Tom Kunich writes:

On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 7:55:21 AM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
AMuzi writes:

On 6/9/2021 3:41 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
AMuzi writes:

On 6/9/2021 1:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/9/2021 1:39 PM, AMuzi wrote:
[ ... ]
Meanwhile the border is open.

https://wflanews.iheart.com/featured...-county-woman/


CBP agents report that most of the staff has been
reassigned to processing of illegals rather than actual
border enforcement. There are virtually no deportations
any longer. And those 'helpless children' are 90% single
males between 15 and 21.

These are not new problems and a complete solution is not
possible but these are real problems:

https://policetribune.com/advocate-f...rtation-order/


The border is not "open" any more than all bike shops are
always "open." Bike shop and other burglaries happen despite
reasonable security.

Actually, your position on this is sort of flipped from your
usual position. You've repeatedly argued against gun laws,
saying "How is the prohibition on drugs working out?".

For consistency, you should be saying we shouldn't have
border security.


Extend the argument and you get to 'we are not a nation'. That's too
far over the line for me.

No visas were required for aliens wishing to enter the US prior to 1918,
were we not then a nation?


That's insightful. So I thought about it.

A lot has changed.

In 1900, total US tax burden, local, county, state and federal was
under 10% of GDP. One might bemoan the ethos 'work or starve' but
that's how it was generally.

As Milton Friedman famously concluded 'You can have a welfare state or
open borders, but not both.' I think he makes a very good point.

Add in other social/cultural changes and open borders are IMHO a clear
and present danger. We have plenty of dangers here already.
The cost of social welfare is one part of the puzzle, another one is
just the increasing ability of states to micromanage people. When
Fernando and Ysabel kicked all the Muslims and Jews out of Spain no one
objected that they weren't allowed to do that -- they were sovereign.
But the modern beaurocratic centralized approach of passports for all
with a stamp for each coming and going was just not doable, so they had
to rely on the Spanish Inquisition.

It's true that detailed migration control has become a sine qua non for
a state above the failed level, like a highway system or a working
airport. It's useful to remember that those requirements are of a
similar age.

I'm not ready to advocate open borders, but I do object to the idea that
they are literally unthinkable. Most of the world had them not all that
long ago.
Most of the world does NOT have open borders. Even in the EU they have
immigration controls and even those are so lax that they got
themselves Brexit. If YOU think that you can immigrate to China just
try it. If you think that you can immigrate to Russia try
it. Socialist Countries are the LEAST open because they already cannot
pay for their own populations of natives.

I said "had". It was never easy to move from living in one country to
living in another, but official controls at borders were not always the
rule.

--