[Liberty_Volunteers] Bryan Kaplan on arguments uniquely applied to immigration

Only #1 is legitimate.??And yes, the people do own themselves and their property. And yes that means they control everything about it, including pouring gasoline on themselves and lighting it...and everything short of that to the point of controlling the detsils of commerce and hospitality.John F. Bechtol;707-623-6005------ Original message------From: Starchild sfdreamer@... [Liberty_Volunteers]Date: Wed, Jun 5, 2019 9:51 AMTo: LPSF Discussion List;Bay Area Patriots;California Liberty;LP Radical Caucus;LPSF Meetup;Liberty Volunteers;lpusmisc@yahoogroups.com;Northern California Libertarians;Yahoogroups Libertarian Alliance;LPC Candidates List;Bay Area Liberty;Cc: Subject:[Liberty_Volunteers] Bryan Kaplan on arguments uniquely applied to immigration

        A short list of arguments otherwise recognized as bogus, that are often employed by folks who otherwise support free markets, in support of anti-immigrant policies:"...Many people otherwise sympathetic to human freedom and free markets??support even more immigration restrictions than we already have. ??Intellectually, however, it???s??hard to see why.The plot thickens when you notice that pro-freedom immigration skeptics routinely use arguments they almost never use in??any??other context, starting with:1. Collective ownership. ??Yes, if countries are the collective??property of their citizens, then they have a right to regulate??immigration. ??But this also implies nations??? right to regulate??everything else,??too! ??You can???t live on my land??without my consent, but neither can you??open a store on my land without my consent, or even hire someone to??work on my land for less than the minimum wage without my consent.2. Collective guilt. ??Yes, if e.g. foreign Muslims are collectively??guilty for whatever wrongs foreign Muslims have done in the past, then??immigration restrictions against Muslims would be justified. ??But this??also implies that other??people can legitimately hold??us??collectively guilty for whatever wrongs 'we???ve'??done in the past. ??So affirmative action, reparations for slavery and??colonialism, returning land to American Indians, and much more are??suddenly on??the agenda.3. Shocking anecdotes. ??Yes, if we ought to take shocking anecdotes??seriously, then any awful immigrant action on CNN justifies a major??policy response. ??But this also implies that shocking anecdotes about??poverty, health care,??worker safety, and the environment on CNN also??justify major policy responses.4. Popular support. ??Yes, if 'This is what citizens want, and they???re??entitled to get their way,' then immigration restrictions easily pass??muster. ??But so do virtually all the policies classical liberals??traditionally oppose, starting with??protectionism and a bunch of price??controls." The above is taken from??https://www.econlib.org/why-is-immigration-a-contentious-issue-in-classical-liberalism/ . Boldface added for readability.Love & Liberty,((( starchild )))