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. An important point to note is that Friedman was also a Zionist. Jewish nationalism and mass third world immigration are inherently incompatible, so another question could be why he supports a policy for Americans that he would not support for Jews. The same goes for all Neocons and left-liberal Zionists.

    Funnily enough though, Friedman may have changed his position on immigration in later life. Bryan Caplan complained that Friedman opposed a "Pareto improvement" which would have involved making all immigrants ineligible for welfare and voting but allowing them to freely migrate for work. Friedman said this was incompatible with his philosophy of treating individuals as "ends in themselves" and (amazingly) that he had never heard of this idea before but he instinctively opposed it. Caplan pointed out that there was no open-borders libertarian reason to oppose denying migrants welfare or voting rights while letting migrate freely. This leads me to believe that Friedman may have changed his view on immigration later in life to some degree, although there's no question that his former views were insane, unpatriotic and breathtakingly hypocritical.

    While David Friedman supports a hardcore open-borders position (he has not commented on whether this applies to Israel) his sea-steading grandson Patri opposes open-borders for Hoppean reasons.

    Although the corporate plutocracy do love open-borders, in practice it would mean the destruction of capital along with the nation. Capitalists seem to have a very high time-preference when it comes to immigration. Many on the nationalist right claim that the capitalists are playing the left on the question of immigration but if the left's goal is to destroy European nations and civilisation, the nihilistic left will ultimately get the last laugh if nothing is done to halt and reverse the process.

  2. 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.

    3. America was founded as a WASP supremacist nation and remained officially European supremacist until the mid 60's. This is a slight oversimplification because Jews were considered part of the European ruling class but they remained a people apart and have tremendous power in their own right.

      I guess you are asking LK whether he thinks the U.S. is in essence a White (European) nation. It was certainly founded as such and I believe it is desirable that it should be so. It's not in the interests of European-Americans to allow themselves to be swamped by third world migration and birth-rates. In the long-term, it is not in anyone's interests because it will destroy the ethno-cultural cohesion of the U.S. and end its viability as a nation. The United States isn't really a nation anymore in the traditional sense and secession may be the best solution in the long-term.

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

    1. Friedman expressed his sympathies for Zionism in this video;

      There are plenty of articles noting his support for Zionism on Google.

  4. 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.

  5. 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: