Monday, January 30, 2017

Milton Friedman on Illegal Immigration


Instead of the lame question at the end, somebody should have challenged this charlatan and fraud to answer the following questions:
(1) So, Mr Friedman, I cannot help but notice how you utterly botched the history of US immigration in the first few minutes. Don’t you know that before 1914 there were plenty of legislative acts that severely restricted immigration into America, as we can see here. So were you just ignorant of this, or lying?

(2) Your contention that free and unrestricted immigration into America before 1914 was nothing but a “good thing” is wrong.
Plenty of people in America before 1914 – especially working class people – thought unrestricted mass immigration caused serious social and economic problems and they were correct. If unrestricted immigration into America before 1914 was such a great thing, why did so many oppose it?

(3) Your assertion that open borders and a strong welfare state are incompatible today is not, however, wrong. (As an aside, we’re seeing what a disaster this is Europe right now.)

But your claim that illegal Mexican immigration is positive for everyone involved as long as it stays illegal is pure nonsense. Even illegals increase competition for scarce jobs, and tend to lower wages. And this is before we factor in the cost of increased crime, law enforcement, deportation, pressure on rents, housing, school places, and so on. Care to comment on this?
Unfortunately, Friedman is dead so he gets to evade these questions.

But free market fanatics like Milton Friedman probably still supported open borders because they hate the welfare state and see mass immigration as a way of shattering modern Social Democratic or interventionist states.

And the crowning outrage is that much of the Left is now infected with a love of open borders along with the libertarians.


  1. Everything else aside, I have one question for you:

    Do you think America is at it's base a "White" nation, that to be White is to be the "default" description of what an American is, in essence?

    I ask because of this statement you made:

    "Now I find it morally repugnant that the native American people and others were simply excluded from citizenship on this basis, and am perfectly comfortable with a minority of ethnic groups in my country with full citizenship rights, as I have I said here, but clearly American liberals are shamefully rewriting the history of American immigration policy"

    This says to me that you think that in order for the US to follow the rigorous path of Americans "not being a minority in their own country," you think that the descendants of European immigrants should be the linchpin of our shared understanding of what it means to be an American. Even if,as you say "Minorities" are allowed full citizenship rights on a limited bases.

    I have no problem saying that this is on it's face wrong, but I wanted to hear from you first.

    Smoothcritical if you would also answer the same question, please?

    1. Its simple we shouldnt justify a bad policy aka mass migration because the european ancestors did mass migration to u.s.

      2 negative dont make one positive (except in math)

    2. Doesn't have anything to do with what I'm talking about.

  2. As far as i know friedman dont cared much about israel in political sense.

  3. Hey LK, why not talk about Trump's proposed Tariffs? Do you agree or disagree with Navarro that these are more "Defensive" than "Protectionist?" I ask because my sympathies are more with the POTUS on this one, but looking at the latest News by doing a Google search paints a gloomy picture - except for an LA Times article by Peter Navarro himself about 6 months ago! lol

    So what's your defense since you're the big Protectionist guy? I'm all ears.

  4. Steve Grumbine of Real Progressives gives the opposite perspective from Uncle Milty. We can have abundance of resources for all, including Refugees. First we need to understand that Taxes don't fund spending: