Now, some libertarians (who call themselves Classical liberals, as I do) will suggest that Friedman supported illegal immigration, insofar as he points out the mutual benefit derived from such an arrangement. But that is a description, not an endorsement — and Friedman would no doubt understand that “allowing” illegal activity is anathema to a nation built around the rule of law, and that of course a country has both the right and obligation to determine who gains entry and what is their status.
What Friedman is doing is describing how immigration must necessarily function in a welfare state. He is not making the moral case for lawlessness — and of course, people were turned away at Ellis Island for all sort of reasons. Those of us who aren’t “free immigration,” open border types, would argue that at the proper time we’re willing to look at expanding work visa programs (provided some enforcement mechanism was in check to keep clear check on visa recipients and make sure they leave when the visa expires) — but the fact of the matter is, at a time when national security is a serious concern, and minority and youthful citizens are unable to find work, there is no real benefit to advocating for the economic “rights” of non-citizens, nor to cater to them rather than to our own citizenry, over 92 million of which have left the workforce entirely.
This is cast as xenophobia, racism, nativism, or anti-immigrant — all of which is ludicrous. Some libertarians go so far as to note that they advocate for immigration without access to welfare — as if this is some genius cure-all: why not just let everybody in and give them a certain legal status but deny them access to welfare benefits, the argument goes.
And yet who can’t see what the courts would do, under pressure from civil liberties groups, with what amounts to de facto “second class citizenship”?
Ideological open border zealots get off on holding the “high-minded” position that they are committed to a truly open market. They argue that sovereignty isn’t troubled by free immigration, citing periods in our history where we invited in nearly all comers.
That times have changed — and with it, our situation with respect to immigration in an era where assimilation is both fought and demonized — is lost on these naive souls.
Much is the pity. They’d commit national suicide happily just so long as they could say, ludicrously, that they died with their ideological boots on.
Free Immigration is about sovereignty. Open the borders and destroy the country. It’s that simple.
Of course, it’s true that the Welfare State must have have workers to support those who do not. Thus, the importation of brown people upon whose backs we can support our own indolence is advocated as being “humane.”
Wrong.
It is about importing and maintaining a permanent underclass of slaves who are never really allowed to pursue the American dream because under the guise of “diversity” and “multiculturalism” they are kept isolated, while those responsible deflect said underclass’s disaffection and resentment away from their exploiters and upon the society which wished to prevent their exploitation in the first place.
Nativist.
@Jeff,
My wife calls me that all the time. But then I turn on my jingoistic charm and the universe is balance again.
That an a couple of roofies.
Sometimes, people who actually do find themselves discomfited by Dem Ferriners are horrified by their feelings and attempt to cleanse themselves by championing “non-xenophobic” policies.
And that’s their investment: Not Being Xenophobic.
Which is why it’s futile to explain to them the consequences of their “non-xenophobic” policy preferences. You have to get Jon Stewart to make something cool before they’ll adopt it.
and again no one questions Mexico’s irresponsibility toward their own citizens.
Can we start exporting our poor people to Canada?
Carlos Slim Becomes NYT’s Largest Shareholder
“You can either have open borders or a welfare state. You cannot have both.”
Amazing how stating the obvious produces shrieks of horror in my direction as “false choice! xenophobe! white privilege!” etc and NEVER have a gotten one response directly addressing the point.
Friedman’s position can be summarized as: “free immigration or welfare state bennies: pick one” –At least according to the little bit of Friedman I heard on Levin the other night.
This is also known as the European model.
Fortunately for us, our dissaffected underclass will be overwhelmingly Catholic, at least nominally, instead of Muslim. So, no worries, right?
Blocked by a Cato “free immigration” advocate. Who favorited a Tweet about my “has-been blog.”
The right is now the left and vice versa. What’s left to say?
All those moments in time will be lost, like tears in the rain. Time to die.?
What’s the Greek for “bottoms up!”? just before you drink the hemlock?
This internet is afraid of me…I have seen its true face. The blogs are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout “Save us!”… and I’ll look down and whisper “No.” They had a choice, all of them. They could have followed in the footsteps of good men, [d]ecent men who believed in a day’s work for a day’s pay. Instead they followed the droppings of lechers and communists and didn’t realize that the trail led over a precipice until it was too late. Don’t tell me they didn’t have a choice. Now the whole world stands on the brink, staring down into bloody Hell, all those liberals and intellectuals and smooth-talkers… and all of a sudden nobody can think of anything to say.?
A mashup of Colonels Jessup and Slade that starts with You want the truth? YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH! and ends with Out of order — I’ll show you out of order! You don’t know what out of order is, Mr. Trask! I’d show you, but I’m too old, I’m too tired and I’m too fuckin’ blind. If I were the man I was five years ago, I’d take a FLAMETHROWER to this place!?
Really, the options are endless.
On second thought, I think I’m ready for my shot of hemlock. And a nightshade chaser.
The right is now the left and vice versa.
bold for original italicized emphasis, bracketed bold my emphasis.
Damn, I’ve been doing it wrong. All this time I thought argument was about the search for truth, not about warfare. I guess Mao had it right after all: Power flows from the barrel of an argument. #winning!
Political discourse has blown right past Orwell and straight to Lewis Carroll.