The Case for Open Borders

The George Mason economist partnered with Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal's Zach Weinersmith to offer a thoughtful look at immigration policy in comic form.
Subscribe to our KZbin channel: kzbin.info?sub_...
Like us on Facebook: / reason.magazine
Follow us on Twitter: / reason
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes: goo.gl/az3a7a
Reason is the planet's leading source of news, politics, and culture from a libertarian perspective. Go to reason.com for a point of view you won't get from legacy media and old left-right opinion magazines.
----------------
George Mason economist and recreational controversialist Bryan Caplan has teamed up with artist Zach Weinersmith of Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal fame for one of the most ambitious crossovers in nerd history. The result of their partnership is a surprisingly readable visual case for open borders, in which a cartoon Caplan grapples with zombies, hangs out with basketball players, and quarrels with Milton Friedman.
The arguments in Open Borders: The Science and Ethics of Immigration are rather sophisticated and extremely entertaining-much more so on both fronts than skeptics of the genre might expect.
Of particular note is a lively debate about Friedman's claim that "you cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state," and other libertarian arguments against open borders. The bespectacled cartoon Friedman looks enough like Caplan himself that Weinersmith has distinguished the two by draping a Nobel Prize around Friedman's neck, a charitable gesture to the person he's arguing against.
Katherine Mangu-Ward sat down with Caplan to talk about why he can't stop picking fights, common arguments against open borders, and what his family owes to immigration.
Camera and intro by Meredith Bragg. Additional camera by Austin Bragg. Edited by Ian Keyser.
photo and music credits:
"Backbay Lounge" by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
License: CC BY (creativecommons.org/licenses/b...)
photo: Christina Xu CC 2.0

[@ryanhau1073]

A Reason Video about Open Borders... The comment sections should be very Colourful

[@Newwaver2007]

Actually it should be called : The case for yellow stars

[@lilfridge5652]

EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

[@Fury851]

I'm glad I'm not the only one to notice

[@chesscomsupport8689]

Is that a comment on his ethnicity?

[@lilfridge5652]

@@chesscomsupport8689 religion/ethnicity

[@Fury851]

@@lilfridge5652 they jump to suit themselves.

[@sasquatch989]

Arguments like this will continue to keep libertarians out of the political fold

[@brianboru6685]

@rkb100100 Milton Friedman was also a libertarian. Many leftists consider him far right.

[@sasquatch989]

I think the term is 'cosmopolitan libertarians'

[@homewall744]

@rkb100100 Untrue as no libertarian is for any welfare state...they wouldn't be for free college, free healthcare, free government jobs, free housing, free food, minimum wages, tariffs, progressive tax rates, never-ending foreign wars, etc.

[@Selvarin]

Is the guy really a Libertarian, though?

[@brianboru6685]

@rkb100100 call me old-fashioned, but I don't think you should let people's current ineptitude obscure timeless principles.

[@GeekOverdose]

Yes. You cannot have both. Get rid of the welfare state and let people be free

[@matrixman8582]

@Robert legitd00d If you want women to raise children then you need a strong economy. Do you think these mothers want to be working? They have to because living costs have risen so much that one income earner can't sustain a household.

[@matrixman8582]

@Buttercup Lol immigration has never been harder

[@jeffersonianideal]

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

[@homewall744]

If Canada gave away free healthcare to anybody, I'd head there every time I needed health care. It's a fraud to say you can give away free stuff and let people come and go as they please. I prefer reciprocal open borders (if you are from Country X, you are allowed in if Americans are allowed into X) and no welfare (at worst, a negative income tax like UBI since it would only go to people who file tax returns in which citizenship could be determined).

[@TruztNoI]

Let is be honest today there still global conflicts open borders, Islam, the communist Chinese party and the unfair practices law and order and crisis in their own society, ...

[@jeffersonianideal]

Dr. Friedman also held the view that illegal immigration was preferable to legal immigration, insofar as illegals aren't eligible for forced taxpayer funded handouts.

[@jeffersonianideal]

@youngEngineer How do you know this?

[@jeffersonianideal]

@youngEngineer The Naturalization Act of 1790 was amended no less than four times by 1870.

[@BlckCloud73]

Welfare state or not, all states are entitled to their own sovereignty.

[@daveBit15]

Ha! The State is not "entitled" to anything. The State doesn't even exist: it's an abstraction. And, as someone way wiser than myself wrote, "the state is a gang of thieves writ large - the most immoral, grasping and unscrupulous individuals in any society."

[@bustaballs]

America wasn't a sovereign nation from 1776-1920?

[@daveBit15]

@Eugene Stoner The men that claim to have power over you because they claim to be the State are of course real. They, however, are not entitled to anything that you're not entitled too. Do you understand what an "abstract concept" is? Do you understand the State is an abstract concept, right?

[@erich5686]

Pretty sure the countries these people sneak in from have one thing in common. Come on Bryan Caplan, open that mainframe you call a brain and explain to us, with your "statistics", why are these countries poor?

[@AnonEMoose-mr8jm]

@Eugene Stoner I get what you're saying but organized crime is still crime whether you accept it or not.

[@k-techpl7222]

The title is addressed at 9:00

[@MommaKnowsBestest]

Not all hero wears capes.

[@MrThomasC22]

Such as it is. He basically just says “I crunched the numbers and your wrong” without really citing anything.

[@generalco2554]

@@MrThomasC22 100% - "The valid argument that I try and address...." I will talk circles around, and not actually answer.

[@PattyKakes7787]

The hero we need.

[@EyePatchGuy88]

Caplan and Weinersmith. Enough said.

[@user-or6yn8pm3c]

Open borders for Israel. Lol.

[@pancratius602]

I saw the dude's face in the thumbnail and I already knew.

[@ifinditinteresting.8709]

@@pancratius602 what about his face? Long face?

[@Anita.Cox.]

What happened??

[@MiguelSanchez-tu2en]

Spoken like true low-IQ rightoid With a constituency full of people like you, it's no wonder Republicans have become the party of the stupid over the last eight years

[@sippingtea6055]

Every time. Every Single Time.

[@Fury851]

👃👃👃

[@DeDraconis]

I appreciate the fact that this guy makes me think, but even after doing so I still find myself disagreeing with open borders.

[@norcalreppin1]

Yep.

[@frenchstudentA]

Why? Where is Caplan wrong?

[@DeDraconis]

@@frenchstudentA He fails to take into account that, in the current climate, other nations (or groups within that nation) would use immigration as a military tactic. I'm fine with the sort of reviewed immigration we have now (even helped a friend of mine from India get her citizenship over the course of four years), and they do actually check/investigate the information you give them. Just flinging the gates open and inviting everyone inside is a bad idea, not because "bad people" couldn't fake it enough to get in, but because it makes it easy / invites the incursion. I don't think the welfare issue is quite as big of a deal in regards to immigrants specifically, but I think our welfare system in general is kind of trash and needs to be adjusted. Both the as-is and the ways I'd like to see it fixed wouldn't be burdened by immigrants so much.

[@Nick-rd5xs]

@@frenchstudentA then we have people from those countries just coming across different borders. Also, what about extradition for people that come here, commit a crime, and then run to a country we have no agreement with?

[@bozimmerman]

@@DeDraconis Consider Dr. Caplan's "Keyhole Solutions" part of the video. Your first question should be "OK, I have this super specific worry -- so what is some way to address this without closing off the border completely as we do now." Dunno about you, but there are 3-4 solutions that pop into my mind.

[@sjerkins]

Hmmm, it sounds like a person who is in love with words and argument with no investment in the ideas behind the words. We have never had "open borders" but maintained standards for becoming a citizen and enforced them. So many confuse periods of liberal immigration with having no controls on immigration. e.g. Ellis island existed to document, vet, and control who was allowed into the country. If we had open borders, there never would have been a facility at Ellis Island or the immigration stations for the Irish immigrants in the 1860s.

[@Ehregott]

And citizenship was only granted to whites, as far as I am aware ;) so how liberal was ist?

[@amibrainwashed]

He also completely ignores the reasons behind immigration then vs now.

[@ilovecoffee7623]

Not true. The US had open borders for at least a century, if it didn't, Europeans would've have been able to come. What was happening on Elis island was not vetting immigrants, but registering them. Anyone from anywhere was allowed to just come.

[@ilovecoffee7623]

@@amibrainwashed What is the difference in your opinion?

[@davidwiley8752]

@@ilovecoffee7623 People in poor health, "Asians" and a few others were excluded and turned away at Ellis island.

[@gilianrampart8514]

Some small affect! When i was young california was Republican!

[@brianbagnall3029]

Texas is next. Once that happens, say goodbye to any hope of personal freedom. Far left Dems will rule forever.

[@gettysburgbuff6320]

Don't forget about all those white liberals living in California.

[@jimsmith9853]

@@brianbagnall3029 And say Hello to further Balkanization of the US.

[@bocchithean-cap3404]

@@brianbagnall3029 a new emerson poll showed that blacks support trump by 34% this number might be inflated but support for him has risen this is the undisputed fact so reds only have to appeal more to minorities and they have a good chance for that for example the Hispanics are overwhelmingly religious and conservative only if you could tap on that market

[@DavidWilliamsaz]

And Texas and Florida were voted for Democrats when you were young. The Republicans in Florida and Texas embraced immigration and the states became controlled by Republicans and the Republicans in California did not immigration and became irrelevant..

[@crossdronesphotography]

so he did not in fact debunk welfare state vs open borders, he simply said we gotta crunch the numbers? Then why buy the damned book?

[@tiavor]

and the numbers have probably been crunched alreardy and I don't think that's even near viable to have both.

[@dukekenny9340]

Scott Poland because he’s Jewish

[@Extys]

Listen to the video he talks about a paper that did "crunch the numbers"

[@eglasb]

He amazingly avoids the central question of the interview. As a libertarian he should know that’s all about incentives, and welfare state gives all the wrong incentives. Just sad.

[@ilovecoffee7623]

Did you actually watched the interview? He said if the sole problem is welfare, you can always limit the welfare for foreigners.

[@MRCKify]

@@ilovecoffee7623 ... and Caplan has plenty of EconLog posts and papers on how to hold the line, if not roll back, the welfare state for *natives.* www.econlib.org/why-libertarians-should-oppose-the-universal-basic-income/ econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/pdfs/behavioral.pdf

[@ilovecoffee7623]

@Matthew Herrington But that's how the US became the country it is today. The US had almost completely open borders for centuries. How do you think your parents came to this country? Millions of Europeans and others with no shoes on their feet came here. Voting was the last thing they cared about, they came for money and opportunities. If you want to preserve the current demographics, that means you have to completely stop all entries into the country. But your concern is based on a false premise. How do you think Americans vote today? And how do you think foreigners are going to vote? Do you think ALL foreigners are the same and are going to vote for socialism? Majority of them are escaping socialism, why would they vote for the same policies, it is the native Americans that vote for more welfare, not the foreigners.

[@ilovecoffee7623]

@Matthew Herrington To register the newcomers, in essence, making them citizens. What we Libertarians propose is not to have open borders where anyone can come and become a citizen, but to have like a free immigration, wheres anyone who wants to work in the US to be given a work permit, not a citizenship, after a simple background check or perhaps medical check too, and allow to stay and work in the US for as long as they want. Now, i personally think welfare benefits should not be allowed for permit holders, only for citizens, and i think the threshold for citizenship should be higher as to discourage any attempts at people coming to work only to become citizens and then use welfare. The incentive to come must be only to work, and for those who really want to live and have a life here, then they should be able to become citizens.

[@whiteguy47]

@Matthew Herrington You are assuming that all of the industries/companies they decide to work for will have an oversupply of labor if they see an increase in workers. It is not just unskilled labor that lowers wages. It is the oversupply of ANY labor that lowers wages. Will all of the immigrants work at the same plant, place of work, for the same company, in the same industry? Presumably not. And there are many very large industries in the United Sates. A lot of large businesses prefer unskilled labor from other countries because it is cheaper for them. NOTE: I do not really know whether I am for or against open border so I am not making an argument for or against open borders.

[@Avidcomp]

If a restriction on immigration is a violation of freedom, how is a welfare state not a violation of freedom. The man, is no man. He's a monster.

[@agisler87]

I'm pretty sure he would and has argued the welfare state is a violation of freedom. You can support open borders while also being against the welfare state.

[@remyllebeau77]

@@agisler87 On the contrary, you can't support open borders while ignoring the resulting higher tax burden and still claim to be morally neutral.

[@wallpello_1534]

Both restricting movement and stealing money from people are wrong.....

[@remyllebeau77]

@@wallpello_1534 Our world is full of restrictions on movement. The roads we drive on, private property, and nearly every nation has some sort of control of their borders. So why is it always America or wealthy EU nations that are forced to open their borders FIRST? You don't see leftists advocating that Mexico have completely open borders, because they wouldn't benefit from that. The question is always "Cui Bono?"

[@wallpello_1534]

@@remyllebeau77 first off, one of the major reasons that Europe needed more immigration is because their population is shrinking. Look at the birth rate data for Spain and Greece. Also they Europe doesn't have open borders. The US is going to have a similar situation soon. Western birth rates are dropping very fast and it is going to change everything.

[@drgardan]

i'm more concerned with the spread of socialism that comes from open boarders and a welfare state. most folks in this world are to quick to give up their freedom for the high cost of "free" stuff. To many are short sited and fail to consider the strings attached.

[@frankiel3767]

Chris Smith I agree, but if achieving libertarian goals takes grossly unlibertarian means like blocking people for their political views, what’s the point of being a libertarian at all We could easily fix the vast majority of illegal immigration issues right now by shooting anyone at the borders and increasing the size of ICE so that they can deport anyone who has overstayed a visa by more than three months. But that would be stupid because it’s a gross violation of liberty

[@burgerbob7324]

@@frankiel3767 Enforcing the law is a violation of liberty? That's amazin

[@frankiel3767]

@@burgerbob7324 It is when it's a victimless crime.

[@maybe_3374]

if the borders of the government are open, does this mean that citizenship will no longer be needed?

[@RobLanderos]

I watched and listened with an open mind, but I think Caplan failed to make a strong case for either the moral or economic arguments as to why open borders is a better idea.

[@4r4ber]

he does in the BOOK. read it. One can not make the case much shorter than in a graphic novel. He quotes an article though , saying there is a multi-trillion-dollar gain to be had from (much more) open borders. What is unconvincing about that? Oh, you are not sure, it s true? READ!

[@tenofspades4470]

@@4r4ber That's right! Just read our propaganda! Never mind the fact that Mass immigration was not and never will be a form of charity.

[@andrewharris79]

@@tenofspades4470 Read it and decide for yourself, I sometimes read Chinese propaganda (also watch here on TY), good atleast to know what other people think.

[@chrisf2636]

Andrew Harris, agreed. Will give it a look. I disagree fundamentally with 2 things. I’m not an ideological libertarian though because of 1 of these things. 1st, welfare and public services, just ESL in the US is estimated at over 50 billion a year. Our systems are unsustainable right now(hence deficits). 2, inviting open borders will likely eliminate many of the freedoms we currently enjoy, and watch as the libertarians become even less of a minority by ignoring the fact that humans are not rational, and only reasonable in that we can hold up reasons for doing anything. No amount of proof will change the hatred of the rich, jealousy of success and having a larger % of the population that agrees with more state control will get leaders who implement it. (Reminds me of the hive queen from Cards “xenocide”). By fully implementing the ideology you functionally eliminate it unless the small govt has those protections permanently. Perhaps Marx was right, once a certain # of the planks are in place it is inevitable that a society continue toward total state control.

[@Hegeleze]

The only part of this interview which matters is when he says that restricting immigration is a "feat of moral blindness". Behind all the propaganda is a moral argument, not a rational one. Just present your moral theory and let's argue about that instead of hiding behind libertarian rationalism. By the way, going a mile over the speed limit isn't against the law and this is a bad example - there are levels of laws where the consequences of breaking the law increase or decrease. Your rhetoric is weak. Now, when he says those who are against open boarders are really saying, "You have no right to any job in the first world" is another parochial view on the world. Obviously we can't move everyone to the first world, so we have to pick and choose, so we can then make the same argument against those left behind. Again, rhetoric which doesn't deal with the real world. I'm not even saying open boarders is wrong, I am just saying this guy's arguments are bad.

[@acex222]

Libertarianism is fundamentally a moral philosophy. Do you respect someone's rights to life, liberty and property? That's a moral question.

[@nukembear2345]

Yes but is also immoral to destroy the culture and morals of a society for the moral reason of helping a group of people!

[@Hegeleze]

@@acex222 I suppose it matters whether the libertarian would trace its roots more to Lockean liberalism or Adam Smith's Newtonian deductive system in economics. Although your question is rhetorical, I suppose you trace yours through Locke. Fine, just make that apparent as I would have liked the speaker to have started with his foundation - morality. Note, I'm not against this, I teach it for a living, I just like clarity.

[@nukembear2345]

Oh and open borders are wrong and evil, it will lead to millions of dead people!

[@Bodge18]

The word pragmatic or consequentialist would work better for your first point than rational. Moral arguments are still based in reason.

[@shawnl661]

$23,072,730,495,315.54

[@agisler87]

So what? Open borders isn't going to make that problem much worst until we find sending.

[@shawnl661]

I oppose anything that makes it *any* worse on the grounds that economic collapse poses a far greater risk to life and liberty than any other threat real or imagined. That being said, knock those f'in borders down **after** you shut down the careless, wasteful, and (yes) life threatening spending that will result in economic ruin. That means welfare. Even "muh roads" are welfare. You can't borrow forever without repayment, and neither can the USG. Tick tock. Buy gold.

[@dr.redpill353]

Oddly the cost of my last pound of hamburger under the new green deal. Also the cost of my plane ticket to Disney world under the new Green deal.

[@xsuploader]

@@shawnl661 more immigration would divide that debt among more people

[@redacted5052]

I’m fine with open borders assuming we’re so libertarian that I’m able to maintain a medium sized cache of intercontinental ballistic missiles topped with multiple 300+ kiloton nuclear warheads.

[@EGarrett01]

You have the right to self-defense, not the right to keep an indiscriminate high explosive that will destroy unrelated people and property you don't own.

[@sabrinatscha2554]

@wh1t3lord WEINERSMITH…. Like seriously it’s either that nobody wants to be the first to make the connection or that KZbin algorithms have gotten so good at deleting comments that we may as well not even make them anymore.

[@ExxylcrothEagle]

Israel has totally open borders and they just love it !!!

[@englishman9020]

Most people who are for open borders live in secure gated communities.

[@ThorsMjollnir0341]

It defies common sense to think that having open borders will always be a net positive regardless of the variables. There are significant political ramifications to allowing large groups of foreigners, regardless of their race, into a country all at once. Many people, particularly lower class people will feel threatened in terms of their economic situation and in terms of their local community. Moreover, bringing in significantly large groups of people who come from cultures that are antithetical to a free society based on individualism can quickly threaten the basic tenants of that society. Controlling the flow into the country allows those individuals to become more ingratiated with the culture surrounding them. Not controlling the flow allows large insular communities to form which are much more difficult to penetrate and integrate into the adopting society. In turn, these large groups obtain immediate political sway which abruptly transforms politics and leave the incumbent population concerned with the rapid transition. And lo and behold, that’s where we are today.

[@joemorales3764]

“Abruptly transforms politics” Yes but pair open borders with a government that has limited power to control our daily lives and it doesn’t matter how many immigrants come into our country

[@GhostofFranky]

Agreement with joe morales. Also the part to that is that with free immigration people come work and leave on a more frequent basis. Back before the laws on the books were enforced immigrants came in, and went back to Mexico during winter. Once they started enforcing the border they ended up staying because its more costly to try to sneak back over than when they were able to travel freely. When you can freely travel there is no real need to establish roots and you can bounce back and forth without causing much trouble

[@TheWonderBreadAct]

Lots of fear logic in that statement.

[@dylanthornsberry8778]

Lmao sounds like you haven't read the book

[@joemorales3764]

Dylan Thornsberry i have. His rebuttal to transforming politics was that immigrants are A political and side with whoever is more welcoming such as Reagan in the 80s.

[@mikezip9423]

I broke into your house and stole all your valuables. Hey, I’m just “seeking a better life”

[@sabrinatscha2554]

@debunker we both know that’s not how things are really going down

[@pancratius602]

Sounds like the story of the modern state of Israel 😂😂😂😂

[@redsky4016]

Illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crime than the general population

[@xsuploader]

hes not against private property numpty

[@zane62135]

I want to see this tested in Israel first.

[@shway1]

you people still think this is a gotcha but it never has been. palestinians should have a right of return.

[@Anita.Cox.]

​@@shway1and they do u.n resolution 148 says they should be allowed into their homes and enjoy peace and israel is in direct conflict of.

[@jeffersonianideal]

The next Reason Foundation hosted Soho Forum debate should feature a exceptionally knowledgeable libertarian arguing in the affirmative for open borders, and a libertarian opponent who is just as qualified in arguing against the notion of fully open borders.

[@jeb_bush6129]

You honestly think that the government isn't competent enough to handle your taxes, but they know more than enough to pick and choose who we let in our country? Why not let the free market decide?

[@jeffersonianideal]

@@jeb_bush6129 Show me where I have implied or inferred anything contained in your blithering response. After doing so, promptly supply the name of the government school of lower learning that claims you as its valedictorian.

[@Kai-tn4yx]

You can't have a Libertarian against open borders, because Libertarians are all for it (kind of the basis of Libertarianism).

[@Boristien405]

I get his sentiment, but I'd still much rather end the drug war and abolished the welfare state FIRST. To make our border safer and more economically viable.

[@MRCKify]

How you would convince your Gramma that heroin should be legalized? Too many these days don't understand OG Prohibition.

[@paramountofpuns6913]

​@@MRCKify ending the drug war doesn't mean that all drugs will be legalized, people who are pro-ending the drug war differ on that issue, but it does mean that all drugs will be decriminalized at least in small amounts(look at Oregon)

[@MRCKify]

@@paramountofpuns6913 Maybe, but my point was (still is) that lots of people - who tend to be goodhearted people when I meet them in my personal life - believe that the Drug War is a necessary policy against social disorder with trade-offs that could be minimized with *enough* money and political will. They do not understand that the Drug War necessarily hands off the drug markets to criminals, incentivizing organized crime, and perverts decency & honesty in the personal health, biochemistry, and law enforcement sectors, even if they know that alcohol Prohibition pretty much did that already. I believe that if we who wish to end these destructive policies want society to go in the *direction* we want , then I'd like to share effective persuasion that changes minds. I'd like to know when and how this tactic was used in Oregon (and several other Rockies/Great Plains states). I also want effective lobbying that squashes any "reforms" that are barely-obscured rentseeking crony ventures. It's important we avoid these to minimize crazy-patchwork policy that creates the boogiemen for both the Bootleggers & the Baptists. Signed, a guy in the Rockies

[@HeritageWealthPlanning]

Small effect of mass immigration changing political culture? Damn Bryan you ever heard of California? Weirdest argument ever

[@coolbeans6148]

Exactly, Open boarders is the easiest argument to destroy. A problem with other libritarians is they prioritize principal over logical reasoning.

[@4r4ber]

Mexicans moving in raised the rents in San Francisco sky high? Or internal migration in the US? Should that be banned? Neither hippies nor computer-nerds are much in love with the republican party. And if you insult one large group of immigrants and do all to stop their families to join, guess you lose votes. - BC has little problem to exclude immigrants from voting and from social security. So, really, mess migration up and then say it is messy - cool.

[@HeritageWealthPlanning]

@@coolbeans6148 My biggest problem with most libertarians is they don't actually like America much. Not all of 'em, mind you. I'm a SMALL L libertarian but I'm an American Nationalist first. No more war. Legailize everything. minimize the police state but recognize the Divine nature of America. We and only WE should get to choose who come here, to benefit us. Not for us to benefit them.

[@HeritageWealthPlanning]

@@4r4ber no idea what you're talking about.

[@Monaleenian]

@@coolbeans6148 Libertarianism works so long as every voter who lives under it understands its value and understands what type of people and voters it takes to sustain it. When voters don't understand that, it inevitably fails. That's what has happened in the US.

[@username65585]

As much as libertarians don't want to admit it, culture matters.

[@drew8642]

username Agreed just like a healthy Body with skin/immune system you need Borders, one common standard language and culture / constitution.

[@masonallansten]

Hell yeah here’s a libertarian who agrees

[@trecide]

Everyone can love and be a part of American culture. Id rather have an immigrant chasing their American dream than sickos crying for white Christian culture

[@william41017]

Yeah, culture is important so, what? How does it affect his arguments?

[@Soldierboy54b]

I'm libertarian; & I admit it. Third worlders in general, & the muslim world in particular, couldn't give a shit less about The Bill of Rights &/or the preservation of Christendom. If they did, they'd've already created America-like places in the 3rd world. Not only is Mr. Caplan a fool; he's a damned cliche .... & he'd be the first one they'd throw off a rooftop if he actually got his wish.

[@itsalwayssunnyinpahoa7631]

Open borders for Israel

[@sippingtea6055]

Let's start with Israel.

[@Nonsensically]

No access to any social services and immediate deportation if any crimes are committed.

[@wuwei473]

Hello, open borders inc. department?

[@ViscountWoodspring]

Wu Wei hello, cringe department? It’s for the ancap

[@gamer-kw2nh]

He says that open borders is one of the best ways to lift people globally out of poverty. That is false. Even if the 1st world let in a billion people to escape poverty that wont change the countries where they are coming from which will still have high birth rates creating billions of more people this century that will still be impoverished. The best way to end global poverty is to encourage every nation to adopt free markets, capitalism, free trade, property rights and low taxes.

[@ChrisParaschos]

''Even if the 1st world let in a billion people to escape poverty that wont change the countries where they are coming from which will still have high birth rates creating billions of more people this century that will still be impoverished.'' look iam not mathematician but 1 billion people are too much people for every country so because the people in first world countries are usually richer probably they will make fewer kids which will reduce even more the total fertility rate(this time is around 2,4 children per woman) which in developmed countries is little above the replacement fertility of 2.1 children per woman . Generally if they came 1 bilion people in one place many countries will loose an important part of their population so that will reduce surely the fertility rates in all world .''The best way to end global poverty is to encourage every nation to adopt free markets, capitalism, free trade, property rights and low taxes'' Nice but in same categeory with free trade we find also the the freedom of movement which is far more beneficial than free trade .

[@electrosquid8325]

If immigrants were allowed to send money back to their home countries the poverty in these countries would reasonably decline, leading to a lower birth rate.

[@sabrinatscha2554]

@Electro Squid what? The are allowed to and they do

[@Monaleenian]

"The best way to end global poverty is to encourage every nation to adopt free markets, capitalism, free trade, property rights and low taxes." Lol. As if that's going to do it. Free markets, capitalism, free trade, property rights and low taxes would basically need to be imposed on most countries in the world. They're not going to just adopt those ideas because they're encouraged. Any country that would adopt those ideas naturally already has. The remaining countries basically need to be managed. They have absolutely no chance of righting themselves even with the most brilliant "encouragement"

[@SuperEndiku]

Gimme the keys to your house.

[@charleshargrove4050]

Why doesn't this question about immigration get asked - "If these are really good and talented people, why don't they stay in their own country and improve things there?"

[@xFlRSTx]

because they don't have capitalism, why do you think they want to move to America? to ruin it? do you live in a cartoon?

[@gmilitaru]

Corruption and oppression, too small a market for their skills, not enough accumulation of capital. There are a lot of legitimate reasons. The reasons the wrong people are migrating to the more advanced countries are related to the welfare state and free money in general. Just as Milton Friedman said. Before joining the open border party, libertarians should first address the issue of welfare.

[@Bodge18]

Because of a lack of resources, opportunities and/or the economic freedom required to do so?

[@Dan16673]

Their country does not give them the potential opportunity and market to use those skills. My wife is from Colombia, She is a doctor. Here she does quite well. Back home, she might have to get a second job.

[@ohshiastheres]

this is 2nd dumbest argument, the 1st being "WHAT ABOUT THE BARBARIANS THAT INVADED ROME???"

[@omelett9]

This is why i left libertarianism. Some ppl can just focus on the economical factors, while ignoring the disintegration of the culture and the fact that Texas is turning democrat.

[@2080bop]

This

[@mtgonzales]

Labor economics is still economics.

[@Porelorexeus]

Who cares if Texas is turning Democrat? The Republicans are just as bad on liberty. Culture should be allowed to evolve naturally no culture stays the same forever.

[@jhilmer32]

@@Porelorexeus because Democrats are worse when it comes to freedom.

[@23wtb]

@@Porelorexeus It's not "natural" if you use the levers of government, and give financial benefits, to artificially alter demographics.

[@hellrazor117]

I agree, Israel had a lot to benefit from having an open borders migration policy.

[@banderfargoyl]

Open borders is perhaps the least popular of libertarian positions. I think people would be more open to legalizing heroin sales, than they would be to opening the borders. It's interesting to consider, though, that heroin sales once were legal. And once, there were no passports. But this coming October, you'll need a passport to fly domestically. Either that or you'll need the new biometric national ID. Funny thing that they don't call it that. They call it a driver's license. What's never explained is why you would need two biometric IDs: one for traveling overseas and another to travel domestically. Shouldn't one ID suffice?

[@dr.redpill353]

lol, funny, sad and true all at the same time.

[@Bahamut3525]

It's already the case here in Europe, which is a globalist construction (European Union). We have the passport for travel outside Europe, and National IDs sufficient for European (EU) travel. It is a global measure they are trying to implement everywhere.

[@fightfannerd2078]

the left & the right promoting open borders lol

[@cameronidk2]

the fact that its a picture book says it all!! hahahahahhahahahahhaa

[@notthisprickagain8499]

The two names involved in this book say it all. Every single time

[@GeekOverdose]

Lmfao read the citations at the back. It's a solid 20 pages of small font references to stats and studies with URLs. It's a picture book to make all the big brain arguments easier to digest.

[@si91]

Why? I've always found it odd that you can draw a beautiful picture, and it will be labelled a classic work of art that art students everywhere will have to study, or write an excellent book or essay, which will be labelled a masterpiece that literature students all over the world will have to study, and yet when you put them together to make a comic book, suddenly it's not serious, and only for children.

[@GeekOverdose]

@@si91 exactly.

[@GTA5Player1]

It's kind of condescending.

[@mirzaahmed6589]

Open borders may work between wealthy European countries, or between US and Canada, or Australia and NZ, but not between countries with greatly different levels of economic development.

[@fightfannerd2078]

yeah

[@brycepardoe658]

I think having open borders in the same way Svalbard does is what's best. In fact in my view every nation ought to model their border policy after Svalbard.

[@Monaleenian]

It has almost nothing to do with levels of economic development. That's generally just a byproduct of the demographics of a country. Immigration between those countries works mostly because it's essentially just the same people moving from one country to another.

[@charltonblake9967]

One of the tendencies of my liberal group is we idealistically ignore the dark sides of Game Theory.

[@brianboru6685]

I think this sums up everything wrong with leftist thinking quite succinctly.

[@navykip]

He is making a great case for state to state migration, but it’s far more complicated than the simple economic arguments he presents here. It’s a shame because his other writings are great.

[@DrCastanet]

Willful stupidity is, actually, not idealistic. It is self-indulgent and disingenuous. In the case of Liberals, it is their effort to preen in their pretended virtue. They are like children.

[@fartsaresacred]

@@DrCastanet So rich a libertard denouncing willful stupidity on YT

[@Tryingtobeatechie]

i cant believe i listened to all of this

[@marcostadeo3577]

Open borders is fine in a highly decentralized and free society, but we haven't gotten to that point yet. Also, open borders enthusiasts always assume that immigrants coming in are for a libertarian society. Just because they coming into this country for freedom, doesn't automatically mean they are going to embrace Ron Paul.

[@kevindunn1005]

So since nobody was advocating for open borders he decided to support it? Well, nobody is advocating for sending everyone over 50 away in a Viking ship and setting them on fire either. Have at it.

[@Gunner6000WarZ]

You know your reasoning is trash when you have to put it in a comic book.

[@dr.redpill353]

Some Leftists do that because they think everyone else is stupid. Which shows how stupid some leftists are. You can't make sense if your reasoning is emotional and free of logic, facts, relevance and reason.

[@sabrinatscha2554]

Yeah that was the very first thing I thought. It’s a comic book so it automatically thinks that anybody who is reading it is mentally a child in the first place. Very condescending and very typical of a certain “class” of people

[@Newwaver2007]

Also when it’s blatant hypocrisy. He should promote open borders for israel if he actually thinks it’s something good.

[@xubious]

MASSIVE LABOR SHORTAGE IN ISRAEL - EXPERTS SAY 1.5M MIGRANTS NEEDED PER MONTH TO MAINTAIN ECONOMIC STABILITY

[@redsky4016]

Israel does have a lot of foreign workers

[@destroya3303]

"You wouldn't let anyone open a church in your house so government has the right to ban religions" lol. A truer analogy is this, your neighbor can't claim to be part of your family and come into your house against your wishes. It is our right as the owners of the house to say who is or isn't a family member. If the entire world has rights over your property you don't own your property. And if the entire world has citizenship rights over your country you don't have a country.

[@agisler87]

Immigration doesn't mean you automatically become a citizen with voting rights.

[@wallpello_1534]

More like if the government has a right over what you do with your property, you don't really own your property.

[@Bodge18]

You're citing property rights to support a policy that infringes on property rights. Nations aren't property. A more apt analogy is “The locals of an area aren't letting me move into a house because I was born on the opposite side of an arbitrary line drawn 20 miles away”.

[@destroya3303]

@@agisler87 "Immigration doesn't mean you automatically become a citizen with voting rights." In this country yes it does for all intents and purposes. Living here gives you a faster track to citizenship, so does dropping anchor, and your anchor babies get citizenship automatically. So yes it will effect voting patterns in this country enormously and already has and it will facilitate the creation of millions of new citizens who force their way in

[@destroya3303]

@@Bodge18 You don't believe nations should exist at all. But nations are as natural as a corporation and exist for a reason.

[@ninjaec]

Caplan would do well to study the case of Sweden where his hypothesis is being tested right now.

[@NekoBoyOfficial]

And so far it's failing. Angry Foreigner made a video on it.

[@canadianroot]

Oy vey.

[@bigjohn2811]

Bombs and sexual assault are a form of cultural enrichment.

[@salokin3087]

Crime in Sweden was higher in the 90s than today tho

[@jeankutzer1556]

Or France where did communities are governed by Sharia law. Books have been written on that scenario happening here. Recently a high ranking government official said they look forward to it.

[@jpbochi]

seems like Bryan has to come back to the Soho Forum.

[@TheJosephDal]

Nothing like being condescended to...

[@navykip]

This is Reason’s favorite past time, besides attempting to get pats on the head from the left.

[@erich5686]

You wouldn't understand because....statistics ? I understand 4% unemployment is better than 10% unemployment.

[@raptors11111]

What a horrible idea lol. Open borders is the 1 thing thats an absolute dealbreaker for me ever voting libertarian. And no we didnt have open borders previously. They were way scricter than they are today actually.

[@alterego157]

Considering they're both Jewish, do Caplan and Weinersmith advocate for open borders for Israel?

[@Just_do_the_thing]

we found ourselves the white nationalist

[@devinpeirce7152]

Exactly

[@reinercreekman]

@@Just_do_the_thingproud 🇦🇹❤️🇩🇪 F israel.

[@voskresene]

I suppose he goes into more detail about open borders and the welfare state and open borders to people who come from parts of the world that are left leaning, but I didn't hear any real responses to these concerns here (and what he says around 9 minutes doesn't really answer much in my opinion). Haven't we already seen both of these things happen in California after the 86' amnesty? How has that state been doing since that time? I say not only can't you have open borders and a welfare state, but you can't have open borders, a welfare state and universal suffrage. Put limits on these things and I'd be open to going back to the way immigration worked till after WWI.

[@paulg7964]

I live in San Diego and go off roading in the desert right on the border. The drug smuggling caravans on foot passing though during the week is astonishing. After a rain I found a large stash of drugs. I believe it was Meth. Probably 50-60 lbs. California's border wall was constructed in 2013. I haven't seen a single caravan sense. I still have my dogs sleep outside and I'm armed. I have a right as a tax payer that I should never have to put up with these conditions. I've been camping in the area as far back as 1986. It wasn't like that then. My guess would be smuggling was done in cars or trucks. Only uneducated and or Wack jobs are pro open borders. End of story.

[@witnessgem2504]

to be fair, that wouldn't be a problem if we didn't have A: a war on drugs, and B: a war on poverty

[@thatrubberduck5448]

Why do you hate freedom?

[@sabrinatscha2554]

@Witnessgem 250 the war on drugs is history. And what’s more is that the people who supported it simultaneously support open borders or are the RINO type who just look the other way so that they can have their campaigns funded and get their paychecks.

[@TheLordMeowMeow]

hehehehe none of the immigrants will ever pick up any libertarian material lol.

[@jeb_bush6129]

So the government shouldn't let people in, just because they are unlikely to support a specific ideology? That is an fundamentally un-libertarian position.

[@roshansundar6618]

LordMeowMeow Exactly. I don’t understand how open border libertarians are blind to the fact that these immigrants are voting our liberties away

[@TheLordMeowMeow]

@@jeb_bush6129 wow, where did I say anywhere in my comment that government shouldn't let people in? Man I love how you added that lolol

[@MrJjjd1]

@@omelett9 "mass immigration ... full a anarchy...until voting" Could you BE any more self contradictory? Why would anyone VOTE in anarchy when anarchy means "no rulers aka no masters, no slaves," and therefore NO GOVERNMENT TO VOTE FOR? Neither YOU or any group of people like you have any business whatsoever ruling and dominating the lives of others while using coercion and violence to do so and the ONLY appropriate use of force is in defense of oneself or others against whom coercion and violence is initiated! You own YOURSELF and no one else so quit acting as if you or any group of people like you have any business trying to own others and presume to decide for them who they can and can't voluntarily associate and trade with, etc.

[@Boristien405]

I'm an immigrant and more logically consistent on libertarianism than you. Don't be ignorant.

[@SCScholar1]

It's not that people aren't good enough to be citizens. A country has the right to regulate immigration. We do want to make sure we aren't letting in hardened criminals.

[@semarugaijin9451]

Why does Bryan Caplan live in Cambridge? One of the highest tax, highest cost per sq/ft areas in the country, and virtually 98% Caucasian. if he really believes that marginal utility = quality of life, then he could move to a 95% diverse immigrant area where the cost per sq/ ft is so low its almost free. Because nobody wants to live there.

[@Newwaver2007]

He’s being a stereotypical jewish person. Promoting open borders, excepts for the state that was granted to his people. Because they were being held responsible for betraying a different country.

[@UnOrigionalOne]

I am pretty sure even back in the day the government reserved the right to reject imigrents at Elis Island.

[@tozen4442]

How about open borders for Israel😊😊😊

[@MRboomchongo]

18:44 for weiner sniff

[@LGKamina]

Its not like we have a welfare deficits or anything -_-" math must be hard for this guy.

[@MrJjjd1]

Gee, it's not like immigrants are PREVENTED BY LAW from receiving welfare benefits but do pay for them and some border worshipping fools love believing in MYTHS. Gee, this guy must be ignorant. *No, Undocumented Immigrants Aren’t Stealing Your Benefits* *But they DO help pay for yours* www.huffpost.com/entry/no-undocumented-immigrants-arent-stealing-your-benefits_b_5a144263e4b010527d6780b0?guccounter=1 *Welfare-Dependent Immigrants Are a Myth* New report shows that children born to American citizens are the most likely to receive food stamps. "Low-income immigrants are less likely to access public benefits than their native-born counterparts." The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), better known as welfare reform, introduced a five-year ban on lawful immigrants using public benefits with very few exceptions, like refugees and asylees. This helps ensure new immigrants are net fiscal contributors to the US Treasury - a fact which empirical studies consistently confirm. Undocumented immigrants are ineligible for public benefits. Yet some myths are harder to correct than others. Indeed, members of the current White House appear to hold the same misconceptions, as revealed most recently in a draft executive order from January 2017 which claims “households headed by aliens are much more likely than those headed by citizens to use Federal means-tested public benefits.” In a new report, my colleague Robert Orr and I demonstrate that low-income immigrants are less likely to access public benefits than their native-born counterparts. This is even true when they are otherwise fully eligible. For example, under current rules for SNAP, noncitizens can bypass the five-year ban if they have children under the age of 18, are blind or disabled, have a military connection, or have worked for 40 qualifying quarters. Nevertheless, only 35.1% of low-income noncitizen children are members of a low-income household receiving SNAP, compared to 46.8% for the native-born. Citizen children of noncitizen parents also tend to participate in SNAP at a lower rate. More at fee.org/articles/welfare-dependent-immigrants-are-a-myth/

[@LGKamina]

@@MrJjjd1 not like they use fake Ids that tells e-verify that they're US citizens. On wait they fucking do, hell I know one illegal in nyc right now that's on housing and food stamp. I cant imagine how big this problem actually is since all I see are half ass report and no field investigation into the problem.

[@Ehregott]

@@MrJjjd1 at least here in Germany we are being exploited by criminal Immigrants, WHO work a Well paying Job (but dont register it) and still get Benefits. They took a few billions out of our Social Services.

[@MrJjjd1]

@@LGKamina *THINGS WE CAN'T DO WITHOUT GOVERNMENT PERMISSION* Build a house Drive a car Own a gun Go fishing Collect rainwater Hunt Cross the road Get married Leave the country Start a business Fly on a commercial airplane Take drugs Work And over 65 million plus other human actions *Actually, try to think of something that doesn't require government permission, isn't taxed, regulated or declared illegal.* *NOW REPEAT AFTER ME, "I AM FREE!"* Hint: when you are a SLAVE because you demand to be ruled by government, don't go blaming immigrants for YOUR enslavement or the fact that you have to ask government for PERMISSION to work; an action that is the Natural Right of every human being. Its strange how border worshippers will gladly scapegoat immigrants for all the border worshippers problems but border worshippers won't blame themselves for their own enslavement and oppose their slave masters instead of immigrants especially when those border worshippers who are complaining are immigrants themselves.

[@MrJjjd1]

@@Ehregott See my reply above. It isn't immigrants fault that you are a SLAVE and a willing, eager one at that.

[@Sheeshening]

Someone should pay some ms13 guys to have a meeting with him

[@pattybaselines]

None of that would matter if were drugs were decriminalized and there was no welfare state.

[@NickRu-jl6tr]

Wow, this guy's argument has more holes than a special Olympics golf course. This traditional immigration position is the one major point that embarasses and angers me about my fellow Libertarians. This is exactly why I have to distinguish myself as a minarchist rather than a full blown Libertarian.

[@dr.redpill353]

Wow, super funny. (because of the truth of your statement)

[@paramountofpuns6913]

but a minarchist would be pro-open borders and would only want the government to serve as a night-watchman state

[@NickRu-jl6tr]

@@paramountofpuns6913 Perhaps you're right, in theory, but I'm living in a world of government overreach and a plethora of welfare state free goodies to go around. Before tackling that monster, the least we can do is to close the borders and limit all immigration to a strict merit-based one.

[@paramountofpuns6913]

@@NickRu-jl6tr (I don't have this opinion I'm just interested in what a self-described minarchist would say) why not have open borders then and take down the welfare state?

[@NickRu-jl6tr]

@@paramountofpuns6913 Because opening the borders guarantees a flood of low skilled people into the country, therefore putting a greater strain on public services and a continued increase in debt spending. This does a disservice to the Americans who have contributed to building this country and leaves it in an even worse hole if/when the social programs end. These newcomers will have zero attachment to this country and freely flee once the bill comes due and the actual citizens with no place to go are left working to pay off the nation's bloated debt. As for a simpler reason, it is MUCH easier to close the borders and regulate immigration than it is to overhaul the entire economic policy and cut benefits to the millions of people who feel as though such goodies are owed to them. Once the welfare state is gone, it will guarantee that only hard working people come because if you don't contribute, you don't eat.

[@TheGradysDad]

Is he arguing against open borders or is he really arguing against the welfare state?

[@progste]

Both shouldn't exist.

[@PeteSmoot]

He's specifically arguing _for_ open borders. As a way to address people's concerns about the costs of social program with unrestricted immigration, he suggest ways to modify our social programs (e.g. you only qualify for SS if you've contributed more than $100,000). He also suggests compromise positions short of fully open borders (e.g. only allow immigrants between the ages of 25 and 50, who use fewer social services than typical citizens).

[@21stcenturycotyk]

@@PeteSmoot if they can contribute that much then social programs (in so far as they exist ) would be redundant...... This is patently rediculous , 51% of immigrant household in the US are net non contributers...... yet he wants more payed for by futher currency debasement ? you folks are already over 20 trillion dollars in the red on paper, and effectively near 200 trillion if you add in all the unfunded promises like pensions and social security . As a neutral observer this is madness.

[@paramountofpuns6913]

he's an ancap and so his end goal is to end the welfare state, but he's disagreeing with Freidman's position that you have to end the welfare state first and then have open borders, he's saying that you can have open borders first and then end the welfare state(does that make sense?)

[@XanatharEye]

I was wondering if Reason was going to keep on shilling for the Koch bros after the one died. Yup.

[@societalwisdom9930]

To be so “libertarian” as to enable the transition of society to one that would intentionally seek to oppose “libertarianism” and advocate for even greater centralized authority is a truly unwavering commitment.

[@aguyfromnothere]

societalwisdom also short sighted and lacking any understanding of human nature.

[@MRCKify]

@@aguyfromnothere Which culture is more resilient to the other: capitalism or socialism? Examples: Hong Kong or the kibbutz system?

[@Matt-pc5cd]

It's a kind of built in justice for if they get their way and get open borders. They'll get that, for a time anyway, and then lose everything else they advocate for.

[@MRCKify]

@@Matt-pc5cd Is there any particular principle that you think immigrants want the American government to centralize on? Should we realistically expect people from Far East and points south to agree to steps toward a centralized Salafist regime? Personally, I agree with European leftists that immigration corrodes support for welfare, even when the details legally build a wall around food stamps and public housing. The difference is that I welcome curdled attitudes towards welfare.

[@Schlabbeflicker]

Reminds one of the anarchists who took power in Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, but were too disorganized and reluctant to use their power. They were swiftly displaced and exterminated by the communists.

[@StalewindFarto]

So kind, so tolerant.... so comforted by the fact that there's no waves of immigrants looking to displace you from the faculty lounge

[@XOmniverse]

He actually addresses this in the book. Due to the way immigration laws work, university faculty are actually MORE at risk than average of being displaced by an immigrant, not less.

[@StalewindFarto]

@@XOmniverse That makes sense. I can imagine many mathematics and chemistry professors as well as some computer science professors being displaced. I wonder how many woman's studies or Hispanic studies faculty are at risk.

[@eljay5009]

To anyone who advocates for open borders..........do you have locks on the doors to your house, if so, why?

[@Max-nc4zn]

Bryan Caplan does not hate the State.

[@bumpercoach]

does he believe we can print our way out of debt by just creating more money

[@salokin3087]

When has he ever said that?

[@fizzled95]

I'm all for anyone who wants to come to live here and assimilate to do so. I also believe that the process to become an American citizen should be relaxed and easier. At the same time, there should be a process where a background check is done. I would be upset if I found a convicted murderer, pedophile, or worse living next to me (or be listed on a public website as they do now) and committed another crime while living here. I just can't go into Canada or a European country and just live. There's a legal process to do so. And yes, dismantle the welfare programs.

[@robertbrandywine]

So you don't believe in open borders.

[@fizzled95]

Open? No. Easy to become a citizen if you're productive, do not want to mooch off the taxpayer, and are not a danger to others? Yes.

[@AcidiFy574]

@@fizzled95 It's not your money

[@asoka7752]

how do you defined convicted? and by whom? what if north korea convicted someone as a murderer? do you believe such judgement?

[@highontaiwan]

I think the biggest problem with open borders is the influx in workers willing to work for less pay that would make it harder for US citizens to find employment. It would be great for the mega-corporations but not so great for American poor people.

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

Exactly, it forces wages down for everyone. Reason doesn't really care about that though.

[@towardcivicliteracy]

@@robertortiz-wilson1588 He addresses this. And, it's not true. Immigrants DO NOT decrease native wages. There are a few studies that show a very small effect, on the very lowest end of the marginal labor spectrum (like menial jobs that Americans don't take, except out of desperation). You fail to understand that the same workers who come here consume things in the economy that create jobs for others. And, also, you're ignoring the fact that immigrants are disproportionately entrepreneurial, and actually are far more likely than Americans to create jobs. In other words, by focusing solely on wages, rather than all of the various effects of immigration, you're making the elementary economics "piece of the pie" fallacy--you're acting as if there's a set number of jobs or a set pool of wages that will be diminished by people coming here. Weirdly, if you applied that to fellow American workers, you would be arguing that workers that come up from South Carolina to North Carolina (a richer state) are "stealing jobs" or "decreasing wages" of North Carolinians. It's completely incoherent, and just not true.

[@skjporkchop]

I think that the libertarian disregard for government has to also incorporate some realism. The existent of the state is unfortunately necessary, and a state can only efficently function with borders and some level of control over the flow of people coming in and out. Open borders may be great in an ideal world, but at present it poses a lot of dangers. I'm not against immigration, I would like to see less strict rules and regulations regarding immigration, but annihilating borders is a bit far in my opinion.

[@witnessgem2504]

@Pimp My Ditch Witch what exactly is the difference when you do not enforce your borders?

[@BeaverChainsaw]

I dont think the world is ready for annihilating borders as great as it sounds though. There will be too many political issues to arise from that. European democracies and the US political landscape has already changed drastically and mostly for the worst from a large flow of migrants from the backlash and scapegoating. Right wing fascism has fed upon xenophobia and we shouldn't give it more fuel. Also an overflow of too many immigrants may temporarily strain welfare and social security programs as well as resources and infrastructure. Controlled but easier immigration is the better solution.

[@Romeo-le2ez]

Read Hoppe.

[@maybe_3374]

if the borders of the government are open, does this mean that citizenship will no longer be needed?

[@progste]

9:40 the us welfare state is indeed so generous that it's breaking the bank, just look at your debt.

[@Floccini]

It mostly goes to old people.

[@homewall744]

I agree we are now over-spending by $1 trillion dollars (meaning for the dems who want to eat billionaires out of envy and coveting their wealth) each year, meaning we'd have to consume 1000 US billionaires EVERY YEAR in order to just break even. But, our debt is not due to welfare, but to the military industrial complex, government jobs, debt servicing and of course taxation that is insufficient to meet those expenses.

[@progste]

@@Floccini whether that's true or not it doesn't change how unsustaibable it is.

[@progste]

@@homewall744 more than half of the expense is from welfare and the burocracy it requires.

[@mtgonzales]

Biggest expenditures by far are SS, Medicare, and Military.

[@FedUpSouthernGirl]

Pre-1920 was a completely different world in a ridiculous number of ways, but perhaps most importantly among the differences is the role that family played in taking care of (housing, food, shelter, and daily care) the elderly within the population. Social security, section 8 housing......none of that is happening pre-1920. Charities were relied upon to assist with caring for those whose families were unable and that was if you were living in a place big enough to actually have a charity within its city limits. To say that a nation which is in debt by the trillions can continue to take on millions of immigrants both legally and illegally and expect that the culture will just continue as it has, as if people from different regions can just be swapped out for American stock, is ridiculous. The saying "We are all pink on the inside" seeks to make an assertion that you could put anyone on this soil and they will magically become as successful as those who built the country. If that were indeed the case, you would see places like London staying the same after taking on millions of foreign migrants. Britain is a great example of how you cannot simply bring in millions of people who are given access to a socialized Healthcare program. The NHS has gone to shit

[@starsine9062]

It’s not really about whether ideas do or don’t work. It’s the social cost of trying to make them work, and what sacrifice/ trade off are you willing to make to enact the idea. 👨🏾‍💻👐🏾

[@Bahamut3525]

The social cost is the nations themselves. It's an insanely brutal idea. It's basically a form of capitalist colonialism.

[@Lee_Adamson_OCF]

Culture matters. This guy is unhinged.

[@MrJjjd1]

Oh? So you NEED to "protect" a CULTure built on lies, genocide, slavery, forced sterilization/abortion, murder, torture, non stop wars, being the inspiration for Nazi laws, etc? *Today's Anti-Immigration Script Was Written 100 Years Ago by America's Elite* m.kzbin.info/www/bejne/jaqwqXWvaaeXq9k *"Eugenics, the set of beliefs and practices which aims at improving the genetic quality of the human population[2][3] played a significant role in the history and culture of the United States prior to its involvement in World War II.[4]* Eugenics was practiced in the United States many years before eugenics programs in Nazi Germany[5] and U.S. programs provided much of the inspiration for the latter.[6][7][8] Stefan Kühl has documented the consensus between Nazi race policies and those of eugenicists in other countries, including the United States, and points out that eugenicists understood Nazi policies and measures as the realization of their goals and demands.[9] During the Progressive Era of the late 19th and early 20th century, eugenics was considered a method of preserving and improving the dominant groups in the population; it is now generally associated with racist and nativist elements (as the movement was to some extent a reaction to a change in emigration from Europe) rather than scientific genetics." *"Immigration restrictions* *The Immigration Restriction League was the first American entity associated officially with eugenics. Founded in 1894 by three recent Harvard University graduates, the League sought to bar what it considered inferior races from entering America and diluting what it saw as the superior American racial stock (upper class Northerners of Anglo-Saxon heritage). They felt that social and sexual involvement with these less-evolved and less-civilized races would pose a biological threat to the American population. The League lobbied for a literacy test for immigrants, based on the belief that literacy rates were low among “inferior races”. Literacy test bills were vetoed by Presidents in 1897, 1913 and 1915; eventually, President Wilson’s second veto was overruled by Congress in 1917. Membership in the League included: A. Lawrence Lowell, president of Harvard, William DeWitt Hyde, president of Bowdoin College, James T. Young, director of Wharton School and David Starr Jordan, president of Stanford University.[40]"* *"With the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924, eugenicists for the first time played an important role in the Congressional debate as expert advisers on the threat of “inferior stock” from eastern and southern Europe.[42] *The new act, inspired by the eugenic belief in the racial superiority of “old stock” white Americans as members of the “Nordic race” (a form of white supremacy),* strengthened the position of existing laws prohibiting race-mixing.[43] Eugenic considerations also lay behind the adoption of incest laws in much of the U.S. and were used to justify many anti-miscegenation laws.[44]" *Eugenics in the United States* courses.lumenlearning.com/culturalanthropology/chapter/eugenics-in-the-united-states/ "The Guarded Gate, which tells the tells the story of the scientists who argued that certain nationalities were inherently inferior, providing the intellectual justification for the harshest immigration law in American history. Brandished by the upper class Bostonians and New Yorkers-many of them progressives-who led the anti-immigration movement, the eugenic arguments helped keep hundreds of thousands of Jews, Italians, and other unwanted groups out of the US for more than 40 years. What was the Chinese Restriction Act? What is eugenics? When was eugenics applied to certain racial groups? Who was Samuel Gompers? What scientific reasoning did eugenists use? Did the Nazi’s follow American scientists? What does eugenics and birth control have in common?" *Eugenics and the immigration act of 1924* www.libertarianism.org/podcasts/free-thoughts/eugenics-origin-anti-immigration Just how long have you been an amoral, psychopathic, eugenics believing Satanist who is so malignantly selfish you would justify any crime against anyone as long as YOU get what your government literally programs your mind to want?

[@friedrich7891]

Reason and Immigration (with Bryan Caplan), I am already excited by the number of dislikes ^^

[@joshuahand407]

Milton Friedman was always quoting the moral argument, not the economic one. I find it hard to believe he erred on this topic. Even God put borders on Eden.

[@MRCKify]

Were there any borders before the rib incident? Maybe it was the whole world.

[@joshuahand407]

@@MRCKify the rib incident?

[@MRCKify]

@@joshuahand407 Sorry I guess I read your OP like we were talking. My comment was a shot at Eden; I was asking if you have considered that Eden could have covered the entire world, wrapping it pole to pole, before the rib incident ... ... .. ... ... ... The creation of Eve. Anyway, after the apple, an omnipotent being could have with-"drawn" his placid Garden like pulling an overhanging tablecloth up at the center until a fraction of the cloth covers the table. After all, Eru Ilúvatar bent the world round. Edit: Adam was walking around the Garden of Eden looking mopey, so God asked Adam, "What is wrong with you?" Adam said he didn't have anyone to talk to. God said he was going to give him a companion and it would be a woman. He said, "This person will cook for you and wash your clothes. She will always agree with every decision you make. She will bear your children and never ask you to get up in the middle of the night to take care of them. She will not nag you and will always be the first to admit she was wrong when you've had a disagreement. She will never have a headache and will freely give you love and passion whenever needed." Adam asked God, "Gosh, what will a wonder like this cost?" God said, "An arm and a leg." Adam said, "What can I get for just a rib?"

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

His argument starting at 7:33 is one of the most clueless things I've ever heard. It's honestly one of the dumbest arguments I hear certain types of Libertarians make. Yes, American citizens collectively own the government. That's not a form of socialism, or a violation of libertarian principles unless you're his type of brain dead libertarian that unintentionally advocates for no country at all, that's just how it works. The legal citizens who collectively own the government, have with them a government that constitutionally holds the power to protect citizenship, citizens, and decide who gets to come into the country like an individual can choose who gets to come into their house. There is absolutely nothing incoherent or "silly" about that argument whatsoever. That's currently how it works now, that's how it's always worked, and that's how it should always work.

[@MrSnek-mj2pj]

I support open borders... For Israel

[@tomforsythe7024]

Remember the Sack of Rome? The immigrants sided with the enemy.

[@germar9769]

Your best argument against open borders is something that happened 1500 years ago? I suppose next you're going to say that all rats should be exterminated to prevent the next plague.

[@tomforsythe7024]

@@germar9769 Human nature hasn't changed. Do you think Mexicans feel any loyalty to America and its people?

[@tomforsythe7024]

@Marc T I am talking about the Goths siding with the Visigoths, against their Roman hosts.

[@Landern11]

Rome was the enemy. They conquered land, and restricted freedom.

[@tomforsythe7024]

@@Landern11 And how do you think Mexicans feel about the US?

[@In0god0we0trust]

Without actually seeing how he got his numbers it's just an idea, rather than an argument. Am curious to see whether he separated out the numbers for immigrants from nations of similar cultural backgrounds. E.g. the UK, Canada, Australia, ect; or just lumped everyone together under the category "immigrant", and to see the subsequent change in effect sizes you'd get from doing so. Assuming there is a difference, one 'keyhole solution' might be to have completely free and reciprocal immigration agreements with culturally similar nations like the UK, Canada and Australia; and highly restricted immigration with the rest of the world, outside of exceptional circumstances.

[@richardshipe4576]

He writes about keyhole solutions thoroughly in his book, and includes his sources of which dedicated pages are *thick* with references you can follow up on if you actually want to give your comment any substance.

[@thedude2867]

This guys doctorate should be revoked. He is absolutely not an economist. Open borders goes beyond economics. You definitely can't have a welfare system and open borders. His ideas are being proven wrong in Belgium, Sweden and Germany.

[@dr.redpill353]

YEEEEEPPP . . .Truth You speak with Iron in your words. leftist white privilege socialists do not speak with this Iron.

[@grimspound7981]

The working class of each respective country should have a BIG SAY when it comes to immigration! Don’t forget that!!!

[@forbes4007]

This discussion of the consequences of open borders or free immigration, in addition to a welfare state, can honestly be observed already. We just have to take a look at Californian Sanctuary cities. If you want to discuss the empirical evidence of open border policies drastically affecting the culture/ philosophy of the US, then we can just look at the impact that influxes of migration of Californians has on Texas. I am very much for immigration, but the idea that unchecked/uncontrolled inflow of migration, in addition to a welfare state is a net positive seems to be a bit of a reach.

[@lights473]

I get you already put a disclaimer that you support immigration, but you've adopted propaganda spouted by the anti-immigration statists. You said you want to discuss empirical evidence then let's. It is dishonest to say we have a open borders or "free immigration" in the US considering it takes fewer immigrants per capita than most other western countries annually. The sanctuary cities doesn't even support your argument. Sanctuary cities have better economies and lower crime than comparable non-sanctuary cities. The facts show that immigrants, illegal and legal, commit less crime than native born citizens. The ol California argument just never dies. Most homeless people in California are citizens, not immigrants. And California prior to the 1990s was red not because of immigration restrictions but because Republicans weren't as anti-immigration as they are now. Hispanics before the 1990s voting bloc was a mix of democrats and republicans but after the 1990s when Republicans started adopting nativist and anti-immigration rhetoric into their campaigns, they drove away Hispanic voters and this nativist sentiment is still felt to this day by Hispanic voters. It's Republicans and their anti-immigration stance that drive away immigrants and their descendents, not open immigration. If you treat people as your enemy, then they'll see you as their enemy. You know America was open borders before the 1920s? Immigration used to be entirely a state and local matter. It wasn't until world war 1 that the federal government started regulating and central planning immigration. Nowhere on the constitution was this power even granted to them. They had to get the supreme court to decide this power. And because of their central planning and regulations on immigration, our immigration system became a bureaucratic disaster with people both abroad and Americans at home suffering from immigration restrictions. We literally become poorer when we restrict immigration. American citizens consume welfare more than immigrants. Illegal immigrants can't even consume federal welfare so they're actually an even smaller cost. Overall even with welfare, immigrants are a net benefit to our economy and virtually no economist even disputes this. Your problem is with the welfare state, not immigrants.

[@Bahamut3525]

"but the idea that unchecked/uncontrolled inflow of migration, in addition to a welfare state is a net positive seems to be a bit of a reach." A welfare state, a socialist state, cannot work without borders and a regulated population that contributes to the system through its labor. You simply cannot let in unlimited amount of humans into a social system, money doesn't grow on trees and comes from the labor force. In fact this is the very reason we in Europe have systems that are imploding and skyrocketing debt. Because currently we don't put enough into the system, compared to what it gives, a large part of that is the enormous amount of unskilled immigrants which pump the system. You would be surprised how much you get the second you arrive in a country like France or Germany, without even being a citizen.

[@stormtroopavk81]

The arguments he presents in this interview are completely non sequitur. Apples and oranges every time.

[@daveBit15]

You mean the arguments he presents do not align with your bias? Yeah, I thought so.

[@cedricpod]

his arguments are disconcerting but largely well thought out

[@daveBit15]

@Eugene Stoner Nothing in Bryan Caplan's books is "utopian." I bet you've never read this book, or any other authored by him.

[@daveBit15]

@Eugene Stoner What "utopian fantasy"? READ THE DAMN BOOK.

[@daveBit15]

@Eugene Stoner Alexander Hamilton was an ambitious statist. I have no respect for anything he wrote. Your appeal to authority is pointless with me, because in my eyes Hamilton has ZERO credibility.

[@fuxluck1]

Just do it! It will make itself abundantly clear why it is not a good idea on its own. These people are not going to just show up and start a job that same afternoon! What are we going to do with maybe tens of thousands of people every week? Who will support them until the can get going on their own? Where is the money going to come from? Oh yeah....ME!

[@holdmybeer123]

Open borders and welfare state cannot go hand in hand UNLESS immigrants are exempted from receiving welfare. I agree with Dr. Milton here. But in any case, welfare states will run dry themselves, it's just matter of time.

[@SurdeInglaterr]

immigrants do pay taxes to the state, people coming increases the wealth of the country, welfare should work more than fine.

[@Pentazoid111]

You know miltion freedman also said this: If you have free immigration, in the way we had it before 1914, everybody benefited. The people who were here benefited. The people who came benefited. Because nobody would come unless he, or his family, thought he would do better here than he would elsewhere. And, the new immigrants provided additional resources, provided additional possibilities for the people already here. So everybody can mutually benefit. But on the other hand, if you come under circumstances where each person is entitled to a pro-rata share of the pot, to take an extreme example, or even to a low level of the pie, than the effect of that situation is that free immigration, would mean a reduction of everybody to the same, uniform level. Of course, I’m exaggerating, it wouldn’t go quite that far, but it would go in that direction. And it is that perception, that leads people to adopt what at first seems like inconsistent values. Look, for example, at the obvious, immediate, practical example of illegal Mexican immigration. Now, that Mexican immigration, over the border, is a good thing. It’s a good thing for the illegal immigrants. It’s a good thing for the United States. It’s a good thing for the citizens of the country. But, it’s only good so long as its illegal.

[@davidcockayne3381]

I live in a small, former mining community in the UK. The pit was closed in the 1990s. As a way of offsetting increased unemployment and social breakdown, the government re-developed the site for small manufacturing and warehousing. However, thanks to the policy of the then Labour government of opening borders to new EU countries, the bulk of the new jobs went to Polish and Lithuanian citizens recruited directly from their home countries. They were employed at minimum wage and below, and under oppressive working conditions. The population of the village increased by some 25% over 2-3 years. This led to considerable resentment among local people, including some conflict with the new arrivals. But the lasting resentment is against the company which had profited from the open border policy, and especially against the government for failing to ensure new jobs went primarily to local people. In 2016, the local people voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU, something repeated across communities in the UK with similar expereinces. My objection to open borders, then, is: 1. it disadvantages disempowered local working class communities; 2. it advantages exploitative, unprincipled employers; 3. it engenders inter-communal conflict; 4. it undermines existing low-levels of trust in the political system and leads to support for populists of both left and right. All this to salve the consciences of the metropolitan middle-classes.

[@MRCKify]

Your avatar is Adam Smith, right?

[@davidcockayne3381]

@@MRCKify Indeed: "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." Wealth of Nations I.X

[@ChristianWagner888]

Interesting that you have had so many issues with Polish and Lithuanian immigrants who generally integrate and assimilate mnore easily due to similar culture. Do you still have the same problems with these immigrants after 25 years? I agree with your four objections against open borders and I think the problems become much more severe when the migrants are unwilling to learn the language and unwilling to assimilate, because they resent European and local national culture. Germany received about 3 million Russian-German migrants with minimal issues since the 1990s, but millions of Turks and Arabs, especially the recent wave of 2 million young Muslim male 'refugees' have caused inter-communal conflict and undermined any residual trust in the political system. Obviously corporations have been able to keep wages lower due to the influx, even though most of the recent migrants are unemployed.

[@davidcockayne3381]

@@ChristianWagner888 I have no issues at all with Poles or Lithuanians. I Lived in Poland for a year and admire their national tenacity in the face of numerous invasions. I also don't blame anyone for wanting to migrate in order to improve their lot. But host countries have a duty to regulate their borders in the interests of the national community. My four-points remain true irrespective of the nationality of the newcomers. My issue is with rapacious capitalists, pusillanimous politicians and, especially, virtue-signalling bourgoise leftists who regard anyone who challenges them as some kind of xenophobic retard. I take your point regarding integration, especially in the wake of yesterday's terrorist attack in London. I have lived in multi-racial areas in the UK without difficulty simply because my neighbours, including Muslims, were invested in our society - economically and socially. I worked in West Germany in 1989 just before the wall came down. I have to say that my Wessie colleagues often had unkind things to say about their oppressed Ossie brothers and sisters; I was shocked. Also, it was not difficult to predict what was going to happen in Germany when Mutti opened up the floodgates. Great virtue signalling, poor policy. I often wonder if it was a factor in persuading many Brits to vote Leave.

[@MRCKify]

What do you suppose would have happened if the site went onto the market for any interested private parties?

[@LiverpoolRubi]

No we want America to be American

[@Trid3nt861]

People for open borders: " NO WALLS OR BORDERS, those people are just coming to get a better life" Sensible people: "Yes, no gates or doors or windows for gated liberal and progressive communities. Let criminals and others find improvement and embetterment in their communities" people for open borders: "Wait but that is illegal. Can't they get embetterment in your neighborhoods and town far away from ours?" Sensible people: "Are you a hypocrite? Didn't you virtue signal and say that open borders are good and people illegally entering a country are just seeking better lives but yet when that same method is applied to your communities and homes, then all of a sudden you start backpedaling and making excuses. Anyone entering your home whether they are criminals or illegals are just trying to improve their lives right?" people for open borders: "Rules for thee none for me"

[@tiavor]

you don't need open borders to have a ordered immigration that picks out people that actually want to work and have the talent. only big companies and those who come inside gain anything.

[@MRCKify]

Do the customers of big companies gain anything? What about the little company? When an entrepreneur suddenly can afford a few extra hands, isn't this a gain in the firm's productivity?

[@tiavor]

I'm talking about illegal work. do you support slavery too?

[@MRCKify]

@@tiavor Are you serious or do you just not understand how your strawman makes you look ridiculous? I believe natural rights theory supports exercising any liberty you'd have if you lived in a stateless society. Any immorality - like theft, murder and slavery - would be just as immoral in a "state of nature" and you'll notice that governments have a spotty record of either prosecuting or refraining from supporting the same immoralities. Can you believe in a right to free association and still believe the government can restrict who you can hire?

[@jccusell]

This man has definitely not lived in Europe.

[@jeb_bush6129]

No, we don't have open borders in Europe, and no migrants haven't "ruined" Europe.

[@purikurix]

Jeb_Bush Internally Europe has open borders already and the system „didn‘t collapse“, though there are very large economic and cultural differences between the countries (compare Germany and Romania for example; maybe similar of a difference like the US and Mexico have). Most members seem to have become wealthier. However, the single currency probably causes some problems. Non-EU citizens have a hard time entering the EU.

[@hoju510]

His name is Kaplan, a jew. Of course he wants open borders for the US.

[@MrJjjd1]

@@hoju510 and YOU must be a NWO Satanist, the same kind who created anti immigration laws you border worshippers love so much, based on eugenics, the 4th tenet of Satanism! *Today's Anti-Immigration Script Was Written 100 Years Ago by America's Elite* m.kzbin.info/www/bejne/jaqwqXWvaaeXq9k *"Eugenics, the set of beliefs and practices which aims at improving the genetic quality of the human population[2][3] played a significant role in the history and culture of the United States prior to its involvement in World War II.[4]* *Eugenics was practiced in the United States many years before eugenics programs in Nazi Germany[5] and U.S. programs provided much of the inspiration for the latter.[6][7][8] Stefan Kühl has documented the consensus between Nazi race policies and those of eugenicists in other countries, including the United States, and points out that eugenicists understood Nazi policies and measures as the realization of their goals and demands.[9]* *During the Progressive Era of the late 19th and early 20th century, eugenics was considered a method of preserving and improving the dominant groups in the population; it is now generally associated with racist and nativist elements (as the movement was to some extent a reaction to a change in emigration from Europe) rather than scientific genetics."* *"Immigration restrictions* *The Immigration Restriction League was the first American entity associated officially with eugenics. Founded in 1894 by three recent Harvard University graduates, the League sought to bar what it considered inferior races from entering America and diluting what it saw as the superior American racial stock (upper class Northerners of Anglo-Saxon heritage). They felt that social and sexual involvement with these less-evolved and less-civilized races would pose a biological threat to the American population. The League lobbied for a literacy test for immigrants, based on the belief that literacy rates were low among “inferior races”. Literacy test bills were vetoed by Presidents in 1897, 1913 and 1915; eventually, President Wilson’s second veto was overruled by Congress in 1917. Membership in the League included: A. Lawrence Lowell, president of Harvard, William DeWitt Hyde, president of Bowdoin College, James T. Young, director of Wharton School and David Starr Jordan, president of Stanford University.[40]"* "With the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924, eugenicists for the first time played an important role in the Congressional debate as expert advisers on the threat of “inferior stock” from eastern and southern Europe.[42] *The new act, inspired by the eugenic belief in the racial superiority of “old stock” white Americans as members of the “Nordic race” (a form of white supremacy),* strengthened the position of existing laws prohibiting race-mixing.[43] Eugenic considerations also lay behind the adoption of incest laws in much of the U.S. and were used to justify many anti-miscegenation laws.[44]" *Eugenics in the United States* courses.lumenlearning.com/culturalanthropology/chapter/eugenics-in-the-united-states/ "The Guarded Gate, which tells the tells the story of the scientists who argued that certain nationalities were inherently inferior, providing the intellectual justification for the harshest immigration law in American history. Brandished by the upper class Bostonians and New Yorkers-many of them progressives-who led the anti-immigration movement, the eugenic arguments helped keep hundreds of thousands of Jews, Italians, and other unwanted groups out of the US for more than 40 years. What was the Chinese Restriction Act? What is eugenics? When was eugenics applied to certain racial groups? Who was Samuel Gompers? What scientific reasoning did eugenists use? Did the Nazi’s follow American scientists? What does eugenics and birth control have in common?" *Eugenics and the immigration act of 1924* www.libertarianism.org/podcasts/free-thoughts/eugenics-origin-anti-immigration

[@salokin3087]

What exactly happened? Crime has declined in most EU countries

[@jmiogo]

Shocked that a comic book is inadequate.

[@kevinreynold5590]

I am waiting his opinion regarding Open Borders For Israel..oh wait

[@gwbagent]

I've seen Bryan Kaplan in debates contradict himself in this immigration platform. As conservative libertarian borders & immigration restrictions are necessary evil in order to neutralize the big government policies.

[@_smirk_]

Early life

[@Blitzinity]

Every single time.