Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › The Case for Open Immigration
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2  Send TopicPrint
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) The Case for Open Immigration (Read 1789 times)
Tommy Palven
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2035
Location: North America
Joined: Sep 27th, 2011
The Case for Open Immigration
Aug 11th, 2016 at 6:56pm
Print Post  

Video presented by the Future of Freedom Foundation:

http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/case-open-immigration/
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Dissident Right
Ex Member


Re: The Case for Open Immigration
Reply #1 - Aug 11th, 2016 at 9:42pm
Print Post  






It's very simple.

Economic efficiency requires capital to flow out of wealth countries while labor flows in.

Consequence: living standards for the natives plummet, racial strife explodes, and all hope of libertarian government is gone with the wind.

Great for soulless global capitalists loyal to no nation.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 12201
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: The Case for Open Immigration
Reply #2 - Aug 12th, 2016 at 12:21am
Print Post  
My only defence is rather weak, but here goes anyway.

Let us take a country with closed borders, and we shall call it Allarei. If, the jobs of Allarei are only for Allareans, and even if the government enforces this, it cannot be denied that the Allareans collectively exercise a form of control over those jobs that amounts to property rights.

Whether this is legitimate or not is another story. Whether they exercise the property rights cannot be disputed: They do. The agreement simply isn't formal.

What is also true is that most Americans oppose open borders and illegal immigrant labour. What I think this means is that we live in an effective home owners' association where a all jobs created are declared to be partly the property of the HOA and the HOA granted enough control to declare that those jobs only go to those within the HOA. When you create that job, here, you simply don't have full property rights to it. You never did.

Once again, and this is what weakens my case: The agreement is not formal.

As with any nonviolent organisation, the capitalist is free to leave if he doesn't like the rules and create jobs elsewhere. No one is forcing him to stay. He can live on a boat or emigrate. But if he wants the advantages a system of enforced rules provides (and he gets it for free don'tcha know) then he may have to accept some rules himself.

My guess is that the enforcement of most property rights for free makes America more attractive than Somalia to a capitalist. So even though the agreement is not formal, the capitalist would presumably agree to the conditions.

Another point is that from time immemorial, a population has always had an effective share in the welfare of its nation - in other words, in all property in that nation. Some form of effective control by the people amounts to property rights in modern terms.

Is it not bad form to apply a concept like property rights so that property that didn't happen to be called property effectively changes hands?

If the tribe Nekatu controls 400 acres for its 40 members and the tribe Malron controls 800 acres for its 900 members, suddenly declaring the tribal governments illegitimate should not mean the Malronis get to take some of the Nekatu farms or vice-versa.

In other words, what is used as property but not called property should be given to its effective owners rather than redistributed to all people equally.

The exclusion of the non-citizen by the government, but for the benefit of the citizen, is a form of control of those jobs by the citizen that is effectively property rights. The word property does not allow you to strip others of property who do not possess or put such importance on, that word.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 13057
Location: California Coast
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: The Case for Open Immigration
Reply #3 - Sep 7th, 2016 at 12:43am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Aug 12th, 2016 at 12:21am:
My only defence is rather weak, but here goes anyway.

What is also true is that most Americans oppose open borders and illegal immigrant labour. What I think this means is that we live in an effective home owners' association where a all jobs created are declared to be partly the property of the HOA and the HOA granted enough control to declare that those jobs only go to those within the HOA. When you create that job, here, you simply don't have full property rights to it. You never did.

Once again, and this is what weakens my case: The agreement is not formal.


I dont fully understand the HOA analogy.

You're thinking of jobs as a commodity. When a job is created, it is "property" of the individual, company, or corporation which created it.

Billy-Bob's Widget Mfg Co. annexes its operations and opens a new plant in another state.  If it wants to move existing employees from th original plant to the new one, it has every right to do that.  The Widget Mfg. Co is not compelled to hire local resident near the new plant.  And they certainly are not compelled to hire undocumented workers that came from other countries!

All these jobs belong to the Widget Mfg. Co.  They created them, and they can make them go away.

Of course, the state can regulate the work environment at the new facility, but the state cannot force them to hire specific people. In this sense, the Widget Mfg. Co is fully sovereign over its operations.

Some states will offer "sweetheart" deals to companies who agree to hire a special demographic. But these deals are usually done behind closed doors -  its pure cronyism.

Anyways, I think its wrong to think of jobs as a commodity.




  

Governments will always devise ways to deprive an honest man of his money or property, and claim that it's legal.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 53352
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The Case for Open Immigration
Reply #4 - Sep 7th, 2016 at 7:26am
Print Post  
Eliminate the "welfare" state first. It's a much larger anti-liberty problem than border controls.

Are "open border' advocates in favor of letting criminals, terrorists and people carrying infectious diseases freely enter the country?
How does that protect the liberty of the people who already live here?
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 12201
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: The Case for Open Immigration
Reply #5 - Sep 7th, 2016 at 11:16pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Sep 7th, 2016 at 7:26am:
Eliminate the "welfare" state first. It's a much larger anti-liberty problem than border controls.

Are "open border' advocates in favor of letting criminals, terrorists and people carrying infectious diseases freely enter the country?


Yes, because rights.

Jeff wrote on Sep 7th, 2016 at 7:26am:
How does that protect the liberty of the people who already live here?


Because liberty doesn't mean you won't die, and you don't have a right not to catch a disease. You don't have a right to dictate who will buy the house next to yours just because that person is a thrice-convicted murderer.

In other words, you're right that it doesn't because you don't get any damned liberty when you're dead.

He who chooses freedom over safety loses both and deserves neither.

- Me

SkyChief wrote on Sep 7th, 2016 at 12:43am:
I dont fully understand the HOA analogy.

You're thinking of jobs as a commodity. When a job is created, it is "property" of the individual, company, or corporation which created it.


Correct, unless you live in a HOA where a share of your house belongs to the HOA and living in the house entails following the agreement.

If you imagine that the government has a share of all property in its country, and is simply enforcing their property rights, they become no different than a HOA and everything they do is fine, with the notable exception that they would have to follow the Constitution at all times because that represents the covenant between the People and the government that the People actually agreed to.

As far as illegal immigration goes, each country prohibits it for the benefit of its People. Jobs in China go to the Chinese. Jobs in India go to the People of India. It's exercised a lot like property rights with the People being the owners and the government being the custodian.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
genepool
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 904
Joined: Dec 19th, 2014
Re: The Case for Open Immigration
Reply #6 - Sep 7th, 2016 at 11:34pm
Print Post  
I have mixed opinion.

Think about it. The main reason why people want to keep immigrants out is to maintain their salary level. American workers simply earns more money than mexican and indonesian.

Imagine if an employer say, I am going to hire robot. Should that be legal? Of course. Not only that should be legal, pretty much all humans achievements happen because we have machines and computers doing most of our job. Making it illegal is the purest form of being idiotic. I would rank Luddites as second if not most harmful government restriction in the world.

Now imagine if that same employer say I want to hire immigrant?

Now here is a thing. Immigrants are human beings. Humans are smart. They don't just come and work. More or less your life will be affected non con sensually by people around you.

Take for example religion. You don't like islam. Fine. Don't be one. Is it that simple? No. When there are too many muslims they gonna vote their way. Here in my country some of my friends have to listen to muslim sermons and call of prayers. Greatly lower market value.

Some people would say the problem is not immigration. The problem is one guy can non con sensually affect another. Well guess what? The second one cannot be eliminated completely.

Another reason why I like this guy

http://9gag.com/gag/ajDK66R
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 13057
Location: California Coast
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: The Case for Open Immigration
Reply #7 - Sep 8th, 2016 at 2:10am
Print Post  
genepool wrote on Sep 7th, 2016 at 11:34pm:
When there are too many muslims they gonna vote their way. Here in my country some of my friends have to listen to muslim sermons and call of prayers. Greatly lower market value.


That's not a big surprise as 90% of Indonesians are Muslim. It would be logical to expect that the government of Indonesia would therefore be representative of Muslim values.

Do you have some other expectations?
  

Governments will always devise ways to deprive an honest man of his money or property, and claim that it's legal.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 53352
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The Case for Open Immigration
Reply #8 - Sep 8th, 2016 at 8:47am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Sep 7th, 2016 at 11:16pm:
Yes, because rights.

Citizens have rights to have government protect us from criminals and terrorists and carriers of the plague, and part of doing that involves stopping such non-citizens from entering our country or deporting them if they do.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 53352
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The Case for Open Immigration
Reply #9 - Sep 8th, 2016 at 8:51am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Sep 7th, 2016 at 11:16pm:
He who chooses freedom over safety loses both and deserves neither.

- Me

You claim that giving up freedom will make people safe?

It's been proven to make them poor, and it's always more dangerous to be a poor person in the world.

Taken to the extreme, your plan produces North Korea where only the "elites" are safe from famine.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › The Case for Open Immigration
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy