The video I have embedded is a debate on the question
Resolved: The U.S. should have free immigration except for those who pose a security threat or have a serious contagious disease.
The affirmative, argued by Alex Nowrasteh of Cato, made a strictly libertarian argument that exceeded the actual resolution, arguing that the U. S. should have free immigration full stop. That was supported by a combination of reversing the burden of proof, the “no true Scotsman” fallacy (no true libertarian could oppose this), and an appeal to emotion.
The negative, represented by Francis Merton, made the Jeffersonian argument that our economy and systems of government are actually pretty fragile and would rapidly cease to exist with the massive immigration supported by the affirmative. Congressional apportionment is a key issue. In other words rather than becoming the libertarian paradise suggested by the affirmative it would become Venezuela or something very much like it.
My own view, as I have said any number of times, is that if our economy, society, government, and circumstances were today what they were in 1883, I would support the free, open immigration supported by the affirmative but they are not and that cannot practically be undone. Although I favor more legal immigration and accepting more true refugees, the present large amount of illegal immigration harms blacks and the most recent cohort of immigrants while imposing significant costs on the rest of us that we are required by law to bear and which cannot be avoided.
We should have zero immigration, at least for two generations, and we should round up and deport every illegal now in-country.
Our current culture, economy, and political and legal systems will be changed to the point of extinction by mass immigration from utterly alien cultures, cultures which are the antithesis of American. There is no magic dirt that somehow transforms Third World peoples into Americans.
If you have open borders, you will get a Third World dictatorship (trending there now), and you might even get a Muslim dictatorship and Sharia law. Parts of Minneapolis, Columbus, OH, Flint, MI, are almost there now.
That’s pretty much what we did in the 1920s and it continued until 1965.
Without it the Great Migration probably would not have been tolerated.
Also keep in mind that under U. S. law whether they are citizens or not immigrants are tallied for purposes of Congressional apportionment. That means that states/cities with large immigrant populations will have more representation than those without. Those are characteristically large cities: New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc. Coincidentally, those places all tend to lean farther left than other areas. Said another way free immigration would cause the Congress to shift left. We have a pretty good idea what the agenda would be: more government services, Green New Deal, etc.
Some people got a big surprise when Hamtramck, MI, the first town in the U. S. with a Muslim-majority city council, voted to ban displaying the gay rights flag on city property.
What percentage of the population wants open borders? The wya they ask this in polls is highly variable so we see polling results from about 10%-33% claiming to favor this. Talking with people about this in real life I think it’s closer to the low end.
Steve
That’s irrelevant. What we have now is open borders. It’s just not “free migration” as the guy who took the affirmative styled it. Anybody who wants to come here enough can come here and find work. That’s despite most people not wanting open borders.
Last week a woman who went to high school with my daughter was murdered by an illegal immigrant who had been arrested five years ago for aggravated kidnapping his “girlfriend” with a deadly weapon in violation of a protective order. He pled guilty to simple kidnapping and was sentenced to six years in jail. ICE took steps to prepare to deport him, and various actors tried to hinder that, from the U.S. Supreme Court, to Illinois state government, to presumably Joe Biden who released him from detention sometime in the last year or so. He stabbed a “girlfriend” to death when she came home from dinner with someone. He’s likely in Mexico now.
Dave is right, we have de facto open borders. It’s nearly impossible because of elite interference to deport felons who entered the country illegally. The pro-immigration faction lacks discernment and judgment. They can’t be trusted. What libertarians want is frictionless immigration and typically think removal or lack of access to welfare benefits will act as optimizer of this policy. That’s a fantasy.
Anecdata aside, that is how the law is written. Anyone here may ask for asylum. As I think someone here frequently says if you dont like it change the law. (Note that the Biden admin tried to change the rules on applying for asylum and crossings decreased. However, a federal judge ruled that was not legal. Congress could write a law about this, but they would have to stop Hunter investigations or giving RFK a platform, the stuff that wins them elections.
Steve
That’s not how immigration law is written. The law specifies what should be done with criminal noncitizens, and the Supreme Court just ruled in U.S. v. Texas that despite the “shall” language in the law, immigration law is all ultimately a matter of executive discretion.
From all the information I’ve seen, the murderer was not released from detention because of asylum claims, he was pursuing all of his defenses to deportation while detained in an ICE facility. I see no evidence that he succeeded in any, what I see is that he was no longer being detained, presumably as part of Biden’s “catch and release” policies. It’s his discretion, his responsibility.
Actual immigration policy is the prerogative of the Executive branch and President Biden, to whatever extent he is sentient, seems to lean towards what he considers kindness and compassion.
Moved by images of children and pregnant women wading into the RioGrande he issues orders that allow the flow of mostly young men to continue unabated.
Men who rather quickly assume ownership of any woman intimate with them, and will move violently to restore wounded pride if the ownership is questioned.
With so many foreign groups moving into our society, often we find ourselves having to live by their customs and mores.
If it’s not clear enough to every American that the border is open for good, it’s certainly clear to those millions making preparations to cross, and it’s also clear that vigorous efforts by American people to change this will be met with force and prosecution from our own government.
January 6 prosecutions are evidence that what moves our leaders are threats to that fiefdom inside the beltway.
We no longer have a choice, this is the future.
PD- Asylum in general, not your particular case.
Steve
The INA is actually quite explicit. Asylum is defined. Poverty and generalized crime are not causes for asylum.
The law says anyone can claim asylum. It then needs to be investigated and go to asylum court. You cant deport them until the hearing. Change the law or have more courts or both.
Steve
What President Biden should do is station some JAG officers right at the border to conduct asylum hearings immediately.
Sounds good to me. Also think they could consider paying for law school in return for working in the asylum courts.
Steve
The libertarian argument makes assumptions that are untrue.
One, that free flow of people is economically beneficial or neutral, not so when we guarantee medical, educational, snap benefits and housing.
We also incur increased costs for police, courts and prisons.
Also to consider is remittances , accounting to close to 5% of Mexican GDP.
I do recognize that open borders would at some point reach a stasis, I’m not sure that we would like that result as much as some people imagine.