Restricting immigration is absolutely necessary. On Wednesday, July 3, 2013 10:46:51 AM UTC-5, MJ wrote: > > > JULY 2, 2013 > *Immigration: An Appeal to the Concerned Friends of Don Boudreaux > * Bryan Caplan <http://econlog.econlib.org/authorbcaplan.html> > > Don Boudreaux thoughtfully > discusses<http://cafehayek.com/2013/06/immigration-the-practice-of-the-principle.html>the > putative political > externalities of > immigration<http://openborders.info/political-externalities/>, > then ends on a pessimistic note: I have no illusions (I really and truly > do not) that anything that I write here, or that I might write in follow-up > posts or essays, will convince my concerned friends that the greater danger > to the freedom that they cherish lies in excusing pragmatic-seeming > exceptions to freedom rather than in a principled commitment to maintain > freedom... > > I'm more hopeful. I can't persuade everyone to embrace free immigration. > But I think I can persuade Don's concerned friends, given time. And > there's no time to start like the present. Here is my appeal to the > concerned friends of Don Boudreaux: > > 1. Contrary to Don, we should be open to "pragmatic-seeming exceptions to > freedom." But to qualify as a "pragmatic exception to freedom," the > exception has to be (a) small and (b) yield large gains with high > certainty. Restricting access to plutonium is a good example of a > pragmatic exception to freedom: There are few peaceful uses, and plutonium > in the wrong hands is likely to kill millions. > > 2. Restricting immigration is not a small restriction on freedom. It > deprives hundreds of millions of desperate people of the basic right to > sell their labor to willing employers, causing massive global > poverty<http://www.cgdev.org/files/1425376_file_Clemens_Economics_and_Emigration_FINAL.pdf>. > > Hard truth: immigration restrictions are genuinely more oppressive than > the infamous Jim Crow > laws<http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/03/tell_me_the_dif_1.html> > . > > 3. Restricting immigration to keep immigrants from voting does > not<http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/12/the_political_e_4.html> yield > sharply more libertarian policies with high > certainty<http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/12/the_political_e_4.html>. > > > > a. Immigrants are at worst only modestly less freedom-loving than > natives. Natives aren't libertarians, and immigrants aren't Stalinists. > > b. It's not clear that immigrants are less freedom-loving than natives. > Immigrants' detractors focus on their allegiance to the Democratic Party. > But after the George W. Bush era, it's hard to say if Democrats are more > statist overall than Republicans. Obama's been a disaster, but how much of > his agenda would have happened anyway if his Republican opponents had > defeated him? > > c. In any case, the low-skilled immigrants most likely to frighten Don's > concerned friends have little political influence because (a) they have low > turnout and (b) democracy largely ignores low-income voters' > preferences<http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/09/martin_gilens_v.html> > . > > d. Finally, immigrants probably reduce native support for the welfare > state by undermining our group identity. This is a standard story about why > the welfare state is smaller in the U.S. than > Europe<http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/09/the_political_e_6.html>: > People happily vote for big government as long as the beneficiaries look > like they do. > > e. By the way, immigrants are clearly more libertarian than > natives<http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/09/immigration_vs.html>on > immigration policy itself. Think > about > this<http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/10/turning_the_cam.html>the > next time that natives complain that immigrant voters are oppressing > them. > > I could talk about all the economic benefits immigrants offer to natives. > I've done so > elsewhere<http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/pdfs/whyimmigration.pdf>. > But if you're a concerned friend of Don Boudreaux, this is beside the > point <http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/05/egoism_libertar.html>. > You may not be as absolutist as Don, but you share his presumption of > human liberty <http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/hansondebate.htm>. If > there isn't a strong, clear case in favor of immigration restriction, how > can you in good conscience say anything other than, "Tear down this wall"? > > http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/07/boudreaux_and_t.html >
-- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
