26 votes

Immigration reform is a red herring

While I vowed to myself that I would quit writing about politics, I cannot sit idly by as I witness fellow libertarians nibble on the devil's candy.

The deafening call to "secure the borders" is a red herring. How could one believe otherwise? When has the marble building occupiers of Washington DC had the best interests of the People in mind?

They are looking for popular support to push through their agenda. However, good luck getting Democrats to support immigration reform. On top of that, the GOP is beginning to wane in numbers - as the sun is beginning to set on the Baby Boomer generation. Who does that leave? Answer: Independents and libertarians. They want your support to militarize the borders.

How utterly brilliant and ironic. They must say - "Let's get those libertarians to help us push our agenda. What brown people do they hate? We'll use that."

Immigration is not the problem. Illegal immigrants aren't driving this country into the ground, but guess who is - the politicians. The very people who many of you are calling on for assistance are at the root of the problem.

Very few people cry and moan about immigration when the economy is in good shape, and people have jobs. Unfortunately, in collusion with the Federal Reserve, the US Central Government has taken a healthy dump on the economy by recklessly pumping bubbles to line the pockets of their cronies - and continue to do so. If the economy recovered, immigration would once again become a minor issue.

Militarizing the borders is not going to improve the economy. As a matter of fact, it will damage the economy even further. Who do you suppose would pay for those walls to be built, the sentry towers, the barbed wire, the military checkpoints, the helicopters, the unmanned drones, the Humvees, the arms and ammunition, and all the other goodies that they'll likely deploy along the border if they get their wish? You will pay for it.

Sounds like a libertarian idea to me.[\sarcasm]

What's even worse, by advocating a militarized border, not only are you spending your money to suit your fancy, you're also using force to get other people to fund your futile desires. Should I be forced to pay to put a cage around the nation when I disagree?

The State will fix the border in much the same fashion they fixed the health-care system. Expect the worst.

If you've so far failed to discover how the State operates, first, they make enough people think they need it. Then, they force everyone to pay for it. And ultimately, they use the "it" to benefit themselves and screw everyone else.

However, go back to sleep my sheep, the State has everything under control. Surely, this border thing is different.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Since when have you been a voluntarist, Billy?



did I say I was, derelly?


"by exhausting public welfare and services".

"by depending on public services to which they contribute little or nothing"

Are you assuming we need welfare and public services?
I believe this is where you are losing the argument.

Wise up, old person.

Politician-corporate overlord complex

would not get its cheap labor / population replacement if it didn't provide enough goodies to make 6 dollars an hour attractive. We already have the welfare state, you guys are just supporting the establishment using force to prevent local communities from defending their roads and environs from invasion.

You got it all wrong Billy...

We aren't against individuals exercising their property rights (using We in a general libertarian sense). Far from it. Let the folks defend their property.

Just don't go lobbying the State to "secure the border" because the only result will be domestic military occupation of our borders - that not only will screw foreigners but will even more so screw the very people that live along the border - whom you claim to take sides with.

How do you suppose those people that live within 100 miles of the border will have their everyday lives affected by such a military occupation?

Your doublespeak fools no one, Triple Billy.

Shouldn't it be triple speak?

Anyway, there's not much to argue about.

If the USG got out of the situation entirely, then local property owners would control the situation better than what the most hardline immigration restrictionists call for the government to do. As long as you open borders advocates don't use aggression against the actual property owners and local communities, you're of no danger to anyone.

If you oppose government involvement, you should be vocally opposing the State prohibiting local owners and volunteers from controlling the invasion of their personal property and the public areas between their holdings which they also own.

Your article opposing restriction is a nonsensically pointless article, since the government is actively engaged in using aggression against property owners and local communities to prevent immigration control, and using force to maintain open borders over federal roads and holding pens. If they ceased to do so, there would be very well regulated borders, controlled by the property owners immediately at the border.

Also, every local community along the route north could also control who passes on their roads, so each town could decide what citizenship it required for travelers.

production, is it?

open border = more people = more production

Would you agree that more people can get more done? An argument about driving down wages is a nonsensical and economically ignorant argument. There is always more work to be done, especially if more people are living in the area. While it is true that the demand for a particular job will go down with more people, it is not true that total demand for labor will go down. All your arguments about public services are irrelevant, as they are directed to welfare and not immigration, as Derrell had already pointed out below.

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

false on many counts

an open border doesn't necessarily mean more people. mexico's border is open, and people leave.

more people doesn't necessarily mean more productivity. more people could exist at the same level of productivity per capita. you seem to have no understanding of economics.

if 15 billion people arrived in space ships willing to work at subsistence (15 dollars a day?), forever, then all wages would be depressed for hundreds of years.

we'd be fully justified in saying, fly away home, that's not how we do things.

think a bit, and you won't be confused.

Mexican government

actively assists border crossers north. The US government permits most of this traffic and currently assists much of it.

There are checkpoints in some high traffic regions, mainly to harass US citizens, enforce regulations and taxes, tolls and commercial traffic. But the overall flow of people north is permitted, and so the borders are open in that overarching sense.

As it applies to the question of whether open borders = more people, the answer is obviously, more for one side, less for the other.

more derp-a-derp

Mexico's border is not open. You have to go through a checkpoint and you need a passport to enter. You are very limited in what you can bring into the country.

While it is true that more people doesn't always mean more productivity, it usually does, especially absent the state. That's why we look at the GDP per capita, and not the GDP, when comparing countries.

Your 15 billion people example is just silly. These people can build spaceships, but will be less productive than Earthlings?

Seriously, your arguments are just another version of the Malthusian fallacy, which I have previously debunked.

Perhaps you should go drink yourself into a stupor and kill some more brain cells, since then there will be more nutrients left for the surviving brain cells, and you will be more productive. After all, aren't most of your brain cells just leeching off the productive few?

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson


someone below already corrected your economics. mexico's border to the USA is open from the mexican and the american side. if it means more people for one side, means less for the other. thusly, open borders don't mean more people. people don't just spawn in the desert between.

Have you ever personally crossed the border?




Supply and Demand

The Law of Supply and Demand applied to letting in more unskilled illegal aliens to compete for unskilled jobs in the US suggests that more people competing for the same job results in lower pay. They also require more governmental services because they work for lower pay and benefits as do citizens who now have to compete for those jobs at lower pay. The average cost of primary and secondary education in the US is about $12,700. Each of their kids and all these kids coming over by themselves will cost $12,700 each every year just for their educations. Either taxes have to go up or services have to be spread thin as they have been in California. California used to have good schools. Now it rates just above Mississippi. How productive do you think a poorly educated populace will be?

Perhaps we should focus on getting rid of

public education, then. Otherwise, you are hacking at the branches, rather than striking at the root.

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson


that's what we need to do. Dismantle every public service down to local garbage pickup and one room schoolhouses, or else be held hostage to an invasion of welfare state pawns and drones. Good idea, Ed. Keep coming up with the strategic stuff.

Designing a labor shortage would raise wages.

That's not going to happen unless workers were paid so much that they could afford private schools. Flooding the country with cheap foreign labor isn't going to raise anyones' wages although it might make some employers richer. They, at least, would be more able to send their kids to private schools.

"designing a labor shortage"

sounds like central planning

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

1% vs wide based control

We have a designed over-supply of labor to keep labor prices down to benefit the oligarchs. Congress has a delegated power to form naturalization policy. My preference would be to side more with labor instead of the oligarchs to eliminate the need for all sorts of government social programs and bureaucracies.

Not really

It could be done de-centrally by a voluntary labor movement and property owners agreeing to patrol their common borders, under a constitutional republic, to prevent invasion by socialistic, illiterate, unskilled, never ending populations, fleeing their own failed socialistic states.

Central economic planning is a Hayekian concept, and really applies to trying to control complex economic systems where diffused information cannot be centrally accessed. Only a free market can provide functional price signals for firms, investors, borrowers, people risking capital.

It doesn't really apply to a simple operation like constraining the supply on one side (labor). That does not attempt to micromanage information rich systems, it doesn't risk messing up signals to capital investment, or interest rates, or other highly sensitive prices.

You can easily restrict labor and know exactly what will happen; labor price goes up. This is usually a good thing for liberty, for distributed political power, for a society of people who are invested, as property owners, in the sanctity of property, law, contracts, and freedom.

Broke slave laborers are prone to become socialists and will be a constant source of political instability and support for violence against law, property, contracts. All they need is sufficient numbers, and you and your property will make a nice meal for them.

The hate is strong in BILL3


Your hate for

property owners?

The love is strong too. Your love for the policies of Lindsey Graham, Obama, McCain, Reid, and the rest of the DC crowd. Don't be so abashed, when you support a policy just speak up and say so. These are your champions, why not throw them a bone?

you are advocating price controls

Price controls that could only be enforced through coercive central planning.

Let's say there is some kind of agreement in place to keep labor prices high. Let's say I have a landscaping company and I don't accept this agreement. I want to find cheaper labor so I can charge less for my landscaping services and get more business. I decide to bring in some guys from Mexico. Let's say all property owners along the border with Mexico refuse to allow any Mexicans to cross their land.

I make a deal with an owner of a marina to bring in a ship of Mexicans and I make another deal with a road owner that owns a road from the marina to my landscaping place of business. Suppose I pay them a small percentage of what I will save on labor. Why would they turn down this money? Now I can charge less. My customers are happier. The Mexicans are happier. The marina owner and the road owner are happier. The only people less happy are the previous laborers that I have fired. Who are you to say that these laborers are more important than my customers?

I know deep down you know that labor price controls would break down in a free market. In fact, I don't see how what you are proposing is any different from minimum wage laws. Do you support minimum wage laws?

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

Supply control

is not a price control, lol.

Price is the consequence of supply. Controlling the supply does not require centralized coercion.

It would just require an ethos or cultural standard, a belief in a certain standard of living as minimally acceptable, and the boycott/exclusion of anyone who violates this norm.

Same as enforcing any other norm via voluntary association and property interaction.

You are deeply confused, as usual.

The persons in your scenario who you proposition for transporting workers might refuse on moral grounds, because they don't want to support undercutting decent living standards, or don't want to suffer the consequences of violating cultural norm.

In a voluntary system, they could still do it, but the rest of the people could boycott them, strip them of any mutual defense services, and, as the Icelanders did (who anarchist seamusin claims were anarchists), make these people guilty of "outlawry" -- outside protection of the law.

So anyone could use force against them without penalty, because they chose to violate cultural norms, and not receive punishment from the rest of the society, who withdrew its shield.

Maybe you and Sea should debate about whether outlawry is valid.



Now who is being naive?

Also, you haven't answered if you support minimum wage laws.

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

Well, as you know, I'm an evil

supporter of force, so I'm not beholden to the 100% voluntary principle. But it's hardly naive to think people would form cultural norms about what constitutes an acceptable standard of living, and enforce it via boycott, exclusion or positive law. It's not mere possibility, it's historical and present reality.

We don't want walking scum like from Goldman Sachs looting our economy and selling the middle class down the river to line their dirty pockets for a temporary benefit, while they rot out and dismantle the long term economic and political stability of the country.

You guys support that because you're chasing a phantom ideology and selling yourself to real Devils to pay for fake utopias.

Minimum wage laws are not the topic. Focus.

ha, I knew you wouldn't answer

That's ok, I know you know I got you there.

If you agree that you are a supporter of coercive solutions, why are you trying to sell a solution in terms of cultural norms and other non-coercive options? Why not just commit fully to your beliefs and come out in support of a minimum wage law? That's basically what you are advocating.

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

It's natural that you should

want me to chase a red herring, but I won't. Make a post about the minimum wage, if it's interesting I'll add comments. But I don't indulge people in argumentative tactics that undermine sound discussion.

To your next question, there is no contradiction between supporting both voluntary and cultural norms, as well as legal enforcements. They are complementary. The cultural and voluntary norms are the basis for any just laws that compel individuals in a given area to abide by the rules of that area.

But to comment further here would be to chase another red herring, because it's not the topic we were focusing on.

I accept your surrender

peace be with you

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson