I have seen many friends of mine spreading powerfully anti-amnesty literature across social media. However, I have yet to see many solid and concrete arguments in this literature, so I have been contemplating and researching the topic with a fully open mind. Here, I will discuss the conclusions I have reached in reference to the few arguments contained in the aforementioned literature. This is meant to foster discussion; I welcome dissent and agreement alike. The first and main argument I have heard against open borders is the old theyll take our jobs mantra. To me, this is easily disproven upon both philosophical and empirical grounds. First, this makes no logical sense. If an immigrant can perform the same job you can with a higher productivity level for less pay, then he is a better worker and deserves to be hired, period. There is no logical argument to the contrary. You either need to improve your productivity or find another field of work. You cant support a truly free market and the sovereignty of the individual and simultaneously be against immigration for this reason. If the labor market is to be free, competition should be fostered. Favoring closed borders creates barriers of entry into the labor market and thus decreases competition. Secondly, Ive heard people espousing that immigration is bad for the economy. This, too, is nonsensical. How on earth would millions more consumers, spending money on the free market, possibly be bad for the economy? Historically, immigrants have greatly fostered economic growth in the United States. Further, immigrant employment means lower prices for the productivity reasons listed above. If there is higher productivity for a lower cost, then consumer prices will fall. Third is the argument that caring for the young and the poor is a drag on the system. The problems with argument are two-fold: first of all, the public welfare system should not be so large as to include them. If we did not have such an expansive welfare system, there would be no system for them to drag. However, even in the current state of affairs, this argument does not hold water. Yes, some immigrants are fostered by Big Brother. However, an even larger number pay into the system without drawing from it. This happens because employers are required to obtain the social security number of a potential employee. Illegal immigrants simply make up a 9 digit number and go to work. This means that they pay all required taxes, but dont draw from the system because they dont actually have picture identification. They give money into the system without drawing any benefit from it. The final and strongest argument I have heard is the national security issue: if we have an open border, our enemies can come over. However, isnt that happening already? One single fact completely disproves this argument: every single attack on American soil ever (save Pearl Harbor) has been perpetrated by either an American citizen or someone who came to the United States legally. Any immigrant who came over under an open border policy would have to obey the same rules we do: they cant steal, cheat, harm, etc. They will be under the same overly massive security network we citizens are. No greater threat would be posed by an open border than is already posed with the closed border we have today. The only argument for which I still have not obtained a solid conclusion is specifically that of amnesty. The accepted definition of amnesty is granting full citizenship to all illegal immigrants. Obviously, democrats will credit claim this and we wont have a republican or anyone besides a democrat in the White House for 50 years or more. However, think about this from a broader perspective: what does being a citizen mean? What makes one a citizen? The pragmatic and realistic answer is a few slips of paper given to us by the Federal government stating that they recognize us as citizens. That is all that is required to be a legal citizen of the United States. What if we had a completely open border, and issued these slips of paper without any hassle and without a massive and expensive naturalization process? What if Republicans did this instead? This would be a massive victory for the free market and the unrestricted movement of human capital across borders, and would multiply the positive economic affects I listed above. It would also completely alleviate the forever Democrat issue: win over the voters with free market, liberty minded principles through this open border proposition. Please, friends, comment and tell me what you think. The entire point of this status is to foster calm and intellectual discussion. What do my fellow liberty-minded friends have to say about this? What say you, Ashton Elijah Pittman?
Posted on: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 19:59:00 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015