Who Were the Sea Peoples?

On the one hand, Democrats are always portraying themselves as champions of illegal immigrants, contrasting themselves with the mean Republicans who actually want to enforce our immigration laws. On the other hand, they never seem to recommend actually repealing all immigration restrictions, thus establishing "open" borders (with perhaps some restrictions on the entry of felons, etc.), which would seem to be the best, easiest fix for the plight of illegal immigrants. (I'm not saying it is best for the United States, but perhaps it is best for people who want to immigrate here but cannot enter legally.) This is kind of weird... unless the Democrats' actual goal is to have a large client population of disadvantaged people ready to support them, where it is precisely their difficult circumstances that Democrats are counting on to cement their support for Democrats..

'Things are made more complex still by the inclusion, in all European provisions, of “non-discrimination” as a human right. When offering a benefit, a contract of employment, a place in a college, or a bed in a hospital, you are commanded not to discriminate on grounds of…there then follows a list derived from the victims of recent history: race, ethnic group, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and whatever is next to be discovered. But all coherent societies are based on discrimination: A society is an “in-group,” however large and however hospitable to newcomers.' -- Roger Scruton

I just saw a prominent libertarian posting on Facebook: "We can easily fix the problem of illegal immigrants by abolishing borders." Yes, and we can "fix" the problem of trespassing by abolishing property lines. And we can "fix" the problem of theft by abolishing all property rights.

While researching the cause of the apparent (as Shonk noted, it may be an artifact of bad stats) spike in the homicide rate in the early 1900s, the tremendous immigration of that first decade popped out as a possible cause. I googled to find out what has been said about that, and discovered papers like this . What is interesting is that researchers have been purporting to answer the question of whether a high rate of immigration might lead to a surge in crime, but in fact seem to be answering the question "Are immigrants more likely to be criminals than the native born?" The paper linked to above discusses earlier studies, and they all seem to have proceeded in the same way, by examining incarceration rates for immigrants versus natives, to see if immigrants are more likely to be criminals. But that is only one possible way in which a high immigration rate might cause a high crime rate. And that worry should not be discounted: for instance, if the United Kingdom discover...

Jason Brennan links to a new paper . I have only
read Brennan's summary, so the paper may be much better than he depicts it (more
on that later), but anyway, here is how he summarizes its argument: 
 
“Freiman says to readers
(again, a paraphrase, not a real quotation): ‘Okay, so you believe it’s
permissible to prohibit foreigners from moving to your country (even when
there’s someone who wants to hire them or let them lease a house), but it’s not
permissible to deport current citizens. Fine. Give me some feature F that
citizens have, which non-citizens lack, that plausibly explains why it’s
permissible to exclude one but not to deport the other. Or give me some feature
G that non-citizens have, but citizens lack, that explains why it’s permissible
to exclude foreigners but not deport citizens. Let’s confine ourselves to cases
where the harm done to the foreigner by excluding him is equal to the harm done
to the citizen by deporting her. And, no, you can’t just say F = is a citi...

Do you remember that point in the recent NBA finals where you knew the Miami Heat had lost? Suddenly their shoulders were a little slumped, there eyes went a little dead, the charge for a loose ball just was not as energetic. It was a little sad. But at least they did not reach the point of despair where they were simply lobbing the ball up in front of the San Antonio basket for the Spurs to slam home. Unfortunately, a good friend of ours apparently has fallen into such a lamentable state; in response to this post , Bob Murphy commented (quoting me first): Gene: a nation-state, just like any other human group, has the right and the need to control who may become a member of the group. Bob: But I don't think you believe the "just like any other human group" part. If I want to add someone to my company to show up with the group and work at the office every day, but the Nation-State says, "Nope he was born in the wrong country no can do," then you side wi...

"To tear down the walls of the state is not . . . to create a world without walls, but rather to create a thousand petty fortresses. The fortress, too, could be torn down: all that is necessary is a global state sufficiently powerful to overwhelm the local communities . . . . The distinctiveness of cultures and groups depends upon closure and, without it, cannot be conceived as a stable feature of human life. If this distinctiveness is a value, as most people (though some of them are global pluralists, and others only local loyalists) seem to believe, then closure must be permitted somewhere. At some level of political organization, something like the sovereign state must take shape and claim the authority to make its own admissions policy, to control and sometimes restrain the flow of immigrants." -- Michael Walzer, Spheres of Justice So I find that Walzer made this point before me: a nation-state, just like any other human group, has the right and the need to control w...

In the wake of Brat's victory, I've seen a number of Facebook posts about "immigrant haters." No doubt some people hate Mexicans, or Jamaicans, or Laotians, etc. But equating a desire for controlled immigration with hatred for immigrants is a childish smear tactic. The fact I do want my neighbors to continue living in their house rather than moving into mine does not mean I hate them. The fact the Tibetans do not want their culture wiped out by the flood of Chinese moving into Tibet does not mean they hate the Chinese. OK?

The family has the right to choose to admit outsiders, or not. The sports team has the right to choose to admit outsiders, or not. The chess club has the right to choose to admit outsiders, or not. The university has the right to choose to admit outsiders, or not. The firm has the right to choose to admit outsiders, or not. The ancap-defense agency has the right to choose to admit outsiders, or not. The nation-state has the... POW! BAM! KAZOOM! Ancap head explosion. Accusations of immorality, "exiling the poor," xenophobia, racism, etc. all spew forth. (Of course, some of those things could be the reason someone wants immigration controlled. But the same is true of any other organization: I may want to keep certain people out of my chess club because I hate Sri Lankans.) Ancaps are fine with people being excluded from all sorts of organizations. Just not the nation-state. Why is that? Clearly, the issue cannot be exclusion. The actual issue is that ancaps ...

Bryan Caplan, taking his usual absolutist position on immigration, writes , "Third World exile is not a morally permissible response." Let us set aside the fact that referring to someone who is simply staying put where they are as being "exiled" is rather bizarre. Besides that, what Caplan has done, in common with all ideologues, is to take a one-sided and partial truth, and treat it as if it is an absolute and unconditional truth. Of course it is a good thing to help people out of Third World poverty. Here is the crucial question: does Caplan think the United States can absorb the entire population of the world tomorrow, with no severe harm done to US political, economic or environmental conditions? If he does, he is mad, and there is no sense further conversing with him. But if he does not, and will not acquiesce in the destruction of American culture and the American economy, then he is in favor of some restriction on immigration. He just believes the lim...

Many people learned that the fall of the Western Roman Empire came about due to invading barbarians. There is an element of truth in this, but it would be closer to reality to say that these were immigrating barbarians. For these groups were not setting out to conquer the Roman empire. For the most part what they wanted was to become a part of the Roman empire: to settle in it and to reap the advantages of its law and order and economic prosperity.* Alaric, who famously sacked Rome in 410 A.D., had held high positions in the Roman military, and was not invading so much as protesting maltreatment. If Rome had adopted open borders, would this have fixed the problem? It seems doubtful: my tentative judgment is that the Western Empire simply would've been overwhelmed earlier: while the Romans were great assimilators, it took several generations for the process to work. If too many people came in too fast, Roman institutions would be overwhelmed before assimilation took place, as even...

For instance, to how open one can be. I know a nice libertarian-socialist fellow named Mophery Rurbt. He has a household, let us imagine, consisting of three wives (well, he is a Mormon, and the Supreme Court has legalized polygamy), and four children. One day at his door he finds a small Bangladeshi child, looking hungry, and saying he is come all the way across the world from Bangladesh, and has no place to stay. Mophery's family all consult together, and decide they can take him in. The little Bangladeshi child is overjoyed and becomes part of the Rurbt household. One thing he does after joining that household is Facebook message all his friends back in Bangladesh, and tell them about this generous American who will take people in. Well, they Facebook message their friends, and so on, and about a week later... Mophery wakes up in the morning to find Bangladeshis on his lawn. And beyond his lawn. In fact, as far as the eye can see (and this is pretty far, since Mophery l...

Isn't the question itself a bit ridiculous? A decent doctor will say, "Neither: it depends upon the circumstances. Someone can eat too little or too much. I would need to examine the particular case." But people do not seem to want to think like that on immigration. A society can have too few immigrants, or too many. With none the society tends to stagnate. But with too many civil society itself can be overwhelmed. This seems like it should hardly be controversial, and yet the voices we hear in this debate seem to usually be "all" or "none" voices. Jonathan Finegold claims : "Generally, people think that immigrants are a burden to the nation they migrate to, but the truth is the exact opposite: they help improve our standard of living." But isn't the actual truth "It depends"? Let us say so many immigrants had come to the U.S. in the 1920s and 1930s, from socialist-leaning countries, that they were able to vote in a soc...

Many people opposed  to relaxed immigration laws note the above, and then conclude that advocates of such relaxations must not care about American workers. Seem reluctant to mention that immigration also increases the demand for workers. Immigrants need houses and roads and food and schools. What is the net effect of the two "forces"? I don't know. But any analysis that leaves out either force is either dishonest or incompetent and can be dismissed out of hand.

I have been invited to contribute a piece on immigration to a magazine, but I have not written it yet because I'm just not sure what to say. I know things are pretty broken now with our immigration system, but so do most people. I did not want to write my piece until I had some concrete suggestions to make, and, frankly, the problem continues to stump me. Rather than write some piece of empty fluff, I have waited, and thought. Well, haven't I been the fool! Empty fluff is just what major national news outlets are looking for on the subject: just see this piece from Ali Noorani. It claims it will tell candidates how to "fix immigration." And what is this fix? Well, immigration policy must be "pragmatic." "Poll after poll shows a broad spectrum of Americans want a rational immigration process." The new policy should be "creative." And the author assures us "that Americans of all stripes hunger for a new consensus on immigration....

He explains it : Indeed, I've wanted to live in a Bubble for as long as I can remember. Since childhood, I've struggled to psychologically and socially wall myself off from "my" society. At 40, I can fairly say, "Mission accomplished." Why put so much distance between myself and the outside world? Because despite my legendary optimism, I find my society unacceptable. It is dreary, insipid, ugly, boring, wrong, and wicked.  Of course, if the society you live in is "dreary, insipid, ugly, boring, wrong, and wicked," then what the hell? If it is taken over by Klingons, it can't get any worse, and it just might get better.

from a gun , and I can't tell a green card from a "No Negroes Wanted" sign. Or so says Bryan Caplan . Bryan asks, "What is the moral difference between Jim Crow and immigration restrictions?" He doubts that anyone can point to anything of substance. Well, try this out for starters, Bryan: Let's say I have a house. My family lives in it, as well as a couple of invited guests. If I declared that the one guy who lived with us who happened to be black had to do all of the crap jobs in the house just because he is black, I think we can all agree that would be pretty bogus. Similarly, if I tell him that he is the only person who can't go in the living room, just because he is black, my bad! But now ten people show up, uninvited, and slip into the house. I find them in the living room having a party. I tell them they not only can't be in the living room, but they can't, in fact, be in the house at all. This is most decidedly not bogus. You see, t...