Open borders in USA: ethically required?

[Keron]

I worry about wages in unskilled jobs such as Hod-carrying (my current job where I'm lucky to earn £60 a day) if immigration was completely open. I also have concerns over how welfare, education and healthcare can be funded in a country that has open borders but doesn't have an infinite supply of jobs.

this.

The is no "right" of immigration, and open borders would only strain the resources available .

Not really. If there's a deficit of labour, there would be an inflow of labour. If there's a surplus, there would be an outflow. In both cases, the labour market would adjust itself.

Whereas, with laws restricting migration, this adjustment does not occur.

[North Stradia]

Open the borders, eliminate all immigration requirements. Give amnesty to all "illegal" immigrants except for violent criminals.

[Gauthier]

Just to humor your American WASP fanboyism, how exactly did native American culture violate "basic natural rights of life, liberty and property?" History seems to suggest it was the White Man who was violating the natural rights of life, liberty and property of the natives. Unless of course you think the Trail of Tears was the Republican Party on Election Night 2012.

Indians weren't exactly known for their philosphy. Thus, they weren't even aware that natural rights existed, which meant that none of the three rights were respected among the Indians in pre-Columbian America.

Thus, the Europeans had to teach the Indians about these rights, about the concept of private property etc etc. This education was supported by people like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson as I mentioned earlier, and led to dramatic increases in literacy and life expectancy among the Indians, especially among the five civilized tribes.

I'm sorry but that goalpost won't budge. Your White Man's Burden sermon while cute did nothing to answer my question. HOW EXACTLY DID THE NATIVE AMERICANS VIOLATE BASIC NATURAL RIGHTS OF LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY? If they were truly natural, you'd think the Native Americans would instinctually know about it.

[North Stradia]

Just to humor your American WASP fanboyism, how exactly did native American culture violate "basic natural rights of life, liberty and property?" History seems to suggest it was the White Man who was violating the natural rights of life, liberty and property of the natives. Unless of course you think the Trail of Tears was the Republican Party on Election Night 2012.

Indians weren't exactly known for their philosphy. Thus, they weren't even aware that natural rights existed, which meant that none of the three rights were respected among the Indians in pre-Columbian America.

Thus, the Europeans had to teach the Indians about these rights, about the concept of private property etc etc. This education was supported by people like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson as I mentioned earlier, and led to dramatic increases in literacy and life expectancy among the Indians, especially among the five civilized tribes.

You're not American. Why do you love America so much? There's really no reason to. Creationists, obesity, imperialism, the worst education system of any developed country, the list goes on...

[Agymnum]

Indians weren't exactly known for their philosphy. Thus, they weren't even aware that natural rights existed, which meant that none of the three rights were respected among the Indians in pre-Columbian America.

Thus, the Europeans had to teach the Indians about these rights, about the concept of private property etc etc. This education was supported by people like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson as I mentioned earlier, and led to dramatic increases in literacy and life expectancy among the Indians, especially among the five civilized tribes.

You're not American. Why do you love America so much? There's really no reason to. Creationists, obesity, imperialism, the worst education system of any developed country, the list goes on...

He loves all those things. Why do you think he loves America so much?

[The Joseon Dynasty]

this.

The is no "right" of immigration, and open borders would only strain the resources available .

Not really. If there's a deficit of labour, there would be an inflow of labour. If there's a surplus, there would be an outflow. In both cases, the labour market would adjust itself.

Whereas, with laws restricting migration, this adjustment does not occur.

The marginal utility of immigration is not only a function of labour demanded. Distortions occur through more intangible utility-generating factors, such as welfare, healthcare or a lower crime rate.

[Tartonica]

Indians weren't exactly known for their philosphy. Thus, they weren't even aware that natural rights existed, which meant that none of the three rights were respected among the Indians in pre-Columbian America.

Thus, the Europeans had to teach the Indians about these rights, about the concept of private property etc etc. This education was supported by people like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson as I mentioned earlier, and led to dramatic increases in literacy and life expectancy among the Indians, especially among the five civilized tribes.

I'm sorry but that goalpost won't budge. Your White Man's Burden sermon while cute did nothing to answer my question. HOW EXACTLY DID THE NATIVE AMERICANS VIOLATE BASIC NATURAL RIGHTS OF LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY? If they were truly natural, you'd think the Native Americans would instinctually know about it.

Did anyone here ever realize that the "natural rights" weren't conceived for about 4000 years of civilization, until some physician from England thought about it during a time when alcohol was consumed more than actual water?

And about immigration, it is natural ( ) for a nation made of immigrants/former immigrants to accept more immigrants. Granted, we can't just accept crackheads and terrorists into this nation, but we shouldn't impose a restriction on the volume of immigration, aside from blocking those with shady backgrounds.

[North Stradia]

I'm sorry but that goalpost won't budge. Your White Man's Burden sermon while cute did nothing to answer my question. HOW EXACTLY DID THE NATIVE AMERICANS VIOLATE BASIC NATURAL RIGHTS OF LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY? If they were truly natural, you'd think the Native Americans would instinctually know about it.

Did anyone here ever realize that the "natural rights" weren't conceived for about 4000 years of civilization, until some physician from England thought about it during a time when alcohol was consumed more than actual water?

And about immigration, it is natural ( ) for a nation made of immigrants/former immigrants to accept more immigrants. Granted, we can't just accept crackheads and terrorists into this nation, but we shouldn't impose a restriction on the volume of immigration, aside from blocking those with shady backgrounds.

This (the second paragraph) is exactly what I believe.

[Keron]

Not really. If there's a deficit of labour, there would be an inflow of labour. If there's a surplus, there would be an outflow. In both cases, the labour market would adjust itself.

Whereas, with laws restricting migration, this adjustment does not occur.

The marginal utility of immigration is not only a function of labour demanded. Distortions occur through more intangible utility-generating factors, such as welfare, healthcare or a lower crime rate.

Hm, you're right.

A rather bad oversight on my part.

[Kirrig]

What if the vendors at the marketplace did not extend an invitation to Marvin and, by extension, the third party was acting on their behalf? Would that change the conclusion?

You would hope so.

The problem with living on an island (more accurately, an archipelago) is that getting here illegally is much much harder (and incredibly dangerous). It also makes thinking about this sort of thing more difficult.

I would hope that a country is able to prevent those it does not want to enter from entering. While my passport will get me into Aussie no problems if I was a convicted burglar, no such luck. On the other hand there is a very real fear here that the hundreds of thousands of NZers who live in Australia will forever be an underclass because of Australian policies that we don't have equivalents for. That is beside the point though... my idea is that it is right to prevent entry in some situations.

Now, I think that an inviting immigration policy is a good thing. For much of the developed world it is the only thing standing between population growth and contraction. However, you cannot just open the borders and let everyone in. Being on an island helps stops certain things from entering NZ but they do get in from time to time (PSA, great example). However, it is still possible with controlled immigration to reduce the risk of such undesirable non-human elements intruding. That's justification, it is enough without the above.

Okay, let's say that you let everyone in but you do what you can to prevent the undesirable non-human elements in. So, that's open admission with amnesty for smuggling biological and non-biological materials. In return you let people out but you've got to do the same in return (lest we get some garlic smugglers, right?). Often, these will be the same people that were causing time wastage going in (accidental smugglers aren't likely to become deliberate ones on the way out). It's not a good look when the guy trying to smuggle Harpy Eagles into the US is seen trying smuggle Bald Eagles on the way out, is it? In the name of time, do away with that amnesty.

Immigration as open as I would like it... done. Oh, you should also be recording who has gone in. Otherwise if they go in nicely and then come out badly you won't be able to complicate entry next time for them.

[Azakhia]

I think that the US should open it's border with Mexico when Mexico opens its southern borders to the rest of the world.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2010/09/22/a-fence-for-the-southern-border-of-mexico/
http://www.voxxi.com/guatemala-mexico-border-dangerous-us-border/

Mexico to build a southern fence..https://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/october-6-2010/mexico-build-southern-border-fence.html

[Gauthier]

I think that the US should open it's border with Mexico when Mexico opens its southern borders to the rest of the world.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2010/09/22/a-fence-for-the-southern-border-of-mexico/
http://www.voxxi.com/guatemala-mexico-border-dangerous-us-border/

Mexico to build a southern fence..https://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/october-6-2010/mexico-build-southern-border-fence.html

Opening the Mexican border is a bad idea until they resolve that whole cartel problem.

[Demen 2]

Good luck having a welfare state, or even a basic safety net, in a country with completely unrestricted immigration. Bankruptcy would be a given.

The reason being?

Brown people; the cause of gays, the holocaust, poverty, stock market crashes, gun control, terrorism, big business, etc.


Duh.

[Free South Califas]

Good luck having a welfare state, or even a basic safety net, in a country with completely unrestricted immigration. Bankruptcy would be a given.

Source?
By the way, even if this is true, Huemer's argument allows for the process to be reversed if it is shown that allowing more immigrants would harm, or has harmed, the welfare state. Huemer does not claim to demonstrate that the US is ethically required to open its borders to all no matter the consequences; in this sense, he distinguishes himself from certain anarchists who oppose the very notion of borders on ethical grounds, as well as weaker positions which merely claim that the government specifically has to allow all comers. Rather, Huemer claims that we are ethically required to make the attempt; if the attempt is a dismal failure, Huemer is willing to abandon it.

What does moral duty (which is subjective) have to do with the actual business of running a country again? The US is no more obligated to open its borders than Mexico is, or for that matter any other country. The various national governments of the world have the right to determine their own immigration policies and if some people can't move to wherever they want to easily, that is just too bad. A nation's primary responsibility is for its own citizens.

1. If you read the article, I think you'll find that Huemer explores this popular line of defense and declares it insufficient. A national government is not like a plot of land, with a unitary owner; it is much more like (indeed, literally is, in a geophysical sense) a collection of such plots. On your land, the US government has generally recognized your right to invite whomever you like to stay at your pleasure, and only limits this right to the extent that criminal law provides; harboring terrorists, etc. Therefore, if the law against immigrating without first acquiring specific legal documents, or its current interpretation, is unjust--a major controversy in US politics today--then the US government has no justification for setting the terms of who may or may not use your home, other than requiring your permission (but then again, see rebuttal #3 below.)

2. While I admit I am ignorant of the property laws of Mexico and most other countries, it is worth noting that the US is a "federation", composed of unitary States, not a "nation" which would be a unitary State itself. The terms are used interchangeably in US political rhetoric, even in legislation, but there is a meaningful legal distinction. If any government can be said to have comparable powers to, say, France, or Uganda, it would be a state government. I am not sure whether Huemer's argument would support state limits; however, it is fairly clear that the Constitution can and does limit states' powers to deny services or recognition to immigrants, and the Congress also has the power to regulate interstate commerce. Therefore, the one type of government in the USA which could theoretically claim this power, can be prevented from doing so by federal law.

3. The argument that the physical remit of government is more like a series of plots than a single plot of land is compelling, and adheres well to empirical reality. In order to propose some other conception of government's physical remit, this one would have to be defeated. Even if you did so, however, consider that US property law, varying by jurisdiction, commonly allows an unpermitted resident to claim ownership of a squat, assuming that person has met certain conditions: she has not been allowed to stay by the previous legal owner, she has made significant contributions to the upkeep or improvement of the property, and she has continuously occupied it for a certain minimum amount of time. To reject the application of this line of thinking toward immigration, I would need a good reason.

4. Whether a law code must be ethical is, of course, up for debate. If you do not already believe it must, I think you and I have a fundamental disagreement. However, there is a significant difference between ethics and deontology, and nothing to be gained from confusing the two.

[Arkiasis]

As a Canadian, no thanks. We don't want angry foreigners invading our southern borders and taking our jobs.

[North Stradia]

I think that the US should open it's border with Mexico when Mexico opens its southern borders to the rest of the world.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2010/09/22/a-fence-for-the-southern-border-of-mexico/
http://www.voxxi.com/guatemala-mexico-border-dangerous-us-border/

Mexico to build a southern fence..https://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/october-6-2010/mexico-build-southern-border-fence.html

Opening the Mexican border is a bad idea until they resolve that whole cartel problem.

Which we can resolve quickly and peacefully by legalizing ALL drugs.

[North Stradia]

As a Canadian, no thanks. We don't want angry foreigners invading our southern borders and taking our jobs.

DEY TERK ERR JERBS!!!!!

[Gauthier]

Opening the Mexican border is a bad idea until they resolve that whole cartel problem.

Which we can resolve quickly and peacefully by legalizing ALL drugs.

PCP and Bath Salts for everyone!

[North Stradia]

Which we can resolve quickly and peacefully by legalizing ALL drugs.

PCP and Bath Salts for everyone!

A lot of people actually do it just for the thrill of breaking the law.

We should make a separate thread for this, I don't want to threadjack.

[Free South Califas]

Which we can resolve quickly and peacefully by legalizing ALL drugs.

PCP and Bath Salts for everyone!

The government can simultaneously legalize drugs and provide addiction treatment and prevention services, while strictly regulating all recreational drugs, as it does alcohol. Which, unlike PCP or bath salts, has been consistently and conclusively linked to violent and antisocial behavior.

PCP and Bath Salts for everyone!

A lot of people actually do it just for the thrill of breaking the law.

We should make a separate thread for this, I don't want to threadjack.

In my humble opinion, it is intensely relevant to this thread. /notamao

[Kirrig]

I take it you've never set foot on a reservation? Our policy with regard to the Native Americans was basically 'out of sight, out of mind.', and the results have not been pretty. But it's okay I guess, cause we gave them casino's and pedigree papers right?

If we had integrated Native Americans into the rest of American society instead of shoving them off, they would be in a much better situation right now.

I (being foreign to such foreigners as Americans) rarely hear anything at all about Native Americans in the US. In fact, you'd be foregiven for assuming that African Americans were the native people of the US. But that's more to do with the situation here than a direct impression.

Uhhh, yes. Western science, medicine, literature, music, arts > what the Indians had before the Europeans came over. Missisippian culture might be an exception, but the general rule was that the Indian tribes in the present-day US were fairly primitive until the Europeans arrived.

Science =/= culture
Medicine =/= culture

Only literature, music, and arts qualify as culture. Culture is subjective. Sciences are not. I will concede that the west had superior sciences and knowledge to the east and the Americas, but western culture is not superior to any other culture.

You clearly haven't heard of Maori Science. Neither had I but apparently it was part of the curriculum when I started school. Which I suppose says either the guy complaining that it doesn't exist was successful or my school was something of a cause unto itself.

In general, immigrants try to get involved with the natives of that country, precisely because they feel lonely. Ghettos arise because the natives shun the immigrants.

I'd say that's quite a simplification. Ghettoes can equally be established because the immigrants shun the natives, but more likely because of tension arising from both parties.

I think it is more like the below.

Immigrants arrive. They find little to help them. They find other immigrants from their homeland. They communicate with them. The natives (from the immigrant's perspective) take that as a rejection of their culture/nation and/or view immigration as "they take our jobs". That negativity discourages investigative forays, so the isolates become stronger. That in turns strengthens the views of the natives.

And, the thing is, it is too late to fix that because it has already happened.

The melting pot is a fiction. More like a salad bowl.

Why? A melting pot creates a more unified society.

Fruit Salad is the ideal now. Not one large bowl of the same composed of various different now indistinct parts, instead one large bowl composed of a variety of distinct parts.

In many ways it is simultaneously more realistic and more idealistic. Distinct parts is very easy to achieve. The trick is making it feel like one bowl, not many.

[Free South Califas]

Good luck having a welfare state, or even a basic safety net, in a country with completely unrestricted immigration. Bankruptcy would be a given.

Without having sky-high taxes on almost everyone in order to prop up this welfare state.

It is important to note that Huemer allows for the possibility that the government could tax immigrants to make up the difference between their tax provisions and their service usage.

[Kirrig]

PCP and Bath Salts for everyone!

The government can simultaneously legalize drugs and provide addiction treatment and prevention services, while strictly regulating all recreational drugs, as it does alcohol. Which, unlike PCP or bath salts, has been consistently and conclusively linked to violent and antisocial behavior.

A lot of people actually do it just for the thrill of breaking the law.

We should make a separate thread for this, I don't want to threadjack.

In my humble opinion, it is intensely relevant to this thread. /notamao

Okay, drugs are now legal.

They are controlled and taxed in much the same way as alcohol.

We also have open borders so, my understanding says (this may be the undoing of this argument) that we let anyone in.

Mexico has non-taxed drugs.

The immigrants who are uncontrolled rort the system by bringing in duty-free drugs.

People compare this to the existing cigarette issue.

[Free South Califas]

I worry about wages in unskilled jobs such as Hod-carrying (my current job where I'm lucky to earn £60 a day) if immigration was completely open.

You should consider reading the PDF I linked in the OP. While I share your concern about falling wages, Huemer asks if it would be right to accost Marvin and physically prevent him from entering the marketplace to buy the one type of bread he can afford, simply because it is in limited supply and your daughter would prefer to buy that bread instead of a more expensive type. He concludes that it would not be ethical; do you disagree? Surely we can agree that one's parents are even more ethically responsible for one's welfare than the government is, even if we also agree that the government has a strong responsibility to provide for a minimum standard of welfare.

I also have concerns over how welfare, education and healthcare can be funded in a country that has open borders but doesn't have an infinite supply of jobs.

While pragmatists are right to raise such questions, Huemer's argument allows for the government not only to tax immigrants in order to make up the gap, but also to end the open-border experiment if it proves harmful to the stability of the welfare state.

[Kirrig]

I worry about wages in unskilled jobs such as Hod-carrying (my current job where I'm lucky to earn £60 a day) if immigration was completely open.

You should consider reading the PDF I linked in the OP. While I share your concern about falling wages, Huemer asks if it would be right to accost Marvin and physically prevent him from entering the marketplace to buy the one type of bread he can afford, simply because it is in limited supply and your daughter would prefer to buy that bread instead of a slightly more expensive type. He concludes that it would not be ethical; do you disagree?

I also have concerns over how welfare, education and healthcare can be funded in a country that has open borders but doesn't have an infinite supply of jobs.

While pragmatists are right to raise such questions, Huemer's argument allows for the government not only to tax immigrants in order to make up the gap, but also to end the open-border experiment if it proves harmful to the stability of the welfare state.

Free Borders. Unless that turns out to be a bad thing, right?

To tax immigrants you must know immigrants. The problem is, the borders are free. Turns out Joe walked into America forty days ago but only he knows that. Everyone else thinks he's just from somewhere else...