Should We Have Open Borders? A Soho Forum Debate

The Cato Institute's Alex Nowrasteh and attorney Francis Menton debate immigration policy.
-----
The Cato Institute's Alex Nowrasteh and attorney Francis Menton debate the resolution, "The U.S. should have free immigration except for those who pose a security threat or have a serious contagious disease."
Taking the affirmative is Nowrasteh, the director of economic and social policy studies at the Cato Institute where most of his work has focused on immigration. He's the co-author (with Benjamin Powell) of Wretched Refuse?: The Political Economy of Immigration and Institutions. A native of Southern California, Nowrasteh received a master's degree in economic history from the London School of Economics.
Taking the negative is Menton who writes at manhattancontrarian.com and was a litigation partner at Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP before retiring in December 2015 after more than 40 years with the firm.
The debate was held at New York City's Sheen Center and hosted by The Soho Forum, which receives fiscal sponsorship from Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes Reason.

[@meshzzizk]

god bless whoever decided to keep the introductory portion under one minute

[@CinqueMalcolm]

No.

[@Daniel-dz5jb]

End the welfare state, then the only problem will be the amount of southbound traffic in TX, NM, AZ and CA.

[@bryanutility9609]

I want a safety net for Americans. I don’t want these people coming here for any reason.

[@ilovetech8341]

Is our government really handing welfare out to non citizens?

[@firstlast9916]

1:04:30 Total missed opportunity for Alex. Alex could have nailed him and said it was a contradiction! Why should safe states accept migration from dangerous states? Come on Alex. Focus.

[@hag12100]

No to open borders and illegal immigration. I want secure borders.

[@FilosSofo]

With open borders all immigration would be legal. Get rid of welfare and people interested in working will self select to give low cost services to Muricans. Problem solved!

[@youngKOkid1]

Open borders and secure borders aren't mutually exclusive. With open borders, only violent criminals will immigrate illegally. Law abiding immigrants will simply come legally; therefore, it will be much easier to identify security threats.

[@anarchic_ramblings]

Lock your door.

[@fernandosouuza3881]

Open borders for Israel!

[@JojitJohnson]

Alex did awesome. Happy to hear a counter-point to Friedman's famous maxim about the mutual exclusivity of immigration and the welfare state.

[@garytarbell]

Most people misinterpret Friedman's comments on that topic. Friedman never said that abolishing welfare was a prerequisite to having a free flow of immigration. What he said was that the proliferation of a welfare state is what EXPLAINS the shift in people's attitudes toward immigration. He said that prior to the profound rise in entitlements and other domestic spending, people's attitudes toward immigration were much more open. And the disdain for this spending is what drives those attitudes. Friedman said that when both open immigration and entitlement spending are in play, you will inevitably have this kind of unresolvable conflict. The idea that a nation should have a strict border in order to cope with entitlement spending is absurd on its face. It implies that somehow, if the border is closed, it will be easier to reign in that spending or other authoritarian policies while you grant your government powers as profound as restricting movement, employment, and other freedoms Americans take for granted throughout the country. Since when did ANY government ever cut spending as a result of a reduction in the recipient demographic? Since when has any government ever reduced its authority and scope in response to having a more native demographic population? It was pointed out in this debate that the countries with the most socialist / communist policies are those with the least open borders. The answer is quite clear. Eliminate entitlements, including those used by native born Americans and naturalized as well as undocumented immigrants. You don't get more liberty by increasing government power.

[@ilovetech8341]

How have all these asylum seekers pouring into NYC getting cash cards... how have they paid into welfare?

[@KrimsonKloud]

No

[@MarkStoddard]

I always expect more than I should from these, and this should have been an easy win for the negative; Menton even said as much in his intro. Menton should have used each one of Nowrasteh's points as his own; if immigrants raising positive metrics is good, then raising them even more by being selective should be better. How many patents are we getting filed from Honduran and Venezuelan immigrants?

[@youngKOkid1]

Your hidden assumption is that allowing open immigration would result in lower skilled immigrants restricting the ability of higher skilled immigrants to come somehow. But how?

[@MarkStoddard]

@@youngKOkid1 Must be very hidden I still don't see it.

[@youngKOkid1]

@@MarkStoddard “if immigrants raising positive metrics is good, then raising them even more by being selective should be better”. Being selective is just another way of saying restricting a non-preferred set of immigrants from coming. Therefore, your conclusion only follows from your premise if there’s an additional premise added, which is that the non-preferred group of immigrants that you restrict will mess up the positive outcomes of the preferred group of immigrants. I think this is incorrect because you’re treating positive outcomes of immigration as a zero-sum game, which it’s not. Lower skilled immigrants might contribute much less to society compared to an immigrant like Elon Musk; nevertheless, on net they tend to be an overall benefit.

[@scottbell5822]

Areas with lower population density have smaller, less restrictive governments.

[@firstandforemost87]

Yea I don't see them addressing the positive correlation between population density and state purview.

[@SopaDeLengua]

If that means we don’t have to pay for social programs lowering taxes? … maybe

[@matildajones6175]

Unfortunately never going to happen

[@Nitrotix1]

Absolutely, all social programs should be optional to pay into and use, with better rates available for Citizens. They can be managed and provided by government organizations but there is no reason to force people to pay for and use them. If welfare programs did not allow those without legal standing to apply, those without such a standing would not be a problem.

[@SopaDeLengua]

@@Nitrotix1 seems ironic that you have to join programs and pay for them even if you don’t use them. I thought this was the land of the free.

[@makisxatzimixas2372]

No one mentions that immigrants' right to vote can be withheld. I think that is very reasonable, and solves a lot of problems. Moreover, they can have fewer welfare rights.

[@BIGTEX888-hh9ot]

These speakers are okay with open borders as long as they don’t come into their gated communities….then it’s a problem….

[@anarchic_ramblings]

Rubbish.

[@howardroark3736]

Alex Nowrasteh isn’t really engaging with the meaningful objections to his position. He tried to argue that people wouldn’t flood into the United States for better wages by saying that people don’t go to NYC from middle of nowhere Nebraska for the higher wages, ignoring that NYC and similar cities are incredibly expensive compared with the countryside and that people aren’t uniformly richer in cities than they are in the country. Moving from one to the other doesn’t necessarily imply better outcomes. Whereas people in the USA are absolutely uniformly richer than people in Haiti. Anyone who has the ability to migrate from a broken country like Haiti to the USA should absolutely do so, just from a self-interest point of view, *and in practice they actually do exactly that when they can* and sometimes even when it’s deadly to do so (piling into rickety boats and crossing shark-infested waters to reach Florida!). And that is really the big fault in the open borders argument. Is it really hard to imagine an overwhelmingly large number of people coming from all over the world to the US very quickly, given that we already have millions of people desperately risking their lives to sneak into the country every year? If that’s actually plausible, then you have to reckon with it. How would the country be affected by millions of people coming in? If we break our country in this way, with possibly hundreds of millions of people from India, China, and poorer countries more generally swamping the existing culture with their sheer numbers, it can never be fixed again. The unique political experiment of the United States cannot last if operated by people who come from completely different cultures, are not assimilated, and don’t have anywhere near the same background at all as the people who wrote our Constitution. That means some restrictions are needed, if you want to maintain a Constitution, and then we’re just haggling over details.

[@youngKOkid1]

Open immigration doesn’t imply open citizenship. Would you support the former if it meant setting certain standards on who could be a citizen?

[@gracefulcat68]

taxpayers also fund illegals who make it into the country, until or unless they're sent home. how do we vet immigrants with free borders? i know plenty of people who came here from latvia, laos, jordan, africa... and they all went through legally, waited their time and paid their fees. this is unfair to all those people who followed the laws.

[@Cerberus984]

The 1st debater on welfare usage omits the expenses per illegal immigrant / anchor baby child attending public school. Varying by state, the illegal immigrant household would have to make $75K to $120K to even pay enough state or federal taxes to offset being an education financial liability for 1st child. Which the most common demographic coming across have higher birth rates than the existing local population

[@joevartanian4246]

I feel this way about people who smoked pot before it was legalized. They should all be thrown in jail and kept there. The rest of us should be free to smoke pot

[@Cerberus984]

@@joevartanian4246 In an era of mechanization, AI, and fully autonomous robots do we really need more migrants? Doesn't keeping the status quo merely act as a hurdle for these higher paying jobs repairing robots or those aided by them? According to McKinsey reports automation will erase up to 73M jobs by 2030 that 20M can be retrained into same field different duties. From my research after factoring boomer retirement and keeping the current immigration flows we'll have 15M to 20M unemployed by 2030. To those people how do you explain to them open borders is morally right?

[@joevartanian4246]

@@Cerberus984 we need them. Without immigrants the us pop would plummet. Immigration expands the economy.

[@Cerberus984]

@@joevartanian4246 If you're ignoring my point of 15M to 20M unemployed by 2030 you aren't even attempting a rational debate and essentially acting as an evangelist open borders advocate. If the "economy expansion" is the byproduct of providing more government services & higher cost of living then the main benefactors are real estate developers & banks. You also have to factor in immigrants sending money back to their home country siphons money that could have been spent domestically. For Mexico that's $58 billion & for India that's $89 billion a total $147 billion.

[@ilovetech8341]

Miami has an average $35,000 per capita income rate yet live in $1M condos. Some areas lie out their ass about income. A lot of people are collecting welfare while working in under the table jobs. It is also a very regional thing. He is just making too many blanket statements based on averages. This issue is highly regional just like real estate.

[@Stevenmulraney]

Salter, van den Berghe, Vanhanen and others have showed how ridiculous opening borders is. Not debateable unless you rope off 99% of realities with economic blinders.

[@paulbadics3500]

"Liberty" for "Americans" not for any foreigner who wants to participate in american economy & society

[@mblake0420]

You cant have a welfare state and open boarders. Do you want your house to be public?

[@michaelweber5702]

This is a terrible 'debate' ... And who is Buddy Menton ?

[@FrazierDanger]

There's no conversation here. Put the open borders dude on trial. Make sure it's fair.

[@ilovetech8341]

On a personal level I don't like needing a passport to travel. However, you can only fit so many people in one area before major problems happen. So anyone who says they are for sustainable development and open borders isn't thinking of systems and engineering. Our current system just gives special privileges to citizens to obtain jobs before undocumented non citizens. Every country follows that system. American cannot just open their doors to 9 billion people while all other countries still follow the passport system. That isn't rational. We would need to lead on engineering a new kind of free open society that doesn't base your citizenship on birth. I am for that but isn't an easy engineering problem either.

[@michaelweber5702]

Violence , yes , if you call stopping people from illegally entering a country ... But that is not violence ...

[@youngKOkid1]

Of course stopping people from entering a country illegally is violence. You seem to believe it is a justified use of violence - you are wrong - but of course it is violence.

[@lex-eq9id]

he’s sorry! he forgets the last name :/

[@michaelweber5702]

Mr. Menton seems a good man but he is not dynamic as a speaker . The anti could have been a better speaker ... A much more dynamic speaker .

[@PoetFisherman]

I find Alex Has compelling arguments but seems in some cases to treat the term immigrants as legal immigrants. For example, in the challenge Gene turned into a question. The challenge was what if a country sends us boatloads of their prisoners and mental patients and the answer was, most of that is covered by the resolution. Well if they're coming here illegally, with no vetting process, 'we' wouldn't know if they have a criminal history or know if they are nut cases, especially if they arrive completely undetected. Even ones with interaction with border patrol simply have to give a false name to bypass an attempt to run some kind of check on them.

[@lex-eq9id]

well nathanda, take it away!

[@Guti3737]

This is not a open borders debate if you have to sort out potential threats and the sick. I like the free migration definition.

[@Nitrotix1]

Exactly, it seems people are ignoring the entire argument and are just strawmaning it as "open borders propaganda".

[@d.johnson]

The title is clickbait, as the resolution does not mention "open borders" and the proponent for the resolution rejects the term "open borders" to describe his position.

[@sanniepstein4835]

No. We've been told for generations to have fewer children, and we should receive the benefits of our sacrifice: open space, cheaper real estate, higher wages, cleaner air and water. And a smaller state. Huge populations always want huge governments. To the man who referred to previous immigration: importing the mafia was a bad thing. Scandinavians did lean left. As to islam, just look at Europe.

[@classiclibertarian]

We haven't even fully integrated German catholics yet.

[@randallanthony1794]

You’re 100% correct in the Mexican culture is not our culture and no way no way we have an American culture that we’re already losing because of that stuff no

[@paulbadics3500]

What about Canada & Austalian points system based on merit..much more successful

[@ilovetech8341]

Yes but then you can argue how that does a brain drain on other countries and hurts them. I am actually for ending the passport system but too many people are using this issue to profit from for votes or cheap labor.

[@lex-eq9id]

erm my question is for mista plumba 🤝

[@hugojmaia]

You need to make it easier for legal migrants while putting a cork on the illegal migrant floodgates. Like, ease up on the immigration laws, but harden the punishment for breaking those laws, so it's easier to obey them, but costlier if you don't.

[@bryanutility9609]

We don’t need more people here. They have a home and can stay there. We have nowhere else to go.

[@youngKOkid1]

Open borders would stop illegal immigration because everyone would become a legal immigrant. Problem solved.

[@TEGRIDY_FARMS]

@@bryanutility9609i heard this argument that we should take manufacturing out of china and move it to Latin America, it does 2 things, makes those countries dollars go further and keeps them there

[@bryanutility9609]

@@TEGRIDY_FARMS I’d like to bring manufacturing to America since it’s our goods and we can have a wall to keep them there. We can trade with them for what they produce like coffee & tourism.

[@TEGRIDY_FARMS]

@@bryanutility9609 ehh, you are just asking to increase prices. Latin America will keep prices of goods down because of lower shipping costs and better productivity of workers

[@jeankutzer1556]

One thing that was overlooked was how many who come here are seeking to immigrate vs those just coming to work (migrant workers). And green cards? In the late 90's you or I could go to Mexico and purchase a green card for around $10, put whatever made up name we wanted on it and go to one of a few banks in San Antonio and open up a bank account. You could also get a fake Social Security card for a fee. They were twice the size of the real ones but the employer where I worked at the time excepted them without even blinking. This employer was busted and over 120 employees were deported. They missed at least 300 more whose paper work passed but we knew who they were. One collects Social Security to this day. It's mailed to his home in Mexico. This was about 1998. Over 12 years later they were busted again. As a second offender they were fined over $1,000,000 and from that point going forward could only hire from a temp agency. The facility President kept his job as he was following the company's official policy. We even had an Iranian who crossed the border illegally in 2008. I still have the Iranian currency found in his car by the employee who bought it and gave me the currency. I called ICE. They laughed it off and said, "He probably bought that as a souvenir before he crossed." My brother who worked for law enforcement at the time was furious. He told me the currency was left intentionally as they were testing our border defenses. The Soviets did similar tests in the 1970's. I don't believe in open borders but do believe they should pass a civics test to gain citizenship. And no fee. Make it easier. And distinguish between migrant workers and immigrants. Our borders here in Texas are being over run. Ending the drug wars simultaneously on both sides will go a long way. High School graduates here should also be required to pass a civics test to be able to vote. If they should have one of two choices. Wait until age 25 (raise voter age for failing the test or enter into military or public service for two years. During that time no federal benefits. Just think if this were in place Obama never would have won or Biden either for that matter. Heck Biden probably couldn't pass a civics test. He would say we have 4 branches of government and believe it.

[@bryanutility9609]

They are ugly & don’t share our heritage. The economy serves us not the other wat around.

[@stefanl5183]

"Heck Biden probably couldn't pass a civics test. He would say we have 4 branches of government and believe it" We do have 4 branches of government. The 4th branch is called the "mainstream media" and it controls and manipulates the general public as well as the other 3 branches. Whomever controls that branch, truly controls the country. Biden, or at least his party, has done a pretty good job of controlling that branch.

[@alphacharlietango969]

A Nation cannot exist without control of it's borders!

[@michaelweber5702]

alpha. -- That is true ...

[@youngKOkid1]

Open borders is a policy the government sets. In fact, it was the official policy of the US government from its founding through the early 1900s. So you’re not making an actual argument.

[@TEGRIDY_FARMS]

@@youngKOkid1that’s because millions of people weren’t flooding the country

[@youngKOkid1]

@@TEGRIDY_FARMS that’s incorrect. The immigrant share of the US population was the same back then as it is today, around 15%.

[@TEGRIDY_FARMS]

@@youngKOkid1 ehh not really.

[@WNH3]

Doesn't the right of association include the right NOT to associate with illegal immigrants?

[@youngKOkid1]

1) an open borders policy means there wouldn’t be any illegal immigrants (except for violent criminals and those with contagious diseases) 2) you don’t have to associate with anyone you don’t want to. Don’t hire them, work for them, befriend them, marry them, whatever. You just don’t have the right to restrict other people from voluntarily associating with them.

[@ilovetech8341]

It's irrelevant. If too many men walk into another man's country and just start taking over... then all hell breaks lose. It has been like this since the start of time. Another problem. USA allows guns. Mexico does not. You cannot just merge those two countries and open the border. Not unless you want to turn Mexico into the USA.

[@sofvines3940]

I'm sorry but I don't know how many immigrants come here and start making 70Gs a year 😅 I came here as a child and STILL am working towards that

[@scottbell5822]

Nowrasteh sidestepped every argument in his rebuttal

[@lex-eq9id]

oh nathada oh nathada oh nathada clementine 🍊

[@glennmitchell9107]

The philosophy of liberty should not be a suicide pact. The liberty concerned with U.S. immigration is primarily the liberty of U.S. citizens, and only secondarily with the liberty of immigrants.

[@youngKOkid1]

For the first century of its existence, the United States had essentially open borders. I wonder if the US was more or less free and more or less economic growth back then as opposed to now.

[@sofaking1611]

lol NO, How is this even a question?

[@BloodyMarik]

Well, it should be a question for libertarians because libertarianism seems to imply pretty straightforwardly that Open Borders (or even No Borders) is the correct position; and since the Soho Forum is hosted by libertarians, it should be unsurprising that this would be a resolution that is debated here.

[@sulavaca]

Just privatize all the borders. With millions of new border owners and without government, then all armed and not restricted from using all means of self defence then borders will be conditional and everyone can participate. Also, without government then there would be no welfare state yo attract miscreants. All welfare would be conditional and by individual consent.

[@DegreesOfThree]

An open border is no border at all.

[@francescaerreia8859]

Borders are there to limit govts, not people

[@DegreesOfThree]

@@francescaerreia8859 What do you think governments are made up of?

[@francescaerreia8859]

@@DegreesOfThree if I said that the first amendment limits the govt but not the people, would you have the same response and imply you’re for censorship?

[@DegreesOfThree]

@@francescaerreia8859 Yes, I am for censorship. I don't want gay erotica in public schools. I don't want pharmaceuticals or addictive products advertised on public airwaves. I don't want dual citizens allowed to speak in Congress or hold public office. Should I go on?

[@francescaerreia8859]

@@DegreesOfThree oh. Wow. So you’re a really bad person. How sad.

[@bryanutility9609]

Just what we need more diversity 🙄

[@xsuploader]

more labour like Dubai less woke nonsense yes

[@bryanutility9609]

@@xsuploader like I don’t work enough already. Dubai is a shell of a society.

[@Alaska_Engineer]

Going through Ellis Island was very restrictive…

[@Alaska_Engineer]

@@MissCleo24 - You’re either misinformed, or just flat spreading lies. According to my ancestors. Sponsors were required, as was extensive health checks and quarantining.

[@MarkStoddard]

@@MissCleo24 No

[@Jkstolz]

Hell no to open borders.

[@d0lvl0]

Did you watch the debate?

[@only1_babybashfanpage]

That’s right and that must be for serious people only

[@michaelweber5702]

Gosh if I hear the word libertarian one more time I may become ill ...

[@jeffreymason7049]

perhaps a non-Libertarian debate forum would suit you better, then...

[@howardroark3736]

Francis Menton is the real deal. He clearly took this debate very seriously and seemed more prepared and much more realistic than his opponent.

[@josheakle]

Alex Nowrasteh is the 🐐

[@Arclight1988]

Close our borders!

[@draighodge6039]

We hold the principle of property rights. We agree that a homeowner has a right to decide who comes into her home and how they may enter. We agree that a business owner has a right to decide who is welcome and who is barred from entry. We consider those who enter apart from the consent of the homeowner or business owner to be trespassing at a minimum. Why do single mothers, corporations, universities, churches, and sports teams get to have property righs? Why do HOAs have property rights? Why do clubs and charities have property rights? In every case property rights are defined areas of control. They decide what happens with and to the property: erect walls, buildings, or other edifices; to decide who comes and goes from the property. We may not like the cat lady having a herd of cats in her home but there's little we can do about it. The old man who feeds all the neighborhood birds with dozens of feeders and birdhouses on his property does so with impunity. The amusement park decides the height and weight restrictions of those who use its rides and, in some cases, who is too rowdy to he in the park. Yet, somehow, when a group of people wants to enter our country we are told they must he allowed in without regard to their previous conduct? Imagine being the woman told she must welcome men convicted of rape in other countries into her home. Why inflict that policy on a nation or a state?

[@d.johnson]

What you are proposing - a system where all property within a country's borders is treated as communal property and governed by the government as such - is called communism. Are you saying you support communism?

[@authenticallysuperficial9874]

I have the right to sell my house to anyone in a voluntary exchange, no matter where they were born. He then has the right to live in the house he owns.

[@draighodge6039]

@@authenticallysuperficial9874 who is saying the invader cannot own property? You're changing the topic. The issue here is whether the invader is welcome to stay in the home he invaded?

[@wildpomegranates2151]

​​​@@draighodge6039the state is an inadequate extension of the social relationship between owner and property. the state is not a property owner and ideally, it shouldn't be a property owner. currently, it owns and regulate several public lands that could instead be transferred to the Commons or otherwise, homesteaded. granted that it is an extension, if the state imposes immigration controls, and the state is an extension of the voting majority, then the state can impose additional restrictions on goods, either through tariffs or prohibition, because of a moral stake or to protect the value, quality of its goods. for example, the 'libertarian' state may decide that commerce with an authoritarian regime is a transfer of goods that may otherwise benefit another libertarian nation; that the authorities of this regime may use their statecraft to undermine our economy. furthermore, the invited/invader contrast is problematic since whereas you could rely on the state to issue its controls, you can otherwise rely on voluntary alternatives: property owners and services. Hotels, motels may be receptive to tourists and immigrants. Property owner may have family and friends that are from other nations and therefore are inviting them into their property. Movements from the border entrance and their destinations are negotiated between their passage in public lands and private transportation services in communities. Several services may not cater to an immigrant but that's effectively their right to free association; not an upward intervention from the state.

[@draighodge6039]

@@wildpomegranates2151 in the case of these current invaders we see lawlessness. You and me are required to be vaccinated for variety of communicable diseases. There are plenty of reports that these are infected! They are admitted despite having one of the plagues actively infecting them and sent to an airport where they can share their infectious diseases. One can only hope you are spared tuberculosis, measles, mumps, rubella, polio, or the other diseases that are pretty much wiped inside our borders. If we followed our own laws we could prevent another epidemic. It is the lawlessness that bothers me. I must show an ID to board an airplane (and I am required to buy my own tickets) yet invaders are ushered to the airport and sent to a city of their choosing. That is insulting to every natural and naturalized citizen. The thing that strike me as most hypocritical is that none of the people defending a borderless nation are welcoming the invaders to their homes or businesses, not for lunch or supper, not for ESL, and definitely not to use the guest room. If they are no threat, if their poverty pulls your heart, if they are like any other people then welcome them.

[@Redact63Lluks]

Im all for open borders. But I'll never pay a cent of tax ever again.

[@randallanthony1794]

Never have an open border, especially with Mexico. It’s the worst thing in the world is the worst country in the world no way.

[@Redact63Lluks]

@@randallanthony1794 it was a joke but seriously you ain't seen shit in your short little life if you think Mexico is as bad as the world gets.

[@matildajones6175]

Bad news is even if you don't pay your taxes, there's other idiots that will and keep this mess going

[@richardmmasliah3130]

Yeah OK, you can’t have it both ways and NO ONE wants to be BANKRUPT by open borders, especially culturally AS WELL.

[@jenniferpoland8886]

You take care of every illegal that comes into the United States. You pay for them.

[@RicMyfraps]

I’m for regulating immigration, as an Australian, but a country sending all their filth to invade another country worked out pretty well here

[@howardroark3736]

For the descendants of the filth, lol

[@sergiootero5904]

​@howardroark3736 IDK, it worked out pretty well for the filth too. They got a big ass block of land instead of being in a big ass block of concrete

[@jenniferpoland8886]

It's really bad in the United States. The Republicans are shipping them to democrat cities.

[@stefanl5183]

Worked out well for you, but how well did it work for the original native people? The same is true in the US. For the Europeans who came here, it worked pretty well, but for the original native americans, not so much. That alone shows that unrestricted immigration is bad for the original inhabitants.

[@sergiootero5904]

@stefanl5183 Water under the bridge. You should see the sick casinos they have now

[@swayne1441]

Open borders are based

[@Marshall1914]

Closed borders are Based, open borders are cringe.

[@swayne1441]

@@Marshall1914 make an argument for closed borders that is pro individual freedom and doesn't rely on another separate problem such as taxes or government benefits.

[@classiclibertarian]

​@@swayne1441immigrants and their children disproportionately vote left, limiting all of my freedoms.

[@sofaking1611]

The destruction of liberal Europe by invaders is pretty based

[@howardroark3736]

@@swayne1441 If a couple hundred million Muslims come in, do you think we’ll continue to have separation of church and state? If a few hundred million Chinese are told by their government to go to America and, without threatening American national security, ensure that the US government is ‘friendly’ to China, how do you think that’s going to go? If the world’s tired, poor, huddled masses who don’t speak English start showing up, are you going to let them live in your house? Because there would be lots of nonprofits ready to buy them plane tickets here, without taking any further accountability for them after that.

[@ShikiByakko]

The comments just show how most people who are commenting didn't even watched the debate, and are only doing a very reactionary comment on the clickbaity title. The guy in favor of the proposition said very clear he wasn't in favor of "open borders", but to what he called "free immigration", meaning that borders stay in place and people would still have to get with in immigration agent to see their case individually. Not only that, but he very clearly said that the argument of "but the welfare state" is a different problem, that as a libertarian should be answered as "we need to get rid of the welfare state". Like he said, you are not going to say "we need to not allow people to have children" just because they are a burden to the tax system because of the education and healthcare system, but you do want to reduce those welfare things. The reality of the current immigration system is that it just makes Illegal immigration worse, because in the end it is actually easier to go to the US illegally than taking all the legal hoops and most of the times years it takes to just get the H-1B visa to work in a highly skilled job. It basically makes high skilled people less likely to go to the US, as there are way more alternatives around the world that do not put hard quotes in their immigration targets and with similar or even higher wages, while it is easy for low-skilled to no-skill people, since they do not need to get a high-skill job or anything and are just going to work in the informal work market anyway, to get into the USA by just ignoring all rules.

[@howardroark3736]

The guy in favor doesn’t believe that we should restrict the number of people coming in, though, which is a nonstarter regardless of the mechanism by which they enter. Even if people have to see an immigration official beforehand, the function of that would effectively be a rubber stamp on your application if the only restrictions are related to infectious disease and being dangerous. Imagine what the US would be like after its population more than doubled from a few years of this. It would be a worthwhile experiment for the CCP just to see if we’re willing to take half a billion Chinese men who can’t find wives because of the one child policy leading to skewed population numbers by sex. The big problem I have with your comment is that you compare the hypothetical best case scenario of your vision of what would happen to the current system. No one defends the current system, though. You’re arguing against a straw man, because even anti-immigration activists want the system to be very different.

[@scootza1]

> accuse other people of not listening to the debate > don't pay attention to the debate yourself Wowee you sure showed the whole comment section

[@fpenman]

This guy thinks like a politician 😂

[@ShikiByakko]

@@howardroark3736 The idea that as soon as you have a free immigration policy half of the world population will try to move is just ridiculous. Svalbard has open borders, but you don't see people really moving there even though it is part of Norway. You have places like Georgia (the country) that has a very permisive immigration policy, allowing a "1 year" no restrictions no visa stay for a big chunk of the world, including many 3rd world countries, that can be virtually renewed indefinitely, high HDI and pretty decent tax benefits for people starting businesses there, and even though a lot of people would actually have a better life just by going to Georgia, somehow leaving your whole family and friends behind to live in a foreign country with a foreign culture and foreign language is not that appealing for most of the world population. I mean, not even back when the big Irish migration happened, which by the way happened because of a famine that killed about 1 million people, not even half of the population of Ireland emigrated. People with ideas like yours are people who have no idea of how difficult immigrate to another country actually is and what it takes for someone to want to do so, and that's without the border restrictions.

[@ShikiByakko]

@@scootza1 Cute comment. If you could actually make a point of what exactly you are talking about yours could be a good comment, but as long as you don't do that yours is just a cute troll comment.

[@brianv1981]

It's interesting watching Menton squirm when he is forced to defend protectionism during Q and A...

[@chito127]

"Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures." Evan Esar Use your head and go with your instincts.

[@dravenlee4473]

As Bernie Sanders once brilliantly said, you can't have a country without borders. I've never understood the "no borders" crowd outside of just a utopian vision. Borders are a good thing because it's saying on X land, we believe in these ideas and principles. If you too believe in these things, you can live here and be happy. Open borders could only work if everyone in the world had the same religion, (or lack of), the same economic and social positions and so on and so. The world is a mixture of very different people and ideas and borders allow us to live how he want. The negative side to borders can be if someone DOES agree with your values and you keep them out. Or, if someone DOESN'T agree with your values and you import them expecting them to integrate when they have no desire or reason to.

[@only1_babybashfanpage]

Do you value investing more than saving

[@BarbaraMoneroOviedo]

I think it's time for everyone to take investing very seriously, I can teach any serious investor who wants to earn like I do serious investors only.

[@only1_babybashfanpage]

@@BarbaraMoneroOviedo Yes because investing doubles your income

[@only1_babybashfanpage]

I know a professional investment advisor and admin and with joy and happiness in my heart I gladly say to y’all admin Macdonald is the best

[@wolflarson71]

"No borders" is a red herring right up there with "climate change deniers". No one is arguing against citizenship and no one argues that climate doesn't change.

[@aptkeyboard3173]

Lou Perez had a terrible audience good lord 😂

[@ChrisBakerauthor]

Alex crushed him in this debate. I'm glad he did.

[@stefanl5183]

Hundreds of years ago, the native Americans who lived in North America had an open border policy. Then lots of foreign people started coming. One Native American chief look at the other and said, "Should we be concerned about all these immigrants coming here. The other reply, "Nah! It helps the economy and they'll do the jobs our people don't want to do, besides they're mostly good people who just want a better life." The other Chief then replied, "I guess you're right." Fast forward, to today. The chief was right. They did jobs native Americans didn't want to do, like make ice cream (Ben and Jerry's) build roads and bridges, invent planes, trains, and automobiles, even invent computers and the internet. So, in a way he was absolutely correct, but how well did it work out for him and his people? Well most of them died (trail of tears, Wounded Knee, etc.). As for the one's who are still alive today, some of them are wealthy and own casinos, but quite a few are not. So, when considering the policy of immigration we should look back at how well it worked for the original inhabitants of our nation. They lost their land and their way of life, but hey they got Ice cream now. ;)

[@TheWhitehiker]

Indians were not welcoming to Europeans, or other tribes in their territories, for that matter.

[@nimamoradi2779]

Well natives are poorest in us

[@TheWhitehiker]

Who is responsible for that?@@nimamoradi2779

[@SEN0BRM]

No , next question

[@samhilgartner988]

Wish this was Bryan Caplan

[@Alex-ee5pl]

no. let's move on to next stupid question

[@aliadeeb6859]

I love the debate topic/statement. You can become an american as long as you arent a security threat or have a serious contagious desease. One take is that this is a comically low bar to be an American. Dont kill us and you can stop by. Another take is that this asks too much to become qn American. It's like saying you can become an american, but only if you don't do the most American things, like be a security threat or have a cantagious disease.

[@randallanthony1794]

No, we don’t need more cultures here they’ve already diluted or American called her in and they used to add it to it because they would assimilate they don’t and the Mexicans want control of America. It’s cold as it LAWN Reagan keister and they do not like the American culture and their race is called a culture that’s just the way it is most cultures or I’m not just picking on them but no way no way no way.

[@classiclibertarian]

lol

[@MarkStoddard]

What’s a security threat? Arguably risk to economic and political stability are the most serious risks so immigration should be very restrictive.

[@randallanthony1794]

@@MarkStoddard Most of these immigrants coming in some of them are fine ice on it, but that poor immigrants just wants to work hard and follow the rules. That’s all bullshit that was always liberal pipe dreams and all those riders that wrote all that crap they fell in love with that shit because it’s a good part of the global plan to make immigration all over the world bro globalist if I can economy Jesus don’t you guys get it yet and that’s what they’ve been doing the fucking forwards the Rockefellers foundations all them motherfuckers need took out and hung and the ones that are alive anyway and you guys didn’t nobody gets it and he’s hamburgers. It’s time for them to stop. It was just like Cuba with Elion Gonzalez send them home and it’s not about them send them home.

[@aliadeeb6859]

@@MarkStoddard those risks come from within. A moratorium on voting for ten years would be fine with me. As far as I know economic instability caused by legal immigration or illegal immigration is only an unproven theory. No one ever blames unemployment and economic instability on the baby boom.

[@chickenfishhybrid44]

Nope.

[@bluefalcon8215]

NO NO NO free open imagination for everyone!!!! NO

[@jason666king]

The problem isn't immigration, it's the welfare state. Non-citizens get no government benefits. Solved.

[@noone8418]

As soon as it’s illegal for politicians and anyone making more than 100k a year to have: A:Fences around their property. B: Armed guards or security or police protection. 😉👍

[@carolimawesomeandimfabulou4973]

Got a real comedian.

[@rumco]

Menton's opening is embarrassing. Those arguments are weaker than "I don't like tacos"

[@MarkStoddard]

It really should have been an easy win as he said IMO. Crapped the bed a bit, it's rare either side tries to win the debate as much as they just like being listened to.

[@JeDxDeVu]

Yea and get rid of doors too. Doors should always be open to everyone. 😂

[@BloodyMarik]

Completely false and stupid equivalency. A country is not even remotely comparable to a house. The latter is private property, while the former doesn't really belong to anyone.

[@paradiddlemcflam7167]

@@BloodyMarik The country does not precisely belong to anyone but it also does not precisely NOT belong to anyone. I am pretty sure that Zimbabwe, Thailand, and costa Rica belong more to the people born there than they belong to me. Or does every person everywhere in the world by right have equal input in every state action everywhere in the world? I am going to go out on a limb and say that your position is further from the truth than the original post. Aside from that, it is more than ridiculous to deal with immigration as if it effects the whole country equally and simultansously--it is almost like people forget about scarcity when it comes to this issue. If immigrants are primarily coming to the US through particular regions, such as border towns, then it is borderline absurd to be talking about the effects on the entire country. The whole country would not make a very good unit of analysis. Even more than it is the case that people in a nation kind of quasi-own the country, it is the case that the people in a small town, region, or city kind of own the town--they are the primary deciders of what happens in that town, in other words, they in fact own it by being the one's who make decisions. and if they are not the one's who are supposed to be the primary, de facto, owners, is it everybody in the world? Everybody in the world who coems there? Everybody in the world who WANTS to come there?

[@anyfriendofkevinbaconisafr177]

Reason is a joke. They behave as if reality can be found within the Overton window.

[@only1_babybashfanpage]

There is no fear when you find a reliable source of income but I do advice everyone to take investing seriously

[@zemo7483]

Shut up decepticons!

[@BarbaraMoneroOviedo]

​@CindyGuzman-xl5uiThat's absolutely right I have also earned money from the company VALIDTRADES and the company's Admin is a professional investment advisor thanks to Admin Macdonald

[@only1_babybashfanpage]

@@zemo7483why do you think so

[@user-sm3yr6ij5f]

But the ideals of open Borders and socialism r not congruent

[@jay-shredds]

The answer is no. The only way we could have open borders is if every single country had the exact same system in place . By system I mean every bit of infrastructure and public services must be identical to one another . This also includes laws and basic human rights . This will never happen . Never. Culture and environment dictate otherwise

[@Stopinvadingmyhardware]

No.

[@superjesus4307]

No.