Full Debate: Is Immigration a Human Right?

JOIN our PATREON page and help us explore the ideas of a free society. You will get access to exclusive videos, polls, Q&A's, behind-the-scenes, Learn Liberty merch and so much more. Sign up on / learnliberty
Bryan Caplan and Christopher Wellman debate immigration. Is there a human right to immigrate to any country in the world?
Debate sponsored by IHS, the John Templeton Foundation, and University of San Diego’s Center for Ethics, Economics, and Public Policy.
SUBSCRIBE: bit.ly/2dUx6wg
LEARN MORE:
Are Immigration Restrictions Required by Individual Rights? (blog post): Nicolás Maloberti argues immigration restrictions restrict the right of association. www.learnliberty.org/blog/are-...
The Constitutional Rights of Noncitizens (blog post): Regardless of whether or not immigration is a human right, noncitizens certainly have rights that must be protected. Professor Ilya Somin explains what those rights are. www.learnliberty.org/blog/t-he...
Debating the Ethics of Immigration: Is There a Right to Exclude? (book): In this book, referred to in the debate, Christopher Wellman and Phillip Cole argue that freedom of association allows for states to restrict immigration. www.amazon.com/Debating-Ethic...
TRANSCRIPT:
For a full transcript please visit: www.learnliberty.org/videos/fu...
LEARN LIBERTY:
Your resource for exploring the ideas of a free society. We tackle big questions about what makes a society free or prosperous and how we can improve the world we live in. Watch more at www.learnliberty.org/.

[@cnelsonlv999]

The argument that "having a right to move freely within a country for people who live in Haiti is not a valuable privilege" misses the point. The right to move freely includes the right to leave that country, if it is so terrible to live there. That does NOT mean that you should then have carte blanche to decide which of the world's countries must accept you as a permanent fixture.

[@jjames943]

@@danielmoore7105 So by your logic... suppose a country like Mexico decided it was spending too much of its money on imprisoning cartel members so they decided to let them ALL out of prison on the condition that they all leave the country to come to America. By your logic they should all be free to come here right? The US would have no authority to stop them. We should welcome them with open arms, right? They're not criminals here, are they? So we should just let them in and make them citizens. Maybe offer them some government assistance also to help them get started. The problem with your idealism is that you are naïve in thinking that the only people that would want to come here are good, honest, law abiding people. There HAS to be a mechanism to prevent people with less than honorable intentions from coming here. You can't just say that ANYONE should be able to enter.

[@DIY_Miracle]

I think there is a great distinction between right to immigrate externally vs internally. You should have the right to opt out, but a foreign nation should not be forced to accept you.

[@ElasticGiraffe]

Caplan managed in his opening statement to anticipate and handily refute Wellman's entire argument. This was a respectfully civil bloodbath.

[@discountmylarbags590]

I'll say I appreciated seeing a debate that was mostly respectful, regardless of my beliefs. If only we could do things like this on a larger scale, among people of equal goodwill.

[@stevealexander8010]

1/ That isn't what freedom of association means. 2/ This ignores that even the presence of an alien impacts the political representation of others. 3/ Why exactly is it impossible for a Haitian to be productive in Haiti - and how does a talent-drain improve that situation ? How do we prevent the migrant from bringing this problem with them? 4/ The claim that well-off nations have an obligation to the poorer seems spurious and unsupported. Most nations are poor b/c of legal, political and cultural choices - do we have some obligation to forcibly fix these more fundamental issue? If half the population of Haiti emigrated for better jobs, then Haiti would be poorer, and the population would return to the maximum sustainable soon. Not helpful.

[@RosannaMiller]

I was with Wellman until he started talking about "illegitimate and legitimate" States. And he states that ANY State that did not help refugees was not a legitimate one. His State could vote and determine they'd help all refugees because it was the right thing to do. Furthermore, his State could think of any State that did not help refugees as illegitimate but who cares? It would mean nothing.

[@cmatrix4761]

I will say that I'm very pleased to see actual debate on the issue is finally happening (rather than blocking, vilifying or yelling past each other).

[@cnelsonlv999]

Very true! It is not to see that this can be discussed on the relevant issues... rather than just boiling down to a "You are a racist" dismissal...

[@KamuiAlmighty]

Immigration is a privilege, not a right.

[@cnelsonlv999]

@mrbobbilly I agree with the OP, but not you! You are saying that all people should be confined to the borders of the country in which they were born... in all countries? Or am I misunderstanding you?

[@unfindablefinder]

@@cnelsonlv999 that’s not what he’s saying at all

[@bmwatrin]

wow Caplan won this debate hands down, he was better prepared in every way, he researched his opponent's viewpoints, came ready with statistics and examples, and rebutted all of his opponents points quicker... I still disagree with him though, people can't live in whatever property they want (no matter how "beneficial to the global economy"), you must have the power to do so... its not a "human right"

[@StandedInUtah]

It is totally possible to uphold our Constitution and not have open borders. No one is preventing Prof Kaplan from associating with all the foreigners with whom he wishes to associate. I will gladly purchase him a plane ticket or two or three and can associate as much as he wishes.

[@SamArmstrong-DrSammyD]

Virtue signaling is ruining these debates. Everybody virtue signals there fake preferences and says they support immigration, but their real preferences are shown after they think about it. I'd love for them to be honest at the beginning and then see how they were actually persuaded. Caplan was clearly more rigorously reasoned that Christopher.

[@Bender711]

Sam Armstrong how many open borders supporters live in Mexican ghettos in border towns?

[@anarchic_ramblings]

@@Bender711 Most smart people don't live in places like that.

[@maniacal_engineer]

people have a right to immigrate because you have a desire to freely associate with them? But by doing so you are forcing every other person to associate with them . Freedom of association includes freedom to not associate.

[@Tyler_W]

I see two problems with his position in regards to this subject. He treats people as interchangable, and the reason he doesn't take your point into consideration is because many libertarians have a mindset of atomized indovidualism with no regard for unique individuality or any collective consideration. I much prefer individualism and find most forms of collectivist ideology to be morally objectionable, but I subscribe to Aristotle's golden mean in this regard. Indovidualism may be superior, but there is an unhealthy extreme, one tjat doesn give any collective consideration. You don't exist in a vacuum and neither do your actions. Your actions have broader consequences on the world around you and those within it, therefore, there is a certain degree of collective consideration which you should not disregard whole cloth. In order to have a culture that values personal liberty, you cannot simply invite large masses of people who probably have radically opposing worldviews if you want that liberty-loving society to be sustainable longterm. Not only is general mass immigration unsustainable on an economic level, especially with a welfare state, but, as you said, you violate other people's rights to want to not associate with someone. The rational work-around is to allow for a legal process for limited and selective immigration. Makes sense to me anyway. Besides, immigration law enforcement is as much a matter of national security to defend a nation from foreign hostility who would harm its people anf take wrongfully advantage of its resources. In other words, borders are a defense against potential violence and violation of self and private property, not to mention borders also exist to keep diseases from spreading, yet another defense of a nation's people. All of these things are entirely within the rightful role of a government, even within a minarchist framework.

[@wanderingthewastes6159]

Even if we take this twisted notion of association, the only reason you are being "associated" with those people is because of the State. For all the person doing the association cares he just wants to do business with another person, he wasn't the one to tie a rope around himself and every other American.

[@mgtowk6883]

Strong for open borders vs milquetoast for open borders...some debate. If I inherited a house from my family and you inherited a house from your family, you do not have a human right to live in my house because it's nicer than yours.

[@FreeBroccoli]

If I inherit a house, you don't have the right to tell me that I can't let other people live there.

[@otherworlder]

But, we can observe the results and learn from it

[@ironman1233]

You don't own the whole entire country

[@richardshipe4993]

Red herring. No one is arguing over whether or not a person gets to do as they please with your private property.

[@episdosas9949]

Your house and a border are different.

[@davidcruz8057]

The main thing they fail to mention is that while the rich American has the right to contract the illegal immigrant, when the illegal has children (and they reproduce like there’s no tomorrow) it is us the tax payers that are stuck with paying for the hospital where they are born (which they never pay) at a 5k national average and their education at a national average of 12k a year. So it works great for the rich American that gets the cheap labor (and gets richer) but the rest of us are forced to educate their children, feed and keep them healthy, and in that we don’t have a choice but to comply.

[@forzaacmilan36]

Immigration has always been found to produce a netgain for the economy. you'll will find no economist that will disagree with this notion.

[@maxabramson4781]

The Open Borders crowd seems to ignore the problem of irreversibly. Once you allow too many people into a country (or let taxes, debt, corruption, gerrymandering, etc), the consequences can be unrecoverable. But the question of the debate is whether or not legitimate states have the right to a kind of national freedom of association. Does Norway have a natural right as a nation to prevent some or all Swedes from entering in? Would millions of people in Latin America have the right to organize politically, migrate to Canada, and take over their government, over a generation or two? Would we demand that Canadians sit back and do nothing? If Canadians decide that they'd rather have more immigrants from Asia and Latin America than from Europe, then who are we to tell them that they can't do this?

[@maxabramson4781]

Could we imagine the Brexit debate if you saw some Frenchman arriving and telling Brits on the street that they don't even have the right to vote on Brexit. If the American people vote to allow only 1 million new immigrants per year, including student visa, tourist visas, work visas, etc, do corporations have the right to overturn the will of the majority in Congress and exceed those numbers? Did Tyson Foods have the right to use human smugglers into the country in opposition to the majority position? If the will of the majority on immigration is to be ignored, then who's policy is to be followed where their preferences must take precedence over ours? George Soros? Michael Bloomberg? And if we have no control over what Congress does, then what is the point of bothering with any of this public debate, at all? No single policy affects our daily lives more than immigration policy. There are countries out there with 10-15 times higher homicide rates than we have, as well as terrorist organizations, rogue governments, and drug cartels everywhere. If governments exists to protect us from the wrongdoing of others (all threats foreign and domestic), which must governments abrogate this responsibility when it comes to the question of inmigration of millions of others?

[@aussie_anarchist]

I just want to point out in the opening statements Caplan is making an individualist argument and Wellman is making a collectivist argument. Caplan talks about the rights of individuals while Wellman talks about the rights of State's. As if State's aren't anything but a small group of individuals who rule everyone else within their geographical control, and have more rights than any individual.

[@jjames943]

I would argue that Emigration is a human right. A person should be free to LEAVE where they are in order to find a better place to live. Immigration; however, is NOT a human right. A country has the right and duty to control and decide who enters their country. An individual does not have the right to decide where they want to live. They have the right to choose where they would LIKE to live, provided they abide by the law set up by that country in order for them to enter. And if the populace of the US wishes to have open borders and let anyone and everyone enter the country, there is a legislative mechanism in place to make it so.

[@jjames943]

@@danielmoore7105 Well... currently American citizens can't just arbitrarily vote out other citizens because the people have put Amendments to the Constitution in place to prevent that. And rightfully so. Black American citizens are citizens just like any other color American citizen. However, liberals today seem to think that our Constitutional rights are not absolute. They want to put limitations on the 1st and 2nd Amendments. I would argue that if you can do that then can you also make limitations or changes to the 13th, 14th, 15th, or 19th? That aside... the answer to your question is because a nation has the right and obligation to control it's borders. The primary function of a government is to provide for the safety of the people. And part of that protection is knowing who is within your borders. Any and every person should be free to leave where they are in search of a better place to live. However, that does not entitle them to enter any other sovereign nation they choose however they choose to enter it. It means that they should request permission to enter the country and have it granted. Once they've followed the rules for entry and have been granted permission... they are free to pursue their happiness within that nations laws. If you reduce it to a much smaller scale imagine your home is YOUR sovereign territory. Do you believe that you should be allowed to control who enters your home? Suppose I decide that I would be better off living in your house. Why shouldn't I be able to move in? What gives you the right to say that I can't enter? The fact is that you act as the governor or government of your home. Just like a real government. You get to decide who enters and how and when they have to leave. Just like an actual government should. Anyone is free to come to your door and knock and ask to come in. But ultimately you decide whether they come in or not, right? Why is that any different for a nation?

[@TurboWingnut]

So if immigration is a human right, can I immigrate to another country with 50,000 of my friends and their tanks, bombers, and other air craft? Can Putin immigrate to the Crimean peninsula? Is that cool? What are the limits?

[@cnelsonlv999]

Limit theory is a concept that people like the first speaker either (a) don't understand, or (b) refuse to address.

[@SaltyCorpsman]

That first guy lost me when he said that restricting immigration is basically the same as exiling people. How do you exile someone to the nation they were born in? He really shows his hand with this. He clearly thinks that these places are shit-holes, rather ironic now I'd say. He also fails to see how his analogy is ridiculous. Nations don't exile an immigrant by making them stay where they were born, yet tried to claim it would be the same thing as exiling another to a country that they weren't born in. More simply put, I'm not exiled to my shitty house I rent because some rich dude won't let me stay in his mansion. Yet, you could exile that rich dude to a shack in the woods. Immigration isn't a human right, while it is unfortunate that people are born in hostile countries, or countries with crappy economic prospects, it's still a privilege to move to a better country. Unfortunately, as a society we have conflated rights and privileges. The fact remains, as it pertains to American citizens, that our constitution ends out our borders. It certainly doesn't extend to citizens of other nations. Why would it? I'm certainly not opposed to immigration, I would like to see more people have the same opportunities afforded to me, but the US along with other prosperous nations shouldn't be required to carry the burden of the failure of other governments.

[@WildHuntress]

Completely agree with you. And also if you aren't careful you will inherit the same failure of those countries if you don't have quality control of those who come in.

[@SaltyCorpsman]

@@WildHuntress Unfortunately we already are inheriting the failures of other nations. Though, I don't think it is because of the people that are flooding our boarders. It's from the bleeding hearts that are encouraging those people to flood our boarders. This is a multifaceted problem here. We have a large voting base that thinks you can get a free lunch and allow everyone and anyone here. This is the same voter base that decries our outdated infrastructure, and overstressed healthcare system, among other mutually exclusive or mutually aggravating issues. The people here, in general, are terrifyingly uninformed or misinformed about current affairs or civics in general. So, we end up with, on both sides of our system, most notably from democrats, a voter base the hits the switch on whichever candidate makes them feel better about their own wretched lives. Rarely does a person vote in such a way that may cause short-term pain, for a long-term gain. It's probably why the obesity level has reached levels that hinder our own national security. It's a self-destructive mentality and what we need are real adults to start making thought-out decisions about how to right this nation. Right now all we have are aged toddlers screeching at each other.

[@KatsKettlebellDojo]

Immigration isn't a universal human right, because nobody has the right to invade private property. Hans Herman Hoppe discusses this really well in his book Democracy: The God That Failed. If the world consisted of privately owned communities, those communities would absolutely have the right to determine who joins them, who is allowed to work inside the community and who is turned away. Leaving a community should be a right, unless there's a contractual obligation. But joining another one? That would violate the property rights of the members of that community. Also, working somewhere doesn't mean you are a citizen there or even live there. Just because the state is an illegitimate monopoly on border protection, it doesn't mean that without a state there wouldn't be borders. Or immigration laws.

[@DaveWard-xc7vd]

The important thing to remember in a moral debate is that morality is subjective.

[@discountmylarbags590]

There is a branch of philosophy that states that morality is subjective...there are others that state that morality is absolute. I used to believe the former; now I believe the latter. Perhaps next time they can do a debate on the differences between the two!

[@DaveWard-xc7vd]

@@discountmylarbags590 What changed your mind?

[@AustrianEconomist]

Morality is subjective, but ethics are not. Morality is the personal preferences of individuals. I like apples. You like oranges. It's about whether something is good or bad. Ethics are the LAWS. Murder is unethical. Eating or smoking a substance is not unethical (doesn't mean it has to be moral). It's about whether something should be a CRIME or not. It's about legal vs illegal. Take a read on Murray Rothbard's "Ethics of Liberty". There's some good stuff there that'll help you understand what I'm trying to explain here. It's an amazing book!

[@DaveWard-xc7vd]

@@AustrianEconomist I disagreed with you. Ethical behaviour involves doing what is 'right'. It is clear then that what is ethical cannot be summarised in a simple set of rules, or laws. Ethics are derived from morals and are therefore subjective. eth·ics /ˈeTHiks/ noun moral principles that govern a person's behavior or the conducting of an activity. the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles.

[@DaveWard-xc7vd]

@@AustrianEconomist Amongst Muslims honor killings are not unethical. The difference between an honor killing and a murder is subjective. Not objective.

[@ccmTopher34]

I'd like to say it's a natural right, but I also think the state reserves a compelling interest to protect other natural rights of it's citizens to some reasonable degree...and this includes some type of vetting. I think we do a decent job, could be better, but we admit more than any other nation by a long shot and give each individual due process. On a side note, Jordan Peterson provides a very compelling conservative (he's not conservative) case for borders in a lecture titled 12 principles for 21st century conservativism. Hope I've added something of value to this debate...

[@SL2797]

Immigration is a NEGATIVE right: Nobody has the right to prevent an immigrant from crossing from tree A to tree B, on land not owned by anybody. It ISN'T a positive right: An immigrant has NO right to force anybody to give him work or shelter.

[@spec24]

"land not owned by anybody" Hate to break it to you, but public land is owned by the collective taxpayers of the country. You may not like that fact, but it is a fact.

[@Niconogood]

That is the main issue today. In Norway ie. every MENA-immigrant cost the taxpayers around 2,5 million USD. The question is really, is it a human right for me to break into your house and demand you pay for all my expenses?

[@i9erek]

Not sure why people disliked this. It's good to have debates regardless of where you stand on the issues.

[@chrissnyder3809]

"Legitimate" State .... That's the beginning of a failed philosophy

[@Tyler_W]

"The state" is nothing more than a community of individuals enforcing society's laws. A truly anarcho-capitalist society cannot exist, at least not for long, because humans naturally congregate, organize and create working systems to establish some semblance of law and order. The "state" as a general concept is a legitimate one. What determines whether or not any given state is a legitimate one is determined by whether or not it abides by certain predetermined rules and operates within its rightful function, hence the need for a government to be small and decentralized enough for it to be held accountable for any violations and abuses of power.

[@andykaufman7620]

If it is a Human Right then we need to Immigrate into (insert a Tribe here) as those Tribes are considered 'Nations', and have Citizenship in their tribes, and it is irrelevant that you are not born a member of that tribe, due to genetics, or marriage or some other means by which you gain entrance by the 'gatekeepers' and deciders of that membership. You are a human. You have a RIGHT to immigration, and therefore, a right to membership into that tribe. End tribal supremacy and demand any human have the right by tribal law, to apply for membership, and gain a reasonable expectation of membership simply for the exercising of their human right to immigrate. These concepts in this debate need to be applied to China, Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., the Vatican City (who has an extremely limited memberships of its nation-state), or many African nations, and of course, any Ethno-State, or nation-states that are not in possession of a state, such as the Kurds, or any other people with 'the struggle', therefore, yes you can immigrate and gain membership into a Diaspora, because that is a nation based on a 'state of mind, shared cultural, and beliefs'. Anything less is not inclusive, or supporting of diversity. "It's our nation and we get to set the rules" which is viewed as 'human rights violations'. Someone needs to tell Mexico that, as they do that type of thing all the time, and so do a majority of nations around the world. I would argue that national security is a human rights violation so that if you can't restrict the border of a nation, you can't restrict say Area 51, and those 'tresspassers will be shot on sight' is a human rights violation. Things that make you go Hmmm. That would also apply to, say, Canada and its federal national security state locations. Justin Bieber of the North, Justrin Trudeau, and lIving Ken Doll, would clearly disagree considering his Dictatortial approach to Democracy and supporting Diversity and Inclusion, and the 'view points of others'. ------He tries to only argue for 'legitimate nation states only' and gets the Soviet Union out of the way. Are you saying that the USSR was not a legitimate state, if not, neither is any nation state created by armed struggle, civil war, or violent revolution: Cuba, CCP China, Iranian Islamic State, Israel, and lets really ponder this a lot of nations can be put into this category. None of those are 'legitimate states', but then what about all those states created whole-cloth by the British Empire, like Jordan, Saudi Arabian, Iran, guess what, your not a legitimate nation. I would add to this the 'First Feminist nation' Sweden, so only pre-Feminist nationhood state of Sweden is legitimate, but post Feminist-nation as the ruling ideology of the Swedish state is not legitimate. Also Canada, the first Post-National Nation as soon as it adopted that stance with, we think the Trudeau Regime, was the moment that Canada was no longer a legitimate nation. We can add Mexico to this list too, when it first formed, and really again when it had its socialist revolution. Plus, heck why not, most of the nations in Latin America, Haiti included, and of course, the United States, but also the U.K. Yes, because they too had a Civil War, and various revolutions of sorts, including the collapse of their Empire into whatever Neo-Socialist state they maintain. Plus let's add the 5th French Republican, anything after the creation of the French Republic. We might be able to add pre-Columbian empire and states to this list too, and Africans one. Is the Egyptian state legitimate after say, the collapse of the New Kingdom? Clearly Hellenic Egypt was not really "Egyptian" but we could argue that point. Same applies to China, once its Dynasty system falls. CCP China is utterly not legitimate.

[@alanrobertson9790]

I found this discussion disappointing. Probably because the Pro-Immigration speaker was better than the Anti-Immigration Speaker. The only thing worse than hearing views you don't like is to hear your views weakly defended. Yes it was ordered and polite and gave time to develop ideas. Too bad they managed to avoid the central arguments. The well being of people of Haiti should not be a concern to other people yet this was proposed as a central theme for the pros. Easy to shoot down but the Anti failed miserably.

[@alanrobertson9790]

@@danielmoore7105 Who is given Citizenship is an obvious function of the State not private citizens, always has been, so I'm surprised you deploy an argument like that. The State has every right in the matter, de facto and morally because this affects other people so can't be left to individuals.

[@alanrobertson9790]

@@danielmoore7105 Yes I thought I had already answered that "because this affects other people so can't be left to individuals". More detailed explanation. If you do something and the consequences are only on yourself that is a decision that should be left to you. If you employ and house a migrant, bypassing immigration control that affects the other citizens of the country and so is properly the remit of the democratically elected government.

[@656hookemhorns]

The attempt to discredit the "trespassers" argument is easily dismissed, an owner cannot trespass on their own property.

[@shoeflytoo]

What Caplan doesn't appear to understand and Wellman did not state clearly is that one's rights to freedom of movement/association etc can transgress on others' rights and that it is the rights of the citizens of the nations to choose who may enter. These rights, voiced through the application of law, belong to the nation as a whole, not to Caplan, no matter how much he wants the Haitians to come work for him. On second thought, it seems that Caplan is just being contrarian. He sounds like a small child when speaking to Wellman. "Why can't I just do what I want!" It sounds like he, and some of the questioners, want the immigrants to determine the policy of the target nations, actual citizens be damned.

[@marcusdavenport1590]

The girl that was smuggled here as no fair of her own... Should be returned home and she shouldn't have to pay for it. The organization that smuggled her should be fined. Simple solution. Poverty doesn't give you the right to impose yourself on anyone else... If so, then I grew up poor, I should be able to move into Bill Gates neighborhood as a squatter... There are more opportunities in his neighborhood. I should be able to move into his spare bedroom his house is too large and he shouldn't be able to claim that much land... I'm poor and he has a responsibility to help me lmao

[@DaveWard-xc7vd]

Brian thinks that people are all interchangeable. Pluck a person out of Florida and plug in a Haitian and nothing will change. Not true. Hatians bring their culture and beliefs with them.

[@anarchic_ramblings]

So you don't like Haitians?

[@DaveWard-xc7vd]

@@anarchic_ramblings I love them when they are in Haiti.

[@marcuslex8654]

Of course immigration i a human right. Illegal immigration is not. You really have to debate about this?

[@gofmjhhytgr2129]

Dispelling the myth that low paid immigrants are good for your country... What any government wants is full employment in well paid jobs, because then it collects considerable tax revenue and spends very little in social security. Capitalism however wants the opposite, it wants unemployment to disempower the workforce through job insecurity, and low wages to maximise profits. To maintain a person in the UK for instance, costs the British government over £12,000/annum, therefore anyone paying less than this in tax, is a burden upon the state. So giving low paid jobs to immigrants benefits only three people, the immediate employer, the employed and his landlord, and does not benefit the country. So basically your taxes are been used to subsidise low paid immigrant labour, so a few individuals can get very rich. This is the truth behind capitalism, the corporate Frankenstein monster of globalisation and the neo-liberal agenda.

[@user-bb6jy1xb7s]

Simple: Migration is NOT a human right.

[@cnelsonlv999]

It is interesting to think about the preconceived notions we have about the kind of people who represent Liberalism and Conservatism, when judging these two candidates merely on appearances and other superficial characteristics. The stereotypes seem to be reversing these days... at least in terms of how they are represented in the political ideology.

[@phm14]

I minored in philosophy in college. I understand debate, for its' own value as a academic exercise. These academics argue concepts, which are academic in the sense that they ignore the practical outcome of the policies they advocate. The fact is, that no nation with a high standard of living, can maintain that high standard of living with open borders. I wonder how much of his personal income that that professor donates to charity. It's beyond arrogance to assert that the US as a nation has the power to eliminate poverty in the world. The sociology professor fails to prove his argument. For an authoritative dose of reality, by the numbers, search "Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs - NumbersUSA.com".

[@WildHuntress]

I saw that clip. It was really cool. Also, 100% agree. I'm all for legal immigration - however, if the quality of those immigrants are poor then it doesn't make us richer and better as a nation. We want the best to keep that high living standard. Also, a lot of immigrants often get educated and skilled and then go back to fix local problems within their home nations.

[@johnkosowski3321]

I agree with every single thing that Caplan said except that immigration is a human right. It is a great idea, and I would implement it immediately, but I can't see how it is a human right.

[@markgilrosales6366]

@Elias Håkansson no it's not. Borders are borders for a reason. No country are under obligation to accept anyone or everyone. Right to travel within your country is a right.

[@magister343]

Legitimate states? There is no such thing. A State having a right to do anything? impossible. A State cannot possibly have a self, much less self determination.

[@212025510]

yes, and who is the state? Is it me or my neighbour? the state is not us.

[@RosannaMiller]

A State is made up of all the inhabitants. Everyone in a State has an equal vote. After counting the votes up over a matter, the majority would be the voice of a State. So that end result, would be the Self of a State.

[@tiagocardoso4702]

@Bruno Pereira dois anos depois você veio... Mas concordo totalmente...

[@danutarzymkiewicz6423]

There is another issue not discussed: the psychological aspects. The psychological costs on the side of emigrant and the efforts on the side of the society absorbing newcomer.

[@romeburns1418]

So basically we should impoverish the pool of labour in Haiti in order to glut the pool of labour in the US, how does that help either Haiti or the US?

[@MrAnihillator]

Shhh.... don't disturb their virtue signaling circles pleb.

[@yuriyanu2694]

The core disagreement seems to be in the ownership of the country as a whole. If the government owns the country, then it is like a marriage, whose membership is rightly administered by its members. Kaplan's view does not accept this assumption of government ownership, and thus the two aren't actually debating one another because they have not agreed upon the premises on which the debate is based.

[@radicallymoderateryan9362]

Can you elaborate on this a bit? I’m trying to do some research on this with an open mind. The problem I keep running into is how any benefits would be disbursed via the government. For example, stimulus check, unemployment, etc. it seems like Democrats want open borders from what I can tell by their response so far in 2021 but how can they possibly give benefits to the same people they say they care about?

[@yuriyanu2694]

@@radicallymoderateryan9362 It's been 3 years, so I'm a bit hazy on the context, but I think I was trying to make the point that before debating immigration, you must agree upon who owns the destination. As for how the Democrats can distribute stolen funds (via taxes or inflation) to their special interests if they are growing the pool of recipients through immigration, I'd first ask if it's right to steal the funds in the first place. And then if say yes, your intuition is correct, a welfare state will destroy itself faster with more people. Capitalism makes assets of people. Socialism makes people liabilities.

[@01nmuskier]

Alternative title: Does every person have a right to force themselves into your home?

[@joshhernandez6974]

Into the home that you stole from someone else? heck yes 😂😂

[@01nmuskier]

@@joshhernandez6974name the group of people who did not steal land from another group. Which land are you specifically talking about, and who are the original owners?

[@joshhernandez6974]

@@01nmuskier Your "force themselves into your home" analogy is stupid ...so I can play the same game too. The settlers of the Americas came from Eastern Asia (they have been tested and natives have Mongolian blood in them) Just look at the Mexican pre colonial tribes and you'll see they look pretty much identical to Mongolians. Also listen to native American songs and then listen to a Turkish or middle Eastern song, they also sound very similar. My take is that the settlers didn't "steal" any land per se but simply occupied it ..then other tribes took their land and so on until the Europeans arrived. I also have a stupid analogy to compete with yours: Let's say I find a box with gold nuggets buried on the ground ...let's say I claim it as mine (native Americans as first settlers) . Now let's say YOU take that box from me by force (Europeans) Are you a thief yes or no? Let's assume nobody knows who the original owner was. So what is your answer? are you a thief or not? and if not tell me why. Thanks

[@01nmuskier]

@@joshhernandez6974 yeah, you are right. Your analogy is stupid. Still didn't answer the question. 1. Which land, specifically? The entire 2 American continents, not even 1 continent, was settled by one group of people. 2. Which specigid group of people get claim to that land? The entire indigenous population is not one culture or one people.

[@joshhernandez6974]

@@01nmuskier Stop dancing around my question ...are you a thief or not if you steal my box of gold nuggets? even though I'm not the original owner? Yes or no? Let me give you a plot twist...let's say I'm not even the owner of the box of gold nuggets ..let's say someone else found it , claimed ownership and I'm just in possession of the box until the person comes back with a truck to load it on...now let's say you come and steal it from me ...are you a thief YES OR NO? Please be aware, I'M NOT THE ORIGINAL OWNER OR THE GUY THAT FOUND IT ..I'M JUST IN POSSESSION OF THE BOX .. Still same question...are you a thief if you steal it YES OR NO?

[@BrandochGarage]

Good debate. Good video.

[@sampeak1605]

I think a strange problem with his argument is this assumption that government policy somehow represents the preferences of a democratic majority. A lot of immigration policy is shaped by unelected bureaucracies. A lot of people who vote for restrictionist candidates may not have voted for them for their immigration policy at all.

[@youtubetroll6620]

I'm from Haiti, and I'm on my way..... try and stop me.....

[@HansWick]

Norway (or any other country) doesn't have to let people in AND they don't have to send anyone money.

[@vatolocosforever803]

Google what does a person have to do to claim asylum in the United States.. Then swallow your pride , and come change the ignorant comment you left.. The definition of ignorance,, is not knowing.

[@Phi1l]

Maybe those who've determined that immigration is a human right on our behalf should also house & pay to look after these people on our behalf.

[@philippedefague3835]

There's no debate because it is an affront to national self determination, the right to a country, and the right to a nationality. Therefore, these rights obstruct free movement. The only freedom you are allowed to have, is the right to leave. The other countries have the right to say no. This isn't even complicated.

[@silkhead44]

you can help 10x more refugees especially Muslim by helping them relocate in a Muslim country then bringing them to the west for the same money

[@searose6192]

At 15:42 he says he wants to be free to associate with foreigners....and who is stopping him? I happen to love associating with people from other cultures, it is one of the best aspects of modern life, but it is an incredibly weak argument to imply that somehow my desire to be around people from other cultures gives me a right to relocate them into my immediate vicinity. There is nothing preventing he or I from traveling to be able to associate with people in other lands. In fact the only restriction on such travel are 1.economic ( can I afford to travel?), and 2. Are they as a society equally desirous of associating with me? On the first point, I highly doubt he is arguing that it is a human right to do away with all economic restrictions on geographic location, if I cannot afford to live next door to Brad Pitt is that economic restriction a violation of my human rights? If this is truly his argument that would be a position that is so radically different it has not existed in most societies since pre-agrarian era, however I doubt he believes this. On point number 2, does the society and its people want to associate with me? This is established by something called IMMIGRATION LAW, which gives those people I very much want to associate with in other cultures the right to not associate with me. They set the terms of their association with me and I don't get to force my presence upon them against their will which would it is fair to say, be a violation of their human rights (forceable association). His argument is thin and flimsy, it even fails to be persuasive rhetorically enough to cover for its shallow lack of logic and consistency.

[@jackkennedy9475]

If immigration is a human right then is rejecting people another human right? Some people argue that a person can do what ever they want due to freedom however there are moral, ethical and civil consequences to all our decisions.

[@damonguzman]

It's unfair to score the winner this way. All democrat ideas sounds good until reasoned out. It's always going to move from left to right as people are educated

[@magister343]

Wait, he recognizes a principle that says that if the state is going to coerce you you should have some say in that state's democratic process, yet uses this as justification for allowing the state to coerce foreigners and prevent them from becoming part of the community or having any say in the decisions of the state? That makes no sense.

[@Bender711]

magister343 what doesn't make sense? current subjects of the state have a higher claim to a say in public policy than do others.

[@vinckr5553]

@@danielmoore7105 if you want haitian workers, set your business up in haiti

[@russellhowes1359]

The us gives little in F-Aid... are you joking?

[@searose6192]

The limits are not incredibly difficult to set. Do your actions have a demonstable effect on others? If yes, then its a group decision, if no than your individual rights should come first. *Edited to correct my poor spelling.

[@benth162]

A word of advice my friend; the word is "THEN" not "THAN". I make the same mistakes and why I have to read my comment multiple times so misspelled words don't change the tenor or my arguments.

[@searose6192]

@@benth162 I fully intend on returning to carefully checking my voice-to-text comments when I no longer have 5 children under 9. 😉 For now, poor grammar and spelling will have to suffice....or else I will have to restrict myself to only commenting on KZbin videos when I have both hands free aka the 30 seconds between when my head hits the pillow and my eyes close after a long exhausting day. 😴

[@MrApplewine]

I disagree with both of these guys. One wants to let the world in to save them and the other thinks we have to pay them because they are worse off than us.

[@DaveWard-xc7vd]

NOPE!

[@felixrayce7596]

You have the right to move around with a country or leave that country. You do not have a right to gain entry to another country regardless of its laws or its people’s wishes.

[@DaveWard-xc7vd]

So if I wanted to build a pig pin in my front yard and invite pigs to come and live there - because they are being abused and killed on pig farms - then thats ok? Do I have the right to associate with pigs even if my neighbors dont want to?

[@AndersHass]

No. Privatize everything, have nations by consent and these nations can choose to invite foreigners into their nation or not.

[@chrissnyder3809]

Who is a nation ?

[@AndersHass]

Well it probably isn't a singular person :P But I guess it is possible to have a nation of one property owner all by himself

[@chrissnyder3809]

So you are expecting 100% agreement on decisions or are someones rights being abused ? And who is presenting these questions ?

[@AndersHass]

On some things yes.

[@jeandubois8810]

This question collides with the definition of ownership of public land I think

[@SyedTasjeel-mt7zb]

Caplan is hostile which makes his argument weak and makes him look like a fool whereas kudos to Wellman he did so well, his arguments made more sense just because he was composed and respectful.

[@onepiecefan74]

Caplan needs to stop with that doubling of global wealth nonsense. Economist calculate that world GDP would rise by $40.1 trillion with open borders. However the wages of the receiving countries drop by 39.3%. All of wealth the increase go to the poor world with their wages increasing by 143%. And this doesn’t account for productivity spill overs. Productivity spill overs mean that the immigrants from poorer countries may bring with them cultural habits and beliefs that are less productive than those held by the richer host countries. Accounting for this and the cost of moving all these workers even world GDP drops from being a positive gain of $40.1 trillion to being a loss of $12.4 trillion. Using world measurements of prosperity is disingenuous for arguing why Americans should burden this cost. Source: We Wanted Workers by George Borjas

[@cmatrix4761]

Economists who try to calculate future global gain based on skilled immigration fail miserably to account for the complexity of interactivity in local markets. By, and this is what he's basically arguing, globalizing the entire world market, you completely destroy what makes 1st world markets so successful: The plethora of independent local markets and how they interconnect with the larger markets. No economist can ethically make a prediction as to how that would lay out because there's literally no model with which to compare it. It's voodoo economics.

[@onepiecefan74]

Id be interested in some of the literature on the "complexity of interactivity in local markets" relating to this issue.

[@cmatrix4761]

It's an observation base on my history in business. I'll give you an example: New York grocery markets operate with high margins, primarily because the patrons in New York tend to favor eating out, even if it's off of a hot dog cart, over preparing their own meals. So purchasing grocery goods is generally considered a luxury. The other market that exists for preparing food is the food service market, where margins are much lower, but higher volume is required. That's a significant difference from, say, San Antonio or Lubbock, where home preparation is very common. Here, margins can't be high on consumer grocery goods because it's not treated as a luxury (grocery volume is higher here because far more consumers purchase grocery items on a regular basis). Those two markets don't commingle well because the consumer and commercial actors operate very differently. Therefore, you can't reasonably merge the two markets. What Caplan is suggesting is that because we're in the same country, those two markets can be counted as a single market. But they're not - as I pointed out, they operate on substantially different market forces.

[@onepiecefan74]

Very interesting. I wish more economist either worked in business or surveyed business like yours to get this kind of complex micro interaction. Thanks for sharing.

[@cmatrix4761]

:-)

[@neonsashimidream1075]

Definitely good to see a civil debate. I don't think this was the right match-up though. Bringing an economist to debate a philosopher on a subject like immigration is an odd choice. Caplan seems like a very intelligent fellow with valuable perspectives and views, but it seemed to me that he was out of his element here. On the other hand, this type of forum is the natural environment of a philosopher like Wellman.

[@searose6192]

How exactly is it a violation of human rights to be exiled?

[@jimlovesgina]

If we are going to subscribe to the idea of private property, people are only free to move such that they are not trespassing.

[@searose6192]

At 15:00 Would it be violating my human rights if in a democracy, citizens voted that they want their government to be able to exile individuals, and then the government did so? No of course that wouldn't violate human rights....which right exactly would it be violating?

[@JB-su6cu]

I feel that these two are talking past each other regarding 'rights' as something objective and inflexible as opposed to the malleable human construct which they unfortunately are. There is no correct answer to the question because the term right has no quantifiable definition, I would argue that a right is not something that is, but rather something that should be, which changes the way one must approach the question

[@JB-su6cu]

That is to say, my personal position is that people have the right to immigrate conditionally, in a general sense, when the benefits exceed the costs, in the same way as any other right. To that end, I do not believe that western countries are morally obligated to open their borders to all comers as society exists in it's current state today. I do not have the numbers on this, nor does anyone, and I cannot for certain predict the outcome of such a policy, but I believe it would have a net negative effect on the total amount of happiness within society and the evenness of it's distribution.(I do not necessarily believe the latter, merely that it is outweighed by the former either way). This is what I feel the correct way to frame this debate would have been, for clarity.

[@danutarzymkiewicz6423]

The decent live doesn't mean full live. Economic immigration is about saving biological life. It is not posed to contribute to cultural, social, spiritual or any other type of activity. It is all about taking not about giving. Just about the basic biological existence. At least at the start.

[@Skoda130]

Wrongly framed question. The question should not be about immigration, but about migration. Do you think it's your human right to go and live somewhere else? And if yes, then why not for everyone?

[@deplorableamerica4680]

Do I have a human right to immigrate onto other people's property?

[@chrissnyder3809]

No... just dont claim the whole of america other peoples property

[@rwatertree]

The whole of America belongs either to American citizens or its government, no? Hence the government cannot allow anyone to enter without the citizens' consent.

[@chrissnyder3809]

No... only individuals can own land. The state has no legitimate claim to land

[@rwatertree]

The state owns land in common.

[@chrissnyder3809]

There is no such thing as "Public land" ..Land is either private or its stolen

[@vatolocosforever803]

To claim asylum in the US you have to leave your country and come to the u.s. to do so.. It's amazing how there is so many people that don't know the rules to claiming asylum in the United States.. Read the comments and you will see how people don't do their homework before they leave a comment.

[@paulyoung4814]

So should freedom of association allow me to rent or not rent my property by my choice

[@92rh]

I believe Professor Caplan is the winner of this debate. I believe Professor Wellman did not articulate his position well, and actually did not have an argument to counter open boarders. I would argue against Dr. Caplan you are free to associate with whom ever you want. You may hire who ever you want. If you want to hire a Haitian to help improve his or hers way of life. You are more than welcome to help this person get a green card, work visa, or sponsor this person to help get this person here legally so that he or she may work here. Also, I would like to point out in 2016 the US gave the second largest amount of Aid to countries not including military aid. Lastly, I would pose the question to Dr. Caplan since he is for open boarders for the US does he also believe in open boarders for all nations? Our immigration system needs work. I believe that it is too difficult for people to come here legally to work, and things need to change. I believe there has to be a compromise for those who were brought here as Minors against their will. Do I believe open boarders are the answer, not necessarily. Overall, I was very disappointed in this debate. Although this was my first introduction to these professors I felt that there was not an argument on either side to persuade me one way or the other. Professor Wellman failed to articulate an argument for the negative, and Professor Caplan’s argument was based on the right to have free association which is a right I would argue he already has and that is not being infringed.

[@CakesWarden]

Caplan is amazing!

[@markswaggerty4958]

Both premises are flawed. The open border used the invited argument while the closed border took the injustice argument. Thumbs down for both.

[@danutarzymkiewicz6423]

Illegal immigration seems to be like the forced or arranged marriages. Who would like to live in forced marriage? The economic immigration doesn't carry any intention to associate. It is driven by very self oriented intention to help oneself. The purely economic immigration is not social. The people in society (like animals in forest) are living in sort of ecological niches. In animal world any crossing the niche is leading to environmental disturbances. The issue of immigration is so complex that the issue of right to free association is just one aspect. The society is regulated by laws of Social Thermodynamics and laws of physics.

[@FR-yr2lo]

It is very SIMPLE. If you invite an immigrant into your home, you also invite him into your COUNTRY. Your home is a private space (you decide), but your country is a PUBLIC space. Therefore, all citizens must have a say. Except of course if you have a very special technology, preventing your guest to interact with the public space.

[@jackkennedy9475]

Interesting debate. I’m curious what the argument would be regarding the Russians immigrating into Ukraine? If it is a human right to pursue immigration and Russians want associate with Ukrainians why is this not okay?

[@DaveWard-xc7vd]

Immigration is not awsome. Immigration is changing the social and political face of this country.

[@thecubedpanda1325]

Legal immigration is awesome when the immigrants attempt to adapt to American culture (learn English etc.). The issue with immigrants is when they keep the same shit culture that that they fled in the first place and impose it on the people already here.

[@DaveWard-xc7vd]

@@thecubedpanda1325 And that is what we are facing.

[@rogerwelsh2335]

This crowd that voted are out of their minds.

[@TatianaRacheva]

Bryan Caplan is so annoying. I think he'd convince me to believe the opposite of anything I already believe. I think he basically appeals only to those who already agree with him.

[@deanoverlie224]

" trickle down economics " is not a thing. No legitimate economist who didn't have a political agenda would ever use that phrase. Also , his "test" of individual vs gov. actions determining wether something is criminal or not is wrong. State actors under a legitimately decided and equally applied body of law have arrest and punishment powers that if done by individuals would be illegal vigilantism. I can't keep up with this guys "wrong"...

[@vincentduhamel7037]

Right

[@KowBoySpace]

Anyone should be allowed to migrate anywhere they like that is not private property. They should not however be able to claim comfiscating resources from those who have set up systems already there. If they come they pay for their goods and services and do not loot them by force using government

[@youtubetroll6620]

If you don't help these countries, they will be at your front door sooner rather than later.... whether you like it or not....

[@marcusdavenport1590]

75 Trillion seems to be counting everyone that wants to move without caring if they can pay for the fight.... Everyone wants legal immigrants to come... But they should come legally and assimilate. I don't want people to move to where I live and attempt to change the culture to religious oppression or a culture that moves backwards in hygiene etc... I also don't want them to be able to access any form of a welfare state... Come and make it, only the hardest working can survive...

[@rwatertree]

I fully support Bryan's right to allow anyone from anywhere to live in his house so long as they stay there and don't use public goods.

[@Bender711]

Tax payers have the strongest claim to public property and therefore the strongest claim to exclude others from that property.

[@FR-yr2lo]

Is Great Replacement a human right ? Yeah, sure.

[@starving030]

Illegal immigration violates my human rights. I, as a US citizen, own a stake in this claimed land. When an illegal alien trespasses without permission, that violates my rights. It's my property and I task the government to keep trespassers off of my property through taxes and laws. They are in my backyard. So I call the police and have them removed. They can either ask permission to come on my property or stay there and make theirs better. There is no option C.

[@patrick6110]

This is a strangely poor debate. If there is no option for anyone in Haiti the logical solution is not immigration to the US but annexation by the US. I'm sure the US could transform Haiti into another Hawai. The consequence of immigration are not obviously positive, and when positive it's not significantly positive, this is what most economist conclude. Unless you cherry pick your study. Also, I can't see the realism in arguing that it would be so should all countries on earth agreeing to open borders. When is that likely to happen? European countries are a good illustration for why open borders create mayhem. Look at the current presidential election in France. Look at Brexit. Also, if a country as attractive as the US has open borders it becomes even more predatory than it currently is, emptying other countries of their most entrepreneurial talents. Also the argument that open borders is the best policy negates the mere concept of policy. If immigrants decide your immigration policy, then your policies are defined by third parties. Also arguing that it is good to reduce a nation to the will of single individuals regardless of what others want because that single individual knows better is the opposite of democracy. We have to be thankful that our government protects us against such individuals who are the enemies of the state.

[@deanoverlie224]

From the jump there was a need for a mutually accepted definition of tperms. Illegal aliens are not "exiles" when they are asked to leave if they refuse to follow the laws of another state.

[@antipathy17]

@17:12 3 competing positions. "foreigners have a right to live in my house even if I don't consent "foreigners have a right to live in my house if I do consent. "foreigners have no right to live in my house even if I do consent" First things first. His use of the term foreigners is intended to be misleading. He knows people who follow the same ideology as him conflate illegal and legal immigration. It's subliminal but he is signaling to like minded people that he means both illegal and legal while the people he argues against don't conflate the two and thus look bad to his peers. With that said, lets look at the 3 positions from a position of illegal and legal immigration not being conflated and that we are speaking about illegal immigration. He says of the first one that no one would agree. I agree with that. He says of the second, he does agree. I agree as well. What he doesn't tell you is that what he means is, that if they are extended the right to his house, they are also extended the right to your house. He says of position three, he disagrees. I disagree with him. illegal immigrants have NO right to live in any home in this country. Asylum seeks, sure. Immigrants? NO. You do not have the right to harbor an illegal immigrant and will be subject to penalty of law. time to continue watching.

[@aussie_anarchist]

The State is illegitimate and evil and has no right to tell me who I cannot bring into my home.

[@Spartan3D213]

its a matter of illegal or legal immagration, that's the real problem

[@chrissnyder3809]

its a matter of illegal or legal slavery that's the real problem .. Clearly one is OK

[@otherworlder]

How is slavery equivalent to immigration? are both of them equally without individual choice?

[@chrissnyder3809]

Antonio seems to think legal positivism is all that matters... As long as legislators say something is legal then its legit.

[@otherworlder]

Really, is that what he said?

[@chrissnyder3809]

That is what he implied as rights have nothing to do with legality

[@212025510]

It's interesting to see how Christopher Wellman switches the morality question into states. He builds the argument on a state existence. He grants the right for determination for an individual state, but does not grant the same right to you and me. But who is the state? Surely you and me are not the state. I guess I should also create my own imaginative structure (e.g. the state) to get the right for determination. BTW the argument with the Gates family is a trick. Of course the Gates family has the right to reject to feed anybody else. The question is, whether we should deny the right to accept.

[@GeoFry3]

Yes, but culture and social programs are not.

[@hamnchee]

Sit up straight, Caplan.

[@worlock27]

Immigration is not a human right. Each country has a right to protect its borders and allow only those that will actually add value to enter the country.

[@silkhead44]

bears love honey...you can't fault the bear...stop leaving honey out

[@Bender711]

At one point I would have said that this analogy assumes people are animals that lack agency. Now I think that might make the analogy stronger, not weaker.

[@magister343]

Bears actually do not particularly care for honey. They prefer eating bee larvae.

[@Bender711]

silkhead44 the analogy keeps getting better.

[@masonkiefer1222]

America just needs to put its damn bee larvae away

[@RELIGIONisHEROIN]

Topic is great. Very poor debaters. Actually Terrible, seems by Design. No argument was brought to support the subject of the debate. Let's bring the Continent of Africa + Billion Chinese, half Billion Indians, Pakistan & Bangladesh on the top of Grant Haiti 51st State. Every society is against mass immigration, except woke elite, purely for personal benefits.

[@galegrazutis964]

You should of had a thousand likes by now. How sad 😔

[@yabbadabbindude]

whether it is or isn't, ultimately it's an act of violence to interfere with who someone else houses or sells their property and land to.