How is that the theory’s endpoint? There are many countries where most people don’t want to move to the US. Like all the ones with higher standards of living and public services?
I’ll rephrase: when the theory’s endpoint is that everyone on earth who wants to move to the US gets to do so, I think there might be some issues with the theory.
You got your ass kicked, Caplan. I'd also hate the guy that did that to me. You DO get props for putting it out there in public. Hope that, and an ice-pack, helps.
I’m four of five exchanges in and Hankinson isn’t even responding to the bulk of what Caplan has said most of the time, let alone providing a justification for his anti-immigrstion views.
How is the answer about having lived in various countries and favouring lawfulness but also campaigning to change laws etc a response to the point, about immigration, at all? It’s Biden/Grandpa Abe esque rambling!
I think you have to be doing very motivated reasoning to conclude that Hankinson is “winning”.
About the only place I differ with Hankinson is letting government decide who (i) are net contributors over a projected lifetime, and (c) what counts as a "proven lack of American workers".
I believe (c) is not a problem, because immigrants not only take jobs, they create demand. I believe (i) is impossible for central planning and is better handled by refusing all support for non-citizens, deporting or locking up criminal non-citizens, and forcing non-citizens (and their kith and kin) to decide for themselves whether the gain of immigrating is worth the painful transition period.
Immigration restrictions implicitly assume that certain government agents own all the land within the national territory, even though they did not acquire it by homesteading or any other just means. On that assumption, undocumented immigrants are trespassers — but it’s unclear how officials can claim a right to exclude peaceful entrants from land that private individuals and groups justly acquired. Eminent domain laws rest on the same presupposition: that government agents are the ultimate owners. If the rightful owners are the people who actually homesteaded or purchased the land, then they — not government agents — should decide whom to admit. If a landowner wants to hire immigrant workers and allow them onto his property, prohibiting that entry violates the owner’s rights and is therefore unjust. Conversely, if government agents truly own the land, then they also have the right to evict the nominal private owners. That seems like an important implication. It would be unfortunate if officials decided to exercise the ownership rights that immigration restriction logically presupposes and evict the rest of us.
I'll write more later but just wanted to comment I really really hate crime discussions when they are trying to use known bad statistics because they ignore both the reality and definitionally differences both over time and nations along with things like enforcement and capture error.
In France "sex by fraud" (usually marriage) is rape, in America the SCOTUS ruled that's called dating. In 2000 drunkenly groping someone on the dancefloor (I.e. grinding , etc).in Berlin was a faux pas, today it's rape. In 2000, a condom breaking during sex was an accident, it's today's Stockholm it's rape. In 2000 London looking at the page two girls was normal and every newsstand, in 2026 it's child pornography. In 2000 UK and US, agreeing to consensual sex you didn't retroactively enjoy was just a life experience, in 2026 it's rape, cue Cornell, current trial of Russell Brand, past trials of Epstein, Weinstein, Andrew, Puffy, etc. And by rape here I mean as in the crime that puts you in prison.
This is important because during that same time you had mass immigration to the West. But that doesn't mean rape was causative correlated because the definition has changed during that same time period.
And that goes for MANY, if not most, crimes over both time and space. It's the same known issue when it comes to things like reporting infant mortality and abortions. People aren't using the same measuring stick.
Hankinson in a cake walk. That was a beat down. Where was the ref?
When the theory’s endpoint is that everyone on earth should move to the US, I think there might be some issues with the theory.
How is that the theory’s endpoint? There are many countries where most people don’t want to move to the US. Like all the ones with higher standards of living and public services?
You’re right.
I’ll rephrase: when the theory’s endpoint is that everyone on earth who wants to move to the US gets to do so, I think there might be some issues with the theory.
You got your ass kicked, Caplan. I'd also hate the guy that did that to me. You DO get props for putting it out there in public. Hope that, and an ice-pack, helps.
I’m four of five exchanges in and Hankinson isn’t even responding to the bulk of what Caplan has said most of the time, let alone providing a justification for his anti-immigrstion views.
How is the answer about having lived in various countries and favouring lawfulness but also campaigning to change laws etc a response to the point, about immigration, at all? It’s Biden/Grandpa Abe esque rambling!
I think you have to be doing very motivated reasoning to conclude that Hankinson is “winning”.
About the only place I differ with Hankinson is letting government decide who (i) are net contributors over a projected lifetime, and (c) what counts as a "proven lack of American workers".
I believe (c) is not a problem, because immigrants not only take jobs, they create demand. I believe (i) is impossible for central planning and is better handled by refusing all support for non-citizens, deporting or locking up criminal non-citizens, and forcing non-citizens (and their kith and kin) to decide for themselves whether the gain of immigrating is worth the painful transition period.
Immigration restrictions implicitly assume that certain government agents own all the land within the national territory, even though they did not acquire it by homesteading or any other just means. On that assumption, undocumented immigrants are trespassers — but it’s unclear how officials can claim a right to exclude peaceful entrants from land that private individuals and groups justly acquired. Eminent domain laws rest on the same presupposition: that government agents are the ultimate owners. If the rightful owners are the people who actually homesteaded or purchased the land, then they — not government agents — should decide whom to admit. If a landowner wants to hire immigrant workers and allow them onto his property, prohibiting that entry violates the owner’s rights and is therefore unjust. Conversely, if government agents truly own the land, then they also have the right to evict the nominal private owners. That seems like an important implication. It would be unfortunate if officials decided to exercise the ownership rights that immigration restriction logically presupposes and evict the rest of us.
>How is it fair to our children to let people who contributed nothing to this buy into the game at the top level? You have to earn your way in and up
What exactly did our children do to "buy into the game"?
I'll write more later but just wanted to comment I really really hate crime discussions when they are trying to use known bad statistics because they ignore both the reality and definitionally differences both over time and nations along with things like enforcement and capture error.
In France "sex by fraud" (usually marriage) is rape, in America the SCOTUS ruled that's called dating. In 2000 drunkenly groping someone on the dancefloor (I.e. grinding , etc).in Berlin was a faux pas, today it's rape. In 2000, a condom breaking during sex was an accident, it's today's Stockholm it's rape. In 2000 London looking at the page two girls was normal and every newsstand, in 2026 it's child pornography. In 2000 UK and US, agreeing to consensual sex you didn't retroactively enjoy was just a life experience, in 2026 it's rape, cue Cornell, current trial of Russell Brand, past trials of Epstein, Weinstein, Andrew, Puffy, etc. And by rape here I mean as in the crime that puts you in prison.
This is important because during that same time you had mass immigration to the West. But that doesn't mean rape was causative correlated because the definition has changed during that same time period.
And that goes for MANY, if not most, crimes over both time and space. It's the same known issue when it comes to things like reporting infant mortality and abortions. People aren't using the same measuring stick.