The White House recently announced the granting of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to Venezuelans who arrived in the US before July 31st, a special designation allowing them to stay and work for 18 months. The announcement comes in large part as a reaction to the tens of thousands of migrants currently overwhelming New York City’s taxpayers, who have been
oh, right. In a world where that is the system, I suspect people will be much more assuaged if done by government? I am not saying that means gov does it better. but politically, seems likely?
Immigration and the welfare state are in principle separate issues: all the social safety net programs could incorporate restrictions that bar eligibility unless one has been a resident/citizen for at least, say, 10 years. That would minimize any incentive to migrate because of the such programs. Second, existing evidence finds that immigrants are, if anything, at net fiscal plus; see, e.g., here: https://www.cato.org/publications/working-paper/fiscal-impact-immigration. All that said, libertarians do support cutting the existing safety, at least sufficiently to make it fiscally sustainable over the long term.
Yes, Libertarian Land would have open borders. Many libertarians stop short of endorsing zero immigration restrictions of any kind; they would maintain checks on security, criminal records, and such. But relative to current practice, essentially free migration.
Would Libertarian Land have open borders as usually understood (since land would be privately owned & property owners would presumably permit or forbid access as they wish)?
America can only have “open borders” if the welfare state is eliminated and there is a reasonable identity/security/health check. The current system is unsustainable.
My understanding’s that immigrants are actually less likely to go on welfare since they’d necessarily expose themselves to potential deportation — even Rothbard acknowledged this despite his reputation as a more conservative-leaning libertarian.
I think this is a long outdated stat. Our government will be sure to make them dependent on services insuring future votes. I truly believe that anyone should be able immigrate here after a health check/identity/security check. Give them a work permit (which is an insane government intrusion). If they can't work to support themselves, they will not come.
oh, right. In a world where that is the system, I suspect people will be much more assuaged if done by government? I am not saying that means gov does it better. but politically, seems likely?
Sorry Adam, but not quite understanding your question: what "checks" do you mean? jeff
The ones you referred to in your previous comment regarding security, criminal records, etc.
Immigration and the welfare state are in principle separate issues: all the social safety net programs could incorporate restrictions that bar eligibility unless one has been a resident/citizen for at least, say, 10 years. That would minimize any incentive to migrate because of the such programs. Second, existing evidence finds that immigrants are, if anything, at net fiscal plus; see, e.g., here: https://www.cato.org/publications/working-paper/fiscal-impact-immigration. All that said, libertarians do support cutting the existing safety, at least sufficiently to make it fiscally sustainable over the long term.
Yes, Libertarian Land would have open borders. Many libertarians stop short of endorsing zero immigration restrictions of any kind; they would maintain checks on security, criminal records, and such. But relative to current practice, essentially free migration.
Would those checks themselves be privatized (along the lines of what Gary Becker suggested)?
Would Libertarian Land have open borders as usually understood (since land would be privately owned & property owners would presumably permit or forbid access as they wish)?
America can only have “open borders” if the welfare state is eliminated and there is a reasonable identity/security/health check. The current system is unsustainable.
My understanding’s that immigrants are actually less likely to go on welfare since they’d necessarily expose themselves to potential deportation — even Rothbard acknowledged this despite his reputation as a more conservative-leaning libertarian.
I think this is a long outdated stat. Our government will be sure to make them dependent on services insuring future votes. I truly believe that anyone should be able immigrate here after a health check/identity/security check. Give them a work permit (which is an insane government intrusion). If they can't work to support themselves, they will not come.