vague as written...how much immigration, what kind, what do you mean by "net cost" (i.e. economic, social, political, etc.) And why "net"? If I'm not a utilitarian (which I'm not) then why shouldn't I worry about the impact on the common good (however that is defined) period.


Ross,

What is it with you open borders types and racism? Who says I find "racism" (which you don't define) "abhorrent"? For example, Ed West, in his excellent book about immigration called The Diversity Illusion notes that:

Today the term racism has come to mean almost any recognition of raceā€¦and of difference (or average differences) between groups.

Is that what you mean by racism? In which case, I'm a racist and I don't find racism abhorrent. Or do you mean the "racism" of a black family that tells you they'd like to live in a black neighborhood because they like living around other black people for cultural reasons (easy to find a black church, good soul food, they want their kids to have black classmates, etc.)...or the "racism" of a recent Assyrian refugee who settles in a Assyrian enclave because he prefers to speak his own language when possible and hang our with people like him culturally? Do you mean that racism?

So if someone told me it was wrong to think I had special obligations to my family or to my nation (which in some sense is just a very attenuated extended family) because I was a racist I would happily claim to be a racist and go on fulfilling my special obligations out of love.

MikeP writes:

What is a nation in your understanding?

A population of people governed by a government.

I originally had written "population" instead of "nation" to try to avoid other meanings of "nation", but changed it because the particular concept being discussed -- citizenship -- is specific to a nation.

J writes:

Open borders would benefit a lot of people, but some would clearly be worse off. Here is my question: theoretically could the new immigrants (collectively) pay off the people made worse off, so that everyone is better off? (What is the net cost?)

Also, I'd assume housing would increase in cost (more demand, at least in areas people immigrate to), but what about goods and services? There should be significantly more demand with increased population, but labor cost should likely fall. The actual relations seem complex, large cities with high immigrant populations have higher costs and wages than more rural areas with fewer immigrants.

Also, for people afraid of some giant flood of immigrants, what about a rule such as capping immigration at 10% of the population a year.

Lynn Atherton Bloxham writes:

I would like to weigh in more heavily on a point made. I see the primary argument as often neglected and details take prominence. Glad it was brought out in this discussion.

The restrictionist position appeals to those who fear the chaos of freedom and believe that a centrally planned society is necessary for a strong national benefit. They are not concerned as much with the individual as they are the "National Good."

The pro Open Borers position is representative of the people who value each individual and understand the part that a voluntary exchange open market contributes to individual liberty and the benefits that provably have evolved within that situation.

I would ask the restrictionists to carefully re-evaluate what philosophical position they hold. If they deliberately choose that the good of the nation is supreme, then so be it, However, realize that one cannot then claim to hold as important the worth of the individual. It is an either/or. Is it that each individual has value, or it is the collective?

It might be instructive to particularly read Mussolini's writings, particularly those written with his secretary, Gentile. He was actually very clear about the idea of nationalism and why the individual must be sacrificed and subjected to the national interest. Make your choice but make it knowingly.

That must be the first question then all other issues can be answered rather easily.

Floccina writes:
d. Do you really think low-immigration parts of the U.S. are nicer places to live? If so, why aren't more natives going there? Why don't you?

I work sometimes in Fargo ND and it seems very low immigrant and very nice but people do not want to move there because of weather which I assume is why it is low immigrant.

Comments for this entry have been closed
Return to top