Roger Bissell

Harry Binswanger on Open Immigration

Recommended Posts

The following was posted at http://www.hblist.com/immigr.htm and is posted here with permission. Let's discuss it! (REB)

===========================================

Open Immigration

by Harry Binswanger

This is a defense of phasing-in open immigration into the United States. Entry into the U.S. should ultimately be free for any foreigner, with the exception of criminals, would-be terrorists, and those carrying infectious diseases. (And note: I am defending freedom of entry and residency, not the automatic granting of U.S. citizenship).

An end to immigration quotas is demanded by the principle of individual rights. Every individual has rights as an individual, not as a member of this or that nation. One has rights not by virtue of being an American, but by virtue of being human.

One doesn't have to be a resident of any particular country to have a moral entitlement to be secure from governmental coercion against one's life, liberty, and property. In the words of the Declaration of Independence, government is instituted "to secure these rights"--to protect them against their violation by force or fraud.

A foreigner has rights just as much as an American. To be a foreigner is not to be a criminal. Yet our government treats as criminals those foreigners not lucky enough to win the green-card lottery.

Seeking employment in this country is not a criminal act. It coerces no one and violates no one's rights. There is no "right" to be exempt from competition in the labor market, or in any other market.

It is not a criminal act to buy or rent a home here in which to reside. Paying for housing is not a coercive act--whether the buyer is an American or a foreigner. No one's rights are violated when a Mexican, or Canadian, or Senegalese rents an apartment from an American owner and moves into the housing he is paying for. And what about the rights of those American citizens who want to sell or rent their property to the highest bidders? Or the American businesses that want to hire the lowest-cost workers? It is morally indefensible for our government to violate their right to do so.

Immigration quotas forcibly exclude foreigners who want not to seize but to purchase housing here, who want not to rob Americans but to engage in productive work, raising our standard of living. To forcibly exclude those who seek peacefully to trade value for value with us is a violation of the rights of both parties to such a trade: the rights of the American seller or employer and the rights of the foreign buyer or employee.

Thus, immigration quotas treat both Americans and foreigners as if they were criminals, as if the peaceful exchange of values to mutual benefit were an act of destruction.

To take an actual example, if I want to invite my Norwegian friend Klaus to live in my home, either as a guest or as a paying tenant, what right does our government have to stop Klaus and me? To be a Norwegian is not to be a criminal. And if some American business wants to hire Klaus, what right does our government have to interfere?

The implicit premise of barring foreigners is: "This is our country, we let in who we want." But who is "we"? The government does not own the country. Jurisdiction is not ownership. Only the owner of land or any item of property can decide the terms of its use or sale. Nor does the majority own the country. This is a country of private property, and housing is private property. So is a job.

American land is not the collective property of some entity called "the U.S. government." Nor is there such a thing as collective, social ownership of the land. The claim, "We have the right to decide who is allowed in" means some individuals--those with the most votes--claim the right to prevent other citizens from exercising their rights. But there can be no right to violate the rights of others.

Our constitutional republic respects minority rights. 60% of the population cannot vote to enslave the other 40%. Nor can a majority dictate to the owners of private property. Nor can a majority dictate on whom private employers spend their money. Not morally, not in a free society. In a free society, the rights of the individual are held sacrosanct, above any claim of even an overwhelming majority.

The rights of one man end where the rights of his neighbor begin. Only within the limits of his rights is a man free to act on his own judgment. The criminal is the man who deliberately steps outside his rights-protected domain and invades the domain of another, depriving his victim of his exclusive control over his property, or liberty, or life. The criminal, by his own choice, has rejected rights in favor of brute violence. Thus, an immigration policy that excludes criminals is proper.

Likewise, a person with an infectious disease, such as smallpox, threatens with serious physical harm those with whom he comes into proximity. Unlike the criminal, he may not intend to do damage, but the threat of physical harm is clear, present, and objectively demonstrable. To protect the lives of Americans, he may be kept out or quarantined until he is no longer a threat.

But what about the millions of Mexicans, South Americans, Chinese, Canadians, etc. seeking entry who are not criminal and not bearing infectious diseases? By what moral principle can they be excluded? Not on the grounds of majority vote, not on the grounds of protecting any American's rights, not on the grounds of any legitimate authority of the state.

THE MORAL AND THE PRACTICAL

That's the moral case for phasing out limits on immigration. But some ask: "Is it practical? Wouldn't unlimited immigration--even if phased in over a decade--be disastrous to our economic well-being and create overcrowding? Are we being told to just grit our teeth and surrender our interests in the name of morality?"

This question is invalid on its face. It shows a failure to understand the nature of rights, and of moral principles generally. Rational moral principles reflect a recognition of the basic nature of man, his nature as a specific kind of living organism, having a specific means of survival. Questions of what is practical, what is to one's self-interest, can be answered only in that context. It is neither practical nor to one's interest to attempt to live and act in defiance of one's nature as a human being.

Yet that is the meaning of the moral-practical dichotomy. When one claims, "It is immoral but practical," one is maintaining, "It cripples my nature as a human being, but it is beneficial to me"--which is a contradiction.

Rights, in particular, are not something pulled from the sky or decreed by societal whim. Rights are moral principles, established by reference to the needs inherent in man's nature qua man. "Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival." (Ayn Rand)

Every organism has a basic means of survival; for man, that means is: reason. Man is the rational animal, homo sapiens. Rights are moral principles that spell out the terms of social interaction required for a rational being to survive and flourish. Since the reasoning mind cannot function under physical coercion, the basic social requirement of man's survival is: freedom. Rights prescribe freedom by proscribing coercion.

"If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work." (Ayn Rand)

Rights reflect the fundamental alternative of voluntary consent or brute force. The reign of force is in no one's interest; the system of voluntary cooperation by mutual consent is the precondition of anyone achieving his actual interests.

To ignore the principle of rights means jettisoning the principled, moral resolution of conflicts, and substituting mere numbers (majority vote). That is not to anyone's interest. Tyranny is not to anyone's self-interest.

Rights establish the necessary framework within which one defines his legitimate self-interest. One cannot hold that one's self-interest requires that he be "free" to deprive others of their freedom, treating their interests as morally irrelevant. One cannot hold that recognizing the rights of others is moral but "impractical."

Since rights are based on the requirements of man's life as a rational being, there can be no conflict between the moral and the practical here: if respecting individual rights requires it, your interest requires it.

Freedom or force, reason or compulsion--that is the basic social alternative. Immigrants recognize the value of freedom--that's why they seek to come here.

The American Founders defined and implemented a system of rights because they recognized that man, as a rational being, must be free to act on his own judgment and to keep the products of his own effort. They did not intend to establish a system in which those who happen to be born here could use force to "protect" themselves from the peaceful competition of others.

ECONOMICS

One major fear of open immigration is economic: the fear of losing one's job to immigrants. It is asked: "Won't the immigrants take our jobs?" The answer is: "Yes, so we can go on to better, higher-paying jobs."

The fallacy in this protectionist objection lies in the idea that there is only a finite amount of work to be done. The unstated assumption is: "If Americans don't get to do that work, if foreigners do it instead, we Americans will have nothing to do."

But work is the creation of wealth. A job is a role in the production of goods and services--the production of food, of cars, computers, the providing of internet content--all the items that go to make up our standard of living. A country cannot have too much wealth. The need for wealth is limitless, and the work that is to be done is limitless.

From a grand, historical perspective, we are only at the beginning of the wealth-creating age. The wealth Americans produce today is as nothing compared to what we'll have two hundred years from now--just as the standard of living 200 years in the past, in 1806, was as nothing compared to ours today.

Unemployment is not caused by an absence of avenues for the creation of wealth. Unemployment is caused by government interference in the labor market. Even with that interference, the number of jobs goes relentlessly upward, decade after decade. This bears witness to the fact that there's no end to the creation of wealth and thus no end to the useful employment of human intelligence and the physical effort directed by that intelligence. There is always more productive work to be done. If you can give your job to an immigrant, you can get a more valuable job.

What is the effect of a bigger labor pool on wage rates? If the money supply is constant, nominal wage rates fall. But real wage rates rise, because total output has gone up. Economists have demonstrated that real wages have to rise as long as the immigrants are self-supporting. If immigrants earn their keep, if they don't consume more than they produce, then they add to total output, which means that prices fall (if the money supply is constant).

And, in fact, rising real wages was the history of our country in the nineteenth century. Before the 1920s, there were no limits on immigration, yet these were the years of America's fasted economic progress. The standard of living rocketed upward. Self-supporting immigrants were an economic benefit not an injury.

The protectionist objection that immigrants take away jobs and harm our standard of living is a solid economic fallacy.

WELFARE

A popular misconception is that immigrants come here to get welfare. To the extent that is true, immigrants do constitute a burden. But this issue is mooted by the passage, under the Clinton Administration, of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity and Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), which makes legal permanent residents ineligible for most forms of welfare for 5 years. I support this kind of legislation.

Further, if the fear is of non-working immigrants, why is the pending House bill aimed at employers of immigrants?

OVERCROWDING

America is a vastly underpopulated country. Our population density is less than one-third of France's.

Take an extreme example. Suppose a tidal wave of immigrants came here. Suppose that half of the people on the planet moved here. That would mean an unthinkable eleven-fold increase in our population--from 300 million to 3.3 billion people. The result? America would be a bit less "densely" populated than England (360 people/sq. km. vs. 384 people/sq. km.). In fact, it would make us less densely populated than the state of New Jersey (453 per sq. km.). And these calculations exclude Alaska and Hawaii, and count only land area.

Contrary to widespread beliefs, high population density is a value not a disvalue. High population density intensifies the division of labor, which makes possible a wider variety of jobs and specialized consumer products. For instance, in Manhattan, there is a "doll hospital"--a store specializing in the repair of children's dolls. Such a specialized, niche business requires a high population density in order to have a market. Try finding a doll hospital in Poughkeepsie. In Manhattan, one can find a job as a Pilates Method teacher or as a "Secret Shopper" (two jobs actually listed on Craig's List). Not in Paducah.

People want to live near other people, in cities. One-seventh of England's population lives in London. If population density is a bad thing, why are Manhattan real-estate prices so high?

THE VALUE OF IMMIGRANTS

Immigrants are the kind of people who refresh the American spirit. They are ambitious, courageous, and value freedom. They come here, often with no money and not even speaking the language, to seek a better life for themselves and their children.

The vision of American freedom, with its opportunity to prosper by hard work, serves as a magnet drawing the best of the world's people. Immigrants are self-selected for their virtues: their ambitiousness, daring, independence, and pride. They are willing to cast aside the tradition-bound roles assigned to them in their native lands and to re-define themselves as Americans. These are the people our country needs in order to keep alive the individualist, hard-working attitude that made America.

Here is a short list of some great immigrants: Alexander Hamilton, Alexander Graham Bell, Andrew Carnegie, most of the top scientists of the Manhattan Project, Igor Sikorsky (the inventor of the helicopter), Ayn Rand.

Open immigration: the benefits are great. The right is unquestionable. So let them come.

Copyright © 2006. TOF Publications, Inc.

www.hblist.com/immigr.htm

Permission hereby granted to republish, in whole or in part, provided no changes are made in the wording of material used, Harry Binswanger's authorship is stated, and this notice is carried.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roger,

Thanks for posting this.

Overall, I think it's a very good piece.

My only objection is to the long subsection on "The Moral and the Practical."

Binswanger is able to argue that open immigration (minus the exceptions he mentions) is not just a policy consistent with individual rights--it will also be economically beneficial to the average American.

But the length of "The Moral and the Practical," and its placement, suggest a lack of confidence in his ability to argue that opening up immigration will have positive consequences--and a desire to close off discussion by wagging the finger at anyone who asks what the consequences of recognizing individual rights will be, in this case.

It would have been more effective to run through the positive consequences and then, briefly, remind the reader that recognizing and respecting rights are, in fact, good for everyone.

Robert Campbell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Astute observation, Robert, and I agree.

One thing HB did in his live talk was to hand out and discuss a set of statistics showing what would be the "crowding" consequences under various immigration scenarios. (E.g., even if hafl the world lived in Texas, in comparison to the population density of Manhatten, or whatever.) Quite eye-opening. That would probably count as mentioning a "practical" consequence of (or defusing a practical objection to) a large influx of immigrants.

All in all, I'm very glad to see HB coming out with this position. It kind of surprised me, considering ARI's adamant position about Muslim fanatics, etc. in re Homeland Security. But HB countered this concern by saying that we should wipe out the terrorists and all countries that help them, and the threats to our borders would stop. (The old: kick the crap out of the bully approach.)

REB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Binswanger should consider the consequences of allowing almost anyone to come to Europe, the US and Israel.

I'm told that Binswanger does not think Israel should allow unlimited Islamic immigration, although I don't know on what grounds

-Neil Parille

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted a few questions and have asked some open immigration Objectivists for a response. (I only got partial responses from Andy Bernstein.)

1. In the modern age it's easy for anyone to come to the US. You can hop on a plane and be here in 24 hours or less. If the US had open immigration, what would its population be in ten, twenty, thirty years?

2. What are the potential negative effects, if any, of what might be the largest population transfer in human history?

3. What would happen to wage rates in the US if tens of millions of low income workers arrive in a short period of time? Wouldn't it reduce the wage rates of US citizens, in particular low skilled workers?

4. There are countries such as Greece and Israel which border much more populous Islamic nations. Should they have open immigration? Will the world be a better place when Greece becomes "Greekistan" and Israel "Palestine"?

5. There are cities in Europe that are approaching 20% Islamic population. Has this been good for Europe? Would Europe be better if country after country eventually turned majority Islamic? Isn't this a distinct possibility given the low birth rate of the natives and the high birth rates of Moslems?

6. Is the creation of "no go" zones in major European cities related to immigration?

7. How should the US determine if a potential immigrant has a criminal record? Do Afghanistan and Pakistan keep good records? Are their officials in this area not subject to bribery?

8. How do we screen out potential terrorists? Assume someone from a pro-Taliban region of Pakistan wants to come to the US. Explain the process by which we determine if he is a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer.

9. California has become a one party leftist controlled state thanks to immigration. Wouldn't this happen to every other state if the US opened its southern border?

10. What would have prevented the Boston Bombing - restricting immigration or bombing Iran?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I find interesting is that Binswanger, unlike other open immigration Objectivists, would not require that immigrants show they don't have a criminal record. The burden would be on the US to prove that they are criminals or terrorists.

There is, however, a procedural objection, and a decisive one: how are government officials to determine whether or not a given man about to enter the country is a criminal? Since potential or actual criminals do not carry signs announcing this fact, how can the government ferret it out—without violating the rights of the innocent immigrant?

And we must ask: "criminal"—by what standard? Is "the criminal" a man convicted in Canada of stealing a car, or a man convicted by a "revolutionary tribunal" in Iran for insulting The Prophet, or a man held to be a criminal in Sierra Leone because . . . ? Is the U.S. government to review every law and every trial of every immigrant from every country in order to bar "criminals"?

The crucial point is often overlooked: in its efforts to capture or bar criminals, the government may not violate the rights of the innocent. That means, no detention at borders, no demand to produce "papers" or "passports,"— such procedures violate the rights of the innocent. In order to interfere with a man's free movement, the state needs to show "probable cause"—which means specific evidence against the specific individual, not the indiscriminate subjection of everyone to a screening process.

So if 100,000 men from the Boko Harum regiion in Nigeria want to come to the US, they must be allowed in immediately.

Does Binswanger really believe this?

-Neil Parille

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Binswanger posted a colum on Forbes a while ago.

Immigration is a human right . . .. But a compromise is acceptable, if it’s a step in the right direction–i.e., if it restores lost freedom.And in that spirit, I would accept a compromise to allay a final fear: terrorists. Though the real solution to terrorist attacks lies in a crushing military defeat of terrorist-sponsoring regimes, starting with Iran, if my program were limited to immigrants from the non-threatening nations, excluding the Islamist states, that would still be a vast improvement over our present policy of restricting everyone’s rights.

Based on this, I think Binswanger does support unlimited Islamic immigration.

Now, I'd like to know why Binswanger thinks crushing Iran and similar countries would end Islamic terrorism. Are would-be Jihadists in the West too stupid to make pressure cooker bombs without someone in Iran telling them?

By Binswanger's logic, Russia - having crushed Chechyna -- shouldn't have to worry about Jihadists from Chechyna. In fact, crushing Chechyna should have prevented the Boston Bombing. Or maybe we have to bomb Russia too.

The Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD and in another 60 years or so had to put down another rebellion in Jerusalem. Defeating radical Islam isn't like defeating Nazi Germany. And what does Binswanger think that the millions of Moslems in the US and Europe are going to do when they see their homelands bombed? The riots will make the LA riots look like a picnic.

I don't think Binswanger has given much thought to this. As Robert Campbell notes, he is so convinced that "the moral is the practical" that he can't conceive of any negative consequences of open immigration. (Not that Robert would agree with me on my arguments.)

-Neil Parille

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are a couple quotes from Dr. Binswanger.

Immigrants are a natural constituency for the Republican Party. Yes, the Republican Party–because foreigners come here to participate in the American dream. It takes independence and courage to leave the familiar hearth and home and venture to a new land. Republicans, not the “You didn’t build that” Democrats, have at least some appreciation for the American can-do spirit and the self-made man.

Tell that to Mitt Romney, who got 30% of the Hispanic vote. And while the percieved opposition ot Republicans to amnesty might not have helped, poll after poll shows that Hispanics support Obamacare, bigger government, and redistribution of wealth by much greater margins than whites.

Immigrants are longer-range, ambitious, and want to earn money, not grab it.

The only way to know whether immigrants are going committ crimes at a lower rate or not want to live on welfare is to do empirical research. I don't think Dr. Binswanger has done much of this. As far as being long-range, when Algeria qualified for the World Cup, Algerians rioted in France. That doesn't prove Algerian immigration to France is bad, but you'd have to look at things like this to make up your mind.

-Neil Parille

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand wrote, "Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned." (Emphasis added.)

Under such a system, the freedom to move from one place to another is entirely dependent on the consent of the owner of the property where the traveler is destined. You could not visit the island of Maui if none of the property owners wanted you there. So if hundreds of planeloads of Nigerian (or Japanese or Starvanistani) immigrants were to debark at JFK International in a future capitalist America, where would they go after leaving the terminal? The St. Regis Hotel? Carbone's Restaurant? The sofa in your living room? In a capitalist nation if there is a spike in the population due to the arrival of millions of starving, homeless wretches, it will only be because they have a needed, marketable skill to offer or because some altruist is financing their transportation, housing and food. If these new arrivals are only there to consume and not to produce, it will not be at the expense of the general population but rather of one generous benefactor in particular, who will be able to host them only as long as his fortune holds out. Once that's gone, the penniless immigrants will face the same fate as any hotel guest who cannot pay his bill: eviction.

What about wage rates? Suppose the benefactor instead of just letting the immigrants loaf on his property puts them to work, say, on the widget assembly line. Since the new arrivals from Starvanistan will work for pennies per hour, what will happen to the other manufacturers of widgets and their workers? Won't wages plummet throughout the industry, making society generally poorer?

Yet this is also the short-term effect of U.S. manufacturers building plants overseas or inventing new machinery that makes widget making so efficient that one worker can be as productive as five, ten or twenty workers. If government has a legitimate role to play in keeping wage rates at their present level, then it is also appropriate to pass laws outlawing labor-saving devices. To take it one step further, why not reverse the Industrial Revolution and the division of labor and prohibit any invention or procedure that makes an employee more efficient? Adam Smith pointed out that the factory system made pin-makers between 240 and 4800 fold more productive. Shall we go back to one pin per worker per day?

What about changes in the ethnic character of a community? In a fully capitalist society, the choice of which individuals can enter one's property (even if it is a business "open to the public") is entirely the choice of the property owner. In the 1700's and 1800's, when there were no laws to the contrary, many parts of the United States became predominantly German-language speaking, with few or no signs written in English. If it is the role of government, rather than individual property owners, to determine what the proper ethnic or linguistic character of a place should be, should we endorse laws that prohibit signs in Hebrew and Greek, as well as signs in Arabic and Spanish? If language can be make subject to regulation, why not religion or skin color? Are laws regulating Muslims in a community fundamentally more legitimate than the Nuremberg or Jim Crow Laws?

Keep in mind that the ability of residents in a neighborhood to maintain a certain ethnic character through restrictive covenants once existed across America but was removed by the Supreme Court in Shelly v. Kramer and other decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that "open immigration" (or something close to it) follows from a consistent application of property rights.

I just think we should step back and look at the consequences. To say "the moral is the practical" or "the rational is the real" is simplistic.

The UK has a large immigrant population. If this has resulted in good things, then it would continue under open immigration. To the extent that there are bad consequences, they would be magnified as a result.

Although Rand was generally supportive of immigration, I don't think she would agree with Binswanger that Israel should ideally have open immigation with respect to Islamic immigration. She was no fan of Arabs or Moslems, from what I can recall. (I believe she bought Israeli bonds.)

-Neil Parille

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I attempted to show in my post above, a massive influx of unskilled, poverty-stricken immigrants, who would be a financial drain on the general population could not happen in a society of 100% private property. The modern phenomenon of border-crossing welfare queens is a consequence of the assault on private property and the expansion of the meaning of the "commons" to include not only every road, sidewalk, park, and library but also the provision of food, clothing, housing and now even the internet.

As to the moral being the practical, what exception to this rule does immigration hold? The closer we get to a society where there are no automatic free lunches, the closer we get to a society where productive people have control over what kind of people they live and work with.

Under laissez-faire (and with advances in telecommuting) we are bound to see more completely "intentional communities," where people live only with those who share common values. If you are no fan of Arabs or Muslims, then you can make your home in a village where no followers of Muhammad are permitted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s a list of Binswanger's immigration articles so far, titles bolded. The leading quote is a line or two from the article that captures it’s flavor. (The first article is the same one quoted in post #1 under a different title.)

"The principle of individual rights demands open immigration. Implementing that would mean phasing out all limitations on immigration. Entry into the United States should ultimately be free for any foreigner, absent objective evidence of criminal intent or infectious disease."

Anti-Immigration Rhetoric Frighteningly Reveals Education’s Failure
Forbes magazine February 3, 2013

"The problem of ‘illegal’ immigration can be solved at the stroke of a pen: legalize immigration. ... I admire those who broke our rotten, rights-defying anti-immigration laws to come here."

The Solution to "Illegal Immigration"
Capitalism Magazine May 20, 2006.

"The border between the U.S. and Mexico (and between the U.S. and Canada) should be exactly like the border between Connecticut and Massachusetts: you see ‘Welcome to Massachusetts’ and otherwise you are unaware of the difference."

Collectivist Arizona Immigration Law Is Anti-Capitalist
Capitalism Magazine April 28, 2012.

"An ‘illegal’ immigrant is, in principle, like a Jew in Nazi Germany who refused to wear the yellow star."

Amnesty For Illegal Immigrants Is Not Enough, They Deserve An Apology
Forbes magazine March 4, 2013.

Nowhere does Binswanger assume that the U.S. has become libertarian. He advocates open immigration for the U.S. today, not in some libertarian future. He also approves of illegal immigration, that is, immigration anarchy.

Of course if immigration isn’t stopped soon the libertarian future that Objectivists like to envision will never come. Apparently the non-coming is what Binswanger really wants. Either that or he’s dumb as an ox.

When Francisco Ferrer wrote: "The closer we get to a society where there are no automatic free lunches ..." he should have noted that we’re traveling in the opposite direction. Nowadays America is substantially socialist and becoming more so. There isn’t much point discussing open immigration for a libertarian America.

Still, there’s some point. If open immigration would be bad for a libertarian America, all the more is it bad for America today.

It should be obvious that open immigration would be bad even for a libertarian America. Immigrants from the Third World tend to vote socialist even when they work for a living, and even if they came to the U.S. to escape the effects of socialism in their own country. A libertarian country that allowed open immigration would not remain libertarian for long.

You can’t depend on a libertarian constitution to prevent the country’s dissolution. Laws do not make a people good. If the culture becomes corrupt, eventually the laws will too.

Would-be immigrants should work to end socialism in their own country, then they might value what they worked for.

Another factor is what no one wants to talk about: race. It’s perfectly natural to prefer your own race, as natural as sex. It’s Anthropology 101. You live in the whitest neighborhood you can afford.

In 1960 America was about 90% white, and the rest were practically all blacks whose families had lived here for generations. Today, because of the Hart-Cellar Immigration Reform Act of 1965, combined with an intentional breakdown of immigration enforcement, whites are down to about 72% and each day more non-whites than whites are born. One result of the immigration disaster is described in a Vdare.com article "Not Your Mom`s Mall Any More."

Neil, that’s a great collection of questions with which to challenge an immigrationist. Where can we read Andrew Bernstein’s partial response?

Mark

ARIwatch.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark,

Bernstein answered two or three questions on his blog talk radio a couple months back. I believe he said that he didn't think the US population would necessarily grow that much and also that we should not allow Islamic immigration until we attacked and destroyed Iran. There was, I think, some blather about Hispanics voting Democratic because the Republicans were allegedly anti-immigrant. Of course, he's too uninformed to know that the Republicans did worse after Reagan signed an amnesty in 86.

-Neil Parille

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark,

I sent a link to this post to Dr. Binswanger; no response. I asked him on Forbes at least 2 times whether Israel should have open immigration with respect to Moslems; no response.

I think it is reasonable to conclude that Dr. Binswanger (who is nothing if not consistent) believes that Israel should allow unlimited Islamic immigration even if it becomes a Sharia state.

If I misunderstood Dr. Binswagner then he knows where to correct me.

-Neil Parille

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the general state of the world today, immigration into the United States should first be vetted under what Objectivists would call "the ethics of emergency" for there are various stages and kinds of warfare going on respecting this country. What more easily can be addressed is the ability--the right--of American citizens to freely come and go from and to their own country, which is in a state of serious deterioration.

Who needs Binswanger's stupid theorectical bullshit? He put himself behind an Internet wall to avoid people who call bs bs so he's stuck in his self-made outhouse (complaining about the stink of others while smelling his own?).

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be obvious that open immigration would be bad even for a libertarian America. Immigrants from the Third World tend to vote socialist even when they work for a living, and even if they came to the U.S. to escape the effects of socialism in their own country. A libertarian country that allowed open immigration would not remain libertarian for long.

Mark, this an excellent point. Sure people come to the US for a better living. But they don't necessarily conclude that the US's relative freedom makes it possible. They may attribute the poverty of their home country not to socialism but to corruption. Consider the riots in European countries by immigrants every year or two. For all their flaws, these countries give immigrants a much better chance of success than their home countries and they still riot.

Even libertarians such as Walter Block who support open borders admit that its possible for a country to lose freedom if the immigrants are statists. Binswanger can't even concede that.

If the US allowed unlimited immigration from Mexico w/o any checkpoints, there would be such a flood of immigrants that even the legitimate functions of government would be overwhelmed.

Although I don't agree with Biddle, he thinks the US should have checkpoints and that potential immigrants would have to prove that they are not criminals. Since you can process only so many applicants a year, this would lead to de facto quotas. Considering the corruption in Mexico, the US might reasonably conclude that their documents are not trustworthy and not allow anyone in.

-Neil Parille

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The immigrants from Mexico are already here. Open borders respecting them now, so they can go back and forth with a green card for work, will not likely increase their overall presence and maybe the contrary, but no citizenship, welfare benefits, etc. I believe there are at least ten million illegal Mexicans in this country right now. Most are not picking fruit which is going to be rotting on the trees, but seasonal imput of temporary workers could do that.

Ultimately open immigration means the end of citizenship itself and the national government and then state governments--ain't going to happen though--and only local governance. No United States of America. That would mean there is not an American government that could be attacked and possible to defend to say nothing of its aggressing other people or its own people. The sacredness of the American identity, however, means there is no stopping the existence of the United States save through existential force. I admit I myself have been willing to fight for my country until 2003 and Bush was preparing to invade Iraq. The gross on-coming stupidity brought me up short because having already fought in one idiotic war, I could see the absolute lack of any necessity for that one. Enough was finally enough, even for someone with the requisite warrior DNA nurtured since childhood.

We need to consider the psychological biology of young men willing to go out and fight and die as millions of them have historically done. If we could twist time around and re-engage the past and the Japs attack Pearl Harbor and I had been born in 1924 instead of 1944, even with perfect knowledge of what was going on and why and what was to come, generally speaking, I'm joining the navy. That's just me and there are many like me. There are also some not fit for or desireous of such duty who join up anyway if only to support the direct combatants and the Walt Witmans will be found in the hospitals caring for the wounded. Who is not doing something--or desiring to do something--for the war effort? There are--would be--people not doing that for sundry reasons. My Dad didn't fight in WWII and I'm not really sure of the reason or reasons sans excuses. Dependents, eyesight, age? (We never had a conversation.) His brothers did. My uncle David is being buried in Arlington June 25 at 3:00PM. He and some Japanese metal. I'm told there will be a band and full military honors. My job is to be there.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the context of the present "situation" on the Southern border of the United States, is the "open borders" position sustainable?

"At any other time, the growing crisis on the Mexican border, with tens of thousands of unaccompanied young people crossing illegally into the United States, might dominate the news. Yet the situation has received less attention than it might amid the furor over House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's primary defeat, the collapse of Iraq, the continuing Bergdahl matter, and Hillary Clinton's book tour. They're all genuinely important news stories, and they've crowded out disaster at the border.

But whether or not many people noticed, this was the week in which the Obama administration's attempts to deflect blame for the border crisis fell apart."

http://washingtonexaminer.com/on-immigrant-surge-white-house-story-falls-apart/article/2549755

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha (me too)

Is this naivete, ignorance, stupidity, irrationality or what?

I think it's pure boneheadednes

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha (me too)

Is this naivete, ignorance, stupidity, irrationality or what?

I think it's pure boneheadednes

--Brant

Idealism, I think. A blind eye to history and current affairs. Like Rand said, mistakes of this size are not made innocently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Binswanger: "60% of the population cannot vote to enslave the other 40%."

When Moslems become a majority in Israel - as Binswanger things they should become via open immigration -- what does he think will happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Binswanger: "60% of the population cannot vote to enslave the other 40%."

When Moslems become a majority in Israel - as Binswanger things they should become via open immigration -- what does he think will happen?

A war. Israeli Jews are not going to let themselves be put down.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Binswanger: "60% of the population cannot vote to enslave the other 40%."

When Moslems become a majority in Israel - as Binswanger things they should become via open immigration -- what does he think will happen?

A war. Israeli Jews are not going to let themselves be put down.

Ba'al Chatzaf

A monarchy--just like the old days!

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha (me too)

Is this naivete, ignorance, stupidity, irrationality or what?

I think it's pure boneheadednes

--Brant

Idealism, I think. A blind eye to history and current affairs. Like Rand said, mistakes of this size are not made innocently.

Rand herself would have done a much better job than Harry with this subject. Even if not good enough for very good it would have been good enough for government work. This isn't.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now