Open Borders: The Science and Ethics of Immigration

Featuring the authors Bryan Caplan, Professor of Economics at George Mason University; blogger, EconLog; and Zach Weinersmith, Illustrator, Saturday Morning Breakfast Cerealcomic strip; New York Times bestselling author, with comments by Tim Kane, JP Conte Fellow in Immigration Studies at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University; moderated by Alex Nowrasteh, Director of Immigration Policy Studies, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, Cato Institute.
📷
In their new graphic nonfiction book Open Borders: The Science and Ethics of Immigration, authors Bryan Caplan and Zach Weinersmith turn the heated public debate over immigration on its head by proposing a radical and controversial solution: open borders. Caplan argues that opening all borders would practically eliminate absolute poverty worldwide and usher in a booming worldwide economy―greatly benefiting all of humanity, including Americans. With a clear and conversational tone, exhaustive research, and vibrant illustrations by Zach Weinersmith of Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal fame, Open Borders makes the case for unrestricted immigration in a new format sure to spark lively debate. Caplan and Weinersmith will be joined by Tim Kane, the JP Conte Fellow in Immigration Studies at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, who is a supporter of liberal immigration laws but a critic of open borders.
Learn more: www.cato.org/events/open-bord...
Want to find the Cato Institute elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook - / catoinstitute
Twitter - / catoinstitute
Instagram - / catoinstitute
-

[@watchdealer11]

The cartooning is almost as interesting as the actual debate!

[@RhysWilliamsX]

Start: 5:35

[@EricFontaineJazz]

I have Caplan's book. Love it!

[@johnkosowski3321]

I was hoping to see someone refute Caplan's case for open borders because I didn't think it could be done. And i was right.

[@libertarianrevolution7026]

I tried to set up a debate between Stefan Molyneux and Bryan Caplan on this issue last year. I had an agreement from Molyneux to participate, and Caplan declined.

[@misterE-1989]

Insanity. Pure and utter insanity.

[@dkmenace1990]

When you talk borders and Alex Nowrasteh is involved, you know something silly is going to happen lol

[@purikurix]

Would be cool if Caplan could also tackle environmental issues and climate change/CO2 emission in general, sometime.

[@censorshipbites7545]

*Would have been nice to see an actual "debate" between Open Borders Kaplan and a proponent of an immigration moratorium/severely restricted immigration* . Instead, we get totally open borders and porous borders. Hardly a debate.

[@scottmumme3495]

There is also a 4th position: immigration moratorium with emigration sponsorship of recently immigrated / refugee/ illegally immigrated.

[@abcw114]

Well, it's Cato. The people here are libertarians and libertarian-leaning conservatives. This is an intramovement debate rather than a debate meant to cover the whole spectrum on this issue.

[@censorshipbites7545]

@@abcw114 It's a "debate" between an advocate of open borders and an advocate of porous borders. Which is to say it's not much of a debate and more of a discussion among the like-minded.

[@abcw114]

@@censorshipbites7545 Yes, because that's the point. It's a debate among libertarians. Intramovement. Figuring out what classical liberals and libertarians should promote on this issue.

[@censorshipbites7545]

@@abcw114 _It's a debate among libertarians. Intramovement._ I know, but the term "debate" indicates a (presumably identifiable) difference of opinion, but the debaters' positions didn't seem all that different to me.

[@cantstandya8250]

12:55 "most of the money goes to the old, not the poor", is it not the case though that this includes social security?

[@paulparker1425]

It's nice to see Coraline's father doing well.

[@jeffersonianideal]

31:20 "I love Bryan like a brother." David Greenglass

[@sammymartinez9813]

Open borders book is good.

[@jeffersonianideal]

12:28 In 1968 Dr. Milton Friedman said, “Why is it that free immigration was a good thing before 1914 and free immigration is a bad thing today? Well, there’s a sense in which that answer is right. There is a sense in which free immigration in the same sense that we had it before 1914 is not possible today. Why not? Because it is one thing to have free immigration to jobs; it’s another thing to have free immigration to welfare. And you cannot have both. If you have free immigration in the way in which we had it before 1914, everybody benefitted. The people who were here benefitted. The people who came benefitted….The new immigrants provided additional resources; provided additional possibilities for the people already here, so everybody can mutually benefit.”

[@keatonblazer2259]

Build walls around the welfare state, not walls around employment

[@jeffersonianideal]

@@keatonblazer2259 Dr. Friedman went on to say that illegal immigration was preferred over legal immigration because illegal immigrants do not have access to the welfare state.

[@keatonblazer2259]

@@jeffersonianideal yeah, pretty unintuitive but very interesting perspective! Singapore has achieved the same effect while still having a legal status for their workers, very interesting system!

[@jeffersonianideal]

@@keatonblazer2259 Actually, Dr. Friedman's observation is extremely intuitive and demonstrates the paradox of the legal/illegal immigration issue concisely and startlingly. How socialist is Singapore?

[@keatonblazer2259]

@@jeffersonianideal well it was not intuitive to me at any rate. What I'm referencing in Singapore is where foreigners can enter the country to work, but that's it. No citizenship, no welfare, need to leave eventually, can't start a family there, etc. Also they don't get paid very much. So similar from a welfare perspective to illegal immigration in the US. My point was that just because someone is here legally doesn't mean we need to give them welfare or guarantee minimum wage, although obviously that undercuts legal residents who are subject to minimum wage laws and are therefore less attractive to employers, all else equal

[@wallpello_1534]

I would love playing DND with Bryan, I wonder it his games are very political

[@jeffersonianideal]

An intense and informative debate on this issue would include Bryan Caplan and Jacob Hornbeger arguing in the affirmative for open borders, with Lew Rockwell and another seasoned Misesean arguing against the proposition.

[@controlyourtemperjeez8220]

Wanda’s family was al little less saddened to find that she died from covid that came from an immigrant

[@sayhitosteve2785]

I bet none of these chosen ones would ever argue open borders for 1srael.

[@adamcaul]

It’s good to learn about your countries enemies.

[@jeffersonianideal]

The Reason Foundation and Soho Forum moderator Gene Epstein should not feel the least bit slighted. Cato's so-called "debate" on open borders lacked any substantial counterargument.

[@libertarianrevolution7026]

I contacted Alex Nowrasteh, Bryan Caplan, Jeffry Miron, and Daniel Bier, about debating Stefan Molyneux on how to properly apply libertarian philosophy in regard to borders and immigration policy, and Nowrasteh, Caplan, and Miron all declined, and I never heard back from Bier. I really have to question people who espouse a position in public, but refuse to defend it in a debate. I'd love to see any of these in a public debate against Stefan Molyneux or Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

[@libertarianrevolution7026]

And just in case it is not obvious, I do NOT consider "open borders" and unlimited, unrestricted immigration to be a legitimate libertarian position. A purist libertarian society, as in an anarcho-capitalist society, would NOT have open borders, it would have private property borders, and property owners would be free to set their own entrance policies, and they would therefore be free to discriminate for any reason. One of the essential characteristics to property rights is exclusivity. Land is a scarce resource which is therefore subject to privater property norms. Give that we live in a society that has a state, as does everyone else in the world, and given that the state acts as a property manager of the taxpayer funded commons/infrastructure, and given that the state monopolizes the function of regulating borders and migration, and given that we live in a defacto democratic welfare state with forced association laws, the state policy in place should not be one that is destructive to the existing population. Inviting in large numbers of people who do not reciprocate the values of liberty, and who are in some cases, are outright hostile to the existing culture, is an assault on the rights of the existing population. Therefore, as long as the state exists, its policy should not invite people into the country who hold Marxist or theocratic or other totalitarian ideologies, nor should it invite non-ideological opportunistic welfare seekers, nor should it invite criminal thugs or communicable disease carriers, and should any of the aforementioned groups sneak into the country, or overstay their VISA, the government policy in place should not reward these people, or any offspring they have while here, with welfare handouts or other government services, nor should it reward them with American citizenship, and in at least some cases, if apprehended, the government should "physically remove" them from the country, just as a private property owner would do to a trespasser. Also, the state policy in place should not invite such a large number of people into the country that they overwhelm and demographically replace the existing population.

[@johnkosowski3321]

I don't think they declined to debate Molyneux because they are afraid of the debate.

[@libertarianrevolution7026]

@@johnkosowski3321 They declined the debate because they are intellectual cowards who are afraid of having their ideas exposed as being flawed in a public forum.

[@libertarianrevolution7026]

@@johnkosowski3321 If one is really confident in their position, they should be willing to debate that position in a public setting.

[@johnkosowski3321]

@@libertarianrevolution7026 Depends on whom one might be debating. The problem is not the debate, but the opponent.

[@cantstandya8250]

18:00 Caplan tries to laugh off this last point then under play it when it is actually a very valid and demonstrable concern. - "there is a kernel of truth, but still, the problem is greatly overstated...non natives are more socially conservative and they are more economically liberal than natives. But the difference is marginal so we're talking about a difference that you can measure with statistics but its not one that you would even generally be likely to notice if you just talked to people a lot..except for the least educated where the differences are larger". When in fact, its not overstated at all, its greatly understated. Here are some stats from 2008/2012: Minority voters backed Obama 80 percent to 18 percent in 2008 -- and did exactly the same in 2012. His support among African-Americans was almost as overwhelming (93-6) as it was in 2008 (95-4). And his support among Hispanics (71-27) improved substantially over its 2008 level (67-31). In addition, Obama achieved historic levels of support among Asian-Americans. This year he carried them 73-26, compared to 62-35 in 2008. Every minority group that enters this country overwhelmingly vote for a larger government and welfare state. Now couple those statics with immigration statistics: In 2017, Mexicans accounted for approximately 25 percent of immigrants in the United States, making them by far the largest foreign-born group. Indians and Chinese (including immigrants from Hong Kong but not Taiwan) were the next two largest groups, each comprising close to 6 percent, followed by Filipinos at 5 percent. Rounding out the top ten were El Salvador, Vietnam, Cuba, and the Dominican Republic (about 3 percent each); So the majority of immigrants coming to the US are Hispanic or Asian, and both groups which vote roughly 70% democratic. That is dramatic, not overstated.

[@libertarianrevolution7026]

Another important point here is that a super-majority of modern day immigrants and their offspring do not support gun rights. They are a big part of the reason as to why the push for gun control has escalated. I weight issues, and I give gun rights the highest weighting. If we lose gun rights, we lose everything else.

[@frankiel3767]

Libertarian Revolution Yeah but achieving libertarian goals through unlibertarian means is pointless. We could do a lot of good for ourselves if we became a crazy left dictatorship like China, but we would never do that because we value liberty even if the results aren’t as nice as all the bells and whistles that come with living in a place as fast growing as China

[@TheAaronChand]

@@libertarianrevolution7026 hell your former mother country Europe doesn't support gun rights its not the 18th century or 19th century anymore. A lot of white people in the west dont support gun rights. This idea that colored people are by nature a threat is not true. I was born premature 27 weeks here in Canada. Yet I'm completely westernized English is my main language not Hindi or Fijian Hindi. so are many colored offspring as you call them.

[@libertarianrevolution7026]

@@TheAaronChand Most of my ancestors left Europe a long time ago. Some of my ancestor actually fought in the American Revolution, as in they were American revolutionaries. Anyway, yes, I am aware of the fact that lots of modern day Europeans no longer support gun rights (Switzerland being one such exception, as the Swiss are still largely pro-gun rights). I am also aware of the fact that a disturbing number of Americans of European ancestry no longer support gun rights, but this is of course after decades of Cultural Marxist brainwashing from the education system and mainstream media. I am also aware of the fact that there are some gun rights supports who are not white, and even some who are immigrants, however, when setting policies, the EXCEPTIONS DO NOT MAKE THE RULE. Statistically speaking, the only demographic in the USA where a majority of that demographic actually SUPPORTS gun rights is among white Americans. The last time I checked this statistic, it was slipping, at only around 57%, but EVERY OTHER DEMOGRAPHIC had SIGNIFICANTLY less support for gun rights. It came out to something like 37% of blacks supported gun rights, 25% of Hispanics supported gun rights, and only 20% of Asians supported gun rights. So if millions of Asians and Hispanics continue to pour into the country, and the statistics indicate that only 20%-25% of them support gun rights, what is this going to do with the pro-gun rights vote in this country? Look at what recently happened in Virginia with their Governor signing a bunch of new gun control laws. It was not that long ago that Virginia was a pro-gun rights majority state. What happened? Virginia has been hit with mass immigration, and lots of those immigrants, and their offspring, became eligible to vote, and they vote in super-majority numbers for leftist gun grabbing politicians. It is NOT in large part the traditional Virginians that are voting for this stuff, in fact, it was the traditional Virginians who were the ones who staged that big protest in front of the Virginia capitol AGAINST the gun control bills. It was largely the foreigners and the big city liberals, many of who are government employees, and many of whom live in the DC suburbs in northern Virginia, who are responsible for the new gun control laws. Am I saying that every foreigner is bad? No. I'm just pointing out the statistics.

[@libertarianrevolution7026]

@@frankiel3767 I don't think that shutting anti-liberty migrants out, and/or at least preventing them from becoming American citizens so they can't vote, violates any libertarian principles.

[@billsmith912]

I would argue that your description of the “normal“ Americans view of an immigration is oversimplified and linear. And I would add that your solution view which assumes implicitly i’ll add, that all human beings not of the Albert Einstein quality are working class. This assumption is incorrect. It belongs to only people I’ve been raised to believe in a work ethic, which has nothing to do with the United States or some other country and is an ethic learned in all places. But because it’s universal does not mean all people aspire to hold that ethic dear

[@hmlqrt2716]

I hope bryan is right and californians can be aclimated enough to become a productive member of society as they move to other states leaving their mess behind

[@seanprobber7711]

Wasn't much substance on the cultural point. Imagine suggesting "magical indoctrination culture" with half our country saying African Americans have not yet been fully integrated and the other half voting almost exclusively on the election promise of a wall. The other evidence offered is that people know more about America. The economic argument is maybe even weaker. He brings up a NAS estimate that doesn't include more than a small percentage of those who immigrate to the country. In fact, months after that study NAS released a study that found Mass Immigration Depresses Wages & Costs Taxpayers Billions. All of a sudden, our deceptive, confidence lacking speaker stopped following NAS research? What a pathetic attempt at being scientific or ethical

[@MRCKify]

Link to NAS?

[@seanprobber7711]

@@MRCKify Would you agree not attempting to find it yourself is rather disgusting? Did you make an attempt?

[@MRCKify]

@@seanprobber7711 I love how persuasive you think you are. You *really* know how to reach to people's minds and make your opinion's undeniable with your unyielding logic and your flashpoint charisma. Get over yourself, because throwing caustic adjectives around isn't your strongest selling point.

[@seanprobber7711]

@@MRCKify Have a little intellectual integrity. That’s all I’m asking.

[@MRCKify]

@@seanprobber7711 You're actually making the case that you aren't carrying the burden of proof on an intellectual level, while being off-putting on a personal/rhetorical level. Whereas I'm asking you to do follow up on standards I follow when I make an objection. "Integrity" is a quality of how you construct and present yourself, your ideas and your ideals. I was presenting myself as someone who was curious in what you had to say and asked as simple a question as I could to do so. You were presenting yourself as someone who had contradictory evidence to a supporting empirical contention. In my view, (which is itself debatable) of those attitudes has a high responsibility for citation, while the other is responsible for asking something like "Do you mean this citation?" only when the asker is highly familiar with the evidence and precisely how to find it online. So, do you that link? I can wait for a publishing year, author names, titles, or a whole bevy of other material that can imperfectly substitute for a direct link.

[@JackCoxLoveNotFear]

We need borders so national governments can pass laws that suit the culture and traditions of their own countries. I would be great to be able to travel freely and settle anywhere we choose but first we would need to learn how to respect the people who are already there.

[@johnshumate8112]

Historically speaking, when immigrants of other cultures come to America, they bring their culture with them. Their cultures mix changing American culture and their home culture (where they live, not where they were born). Since education is a right for everyone who lives in America including undocumented immigrants (I think there was a Supreme Court case about this or something) then everyone can be taught English, and American Laws. I don’t think that the issues you brought up are really issues at all. They haven’t been for centuries. In fact every fight to combat immigration is a result of racism against those people. They have never actually done anything wrong.

[@wandameadows5736]

@@johnshumate8112 Non Citizens have no "National Rights" when in a nation they are not citizens of. Your logic would make home invasion legal & take away all rights of the owners of any home. If your so concerned about the plight of other nations citizens then go to there nation & teach them how to build & sustain a nation. Opening the doors to people that have failed to build there own nation is national suicide. Lets not forget about what the Citizens of the nation you wish to use as a safe space think as well. The irony that you think letting the Citizens of America decide there nations own borders & immigration policy proves your argument is not about virtue, doing what's right or compassion at all. What your doing is virtue signaling for your own self satisfaction. The irony will be when successful nations like America that value property rights & award achievement no longer exist. Fleeing your situation with out trying to fix it only makes things worse for everyone.

[@johnshumate8112]

@@wandameadows5736 My logic would not make home invasions illegal. That is a crime, crimes are punished in court. I don’t know how you came to that conclusion. My logic would not remove rights from any homeowner, tell me where you got these ideas. I don’t really care about going into Mexico and ‘fixing’ their society. I think that every human on earth has the fundamental human right of travel. If I want to go to Mexico, I should be able to go there. If a North Korean wants to leave North Korea, they should be able to. Everyone should have the right to go wherever they want. Borders should distinguish governments, countries, cultures, laws, etc. But they should not declare where people are allowed to move to. The border between Mexico and the United States, should declare what is Mexico and what is the US. It should not declare that these people have to stay on this side of the line, and not the other, and they can’t cross the line, because that’s a crime. What? That is ridiculous. I should be able to cross that line. Let’s look at the history of this. European colonizers, came to the Americas which was inhabited by a large group of people. They settled the land, created colonies, and eventually those colonies rebelled forming the United States of America. These first Americans were primarily British, now American. So I’ll use the term Anglo-Saxon to refer to them. Not everyone today is Anglo-Saxon. There were large groups of immigrants throughout American history. Chinese, and Japanese in the West. And Irish, German, Italians, and Africans in the East. And Mexicans in the South. America started out with open borders, which is what I advocate for. If someone had the ability to travel to America, and they did, then that was completely fine, and after a few years they could even become a citizen. Every single law at immigration has been to exclude groups of non-whites. A great example of this is the Chinese-Exclusion Act, which banned immigration from China and said they could not become citizens. The recent immigration scares over Muslims and Mexicans is just this happening again. They stoke the same fears every time. They bring crime, they take jobs, etc. but the real thing is that they aren’t White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestants.

[@divinegon4671]

@@johnshumate8112 nice open society you’ve laid out, Karl Popper. Now we can rest easy and make sure no European people are happy

[@watchdealer11]

If I can buy steel for $5 from Mexico and $7 from America, and policy forces me to buy from America, I am $2 poorer. Same concept works for labor.

[@watchdealer11]

@Cromwellian Protectorate Republican "Labour of the US"? Give me a break. I'm assuming you didn't even watch the video. As they mentioned, immigrants have to eat. They increase aggregate demand, not just the supply of labor.

[@watchdealer11]

@Cromwellian Protectorate Republican You understand the economy isn't closed, correct? Money doesn't just moved around; wealth is created and grows.

[@nutritionandphysiology8023]

If you are only looking at a single purchase of goods, either more expensive from the United States or less expensive Chinese or Mexican goods, the foreign goods are likely more expensive. Of course that is not the only factor that matter, neither are we talking about a single transaction. For example, there is a reason that domestic goods made in the US are assumed to be of higher quality. There is better accountability with domestic goods, the producers actually live in country that they are making goods for and it effects their reputation, and the government can more easily enforce safety and fraud standards. Free trade has helped to utterly destroy the American manufacturing industry. With the increased unemployment and lower wages, its no wonder we can rarely afford to buy domestic goods. The main benefit from trade protections comes when the manufacturing jobs return to the US. Not only do trade protections help existing US manufacturers, it will reduce prices of domestic goods because of increased economy of scale, it will reduce unemployment drastically and have large upward pressure on wages because of the increased demand for workers. Trade protections on a small scale only helps a specific industry. Trade protections on a large scale helps everyone in the country. As far as the Mexicans and the Chinese interests, they can take care of themselves. I live in America, so I care about America First.

[@abcw114]

@@nutritionandphysiology8023 The US manufactures more than ever, though. It's just more specialized labor plus machines/robots. You're living in a fantasy where Americans are doing low-skilled and moderately skilled manufacturing for first world wages. That's unsustainable. Of course that model died out - as it should've.

[@phiwise_9489]

Except that concept makes no sense because steel isn't people. Steel doesn't need housing, doesn't need healthcare, doesn't compete for limited leadership and management positions, doesn't pussh the price of basic living goods up, can be sold at the drop of a hat to relieve a national glut, and doesn't need bread lines if/when there's a depression.

[@captainstrangiato961]

I hate all these fake libertarians that claim they are pro markets or free trade but bend a knee for closed borders. It really pisses me off.

[@captainstrangiato961]

@Cromwellian Protectorate Republican Alright, let's tackle this: "So should you open the door for people who don't value free markets or basic rights to the same degree as you do." Fear mongering horseshit. What Republicans can you point to me value free market freedoms? That believe anarchy is a noble goal? No one in power does. No one supports "free markets" that are in power, nor do they support "the basic rights to the same degree as me." I don't care about that. Where people go is out of my control as it should be. The United States is not a private house. It's not me opening my door to just "random people." Do you "open the door" for people to live in your neighborhood? No. No you don't. It's not your property and you don't own public party. My value is ruling over myself. I don't care what other people do unless they harm my life and people trying to live a free life. The state is far more threatening than some illegal farming strawberries in a field. "America has always closed its borders for such clashes in values . . ." That doesn't mean anything. American values have never been consistent and always changes. "American Values" is a mythos and emotional abstraction. There is no ultimate, universal, American value. They change for more power and more control. Don't you think Trump believes in "American Values" and much as Hillary Clinton believe in it? They both do. Why? Because it's an abstract, subjective idea that no one can define objectively. ". . .it use to ban people from absolute monarchies fearing they would threaten Republican values." Which is also fear mongering horseshit. You are literally letting people suffer in their monarchy states. Wouldn't a republican state make it almost impossible to become a absolute monarchist one? Why would this be a problem? The reason why immigrants from any state leave is because they are leaving a place that is terrible. Closed Borders is basically telling someone on the other side of town they can't come to your street. It's not letting people go out to your store, since that's on the other side of town. What you are talking about is more of a moral argument, which are usually unconvincing. I am sorry for being harsh. I believed in closed borders for years when I was a republican. But then I grew up from the fear mongering. I realized that these arguments are dumb ethical points, and are racially targeting and racist, and economically illiterate, and supports more state interventionism and slavery rather than freedom and liberty. I realized that closed borders don't just keep them out, but keep us in.

[@captainstrangiato961]

@Cromwellian Protectorate Republican This is truly boomer conservatism at its finest. The US isn't a private house because you don't own it. You have no control over the US. It's not your property and you don't have the ability to "sell parts of your property" that is public that you fund. I can't refund a piece of road I fund, I have to pay or else I'd be thrown in a cage. "Just look at California." I don't need to look. I live there. It didn't become left because of immigrants being "let in in droves who all just hate markets." The trend of California culturally has always been socially left and for the last 50 years it's begun to manifest as a liberal state. "Then by that logic why not have a socialist America, if American values are so mailable to popularity wouldn’t a socialist youth not be able to alter the values of the US as most have negative views of capitalism and positive views of socialism? Not really." No, that's literally what I am asking and where the logic leads. If America was born out of Socialist values, would you support it? Do you support American values in the Republican form because it was the first? The most moral? The most conservative? The most "objective?" Probably not. You just sucked it all in like I did. "American immigrant communities have advocated puling America into wars on the side of their country or group because they weren’t assimilated Americans, such as both world wars." As have many native whites who have been living in the United States. These "assimilated Americans" who actually threat a country are mostly insignificant and aren't an excuse to restrict the immigration of an entire country or race of people. That is what closed borders ends up going. "You do know the republic America based itself on (Rome), went from a republic to an autocratic monarchy, as did the first French Republic, and the Spanish republic, and even the Weimar Republic went from Republicanism to totalitarian dictatorship. And they all fell the same way, popular will. Just look at California, if they raise taxes, nationalise or resit they freedoms what can you do? Nothing." Of course I know that. Countries changing more has to do with the systems and the people in power than the immigrants. The reason why California is shit isn't because, "Well, you just have a bunch of brown people voting left with low IQs and bad values here that need to be gone." It's because the system is incentivized to go towards ridiculous ends for short term gains. Even your Republican utopia will do that. It will never make the state smaller, it will never lower taxes, it will never stop fighting dumb wars, it will never be consistent. This is why I became an anarchist. Not just because I am stuck in this hell whole of a state and federal system, but because federal system are outdated and will never be consistent. "It’s nations preventing people whom they don’t know entering their countries because they don’t know who they are or intentions. And of people travel from oppressive to free ones, but free people can’t move to repressive ones you’ve created a one way policy of slow regression. It’s you making the moral argument, not me. Saying you can’t force people to stay were they are." Are you serious? I am forcing you to let people in? This is why I am an anarchist, so that I don't force people to do *anything.* In a system that makes everyone live in "solidarity," force is everywhere and inescapable. Your counter to me saying, "We shouldn't keep people out" is "you are forcing them in" is not a good retort. I am not forcing anyone in. Immigrants choose to come here. This isn't Germany or Swedian that is literally making government mandates to bring millions of immigrants in. No one should be forced to do anything. My approach isn't forcing anything. Yours is. Also, your counter point to me saying, "People should be able to leave oppressive systems" being "it's a one way policy of slow regression" is ridiculous. Slow regression of the oppressive system (the monarchy) and economic growth of the one with open borders (the US let's say). Read economics.

[@abcw114]

I admire your patience in responding to a person who posts five replies in a row because he doesn't understand how KZbin works. Or he's just determined to be the most annoying person in the world.

[@earthboundmisfit7654]

This disturbing and laughable. You people need to stay far away from me and my community. Go have fun in socialist utopia with open borders but keep it there, not everyone agrees with your lunacy or wants to support it with their taxes.

[@fotoathanasiaidis723]

As a first generation American this man is out of touch and I disagree with his analogy!!

[@abcw114]

Oh, well, I guess none of us can argue with you because you're first generation. Then again, maybe you'll respect my opinion more as an American with deep ancestry here when I tell you that you're wrong.