If what you linked to is true, and for all I know it is, that might be a matter of concern, but I still don't see how this means we ought to shut down the borders. Hey, if opening the borders is the morally and prudentially right thing to do, as I think it is, then we could thank the Mexican government for its lobying for a just cause. If you think it's not a good idea, as you clearly do, than you might think the Mexican government is out of line, but how does it follow that we should therefore collectively punish the poor Mexicans who want to better their lives?

As for the brain drain point, certainly leaders of many countries are greedy, corrupt, and all the rest. What I want to know is: where is the evidence showing that opening the borders makes people in those countries worse off? I understand the theory, I'm just saying that I see no reason to think it accuarately describes reality.

In the absence of the aformentioned evidence (not saying there isn't any, just saying I haven't seen it, know-nothing libertarian that I am ), it seems like, given what seems to me the very strong humanitarian and economic case for open borders, I'm gonna have to stick to that position for now.

Here's a question- is there any evidence that would convince you that the open borders position is right? I'm genuinely interested. I'd like to have a real discussion, rather than fling accusations of stupidity.

If what you linked to is true, and for all I know it is, that might be a matter of concern, but I still don't see how this means we ought to shut down the borders. Hey, if opening the borders is the morally and prudentially right thing to do, as I think it is, then we could thank the Mexican government for its lobying for a just cause. If you think it's not a good idea, as you clearly do, than you might think the Mexican government is out of line, but how does it follow that we should therefore collectively punish the poor Mexicans who want to better their lives?

As for the brain drain point, certainly leaders of many countries are greedy, corrupt, and all the rest. What I want to know is: where is the evidence showing that opening the borders makes people in those countries worse off? I understand the theory, I'm just saying that I see no reason to think it accuarately describes reality.

In the absence of the aformentioned evidence (not saying there isn't any, just saying I haven't seen it, know-nothing libertarian that I am ), it seems like, given what seems to me the very strong humanitarian and economic case for open borders, I'm gonna have to stick to that position for now.

Here's a question- is there any evidence that would convince you that the open borders position is right? I'm genuinely interested. I'd like to have a real discussion, rather than fling accusations of stupidity.

It is interesting how we publicly recognize that people are born with differing level of ability in sports, music, and many creative fields, but we are afraid to say what we all know. That some are smarter than others. Education is not the great equalizer. It never can be. Because we are not all blanks slates. Some are simply born with an advantage. So while there are glaring problems in the current system of education [It severely under-serves the intellectually gifted...as an example the kids with the highest IQ and lowest IQ are in the same classroom being taught the same material at the same pace.] we cannot place wage differentiation solely on educational inequalities.

Have you ever studied history? The Berlin Wall was put up by East Germany, the authoritarian state, to *stop* its citizens leaving. The collapse of the Berlin Wall was followed shortly by the collapse of the East German state. Stalin actually killed or sent to the gulags millions of his fellow citizens, particularly amongst the more educated (eg university professors, the Red Army officers), and yet he died in office after having managed to expand Soviet power across much of Eastern Europe. Mao Zedong killed millions of people and had a swipe at the educated with the Cultural Revolution (sending them off to re-educated camps) and he died in office.

You meanwhile have not cited a single case of an authoritarian country collapsing because its citizens didn't leave.

Before you start laughing at Wilkinson's expense, I suggest you spend a bit of brainpower on your own theories.

As for the idea that people have obligations to stay in foreign countries, why? Why not say that those of us who were lucky enough to be born in rich countries have an obligation to move to foreign countries to make their lives better? How does being born in a country create an obligation to stay put?

And if you've left a country to *escape* a foreign despot, why would you be interested in following that despot's instructions in your new country? I can't recall many cases of the people who fled to the USA from Communist Russia in the 1920s seeking to install Communism in the USA.

You also have no clue about the things that the MexicanGovernment does inside the U.S., which may include using proxies to agitate their citizens to take to our streets in an attempt to change our laws to suit them. The sets of “those who are smart, know about history, know about human nature, and who basically know what's going on” and “open borders libertarians” is completely disjoint.

Like Mr. Willkinson said, how does open immigration automatically undermine national sovereignty? Many countries have much more liberal immigration policies than the U.S. Are they worse off in some way?

I understand how someone has a right to have a say in how their tax money is spent (that's what democracy is for, I think…). But how does that translate to some collective right to exclude people from what we fund with your tax money based on where they were born?
If it's because they didn't pay taxes for our infrastructure, etc. , why don't we just tax them? Hell, we could even tax them more. That would be more humane that letting people rot in poverty.
Plus, isn't there a violation of the rights of Americans going on as well? Don't I have a right of free association, to work with and hire whom I please, if I decide it's in my interest to do so? Does that right end if I want to associate with non-Americans?

As for the brain-drain argument offered by 24AheadDotCom, it's far from clear to me that we'd see any such thing in poor countries. For one thing, many lower skilled people would also immigrate. Also, if, for example, Ecuador saw a massive exodus of doctors, you'd have a pretty strong incentive for people to be doctors in Ecuaodor. That seems to be how markets work.
If the argument is about the effect on the political system- granting the premise for a moment that you'd see an exodus of smart people from poor countries in disproportion to non-smart people- than you might have a bit of a point. I think, however, that the ability of talented, rich, and influential people to defect from a bad political system (and take their resources with them), could improve those systems by changing the incentives of political leaders. I'm not confident about this, but at least it doesn't seem obvious to me that the effects of radical immigration liberalization would be negative.

Anybody have any data on any of these points? I'd be really interested.

Question: if someone is as much a true believer as Wilkinson is (or pretends to be) gets a security clearance, is that a risk to the rest of us?

If Wilkinson got a security clearance, what exactly would prevent him from selling the rest of us out to the highest bidder?

P.S. If you want a laugh at Wilkinson's expense, see this. An article Wilkinson wrote for Reason was quite similar to a proposal I'd sent to Reason a couple weeks before. Except, my proposal was a hoax/satire similar to the recent one involving the “Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy”. Maybe the NAU will turn out to be a Rockefeller satire that Wilkinson's bought as well, but I doubt it.

So are you saying that the humanitarian answer is to force individuals to remain in authoritarian countries?

And Jeffrey-

I think your definition of justice – “whether any particular outcome drops below a threshold where health and well-being begin to drift out of reach.” – is essentially Rawls restated, about health rater than income. And if your point is that society should provide for the basic needs of individuals, than you're not really on the subject of income inequality as an inherent problem.