Learn Liberty - Full Debate: Is Immigration a Human Right?

[PAF]

[Schifference]

Do not have time to watch now.

Some thoughts from our founding fathers on immigration.




In a 1790 House debate on naturalization, James Madison opined: “It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable?”

Madison asserted, “Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of.”

Madison argued plainly exclude the immigrant who could not readily “incorporate himself into our society.”

George Washington, in a letter to John Adams, similarly emphasized that immigrants should be absorbed into American life so that, “by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, laws: in a word soon become one people.”

Alexander Hamilton, wrote in 1802: “The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family.”



Hamilton further warned that “the United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another.”

He predicted, correctly, that “the permanent effect of such a policy will be, that in times of great public danger there will be always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust; the suspicion alone will weaken the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader.”


The survival of the American republic, Hamilton maintained, depends upon “the preservation of a national spirit and a national character.” He asserted: “To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens the moment they put foot in our country would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty.”

[PAF]

@Schifference

Rather than derail the thread, and to put the OP back on topic, after listening to the debate, do you support Caplan's or Wellman's position, and why?

[Schifference]

@Schifference

Rather than derail the thread, and to put the OP back on topic, after listening to the debate, do you support Caplan's or Wellman's position, and why?

I don't think posting the founding fathers words on immigration is derailing an immigration thread. Do you support Madison's, Hamilton's, or Washington's view?

[PAF]

I don't think posting the founding fathers words on immigration is derailing an immigration thread. Do you support Madison's, Hamilton's, or Washington's view?

The OP video debate is not about Madison, Hamilton or Washington. This is a presentation where Caplan and Wellman discuss in a rational manner with Q&A at the end.

In staying on topic pertaining to the OP, do you support Caplan or Wellman, and why?

If you wish to debate Madison, Hamilton and Washington, please start a separate thread pertaining to that. Thanks :-)

[brushfire]

Gave it 60 minutes...

I found it strange that someone's first argument for immigration as a human right is to speak to productivity and economic benefits. Not much time was spent on speaking to the cultural/value/property rights aspect beyond the idea that one who wishes to host an immigrant, should be able to do so at their own accord (no real argument there)

To me though, this argument of "immigration as a human right" is absurd - I think its more appropriate to be an argument of simple property rights. I would not object to someone having a non-citizen on their property, but the lawful citizen or business who is sponsoring the non-citizen would be responsible for all education, healthcare, legal liabilities, etc. I would liken such a scenario as someone with minor status, and their parent/guardian being responsible for them, but without any kind of government welfare whatsoever.

The claim that a government who can expel its own citizens if it can reject immigrants is a red herring. Natural born citizens may not have chosen to be a citizen, but they also did not choose their parents, or even life for that matter. What they can choose, once they reach the age of majority, is to leave the country to pursue citizenship elsewhere. A government is supposed to serve its citizens, and observe individual rights - it does not have the right to expel citizens, which is one of the reasons for immigration laws/policy to begin with. Its easily debatable that this is not how our government works today, but the mob rule that would rise from anarchy would be just as debatable in my opinion.

Lastly, I believe that one must look closely at the topic. It seems the arguments for open immigration either support absolute global anarchy, or absolute global government (through explicit global governance, or via the guise of unions). These two scenarios are border-less, and would probably accommodate open immigration, but I have a personal concern that both scenarios would create all sorts of other complicated issues. In other words, we exchange 1 complex problem for a whole bunch more, with the net effect being a much worse situation overall.

I might also add that Bryan Caplan is almost juvenile in his approach to this debate - it made it particularly difficult for me to receive his message. Putting words in your opponent's mouth, and making personal attacks/claims, is a repulsive tactic that reminds me of Jordan v Cathy. I'd always thought that those debate tactics are compensatory for weak arguments, and usually employed by my least favorite SJW's. Again, outside of the topic, but prevented me from watching the entire video:

[timosman]

Professors debate.

[axiomata]

Professors debate.

Caplan wrote a cartoon book on immigration that will be released soon. It may be more on your level.

https://www.amazon.com/Open-Borders-.../dp/1250316960

[Schifference]

Must have been a pretty empty room. Never once did they show the audience. The polling only had less than 100 people. People that feel that immigration is a human right are very weak in their conviction. At the beginning of the debate 48 people said yes and 12 said no. Half the people that said yes abandoned their conviction. If my numbers are off it is only minimal and I don't want to argue about it. Lame discussion.

Why should Norway owe anything to the less fortunate? Haiti owes to Haiti not the world owes to Haiti. Haiti needs to make Haiti a better place for itself. If I lived in Haiti I would not have children. Period. Fact. If I was obese, I would not raise obese children. Fact. If I had a child that was overeating, I would restrict the child's food intake and or increase activity. Fact. Immigration is not a human right. Can the US take over Greenland? Can 200,000 people move to Greenland and elect out their government and substantially change the way Greenland operates? Greenland should be able to make their own laws regarding who can go live in Greenland. If Greenland wants to entice outdoor enthusiasts to go for an extreme vacation that is fine. If they say you can visit but not move here that is fine. If they say we welcome you to move here that is fine. The people of Greenland should be heard and they should decide. Fuch what SJW people want or think. If they are not responsible for anything and pay for nothing their opinion matters not in my book.

My son had an issue with his vehicle in May. I offered him options and he made a decision. He was going to fix his vehicle and register it elsewhere. I allowed him to drive one of my vehicles while his was not registered. At first he was not happy with the loaner because I removed a rear seat. Two weeks ago I asked him what the status of his registration was. He said he was in meetings all day and unable to call and find out. I told him I am coming with my auto trailer and dropping his unregistered vehicle and picking up my registered vehicle. He called immediately to rectify the issue.

Got off phone with sister today. Her daughter that has terrible job, (college grad, cannot find work in field), car broke down. Sister loaned her car to daughter. Sister has no transportation now. Sister asked daughter to go to store to pick up special allergy medication for brother that pulled weeds and now has severe allergic reaction. Daughter filled with attitude and bitching. I would not allow a person like that to drive my car and render me without a vehicle. Daughter is kind of person that wants Haitian person to come here and work. She has terrible part time job and cannot even care for herself. What happened to responsibility? When I was young and my car was broke, nobody helped me. Just last winter it was -20* and blizzard conditions. My plow truck was stuck in the driveway with a bad starter. Nobody going to fix it but me. Miserable job lying in a foot of snow with howling winds and sub zero conditions. Truck not going to fix itself. Bleeding SJW liberals would bitch the driveway has ice and snow but not know hot to fix it.

Being born poor does not entitle a person to anyone else's money or property. People need to look in the mirror and do what they can to improve their situation without stealing from others. Sisters daughter not stealing from sister. Sister enables that behavior. I do not want to enable the behavior of others. I only want to make things better not worse. No to poor people moving here in masses. Yes to you go there and marry someone and bring them home. No to forcing themselves upon me. Yes to you adopting anyone you desire. However the aforementioned wife and children should never be allowed to be supported by your neighbor or anyone other than you.

[Brian4Liberty]

Gave it 60 minutes...

I found it strange that someone's first argument for immigration as a human right is to speak to productivity and economic benefits. Not much time was spent on speaking to the cultural/value/property rights aspect beyond the idea that one who wishes to host an immigrant, should be able to do so at their own accord (no real argument there)

To me though, this argument of "immigration as a human right" is absurd - I think its more appropriate to be an argument of simple property rights. I would not object to someone having a non-citizen on their property, but the lawful citizen or business who is sponsoring the non-citizen would be responsible for all education, healthcare, legal liabilities, etc. I would liken such a scenario as someone with minor status, and their parent/guardian being responsible for them, but without any kind of government welfare whatsoever.

The claim that a government who can expel its own citizens if it can reject immigrants is a red herring. Natural born citizens may not have chosen to be a citizen, but they also did not choose their parents, or even life for that matter. What they can choose, once they reach the age of majority, is to leave the country to pursue citizenship elsewhere. A government is supposed to serve its citizens, and observe individual rights - it does not have the right to expel citizens, which is one of the reasons for immigration laws/policy to begin with. Its easily debatable that this is not how our government works today, but the mob rule that would rise from anarchy would be just as debatable in my opinion.

Lastly, I believe that one must look closely at the topic. It seems the arguments for open immigration either support absolute global anarchy, or absolute global government (through explicit global governance, or via the guise of unions). These two scenarios are border-less, and would probably accommodate open immigration, but I have a personal concern that both scenarios would create all sorts of other complicated issues. In other words, we exchange 1 complex problem for a whole bunch more, with the net effect being a much worse situation overall.

I might also add that Bryan Caplan is almost juvenile in his approach to this debate - it made it particularly difficult for me to receive his message. Putting words in your opponent's mouth, and making personal attacks/claims, is a repulsive tactic that reminds me of Jordan v Cathy. I'd always thought that those debate tactics are compensatory for weak arguments, and usually employed by my least favorite SJW's.
...

I watched about 45 minutes. My biggest complaint is that they really are not addressing the debate question of “Is Immigration a Human Right?”

Caplan’s basic argument is that he wants to make money, and government should not impede him. If you want government to interfere with him, you side with government over individuals, and he is one step away from calling someone a statist. He is making it more about the economic benefits of immigration rather that the principle of whether it is a human right. Perhaps it is more honest to go ahead and start with the agenda rather than hide behind principles.

Some examples when applied to other rights:

- “I manufacture and sell guns, government should not impede me, therefore it is a human right to bear arms”.
- “I grow marijuana and sell it, government should not impede me, therefore it is a human right to put whatever substance you want in your body.”

Wellman also does not address the debate question very directly, but focuses more on saying that groups in the form of “legitimate governments” have some rights too.

As far as the guys debating, Caplan is obviously the more practiced debater (and lawyer?) and Wellman is not. As you observed, Caplan was more about winning the debate, which led it to be somewhat unfair. When Wellman had his chance to ask questions, Caplan just turned it around and continued to question Wellman, with Wellman on the defense the entire time. And Wellman had a terrible habit of ending his sentences with “right” or “all right”.

[Schifference]

I watched about 45 minutes. My biggest complaint is that they really are not addressing the debate question of “Is Immigration a Human Right?”

Caplan’s basic argument is that he wants to make money, and government should not impede him. If you want government to interfere with him, you side with government over individuals, and he is one step away from calling someone a statist. He is making it more about the economic benefits of immigration rather that the principle of whether it is a human right. Perhaps it is more honest to go ahead and start with the agenda rather than hide behind principles.

Some examples when applied to other rights:

- “I manufacture and sell guns, government should not impede me, therefore it is a human right to bear arms”.
- “I grow marijuana and sell it, government should not impede me, therefore it is a human right to put whatever substance you want in your body.”

Wellman also does not address the debate question very directly, but focuses more on saying that groups in the form of “legitimate governments” have some rights too.

As far as the guys debating, Caplan is obviously the more practiced debater (and lawyer?) and Wellman is not. As you observed, Caplan was more about winning the debate, which led it to be somewhat unfair. When Wellman had his chance to ask questions, Caplan just turned it around and continued to question Wellman, with Wellman on the defense the entire time. And Wellman had a terrible habit of ending his sentences with “right” or “all right”.

Who is to say that his economic statistics actually hold water? I speculate that there is only so much wealth. If you combine the entire globe into one entity the wealth will not increase. Moving poor people to wealthier areas depletes the wealth of the wealthier area. Putting homeless people into rich neighborhoods deteriorates the rich neighborhood. Drug addicts generally speaking do not enhance their neighborhood.

Understand I am not calling immigrants drug addicts or homeless or anything. What I am stating is that less affluent people deteriorate their surroundings. Bring poor people into nice neighborhoods and the neighborhood deteriorates. It takes competence to recognize competence/incompetence.

All these supposed jobs will soon be nonexistent.

I agree the debate was not very good.

[PAF]

I watched about 45 minutes. My biggest complaint is that they really are not addressing the debate question of “Is Immigration a Human Right?”

Caplan’s basic argument is that he wants to make money, and government should not impede him. If you want government to interfere with him, you side with government over individuals, and he is one step away from calling someone a statist. He is making it more about the economic benefits of immigration rather that the principle of whether it is a human right. Perhaps it is more honest to go ahead and start with the agenda rather than hide behind principles.

Some examples when applied to other rights:

- “I manufacture and sell guns, government should not impede me, therefore it is a human right to bear arms”.
- “I grow marijuana and sell it, government should not impede me, therefore it is a human right to put whatever substance you want in your body.”

Wellman also does not address the debate question very directly, but focuses more on saying that groups in the form of “legitimate governments” have some rights too.

As far as the guys debating, Caplan is obviously the more practiced debater (and lawyer?) and Wellman is not. As you observed, Caplan was more about winning the debate, which led it to be somewhat unfair. When Wellman had his chance to ask questions, Caplan just turned it around and continued to question Wellman, with Wellman on the defense the entire time. And Wellman had a terrible habit of ending his sentences with “right” or “all right”.

I guess the takeaway is, the msm really doesn’t have to report all of the news, most Americans have too short an attention span.

Whatever the initial impressions are/is, half of the debate was missed, which in my opinion made more sense the more they go into it.

Hopefully you will watch the remainder of the debate, including the Q&A, at that point I will respect whatever side you tend to agree with.

[Schifference]

I guess the takeaway is, the msm really doesn’t have to report all of the news, most Americans have too short an attention span.

Whatever the initial impressions are/is, half of the debate was missed, which in my opinion made more sense the more they go into it.

Hopefully you will watch the remainder of the debate, including the Q&A, at that point I will respect whatever side you tend to agree with.

I watched entire debate per your request and provided original thought. I would tend to side with Wellman because he was more reasonable but do not understand why he feels that it is an obligation for the rich to either provide refuge or pay to enhance the poor. Maybe I missed something there but why is it mandatory to make poor peoples lives better?

[nikcers]

mass migration and illegal immigration is death by a thousand cuts to the middle class people who can't afford extra taxes and expenses and lower class because it depresses wages and increases prices of goods. It's also psychological warfare at multiple levels against poeple.

[r3volution 3.0]

Do you have a right to travel all over the place at your pleasure? No, absolutely not.

Do you have a right to travel wherever property owners admit you, without being caged by third parties who dislike you? Absolutely

[nikcers]

Do you have a right to travel all over the place at your pleasure? No, absolutely not.

Do you have a right to travel wherever property owners admit you, without being caged by third parties who dislike you? Absolutely

So they are just travellers now. Does that mean they are going back? Have you ever travelled outside the US for the majority of your life and not called it immigrated? If you immigrate illegally are you admitted or are you here illegally?

[r3volution 3.0]

So they are just travellers now. Does that mean they are going back? Have you ever travelled outside the US for the majority of your life and not called it immigrated? If you immigrate illegally are you admitted or are you here illegally?

Travel simply means moving from one place to another.

If I move from my house to my neighbor's house, who's invited me, it's no one's concern but his and mine how long I stay there.

The neighborhood has no right to hold a vote on whether I ought to be allowed to make that move.

[Schifference]

Travel simply means moving from one place to another.

If I move from my house to my neighbors house, who's invited me, it's no one's concern but his and mine how long I stay there.

The neighborhood has no right to hold on a vote on whether I ought to be allowed to make that move.

Not actually true here in this present day. If you move to neighbors and then he wants you to leave and you say no then it is game on.

[nikcers]

Travel simply means moving from one place to another.

If I move from my house to my neighbor's house, who's invited me, it's no one's concern but his and mine how long I stay there.

The neighborhood has no right to hold a vote on whether I ought to be allowed to make that move.

Maybe if it was one person coming here, but its millions. This is death by a thousand cuts.

[brushfire]

I watched about 45 minutes. My biggest complaint is that they really are not addressing the debate question of “Is Immigration a Human Right?”

Seems you came to the same conclusion, albeit in 15 minutes less time.

The topic was a minor formality that went out the window the second the moderator stepped off the podium.

[Schifference]

Seems you came to the same conclusion, albeit in 15 minutes less time.

The topic was a minor formality that went out the window the second the moderator stepped off the podium.

The OP must have felt the debate was worthy of an hour and half of your time.

[Stratovarious]

The OP video debate is not about Madison, Hamilton or Washington. ...

Correct , your constant aggressive-assault to on this forum is not about our founders, our Constitution ,
nor peace and harmony, throughout a productive country, its about your idiotic continual agenda to promote
open border Globalism, it works nowhere on earth so you want to do it here, you promote this constant
gibberish 24/7 , I'm sick of it , I'm shocked that others don't see what you're doing here , right under
their noses.


Shiff derailed nothing, he is on topic you are way out of order, your agenda is racist, hateful and
a danger to this great Nation, you are the enemy.

[r3volution 3.0]

Not actually true here in this present day. If you move to neighbors and then he wants you to leave and you say no then it is game on.

True, but we're not talking about the contemporary law (a mess of confusion and injustice), but about ethics.

Maybe if it was one person coming here, but its millions. This is death by a thousand cuts.

Who's dying (other than immigrants in the trunk of a gangster's car, which they wouldn't have hired if they could take the bus)?

[nikcers]

True, but we're not talking about the contemporary law (a mess of confusion and injustice), but about ethics.



Who's dying (other than immigrants in the trunk of a gangster's car, which they wouldn't have hired if they could take the bus)?

Lots of people are getting worse social services and having trouble making ends meet because of the massive influx of immigration. They want to completely change our medical and school systems because of it. Since there isn't unlimited doctors it actually raises healthcare costs and lowers the quality of healthcare. Since there aren't unlimited good teachers it lowers the quality of education. Blue collar jobs and manual labor used to make livable wages, now there is so much illegal immigration they bring in immigrants and depress the wages. People are literally dying because they can't afford medicine or healthcare.

[r3volution 3.0]

Lots of people are getting worse social services and having trouble making ends meet because of the massive influx of immigration. They want to completely change our medical and school systems because of it. Since there isn't unlimited doctors it actually raises healthcare costs and lowers the quality of healthcare. Since there aren't unlimited good teachers it lowers the quality of education. Blue collar jobs and manual labor used to make livable wages, now there is so much illegal immigration they bring in immigrants and depress the wages. People are literally dying because they can't afford medicine or healthcare.

Suppose you and I both own shares of Exxon, and I sell my share, and consequently the value of your share drops.

---Have I violated your rights?

Suppose I buy some land in your town, and push up property values, and your rent rises.

---Have I violated your rights?

Suppose I buy a bunch of apples, push up the price of apples, and price you out of the market (no apples for you).

---Have I violated your rights?

Suppose I'm willing to do your job for less than you, and your employer fires you and hires me.

---Have I violated your rights?

[nikcers]

Suppose you and I both own shares of Exxon, and I sell my share, and consequently the value of your share drops.

---Have I violated your rights?

Suppose I buy some land in your town, and push up property values, and your rent rises.

---Have I violated your rights?

Suppose I buy a bunch of apples, push up the price of apples, and price you out of the market (no apples for you).

---Have I violated your rights?

Suppose I'm willing to do your job for less than you, and your employer fires you and hires me.

---Have I violated your rights?

Suppose you come here from another country, and run my coworker over on his motorcycle driving illegally. Have you violated anyones rights?

[nikcers]

Suppose you apply for a job, and they don't hire you because you aren't of mexican or hispanic heritage. Have you violated my right to the persuit of happiness and the American dream?

[r3volution 3.0]

Suppose you come here from another country, and run my coworker over on his motorcycle driving illegally. Have you violated anyones rights?

Obviously

Suppose Bob-born-in-the-USA negligently runs somebody over with his motorcycle?

Shall we deport all persons who belong to the same demographic group as Bob, because some of them run people over with motorcycles?

Or maybe (crazy idea) we should just punish the person who actually committed the offense...?

[nikcers]

Obviously

Suppose Bob-born-in-the-USA negligently runs somebody over with his motorcycle?

Shall we deport all persons who belong to the same demographic group as Bob, because some of them run people over with motorcycles?

Or maybe (crazy idea) we should just punish the person who actually committed the offense...?

No the illegal immigrant drove a van and ran over my coworker on his motorcycle. It wasn't hypthetical.

[nikcers]

Yes deport all demographics that are here illegally. That was Ron Pauls immigration platform.