The author states he supports a return to something like the ‘open’ borders of the 19th century. Does he also support abolition of the federal welfare state in its entirety? As Milton Freedman has pointed out, you can have either a welfare state or open borders, but not both. Most of us know abolition of the welfare state is not possible, which fuels our opposition to relatively unrestricted immigration.
Abolish the welfare state and require assimilation, and I’m there with you on relatively unrestricted immigration. However, the order is important. The experience in 1986 showed that.
Indeed. First abolish the welfare state. Make it clear that anyone intending to immigrate will need to understand our political system as designed and assimilate culturally - you’re not welcome come if you plan to change America - and only then let people come with fewer restrictions.
Yes you can have both, as a new immigrant I would accept no welfare for me or my dependents, children banned for public schools etc. I would only be using public infrastructure like roads but would also make sense an extra public infereasteucture charge, in exchange I get to enter look for a job pay taxes and leave same as a citizen, of course I can't vote. I think prices for this things can be calculated and millions of people would take this trade.
In principle, your approach might be possible; in practice, I don’t think it would work.There would be too much pressure to shorten time frames, make exceptions, etc. It also creates a underclass and great vigilance in determining who is whom.
You can have both, you just have to exclude immigrants from the welfare system for a few years. Require them to establish a track record of working and contributing for a few years before they become eligible and they won't suddenly switch to living on welfare when that eligibility arrives, any more than native born citizens do. Less, actually, since immigrants tend to be much more motivated.
In principle, your approach might be possible; in practice, I don’t think it would work.There would be too much pressure to shorten time frames, make exceptions, etc. It also creates a underclass and great vigilance in determining who is whom.
The US has exactly this policy, has had since the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity act. Legal immigrants are barred from all federal programs for five years, or until they naturalize, whichever comes first. Some states provide some benefits earlier, but this is a very well-studied question and the result is that there is little to no "magnet effect"; immigrants tend to gravitate to states with the best labor market conditions, not those with the most benefits. And, of course, once you're in the US the borders between states are truly open.
Canada has a similar scheme that is points-based and generally prevents immigrants from using federal social assistance for 3-10 years.
Australia has a two-year waiting period, with four years for some sorts of support payments.
The UK bans public assistance until permanent residence (which is harder to achieve than in the US) or citizenship.
Across all of these cases, there has been only minimal erosion of the restrictions. In the US we have seen exceptions carved out for children and the elderly, plus some states have provided benefits. Studies of all of these systems find that immigration is fiscally positive for the nations' welfare systems through the second generation, meaning that the immigrants not only contribute more than they use, they contribute more than native-born citizens. At the third generation immigrants are fully assimilated and regress to the native-born citizen mean.
That's not to say that there is *no* erosion effect, or that there are *no* magnet effects, just that they're empirically weak.
So if I were to steelman Friedman's position I might say that whether open borders are compatible with an immigrant-restricted welfare state depends on the fiscal slack in the welfare system. If the system is teetering to begin with than it's possible that that erosion of the restrictions on immigrant access could push it under water.
But I would respond to that steelman by pointing out that the fiscal fragility of the system would generate political pressure against eroding restrictions. The more trouble the system is in, the more pressure to maintain or even increase restrictions there would be.
Bottom line: For your hypothesis to hold, I think we'd need all of the following to be true:
1. The magnet effect must be strong enough to matter.
2. The restrictions must erode substantially.
3. The erosion must happen before fiscal strain generates corrective political pressure.
4. The system must lack the resilience to absorb the residual effect.
If any of those isn't true, then open borders are compatible with a welfare state that denies new arrivals.
Countries with higher levels of immigration have lower levels of welfare, though never abolition of welfare. Immigration and diversity make welfare less popular.
You do realize what you are saying: if the Overton Window doesn’t include freedom for all men, then some men must be slaves (at least until the window moves further from enslaving men to liberty for all men). That’s what Lincoln in effect represented; And Fredrick Douglass vehemently opposed on moral grounds.
Principles cannot be changed by election results, but a system based on majority rule will always be unjust and limit men’s liberty.
The Overton Window is nothing more than an excuse for violating principles (and replacing them with privileges for some) because men are not ready to be fully moral. That’s what the Overton Window explains.
This article reminds me of two great chapters in the book "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" by Thomas Sowell.
One of them was about abolitionists vs pragmatists in terms of who was more decisive in ending slavery, and the other was about Booker T. Washington vs W.E.B. Du Bois.
One very important part of Republican party, the Free-Soil people, was not anti-slavery as much as anti-slave. Their agenda was to oppose extension of slavery to new states that were being created. They wanted to keep the new states white and not have black people, slave or free. Lincoln himself had great sympathy for this idea--witness his efforts to repatriate or deport free blacks to Africa.
Frederick Douglass, himself devoted to ending slavery quickly, explains how Lincoln being 'tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent' on slavery was actually 'swift, zealous, radical, and determined':
"
His great mission was to accomplish two things: first, to save his country from dismemberment and ruin; and, second, to free his country from the great crime of slavery. To do one or the other, or both, he must have the earnest sympathy and the powerful cooperation of his loyal fellow-countrymen. Without this primary and essential condition to success his efforts must have been vain and utterly fruitless. Had he put the abolition of slavery before the salvation of the Union, he would have inevitably driven from him a powerful class of the American people and rendered resistance to rebellion impossible. Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined.
I'm not sure if Democrats even want a solution to immigration. I get why Republicans don't clamor for new legislation: the current one is restrictive in wording, and they get to apply it to the letter. But author is underestimating the problem: it's not that some Democrats are outside the OW. It's that I can't think of one being inside it. Why?
The cynic in me thinks this debacle is easier to use politically than an actual solution.
The author states he supports a return to something like the ‘open’ borders of the 19th century. Does he also support abolition of the federal welfare state in its entirety? As Milton Freedman has pointed out, you can have either a welfare state or open borders, but not both. Most of us know abolition of the welfare state is not possible, which fuels our opposition to relatively unrestricted immigration.
I am not the author, but support near open borders, full bottom-up encouragement of assimilation/integration, and abolition of the welfare state.
Abolish the welfare state and require assimilation, and I’m there with you on relatively unrestricted immigration. However, the order is important. The experience in 1986 showed that.
What does “require assimilation” mean in practice?
What exactly do you mean by "the order is important."? Do you mean the sequence of which of those 3 things happens 1st, 2nd, and 3rd?
Indeed. First abolish the welfare state. Make it clear that anyone intending to immigrate will need to understand our political system as designed and assimilate culturally - you’re not welcome come if you plan to change America - and only then let people come with fewer restrictions.
Yes you can have both, as a new immigrant I would accept no welfare for me or my dependents, children banned for public schools etc. I would only be using public infrastructure like roads but would also make sense an extra public infereasteucture charge, in exchange I get to enter look for a job pay taxes and leave same as a citizen, of course I can't vote. I think prices for this things can be calculated and millions of people would take this trade.
In principle, your approach might be possible; in practice, I don’t think it would work.There would be too much pressure to shorten time frames, make exceptions, etc. It also creates a underclass and great vigilance in determining who is whom.
You can have both, you just have to exclude immigrants from the welfare system for a few years. Require them to establish a track record of working and contributing for a few years before they become eligible and they won't suddenly switch to living on welfare when that eligibility arrives, any more than native born citizens do. Less, actually, since immigrants tend to be much more motivated.
In principle, your approach might be possible; in practice, I don’t think it would work.There would be too much pressure to shorten time frames, make exceptions, etc. It also creates a underclass and great vigilance in determining who is whom.
We don't have to guess... there's lots of data!
The US has exactly this policy, has had since the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity act. Legal immigrants are barred from all federal programs for five years, or until they naturalize, whichever comes first. Some states provide some benefits earlier, but this is a very well-studied question and the result is that there is little to no "magnet effect"; immigrants tend to gravitate to states with the best labor market conditions, not those with the most benefits. And, of course, once you're in the US the borders between states are truly open.
Canada has a similar scheme that is points-based and generally prevents immigrants from using federal social assistance for 3-10 years.
Australia has a two-year waiting period, with four years for some sorts of support payments.
The UK bans public assistance until permanent residence (which is harder to achieve than in the US) or citizenship.
Across all of these cases, there has been only minimal erosion of the restrictions. In the US we have seen exceptions carved out for children and the elderly, plus some states have provided benefits. Studies of all of these systems find that immigration is fiscally positive for the nations' welfare systems through the second generation, meaning that the immigrants not only contribute more than they use, they contribute more than native-born citizens. At the third generation immigrants are fully assimilated and regress to the native-born citizen mean.
That's not to say that there is *no* erosion effect, or that there are *no* magnet effects, just that they're empirically weak.
So if I were to steelman Friedman's position I might say that whether open borders are compatible with an immigrant-restricted welfare state depends on the fiscal slack in the welfare system. If the system is teetering to begin with than it's possible that that erosion of the restrictions on immigrant access could push it under water.
But I would respond to that steelman by pointing out that the fiscal fragility of the system would generate political pressure against eroding restrictions. The more trouble the system is in, the more pressure to maintain or even increase restrictions there would be.
Bottom line: For your hypothesis to hold, I think we'd need all of the following to be true:
1. The magnet effect must be strong enough to matter.
2. The restrictions must erode substantially.
3. The erosion must happen before fiscal strain generates corrective political pressure.
4. The system must lack the resilience to absorb the residual effect.
If any of those isn't true, then open borders are compatible with a welfare state that denies new arrivals.
Countries with higher levels of immigration have lower levels of welfare, though never abolition of welfare. Immigration and diversity make welfare less popular.
You do realize what you are saying: if the Overton Window doesn’t include freedom for all men, then some men must be slaves (at least until the window moves further from enslaving men to liberty for all men). That’s what Lincoln in effect represented; And Fredrick Douglass vehemently opposed on moral grounds.
Principles cannot be changed by election results, but a system based on majority rule will always be unjust and limit men’s liberty.
The Overton Window is nothing more than an excuse for violating principles (and replacing them with privileges for some) because men are not ready to be fully moral. That’s what the Overton Window explains.
Gotta get the herd moving to guide them. Leading from behind. Ask Lincoln about it.
Lincoln himself said he didn't direct events. Events directed him.
That's if we assume he didn't do anything to set up the conflict at Fort Sumter. Lincoln wasn't as moderate as this article alludes.
Yeah, right. That IS what he said.
This article reminds me of two great chapters in the book "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" by Thomas Sowell.
One of them was about abolitionists vs pragmatists in terms of who was more decisive in ending slavery, and the other was about Booker T. Washington vs W.E.B. Du Bois.
U.S. Grant ended slavery in the most pragmatic way possible. Good for him.
W.E.B. Du Bois' ideals won the post-slavery "peace." That's why we're still at war.
Thanks for the post, Chris. I wonder whether there has been any systematic analysis of this.
One very important part of Republican party, the Free-Soil people, was not anti-slavery as much as anti-slave. Their agenda was to oppose extension of slavery to new states that were being created. They wanted to keep the new states white and not have black people, slave or free. Lincoln himself had great sympathy for this idea--witness his efforts to repatriate or deport free blacks to Africa.
"Had Republicans lost the election of 1860, slavery’s abolition would almost certainly have been delayed."
Would this almost mean no civil war, no 2 million dead?
Frederick Douglass, himself devoted to ending slavery quickly, explains how Lincoln being 'tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent' on slavery was actually 'swift, zealous, radical, and determined':
"
His great mission was to accomplish two things: first, to save his country from dismemberment and ruin; and, second, to free his country from the great crime of slavery. To do one or the other, or both, he must have the earnest sympathy and the powerful cooperation of his loyal fellow-countrymen. Without this primary and essential condition to success his efforts must have been vain and utterly fruitless. Had he put the abolition of slavery before the salvation of the Union, he would have inevitably driven from him a powerful class of the American people and rendered resistance to rebellion impossible. Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined.
"
I'm not sure if Democrats even want a solution to immigration. I get why Republicans don't clamor for new legislation: the current one is restrictive in wording, and they get to apply it to the letter. But author is underestimating the problem: it's not that some Democrats are outside the OW. It's that I can't think of one being inside it. Why?
The cynic in me thinks this debacle is easier to use politically than an actual solution.
Tom Friedman of the Times advocates for a high wall and a big gate.