Update: Cathy Hoilman asks if the President caved on amnesty. 

Watch President Trump make the announcement live. According to reports, the choice will be former NLRB board member Alexander Acosta. This comes on the heels of the withdrawal of  Andy Puzder’s name from consideration, a decision that had been recommended by some patriotic immigration reformers, including Dan Cadman of the Center for Immigration Studies. Here are some factoids about the new nominee.

The Soho Forum is a fantastic new institution which explores important philosophical and political issues, many of them topical in nature, through rigorously argued debates. An upcoming event might be of particular interest to our readers, as it features libertarian economist Benjamin Powell and the head of the Center for Immigration Studies, Mark Krikorian. They’ll be debating the proposition that American should have free migration, barring certain disqualifying features on the part of potential migrants, e.g. direct ties to terrorism, contagious diseases.

Coming as it does on the heels of President Trump’s controversial executive order, this should be a fascinating discussion. You can reserve your tickets and RSVP at this link, and find details of future events by perusing the Soho Forum’s website. Regardless of your views, vis-a-vis immigration, I hope all of you in the New York City Area take advantage of this opportunity.

Some interesting thoughts from my favorite libertarian-after the great Hans Hermann-Hoppe-about our civilization’s defining issue. Charles Murray’s summation is worth pondering, because it cuts to the heart of open borders dogma. It’s not an intellectual argument so much as a form of class warfare directed against people our rulers deem expendable human beings.  For a good exploration of why unfettered immigration and libertarianism are not synonymous, I’d recommend this article, which explains the distinction between the state and a nation.

Addendum: In order to grasp just how destructive mass immigration, in concert with state-enforced multiculturalism, is to social capital take a look at this British poll. As you’ll notice, people living in Northern Ireland-the part of the UK which has been riven by sectarian conflict for over a century-trust their neighbors more than those living in a post-English London. Food for thought. 

One of the chief misconceptions about my immigration views is that they’re born of willful intransigence. The conceit that my political philosophy was shaped years ago-true, to a large degree-and has been unyielding in the face of overwhelming evidence which logically refutes it-completely baseless-is surprisingly widespread among my critics. The truth is that I’m actually desperate to be persuaded, to be convinced that open borders is somehow a desirable-or even workable-state of affairs.

Admitting that you’re wrong, especially about sincerely, long-held convictions, can be psychically devastating for some individuals. One need only read David Horowitz’s disturbing memoir Radical Son to get a sense of how traumatic reevaluating your core ideological beliefs can be to a human being. That said, I am not by nature an ideologue. My identity and my sense of self worth are not wrapped up in the outcome of a particular domestic or international debate. Although not a consequentialist, I do accept reality as it is, which is why I find the intellectual defense of mass, 3rd world immigration to the West so utterly unconvincing.

I want to be persuaded that I’m wrong,  but over the past 2 decades I’ve yet to encounter an even minimally persuasive argument explaining why I am. The most compelling defense of open borders I’ve heard was offered by Julian Castro, the son of a ’60s Chicana militant whose children have been able to profit from the political cachet of faux multiculturalism and our country’s drastically altered demographics. Empty suit though he is, at least he had a rudimentary understanding of the issue being discussed, unlike almost every open borders libertarian I’ve tried to engage on this subject. To cite just one example of the fundamental ignorance they’re operating from, the writer David Marcus routinely extols the beauty of Ellis Island immigration in cliched essays, despite being blissfully unaware of the fact that almost all non-white immigration was prohibited during this halcyon period of American history.

Yevgeniy Feyman is a much more informed interlocutor, yet I came away from his discussion at The Irish Exit this past week with my beliefs, vis-a-vis immigration, fundamentally unchanged. Although an expert in health care policy, Mr. Feyman has a keen interest in the subject of immigration, which he believes should be unfettered. Echoing many of the same arguments used by open borders advocate Bryan Caplan-whose work he referenced-he asserted that there is an ethical and utilitarian case for unrestricted immigration to the West, neither of which I found terribly convincing.

One of my main problems with the latter argument was his insistence upon using gross domestic product as a proxy for economic growth and wealth creation, something that is genuinely perplexing coming from an ostensible proponent of free markets. According to Feyman, economists have postulated a 60% growth in GDP if Western nations completely opened their borders, while a 140% increase would result from global immigration restrictions being completely removed. Even if we were to accept these fantastic claims, it’s far from certain that this would be a good thing for our economy. Even the thousands of largely illiterate, unskilled Somalis imported to the interior of this country collectively boost our GDP. However, I’m sure that serves as scant comfort to the taxpayers forced to support their intergenerational welfare.

Contrary to Feyman’s assertions, immigrants use welfare programs at a greater rate than natives, as well as previous generations of immigrants. This was true in 1996 and it’s true today, despite the meteoric rise in American natives’ exploitation of the social safety net. The only reason the disparity between the 2 groups isn’t greater is because there are a host of programs to which illegal aliens are debarred, a distinction which would be erased were amnesty to be enacted as it’s currently envisioned. The idea that you can’t simultaneously take advantage of welfare programs while working is another myth promulgated by open borders advocates.

What’s more, even though most immigrants come to the United States at the peak of their earning power, one-eighth of the immigrants to this country are over the age of 55! In other words, less than a decade from retirement. Although most of these immigrants will never collect Social Security checks, as the speaker pointed out during his talk, they will still be eligible to take advantage of SSI, a program that is hemorrhaging money, shows no signs of being reformed, and whose costs will continue to soar well into the future.

Feyman seemingly praised the mid-90s efforts to “fence in” welfare use by legal immigrants, efforts now categorically rejected by the presumptive Democratic nominee it should be noted, even as he acknowledged that these attempts at reducing the social and economic costs of immigration had largely failed. Even so, he insisted that these barriers would need to be reintroduced under his proposed scheme of open borders. Why welfare restrictions would be more viable in an electorate with tens of millions more unskilled, welfare-dependent, enfranchised immigrants than it was during the Clinton administration was a question that remained unanswered.

The subject of crime proved similarly elusive, as the crime rate of 1st generation immigrants was touted as definitive proof that open borders would be a panacea, even as Feyman conceded that 2nd generation immigrants had a crime rate identical to, and in some instances exceeding, that of Americans. In a remarkable feat of rhetorical jujitsu, this unpleasant fact was used as a data point IN FAVOR of unfettered immigration, proving as it does that immigrants are assimilating to American culture. Why we should be comforted that foreign gangs which were heretofore unknown in the United States are proliferating, and targeting Americans for extermination, is another question that begs to be answered.

Furthermore, the astronomical crime rate among illegal aliens was only briefly alluded to-and dismissed-during this lecture. Even if you ignore the incalculable human cost of our government’s sanction of criminal aliens, the fiscal cost is staggering. While 2 billion dollars might seem like chump change to a federal government that burns taxpayer wealth at a clip which would make a Saudi prince blush, it’s an oppressive burden to the states and municipalities which have to bear nearly the entire bill. This doesn’t even touch upon the fact that nearly 37% of federal prison sentences in Fiscal Year 2014 involved criminal aliens, let alone the impact of criminal immigrants overseas.

Interestingly, the health care cost of having such a large immigrant population was never broached, despite it being-along with the education-the largest economic burden this group imposes upon state and local governments. A burden which will only increase as the population of immigrants-both illegal and legal-expands, as the rapidly collapsing state of California illustrates.

But even if all of these economic and social metrics supported Yevgeniy’s assertions-and, as I’ve tried to illustrate, they do not-he would still be wrong from a philosophical standpoint. For his proposals are not consonant with liberty as its commonly understood, and they’re certainly not pragmatic, by his own definition. They would eliminate the ability to freely associate and to discriminate, despite these being inherent features of both libertarianism and our republic as it was traditionally conceived.

It’s not surprising then that the only political philosopher he invoked during his lecture was not a libertarian in any sense of the word, but John Rawls, a man whose ideas are the antithesis of those espoused by the Founders. His emphasis on the difference principle and the egalitarian case for opening our borders to the developing world demonstrates the utopian nature of this cause. The idea that inhabitants of third world nations are entitled to the West’s wealth-and that Western societies have no right to deny them-is a popular notion among open borders libertarians, and finds its most ardent advocate in the form of Bryan Caplan, a person who, a la Kevin Williamson, would rather see Americans die than deny the wishes of hundreds of millions of foreign nationals. Call it the Make-A-Wish Foundation for the global village.

The hermetic nature of the discussion among open borders advocates can be seen in the comparisons made between immigration restrictions and government-imposed segregation during the Jim Crow Era. This was another trope invoked by Mr. Famin in order to defend the idea of open borders, one which has its roots in the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, which was enacted on a wave of specious comparisons between the struggle of black Americans for civil rights and the desires of foreigners in the third world to relocate to the United States. While correctly citing Robert Putnam’s study demonstrating the negative impact multiculturalism and open borders have on social cohesion, civic trust, and private, communal associations, from that he extrapolated that opponents of open borders must also support segregation along color lines.

There are so many flaws in this analogy that it would be difficult to enumerate them all, so I’ll highlight one of the most glaring. Namely, while Americans have Constitutional, civil rights to equal protection under the law, there is no comparable right for non-Americans to immigrate, settle and exploit the benefits extended to American citizens. It bears repeating that the men who created the framework for our system of government were deeply skeptical of the sorts of free immigration schemes proposed by the likes of Caplan et. al.

Another fundamental problem with this chain of reasoning is the arrogant assumption that the cultures of North America, Europe, and Australia somehow need moral improvement-provided, of course, by an unceasing stream of migrants from the third world. Beyond the obvious paradox at work in this formulation, there is the ahistorical nature of this assertion. It presumes that we don’t already have ample evidence from numerous countries that third world immigration to the West is destructive, not simply eroding the public’s trust in its leaders-which is a good thing-but erasing the very capacity for self-governance.

But even if there were no empirical evidence to support our position, the burden of proof would still be on individuals like Yeveniy Famin to prove that their stance is correct. When someone makes extraordinary claims on behalf of an untested idea that will dramatically alter the status quo, it’s not incumbent upon his opponents to prove a negative. It’s up to him to demonstrate that his idea will result in a positive improvement for individuals and our society. When I brought up the case of A.Q. Khan, a Pakistani Muslim immigrant who gave us the world’s first Islamic bomb, it wasn’t merely a gotcha question intended to embarrass the speaker or a misguided invocation of the precautionary principle.

There is actually ample evidence that the experiment with Muslim integration in The Netherlands has been a complete failure, and that the cumulative impact of this monumental social change has been decidedly negative for that country and its inhabitants. My point was simply that the adherents to open borders dogmatism couldn’t present a narrative that emphasized a corresponding good that’s resulted from widespread Middle Eastern and North African immigration to Holland. The retort that there are native-born citizens who’ve helped appalling regimes acquire nuclear weapons isn’t quite the devastating rebuttal that its opponents believe it to be. Just like the “there are American scumbags” aphorism, it presumes that just because evil exists we must do nothing within our power to limit our exposure to its most baleful consequences.

This line of reasoning would dictate that a landlord who currently has tenants that are scofflaws and destroy his property allow prospective renters who pose the same threat to live in his building, based upon a rigid devotion to equality. The logical extension of this can be found in Germany, where paying tenants are being evicted in order to make way for refugees, i.e. invaders from the Global South that Angela Merkel, the socialists, and Greens are cultivating as Germany’s new polity.

Open borders is a terrible idea, from both a consequentalist and natural rights perspective. When and if all societies are based upon mutual consent and non-coercion, then by all means, invite whomever you want to live, work, and possibly exploit, your self-contained civilization. I have no problem with Bryan Caplan et. al. inviting downtrodden Haitians or Yemenis to live at his expense, but I vociferously object to them externalizing the costs of their philanthropy to those, like me, who do not share their utopian ideals.

One of the prerequisites for any immigration debate taking place in North America or Europe is that no advocate for reasonable immigration policies be given an equal opportunity to voice his or her views on the subject. The very notion that someone opposing unfettered third world immigration might be given the chance to articulate the views of most American citizens is anathema to our media gatekeepers. Thus, we have the spectacle of Mark Krikorian sharing a platform with two open borders dogmatists from ostensibly different parts of the ideological spectrum, despite there being very persuasive progressive and libertarian arguments against mass immigration to the West from the developing world.

Even so, this discussion of the 2016 presidential race-as well as the relative merits of the various candidates-is worth watching. There may come a time very soon when patriotic immigration voices are silenced altogether. Just ask our German friends about that.

The chaotic, lawless status quo maintained on our southern border is one of our least-reported domestic catastrophes. This isn’t surprising when you consider the fact that our news media view themselves primarily as a platform for immigrants, illegal aliens and their benefactors more than objective outlets designed to convey pertinent information to the broader American public. Even when the invasion of American territory is grudgingly acknowledged by the press, it is framed in such a way as to make those trying to protect the integrity of our borders seem like mendacious, reactionary charlatans. The fact that human smugglers and brutal narco cartels are exploiting our government’s beneficence in order to ply their trade is not nearly as compelling to news anchors as the plight of doe-eyed DREAMers.

Thankfully, there are American citizens who are unwilling to put up with the wanton destruction of their property, subversion of their rights, and defamation of their character. One of these intrepid individuals is our friend Cindy Kolb, who has been reporting from the front lines of this undeclared war for many years. The latest incursion being Dicks Peak Fire, whose cause is still unknown but which would not be out of character for illegal aliens trespassing onto American territory. Whatever the cause of this particular forest fire, the danger posed to our national treasures and beautiful natural wilderness remains great as long as our public officials refuse to take their oaths of office seriously.

Thanks, Cindy, for alerting us to the public hazards created by our public officials!

Even as the horse race aspect of this presidential election consumes ever more air-time, the current administration continues to enact immigration policies by administrative fiat which have the potential to harm scores of Americans. A case in point is its recent decision to remove some sexually transmitted infections from the list of diseases which bar entry to the United States. To comprehend why this is such a dangerous, idiotic idea, look no further than Jon Feere’s analysis in this fantastic CIS backgrounder.

The increasing prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases-particularly HIV/AIDS-among migrant communities has been extensively documented, and the fact that this decision will put the health and safety of more individuals at risk is beyond dispute. Yet the overriding, and seemingly sole, motivation of open borders dogmatists seems to be the elimination of any external or internal immigration barriers which obstruct the desires of foreign nationals now living in the developing world.

Of course, the routine prophylactic measures employed in the past to prevent epidemics from spreading throughout the United States would now be derided as xenophobic and racist impositions upon poor, beleaguered migrants. Times have changed, but in some ways, not always for the better.

Many of you are probably wondering how the untimely passing of Justice Scalia will impact Texas vs. United States, the landmark case which will determine whether or not President Obama has the authority to unilaterally modify federal immigration law. Thankfully, Jon Feere  has a written a fantastic blog entry which explains all of the possible permutations that could go into a Supreme Court decision with 8 justices, presuming-of course-that Antonin Scalia’s seat is not filled by the time this case is decided.

You can read it for yourself on the Center for Immigration Studies website. To get an idea of why Scalia was so respected by conservative intellectuals, we recommend reading his caustic dissent in Arizona v. United States, which exposed some of the flaws in logic of open borders advocates. This is essential reading as we head into what should be one of the most consequential sessions in recent memory.

All too often the choices offered to the American public come down to differences of packaging. Would you rather vote for the interventionist, open borders, chubby white guy, or the interventionist, open borders, svelte Hispanic male? The media’s relentless denial of the facts and refusal to acknowledge alternative points of view only entrenches the failed policies that millions of Americans live with on a daily basis.

That’s why the question posed above-by one of the many victims of illegal alien crime-needs to be heard. You can listen to some of the other questions-none of which were broached during last night’s Republican presidential debate, it should be noted-by going to the website of the Center for Immigration Studies. It will give you a taste of what a debate might look like if we had media willing to be honest interrogators, instead of megaphones for their own preferred policy choices.

For a party which purports to have the best interests of African-Americans at heart, and which lobbies tirelessly for their votes-when it’s convenient, it should be noted-the Democrats have a shocking lack of empathy for black Americans. At least, those in the working class who are seeking gainful employment while competing against millions of low-wage immigrants.

During last night’s Democratic presidential debate, every candidate studiously avoided tackling the elephant in the room. Namely, the continued decline in wages-and prolonged unemployment-for one of their party’s most loyal constituencies. Even as the men and woman on stage boasted of the amenities and privileges that illegal aliens-who aren’t even enfranchised-should receive, they refused to acknowledge the parlous economic condition of American workers, particularly workers of color.

This is not simply a right wing talking point parroted by anti-immigration activists. It’s an objective, ineluctable fact, bolstered by statistical, empirical evidence. The Obama recovery has left millions behind, as even the left-progressive, pro-Obama PBS talk show host Tavis Smiley has acknowledged. That is why on this Martin Luther King Day, we must remember the voices of those who spoke up on behalf of American citizens and American workers, even if their needs are being ignored by our current political class.

To that end, Jerry Kammer has written a marvelous piece remembering Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, a woman who was not only a civil rights icon and indefatigable champion of the Constitution but also a courageous critic of our government’s disastrous immigration policies. It’s worth reading in full, if only to recall a time when the phrase immigration reformer meant truly that. Someone who wanted to reform and preserve an American-focused, patriotic system of immigration, not simply do the bidding of those seeking an endless supply of cheap labor and cheap votes.