If only he were actually applying libertarian principles. What he is doing is throwing out principles and going with what is popular. What's the point? You might as well just be a Republican or Democrat.
@@gregworrel2623why because of the immigration crisis? Libertarians are for less government and how much government and spending has occurred with this flood of illegal immigrants?
@@phattylav Just think how much less they could spend if they reduced or eliminated all the barriers to entry. There are $billions being spent on ICE and the border. That is not smaller government, but bigger government.
Liz appears to be repetitively guilty of the very thing Dave keeps harping on, ignoring reality. She keeps derailing conversations that exist in reality and taking them to hypothetical non-existent places.
The 50 minute mark is a perfect example of what you said. Liz doesn’t want the real consequences of voting demographics “derail” her hypothetical question 😐
@@FreedomLovinthat’s a fancy way of saying he’s the only one living in the real world lmao. Principles are a joke if they can’t even begin to align with reality. Principles are also not a suicide pact.
I’m pissed I only learned about him recently. I’ve always loved Ron Paul. I’ve been more AnCap/libertarian for 10+ years. I vote Republican because I’m sadly and realistically left with two options. But my fuck do I agree with what he says and his way of delivering the ideas.
@@gregworrel2623ascribed political party fundamentals are really THAT important to you? Man, get over this absolutism, it's getting Libertarians absolutely FUCK ALL in this world.
@@gregworrel2623 I'm not saying core principals should be totally ABANDONED, I'm just pointing out the detriment to being too rigid in one's ideology, especially when it comes to implementation in REALITY. Like a fine sword, one should aim to temper their mind to be a perfect blend of strength and flexibility.
Why should he? Sponsoring a grown adult is some kind of nanny state nonsense. The entire idea of sponsorship is anti-libertarian. I can't believe people call themselves libertarian and think this fits. No open borders libertarian is suggesting that the state should spend money on immigrants. Just get out of their way and let them get a job.
@@jansonhensen7804 wtf are you talking about? Where did I say someone didn't understand what I was talking about? Maybe you should write a cogent argument instead of resorting to an ad hominem useless comment.
This is the correct answer. If there were no benefits to illegal immigrants, immigration would be cut significantly. Down to those who are actually coming in to work under the table seasonally and then leaving. Milton freedman said this back in like the 80s and for whatever reason, no one on the right argues for it. Always about how we need this or that, not how we can cut immigration and government at the same time
Common sense libertarian view and not extremist view is everyone has basic human rights, but everyone doesn't have the right to be an American citizen.
@@daltonbrasier5491I did watch it and posted a few replies, specific to what my objection was. Of course, it's over an hour so I can't confront everything.
@@frazierk100Everyone knows that. Both parties here are already libertarian. That's why they're arguing from that base position. In a debate, it's good to start from common ground-- not try to sell what your opponent already believes.
All of Chris Freiman’s analogies kinda boil down to, “well, this would justify First Amendment violations” which isn’t really logical or even a remotely reasonable comparison. Not wanting libertarian literature on public property is not analogous to not wanting people to enter the country against the wishes of the inhabitants. If public property is quasi-owned by American citizens in common, then all restrictions on foreigners are justified and very few restrictions on Americans are justified. Simple. It doesn’t seem like Freiman is ever going to get past the very silly analogies and hypotheticals.
Totally disagree; his argument is spot on. Daves argument is essentially that the tax paying public can vote in whatever restrictions they want so long as it's reasonable. Looking at a real life example; gun control supporters regularly talk about how all they want is reasonable gun control while supporting laws which on a plain reading of the second are clearly unconstitutional. Any argument for restrictions must be founded on something more than what an individual considers "reasonable". It's too subjective and allows for pretty much anything. To Daves counterpoint, I don't see why he'd be opposed to people being stopped if they had cars full of drugs if the majority decided it was reasonable to do so. It's the same subjective standard.
@@myfingid If you simply accept the very basic premise that people who legally live in the country have an ownership stake, that means that restrictions against citizens’ guns or speech rights or movement within the country have a very different character than restrictions on people who aren’t citizens/stakeholders/owners of the country. If I’m a co-owner of the house, then you can’t tell me not to read Communist or Libertarian literature or not to have a firearm in my room or something.
I found his analogy between state and federal borders to be absolutely childish. The two entities' obligations to their constituencies are completely different.
@@hugesinker Not really? You better read the Constitution-and read your state constitution while you're at it. It's a terrible analogy. I can't believe an adult came up with that.
@@williamerdman4888Funny you should mention that, because the US Constitution doesn't even give the federal government the power to prohibit peaceful people from crossing its borders-- only the power to regulate naturalization, which is different. It is not an enumerated power-- that's why there were no such restrictions for most of its history. It's extra-constitutional , and therefore it's supposed to be left to the states or to the people according to the 10th Amendment. Why don't you stop pretending to be incredulous and actually tell me what you think makes it wrong to cross one border and not another? What's this magical property that should prevent people from peacefully associating with each other for mutual benefit across one and not the other?
Why do you care so much about voting and democracy when it comes to your public road analogies but then think the fact that 90 percent of Americans are against open borders is irrelevant?
Closed border people: immigrants are using our roads without paying taxes! Also closed border people: I want my unemployed teenage kids to use our roads!
@@KryMooreOkay, now I'm starting to suspect that you are a scorned past lover of Dave's. You are everywhere in the comments. You've not presented a single argument against any of his current positions.
@@jeff-hh9mc I don't think papers should be required to travel anywhere. Why should I be more concerned about someone I don't know from Canada than I am about someone I don't know from Ohio? The entire concept is absurd and just shows how brainwashed we all are.
@@gregworrel2623 I’m not brainwashed. But I would agree that you are. Why should terrorist be allowed into America? Why do my taxes go to border jumpers who have broken the law entering America illegally?
@@gregworrel2623you are oblivious to reality. You are the epitome of why people think libertarians are cringe. People like you consistently live in the libertarian utopia inside your head instead of living in the real world. The reality is the structure of the world in which we live. If the world has a fundamentally libertarian structure then your comments would not be contradictory, but the world exists in a state(government) based reality. It’s no surprise that you seem to agree with the philosophy prof, that’s the only way you can think. You are brainwashed but you are too arrogant to see it
Illegal immigrants have flooded my area over the past 5 years and our school grew in students 3x in those 5 years. Many of those students are NOT documented and as a result our property taxes increased by over 50% So yeah, WE are forced to pay. Not very Libertarian is it? Also, the analogy of Chris using the movement between States as a comparison to country to country is silly. As "US citizens" we move freely about the country. The key word is "citizen."
You pay whether there are immigrants or not. Why blame the immigrants for people taking and spending your money? The immigrants didn't come up with this system. It would be no different if people moved from another town, or just had more babies. Human rights don't derive from being a citizen.
@@TheVeraciety maybe you should start following the basics of posting comments online and stop posting in all caps. When you stop exceeding the speed limit when you drive then I'll believe you're serious about laws.
@@gregworrel2623 Eight million penetrants brought in in direct contravention of all relevant laws - Natural, Constitutional, and Federal - under the flimsiest rational of Executive prerogative, sinking the American people under an bill of 451 billion dollars per annum estimated by the CBO, annihilating our sovereignty, imperiling our safety, and diluting our suffrage into fine dust. You have absolutely NO RIGHT to enslave citizens to the penetrants which this treasonous regime has colluded with cartels and adversaries in bringing. We are a Constitutional Democratic Republic, not an anarchical libertarian socialist dystopia. These illegals do not belong here, and must be repatriated forthwith. National sovereignty is a natural right.
@@gregworrel2623 Eight million penetrants brought in in direct contravention of all relevant laws - Natural, Constitutional, and Federal - under the flimsiest rational of Executive prerogative, sinking the American people under an bill of 451 billion dollars per annum estimated by the CBO, annihilating our sovereignty, imperiling our safety, and diluting our suffrage into fine dust. You have absolutely NO RIGHT to enslave citizens to the penetrants which this treasonous regime has colluded with cartels and adversaries in bringing. We are a Constitutional Democratic Republic, not an anarchical libertarian socialist dystopia. These penetrants do not belong here, and must be repatriated forthwith. National sovereignty is a natural right.
What planet are these Reason TV guys living on? Like it really seems they are just taking the absolute piss out of us or are so isolated in the beltway they haven’t felt anything yet for some crazy reason
@@rhekman- Well said. I heard a great line that I’ll try to paraphrase. “When with conservatives, I want to be with libertarians. When with libertarians, I want to be with conservatives.” Edit: credit for the line goes to Charles Cooke of National Review… and to his book, “The Conservatarian Manifesto”.
@@BruceWing That's a good quote. I certainly have my issues with big R Republican Inc - Trump's covid response, Cornyn's gun control, McConnell's deficit spending, etc. But at least there are conservatives in the fold I feel like are making a difference, even if the party on the whole fails a lot. "Big L" Libertarians, especially the intelligentsia elite espoused by Reason, constantly strike me as feckless and ineffectual. Whether it's immigration, abortion, big banks, free trade, big pharma, they seem all to happy to roll over and let the little guy get steamrolled as long as there is the appearance of small government.
@@rhekman- On the subject of bigness, the underlying economic problem is the natural existence of power laws (e.g. Pareto Principle). They mess with concepts of merit… because they concentrate the benefits of merit.
England is atrocious Pockets of London are 100% Muslim. Zero women to be found in sight. Crimes against LGBT. If they erect their own govts they will unravel western culture and constitutions back into the Middle Ages
A US citizen can carry weapons across state lines. Does it then follow that armed Chinese and Russian government agents should just be allowed to cross national boundaries?
As long as you legally own the firearms in your home state, you can travel through all 50 states with that firearm. It was challenged in Hawaii in 2022 and the case againt it was defeated@@Daniel-z5r2y
"Allowed" by whom? It's an interesting argument to make that it is unreasonable to not have the state dictate who can enter the territory the state occupies while simultaneously believing that it is also unreasonable to have the state at all.
The best immigration policy might be the one we already had and it’s called legal immigration. I think all other debates should be titled “Which is the best illegal immigration policy should we have?’
The immigration policy that the US had throughout most of its history, and during it's greatest economic and cultural gains, is to have open borders for peaceful people. You had to earn citizenship, but you were allowed to come here and work if you could make it. The first immigration restrictions were quite specific and limited, and also explicitly racist (aka The Chinese Exclusion Act). I hate that so many people have forgotten what America used to stand for and now we're so full of the same sort of paranoid idiots as everywhere else.
I'd argue yes it is but that the process should be simplified to become a citizen AND that English classes paid for by government should be mandatory encouraged and possible
As someone who considered himself a libertarian for a long time, there’s one thing I’ve learned: principles are not a suicide pact. Just because I believe in certain ideals does not mean I’m obligated to march my family toward certain doom by offering concessions to people who want to harm me and my way of life. No, I don’t want millions of invaders of my country to have the right to bear arms in an invasion on my home. No, I don’t care if that makes me a hypocrite for going against my espoused belief in the natural right to bear arms.
this, sir, is called not living in a vacuum and actually touching grass. Sometimes I get the sense that libertarians don't actually engage with the world they want to change. There are a number of things that have to change simultaneously in order for any of these ideas to work as policy. Just opening the borders without changing anything else would be catastrophic. You have to deal with the current situation on the ground first
@@nathanroyster1324 libertarian ideas only work in an extremely high trust society. They’re almost as unrealistic and utopian as socialist ideas, albeit at least with less deadly pitfalls. But yeah, agreed. I’ve been more of a realist now that I have my own kids, and I’ll shelve libertarianism as a nice pipe dream for now.
@@matthewherr1588 well I still consider myself a libertarian but yes it requires your citizens to operate, for the most part, virtously. However I do think a libertarian society would do significantly better at punishing those who dont operate virtously. There would be no bank bailouts for instance. Republican/Democrat bickering over their EXTREMElY corrupt political figure of choice makes me want to vomit so I cannot go that route. I just realize that the push for libertarian ideas in policy would be a long, drawn out process over series of years and potentially decades. Trying to walk it all back overnight would be a disaster.
@@nathanroyster1324 agreed. I’m definitely of the opinion that the political establishment in the US is corrupt from top to bottom, and it’s going to have to get ugly before it gets better, if it ever does. In theory I still principally support libertarianism, but I guess I’ve just become jaded because it seems to me that any truly liberty minded policies will be taken advantage of by a corrupt establishment and equally corrupt populace, at this point, just like our current system. We need a much more fundamental change in our hearts and our culture before any meaningful change can stick. In the meantime, I guess my politics puts me somewhere in the camp of Vivek - do as much as possible to dismantle the bureaucracy while maintaining law and order and secure borders
1. why are they so fixated on letting ppl into our country? We have our own problems to fix. Why cant those ppl fix their own country? 2. Who cares about cheap labor. It's getting rid of the federal reserve that fixes the wage issue.
@@anarchic_ramblings Ron Paul - a nation without secure boarders is no nation at all. Libertarianism has been infected with the postmodern world view.
The problem I have with this debate is that very early on the two representatives of the opposing viewpoints actually agreed on an immigration reform that would basically be libertarian and then spent the rest of the debate talking about fantastical exception cases
Most people say "go dave, fuck chris/liz/reason" or the opposite. I'll just say, thumbs up to Reason and participants for doing their best to illuminate all the aspects of this contentious matter and giving all the best arguments for both sides. Good watch, this is what the media should be doing more of.
Dave -americans shouldn't be forced to take care of other countries people. Chris- uh yes we should they contribute more then natural born citizens. Dave -🤨 source? Chris- trust me bro
A source was specifically provided in some detail at about @1:22:00. It's also in the sources note along with several others. This is actually the most common view among economists.
@@hugesinkerthe source you cite is from Alex Nosferatu from cato who agreed to debate Dave for charity then at the last minute chickened out cato is garbage Dave has debunked their biased data many times
@@DarlaKajca The difference is that Alex is a libertarian who believes in human liberty. Dave is distinctly anti-libertarian in his views on immigration and so does not believe in individual liberty. Whether he agreed to debate or not is irrelevant.
@@gregworrel2623it is relevant if Alex's is as right about immigration as he says he is then debate Dave especially if the debate was for charity.Alex doesn't care about anything other than replacing Americans with immigrants Dave has said many times why open borders isn't libertarian Ron Paul and hoppe are against open borders too you don't get to decide who is libertarian or not
1:30:00 Liz brings up immigration "100 years ago" as an example of being "much closer to open borders". 2024 just so happens to be the 100th anniversary of the passage of the Johnson-Reed Immigration Act which restricted immigration from southern Europe, eastern Europe, and Asia. It took an immigration policy that was already far from "open" as Liz would define it, a policy that was explicitly white nationalist in fact (cf. the 1790 Immigration and Naturalization Act,) and restricted immigration FURTHER to northwestern Europe, which ironically is almost exclusively the ancestral source of libertarians in the real world. The Irish, Italians, and Eastern European jews who came in large numbers in the late 19th were far less libertarian than America's founding stock and this tendency persists in political patterns to this day. It's astounding how ignorant and detached from reality these Beltway Libertarianism Inc. types are.
It was a horrible idea then and it is still a horrible idea today. Yes, immigration law is steeped in bigotry and racism. The idea that somehow you advance the ideas of libertarianism by promoting the exact opposite of libertarianism is so stupid as to defy explanation. That's all we need is a government that makes more life and death decisions when it can't even handle the potholes.
The data set that the CATO model is based on does NOT include data on legal/illegal immigration status (or immigration status at all)-- which is the heart of the issue. The paper states this: "The second change we attempted was to include a separate net fiscal cost estimate for illegal immigrants, but we were unable to implement it due to small sample sizes in the CPS [Current Population Survey]." They acknowledge right there in black and white that the CPS survey doesn't include a large enough sample size of illegal immigrants. A quick google search shows that the CPS does not ask about immigration status, although it does ask about citizenship status.They pick a random sample of addresses and then determine if they are eligible or willing to do the survey. I can imagine that someone in the country illegally would most likely decline to answer questions from a federal government representative. There is NO way to remotely accurately guess the proportion of survey respondents who are illegal immigrants. So in short, the data CATO is looking at cannot be used to evaluate if illegal immigrants are a net plus or minus to the economy. It's the illegal immigration question that is truly the heart of the debate and the CATO study does not apply AT ALL! And yet, they have the gall to make this assumption: "Reduced illegal immigrant ineligibility for most benefits in this model means that the net fiscal impact of illegal immigrants would almost certainly be more positive than that of legal immigrants at the same age and education level, but we were unable to verify that because of the small sample sizes." And yet we hear reports of illegal immigrants in New York being provided food, housing, and access to public schools. They have access to roads and emergency room care. So no, it's not a given that the net fiscal impact of illegal immigrants would "almost certainly" be a net positive. Get some data and then let's see.
13:50 Dave's entire premise that they, millions of illegals, were never invited is false. I know plenty of private business owners and property owners are not only welcoming them but are also inviting them. We do not have enough labor. Our work visa quotas are usually filled within the first day or two. Furthermore, trespassing is usually defined as when you specifically ask someone to leave your property and they refuse. Or, someone ignores clearly posted signs telling them not to trespass, etc.
The thing that always bothers me about these podcasts so far is that Liz and Zach consistently try to steelman what you might call the leftist libertarian position in any debate and essentially argue for that position as second and third debaters on that team. They don’t give the same treatment to what you might consider the rightist libertarian position, i.e. Dave’s property rights based argument. It would be better if they just didn’t talk and let Dave and Chris have at it. This debate’s moderation was less egregious than the moderation for the episode on George Floyd, but that’s very faint praise. I couldn’t even finish the George Floyd episode. It was like watching a presidential debate, where the moderators are repeatedly ganging up on one side.
Do realize that JAQ has no obligation to present a standard debate form with impartial moderators. It's in the name: "Just Asking Questions." The "moderators" as you call them are here to ask questions too, and it would be vicarious and dubious if they did so from somewhere besides their own ideological camps. (All camps here are pretty close anyway.)
@@pwhqngl0evzeg7z37 It would be good if we had someone on the panel who would “just ask questions” that expose issues people have with the other side. Perhaps it’s fine for everyone to ask questions purely based on the ideological camp they come from within libertarianism. But in that case, it would be nice to see Reason put some people on RU-vid (or on its staff) who are more property rights libertarian types rather than what I would loosely term hippie-tarians. Nick Gillespie, Zach, and Liz seem to be of one mind on way too many issues that a lot of libertarians disagree on. It damages the credibility of Reason within the movement.
@@howardroark3736 Could you give examples or explain why you feel those are not "property rights libertarians," or otherwise considerably different? Because I listen to them relatively often (Nick especially) and can't agree. Or more broadly, what are the major issues of contention within libertarianism?
Dave Smith is cringe and anything but libertarian. He makes that painfully clear in this debate. He does not believe in individual liberty and thinks it should be based on majority opinion. The fact that open immigration is unpopular is totally irrelevant.
@@KryMoore["this user has 17 comments on this video"] for a guy named "cry more" you sure seem to be crying a lot. hope you're getting paid to post this coal lmao
Legal immigration sponsorship should include liability of the sponsor for both the financial and legal behavior of the dependent guest. This sponsorship arrangement should extend to tourists or any other short-term visitors to the country. This may include hotels and resorts sponsoring foreign guests.
This debate reminds me of why I gave up libertarianism in my 20s. Just one extreme hypothetical after the next with very little basis in reality. Dave was the only sane sounding one this entire time l.
If too many people go to the same Walmart at once, there has to be a limit. I don't see how that "concession" amounts to anything unless you think that means you should need a full sponsorship to go to Walmart.
The concession is exactly that. There has to be a limit. If 1,000,000,000 chinese immigrants come in to the U.S.A. illegally next year our entire country is destroyed. You need to know who is coming in, and the ones that do come in have to be the best and the brightest.
Bruh, the difference between interstate traffic and open borders is the understanding between the inhabits of the U.S. states punctuated by a preexisting network of interstate highways and strange aliens walking across your border.
That's not a difference. There are several regularly traveled common roads between Mexico and the United States that existed before the those states were even US territories. Up until the 1920s, the Mexican border was basically open.
Libertarian Party platform doesn’t recognize publicly owned property. Aggression is the use, trespass against, or invasion of the borders of another person’s owned resource (property) without the owner’s consent; or the threat thereof. We oppose all acts of aggression as illegitimate and unjust, whether committed by private actors or the state.
Moving on public roads is not infringing on anyone's private property. Renting or buying property from willing private owners is not infringing on anyone's private property. Working for willing private employers is not infringing on anyone's private property. Your name of "libertynow" is a bit of a joke if you don't believe in individual liberty.
@@gregworrel2623 It isn't. My comment referred to one of the panelists who was using the personal property permission as an analogy for immigration. My problem was with his use of natural right.
Does Chris believe in citizenship? Is there a difference between someone who is and isn't a citizen. If there is, then comparing a national border to the West Virginia border makes zero Sense.
This is what bothers me about the open borders position, to some extent it assumes that the same governing laws apply to the entire world, and at no point can you cross a line where you would need to learn how to interface with society differently.
muh "skilled" Indian immigrants are the most leftist ethnicity in America. They're also the highest-earning, meaning they wield hugely disproportionate influence as leftists. Idiots like the Reason/Cato crowd made the same argument for jewish immigration back in the day. Accepting it was the historic American nation's worst mistake ever.
US citizens moving from Penn to W. Virginia has nothing do with the 3 million illegal immigrants moving from S. America, through Central America, through Mexico into the US.
Dear Chris, my federal tax dollars go to other states like Virginia, for example, so it's not the same thing as me having the right to go to Japan uninvited. Dave wins big.
This is the thing. Not enough libertarians look at the government we have, versus the one we want. There has to be a realist view on who’s in congress, what you can feasibly do in government, and how you can prevent future growth and fraud
@@caseyleonard1327 Your ancestors who came here probably didn't speak English either. That has zero to do with whether people should have the right to immigrate.
Throughout, Chris Freiman compares national borders with state lines. They are two different things, hence, the freedom of movement across state lines, as decreed in the Constitution.
We've heard for generations that we need fewer people. Suddenly that's not true? Most policy seems to be based upon fashion more than anything, so the actual facts are elusive, but I personally prefer a lower population: higher wages, cheaper land/housing, cleaner air, less tension, less government. Also, people are not interchangeable. Look at the effects of a certain cult's invasion of Europe.
I soured on the libertarian party after they rejected Ron Paul. I completely left when I realized libertarians care more about "consistency" over reality.
Open borders will work if everyone shared the same culture and values as you. That is a hard pill I had to swallow otherwise its a tower of babble scenario with migrants overstressing social services and working on stolen SS# and IDs. I was in a battle for 2 years with the IRS because I didnt file taxes for companies I didn' work for in a State I haven't visited since I was in Elementary school. Also there is the observational study of looking at whole neighborhoods wilting away. I have a property in Fort Worth that I rented out and each tenant complains about the migrant neighbors doing all sorts of crazy stuff including slaughtering live animals for religious practices (they were Muslim). So no, culture matters.
*"Open borders will work if everyone shared the same culture and values as you. "* It DID work for most of the history of the United States. Immigration from Mexico wasn't significantly curtailed until well into the 20th century. If you want that sort of identity theft reduced, make it easier to legally travel to the United States to work.
@@hugesinker I'm very aware of the 1924 cease of immigration. You make absolutely no sense because identity theft is a crime. "Just end the state bros" will get no sympathy from me. Culture matters, those who don't see culture and demographics matter lives in an ahistorical fantasy. What was 2020 all about? What was the korean pogrom in Los Angeles all about other than demographics dont mix passed off as some kind of riot that magically kicked off with a crackhead getting stomped by police? NYC is looking more third world with each passing year. I'm done with people acting like if we give them all man, economy and state in Spanish they would vote for the copyrighted term "freedom and liberty" rather than incentives. You are promoting oligarchy and a caste system that resembles central and south America, not liberty with massive unskilled and uneducated labor.
The house nation analogy does not have problems. The problem with libertarianism is that its policies leads to the destruction of libertarianism. The US affords the libertarians to tout their free society but all of that is in a bubble that without the US and its policies, would burst.
I'm a huge fan of Dave Smith his stand-up it's awesome and his views make more sense than most people with an opinion and I hope he never shuts up because everyone should take a lesson and help make this country better
The key problem with the CATO dtudies is they are talking about legal immigrants. Legal imigrants on net are tax contributions, we want more of them CATO is not looking at illegal immigrants. Illegal imigrants can't contribute as they can't legally weork well there (false) asylum vlaim is pending. The free housing and free food programs we are seeing from NYC and Chicago are also new and are kn no way revenue positive.
I don't know that we necessarily want more legal immigrants. It doesn't seem clear that they are empirically a net good, nor am I convinced their utility can be easily measured in purely economic terms. Until we become ancapistan, I would criminalize all immigration.
75% of hispanic lead households are on one or more forms of welfare. If you look at net taxes paid by race, only whites and asians are net positive. You can whittle down some micro immigration group like recently arrived Nigerians, but you would be ignoring both long term trends and the larger immigration picture.
I just checked the Cato paper they cited. The paper DOES do its best to include Illegal Immigrants in its estimates and models. It specifically describes the methods it uses to do so.
@@hugesinker1. You know youtube doesn't allow links 2. If I go back and find the source, then find a way to convey how to get to it, would you actually accept it or do you want me to find the source to waste my time/ find some arbitrary reason to discard it?
Open borders guy seems to be unable to distinguish between restricting the rights of foreigners to use public property and restricting the rights of citizens to use public property.
Your rights are determined by where you were born? That is not how natural rights work. That is not what the writers of the Declaration of Independence meant when they wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Her excessive blink rate is very distracting. I made it half way through. Dave wins. Chris was putting me to sleep with his incredibly verbose "arguments" that seemed to have nothing to do with reality. Reason has been nothing but real yawners lately.
If there wasn’t a demand for cheap labor, there wouldn’t be this issue. Corporations hire these people to work. Trafficking human beings from border states because you don’t want them is unconscionable.
open all borders, of all countries, to all people, from all countries, no exception. PROBLEM SOLVED! the "ideal" immigration policy is, everyone can migrate wherever they want, no questions asked. The same way people can move between neighborhoods, cities, or states, with our having to apply for citizenship, go though check points, and beg other gate keepers for their blessings and approvals to use their own natural ability to trave. no one has any obligation to ask someone else for permission to improve their own life. people have the right to migrate wherever they want. we are all humans, we are all from the same planet......Its time for people to wake up, grow up, and live in the real world.
I’m afraid you’re the one who doesn’t live in the real world. You’re like those 2 idealistic Swedish girls who went travelling in Morocco because it’s so cool and everyone is equal - and they got kidnapped, raped and then as they called for their mothers and begged for mercy they were beheaded. That’s the real world outside of the civilised West.
That’s like saying the ideal is that we should remove import taxes on China goods because China will (for the sake of fairness) stop restricting their own wages of their citizens and remove all existing restrictions on trade. Libertarianism is the same as communism in regards that it only works if every single person morally agrees and voluntarily complies. The only difference is that communism deals with its dissidents via violence. Where as Libertarianism lets its dissidents take over the system and then those in control resort to violence. Libertarianism is communism with an OOPS extra step.
As a political scientist your solution is ridiculous and absolutely untenable! Vetting is the best solution. Not everyone who comes to this country for example comes for a job many are criminals and only make society worse. I know from experience having lived in these situations that it is true.
25:08 i dont mind Daves take on that. Need cosigner to get a car, a home, in alot of cases USCIS might want a cosponsor to bring an immigrant in. Leaves the inviter on the hook, least partly.
What would happen if the government dissolved, people would hire private parties to deal with invaders, it would just be voluntary and effective, unlike when government exists and they take your money and its neither voluntary or an effective use of money.
If government dissolved, the owners of private roads would not give a flying fuck where their customers were born. The same would be true for most landlords, employers, and real-estate brokers.
Even in a free nation individual landowners would enjoy legal protection of their homesteaded easement to existing levels of crime and disease in their neighborhoods. I personally don't think liability goes far enough in legitimizing an invitation because there is no amount of monetary compensation that can make up for the murder of a loved one by a hostile alien.
I would have liked more of Chris and Dave, less Liz. In general I believe Dave’s position holds up much better than the original open borders stance posed by chris
