An interesting perspective on open borders and mass migration for my fellow libertarians...

[sperbonzo]

This is worth considering, especially since Lew Rockwell wrote it...

https://mises.org/library/open-borde...ivate-property


Open Borders Are an Assault on Private Property

November 16, 2015Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.

This talk was delivered at the Mises Circle in Phoenix, AZ, on November 7, 2015.

Whether we’re talking about illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America, or birthright citizenship, or the migrants coming from the Middle East and Africa, the subject of immigration has been in the news and widely discussed for months now. It is an issue fraught with potentially perilous consequences, so it is especially important for libertarians to understand it correctly.

This Mises Circle, which is devoted to a consideration of where we ought to go from here, seems like an opportune moment to take up this momentous question.

I should note at the outset that in searching for the correct answer to this vexing problem I do not seek to claim originality. To the contrary, I draw much of what follows from two of the people whose work is indispensable to a proper understanding of the free society: Murray N. Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

Some libertarians have assumed that the correct libertarian position on immigration must be “open borders,” or the completely unrestricted movement of people. Superficially, this appears correct: surely we believe in letting people go wherever they like!

But hold on a minute. Think about “freedom of speech,” another principle people associate with libertarians. Do we really believe in freedom of speech as an abstract principle? That would mean I have the right to yell all during a movie, or the right to disrupt a Church service, or the right to enter your home and shout obscenities at you.

What we believe in are private property rights. No one has “freedom of speech” on my property, since I set the rules, and in the last resort I can expel someone. He can say whatever he likes on his own property, and on the property of anyone who cares to listen to him, but not on mine.

The same principle holds for freedom of movement. Libertarians do not believe in any such principle in the abstract. I do not have the right to wander into your house, or into your gated community, or into Disneyworld, or onto your private beach, or onto Jay-Z’s private island. As with “freedom of speech,” private property is the relevant factor here. I can move onto any property I myself own or whose owner wishes to have me. I cannot simply go wherever I like.

Now if all the parcels of land in the whole world were privately owned, the solution to the so-called immigration problem would be evident. In fact, it might be more accurate to say that there would be no immigration problem in the first place. Everyone moving somewhere new would have to have the consent of the owner of that place.

When the state and its so-called public property enter the picture, though, things become murky, and it takes extra effort to uncover the proper libertarian position. I’d like to try to do that today.

Shortly before his death, Murray Rothbard published an article called “Nations by Consent: Decomposing the Nation State.” He had begun rethinking the assumption that libertarianism committed us to open borders.

He noted, for instance, the large number of ethnic Russians whom Stalin settled in Estonia. This was not done so that Baltic people could enjoy the fruits of diversity. It never is. It was done in an attempt to destroy an existing culture, and in the process to make a people more docile and less likely to cause problems for the Soviet empire.

Murray wondered: does libertarianism require me to support this, much less to celebrate it? Or might there be more to the immigration question after all?

And here Murray posed the problem just as I have: in a fully private-property society, people would have to be invited onto whatever property they traveled through or settled on.

If every piece of land in a country were owned by some person, group, or corporation, this would mean that no person could enter unless invited to enter and allowed to rent or purchase property. A totally privatized country would be as closed as the particular property owners desire. It seems clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the U.S. and Western Europe really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors.

In the current situation, on the other hand, immigrants have access to public roads, public transportation, public buildings, and so on. Combine this with the state’s other curtailments of private property rights, and the result is artificial demographic shifts that would not occur in a free market. Property owners are forced to associate and do business with individuals they might otherwise avoid.

“Commercial property owners such as stores, hotels, and restaurants are no longer free to exclude or restrict access as they see fit,” writes Hans. “Employers can no longer hire or fire who they wish. In the housing market, landlords are no longer free to exclude unwanted tenants. Furthermore, restrictive covenants are compelled to accept members and actions in violation of their very own rules and regulations.”

Hans continues:

By admitting someone onto its territory, the state also permits this person to proceed on public roads and lands to every domestic resident’s doorsteps, to make use of all public facilities and services (such as hospitals and schools), and to access every commercial establishment, employment, and residential housing, protected by a multitude of nondiscrimination laws.

It is rather unfashionable to express concern for the rights of property owners, but whether the principle is popular or not, a transaction between two people should not occur unless both of those people want it to. This is the very core of libertarian principle.

In order to make sense of all this and reach the appropriate libertarian conclusion, we have to look more closely at what public property really is and who, if anyone, can be said to be its true owner. Hans has devoted some of his own work to precisely this question. There are two positions we must reject: that public property is owned by the government, or that public property is unowned, and is therefore comparable to land in the state of nature, before individual property titles to particular parcels of land have been established.

Certainly we cannot say public property is owned by the government, since government may not legitimately own anything. Government acquires its property by force, usually via the intermediary of taxation. A libertarian cannot accept that kind of property acquisition as morally legitimate, since it involves the initiation of force (the extraction of tax dollars) on innocent people. Hence government’s pretended property titles are illegitimate.

But neither can we say that public property is unowned. Property in the possession of a thief is not unowned, even if at the moment it does not happen to be held by the rightful owner. The same goes for so-called public property. It was purchased and developed by means of money seized from the taxpayers. They are the true owners.

(This, incidentally, was the correct way to approach de-socialization in the former communist regimes of eastern Europe. All those industries were the property of the people who had been looted to build them, and those people should have received shares in proportion to their contribution, to the extent it could have been determined.)

In an anarcho-capitalist world, with all property privately owned, “immigration” would be up to each individual property owner to decide. Right now, on the other hand, immigration decisions are made by a central authority, with the wishes of property owners completely disregarded. The correct way to proceed, therefore, is to decentralize decision-making on immigration to the lowest possible level, so that we approach ever more closely the proper libertarian position, in which individual property owners consent to the various movements of peoples....







.cont...

[sperbonzo]

cont...


...Ralph Raico, our great libertarian historian, once wrote:

Free immigration would appear to be in a different category from other policy decisions, in that its consequences permanently and radically alter the very composition of the democratic political body that makes those decisions. In fact, the liberal order, where and to the degree that it exists, is the product of a highly complex cultural development. One wonders, for instance, what would become of the liberal society of Switzerland under a regime of “open borders.”

Switzerland is in fact an interesting example. Before the European Union got involved, the immigration policy of Switzerland approached the kind of system we are describing here. In Switzerland, localities decided on immigration, and immigrants or their employers had to pay to admit a prospective migrant. In this way, residents could better ensure that their communities would be populated by people who would add value and who would not stick them with the bill for a laundry list of “benefits.”

Obviously, in a pure open borders system, the Western welfare states would simply be overrun by foreigners seeking tax dollars. As libertarians, we should of course celebrate the demise of the welfare state. But to expect a sudden devotion to laissez faire to be the likely outcome of a collapse in the welfare state is to indulge in naïveté of an especially preposterous kind.

Can we conclude that an immigrant should be considered “invited” by the mere fact that he has been hired by an employer? No, says Hans, because the employer does not assume the full cost associated with his new employee. The employer partially externalizes the costs of that employee on the taxpaying public:

Equipped with a work permit, the immigrant is allowed to make free use of every public facility: roads, parks, hospitals, schools, and no landlord, businessman, or private associate is permitted to discriminate against him as regards housing, employment, accommodation, and association. That is, the immigrant comes invited with a substantial fringe benefits package paid for not (or only partially) by the immigrant employer (who allegedly has extended the invitation), but by other domestic proprietors as taxpayers who had no say in the invitation whatsoever.

These migrations, in short, are not market outcomes. They would not occur on a free market. What we are witnessing are examples of subsidized movement. Libertarians defending these mass migrations as if they were market phenomena are only helping to discredit and undermine the true free market.

Moreover, as Hans points out, the “free immigration” position is not analogous to free trade, as some libertarians have erroneously claimed. In the case of goods being traded from one place to another, there is always and necessarily a willing recipient. The same is not true for “free immigration.”

To be sure, it is fashionable in the US to laugh at words of caution about mass immigration. Why, people made predictions about previous waves of immigration, we’re told, and we all know those didn’t come true. Now for one thing, those waves were all followed by swift and substantial immigration reductions, during which time society adapted to these pre-welfare state population movements. There is virtually no prospect of any such reductions today. For another, it is a fallacy to claim that because some people incorrectly predicted a particular outcome at a particular time, therefore that outcome is impossible, and anyone issuing words of caution about it is a contemptible fool.

The fact is, politically enforced multiculturalism has an exceptionally poor track record. The twentieth century affords failure after predictable failure. Whether it’s Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, or Pakistan and Bangladesh, or Malaysia and Singapore, or the countless places with ethnic and religious divides that have not yet been resolved to this day, the evidence suggests something rather different from the tale of universal brotherhood that is such a staple of leftist folklore.

No doubt some of the new arrivals will be perfectly decent people, despite the US government’s lack of interest in encouraging immigration among the skilled and capable. But some will not. The three great crime waves in US history – which began in 1850, 1900, and 1960 — coincided with periods of mass immigration.

Crime isn’t the only reason people may legitimately wish to resist mass immigration. If four million Americans showed up in Singapore, that country’s culture and society would be changed forever. And no, it is not true that libertarianism would in that case require the people of Singapore to shrug their shoulders and say it was nice having our society while it lasted but all good things must come to an end. No one in Singapore would want that outcome, and in a free society, they would actively prevent it.

In other words, it’s bad enough we have to be looted, spied on, and kicked around by the state. Should we also have to pay for the privilege of cultural destructionism, an outcome the vast majority of the state’s taxpaying subjects do not want and would actively prevent if they lived in a free society and were allowed to do so?

The very cultures that the incoming migrants are said to enrich us with could not have developed had they been constantly bombarded with waves of immigration by peoples of radically different cultures. So the multicultural argument doesn’t even make sense.

It is impossible to believe that the US or Europe will be a freer place after several more decades of uninterrupted mass immigration. Given the immigration patterns that the US and EU governments encourage, the long-term result will be to make the constituencies for continued government growth so large as to be practically unstoppable. Open-borders libertarians active at that time will scratch their heads and claim not to understand why their promotion of free markets is having so little success. Everybody else will know the answer.





.

[EonBlue]

Open borders and multiculturalism = national suicide.

Unfortunately most western nations are committing it.


.

[pimpmaster9000]

so in short, you want to keep on fucking up their countries, but at the same time, ex-immigrants do not want them in their own stolen land, you want them to stay in their own country and take your foreign policy and new age colonialism up the ass...

oh and the blacks could also go back to africa now that slavery is illegal, don't they know they are pesky and a nuisance?

how fucking inconsiderate these immigrants are who do not take in to account the feelings of other ex-immigrants!

oh and the native americans should leave as well, only "legit" folk should be allowed

fucking hilarious...

[AaronM]

EDIT:

Fuck it.

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by crucifissio

so in short, you want to keep on fucking up their countries, but at the same time, ex-immigrants do not want them in their own stolen land, you want them to stay in their own country and take your foreign policy and new age colonialism up the ass...

oh and the blacks could also go back to africa now that slavery is illegal, don't they know they are pesky and a nuisance?

how fucking inconsiderate these immigrants are who do not take in to account the feelings of other ex-immigrants!

oh and the native americans should leave as well, only "legit" folk should be allowed

fucking hilarious...

This has to be the dumbest post of the week. Do you have even the slightest idea of the principals of libertarianism? Do you understand ANYTHING about libertarian viewpoints or schools of thought?

Don't bother answering. Your post makes if perfectly clear that my questions are purely rhetorical.

Crack a book open sometime. Learning is your friend.










.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

This has to be the dumbest post of the week. Do you have even the slightest idea of the principals of libertarianism? Do you understand ANYTHING about libertarian viewpoints or schools of thought?

Don't bother answering. Your post makes if perfectly clear that my questions are purely rhetorical.

Crack a book open sometime. Learning is your friend.










.

nevermind him, he's a genocidal serb still reeling from the bombs USA dropped on his punk ass.

[Paul Markham]

What country has asked it's voters if they want mass migration and open borders?

crucifissio descendents of slaves aren't migrants. No one in the West is fucking the countries many migrants are coming from, more than a few citizens of those countries. In fact without Western involvement, many of those countries would be far worse off.

Or is it all right for a blacks/browns to oppress blacks/browns?

you need to read this, and learn some history. https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...eral-lies.html

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

What country has asked it's voters if they want mass migration and open borders?

l[/url]

This is why this post was directed towards libertarians.

According to libertarian thought, there are many who advocate open borders under their interpretation of libertarian ideals. I myself have always leaned towards that open border principle.

This article was an interesting new perspective on that prevailing libertarian attitude and actually changed my mindset to a certain degree, which is why I posted it.










.

[Vendzilla]

Thanks for the post, I read into this before becoming a libertarian and really believe in it. Recently losing a friend to an illegal alien on a hit and run with a valid California drivers license confirmed how I feel about. The whole thing had a very big effect on me and strengthened my views about it.
Enforce the laws, get rid of sanctuary cites rules and stop illegal aliens from getting money from welfare and enforce the laws about employing illegals and they will go home, we don't have to spend the money to send them there.

If nothing else, it will help the traffic problem in LA

[pimpmaster9000]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

This has to be the dumbest post of the week. Do you have even the slightest idea of the principals of libertarianism? Do you understand ANYTHING about libertarian viewpoints or schools of thought?

your entire post is basically this:

---we are """"""libertarians"""""" we believe in """""""liberty""""""" but lets think of a "good excuse" to keep out immigrants because we are all ex-immigrants ourselves---




now I understand, this is detrimental to your argument and you will ad-hominem me...I mean what could you possibly say? LOL

the entire article is basically a slippery slope excuse for keeping the results of your exploitation and bombing out of your country: immigrants...

you want the liberty to bomb and oppress, but you do not want to grant others the liberty to run from your bombing and oppression and foreign policy

you want the liberty to keep pretending that your foreign policy is not the cancer of the world, and you want to place blame on refugees instead of your terrorist government...

I have news for you: you are not a libertarian your views have nothing at all to do with liberty...I put it to you that WW2 nazis had the same ideals "freedom for the arians" LOL

you are a common thug, until you accept the responsibility for all the bomb dropping and war mongering and you will be a thug, as long as you believe in this one-sided-liberty bullshit...

liberty: it either goes both ways or it aint liberty

[TCLGirls]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

This is why this post was directed towards libertarians.

According to libertarian thought, there are many who advocate open borders under their interpretation of libertarian ideals. I myself have always leaned towards that open border principle.

This article was an interesting new perspective on that prevailing libertarian attitude and actually changed my mindset to a certain degree, which is why I posted it.





.

That's one reason why libertarians will remain on the fringes....another reason being that libertarians want to privatize all police.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by EonBlue

Open borders and multiculturalism = national suicide.

Unfortunately most western nations are committing it. It always has been and always will be.


.

The United States was created as a multiculturalism nation.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

Thanks for the post, I read into this before becoming a libertarian and really believe in it. Recently losing a friend to an illegal alien on a hit and run with a valid California drivers license confirmed how I feel about. The whole thing had a very big effect on me and strengthened my views about it.
Enforce the laws, get rid of sanctuary cites rules and stop illegal aliens from getting money from welfare and enforce the laws about employing illegals and they will go home, we don't have to spend the money to send them there.

If nothing else, it will help the traffic problem in LA

Yet you have no problems taking money from little old ladies who think they are contributing to help elect their favorite presidential candidate, but instead you pocket it.

I'd rather have a hard working illegal enter this country than a misleading fuck like yourself being born here.

[JFK]

Originally Posted by AaronM

EDIT:

Fuck it.

I agree

[CarlosTheGaucho]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

This is why this post was directed towards libertarians.

According to libertarian thought, there are many who advocate open borders under their interpretation of libertarian ideals. I myself have always leaned towards that open border principle.

This article was an interesting new perspective on that prevailing libertarian attitude and actually changed my mindset to a certain degree, which is why I posted it.

.

I concur and thanks for sharing!

[PornDiscounts-V]

All good an well. But we live in a democracy. So if it doesn't work for you, go to Liberia

[$5 submissions]

WOW!

Thanks for sharing this. Seriously.

I tend to lean libertarian and am quite conflicted about OPEN BORDERS.

On the one hand, I'm all about the free flow of goods (so why not people, right?). On the other hand, there are security/cultural/social issues.

This article and others I've read (as well as Milton Friedman interviews) is helping me lean towards CONTROLLED BORDERS.

As Milton Friedman notes: Open borders are great as a matter of principle but once you throw in the reality of social welfare (as much as libertarians and classical liberals hate it), there has to be border control. Property rights flows into this framing of the discussion as well.

Again, thanks for the share.

[pimpmaster9000]

liberty
ˈlɪbəti/Submit
noun
1.
the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's behaviour or political views.



CONTROLLED BORDERS



hypocrite
noun hyp·o·crite \ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit\
: a person who claims or pretends to have certain beliefs about what is right but who behaves in a way that disagrees with those beliefs


hypocritarians

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by crucifissio

your entire post is basically this:

---we are """"""libertarians"""""" we believe in """""""liberty""""""" but lets think of a "good excuse" to keep out immigrants because we are all ex-immigrants ourselves---




now I understand, this is detrimental to your argument and you will ad-hominem me...I mean what could you possibly say? LOL

the entire article is basically a slippery slope excuse for keeping the results of your exploitation and bombing out of your country: immigrants...

you want the liberty to bomb and oppress, but you do not want to grant others the liberty to run from your bombing and oppression and foreign policy

you want the liberty to keep pretending that your foreign policy is not the cancer of the world, and you want to place blame on refugees instead of your terrorist government...

I have news for you: you are not a libertarian your views have nothing at all to do with liberty...I put it to you that WW2 nazis had the same ideals "freedom for the arians" LOL

you are a common thug, until you accept the responsibility for all the bomb dropping and war mongering and you will be a thug, as long as you believe in this one-sided-liberty bullshit...

liberty: it either goes both ways or it aint liberty

Again, I suggest that you read at least a little bit about libertarian beliefs. . Libertarians are utterly opposed to foreign intervention. They are also against all forms of aggressive behavior that is not defensive. They also believe in property rights, including the right of someone to not be attacked, stolen from, or have their labor stolen, etc... I'm not try to make an ad hominem attack on you, but it's difficult to have this discussion when you are blaming libertarians for doing something which is totally against their beliefs, and has in fact instead been done by Republicans and Democrats. . Please check out the barest of information as to the stance of libertarians and then let's revisit this issue, because you are blaming one party for the actions of the two parties who hold power and are acting against our wishes.





.

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

That's one reason why libertarians will remain on the fringes....another reason being that libertarians want to privatize all police.

Sorry, but the majority do not believe so. . There are anarcho-capitalists who do, but they are not mainstream in the party. . If you want to know what the libertarian party believes, check out www.lp.org





.

[pimpmaster9000]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

Again, I suggest that you read at least a little bit about libertarian beliefs. . Libertarians are utterly opposed to foreign intervention. They are also against all forms of aggressive behavior that is not defensive. They also believe in property rights, including the right of someone to not be attacked, stolen from, or have their labor stolen,etc... I'm not try to make an ad hominem attack on you, but it's difficult to have this discussion when you are blaming libertarians for doing something which is totally against their beliefs, and has in fact instead been done by Republicans and Democrats. . Please check out the barest of information as to the stance of libertarians and then let's revisit this issue, because you are blaming one party for the actions of the two parties who hold power and are acting against our wishes. .

I am not blaming libertarians for the current state of events, they were never in power so it would be silly to argue this...what I am addressing is the hypocrisy of calling oneself libertarian whilst contemplating banning others from doing exactly what you guys did: immigrate...I would understand it if the native americans had such a stance but immigrants to complain about other immigrants fleeing from US started wars and economic terrorism? hypocritical to say the least...

it is nice that libertarians do not believe in flat our terrorism, that you call foreign intervention...but your country (the other 2 parties) kinda created alqaeda, saddam, put khomeini in power, supplied ISIS with weapons and cash, toppled governments left and right ect ect...closing your borders to people who run from your violence makes you, for a lack of a better term: klingons

it is the USA that should be taking in all the refugees...it created the mess...

[Sarn]

it needs to be done correctly if to hurry such mix can explode.
even our forum sometimes rages))
but it's the right way, I think.
that there was no incest in nation and began to appear freaks.

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by crucifissio

I am not blaming libertarians for the current state of events, they were never in power so it would be silly to argue this...what I am addressing is the hypocrisy of calling oneself libertarian whilst contemplating banning others from doing exactly what you guys did: immigrate...I would understand it if the native americans had such a stance but immigrants to complain about other immigrants fleeing from US started wars and economic terrorism? hypocritical to say the least...

it is nice that libertarians do not believe in flat our terrorism, that you call foreign intervention...but your country (the other 2 parties) kinda created alqaeda, saddam, put khomeini in power, supplied ISIS with weapons and cash, toppled governments left and right ect ect...closing your borders to people who run from your violence makes you, for a lack of a better term: klingons

it is the USA that should be taking in all the refugees...it created the mess...

Did you read the article? Or my perspective? I said that it was interesting, and that I tended to lean towards totally open borders. . The article talks about decentralizing control of them, not banning immigration altogether.


P.s. This mess started after the British and French brought down the Ottoman Empire and tried to create made-up nations by drawing artificial lines without regard to tribal or regional boundaries, so it is not all the fault of the US. Terrorism and massacres began in the 1920s.





.

[ilnjscb]

Liberty doesn't mean no private property. There really isn't any private property in the US anymore, since seizure of it became so easy.

[TCLGirls]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

Sorry, but the majority do not believe so. . There are anarcho-capitalists who do, but they are not mainstream in the party. . If you want to know what the libertarian party believes, check out Libertarian Party | Maximum Freedom, Minimum Government
.

The link you provided does not state your party's position on police privatization AFAIK.

But prominent members/organizations within the libertarian party routinely advocate for it. For example:

https://mises.org/library/private-police-note-0

PDF article: https://mises.org/system/tdf/14_1_5_...&type=document

[ghjghj]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

I myself have always leaned towards that open border principle.

.

Does always include Israel? I doubt it.

[JuicyBunny]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

Did you read the article? Or my perspective? I said that it was interesting, and that I tended to lean towards totally open borders. . The article talks about decentralizing control of them, not banning immigration altogether.


P.s. This mess started after the British and French brought down the Ottoman Empire and tried to create made-up nations by drawing artificial lines without regard to tribal or regional boundaries, so it is not all the fault of the US. Terrorism and massacres began in the 1920s.





.

The British and the French have so much to answer for...now, I guess they kinda are. Its too bad the citizens are catching the brunt of it though.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by crucifissio

your entire post is basically this:

---we are """"""libertarians"""""" we believe in """""""liberty""""""" but lets think of a "good excuse" to keep out immigrants because we are all ex-immigrants ourselves---

If you want to use the "because we are all ex-immigrants ourselves" argument. Where does it stop? When Homo Sapiens walked out of Africa would be a good place.

The debate is simple, are the majority of people will to accept a lower standard of living to allow anyone who wants to, share the countries wealth?

No one is against controlled migration, both in and out. It's mass migration of the poor who will deduct from the many we disagree with. Without a referendum.

I'm assuming you believe in the democratic process.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by crockett

I'd rather have a hard working illegal enter this country than a

A hard working illegal who takes a job from a citizen because he will do it cheaper. Putting the citizen on benefits that you have to pay.

An illegal who's a suspected terrorists.
An illegal with a criminal record.
An illegal who isn't working.
An illegal who needs healthcare.

And many more excellent reasons for not having open borders.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by crockett

The United States was created as a multiculturalism nation.

Not true. Most of the migrants were European and for 100s of years had abandoned the culture of killing people because they were a different tribe.

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

P.s. This mess started after the British and French brought down the Ottoman Empire and tried to create made-up nations by drawing artificial lines without regard to tribal or regional boundaries, so it is not all the fault of the US. Terrorism and massacres began in the 1920s.

Which is why they had no idea that when they split up the Ottoman Empire, the individual religious sects, tribal or regional boundaries. And the complete lack of these people to sit down and sort it out for themselves.

Even now fools think that all it will take is to liberate these religious, tribal or regional groups and they will all love each other and the West. Look at world news to see the truth. There are many Asian countries who are oppressing minorities at the end of a gun. And minorities who insist on killing people to get more rights.

Terrorism and massacres go a lot further back than the 20th Century.

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by ghjghj

Does always include Israel? I doubt it.

Actually immigration into Israel is far easier than into the US, even if you are not Jewish (despite propaganda to the contrary, Israel takes in all kinds of people), and considering what a tiny little place it is, they take far more, per square miles of area, than the European countries do.

Having said that, Israel, like ALL countries that I know of, certainly doesn't get their immigration policy even close to as easy as I think it should be.






.

[pimpmaster9000]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

Did you read the article? Or my perspective? I said that it was interesting, and that I tended to lean towards totally open borders. . The article talks about decentralizing control of them, not banning immigration altogether.

I read the article carefully because I happen to believe in liberty and I was curious. It is unfortunately just a load of mental gymnastics as to why you should close borders to refugees. As a former refugee myself, I find that in stark contrast with liberty. I never asked for war, so the country that brought it to me should accept me. This is what I truly believe, I understand that the country bombing me will have a different view.

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

P.s. This mess started after the British and French brought down the Ottoman Empire and tried to create made-up nations by drawing artificial lines without regard to tribal or regional boundaries, so it is not all the fault of the US. Terrorism and massacres began in the 1920s..

yes the damage is historically compounded...arabs have every right to seek asylum in any nation that either held them as a colony, or bombed them, or armed ISIS (like the USA did)

I agree that it is not just the USA that should take all the refugees but also the british and french.

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

If you want to use the "because we are all ex-immigrants ourselves" argument. Where does it stop? When Homo Sapiens walked out of Africa would be a good place.

The debate is simple, are the majority of people will to accept a lower standard of living to allow anyone who wants to, share the countries wealth?

No one is against controlled migration, both in and out. It's mass migration of the poor who will deduct from the many we disagree with. Without a referendum.

I'm assuming you believe in the democratic process.

If you are against mass migration of the poor, do not impoverish entire regions in the first place. I do not believe in democratic process as a reality, nobody asked the people of vietnam, avghanistan, iran, syria or what ever other place if they want to be bombed by the USA because the USA-s corporate government wants hegemony. Democracy is either a 2 way street or its plain old Fascism.

You reap what you sow. If you sow decades upon decades of mass destruction and exploitation and corporate bullshit you have 2 realistic options:

1) a poor refugee mass migration and eventual destruction of your own economy because they can not live on thin air and in the rubble you left behind
2) district 9 (basically anything outside the bombing countries would become a mass concentration camp, cash would be made illegal to stop the aliens from coming over, and 5% of the world that is the USA will live like israel does

there is no solution #3...solution #3 would be "we keep on bombing and they just shut up about it and stay home without bombing us back"....

pick solution 1 or 2 and enjoy

[PornAffiliate]

I am a mix of all schools when it comes to political views but I am most libertarian. I don't understand why it is so hard to move to another country as it is today. It should be much easier and more freedom of choice as to where you want to live. Different states have many differences and people should be allowed to live where the compilation of all things is most to their liking. If you as a new person to another country should be allowed any and every kind of financial support is another topic.

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by crucifissio

If you are against mass migration of the poor, do not impoverish entire regions in the first place. I do not believe in democratic process as a reality, nobody asked the people of vietnam, avghanistan, iran, syria or what ever other place if they want to be bombed by the USA because the USA-s corporate government wants hegemony. Democracy is either a 2 way street or its plain old Fascism.

You reap what you sow. If you sow decades upon decades of mass destruction and exploitation and corporate bullshit you have 2 realistic options:

1) a poor refugee mass migration and eventual destruction of your own economy because they can not live on thin air and in the rubble you left behind
2) district 9 (basically anything outside the bombing countries would become a mass concentration camp, cash would be made illegal to stop the aliens from coming over, and 5% of the world that is the USA will live like israel does

there is no solution #3...solution #3 would be "we keep on bombing and they just shut up about it and stay home without bombing us back"....

pick solution 1 or 2 and enjoy

I don't know why you edited the quote to make it look like it was coming from me.... That post was made by Paul Markham.

Please address your response to him, not me.





Thanks!



.



.

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by PornAffiliate

I am a mix of all schools when it comes to political views but I am most libertarian. I don't understand why it is so hard to move to another country as it is today. It should be much easier and more freedom of choice as to where you want to live. Different states have many differences and people should be allowed to live where the compilation of all things is most to their liking. If you as a new person to another country should be allowed any and every kind of financial support is another topic.

I utterly agree with this statement as regards to immigration should be easier.





.

[pimpmaster9000]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

I don't know why you edited the quote to make it look like it was coming from me.... That post was made by Paul Markham.

Please address your response to him, not me.





Thanks!



.



.

my mistake...wont let me edit it now...it was a reply to paul markhams quote...sorry

[wehateporn]

Originally Posted by PornAffiliate

I am a mix of all schools when it comes to political views but I am most libertarian. I don't understand why it is so hard to move to another country as it is today. It should be much easier and more freedom of choice as to where you want to live. Different states have many differences and people should be allowed to live where the compilation of all things is most to their liking. If you as a new person to another country should be allowed any and every kind of financial support is another topic.

some countries are protecting their high standard of living by keeping borders closed