Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat
If we are going to consider this issue in terms of total human welfare, why don't we give more consideration to the impact of large-scale immigration on the sending nations?
As a libertarian, I prefer to consider the issue in terms of INDIVIDUAL welfare. Why don't we give nearly ALL consideration to the rational choice of the immigrant?
It's downright evil in my book to essentially imprison a person within the borders of a country where he has little or no hope of building a decent life for himself when a short drive (or long hike, or brave water crossing) can allow him a shot at something better.
I feel the same way about factories opening in these poor countries thanks to trade agreements. Does their willingness to work for peanuts put a strain on American poor who prefer to work for cashews? Yep, I don't doubt it.
But what makes a poor resident of Ensenada any less human than a poor resident of Cleveland? Apart from location, language, and perhaps being slightly less brown, what differences, if any, are there between these two people? A statist will tell you that citizenship is reason enough for the government to exercise its monopoly of force favoring one person over another, but I reject that argument. What else you got?