Imigration in America

[kandrathe]

So why not just abolish the line? Everyone gets in, the market reaches an equilibrium on its own, and nobody has to break any laws. The poorest no longer have to trust coyotes to sneak them across the border. Employers no longer have to break the law to employ mutually beneficial labour. People who followed the existing process lose nothing. Migrants would be much easier to keep track of, since they no longer have to fear any contact with the government.

Do you know any nation where entirely open borders has been tried? Let's petition this to begin in Canada, and the EU first. The main reason why every free nation has somewhat strict controls on immigration, but hardly any controls on emigration would be to place a reasonable hurdle to prevent abuse (e.g. criminal enterprises).

Sometimes, the way to stop people from breaking laws is to abolish the laws they were breaking. Who does migration harm? Do the benefits outweigh the costs? I think the answer there is overwhelmingly yes.

That depends on the ratio of producers to moochers, and how much the State offers in social welfare to all comers. Remove the socialistic benefits, and this scheme might work. For example, one impact locally, is that some of our schools are teaching children who speak over 60 different languages. How does that impact their education, the cost of education, and the education of the non-immigrant children? It most surely helps with diversity, but has harmed the staples (reading, writing, math) which are the pathway to successful careers. There are strong libertarian reasons for unrestricted immigration, but that presupposes a lack of interference by the State. Since we have a socialistic welfare state, open immigration would be a ready siphon from the producers to those who would surely come to feed at the abundantly filled trough of government purloined riches.

How do you offset an aging population? With young workers. Where might you find a willing pool of young workers, eager to take cheap jobs? Migrants. It's a gigantic gift of free labour, children you didn't have to raise or educate, coming to work in your country anyway. And, when they make their money, the majority will head back home, where they can live cheaply and support their families.

I'm open to allowing large increases in regulated immigration, and in fact, it would be better than what we have now.

It's not a solution free of its own problems, but it solves the big ones by simply letting people do what they want. Liberty!

Not really. Anarchy would not ensure liberty. We need a structure of government to protect peoples rights. If citizenship affords no protections, or benefits, and increased costs, then it becomes a useless anachronism.

What does a child born in the US have to do in order to earn their citizenship? Nothing. Geography of birth is sufficient. That's as terrible a measure of character and heart as I can possibly imagine. And yet, it's how the vast majority of citizens "earn" their citizenship.

I'm not opposed to requiring more of our (able) children to earn their citizenship through national service, and by demonstrating an understanding of what the duties and rights of citizenship entail. In some ways, through mandatory attendance in school, our children do "work" for 8-12 years or so to earn their citizenship. But, as a matter of State protection of children (at home or traveling abroad), it would be best for them to be afforded all the rights of an American citizen at birth. As a natural born citizen, I do feel in some way that I've inherited the right of citizenship through the actions of my ancestors (jus sanguinis or jus soli). In my youth, I did do my national service, and I did pay attention in school to my civics lessons, and I've studied my history so I'm not the "normal" case anyway. I come from a long lineage of builders, so I can actually drive around this area and see their handiwork.