If one listens to anyone it should be Friedman. Unfortunately, one doesn't always want to hear what he has to say. The quote you cite leaves zero room for optimism in the immigration department. The whole disadvantaged world out there wants to be coddled by our respective welfare systems. We know it just isn't possible.....but "they" don't.

I note that Friedman is opposed to the Iraq war. I wonder if folk on the liberal-left realised how much of a progressive, in the genuine sense of that word, Milton Friedman is? Consider: he supports education vouchers as a way to improve sc,hooling for poor kids; he opposes the War on Drugs, he campaigned, successfully, to end military conscription. And yet if you mention him to your average Guardianista, he has the reputation of Attilla the Hun, presumably on account of his ideas having inspired the likes of Reagan, Thatcher and the government of Chile.

One of the truly great men of our age.

In the US, modern liberals hate educational vouchers because they may undermine teachers' unions. They want all the money to go into failed public schools which can then be recycled to go into liberal political campaigns.

Got an immigration-related question: how do you ensure that noncitizens don't vote in elections?

The whole disadvantaged world out there wants to be coddled by our respective welfare systems. We know it just isn't possible.....but "they" don't.

I don't think that's true. It is certainly true for some. But equally there seem to be immigrants who are utterly astonished when they discover the existence of the benefits system. They have come here because they know we are wealthy and they know we are free. They have no comprehension of what a welfare state might be, because the state only takes where they come from.

Either sort are a tiny minority of the whole world, even if in absolute terms would-be immigrants amount to large numbers. Further, migration is emotionally, financially, and sometimes physically, hard and risky. There's a selection pressure against idlers. London loves its polish plumbers, kurdish plasterers and australian accountants for their competence and reliability.

My guess - and it is hard to do more than guess here - is that many immigrants, short- or long-term, come intending to make their fortunes working here. And they may well be right. (The phenomenon of British Mirpuris of using what look like modest earnings here to build palatial villas for holiday or retirement in Pakistan is well documented.)

The received wisdom on British freedom in the rest of the world may well be outdated, but we are still pretty free and very tolerant by world standards - and at peace. So people also come for a freer, less dangerous, life.

What's an utter waste and scandal is that those seeking freedom by way of the asylum system are forbidden to work for a living while their case is being processed. Enforced idleness - at the taxpayer's expense - damaging people's will to live and work.

Regarding the incompatability of welfare state and open immigration, there is, of course, the idea of a allowing a seperate status of immigrant without full access to benefits. I did see an interview where such a proposal was put to Milton Friedman. If I remember correctly, his reaction was that it was something he hadn't thought about a great deal but he was opposed to the idea of a two tier society. I don't see why this objection should stand though as the current system in the US of large numbers of illegal immigrants, is in effect a two tier system already.

To me, such a system seems entirely feasible. Though I haven't heard the details according to another poster such a system is in operation in Australia. Personally I would prefer more open immigration with benefits denied, than let a benefit system set a limit on type or number of immigrants allowed.

"The whole disadvantaged world out there wants to be coddled by our respective welfare systems. We know it just isn't possible.....but "they" don't."

given the supposed incompatibility of the welfare system with immigration (even though immigrants, illegal or otherwise work very hard in the US) why do commenters on the libertarian blogs seem to think it counts as an argument against immigration? Most would love to see the welfare system destroyed. libertarians should support immigration on principle and use it as an argument for the dismantling of the welfare system

In Europe, since the birth rates here are so low, significant immigration is actually needed to sustain the welfare system.

Got an immigration-related question: how do you ensure that noncitizens don't vote in elections?

I don't think you do. If non-citizens pay full taxes (which legal immigrants are generally obliged to) then they should be entitled to vote. "No taxation without representation" has a good ring to it if you ask me.

I just don't understand. The citizens of Palestine were blessed with a million or so of the most intelligent, hard-working, creative immigrants anyone could imagine in the years 1946-50. The economy boomed.

Yet strangely the natives objected, as did the natives of North America and Australia, despite the incomers bringing fabulous wealth and economic opportunities with them.

As did the natives of Poland, when thousands of creative hard-working types arrived in 1939. So much so that the entire population of East Prussia, some of the most economically and culturally active and successful people in history, were forcibly driven out of East Prussia in 1945/6 when it became part of Poland. Those idiots - fancy throwing away a resource like that !

Looked at from an economic perspective, obviously the only one that exists, all the above makes no sense at all, does it ?