The Immigration Debate | Adam Kokesh and Stefan Molyneux

48 thoughts on “The Immigration Debate | Adam Kokesh and Stefan Molyneux

  1. wredlich

    It is frustrating because both guys are so long winded, but at the same time I’m 20 minutes in and I think it’s a pretty good discussion.

    I’m surprised to say that Kokesh makes more sense to me than Molyneux, though I still like both.

  2. Andy

    Molyneux wipes the floor with Kokesh here, and I like both of these guys (I still like Kokesh even though I disagree with him in this debate, and I don’t see how anyone could watch this and come to any other conclusion other than that Molyneux won this debate).

  3. robert capozzi

    aj,

    I’m one. Both deeply embarrassed themselves.

    SM was more facile and glib, and more on the offensive, but — as I’ve said elsewhere — his logic leaps are a bridge way too far.

    AK needs to go back to square one. His variant of simplistic NAPsterism seems entirely divorced from any reasonable theory of social change.

  4. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    January 10, 2018 at 08:11
    ‘Both deeply embarrassed themselves.’

    Not at all shocked.”

    I’m not surprised at all that Anthony posted negative comments without any substance, but of course he didn’t even watch the video, and he’s not capable of articulating an argument based on any facts. It is a lot easier to sit back and post mindless negative comments.

  5. paulie

    frontpagemag? How sad. And you’ve ignored the facts in numerous past discussions so there’s not much point in additional repetition, but for anyone who is not closed minded there’s more facts than you can ever absorb or for that matter even shake a stick at, at

    https://openborders.info/

    It’s all there if you take a few hundred hours to explore the site. Not much point in me trying to put all that into my own words so I’ll just keep referring everyone to that site and leave it at that.

  6. robert capozzi

    aj,

    It would not surprise me if — in this case — the Ds have a hidden agenda regarding immigration. Even if they do, so what?

    What if the US made a couple of tweaks for immigration. Say that immigration was fairly easy, but each immigrant was bonded, signed off they could not receive welfare benefits, and had to pay tuition for their children to go to public school? Violate any of those and the funds held in escrow were used to deport those who broke the terms of their green-card status?

  7. Libertydave

    Andy, you claim your a believer in freedom of association, yet you advocate just the opposite when you call for closed boarders. Closing the boarders is you telling me that I need permission from someone else to associate with someone just because they live on the other side of an imaginary line. How can that be a libertarian position?

  8. Anthony Dlugos

    watch out, Libertydave. Ask Andy a common sense question like that and you are liable to end up down a rabbit hole of wackadoodle conspiracy theories, links to nationalist websites that masquerade as “libertarian,” and youtube videos created by people with no relevant education and a c.v. that revolves around Instagram posts.

  9. robert capozzi

    LD,

    Please clarify. Are you saying the choice is only between completely open or completely closed borders?

    If so, I would suggest your either/or is false. Even with the single lens of freedom of association, we can choose to associate with others with terms and conditions. For example, if you want to visit the US, here are our terms, e.g. check in with a visa. if you want to work in the US, great, but here are our terms.

  10. Aiden

    robert capozzi…. that’s not freedom of association. You’re still requiring people to obtain permission to associate with the other individual. Any kind of restriction on migration is a limitation on freedom of association and freedom of migration. Both basic HUMAN rights.

    You’re “conditions” require person A to ask the government, “can I please possibly hire/marry/associate with person B?” Simply because they don’t have a fancy ‘government’ issued document that says they were born in some arbitrarily decided boundaries.

    In addition, the government can’t claim “security” either here….. It’s NOT THE GOVERNMENTS JOB TO PROTECT YOU. Nowhere in the constitution does it state that is their job, nor can it reasonably be deduced to be by any competent human being.

    P.S. The constitution is an agreement between the federal government and the states…. not the public. Thus ‘common defense’ specifically refers to the states defending each other and the federal government, not the citizens.

  11. robert capozzi

    a; You’re still requiring people to obtain permission to associate with the other individual.

    me; Not really, no. Anyone might associate with anyone else in another nation freely. But crossing a border involves a meta-association with all the citizens of the nation. in the borders of a nation, there are a set of laws that should, at least, be designed to maintain domestic tranquility. While I disagree with most of the laws in the US, they are in place.

    So, for ex., iirc, all hospitals must treat patients who require medical assistance. As we know, that represents an exposure for taxpayers in many cases. Therefore, it’s in the interest of taxpayers to limit that exposure. How those exposures are limited are subject to other considerations, of course.

    a: Any kind of restriction on migration is a limitation on freedom of association and freedom of migration. Both basic HUMAN rights.

    me: Let’s stipulate that that’s your opinion. Mine is that I don’t believe anyone can go anywhere, any time with impunity.

    a: You’re “conditions” require person A to ask the government, “can I please possibly hire/marry/associate with person B?”

    me: I point to a slightly different perspective. it’s not as open-ended as you suggest. I maintain it can be appropriate for a nation to check who is coming into the nation, and to ensure that taxpayers are not unduly burdened by such entry. We may simply disagree here.

    a: Simply because they don’t have a fancy ‘government’ issued document that says they were born in some arbitrarily decided boundaries.

    me: I stipulate that boundaries are in some sense “arbitrary.” It’s a matter of judgment as to whether those boundaries have value for the citizens of a nation. Absent a relevant example of a well-functioning borderless society that protects private property and the rule of law, I’m going to go with the vast majority on this one.

    This is not to say that a borderless nonarchy is completely impractical. Indeed, I’d like to see an experiment along those lines.

    a: In addition, the government can’t claim “security” either here….. It’s NOT THE GOVERNMENTS JOB TO PROTECT YOU. Nowhere in the constitution does it state that is their job, nor can it reasonably be deduced to be by any competent human being.

    me: I’m sorry you feel that way. I read the preamble and Article 1, Section 8 differently than you do, apparently.

    a: P.S. The constitution is an agreement between the federal government and the states…. not the public. Thus ‘common defense’ specifically refers to the states defending each other and the federal government, not the citizens.

    me: Again, I’m sorry you feel this way. If you are saying that OK can kill or otherwise ban Buddhists who practice their religion in Tulsa, I’m sure I don’t agree.

  12. dL

    . For example, if you want to visit the US, here are our terms,

    Our? That’s your xenophobic terms, not mine.

  13. dL

    But crossing a border involves a meta-association with all the citizens of the nation.

    lol…this is your brain on Fox News!

  14. robert capozzi

    dL,

    Recall that I advocate Nonarchy Pods for people like yourself who reject the rule of law.

    “Our” is shorthand for “those of us who accept the rule of law,” which my sense is the vast majority of my fellow citizens.

  15. robert capozzi

    dL: xenophobic

    me: Tell us why it’s xenophobic in your mind to acknowledge that the US has $20T in debt and that it cannot afford open borders at this time? Why is it xenophobic in your mind to screen for tourists with communicable diseases or criminal intent and/or backgrounds?

  16. Libertydave

    robert capozzi

    I thought my comment was perfectly clear. I am saying that the libertarian position is open boarders. Just like your comments are perfectly clear, you believe that your fears of what might happen give you the right to use force to limit my freedoms.

  17. robert capozzi

    ld,

    Of course, there’s no such thing as “the libertarian position,” since many Ls have many views on borders. Unless it’s changed recently, the LP’s position is basically mine, and it’s not 100% open borders.

    As for my fears, I’m not afraid of immigrants. Personally, I am persuadable that the complete open borders position is optimal, although at this time it strikes me as reasonable that some checks at the border are certainly prudent. I do believe that citizens should have the power to institute checks and other terms and conditions for tourists and immigrants, although my strong bias is for minimal terms and conditions and maximal freedom of travel and migration.

    As for your individual rights, LD, note that I advocate Nonarchy Pods. If you want to secede onto your own property and you want your ingress over your property line to be completely open, I am OK with that.

  18. robert capozzi

    pf,

    No, I don’t. See my comment to LD above and note that I am persuadable on what the optimal POLICY is, but as a matter of principle I am open to and tepidly support checks, terms, and conditions (until the Frankel Singularity and Worldwide Nonarchy is instituted, at which point, the question is moot.)

  19. paulie

    There are limits on my tolerance for repeating myself. If you don’t remember from all our past discussions on the subject what I would consider to be the incorrect premeses in those questions I can’t imagine how I can achieve anything by repeating myself about that yet again.

  20. robert capozzi

    pf,

    iirc, you made arguments about secuirty theater and that disease screening was highly porous. I countered that the law is all about theater, since, for ex., murder has been illegal for centuries and yet people still commit it. The law is a signal, not a guarantee against aberrant behavior.

    I think you claimed that immigrants were net taxpayers according to some studies, but I noted that that didn’t include the public schools and public health resources they consume. It’s possible they are indeed net taxpayers, but I believe more data is necessary to reach that conclusion.

    Some nonarchists counter that public schools and health services should be abolished, which I find to be non-responsive and a goalpost-moving exercise. Whether that was you, I can’t say for sure.

    You didn’t engage me on the law-as-a-signal point, as I recall.

    I love your perspective, PF, but, no, I don’t have Total Recall, sadly….

  21. Andy

    “robert capozzi
    January 12, 2018 at 16:05
    dL: xenophobic

    me: Tell us why it’s xenophobic in your mind to acknowledge that the US has $20T in debt and that it cannot afford open borders at this time? Why is it xenophobic in your mind to screen for tourists with communicable diseases or criminal intent and/or backgrounds?”

    Those who advocate for “open borders” act as though they are holier-than-though libertarian purists, but in reality, the “open borders” position is not libertarian at all. Why? Because since government controls the land, they are monopolizing the function of who crosses onto what land, and who associates with who, and given that we live in a democratic welfare state, who comes onto the land has a direct effect on welfare payouts, and election results. If you examine the data (as people like Stefan Molyneux and myself have), you will find that super-majorities of modern day immigrants (and their offspring) are using government welfare programs, and voting to increase government welfare programs, and to restrict gun rights, and they are doing this at a rate that is significantly higher than the native population.

    We don’t live in an a private property anarcho-capitalist society, which is a society where all of the land and infrastructure would be privately owned. Such a society would not have “open borders”, as under this context, who crosses onto what land would be regulated by private property owners, and the private property owners would be free to discriminate against whoever they wanted, for whatever reason, including because the private property owner is a racist or a xenophobe. Some private property owners may embrace multi-culturalism, and they may set up very multi-cultural zones on their own private property. Other private property owners my set up very stringent policies for who comes onto their private property, and they may reject multi-culturalism. The market would likely have lots of alternatives to accommodate people with lots of different lifestyle preferences.

    Reality is that we do not live in a private property anarcho-capitalist society. We live in a democratic welfare state that has forced association laws, and lots of public property, and where even the so called private property is taxed and regulated by the state. So unless the coercive government is completely eliminated, in favor of a private property anarcho-capitalist society, whatever immigration policy you support is a government policy preference, so those who push for “open borders” are actually favoring using the guns of the state to force multi-culturalism onto the rest of the population, and when you examine the welfare usage statistics, and the voting statistics, of modern day immigrants (and their offspring), you will find that super-majorities of these people are actually looting the existing native population of the country (yes, I blame the politicians and bureaucrats for this, but I also place blame on the immigrants themselves for taking part in this, and for voting for these policies in super-majority numbers). Also, when you examine crime statistics, you will find that there are certain immigrant groups who commit disproportionate amounts of crimes. Yes, there are members of the existing native population who receive welfare and who commit crimes, but this does not justify allowing people to enter the country who do these things. If the government sits back and says, “Our policy is open borders, so everybody in the world is invited to come here.” this is still a government policy. Once again, government is monopolizing a function, and government is prohibiting the private sector (or what remains of the private sector) to perform said function.

    So as long as coercive government exists, it is going to have a policy on immigration and borders, and that’s all there is to it. If you think that the government’s policy should be “open the borders up and allow anyone who wants to come there to enter, regardless of what other laws are on the books, and whatever other conditions are in place.” this is still a policy, and it is still a statist policy. Advocates of this policy are wanting to use the guns of the state for force multi-culturalism and Cultural Marxisim on everyone else, and I’d say that it is even worse than this, because they are basically importing a defacto invading army of socialists, communists, theocrats, and criminals, to share the same land mass, and the same system of government, with the rest of the existing population, a large percentage of which oppose this policy, and the government is forced integrating these people into the present society, and is adding them to the voter rolls, which means they hey can gain political power, and vote against the interests of much of the rest of the population. Inviting non-peaceful people to cross borders is not a libertarian position.

    Given that the state exists, the nature of the state is that it is going to have a policy regarding borders and immigration (as I said above, even if the state declares “open borders” it is still implementing a government policy, and this policy initiates force and fraud against the existing population), so the sensible path to take is to advocate in favor of a policy that allows for some immigration, but to weed out (at least as much as possible) socialists, communists, theocrats, welfare seekers, criminals, and people with communicable diseases. Sure, some people will sneak in anyway, but you don’t have to reward the sneaks by making them or their offspring American “citizens”, or by offering them or their offspring any government services (perhaps beyond emergency medical services, followed by deportation (ie-physical removal)). Adam Kokesh brought up that some people sneak in anyway argument in the debate above with Stefan Molyneux, and Molyneux smacked it down by pointing out that countries like Israel, Poland, and Japan, aren’t being flooded with immigrants because they don’t invite them, and when they sneak in, they throw them out. If the US government would simply stop offering welfare and other government services to immigrants, and if they would make the citizenship process more difficult, and not offer citizenship to anyone who sneaks in (including to any children they give birth to while they are here), this would eliminate a lot of the problems associated with immigration.

  22. paulie

    US has $20T in debt and that it cannot afford open borders at this time?

    The premise seems to be that immigrants are a drain on the economy and that taxpayers, contrary to the actual evidence.

  23. paulie

    screen for tourists with communicable diseases or criminal intent and/or backgrounds?

    You would have to hold up everyone coming through every international airport, water port and land port/border crossing for weeks to really determine if they have communicable diseases or criminal background (much less intent). This is extremely impractical, and the premise would have to be that the cost of whatever delays you do introduce to international trade, travel and movement across borders is outweighed by the risk of not carrying out this security theater.

    Since people with communicable diseases and criminal backgrounds and intents also cross state, city, county and other such borders all the time why aren’t people being held up at all those borders to check for these things? Should they be? My answer is no.

  24. Andy

    “robert capozzi
    January 12, 2018 at 18:15
    pf,

    iirc, you made arguments about secuirty theater and that disease screening was highly porous. I countered that the law is all about theater, since, for ex., murder has been illegal for centuries and yet people still commit it. The law is a signal, not a guarantee against aberrant behavior.”

    Like I said above, this argument was smacked down by Molyneux in his debate with Kokesh. Israel, Poland, and Japan do not have immigration problems, because they don’t invite them (which the exception of Israel inviting people who can prove Jewish ancestry), and if any foreigners sneak into these countries, they throw them out.

    The small European countries of Lichtenstein and Luxembourg do not have immigration problems because they don’t invite them, and they do not entice them with welfare, and they also have a very difficult processes for becoming citizens (it can apparently take 30 years to become a citizen of Lichtenstein, and this is if they accept a person at all as a citizen). Lichtenstein and Luxembourg, although small, are both prosperous, and both are considered to be at the higher end of the freedom index.

    Switzerland is another European country that does not invite Muslim migrants, therefore they are not having all of the associated problems with migrants that is happening in Germany, Sweden, the United Kingdom, France, etc… Switzerland is a prosperous country that ranks high on the freedom index.

    So if you just stop inviting these people, and don’t offer them any welfare or other government services, and if the citizenship process is more difficult, and people who sneak in are not rewarded with citizenship, these steps would go a long way toward fixing the problem.

    Then somebody will bring up the, “Who is going to pick the fruit (or fill in the blank with some other job)?” argument. There are millions of Americans sitting around collecting welfare, or doing some non-productive government job. Take away the paychecks from these people and they can do these jobs. There is also emerging technology in robotics that can do these jobs.

  25. paulie

    Of course, I am no longer reading anything Andy says on this subject. Not only is he ridiculously long winded but he shows no signs of having read or understood what I have previously posted and reposted countless times, often with plenty of supporting links, plenty of times in the past. As I said my tolerance for repeating myself is increasingly limited.

  26. robert capozzi

    pf: The premise seems to be that immigrants are a drain on the economy and that taxpayers, contrary to the actual evidence.

    me: I’ve indicated in this thread that the relevant evidence is woefully incomplete. It’s possible that immigrants are net taxpayers and that US economic growth would be higher if MORE immigration were encouraged.

    Although, even there, it still could be prudent to shift immigration policies to encourage/require a check in and perhaps other terms and conditions as a means to maximize the productivity and contribution of immigrants AND to screen out more effectively the less desireable would-be immigrants.

    pf: You would have to hold up everyone

    me: Nope. You again avoid my point that the law is a signal. For ex., murders happen, despite its being illegal, etc.

    pf: Since people with communicable diseases and criminal backgrounds and intents also cross state, city, county and other such borders all the time why aren’t people being held up at all those borders to check for these things? Should they be? My answer is no.

    me: The short version is that the US is a nation. Cities, states, and counties are jurisdictions within the nation. Your argument may make sense to you as an anarchist, but most of the body politic is not anarchist. 99% or so of the population — I firmly believe — want there to be a government to maintain domestic tranquility. I respect that you and some NAPsters have a different agenda and perspective.

    My sense is you have many lifetimes of work to convince the body politic of your POV. Currently, anarchism is simply out of bounds. It seems that lessarchism is IN bounds, particularly if it recognizes that the anarchist argument is purely theoretical for the foreseeable future.

  27. Andy

    I support anarcho-capitalism. Stefan Molyneux supports anarcho-capitalism.

    The question here is not anarcho-capitalism vs the state, but rather one of what policy should be in place as long as the state exists.

    The position of people like myself and Molyneux is that while the state exists, it should not have an immigration policy that overwhelms, and/or is destructive, to the existing population.

  28. Libertydave

    Andy, the data on immigration that you claim backs you up is based on exaggeration and lies and are used to justify your fears and bigotry. If you choose to believe these lies that’s your problem.

    But to claim that you have to take away freedom to preserves freedom is not only wrong, it insulting to believe we are that stupid.

    Explain to me how I should trust the gang of people who control the border to only let in the right people when it is this same gang of people that are robbing taxpayers to create the welfare state in the first place.

    Just because you close the border doesn’t mean the they will always let in the people you approve of. When you claim the right to restrict the rights of people you don’t like then your enemies will do the same to you.

  29. paulie

    rc,

    Anarchism is not required for my POV. Europe has free passage for Europeans between nation states. North America had the same until the drug war Nixon started and the terror was Duhbya added to it. No reason North America (or America in general, depending on your taxonomy of continents) can’t do the same in the near future. All Americans from Tierra del Fuego to the Arctic, long before you get into whether or when anarchism becomes viable – which as we have discussed any number of times may not be nearly as remote as you think. But that’s besides the point.

  30. paulie

    t’s possible that immigrants are net taxpayers and that US economic growth would be higher if MORE immigration were encouraged.

    Much more than merely possible.

    For ex., murders happen, despite its being illegal, etc.

    The chances of being apprehended and imprisoned for murder are high, thus the ratio of enforcement costs to results are pretty good. The chances of appreciably stopping crime and diseases at the borders are low, especially considering the costs.

  31. robert capozzi

    ld: Explain to me how I should trust the gang of people who control the border to only let in the right people when it is this same gang of people that are robbing taxpayers to create the welfare state in the first place.

    me: In my case, I don’t trust them. The government has been known to railroad innocent people into murder convictions as well.

    In your mind, does that mean we should abolish laws against murder?

  32. robert capozzi

    pf: Much more than merely possible [that immigration leads to increased economic growth].

    me: IIRC, immigration has been much faster in recent years, and yet economic growth has slowed. So that seems like a dubious assertion.

    But you avoid — again — this:

    …it still could be prudent to shift immigration policies to encourage/require a check in and perhaps other terms and conditions as a means to maximize the productivity and contribution of immigrants AND to screen out more effectively the less desireable would-be immigrants.

    I would like to hear your view here. Why not require a bond and a prohibition from taking taxpayer funds for health and education?

    pf: The chances of appreciably stopping crime and diseases at the borders are low, especially considering the costs.

    me: It may require a more creative, less expensive solution.

  33. robert capozzi

    pf: Europe has free passage for Europeans between nation states.

    me: Are you telling us you think free migration in Europe is working out well? Hmm, if so.

  34. Libertydave

    Come on robert, you can’t tell the difference between laws against actions that harm others and laws against actions that harm no one. The latter are called victimless crimes and they are used to control people the government doesn’t approve of, usually the poor and minorities. Immigration crimes are victimless crimes.

  35. robert capozzi

    LD,

    I can tell the difference, but I refer to something called risk and exposure. In the current setup, new immigrants do represent a financial risk to taxpayers. The rewards of allowing more people into our collective condo complex could be greater than the risks, but there’s no doubt that many immigrants use public health and education services.

    I have no position on what the right balance is, but any good financial analyst will account for risk.

  36. Libertydave

    Robert, you have no right to limit my freedom based on your fears of what might happen. That’s what all victimless crimes are, the government limiting my freedom based on what someone fears might happen.

  37. Andy

    We all know that government is screwed up. This should be a given for everyone here, or at least for everyone reading this who falls somewhere in the Libertarian Quadrant of the Nolan Chart.

    So having said this, even with government being screwed up, we live in a society where government performs lots of different functions, from building and maintaining roads, to delivering mail, to putting out fires, to prosecuting people for crimes, etc…

    Many of the functions that government does, there’d still be a demand for if we lived in an anarcho-capitalist society, but we don’t live in such a society.

    So what do we do in the meantime? If somebody steals your car, do you not report it to the police? If your house is on fire, do you not call the government fire department? Do you not drive on the roads since they are paid for via taxation, and you believe that taxation is theft, and that roads should be privatized?

    So you think that just anyone should be able to waltz into the country, no questions asked, because you don’t like the government? Do you also think that if your house catches on fire, that you should not call the government fire department, because you don’t like the government?

    I have used the US Post Office many times, and the US Post Office, as inefficient as it may be, almost always delivers the mail.

    We have no free market alternative to keep hostile foreigners out of the country.

    How is it that the governments in Israel, Poland, and Japan, are able to keep unwanted foreigners out? How come Lichtenstein and Luxembourg are not flooded with immigrants? How come Switzerland has no problem with Muslim migrants, like exists in Germany, Sweden, the UK, France, and other countries in Europe that have allowed mass Muslim migration?

    Once again, as long as government exists, it controls the land, therefore, any immigration policy that exists, including “open the borders up and let everyone enter,” is a statist immigration policy. Given this reality, any immigration policy that is in place should not overwhelm, and/or be detrimental, to the existing population.

  38. robert capozzi

    ld: Robert, you have no right to limit my freedom based on your fears of what might happen. That’s what all victimless crimes are, the government limiting my freedom based on what someone fears might happen.

    me: I can’t limit your freedom, Dave, I’m just a knucklehead posting comments on obscure websites! 😉

    I advocate your complete freedom to secede from the nation onto your property. I’m not sure if even Roderick Long advocates that!

    Today there were no doubt immigrants — legal and illegal — sending their kids to government schools and using emergency rooms for primary medical care. So, no, it’s not a fear of what might happen, it actually happens every day. I could ask you why you tolerate that freedom restriction for other taxpayers?

  39. robert capozzi

    LD,

    I note that you never reacted to this:

    ” I’m sorry you feel this way. If you are saying that OK can kill or otherwise ban Buddhists who practice their religion in Tulsa, I’m sure I don’t agree”

    Is it your view that OK is within its powers to do so under US law?

  40. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I support anarcho-capitalism. Stefan Molyneux supports anarcho-capitalism.”

    Except for the part where you think a criminal gang is entitled to violently control movement over unhomesteaded land which it does not and cannot own and which you do not yourself own for the purposes of making sure other people only associate with the people you want them to associate with. Except for that part there, yeah, you might be an anarcho-capitalist [sic].

  41. dL

    Except for that part there, yeah, you might be an anarcho-capitalist [

    Actually, he sounds like a gun-grabbing, property-grabbing progressive. Too many guns in the US to allow free migration. Freedom of association on your own property impacts others…it’s not really “your” property. It’s kind of like “our” property. Guy has always been a crank. Now he is a fraud…a bucket of pasty flab who cartoon fetishizes himself as some pumped up strong man.

Leave a Reply

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