'Let's build a wall around the welfare state, not the United States'
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 апр 2024
- On April 11, 2024, Reason's Nick Gillespie participated in a debate on immigration sponsored by FIRE and The Free Press.
In his opening statement he argued that the U.S. should not have a prohibition on people. More people should be allowed to come to the U.S. legally.
To watch the full debate: www.thefp.com/p/the-free-pres....
Why not both? Increase legal safe immigration and crack down on illegal immigration.
Because the wall relies on stealing from taxpayers and the state has no right to control property it doesn't own. Ending the welfare state would fix most of the issues conservatives have against immigration.
Because one of them (building the wall) relies on robbing from people and the other (ending the welfare state) ends robbing from people. Ending the welfare state would fix most issues you conservatives have over the brown people coming in. And also, you do not have the right to prevent people from accessing land you do not own.
Because anyone who supports this view cannot get elected.
The point is we won't have such rampant illegal crossings if the legal pathway weren't so costly and time-consuming.
Brown-skin
Dependence and chaos only benefit one type of political party.
the Nutjob Republican Party…
The type who has made it to the table, been able to exclude almost all of the others from said table and who now wants to keep hold of power or at least their reoccurring chance to get it?
At yet we are losing nearly 100k people a year to fentanyl poisoning.
Only after our gov got out of the opium business in Afghanistan.
R u accusing immigrants of poisoning Americans? I thought conservatives and libertarians were all about personal responsibility
Barred from welfare, yet in NYC they are getting free hotel rooms, education, and prepaid credit cards paid for with tax dollars. Sounds like welfare to me.
You can't point that out. You also can't point out the fact that in California.They're doing the exact same thing, and they're also trying to pass policies that would give illegal aliens.
Medical care paid for by taxpayers
I don't care what NYC spends it's tax dollars on.
Because they are not allowed to work.
Oregon is spraying aerosolized Racism, Heroin & Hepatitis C all over the state. So don’t move here.
@@Foolish188 The ones who came here legally are.
We have enough. We don't need more.
Bunch of leftist-lies. ..............
Bravo Nick.
Doesn't the federal welfare state violate states' rights? If a state does not want to host a welfare dependent population, don't they have a Constitutional right to turn down that funding for their citizens?
Nope. The federal government controls who is and isn't allowed within the US.
How about a wall and no welfare ?
Reductive and over simplification of a serious problem, but what else should one expect from Nick Gillespie?
I wish he would have pounded out the main point.... anyone who wants to come here and work... support themselves.... and NOT violate the rights of others.... is welcome. That is what past immigrants did.... before the expansion of the Welfare State.
My grandparents came here and worked... they struggled.... they built a family business.... they never received one dime of government support, nor did they expect any such support.
Many of today's immigrants are drawn here because they have been told they can receive government support. THAT is what needs to be stopped.
I don't know enough about U.S. immigration and it's impact but as a Brit all I need to do is look at the average wage of *lawful* immigrants and see how far below lifetime break-even it is taking into account their expected benefits and state pension.
Or look at GDP per capita and look at how it has massively fallen in direct response to immigration.
Or look at how difficult it is for British born vocational college and University graduates to get a job and where those jobs are going to, and how little they're paid.
As they say, lies, dammed lies and statistics.
Perhaps GDP has fallen in the U.K. post-Brexit as a result of lower immigration and reduced trade. And are you claiming immigrants are taking jobs which require university degrees in mass numbers? I beg to differ. I'm willing to wager it has more so to do with corporations eliminating job openings so CEOs can further enrich themselves -- business as usual.
The problem is not with immigrants (brown people) -- the problem is with the corporatist, elitist class and their greed, as well as their disdain for the average working person. You aren't espousing anything new. People always blame immigrant communities for economic woes because it is easier to be convinced of propaganda, rather than face the reality it is -- and always has been -- the rich and powerful keeping the economically downtrodden on their hands and knees like good little peasants. And it's propaganda espoused by the rich and powerful.
Asylum seekers pay more into the system than they receive.
@@hobbso8508 *"Asylum seekers pay more into the system than they receive."*
I'd suggest that over their lifetime most asylum seekers *will not* "pay more into the system than they receive". In other words I'm calling you a bullsh'ter but that said I'm totally willing to eat humble pie on this *provided* you can offer solid, reliable evidence to the contrary. I suspect you won't though; I suspect just like many others you'll either offer very weak 'evidence', squirt prose ink or just run away.
@@loc4725
The ASPE report from February this year reviewed the fiscal impact of refugees and asleep at the federal, state and local levels from 2005 to 2019 and found that:
"Overall, this federal study finds that the net fiscal impact of refugees and asylees was positive over 15-year period, as $123.8 billion."
"Refugees and asylees with 10 or more years of residency had approximately the same level of income as the total U.S. population."
There is more where they break it all down, I recommend giving it an read.
@@Nicene325ad GDP per capita in the UK has moved and been moving _inversely_ to immigration for some time, so either Brexit has had an effect backwards in time or your theory that Brexit is the cause is wrong or at least horribly incomplete.
As for immigrants not taking jobs and "corporations eliminating job openings so CEOs can further enrich themselves", just as an example there are plenty of British government policy documents out there saying things like:
"New skilled workers with a job offer from a licensed employer, subject to exemptions for workers already in the UK, and the most highly-paid workers (Tier 2 General category): 20,700
*Source:* Immigration and asylum: changes made by the Coalition Government 2010 - 2015
Or how about:
"David Cameron relaxes visa restrictions for tech talent"
Source: Independent Online.
The idea that you can cut skilled workers from your workforce whilst at the same time maintaining or even increasing profitability is frankly baffling. And as for "brown people", until recently we had a pretty serious problem with Albanian -economic migrants- "asylum seekers", and last time I checked they weren't "brown".
Nick's point on crime is foolish. Illegal immigration is intolerable, you can't have a country without borders.
Interesting argument. Go to southern California multiple generations in this country. Ask yourself if they have assimilated and made America prosper. Eliminate EBT and welfare so folks can pick crops or cut grass or clean bathrooms.
Sadly, and again, this guys conflates border security with immigration. These are two separate issues.
(Both of which need to be reigned in)
We should have safe legal immigration from people who can undoubtedly move here, take care of themselves, share similar values, add to the country. The people pouring into the southern border are not that. They should not be getting welfare. They should be vetted in their country & have relevant in demand skills.
Ugh who keeps inviting Cenk to these things??
Nick Gillespie is my spirit animal.
Are the thousands lining up to protest not being given enough free stuff in New York picking our vegetables? 🎉
Off the subject I know. To have his speech outline on his cell phone makes Nick look like a semi literate college student about to ask Ben Shapiro a "gotcha" question.
Just because they're doing your laundry and raising your kids instead of you doesn't mean anyone else can afford to live and work on the meager wages that you need to pay them for such services.
It is not merely the welfare state which creates a problem for open borders but the regulatory state.
A regulatory state that mandate a standard of living upon the rest of us who cannot simply hop across the border to escape and iqnore.
A regulatory state that we simply cannot afford to comply with selling our labor at the global market value you import with said immigrants.
This is why you must get rid of the welfare state first before we can accept the reduced standard of living the importation of the third world wages requires for the rest of us.
You have to get rid of the welfare and regulatory state first. Then we can deal with the issue of locust that open borders creates.
End the regulatory state and the welfare state and allow open borders because you have no right to prevent people from accessing land you do not own. End the concept of public property. Privatize everything.
Unsurprisingly, you missed the point. They aren't coming here and jumping on welfare like most of you clowns claim. Don't be afraid of the people who come here to work and jump the line because the legal pathway is such a pain in the ass. They wouldn't come here for those meager wages, whatever that means, if they weren't better off.
@@lights473😂😂
@@lights473 you really do have to do it in that order only. The regulatory state has to be ended first then the welfare state and then and only then can you have open borders.
If you skip a step then the previous system that you skipped will destroy you.
Open borders doesn't work with either a welfare state or a regulatory stick because market is not able to adjust.
Ending the welfare state likewise doesn't work unless you in the regulatory state because there simply is no place for these people to legally work and live under said regulations.
This is where libertarians fail catastrophically when they try to downside the government out of order.
Ironically one can say the left only had the support to build The welfare state because they had already built a regulatory state that had crippled so many people as to require a welfare state.
We also required ever more strict immigration laws simply because the to aforementioned states made it impossible for people to survive without jacking up the cost of everything.
The left created minimum wage laws in an effort to fix that problem too but of course as we all know that just means large sections population can't work at all.
@@Anderson33333 every single conservative is delusional on this making this same "you have to do it in order" point. Name a single time in American history that restricting immigration has led to reduction in state power. If anything, what we have seen is restriction in immigration has always coincided with growth in state power, it has never ever coincided with reduction in state power. Every time they restricted immigration, it coincided with growth of the warfare state and more spending. The problems that come with immigration is the problem of the state itself and the concept of public property. They both have to go, but that doesn't imply "an order." If anything, more immigration would encourage people to do something about the issues of immigration as we are seeing politicians in NYC reducing government spending, and people would even be encouraged to expand free markets to produce more supply for the growing demand. There is no order, stop this nonsense that you delusional conservatives keep dreaming of. It's not going to happen. People need to be encouraged to deal with the problems of immigration so it's in fact a good reason to support open borders as the first step. We should be reducing government control in any form, including their control of land they do not own. You have no right to prevent people from accessing land you do not own.
This!
How are they "raising our children," if we have an ongoing drop in the fertility rate? (We need these newcomers to replace the children that just don't exist)
Wasn't population decrease supposed to be a good thing? It's hard to keep up with the contradictory panics.
This is silly. No one's ever erected even a fence around the welfare state long term.
Both. Libertarians can still advocate for a strong border that controls the flow of people and drugs coming through. No border, no country.
Also, were not going through an industrial revolution. The silly and naive comparison to immigrants from 100 plus years ago is dumb.
You're not a libertarian tho.
@@user-rm8lr3tt7m oh I so apologize! I will bend the knee to your ideological puritanical ends and relinquish my labels.
“No border no country”
presupposes that having a distinct nation is a goal in itself
@@lunarsystem101 the libertarian ideal of having a nation with very limited government and some form of federal government which is constitutionally restrained IS libertarian. It's what the founders intended.
@@ultimatedab743 libertarianism is a broad movement with less unified beliefs than you might think. The form of libertarianism the fathers followed is not identical to its modern incarnation (for instance libertarians today tend to oppose the death penalty, as can be seen in the libertarian party platform, and the fathers certainly had different opinions). A more true understanding of libertarianism, to my mind, would see the nation as a way to guarantee rights, not a goal in itself. Therefore, if something about the nation, like borders and immigration restrictions, oppose liberty, then there is little reason to support that aspect of the nation
You can remove all need for a public border by simply abolishing social welfare. That should be the priority IMO.
That’s so dumb.
Opposite of jesus, I see.
@@blackout07blue Jesus was not demanding government action. Practice your giving with your own resources.
Very dumb idea.
And the lock on your front door and the fence surrounding your property
Why aren't Europeans Crossing into the U.S.?
We were, we are.
If there are Pac Islanders and Africans coming over the southern border I'm fairly certain there are Europeans too. Most Euro's probably just overstay A VISA.
As a Canadian I am about 1 more socialist policy away
Because the US sucks. People shot dead daily, crime, and expensive private healthcare.
Over stayed visas and vacations
Why not both?
I don't let just anyone on my property, so why should the community as a whole let in people they can't vouch for or know?
You allow mowers, plumbers, and electricians in your property. You won’t allow beggars in your property. That’s his point.
Because the community doesn't own things. Only individuals own things. Private property rights is an individualist concept. You do not have the right to prevent people from accessing land you do not own.
@lights473 We, as a country, have rights to our own culture, tongue, and beliefs. As of today wages have stagnated as inflation rises, and our traditionally poorer groups like black Americans are still poor, while the middle class is shrinking. We don’t need replacement workers, we need actual solutions.
@@hismajesty6272 rights are an individualist concept. The only rights you have is what you own. Rights are not collectivist. You do not have the right to prevent people from using land and homesteading resources that you do not own. As for economics, the middle class is shrinking because those in the middle class are entering the upper class, i.e. people are getting richer. Wages have not stagnated, this is a socialist myth that has been debunked countless times by many economists. What we need is a free market and liberty, ending government control, that's the solution.
Private property is the same argument either way. Who are you to prevent me from having someone on my property just because they have to cross public property to get there?
Times change. We never gave them Free Housing free food free clothing free education and debit cards.
STATES are largely doing that. Move or vote. Good grief.
We don't do that on a federal level right now.
So basic human rights?
@@hobbso8508 and what would basic human rights be? Step across a line and those rights whatever they are suddenly become my responsibility to provide and not the country from which that person came from in the first place. A right isn't something that demands things be taken from someone else to satisfy another person's desire.
@@terrific804 Seeking asylum is a right, so yes actually it is.
Maybe learn what human rights are.
Unfortunately, Nick's opening argument was a mixture of good ideas and ivory tower ideas that didn't present a logically consistent argument.
Just like in Escape from NY. that movie was a prediction
Sure, as soon as we can be positive of who is coming in anyway. Outer walls first, then worry about inner walls. We can't welcome in even more when we have millions pouring in over the border.
We still need a vetting process. We can't just let in a bunch of people just because they want a better life who are then going to turn around & make this country the shit-holes they left. THAT is how you get oppressive, barbarian customs like Sharia Law.
You will never really know who is coming here illegally. By making legal immigration significantly easier you vastly increase the number of people that you know and reduce the number entering illegally. By unnecessarily inflating the number of people who would come here illegally you exacerbate the problem you are lamenting.
@@MoreBollocks-ui2zs OH! I see! So when a boat gets a second hole in it, you make the first hole bigger and more water comes in that hole instead of the second hole. Of course. Makes perfect sense. I mean, why plug the second hole? That's racist. Just ignore the second hole and make the first hole even wider - that'll fix that stupid second hole for sure!
Hey, next time you get a hole in a tire, just put another hole in it. FIXED!
You clearly think all immigration is bad with that analogy which is not something I or the person you are responding to believe.
@@jeremymercer5655 You clearly have very poor reading comprehension skills. That, or you are being intentionally (possibly unintentionally) dense.
nation:
a population, normally residing in the same geographic region, in which most all the citizens share a common race, religion, language, and culture. This word is VERY often used erroneously in the stead of the term “country”. Therefore, it is highly suggested that one refer to the Glossary entry under “country”, in order to understand the distinction between a “country” and a “nation”.
Unfortunately, an enormous percentage of the population has been indoctrinated by leftists to regard NATIONALISM as a malevolent ideology, when in fact, the adherence to a nationalistic framework is beneficial to both the citizenry of a nation and to the world as a whole. Multicultural societies are constantly fraught with conflicts, due to the incompatibility of competing ideologies and practices.
Imagine, if you will, that the million most conservative men from an Islamic nation in Middle-east Asia, such as Afghanistan, and the million most feministic women from a liberal country like Canada, were taken to some barren island and asked to establish a new civilization. How harmonious and prosperous do you believe such a mismatch of persons would be? TOTALLY discordant!
Furthermore, a variety of national identities is intrinsically beneficial, for nobody would want to travel to another nation if that nation was fundamentally identical to their own nation, except to experience the unique geographical features, diets or climates.
I, for one, am glad that I can visit a nation such as Japan in order to experience its unique culture and language, then choose to visit or reside in nations such as Ireland and Egypt in order to experience the unique languages, food, art, dance, cinema, music, religion, and customs of those two nations. Of course, if I decided to reside in a nation where the language and culture differed radically from my own, I would need to adapt. For example, if I were to migrate to a Middle-east Asian nation, such as the one mentioned above, I could not openly criticize the Islamic faith (and especially its founder) without putting my very existence at risk. Upon moving to the Philippines over a decade ago, I found it EXTREMELY easy to acclimatize to its culture, since it is very much a Westernized nation, not dissimilar to the country of my birth, The Southland (that is, “Terra Australis” or “Australia”, as it is known in the Latin tongue).
“Nation” was first recorded in the thirteenth century, from the Middle English, from Latin “nātiōn-” (stem of “nātiō”), meaning “birth” or “tribe”, equivalent to “nāt(us)” (past participle of “nāscī”, meaning “to be born”) + “-iōn-”. “-ion” a suffix, appearing in words of Latin origin, denoting action or condition, used in Latin and in English to form nouns from stems of Latin adjectives.
Leftists have no problem with the tribalism of the nation of women. Pretty much all identity politics is just old school nationalism.
Thanks fascist.
@@hobbso8508, respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations, caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
These people get incentives unlike natural born Americans. How is this hard to understand? Lol, if I was thrown money, I’d open a business too.
Sounds like we should expand welfare to help businesses grow.
FOS
I think more people are interested in exploiting prosperity than expanding it. The arguments presented here were not very compelling
Exploiting prosperity is literally just capitalism.
@hobbso8508 Yes, and capitalism does a lot of good for a lot of people. If America doesn't have the stability that comes with private property laws, then a lot of people will take for themselves at the expense of others. It looks like socialism whose social track record speaks for itself
@@sil3ntwint3r
You're confusing private property with personal property. Nobody is arguing for the removal of personal property.
i will never understand why libertarians are against border security
Because they’re unable to justify any government action because “all taxes are theft.”
Because you shouldn’t need goverment permission to invite someone to your house or to engage in voluntary transactions with a employer and a landlord.
@@redsky4016 a country is a property, and it has the right to defend itself against invaders
@@awatf8244😂 so in your analogy the government owns its citizens? Isn't that the democrats take? Are you aware of the founding principles?
Is that chunk yogurt on the the chair on stage? From TYT.
Yep
My position on immigration is the same as my position on slavery. They need to close the plantations
Slavery violates man's rights, immigration doesn't. You do not have the right to prevent people from land you do not own.
@@lights473the thing is that conservatives don't really believe in private property. They want all property to be regulated to prevent immigration. They love doing the heavy lifting for the progressives.
What?
Be more specific
It's amazing seeing a lot of so-called "libertarians" in the comments arguing for immigration restrictions. I guess if Elizabeth Warren is a capitalist then those people can be libertarians...
Thank God they have the common sense to break from the pack on that. Immigration is erasure.
Are you so ignorant of the fact that letting in two or three billion immigrants would destroy this country?
A border wall could be used by some future president to keep us from leaving.
Be careful what you ask for.
Brother what?
This is the issue on which libertarians are most wrong.
.
We've been told for generations to stop polluting the earth with our potential children, and restricted our breeding accordingly. Instead of cheaper land, higher wages, and cleaner air, our reward has been to be invaded by hostile hordes who have nothing but contempt for the nation.
Even in the cases in which the outsider is superior, our loyalty belongs to the people born here.
No one's desire for cheap servants should override the long term interests of citizens. Becoming Bangladesh will not be an improvement.
Agreed. Replacing natives with easily exploited people is bad for everyone. Americans should be priority 1.
Sure, we should let more people immigrate legally. At the same time, we need to know who is coming over. Close the border and allow more people to come legally.
Eh, 9 million is WAY too much. That would almost be a 1% population increase, and if there are thousands of people entering in waves, they won’t assimilate.
@@hismajesty6272 I never said 9 million? How many do we allow to legally immigrate now?
@crissd8283 way too many. There are estimated millions of illegals in the US. The guy in this video said there were 15 million people waiting to immigrate legally. That’s a horrible amount of people.
Nick Gillespie is dishonest when he mischaracterizes the opposition to open borders as favoring prohibition. It is typical of capital L libertarians to think and argue in extremes. It is disappointing to see such arguments made in any debate. It's not useful.
I respect Nick Gillespie for not caving in to the ethnos.
This guy should run for president! I’d throw my vote away on him LOL
All jokes aside, he would make a good president!
Watch 'Immigration by Gumballs' the video...
Sounds nice, but you also need to throttle the rate of immigration and have strong cultural incentives to assimilate. (Which doesn’t mean you have to adhere 100% to all American beliefs and traditions, just that you adopt the core values and ideals of America like free speech and the right to bear arms) Unfettered immigration combined with multiculturalism will lead to a drastic cultural shift that breaks down the foundations for maintaining liberty.
That’s all fine and dandy, but what about “muh free market?”
(Libertarians need to grow up)
What you say is idealistic and just not so.
It's not idealistic to be principled and correct. In fact it's the only moral position.
@lights473 He's wrong about many things. We're not a nation of immigrants for starters
@@Red.83 he's correct we should end the welfare state not building the wall. The welfare state is based on stealing, ending it ends stealing, the wall is based on stealing, building it promotes stealing.
@@Red.83 That is very untrue.
@lights473 Call me whatever I want, I don’t want 9 million strangers added to my country when we already take too many unassimilated immigrants in already.
Nicely done, Nick! :)
😂
5:52,….prescient & on point.
Half baked logic
A very childish idea.
"...get on with the business of building the future of our country rather than trying to restore a tattered, imagined past." This eloquent quote is pertinent to much more than immigration.
Lol.
Immigration is replacement. He wants all 9 million people to be let in. Thats obscenely high.
That argument reduces everything to mere fashion.
Nick doesnt miss!
Typical libertarians
Typically correct and principled.
I mean, this is a libertarian RUclips channel….
If you don't like being principled then stop watching this channel.
Unable to justify any government action and wants to flood the country with millions of strangers to pick up GDP by a tiny margin.
Typical freedom-loving libertarians who favor voluntaryism and are against the use of force. What a crazy idea.
there's more security at the entrance to Disneyland then at the United States southern border. that is just ridiculous at its face.
You are secure in that logic and reason will never penetrate into your brain.
The problem is not going to change until rich white CEOs are put in prison. Rich white CEOs are the ones that are perpetuating this problem. As Long as Americans want low gas prices and low food prices, the situation is going to remain as is. In fact, everything is working exactly as its designed.... There is a book called slavery by another name. It never really ended. Slavery just changed forms. It's a long history book but it's all connected
Why not both?
Because the wall is based on taxation i.e. robbery and ending the welfare state is based on ending the robbery that is taxation. Moreover, you have no right to prevent people from accessing land you do not own.
@@lights473 Sure.
So what if the people of Texas want to build a wall around their own property?
@lights473 This is exactly why Libertarians can’t run a country. Taxes are necessary. Welfare does have its proper places (the disabled, veterans, and the elderly).
@@hismajesty6272 why would you want to run a country based on violating people's rights?
@hismajesty6272 All false.
Taxes are not needed.
And people can choose to voluntarily help those in need without you pointing a gun at thier face and taking thier money.