Let’s Talk About Open Borders

May 12, 2016
By

A boat crowded with Cuban refugees arrives in Key West, Florida, during the 1980 Mariel Boatlift.

Until recently, most people in Europe and the United States-at least, those of us who had grown up and lived our lives as citizens-gave little thought to national immigration policy. Unless you had a vested interest in the issue, either as an immigrant yourself or someone who profited from specific immigration policies, e.g. as an immigration attorney, a member of a group like LULAC, the NCLR, or someone who worked for a VOLAG, the likelihood that this would be a galvanizing domestic issue for you was very slim. However, with the continuing flood of unaccompanied minors across the nation’s southern border and decision by the Obama administration to shun most proactive immigration enforcement-as well as extend administrative amnesty to large classes of illegal immigrants-maintaining that this is an unimportant subject of little public interest is an increasingly untenable position.

Whether you believe the end of the German nation as it’s historically been constituted is a cause for celebration or a grievous calamity is largely immaterial. The fact remains that the process it, like many other central and northern European nations, is undergoing is the most significant cultural revolution of the past 2 centuries. Perhaps the most significant of the millennium, although that remains to be seen. What can’t be argued is that what North America and Europe will look like in the decades and centuries ahead is of the utmost importance and needs to be debated, publicly and robustly. That’s why I’m pleased to invite you to Let’s Talk About Open Borders, a lecture by Yevgeniy Feyman sponsored by the America Future Foundation and Foundation for Economic Education.

Although I’ll probably be in the distinct minority within the audience, that’s all the more reason for me-and those of you who read this site and live in the New York/Tri-State Area-to attend. We only have to look to Sweden to see what decades of societal and government-imposed conformity on this subject can lead to. That’s why the subject of immigration/borders needs to be discussed, openly and honestly. Rationally, denuded of tedious cliches, by as many people with as many different viewpoints as possible.

Even if you happen to disagree with that perspective, how can pass up the opportunity for a stimulating lecture and beer/food spread for $5! How often do you get that opportunity in the middle of Manhattan? I hope to see you there.

Tags: America's Future Foundation, Foundation for Economic Education, , , , , , , ,

5 Responses to Let’s Talk About Open Borders

  1. Al on May 12, 2016 at 1:42 AM

    What is there to talk about that hasn’t been said a million times already? There is either law or lawlessness. For much of its history, the US was a nation guided and governed by law and laws. That may have been one reason why the US generated the wealth it did and achieved some of the great things it did. And perhaps some of the rotten things it did. Frankly, most other nations are also governed by law or laws. If you break the law in Mexico, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Guatemala, Britain, Germany, or Spain, you’re likely to be punished if the authorities catch you. Those nations have laws. They have police who are charged with detecting violations of law and bring violators to the attention of those who are given the authority and power to stop the offensive behavior. It is not racist. It is behaviorist.

    Under the force of hordes swarming over our borders, though, what we have is the overturning of law. We can’t enforce the law because too many have swarmed over the border. We can’t enforce the law because it would be heartless to break up families. We not only cannot enforce the law, we have to provide stipends and benefits to those who break our laws. The whys and wherefores need not be gone into. But it is an overthrow, it is an attack upon our system and our government. But somehow our government as current constituted accepts, nay encourages this.

    So the idea that we are or should be talking about it to me is absurd. Talking about it is accepting it and while *it* may already be a fait accompli…whatever *it* is, it is a flat out, full on overthrow not only of founding principles but of specific language in our founding documents.

    Reply
  2. G. Perry on May 12, 2016 at 2:07 AM

    Although perhaps Germany is a bad example.

    Reply
  3. spintreebob Schmidt on May 12, 2016 at 7:50 AM

    Al what “specific language in our founding documents”?
    Open borders was the official policy of the USA into the 1920s when, for the first time, it was required that immigrants have the permission of the government to enter. In the 1920s it became a minor paperwork misdemeanor to enter without permission. HR4437 of Tancredo fame failed in trying to turn it into a felony.

    We should go back to the original criteria for immigration, which is that some people are desireable and some people are undesireable.
    1. People who come here to work and take care of themselves and their families are desireable.
    2. People who accept that all people have inalienable rights including the Bill of Rights are desireable.
    3. Terrorists, murderers, rapists, DUI drivers, drunk and disorderly are undesireable
    4. Those who seek to impose Sharia law or other customs that contrary to the Bill of Rights are undesireable.
    5. Welfare recipients are undesireable. No immigrant, legal, illegal or natuaralized should be allowed to even apply for welfare. Historically immigrants and their sponsors entered a binding contract that they would not go on welfare.

    6. eVerify will have unintended consequences. Anyone who thinks that giving the government the power to tell a private employer whom he can and cannot employ is a good idea has not learned the lessons of history.

    Reply
  4. Russ Nelson on May 12, 2016 at 3:59 PM

    Where, exactly, in the Constitution, does it give the federal government the right to restrict immigration? Recall that one of the grievances aired against King George was his restrictions on immigration into America.

    To save you some time, I’ve asked this question before, and people have claimed that illegal immigrants are invaders, and thus the Constitution allows the federal government to, um, I guess, wage war against them? Even though they obviously are not fighting on behalf of any state. Hell, they’re not even fighting. They just want to live peacefully and work here.

    Reply
  5. G. Perry on May 12, 2016 at 4:56 PM

    Recall that one of the grievances aired against King George was his restrictions on immigration into America.

    And another one was his kingdom’s incitement of “the merciless Indian Savages.” Do you really want to go down this road?

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Analysis