05/06/25
The passage of Ayn Rand, quoted by Gordon Gregory, starts like this:
A nation, like any other group, is only a number of individuals and can have no rights other than the rights of its individual citizens. . . .
The context is that the vast majority of residents in the country are citizens. Writing "residents" here would "break the crow," since the extra non-citizens who are residents are a side-point. And in this side point it should be asserted that the government protects their individual rights too. The assertion is based on the same Objectivist ethics that gives rise to the claim about the role of citizens and the government.
If the border is open, and those who cross receive all the financial benefits, such as welfare, would it actually be noticeable? How many people would actually move, and how many would remain on welfare? When we came to Canada, we received welfare, but we quickly realized that welfare affords low quality of life, and that to go beyond it we would have to work. But to work, we would have to learn English, so we tried and got some basic jobs. Once we had basic jobs, we wanted more and better, and the drive never stopped really.
Therefore, the immigrants who come from poor countries are determined to catch up with the rest of the local population. The process seems to extend to the 2nd generation in the immigrant family. I arrived in Canada at age 15, my sister at age 7. We are still competing against all the immigrants' children we know in how successful we are financially. It's a friendly competition, like when Dagny and Frisco competed who can run faster to a tree.
Second point is that even if the border is open, it's difficult to move. I see a lot of people who come here and miss home. Few return, however, but they also never really adapt and assimilate socially. They find some niche arrangement that works for them, and are stuck there, hoping maybe, perhaps their children will feel at home here. It is only when I visit Israel (or Ukraine), I feel that I am at home. Everyone speaks the same language, everyone has the same idioms and references to old movie quotes, everyone has the same intonation when they speak. On top of this, finding a romantic partner who speaks immigrant's native language is difficult (close to impossible). I see many guys going back to home country to find a wife and bring her here. But even this is a terrible prospect, it's not natural, because there is a danger that the woman is in it for the immigration, not the man. Therefore, some guys would not emigrate until they find a wife. But, then, they are coming in as a new family, and the immigrant man is a family man: he is motivated to make good money, not to sit on welfare.
In summary, even if the border is open, and welfare is equally available to migrants as well as citizens and landed immigrants, I doubt that it will bankrupt the paternalist system.
05/08/25
Israel is at a cold war with Egypt, even though the war is not declared. In fact, it's at a cold war with all countries in the Middle East, since it didn't ultimately win any war. In particular, with Egypt, it had twice relinquished back to Egypt land it conquered (the Sinai Peninsula). What kind of win is that? Israelis do not travel to Egypt; it's not safe.
Now, let's imagine, Israel wins absolutely and opens the borders. How fast would people from surrounding countries be able to immigrate into it? The large Russian immigration occurred in the nineties, during which in the span of ten years, a million people came. There was both a push from the post-USSR side (desire to finally escape) and a pull from the Israel side to encourage this immigration (the state building housing and giving a "basket" of money to settle). Add to this fact that if Israel truly wins its wars, it will spur reform in the countries it beat, so there will be a lesser push to leave. Therefore, I doubt that immigration would be bigger than a million per decade.
How fast should citizenship be granted in the general open-border case? In my article on the Anthemism site, I argue that citizenship should be restricted to descendants of immigrants who are at least N generations removed from the original settlers. What should N be? In a clean situation it should be 3 (grandchildren of immigrants), but to catch those who try to trick the system by cross-marriages or living outside the country, it should be 5. Without citizenship, a person should be like the Canadian landed immigrant: like a citizen, but cannot vote.
05/12/25
Aquinas Hobor argues against an open border policy, citing Israel as an example. He says that because Israel and India are not at war, by the logic of open border advocates, Indian Muslims would come to Israel and:
The end result of such [open] immigration [into Israel] will be the same: lots of dead Jews.
So why should open border advocates make Israel an exception? Because Israel is a sanctuary for Jews from antisemitism. Because antisemitism is prevalent in the world (including USA, as we saw recently), Israel is a unique country, of unique position.
Also, it's a new country, still fighting for its right to exist. It's always in a war mode with the whole world. No one supports it. Not India, not USA (never mind Egypt). The whole world is eating popcorn, eagerly waiting for it to fail. If Israel decidedly destroys its immediate enemies, perhaps the perception will change. But it hasn't happened yet.
Re Egypt. If Egypt weren't an enemy of Israel, it would have acted differently with respect to the Gaza situation. It wouldn't be watching (with "popcorn") on the sidelines. It would have taken decisive action, and as a result, Israel wouldn't be vilified for trying to defend itself. Aquinas Hobor writes:
Israel simply isn't at war with Egypt. As you point out, no war has been declared, but even if one includes undeclared military activity as "war," what is the basis for asserting otherwise? Egypt isn't attacking Israel. Israel isn't attacking Egypt. Neither appears to be making obvious plans to change this status quo.
Egypt would attack if it could. Every country in the Middle East would attack Israel, if their population felt that it could win the war. Instead, their strategy is to sit and wait.
Besides these arguments, Israel cannot open borders without fixing its own political system first. Israel is a socialist state, and a disorganized one at that. But it's too busy fighting wars, before it can focus on the local politics. For instance, just before the Gaza war, Israel was torn in a political debate regarding reform of the judiciary. But then the war happened, and all these issues became less relevant.
A personal anecdote: when I moved to Israel in 2010, I told my Israeli friend that Israel's biggest problem is stray cats. He laughed. Westerners do not understand how 3rd world Israel is. Open garbage metal containers are placed in main streets (there are no back alleys), parked along the pavements, like cars. When you come out of your own building, you are met with a stench of decomposing garbage in the Israeli heat of 30+ degrees Celsius. These garbage containers are infested with cats, and not the kind you'd want to pet. But these cats are left alone, because without them there would be too many rats. That's the situation in the poorer northern towns, where there are no high tech jobs. As you come closer to the center of the country, it's a little better, but there are other problems such as traffic jams, lack of parking, rude drivers. Because of tariffs, the cars and gasoline are 1.5 to 2 times more expensive than what we are used to in North America. However, the salaries are twice as small. If you rent an apartment, you must bring your own fridge — fridge is an expensive item (tariffs) that the landlords wouldn't leave to tenants. Most apartments do not have a dishwasher. Also, forget about any concept of privacy: you are asked to provide an equivalent of your Social Security number at every opportunity (e.g. buying groceries). The government can withdraw money from your bank account.