The Global Liberty Community
Why open and free immigration is bad idea (in this current state of affairs) UPDATED
I’ve this before, but I felt this should be getting its own column. Free and open immigration works – when there’s no welfare state or military industrial complex present like a hundred years ago when we last officially had open borders (though we’ve had de facto open borders since 1965 thanks to the late Ted Kennedy’s immigration bill which opened up third world immigration). Ever since then, the State has quadrupled in size and power (though LBJ’s War on Poverty and Nixon’s War on Drugs are obviously to blame). Though immigration coming in from the third world had a significant role in that as well. A great example of this is California. Prior to 1970, it was no.1 in the nation for education and had great roads and had a vibrating economy due to business friendly policies.
Though after Kennedy’s Immigration Act, immigrants from Mexico and Central America came pouring into the country, particularly California. Now in the 50 years since, formerly Golden State has become the quasi-Soviet Socialist Republic of California with some of the highest taxes, gratuitous red tape and regulations and gun control laws in the country. For the past ten years, California has been consistently ranked at the bottom of Chief Executive Magazine’s Best and Worst States for Business with Texas ranking at the exact opposite (as a sidenote NY, IL, NJ and MA are all at the bottom too).
Now why is it California has gotten so badly messed up in the course of 40 years? It’s because of a huge wave of third-world immigrants coming in and voting Democrat leftists into power. Last time California voted for the Republican nominee for President was ’88 for George.H.W.. Ever since then though, it’s consistently and lately overwhelmingly voted for the Democrat nominee. It gave Barack Obama 60% or better in ’08 and ’12. In 2014, Hispanics outnumbered caucasians in the overall demographics for the first time.
Yes California has voted for Republican governors typically, but looks as though it won’t be doing so again for a long long time (not that the last “GOP” governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was anything special as he got in bed with leftists and environmentalists quite often).I should mention California’s gun laws in more detail are incredibly draconian. The State’s Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom vehemently despises the 2nd amendment while ironically at the same being for more freedom on pot.
California also has over a third of the country’s welfare recipients while only having roughly 12% of the whole population. Much of those recipients are of course immigrants. Which leads me to my next segment. Over half of all immigrants regardless of legal status are on welfare while only 30% of the native-born population are using welfare. Breaking down the numbers, Mexican and Central American immigrants are on welfare by rate of 73%, Caribbean immigrants are 51%, African immigrants 48%, South American immigrants 40%, East Asian immigrants at 32%, European immigrants at 26% and South Asian or oriental immigrants being the lowest at 17%.
Middle East refugees also tend to be on welfare and higher cost to resettle here in the US or in Europe than somewhere else in the Middle East. And I’m baffled to see the Cato Institute which usually has it right to be calling on Obama to defy public opinion which is against resettlement of Middle Eastern refugees. Not is this so incredibly stupid considering the costs, but the risks of bringing in Jihadists is too high. The attackers in Paris got into the country via the refugee program. As a general rule, when you’re at war you don’t take in military men or women from countries you’re at war with. This would be very like Great Britain taking hundreds of thousands or millions of military aged Germans while fighting the Hitler and the Nazis. Or the US taking in young Japanese men right after Pearl Harbor. It goes against all common sense.
If you disagree with my analysis at least consider some of the points. For more information on this, I suggest you go watch Stefan Molyneux’s Truth about Immigration and numerous other videos he has on the issue.
P.S. You actually can constitutionally bar immigration from particular countries so Donald Trump isn’t so wrong on that note.
UPDATE: Lauren Southern (former Libertarian Party of Canada candidate) on open borders and the migrant crisis.
Join The Discussion
15 CommentsThoughts? Comments?
Please login or register to post a comment.
Chip Marce December 13, 2015 , 3:29 pm Vote2
This is a good, well thought out article. As I’ve noted elsewhere, I think it’s foolish to get involved in an interfactional dispute between people who are united in their dislike of liberty , so I don’t see much point in discussing whether Donald Trump or Hillary or any other of the mainstream politicians are right or wrong on this.
From a policy perspective, I plainly disagree with further immigration at this point. Nevermind the religious or political beliefs of those seeking to immigrate, it’s plain that the immigration policy that we have is broken and it’s time to shut the door. Immigration is not for the benefit of those immigrating so much as it’s for the benefit of those on the receiving end. Can we plausibly argue that what we’re getting much benefit from immigration at this point? Perhaps it missed my notice, but I’m not aware of any burning shortage of unskilled laborers. Nor am I aware of any serious problems with depopulation. Political theory regarding open borders is all good and nice….except when it doesn’t work in reality.
Jonathan Gillispie December 13, 2015 , 4:07 pm
@marcerr No argument there. Actually I don’t mind immigration from say Europe or Southern Asia. Those immigrants are less likely than the native-born population to be on welfare. I don’t understand the need to bring in more immigrants from Mexico and Central America when they’re clearly a net negative on the taxpayer. They also tend to overwhelmingly vote Democrat at the ballot and in polling say they favor bigger government with more services. Not to say there aren’t libertarian Hispanics around as they are; but only 12% of the Hispanic population identify or lean as such. 52% are mixed and over a third identify as collectivist. Not sure why some libertarians see bringing in more illegal immigrants as a benefit to liberty when two-thirds identify or lean Democrat and a third say they’re communist or lean communist.
Chip Marce December 13, 2015 , 6:51 pm Vote0
I tend to think that immigration should be strictly based on merit. Do we really care where we get a particular skillset from, so long as we get the skillset? That also neatly avoids a race or religion based system. So sorry if there aren’t a lot of astrophysicists graduating from Yemen: if thats what we need, those should be the skillsets that go to the front of the line.
Further, if we want to make the argument that the government cannot make a good decision of what skills are and are not needed, then that should lead to a default of no further immigration.
Ryan McCormick December 13, 2015 , 7:11 pm Vote4
The US should let in as many immigrants as possible and put them all on welfare in order to overload the welfare state. That will hasten the collapse of the ponzi scheme that is imposed on us by the Federal Reserve. The longer it takes to fail the worse the inevitable hangover will be.
Mal Roarke is a pseudonym... December 13, 2015 , 8:44 pm
Agreed Ryan: Freedom to Travel is a natural right.
What better way to break the State welfare system than to [stand back and watch] overload [of] it and rush it to its logical, economic conclusion–i.e. collapse, rather than dragging along for another 5 decades.
The welfare system in the USA (I can’t speak for Europe) has written rules forbidding welfare to NON-citizens, and yet THE RULES ARE IGNORED BY THE GOVERNMENT WELFARE EMPLOYEES.
For a much better presentation than I can possibly give here, see details at
https://tinyurl.com/Ask-Right-Question
Excerpt from https://disqus.com/by/DennisLeeWilson/
Jonathan Gillispie December 14, 2015 , 7:34 pm Vote0
I’m not sure just crashing the whole system by bringing leftist immigrants from the third world in order to bring about real is gonna work. I mean Greece is crashing burning right now and yet the socialist run government continues raising taxes and spending a lot. South Africa is crashing and burning from two decades of leftist rule from the ANC and they still continue spending and taxing the working people. California is crashing and burning and the politicians continue passing gratuitous red tape and regulations and continue violations of the 2nd amendment. Because as long as the Democratic Socialists are in power, they ain’t gonna give a shit about solvency and debt. The only that matters to them is whether they remain in power. California has become this socialist nightmare of a mess because of immigration from the third world which started 50 years ago. Those immigrants were dependent on welfare so they voted in the party that gave them more free shit. Last the California Republican Party controlled the State Legislature was in the early 70s. Democrats have since then enjoyed an almost uninterrupted dictatorship like rule over California chasing out businesses small and big with huge taxes, regulations and corruption. That’s gonna be the nation if this doesn’t stop. The California GOP has become a shill for amnesty and open borders and yet hasn’t gotten real political traction in a couple of decades. The US Libertarian Party is all open borders and free immigration and yet 85% of their voters are white. That’s 10 points higher than the electorate in general. Advocating to let more immigrants ain’t gonna win you votes. Doesn’t work.
Chip Marce December 14, 2015 , 8:56 pm Vote1
I still live here. My family still lives here. Collapsing what exists and sticking it to “the man” might sound real good, until you think a couple of moves ahead as to what is likely to replace it. A free and better society isn’t the likely end result: an autocracy is. Or a civil war. And those of us who pay taxes get to pay out the money in the mean time. So what you’re recommending is a Really Bad Idea.
Destroying is always easier than creating.
Mal Roarke is a pseudonym... December 13, 2015 , 8:22 pm
Regarding your article “PS You actually can constitutionally bar immigration from particular countries so Donald Trump isn’t so wrong on that note.”
For historical accuracy, I point out that the USA Constitution does NOT AUTHORIZE immigration control or border control. Until the early 1900s, the borders were WIDE OPEN! Closing the borders is a recent, UNCONSTITUTIONAL act by YOUR government. I have also gathered and written quite a bit on that subject.
https://tinyurl.com/ILLEGAL-LAWS
[2007-06-10] “Immigration control is UN-Constitutional!” (And so is Drug control!)
REALLY! Its TRUE! The US Constitution does NOT AUTHORIZE immigration control!
P.S., that goes for EXIT control & DRUG control also!!
“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” – U.S. Supreme Court, Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425 (1886)
Not until 1891 did federal law provide for the inspection of immigrants arriving at land border ports. Under the 1891 law, the Federal Government assumed the task of inspecting, admitting, rejecting, and processing all immigrants seeking admission to the United States.
Enforcing immigration law was a new, self-authorized, UNconstitutional Federal function, and the 1890s witnessed the Immigration Service’s first attempts to implement national immigration policy
Excerpt from
https://disqus.com/by/DennisLeeWilson/
Sent from my 4G LTE Device
Jonathan Gillispie December 14, 2015 , 7:22 pm Vote0
Yes we did have open borders back in the late 19th and early 20th century. But it was without a welfare state or military industrial complex which go hand in hand. And where in the constitution does it prohibit explicit or implied border controls? After WWI, there were many communists from Russia who immigrated to the US under orders from the COMINTERN to spread communism. So we closed up the borders so Marxist ideologue couldn’t spread. Plus so also the immigrant population would properly assimilate into the dominant culture. During and after WWII, German immigration was greatly restricted and the screening process scrutinized so Nazis couldn’t get in. It matters what kind of culture the immigrants are coming from. Prior to the 1960s, the vast majority immigrants were coming from Europe which at the time was a pro-freedom and laissez faire culture. However with the 1965 Immigration Act that was sponsored by the late Ted Kennedy, the immigration patterns radically changed. It pretty much closed off western immigration and opened the floodgates to the third world such as Mexico and Central America. Not many of these immigrants were exposed to laissez faire pro-freedom culture and so tended to be leftist and socialist leaning in politics and tended to be on welfare. So they voted for and supported the party that’ll grant that and more so (hint hint; that party starts with a D). I do completely agree on the issue of drug prohibition and favor eliminating the Drug War, repealing federal drug laws and letting states take their own approach to the matter. However open borders and free immigration are an entirely different issue and letting that happen with a welfare state is disaster (ask Sweden http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/175434/1-4-swedish-women-will-be-raped-sexual-assaults-daniel-greenfield). Freedom is not just something that can be conjured up overnight, it took the West 2,500 years of countless blood and treasure to develop a culture of freedom, limited government, separation of church and state, property rights, rule law and laissez faire markets. To undo all that, it can take as little as 50 years to accomplish. Over 2 millennia versus 5 decades. It’s very much like a house of cards. Takes time to build it up and perfect it, but very short time to bring it crashing down.
Mal Roarke is a pseudonym... December 13, 2015 , 9:47 pm
The ends do NOT justify the means. Using bad means is ALWAYS wrong, no matter how “good” your intentions are. The moral costs of initiated force far outweigh any claimed benefit.
Immigration control leads to LESS liberty and MORE government control. It is an absurd “tactic” for anyone who’s alleged goal is liberty.
If welfare is a problem, abolish government welfare rather than expand government into immigration control!
If drugs are a problem, abolish the government drug war rather than expand government into immigration control!
If refugees from war zones are a problem, abolish government bombings and funding of terrorists rather than expand government into immigration control!
There are ALWAYS non-violent alternatives to every program that The State undertakes. Whatever “results” are desired, using government to achieve them is not justified.
If the wrong questions are asked, the answers do not matter. Ask the right questions. (See article link by DLW in prior comments)
Chip Marce December 14, 2015 , 9:13 pm Vote0
@mal roarke: whether the ends justify the means is dependent on the scenario. Does the end of you, not some theoretical person, but YOU having your life saved as a result of some sort of relatively noninvasive security screening mechanism justify those means? Most likely it does.
It’s not so simple to say that the “ends don’t justify the means” when it happens to be your life or your family’s life that is in the crosshairs. I suspect that all of the families of those recently killed in San Bernardino would have been perfectly fine with doing noninvasive screening, for example checking Facebook pages for the wife that indicated that she was a jihadist before handing her a visa. But in a fit of stupidity and misguided concern over “privacy”, information that was on public forum was not checked and 14 families got to bury a loved one as a result of it.
Mal Roarke is a pseudonym... December 14, 2015 , 11:50 pm
@marcerr regarding: “whether the ends justify the means is dependent on the scenario”.
No it’s not. Thank you for your candor. I know who to avoid between now and when the govt collapses. People who are UNprincipled cannot be trusted.
You would sell out the NAP at the earliest opportunity, and you already have.
Chip Marce December 18, 2015 , 2:03 am Vote0
LOL! I guess if I were in the vaunted majority, either a libertarian or someone who actually considered the NAP to be the cat’s meow, I guess your comment would be damning. But happily I’m not in the vaunted majority.
Mal Roarke is a pseudonym... December 18, 2015 , 3:14 am
@marcerr I suspected such. And I called you out on it. And now you admit and confirm it.
So why are you here? What’s your purpose? Why are you paying subscription on a site like Liberty.me? What are you investing in? I would like to know. And perhaps other inquiring minds would like to know too? This is not meant to be frivilous, it’s a serious question.
Zeroth Position December 18, 2015 , 1:44 pm Vote1
https://reece.liberty.me/the-pragmatic-libertarian-case-against-open-borders/