Great response. You should re-publish the comment as a regular post on the main site page.

I must take issue, however, with the general tone of many of those posting here, because it mirrors a tone which I think turns many off of libertarian ideals. Too many want to lump all those who have qualms about open borders in with the reprehensible statements of the anti-immigration activist:

“But let’s be a bit more specific: let Elaine Proko , an anti-immigration activist speak for the nays:”

I’m sorry, Dan, but it is just as bad for you to tag every person who is opposed to illegal immigration and open borders with the words of Ms. Proko, so shame on you for that particular piece, even if I agree with your distaste of Ms. Proko and others like her.

My own personal belief is that most people who have serious doubts about immigration aren’t racist. They are more culturalist than anything else, in that they are concerned about the impact on the culture which they know and are comfortable with. All waves of immigration have changed the culture, and that is why you had opposition to European culture earlier in our history. Any new immigration will shift cultural norms, and people get nervous about that. I personally love latino culture, food, etc., having spent time in Latin America, so I’m very much in favor of a cultural shift, but not everyone is as comfortable with it as I am, and there will always be some resistance.

Now, that doesn’t mean that those people can’t be persuaded to the benefits of immigration, if those of us who believe in open borders spend our time educating and persuading, instead of calling them all racists. Funny how that rarely accomplishes the goal of changing hearts and minds…

On the topic of immigration generally, I have a couple of thoughts. I am in favor of much higher numbers of immigrants allowed, and I am in favor of making it much more of a first-come, first-serve process, so that the government isn’t trying to pick who will make the “best” Americans. I am not in favor of simply granting amnesty to those who came illegally, however, because the one part of latino culture that I am a little wary of is that respect for the rule of law is not nearly as strong in Latin America as it is here, and I think that forgiving lawlessness on the part of those who immigrated illegally will allow the rule of law to be further degraded in our country. That is troublesome to me because I think that an efficient market requires a respect for the rule of law. I also think that a country has a legitimate reason to want to conduct a basic screening on those who want to enter (very basic, I might add).

So, here’s my proposal. Declare that we will soon be increasing the number of legal immigrants allowed into the country every year ten-fold, one hundred-fold, or even higher, and that the process will be simplified so that the hoops to jump through will be far less onerous (I’m thinking that a four month wait for approval should be possible). Declare also that anyone currently in the country illegally can leave right now and get in line to be re-admitted as legal immigrants, without any penalty for having come illegally in the first place, but only if they leave and return to their country or origin prior to a date certain. Anyone remaining in the country after that date certain will be unable to ever obtain citizenship. Declare also that a high-tech fence will be built along the entire southern border of the Country, thus making crossing illegally much more difficult.

Under such a program, everyone would have the proper incentives to jump through the hoops to enter, thus increasing respect for the rule of law. Increase negative incentives (higher costs of sneaking in) and decrease costs of entering legally (MUCH higher limits on legal immigration and reduced complexity of the application process). We would also know who is entering, which would calm those who have legitimate national security concerns.

Yikes. Sadly, it’s not just 8th graders who feel that way. I know actual, living, breathing, adult humans who share similar feelings.

All this aside, I still don’t think that the tuba belongs in any respectable music that’s not played in a chamber…

I actually think your example about the German and Irish immigrants works in Dan’s favor.

His point (as I understood it) is that you can’t call today’s European immigrants the “stupid drunks”…it’s only the “Mexicans” (as Dan described this term) which receive that sort of welcome today. Essentially, today’s Mexican’s are treated like the stupid drunks of 200 years ago.

More to the point, although there was animosity between citizens and early immigrants, there was never the automatic assumption (which we have today against Latinos) that they had no right to be here. Not liking someone and calling them a stupid drunk is far different from seeking legislative action against their ability to exist in a geographic region.

“Would they be just as angry at the competition if it were of European origin?”

I think yes. During the big Ellis Island immigration times, there were plenty of people who were angry at German and Irish immigrants. They were constantly referred to as stupid drunks.

That statement from the anti-immigration activist is hilarious…and tragic. I need to do another post about some of the other issues we talked about on the phone the other night.

@ Ryan-

I’m sure exceptions abound, but off the top of my head, I’m finding that (in my world view) inefficient and immoral often go hand in hand. Admittedly, this is MY version of morality, which many others find despicable, but…

@ Dan Weston…

I think you’d find you and I agree on much more than you expect. Given your dislike for me-too-ism, I will now logically conclude from here on out that if you don’t comment on something I say, you agree in full.

…(passed out on the floor)…

It distresses me to be in complete agreement with you for once, and normally I abstain from me-too-ism. It’s like when you say something and I reply, “Isn’t it, though?”, meaning effectively that I like what you said so much that I am going to retroactively steal credit for it. I hope there is credit enough to go around on this one.

I second Ryan’s point even more. You had us at “immoral”. That should be sufficient self-interest for any human being.