Everyone wants to be in the USA. Why? Is there something special about the geography? Is there something immutable about this place that will make it forever superior to the alternatives? No. It's the culture and institutions. Ours are better than those of other places. What makes it better is contained in the culture, which is the minds of the people who are here. Our institutions and cultural norms are not set in stone and can be changed in a generation or less if the people will it so. With no borders, it's just a matter of time until the entire world is a monoculture. If you accept my premises above, that the culture and institutions of the US are superior, averaging us into a monoculture with the rest of the world must make us worse. It stands to reason we should only allow people in here who will enhance and improve our culture in its uniquely American way.
A more cynical view is that our best days are behind us and we are just fighting over who gets to loot the previously accumulated wealth. This doesn't seem so far from the truth in western Europe.
And on a completely unrelated note, any theory of immigration must have enough nuance to explain why Israeal should not have open borders, unless you can make the case that doing so would not be suicidal for them.
Thanks, not enough attention is given these days to the 0th amendment to the constitution that you quote here. The ratification process was a bit unconventional, but it’s right there on the statue so it’s binding.
But you neglected the second clause, which dictates that, in addition to preventing us from ever stopping any one of the 8 billion american pre-citizens from moving here, nobody is allowed to complain about it, which necessarily takes precedence over the 1st and any other amendments.
What Friedman meant by his assertion re incompatibility of "free immigration and a welfare state,” I presume, is that it's unwise to allow entry to all comers if generous freebies are on offer at public expense to uninvited immigrants and their offspring, for two reasons: 1) it would incentivize entry of people who are feckless and/or incompetent and likely to pass those traits on to their progeny; 2) it would impose a burden on taxpayers that would (further) erode incentive for economically productive activity and might well prove to be fiscally unsustainable. Do you not agree?
The worst immigration law of all time was in 1986 that made it illegal to hire migrants. We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights and among them are the right to life, liberty and THE PURSUIT of HAPPINESS ie the right to WORK. I believe in the separation of work and the state.
Friedman's argument seems focused on the immigrants themselves benefiting. Even the sentence "The country grew more prosperous and more productive, and the immigrants shared in the prosperity" doesn't say the immigrants caused prosperity.
Everyone wants to be in the USA. Why? Is there something special about the geography? Is there something immutable about this place that will make it forever superior to the alternatives? No. It's the culture and institutions. Ours are better than those of other places. What makes it better is contained in the culture, which is the minds of the people who are here. Our institutions and cultural norms are not set in stone and can be changed in a generation or less if the people will it so. With no borders, it's just a matter of time until the entire world is a monoculture. If you accept my premises above, that the culture and institutions of the US are superior, averaging us into a monoculture with the rest of the world must make us worse. It stands to reason we should only allow people in here who will enhance and improve our culture in its uniquely American way.
A more cynical view is that our best days are behind us and we are just fighting over who gets to loot the previously accumulated wealth. This doesn't seem so far from the truth in western Europe.
And on a completely unrelated note, any theory of immigration must have enough nuance to explain why Israeal should not have open borders, unless you can make the case that doing so would not be suicidal for them.
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”
Thanks, not enough attention is given these days to the 0th amendment to the constitution that you quote here. The ratification process was a bit unconventional, but it’s right there on the statue so it’s binding.
But you neglected the second clause, which dictates that, in addition to preventing us from ever stopping any one of the 8 billion american pre-citizens from moving here, nobody is allowed to complain about it, which necessarily takes precedence over the 1st and any other amendments.
Huh?
Steve Sailer. You had to be there. Oh, and schmaltz, lotsa schmaltz.
What Friedman meant by his assertion re incompatibility of "free immigration and a welfare state,” I presume, is that it's unwise to allow entry to all comers if generous freebies are on offer at public expense to uninvited immigrants and their offspring, for two reasons: 1) it would incentivize entry of people who are feckless and/or incompetent and likely to pass those traits on to their progeny; 2) it would impose a burden on taxpayers that would (further) erode incentive for economically productive activity and might well prove to be fiscally unsustainable. Do you not agree?
It’s 2024 and the Marxists are still around.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-49687-y
The worst immigration law of all time was in 1986 that made it illegal to hire migrants. We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights and among them are the right to life, liberty and THE PURSUIT of HAPPINESS ie the right to WORK. I believe in the separation of work and the state.
Friedman's argument seems focused on the immigrants themselves benefiting. Even the sentence "The country grew more prosperous and more productive, and the immigrants shared in the prosperity" doesn't say the immigrants caused prosperity.
They did. Or more than their share of it, anyway.