Should America Open Its Borders? Reason Presents a Debate on Immigration

Does America need more or less immigration? Should we let the free market decide how many immigrant workers the economy can support? Or should a responsible government manage the flow of labor?
On Tuesday, April 22, Reason Foundation Managing Editor Tom Clougherty moderated a debate on immigration reform featuring Cato Immigration Policy Analyst Alex Nowrasteh, Professor of Economics at George Mason University Bryan Caplan, and Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies Mark Krikorian.
Each participant spoke for 10 minutes on what open borders would mean to wages, unemployment, and the labor market in America.
About 35 minutes.
Cameras and audio by Meredith Bragg and Joshua Swain. Edited by Swain.
Go to reason.tv for downloadable versions and subscribe to ReasonTV's KZbin Channel to receive notification when new material goes live.

[@roger8654]

yeah right Employers love cheap labor and immigrant workers

[@abcw114]

roger8654 So what if they do? They like lower taxes, too. Does that mean we should raise taxes?

[@tcskips]

Anything to advance the needs of the consumer while preserving individual rights is fine by me. There’s no reason to only stop protecting domestic labour from competition, let’s stop protecting domestic in businesses too. The economic gains, benefitting the poorest the most, will be huge!

[@tcskips]

Workers are consumers too. For whatever work they do to produce one product or service they consume 1001 others.

[@RonAtor]

Previous generations of immigrants did not tax society by straining the social welfare structures we now have in place. I live in Texas and we have thousands upon thousands of immigrants that get subsidized health care, food stamps, and strain the public education assets as well as law enforcement. Immigrants of today not only refuse to assimilate to our culture and language they actually demand we cater to theirs. (see Muslim communities in the north, Latino in the south) We have school districts in the south that forbid wearing American flag symbols on the 5th of May while allowing and even celebrating those flying the Mexican flag. I agree with the closing statement about immigration is a completely different issue today than it was 100+ years ago. I believe it is a much more complex issue than in the past.

[@westernciviliznation]

Immigrants not on board with Obama's red army don't get in... or don't get to stay.

[@RonAtor]

***** You do realize there is more than one definition of the word "tax" don't you? If not then go look it up and when you come back with a brain we will discuss it.

[@RonAtor]

***** Never mind I did not want you to hurt yourself trying to find it so I went and got the direct definition for you. TAX: a strain or heavy demand. "a heavy tax on the reader's attention" synonyms: burden, load, weight, demand, strain, pressure, stress, drain, imposition

[@RonAtor]

Darvinisti Ok so I've waited 6 days for a response. Come on man! What do you have for me?

[@Olrobs1]

Immigrants earn about 240 Billion a year and pay back 90 Billion in taxes but only use $5 billion in public benefits. Marshall Fitz, director of Immigration Policy at the Center for American Progress says that “the best solution would be…to provide a pathway to legal status...[it] would provide a significant boost to our economy, adding $329 billion by 2030… Ultimately, [this type of] Act would create 1.4 million new jobs and add at least $10 billion to the nation’s revenue by 2030, which is good for all Americans, immigrant and native born alike.” A study conducted by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) proves that the country’s 11.2 million undocumented immigrants could give 12.6 billion dollars in taxes, a 2 billion dollar increase from the amount currently collected, if they were legal. According to Michael Greenstone, PhD and Adam Looney, PhD, “[The expenses of services used by undocumented immigrants] are paid back through taxes received over a lifetime of work. The consensus of the economics literature is that the taxes paid by immigrants and their descendants exceed the benefits they receive - that on balance they are a net positive for the federal budget.” Their next big contribution comes in the form of Social Security and Medicaid payments. The Social Security Administration reports that it has $420 billion dollars from immigrants who can never claim these benefits. In the next 20 years, they are expected to provide $500 billion to the Social Security system. A path to citizenship ties up all these injustices - immigrants will continue to pour money into the government, but they will actually receive money back. These immigrants deserve a chance to be fully American - they have worked hard and contributed to society, so they should be allowed to benefit from their own taxes. American industries like construction and agriculture rely heavily on immigrant labor. Americans refuse to work in these fields, but still withhold citizenship from the people who have shouldered the burden of these industries. Immigrants are “subject to mistreatment from local law enforcement and harassment by their employers...due to their lack of legal status.” There is no government to protect these immigrants from long hours and unfairly low pay. Offering a path to citizenship solves these problems - American citizens are protected by multiple government acts that offer worker compensation, fair labor standards, safety requirements, government contracts and financial aid. Citizenship will award undocumented immigrants these rights. Aliens right now cannot be paid legally, so an underground economy that pays no taxes and obeys no laws has formed. “Bear-Stearns estimates that taxes lost from the underground economy could wipe out our entire federal deficit of $400 billion. The Los Angeles Times reported December 13 that Los Angeles County's underground cash economy is allowing employers to evade $2 billion a year in taxes needed to support the social safety net.” This immoral action cannot be condoned - the United States must stop these markets by giving immigrants the right to receive payment on the books. A path to citizenship forces immigrants to be paid at minimum wage, which raises their standards of living and allows them to circulate more money through the middle class. A new group of spenders triggers a cycle of prosperity. In the early 1900s, the largest number of legal immigrants in history entered the US. That time period saw the lowest unemployment rate and fastest growing economy ever recorded. Undocumented immigrants are American in everything but name. They live in America, speak English, send their children to American schools and work hard. We deny them citizenship based on their nativity, but in reality, they are just as American as everyone else. The only distinction is between borders barring immigrants from receiving benefits from the government and basic protections at work. A clear pathway allows an equal America, prevents people from being relegated to second-class status, strengthens heritage and familial ties, and is completely moral. Undocumented citizens came here because they value America. They choose America to build a better life; and without force, breaking unjust laws is not immoral. “Here is [an immigrant] in the United States seven years later. He's been regularly employed. He hasn't committed any crimes. He's better off. His family back home is better off. His employer is better off. There may be people without high-school diplomas who are slightly worse off due to lower wages. Am I to understand that fairness demands that the people born into the rich country through sheer luck forcibly repatriate the man to the poor country where he was born through no fault of his own?” A pathway to citizenship will lower healthcare costs. “ Denying [illegal immigrants] access to insurance and blocking them from primary and preventive care alternatives means they often wait to seek care until a medical condition has reached a crisis point. And although this cohort is younger and healthier than the average, when they finally do seek assistance, they often go to the one place required to deliver it: the far more costly emergency room.” Once present and subject to labor laws, immigrants increase demand for goods and services which drive up wages of employed US workers. “CBO estimates that average wages for workers in the middle three quintiles (typically, a portion of high school and college graduates and workers with some postsecondary education) would increase by 0.5% relative to overall average wages.” Immigrants encourage skill specialization in populations which increases productivity and raises wages. By granting immigrants legal status, they begin to consume goods from small businesses with higher wages and increase gross GDP (global domestic product). Legalizing immigrants would increase GDP for the US also because of a more competitive workforce. With a higher GDP, all citizens are better off.

[@yutubeiscock]

This has to be the worst debate i have ever seen, i'm British but the situation in the US seems to be the same. The first speaker phrases his arguments in the classic liberal "you must be a bigot if you don't want open borders", 1) Social cohesion is never mentioned - as if all peoples of the world are identical and interchangable - plastic people argument. 2) Costs of immigrants are IMPOSSIBLE to quantify, this fact alone makes it very dangerous to have an open border. What is the cost to schools? To hospitals? 100 years ago we didnt have to educate and ensure the health of immigrants, it was all win win, now we do have to pay for these. 3) Libertarians do not want to accept that there are certain cultural traits and coincidences and shared agreements and understandings that have made western countries a success, if we have more immigrants then naturally we will become less anglo saxon in thought and less successful. 4) Quality of life is never mentioned - especially a UK problem, more people means more traffic, more queues, more bureaucracy, ALL means less quality of life. 5) It is insanity to have huge unemployment and at the same time mass immigration. 6) Its interesting how poor countries themselves do not have open borders as they know its insanity to allow another countries social problems into their country, The anti speaker is very weak in his arguments. Its pretty much "the terrorists are coming". Oh dear if this is the level of debate of our intellectuals then all is already lost.

[@t.p.1942]

No, you are just very ignorant, sorry. Economy is a science not an opinion!

[@esathegreat]

fool

[@jiffylube2636]

T. P. Economics is not a science in the way say biology is a science. It being called a “science” at all is debatable. Economics, like psychology, is a social science which is fundamentally different from a natural science that it should be considered more of an art. Science is often classified as natural or physical science. As its name implies, this science is concerned with the study of nature-the physical and natural behaviors and phenomena without the social, cultural, or human context. Physical and natural sciences work in a closed system where variables can be controlled, and the work is executed within a particular framework or paradigm. There is no emotion involved with the physical and natural sciences. Pure science is characterized by control, exactness, rationality, controlled variables, and predictability, while social science is the opposite-it is spontaneous, with unpredictable or uncontrollable variables, and it deals with human emotions and behaviors.

[@eriksmith2514]

The first speaker confuses me. Is the issue whether U.S. borders should be open to everyone? Or open only to people who will be honest and productive? And how does the government determine the latter?

[@jorgancrath2885]

Almost every reason I can think of for reducing immigration come from government actions. A large number of immigrants may be unable to provide economic productivity to meet the minimum wage, Government policy. A large number of immigrants may be unable to find work and receive government welfare in many forms. Government policy.

[@j.farmer8345]

Jorg Ancrath Okay great, so once you get rid of government, we’ll talk about open borders.

[@dylanthornsberry8778]

So, the US min. wage is fairly low I'm not worried about that at all. We let in low-skilled immigrants all the time and they get jobs. don't have the data on me. For 2) simply don't give them any welfare.

[@fleetcenturion]

When will Mexico, India, China, and every other nation open their borders? Surely, if unrestricted immigration is so wonderful, we can't let the developed world have it all. After all, that would be unfair.

[@richardshipe4576]

4 years ago, so hopefully you've grown. For everyone else: just because everyone else doesn't do a good thing doesn't mean that the good thing isn't good to do.

[@laman012]

@@atlas42185 he has no reply. You've absolutely crushed the lad. I doubt he even read your entire response.

[@atlas42185]

@@laman012 lol I try not to be smug about this sort of stuff. I do care about informing people when I can and learning in return, but I fail a lot. Even though I know smugness is counterproductive in making a point to a hostile audience, I'm a massive hypocrite just like everyone else. Plus, it's likely this guy didnt even get a notification. KZbin only notifies me a handful of times out of dozens when someone responds to something I've said.

[@shivkrishnaramshri]

India will most likely reciprocate to USA with open borders.

[@fleetcenturion]

@@shivkrishnaramshri - I don't think Americans would want to live in a nation that smells like a used adult diaper.

[@fakecubed]

Open borders destroy social cohesion, directly contributes to greater violence, which then fuels anti-libertarian policies. If the USA was 100% white European descendants, there would be absolutely nobody arguing for mass government spying, gun control, or militarized police. The PATRIOT Act and the TSA would not exist. The Supreme Court would not have ruled that 67% of the American population lives in a Constitution-free zone where you can be stopped and searched for no reason at all. Yeah, yeah, wouldn't it be nice if everyone can live anywhere and hire anyone or work for anyone they like. That would be great if the people being brought in agreed with even a modicum of libertarian ideals. Most of the world is autocratic, and has only ever known authoritarianism in its entire history. They are incapable of understanding the political philosophy that went into the founding of our country, and have no interest in learning it or integrating with a culture that embraces it. Any libertarian who supports open borders is simply selling out the movement for a quick buck in the short term, and in the long term all they've gained will be taxed away.

[@JonathanG94]

While I'm against open borders, I do think there should be reform to the immigration system. The current system is broken partially from lax enforcement and simply outdated laws. I'll have to disagree with my libertarian colleagues on giving amnesty to illegal immigrants. Don't think it a good idea.

[@DerekMorey6505]

Aren't borders just imaginary lines on a map? What differentiates people from different countries? We're all human beings with the same rights. Why should we not be allowed to travel and live where we want to?

[@JameyKirby]

I am sure your great grand parents were happy the border was open back in the day; eh?

[@JonathanG94]

I'm against open borders cause it becomes a national security hazard and we become a welfare state. Hey I have my opinion you know.

[@chromanin]

I think most would agree to keeping physical borders as international checkpoints to prevent the free movement of tangible destructive technology, and yeah to keep out very bad people. As for the welfare state -- just do away with the socialism. If they want health insurance or anything else, they'd have to get a job and pay for it. Once immigrants understand the contract, that they can enjoy liberty here as long as they take care of themselves and don't harm others, it's all good for everyone. Not to mention the profound example it would set for the rest of the world... Shock, and then awe :)

[@chromanin]

***** Except they don't because Libertarians don't believe in the welfare state. The only reason immigrants vote democrat is for the freebies.

[@nanocalp]

Is it such a outlandish idea that the nations a people inhabit, is in a certain fashion, because of the people that comprise it? If a country is worse off than another it is because of the people that comprise that nation; the way they think, their ambition, their emotional response to things, their intellect, their inherit behavior and skill, the culture they inherently create as a people, etc. If you're looking for a roommate, would you get a roommate from a dirty broken apartment or from a well taken care of clean apartment? It's really simple but people constantly overlook this fact, subconsciously or consciously, to avoid shaming promoted by the liberal left.

[@gregorymalchuk272]

@M W So are post-colonial success stories like Singapore a credit to their former colonizers like Britain???

[@tomforsythe7024]

I have the right to own property, and exclude others from it. A group of people has the same right to own property and exclude others from it. Therefore, a nation has the right to own territory and exclude those who are not from that nation.

[@stefanjoeres7149]

You =/= a nation. Excluding immigrants from a nation prohibits property owners that want to welcome immigrants into THEIR home from doing so and prohibiting employers from hiring them.

[@gregorymalchuk272]

@@stefanjoeres7149 A nation is an incorporated entity and has property rights over its own borders. Voting citizens who make immigration law are like stockholders and board representatives.

[@SJones-kk5lg]

An open border is insane.

[@t.p.1942]

No, just your lack of a university decent formation is insane!

[@77Avadon77]

@@t.p.1942 da fuck?

[@michaelpaliden6660]

I love open Borders with Exit only doors anyone should be allowed to leave if they want.

[@BKofficer23]

Before we debate this, we need to debate the whole welfare thing.

[@hs5312]

M W how about private charity, beyond the disabled I see no need for welfare

[@matrixman8582]

M W Mutual aid

[@matrixman8582]

Welfare is a political debate, not an economic one

[@Adrian-qi5ii]

@@matrixman8582 If you can't pay it, it's an economic one.

[@matrixman8582]

@@Adrian-qi5ii ?

[@Jayremy89]

So what happens when the population of wherever you live triples over the next decade? What's the moral dilemma there for you? Simply move out because you are now living in a density area equivalent to that a city in China or India or some other random third world country? What about human waste, pollution, affordable land/home ownership. They have their own languages, culture, desires, greed, problems as well. We are just compacting them more into a place of which were humans can't produce more of. On Earth, we as humans cannot produce more land and to expand what is essentially our country, we need take over neighbors. The ones actually committing atrocities of oppression directly. Why not fix foreign countries instead of forcing people at our home to live with the negative consequences of such?

[@77Avadon77]

I think that too. California has over 30 million people living in that state alone. What would happen if we open our Southern border. That number will double or triple in the next decade or two. Space is not infinite nor is resources in this country. I don't understand people on the Left who think that everything will be just fine. It's like they've never taken a look at India or China to see how people live when you have mass overpopulation

[@droboyjr]

Yes, the realization that there's such a thing as "carrying capacity" seems to be overlooked or much worse - ignored!

[@kiranmkota]

The population of the US is 15 times larger than in 1850 but most people would rather be alive today than go back in time and play ball in a cup with their free time

[@YorickReturns]

Yes, that's what freedom entails. Incidentally, America was at its most prosperous when it had pretty much open-door immigration. Prosperity is a product of freedom. These days, the only immigrants who can be bothered to go through the hassle of immigrating to America are really the poor people from the poor countries. Of course, there should be no government welfare to immigrants. But, there should be no government welfare anyway, because it's immoral, regardless of immigration. In a free market, immigrants would come to America and stay there only if they liked America and could afford to do so. People who oppose open immigration haven't thought their objections through properly.

[@andreysumarin7754]

America was also prosperious when it had slavery and Jim Crow laws. It is really clueless to pretend that if something has been good in the past, then it will be good forever, no matter how the reality changed.

[@YorickReturns]

John Smith The Deep South wasn't prosperous, especially when compared to the North.

[@andreysumarin7754]

It was prosperous according to the whites who lived there. It was prosperous when compared to the world. And the Jim Crow laws were not only in the Deep South.

[@YorickReturns]

John Smith What's your point? Despite the existence of slavery, the slave states were in many respects freer than foreign countries, many of which also had slavery.

[@andreysumarin7754]

My point is that if something had been considered good for the country in the past (massive immigration or slavery) it doesn't mean it is good forever.

[@charliedappathompson1491]

What are these guy's smoking? Why don't you open the door to your home see how it sits with you then

[@apburner1]

Here's where reality meets philosophy. Philosophy: Tom Clougherty, no one coming across the border is going to take his job as managing editor of Reason. Brian Kaplan, no one coming across the border is going to take his job in academia or write his books. Alex Nowrasteh, no one coming across the border is going to take his job in academia or as a talking head. Reality: Service jobs, taken by those coming across the border. Labor jobs, taken by those coming across the border. Every job that does not require high skills, name recognition, academia, etc, taken by those coming across the border. Reality: Wages for everyone, except them, go down. People dependant on the State for survival grows exponentially, either those workers displaced by foreigners or the foreigners themselves. Reality: Foreigners and displaced Americans can no longer feed their families and turn to crime to make sure their kids are fed.

[@BD-hq3rd]

1) As wages decrease so would prices. 2) Displaced workers, that is, those who lost their job due to the super high supply of labor, would collect unemployment before turning to crime. They might also turn to imrpving themselves by going back to school, before turning to crime. 3) Jobs will be automated away at a significantly greater pace than the pace of displacement due to open borders. Automation of work needs to lead to a society with universal basic income. After all, the purpose of technology is to shorten the work week and free up time for leisure so people can spend more time with family and friends.

[@kiranmkota]

Immigrants add to both demand and supply. They buy stuff, which creates jobs

[@gregorymalchuk272]

@@BD-hq3rd Do you believe in open borders for IsraeI?

[@DeezNutz-em8tr]

@@gregorymalchuk272 What does this has to do with his arguments?

[@dylanthornsberry8778]

yeah so actually no. We can just look at places with high immigration of low-skilled people and see if the wages went down. They didn't. People produce and consume! Jobs are created. And just think about the US. We once had open borders? Were we impoverished? Were the wages falling? NO, we were the most prosperous country on earth at the time.

[@4knacks789]

No, no and hell no.

[@t.p.1942]

Ignorant!

[@77Avadon77]

@@t.p.1942 fuck you get out of our country

[@stretchyjim1]

Lets see if Israel will open its borders.

[@KizoneKaprow]

Huh? What right-minded individual could have a problem with those freedom-loving Palestinians? All they want is peace -- a big piece of Israel.

[@waitwhat....2473]

Israel is a shit show of bull shit.

[@tomforsythe7024]

Saying that you favour allowing open access for migrant workers as long as they don't get welfare is pointless. Political reality (the thing libertarians don't get) will make it so that they do.

[@77Avadon77]

Illegals can already get driver's licenses in California. So if you let in migrant workers how long will it be before they are demanding that they are US citizens. Not long at all in my estimation

[@gregorymalchuk272]

@@77Avadon77 Exactly. Caplan is absolutely nuts, and is much more of a moralist than he is a policy writer.

[@jonw8403]

@@gregorymalchuk272 Should we deport welfare recipients then? Also, the fact is, the majority of welfare dollars go to the elderly in the United States rather than the poor. Most immigrants are either young or working age so they would not be receiving those welfare benefits as frequently as you might think.

[@gregorymalchuk272]

@@jonw8403 This is insanity. Citizens are citizens. Immigration is a policy determined by the voters. We can screen people, and it would be insanity to deliberately import a class of welfare consumers.

[@dylanthornsberry8778]

@@gregorymalchuk272 US law says immigrants can't get welfare for first 5 years. Bill Clinton did that. It exists. We can do it again.

[@stvargas69]

People would come to the US like homeless migrate from the midwest to LA NY or Seattle because the infrastructure is there to support homeless. But they all have limits to their capabilities. Eventually the system becomes strained.

[@roachzero2952]

This is disgusting ! They are presenting an actual question of "do we need MORE migrants ???" ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME !!!

[@qncsc]

2:10 "hundreds of millions are stuck..." *geez, sorry that 100s of millions cannot flood into the country.* is every person that "votes" for (waves of people, flood of people) immigration bad at math, large numbers and consequences? do they care at all about the jobless of existing Americans? the suppressed wages of existing Americans? the debt that accumulates as we have a bloated government serving the needs of an impoverished populous that cannot make good given wage dampening of 40 years, evident in escalating and rampant debt accumulation?

[@Scorch1028]

The word "immigration" is a euphemism for "illegal immigration." No amount of immigration legal or illegal is going to effectively reduce America's $20 trillion deficit. This unbelievably massive debt is something that immigration alone simply cannot fix. Given "how little" each immigrant is likely to earn in his or her lifetime, the National Debt will get "worse" not "better" regardless of how many immigrants we let in, or "where" these migrants come from. At this point, we could let everyone in the world worth over $1 million into the U.S. and we would still barely put a dent in the increasing U.S. National Debt. 99.9 percent of all immigrants who are "illegally entering" and have illegally entered the U.S. if legalized would qualify for the 'Earned Income Credit' and many government subsidies. When poor people in the U.S. have children (regardless of their immigration status), they immediately qualify for a whole host of government subsidies paid for by Americans. Look at the number of subsidies that "legal immigrants get", particularly refugees and asylees (regardless of what country they're from). I met a woman from Bosnia who got government grants for college in the U.S. simply for "being a refugee." The U.S. taxpayer didn't cause the political unrest in her country. Her own people decided to have a civil war, so the U.S. federal government felt that she was "entitled" to have a substantial amount of her college costs paid for, despite the fact that she paid very little in U.S. taxes to contribute to the costs she imposed on the Americans taxpayers. Immigration is not just a Hispanic or Latino issue. Now, we're dealing with millions of Syrian refugees who arrive in the U.S. broke and destitute. The U.S. can only be generous with money it actually has, not with money it "doesn't have." I can't give you $10,000 if I don't have $10,000. The federal government doesn't see it that way.

[@scribbis9905]

thank you for helping me with my debate in ap gov lol

[@johnmorales9584]

As with anything there are positives and negatives, the decision should be based on the overall benefits vs negatives. Let’s be objective here, businesses benefit the most out of immigration. Businesses benefit from immigration in a variety of ways. First, the most obvious way is dirt cheap labor. Second is lower wages across the board. Employers will eventually ask "why should I pay 40,000 dollars when there is a waiting list of people who would do it for less than half"? These are of course the jobs where specialized skills are not needed or are easily taught. There are a huge number of these jobs (lower middle class) out there that any trained monkey can do, but are not manual labor jobs. Example, receptionist, postal clerk, clerks in general, any job with aid or assistant on the end, tellers, social workers, the list goes on forever. In short, competition drives incomes down. Just how long will these workers or their children be content to work on farms and factories? They came to America for American wages not their third world wages. These people will be going to college and so will their children. 4 years is all it takes to get a degree. How long before that 4 year degree becomes as meaningful as a GED and the bare minimum to be competitive is a masters or higher. These low skilled workers will not be content forever as your servants. Eventually you will be fighting for that job as a sales clerk and even the more highly technical jobs with 40,000 other people with degrees and the willingness to work for cheap. This bullet point is too big and complex to go into here. This is just a small part. In short, the middle class will be destroyed. You’re basically talking about a Chinese model where the majority of the country works as slave labor and the lucky few are reaping the benefits. Let’s puts the businesses aside and talk about the costs to the country in infrastructure, social benefits, education costs, and so on. Think of how your neighborhood will change with floods of immigrants pouring in i.e. crime, gangs, housing shortages/price hikes and on and on. Think of how many people would come to the US if they could. There are scores of countries that are far worse off than Mexico. How many people from every starving African country would come here? How about the poor Spanish speaking countries? Millions and millions. We now let a million immigrants legally into this country annually. If you add legals and illegals, it’s like a city the size of San Diego appearing every year and those millions have kids too. Now let’s talk about our limited natural resources. Of course we have the land to plant to accommodate those extra people. The problem is water. The vast majority of the water used in the US is for agriculture to feed our existing population. Let’s keep adding millions of people annually and see what happens to our already scarce resource. We are talking about a water issue like the US has never faced. Our current path is already unsustainable and experts agree our water supply is on borrowed time. Don't believe me, look it up. Finally, let’s look at the effects immigration has on the countries people are leaving. The US lets highly skilled and educated immigrants enter legally first. What happens when the best and brightest leave a country? You weaken the country and make the problems worse. The real solution is not to import the world’s poor, but to fix the country they are in. Taking their educated is taking hope and ensuring corruption can go unquestioned because knowledge is power. Do you think the USS Cole should have said “abandon ship” or send a repair party to fix it? Jumping ship is the last resort. I could go on and on, this is obviously not the answer and the benefits don't outweigh the costs.

[@jimreid5]

John Morales Ok Ok, alright then, but just to play the devils advocate. What about the argument, that we are all immigrants, meaning that pretty much all of us have relatives that migrated here from other countries?

[@shanexyz3972]

Libertarians who argue against "Open Borders" based on the claim that more people would be put on welfare, thus costing the taxpayer more money is ridiculous - by this logic you can also argue in favor of laws that prohibit people from having children (based on the claim that this would increase the overall number of people on welfare) or in favor of laws that prohibit people from starting businesses that look as if they might be successful (as the government subsidizes nearly all successful businesses). You cannot temporarily "freeze" the right of persons to move onto property of which they have permission to by the property owners just so you can try to reform tax situations.

[@77Avadon77]

That is just lunacy. I don't know where you're coming up with that argument but we have already witnessed what happens when you bring lots of immigrants into this country, they undoubtedly Go on Welfare. We already have a tremendous amount of babies born here from moms that are on welfare, mostly in the minorities. However if you bring people from South America you are almost assuredly going to be bringing welfare recipients. That's what happens when you have open borders you don't get to pick and choose doctors and dentist to come to your country. The people who are likely to waltz right across the borders are going to be the poorest and the most needy. We don't need to guess at this we already saw it happen in Europe

[@eriksmith2514]

"[B]y this logic you can also argue in favor of laws that prohibit people from having children (based on the claim that this would increase the overall number of people on welfare) or in favor of laws that prohibit people from starting businesses that look as if they might be successful[.]" The obvious problem with that analogy is that having children and starting reasonable businesses are protected interests under the Constitution whereas no one has a Constitutional right to immigrate to the United States.

[@barbarawray7703]

you're an idiot

[@shanexyz3972]

@@barbarawray7703 Very good response, thanks for your thoughts. You can go back to the woods now.

[@shanexyz3972]

@Marcion They're mainly internet Republicans turned alt-righters who may have liked Ron Paul in college lmao. For example, they (rightfully) don't buy into arguments that gun retailers should be necessarily liable or hindered by what their buyers do with their products. The same should apply here - you can't limit my ability to control who I invite onto my property based on what such person may do off my property. They're also generally racist, but they don't want to hear that.

[@theultimaterockr]

Well illegal immigrants from Mexico usually save the money they make an then make transfers to people back in Mexico so that hardly helps our economy. The idea that we make them legal makes very little sense because most of them are poor (probably the reason they came here illegally). The way our country currently works is that the idea of getting on government assistance is strongly pushed in your face as something you need to do. This will breed more dependency and increase our welfare and food stamp recipients to around double their current numbers. We simply can't afford amnesty. We really don't have the economy to support all the extra people that will no doubt flood the system as soon as we pass an amnesty bill

[@xFlRSTx]

"Well illegal immigrants from Mexico usually save the money they make an then make transfers to people back in Mexico so that hardly helps our economy" if America had open borders than they would bring their family with them. so infact you just made a pro immigration arguement. "The way our country currently works is that the idea of getting on government assistance is strongly pushed in your face as something you need to do." this is an argument against government assistance not immigration, its not an immigrants fault that Americans voted in these programs and therefor you cannot use force against them to keep them out. "This will breed more dependency and increase our welfare and food stamp recipients to around double their current numbers. We simply can't afford amnesty." good, a failure of the welfare state is exactly what America needs.

[@theultimaterockr]

xFIRSTx I'm talking about the country we have with the problems we have right now. I'm also sorry for my grammar errors. Please forgive me, I'm pretty sleepy. Anyway I'm presenting or current problems that would only be exacerbated by open borders. Our politicians won't let the welfare state collapse because they count on it for votes. At the moment our government spends $.92 of every dollar on entitlement programs and interest on the national debt. Adding entitlement prone low skilled workers to the mix can only worsen that situation. It would be like a company that can't make enough money to pay it's employees, hiring more to increase production even though they can't pay them. It's just not a rational or fiscally conservative thing to do. Oh and quickly back your first rebuttal before I forget... Why do you think they want to be here? Do you think they ALL really want to be citizens? As nationalistic as some of these immigrants are for the country of their birth, it would make perfectly good sense for them to just send money back. A good portion of the illegal ones don't care about this country and are just in it to make money and send it back so they can live better in their own. You'll just have to trust me on that one, I know what I'm talking about.

[@56finlynodak]

IS IT OPEN BORDERS BOTH WAYS?

[@GeekOverdose]

Hopefully

[@56finlynodak]

WOULD OTHER COUNTRIES ALLOW 11 MILLION AMERICANS TO BE ILLEGAL IN THEIR COUNTRIES.

[@leanlikeacharger619]

That's a stupid statement

[@batmanthe]

It's up to each property owner to make decisions. A mass of people cannot simultaneously own their own lands and own everyone else's. If I have a "illegal" employed, nobody has the right to say I can't. To summarize it doesn't matter what your utilitarian/consequentialist reasoning is for closing borders - there is no one with justifiable authority to do it.

[@hyperopinionated1138]

Unfortunately for you governments have the authority to close borders.

[@ericnastav]

The comparison to the time when America had open borders without an associated threat to national sovereignty is a really really bad comparison. The climate is much different now. There is much more reason to emigrate. The free market labor competition argument is likewise poor as the natives here have a goal of living above subsistence and expect their government to support that. They can't compete and can't be expected to compete with immigrant labor who are mostly close to subsistence level. The rights of non-natives is not the business of our government. Just as our government expects us to be loyal to it and our country we have an expectation that our government protect our rights. Another aspect of the problem is that there is no equality in immigration. If youwant to talk about rights of non-citizens...here you go. How can you justify the disproportionate amount of Mexicans that come here illegally just because their homeland is next door. There are plenty of Chinese who would gladly come here, but can't because they are farther away. Another factor that impacts immigration is whether people breed responsibly. Do my wife and I get pregnant with our fifth child when we can't feed our first four?!?! Sure! We'll just head over to America. Another difference today that relates to the national sovereignty point is language. In the prior history of immigration here when was there ever a time when businesses and educations provided on a large scale accommodation of people who refused to learn the native language of this country?!??!

[@markjansen495]

I'm not a Republican, but when I hear the phrase 'make America great again' I can 100% understand and relate to the meaning behind it!

[@olilahcoleman4196]

As a non-white person when I hear that I just think when was America great? If I went back in time in increments of 20 years to the founding of this country, none of it would be "great" for me. I think America CAN be great by moving forward and growing away, while still learning from, our awful past.

[@shrugger1]

I was under the impression that we do not have a border now.

[@NeonNights80]

What are all those border patrol agents doing then?

[@Adrian-qi5ii]

@@NeonNights80 Eating pizzas?

[@almostserious75]

Having no borders is the equivalent of no door on your house...

[@gregorymalchuk272]

@Cain The citizens own the corporate entity of the United States government and exercise their corporate power by voting for immigration policy.

[@gregorymalchuk272]

@Cain You believe in people coming together to form associations and corporate entities, right? Well the United States government is just a corporate entity made up of the people. The people vote on immigration law like a corporate boardroom votes on company policy.

[@dopejoel]

"Census Bureau data collected on the institutional population (such as those in prisons and jails) might be a way to at least measure incarceration rates in an unbiased fashion. But as we explained in the report mentioned above, the Bureau's ability to record whether the institutionalized are immigrant or native broke down in the past and it is still not clear if this problem has been entirely corrected. There is also the issue of what should be the proper benchmark for measuring immigrant crime. As we point out in our crime study: In social science research, raw numbers need to be placed into some kind of context, often by comparing one population of interest to another. Assuming one can measure immigrant crime, the next question that arises is: To what should it be compared? This is an important question because crime rates among natives differ widely by group. For example, the share of native-born black men arrested or incarcerated is dramatically higher than for all other groups… However, the discrimination and racism black Americans have experienced and the severe social problems that exist in some black communities make this population unique when it comes to the issue of crime. One can reasonably ask whether it makes sense to compare immigrants, who are overwhelmingly not black, to black Americans who have a unique historical experience. Data collected by the Census Bureau in 2013 shows that 23 per 1,000 male Mexican immigrants ages 18 to 40 are institutionalized (mainly in jails or prisons; few people at that age are in nursing homes or similar institutions). This compares to 31 per 1,000 for native-born men in this age group. However, looking at only non-black native men (18-40) shows an incarceration rate of 20 per 1,000. This is somewhat lower than the rate of Mexican-born men and a good deal lower than the 38 per 1,000 for U.S.-born men of Mexican ancestry. It is also worth noting that Mexican men are included in the figure for non-black natives; if they are excluded then the rate for natives would be 18 per 1,000. The rate for native-born whites alone is 16 per 1,000. All this matters because studies that examine what happens to crime rates in predominately black areas when immigrants move in are looking at communities with crime rates that reflect the marginalization and unique situation of black Americans. When it comes to crime, these communities are statistical outliers. So even if crime falls as the immigrants arrive, it is somewhat misleading because the baseline rate was unusually high in the first place. Further, the impact of Mexican immigration on other communities, with much lower pre-existing crime rates, could be very different. Two other points are worth making with regard to immigrant crime. First, the crime rate of immigrants generally, or illegal immigrants in particular, is irrelevant to the issue of sanctuary cities, which as a matter of policy release illegal immigrants from jails even after Immigration and Customs Enforcement asks them to hold these individuals. That policy is directly responsible for Steinle's death and for the deaths of many othersover the years - regardless of statistics about overall crime rates. The public is right to be outraged. Second, immigration is supposed to benefit our country. Therefore the goal of policy is to select immigrants that have much lower crime rates than natives, not rates that are somewhat higher or even somewhat lower than natives'." cis.org/a/straight-talk-about-immigrant-crime

[@RKO1988]

What a racist ASSHOL

[@Charlesperalo]

Bryan Caplan should not be in this debate. Not that he's bad, I love many of his writings and talks, but he just doesn't fit well with the other two. Those other two are very very by the numbers and represent other sides well. He is more on an ancap perspective which is fine, but won't appeal to modern America.

[@vanradosevich4249]

No bias here. Mark is outnumbered 2 to 1 and the moderator is against him.

[@tnndll4294]

Open Borders leads to more socialism. Its the socialist parties (Democrats) that grow in voter numbers with mass illegal immigration. If someone is a Libertarian, they need to be against open borders, because it leads to more socialism. No brainer.

[@SeraphimGoose]

How do they not understand the simple concept that law and justice only apply to those within the jurisdiction of the civil entity in question..? The Western idea is that sovereignty starts at the individual, but that doesn't mean that it isn't relevant at higher levels of social organization. If I start a club, you don't get to say that I can't bar you from joining my club because doing so would violate your personal sovereignty. That would be ludicrous.

[@lafeil]

American is waking to fact that we going to be like EU in few years. Also where are the jobs to support millions of people that live in this nation and how we going to solve are debt. We do not need open borders, which is dump idea.

[@frethis555]

To argue there are no boarders is stupid. Boarders may change but they will always exist.

[@TheSyriosBrothers]

The borders weren't completely open in the 19th century and the point about the technological differences is sound. Open borders today would be tens of millions of immigrants a year. It would be absolute chaos. Libertarianism has a lot of good points but you can easily OD on it and I think Caplan has done just that.

[@eriksmith2514]

The third speaker really confuses me. For example, he says lawmakers should not tinker with America's social fabric. But that's how democracy works.

[@MRCKify]

Thoughts: +1:35 What differences will be between the panelists, especially Caplan & Nowrasteh?

[@MRCKify]

Turns out its nil.

[@HardcoreFourSix]

The nation's borders are akin to our individual property lines. We as the person(s) that has control & dominion of a plot of land/house/apartment. No one has a right to enter upon or remain in our property. We get to decide who enters, and for how long they may remain.

[@eriksmith2514]

The third speaker (pro open borders) says laws must be based on an "accurate account of human nature" and "applied equally." Wherever he got that, it wasn't from the Constitution, which has never required Congress to be "accurate," and merely requires laws to "protect" people equally, not to "apply" to them equally. To the contrary, it is quite possible for a law to be based on an inaccurate account of human nature and to apply to different groups unequally, and still satisfy equal protection--so long as the law is uniform and not irrational. The Constitution essentially allows for unequal immigration laws because the drafters understood the need to be flexible in this area.

[@kupiercerberus904]

Mark's eyes went nuts while he talked. Whoah. But these are probably the best opinions you'll get on this matter.

[@inhaleherb06]

New Colossus Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame, With conquering limbs astride from land to land; Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand... Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame. "Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

[@ckwunch8028]

America has not CLOSED its borders so how do you suggest they "open" the borders? Governments are NOT there to micromanage the country, they decide policy which will affect the country both now and years into the future, creating policy in sudden reaction usually leads to flawed policy, and ultimately damages the country both economically and socially.

[@freefallfalcon]

How about ending the institutionalization of initiatory violence worldwide. Government borders are just the outlines of tax farms. The only borders that matter are those decided by private ownership. That means i own my garden just as much as i own my body, and to aggress upon one is to aggress upon the other.

[@darthvader7888]

+freefallfalcon Exactly. Don't want Mexicans on your property? Fine. Don't want Mexicans on my property? That's none of your business. Don't want a Mexican on property I decided to sell him? That is most certainly not any of your business, nor is it mine once the property leaves my ownership. Don't want me to give you a job over a Mexican who's better at it? Too bad, get off your ass and get a skill or look for another job instead of blaming others for your failures. That's the way it should work.

[@kdarth9414]

Smaller government produces prosperity and freedom... Smaller government=less power. No boarders= 1 government= unchecked power= no freedom for man

[@Glitch-nr9ct]

First dude is absolutely insane. The only reason he has such a radical, unhinged belief system is because he's never seen the consequences of the insanity he supports. THANK GOD he's literally one in a million if not more.

[@paulerdosdaughter]

Which of his points do you disagree with?

[@EndorphikaMorphika]

That first speaker is absolutely ludicrous. He’s lost his marbles! He needs to get out from behind his desk and work IN the economy. Go to the south, stay in small towns driven by factories and the trucking industry. Get out and meet the rest of America. For him to say there is “no downside” to having open borders shows that he’s got the mentality of a 5 yr old. It is frightening that he’s an educator!! So messed up.

[@matrixman8582]

What factories? Maybe trucking, but that’s propped up by the rest of the states.

[@user-xu4mw1yk5c]

Caplan let them into your home. Since when are we responsible for another country?

[@FallenWngz]

So the first guy was basically saying that illegal immigrants should be brought over for cheap labor? That seems kind of derogatory to me. Thats not really a good example of an argument for illegal immigrants. What do you guys think?

[@abcw114]

No, his argument was that they can improve their lot in more productive countries.

[@FallenWngz]

Yeah but immigrants shouldn't have to exemplify those types of jobs thats not only discriminatory that also brings up the question of why that's something that national citizens don't do for themselves.

[@abcw114]

+Angel Valentin I don't know what you mean by "exemplify those types of jobs." They'll take the jobs they're qualified for, which is what all of us do. I don't know why citizens should control the employment of other citizens' businesses.

[@logictime5942]

*+abcw* Modern nation states are the development of ancient tribes. Humans always were members of a group and that group had a territory. The territory was limited to the members of the tribes and anyone they admit to it. Fast forward centuries if not. We developed nation states. Each country have it's own borders and can admit who they like in. So you whole philosophical bullshit is alien to history and human nature. Just like how communist ideology have failed. Open-border is a failure. *One wonder why Libertarian dogma is a complete failure and why people will not even entertain it by voting for it. Indeed a mass increase of immigration does increase the GDP of any nation. However quality of life sunk if the scale is mass or uncontrolled (lousy excuses you gave like criminals or sick people are not included). Most dogmatic Libertarians don't even believe in the stupid mantra that market will somehow control the flow. The drop of Mexicans coming was offset by other nationalities and thanks to visa caps system. Without the caps and with open-border policy you described. Quarter of the world population will come here, since any minor improvement will be better than their current conditions.* *The Brexit advocates banged on the fact that EU have open-borders inside the continent. That means over 400 million Europeans can move around without restrictions and cause pressers on British resources. UK, (which is not even in the Schengen Agreement) couldn't handled it. Also this dogma (just like communism, defies human nature). It busts the idea of having a nation state. Just like all countries in the world, we have welfare system and public services for our own. We will not end it in pursuit of disillusion. The number of immigrants and their skill level must be controlled to serve the nation. Peace.*

[@naylorunderwood3049]

Did the second guy even know that Caplan was an Ancap?

[@deborahcolvin64]

BUILD THE WALL!!!! GO TRUMP!!!! AND I'M BLACK!!!!

[@sniperontheroof123]

The wall is a joke. All you need to avoid it is a tunnel, which the drug cartels are more than willing to pay for. Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs will fund however many tunnels it takes to circumvent the border wall.

[@invisibleaznDJ]

Yes of course....... Can't believe this is a debate among (L)ibertarians.

[@SpencerHeckwolf]

The political argument is bad. Big government Northern European countries are very immigration restrictionists. Heck, look at the Japanese government.

[@calamagrostis88]

I want all people on Earth to have a good life and economic opportunity. But just imagine what would happen if we had totally open borders and anyone who set foot on U.S. territory was granted citizenship.

[@tcskips]

It would be awful! The US might actually prosper again😱

[@dalekmoon]

NO. I could have saved you 36:48 in time.

[@PlayerDuce]

I think we should have open borders (or open borders lite), but I also think every country in the world should have open borders. I don't think the US should be alone. Americans should be able to freely move to these other countries and find work and start a business. There are of course a lot of other obstacles to this, all of which fall on security, from violence and crime, from individuals but also from organized crime and government. To some extent though its okay, because then states are competing with each other in providing security, if they want to prevent capital flight or to attract more capital to their country.

[@vgcq02]

In 2024, this either aged like milk or wine.

[@moribundmurdoch]

Unilateral Open Border door opening heard throughout the world!

[@Rugg-qk4pl]

Taco trucks on every corner!

[@dustinseth1]

The members of those communities have a claim on our loyalty? Patriotism is a virtue? If they’re voluntary associations, then maybe. But countries as they currently exist? Absolutely not.

[@randallanthony1794]

close all borders

[@fatfat1877]

No. Give 0 welfare to immigrants have a nearly open border policy where everyone can come in except criminals. That way the citizens get more welfare money and the immigrants are forced to work since theres no welfare

[@phatmhat9174]

There's a lot more than just labor that comes across borders. A lot more impact than just the impact of labor. So, yeh, the government should manage that.

[@nustada]

"Abolition of nationhood" He says that like it is a bad thing.

[@Siegetower]

Before nations everyone fought each other - moreso than nations fought. How would that be better, going back to that.

[@Siegetower]

***** Fine, that's what you believe. Look at your history books on European history. Go to lets say the 17th Century before the rise of the nation-state and look at how internecine and pertual warfare was. Don't like your Protestant neighbours? Burn down their village. One king wants the iron ore mine of another kingdom, ride in and slaughter everyone who doesn't swear fealty to the new king. A disagreement over trade could lead to wars lasting generations. The history of Turkish and arabic predatory slavery on European coastlines (until the 1st US Navy turned up and destroyed the pirates) exists because there was no nation state protecting the peasantry in a sense that we understand. If you've ever been to quaint rural Italian villages that are all on hilltops, it is quaint now but not when people needed to live on the edge of the top of a cliff to make it difficult for marauders to reach them. Why? No nation-state, no local army, no Police, no courts, no protection beyond what living somewhere difficult to get to. "In-group bias" sounds like a well meaning but ultimately meaningless academic term. Live in the real world where everyone has preferences, biases and grievances.

[@DerekMorey6505]

Siegetower You gave examples of governments attacking other governments as an argument against not having governments. This shows why governments are too dangerous to have around. There are too many obedient people who will do anything their masters tell them. Also an organization founded upon infringing upon your rights can not, by definition, protect your rights.

[@Siegetower]

Derek Morey What governments? My examples were villagers attacking villagers? What government? Feudal kings who provide no services to anyone - what government? Trade organisations and privateers - what government? The arab slave fleets were private enterprises - what government? The Ottoman empire was not a government in the same modern sense as we're talking about.

[@DerekMorey6505]

What is your definition of "government"?

[@MatthewGraham027]

It's amazing that we debate about issues that people from two centuries ago actually had in practice. In some ways people say that they have advanced yet we cannot implement policies they did. Despite the fact that there were racists, enslavers, and all the rest they actually had better economic policy than we can implement today. Sad to say that in certain ways, these new age enlightened people are backwards to the 19th century Christians (who they despise) actually could have freedom of movement. Maybe a little of both eras would help

[@tsummerlee]

I just don't agree that boarders, as such, define individual human beings so much as they define systems of government. Its completely abhorrent for me to think I am in some way the property of law or thought of in those terms by those who design them. There is no difference between an American human being and a Canadian one. But that's exactly the premise of our current immigration system. It isn't the place of government to define who is a human being with rights and who is not. And, yes, Israel could absolutely have open boarders if it had a system of law grounded in individual liberty and not the socialist welfare state that it currently is.

[@tsummerlee]

apburner1 That's why immigration laws should incorporate background checks. Just being a Muslim doesn't make one an inherent threat. Israel already has a large Muslim population.

[@chrissnyder5254]

apburner1 ugh...they lived together in peace for hundreds of years....So your silly comment has no factual basis. It's not about state it about people and governing

[@hyperopinionated1138]

I would be for open borders if there was no welfare of any kind and no taxation at all.

[@tsummerlee]

HyperOpinionated As long as GOP and Conservatives keep voting to fund welfare programs, including Social Security, it will never, ever end.

[@logictime5942]

Modern nation states are the development of ancheint tribes. Humans always were members of a group and that group had a territory. The territory was limited to the members of the tribes and anyone they admit to it. Facst forward centuries if not. We developed nation states. Each country have it's own borders and can addmit who they like in. So you whole philosophical bullshit is alien to history and human nature. Just like how communist ideology have failed. Open-border is a failure. *One wonder why Libertarian dogma is a complete failure and why people will not even entertain it by voting for it. Indeed a mass increase of immigration does increase the GDP of any nation. However quality of life sunk if the scale is mass or uncontrolled (lousy excuses you gave like criminals or sick people are not included). Most dogmatic Libertarians don't even believe in the stupid mantra that market will somehow control the flow. The drop of Mexicans coming was offset by other nationalities and thanks to visa caps system. Without the caps and with open-border policy you described. Quarter of the world population will come here, since any minor improvement will be better than their current conditions.* *The Brexit advocates banged on the fact that EU have open-borders inside the continent. That means over 400 million Europeans can move around without restrictions and cause pressers on British resources. UK, (which is not even in the Schengen Agreement) couldn't handled it. Also this dogma (just like communism, defies human nature). It busts the idea of having a nation state. Just like all countries in the world, we have welfare system and public services for our own. We will not end it in pursuit of disillusion. The number of immigrants and their skill level must be controlled to serve the nation. Peace.*

[@anarchic_ramblings]

Watch the debate before commenting!

[@hollywoodartchick9740]

It would be nice to hear from someone who lives in a neighborhood affected by waves of immigration - someone from a poor, urban area where influxes of large numbers of people overwhelm the limited stock of affordable housing, seats on mass transit, push English-language speaking low wage and skilled workers out of jobs like custodial work and warehouse work, and socially dominate public spaces like parks, swimming pools, etc. We never hear from people who are adversely affected by immigration - just those who either benefit from employing the undocumented or who have some theoretical virtue-signaling posture for their political future.

[@calamagrostis88]

We need to define the context of a debate, before you talk about how immigrants are treated you need to find out if the person you are talking to even believes in borders or immigration limits that all nations possess. If the person you are talking does not believe in nations or borders or that California is a part of the U.S. rather than Mexico then that is the debate, not immigrants rights.

[@adamthornton7880]

I think the argument about patriotism is completely putting the cart before the horse. People organically feel solidarity with those with whom they share certain tastes, folkways, political and social ideals, cultural landmarks, dialects, etc. This is where nationhood, as opposed to statehood, begins. Now, if a distinct kind of people is highly correlated with a geographical area, that may be an argument for making that area a sovereign entity (as was explicitly done with countries like Ireland and Italy), but you can't simply observe the existence of a political structure, and conclude the existence of an organic solidarity. I think I would have more in common with an engineering student from Bangalore, than I would with a football hooligan from Manchester.

[@porkchopspapi5757]

If you believe in open borders, leave your doors unlocked all day and night, and put up a sign stating all are welcome to your home.

[@SunilChaudhary-ez6nx]

every broad must be open so people get rich and have a good life and poor people could get rich so please 🙏 open the broad of every country 🙏 🙏

[@Excedrine]

No. It should be easier, though, to be honest. A lot easier. Before that, though, we should actually make sure there are actually enough fuckin' jobs for them. Hell, we don't even have enough jobs for the people *that are already here*. And no, America does not now and never had an "illustrious open-borders tradition", either. *Period.*

[@OOCASHFLOW]

It's bad enough making someone debate Brian Caplan one-on-one. Who at reason thought it would be a good idea to have someone there to help them and gang up on the other guy?

[@goru426]

Understanding the Reason Foundation is very easy. All you need to know is one sentence "More for the rich, less for the poor! "

[@KizoneKaprow]

It's simpler than that. I can point to just one word: anarchy.

[@andreysumarin7754]

Kizone Kaprow Capitalist anarchy, more precisely. Which is in fact not anarchy, but crypto-dictatorship of the corporate elite to whom Caplan serves.

[@bill07407]

Somone please explain the difference between legal and illegal immigrants to the two idiots arguing against Mark. Same as difference between invited house guest and burglar.

[@michellesin445]

Lol I'm not sure but did that 1st guy for open borders just accidentally say peasants instead of immigrants??

[@mrwebbofficial]

Most of the people on this panel got their way and now look at where we are at…

[@SuperSlayer76]

Mark talks about patriotic solidarity as a virtue with vices of having too much and not enough of said virtue. In my opinion, solidarity with friends/family is the virtue while patriotic solidarity and complete selfishness are the vices. We need feelings of kinship with people we know and interact with, but a feeling of kinship based on lines on a map is irrational.

[@SuperSlayer76]

Ludwig von Mises argued for forming nations (patriotic solidarity) based on shared cultural identity and especially common language, but he was also a proponent of free migration. I need to read more about how he thought forming a nation and free migration could work together.

[@yanwillempasterkamp8454]

I think it is not possible for people who have 1 or 2 kids to feel solidarity or compassion for people with 3, 4, 5 . . . or more kids. We have to realize there is an ongoing population crises on our planet A. This is fueling the migration-crisis in the first place. You should not go mop with the tap open, commom sense.

[@NathansHVAC]

I like when the left is honest about open borders. Let's let Europe lead the way on open borders and see how it turns out. It's their turn now.

[@dylanthornsberry8778]

US led the way for 100s of years on open borders and it is why we are the richest country on earth.

[@ortzinator]

Galt's Gulch was invite-only for a reason. You think they would have been better off with open borders?

[@noelhernandez2022]

Not to mention drugs retinol heroin drugs killing gangs

[@michaelpaliden6660]

I love open Borders with Exit only doors anyone should be allowed to leave if they want.

[@user-xu4mw1yk5c]

Caplan how is it going today? We now live in 3rd world.

[@56finlynodak]

PEOPLE WHO LIVE AND ARE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY ARE OF THIS COUNTRY, OTHERS HAVE THEIR OWN COUNTRY DHA.

[@bulklogan539]

Those who want open borders MUST open their home doors as well. They need a place to stay right? You want to help right?

[@briano9397]

Ladies free before 11. It's a party 😤✊ what it do babyyy

[@sukritrajesh5723]

Where's the Q&A?

[@aryaodin6375]

to all my white brothers and sisters, THE NORTHWEST FRONT is calling for you to migrate to the northwest, A HOMELAND for our people. Hope to see you there.

[@user-xu4mw1yk5c]

I can't even listen to this guy.

[@tommylong5115]

No. Also first.

[@lashthomas741]

Mr. Kaplan should watch the video "Immigration Gumballs"

[@JLMiller6547]

If you watch the news we already have an open border. Maybe everyone in the world will come to the promised land. Lots of cheap labor!

[@AmericanTestConstitution]

If you have a 2000 square foot restaurant, 12 people might be better than 8 people working, but 100 people working might be a really bad idea.

[@donniemeyer3424]

I feel dumber after listening to the second guy. Who cares what his name is. Haha

[@pecholsjones]

Mark Krikorian argues that low-skilled Americans will be harmed by in influx of migrant labor, but this is not an obvious point. Since the migrant workers bring with them demand for products and services, I don't see how any Americans are harmed in the long term. Mark also argues that immigrants will bring a demand for larger government. This case may be true for the two locations Mark mentioned, but may not be true for the majority of immigrants. Regardless, I don't think this is sufficient reason to impede people's liberties, even if I don't support their opinions. Everyone has freedom of speech, US citizen or not.

[@leonwoods4052]

Hell No!!!!!!

[@thesleepinggiant6457]

All I can say is thank god for Donald Trump. And more so, Trump's appointment of Jeff Sessions for Attorney General. Under that administration "open borders" is DEAD. lulz

[@sniperontheroof123]

Good luck collecting your SS disability payments when there is nobody young enough or willing to work.

[@gregorymalchuk272]

@@sniperontheroof123 It's still better than mass immigration. Immigrants have a net NEGATIVE lifetime budgetary impact of -$600,000 dollars.

[@pfcravt]

If you want to know just how statist conservatives are, you have only to read the comments.

[@77Avadon77]

There is nothing wrong with having a state and borders to protect a nation and its people

[@pfcravt]

@@77Avadon77 Actually, there is. Especially when you think you have the right to deny who I can buy from/sell to, rent to, employ, etc. You are just an authoritarian pretending to care about people.

[@jrdroptini]

Robert, you go, girl!

[@gregorymalchuk272]

@@pfcravt Conservatism has nothing to do with anti-statism. Conservatism is about conserving our blood, our people, our land, our wealth, our civil liberties, our language, our legitimate hierarchical authority structures such as the family unit, and our culture. So thank you for the compliment.

[@rrbbet]

Is this reason TV or treason TV !

[@vasilymelnikov7346]

????? How are open borders "treason"?

[@AmericanTestConstitution]

@@vasilymelnikov7346 selling out the people of your nation to foreign nationals is treason.

[@vasilymelnikov7346]

@@AmericanTestConstitution okay? I don't care. Let immigrants come in. An example is my dad - he is a professor and a contributing member of society.