Dave Smith vs. Chris Freiman | What's the ideal immigration policy? | Just Asking Questions, Ep. 16

Podcaster Dave Smith and philosopher Chris Freiman debate open borders on the latest episode of Just Asking Questions.
Subscribe
KZbin: / reasontv
Apple: podcasts.apple...
Spotify: open.spotify.c...
Text and links to sources available here: reason.com/pod...
0:00- Intro: Why is immigration a big concern for voters?
3:13- Why Dave Smith opposes open borders
8:00- Why Chris Freiman supports open borders
13:49- Dave’s rebuttal: “Uninvited” immigration isn’t libertarian
19:04- Chris’s rebuttal: Liberty trumps popular opinion
22:49- How would Dave’s “invitation” system work?
32:20- What would Chris change short of opening the borders?
41:53- Is too much immigration a security risk?
51:48- Do more immigrants lead to bigger government?
1:04:00- Libertarians and “public spaces”
1:07:50 - Is “open borders” a bad term?
1:15:10 - Why does Dave want to put the troops on the border?
1:19:10- “Keyhole solutions” to immigration
1:22:04- Are immigrants more likely to be on welfare?
1:30:00- Are immigrants different today than they were in the 1980s?
1:36:06- New York City didn’t know how to handle an influx of migrants
1:41:58- Could the U.S. absorb millions of immigrants if we had open borders?
1:46:35- What would happen if we had open borders tomorrow?
1:52:30- Dave’s question for Chris: Is immigration a “natural right”?
1:53:35 - Chris’s question for Dave: Am I as bad as a communist?
1:55:00 - Dave’s closing statements
1:59:30 - Chris’s closing statements
---
What's the ideal immigration policy?
Immigration ranks as the second-most important issue among registered US voters and the top issue for Republican voters, according to a Marist/PBS NewsHour/NPR poll released last month. Perhaps that's because of the 3.2 million border encounters documented by Border Control in 2023-a new record high that's so far being outpaced this year. Crossings have increased throughout the Biden years.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott, who continues to erect razor wire fencing at the border despite a Supreme Court ruling prohibiting Texas from stopping federal agents from cutting through the barriers, has likely also heightened the salience of the issue for Republican voters. Even politicians in blue cities like New York are calling the influx a problem, with Mayor Eric Adams saying that the arrival of 110,000 asylum seekers over a year and half would "destroy New York City" as shelters become overwhelmed.
What do libertarians, traditionally in favor of permissive immigration laws, have to say about this? The truth is, there's a divide. Today's episode of Just Asking Questions features two thinkers on either side of that divide laying out what they each believe is the ideal immigration policy.
Popular libertarian podcaster and comedian Dave Smith said on the Liberty Lockdown show last month that "all of our troops should come home and be stationed around our borders." He continued that, "if you believe in open borders right now, under current circumstances, you're an insane person, and you're as bad as a communist."
That sparked a social media firestorm, which included exchanges between Smith and today's other guest, Chris Freiman, a professor in the John Chambers College of Business and Economics at West Virginia University and author of several notable papers about the ethics of immigration.
Watch the full conversation on Reason's KZbin channel or on the Just Asking Questions podcast feed on Apple, Spotify, or your preferred podcatcher.

[@abigailcaruana]

Dave is the only one here with the ability to apply libertarian philosophy and principles to the real world.

[@gregworrel2623]

If only he were actually applying libertarian principles. What he is doing is throwing out principles and going with what is popular. What's the point? You might as well just be a Republican or Democrat.

[@zerofox2030]

​@gregworrel2623 the point is to avoid the election of someone that's as bad as the progressives claim. This is real world, not hypothetical.

[@williamwest9204]

​@@gregworrel2623he is, philosophy can change with reality

[@phattylav]

@@gregworrel2623why because of the immigration crisis? Libertarians are for less government and how much government and spending has occurred with this flood of illegal immigrants?

[@gregworrel2623]

@@phattylav Just think how much less they could spend if they reduced or eliminated all the barriers to entry. There are $billions being spent on ICE and the border. That is not smaller government, but bigger government.

[@Dr.Metalblood]

I couldn't ask for a better representative of my political views than Dave.

[@imissdetroit]

I’m pissed I only learned about him recently. I’ve always loved Ron Paul. I’ve been more AnCap/libertarian for 10+ years. I vote Republican because I’m sadly and realistically left with two options. But my fuck do I agree with what he says and his way of delivering the ideas.

[@gregworrel2623]

@@imissdetroit You say you're a libertarian but you like what Dave says here? These are not libertarian ideas.

[@Nubenhoofer]

​@@gregworrel2623ascribed political party fundamentals are really THAT important to you? Man, get over this absolutism, it's getting Libertarians absolutely FUCK ALL in this world.

[@gregworrel2623]

@@Nubenhoofer If only libertarians were not libertarians, they could be so much more successful. That makes a fuck of a lot of sense.

[@Nubenhoofer]

@@gregworrel2623 I'm not saying core principals should be totally ABANDONED, I'm just pointing out the detriment to being too rigid in one's ideology, especially when it comes to implementation in REALITY. Like a fine sword, one should aim to temper their mind to be a perfect blend of strength and flexibility.

[@responsumestxlii5686]

Liz appears to be repetitively guilty of the very thing Dave keeps harping on, ignoring reality. She keeps derailing conversations that exist in reality and taking them to hypothetical non-existent places.

[@KryMoore]

Dave would argue for open borders until 5-6 years ago.

[@RedBricksTraffic]

@@KryMoore he grew up while most libertarians remain as perpetual teenagers.

[@meezus2963]

The 50 minute mark is a perfect example of what you said. Liz doesn’t want the real consequences of voting demographics “derail” her hypothetical question 😐

[@AKlover]

She is deliberately ignoring it. If the Soros and Koch money dries up all the "Regime Libertarians" will have to find new grifts.

[@AKlover]

@@KryMoore Look into IQ research. It will change your views on borders and foreign aid and foreign policy virtually overnight.

[@jasoncavari]

Dave was recently called a “far right libertarian extremist” so he’s definitely onto something… they’re getting worried

[@ucuniversity2869]

Who's getting worried?

[@gregworrel2623]

The views he expressed in this debate are the opposite of libertarian so that part is wrong.

[@PurestPosition]

​@@gregworrel2623 His views are the correct libertarian positions

[@williamwest9204]

​@@PurestPositioncorrect and he's talked in length how his libertarian views on that end in a recent podcast

[@FazeParticles]

@@ucuniversity2869progressives. Stop pretending like progressives aren’t in every movement or party. Stop it get some help. Woodrow Wilson’s spawn have permeated to every part of US society which unfortunately is fundamentally opposed to the founding fathers’ principles and values.

[@responsumestxlii5686]

Here for Dave Smith. Reason is not my bag.

[@VincenzoC749]

Same

[@Sopris17]

It's Treason, not reason

[@towardcivicliteracy]

@@VincenzoC749 Love the unintended, but actually accurate, double meaning, here.

[@williamerdman4888]

Curious, why?

[@anarchic_ramblings]

Reason is libertarian, Dave not so much.

[@shortstraw4]

Ideal policy: you don't get in or get ANY benefits until you meet the legal obligations written into the laws of the country you want into.

[@AKlover]

No ideal policy is every allowed in has A job and housing within days or already before entry and everyone who enters can score A 3 digit IQ.

[@Lancer_0010]

This is the correct answer. If there were no benefits to illegal immigrants, immigration would be cut significantly. Down to those who are actually coming in to work under the table seasonally and then leaving. Milton freedman said this back in like the 80s and for whatever reason, no one on the right argues for it. Always about how we need this or that, not how we can cut immigration and government at the same time

[@ZombieLicorice]

As a fifth grader we got a new student, the child of an illegal immigrant who didn't speak English. I said, "why is he here? It is not good for him, it's not good for us. He needs to be in a Spanish speaking class or learning English". The teacher called me, a 10 year old at the time, a racist. This was 17 years ago, I can't imagine what it's like now

[@frenchstudentA]

So what you're saying is: public schools are bad and the govt's education policies are terrible. Nothing to do with immigration laws.

[@juanme555]

1997 gen?

[@ZombieLicorice]

@@juanme555 very close. December 1996

[@jeremyb5903]

Racist is definitely an exaggeration but more it just sounds like you made an unnecessary comment towards a kid who has no say in their parents actions and, based on the fact they are attending an English speaking school, is actively trying to learn English…kinda valid for your teacher to not support your statement imo but everyone’s entitled to their opinions 🤷‍♂️ it’s a free country after all

[@ZombieLicorice]

@jeremyc5903 get off it, it's not a 5th grader's job to teach foreigners English, nor are they qualified to do it. That kid never improved. He failed class after class until they put him with the special Ed kids and then he dropped out as a freshmen. He needed to be in a completely different environment, but all these progressive teachers either didn't care at all, or honestly believed if you stick a kid who doesn't speak a language in a classroom of natives eventually he'll excel. Nobody advocated for what was actually good for him

[@daveBit15]

We'll be so much better in a world in which everybody is Tom Woods...

[@BrandonGuise]

Catholic libertarians everywhere!!! That's the world I want to live in!

[@Dynamus21]

"Doggone it, we need to burn the 3x5 card of allowable opinion."

[@Lurch685]

We’ll all make more smackers!

[@PoperoniNews]

No. We want a world of people who have all READ Tom Woods

[@notsmine9191]

You will not make me have gay sex.

[@fiddlinmike]

Liz, it’s wonderful to have you in the libertarian world. I appreciate your work. Now, please, talk less and listen more.

[@mouseutopiadystopia24601]

Meh... She can leave.

[@westerngroovetv]

She so fine

[@AntiNeoFascist]

Seriously. I think she sees talking to Dave like her opportunity to get some kind of cred with her friends by intentionally being adversarial. "I'm going to use violent words toward you"?!? Then acting like the fact he would agree with CATO on wanting to improve the legal immigration process as some kind of gotcha.... I swear she thinks he's some kind of Republican conservative Trump supporter that she needs to "take out" or something.

[@AKlover]

@@AntiNeoFascist Hint! Hint! Koch and Soros funding!

[@hugesinker]

Funny, I was thinking that about Zach, not Liz. His questions meandered a lot more than they needed to. But in all I really enjoyed both moderators.

[@FerristotheBueller]

People like Chris and Liz are the exact reason as to why the Libertarian party never goes anywhere.

[@gregworrel2623]

If you want a party without principles then just become a Republican.

[@j5her727]

The circles they drew were dizzying.

[@nathanroyster1324]

Arguing for illegal immigrants being mad they had to move to a different location for their free housing is insane to me.

[@a9sdg9oajs]

The amount of times Chris just completely misinterprets what Dave says is frustrating as hell to listen to

[@jeankutzer1556]

That and the poor response to the lockdown epidemic.

[@funklelester8646]

"I advocate for policies that I don't have to be held accountable for"

[@vplan]

Dave is the only one that makes sense

[@chickenfishhybrid44]

Why do you care so much about voting and democracy when it comes to your public road analogies but then think the fact that 90 percent of Americans are against open borders is irrelevant?

[@ClintByrne]

His public road analogy was absolutely trash

[@firstlast9916]

Closed border people: immigrants are using our roads without paying taxes! Also closed border people: I want my unemployed teenage kids to use our roads!

[@donsal.t.1765]

I'm willing to bet Chris will not sponsor a migrant nor welcome them into his home until they find a job.

[@jansonhensen7804]

And cover the expenses? They never do. Not even the richest in our society will

[@gregworrel2623]

Why should he? Sponsoring a grown adult is some kind of nanny state nonsense. The entire idea of sponsorship is anti-libertarian. I can't believe people call themselves libertarian and think this fits. No open borders libertarian is suggesting that the state should spend money on immigrants. Just get out of their way and let them get a job.

[@wtice4632]

​@@gregworrel2623nope just keep them out

[@jansonhensen7804]

@@gregworrel2623 lmao, it's always those without a hint of self awareness accusing the other of not understanding what they are talking about.

[@gregworrel2623]

@@jansonhensen7804 wtf are you talking about? Where did I say someone didn't understand what I was talking about? Maybe you should write a cogent argument instead of resorting to an ad hominem useless comment.

[@lordicyspicy4772]

These reason folks are such hacks. They ignore all the relevant points and argue only about their dumb hypotheticals.

[@hugesinker]

Not a single example? How about you try to give two and explain your reasoning.

[@daltonbrasier5491]

​@@hugesinker how about you watch the video and argue against his position.

[@frazierk100]

They always argue as if we live in a bought in libertarian system. The whole point Dave has been making is that we don't.

[@hugesinker]

@@daltonbrasier5491I did watch it and posted a few replies, specific to what my objection was. Of course, it's over an hour so I can't confront everything.

[@hugesinker]

@@frazierk100Everyone knows that. Both parties here are already libertarian. That's why they're arguing from that base position. In a debate, it's good to start from common ground-- not try to sell what your opponent already believes.

[@DinSea19]

Common sense libertarian view and not extremist view is everyone has basic human rights, but everyone doesn't have the right to be an American citizen.

[@dougsfriendskeeter]

When has a libertarian ever had common sense

[@abstractapproach634]

@dougsfriend when they are really an anarchist trying not to scare normies

[@williamwest9204]

​@@dougsfriendskeeter Dave Smith

[@kozmo2k4]

(T)Reason: "How Dare You!"

[@Nitrotix1]

Most "illegals" just want a legal status. Citizenship is so far down the road.

[@jtbynum5291]

You can’t have open borders and a welfare state, tye system will collapse upon itself. I don’t know who we’re trying to fool but this this whole Pozzi scheme is about to collapse. We’re 34 TRILLION DOLLARS in debt and the interest payment on that debt alone is about to become our federal budget’s greatest expenditure. And we’re currently spending a TRILLION DOLLARS every 100 days.

[@frenchstudentA]

Wait....if the welfare system will collapse in on itself if we have open borders, isn't that a GREAT argument FOR open borders?

[@aureate]

​@@frenchstudentAThe whole system will, not just the welfare state...

[@jtbynum5291]

@@frenchstudentA well, that might be if it was just collapsing the welfare system it’s going to collapse our whole economic system with the welfare, the emergency room visits, the Publix schooling, the government housing, the snap assistance, food program, bullshit it’s not gonna collapse the welfare state is going to collapse the whole economic system

[@anarchic_ramblings]

@@aureate What do you mean by 'the whole system'?

[@aureate]

@@anarchic_ramblings If we had open borders, then not only are we inviting in virtually every economic migrant, but every criminal too. The value of labor would plummet, taxation would increase, and the police state needed to keep the whole thing going would reach totalitarian levels. The country as we know it would collapse. Open borders is not something any libertarian should wanted. A stateless society wouldn't have any borders to keep open in the first place. Open borders implies the existence of a state with a lax border policy. It's madness.

[@howardroark3736]

All of Chris Freiman’s analogies kinda boil down to, “well, this would justify First Amendment violations” which isn’t really logical or even a remotely reasonable comparison. Not wanting libertarian literature on public property is not analogous to not wanting people to enter the country against the wishes of the inhabitants. If public property is quasi-owned by American citizens in common, then all restrictions on foreigners are justified and very few restrictions on Americans are justified. Simple. It doesn’t seem like Freiman is ever going to get past the very silly analogies and hypotheticals.

[@myfingid]

Totally disagree; his argument is spot on. Daves argument is essentially that the tax paying public can vote in whatever restrictions they want so long as it's reasonable. Looking at a real life example; gun control supporters regularly talk about how all they want is reasonable gun control while supporting laws which on a plain reading of the second are clearly unconstitutional. Any argument for restrictions must be founded on something more than what an individual considers "reasonable". It's too subjective and allows for pretty much anything. To Daves counterpoint, I don't see why he'd be opposed to people being stopped if they had cars full of drugs if the majority decided it was reasonable to do so. It's the same subjective standard.

[@kas8131]

Agreed, it’s all theoretical

[@towardcivicliteracy]

Socialism in international trade in labor is justified because we already have socialism?

[@jprouty22]

Totally agree... the analogies are absolutely terrible and dont compare to what is actually happening in the country!

[@howardroark3736]

@@myfingid If you simply accept the very basic premise that people who legally live in the country have an ownership stake, that means that restrictions against citizens’ guns or speech rights or movement within the country have a very different character than restrictions on people who aren’t citizens/stakeholders/owners of the country. If I’m a co-owner of the house, then you can’t tell me not to read Communist or Libertarian literature or not to have a firearm in my room or something.

[@Joe-dime-a]

It’s like the 3 of them are just hitting all of Tony Blair’s talking points -> NO ONE IN THE US OR UK ASKED FOR THIS😂😂😂

[@jeff-hh9mc]

Interstate transportation does not equate to illegal immigration. The philosopher sucks at debating.

[@gregworrel2623]

Why do we have open borders between states if immigration is such a bad thing?

[@jeff-hh9mc]

@@gregworrel2623 because states are not nations or should papers be required to travel from one state to another Soviet style?

[@gregworrel2623]

@@jeff-hh9mc I don't think papers should be required to travel anywhere. Why should I be more concerned about someone I don't know from Canada than I am about someone I don't know from Ohio? The entire concept is absurd and just shows how brainwashed we all are.

[@jeff-hh9mc]

@@gregworrel2623 I’m not brainwashed. But I would agree that you are. Why should terrorist be allowed into America? Why do my taxes go to border jumpers who have broken the law entering America illegally?

[@hawk622]

@@gregworrel2623you are oblivious to reality. You are the epitome of why people think libertarians are cringe. People like you consistently live in the libertarian utopia inside your head instead of living in the real world. The reality is the structure of the world in which we live. If the world has a fundamentally libertarian structure then your comments would not be contradictory, but the world exists in a state(government) based reality. It’s no surprise that you seem to agree with the philosophy prof, that’s the only way you can think. You are brainwashed but you are too arrogant to see it

[@VincenzoC749]

Liz pretending Dave doesn’t know what life was like in the 90’s…when he was born in the early 80’s…is absolutely insane.

[@gregworrel2623]

She specifically said the 80s. Dave was born in 1983 so clearly he doesn't know what life was like in the 80s.

[@VincenzoC749]

@@gregworrel2623 they were talking about the 90’s.

[@KryMoore]

Dave lived in his mom rental apartment until 35 and never has owned a drivers license. He doesn’t know what life is like.

[@faceplants2]

​@@KryMooreOkay, now I'm starting to suspect that you are a scorned past lover of Dave's. You are everywhere in the comments. You've not presented a single argument against any of his current positions.

[@KryMoore]

​@@faceplants2 “Current positions”, until they change again.

[@liverbrains]

This just in: Chris Frieman does not know the difference between a state and a country

[@hugesinker]

He does. It's just that the difference does not support Dave's arguments at all.

[@williamerdman4888]

I found his analogy between state and federal borders to be absolutely childish. The two entities' obligations to their constituencies are completely different.

[@hugesinker]

@@williamerdman4888Not really, but even if their obligations were different, what does that have to do with this debate?

[@williamerdman4888]

@@hugesinker Not really? You better read the Constitution-and read your state constitution while you're at it. It's a terrible analogy. I can't believe an adult came up with that.

[@hugesinker]

@@williamerdman4888Funny you should mention that, because the US Constitution doesn't even give the federal government the power to prohibit peaceful people from crossing its borders-- only the power to regulate naturalization, which is different. It is not an enumerated power-- that's why there were no such restrictions for most of its history. It's extra-constitutional , and therefore it's supposed to be left to the states or to the people according to the 10th Amendment. Why don't you stop pretending to be incredulous and actually tell me what you think makes it wrong to cross one border and not another? What's this magical property that should prevent people from peacefully associating with each other for mutual benefit across one and not the other?

[@AnthonyChaucer]

I have the right to go to Japan uninvited because I can go to West Virginia uninvited? Is this the logic they’re really using

[@Danteztic]

Yes, so ...? Especially from a libertarian perspective, it's not clear why national boundaries or citizenship should be of any moral relevance. Libertarianism is a cosmopolitan philosophy at its core that morally regards all people as global citizens, so to speak. Libertarians don't really draw distinctions based on national origin when it comes to people's rights. I do in fact think that anyone who gets offered a job in say, Tokyo, should have the right to move there without a permission slip from the Japanese government. It is indeed the same logic, but it seems sound to me in both cases. This is an argument about what is just policy, not about what is realistic or can be expected from governments.

[@BruceWing]

@@Danteztic - It completely disregards that humans are social creatures that form societies with common norms. Immigration, when done at high volume and with little concern for integration, can result in dramatic levels of cultural conflict. Examples: see how Mexico lost what we now call Texas, see how Ukraine lost Crimea, see how the natives of North America, South America, Australia, the Hawaii Islands were displaced by immigrants. I am not anti-immigrant. I am cognizant of the human propensity to be tribal and to err. I like libertarianism a lot, but one of its flaws is that it is too logical to accept the quirks of human behavior… that make social norms and cohesion important… not only individual rights.

[@bigz5262]

You do have that right, assuming you’re not trespassing onto private property, the Japanese government will infringe on those rights though

[@mouseutopiadystopia24601]

​@@Danteztic You realize most of the world hates us, right? To the extent states and taxes exist, they should function like a private club with member dues and member benefits. Part of that entails not welcoming all of our enemies. Your model of lolbertarianism surrenders the nation to the CCP who wishes to subvert us, the Caliphate who wishes to destroy us, and any random parasite looking to leech off us. Beta çúçk energy.

[@TomTomTom87]

Put down the joint...These libertarian viewpoints are absolutely cringe@@bigz5262

[@gabriel-uc1uz]

The stats comparing the crime rate of immigrants vs native born Americans are extremely misleading and anyone who did a modicum of research would know this.

[@towardcivicliteracy]

Care to elaborate?

[@thebert8141]

I'm not gonna do any research. Break it down for me, Barney-style.

[@lukevanlanen8828]

I'm not sure what O.P. is referring to, but a few ways to view it could be that like a citizen commits some sort of minor crime. They dont want to be a wamted individual so they follow through on all legal steps and pay their fine. An illegal person, no matter how minor the crime, will always flee. So the odds of documenting crimes by citizens is far greater than illegal, making most statsitcs unreliable and not reflective of the actual situation. Also there is the case of like financial crimes. People with social security number and irs tracking are going to be subject to. Someone who has no identification and doesn't legally exists in a country can commit crimes of a similar nature, and there will never be any data to point to because it's not as easy to catch. Inflating the number of crimes of citizens. Moral of the story is data on undocumented unidentifiable people is inherently going to unreliable to a point that it likely is useless.

[@SDG-cv4br]

⁠@@towardcivicliteracy pay close attention to the language used when discussing this topic. Chris said “immigrants” leaving off the most relevant identifier of legal vs. illegal. Legal immigrants comment less crime per capita while illegal immigrants comment more.

[@Walrus286]

It’s even simpler than that. Crime rates for ILLEGAL immigrants is 100% because they entered the country illegally. Right?

[@Jimmy29li]

Illegal immigrants have flooded my area over the past 5 years and our school grew in students 3x in those 5 years. Many of those students are NOT documented and as a result our property taxes increased by over 50% So yeah, WE are forced to pay. Not very Libertarian is it? Also, the analogy of Chris using the movement between States as a comparison to country to country is silly. As "US citizens" we move freely about the country. The key word is "citizen."

[@gregworrel2623]

You pay whether there are immigrants or not. Why blame the immigrants for people taking and spending your money? The immigrants didn't come up with this system. It would be no different if people moved from another town, or just had more babies. Human rights don't derive from being a citizen.

[@TheVeraciety]

@@gregworrel2623 WE ARE A NATION OF LAWS. IF YOU CAN’T FOLLOW THE BASICS, YOU CANNOT EVEN BE EXPECTED TO REGULATE YOURSELF. DEPORT.

[@gregworrel2623]

@@TheVeraciety maybe you should start following the basics of posting comments online and stop posting in all caps. When you stop exceeding the speed limit when you drive then I'll believe you're serious about laws.

[@TheVeraciety]

@@gregworrel2623 Eight million penetrants brought in in direct contravention of all relevant laws - Natural, Constitutional, and Federal - under the flimsiest rational of Executive prerogative, sinking the American people under an bill of 451 billion dollars per annum estimated by the CBO, annihilating our sovereignty, imperiling our safety, and diluting our suffrage into fine dust. You have absolutely NO RIGHT to enslave citizens to the penetrants which this treasonous regime has colluded with cartels and adversaries in bringing. We are a Constitutional Democratic Republic, not an anarchical libertarian socialist dystopia. These illegals do not belong here, and must be repatriated forthwith. National sovereignty is a natural right.

[@TheVeraciety]

@@gregworrel2623 Eight million penetrants brought in in direct contravention of all relevant laws - Natural, Constitutional, and Federal - under the flimsiest rational of Executive prerogative, sinking the American people under an bill of 451 billion dollars per annum estimated by the CBO, annihilating our sovereignty, imperiling our safety, and diluting our suffrage into fine dust. You have absolutely NO RIGHT to enslave citizens to the penetrants which this treasonous regime has colluded with cartels and adversaries in bringing. We are a Constitutional Democratic Republic, not an anarchical libertarian socialist dystopia. These penetrants do not belong here, and must be repatriated forthwith. National sovereignty is a natural right.

[@clarkrocks13]

52:34 Freiman: It's not clear that increased immigration leads to bigger government, in fact it might be the opposite. I would like to live in the make-believe world in Freiman's head. Apparently, cities cutting services to citizens to pay for the increased costs from illegal immigrants is just a fever dream we all had, and everything is just fine. Move along folks, nothing to see here. It's not like Dave Smith didn't already point out $500M spent to hire additional Spanish speaking teachers. Hiring teachers actually shrunk the government. If we just bring in enough people that don't speak the common language and hire more teachers, it will get rid of the national debt!

[@Paul-A01]

I guess to Chris, England is a libertarian country because of all the migrants. And London must be ancapistan!

[@TheVeraciety]

Classical Liberals > Libertarians. Woke Libertarians are almost as insufferable as Woke Socialists. They do each other’s bidding in the nonlinear real world.

[@anarchic_ramblings]

"cities *cutting services* to citizens to pay for the increased costs" Doesn't that *support* the statement "It's not clear that increased immigration leads to bigger government, in fact it might be the opposite" ?

[@clarkrocks13]

@@anarchic_ramblings in some places they turned rec centers into migrant centers. This cut the local people off from a government service. Then the city brings in cots and mattresses for people to sleep there temporarily. They also need to bring in food and clothing. Who paid for all this stuff? Do the current staff speak Spanish or the other languages spoken by illegal immigrants, or are they going to hire more interpreters? The people lose out on services and the government bought more things and hired more employees. Is the government buying more things and hiring more employees making the government bigger or smaller?

[@EtotheFnD]

I feel like Dave's ideas are too smart to be on a platform who has hosts like this platform has...🤷‍♂️

[@ClintByrne]

Agreed

[@firstlast9916]

Dave doesn’t have ideas. He just says that the public doesn’t like immigrants and we should listen to the public.

[@EtotheFnD]

@@firstlast9916 you seem like you could host one of these insufferable panels on this platform

[@firstlast9916]

I guess. I’m a victim of the immigration system so I have first hand knowledge. They have taken over 100k from me in my lifetime.

[@glennmitchell9107]

Dave wins again.

[@gregworrel2623]

Only for those people who already agree with his odious views on human liberty.

[@faceplants2]

​@@gregworrel2623Make an argument

[@FreedomLovin]

He's the pragmatist, not the winner. Pragmatism takes us away from principles and fails every time.

[@glennmitchell9107]

@@FreedomLovin He's a parent. Parents can't afford to be idealists.

[@matthewherr1588]

@@FreedomLovinthat’s a fancy way of saying he’s the only one living in the real world lmao. Principles are a joke if they can’t even begin to align with reality. Principles are also not a suicide pact.

[@Scg1337]

"Roads: The Strawman", now in theaters near you.

[@allenleanhart5503]

Solid comment my friend

[@twomasta]

But who will build them bro?

[@Paul-A01]

I personally am ok with preventing communists from using the roads

[@Joe-dime-a]

What planet are these Reason TV guys living on? Like it really seems they are just taking the absolute piss out of us or are so isolated in the beltway they haven’t felt anything yet for some crazy reason

[@rhekman]

I give Reason credit, they almost always give me a reason to side with Republicans and Conservatives.

[@BruceWing]

@@rhekman- Well said. I heard a great line that I’ll try to paraphrase. “When with conservatives, I want to be with libertarians. When with libertarians, I want to be with conservatives.” Edit: credit for the line goes to Charles Cooke of National Review… and to his book, “The Conservatarian Manifesto”.

[@rhekman]

@@BruceWing That's a good quote. I certainly have my issues with big R Republican Inc - Trump's covid response, Cornyn's gun control, McConnell's deficit spending, etc. But at least there are conservatives in the fold I feel like are making a difference, even if the party on the whole fails a lot. "Big L" Libertarians, especially the intelligentsia elite espoused by Reason, constantly strike me as feckless and ineffectual. Whether it's immigration, abortion, big banks, free trade, big pharma, they seem all to happy to roll over and let the little guy get steamrolled as long as there is the appearance of small government.

[@BruceWing]

@@rhekman- I’m not religious, but “Amen!”

[@BruceWing]

@@rhekman- On the subject of bigness, the underlying economic problem is the natural existence of power laws (e.g. Pareto Principle). They mess with concepts of merit… because they concentrate the benefits of merit.

[@Paul-A01]

I take it everyone in this video forgot that England exists and we don't have to speculate about what mass migration results in.

[@brianv1981]

Do you mean America?

[@bperez8656]

England is atrocious Pockets of London are 100% Muslim. Zero women to be found in sight. Crimes against LGBT. If they erect their own govts they will unravel western culture and constitutions back into the Middle Ages

[@homewall744]

A US citizen can carry weapons across state lines. Does it then follow that armed Chinese and Russian government agents should just be allowed to cross national boundaries?

[@user-iv3mt9ho3n]

A US citizen can carry weapons across SOME state lines.

[@TomTomTom87]

As long as you legally own the firearms in your home state, you can travel through all 50 states with that firearm. It was challenged in Hawaii in 2022 and the case againt it was defeated@@user-iv3mt9ho3n

[@darkfazer]

"Allowed" by whom? It's an interesting argument to make that it is unreasonable to not have the state dictate who can enter the territory the state occupies while simultaneously believing that it is also unreasonable to have the state at all.

[@Joe-dime-a]

OMG are they really going to defend the position again?? This is just delusional 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@KryMoore]

Dave was a big open borders guy until recently.

[@Robot-Overlord]

​@KryMoore he got a dose of reality.

[@_notofthisearth]

@@Robot-Overlordlike most, he was “mugged by reality.”

[@ethanhandel1001]

@@KryMoore As far as I know Dave has always held the position that borders should be private.

[@phirephate]

@@ethanhandel1001 Nope. He admitted many times on his show that he was once for open borders. Glad he woke up.

[@MegaWhatever86]

This guy Chris's arguments absolutely suck.

[@towardcivicliteracy]

And how does calling someone’s ideas a name constitute a good argument?

[@danielvarney2910]

@@towardcivicliteracythis was commentary, not an argument. Hope that helps.

[@mouseutopiadystopia24601]

W Dave Smith Reason and lolbertarians are clowns.

[@KryMoore]

Dave was an open borders guy for decades.

[@mouseutopiadystopia24601]

@@KryMoore So what? Dave Smith still won the debate. Reason and lolbertarians are still clowns. Also, he is still an open borders supporter in ancapistan, but we don't live in ancapistan. Implementing an element of a broad philosophy can be naive, self-destructive, and counterproductive.

[@anthonyrluna3056]

​@@KryMooreyou keep saying that like it's some sort of salient point. People are allowed to change their views on ideas.

[@KryMoore]

​@@anthonyrluna3056 And people are allowed to call out hypocrisy when they see it.

[@anthonyrluna3056]

@@KryMoore it's not hypocrisy to change your mind about an idea. Are you telling me that you've never changed your opinion on a subject ever? Just one take on every idea you've ever encountered, and that's it? Sounds rather stubborn and ignorant, to be honest.

[@redmuskratt]

Well, IF I had picked the right lottery numbers, I'd be a millionaire. Is this Chris guy Sam Harris in disguise?

[@faceplants2]

Nice 🙃 The Malibu Meditator

[@matthewherr1588]

As someone who considered himself a libertarian for a long time, there’s one thing I’ve learned: principles are not a suicide pact. Just because I believe in certain ideals does not mean I’m obligated to march my family toward certain doom by offering concessions to people who want to harm me and my way of life. No, I don’t want millions of invaders of my country to have the right to bear arms in an invasion on my home. No, I don’t care if that makes me a hypocrite for going against my espoused belief in the natural right to bear arms.

[@TheVeraciety]

Amen, amen, amen.

[@nathanroyster1324]

this, sir, is called not living in a vacuum and actually touching grass. Sometimes I get the sense that libertarians don't actually engage with the world they want to change. There are a number of things that have to change simultaneously in order for any of these ideas to work as policy. Just opening the borders without changing anything else would be catastrophic. You have to deal with the current situation on the ground first

[@matthewherr1588]

@@nathanroyster1324 libertarian ideas only work in an extremely high trust society. They’re almost as unrealistic and utopian as socialist ideas, albeit at least with less deadly pitfalls. But yeah, agreed. I’ve been more of a realist now that I have my own kids, and I’ll shelve libertarianism as a nice pipe dream for now.

[@nathanroyster1324]

@@matthewherr1588 well I still consider myself a libertarian but yes it requires your citizens to operate, for the most part, virtously. However I do think a libertarian society would do significantly better at punishing those who dont operate virtously. There would be no bank bailouts for instance. Republican/Democrat bickering over their EXTREMElY corrupt political figure of choice makes me want to vomit so I cannot go that route. I just realize that the push for libertarian ideas in policy would be a long, drawn out process over series of years and potentially decades. Trying to walk it all back overnight would be a disaster.

[@matthewherr1588]

@@nathanroyster1324 agreed. I’m definitely of the opinion that the political establishment in the US is corrupt from top to bottom, and it’s going to have to get ugly before it gets better, if it ever does. In theory I still principally support libertarianism, but I guess I’ve just become jaded because it seems to me that any truly liberty minded policies will be taken advantage of by a corrupt establishment and equally corrupt populace, at this point, just like our current system. We need a much more fundamental change in our hearts and our culture before any meaningful change can stick. In the meantime, I guess my politics puts me somewhere in the camp of Vivek - do as much as possible to dismantle the bureaucracy while maintaining law and order and secure borders

[@ChristiannTyler]

I was starting to think I was a libertarian until this conversation. Anyone who has a desire for anything resembling an open border is not my friend.

[@mr8ty8]

American economy is shrinking. World wide American made products are declining since 2 decades. Companies move or never even get founded in America in the first place. And in such a time increase of immigration is a death nail in a already withering nation and Economy

[@frenchstudentA]

You think adding more people to an economy makes the economy smaller? Do you also think that a business which gains more paying customers is a dying business?

[@nathanroyster1324]

@@frenchstudentA I think what they're suggesting is it will further suppress earnings by adding an influx of labor without adding any real competition in the business market due to the combining of public and private interests. It gives Amazon more unskilled labor but Amazon is already in bed with the government, writing policies that makes it impossible to compete with Amazon

[@scummymulisha]

1. why are they so fixated on letting ppl into our country? We have our own problems to fix. Why cant those ppl fix their own country? 2. Who cares about cheap labor. It's getting rid of the federal reserve that fixes the wage issue.

[@anarchic_ramblings]

Google 'libertarianism'.

[@scummymulisha]

​@@anarchic_ramblings Ron Paul - a nation without secure boarders is no nation at all. Libertarianism has been infected with the postmodern world view.

[@scummymulisha]

​@@anarchic_ramblingsI'm a paleo libertarian btw

[@caseyleonard1327]

People moving within the US are different than new people joining the social system

[@joelfox8381]

Why?

[@Danteztic]

Not really, that's the point.

[@caseyleonard1327]

@@joelfox8381 because one group is part of the system new people are growing the system.

[@caseyleonard1327]

@@Danteztic you write well for a person with a debilitating head injury

[@williamwest9204]

​@@Danteztic yeah it is. Because the ppl within have to pay for those not within.

[@raymondcarroll3876]

If Chris believes in open borders, then I suggest he take the front and back door off his house and just let anyone come in, that wants to, and eat his food; use his furniture; sleep on his bed and shower. It’s just open borders on a smaller scale. I suggest he does that and see if his BS argument ends pretty rapidly

[@frenchstudentA]

Bordertarian thinks a country and private property are the same thing. Take a sip.

[@wtice4632]

​@@frenchstudentAopen borders = insanity

[@Frankmpa1]

The best immigration policy might be the one we already had and it’s called legal immigration. I think all other debates should be titled “Which is the best illegal immigration policy should we have?’

[@hugesinker]

The immigration policy that the US had throughout most of its history, and during it's greatest economic and cultural gains, is to have open borders for peaceful people. You had to earn citizenship, but you were allowed to come here and work if you could make it. The first immigration restrictions were quite specific and limited, and also explicitly racist (aka The Chinese Exclusion Act). I hate that so many people have forgotten what America used to stand for and now we're so full of the same sort of paranoid idiots as everywhere else.

[@williamwest9204]

I'd argue yes it is but that the process should be simplified to become a citizen AND that English classes paid for by government should be mandatory encouraged and possible

[@wtice4632]

​@@williamwest9204nope they should pay to learn english out of their own pockets and it shouldnt be easier

[@justifiably_stupid4998]

Immigrants should be able to build houses on public roads. 😂 Homeless encampments in every major intersection, let's make it happen.

[@firstlast9916]

They literally built your house dude. When has an immigrant ever built a house on a road since 1492?

[@RickyAceRozay]

Mexican immigrants in the 80s are way different than Venezuelan immigrants in 2024

[@twomasta]

Sure. Luckier that they could assimilate easier because they an got an amnesty that gave them access to things citizens had access to. I'll say they weren't as ungrateful as some of these Venezuelans are however.

[@williamwest9204]

In the 80s they came here for work primarily and that was known and accepted and we had documentation on them

[@bperez8656]

Take it a step further 1. Culture 2. Principles 3. Loyalty to country Try moving 200 million new immigrants (Muslims for this example) to a country of 300 million overnight and giving them all citizenship By the fall of the same year The constitution will be burned to the ground and you will live under Sharia Law. That’s not an exaggeration. These ppl, “legal” or “illegal” would have zero adherence to your centuries old way of life, customs, or principles. Your bourgeois non-aggression principles would be devoured overnight.

[@johnanthony9923]

The debate hasn't started yet...but are Zach and Liz on the wrong side and jump in non-stop to make it a 3-on-1 debate.....like literally every single other topic they "moderate"?

[@gregworrel2623]

Only if you consider the wrong side to be the libertarian side.

[@pwhqngl0evzeg7z37]

As I hope you discovered, this one was quite orderly

[@wtice4632]

​@@gregworrel2623open borders is the wrong side

[@gregworrel2623]

@@wtice4632 Open borders is the only consistent libertarian side.

[@wtice4632]

@@gregworrel2623 open borders is suicidal insanity. Your idealism is dangerous.

[@king6dutch]

What would happen with open borders? What is the worst country within ease of access from the USA? Maybe Guatemala or Honduras? According to google maps it takes 18 days of walking to get from Guatemala City to The border of Mexico/Texas. Using Guatemala as a metric, here is my guess. About 25% of Guatemala population (not all from there but other countries too) shows up in Texas within 1 month of the declaration. That's 4.4 Million people. Some will fly, some will drive, some will walk. Every month after that probably 2-4 million more people show up. Eventually life in the USA for the average person degrades lower than the lives of the avg back in their home country, but of course the opportunity doesn't degrade as fast. So this continues to a point where for the average person showing up, they are showing up to a worse situation with better opportunity. Of course most won't achieve that opportunity. Eventually it becomes known that the USA is a hell hole for everyone but the ultra rich. But why leave a hell hole to go back to another hell hole. The USA never recovers and becomes more like a South Africa with huge slums surrounding affluent gated communities. I just hope Canada, where I am from has someone who isn't as stupid as Justin Trudeau by then and immediately militarizes our border, and bans all movement across our southern border. Fortunately America will NEVER do open borders. Chris really needs to come to grips with the fact that he doesn't support open borders, he supports more legal immigration.

[@gregworrel2623]

You assume that mass numbers of people living in other countries are ready to just upend their entire lives and move hundreds or thousands of miles away to a place where they don't speak the language and are starting from scratch. That was never true in the past and it is not true now.

[@hugesinker]

*"So this continues to a point where for the average person showing up, they are showing up to a worse situation with better opportunity. Of course most won't achieve that opportunity."* There were times in both US and Canadian history where the proportion of poor immigrants to natives was much higher than even your apocalyptic scenario suggests. There were poor slums all over the place and they worked their way out in a generation or two. The average might go down while the standard of living and productivity of the vast majority improves, including natives. For some places, that improvement is as simple as not being shot at when walking the street at night. Improvement is what already tends to happen when migrants are simply allowed to work and freely try to improve their own lives. They tend to succeed when they aren't treated like fenced in cattle under some state tyrant's thumb. The poorest South American countries in particular are destroyed by the US drug war and the corruption it has largely resulted in.

[@andrewdimartino2663]

The problem I have with this debate is that very early on the two representatives of the opposing viewpoints actually agreed on an immigration reform that would basically be libertarian and then spent the rest of the debate talking about fantastical exception cases

[@takistsoukalas5742]

Most people say "go dave, fuck chris/liz/reason" or the opposite. I'll just say, thumbs up to Reason and participants for doing their best to illuminate all the aspects of this contentious matter and giving all the best arguments for both sides. Good watch, this is what the media should be doing more of.

[@propagandacritic5511]

Hear hear!

[@Wilberbeest]

How would ReasonTV feel yesterday afternoon if they didn’t eat breakfast yesterday morning?

[@DM1LL5T0N31]

But @Wilderbeest, they did have breakfast yesterday morning!

[@DarlaKajca]

Dave -americans shouldn't be forced to take care of other countries people. Chris- uh yes we should they contribute more then natural born citizens. Dave -🤨 source? Chris- trust me bro

[@Lurch685]

Yeah they contribute more, until they crank out 12 kids…

[@hugesinker]

A source was specifically provided in some detail at about @1:22:00. It's also in the sources note along with several others. This is actually the most common view among economists.

[@DarlaKajca]

​@@hugesinkerthe source you cite is from Alex Nosferatu from cato who agreed to debate Dave for charity then at the last minute chickened out cato is garbage Dave has debunked their biased data many times

[@gregworrel2623]

@@DarlaKajca The difference is that Alex is a libertarian who believes in human liberty. Dave is distinctly anti-libertarian in his views on immigration and so does not believe in individual liberty. Whether he agreed to debate or not is irrelevant.

[@DarlaKajca]

​​​@@gregworrel2623it is relevant if Alex's is as right about immigration as he says he is then debate Dave especially if the debate was for charity.Alex doesn't care about anything other than replacing Americans with immigrants Dave has said many times why open borders isn't libertarian Ron Paul and hoppe are against open borders too you don't get to decide who is libertarian or not

[@howardroark3736]

The thing that always bothers me about these podcasts so far is that Liz and Zach consistently try to steelman what you might call the leftist libertarian position in any debate and essentially argue for that position as second and third debaters on that team. They don’t give the same treatment to what you might consider the rightist libertarian position, i.e. Dave’s property rights based argument. It would be better if they just didn’t talk and let Dave and Chris have at it. This debate’s moderation was less egregious than the moderation for the episode on George Floyd, but that’s very faint praise. I couldn’t even finish the George Floyd episode. It was like watching a presidential debate, where the moderators are repeatedly ganging up on one side.

[@pwhqngl0evzeg7z37]

Do realize that JAQ has no obligation to present a standard debate form with impartial moderators. It's in the name: "Just Asking Questions." The "moderators" as you call them are here to ask questions too, and it would be vicarious and dubious if they did so from somewhere besides their own ideological camps. (All camps here are pretty close anyway.)

[@howardroark3736]

@@pwhqngl0evzeg7z37 It would be good if we had someone on the panel who would “just ask questions” that expose issues people have with the other side. Perhaps it’s fine for everyone to ask questions purely based on the ideological camp they come from within libertarianism. But in that case, it would be nice to see Reason put some people on KZbin (or on its staff) who are more property rights libertarian types rather than what I would loosely term hippie-tarians. Nick Gillespie, Zach, and Liz seem to be of one mind on way too many issues that a lot of libertarians disagree on. It damages the credibility of Reason within the movement.

[@pwhqngl0evzeg7z37]

@@howardroark3736 Could you give examples or explain why you feel those are not "property rights libertarians," or otherwise considerably different? Because I listen to them relatively often (Nick especially) and can't agree. Or more broadly, what are the major issues of contention within libertarianism?

[@ZombieMorning]

Better control in migration will prevent migrants to invade prívate proverty.

[@joelfox8381]

I know right? If Texas stopped letting all those California people in...

[@cnlawrence1183]

Chris doesn't seem to have a lot to go on with his quasi contrarian position. Which is why his arguments (mostly hyperboles) and are very weak. In the end the arguments don't make any sense to non-us citizens being allowed to have citizen rights and services paid for at the expense of US tax paying citizens. Reminds me of a debate class where the other person draws the short straw to take the weaker position.

[@gregworrel2623]

The tough stance is to try to pretend that advocating for a closed border is somehow a libertarian position. Not just tough, but impossible. Dave defends it by saying it is popular as if that matters. Gun control is popular. Big government and welfare are popular. If you're just going to change libertarianism to what is popular then you might as well be a Republican or Democrat.

[@chrimony]

Dave: Stalin flooded Ukraine to turn areas Russians, and that has led to real world conflicts today. Chris: A civilization-ending asteroid might hit the Earth.

[@hugesinker]

Chris's point was that this example has nothing to do with Immigration into the US, which is prompted by the will of the immigrants themselves. What he didn't mention is that Stalin's efforts were NOT successful. Individual migrants tended to either assimilate or insularize (keep to themselves), just like they always do. There is still a nation of Ukranians with a unique culture and language. That's continued no matter what the Russians have done. If Stalin had succeeded, there would be no war in Ukraine right now because nobody would mind being part of Russia again.

[@chrimony]

@@hugesinker It was just a bad analogy by Chris. As for the argument you are giving, the concerns about mass inflows of people are real. You ignore that Stalin in part succeeded, because there would be no separatist breakaway region in Ukraine that identified with Russia otherwise. And of course we can see what happened to the native Americans, or what is happening in the Middle East now.

[@hugesinker]

@@chrimony *...the concerns about mass inflows of people are real."* The concerns are real, that doesn't mean they're reasonable. It seems like there are a lot of people with a primal fear of barbarians-- a faceless mass of foreigners who just want to murder and pillage. I suspect there's some evo-psych reptile brain stuff happening here for a lot of them. *"You ignore that Stalin in part succeeded, because there would be no separatist breakaway region..."* Meh. Maybe he caused the cultural nation to have a shift in its borders. Though it's pretty normal for a region right next to the border to shift naturally over time-- and it has been a long time. The only way to stop that entirely is pretty draconian. We're talking no-entry tall walls and patrolling guards with rifles. *"...we can see what happened to the native Americans, or what is happening in the Middle East now."* No one here is being forced off their land and into reservations through violent military action. Doesn't seem like that's going to happen any time soon, but if it were, I'd totally be against that.

[@hugesinker]

​@@chrimonyI think my previous reply was removed because I may have used a word KZbin didn't like. Nothing toward you though. Oh well, I'll try again. *" ...the concerns about mass inflows of people are real."* Yes, they are. That doesn't make them valid. In my experience, there are a lot of people with a simple and primal fear of barbarians-- a faceless horde of foreigners who want to murder and pillage the countryside. I suspect there's some evo-psych reason behind the psychology. Sometimes even irrational fears served our ancestors well. *"You ignore that Stalin in part succeeded, because there would be no separatist breakaway region in Ukraine that identified with Russia otherwise."* Meh. Stalin died in the early 1950s. Ukraine became sovereign in 1991, nearly a generation later. I think it's more reasonable to conclude that his plan failed. I mean, how much time are you willing to give it? How long do you think he expected it to take? It's been a long time and regions along the border between any two cultural nations tend to move gradually, though still much faster than political borders do. That's true everywhere unless a country goes full North Korea, with walls and armed patrols to shoot on sight anyone trying to get in ... and anyone trying to get out. I don't actually trust a government that builds walls to keep people out to not also eventually use those walls to keep people in. You get better tax-cattle that way. *"...we can see what happened to the native Americans, or what is happening in the Middle East now."* When state thugs are kicking people off their rightful property and moving them into camps, then I'll continue to be against that. For our situation, it just doesn't seem relevant.

[@brianv1981]

13:50 Dave's entire premise that they, millions of illegals, were never invited is false. I know plenty of private business owners and property owners are not only welcoming them but are also inviting them. We do not have enough labor. Our work visa quotas are usually filled within the first day or two. Furthermore, trespassing is usually defined as when you specifically ask someone to leave your property and they refuse. Or, someone ignores clearly posted signs telling them not to trespass, etc.

[@trhansen68]

10 min - Dave already won.

[@FreedomLovin]

Not at all. He's taking the pragmatist position, which fails. Chris is better spoken on this but also is not principled. Stalemate.

[@JuliusThePRofit]

Dave won this at about 45 minutes, the other guy essentially conceded that if too many people come in, there has to be a limit.

[@hugesinker]

If too many people go to the same Walmart at once, there has to be a limit. I don't see how that "concession" amounts to anything unless you think that means you should need a full sponsorship to go to Walmart.

[@JuliusThePRofit]

The concession is exactly that. There has to be a limit. If 1,000,000,000 chinese immigrants come in to the U.S.A. illegally next year our entire country is destroyed. You need to know who is coming in, and the ones that do come in have to be the best and the brightest.

[@savingferris8279]

Well that was underwhelming. Chris's arguments are absolutely dog shit. Was really hoping for more.

[@rachels1957]

This debate reminds me of why I gave up libertarianism in my 20s. Just one extreme hypothetical after the next with very little basis in reality. Dave was the only sane sounding one this entire time l.

[@BrandonGuise]

Does Chris believe in citizenship? Is there a difference between someone who is and isn't a citizen. If there is, then comparing a national border to the West Virginia border makes zero Sense.

[@um536vids2]

This is what bothers me about the open borders position, to some extent it assumes that the same governing laws apply to the entire world, and at no point can you cross a line where you would need to learn how to interface with society differently.

[@K_Dog253]

Liz wolfe cant ever help herself but attack dave in the most shallow ways. Its a guarantee every time.

[@real_nof1]

1:30:00 Liz brings up immigration "100 years ago" as an example of being "much closer to open borders". 2024 just so happens to be the 100th anniversary of the passage of the Johnson-Reed Immigration Act which restricted immigration from southern Europe, eastern Europe, and Asia. It took an immigration policy that was already far from "open" as Liz would define it, a policy that was explicitly white nationalist in fact (cf. the 1790 Immigration and Naturalization Act,) and restricted immigration FURTHER to northwestern Europe, which ironically is almost exclusively the ancestral source of libertarians in the real world. The Irish, Italians, and Eastern European jews who came in large numbers in the late 19th were far less libertarian than America's founding stock and this tendency persists in political patterns to this day. It's astounding how ignorant and detached from reality these Beltway Libertarianism Inc. types are.

[@gregworrel2623]

It was a horrible idea then and it is still a horrible idea today. Yes, immigration law is steeped in bigotry and racism. The idea that somehow you advance the ideas of libertarianism by promoting the exact opposite of libertarianism is so stupid as to defy explanation. That's all we need is a government that makes more life and death decisions when it can't even handle the potholes.

[@CubanLibertarian]

Bruh, the difference between interstate traffic and open borders is the understanding between the inhabits of the U.S. states punctuated by a preexisting network of interstate highways and strange aliens walking across your border.

[@hugesinker]

That's not a difference. There are several regularly traveled common roads between Mexico and the United States that existed before the those states were even US territories. Up until the 1920s, the Mexican border was basically open.

[@StephanLivera]

Great debate, Dave Smith's position is clearly more realistic and aligned with libertarian ideas. Chris and the hosts were getting too caught up in philosophical theoretical detours. Also Liz spoke way too much, as a host in these situations your job is to let the guests do most of the talking.

[@frenchstudentA]

What part of "we should use the government commit violence against peaceful people trying to come here" is libertarian?

[@StephanLivera]

@@frenchstudentA You're missing the point, Dave and others acknowledge that first best is to have fully privatized property and private everything. This is just dealing in the world of 2nd or 3rd or 4th bests. This is necessary because we aren't jumping straight from here to 1st best, it will take time and work to help reach people, and to win hearts and minds.

[@wtice4632]

​@@frenchstudentAyou meant to say often violent criminal aliens right??

[@Godocker]

Hahahaha Liz fucking hates Dave

[@WhatWhat-lf3bd]

Liz is unbearable. Just the worst.

[@jamesbales4077]

The data set that the CATO model is based on does NOT include data on legal/illegal immigration status (or immigration status at all)-- which is the heart of the issue. The paper states this: "The second change we attempted was to include a separate net fiscal cost estimate for illegal immigrants, but we were unable to implement it due to small sample sizes in the CPS [Current Population Survey]." They acknowledge right there in black and white that the CPS survey doesn't include a large enough sample size of illegal immigrants. A quick google search shows that the CPS does not ask about immigration status, although it does ask about citizenship status.They pick a random sample of addresses and then determine if they are eligible or willing to do the survey. I can imagine that someone in the country illegally would most likely decline to answer questions from a federal government representative. There is NO way to remotely accurately guess the proportion of survey respondents who are illegal immigrants. So in short, the data CATO is looking at cannot be used to evaluate if illegal immigrants are a net plus or minus to the economy. It's the illegal immigration question that is truly the heart of the debate and the CATO study does not apply AT ALL! And yet, they have the gall to make this assumption: "Reduced illegal immigrant ineligibility for most benefits in this model means that the net fiscal impact of illegal immigrants would almost certainly be more positive than that of legal immigrants at the same age and education level, but we were unable to verify that because of the small sample sizes." And yet we hear reports of illegal immigrants in New York being provided food, housing, and access to public schools. They have access to roads and emergency room care. So no, it's not a given that the net fiscal impact of illegal immigrants would "almost certainly" be a net positive. Get some data and then let's see.

[@getridofgovt6339]

Listening to these libertarians make me not want to consider being a libertarian

[@mickeybeavison1053]

Dave smith is awesome, and why I am here. The rest of the panel is painfully cringe, whoa. Won’t be back but thanks for hosting Dave Smith.

[@gregworrel2623]

Dave Smith is cringe and anything but libertarian. He makes that painfully clear in this debate. He does not believe in individual liberty and thinks it should be based on majority opinion. The fact that open immigration is unpopular is totally irrelevant.

[@daltonbrasier5491]

​@@gregworrel2623 "you're not a real libertarian". Wow, how original.

[@gregworrel2623]

@@daltonbrasier5491 I'm not trying to be original, just accurate. Meanwhile Dave's arguments are straight out of the Republican playbook.

[@KryMoore]

Dave pushed and argued for open borders for over a decade.

[@Zarnubius]

​@@KryMoore["this user has 17 comments on this video"] for a guy named "cry more" you sure seem to be crying a lot. hope you're getting paid to post this coal lmao

[@DarkHorseSki]

Okay Liz, what are the stats for harms caused to others by people doing drugs in the bathroom? Liz seems to believe it is a much more probable case for harm than an illegal immigrant, despite having plenty of known cases of illegal immigrants causing harms, while there not being ANY publicly announced cases of the bathroom druggie causing harms... One of the few important jobs any national level government has is to protect the borders, and part of protection is vetting the folks crossing the borders.

[@TomTomTom87]

The common talking point of "illegal immigrants commit less crimes than Americans" is total BS. First of all, they are automatically felons for breaking federal immigration law, secondly most commit identity and IRS fraud by stealing social security numbers and not paying taxes, and thirdly, even ONE crime committed by an illegal is one too many because they aren't supposed to be in America. No one is denying our country has a native crime problem, we don't need to make it worse.

[@faceplants2]

@1:06:00 btw

[@jnightshade4379]

Chris couldn't argue to defend his ideas or break down Dave's, he just argued against "the way" Dave argued. Lotta fancy spin, no substance.

[@glennmitchell9107]

Legal immigration sponsorship should include liability of the sponsor for both the financial and legal behavior of the dependent guest. This sponsorship arrangement should extend to tourists or any other short-term visitors to the country. This may include hotels and resorts sponsoring foreign guests.

[@masterofshadows8904]

Hoppe, I love it

[@glennmitchell9107]

How is the use of someone else's property a natural right, if it depends on them giving me permission?

[@gregworrel2623]

How is immigration using someone else's property without their permission?

[@glennmitchell9107]

@@gregworrel2623 It isn't. My comment referred to one of the panelists who was using the personal property permission as an analogy for immigration. My problem was with his use of natural right.

[@Talosvalcoran2]

Dave’s the only person in this debate with an above 70 iq

[@KryMoore]

Hahahahaha, Dave was a big open borders guy less than 6 years ago.

[@gregworrel2623]

@@KryMoore I guess open borders was not the popular position, so better for his income to go with the flow.

[@RichColemanTx]

Dear Chris, my federal tax dollars go to other states like Virginia, for example, so it's not the same thing as me having the right to go to Japan uninvited. Dave wins big.

[@patriciabilotta487]

US citizens moving from Penn to W. Virginia has nothing do with the 3 million illegal immigrants moving from S. America, through Central America, through Mexico into the US.

[@LegalAutomation]

To me, the economic implications are rather irrelivant. Let's say I'm having thankgiving dinner with my family, and some random dude comes into my house through the front door and wants to sit down and eat with us. If he says "But I brought ice cream and cherry pie for desert and will share it with you guys", that is not a compelling argument to allow him to stay. Even if he said he would pay for the entire dinner for everyone in my family, that STILL is not sufficient reason to compel me to allow him to stay.

[@gregworrel2623]

Controlling who comes into your home is perfectly legitimate. Controlling who visits your neighbor's home is not.

[@satanicmuffin9309]

@@gregworrel2623 It's more like we jointly own a property and you decided to invite someone without consulting me. Even if you didn't need joint permission to invite someone, you can't invite someone over and then let them eat all my food from the fridge.

[@libertynow4047]

Libertarian Party platform doesn’t recognize publicly owned property. Aggression is the use, trespass against, or invasion of the borders of another person’s owned resource (property) without the owner’s consent; or the threat thereof. We oppose all acts of aggression as illegitimate and unjust, whether committed by private actors or the state.

[@gregworrel2623]

Moving on public roads is not infringing on anyone's private property. Renting or buying property from willing private owners is not infringing on anyone's private property. Working for willing private employers is not infringing on anyone's private property. Your name of "libertynow" is a bit of a joke if you don't believe in individual liberty.

[@Deepwang84]

"10xing the H1B1 visas would be pretty uncontroversial" these people have no basis in reality.....

[@real_nof1]

muh "skilled" Indian immigrants are the most leftist ethnicity in America. They're also the highest-earning, meaning they wield hugely disproportionate influence as leftists. Idiots like the Reason/Cato crowd made the same argument for jewish immigration back in the day. Accepting it was the historic American nation's worst mistake ever.

[@dansmith680]

Open borders is a dumb idea. Look how poorly the EU is being run. Having a north American version would be a bad idea.

[@tylerwarwick7975]

I'm 20 minutes in and I'm beginning to wonder if the idea of "citizenship" is evil to libertarians. It feels like they are working very hard to not acknowledge the international conflict and how almost no other nations share a libertarian philosophy so how on earth do you plan to keep your rights and privileges if authoritarian ideology dilutes and overcomes our liberal ideology by just occupying this space because no one prevented them from just taking it?

[@tylerwarwick7975]

I'm now 50 minutes in and I'm surprised in a not so positive way. I switched my voter registration to Libertarian back in 2018 when I was fed up with the uniparty and wanted to make a statement about how I do not align with it. Now I'm seeing parallels to the uniparty inside the Libertarian party and very specifically with the open borders bs. The amount of mental gymnastics required is olympic and it's just so you can virtue signal for something that would be implemented at the cost of American liberty and by extension liberty in the world. Sure Milei is trying but no other nation has those sentiments and then you will openly argue we should just let anyone flood in.... "Who cares what happens as long as I seem compassionate even while human rights are eliminated" is what the LP seems like now and I've decided that I made a mistake assuming the Libertarian party actually wants liberty but they appear to want the same things the elites in Washington DC want which is to destroy the concept of the nation America for a global one world government so I can't wait to switch my registration to Independent, Libertarians are awful...

[@darkfazer]

​@@tylerwarwick7975 Dave repeatedly stated that he's anarcho capitalist. Anarchism condemns the existence of a state, so it is obviously incompatible with the idea of citizenship. He's argued against his philosophy for 2 hours here.

[@TomTomTom87]

1:36:15 worst argument ever Liz, lmfao

[@mouseutopiadystopia24601]

Everything she says is a self-own. Reason is not sending their best...

[@chickenfishhybrid44]

Comparing people being against who you marry versus taxpayers having input on immigration is hilarious. Lolberts

[@mattcomchoc2957]

Her excessive blink rate is very distracting. I made it half way through. Dave wins. Chris was putting me to sleep with his incredibly verbose "arguments" that seemed to have nothing to do with reality. Reason has been nothing but real yawners lately.

[@LibertyLovingLunatic22]

Dave Smith is the GOAT.

[@KryMoore]

Hahahahaha. He would argue for open borders just 5 years ago.

[@jnightshade4379]

Got half hour in, then everyone was just too stupid for the conversation to be edifying

[@stevenkothenbeutel448]

The house nation analogy does not have problems. The problem with libertarianism is that its policies leads to the destruction of libertarianism. The US affords the libertarians to tout their free society but all of that is in a bubble that without the US and its policies, would burst.

[@rosswatkins2277]

The open borders argument is weak

[@BrandonGuise]

Dave wins

[@VincenzoC749]

Liz Wolfe wanting to 10x H1B visas is absolutely insane lmao

[@caseyleonard1327]

Sane or not has nothing to do with the millions who can't speak English coming.

[@kas8131]

Those people create wealth, I don’t really see an issue, tech bros will have to compete. Not to mention you can brain drain China

[@gregworrel2623]

@@caseyleonard1327 Your ancestors who came here probably didn't speak English either. That has zero to do with whether people should have the right to immigrate.

[@caseyleonard1327]

@@gregworrel2623 they came when there was no welfare state or government schools. Has zero to-do with today.

[@caseyleonard1327]

@@gregworrel2623 when my ancestors came there was no welfare state or government schools. Has zero to do with current immigration.

[@jonmedina259]

I see Dave smith and I watch, it's as simple as that.

[@Lancer_0010]

This is the thing. Not enough libertarians look at the government we have, versus the one we want. There has to be a realist view on who’s in congress, what you can feasibly do in government, and how you can prevent future growth and fraud

[@jench78]

28:41 Liz stopped smiling pretty damn quick

[@caseyleonard1327]

"Really wild scenarios" like are currently happening

[@erictaylor4937]

Dave constantly makes points based on reality and what is actually happening and chris constantly makes up hypothetical extreme ideas that aren't happening... very annoying chris

[@Aireck174]

I soured on the libertarian party after they rejected Ron Paul. I completely left when I realized libertarians care more about "consistency" over reality.

[@J_Walker]

Another sound win for Dave.

[@Lurch685]

Liz is way unqualified to have these discussions.

[@uncircumcisedcircus]

All women are.

[@Lurch685]

@@uncircumcisedcircustrue.

[@drcrowlee]

I hate when Dave comes over here and I have to give REASON views