Where - let alone why - I choose to live or travel is no business of states, unless I am doing injury to their citizens.
So how exactly is a state supposed to determine whether you may do injury to their citizens without at least monitoring your cross-border activities and assessing the likelihood that you will fly planes into buildings and blow up subways and busses?
And given the lamentable but apparently intractable propensity of governments to steal money from their citizens to lavish on immigrants and others of their citizens, what right exactly does a "migrant" have to bathe in this largesse? By just moving to a state you may be injuring some of its citizens. How about reciprocity? Tried to migrate to Egypt or Pakistan lately?

Unrestricted travel would be the ideal - but given the way modern states work it would be highly impractical. We do need to figure out ways of combatting the "coming over here and taking our jobs" mentality, which ultimately requires a rethink of the way we handle both immigration and public services.

what right exactly does a "migrant" have to bathe in this largesse?

None whatsoever... But that is not an argument against immigration, it is an argument against the theft based welfare state.

"Not content with bullying its own population, the British Government is now spending taxpayers' money to export the culture of fear."

I can't imagine them succeeding though. Romanians, less than 20 years ago, did overthrough one of the worst post WWII governments ever. Hyperbole aside, the British government can't hope to compare with the Ceaucescus (and I thought the Samizdatistas would like having more people with practical experience in overthrowing governments around).

Michael Farris - I like your point. We need more skilled workers in the overthrowing of dictators industry.

I have long held, in regard to the illegal immigration issue in America, is that we should let anyone in, for whatever form of recreation or commerce they desire, so long as they can pass a security check.

Then the government can, with no crisis of conscience, assume everyone crossing the border extraordinarily is doing so with mal-intent, and may shoot them on sight.

"But the natural condition of borders is openness. They are just lines on a map."

Pure fantasy mate.

The natural condition of a country's border is a boundary to keep people either in or out.

Perry "None whatsoever... But that is not an argument against immigration, it is an argument against the theft based welfare state."

It 'is' an arguement against immigration because the arguement against theft based welfare state has currently been **lost**.
If we are to have the kind of immigration policy you people advocated we need to end the theft based welfare state first.

No Dave, it is never a good idea to fight your battles on ground of the enemies choosing. In one way, I like the idea of sponger immigration because it will eventually bankrupt the system (which will blow up anyway due to aging demographics but the sooner the better), but better yet is to point out the adsurdity of the whole wealth redistribution system.

To accept that the welfare state is here to stay makes any arguments over immigration on that basis trivial by comparision.

Just as a point of interest - we (expatriates) are never given permanent right of abode in Mexico. We have to go to Immigration once a year to get our permission to stay renewed and we have to bring our bank statements and any other relevant financial information. And we'd better not owe a single peso to the Mexican government when we apply for our renewals.

As an immigrant, you are not eligible for any government assistance under any circumstances. That's why they check up on you financially once a year.

But the natural condition of borders is openness. They are just lines on a map.

Arbitrariness or artificiality is not openness. The fundamental purpose of borders is to divide, which is to say, to exclude.

I was not accepting the welfare state is here to stay, I agree with you it can't last in the long term.
But we do have it right now, and that should affect our immigration policy.

Kevin L. Connors,

Definitely not. Precisely the sort of violent xenophobia I want to get away from, but which seems to be the spirit of the age. In particular, giving government powers to shoot anyone without reasonable cause is a very bad idea.

RCD, and Dave,

I did not write the borders were naturally open because they are lines on a map.

My point is that borders are open until someone or somebody closes them. Fully closed borders were impossible before the power of the modern state; and perhapd they still are. But nonetheless, despite the desperate desire of states to control, borders are merely the edges of jurisdiction, and that need not imply any physical or administrative barrier to the movement of people or things.

Given the gleeful ignorance with which the Government likes to mismanage our money, leading to, as Perry says, its 'bankruptcy', what does everybody think about the likelihood that they'll start to use our borders to keep us in the country, rather than exclude people from it?

If we are to maintain a free society we cannot allow the citizens of other countries to pour into our own and speed up the decay of our freedoms. In America, there is no doubting that the millions of immigrants pouring into the country have become a powerful voting bloc that support the premises of statism. Additionally, if we are to maintain a free economy, we must protect it from market distortions that spill over into it from neighboring states that have command economies. Open borders and free trade, while ideal, should exist only between free states. Naturally, this makes the issue of borders a secondary one that can only be adequately addressed when we have actually established two or three free states in this world!

"In America, there is no doubting that the millions of immigrants pouring into the country have become a powerful voting bloc that support the premises of statism"

Only citizens can vote. Orre you claiming that (il)legal immigrants are voting or that naturalized citizens (or their children) vote especially differently than other Americans? Or that there is a problem with this?

If you want citizens to vote differently, then (try to) convince them to do that. But actually convincing people seems to be the real Achilles heel of Libertarianism.

...we cannot allow the citizens of other countries to pour into our own and speed up the decay of our freedoms.

We seem to be quite at doing that on our own here in the UK, so I'm not sure pointing fingers at just 'immigrants' or otherwise applies in this part of the world.

James asks about "about the likelihood that they'll start to use our borders to keep us in the country, rather than exclude people from it?"

I don't know about keeping people in, James. That thought hadn't occurred to me. But I have mentioned two or three times over the last six months that they will probably eventually put control on how much capital emigrants who are selling up can take out with them. That's why I said that anyone had decided to leave should do so with despatch.

Michael Farris - some raza immigrant groups are agitating for the vote for illegal immigrants under the false premise that "We pay taxes; therefore we should have a vote in how they're spent."

The fact they elide over is, they don't pay income tax. They pay sales tax on items they buy because there's no way round it; but as they're there illegally and don't have SS numbers, they do not pay taxes per se.

Second no one is depriving them of the vote. If they value the ability to vote so much, they can enjoy exercising their franchise in Mexico.

"some raza immigrant groups are agitating for the vote for illegal immigrants ."

Now that's daft. I'm in favor of letting legal foreign residents who do pay their taxes etc, vote in some sorts of elections (mainly local ones, I think Estonia does something like this) but not illegals, ever.

But 'agitating for' and 'being able to' are still two different things, thankfully, I really don't see them ever succeeding.

If we are to maintain a free society we cannot allow the citizens of other countries to pour into our own and speed up the decay of our freedoms. In America, there is no doubting that the millions of immigrants pouring into the country have become a powerful voting bloc that support the premises of statism.

Then explain Indians (the Asian variety) and Chinese communities... neither of who tend to support statism outside their own countries (almost certainly because the best and brightest get the hell out of their respective sinkholes) and in fact tend to vaoid the political process altogether (a clear sign of their cultural superiority in fact). Both communities have very low rates of voting per capita (like I said, a clear sign of cultural superiority and probably higher IQs as well).

Additionally, if we are to maintain a free economy, we must protect it from market distortions that spill over into it from neighboring states that have command economies.

Really? If taxpayers in other nations are idiotic enough to subsidises my purchase of good from their countries, I am quite happy to allow them to keep doing so.

Open borders and free trade, while ideal, should exist only between free states.

A common fallacy. Trade does not occur between nations at all, it occurs between companies and individuals, not just in theory but in fact. States distort trade, they do not conduct it.

Well, Michael Farris, who would ever have dreamt that you would see illegal immigrants marching in public to demand "free" (meaning paid for by American taxpayers) education for their children. Not just free, but in Spanish - and they won. They got it.

The free education, OK, it's not the child's fault that it's been dragged illegally into another country by its parents and it needs to have schooling. But in Spanish? Of course, it was the lefty special interest lobbies, as always, who were pushing for this. It is now acknowledged that teaching them in Spanish was a terrible idea as it has isolated them.

I believe, frankly, that that was the point. To make a living in the grievance industry, you need people with grievances.

James,

what does everybody think about the likelihood that they'll start to use our borders to keep us in the country, rather than exclude people from it?

Already started:

Exhibit: s39 of the Identity Cards Act 2006, inserts a definition of 'travel authorisation' into both the Football Spectators Act 1989 and the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 to make both passports and ID cards the same class of document for the relevant purposes; i.e. confiscation to prevent citizens from travelling.

A border, much more than a mere line, is the place where the laws you live under stop, and the laws of another culture begin.

While I appreciate the generosity of spirit involved in all this talk of borders being meaningless, until the culture on the other side of it is congruent with my own, and not a corrupt kleptocracy whose citizens have little or no concept of democratic processes or constitutional government, I would rather that line became a very solid fence to keep out any who have not met the qualifications for admission.

Your naivete' may suffice for your own nation and culture, but it is insufficient to protect what mine has accomplished when over 40% of my failed neighbors' inhabitants express an interest in bringing their failed culture to my place of abode.

If you want free movement so much, you take them. They can demonstrate on alternate days with the Islamic types you've already got demanding that their culture take precedence over yours.

I'm sure all that ideological purity will be very helpful when the new powers that be change "God Save the Queen" to "God Is Great".

Veryretired puts it succinctly and aptly. This was excellent. Might be entertaining to see a clash between the Islamics and the Mexicans, though ... the BBC would be like a chameleon on plaid.

Oh oh oh oh oh, veryretired...........spot on!

What veryretired said.

Open borders may sound like a good idea when the country next door is France, but it sounds rather different when the country next door is Mexico. Or, from the Spanish POV, Morocco. Or, from the Lithuanian/Latvian/Estonian/Finnish POV, Russia. Or, from the Hong Kong POV, mainland China. Or, from the Australian POV, Indonesia.

People who advocate open borders need to travel more, and see firsthand where these people would be coming from, because the first thing a lot of them are going to try to do when they get here is make it more like 'home'- i.e., the place they left.

First of all, wasn't "Her Britannic Majesty's Embassy to Romania:" involved a few years ago in the scandal of selling workpermits to all and sundry, allegedly under 'orders' from Blunkett? This strikes me as some kind of advert to let Romanians know that the times they are a changing regarding British diplomatic corruption (now we let you in and THEN rob you blind through taxation).

Secondly, would it not be practical to introduce into the UK the system that the United States used to use prior to the 1988 tourist visa waiver, namely that it is the transporter's responsibility to ensure that the person they are bringing to the UK has all the right visas and a valid passport?

what does everybody think about the likelihood that they'll start to use our borders to keep us in the country, rather than exclude people from it?

I'm aware that the concept of checking passports on the way out of the UK was always to check someone for large amounts of cash (until Thatcher came to power you had a problem taking more than £100 out of the UK), but why do we still need that system, almost 30 years later, if not for to check on whether you have to 'right' to leave the UK? As it happens, if you needed to leave the UK without going through passport control you could just fly to Eire or the Channel Islands and get a connecting flight from there.

what does everybody think about the likelihood that they'll start to use our borders to keep us in the country, rather than exclude people from it?

I think it's hilarious, but I'm on the west side of the Atlantic, not the east.

Seeing as Romania will join the EU next year, this all seems a little stupid. From then on, they will all have the right to stay in Britain anyway.

Why not devote resources to sending back those who come from countries that will never join the EU.

People who advocate open borders need to travel more, and see firsthand where these people would be coming from, because the first thing a lot of them are going to try to do when they get here is make it more like 'home'- i.e., the place they left

I am very well travelled indeed but I come to a very different conclusion. The only real problem is that welfare statists are subsidising people who are the opposite of the high initiative immigrents of previous era. The problem is the welfare state, not immigration.

what does everybody think about the likelihood that they'll start to use our borders to keep us in the country, rather than exclude people from it?

Hey, at least the government would be acknowledging the right of Great Britain to police its own borders! It's an absurd proposition though. Expect an EU Directive pronto.

Despite this being a libertarian leaning site, it seems most comment is weighing in on the anti-immigration side. I've argued the case before on other threads to little apparent effect but still, I'd like again to make some points on the pro-immigration side. The most common complaint seems to be the "welfare sponger" one. Can I remind everyone that this is a myth. I challenge anyone to find a study of any country anywhere on the net which shows immigrants to have been a net burden on the state. I'm sure individual cases and anecdotal evidence can be found but I don't believe there is any rigorous study which shows this to have been the net effect. Show me one, please!
And, even if this was true, it is as Perry has rightly said a case for repealling benefits or perhaps even simply denying them to new immigrants. After all, according to Verity's comment, this is already a policy adopted in Mexico. There is no need to jump to massive restriction of immigration. Such policies are arguably both immoral restriction of liberty and massively economically destructive. Both rich and poor countries have been impoverished by them in the modern age. To argue the case for their continuation, you should give some strong evidence of their benefits.
Finally I'd like to ask those who are living or working outside their own native countries, and there seem to be several of them here on the anti-immigration side, how they justify that they should be allowed such an opportunity but that it should be denied to others. Isn't it a little hypocritical?

There used to be limits on taking money out of the country as a hangover from Bretton Woods. Capital export controls were used in South Africa during the latter years of apartheid but were not very sucessful since wealthy residents used to use all their money to buy a boat and sail it out of the country.

Some 2/3rds of capital assets in the US come in the form of human capital. As that figure continues to rise, it will become harder to prevent people from taking capital abroad. The internet also makes it easier to take non-physical capital assets out of a country.

We don't need to rely on governments to open up borders to bankrupt the welfare state. As the baby boomers retire the demand for young skilled workers will soar in every Western country. Once countries have to compete for productive workers, the welfare state will be bankrupted anyway.

Simon Cranshaw,

Despite this being a libertarian leaning site, it seems most comment is weighing in on the anti-immigration side.

It's my impression that the commentary is generally more conservative than the blogging round here, and I'm not sure why that should be. (Where are you A_t?)

Certainly I'm with you. I suspect if immigration drives up welfare costs at all, then it does so in absolute rather than relative terms, and that is because willing immigrant labour displaces some less productive natives from the labour market altogether. The productivity of society as a whole gains, but some may slide into dependency. The demoralising pushmipullyu effect of minimum wages and welfare systems is likely to be worse on locals, who can get into the decaying orbit more easily.

This accords with the economic explanation of why resentment of immigrants is greater among natives who are closer to the bottom of the heap - and rich capitalists, creatives or professionals can flit around happily with no one minding very much. The skilled worker isn't going to be put out of business altogether by a brilliant stranger, just miss that juicy contract; and he is more likely to attribute that to competiveness than favouritism.

Simon Cranshaw could (?) have missed a small point. Of course there are some who take the view, I agree, wrongly, that immigration is a bad thing economically. I think that most commenters here rather take the view that, certainly in the Septic Isle, we have imported an immigrant culture that is bent on our destruction.
I am appalled at this laissez-faire attitude to national (assisted) suicide.
Economists have valid points to make but a fat lot it's going to do for us when all our womenfolk are wearing black Osama-bin-liners.
Oh, I read today that the defence in the Moussaoui case is pleading an unhappy childhood.

permanent expat - "national assisted suicide" - well put. It baffles me too. The reason these people have integrated in three generations is, they never intended to integrate. They came to conquer. That Stone Age people could conquer vastly civilised, technologically advanced, open and democratic societies must mean something, but I don't know what.

Yes, I read that Moussaoui had an unhappy childhood. I confidently expect him to have an even more unhappy deathhood. I think that any lefty judge in the US who dared to overturn his conviction would be shot.

Obviously, that should read "have not integrated ..."

Yes, I read that Moussaoui had an unhappy childhood. I confidently expect him to have an even more unhappy deathhood. I think that any lefty judge in the US who dared to overturn his conviction would be shot.

Shot? No. We have more respect for judges than that.

Please keep in mind that one of the reasons certain charges (a subset of the overall case) are being tried in Virginia first is because juries there are quite willing to execute.

But if they can't get a death sentence in Virginia, there are other states and other charges they can prosecute on, and those also carry the death penalty if convicted.

The only way Moussaoui is going to get a life sentence is if he is very, very lucky... and even then, it'll be a life sentence in solitary. If they throw him into the general population, he'll be killed by the other prisoners.

Some of the expatriate Brits on this thread, who seem to be no happier or more content in their view of life than when they left, remind me of the Scots character Frazer in Dad's Army, forever saying that we are "all doomed", while rolling his eyes. zzzzzz

rosignol - I didn't know that juries in VA were willing to execute. I thought it was all part of the effete, liberal NE. Do they have lethal injection? If so, I hope they have a woman doctor administer it. Ha ha ha ha ha!

But "... he'd be killed by the other prisoners." Hmmm.

Johnathan Pearce writes: "some of the expat Brits ... who seem to be no happier or more content in their view of life than when they left."

One doesn't change one's principals because one has changed locations, Johnathan. I am still sickened by what has happened to Britain, but I took myself out of it and now commiserate from afar. I am content with my life here. I was not content in Britain. Mexico is pretty well run and it is run for the Mexicans, not foreigners. The notion that expats would be able to ask for, never mind demand, any concessions whatsoever is hysterical.

guy herbert "My point is that borders are open until someone or somebody closes them. "

That just not true, most borders before modern technology were defined by natural features like impassable mountains, rivers, seas, deserts, etc. Borders were defined in ways that were naturally closed until people opened them up with bridges and tunnels.
Its not true to say people could move where-ever they wanted, in the old days people were tribal (racists) if you moved onto someone elses territory and you didn't speak the language or looked significantly different you would have been disposed of, unless you had a milita of your own.

Some very good points here. I especially liked the point that one has to take the welfare state as it exists today, not assuming that someday it will wither away, in forming a practical immigration policy for today's world. And as far as studies that show immigration harming economies, there have been several. I'm sure vdarewill contain them somewhere. But on logical grounds alone, it only makes sense that masses of unskilled, uneducated immigrants that do not speak the language of a country and consider it unnecessary to obey its laws are going to be less of an asset in economic or cultural terms than properly screened and assimilated legal migrants.

Jonathan Pearce: Basically what Verity said. I am very happy in my chosen location & would never dream of returning to the land of my fathers where I would now certainly be a foreigner.
I would not be human if I were not concerned about the UK. It's like watching an old friend drinking himself to death.....knowing that there's nothing you can do & that only he can save himself if he has the will/guts.
I don't think that witnessing such a scenario leaves anyone unmoved.
The real tragedy is that the actors are unaware of it.

Simon Cranshaw writes:

"Can I remind everyone that this is a myth. I challenge anyone to find a study of any country anywhere on the net which shows immigrants to have been a net burden on the state. I'm sure individual cases and anecdotal evidence can be found but I don't believe there is any rigorous study which shows this to have been the net effect. Show me one, please!"

I suggest you do some reading on the Migration Watch site. You seem in need of some reliable figures and you will find them there.

Their point - and this hasn't been defeated, nor even sensibly challenged - is that what benefit there may be from immigration is cancelled-out (or more than cancelled out) by the infrastructure costs and damage to the living conditions in this country. Migration Watch says two cities the size of Cambridge every year, or 6 cities the size of Birmingham over the 27 year period, need to be built because of immigration.

Now, it may very well be that you do not find the prospect of losing that amount of countryside appalling, but, fortunately, many do. I don't see anything unreasonable about it, either. In fact, I consider those who wish to pave over the South East of England to be vandals of the highest possible order.

Rather than suggesting it is for those of us who oppose the current policy of virtually unlimited immigration to make our case, I would suggest the onus is on those who believe it to be a good thing to try and and defend it.

At the levels we have suffered for the past decade, I can't think of a single thing in its favour - though I do concede it probably makes a few liberals feel good about themselves.

Simon Cranshaw's math and logic are conveniently narrowly defined. First, he either deliberately or through lack of knowledge overlooks the key issue in the current US immigration crisis, legal v illegal. His link addresses only legal immigration. In all of the recent news stories here, I have not heard any significant or coherent attacks on legal immigration. They have all been focused exclusively on illegal immigration. I wonder what is his purpose in confounding these two issues.

Like the efforts here to enforce the law, let's focus exclusively on illegal immigration.

First, how does Cranshaw propose to calculate “net burden”? He apparently wants us to confine our arithmetic to the cost of medical care + schooling + housing + law enforcement + etc balanced against money earned by the illegal community. If he has some other formula in mind, it is neither obvious nor quantifiable. In which case, it's disingenuous to suggest there should be studies disproving something that is not provable.

But if that is the formula, his case is fundamentally flawed.

When a someone using illegal laborers bids against me for a job, the price s/he bids reflects -

a - no federal income taxes paid.
b - no state income taxes paid.
c - no social security taxes withheld.
d - no unemployment insurance paid.
e - no worker's comp insurance paid.
f - OSHA not generally complied with.
g - labor regulations not met.
h - over-time laws not complied with.
i - minimum wages not paid.
j - paperwork compliance labor not paid.
k - And the illegal employees usually pay little or nothing towards school taxes.
l - And add some more you can think of any.

Now, for me to bid a job, I have to bid against that competition. If I can no longer win bids, you claim I'm some kind of a freeloader because 'someone else can do it cheaper.' and I should get myself a job putting boxes of cereal in shopping bags at the grocery store.

Nuts.

You self righteous pulpit pounders are so eager to sacrifice other people first in your glorious campaign to achieve Utopia. You obviously have no clue what it's like to try and remain a law abiding business operator when criminal law breakers are your competition. Is it any wonder that the business community wants so little to do with you? Maybe if you weren't so eager to destroy small business first, you could get a little more support.

Wake up. You have no right to compel people to choose between breaking the law or quitting working. What you are doing is similar to the Islamic bombers killing Muslims to advance the cause of Islam. You're not only not preaching to your choir, your shooting at it.

If you have a road accident & the other driver has neither licence nor insurance then he may well get banged up............................and you?

Midwesterner says it better than I could. Crenshaw's post is deliberately obscuring the very obvious question of illegal mass migrations as opposed to well accepted legal immigration.

Another point I would make is that immigration, legal or illegal, should be viewed on whether the host nation is densely populated or not. The process of assimilation also depends a great deal on whether the host country has a vigorously assertive culture or a gentle, vulnerable one (arguably the case in Britain very recently, though that might be changing).

As for the economic ledger, I would argue that the benefits of immigration will always be tempered by the upfront tax costs of education, social security and housing, although one hopes that in the longer term, the wealth these immigrants could and should generate might repay those costs. It does appear, though, that mass immigration and the modern Welfare State are not compatible. One can have one, but not the other.

Johnathan Pearce writes:

"Another point I would make is that immigration, legal or illegal, should be viewed on whether the host nation is densely populated or not."

Again, I can do no better than quote Migrationwatch's own figures: " England is one of the most densely populated countries in the world. It has nearly twice the population density of Germany, 4 times that of France and 12 times that of the USA."

As the reality of this tends to be lost on those who rarely stray beyond their local Starbucks, I recommend a trip to almost any of Essex and much of Kent, where they can stand in wonderment as Prescott's bulldozers do to the fields what many of us would like to do to him.

“immigration, legal or illegal, should be viewed on whether the host nation is densely populated or not.”

Oh my. Where to start. Shall we declare that West Australia should be the same population density as Japan? Mauritania as Monoco? Perhaps we should factor in human contributions. We can prequalify immigrants according to how densely we think they can live? We'll need some more bureaucracies, though.

This argument sounds to me like someone who wants the immigrants to go somewhere else, but would still like to take the moral high ground.

“vigorously assertive culture or a gentle, vulnerable one”

Another “Oh My.” I'll leave it to others to decide how to measure and enforce that one.

“one hopes that in the longer term, the wealth these immigrants could and should generate might repay those costs”

Why should it be a question? If these other countries were run on sound principles, they would not long have unsupportable population growth. They give incentives for reproduction, but punish self support. The result is a population climbing walls and fences and risking death to get out.

Why should we continue to cope with the never ending consequences of their failed policies, ad infinitum?

Earlier it was suggested that immigration combined with welfare may help bring down socialist governments. But in the US at least, illegal immigration is what's propping up a failed system. The greatest curse is that, as a consequence of our policies, legal citizens are encouraged to live off of the government and illegals do the work. Our culture is shifting in the direction of Saudi Arabia where citizens are a spoiled non-working class and foreigners are imported to do the work at third (or at least second) world rates.

The difference between Saudi Arabia and the US is they are funding their welfare state with oil and we are funding ours with debt.

Nice to see somethings don't change, like the myopia and superficiality of many samizdanistas.

A few, like veryretired have made some good points, but have only begun to scratch the surface of this issue.

1. Not everyone is coming to work, i.e. MS13, who have publicly put bounties out on U.S. Border Patrol and other LEOs along the border.

2. Immigrants also bring disease with them, considering that places like the Amazon basin are viral incubators, I think uncontrolled immigration from that area is an issue of concern.

3. Columbia is one of, if not the, leading centers of counterfeiting. Our open borders is a god-send to them.

4. By not controlling immigration we relieve pressure from a corrupt gov. like Mex.'s it is easy to argue that controlling the border may eventually lead to internal reforms there.

5. For those that think that these people will create wealth, the amount of money transferred by illegals back to Mex. exceeds Mexico's oil revenues. Not only are they draining our social systems they are bleeding cash out of the economy.

6. Terrorists and other foreign agents. It ain't a nice world out there, in case any of you haven't figured that out yet. There have been reports of Chinese and N. Koreans coming across and just last week a group of Pakistanis and Indians were caught coming out of Canada. They alleged paid $35,000 a piece to be smuggled in. Paying out that kind of cash, I doubt they were looking for work.

Finally, who is sovereign in the world of Samizdata? That is one the main root issues, do we Americans control our own border or do we just role over and play dead to everyone else?

Ok, so what do you do then? Close all your nice borders and stop those nasty, disease-ridden Canadian and Mexican terrorists from border hopping?

Columbia is one of, if not the, leading centers of counterfeiting. Our open borders is a god-send to them.

Silly me. There I was thinking that Colombia (I presume you meant that, not DC?) was renowned for cocaine, not for fake ID cards. Then again you could well be right, there sure are a lot of fakes in DC .. or has Mr Kerry stopped the botox injections?

I'm going to stop any further comment, this person makes me far too angry for reason to prevail.

Midwesterner,

and foreigners are imported to do the work at third (or at least second) world rates.

Would slavery by any other name, be so vile?

John_R

do we Americans control our own border or do we just role over and play dead to everyone else

You mean like the Europeans? - just because they jump off the cliff, doesn't mean you have to!.

rosignol - I didn't know that juries in VA were willing to execute. I thought it was all part of the effete, liberal NE.

Nope. "Effete, liberal NE" pretty much ends at New York. From NY to Maryland is 'Mid-Atlantic', which is still liberal, but not nearly as effete.

Virginia* was one of the states that seceded as part of the Confederacy, and is considered a 'southern' state. Some try to claim it's a mid-atlantic state, but that's based more on geography than culture.

*half of it, anyway. The part that didn't secede became the state of West Virginia.

Shall we declare that West Australia should be the same population density as Japan? Mauritania as Monoco? Perhaps we should factor in human contributions. We can prequalify immigrants according to how densely we think they can live? We'll need some more bureaucracies, though.

Midwesterner, since some other commenters have prayed in aid arguments about population density as an issue -- as GCooper has done -- I raised this point as a relevant issue. As the late Enoch Powell said, it is all about numbers. No need to be snarky, since I tend to tune out those arguments that are.

This argument sounds to me like someone who wants the immigrants to go somewhere else, but would still like to take the moral high ground.

Well, I do take the moral high ground, in as much as I like to debate the issue rationally and address points such as population density and behaviour, rather than in the rather hysterical tone adopted by some of the usual suspects on this thread. So there.

Arguments about population density as a justification for restricting immigration to the UK are daft.

UK population density is significantly lower than Japan, India and Belgium. It's about the same or marginally higher than Germany.

Singapore and Hong Kong are often touted here as good ways to do things - these two have population densities about the same as each other, and about 25 times that of the UK. Doesn't seem to be a problem for them, does it?

Consider also what the British population and hence density would be if "native" British people were reproducing at the population replacement rate. About the same as it is now. Presumably tohse arguing against immigration because of population pressure would be advocating sterilisation of the natives for the same reasons in such circumstances? No? Thought not, it's just an excuse.

Population density is a bogus argument, covering I suspect either a mule-headed reactionary hatred of change or a feeling that it is the population density of those with inappropriate skin pigmentations or religious beliefs that is too high.

EG

"who is sovereign in the world of Samizdata?"

I would have hoped the individual was.

On population density, the number of immigrants that would come would drop dramatically if Western governments abolished protectionism. That would also free up huge amounts of space occupied by inefficient subsidised agriculture.

“immigration, legal or illegal, should be viewed on whether the host nation is densely populated or not.”

No. Immigration should be decided by one point only: Does the host nation need that particular individual or not? As in the fair and unprejudiced point system in Oz. British wellbeing is being destroyed by immigrants who have no skills or talents, cannot speak our language, will send off to ancestral tribal lands to marry a first cousin and will then produce a stream of children with recessive genes and birth defects, few of which will ever speak our language properly - despite being born in Britain - because there is one parent who speaks pidgen English and another who will never have the need to learn English because she stays mainly in the house.

Immigrants we do want are energetic workers with a skill who are anxious to integrate into British life, and these (Link) grand and most welcome people. From Uganda and Kenya to multi-squillionaire in two generations.

Thank you for the feedback on the fiscal cost issue. On Vdare I found nothing but there was something pretty close on Migration Watch. For the UK, the relevant studies did not claim a net cost but only that the benefit was less than is claimed by government. Another study indicated that US illegal immigrants are a net burden on the federal government, the reason being that their income is so low that the partial taxes that they pay are not enough to pay for the partial services they receive. This was very interesting but judging from their figures the combination of legal and illegal migrants still seems to be positive. Also they don't seem to consider what businesses and thus sources of tax revenue are dependant on this labour supply. In any case, I still maintain that even if true, it is a reason to reduce benefits and not immigration.

It seems to me that there is also a moral dimension and an issue of personal liberty to this issue. As I believe the original poster felt, I think that I should be allowed to live and work in whatever country I please. Now that I've attained some means and the employment of an international firm that is, in fact, more or less my happy situation. However, I don't see how I can then deny the same opportunities to someone else especially if the reason is that they have been born in less fortunate circumstances than my own. I know some posters have been quick to jump to the terrorist/immigrant connection but this is only an extremely rare case. Most immigrants want to make a positive contribution and why should they be denied that? I wasn't able to draw any of the expat anti-immigrationists into explaining what seems like hypocrisy to me so I'll throw the question wider. Can anyone explain how I could justify this to myself? Conversely, are those who would so happily restrict the movements of others happy to be themselves similarly bound?

Simon, you make a lot of excellent points and please come back to the blog. We could use more level-headed guys around here.

This was very interesting but judging from their figures the combination of legal and illegal migrants still seems to be positive.

In the US, nobody but the loons on the fringe have a problem with legal immigration.

As I believe the original poster felt, I think that I should be allowed to live and work in whatever country I please. Now that I've attained some means and the employment of an international firm that is, in fact, more or less my happy situation.

I doubt many people would have a problem with a skilled, productive immigrant coming to their contry. The objection is to unskilled and unproductive immigrants who do not assimilate coming in.

However, I don't see how I can then deny the same opportunities to someone else especially if the reason is that they have been born in less fortunate circumstances than my own.

Why are we obliged to support people who cannot pay their own way?

Is it unreasonable to expect people who wish to live in a certain place to pay their own way (including taxes) and abide by the laws in effect in that place?

Why should any nation accept those who do not?

Simon Cranshaw, who seems to have a unique insight into the mind of every immigrant and aspirant immigrant worldwide, says: Most immigrants want to make a positive contribution and why should they be denied that?

Figures, please.

Verity,

No. Immigration should be decided by one point only: Does the host nation need that particular individual or not?

I couldn't agree with you less. Personalising 'nations' (either meaning states, or as opposed to states) as entities with needs, let alone elevating those putative needs above the rights and liberties of individuals, is at the core of all the the statist evils of the 20th century. It is the road that leads to human sacrifice.

Immigration should be decided by only one thing: the potential immigrant.

Simon Cranshaw writes;

" Can anyone explain how I could justify this to myself? Conversely, are those who would so happily restrict the movements of others happy to be themselves similarly bound?"

I'm glad that you have now read Migration Watch's extremely impressive data and appear to have dropped the clearly inaccurate assumption made by most pro-immigration advocates that there is an automatic gain to be had from mass migration to a country. It is, at best, a mixed blessing.

In posing a moral question, you have, however, absolutely avoided the practical issues, also raised by Migration Watch and which I also raised in an earlier post. Why is this? Could it be that the evidence is so compelling that all one can fall back on in the face of it, is an appeal to sentiment and emotion?

Not be accused of ducking an issue myself, I shall, however, take that point head-on. First, I am restricted from entry to many countries, as are you. The absolute right to migrate is extremely rare. You may be able to enter and leave for short periods, but few countries allow immigration willy nilly. On a 'be done by as you did' principle, I think we might consider that squared.

As to an argument why I may say to X s/he should not be allowed to enter a country, again, you have to ask yourself at what point do you draw a line? Indeed do you ever draw one?

Do you accept that there is a limit, even a theoretical one, to the number of immigrants beyond which you would say the influence of their arrival became such a detriment to that country that it must be stopped? And if so, what would that limit be? One million a year? How would that strike you?

Because if you concede that there is a point beyond which the influx of immigrants could have a negative impact on the quality of life in this country, then you have answered your own moral question and what we are then discussing is where we each might draw a line.

If you cannot envisage any restriction for any reason, then, with respect, I think you might need to stretch your imagination somewhat.

Johnathan Pearce writes:

"We could use more level-headed guys around here. "

In the interests of clarity and fairness, rather than casting such a broad and indirect slur, might it not be more principled either to engage those with whom you disagree - or at least name them?

Otherwise, the inference could be that anyone who takes a contrary point of view is less than 'level headed'.

And I really hope such an inference would be wrong.

guy herbert writes:

"Immigration should be decided by only one thing: the potential immigrant."

And is the person whose current happiness and rights might be marred by such a migration to have no say in the matter?

In which case, may I come and live in your back garden? If not, would you mind awfully if I and my 1,176 relatives moved in next door? OK, then, 1,000? 100? 76? 7?

Is there no point at which you might feel you deserved a say in the matter?

In which case, may I come and live in your back garden?

No. The word 'your' implies my occupation and right to quiet enjoyment. If I mistook you for a member of the Ramblers Association, I might be unable to resist the urge to shoot you. Which would be bad for both of us.

If not, would you mind awfully if I and my 1,176 relatives moved in next door?

Not in the slightest, until such time as you actually are - not might be - a nuisance - which is to say you interfere with my life.

Guy, you seem to have fallen into the idea that government, while not a person, can still own things as though it were. You gotta pick a side, Guy. If they cannot be "personalized" with "needs" then they cannot be "personalized" with property. They are, in fact, a co-op. They are 'owned' by their members who are therefore entitled to lawfully establish new membership guidelines.

A democratic government is one big cooperative. I belong to many smaller cooperatives. We have, as property owners, the right to restrict membership in our co-ops to people who meet the criteria.

For one, my auto insurance is with a mutual (co-op) insurance company. I will vigorously defend our right to exclude people with drunken driving convictions from getting insured with us.

I find it disconcerting to say the least, that there are so manner people here are assigning rights to people that entails reassigning the property of others. I thought that was supposed to be the 'enemy's' M.O.

Where did I do that, Midwesterner?

GCooper asked the question about me, and I answered it about me.

I think that your analogy of a state as a coop is also flawed, by the way, but not in the same way as the personalisation of nations is. It is a totalitarian-democratic model to which a democratic state may or may not conform, and most thankfully don't.

guy herbert writes:

"Not in the slightest, until such time as you actually are - not might be - a nuisance - which is to say you interfere with my life."

If 'interference with my life' is sufficient grounds, then I can't see what your problem is with those who oppose mass immigration on precisely those grounds: the 'right to quiet enjoyment' being less threatened than removed.

I'd really been expecting a more theoretical defence, but if that is the one you've chosen, I can't see how you object when it is used by others.

Guy,

The flaw in your reasoning is by being based on the assumption that governments are responsible to some higher standard of conduct than what their members choose for themselves. You don't say where these standards come from or who judges whether they are being met.

In possible agreement with you, I do not believe that governments can own property in any other role than as the incorporation of the citizens. To do anything else is to attribute personality to government. But a government must be accountable to its own citizens. The co-op model may not be the best, but what model are you proposing?

Just out of curiosity, who exactly do you propose to establish and enforce these super-governmental standards? And by what right is this authority to be exercised?

GCooper,

"Otherwise, the inference could be that anyone who takes a contrary point of view is less than 'level headed'."

Not the half of it. In direct statement, Johnathan accused me of being “snarky”, “hysterical” and “one of the usual suspects”. And in negative correlation (he is, ergo I'm not), he accused me of being irrational and irrelevant.

These ad hominem remarks were part of a comment that contributed absolutely nothing to the debate except that “the late Enoch Powell said, it is all about numbers.”

I hope I can be excused for not engaging him in this style of 'debate'.

Guy Herbert says: "Immigration should be decided by only one thing: the potential immigrant."

No, it should be decided by the owners of the country, Guy.

Midwesterner and GCooper also make strong points worthy of more than an airy dismissal.

Verity,

No, it should be decided by the owners of the country, Guy.

Who are they? The various forms of totalitarianism, absolutism and feudalism regards countries as owned by (or in the name of) some identifiable person or class. Other political theories and constitutional arrangements do not require it. It is not a fixed, determinate question. Which do you prefer?

Midwesterner,

The flaw in your reasoning is by being based on the assumption that governments are responsible to some higher standard of conduct than what their members choose for themselves.

I don't believe I am making any assumption about the responsibility of governments, and I am absolutely not making the assumptions you do about their having a uniform structure. In what sense do you think governments in general can be said to have members?

A member of the government in English usage has only one clear meaning: a minister. But that is a feature of our particular constitutional arrangements, which have also changed over time.

GCooper,

If 'interference with my life' is sufficient grounds, then I can't see what your problem is with those who oppose mass immigration on precisely those grounds: the 'right to quiet enjoyment' being less threatened than removed.

My problem with it is precisely the same as I have with any other presumption that you are entitled to interfere with the lives of others - and by implication mine - because you don't like the idea of how I live, because the possibility that I might be a bit different in my habits disturbs you.

You are not entitled to insist that your speculations and apprehensions, your tastes, your being offended at my views, or my habits, are sufficient grounds for stopping me behaving as I wish - until and unless what I do stops you exercising your liberty. 'Quiet enjoyment' does not imply freedom from spiritual disquiet, it means security in the exercise of one's existing rights.

The difference in our positions can be analogised thus (taking 'quiet' quite literally):

I think I have a right some sort of recourse if you play your gangsta rap so loudly that I can hear it on my property. I may find the sentiments and aesthetic repugnant; I may think it tends to corrupt you; but if it is not actually imposed on me, then I don't think I have grounds to stop you indulging your taste in music.

On the other hand, you object to my even buying a Skrewdriver CD or anyone being allowed to sell it to me. You justify this by suggesting I might use it in an offensive manner, but this is grounded in a presupposition that my tastes are themselves sufficient grounds for pre-emtion.

The argument you offer is in essence one for the enforcement of majority tastes, and posits a right and power to prevent other people doing things because you don't like thise things. It works as well on a hippy from Harrogate as it does a Hindu from Hyderabad. It is the same justification offered by those who wish to ban cartoons of Muhammad or the expression of homosexuality.

In what sense do you think governments in general can be said to have members?

Citizens.

How long till there are posters up and down the country:

Big Charlie is Listening to You

Listening not watching, obviously, given those ears.

guy herbert writes:

"The difference in our positions can be analogised thus (taking 'quiet' quite literally):"

No, Mr Herbert, those are fantasy positions. You are ascribing to me views I do not hold for the convenience of your own argument.

For example, 'You are not entitled to insist that your speculations and apprehensions, your tastes, your being offended at my views, or my habits, are sufficient grounds for stopping me behaving as I wish..'

Possibly not, but where have I said that? I have pointed to practical impositions due to mass immigration, such as the projected need for a new city the size of Cambridge to be built every year just to accommodate the needs of immigrants.

Unless you are proposing to stretch the definition of 'speculations and apprehensions' beyond credible lengths, then I suggest as this stuff about 'tastes, views' and whatever else is mere smoke - an attempt to bury perfectly valid considerations by calling them what they are not.

If you do not dispute the figures, are you then suggesting it is no business of people to object to what is done to their country? In which case (again) would you mind awfully if I applied to knock down every house in your street (except yours, of course) to build high density accomodation?

GCooper,

You are ascribing to me views I do not hold for the convenience of your own argument.

If I am, I apologise, but what I was responding to was the line of argument developed from:

And is the person whose current happiness and rights might be marred by such a migration to have no say in the matter?

In which case, may I come and live in your back garden? If not, would you mind awfully if I and my 1,176 relatives moved in next door? OK, then, 1,000? 100? 76? 7?

Not anything you may have said about actual practical impositions. I don't care how many relatives you have, as long as they behave themselves. I don't presume that they won't.

If you do not dispute the figures, are you then suggesting it is no business of people to object to what is done to their country?

I'm not really interested in the figures enough to dispute them. I am not suggesting people may not object. What I am suggesting is that it is not "their country".

In which case (again) would you mind awfully if I applied to knock down every house in your street (except yours, of course) to build high density accomodation?

Of course I'd mind. The question is whether I have any moral or legal ground to stop the actual owner of the adjacent property doing so, which would rather depend on the facts of the individual case. (As you will realise, I'm not much a fan of current 'planning' laws, and my legal position, assuming this is a serious question rather than an extended metaphor, might currently be stronger than I think it ought to be.)

Guy, perhaps I am reading more into your's and Johnathan's statements than is there. But I definitely think you are saying that citizens, in the form or their government, are not to have control of certain facets of their affairs; in this case immigration.

If not them, then who?

I am not making assumptions about governments having uniform structure. I said “democracy” and allowed the concept of 'tyranny of the majority' because that is what our two nations are becoming. There are vestiges of constitutional constraints, but precious few on your side of the water and a little more over here. But for this debate, I think all that matters is that the citizens consent to their government's choices or be permitted to 'seek a better offer' in the form of emigration.

But no nation should be compelled to accept emigrants. For example, I should not be prohibited from giving you my car, but neither should I be compelled to.

By what authority do you say citizens, in the body of their governments, can be compelled to accept new citizens?

I asking these following questions seriously, not rhetorically, but because we don't seem to be having the same understandings of things. These are philosophical questions and are not asking for present legal code.

Can a corporation be compelled to sell stock to any one who wants to buy it?

Can a cooperative that contains many members be compelled to allow non members on it's property?

Does the government own property as a person, or as an incorporation of its citizens?

Under a consensual government, one that does not hold it's citizens as prisoners, how is a government not like any other cooperative endeavor? How is the government not the property of its citizens?

Perhaps we can save time by covering these questions first. Thank you.

Midwesterner,

Can a co-operative stipulate that anyone living in the area it operates in must become a member and then set the terms on which all members (voluntary and compulsary) may interact with non-members?

Midwesterner,

By what authority do you say citizens, in the body of their governments, can be compelled to accept new citizens?

I don't say they should be compelled. I say that they should accept them willingly. And that, which is not the same thing, it is no business of governments to tell people where they may or may not live... Let alone - to return to the nasty piece of propaganda that started all this - to force their citizens to pay for advertisements in foreign countries exhorting their potential neighbours not to stay where they are.

Telling people at someone else's cost not to travel is at least as financially reprehensible as this sort of thing, exhorting (at taxpayer's expense) people to travel. But what makes it truly nasty, and a proper part of my bullying ads collection, is the intimation of police-state surveillance.

I don't say they should be compelled. I say that they should accept them willingly. And that, which is not the same thing, it is no business of governments to tell people where they may or may not live...

Do you not see the contradiction in that statement?

Mark adams,

“Can a co-operative stipulate that anyone living in the area it operates in must become a member and then set the terms on which all members (voluntary and compulsary) may interact with non-members?”

If it owns the land the non-members are on, yes. Some of the co-ops I've belonged to were previously stores and 'compelled' me to join to continue shopping there.

If members of the coop own the land the non-members are on, then the rules of the co-op apply. An example of this is the many senior housing communities that have very strict restrictions against the residency of children and young adults.

If a co-op is offering membership in an area where it does not have direct ownership of the property or the land is not held by members under a co-operative agreement, then clearly, no.

This is why the importance of knowing whether government owns property (highways, defense, courts, etc) as a co-op or a person in its own right. I think Guy and I agree that personhood must never be granted to government. But if not, then what is its claim to authority?

I think you understand where the debate should be taking place. All claims I have yet heard for, as Guy has so freely stated, “I don't say they should be compelled. I say that they should accept them willingly.” fail to identify the principles by which consensual government is somehow different than a co-operative.

Guy, please address the issue of where you find the authority for compelling a co-op to accept members. Either that, or address the differences between our perceptions of a government of consenting citizens.

And thank you for taking the time to address these points. Please don't fall into the trap of allowing to government anything more or less than the consent of the governed. Governments have NO moral standing or basis beyond that of the people governed. I consent to my government because it's the best deal I've been offered. I don't believe I have the right to compel citizenship from any country.

As a philosophical/logical problem, your arguments appear to have the consequence of generating a yet 'higher' authority above that of governments. Sounds like religion to me. Until someone finds a way to prove it and make it accountable for its actions, I totally resist that theory

As for your concerns about those signs, as a citizen of the UK or Romania, I would be very concerned. As you justly are. Your citizens are losing control over your government because too many people have too many things that they think are above debate.

"If members of the coop own the land the non-members are on, then the rules of the co-op apply. An example of this is the many senior housing communities that have very strict restrictions against the residency of children and young adults."

It isn't obvious, so I'll add "if they consented to that as part of their membership."

MIdwesterner,

. I think Guy and I agree that personhood must never be granted to government. But if not, then what is its claim to authority?

Not quite. I think that people should not treat abstract collective entities such as government or nation as having personality - that constitutes a particularly dangerous pathetic fallacy. This is not the same as saying government ought to be without legal personality, that it should not have rights and duties distinct from those notionally exercised through it by citizens, which I think is what you are saying. Nor does it imply that particular governments (as controlling cliques) and governmental are without institutional character or interests. I do not repudiate public choice theory.

I think that government's claim to authority depends on the form of government, and varies. Whether, and to what degree, that authority is legitimate, why people do recognise it, and whether they should, are all separate questions.

rosignol,
I don't say they should be compelled. I say that they should accept them willingly. And that, which is not the same thing, it is no business of governments to tell people where they may or may not live...

Do you not see the contradiction in that statement?

No; because there is none. I do not (as I hope I have now made clear) believe there is any necessary identity between the obligations of states and their inhabitants. Part of your problem in accepting what I say may arise from the fact that I do not agree with Midwestener that "in the body of their governments" is a meaningful qualification.

All three statements are deontological and not inconsistent. I think that people ought not to be compelled to accept new citizens; I think that they nonetheless ought to do so; I think states ought not to interfere with the settlement of individuals. Several people on this thread clearly agree with me on the first but disagree with me on the second and third, but that does not make my holding them inconsistent. (Nor are the people who disagree necessarily inconsistent, though they are wrong.)

I should further clarify that I do not think that governments can be readily compelled to do things. Nevertheless, governments can and in fact do compel their citizens. That is what makes them governments, and demonstrates (Midwesterner to the contrary) that they are not necessarily cooperatives.

If any number of people don't wish the state they inhabit to accept new citizens, then there is little that I can do about that wish, other than attempt to persuade them otherwise.

If some puissant collectivity that we may agree to call a government (co-op or not co-op), enforces the wish of some or all of a collection of people not to admit further people under its control, then there is still less I can do about it; and though I might want it changed, then whether it is right for me to use force to change it is moot. (Question: was it wrong on your model for black South Africans to seek to overthrow the Group Areas Act, and if not why not?)

Guy,

“This is not the same as saying government ... should not have rights and duties distinct from those notionally exercised through it by citizens,”

A government must NEVER have “rights” beyond those of its citizens. Think Robert Peel verses Tony Blair.

“Nor does it imply that particular governments ... are without institutional character or interests.”

I hope your not suggesting that these institutional interests have any moral standing?

“I think that government's claim to authority depends on the form of government, and varies. Whether, and to what degree, that authority is legitimate, why people do recognise it, and whether they should, are all separate questions.”

Yes. That is why I so carefully stipulated the types of government I was discussing. You appear to be ignoring these prequalifications.

Co-ops can and do compel behavior from their members. Entrance and exit are voluntary. But conduct while a member is compelled. This is a fundamental difference between a co-operative and a collective.

A government must NEVER have “rights” beyond those of its citizens.

It is logically necessary that it do, or it would not be capable of governing them. Or is "its citizens" in the foregoing intended as the collectivity? - in which case the statement is a tautology.

What I implied was that the powers and rights of government are going to be qualitatively different from those of individual citizens.

I hope your not suggesting that these institutional interests have any moral standing?

No; but one needs to be aware that it is not possible to eliminate them entirely. There is no reason to suppose that they will always be pernicious.

That is why I so carefully stipulated the types of government I was discussing. You appear to be ignoring these prequalifications.

Yes, and expressly so. Your prequalification assumes that you set out to prove, it is therefore really not worthwhile discussing the question in those terms.

I've suggested that governments do not and cannot function that way. You have not pointed to an example of one doing so, or even near. It is a false premise. I'm reminded of Marxian assertions about how things ought to be arranged 'in a socialist society' in support of their policy prescriptions for our real one. Or perhaps Rawls's putative deductions from his original position.

My argument is not and never was about whether countries have the practical power to exclude immigrants (many do in fact try and fail). Or that people do not desire to excl