During our last debate, an audience member asked Mark Krikorian if his arguments for restricting immigration of foreigners were also arguments for restricting the child-bearing of natives. You might think that Mark would insist that native babies are somehow better than foreign adults. How hard could it possibly be to craft such an argument? However, Mark adamantly refused to compare the worths of different kinds of people. Instead, he informed the questioner that his question was based on a “category error.”
Tag: immigration
The Deeper the Disagreement, the Higher the Stakes, the More Important the Honesty
Man, I thought the culture wars were bad when I was a kid. It’s cliche to say now that people are more divided along political lines than ever, so I’ll spare you. You know it. And that divide is particularly evident when people try to communicate with each other.
Immigration vs. Social Desirability Bias
No matter how awful their country is, people love to proclaim their undying devotion to folk and land. Why then have hundreds of millions of people left their countries of birth? Because the migrants don’t literally believe this flowery talk. Though almost everyone voices these sentiments, actions speak louder than words.
Reflections on the Krikorian-Caplan Soho Forum Debate
Thanks again to Gene Epstein and Reason for sponsoring last week’s immigration debate between myself and Mark Krikorian. Thanks to Mark, too, for debating before an unsympathetic audience. The resolution, you may recall, was: The current pandemic makes it all the more necessary for the federal government to tighten restrictions on immigration. Here are my extra thoughts on the exchange.
The Other Great Shutdown
Coronavirus originated in China, migration brought it here, and suddenly life is terrible. Dogmatic libertarians can keep droning on about “liberty,” but everyone else now plainly sees that strict immigration controls could have stopped this plague – and only strict immigration controls can stop the plagues of the future. This argument sounds so right. What could possibly be wrong with it?
Open Borders: Now Do You See What We’re Missing?
If people were free to take a job anywhere on Earth, humanity would have more agriculture, more manufacturing, more services. We would have more restaurants, more homes, more elder care. We would have more doctors and more janitors, more meal delivery and more cars to deliver the meals. If coronavirus can eliminate 90% of the restaurant business, open borders can add 90% to the restaurant business. You’ve seen the former with your own eyes, so you should have no trouble seeing the latter with the eye of the mind.
Pandemics and Open Borders
How much protection have 98% closed borders given us against the pandemic? The answer: Virtually none.
Don’t Need Rescue from Everything
If you believe you need politicians to save you from a virus or from someone’s gun, then you’ll keep handing control of your life over to anyone who promises to rescue you. Whether they actually can or not.
The Leiter-Caplan Socialism Debate
All First World countries are already social democracies. Their governments continue to allow markets to provide most goods and services, but they heavily regulate these markets, heavily subsidize favored sectors like education and health, and heavily redistribute income. The U.S. is moderately less social democratic than France or Sweden, but the idea that we have “market capitalism” while they have “social democracy” is hyperbole.
Backlash: The Last Refuge of an Immigration Moderate
Moderately pro-immigration thinkers often worry about “backlash.” Tyler Cowen’s the most energetic worrier, but Tim Kane said the same at my Cato book party. Backlash is what you bring up when none of the popular complaints about immigration make sense to you. Then you get meta and reflect, “Immigration does have one serious cost: it inspires bad arguments. Such arguments could ultimately lead to bad policies.”