Rockwell: The Market Absurdity of Open Borders

[LibertyEagle]

The Absurdity of Open Borders
by Lew Rockwell

http://https://mises.org/power-market/absurdity-open-borders

The answer is quite clear. “Open borders” would be a. disastrous mistake. The policy would subject the United States to hordes of people with alien ideologies and cultures. As the great Ludwig von Mises pointed out, it would have made no sense to allow immigration from Germany and Japan during World War II. “Neither does it mean that there can be any question of appeasing aggressors by removing migration barriers. As conditions are today, the Americas and Australia in admitting German, Italian, and Japanese immigrants merely open their doors to the vanguards of hostile armies.” We face exactly the same situation today. We have a hard enough problem coping with the alien ideologies and cultures that are already here. Why compound our problem?

[Swordsmyth]

Let me know when the whole world is libertarian.

[ClaytonB]

Let me know when the whole world is libertarian.

Border-defense can be privately funded. Compare the security of a gated community to the security of most national borders. A stray cat cannot cross into the gated community at any time of day or night without their security knowing about it. So, libertarian defense is much stronger than public (tragedy-of-the-commons) defense. AKA be careful what you wish for...

[Swordsmyth]

Border-defense can be privately funded. Compare the security of a gated community to the security of most national borders. A stray cat cannot cross into the gated community at any time of day or night without their security knowing about it. So, libertarian defense is much stronger than public (tragedy-of-the-commons) defense. AKA be careful what you wish for...

Doesn't work on a national scale.

[ClaytonB]

Doesn't work on a national scale.

Neither does the Constitution, apparently. I'm not arguing to "privatize the border" or "eliminate national border patrol", I'm only pointing out that "libertarian" does not equal or even imply loose-border policy. Hans Hoppe is one of the strongest border-control intellectuals out there, and he is also rabidly anti-State. And he is one of the most logical thinkers out there. Open borders, he argues, is anti-libertarian, and I agree...

PS: The video below has terrible audio quality. Here is a good article on the topic explaining Hoppean border policy. There used to be more Hoppe videos on YT, the censors have been very busy wiping him from the Net...

[jmdrake]

The Absurdity of Open Borders
by Lew Rockwell

http://https://mises.org/power-market/absurdity-open-borders

I remember as a child in the 1970s going to Mexico. It was so anti climatic. Were were at a border town in California (I don't remember the name) and we just walked across into Mexico. My parents bought a guitar pinata that we later used for my birthday. There was no wall, no fence, no checkpoint. And...during the 1970s, illegal immigration was low. Sometime in the 1980s it suddenly became a problem. Why? I'm not sure. Some was certainly driven by refugees fleeing wars in Central America that Ronald Reagan was funding. Funny Reagan's immigration reform bill from 1986 seems to have caused more harm than good. This person seems to have had a balanced approach though.

[LibertyEagle]

Let me know when the whole world is libertarian.

Huh? Are you taking issue with the article? Did you even read the article? Because he is explaining, mostly to libertarians, why open borders is absolutely nuts. Especially with the welfare state that we have. It is at least the second time that he has written an article about this. The other time is in my sig .

What exactly did you take issue with?

[Voluntarist]

What does it take to "close" the border?

Are we talking about an impenetrable wall along the land borders. A wall with gaps obviously doesn't work. In fact, you'd probably need two parallel walls with a "No Man's Land" between them. You'd probably need manned towers at intervals (like you'd see in those WWII Staglag movies) to catch the stragglers who enter the "No Man's Land" by climbing over or digging under the outside barrier (barrier walls don't stop people from crossing, they just slow those people down so they can be caught by security forces). And you'd need "gates" in the walls, manned with some security personnel to assure that only citizens could pass. I suppose the existing passport system would be a sufficient bureaucracy to identify citizens - though maybe that "Secure ID" thing they're rolling out would work too. And the existing visa bureaucracy would probably suffice for granting access to non-citizens; though you'd probably need to majorly beef up the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Service to keep up better monitoring of non-citizens once they're inside of the US (so they don't slip out of the system).

What about the sea borders? An undersea barrier would be quite impractical; so you'd probably need some type of barrier a few hundred yards or so inland. Again, a double barrier with a "No Man's Land" between them with gates/openings to allow citizens with access to/from the beaches. It'd be basically the same thing as the infrastructure and bureaucracy for the barriers used to secure the land borders. I can see people with beachfront properties complaining about this though. Maybe we should just ignore putting barriers along the coast; but the thing is, once you secure the land borders from leakage, the flow will move to those areas that aren't secured. But I really think you'd at least have to check every vessel entering a seaport to assure it's not smuggling in non-citizens.

We've probably already got air travel covered with the existing TSA system using passports or "Real ID" to identify citizens, and visas granting access to non-citizens. But you'd have to set it up at every landing strip that a plane from across the border could touch down at. It could get a little dicey controlling entry/exit of non-conventional aircraft (I can remember flying my hang glider in close proximity to the US/Mexico border - often unsure of who's airspace we were actually in).

And of course you're not just interested in securing the border, but monitoring and controlling what non-citizens do within the US once they've been granted access to enter. You don't want them working or attending school when they haven't been granted such privileges. So you're going to need a governmental bureaucracy that's large enough and adequately funded to perform the monitoring of non-citizens within the US, as well as periodic monitoring of US schools and employers to assure that they're following the rules. The current system isn't funded well enough to do that (the violators they catch now are just the tip of the iceberg).
=== Edited to add===
You'd have to supercharge E-Verify and make sure it's utilized for every single employee to assure they're authorized to work. It wouldn't be enough to simply check that the prospective employee is authorized to work, because those here illegally often use the identities of US citizens to get work. So you'd need to report each prospective employee to a central federal authority in order to assure that the individual isn't working another job somewhere else (that would be a ref flag for one of the two being employed illegally).

You'd probably also have to expand E-Verify such that it'd be utilized to screen students for enrollment at public and private schools, colleges, community colleges, universities and trade schools. And likewise report each student to a central federal authority that could check for duplicate students at other educational and training institutions.
=== End edit

This is just "back of the envelope" thinking, so I've probably missed some things. Anything else we need to consider?

[Swordsmyth]

Huh? Are you taking issue with the article? Did you even read the article? Because he is explaining, mostly to libertarians, why open borders is absolutely nuts. Especially with the welfare state that we have. It is at least the second time that he has written an article about this. The other time is in my sig .

What exactly did you take issue with?

I'm not taking issue with the article, I'm agreeing with the article that Open Borders are absurd.
They only cease being absurd when the whole world is ideologically homogenous, which will never happen.

[Swordsmyth]

I remember as a child in the 1970s going to Mexico. It was so anti climatic. Were were at a border town in California (I don't remember the name) and we just walked across into Mexico. My parents bought a guitar pinata that we later used for my birthday. There was no wall, no fence, no checkpoint. And...during the 1970s, illegal immigration was low. Sometime in the 1980s it suddenly became a problem. Why? I'm not sure. Some was certainly driven by refugees fleeing wars in Central America that Ronald Reagan was funding. Funny Reagan's immigration reform bill from 1986 seems to have caused more harm than good. This person seems to have had a balanced approach though.

Ron Paul's position from 2007:

The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:

• Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
  
• Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
  
• No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
  
• No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
  
• End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
  
• Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

http://archive.is/XoV0h#selection-311.1-349.26


"I remember I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently." - Ron Paul on Meet The Press 23 Dec 2007

http://archive.is/HW9aj

MR. RUSSERT: You say you're a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and yet you want to amend the Constitution to say that children born here should not automatically be U.S. citizens.REP. PAUL: Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional. What's a--what's the contradiction there?
MR. RUSSERT: So in the Constitution as written, you want to amend?
REP. PAUL: Well, that's constitutional, to do it. Besides, it was the 14th Amendment. It wasn't in the original Constitution. And there's a, there's a confusion on interpretation. In the early years, it was never interpreted that way, and it's still confusing because people--individuals are supposed to have birthright citizenship if they're under the jurisdiction of the government. And somebody who illegally comes in this country as a drug dealer, is he under the jurisdiction and their children deserve citizenship? I think it's awfully, awfully confusing, and, and I, I--matter of fact, I have a bill to change that as well as a Constitutional amendment to clarify it.

[jmdrake]

Ron Paul's position from 2007:

The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:

• Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
  
• Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
  
• No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
  
• No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
  
• End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
  
• Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

http://archive.is/XoV0h#selection-311.1-349.26


"I remember I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently." - Ron Paul on Meet The Press 23 Dec 2007

http://archive.is/HW9aj

MR. RUSSERT: You say you're a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and yet you want to amend the Constitution to say that children born here should not automatically be U.S. citizens.REP. PAUL: Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional. What's a--what's the contradiction there?
MR. RUSSERT: So in the Constitution as written, you want to amend?
REP. PAUL: Well, that's constitutional, to do it. Besides, it was the 14th Amendment. It wasn't in the original Constitution. And there's a, there's a confusion on interpretation. In the early years, it was never interpreted that way, and it's still confusing because people--individuals are supposed to have birthright citizenship if they're under the jurisdiction of the government. And somebody who illegally comes in this country as a drug dealer, is he under the jurisdiction and their children deserve citizenship? I think it's awfully, awfully confusing, and, and I, I--matter of fact, I have a bill to change that as well as a Constitutional amendment to clarify it.

Ron Paul also voted for the war in Afghanistan then came to regret that vote. Ron Paul in 2008.



A war on drugs led to more drugs.

A war on poverty led to more poverty.

A war on immigration in some ways has led to more illegal immigration.

[Swordsmyth]

A war on immigration in some ways has led to more illegal immigration.

Bunk.

And Ron never repudiated the position he held and campaigned on in 2008, unlike the Afghan war vote.

[Swordsmyth]

A war on immigration in some ways has led to more illegal immigration.

I do thank you for admitting you are advocating for open borders.

[LibertyEagle]

I'm not taking issue with the article, I'm agreeing with the article that Open Borders are absurd.
They only cease being absurd when the whole world is ideologically homogenous, which will never happen.

I was confused because the author of the article is Lew Rockwell, who runs Mises.org. Both are very libertarian. Just remember that just as is the case with Republicans, not all libertarians agree on everything, either. Lew wrote this article to explain to those libertarians who want open borders, why it won’t work.

[LibertyEagle]

Offering them incentives to come here illegally, is why they come. Free education, free healthcare, birthright citizenship, etc. It is never going to stop until these goodies are taken away.

But, when I get really pissed off at this, I imagine having a double wall, with coin or debit card operated guns mounted atop the most inside wall. Where fathers can take their sons to teach them to shoot. “No son. You have to lead them a bit. Try again.” Seriously, I am sick of letting our country be overrun by all kinds of countries and who knows how many terrorists and diseases long ago eradicated here, that are being brought in. At least let Texas citizens go deal with the issue, if government won’t!!!!

We are just sitting on our asses while our country has been driven off of a cliff. I am getting older. At this point, I just hope the country doesn’t finish falling while I am still alive. But, we are leaving young people and their kids with far less than we were born into. It is sad.

If we stand any chance at all, we need a whole lot of more people that do what Thomas Massie did, all over our state and local governments. But, it is going to require more than being a keyboard warrior. The question is, how badly do we really want to turn this around? Are we willing to go all out like Thomas did?

[jmdrake]

Bunk.

No. It's provably true. Amnesty was part of the 1986 bill that Ronald Reagan passed to fight the illegal immigration problem that Reagan helped create by destabilizing Central America. Ron Paul talks about that in the video I already posted. Here it is again.

And Ron never repudiated the position he held and campaigned on in 2008, unlike the Afghan war vote.

I do thank you for admitting you are advocating for open borders.

I never advocated a position one way or the other. But unlike you I actually listened to what Ron Paul said about the danger to Americans of a border wall.

[jmdrake]

Offering them incentives to come here illegally, is why they come. Free education, free healthcare, birthright citizenship, etc. It is never going to stop until these goodies are taken away.

Yeah. Ron Paul has been saying that for years and I know you appreciate that about him.

But, when I get really pissed off at this, I imagine having a double wall, with coin or debit card operated guns mounted atop the most inside wall. Where fathers can take their sons to teach them to shoot. “No son. You have to lead them a bit. Try again.” Seriously, I am sick of letting our country be overrun by all kinds of countries and who knows how many terrorists and diseases long ago eradicated here, that are being brought in. At least let Texas citizens go deal with the issue, if government won’t!!!!

Ummm.....okay. I imagine we quit trying to overthrow Latin American governments. I imagine a system where "have a program where individuals can work and go home and take care of their families. But we should remove the incentive for them to bring their families and get free care." I wonder where I got that from?

[LibertyEagle]

Yeah. Ron Paul has been saying that for years and I know you appreciate that about him.



Ummm.....okay. I imagine we quit trying to overthrow Latin American governments. I imagine a system where "have a program where individuals can work and go home and take care of their families. But we should remove the incentive for them to bring their families and get free care." I wonder where I got that from?

I hope you know that I would be fine with that in the long run. But, right now, I am concerned about AMERICAN citizens! Oh, and I also want to deport all of the illegal aliens. Color me pushed WAY too far!!

[LibertyEagle]

JmDrake, I live in Texas, so I am seeing it up close and personal. Where it is common for repairmen to be several who can’t speak a word of English and their supervisor speaks a little. I would guess everyone but the supervisor, and maybe him too, is an illegal alien. Wait until you are told that this country is theirs, that they are in the process of taking it back, and there is nothing I can do about it. Then, tell me how you feel.

When it is right in your face, for some reason that seems to take priority over pontificating over what we all wish our government would do with regard to foreign policy.

[jmdrake]

JmDrake, I live in Texas, so I am seeing it up close and personal. Where it is common for repairmen be several who can’t speak a word of English and their supervisor speaks a little. I would guess everyone but the supervisor, and maybe him too, is an illegal alien. Wait until you are told that this country is theirs, that they are in the process of taking it back, and there is nothing I can do about it. Then, tell me how you feel.

When it is right in your face, for some reason that seems to take priority over pontificating over what we all wish our government would do with regard to foreign policy.

Your chances are better than even that you'll get to re-elect someone who will give extend the border fence a little bit in order to placate you, make the overall problem worse through foreign policy, add in face scanning cameras in airports which has nothing to do with the problem he claims to be fixing and four years from now you'll be just as frustrated as you are right now. But okay. I want to see Brandon out too but for different reasons.

[LibertyEagle]

Your chances are better than even that you'll get to re-elect someone who will give extend the border fence a little bit in order to placate you, make the overall problem worse through foreign policy, add in face scanning cameras in airports which has nothing to do with the problem he claims to be fixing and four years from now you'll be just as frustrated as you are right now. But okay. I want to see Brandon out too but for different reasons.

Wow, i thought you were better than that. I never said I wanted all that other stuff you added on and you know it. I also have said that to really fix it … I am not going to repeat it. You saw it and have read me saying the same for YEARS. I don’t even know about the wall, but I can see up close and personal what is happening and also know that our piece of crap government is encouraging it for a reason and they aren’t going to stop. So what is your suggestion beyond pontificating?

[jmdrake]

Wow, i thought you were better than that. I never said I wanted all that other stuff you added on and you know it. I also have said that to really fix it … I am not going to repeat it. You saw it and have read me saying the same for YEARS. I don’t even know about the wall, but I can see up close and personal what is happening and also know that our piece of crap government is encouraging it for a reason and they aren’t going to stop. So what is your suggestion beyond pontificating?

I think you misread me the same way you misread SwordSmyth. I know you don't want all of that other stuff but, based on the previous 4 years of Trump, you're going to get it. It just is what it is. You'll get a tiny fraction of what you want on the border and a lot of stuff that's either overkill (face scanning cameras) or that will make the problem worse. And yeah, I know you know that. Me, I really don't care about this election except that I hope everybody who says they'll leave if Trump wins will keep their word this time.

[LibertyEagle]

I think you misread me the same way you misread SwordSmyth. I know you don't want all of that other stuff but, based on the previous 4 years of Trump, you're going to get it. It just is what it is. You'll get a tiny fraction of what you want on the border and a lot of stuff that's either overkill (face scanning cameras) or that will make the problem worse. And yeah, I know you know that. Me, I really don't care about this election except that I hope everybody who says they'll leave if Trump wins will keep their word this time.

Well, you are right that I wouldn’t want that. I haven’t seen him recommending it either. But, since he isn’t grounded in constitutional principles, he could go along with something horrible like that. But, honestly, we don’t have any guarantee anyone won’t do that, besides Rand or Thomas.

So, you must be thinking Trump is some kind of big ‘ol fascist too?

[jmdrake]

Well, you are right that I wouldn’t want that. I haven’t seen him recommending it either. But, since he isn’t grounded in constitutional principles, he could go along with something horrible like that. But, honestly, we don’t have any guarantee anyone won’t do that, besides Rand or Thomas.

You didn't see Trump pushing for face scanning cameras back in 2017? https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/18/1...eland-security

So, you must be thinking Trump is some kind of big ‘ol fascist too?

I think Trump is a Democrat in disguise / empty suit willing to morph into whatever will help him get ahead and/or stroke his ego in the moment. He campaigned for Hillary Clinton. The Clintons asked him to run for president. He pushed for an assault weapons ban in 2002 long before running for president and brought the idea up again in 2018 after being president. And yes, I get people can change. I used to be for gun control. I'm not anymore. But once turning against gun control I never flipped back. On gun control, the rest of the GOP is so against that I don't see Trump actually pushing it through. But face scanning cameras at airports and other things like that? The opposition in the GOP to that is so weak that frankly it will continue to go forward no matter who is president.

And....I guess that's my issue. Yep. Folks are upset about the illegals. So much so that Biden is trying to run on the Republicans killing his border control bill. (And yes I know he already had the tools to do something about the border and didn't.). Got it. Now who's going to push against all of the other nonsense that's getting pulled right along with it? It's like the whole "Trump's got immunity" thing. He could order an American citizen killed without trial. *gasp* Only Obama already did that and the GOP didn't impeach over it because they approved of what he did!

Singling out a particular politician for the label "fascist" misses the point. The entire system is fascist now. Both parties. Biden also supports face scanning cameras at airports so it's not like if Trump loses that will quit being implemented. In 2024 there was a letter written by 14 senators, Republican and Democrat, asking the Chuck Shumer and Mitch McConnell to limit their use. https://www.merkley.senate.gov/wp-co...Leadership.pdf

Note that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders signed the letter. Rand Paul and Mike Lee's names are noticeably absent. Oh but Rand Paul signed the infamous Tom Cotton letter to undermine (in violation of the Logan Act) the Iran nuclear deal. Yeah, I get it. Rand was "playing politics." And it's not his fault if more people are screaming at his office about "Iran may get nukes" and "Make sure the repairman speaks English" than they are "Please protect our privacy from face scanning cameras."

Anyhow, now you know about the face scanning camera issue. What you do with that is up to you. Me personally? I've got to decide what I'm going to do if I need to fly on a commercial airplane next year thanks to Tennessee Republican Marsha Blackburn's "Real ID Act." I'll have to either get a "compliant" drivers license or a new passport. (Sadly I didn't get my old one renewed in time). More fascism coming from the right in the name of stopping fascism from the left. I'll probably opt for the passport because that's a good thing to have anyway, and at least I can still use a normal drivers license for my day to day needs when I'm not flying or trying to leave the country. My little tiny bit of resistance.

[LibertyEagle]

No, I didn’t know that about the facial scanning. Thanks bud

And yes, I agree about both parties. Absolutely.

Note: That wasn’t for Americans, per the article. But, no, I don’t trust them that it wouldn’t shortly be.

[Swordsmyth]

No. It's provably true. Amnesty was part of the 1986 bill that Ronald Reagan passed to fight the illegal immigration problem that Reagan helped create by destabilizing Central America. Ron Paul talks about that in the video I already posted. Here it is again.

That's nonsense.
The parts of the bill to increase enforcement never happened, and Amnesty is absolutely not part of fighting it, that was a compromise slipped into the bill.

[jmdrake]

That's nonsense.
The parts of the bill to increase enforcement never happened, and Amnesty is absolutely not part of fighting it, that was a compromise slipped into the bill.

It was part of the bill whether you like it or not. And the influx of migrants would have slowed to a trickle if Reagan had just quit funding contra rebels and right wing death squads. Trump's sanctions against Venezuela has also fueled mass migration.

[Swordsmyth]

It was part of the bill whether you like it or not. And the influx of migrants would have slowed to a trickle if Reagan had just quit funding contra rebels and right wing death squads. Trump's sanctions against Venezuela has also fueled mass migration.

Being part of the bill doesn't make it part of the efforts against illegal immigration and you know it.
And while sanctions against Venezuela may or may not have been a good idea, Chavez and Maduro did more than enough on their own to cause people to flee.

[jmdrake]

Being part of the bill doesn't make it part of the efforts against illegal immigration and you know it.
And while sanctions against Venezuela may or may not have been a good idea, Chavez and Maduro did more than enough on their own to cause people to flee.

That's the sausage on how bills are passed and you know it. And not nearly as many people would have fled if the sanctions hadn't been put on and you know it.

Edit: Also the Sinowala drug cartel is a direct result of efforts to restrict immigration.



To the extent that Mexican drug violence causes later waves of violence, immigration policy is responsible.

[LibertyEagle]

Interesting video. But, having immigration laws is not the issue. Everyone knowing we don’t enforce them is. How many other 1st world countries allow foreigners to walk right in and go on the dole? In reality, ones I am thinking about are very selective on who they even admit. You have to have a skill they need and they determine that.

As far as drugs go, I believe most should be legalized and available over the counter. Of course, then the drug cartels would focus on something else.