The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Vox: "The Case for Open Borders"
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

In Ezra Klein’s Vox, which doesn’t allow reader comments, Dylan Matthews writes a long article:

The Case for Open Borders

“What would you think about a law that said that blacks couldn’t get a job without the government’s permission, or women couldn’t get a job without the government’s permission, or gays or Christians or anyone else?” George Mason economist Bryan Caplan asks. It’s a pretty easy question. Obviously, such a law is discriminatory on its face, serves no rational purpose, and is unacceptable in a liberal democracy. But Caplan continues: “So why, exactly, is it that people who are born on the wrong side of the border have to get government permission just to get a job?”

This is Caplan’s elevator pitch for open borders, an idea that for years was treated as deeply unserious, as an extreme straw man that nativists could beat up in the course of resisting more modest efforts to help immigrants. It had its defenders — philosopher Joseph Carens primary among them — but they were relatively lonely voices.

Nobody remembers nuthin’ … At the absolute peak of its influence in the 1984 through 2000 era, the Wall Street Journal repeatedly editorialized for a five-word Constitutional Amendment: “There shall be open borders.” Open Borders’ isn’t some lonely genius’s great new idea, it is the traditional reductio ad absurdum of one of the dominant ideologies of the age.

We are also treated to a long interview with Bryan Caplan on the need for Open Borders.

As Caplan himself observed last year:

Think about it like this: Steve Sailer’s policy views are much closer to the typical American’s than mine. Compared to me, he’s virtually normal. But the mainstream media is very sweet to me, and treats Steve like a pariah. I have to admit, it’s bizarre.

This pattern can be explained by a general trend among, say, intelligent commenters dissenting from mainstream media increasingly sounding like me. In response to repeatedly losing the arguments over immigration with anonymous commenters, the MSM is becoming even more extremist and thus turns to Caplan’s not-quite-right-in-the-head moral absolutism to justify their positions.

 
Hide 80 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. I wonder whether Dylan Matthews, Ezra Klein, and the folks at Vox believe that anyone who wants to should just be allowed to walk into Israel and get a job (and a home) there. (If they turn out to be anti-Zionists and answer yes, then flip the question and ask whether any person who wanted to should have been allowed to just step off a boat into Mandatory Palestine and get a job (and a home) there.)

  2. “So why, exactly, is it that people who are born on the wrong side of the border have to get government permission just to get a job?”

    Why? Because they are born on the wrong side of the border. What is it about the word ‘wrong’ does this wise sage of universalism not understand? It is borders that give governments any substance and authority. No borders? No government. No sovereignty.

  3. more third world worker consumers means more cheap labor and more consumers to spend in stores etc. That means the media gets more money from corporate advertising. Pretty simple. But I seem to be the only person in the world to see this!

  4. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    An excerpt:

    But, nevertheless, I think most Europeans have been shocked by how much immigration has occurred. Part of me suspects there was sort of a pro-immigration element that knew that there would be more immigration and just pushed it through, and were not totally honest, which ultimately I approve of, when so much good can be done.

    Caplan’s not exactly improving his credibility here…

    • Replies: @Shadow
    @Anonymous

    ..."Caplan's not exactly improving his credibility here..."


    What credibility?

  5. “So why, exactly, is it that people who are born on the wrong side of the border have to get government permission just to get a job?”

    Border?! WHAT Border??? … I wish that our federal gov’t recognized our border and that we had a wall

  6. Caplan isn’t demented, moral absolutism is the official ideology and under it people are an end and never a means; hence there is no principled justification for keeping people out. Immigration law has disparate impact on universal humanity so it is slowly being brought into line with universal absolute morality. People who think like Caplan matter, the typical American does not.

    • Replies: @Lurker
    @Sean


    People who think like Caplan matter, the typical American does not.
     
    Lets clarify. Caplan doesnt really matter too much ... what matters is his particular lunacy sounds like a good pseudo-intellectual cover for what certain elite folks want to do. He doesnt motivate them, he just says stuff they like the sound of.

    The point of destroying Caplan's *ahem* 'arguments' and those that come after him is to try force the elite into the open, to declare why they really want mass immigration. Reasons which they well understand are indefensible.
  7. Yeah Hubbub is on to something. Apparently I too was born on the “wrong” side of the border–the side which has 40% of its income confiscated by the US Government.

    I’m fine with letting the left run libertarian-anarchy arguments against borders if we get to run them against taxes, anti-discrimination laws, etc.

  8. Priss Factor [AKA "pizza with hot pepper"] says:

    Open borders go with mental disorders.

  9. “open borders’ and ‘jobs’ are not mutually inclusive. Many conflate ‘open borders’ as a job issue, when it’s possible to have border control with job openings for immigrants. That’s what some republicans advocate – a meritocracy that allows talented foreigners entry while keeping others out. It’s not literal open borders.

  10. So why, exactly, is it that people who happen to live on the wrong side of my fence have to get my permission just to eat and sleep in my house?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @candid_observer

    "So why, exactly, is it that people who happen to live on the wrong side of my fence have to get my permission just to eat and sleep in my house?"

    Because you are evil.

    Replies: @Bobbala

    , @Rapparee
    @candid_observer

    I asked an "immigration-reform" enthusiast a similar question once. He replied that yes, it is a great idea to invite scary-looking strangers into your house to meet your wife and children, without first attempting to determine if they might be threatening.

    Then he angrily accused me of being naive and out-of-touch with reality.

  11. @candid_observer
    So why, exactly, is it that people who happen to live on the wrong side of my fence have to get my permission just to eat and sleep in my house?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Rapparee

    “So why, exactly, is it that people who happen to live on the wrong side of my fence have to get my permission just to eat and sleep in my house?”

    Because you are evil.

    • Replies: @Bobbala
    @Steve Sailer

    ... and racist.

  12. “Think about it like this: Steve Sailer’s policy views are much closer to the typical American’s than mine. Compared to me, he’s virtually normal. But the mainstream media is very sweet to me, and treats Steve like a pariah. I have to admit, it’s bizarre.”

    Good thing there is no money in articulating the wishes of the dominant social class. I wouldn’t want anyone to think Caplan was benefiting from his ‘bizarre’ adherence to moral principles.

    • Replies: @International Jew
    @Sean

    "But the mainstream media is very sweet to me, and treats Steve like a pariah. I have to admit, it’s bizarre.”

    Nothing bizarre about it; the MSM treat the median American -- his values, his interests -- as a pariah.

  13. Jobs! Everybody in the world has a right to a Job in Magic America.

    Including for example every member of ISIS (abattoir skills), Al-Quaeda (great PR guys), the Taliban, various African insurgent/militia groups (security guards?) and their captured harems (possible sex workers).

    It’s tragic how the selfish American gubmint discriminates by denying non citizens their rightful Jobs In America. Oh, the horror they must suffer!

  14. “When you put that together, it’s at least unclear whether most Americans lose,” Caplan surmises. “Furthermore, you can change your occupation. You could move to a job that does less of what is worth less after immigration, and move into a job that does more of what’s valued more.”

    Isn’t this the same argument liberal activists get mad at the techies in SF about? Did I miss something?

    Activist: I’m too poor to pay rent in SF
    Techie: You should have worked in tech! Not too late to learn to code and switch careers
    Activist: Arrogant bourgeoisie bastard!

    • Replies: @grey enlightenment
    @Mark Armistead

    techies and open border activists tend to be neo and classical liberals. the activists are welfare liberals.

    Replies: @Boomstick

  15. One good thing about this open borders site is that they link to webpages that present an opposing point of view. This is unusually honest.

    See for example

    http://super-economy.blogspot.ca/2010/09/dont-believe-hype-somali-immigration-to.html

  16. @Mark Armistead
    "When you put that together, it’s at least unclear whether most Americans lose," Caplan surmises. "Furthermore, you can change your occupation. You could move to a job that does less of what is worth less after immigration, and move into a job that does more of what’s valued more."

    Isn't this the same argument liberal activists get mad at the techies in SF about? Did I miss something?

    Activist: I'm too poor to pay rent in SF
    Techie: You should have worked in tech! Not too late to learn to code and switch careers
    Activist: Arrogant bourgeoisie bastard!

    Replies: @grey enlightenment

    techies and open border activists tend to be neo and classical liberals. the activists are welfare liberals.

    • Replies: @Boomstick
    @grey enlightenment

    "techies and open border activists tend to be neo and classical liberals."

    There isn't much support for that idea about techies in the aggregate. Silicon Valley elected officials are down the line progressives and Obama has won the Silicon Valley counties by huge margins.

  17. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    It would be interesting if Slate ran an article about Open Borders just to see what the comments would be. Vox is cowardly in not allowing comments.

    The comments on Slate are usually horrible and full of lefty Narrative thinkers, but even they will call out some articles they find too ridiculous and insulting. I suspect an argument for Open Borders would fall into that category.

  18. ““What would you think about a law that said that blacks couldn’t get a job without the government’s permission, or women couldn’t get a job without the government’s permission, or gays or Christians or anyone else?”

    I would like to see this guy tell the Chinese government to their face that they are racist for not having open borders and wanting to China to remain a predominantly ethnically Han country.

    Or maybe he won’t because he is part of the 1 percent who is in the tank for China, because America buys so much of their stuff.

  19. ““What would you think about a law that said that blacks couldn’t get a job without the government’s permission, or women couldn’t get a job without the government’s permission, or gays or Christians or anyone else?””

    If I was an African American, I would be offended that Illegal Immigrants in this country are being compared to the struggles of African Americans during Jim Crow and slavery.

    African Americans were sent to the U.S against their own will, while Hondurans, Salvadorians, Guatemalans, Mexicans, etc voluntarily come here. Nobody put a gun to their heads, enslaved them, and forced them to come here.

  20. He’d have a better argument if the wannacomes spoke English. Unless they do, there’s no “discrimination.”

  21. “Imagine that you’ve got a million people farming in Antarctica. They’re eking out this bare subsistence in agriculture in the snow,” he says. “Obviously, if you let those farmers leave Antarctica and go someplace else to farm, the farmers are better off. But isn’t it also better for the world if you let people stop eking out this existence, contributing nothing to the world, and go someplace where they could actually use their skills and not just feed themselves, but produce something for the world economy?”

    MMM, a counterfactual that presumes a population of Antarctic farmers….We’re deep in “Assume that we have a can opener” territory here.

    Alternately, think about what happened in the 1960s and ’70s as more and more women joined the workforce in the United States. Was the result mass unemployment for men, as women took all their jobs? Of course not — the economy adjusted, and we’re all better off for it.

    Are we?

    With numbers that big, the potential gains are enormous. A doubling of world GDP is a reasonable estimate. “This isn’t just trickle-down economics. It’s Niagara Falls economics,” he says. “If production in the world were to double, almost everyone is going to get enough of that doubling that they’re going to, in the end, be better off as a result. You can’t double the output of the world and leave a lot of people poor as a result.”

    I’m a bit more concerned about per capita income myself….

    Not necessarily. “Low-skilled” is actually kind of a misleading term here. Even American high school dropouts have at least one key skill that immigrants generally don’t: the ability to speak English. That makes it possible for immigrants to complement the labor of low-skilled, native-born workers, rather than replacing it. “Low-skilled Americans who are fluent in English in a place like New York City wind up supervising the low-skilled immigrants,” Caplan says. “They wind up being the bridge, or the people who train immigrants in jobs that they wouldn’t even know about from their home countries.”

    Yeah, who could imagine any problems arising from having an English-speaking overclass ruling over a non-Anglo proletariat….

    Immigration also has a well-documented, positive effect on housing prices. Most Americans own homes at some point in their life, so even if they lose out from immigration in the labor market, they could make up the loss in the housing market.

    So who cares if owning your own home becomes essentially impossible for future generations of Americans, or whatever it is that we are going to call the people inhabiting what used to be America.

    “The Americans who lose from immigration are those who are very low-skilled, who also don’t speak very good English to begin with, and also don’t own real estate,” Caplan concludes. “It’s a quite small group. If you’re a real nationalist who cares about all Americans, then you should favor immigration, because only like 5 or 10 percent of Americans are losing.” And in any case, whatever losses that 5 or 10 percent incurs are swamped by the gains to the rest of the world, and in particular the migrants themselves.

    Besides, they’re losers anyway. Screw ’em.

    In any case, emigration actually helps home countries in a wide variety of ways. Emigrants typically send back money, which can be hugely consequential for their home country’s economy. They can create social networks in host countries, and later come home and use those connections to advance their home country’s development. Caplan points to the Chinese diaspora as a prime example:

    MMM, somehow I don’t think that the Chinese model will prove very useful when we are talking about Zulus or Amazonian Amerinds….

    “A lot of what’s going on in the development of China is there is this huge, disparate community of ethnic Chinese all over the place, and they have relatives in China. This makes it very easy for them to do business with each other.”

    That’s the ticket. We could have a million ethnic mafias. Why, we could live in a world as perfect as the one imagined in SNOW CRASH

    Moreover, actual examples we have of open borders suggest that migrants’ home countries actually benefit. Take Puerto Rico. Shortly after the US conquered it in the Spanish American War, the Supreme Court established that it was illegal to restrict migration between the island and the rest of the United States. The result was open borders between the US and a much poorer territory, imposed more or less randomly by a court. It made for a good test of the policy’s effect: since then, Puerto Rico has far surpassed neighboring countries like the Dominican Republic economically.

    And importing all those Puero Ricans has had absolutely no negative consequences for the USA….Well, at least no negative consequences for people who count…

    Caplan notes. “Over half the population has left, but Puerto Rico, by the standards of Caribbean island nations, is a paradise.”

    Over half the population has left? I dunno, seems to me that there could be some problems in terms of scale…..I mean, what if half of Mexico decamps for the USA? And then half of Nigeria….

    If immigrants hurt American workers, we can charge immigrants higher taxes or admission fees, and use the revenue to compensate the losers.

    Wouldn’t that defeat the purpose of the plan (letting in the desperately poor)?

    If immigrants burden American taxpayers, we can make immigrants ineligible for benefits.

    Yeah, that’s going to happen

    If immigrants hurt American culture, we can impose tests of English fluency and cultural literacy.

    Seeing as how we can’t even have English only ballots, the odds of that happening are nil.

    If immigrants hurt American liberty, we can refuse to give them the right to vote.

    MMM, this is starting to remind me of another mass-immigration plan that was tried a while back….I think that it was called slavery. It didn’t end well.

    Caplan doesn’t support any of these policies on their own; if he had his druthers, he’d just open the borders. “I think you should let immigrants become citizens because they’ve been so sorely abused by American citizens for so many years,” he says.

    It’s time that those Americans bastards got some payback, eh?

    But the point is there’s no reason to wait that long. “To me,” Caplan says, “a big point of open borders is just to fast-forward to the world of the future where everyone can enjoy a First-World standard of living rather than making people wait 100 years.”

    Immanentize the eschaton!

  22. @candid_observer
    So why, exactly, is it that people who happen to live on the wrong side of my fence have to get my permission just to eat and sleep in my house?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Rapparee

    I asked an “immigration-reform” enthusiast a similar question once. He replied that yes, it is a great idea to invite scary-looking strangers into your house to meet your wife and children, without first attempting to determine if they might be threatening.

    Then he angrily accused me of being naive and out-of-touch with reality.

  23. What about the identity, “outsourcing jobs” = insourcing cheap labor” is confusing. The only way to reduce inequality by increasing the economic minimum wage for poor, legal, Americans is to stop insourcing cheap labor.

    But, even more interesting than why we are casual about enforcing our southern border is the fact that we have unlimited immigration between states. Anyone is free to just up and move from Mississippi to Maine. California is full of Okies, Arkies, and freebooters from all over the country. &c.

    The EU is starting to figure it out. Do they want Romanian cab drivers in the UK? Or to pay up for natives? The only time I have had a hotel room cleaned by an extremely attractive blonde was in London, and the maid was Polish. Hauling in Eastern Europeans may be the best way for Western Europe to pull out of their demographic decline.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @FWIW

    Hauling in Eastern Europeans may be the best way for Western Europe to pull out of their demographic decline.

    Britain and France have only mild fertility deficits. Roughly 100,000 settler-immigrants each year would suffice to cover the shortfalls in Britain's birth cohorts. In France, 50,000 might suffice as we speak. In Ireland, perhaps 3,000. Fertility deficits are worse in Scandinavia, but about 45,000 settlers per annum would cover it all. The same might suffice for the Low Countries. The real fertility problems are in the Germanophone states and on the Mediterranean, because you not only have shortfalls (which you have in Slavic Europe as well), but the total fertility rates are abidingly bad and have not seen flux in recent decades.

  24. Priss Factor [AKA "pizza with hot pepper"] says:

    open borders or broken borders?

    using the logic of open borders, we should be allowed to crash into any community and set up tent and squatter communities.

    so, where does bill gates live? where’s my tent set?

  25. With articles like that, its no wonder there are no comments allowed.

  26. The funny thing is, with his views on parenting and education, Bryan, like Summers and a few other liberals, does have some HBD cred.

    this list, which is laced with subtle themes of biological determinism , is a good example:

    http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2014/09/what_every_high.html

    He’s intimating that like the 150 pound football player, some people are not ‘physically’ cut out for higher education, which is analogous to them not being smart enough.

    The disagreement lies in the fact most economists, including Bryan, don’t believe in closed borders because it’s pareto inefficient to restrict labor options. It goes against the teachings of economics.

  27. @Sean
    "Think about it like this: Steve Sailer’s policy views are much closer to the typical American’s than mine. Compared to me, he’s virtually normal. But the mainstream media is very sweet to me, and treats Steve like a pariah. I have to admit, it’s bizarre."

    Good thing there is no money in articulating the wishes of the dominant social class. I wouldn't want anyone to think Caplan was benefiting from his 'bizarre' adherence to moral principles.

    Replies: @International Jew

    “But the mainstream media is very sweet to me, and treats Steve like a pariah. I have to admit, it’s bizarre.”

    Nothing bizarre about it; the MSM treat the median American — his values, his interests — as a pariah.

  28. I saw this earlier today on the Twitter and couldn’t agree more.
    @MarkSKrikorian · Sep 14
    Please, @voxdotcom, do everythng in your power to make @bryan_caplan the public face of comprehnsve immigratn reform!

  29. Marty [AKA "wick"] says:

    The best response to this idiot was written by leftist Michael Walzer years ago in an essay titled, “Can There Be a Decent Left?” In part:

    [C]an there be a decent left in a superpower? Or more accurately, in the only superpower? Maybe the guilt produced by living in such a country and enjoying its privileges makes it impossible to sustain a decent (intelligent, responsible, morally nuanced) politics. Maybe festering resentment, ingrown anger, and self-hate are the inevitable result of the long years spent in fruitless opposition to the global reach of American power. Certainly, all those emotions were plain to see in the left’s reaction to September 11, in the failure to register the horror of the attack or to acknowledge the human pain it caused, in the schadenfreude of so many of the first responses, the barely concealed glee that the imperial state had finally gotten what it deserved.

  30. When the idea that your group could ever actually gain dominance is absolutely hopeless, you give up. A lot of what’s going on in Iraq is there are two groups or three groups, each one of which thinks they might be able to win, but if you add in some Iraqi Sunnis and Iraqi Shiites and Iraqi Kurds to the US, they’re not going to kill each other here, because there is no way they’re going to get control of the US. It’s just hopeless.

    MMMM, but in America, can’t they all just mobilize against the evil White Anglos? That one never seems to get old for the POC brigade.

    For example, in Scandinavia, back when they were entirely blonde up there, a government share of GDP of 60 or 70 percent had broad social support, and it really has fallen since. Now, more like 50 or 60 percent has broad social support. If you talk to people in those countries, it does seem like immigration plays a big role in reducing support, and most of it comes from a sense that a fellow blonde person would never take advantage of the system but an Iraqi or Somali they might.

    For the peace of the world, every person with light-brown/blond hair must either shave their heads or dye their hair dark-brown/black.

    We should expand family reunification. It’s really one of the great gifts of the 1960s legislation because it seems like people just didn’t realize how it would work. Maybe there was some secret plan to use family reunification to get in a lot of low-skilled immigrants who have no other hope of getting in, but I think it was just that they were being normal human beings and said, “Well, you want to let people reunite with their families.” Right? But you let someone in, you let his family in, they bring more family and so on and so on and so on. It goes on indefinitely. Fortunately, the architects of the 1960s legislation didn’t realize what they were doing.

    Probably the best argument against family reunification ever made.

    • Replies: @AnAnon
    @syonredux

    "Fortunately, the architects of the 1960s legislation didn’t realize what they were doing." - No, I think we can say he knew damned well what he was doing, and so did his critics.

  31. Priss Factor [AKA "pizza with hot pepper"] says:

    Broken borders is especially damaging to small nations(in population and/or land size).

    Suppose Chinese were to invade Australia and take half. Australia is so big that the natives still have sizable nation left by holding the other half.
    But suppose Chinese take half of tiny Austria. The natives will have just a tiny bit of territory left.

    Or take population. Suppose all Burmese move to China. It’d be a drop in the bucket as there are so many Chinese. China will just absorb all those Burmese immigrants.

    But suppose just 1/20 of population move to Burma. That’d like 60 million, which is more than the native population of Burma.
    So, if there’s open borders between China and Burma, Burmese culture and ethnicity will come under far greater threat. We know this from the example of Tibet.

    Africa is huge and its population is exploding. Western Europe is tiny and its native population is shrinking. On top of that, blacks are bigger, stronger, more aggressive, and less intelligent. Why would open borders between Europe and Africa be a good thing? Only an anti-white lunatic would endorse such a thing. But then, one has to be privileged to harbor such ‘ideals’. If indeed the elites of Europe had to live under South African conditions, how would they feel about open borders? But they got their nice homes and posh clubs and private schools for their kids. They have the white lifestyle for now but push ‘diversity’ because PC is the ‘respectable’ thing among the status-obsessed elites thanks to the Eskimos who control the academia, media, and governments.

    PS. White folks have gone crazy. I recall what some Chinese guy said at my fav chop suep carryout joint. He was self-critical of Chinese. He say Chinese people stupid so long. Australia big empty land and for taking by anyone who find it. If Chinese build boat and go there, it all belong to Chinese now. It much closer to Asia than Europe, but English get it but Chinese no get it because Chinese too stupid and no like adventure. They just stay in China and eat rice.

    I suppose that’s true. If Chinese had been just a little more adventurous, they could have claimed all of Australia long before the Brits even set forth on the high seas.
    But I told him not to worry. White people are crazy in all parts of the world. English will hand over their nation to Africans and Pakistanis, American whites will hand over their nation to browns and blacks, and Aussies will hand over their nation to Chinese, Indians, and other Asians.
    Whites are truly sick in the head. There’s no other explanation.

    • Replies: @gu
    @Priss Factor

    "On top of that, blacks are bigger, stronger"

    Nope.

  32. I’d love to see what the comments would be like if they allowed them. I’d bet you dollars to donuts we’d see the same bizarre phenomenon you see with mainstream media coverage of immigration, where the entire main story is written as if there is an overwhelming consensus for more, more, more immigration, and then the comments are like 100 to 1 against illegal immigration. I’ve noticed this holds true even on very liberal sites.

    Speaking of which: I’d like to see Vox explainer on THAT phenomenon. I can’t think of any other substantial issue in which a major point of view among voters is treated as if it were completely nonexistent. I’ve said before: The way the media covers immigration is like covering an election while only mentioning one major candidate, while treating the existence of the other major candidate as an unconfirmed rumor. Probably not coincidentally, this is exactly the way nominally “free” elections are covered in one-party authoritarian states….

  33. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Every correct-thinking person know the correct answer to the hypothetical question: “So why, exactly, is it that people who are born on the wrong side of the border have to get government permission just to get a job?”

    But is it not just as clear that the correct answer to the question: “So why, exactly, is it that people who are born on the wrong side of the border have to get government permission just to get a welfare check?” Is that such a law is discriminatory on its face and serves no rational purpose, since a person desirous of welfare rather than work is even more disadvantaged than the migrant worker.

    The benefits are short term and long term. The migrant welfare recipient is almost guaranteed to quickly convert his check or EBT into demand and increase the GNP and bring immediate increase to the GNP. Even more importantly, the new voter is likely to cast several ballots to increase future benefits and result in a long term win-win for all involved.

  34. Bryan Caplan is not insane or evil. He’s just trying to draw attention to himself by saying the most absurd things imaginable with a straight face. I think it’s really that simple. Who would even pay attention to this guy if it weren’t for all of this open borders nonsense? This modus operandi has become very common, especially among libertarians. It’s time we started talking about it.

  35. So why, exactly, is it that people who happen to be born into the wrong families grow up poor while those who happen to be born into the right families get to grow up well-off? Using Caplans infantile logic, shouldn’t we take every new-born infant away from their parents and raise them comunistiucally? That would be the fair thing to do, after all.

    Although he thinks he’s a “libertarian”, the practical difference between Caplan and a member of the CPUSA approaches zero.

  36. @Steve Sailer
    @candid_observer

    "So why, exactly, is it that people who happen to live on the wrong side of my fence have to get my permission just to eat and sleep in my house?"

    Because you are evil.

    Replies: @Bobbala

    … and racist.

  37. So why, exactly, is it that people who are born on the wrong side of the border have to get government permission just to get a job?

    I think the correct answer — and for some reason I don’t hear this a lot — is that We, the People of the United States, collectively own this country, and we have every bit as much right to decide who works here as a corporation has to decide who it hires. Libertarians love corporations, and therefore can’t object in principle to the basic idea of collective ownership, so they are hoist with their own petard. Of course they’ll find specific reasons to object to the idea of a country being owned by its citizens, but that is clearly special pleading. So focus on that talking point: America is owned by the American people, and owners always have the right to decide.

  38. Dylan Matthews of Vox linked to Caplan’s blog at Econolog and to the coterie of Caplan, Huemer, Michael Clemens, Vipul Naik, et-al. to support the easily exploded “double world GDP” or “trillion dollar bills on the table” claims of benefits from mass migration but obviously didn’t read any of the comments in those places. The open-borders crew keeps repeating their “double world GDP” nonsense despite having been notified repeatedly (with links to objective data, and specific calculations shown) by folks like Peter Schaefer that such claims are bogus. Even Clemens doesn’t really believe in “doubling” world GDP (he wrote he might “plausibly imagine” gains of 20-60%, not 100%) yet Dylan Matthews is so gullible that he and his editors lead his article with that claim and embed it in the article’s URL path: “/2014/9/13/6135905/open-borders-bryan-caplan-interview-gdp-double”. Obviously neither Matthews nor his fact checkers (if any) fear being exposed as dupes and dullards.

    Of course, having pushed one big lie, Matthews has to follow up with other open-borders nonsense, so he repeats Caplan’s claim that immigration-driven increases in housing prices are a benefit to natives. That is so outrageously perverse that it should become the textbook example of ideological dyslexia. Suppose any of the following were true–would that make mass immigration a good idea? (1) Mass immigration increases the price of food to natives. (2) Mass immigration increases the price of healthcare to natives. (3) Mass immigration increases the size of natives’ tax bills. (4) Mass immigration increases the price of housing to natives. What do you think? (Note that 2, 3, and 4 are all clearly true; 1 may be true but the problem is too complex to analyze here.)

    Matthews quotes Caplan to tell us Puerto Rico is a paradise by Carribean standards because over half of Puerto Ricans have moved to the US mainland. Of course, if the island were a paradise people would move to it, not from it. But more to the point Puerto Rico is a giant sinkhole for fiscal transfers from the US mainland. In addition to consuming 3x as much Federal direct spending as it pays in Federal taxes, Puerto Rico receives many billions of dollars in other concessions and subventions. And despite the fact that Puerto Ricans are US citizens and merely “relocate,” not “immigrate,” to the US mainland, Puerto Ricans and their descendants on the mainland are about twice as likely as average Americans to live in poverty (even though that “average” includes the Puerto Ricans so really P.R.’s are much less economically productive than, say, WASP Americans). The only lesson we can learn from Puerto Rico is that “open borders” means third-worlders move into US slums and US taxpayers’ money moves into the migrants’ wallets. (Since much US taxpayers’ money also goes straight to Puerto Rico, Caplan’s intimation that out-migration explains the island’s prosperity relative to nearby unsubsidized islands is nonsense.)

    Then for lagniappe Matthews repeats Caplan’s mendacity about social spending on immigrants unchallenged on the interview page. We have empirical data (from the 1986 amnesty) showing that legalization (i.e., exactly the meaning of “open borders”) moves many immigrants onto welfare and costs native taxpayers a ton of money. Also, as Peter Schaefer pointed out and any literate person can easily confirm, low-wage immigrants literally cost more in healthcare spending than they earn in toto.

    We’ve known for a while that Caplan will sacrifice his academic reputation to promote open borders in the face of all facts and logic. Still, it’s interesting to see how cheaply folks like Matthews will sell their own intellectual reputations even though they are not protected by university tenure.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Veracitor

    Again, Puerto Rico's domestic product per capita is comparable to that of Mediterranean Europe. Federal transfer payments to Puerto Rican households amount to a 7% increment on local product. That's unusually high. However, what's distinctive about Puerto Rico is high crime rates (esp. a homicide rate 5x mainland means and more than 20x what you'd see in Western Europe).

  39. Of course, such questions raise other questions. Like, “why should only Americans and people on American soil be subject to fines, penalties, and imprisonment for violating American law? Isn’t that discriminatory?” Or, “why should only people on American soil be subject to American taxes? Isn’t that discriminatory?” Or, “why is it only bad when Americans want to control their borders, but not bad when Israel does it, or China, Japan, African countries, etc? Isn’t that racist?” Or, “why must only the white heathen (“gentile”) countries open their borders, but not Israel, or China, Japan, African countries, etc? Isn’t that racist?” Or, “why must only white heathen (“gentile”) countries lower their own wages and standard of living, for the benefit of non-whites, while the Jewish Reich and other non-white countries are free to be completely racist and keep their immigration policies racially pure without fear of attention from you? Isn’t that racist?” Or, “why do Jews like yourself only accuse white heathen (“gentile”) countries of racism for their generous immigration policies, while you ignore countries with much more racist immigration policies, like Israel, China, Japan, Liberia, etc? Doesn’t that make you racist?”

    Seamus understands how this game is played.

    GW gets it, too.

    Candid observer, too. Though I might’ve said “Caplan’s permission” and “Caplan’s house” instead.

    Vox is cowardly in not allowing comments.

    Hey, thanks for reminding me:

    “Why should only Vox’s readers be denied free speech? Why can’t Vox be more like Sailer and allow free speech and free expression?”

    P.S., to webmaster/Ron Unz, the >a< tag adds a space.

  40. @Veracitor
    Dylan Matthews of Vox linked to Caplan's blog at Econolog and to the coterie of Caplan, Huemer, Michael Clemens, Vipul Naik, et-al. to support the easily exploded "double world GDP" or "trillion dollar bills on the table" claims of benefits from mass migration but obviously didn't read any of the comments in those places. The open-borders crew keeps repeating their "double world GDP" nonsense despite having been notified repeatedly (with links to objective data, and specific calculations shown) by folks like Peter Schaefer that such claims are bogus. Even Clemens doesn't really believe in "doubling" world GDP (he wrote he might "plausibly imagine" gains of 20-60%, not 100%) yet Dylan Matthews is so gullible that he and his editors lead his article with that claim and embed it in the article's URL path: "/2014/9/13/6135905/open-borders-bryan-caplan-interview-gdp-double". Obviously neither Matthews nor his fact checkers (if any) fear being exposed as dupes and dullards.

    Of course, having pushed one big lie, Matthews has to follow up with other open-borders nonsense, so he repeats Caplan's claim that immigration-driven increases in housing prices are a benefit to natives. That is so outrageously perverse that it should become the textbook example of ideological dyslexia. Suppose any of the following were true--would that make mass immigration a good idea? (1) Mass immigration increases the price of food to natives. (2) Mass immigration increases the price of healthcare to natives. (3) Mass immigration increases the size of natives' tax bills. (4) Mass immigration increases the price of housing to natives. What do you think? (Note that 2, 3, and 4 are all clearly true; 1 may be true but the problem is too complex to analyze here.)

    Matthews quotes Caplan to tell us Puerto Rico is a paradise by Carribean standards because over half of Puerto Ricans have moved to the US mainland. Of course, if the island were a paradise people would move to it, not from it. But more to the point Puerto Rico is a giant sinkhole for fiscal transfers from the US mainland. In addition to consuming 3x as much Federal direct spending as it pays in Federal taxes, Puerto Rico receives many billions of dollars in other concessions and subventions. And despite the fact that Puerto Ricans are US citizens and merely "relocate," not "immigrate," to the US mainland, Puerto Ricans and their descendants on the mainland are about twice as likely as average Americans to live in poverty (even though that "average" includes the Puerto Ricans so really P.R.'s are much less economically productive than, say, WASP Americans). The only lesson we can learn from Puerto Rico is that "open borders" means third-worlders move into US slums and US taxpayers' money moves into the migrants' wallets. (Since much US taxpayers' money also goes straight to Puerto Rico, Caplan's intimation that out-migration explains the island's prosperity relative to nearby unsubsidized islands is nonsense.)

    Then for lagniappe Matthews repeats Caplan's mendacity about social spending on immigrants unchallenged on the interview page. We have empirical data (from the 1986 amnesty) showing that legalization (i.e., exactly the meaning of "open borders") moves many immigrants onto welfare and costs native taxpayers a ton of money. Also, as Peter Schaefer pointed out and any literate person can easily confirm, low-wage immigrants literally cost more in healthcare spending than they earn in toto.

    We've known for a while that Caplan will sacrifice his academic reputation to promote open borders in the face of all facts and logic. Still, it's interesting to see how cheaply folks like Matthews will sell their own intellectual reputations even though they are not protected by university tenure.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    Again, Puerto Rico’s domestic product per capita is comparable to that of Mediterranean Europe. Federal transfer payments to Puerto Rican households amount to a 7% increment on local product. That’s unusually high. However, what’s distinctive about Puerto Rico is high crime rates (esp. a homicide rate 5x mainland means and more than 20x what you’d see in Western Europe).

  41. “Bryan Caplan is not insane or evil. He’s just trying to draw attention to himself by saying the most absurd things imaginable with a straight face.”

    Pretty much this.

    He obviously wants to play in the big leagues and is trying to get his name out there by any means necessary.

    • Replies: @Stealth
    @Bert

    Glad I'm not the only one who sees it this way.

  42. “What would you think about a law that said that blacks couldn’t get a job without the government’s permission, or women couldn’t get a job without the government’s permission, or gays or Christians or anyone else?” George Mason economist Bryan Caplan asks. It’s a pretty easy question. Obviously, such a law is discriminatory on its face, serves no rational purpose, and is unacceptable in a liberal democracy. But Caplan continues: “So why, exactly, is it that people who are born on the wrong side of the border have to get government permission just to get a job?”

    Because the ethics of the public policy relating to people legally part of a country and the trade patterns between people (both real and artificial) within a country are different than the ethics of public policy relating to people and goods and services that cross borders. Though I forgot: To globalist cultists like those that write for Ezra Klein, throw in libertarian to the mix in the case of Bryan Caplan, and there are no countries and therefore no borders.

  43. One of our usual suspects recently brought up that Japan is jumping on the immigration bandwagon. I can’t remember which thread it was in, despite heroic efforts to CTRL-F for “japan” in about a zillion opened tabs. So, I’ll reply here:

    It’s an absurd comparison. Leaving aside how tiny the scale is compared to the problem in the west, there’s the fact that Japan is only importing fellow east Asians. That’s similar to American immigration back when it was almost entirely European in nature, something very few immigration restrictionists in the West object to. Whether that’s advisable or not, I think most consciously-white immigration-restrictionists would jump for joy if America switched to an all-European immigration policy.

    • Replies: @Numinous
    @Svigor


    Whether that’s advisable or not, I think most consciously-white immigration-restrictionists would jump for joy if America switched to an all-European immigration policy.
     
    But that would immediately invalidate all the economic arguments against immigration, would it not? Competition in the job market is competition, whether it comes from Swedes or Somalis. And for people up the food chain, the former are a much bigger threat.

    Replies: @AnAnon, @Luke

  44. brings up some good questions.

    Among many other questions that Open Borders types never get around to answering:
    Do they think that Unions are “evil”?. After all, they are restricting the right of just anybody to work.
    Heck, most State and local governments restrict who can apply for jobs (residency requirements).

    • Replies: @Numinous
    @Name Withheld


    Among many other questions that Open Borders types never get around to answering:
    Do they think that Unions are “evil”?
     
    I don't know who you are talking about, but Unions have always been anathema to libertarians, and they have never been shy of saying so (every read Ayn Rand?)

    Replies: @Sean

  45. @Bert
    "Bryan Caplan is not insane or evil. He’s just trying to draw attention to himself by saying the most absurd things imaginable with a straight face."

    Pretty much this.

    He obviously wants to play in the big leagues and is trying to get his name out there by any means necessary.

    Replies: @Stealth

    Glad I’m not the only one who sees it this way.

  46. I think that when addressing the bullshit of people like Caplan, the highest priority should be to let them (and everyone else) understand that we know they’re jerking us around. They keep coming up with ever more bizarre and irrational justifications for their ridiculous positions, and we keep falling into the trap of trying to refute their claims with facts, logic and common sense. In doing so, we reveal that we’ve fallen for the biggest lie these con artists convey, which is that they actually believe what they say. In other words, they’re making fools out of us.

  47. The thing that will keep Caplan from making it big is that he isn’t clever. He doesn’t try to mask his words with talk about how much better everything will be for everyone. He just mindlessly repeats the same thing over and over again. It’s just annoying and obnoxious.

  48. I’m also compelled to do a serious LOL at the filthy Port-au-Prince street scene that Matthews chose to include in his article. Like, wow, I don’t think he could have chosen a worse photo to use.

  49. @Sean
    Caplan isn't demented, moral absolutism is the official ideology and under it people are an end and never a means; hence there is no principled justification for keeping people out. Immigration law has disparate impact on universal humanity so it is slowly being brought into line with universal absolute morality. People who think like Caplan matter, the typical American does not.

    Replies: @Lurker

    People who think like Caplan matter, the typical American does not.

    Lets clarify. Caplan doesnt really matter too much … what matters is his particular lunacy sounds like a good pseudo-intellectual cover for what certain elite folks want to do. He doesnt motivate them, he just says stuff they like the sound of.

    The point of destroying Caplan’s *ahem* ‘arguments’ and those that come after him is to try force the elite into the open, to declare why they really want mass immigration. Reasons which they well understand are indefensible.

  50. “What would you think about a law that said that blacks couldn’t get a job without the government’s permission,”

    What would Ezra Klein think about a law that said you had to get only the kind of health-insurance policy the government said you could get.

    Oh, that’s right, that’s the law that the Democratic Party hack who pretends to be a journalist named Ezra Klein was relentlessly flacking for a couple of years ago.

  51. Caplan and Open Borders elites are idiots. Ligically non White dominance means killing White elites and taking their stuff … money, land, belongings, women. And ruling in their place. Ask the Byzantines, French in Haiti, etc. A White elite in a non White majority place will be mau-maued to death. So their vast wealth will be someone elses.

    Like I said, idiots. Filled with relugious fervor.

  52. “Stealth says

    Bryan Caplan is not insane or evil.”

    As far as I’m concerned, effectively, he is both.

  53. What would Bryan Caplan think about a law that said that people couldn’t just force their way into his house, help themselves to his stuff, and take up residence there? Clearly, laws against breaking and entering, theft, and squatting are discriminatory.

  54. @grey enlightenment
    @Mark Armistead

    techies and open border activists tend to be neo and classical liberals. the activists are welfare liberals.

    Replies: @Boomstick

    “techies and open border activists tend to be neo and classical liberals.”

    There isn’t much support for that idea about techies in the aggregate. Silicon Valley elected officials are down the line progressives and Obama has won the Silicon Valley counties by huge margins.

  55. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Caplan’s opening gambit us such utter, utter crap to anyone who’s had any knowledge of the labor market whatsoever and to anyone who’s got a brain – that’s why that jerk shouldn’t be taken seriously.
    Just one small example, age restrictions are commonly . and fully legally – placed on a huge number of occupations as a barrier to entry. As fas I know there is no chorus of disapproval screaming that it is monstrous to deny a 50 year old the opportunity to be a fireman. Age is a characteristic an American 50 year old has no control over just like those absurd ‘examples’ enunciated by Caplan.
    Caplan’s argument is built on a fundamental and basic error on the notion of ‘freedom’, in thus case meaning freedom if association and the freedom for individuals to make contracts which both parties, must mutually agree to give, freely, their consent. The ancient, traditional view, enshrined in English common law was that the offer or had the absolute freedom to impose any condition whatsoever to any potential offeree of the contract, but the crucial point was that the offeree was free to reject any offers as he found them is both sides were ‘free’. So called ‘civil rights’ laws destroyed all that.
    But the upshot is that no one should really give a damn if a job offer etc is ‘discrimantory’, in fact all employment offers are ‘discriminatory’, this is a good thing, and it’s no one else’s business whom the offer or chooses to engage.
    Caplan is full of shit.

  56. @Anonymous
    An excerpt:

    But, nevertheless, I think most Europeans have been shocked by how much immigration has occurred. Part of me suspects there was sort of a pro-immigration element that knew that there would be more immigration and just pushed it through, and were not totally honest, which ultimately I approve of, when so much good can be done.
     
    Caplan's not exactly improving his credibility here...

    Replies: @Shadow

    …”Caplan’s not exactly improving his credibility here…”

    What credibility?

  57. @Name Withheld
    @Svigor brings up some good questions.

    Among many other questions that Open Borders types never get around to answering:
    Do they think that Unions are "evil"?. After all, they are restricting the right of just anybody to work.
    Heck, most State and local governments restrict who can apply for jobs (residency requirements).

    Replies: @Numinous

    Among many other questions that Open Borders types never get around to answering:
    Do they think that Unions are “evil”?

    I don’t know who you are talking about, but Unions have always been anathema to libertarians, and they have never been shy of saying so (every read Ayn Rand?)

    • Replies: @Sean
    @Numinous

    "I don’t know who you are talking about, but Unions have always been anathema to libertarians, and they have never been shy of saying so (every read Ayn Rand?)"

    That is true, but the Libertarians who matter are billionaires, and those billionaires are in favour of mass immigration and outsourcing. Both are ways of breaking union power. The Koch brothers are pro immigration. Of the wealthiest 200 billionaires there isn't a single one who is openly anti immigration. Many of the top ones are screaming for more immigration. The richest billionaires know what is in their interest, they don't need to have a lockout to break union power now.

    "Competition in the job market is competition, whether it comes from Swedes or Somalis. And for people up the food chain, the former are a much bigger threat."

    There is not affirmative action for becoming a billionaire. The billionaires see the already existing white working class as the threat. Organised labour in a white thing. It can be cheaper to mix cement by hand on the sidewalk if you have enough immigrant labour.

  58. @Svigor
    One of our usual suspects recently brought up that Japan is jumping on the immigration bandwagon. I can't remember which thread it was in, despite heroic efforts to CTRL-F for "japan" in about a zillion opened tabs. So, I'll reply here:

    It's an absurd comparison. Leaving aside how tiny the scale is compared to the problem in the west, there's the fact that Japan is only importing fellow east Asians. That's similar to American immigration back when it was almost entirely European in nature, something very few immigration restrictionists in the West object to. Whether that's advisable or not, I think most consciously-white immigration-restrictionists would jump for joy if America switched to an all-European immigration policy.

    Replies: @Numinous

    Whether that’s advisable or not, I think most consciously-white immigration-restrictionists would jump for joy if America switched to an all-European immigration policy.

    But that would immediately invalidate all the economic arguments against immigration, would it not? Competition in the job market is competition, whether it comes from Swedes or Somalis. And for people up the food chain, the former are a much bigger threat.

    • Replies: @AnAnon
    @Numinous

    Europe lacks the demographics to flood our nation with immigrant laborers.

    , @Luke
    @Numinous

    No.
    1) European immigrants are fairly rich, which means they would bring capital along
    2) European immigrants are skilled
    3) There is no true risk of mass-immigration from Europe. US could also have open borders with Japan.
    4) Europeans would quickly assimilate, thereby lower costs associated with etno-racist strugling, tribalism and all other culture-related problems.

  59. Why would open borders between Europe and Africa be a good thing? Only an anti-white lunatic would endorse such a thing. But then, one has to be privileged to harbor such ‘ideals’.

    Good point. The call for open borders is the truest expression of White Privilege.

  60. I think The Derb has written a couple of times about the book Le Camp des Saints.

    Not sure if this story has yet hit the news back in the States, but truth is stranger than fiction

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/15/migrant-boat-capsizes-egypt-malta-traffickers?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2

  61. @FWIW
    What about the identity, "outsourcing jobs" = insourcing cheap labor" is confusing. The only way to reduce inequality by increasing the economic minimum wage for poor, legal, Americans is to stop insourcing cheap labor.

    But, even more interesting than why we are casual about enforcing our southern border is the fact that we have unlimited immigration between states. Anyone is free to just up and move from Mississippi to Maine. California is full of Okies, Arkies, and freebooters from all over the country. &c.

    The EU is starting to figure it out. Do they want Romanian cab drivers in the UK? Or to pay up for natives? The only time I have had a hotel room cleaned by an extremely attractive blonde was in London, and the maid was Polish. Hauling in Eastern Europeans may be the best way for Western Europe to pull out of their demographic decline.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    Hauling in Eastern Europeans may be the best way for Western Europe to pull out of their demographic decline.

    Britain and France have only mild fertility deficits. Roughly 100,000 settler-immigrants each year would suffice to cover the shortfalls in Britain’s birth cohorts. In France, 50,000 might suffice as we speak. In Ireland, perhaps 3,000. Fertility deficits are worse in Scandinavia, but about 45,000 settlers per annum would cover it all. The same might suffice for the Low Countries. The real fertility problems are in the Germanophone states and on the Mediterranean, because you not only have shortfalls (which you have in Slavic Europe as well), but the total fertility rates are abidingly bad and have not seen flux in recent decades.

  62. “Numinous says

    I don’t know who you are talking about,….”

    If you don’t, then you’re dense.

    “…..but Unions have always been anathema to libertarians, and they have never been shy of saying so (every read Ayn Rand?)”

    Ezra Klein isn’t a libertarian. He’s a Democratic party hack. So, is he against unions? Are liberal pre-immigrationists anti-union? Democratic union members might like to know.

  63. Why shouldn’t we just have open borders?

    1) There is no democracy without a demos. You can’t have self-determination without a defined group of people. Traditonally we have thought of the citizens as the ones who decide. The Left (and some of the right) thinks that group is merely the elite, such as the judiciary, so they don’t worry much about flooding this country with yet more people they will effectively disenfranchise, same as they have disenfranchised the working class.

    2) A nation is a form of property. Not property like a house, but property nonetheless. The citizens are its owners. It has real assets – tens of trillions in assets, held by the government in trust for the people. Those assets have been acquired with the sweat and blood of the CITIZENS. To give them away to foreigners is theft.

  64. Only an idiot would be for open borders in his country.

  65. Gee, if he espouses open borders, I wonder if he also supports being able to buy stuff in other countries and bring them into the US at will. For example, prescription drugs are much cheaper in other countries than in the US because it’s against the law to buy low elsewhere and then sell for a small profit in the US. Something tells me Caplan hasn’t thought that far.

  66. I wish Sailer or someone similar would do a better job at debating these open border “elevator pitches” . I have read Sailer’s older, long form essays, they are excellent, but the Caplan crowd ignores those long form arguments and simply repeats and amplifies their sound bites.

  67. Of course, true universalist morality such as Christianity does not require that everybody be treated the same; it merely means that if something like murder or rape is wrong if I do it, it’s wrong if you do it too, and vice versa. Universal morality and Natural Law allow, indeed require, all sorts of distinctions to be made; between young and old, between men and women, and yes, between citizens and non-citizens. Of course, Caplan is neither a Christian nor a practicing Jew, so he wouldn’t understand this, and I often wonder where this “morality” he’s always appealing to comes from , except inside his own head.

  68. @Numinous
    @Name Withheld


    Among many other questions that Open Borders types never get around to answering:
    Do they think that Unions are “evil”?
     
    I don't know who you are talking about, but Unions have always been anathema to libertarians, and they have never been shy of saying so (every read Ayn Rand?)

    Replies: @Sean

    “I don’t know who you are talking about, but Unions have always been anathema to libertarians, and they have never been shy of saying so (every read Ayn Rand?)”

    That is true, but the Libertarians who matter are billionaires, and those billionaires are in favour of mass immigration and outsourcing. Both are ways of breaking union power. The Koch brothers are pro immigration. Of the wealthiest 200 billionaires there isn’t a single one who is openly anti immigration. Many of the top ones are screaming for more immigration. The richest billionaires know what is in their interest, they don’t need to have a lockout to break union power now.

    “Competition in the job market is competition, whether it comes from Swedes or Somalis. And for people up the food chain, the former are a much bigger threat.”

    There is not affirmative action for becoming a billionaire. The billionaires see the already existing white working class as the threat. Organised labour in a white thing. It can be cheaper to mix cement by hand on the sidewalk if you have enough immigrant labour.

  69. @Priss Factor
    Broken borders is especially damaging to small nations(in population and/or land size).

    Suppose Chinese were to invade Australia and take half. Australia is so big that the natives still have sizable nation left by holding the other half.
    But suppose Chinese take half of tiny Austria. The natives will have just a tiny bit of territory left.

    Or take population. Suppose all Burmese move to China. It'd be a drop in the bucket as there are so many Chinese. China will just absorb all those Burmese immigrants.

    But suppose just 1/20 of population move to Burma. That'd like 60 million, which is more than the native population of Burma.
    So, if there's open borders between China and Burma, Burmese culture and ethnicity will come under far greater threat. We know this from the example of Tibet.

    Africa is huge and its population is exploding. Western Europe is tiny and its native population is shrinking. On top of that, blacks are bigger, stronger, more aggressive, and less intelligent. Why would open borders between Europe and Africa be a good thing? Only an anti-white lunatic would endorse such a thing. But then, one has to be privileged to harbor such 'ideals'. If indeed the elites of Europe had to live under South African conditions, how would they feel about open borders? But they got their nice homes and posh clubs and private schools for their kids. They have the white lifestyle for now but push 'diversity' because PC is the 'respectable' thing among the status-obsessed elites thanks to the Eskimos who control the academia, media, and governments.

    PS. White folks have gone crazy. I recall what some Chinese guy said at my fav chop suep carryout joint. He was self-critical of Chinese. He say Chinese people stupid so long. Australia big empty land and for taking by anyone who find it. If Chinese build boat and go there, it all belong to Chinese now. It much closer to Asia than Europe, but English get it but Chinese no get it because Chinese too stupid and no like adventure. They just stay in China and eat rice.

    I suppose that's true. If Chinese had been just a little more adventurous, they could have claimed all of Australia long before the Brits even set forth on the high seas.
    But I told him not to worry. White people are crazy in all parts of the world. English will hand over their nation to Africans and Pakistanis, American whites will hand over their nation to browns and blacks, and Aussies will hand over their nation to Chinese, Indians, and other Asians.
    Whites are truly sick in the head. There's no other explanation.

    Replies: @gu

    “On top of that, blacks are bigger, stronger”

    Nope.

  70. iSteveFan says:

    Svigor wrote:

    Whether that’s advisable or not, I think most consciously-white immigration-restrictionists would jump for joy if America switched to an all-European immigration policy.

    Numinous wrote:

    But that would immediately invalidate all the economic arguments against immigration, would it not? Competition in the job market is competition, whether it comes from Swedes or Somalis. And for people up the food chain, the former are a much bigger threat.

    No it would not invalidate all the economic arguments against immigration, unless of course, you are talking about mass immigration. Where did Svigor write that he favored mass immigration of Europeans? All Svigor wrote is that people on our side of the debate would jump for joy if our immigration policy was switched to an all-European one. So long as it was a sane number, I’d jump for joy too.

    Each year around 150 to 200K Americans emigrate. So taking in a like number of immigrants, especially European immigrants, would not invalidate all the economic arguments. In fact most of us on this side of the debate would jump for joy if our current non-European immigration policy was limited to 150K per year, like it was during the the golden age from 1924 to 1964. Instead the government is bringing in almost 2 million (overwhelmingly non-European) per year and McCain wants us to bring in another 30 million (overwhelmingly non-European) over the next 10 years.

    That’s the lunacy of our immigration policy. It is not just that we are taking in non-Europeans. It is that we are taking in unprecedented numbers of non-Europeans. For context to what I write, read this quote from Pew Hispanic Center.

    …the U.S. has more immigrants from Mexico alone than any other country has immigrants.

    Get that? There are more Mexican immigrants living in the USA today then all immigrants in the UK from Pakistan, India, the rest of Asia, Africa,Eastern Europe, the Middle East and the Caribbean COMBINED! That’s crazy. That’s insane.

  71. @syonredux

    When the idea that your group could ever actually gain dominance is absolutely hopeless, you give up. A lot of what’s going on in Iraq is there are two groups or three groups, each one of which thinks they might be able to win, but if you add in some Iraqi Sunnis and Iraqi Shiites and Iraqi Kurds to the US, they’re not going to kill each other here, because there is no way they’re going to get control of the US. It’s just hopeless.
     
    MMMM, but in America, can't they all just mobilize against the evil White Anglos? That one never seems to get old for the POC brigade.

    For example, in Scandinavia, back when they were entirely blonde up there, a government share of GDP of 60 or 70 percent had broad social support, and it really has fallen since. Now, more like 50 or 60 percent has broad social support. If you talk to people in those countries, it does seem like immigration plays a big role in reducing support, and most of it comes from a sense that a fellow blonde person would never take advantage of the system but an Iraqi or Somali they might.
     
    For the peace of the world, every person with light-brown/blond hair must either shave their heads or dye their hair dark-brown/black.

    We should expand family reunification. It’s really one of the great gifts of the 1960s legislation because it seems like people just didn’t realize how it would work. Maybe there was some secret plan to use family reunification to get in a lot of low-skilled immigrants who have no other hope of getting in, but I think it was just that they were being normal human beings and said, "Well, you want to let people reunite with their families." Right? But you let someone in, you let his family in, they bring more family and so on and so on and so on. It goes on indefinitely. Fortunately, the architects of the 1960s legislation didn’t realize what they were doing.
     
    Probably the best argument against family reunification ever made.

    Replies: @AnAnon

    “Fortunately, the architects of the 1960s legislation didn’t realize what they were doing.” – No, I think we can say he knew damned well what he was doing, and so did his critics.

  72. @Numinous
    @Svigor


    Whether that’s advisable or not, I think most consciously-white immigration-restrictionists would jump for joy if America switched to an all-European immigration policy.
     
    But that would immediately invalidate all the economic arguments against immigration, would it not? Competition in the job market is competition, whether it comes from Swedes or Somalis. And for people up the food chain, the former are a much bigger threat.

    Replies: @AnAnon, @Luke

    Europe lacks the demographics to flood our nation with immigrant laborers.

  73. @Numinous
    @Svigor


    Whether that’s advisable or not, I think most consciously-white immigration-restrictionists would jump for joy if America switched to an all-European immigration policy.
     
    But that would immediately invalidate all the economic arguments against immigration, would it not? Competition in the job market is competition, whether it comes from Swedes or Somalis. And for people up the food chain, the former are a much bigger threat.

    Replies: @AnAnon, @Luke

    No.
    1) European immigrants are fairly rich, which means they would bring capital along
    2) European immigrants are skilled
    3) There is no true risk of mass-immigration from Europe. US could also have open borders with Japan.
    4) Europeans would quickly assimilate, thereby lower costs associated with etno-racist strugling, tribalism and all other culture-related problems.

  74. Caplan is saying that immigration restrictions are discriminatory because they prevent non-citizens from taking jobs. It seems to me that this argument does not work in its own terms. Most of the time you could just as well move the job to the non-citizen as move the non-citizen to the job, something which happens all the time as old industries are exported to developing countries. Where do we get the twin assumptions that jobs are territorial and that people are not?

  75. Western Europeans are not going to come to America to work at Wendy’s for example like the Hispanics do, so they would not pose an economic threat threat to the White American working class/under class.

    But Western Europeans with their triple digit IQs, would pose an economic threat to middle and upper class White Americans if they came to this country in massive numbers, similar to how triple digit IQ East Asians are economic threats to White Americans who are higher on the social ladder.

  76. “Of the wealthiest 200 billionaires there isn’t a single one who is openly anti immigration.”

    The billionaire Donald Trump is the exception to the rule. His views on immigration are a lot closer to that of VDare than it is to Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.

  77. ,

    Ezra Klein called it “horrifying” that a poll showed 1 in 6 “French” people support ISIS.

    Mark Zuckerberg “liked” that post.

    If only there was some border policy that would have prevented that…

  78. “,

    Ezra Klein called it “horrifying” that a poll showed 1 in 6 “French” people support ISIS.

    Mark Zuckerberg “liked” that post.

    If only there was some border policy that would have prevented that…”

    Among so-called “French” people who support ISIS, I wonder what percentage of them have French last names and not Arabic last names. I bet not many.

    Somehow I doubt a lot of ISIS supporters in France have last names like Rougeau and and Levesque.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS