> Salam adds, as Milton Friedman noted, that open borders are incompatible with a generous social safety net.

And Paul Krugman agrees with that as well.

Of course, I suspect that while Krugman favors generous social safety net Friedman did not and favored open borders, but I am not sure about Friedman's view.

Krugman has written about this in https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/the-curious-politics-of-immigration/ but I wonder if he would still agree.

"When we colonized the 3rd world we enriched them with legal systems, hygiene, medicine, roads, and technology.

Thus far their colonization of our lands has enriched us with rape gangs, mass welfare dependency, genital mutilation, terrorism, and fast food laced with botulism"

https://twitter.com/TOOAJoyce/status/1065897430175178753

If Salam can't figure out that Trump didn't build his short political career by demonizing immigrants then how perceptive can his observations be? This isn't complicated. But I guess NR can't give up the neverTrumping.

We shouldn’t invite or have people into our home until such a time as it is in order and prepared. Close all immigration until America settles her affairs.

We have homeless, veterans, inner city youth and widows to care for.

https://twitter.com/ali/status/1066895371044102144

"We have homeless, veterans, inner city youth and widows to care for."

...and nothing is going to change for them either. People don't want to help anyone because it may take something away from them. I agree we have people right here (no matter where you are from or at) that need help before we help others, but its not like we are going to solve either problem, or even try.

Not believing in government "borders" isn't advocating for "open borders". You have to believe something exists to call for it to be opened.

I believe in property rights, and borderism is a violation of private property rights and of the right of association.

Government can't own anything. Everything government possesses was either stolen or "bought" with stolen/counterfeited money. A thief doesn't own the ill-gotten goods he possesses. So government has no claim to any land, and certainly has no claim to your land, just because it lies inside the tax farm.

There is no such thing as "immigration" anyway. It's just people moving about. Every person on the planet is either where they have a right to be, through ownership, an arrangement with the owner, or because the property is unowned ("public land" or government land)-- or they are trespassing. If they are on your property without permission, kick them off. If they are on your neighbor's property with permission it's none of your business.

The fact that people moving around causes problems for your socialist welfare [sic] system is a refutation of that system, not a reason to demand a big-government "border security" welfare program.

If they are on your property without permission, kick them off. If they are on your neighbor's property with permission it's none of your business. ~ Kent McManigal at November 26, 2018 7:47 AM

Sure, don't help your neighbor secure his property. And then don't be surprised when he refuses to help you secure yours.

The reason borders (and nations) exist is people got together and agreed to live under the same set of laws, whether through culture, conquest, or convenience.

Property rights exist only because laws are enforced collectively. Otherwise, the better-armed party wins any property dispute.

Salam advocates a more selective, skill-based immigration system and--breaking from Republican orthodoxy--"large-scale amnesty followed by resolute enforcement."

That was EXACTLY Republican orthodoxy under Ronald Reagan, hero of the GOP.

Has this writer never heard of the Simpson-Mazzoli Act of 1986?

To add to what Kevin said: The trust ship has sailed. "This will absolutely positively be the last amnesty, we really really really mean it this time" isn't going to fly. That promise has been broken repeatedly. We now see through the ruling class' blatantly transparent motivations...

"a permanent underclass of people who are isolated from society's mainstream, stuck in low-wage occupations, and in some cases dependent on welfare for survival."

And will reliably vote Left, because that's where their checks and their entertainment and their information comes from. Not to mention serving as an ultra-cheap source of labor for the Left's enterprises.

"Helping Mexico and Central America succeed economically would be a step in the right direction."

The only way to do that at this point is to colonize them. We already know how well that would go over. The ruling class does not want that. Having a dysfunctional near-failed state on our border suits the ruling class' purposes. If they can figure out how to transform Canada into a failed state, they'll do that too.

I agree with most of your analysis Cousin Dave, it's ironic then that this new permanent underclass votes reliably left, because it was big business that wanted again and again to bring in temp workers and migrant workers when Democrats opposed it.

it was big business that wanted again and again to bring in temp workers and migrant workers when Democrats opposed it

That was back when the Democrats actually cared about the Little Guy, and didn't want to see their wages depressed. Once they got on the socialism kick, that changed: a dependable addition to the Free Shit Army who will vote for the person or party offering the most free shit.

The US Chamber of Commerce is still in favor of open borders. What was that remark? the capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them?

I'll restate that in order for any person to legally obtain employment, they must be documented and have a tax payer ID. If they do not have such ID, then they're either a) committing identity fraud, or b) working under the table for cash. The latter means that the employer is skimping on paying for workman's comp and unemployment insurance, not to mention the FICA taxes.

Turns out, it's rather expensive to hire a legal employee.

I'm against immigration for humanitarian reasons. CNN and other leftists have convinced me that the US is the most racist and rape centered country, currently being led by someone worse than Hitler. It is my moral duty to be sure that no one enters this country let alone women and children.

...it was big business that wanted again and again to bring in temp workers and migrant workers when Democrats opposed it. ~ jerry at November 26, 2018 12:59 PM

Interesting old newspaper clipping I came across the other day:

In 1975, when US president Gerald Ford asked California to accept ... Vietnamese refugees, then-Governor Jerry Brown too him to drop dead. Brown's argument was "We can't be looking 5,000 miles away and at the same time neglecting people who live here."

And then he threatened to block refugee flights into Travis Air Force Base, just outside San Francisco.

But that was back when refugees were fierce anti-Communists who voted Republican.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6855407

If you want an eye-opener, search Quora for responses to questions like 'why do people in Central and South America illegally migrate to the US?'.

You'll find a lot of responses by educated people in those countries that are pretty consistent in their characterization of the situation..

1. These are not typical Mexicans, Hondurans, Salvadorans, etc. - they are poor and unsophisticated people who've been fed a fantasy of what life is like in America. American TV shows are often blamed.

2. That these people are not prepared for life in the US, especially in the cities they gravitate to, and have poor job, wage, and quality of life prospects.

3. Illegal immigration is a bad idea that is likely to leave you is a desperate situation you may not be able to get out of.

What's also interesting is that while many of thee folks are critical of the US, they don't tend to have any patience for the claim that the US is somehow obligated to allow illegal immigration. Their perspective is largely that illegal immigrants are being exploited by local conmen and employers and landlords in the US.

Jerry, a thought occurs to me: If Caesar Chavez were still alive, would he be aghast? Or would he be laughing his ass off?

The problem with "large scale amnesty followed by resolute enforcement" is that we never seem to get the enforcement. I suggest we make amnesty conditional on enforcement. Perhaps something like this:

If you have been in the US for at least a year without permission, and have committed no crimes against person or property, you can report another illegal to the ICE. If they catch and deport him, you get a green card. If he doesn't really exist, or is actually a legal citizen, you get deported.

The problem with "large scale amnesty followed by resolute enforcement" is that we never seem to get the enforcement. I suggest we make amnesty conditional on enforcement. ~ Rex Little at November 27, 2018 7:55 AM

I'm still waiting for the "resolute enforcement" promised in exchange for the Reagan-era amnesty. I won't hold my breath.