Open borders should be the default immigration policy of the United States – Orange County Register

Last Sunday, I wrote a response to Orange Republican congressional candidate Scott Baugh’s nativist views on immigration. To recap briefly, while on a podcast, Baugh argued, regarding immigration, “When you dilute culture with other cultures so quickly [the culture] inevitably begins to break down.”

I argued that this was nonsense, that immigrants throughout history have been tainted with such attacks, and that in the end, immigrants enrich cultures rather than dilute them.

Reader responses were quite mixed, with some agreeing with me and others with Baugh. A loose issue I want to address is my basic premise about immigration itself.

Here it goes: Open borders should be the default immigration policy of the United States. i know i know “Open borders” has become the default label for anything perceived to happen on the southern border. It is generally associated with chaos and even “an invasion”.

I don’t mean that. I’m talking about opening borders on purpose.

Illegal immigration and problems at the southern border are the result of legal immigration from the United States.

Opponents of illegal immigration usually insist that they support legal immigration. Well, so do I. I just want to make immigration more legal.

Freedom of movement is a natural right as much as the right to self-defense or the right to live free from coercion. This right is violated by all governments which impose unreasonable restrictive immigration policies.

I can imagine some reasonable immigration restrictions. For example, if someone is a serious criminal or has a contagious disease. In those cases, it is clear that protecting people from a known criminal threat or a known disease threat can be justified. Beyond that, however, there is no particularly compelling argument for respecting the right to migrate.

A reader who contacted me in response to my column argued that governments have an obligation to protect the economic interests of their citizens and that open immigration can harm workers in a country. It’s one thing to protect people from crime, it’s another to “protect” them from economic competition. There is no right to be free from economic competition.

The further you go in trying to protect people from economic competition, the closer you get to socialism. In short, you are simply interfering with various forms of protectionism that hinder economic dynamism.

Restricting immigration on the basis of protecting others from economic competition also violates the rights of aspiring immigrants as well as employers who may wish to hire such workers.

Other objections raised by readers include concerns about the strain placed on the American welfare state. There is a relatively easy solution to this, which is to limit access to the welfare state. The problem is solved. There is an inherent right to movement, but none to access a government-administered welfare program. In all my years of meeting people in or from Latin America, for example, who wanted to come to the US or who were doing so illegally, not one ever mentioned housing vouchers or anything else as a primary reason. that they want to come here.

Economists have estimated that respecting people’s right to immigrate would boost the global economy significantly, as people move from jurisdictions so beset by poverty and corruption that their economic productivity is greatly drowned in jurisdictions with stronger opportunities. economic where their energies and talents can be. put to greater use.

Of course, as I wrote last week, most objections to immigration or even open borders are ultimately more cultural than anything else. There are fears and concerns that the current culture will be eroded by an influx of people who speak different languages, have different traditions, and who are not fully immersed in our culture.