In this n-th best world we live in, mass immigration was used to turn California from a conservative; freedom-loving enclave into the leftist basket case it is today. And the other guys would like to do that to the whole country. I am mostly libertarian, but this is an area where the abstract theorizing of libertarians seems most detached from reality.
I hasten to add that it has nothing to do with race. I think waves of immigration from my Irish people had a lot to do with turning the country left at some important junctures in our history.
Do these guys not see that we're teetering at the edge of an abyss?
Well said. The post ignores the big elephant in the room, which is that open borders without any kind of mechanism that sorts for a common set of values intrinsic to freedom are going to lead us off the cliff California has nosedived off of the last 30 years. The reason any community thrives is largely due to a high degree of cooperation in a perpetual game of prisoners dilemma. The cooperation is fostered by shared values that are very specific and clear. The less values are shared and the more nebulous they are the less cooperation. Not all cultures and countries share the same values (obviously). This is precisely why Mexico is a country its citizens are running away from. If we dont have a rigorous sorting mechanism we are going to get the values that are destroying the country of origin. Mass immigration in the industrial era had a pretty spectacular value sorting mechanism -- there was no public safety net whatsoever. Thus, the only people that came were those so resourceful and enterprising that they could overcome the massive risks associated with emigrating from their country of origin. Todays immigrants face very little risk -- no one starves to death here not even the unproductive and ideologically collectivist.
California has it's problems, for sure. But unless you're talking about immigration from other states, I don't think they're caused by immigration. California is too soft on crime and too strict on zoning. Dr. Caplan's next book "Build Baby Build" explains the latter. The YouTuber "Actual Justice Warrior" addresses the former.
hWhat makes California so leftist? Perhaps its good weather. California's weather allows for people to live a more... "bohemian" lifestyle. This attracts a certain kind of people... hWho vote a certain kind of way...
California may be a sanctuary state but non-citizens cannot vote. Even in state-level elections. Some municipalities in California have recently extended the right to vote to non-citizens in municipal elections, but the majority of CITIZENS agreed to allow this!
But, even then, this was recent. Most of the stupid leftist policies of California were voted on by US Citizens.
Some of whom may be legal immigrants. But only 14.3% of California's population is made up of foreign-born immigration. That's not even close to the majority. And I wouldn't qualify this as "mass immigration".
Dude, its so obvious from the exit polling that immigrants caused California to move left.
Freaking Mitt Romney got 53% of the California white vote. The increase in non-white voters, who are overwhelmingly immigrants, are the explanation why CA went from Reagan to Newsome.
OK, 2012 election. I couldn't find exit polls broken down based on hwhether voters were immigrants. But I'm pretty sure that most black Americans are not immigrants or even children of immigrants. I could only find Cali demographics for 2010. Not perfect, but can you find better stats? Anyway, even if only hwhite and black Californians voted in 2012, O'Bama would still have won.
But even then, maybe it's not just that immigrants favour leftist policies but maybe immigrants don't vote Republican cause Republicans are kinda anti-immigrant? In Canada, there isn't such a clear divide. The Conservatives aren't as anti-immigration as the Republicans in the US and many immigrants vote Conservative.
I have a feeling many Asian Californians are gonna be fed up with the lawlessness in their state and vote Republican in 2024. We'll see...
Blacks are only 6.5% of the CA population. Even accounting for this, California would be a swing state. And that's after decades conservative out-migration and the fact that the GOP doesn't even campaign there because it's a lost cause.
There is no correlation between being anti-immigration and losing non-white votes. If anything, the correlation is reversed. Trump/DeSantis did fantastic amongst non-whites by calling them rapists and wanting to deport them, while Amnesty Romney hit record lows.
The truth is immigrants hate immigrants. If Hispanics wanted to be around other Hispanics they could have stayed in Latin America. They don't want to be around their own people, they want to be around white people. That's why they came. The burden of immigration falls hardest on Hispanics (it's generally their schools and hospitals that get most flooded). After decades of being told the secret to winning the Hispanic vote is to be pro-immigrant, it turns out the opposite is true. Hispanics want to pull up the ladder behind them after they climbed to the top.
It's strange that Prop 187 is Caplan's go-to solution on immigration (you can immigrate, but you can't get welfare) and yet it was a complete and total failure from minute one. It's a strange thing to bring up in favor of immigration.
Prop 187 passed 59/41, and overwhelming victory. Asians, who you would think would care if it were about immigration, split 50/50. Blacks, who normally vote 90% Dem also split about even on the issue as well. The only major group opposed was Hispanics, which makes sense since it was their welfare under threat.
Pete Wilson increased his vote share from 49% to 55% in 1994. Not as popular as Prop 187 but a solid showing.
Pete Wilson didn't run again, his replacement got a pathetic 38% of the vote. The article implies this was the blowback from Prop 187 that apparently turned all races against the GOP, which would be a very strange effect of a popular ballot initiative. I don't know much about mid-90s California politics. Wikipedia describes the 1998 GOP candidate as a kind of far right religious nut and says the #1 issue was education. I'm going to take a guess that Prop 187 wasn't the driving force in the election or an explanation of why the GOP lost the white vote.
Also interesting is that Bill Clinton won in California in the 1990s, including before Prop 187 came around. The DEMs being very anti-immigration in the 1990s didn't really stop them. Later GWB would do poorly despite supposedly being this pro-immigration embodiment of Texan acceptance according to CATO.
Then there is Romney and the post Romney era. How did Romney do record lows with non-whites when he is the embodiment of what you might call the pro-amnesty woke GOP? Why did Trump swing the 90% Hispanic Rio Grand districts thirty points in his direction when he called them rapists and talked about building a wall right there? How did DeSantis become the first GOP candidate to win a Hispanic majority when his signature political stunt of the campaign was tricking some migrants onto a plane to Martha's Vineyard and then bragging about it on national TV?
Let me present my theory of Hispanic voting:
1) Take whatever the underlying white vote share in the region is and subtract 15%-35%. So if Texas whites vote 70% GOP in an election expect the Hispanic vote share to be under 50% but not 10%. If California whites vote 50% GOP expect Hispanics to vote in the 20s GOP.
This can move around with candidate quality, specific election issues, the nature of the Hispanics in question (where specifically are they from, who are they), local political circumstances, and a few other factors. But a significant gap always remains.
2) Hispanics vote on the economy like everyone else.
However, Hispanics are less interested in economic policies around things like lower taxes and more interested in things like free government benefits. When Mitt Romney ran on Reaganism and Obama ran on free healthcare, Hispanics choose the free healthcare. This is what you would expect of people with lower than average IQ that are net recipients of government.
Prop 187 is the embodiment of this, they wanted to protect their own welfare.
3) The GOP has won over hispanics for three reasons:
A) It has moved to the left economically. It no longer talks about entitlement reform, etc.
At the state level DeSantis got school vouchers but also raised teacher pay. A lot of the American south states have been able to use its in-migration budget surpluses to buy off both sides at once.
B) Immigrants hate immigrants, and being anti-immigrant helps the GOP with Hispanics.
C) The Democratic Party has gone insane, and in elections that are still competitive Hispanics will reflect that (in uncompetitive elections they jockey for position within the democrat coalition).
There are basically two paths forward for the GOP. One is Californian irrelevance. The other is to move to the left, become more and more the party that is aesthetically and economically aimed towards your average white Hispanic. Of course, that's what Trumpism looks like.
Either one is bad for the libertarian cause, but libertarians brought this on themselves through immigration.
Why is Massachusetts left wing? Could it be folks of Irish extraction?
Gary Becker in 2011 proposed charging an entrance fee, at least $50,000. We should also sell or auction green cards. Green cards don’t grow on trees. A valuable product shouldn’t be free.
Bryan, would you agree that literally unlimited immigration is not reasonable? I.e. we probably can’t handle an influx of 30 million new people into the U.S. in a single year.
So why not support conditional immigration instead? For the U.S. it would be:
1. You must demonstrate good knowledge of English
2. You must have enough initial funds to rent a place to live or have a job offer that lets you afford a place to live
3. You can’t bring your family unless you make enough money to cover their expenses
4. No recourse to any form of government assistance, including public schooling
We would still get 3-4 million immigrants per year but they’d be much better selected for.
Myst, hwhat you are proposing is already a major improvement on current immgration policy! If only it were that simple.
Still, I disagree...
1. The US has no official language. Although the founding fathers were perhaps mostly of British-descent, at it's core, America is not an ethno-state. Americans speak the language of freedom. If, in 50 years, most Americans spoke Spanish, most of the time, but were just as free, and believed in American values of freedom, would they not still be Americans? Would it not still be America? That being said, English is the most widely spoken language in America. An immigrant who couldn't speak English would have a hard time getting a job in America. If I was considering moving to America, but didn't speak English, I would think twice about it or REALLY, REALLY study English before coming to America. But isn't that my risk to take? If an immigrant comes to America and doesn't speak English, but still manages to get a good job and take care of himself and his family, buy his groceries, buy hwhatever he needs and conduct any transactions he needs, what business is it of yours that he can't speak English?
2. Again, if I was an immigrant, I'd wanna come with a job offer or savings. But, we hear all sorts of stories: "My grandpa arrived in this country with 10 cents in his pocket..." Imagine all the people who wouldn't be in America today, if we had been applying this policy years ago! I say: Let people take their own risks! I get it, though, if you don't wanna see more homelessness. But isn't that their decision to make? Perhaps living as a homeless person in America is better than their living situation back in their old country? That being said, homelessness does create externalities: blocking sidewalks, litter, bad odours, public defecation, etc. But many of these issues can be dealt without restricting immigration. For example, don't allow homeless people on downtown sidewalks. Perhaps do allow them to camp for free in underdeveloped land on the outskirts of the city. It's not pretty. But if you think that's so inhumane, why didn't care that they were living in such conditions back home? Do you only care about poverty that you can see? The way I see it, many would rather be poor in America, than poor back home. There's more opportunities in America. It's their choice. Perhaps, some of them "didn't make it" in America and would prefer to go back to their home country but can't afford it. Perhaps, private charity could help them. Or family. Or, perhaps as a keyhole solution, if an immigrant does not arrive with a return ticket, they must pay a bond for the price of a return ticket. And if they are found, homeless, the government could spend that bond to buy them a return ticket. I don't think this will be too much of a problem, though. I think a lot of people fear that immigrants will come, won't be able to "make it" in America but after they've "failed", they would stay in America anyway, collecting welfare or being homeless. But actually, just like the subject of the song "Midnight Train to Georgia", many immigrants do return to their native countries. Just look at Canada! We have a rather low NET migration rate compared to our total immigration rate. Many immigrants give Canada a try, but can't make it or don't like it and leave!
3. That sounds nice. But hwho should decide if you make enough money to cover your family's expenses? Do you go by federal poverty line? Cause such a one-size-fits-all approach might be too much in Jackson, Mississippi, but not enough in San Francisco! Or do we have an army of expensive social workers inspecting immigrants' homes to make sure they're up to "American Standards"? And, again, should we really apply American standards? If their living situation in America is better than their living situation back home, why should we take that away from them? Even 4 people living in a studio apartment in LA, eating rice and beans for breakfast, lunch and dinner might be better off than 4 people living in a studio apartment eating beans and rice for breakfast, lunch and dinner in Manila. Cause, they and their children have a better chance of, one day, having a better life than in Manila. Although, to be fair, Manila's not so bad. There's worse.
4. Kinda makes sense. But I do think there ought to be SOME path to citizenship and its associated rights and privileges, for at least some of them, that's relatively meritocratic. For example, if you have a household income above the median income and you've lived in America for at least 7 out of the past 10 years and you've generally behaved yourself, you can get citizenship.
Still, seems kinda unfair that many native-born Americans would not meet this standard, yet still get Citizenship.
As for public schooling, the SCOTUS has ruled in Plyer v Doe, in 1982, that immigrant children are entitled to free K-12 public education, regardless of their parent's status. Fun fact: This is NOT the case in Canada! Parents of immigrant kids without the right status, would have to pay tuition for their kids to attend even a public school. This, despite our reputation as a relatively "immigrant-friendly" country! Also, even if Plyer v. Doe gets overturned, most immigrants' children, legal or otherwise, would be native-born American citizens, and thus entitled to a free public education.
New York is fine. Although, to be fair, the last time I've been was 2017. Although, to be fair, I'd say: a US-style welfare state is a recipe for fiscal disaster. With or without immigration.
Yeah, in October. I’d heard the horror stories beforehand and was genuinely puzzled upon visiting because it looks way better now than it did 10 years ago.
"Why the distinction between the native-born and the foreign-born?"
The native born can vote and the foreign born can't.
The problems of those that are near effect us in ways the problems of those that are far do not.
When a poor person lives in the third world, they are not a burden on the first world. We don't have to pay for their healthcare or education. They don't influence our electoral results. We don't have to divide our existing capital stock amongst them. We don't have to adjust our cultural mores to accommodate their presence.
When they move to the first world all of those things become our problem. This is why third world immigration destroys value and is fundamentally an act of violence. It is undertaken primarily for the purpose of obtaining first world welfare, even amongst those immigrants that work low wage jobs (which do not pay for themselves).
While we could apply this same logic to low end natives, those natives have the political power to defend themselves and are small enough as a % of the population that we've managed to model through well enough. It might in theory make sense to say send all black people to Liberia, but in practice it would be a nightmare to implement. By contrast, restricting immigration is something with broad popular support that is logistically and politically far more practical.
It's pointless to discuss getting rid of the welfare state, because said immigrants overwhelmingly vote for the welfare state. Modern California is the obvious outcome of this strategy, and is the reason most libertarians have turned away from Open Borders. They don't want the country to be a giant California (or Detroit).
Your fundamental disagreement is that immigrants are a burden, whereas the view of Bryan is that immigrants are, as a whole, net contributors. The data supports the latter viewpoint.
But if you have a strong aesthetic or ideological preference like Bryan for the data to show that, you will latch on to whatever flawed reasoning you wish.
It does. Dr. Caplan crunched the numbers. He does not just consider current legal immigrants. He does not just consider immigrants as a hwhole. He considers immigrants of different levels of education. For example, even an immigrant with less than a high-school level of education has is an overall contributor, as long as they immigrate to the US before the age of 25. Even with current US fiscal policies.
Wait, how can this be? US governments (Fed, State and Local) spend over $31k per capita on average! Surely, an immigrant who doesn't even have a high-school diploma doesn't pay this much in taxes!!! But, the thing is: First of all, many, if not most native-born Americans don't pay this much in taxes either!
Aaaaand, many things that governments spend on are non-congestible. For example, the US doesn't need a bigger army just because they have a higher population. So, mass immigration would cause per-capita military spending to decrease. Without making America less safe.
Immigrants, especially the third world mass migration from neighboring countries kind that get everyone upset, have lower then average earnings then natives (especially white natives). They are more represented at the lower end of the bell curve (where costs are outsized) and less represented at the top of the bell curve (where benefits are outsized).
And yet somehow they aren't net drains, even though natives with the same overall characteristics are?
This is nonsense.
I've seen the same figures which properly account for lifetime net impact (educating children, paying for their retirement). And I've seen it with things like defense spending stripped out.
These people are still stealing seven figures over their lifetime before even considering more indirect costs. They are the equivalent of bank robbers, they just do it slower and via government.
Emil matches what I've seen. Hispanics aren't as bad as Arabs but quantity has a quality all its own.
Native parasites I have to deal with. They can vote and they are physically here. They are, luckily, outnumbered, such that the % of the white population that needs constant subsidy is small enough that it doesn't overly impinge on civilizational functioning (they are also less politically and socially damaging). As you load up the left side of the bell curve more and more through immigration that becomes less and less true.
I'm basing my argument on Dr. Caplan's own book: Open Borders. He quotes Blau and Mackie "The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/23550."
I don't know about the fiscal impacts of native-born dropouts, so I can't compare. But perhaps, if you say they're a net fiscal drain then perhaps:
- The study saying that doesn't consider the long-run like the Blau and Mackie study.
- The study saying that doesn't differentiate between spending on congestible vs non-congestible government resources. i.e. a native-born high-school drop out may increase welfare spending, but doesn't necessarily increase defense spending
- Perhaps there are differences between native-born high-school drop-outs and immigrants with less than a high-school education. Americans are afforded a free high-school education in their local community which is higher-quality than education provided in many other countries. So, if they don't get a high-school diploma, it signals to employers that they are dumb and lazy. But an immigrant might just not have had the opportunity to get a high-school education. They might not be as dumb and lazy as an American high-school drop-out and, more importantly, employers may understand that given the economic circumstances of their native country, their lack of a high-school diploma does not necessarily mean that they are dumb or lazy, unlike an American drop-out.
- Also, perhaps your average immigrant without a high school education is more "ambitious" and "driven" than your typical native-born American drop-out. You know... Given the fact that he worked really hard to save for a plane ticket, left his family and friends behind and uprooted himself in search of a better life.
If any of that was true, we would see it in the statistics.
Natives and immigrants perform around the same level controlling for education/IQ, especially white vs non-white. But non-asian immigration is lower education/iq, with predictable results.
It is true that 1st generation immigrants are less degenerate (crime, divorce) relative to their IQs, but this quickly normalizes to their first world IQ equivalents by the following generations. Though immigrants exposed to the American welfare state are poisoned even in the first generation Puerto Ricans).
In the Dalit caste, status among men is defined by power, wealth and sexual success, among women by attractiveness and popularity. The favored occupation of Dalit men is crime, preferably of the organized variety. However, Dalit criminals are not generally psychopathic; they perceive crime as guerrilla warfare against an unjust society. Dalit women may support themselves by crime, welfare (which they consider a right), or payments from men. Both male and female Dalits may occasionally support themselves by conventional employment, but this is usually in jobs that other castes (except Helots) would consider demeaning, and Dalits share this association. The Dalit caste is not monolithic; it is divided into a number of ethnic subcastes, such as African-American, Mexican, etc. A few white Dalits exist, notably in the Appalachians. There is little or no solidarity between the various Dalit ethnicities.
The Helot caste is an imported peasant caste, originating primarily in rural Central America. Status among Helot men is conferred primarily by hard work, money and power. Status among Helot women is conferred by attractiveness, motherhood, and association with successful men. The Helot value system does not seem to be sustainable in the US, and the children of Helots tend to grow up as Dalits. New Helots, however, can always be imported to replace them.
But that "as a whole" mixes both contributors and non contributors to come to a net positive for the group. Why not instead just take the contributors in and leave the non contributors out?
This is kind of a long-winded way of admitting that Libertarianism has no actual relevance to real-word policy proposals and what libertarians actually do is just guess what the libertarian answer is based on what seems reasonable to them.
But, guess what, filling your country with dumb people from dysfunctional countries WHICH ARE DYSFUNCTIONAL FOR THE SOLE REASON THAT THEY ARE FULL OF DUMB PEOPLE is not a reasonable policy proposal. It's stupid, too stupid even to engage with except that it's actually happening.
Next, with regards to bordertarians, I like to use the condo board analogy...
Absent government regulation (yay!), condo boards can make all sorts of rules regarding what condo owners, residents and guests can do as long as the majority agree. But SHOULD they?
Would you want to live in a condo hwhere...
1. The board would screen all your guests and tenants and pre-emptively ban those who come from the "wrong neighbourhood"? Or insist that they somehow PROVE A NEGATIVE to the board that they're not a criminal before being allowed access to your building's sacred halls? (Oh and just showing a clean records check is not enough. They know the police in that neighbourhood are useless.)
2. The board insists you must hire a fellow condo-resident to paint your condo? You can only hire someone from outside the building if NOBODY from the building wants to do it. For example, if Louise in 202's alcoholic son, Ralph, is willing to do it, for $30 per hour, then you can't hire Mike, a non-resident who has plenty of good references, 10 years experience and is willing to do it for $15 per hour.
3. Any short term guests or tenants must somehow convincingly prove to condo management that they are not planning to stay in the building indefinitely, before being admitted to the hallways and elevators of the building?
4. There is a quota of how many people are allowed to move in to or work in the building per year? If you wanna hire someone or rent your condo or to someone from the outside or invite your sister over and the quota is exceeded, they're put on a waiting list. Sometimes for up to 20 years!
If you answer yes to any of these questions, then hwhy do you call yourself a libertarian?
If you answer "no", wouldn't you agree that "we the people" should not restrict the freedom of association of other Citizens nor the freedom of movement of their guests?
Ok, say for whatever reason, I fail to convince you on the above grounds and you still insist: "WE THE PEOPLE have a right to collectively decide who uses our roads, parks, infrastructure and, etc."
Also, consider this: Suppose your condo board creates a management corporation with other condo boards from other buildings. Perhaps this gives them a certain "economies of scale" so it may be a good idea. The residents of all the condos that are part of this management corporation also become owners of this management corp with voting rights. Suppose you live in a student condo where people (including you) like to party every Friday night. But the majority of other members of this management corp are seniors living in 55+ communities, hwho enjoy their peace and quiet. Would you want to live in a condo where they impose a one-size-fits-all ban on all parties at all times?
Or would you say: "No offense, granny! But parties in MY building are really none of YOUR business. You can't even hear them from YOUR building."?
If the latter, consider this:
1. Who is the owner and decision maker of SFO airport? The City and County of San Francisco.
2. Who is the owner of the streets of San Francisco? The City and County of San Francisco.
3. Who owns the In-N-Out burger at 333 Jefferson St, San Franciso? The Snyder family.
4. Who owns the apartment building at 174 Turk St? I don't know. Some private landlord. Who owns the Bay Area Rapid Transit? The Bay Area Rapid Transit District.
So, if an immigrant flies to SFO airport, travels by BART train to downtown San Francisco, takes a job at the In-N-Out on Jefferson St and rents an apartment on Turk St and you live in Arizona... Tell me: hWhat business is it of yours? If THEY, the people of San Francisco, have chosen to allow immigrants to use their airports, sidewalks and trains as they are a "Sanctuary City", could we at least allow sanctuary cities to have open borders and not have the federal government interfere with that?
I didn't read the whole thing, full disclosure. But I'll tell you that lots of people want to live in gated communities in which someone from inside has to actively invite guests in. Seems fairly reasonable, and aside from inconvenience and expense of the gates, I suspect most people would choose to live in such a place.
"We" citizens either have the moral right to exclude or we don't. I assume you would allow that we can exclude foreign militaries and hordes or leppers, so now it's just a matter of degree.
Yep, as for your gated communities analogy, if applied to immigration policy, it would already be a MASSIVE improvement. If only immigrating to the US was as simple as being invited by a US Citizen! That being said, hwhilst that makes sense for residential communities, it doesn't necessarily make sense for business. Imagine a mall hwhere you needed a letter of invitation from a shop-owner before you were allowed to enter the mall to shop or go job-hunting! I don't think the shop-owners would like that!
As for your second piece, read the last part of my comment. The bordertarian argument of "We the People" having the right to exclude is that US Citizens have collective ownership of roads and other infrastructure that immigrants use to travel within the United States to the private property they live and/or work on. And, as such, they can choose who has access to these roads or other infrastructure. My argument, is that: In fact, local infrastructure is Owned by local citizens. The people of San Francisco own the SFO airport, the streets of San Francisco and the Fart train. THEY should get to decide hwho gets access to them. Not the federal government, not Arizonans, etc.
What hypocrisy? They live behind a wall and also want a border wall? Sounds consistent. They also want people who they invite in to be able to work, but don't want random people coming in. This could also be consistent with quite restrictive immigration in conjunction with guest worker programs.
When I read that city officials are converting activity centers to hostels in order to provide beds for impoverished immigrants may we not conclude this is a failed policy? Clearly there is no free lunch with mass, socialized, immigration. The cost is real and it is, as usual, transferred to those with the least political power - the poor. Mass socialized immigration is a violation of the rule of law and of civic trust. Libertarianism without Law is Anarchy.
A good-faith objection - what would libertarians do about the homeless? Those homeless people won't disappear just because the commons they inhabit is privatised.
This post is practically arguing for open borders (i.e. no borders) and abolishing any and all distinction between citizens and aliens. How is this the mature libertarian position that considers current political landscape?
Per Deirdre McCloskey who says, start every libertarian suggestion with: “to help the poor.” To help the poor worldwide at no cost, create a big beautiful open immigration door with zero restrictions on employment. Virtually every objection to immigration can be traced back to the restriction by President Reagan on the employment of undocumented aliens.
There's a bit of odd logic here. Somebody has to run and maintain public spaces (see: Tragedy of the Commons). Who would it be if not our freely elected public officials?
That's a bit of a straw man. Many, myself included, would be quite lenient on foreigners coming here because they were explicitly invited by an employer to fill a job. Just wandering over the border is quite a different thing.
I think he is addressing a particular bordertarian argument. Most libertarians would agree (I hope!) that you should be free to do hwhat you want with your own private property, rent to hwhom you want, and hire hwhom you want.
Anti-immigration libertarians a.k.a. "bordertarians" might respond: "Yea, BUT... The owners of the roads and airports, etc. that lead to your private property to work or live don't want them to use their roads or airports, that is their right. And the majority owners of America's roads and airports have spoken: they don't want most would-be immigrants.
I think this post is a rebuttal to that. See also my thoughtful "condo board" analogy in the comments. 🙂 I won't repeat it here.
I understand. I'm not commenting on immigration with which I generally agree. I'm talking about the part where Bryan writes about libertarian's views on public spaces.
"If "we" through the democratic process may shut immigrants out by keeping them off "our" public property, why can't we make other rules? How about a rule that says if you hold certain political or social views, you can't drive on the roads or use the courts and libraries?.. A country is not a country club."
That's Easy!
- Because the native born as hereditary owners of the US government are protected by a pre-existing agreement that rather explicitly bans the government from doing this, and so far this is one of the few parts that are not primarily honored in the breech!
"A country is not a country club." - Yes it is. It obviously is! It is currently a hybrid between a country club and a collection of country clubs. It used to be a collection of relatively independent country clubs. You might dislike this fact, and seek to change it, but you explicitly stated that the goal here was to describe grownup libertarian thinking in an Nth best society in which you can't always get what you ultimately want.
"In a partially free society, public property is presumptively open to the public: if someone makes it impossible for others to use it as intended, that person can properly be excluded."
"Could the non-disruption principle be used to justify any government restriction, such as closed borders? No. The case for any given rule should not rest on hypotheticals or highly unlikely events not intrinsic to a situation. "
Scratch non-disruption, what about my already limited right to protect my interests in the handling of my unfairly publicized property? This isn't a 'hypothetical or highly unlikely' thing to be concerned about. Under the existing bylaws of our country club (The US Constitution) any new arrivals get child citizens!
So your 'grownup' libertarian position ends up being that is that private right having been semi-publicized (public but restricted citizen ownership) should now be fully publicized because - "Why the distinction between the native-born and the foreign-born?/ What right do you have to your property anyway?
Just because we live in an nth-best world doesn't mean we can't change it incrementally to make it slightly better: an (n-1)th-best-world!
I would argue that the federal government doesn't own local infrastructure. So, it's no business of theirs hwhom the people of San Francisco wanna give access to their airport, roads and trains to. This would be like the country-club federation deciding who is allowed in YOUR local country club, hwhen it really makes NO difference to them. But hwhatever, apparently, your interpretation of nth-best world is we can't change federal immigration laws or, at least, decentralize them. I think the purpose of this thought experiment was to consider: should we liberalize immigration, even if we can't change the American welfare state? Cause a lot of bordertarians use the current American welfare state as an excuse not to liberalize immigration now.
But, in any case, regardless of hwhether you think Americans have the RIGHT to exclude immigrants... Should they? How exactly have immigrants made you worse off?
The first half of this reads like a parlor game where you try to reason as an ethical consequentialist without using any of its straightforward terms. Of course there are some things that are better for the state to restrict on public land: the things that cause the most harm, and whose restriction causes the least harm. The advantage of clear private title (partly described by the Coase Theorem) can be characterized in the same terms: providing incentives for less of the harmful stuff and more of the mutually beneficial stuff.
In this n-th best world we live in, mass immigration was used to turn California from a conservative; freedom-loving enclave into the leftist basket case it is today. And the other guys would like to do that to the whole country. I am mostly libertarian, but this is an area where the abstract theorizing of libertarians seems most detached from reality.
I hasten to add that it has nothing to do with race. I think waves of immigration from my Irish people had a lot to do with turning the country left at some important junctures in our history.
Do these guys not see that we're teetering at the edge of an abyss?
Well said. The post ignores the big elephant in the room, which is that open borders without any kind of mechanism that sorts for a common set of values intrinsic to freedom are going to lead us off the cliff California has nosedived off of the last 30 years. The reason any community thrives is largely due to a high degree of cooperation in a perpetual game of prisoners dilemma. The cooperation is fostered by shared values that are very specific and clear. The less values are shared and the more nebulous they are the less cooperation. Not all cultures and countries share the same values (obviously). This is precisely why Mexico is a country its citizens are running away from. If we dont have a rigorous sorting mechanism we are going to get the values that are destroying the country of origin. Mass immigration in the industrial era had a pretty spectacular value sorting mechanism -- there was no public safety net whatsoever. Thus, the only people that came were those so resourceful and enterprising that they could overcome the massive risks associated with emigrating from their country of origin. Todays immigrants face very little risk -- no one starves to death here not even the unproductive and ideologically collectivist.
California has it's problems, for sure. But unless you're talking about immigration from other states, I don't think they're caused by immigration. California is too soft on crime and too strict on zoning. Dr. Caplan's next book "Build Baby Build" explains the latter. The YouTuber "Actual Justice Warrior" addresses the former.
hWhat makes California so leftist? Perhaps its good weather. California's weather allows for people to live a more... "bohemian" lifestyle. This attracts a certain kind of people... hWho vote a certain kind of way...
California may be a sanctuary state but non-citizens cannot vote. Even in state-level elections. Some municipalities in California have recently extended the right to vote to non-citizens in municipal elections, but the majority of CITIZENS agreed to allow this!
But, even then, this was recent. Most of the stupid leftist policies of California were voted on by US Citizens.
Some of whom may be legal immigrants. But only 14.3% of California's population is made up of foreign-born immigration. That's not even close to the majority. And I wouldn't qualify this as "mass immigration".
Dude, its so obvious from the exit polling that immigrants caused California to move left.
Freaking Mitt Romney got 53% of the California white vote. The increase in non-white voters, who are overwhelmingly immigrants, are the explanation why CA went from Reagan to Newsome.
OK, 2012 election. I couldn't find exit polls broken down based on hwhether voters were immigrants. But I'm pretty sure that most black Americans are not immigrants or even children of immigrants. I could only find Cali demographics for 2010. Not perfect, but can you find better stats? Anyway, even if only hwhite and black Californians voted in 2012, O'Bama would still have won.
But even then, maybe it's not just that immigrants favour leftist policies but maybe immigrants don't vote Republican cause Republicans are kinda anti-immigrant? In Canada, there isn't such a clear divide. The Conservatives aren't as anti-immigration as the Republicans in the US and many immigrants vote Conservative.
I have a feeling many Asian Californians are gonna be fed up with the lawlessness in their state and vote Republican in 2024. We'll see...
Blacks are only 6.5% of the CA population. Even accounting for this, California would be a swing state. And that's after decades conservative out-migration and the fact that the GOP doesn't even campaign there because it's a lost cause.
There is no correlation between being anti-immigration and losing non-white votes. If anything, the correlation is reversed. Trump/DeSantis did fantastic amongst non-whites by calling them rapists and wanting to deport them, while Amnesty Romney hit record lows.
The truth is immigrants hate immigrants. If Hispanics wanted to be around other Hispanics they could have stayed in Latin America. They don't want to be around their own people, they want to be around white people. That's why they came. The burden of immigration falls hardest on Hispanics (it's generally their schools and hospitals that get most flooded). After decades of being told the secret to winning the Hispanic vote is to be pro-immigrant, it turns out the opposite is true. Hispanics want to pull up the ladder behind them after they climbed to the top.
If this is true, why were Hispanics in California commonly voting for the GOP until proposition 187 and the anti-immigrant rhetoric of Pete Wilson?
https://www.cato.org/blog/proposition-187-turned-california-blue
It's strange that Prop 187 is Caplan's go-to solution on immigration (you can immigrate, but you can't get welfare) and yet it was a complete and total failure from minute one. It's a strange thing to bring up in favor of immigration.
Prop 187 passed 59/41, and overwhelming victory. Asians, who you would think would care if it were about immigration, split 50/50. Blacks, who normally vote 90% Dem also split about even on the issue as well. The only major group opposed was Hispanics, which makes sense since it was their welfare under threat.
Pete Wilson increased his vote share from 49% to 55% in 1994. Not as popular as Prop 187 but a solid showing.
Pete Wilson didn't run again, his replacement got a pathetic 38% of the vote. The article implies this was the blowback from Prop 187 that apparently turned all races against the GOP, which would be a very strange effect of a popular ballot initiative. I don't know much about mid-90s California politics. Wikipedia describes the 1998 GOP candidate as a kind of far right religious nut and says the #1 issue was education. I'm going to take a guess that Prop 187 wasn't the driving force in the election or an explanation of why the GOP lost the white vote.
Also interesting is that Bill Clinton won in California in the 1990s, including before Prop 187 came around. The DEMs being very anti-immigration in the 1990s didn't really stop them. Later GWB would do poorly despite supposedly being this pro-immigration embodiment of Texan acceptance according to CATO.
https://reason.com/2015/08/26/when-the-entire-democratic-party-was-lik/
Then there is Romney and the post Romney era. How did Romney do record lows with non-whites when he is the embodiment of what you might call the pro-amnesty woke GOP? Why did Trump swing the 90% Hispanic Rio Grand districts thirty points in his direction when he called them rapists and talked about building a wall right there? How did DeSantis become the first GOP candidate to win a Hispanic majority when his signature political stunt of the campaign was tricking some migrants onto a plane to Martha's Vineyard and then bragging about it on national TV?
Let me present my theory of Hispanic voting:
1) Take whatever the underlying white vote share in the region is and subtract 15%-35%. So if Texas whites vote 70% GOP in an election expect the Hispanic vote share to be under 50% but not 10%. If California whites vote 50% GOP expect Hispanics to vote in the 20s GOP.
This can move around with candidate quality, specific election issues, the nature of the Hispanics in question (where specifically are they from, who are they), local political circumstances, and a few other factors. But a significant gap always remains.
2) Hispanics vote on the economy like everyone else.
However, Hispanics are less interested in economic policies around things like lower taxes and more interested in things like free government benefits. When Mitt Romney ran on Reaganism and Obama ran on free healthcare, Hispanics choose the free healthcare. This is what you would expect of people with lower than average IQ that are net recipients of government.
Prop 187 is the embodiment of this, they wanted to protect their own welfare.
3) The GOP has won over hispanics for three reasons:
A) It has moved to the left economically. It no longer talks about entitlement reform, etc.
At the state level DeSantis got school vouchers but also raised teacher pay. A lot of the American south states have been able to use its in-migration budget surpluses to buy off both sides at once.
B) Immigrants hate immigrants, and being anti-immigrant helps the GOP with Hispanics.
C) The Democratic Party has gone insane, and in elections that are still competitive Hispanics will reflect that (in uncompetitive elections they jockey for position within the democrat coalition).
There are basically two paths forward for the GOP. One is Californian irrelevance. The other is to move to the left, become more and more the party that is aesthetically and economically aimed towards your average white Hispanic. Of course, that's what Trumpism looks like.
Either one is bad for the libertarian cause, but libertarians brought this on themselves through immigration.
The number of foreign born is closer to 30 percent
Why is Massachusetts left wing? Could it be folks of Irish extraction?
Gary Becker in 2011 proposed charging an entrance fee, at least $50,000. We should also sell or auction green cards. Green cards don’t grow on trees. A valuable product shouldn’t be free.
I see it
Bryan, would you agree that literally unlimited immigration is not reasonable? I.e. we probably can’t handle an influx of 30 million new people into the U.S. in a single year.
So why not support conditional immigration instead? For the U.S. it would be:
1. You must demonstrate good knowledge of English
2. You must have enough initial funds to rent a place to live or have a job offer that lets you afford a place to live
3. You can’t bring your family unless you make enough money to cover their expenses
4. No recourse to any form of government assistance, including public schooling
We would still get 3-4 million immigrants per year but they’d be much better selected for.
Myst, hwhat you are proposing is already a major improvement on current immgration policy! If only it were that simple.
Still, I disagree...
1. The US has no official language. Although the founding fathers were perhaps mostly of British-descent, at it's core, America is not an ethno-state. Americans speak the language of freedom. If, in 50 years, most Americans spoke Spanish, most of the time, but were just as free, and believed in American values of freedom, would they not still be Americans? Would it not still be America? That being said, English is the most widely spoken language in America. An immigrant who couldn't speak English would have a hard time getting a job in America. If I was considering moving to America, but didn't speak English, I would think twice about it or REALLY, REALLY study English before coming to America. But isn't that my risk to take? If an immigrant comes to America and doesn't speak English, but still manages to get a good job and take care of himself and his family, buy his groceries, buy hwhatever he needs and conduct any transactions he needs, what business is it of yours that he can't speak English?
2. Again, if I was an immigrant, I'd wanna come with a job offer or savings. But, we hear all sorts of stories: "My grandpa arrived in this country with 10 cents in his pocket..." Imagine all the people who wouldn't be in America today, if we had been applying this policy years ago! I say: Let people take their own risks! I get it, though, if you don't wanna see more homelessness. But isn't that their decision to make? Perhaps living as a homeless person in America is better than their living situation back in their old country? That being said, homelessness does create externalities: blocking sidewalks, litter, bad odours, public defecation, etc. But many of these issues can be dealt without restricting immigration. For example, don't allow homeless people on downtown sidewalks. Perhaps do allow them to camp for free in underdeveloped land on the outskirts of the city. It's not pretty. But if you think that's so inhumane, why didn't care that they were living in such conditions back home? Do you only care about poverty that you can see? The way I see it, many would rather be poor in America, than poor back home. There's more opportunities in America. It's their choice. Perhaps, some of them "didn't make it" in America and would prefer to go back to their home country but can't afford it. Perhaps, private charity could help them. Or family. Or, perhaps as a keyhole solution, if an immigrant does not arrive with a return ticket, they must pay a bond for the price of a return ticket. And if they are found, homeless, the government could spend that bond to buy them a return ticket. I don't think this will be too much of a problem, though. I think a lot of people fear that immigrants will come, won't be able to "make it" in America but after they've "failed", they would stay in America anyway, collecting welfare or being homeless. But actually, just like the subject of the song "Midnight Train to Georgia", many immigrants do return to their native countries. Just look at Canada! We have a rather low NET migration rate compared to our total immigration rate. Many immigrants give Canada a try, but can't make it or don't like it and leave!
3. That sounds nice. But hwho should decide if you make enough money to cover your family's expenses? Do you go by federal poverty line? Cause such a one-size-fits-all approach might be too much in Jackson, Mississippi, but not enough in San Francisco! Or do we have an army of expensive social workers inspecting immigrants' homes to make sure they're up to "American Standards"? And, again, should we really apply American standards? If their living situation in America is better than their living situation back home, why should we take that away from them? Even 4 people living in a studio apartment in LA, eating rice and beans for breakfast, lunch and dinner might be better off than 4 people living in a studio apartment eating beans and rice for breakfast, lunch and dinner in Manila. Cause, they and their children have a better chance of, one day, having a better life than in Manila. Although, to be fair, Manila's not so bad. There's worse.
4. Kinda makes sense. But I do think there ought to be SOME path to citizenship and its associated rights and privileges, for at least some of them, that's relatively meritocratic. For example, if you have a household income above the median income and you've lived in America for at least 7 out of the past 10 years and you've generally behaved yourself, you can get citizenship.
Still, seems kinda unfair that many native-born Americans would not meet this standard, yet still get Citizenship.
As for public schooling, the SCOTUS has ruled in Plyer v Doe, in 1982, that immigrant children are entitled to free K-12 public education, regardless of their parent's status. Fun fact: This is NOT the case in Canada! Parents of immigrant kids without the right status, would have to pay tuition for their kids to attend even a public school. This, despite our reputation as a relatively "immigrant-friendly" country! Also, even if Plyer v. Doe gets overturned, most immigrants' children, legal or otherwise, would be native-born American citizens, and thus entitled to a free public education.
“Free immigration with a U.S.-style welfare state is not a recipe for fiscal disaster.” Really? Visited NYC lately?
New York is fine. Although, to be fair, the last time I've been was 2017. Although, to be fair, I'd say: a US-style welfare state is a recipe for fiscal disaster. With or without immigration.
Yeah, in October. I’d heard the horror stories beforehand and was genuinely puzzled upon visiting because it looks way better now than it did 10 years ago.
Did you take the NYC subway? I would never let my wife or kids down there nowadays.
"Why the distinction between the native-born and the foreign-born?"
The native born can vote and the foreign born can't.
The problems of those that are near effect us in ways the problems of those that are far do not.
When a poor person lives in the third world, they are not a burden on the first world. We don't have to pay for their healthcare or education. They don't influence our electoral results. We don't have to divide our existing capital stock amongst them. We don't have to adjust our cultural mores to accommodate their presence.
When they move to the first world all of those things become our problem. This is why third world immigration destroys value and is fundamentally an act of violence. It is undertaken primarily for the purpose of obtaining first world welfare, even amongst those immigrants that work low wage jobs (which do not pay for themselves).
While we could apply this same logic to low end natives, those natives have the political power to defend themselves and are small enough as a % of the population that we've managed to model through well enough. It might in theory make sense to say send all black people to Liberia, but in practice it would be a nightmare to implement. By contrast, restricting immigration is something with broad popular support that is logistically and politically far more practical.
It's pointless to discuss getting rid of the welfare state, because said immigrants overwhelmingly vote for the welfare state. Modern California is the obvious outcome of this strategy, and is the reason most libertarians have turned away from Open Borders. They don't want the country to be a giant California (or Detroit).
Your fundamental disagreement is that immigrants are a burden, whereas the view of Bryan is that immigrants are, as a whole, net contributors. The data supports the latter viewpoint.
"The data supports the latter viewpoint."
It does not.
But if you have a strong aesthetic or ideological preference like Bryan for the data to show that, you will latch on to whatever flawed reasoning you wish.
It does. Dr. Caplan crunched the numbers. He does not just consider current legal immigrants. He does not just consider immigrants as a hwhole. He considers immigrants of different levels of education. For example, even an immigrant with less than a high-school level of education has is an overall contributor, as long as they immigrate to the US before the age of 25. Even with current US fiscal policies.
Wait, how can this be? US governments (Fed, State and Local) spend over $31k per capita on average! Surely, an immigrant who doesn't even have a high-school diploma doesn't pay this much in taxes!!! But, the thing is: First of all, many, if not most native-born Americans don't pay this much in taxes either!
Aaaaand, many things that governments spend on are non-congestible. For example, the US doesn't need a bigger army just because they have a higher population. So, mass immigration would cause per-capita military spending to decrease. Without making America less safe.
So let me get this straight.
Immigrants, especially the third world mass migration from neighboring countries kind that get everyone upset, have lower then average earnings then natives (especially white natives). They are more represented at the lower end of the bell curve (where costs are outsized) and less represented at the top of the bell curve (where benefits are outsized).
And yet somehow they aren't net drains, even though natives with the same overall characteristics are?
This is nonsense.
I've seen the same figures which properly account for lifetime net impact (educating children, paying for their retirement). And I've seen it with things like defense spending stripped out.
These people are still stealing seven figures over their lifetime before even considering more indirect costs. They are the equivalent of bank robbers, they just do it slower and via government.
https://www.emilkirkegaard.com/p/fiscal-impact-of-immigrants-by-country
Emil matches what I've seen. Hispanics aren't as bad as Arabs but quantity has a quality all its own.
Native parasites I have to deal with. They can vote and they are physically here. They are, luckily, outnumbered, such that the % of the white population that needs constant subsidy is small enough that it doesn't overly impinge on civilizational functioning (they are also less politically and socially damaging). As you load up the left side of the bell curve more and more through immigration that becomes less and less true.
I'm basing my argument on Dr. Caplan's own book: Open Borders. He quotes Blau and Mackie "The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/23550."
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/23550/chapter/1
I don't know about the fiscal impacts of native-born dropouts, so I can't compare. But perhaps, if you say they're a net fiscal drain then perhaps:
- The study saying that doesn't consider the long-run like the Blau and Mackie study.
- The study saying that doesn't differentiate between spending on congestible vs non-congestible government resources. i.e. a native-born high-school drop out may increase welfare spending, but doesn't necessarily increase defense spending
- Perhaps there are differences between native-born high-school drop-outs and immigrants with less than a high-school education. Americans are afforded a free high-school education in their local community which is higher-quality than education provided in many other countries. So, if they don't get a high-school diploma, it signals to employers that they are dumb and lazy. But an immigrant might just not have had the opportunity to get a high-school education. They might not be as dumb and lazy as an American high-school drop-out and, more importantly, employers may understand that given the economic circumstances of their native country, their lack of a high-school diploma does not necessarily mean that they are dumb or lazy, unlike an American drop-out.
- Also, perhaps your average immigrant without a high school education is more "ambitious" and "driven" than your typical native-born American drop-out. You know... Given the fact that he worked really hard to save for a plane ticket, left his family and friends behind and uprooted himself in search of a better life.
If any of that was true, we would see it in the statistics.
Natives and immigrants perform around the same level controlling for education/IQ, especially white vs non-white. But non-asian immigration is lower education/iq, with predictable results.
It is true that 1st generation immigrants are less degenerate (crime, divorce) relative to their IQs, but this quickly normalizes to their first world IQ equivalents by the following generations. Though immigrants exposed to the American welfare state are poisoned even in the first generation Puerto Ricans).
As Molbdug summarized:
https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2007/05/castes-of-united-states/
In the Dalit caste, status among men is defined by power, wealth and sexual success, among women by attractiveness and popularity. The favored occupation of Dalit men is crime, preferably of the organized variety. However, Dalit criminals are not generally psychopathic; they perceive crime as guerrilla warfare against an unjust society. Dalit women may support themselves by crime, welfare (which they consider a right), or payments from men. Both male and female Dalits may occasionally support themselves by conventional employment, but this is usually in jobs that other castes (except Helots) would consider demeaning, and Dalits share this association. The Dalit caste is not monolithic; it is divided into a number of ethnic subcastes, such as African-American, Mexican, etc. A few white Dalits exist, notably in the Appalachians. There is little or no solidarity between the various Dalit ethnicities.
The Helot caste is an imported peasant caste, originating primarily in rural Central America. Status among Helot men is conferred primarily by hard work, money and power. Status among Helot women is conferred by attractiveness, motherhood, and association with successful men. The Helot value system does not seem to be sustainable in the US, and the children of Helots tend to grow up as Dalits. New Helots, however, can always be imported to replace them.
Agree
The data can change in the future
But that "as a whole" mixes both contributors and non contributors to come to a net positive for the group. Why not instead just take the contributors in and leave the non contributors out?
That data is based on legal and not illegal immigrants?
This is kind of a long-winded way of admitting that Libertarianism has no actual relevance to real-word policy proposals and what libertarians actually do is just guess what the libertarian answer is based on what seems reasonable to them.
But, guess what, filling your country with dumb people from dysfunctional countries WHICH ARE DYSFUNCTIONAL FOR THE SOLE REASON THAT THEY ARE FULL OF DUMB PEOPLE is not a reasonable policy proposal. It's stupid, too stupid even to engage with except that it's actually happening.
Totally
First of all, Sheldon looks like a monk. Is he?
Next, with regards to bordertarians, I like to use the condo board analogy...
Absent government regulation (yay!), condo boards can make all sorts of rules regarding what condo owners, residents and guests can do as long as the majority agree. But SHOULD they?
Would you want to live in a condo hwhere...
1. The board would screen all your guests and tenants and pre-emptively ban those who come from the "wrong neighbourhood"? Or insist that they somehow PROVE A NEGATIVE to the board that they're not a criminal before being allowed access to your building's sacred halls? (Oh and just showing a clean records check is not enough. They know the police in that neighbourhood are useless.)
2. The board insists you must hire a fellow condo-resident to paint your condo? You can only hire someone from outside the building if NOBODY from the building wants to do it. For example, if Louise in 202's alcoholic son, Ralph, is willing to do it, for $30 per hour, then you can't hire Mike, a non-resident who has plenty of good references, 10 years experience and is willing to do it for $15 per hour.
3. Any short term guests or tenants must somehow convincingly prove to condo management that they are not planning to stay in the building indefinitely, before being admitted to the hallways and elevators of the building?
4. There is a quota of how many people are allowed to move in to or work in the building per year? If you wanna hire someone or rent your condo or to someone from the outside or invite your sister over and the quota is exceeded, they're put on a waiting list. Sometimes for up to 20 years!
If you answer yes to any of these questions, then hwhy do you call yourself a libertarian?
If you answer "no", wouldn't you agree that "we the people" should not restrict the freedom of association of other Citizens nor the freedom of movement of their guests?
Ok, say for whatever reason, I fail to convince you on the above grounds and you still insist: "WE THE PEOPLE have a right to collectively decide who uses our roads, parks, infrastructure and, etc."
Also, consider this: Suppose your condo board creates a management corporation with other condo boards from other buildings. Perhaps this gives them a certain "economies of scale" so it may be a good idea. The residents of all the condos that are part of this management corporation also become owners of this management corp with voting rights. Suppose you live in a student condo where people (including you) like to party every Friday night. But the majority of other members of this management corp are seniors living in 55+ communities, hwho enjoy their peace and quiet. Would you want to live in a condo where they impose a one-size-fits-all ban on all parties at all times?
Or would you say: "No offense, granny! But parties in MY building are really none of YOUR business. You can't even hear them from YOUR building."?
If the latter, consider this:
1. Who is the owner and decision maker of SFO airport? The City and County of San Francisco.
2. Who is the owner of the streets of San Francisco? The City and County of San Francisco.
3. Who owns the In-N-Out burger at 333 Jefferson St, San Franciso? The Snyder family.
4. Who owns the apartment building at 174 Turk St? I don't know. Some private landlord. Who owns the Bay Area Rapid Transit? The Bay Area Rapid Transit District.
So, if an immigrant flies to SFO airport, travels by BART train to downtown San Francisco, takes a job at the In-N-Out on Jefferson St and rents an apartment on Turk St and you live in Arizona... Tell me: hWhat business is it of yours? If THEY, the people of San Francisco, have chosen to allow immigrants to use their airports, sidewalks and trains as they are a "Sanctuary City", could we at least allow sanctuary cities to have open borders and not have the federal government interfere with that?
I didn't read the whole thing, full disclosure. But I'll tell you that lots of people want to live in gated communities in which someone from inside has to actively invite guests in. Seems fairly reasonable, and aside from inconvenience and expense of the gates, I suspect most people would choose to live in such a place.
"We" citizens either have the moral right to exclude or we don't. I assume you would allow that we can exclude foreign militaries and hordes or leppers, so now it's just a matter of degree.
Yep, as for your gated communities analogy, if applied to immigration policy, it would already be a MASSIVE improvement. If only immigrating to the US was as simple as being invited by a US Citizen! That being said, hwhilst that makes sense for residential communities, it doesn't necessarily make sense for business. Imagine a mall hwhere you needed a letter of invitation from a shop-owner before you were allowed to enter the mall to shop or go job-hunting! I don't think the shop-owners would like that!
As for your second piece, read the last part of my comment. The bordertarian argument of "We the People" having the right to exclude is that US Citizens have collective ownership of roads and other infrastructure that immigrants use to travel within the United States to the private property they live and/or work on. And, as such, they can choose who has access to these roads or other infrastructure. My argument, is that: In fact, local infrastructure is Owned by local citizens. The people of San Francisco own the SFO airport, the streets of San Francisco and the Fart train. THEY should get to decide hwho gets access to them. Not the federal government, not Arizonans, etc.
HOA communities are the fastest growing kinds of communities out there and make up nearly all new construction.
Yep. Already addressed that.
People who live in gated communities hire undocumented. A gate is a barrier like a wall. The hypocrisy is nauseating.
I have not read his book on open immigration. Does Bryan compare immigrants from various countries? Japan vs Canada vs Mexico?
What hypocrisy? They live behind a wall and also want a border wall? Sounds consistent. They also want people who they invite in to be able to work, but don't want random people coming in. This could also be consistent with quite restrictive immigration in conjunction with guest worker programs.
Rich people who live in gated communities don’t support a border wall. At least not in California
Love in n out burger
When I read that city officials are converting activity centers to hostels in order to provide beds for impoverished immigrants may we not conclude this is a failed policy? Clearly there is no free lunch with mass, socialized, immigration. The cost is real and it is, as usual, transferred to those with the least political power - the poor. Mass socialized immigration is a violation of the rule of law and of civic trust. Libertarianism without Law is Anarchy.
Look at hospitals in every city especially Denver
A good-faith objection - what would libertarians do about the homeless? Those homeless people won't disappear just because the commons they inhabit is privatised.
This post is practically arguing for open borders (i.e. no borders) and abolishing any and all distinction between citizens and aliens. How is this the mature libertarian position that considers current political landscape?
Per Deirdre McCloskey who says, start every libertarian suggestion with: “to help the poor.” To help the poor worldwide at no cost, create a big beautiful open immigration door with zero restrictions on employment. Virtually every objection to immigration can be traced back to the restriction by President Reagan on the employment of undocumented aliens.
Restrictions on the employment of undocumented immigrants in the US are easily bypassed, often with the willing support of state governments.
There's a bit of odd logic here. Somebody has to run and maintain public spaces (see: Tragedy of the Commons). Who would it be if not our freely elected public officials?
I am not sure about your point. Immigration isn't about maintaining public spaces, its about controlling private property -- who I rent to and hire.
That's a bit of a straw man. Many, myself included, would be quite lenient on foreigners coming here because they were explicitly invited by an employer to fill a job. Just wandering over the border is quite a different thing.
If only it were that simple, Chuck! That would already be a MAJOR step-up from America's current immigration policy.
But would you also allow tourists without a job offer?
I think he is addressing a particular bordertarian argument. Most libertarians would agree (I hope!) that you should be free to do hwhat you want with your own private property, rent to hwhom you want, and hire hwhom you want.
Anti-immigration libertarians a.k.a. "bordertarians" might respond: "Yea, BUT... The owners of the roads and airports, etc. that lead to your private property to work or live don't want them to use their roads or airports, that is their right. And the majority owners of America's roads and airports have spoken: they don't want most would-be immigrants.
I think this post is a rebuttal to that. See also my thoughtful "condo board" analogy in the comments. 🙂 I won't repeat it here.
Yes, and let's not forget "...and date, and invite to my parties, and have face-to-face political conversations with..."
I understand. I'm not commenting on immigration with which I generally agree. I'm talking about the part where Bryan writes about libertarian's views on public spaces.
I think the libertarian view on public spaces should be "sell them."
And as was mentioned, there are privately owned public spaces.
No mention of murder or rape
https://x.com/nro/status/1763260846376194107?s=46
Milton Friedman
https://youtu.be/3eyJIbSgdSE?si=N9UDk__MGONdRpQT
We have undocumented immigrants and homeless people defecating in public. Neither law is being enforced
"If "we" through the democratic process may shut immigrants out by keeping them off "our" public property, why can't we make other rules? How about a rule that says if you hold certain political or social views, you can't drive on the roads or use the courts and libraries?.. A country is not a country club."
That's Easy!
- Because the native born as hereditary owners of the US government are protected by a pre-existing agreement that rather explicitly bans the government from doing this, and so far this is one of the few parts that are not primarily honored in the breech!
"A country is not a country club." - Yes it is. It obviously is! It is currently a hybrid between a country club and a collection of country clubs. It used to be a collection of relatively independent country clubs. You might dislike this fact, and seek to change it, but you explicitly stated that the goal here was to describe grownup libertarian thinking in an Nth best society in which you can't always get what you ultimately want.
"In a partially free society, public property is presumptively open to the public: if someone makes it impossible for others to use it as intended, that person can properly be excluded."
"Could the non-disruption principle be used to justify any government restriction, such as closed borders? No. The case for any given rule should not rest on hypotheticals or highly unlikely events not intrinsic to a situation. "
Scratch non-disruption, what about my already limited right to protect my interests in the handling of my unfairly publicized property? This isn't a 'hypothetical or highly unlikely' thing to be concerned about. Under the existing bylaws of our country club (The US Constitution) any new arrivals get child citizens!
So your 'grownup' libertarian position ends up being that is that private right having been semi-publicized (public but restricted citizen ownership) should now be fully publicized because - "Why the distinction between the native-born and the foreign-born?/ What right do you have to your property anyway?
Just because we live in an nth-best world doesn't mean we can't change it incrementally to make it slightly better: an (n-1)th-best-world!
I would argue that the federal government doesn't own local infrastructure. So, it's no business of theirs hwhom the people of San Francisco wanna give access to their airport, roads and trains to. This would be like the country-club federation deciding who is allowed in YOUR local country club, hwhen it really makes NO difference to them. But hwhatever, apparently, your interpretation of nth-best world is we can't change federal immigration laws or, at least, decentralize them. I think the purpose of this thought experiment was to consider: should we liberalize immigration, even if we can't change the American welfare state? Cause a lot of bordertarians use the current American welfare state as an excuse not to liberalize immigration now.
But, in any case, regardless of hwhether you think Americans have the RIGHT to exclude immigrants... Should they? How exactly have immigrants made you worse off?
The first half of this reads like a parlor game where you try to reason as an ethical consequentialist without using any of its straightforward terms. Of course there are some things that are better for the state to restrict on public land: the things that cause the most harm, and whose restriction causes the least harm. The advantage of clear private title (partly described by the Coase Theorem) can be characterized in the same terms: providing incentives for less of the harmful stuff and more of the mutually beneficial stuff.