Coyote Blog

I agree on principle. But it does not necessarily follow that we should pursue an open border policy. I think, once you secured the border, many conservatives would be fine with a generous guest worker program, and even making the citizenship process easier. Unlike libertarians, conservatives more often believe natural rights have limits.

I enjoy your thoughts on this issue - my first reaction was, "Duh, of COURSE!". I'd not thought the issue through - thank you.

Having an open border would imply a series of changes, to wages, to how education, healthcare and public assistance is managed. Such coherence of policy is unlikely, but would be interesting to speculate about.

In a free society, open immigration makes perfect sense. In a society where property rights can be revoked via a simple majority vote, open immigration is untenable.

The above is a simple point, but I have given up hope that you will ever seriously address it. Like a global warming zealot, you prefer only to engage the weakest arguments of your opponents.

@Kevin Spires - it's good that you've applied some thought to this, but I think you're glossing over the mechanisms through which free markets work: they balance supply and demand through the mechanism of price. In order for this to occur, the parties involved need reasonably transparent and accurate communication as to what the state of supply and demand are. If there was open communication to potential immigrants with regards to what jobs and opportunities are available, there would be mostly rational decisions made on the parts of people wanting to come here.

What people need to get their heads around is that at the end of the day, markets always win. The only decision you can make is whether it's going to be a black market or a free market. Black markets are chaotic, inefficient, and often incorporate violence and chaos. Free markets are imperfect, but are pretty good and self-correcting as long as the government keeps its thumbs off of the scales. If people want stuff, they're going to get it. There is a heavy price to pay to interfere with this process, and people need to take hard and realistic looks at what and where it's worth it to stand in the way. Murder for hire? Certainly. Verifying the work eligibility of who mows your lawn? Not so much.

I have a lot of friends and family that grew up in the Soviet Union, one of the most restrictive societies in the history of mankind. They had no free markets, but plenty of black ones taking up the slack for everything from blue jeans to hard currency, from video and audio tapes to hard drugs. You could literally be thrown into prison for owning a VHS tape of a James Bond movie - but people did it anyway. If black markets for something as trivial as that can't be stopped with levels of brutality and severity that we would (hopefully) never tolerate in this country, what hope do you think you have here?

I live pretty close to the Mexican border. So close that I can see into Mexico from by bedroom window. I know very well the problems caused by current immigration situation. But I also understand that these problems are not caused by immigration itself, but by government policies written by people living in a world of make believe where every iota of human behavior can be modified by passing a law. It's caused by government policies that try to stop the laws of supply and demand on a scale that's just not possible in any society, especially a free one. At the end of the day, SB1070 is fighting the results of stupid and impractical government policies with another layer of stupid and impractical government policies.

I hate to say this, Coyote, but to use one of your phrases, "You've jumped the shark on this one."

To say that natural law requires open borders is like saying natural law requires me to leave the doors to my home unlocked and to allow anyone to enter and live there.

As your commentors have already pointed out (much better than I could) open borders are both a security and an economic disaster that will result in the destruction of the American system of government and our way of life.

The goal of open borders is to bring in enough new voters with no stake in this country to ensure that the Democrats are never voted out and we cannot reverse the "Road to Serfdom" we are currently on. In essense, open borders are a slow-motion coup d'etat and you are a "useful idiot" (to use Lenin's phrase) to provide cover for the elites that wish to finalize the destruction of our nation.

I realize that you have strong feeling on this but please, open your eyes to the results of what you advocate. I am sympathetic to a very large "guest worker" program but "guest workers" are not citizens and cannot vote. You are advocating the destruction of our country. Wake up!

Interesting article. I agree with your stance on immigration in principle - the current system of governance is unwieldly, adds a high overhead cost to legal labor and selective and inconsistent enforcement against illegal work. None of these are conducive to a free market in which the participants are free to pursue their individual happiness.

Now, there are a number of points I'd like to make:
(1) The stance you take is probably more Liberal than Conservative. One problem: Both labels have no official shared or precise definition. So, your target audience might not sympathize with your stated beliefs.
(2) Human beings tend to be very protective of what they perceive as a set of advantages they have and have trouble reflecting . It's probably built-in wiring. Overcoming mercantilism is all about realizing that there is added value in freer markets (as opposed to making sure lots of rules and process prevents members of what whatever the complement of the current in-group is from competing on an even footing)
(3) There is an implicit assumptions you and me are probably making that isn't might be worth making more clear - allowing people to freely exchange labor doesn't imply that there are no overhead costs or rules associated with this exchange (ie, nobody gets a "free ride" on the social support systems in the US).
(4) The corner case of "what if we completely opened the border" is one that needs more (and careful) argument. But that's a separate article in and all by itself.

Thank you for taking such a very unpopular stance, because it's correct and beneficial and the people who should be pursuing it as part of their agenda have reverted to a rather primitive and shortsighted approach. To me, that represent the prototypical best of American values.

Coyote Blog: There appear to be alot of intelligent bloggers commenting on this subject. I would, also, suggest that you rethink your stance on "open" borders. A beautiful thought ... however, Not realistic. This is not a conservative vs. liberal issue. This is a human issue. Secure America's borders "first" ... then, and Only then, can we even begin to workout the rest of the issue.

While I agree with several of your major premises, I just don't see where you are going with this. Are you seriously suggesting that the border be completely open, and anybody be allowed into the U.S. who wants to come in?
I do think that most of the illegal immigrants are fundamentally just people who are trying to make a better life for themselves and their family, and I'm sympathetic to them as individuals.
But either you have a completely open border, or you make some policies and you enforce them. And I don't see how a completely open border would work.
Perhaps you could elaborate on that.

"Just to be clear, it is perfectly reasonable that the government might set restrictive or difficult eligibility requirements for participation in government activities we normally associate with citizenship, such as voting, holding office and receiving welfare benefits. But selling one’s labor or participation in commerce are natural rights to which happenstance of birth location should be irrelevant. It should mean no more to these rights that someone is born today north or south of the Rio Grande river than it meant to our founding fathers that someone was born with or without a hereditary title."

Just from that paragraph I can see three easy problems with your stance:

1. In reality giving illegal immigrants indefinite leave to stay (as they say in Britain) implies they will eventually become citizens. Your contention that presence in the country can be separated from citizenship is historically untrue in the case of the USA (do not dare mention that they manage to do it in Saudi Arabia or Switzerland, those are different countries with different cultures and politics; this is not a point of Law or principle, just a point of fact). In practice, in the USA "open borders" implies "open citizenship", which is a perfectly fine stance to take, but if that is your position, you should state it clearly instead of hiding behind factually false assumptions.

2. Considering the medium we are using for this conversation, your equating physical presence in the country with the ability to sell one's labour is ridiculous. The Arizona law that started all this mess does not stop any Mexican selling his labour to any American via the Internet, it just stops him from physically being in the country to do so. As a result your attempt to tar the conservative position as incompatible with natural rights is a lie.

3. Even from the Libertarian point of view, arbitrary restrictions on aliens' presence in public grounds (territory common to all who are citizens, but outside their private property) would be perfectly valid, whether they be decided by unanimous consent, some form of mayority vote, or hereditary entitlement. You do not need to be an anacho-capitalist to be a libertarian.

Coyote,

"It is perfectly reasonable that the government might set restrictive or difficult eligibility requirements for participation in government activities we normally associate with citizenship, such as voting, holding office and receiving welfare benefits"

How naive are you? There are restrictions on the these activities and they are routinely ignored. If illegals are in this country, they "will be voting, holding office and receiving welfare payments." The goal of the Alinsky cabel (Obama and is minions) is to overwhelm our current system of government by insupportable welfare costs and to use any means necessary to retain power. Using illegals to vote "early and often" already occurs anywhere there are ACORN or SEIU operatives. Saying it is OK to have uncontrolled illegal immigration and trusting a corrupt government not to use those people for their own ends is incredibly naive.

Forbes will love your stand on illegal immigration. They have always been for corporations breaking labor laws if it will make them a buck - and I know since I have read the magazine for a long time.

Nice work Warren! You certainly stirred a hornets nest at Forbes. Three things I find amazing:
1. How many people comment here and there with the "illegal=illegal=illegal and so they are bad and wrong and you are stupid because you can't understand ILLEGAL IS BAD", when it is fairly obvious that you are suggesting we alter our laws to make it so that more of these people wouldn't be illegal. You think they would support you since you are advocating reducing the amount of those bad illegal things!
2. I think it is important to take on such issues from a moral perspective before you address practical and utilitarian concerns, otherwise you run the risk of advocating eugenics and other such distasteful and liberty destroying policies. I think that is mostly what your doing hear, and pretty much all the arguments returned are utilitarian and ignore the moral issue... unless you consider the one above a moral argument. Namely I would like to hear someone explain a consistent moral philosophy that advocates individual liberty AND includes a reason for valuing the comfort of Americans over the lives of foreigners. Excluding the "we built this country" schtick because I'm pretty sure no one commenting picked up a musket in the 18th century.
3. How many people are blowing you off as a liberal. HA!

First and foremost I hope all conservatives are in favor of enforcing our Federal laws. If they are bad laws we should work to change them, however, for so long as the law is what it is, illegal immigrants are just that, ILLEGAL. Get out and get in line.

I'd look at open borders more favorably if we could greatly reduce entitlements. As long as someone can cross our border legally or illegally and then claim some type of assistance (paid by taxpayers) I am against open borders.

Lets fine ways to make legal immigration faster and easier, especially for those that have something to offer in exchange for the opportunities this country offers. After all they want to come here for a reason. Doesn't it make sense to make sure they are here to pursue their dreams through hard work rather than receive our tax dollars and treasure.

Jody,
Not sure what you are trying to say exactly, but when you "picked out" that line you made it a little out of context when you left off the "advocates individual liberty" part. That is the clear difference, my insistence that using gov't force to discriminate against individuals is wrong (pro-liberty) is not the same as advocating the use of gov't force to steal from one person to give to another (pro-liberal). Where you go from there seems to suggest that you have to give something up in order for someone to immigrate to this country, and that is simply not the case. Zero sum fallacy. There is not one american pie, each new citizen does not cause your slice to shrink.

A devout utilitarian might have a consistent philosophy, but I wouldn't call it moral. And it isn't consistent beyond that person because it all depends on who's utility you are trying to maximize.
This is of course besides the point because I'm certain that no one making the utilitarian arguments would claim to be guided solely by utilitarian principles. Conservatives seem to be guided much more by a sense of what is "fair", and I think that is what most of the anti-immigrant arguments boil down to, "illegal=illegal" really means "they didn't play by the rules i play by, that isn't fair". And the desire to restrict immigration is "America is ours Mexico is theirs, switching teams isn't fair". Both of those arguments are fine, but I think being born in a 3rd world shit hole is kind of unfair too.

Brian -

Taxes was an example, not the only issue. There are other governmental interventions in the labor market that can be circumvented by use of illegal labor. For example, minimum wage laws. In addition, other laws are not envoked by illegals for fear of their immigration status being discovered -- less workers comp claims, OSHA standard claims etc. These all give an employer a reason to hire outside of the system. Eliminate all of these government interventions and a completely open labor market makes sense. But, as long as some intervention is in place, it should be applicable to all market participants.

Absent complete governmental withdrawal from labor market intervention, it comes down to a matter of enforcement of the rules (whatever they are). That is where the problem lies.

Where you go from there seems to suggest that you have to give something up in order for someone to immigrate to this country, and that is simply not the case. Zero sum fallacy. There is not one american pie, each new citizen does not cause your slice to shrink.

I was not making the zero-sum suggestion. I was saying that by you writing valuing the comfort of Americans over the lives of foreigners, the comparison was *your* assumption.

Also FWIW, the trade of comfort for life (as *you* wrote) is not "zero-sum", but "strictly competitive" (i.e., the loss in utility to one is not exactly equal to the gain in utility to the other).

And FWIW 1.8 million google hits would seem to put utilitarianism within the traditional realm of moral philosophy. (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=moral+utilitarianism&aq=f&aqi=g1g-m1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=CfDo7V1EuTM_BHYXyzASyxoD_CwAAAKoEBU_Qs4GZ&gs_upl=3593%2C140%2C14%2C4%2C93%2C141%2C8%2C5&fp=4cb5f508e49085f6)

And the best part - we're on the same page as far as the immigration debate goes. I'm just cleaning up inconsistencies.

As you said, the current system is created upon an employer showing "plausible deniability". With any guest worker program, how do you stop the creation of a new "plausible deniability" system.

Any new system is just a different name for the same thing until the government can show some competence at enforcing the rules.

Either there needs to be no rules or rules that exist need to be enforced.

If there was confidence that a new guest worker program would be implemented in a competent manner, there would be overwhelming support.

Bryan,

Yes! That is the whole point. The government should not create a whole new incompetent, toothless, labor licensing bureaucracy that has no effect.

Warren:

Lets get some terminology straight, because words are not as Obama says "just words," they mean something. "Immigrants" are those who lawfully migrate into a place, while "illegal aliens" are those who cross borders in violation of laws.

The U.S. Constitution's Article I, Section 8 grants the U.S. Congress power, “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” The 14th Amendment to that contract says, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside,” because through the War Between the States it was assumed that each state had the right to determine who had rights of citizenship and who didn't. Of course, the proviso, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” means that some are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; but the U.S. Constitution says nothing else about aliens, other than they can't hold federal office.

Article I, Section 10 details the powers prohibited from the states, yet nothing limits any state's authority over illegal aliens within its borders. In fact, this section's prohibition against states declaring war is restrained by, “unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.” Arizona's S.B. 1070 has been the focus of the liberals, the media and perhaps Warren Meyer, but in fact, Article II, Section 35 of the Arizona Constitution already specifically denies illegal aliens citizen rights. Article XVIII, Section 10 actually denies illegal aliens any employment rights.

So the Arizona constitution trumps your statement that:

Under current immigration law, the government is in effect licensing labor, requiring that individuals get the government's permission to work.

Any administrative procedures put in place by the AZ governor and legislature to assure compliance with the Constitution would generally be considered prudent and necessary but certainly not abusive.

As for Governor Brewers concern for increased cross-border activity by two drug gangs who are (1)fighting among themselves, (2)fighting the Mexican Army (at the behest of Felipe Calderón, who got his marching orders from Obama)and (3) suffer economically because oil demand is down, putting Mexico's economy in the tank. While Gov. Brewer did not have her facts straight about beheadings in AZ, these despicable deaths are happening almost daily in Mexico, perpetrated by the drug cartels.

So we can conclude that Arizona needed no additional laws to enforce its own constitution and that all the feints toward brown-skin social injustice is all about socialism, which I would think Warren Meyer would not favor. True Conservatives are not racist, but we need for nt-picking libertarians to get on top of the concepts of public safety and rule of law and cool their jets about individual rights not granted in an orderly society.

We have ignored the flood of illegals since Reagan's 1986 Amnesty and their population has quadrupled. What happens if and when we were to adopt a totally open borders policy?

Once more, Coyote conflates a free labor market with open borders. As others have pointed out, open borders creates much more than free labor - it creates a flood of immigrants into a nation which is not heartless enough to let those who cannot earn their keep starve, and those who cannot earn their medical care die. In other words, from a utilitarian economic standpoint, the approach is folly.

But there's more to this than labor and economics. How about national sovereignty? Does Coyote value American exceptionalism? Our Constitution for example? If so, does he consider it worth defending? Some of us have put our lives where our mouths are on that regard.

America cannot remain America with unconstrained immigration.

I challenge Coyote to point to any modern nation that has open borders.

This position of yours explains why you let your Climate Skeptic blog got taken over by trolls.
You apparently confuse asking for an orderly conversation with censorship over there, and you confuse a lawless immigration non-policy with interfering with a free market over here.
The logical extension of your philosophy into banking would be to the effect that bank robbers are simply acting to cure their money shortage.
A free market is not the same as a lawless market.
A dialog where all parties are allowed to speak is not censorship.
Walls, vaults, etiquette, and borders are restrictions that allow free markets to work.
How can there be a free market if the market is overwhelmed by and dismantled or drowned out by fraudulent ill mannered impersonators?

The visit was useful. Content was really very informative. From http://www.indiafloristnetwork.com.