The REAL Immigration Debate

I view the immigration debate differently from most people. We can't allow millions of people to come over here and team up with the government to pick our pockets. So what do we do?

The best immigration debate I've heard so far was between Stefan Molyneux and Adam Kokesh. Now that we've layed the foundation for a rational discussion on immigration, I highly recommend listening to these two opposing views. They're both basically anarcho-capitalists, which is interesting because Stefan is advocating for securing the borders, which involves government and the government initiating force on people for crossing an imaginary line. They both strongly believe in the non-aggression principle (NAP), which states that you can't use or threaten to use force on someone else, unless it's in self-defense. Watch this excellent immigration debate below.

In case you don't have almost two hours to listen to the debate, I'll summarize it the best I can. Here are some of the key points from each side:

Adam Kokesh

• Advocates for private property borders only
• Strong adherence to the NAP
• Believes immigration laws violate the NAP because people have freedom to travel
• Believes it's the government violating the NAP, not the immigrants
• Running for 2020 president as "no president" to abolish the Federal government
• Wake people up to the idea of anarcho-capitalism and change the world that way
• Let the economy collapse and use it as an opportunity to create anarchy
• Doesn't pay income taxes or property taxes

Stefan Molyneux

• Prefers only private property borders, but government to secure borders
• Immigration causes a population dispacement
• Believes welfare violates the NAP
• Some groups of immigrants receive welfare at higher rates than natives
• It's self defense to prevent immigrants from having their hands in our pockets
• Believes government and immigrants both violate the NAP together via welfare
• Mass immigration could lead to horrific economic collapse

They both want smaller government, and eventually no government. But their strategies for how to get there differ. Kokesh feels we cannot use government to reduce government, but Molyneux argues that since the vast majority of immigrants coming here want big government and will depend on government to take care of them there's no way we can end up with a smaller government by letting them in. Kokesh is not willing to violate the NAP by telling people they cannot come here, while Molyneux doesn't feel it's violating the NAP because the immigrants "have their hands in his pockets" via the power of the government. Where do you fall in between the two?

I believe Kokesh is right in theory, but Molyneux is right in practice. If we could all at once move to an anarcho-capitalist society, that would a reasonable option. But we can't enact some anarchist views, while keeping the huge government and welfare state we currently have.

I'll be posting a more complete post on immigration, and lots of other great topics, in the future. So add me and stay tuned. Feel free to check out my:

• Website
• Podcast on itunes
• Youtube channel