"Open boarders" suddenly sounds much better to me now that you've linked it to "Legalize all weapons." Legalizing all weapons -- or rather, decriminalizing all weapons -- is possibly the best of all possible weapons regulation policies.
If you respond that only governments should have the most dangerous weapons, then you are agreeing that only the biggest, most violent and most willing to use violence bully should have the most dangerous weapons. I don't like bullies. I never have. Forcing the bullies' victims to be disarmed or disadvantaged is abetting the bullies.
Sure. I'm sure, though, that very few corner shops would be willing to stock those items, though, do to their insurance companies being unwilling to accept the liability for storage.
I don't particularly want to have to make 100,000 arguments to support free trade. Instead, I think it better to view "free trade" as a default position based on a presumption of liberty. So one has to argue (quite likely successfully) that perhaps there should NOT be free trade in plague viruses rather than that there SHOULD be free trade in sugar and also cars and also cotton and also...
But such libertarians do in fact support the “extreme” of 100% open borders, no? So the quarrel really lies with their idea itself, not with the slogan. It is a slogan that clearly conveys their views.
The current state of immigration is that the wall building, children in cages, "not sending their best", bus them to blue states GOP has seen a 30+ point swing of Hispanics in the border counties towards the GOP compared to the amnesty crowd.
If you can't sell Hispanic immigration to recent Hispanic immigrants, you can't sell immigration.
Even most people who support open borders as an ideal do not support it as a matter of immediate practical policy. So, whatever slogan is used should focus on the iterative nature of expanding immigration, like "free trade" is associated with the iterative nature of trade agreements. At least that's how I interpreted this article.
I know lots of people that support increased immigration or a different kind of immigration or immigration reform who do not say they favor Open Borders.
I think people who use that phrase know what it means and support it. Certainly, in the case of our host.
As a linguist: "free" is just a absolute/relative as "open". Doors can be half-open. Valves can be anything from 0-100% open. - If you are not free to do all, then you are "restricted", not free. ;)
"open - more open - most open". See? Easy. - "I am free, but I want to be, errr, freeer." Sounds confused.
See also: tight. dry. unique. pregnant. closed. enslaved. lonely. - "the onliest"
Practical: I agree! But: Is "free immigration" more catchy? Or just as frightening to an (R) as is "private water/schools/prisons/roads/armies" to a (D)? - What about: "Qualified immigrants"/ "Useful immigration" / "USA: open for work" Long version: "No welfare for foreign scum. Just Work and Taxes. Cope. Open for hard work 24/7." I hear them cheering!!! - As they did in Prague 1989, West German embassy the second they heard: "Ihre Ausreise" (your emigration)
(Btw.: THAT turned into huge influx the size of a THIRD of our population into our welfare system. In one day. Third of October. Many of them old, or kids, or with no usable qualification. With disturbing views of politics. Getting full citizenship and all perks. The WORST way to do open borders. After 32 years, it seems it turned out not too bad. While the US votes Trump or Biden.)
We all live in a welfare state. Libertarians should be opposed to the welfare state. Milton Friedman noted that you can have a welfare state or you can have open borders but not both for very long. Hastening the bankruptcy of bankrupt welfare states is one strategy but it would be more constructive if libertarians prioritized their wish list to work on eliminating the welfare state first. The actual destruction seems to be a priority of the political party legacy of those that created the welfare state.
Immigrants are a net positive contribution to government finances:
* They contribute to non-rival expending without increasing it
* A foreign worker cost less to the government that raising an American born worker (way less!)
* Immigrants have a higher workforce participation rate
But, in any case, even if you don't want to be confused by the facts, Bryan proposes a keyhole solution for this. You can deny welfare benefits to immigrants, or you can make them pay a fee to enter the country or you can levy an annual fee on them (or all of the three at the same time).
Immigrants per se are not the problem. "Open Borders" where food, lodging, health care, transportation, and cell phones are provided by the state for anyone crossing the border in breach of the rule of law is the problem. Liberalizing immigration laws to increase immigration is the solution rather than the permissive ignorance of the law on one border. Again, open borders in a libertarian society without the bankrupt welfare state is even better.
I'm noticing there's not an obviously better phrase though, thus it persists. "Free hiring" seems hard to oppose but is a pretty narrow benefit of immigration. "Free movement" is what the EU calls it but also that's a pretty extreme version of liberalizing immigration.
And once they have moved into your country, what is their legal status? Can they vote? Are they entitled to services? Can their kids go to school? Do children they have get citizenship? What happens if they show up in the emergency room? If one of them commits a crime, what is their legal status?
These are questions you don't have to ask about importing widgets.
These are not difficult questions in the EU with its 99% open internal borders. Vote: Only in local elections. Entitled to most services, their kids can and must attend school, ofc.. Citizenship according to national laws. In Germany: live legally a few years, know the language, do a test, give up your old one, have an income.
Emergency room: get treatment. All inhabitants MUST have insurance. If they don't: 80€ a visit. If not rich, we won't try to get the 100k of your treatment back. Crime: See judge, go prison. What else?
The gap between the rich EU countries and Bulgaria is still huge. 40k-120k€ GDP per head vs 10k. Think Conneticut (90k$) vs. Mississippi (44k). ;) The insane welfare state we have in e.g. Germany does cause trouble, no doubt. Still it works. Why? A Bulgarian prefers to WORK in Germany for 2-4k € a month to living on handouts of 800 or so. (Plus insane paper work. If you are smart enough to game the welfare state, you don't need it.)
Poor immigrants vote for them because they are poor (duh, who benefits).
Even rich immigrants, who are mostly Asian, come from rather statist and conformist cultures where the government is expected to run a robust welfare state and meddle in the economy. In Bryan's thread an Asian immigrant even spells this out for all of us.
Immigrants don't vote for Dems/Welfare State because of immigration policy or rhetoric. If anything, harsh immigration rhetoric helps the GOP with many immigrants. They vote as they do because they genuinely want America to be a more leftist society, it's their nature. That's why the places they come from are the way they are.
An interesting post by Klein. BC has long been clear that open borders is no mere slogan and is a true and literal expression of his views when used. Mr. Klein surely knows this. BC is not alone. What then is the purpose of this advice to his friend? Don't use it because you will frighten the natives to the detriment of your purpose. Now that is all too common as advice and practice. I appreciate BC's frankness and understand his views and arguments to be offered in all sincerity, treat them seriously, and will henceforth discount Mr. Kline's appropriately.
I am confident that Liechtenstein would benefit greatly from having open borders and allowing 1 million Nigerians in. I will envy their economic and cultural enrichment.
Some might use open borders to insulate themselves from left criticism. However some (myself included) believe it is the principally consistent libertarian position to have no restrictions on immigration. Additionally, yes to complete free trade and legalizing all weapons. “Open borders” is a good slogan and an accurate one if you believe in open borders. Not just “more” immigration.
I think "free immigration" and "free trade" are the best nomenclature.
My main issue with the term "open borders" is that it implies a national border ought still be enforced, only with an "open" policy. I disagree with this stance, and maintain that the institution of the national border should be abolished entirely, unless it can be cleanly justified.
Of course, simply labeling the contrary position "irresponsible" is insufficient justification. The rhetoric rings more as a mocking cudgel than sound moral analysis.
I lived in Japan before the corona virus rules destroyed my life. During their election seasons I would sometimes joke with my students by asking them which political party I could vote for to get welfare. American sarcasm is not really well understood there. They just looked at me and usually told me there is no way for a foreigner to vote and they don't really understand what I am asking. Tough crowd.
How so? He seems to mean that people can cross it at will. There are lots of borders internal to the US that people may cross at will. Is the border between Texas and Oklahoma an oxymoron?
This is a very good post. Reminds me of something that came up when Bryan talked with Peter Singer, how you have to consider the politics (the message impact) of policy proposals. Not just whether the position is moral / correct.
"Open boarders" suddenly sounds much better to me now that you've linked it to "Legalize all weapons." Legalizing all weapons -- or rather, decriminalizing all weapons -- is possibly the best of all possible weapons regulation policies.
If you respond that only governments should have the most dangerous weapons, then you are agreeing that only the biggest, most violent and most willing to use violence bully should have the most dangerous weapons. I don't like bullies. I never have. Forcing the bullies' victims to be disarmed or disadvantaged is abetting the bullies.
I was about to write almost this exact thing. Glad to see someone else out there “gets” the principle.
So should anyone be able to buy nuclear bombs and weaponised smallpox at their local corner shop?
Sure. I'm sure, though, that very few corner shops would be willing to stock those items, though, do to their insurance companies being unwilling to accept the liability for storage.
I don't particularly want to have to make 100,000 arguments to support free trade. Instead, I think it better to view "free trade" as a default position based on a presumption of liberty. So one has to argue (quite likely successfully) that perhaps there should NOT be free trade in plague viruses rather than that there SHOULD be free trade in sugar and also cars and also cotton and also...
I think open borders works similarly.
But such libertarians do in fact support the “extreme” of 100% open borders, no? So the quarrel really lies with their idea itself, not with the slogan. It is a slogan that clearly conveys their views.
The current state of immigration is that the wall building, children in cages, "not sending their best", bus them to blue states GOP has seen a 30+ point swing of Hispanics in the border counties towards the GOP compared to the amnesty crowd.
If you can't sell Hispanic immigration to recent Hispanic immigrants, you can't sell immigration.
Even most people who support open borders as an ideal do not support it as a matter of immediate practical policy. So, whatever slogan is used should focus on the iterative nature of expanding immigration, like "free trade" is associated with the iterative nature of trade agreements. At least that's how I interpreted this article.
I know lots of people that support increased immigration or a different kind of immigration or immigration reform who do not say they favor Open Borders.
I think people who use that phrase know what it means and support it. Certainly, in the case of our host.
That is my sense as well.
As a linguist: "free" is just a absolute/relative as "open". Doors can be half-open. Valves can be anything from 0-100% open. - If you are not free to do all, then you are "restricted", not free. ;)
"open - more open - most open". See? Easy. - "I am free, but I want to be, errr, freeer." Sounds confused.
See also: tight. dry. unique. pregnant. closed. enslaved. lonely. - "the onliest"
Practical: I agree! But: Is "free immigration" more catchy? Or just as frightening to an (R) as is "private water/schools/prisons/roads/armies" to a (D)? - What about: "Qualified immigrants"/ "Useful immigration" / "USA: open for work" Long version: "No welfare for foreign scum. Just Work and Taxes. Cope. Open for hard work 24/7." I hear them cheering!!! - As they did in Prague 1989, West German embassy the second they heard: "Ihre Ausreise" (your emigration)
Historically: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdI7y8wUQYE
(Btw.: THAT turned into huge influx the size of a THIRD of our population into our welfare system. In one day. Third of October. Many of them old, or kids, or with no usable qualification. With disturbing views of politics. Getting full citizenship and all perks. The WORST way to do open borders. After 32 years, it seems it turned out not too bad. While the US votes Trump or Biden.)
But the extreme of completely open borders is actually perfectly reasonable!
Most countries have completely open borders between States/districts/counties whatever and nobodies ever thought it a problem.
The EU has completely open borders between countries and it's basically been fine.
Until 1920 the USA had completely open borders, and that has been the source of much of the USA's wealth and success.
We all live in a welfare state. Libertarians should be opposed to the welfare state. Milton Friedman noted that you can have a welfare state or you can have open borders but not both for very long. Hastening the bankruptcy of bankrupt welfare states is one strategy but it would be more constructive if libertarians prioritized their wish list to work on eliminating the welfare state first. The actual destruction seems to be a priority of the political party legacy of those that created the welfare state.
Immigrants are a net positive contribution to government finances:
* They contribute to non-rival expending without increasing it
* A foreign worker cost less to the government that raising an American born worker (way less!)
* Immigrants have a higher workforce participation rate
But, in any case, even if you don't want to be confused by the facts, Bryan proposes a keyhole solution for this. You can deny welfare benefits to immigrants, or you can make them pay a fee to enter the country or you can levy an annual fee on them (or all of the three at the same time).
Immigrants per se are not the problem. "Open Borders" where food, lodging, health care, transportation, and cell phones are provided by the state for anyone crossing the border in breach of the rule of law is the problem. Liberalizing immigration laws to increase immigration is the solution rather than the permissive ignorance of the law on one border. Again, open borders in a libertarian society without the bankrupt welfare state is even better.
Everything is better without the welfare state.
I'm noticing there's not an obviously better phrase though, thus it persists. "Free hiring" seems hard to oppose but is a pretty narrow benefit of immigration. "Free movement" is what the EU calls it but also that's a pretty extreme version of liberalizing immigration.
Free movement is a pretty good one.
Europeans have experienced it within "Europe" (well most of it) ... and it feels so good!!. Even better that you can imagine
And once they have moved into your country, what is their legal status? Can they vote? Are they entitled to services? Can their kids go to school? Do children they have get citizenship? What happens if they show up in the emergency room? If one of them commits a crime, what is their legal status?
These are questions you don't have to ask about importing widgets.
These are not difficult questions in the EU with its 99% open internal borders. Vote: Only in local elections. Entitled to most services, their kids can and must attend school, ofc.. Citizenship according to national laws. In Germany: live legally a few years, know the language, do a test, give up your old one, have an income.
Emergency room: get treatment. All inhabitants MUST have insurance. If they don't: 80€ a visit. If not rich, we won't try to get the 100k of your treatment back. Crime: See judge, go prison. What else?
The gap between the rich EU countries and Bulgaria is still huge. 40k-120k€ GDP per head vs 10k. Think Conneticut (90k$) vs. Mississippi (44k). ;) The insane welfare state we have in e.g. Germany does cause trouble, no doubt. Still it works. Why? A Bulgarian prefers to WORK in Germany for 2-4k € a month to living on handouts of 800 or so. (Plus insane paper work. If you are smart enough to game the welfare state, you don't need it.)
Yes you are right!, entitlements ARE a problem.
Let's get rid of them. All of them!!
And yet, immigrants vote for entitlements.
Poor immigrants vote for them because they are poor (duh, who benefits).
Even rich immigrants, who are mostly Asian, come from rather statist and conformist cultures where the government is expected to run a robust welfare state and meddle in the economy. In Bryan's thread an Asian immigrant even spells this out for all of us.
Immigrants don't vote for Dems/Welfare State because of immigration policy or rhetoric. If anything, harsh immigration rhetoric helps the GOP with many immigrants. They vote as they do because they genuinely want America to be a more leftist society, it's their nature. That's why the places they come from are the way they are.
"immigrants vote for entitlements."
An additional reason to abolish all entitlements!!.
People (immigrants and otherwise) vote for the wrong policies almost all the time (as it is the case when they support entitlements and/or borders)
How are you going to abolish entitlements? Gonna storm the capital and set yourself up as dictator?
postlibertatian, what about "decriminalize immigration." It doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.....
Great!
An interesting post by Klein. BC has long been clear that open borders is no mere slogan and is a true and literal expression of his views when used. Mr. Klein surely knows this. BC is not alone. What then is the purpose of this advice to his friend? Don't use it because you will frighten the natives to the detriment of your purpose. Now that is all too common as advice and practice. I appreciate BC's frankness and understand his views and arguments to be offered in all sincerity, treat them seriously, and will henceforth discount Mr. Kline's appropriately.
I am confident that Liechtenstein would benefit greatly from having open borders and allowing 1 million Nigerians in. I will envy their economic and cultural enrichment.
Some might use open borders to insulate themselves from left criticism. However some (myself included) believe it is the principally consistent libertarian position to have no restrictions on immigration. Additionally, yes to complete free trade and legalizing all weapons. “Open borders” is a good slogan and an accurate one if you believe in open borders. Not just “more” immigration.
I think "free immigration" and "free trade" are the best nomenclature.
My main issue with the term "open borders" is that it implies a national border ought still be enforced, only with an "open" policy. I disagree with this stance, and maintain that the institution of the national border should be abolished entirely, unless it can be cleanly justified.
Of course, simply labeling the contrary position "irresponsible" is insufficient justification. The rhetoric rings more as a mocking cudgel than sound moral analysis.
I don’t get it
I lived in Japan before the corona virus rules destroyed my life. During their election seasons I would sometimes joke with my students by asking them which political party I could vote for to get welfare. American sarcasm is not really well understood there. They just looked at me and usually told me there is no way for a foreigner to vote and they don't really understand what I am asking. Tough crowd.
Open Border is a bit of an oxymoron
How so? He seems to mean that people can cross it at will. There are lots of borders internal to the US that people may cross at will. Is the border between Texas and Oklahoma an oxymoron?
This is a very good post. Reminds me of something that came up when Bryan talked with Peter Singer, how you have to consider the politics (the message impact) of policy proposals. Not just whether the position is moral / correct.