 Something that we'll find out through the course of this. Speaking tonight are, on my left-hand side, depicted by the convenient net clacker that I have in front of me. Is it Stephen Kinsala? You're not talking to me. Stephen Kinsala, who is a patent attorney and leading libertarian legal theorist, the founder and director of the Center of the Study of the Innovative Freedom and the Libertarian Papers. His former adjunct professor at the South Texas College of Law is published numerous articles and books on IP law, international law, and the application of libertarian principles for legal topics. Your left is Daniel Garza, president of the Libra Initiative. I have a very lot to say about him, but he's asking not to say all of it. So I will say that he held a couple of important positions for the Bush administration in the early 2000s, has also done important things for the Hispanic community for television and television, and is currently, as I have already said, president of the Libra Initiative, lives in Mission, Texas, with his wife and her children. And the director, moderating this will be Jeffrey Kauffman. I don't know how to write it for him. I'm going to let you listen to him talk about himself and then field your questions. There is, for anyone who wants to participate in this, Jeffrey will give you the opportunity to do so. There's a microphone at the back there so that the panelists can hear you. Just find me back there, and I will let you see the way that you're talking. Thank you, everybody. Off to you, Jeff. Thank you. And actually, since I see my purpose as a moderator to be facilitating discussion, and this has been a little to-do with me, I'm going to tell you nothing about myself. And we'll just let that mystery remain. So my purpose is to facilitate these guys' talking. This will, if I'm doing my job right, this will be the longest I talk in sequence the entire night. I do see my job to be making sure that they're answering the questions that are asked. I am going to be trying to find areas of disagreement so if there's too much consensus, I'll hopefully try to run them up a little bit. And my job is to ask hard questions. There will also be, depending on how good my questions go, either some or a substantial amount of Q&A time from the audience. So as you're listening to this, if you have questions, make a mental note of them and there will be time to ask them at the end. That said, this, while this isn't a debate, it is not going to be a debate with a fixed resolution. So it's going to be somewhat of a discussion aspect, although we will be seeking to find the areas of disagreement between our two speakers. So what I want to start with actually, oh, sorry, one more premise. It's when we have these debates, the common tension in libertarian communities is the debate between the pragmatics of what we're doing today, what we ought to do today in the world we live in today and sort of what's compatible with libertarian theory and anarcho-capitalist utopia or whatever you think that the world ought to be. And so it's important both with our speakers and when we're asking questions to be differentiated between what do we think about what should be done today and are we talking about how things should be in our ideal world. So I'm going to start just by asking our speakers to just lay out your position on open borders. And we're going to start with open borders in the world today. So please lay out your position for open borders in the world today, for audience. And we'll start with David. I think we should be taking a approach to immigration given the realities of the world. Sometimes the overt statism, I think it's essential to look at the immigration today in three components. It has to do with family, integration of family, keeping the cohesiveness of family. It has to do with the humanitarian issues that are involved in the immigration issues in that entire space. There are needs, I think, that are being driven or being imposed upon us that are humanitarian. That is, I think, an important factor that never belongs in this whole debate. Things like refugees, people fleeing economic conditions, political conditions. Sometimes things that I think people have to endure because of the, in the criminal space, the criminal dimension, I think is something that's tragic and I think America has to be considered that. And then third, I'm gonna say, and it's not most important, critical, is marketing at play for market forces, to address market forces to their, we believe in a sort of a market-based immigration approach. So not so much open borders as much as, I think it has to be, and I'm not talking about sort of the sort of central understanding where we decide, you know, the quotas of where the market man is now, what I'm talking about. Yeah, I did. And then to say that, but I think this is really important, the whole discussion lately, currently that we're having on merit-based, especially local family unifications over to merit-based, I have issues with that as a person who believes strongly in individual freedom and spontaneous order. Over 200 million immigrants have come to America in the Arctic history, more than 200 million. And they've made America strong and they've made America rich. They've made it great what life would be. I'm sorry? I said it made it great. It made it great, absolutely it did. Immigrants have made America great. And so what was important part of the discussion is immigrants have always known how to fill market demand. They developed any skills that they needed to fill market demand or leverage their own talent, their vast capacities to fill market demand. And central funders didn't have to tell us how many engineers we needed or how many doctors or mathematicians or whatever. So I resist that. So I'm open-borders in the sense that, I don't think it's categorized, I think there's a lot of immigrants that are coming in. The immigrants are creating wealth for themselves and wealth for Americans, always have, always will. They compliment the American labor force, which is the greatest thing in the portion of the world. Sorry, I'm concerned. And I think there's, we should honor that with the kind of immigration policies that we have. So I guess what I'm saying is a smart, flexible system that accommodates for flows of future flows of immigrants with that, where we address family connections, humanitarian issues, and then also in market demand there would be smart, smart comments. And Stefan, your position on open-borders in the world today in the United States. Right, so from my point of view, I think the consistent libertarian is a libertarian because we're against aggression, right? Going back to basics, which means that if you're consistent you're against the state, because the state is the agency of institutionalized aggression. So in other words, you have to be an anarchist libertarian to be a real libertarian, which is what I am. So that's how I think about these issues. So when these issues arise, we live in a non-free society, we live in a state-dominated society. So our only question is, what's either one of theory or it's one of practice, right? What would the world look like in a free society? And what policy should we support now by the government which is not libertarian, it can't be libertarian? Everything the state does is a criminal act. So in a sense, we real libertarians oppose everything the state does. But the question comes down to what policy should we support now? But we have to first recognize that that policy is not the ultimate policy because the ultimate policy is for the state to commit suicide or whatever the word in Latin would be for the state to kill itself, right, to disband. Anything they do short of that is not going to be the optimal solution. Given that the state exists, there will be losers of any state policy. And this is one thing I think that open borders advocates which I think I will come around to arguing for in a sense, but open borders advocates among libertarians don't want to admit this, right? They don't want to admit that there's really a choice. We're libertarians, we're against the state, we're against aggression against individual people, therefore we have to be for open borders. But they don't want to admit that we live in a second best world where the government is there and the government will have a policy and that policy will, whatever that policy is, will harm some people. So the question is what should the policy be? What would the world look like in a free society? In a free society, the question of immigration would make no sense. There would be no states, there would be no political borders and everything would be done privately. Everyone who moved, we do so by invitation from an owner or by permission of the owner of a road or something like that. They wouldn't have the right to vote. They wouldn't have affirmative action. They wouldn't have civil liberties such as anti-discrimination rights. They wouldn't have welfare to apply to. These issues would just disappear. So immigration wouldn't make sense in a free society, but we're not talking about that. We're talking about what our current government should do. In my view, ultimately the question comes down to what can libertarian in their heart favor? And it's really difficult and this is an issue I struggle with and I've written on both sides of this issue. The reason it's difficult is because we have a state and the state causes victims and harms people. It makes us choose. Now, in the end, what can we do? Choose something that will be better for liberty on a pragmatic basis or choose something that's better for human welfare. In today's society, we've had closed borders among all the major nations of the world to some degree, not closed, but not totally open. If we open them up now, there'd be a rush of people going to the rich countries, taking advantage of affirmative action laws, anti-discrimination law, welfare rights, and so on. And in the US, especially given the history of slavery, the 14th Amendment and birthright citizenship, they or at least their children would soon have the rights to vote and so then they become part of the polity. So that would affect the political character. The entire motivation behind the Free State Project here in New Hampshire is the idea that it matters who lives in an area and who has political influence. It matters who votes in today's world, right? So the entire idea of the Free State Project is that if we get a critical mass in a certain polity, they can have an effect. And that I think is probably true, but that implies that people immigrating have an effect. If it is the case that immigrants would tend to vote for socialism or different types of policies that we favor and they have a certain critical mass, it would result or you could believe it could result in substantially less liberty. I'm not saying I'm a consequentialist or that we have to be consequentialist, but consequentialism and the consequences of the laws that we favor has to matter. We're in favor of all these principles that we favor because of the consequences of liberty. If we believe that if Japan or Israel or Switzerland tomorrow lowered their barriers completely, I think we all have an idea that they would be overrun very quickly by lots of outsiders and things would change very quickly. And those societies where they're not libertarian utopias, they are relatively liberal and open societies compared to the bottom half of the world or the past. So let's say the Swiss identity or the Japanese identity or the way of life or freedom itself was wiped out within a generation or two because of mass immigration. Would we be favor even though that was the right thing to do? I'm not so sure. The problem as a libertarian is we have to recognize that the federal government in America is the steward of the government behind in a sense the greatest nation on the earth, but it's also the greatest, the most evil powerful government that's ever existed because it's parasitical upon the wealth that the free market in this country produces. It's hard to say that any libertarian with a good heart can support the INS. In the end, if forced to choose, I don't want to lose liberty in this country. I don't want something to happen that will cause us in 10, 20, 30, 40 years to have lost the liberty that we have and the tenuous grasp on it that we have the potential that we have, but in the end we also can't support the INS. So I'm left with an uneasy sort of conclusion. I can never support the INS, the goons of the federal government. You just can't do it. On the other hand, you can make a theoretical case which we maybe can get to if we have time for how to analyze the situation and how to view that the best, second best policy that we could hope for, for a state like we have now, would be to do something similar to what the effective rulers in a free society would do to try to minimize the harm done to us. So that would be the policy that I would say they should adopt. And to be honest, from having read Mr. Garza's policies on his website, they seem pretty reasonable. No, we need to disagree. All right, I'm gonna, if you have something in tune, I can finish your point if I want to. Well, I'm not sure if he agrees with me on patent and copyright law, so if you want to get into that, we're doing that. I think Stefan basically gave, so first I'm actually just gonna introduce you to that. We have a lot of questions, I want to get some questions from the audience. I may just sort of like tap on the table if I want you to kind of get to the end because we do only have already only 44 minutes. Stefan kind of entered both of my opening questions at once, so if you have something more to add, I'll let you, but I'd like to hear from Daniel on if you're designing the government from scratch, whether you might not be a fully anarcho-capitalist libertarian that's done this, maybe you're anarchist, maybe you believe in a larger state than that, what does integration look like for you in that system? So, the primary purpose, primary purpose of a state is to defend its people from foreign aggression. And so, let me just say that that's important because what it does is it defends culture, it defends your way, your principles, your ideas, right? Which is what the Spartans did against the British, and it defends their people, their ideas, their culture. And so, what I mean by that is I need to take a step back from the order. In the Americas, I think the greatest irony is for thousands of years, whether you're for the Cherokee, the Seminole, and Maya, and La Seca, Inca, Borinquen, all roam the Americas for thousands of years, treating them. And then, of course, you have Christopher Columbus and change the entire team of things in the Americas. And the non-indigenous came and said to the indigenous, here are workers, you say there. And today, mainly, I think one of the coolest ironies is what I say, is that mostly the non-indigenous for leisure, for business, for whenever they want, get to travel the world. And mostly, it's the indigenous who are told to, or whose movements are restricted. And it was that way of life that was taken from them, that culture that was taken from them, where they were told now you'd have to adapt, you know, to a new way of the world order. And the world order that we've established can be changed tomorrow, given, I think, if we don't give it thought and consideration. My idea is, when it comes to immigration, as Americans, we decide who comes into America. And the people that we decide who should come into America are those who are gonna be industrious, those who are gonna benefit America, those who come to work hard, those who come to generate wealth for themselves and wealth for others, just like the 200 million immigrants who have come in the past to America have done so. And we keep out those who would exploit American immigrants, or other immigrants, who would take advantage of our system. That, I think, is a smart immigration policy that's pragmatic and practical, but also defends our principles, or preserves our principles and our ideas, or at least allows us to move towards a more libertarian nation. So I'll propose a question to both of you. One idea that the proponents of open borders support today is something called keyhole solutions. And keyhole solutions is the idea that we can allow people to come here, but we don't have to grant them the full rights at CIS attempt. So an extreme version of this, and then less extreme versions, might look something like, and all immigrants are welcome. Immigrants aren't allowed to vote. They're children aren't allowed to vote. They're not allowed any welfare programs, they're not allowed any state benefits whatsoever, right? If they were to still come here though, they would be welcome to do so. And so if someone is a proponent of open borders today, they might advocate for something like this. And this will be a question to both of you, which is how do you guys feel about a proposal like that? What's something along those lines that doesn't have to be as extreme as the one that I said? Sometimes it's 10 years, or whatever other things I think. Do it first last time. We'll go with, I'll just keep bouncing. So then we'll go with Ceci. I actually know that I think too much space. Maybe there's areas where there's a necessity. People who have quick visas with specialized skills, who are temporary by nature, come in to do some work, maybe for a two, three, four, one year project. I can see that to accommodate something like that. But to have it as a long-term viable solution, no, because what we would create is a two tiered society, a second class type of resident who, people who come to America or who immigrate to America should really be of the mindset to become American in our values and our principles. And I think what happens when you start separating two kinds of categories here, you really do stunk the assimilation process. And in fact, maybe even create conflicts of people very different from us as E. Pervas-Unda, out of many one, out of many factions, I guess is what, should you have a new motto? So I would reject that. With the exception of temporary work. So it would seem that your concerns that are not purely economic concerns. The previous answers had leaned on the productivity, which would be applied when we're thinking about the cost to the state and things like that. This is now more of a cultural. But it's ultimately always economic, right? So for example, when an immigrant learns English in America, they will quadruple their lifetime salaries according to some states. That's transforming, right? But that's also an assimilation that begins to take place. Where Americans who speak English, who are the certain mindset and principles of values and culture, then also are more accepting of others who are more like them in principles and principles. And if they're not, then you lose out economically. I mean, it's always coming up. Suppose we derive a test or standard that's about a year, it's not a permanent thing. It's once they demonstrate that the value is equal. Is that something that's? That's fine. I mean, look, that's fine. I think my grandfather came in under the Bracero program in World War II. When Americans were off to foreign battlefields, defending the country, we needed workers in the fields, in the oceans. And my grandfather came in as a Bracero temporary and continued to add in a circularity where you would come in to work and then return to his country of origin in Mexico and then you would go to the other world where you were from, where I also, my parents are originally from. But this was a temporary work program that allowed for this kind of circularity. I mean, I can see that, because my grandfather at the time never intended to be fully American. Never intended to be fully American. If somebody comes with the intent to be American, then how do we, we should have that in us. Thank you. And Stefan, comments on your solutions for the war? Well, I share Mr. Garza's concerns about having a second tier society where you have people of different liberties and status and that's not America and that is not stable. I'm skeptical as an anarchist, of course, of the idea that the primary purpose of the state is to protect us. I think the primary purpose of the state is to perpetuate its own power. And I would rather invite immigrants to come here to do productive work than to go become soldiers in our destructive wars. And I don't think World War II is to defend us either, but that's a secondary issue. Look, I think that the one problem is we have the 14th Amendment, which is the result of slavery, which we shouldn't have had in the first place. And so you couldn't even have legally, I believe a policy where someone can come here and not have the right to vote because that becomes untenable after a while and eventually they have children and they have the right to vote, they become citizens. So people that come here, they're going to become productive members of society, they're going to become part of citizens in America at least anyway. I think the most productive way to look at it is to imagine what are the harms done by policies out of the way. When the government prohibits immigration, as we do now, right, there are people coming here that want to work and there are companies that want to employ people, high-tech workers, et cetera, and they can't do it. I think all those people should be allowed because they're economically valuable. And most of the arguments against immigration by Donald Trump and the idiot Republicans are based upon this kind of economic protectionism. I'm surprised that Democrats don't loudly agree with them because they're even stupider in economics than the Republicans even are, if that's possible. So I actually agree with the idea that, look, if anyone wants to come here and they have some kind of economic potential, some kind of job lined up, let them come, they're gonna do good. The problem, as I see it, is that Americans want to say, and even libertarians want to say things like, well, as long as we deny the right to welfare or the right to vote or the right to XYZ government policies to these immigrants, then they can come. Well, first of all, that's not realistic. We know that the Democrats are never going to allow that. Everyone's gonna have to come in on the same terms. And it's almost a little bit, it has a width of this alt-right kind of racialist perspective of some of these European groups now, where they say things like, well, if you have a smaller, more racially similar society, like I don't know, Denmark or Sweden or something, then they can have a welfare state as long as they don't allow too many immigrants in. So they're basically national socialists. They want to keep socialism alive. I mean, my goal is not to keep socialism alive. I don't think it's possible to preserve the kind of a rickety version of socialism that we have in the US and keep welfare and social security and all these programs going for Americans and deny it to new immigrants. It's not feasible anyway. And what's the point? Why do you want to preserve this in the first place? It is true that some immigrants that come here become a burden because of the public schools, because of the anti-discrimination laws, because of the welfare laws. But the solution is to get rid of those laws, right? Instead of saying that we can't allow immigrants because of our welfare system that we want to preserve, I mean, we're libertarians. We don't want to preserve this welfare system. So let's not say let's have a second interior class of citizens come in who just can't get all these things. I mean, if these things are a problem to give them to immigrants, why do we give them to Americans? So we need to get rid of anti-discrimination law, affirmative action law, even the right to vote in many cases. And then immigrants would do nothing but contribute economically to the country and culturally, and there would be almost no objection to them. So that would be my solution. I think this question is primarily for Stephan because he's our only even theoretical supporter of overborders on this panel, although he should be both of them to respond. So my question for Stephan would be in your, if we've reached the, your anarchic, we don't use your anarchic, but it's anarchy, right? There's no state. Is it ever possible, are there scenarios in which immigration would come with externalities that aren't properly considered, right? So if you're, if you're generally a libertarian, you're a believer in market, market forces, market forces work with the price of something that incorporates the full cost. Is it possible that certain immigration snares could come with externalities that would still not make open borders possible? And this is when it helps to have principles and to be an actual libertarian, right? To believe in property rights injustice. This is why I and Rand and some of the earlier libertarians, you know, their main arguments against proposals like the minimum wage or antitrust law, the main argument was not the Milton Friedman type Namby Pamby argument that it's really hard for merchants to collude together. So we don't really need antitrust laws or minimum wage laws don't really do any good. I mean, the hardcore principle libertarian argument is that there are rights. You know, two businessmen have a right to collude and set prices. Yes, accepted, that's the world. Yeah, it's unlikely, okay? Minimum wage laws, people have the right to offer to pay you a penny an hour if you want. In fact, a lot of congressional interns work for zero, which as far as I know, it's less than minimum wage. And during the government shutdown, if I understand it, a lot of people were not being paid minimum wage. So I don't know why the federal government was in trouble for that. But the point is we have to stand on principle, right? So it's not always about the predictions of the way these things will turn out. I think they will happen to be, they will happen to turn out right because I think that consequentialism and a principle case for liberty, they dovetail, they support each other. So since I just said it's my job to push back here, there's no limits to this, right? So if you're, if no rapist or child molesters or murderers want to move next door to you, if the entirety of the Sinaloa cartel wants to set up shop next door to your house, there's no externalities imposed on you, you have no rights to anything like that. Yeah, so yeah, right. So the reason I mentioned that preamble was because the externalities question is sort of a Chicago type question. It's about this idea of public failure or market failure and when there are externalities and people do things that impose costs on other people that are not being properly internalized about the free market that we have an argument for the state to step in, which is the sort of Richard Epstein argument for a limited government. So it's not about the state, it's about your moral right as an individual. Do you have a right to... So I think that, so in my view, the concept of externalities is almost incoherent and is never a justification for aggression. So the example you gave of these drug cartels or there wouldn't be drug cartels in the first place if not for the United States federal government and our drug laws and our treaties. I've never seen a drug cartel that I know that I came up with. But it's hard to come up with. Terrible people still exist in a stainless society, right? I don't think that's your position, but terrible people won't exist, so. Right, so, but that means that what you're saying is that the risk of living with other human beings on the earth sometimes comes with bad things, sometimes with the good things. And if you're gonna call that an externality, and if you wanna say that will there ever be crime committed by an immigrant? Yes, there will be. Just like there'll be with humans, with other humans. I just don't see a libertarian distinction among these classes of people. They're all individuals with the same human rights, and I think we should ultimately be libertarians, not Americans. I'm gonna start taking some audience questions while I have plenty more on my own plans. But do you have any comments on that? I think it's a little non-central to your position, but I'm certainly welcome to. Well, I mean, there's some discussions about the welfare issues of the magnet. Look, I don't know of any immigrant, or immigrant families who look at Americans and say, yeah, I gotta get a piece of that welfare system. Whether you had it, or you didn't, or Obamacare or not Obamacare, if you kept all that stuff away from immigrants, actually they would thrive in America. And they have. You know, I talked about the history of American immigrants and immigrants, and immigration has been good for America, obviously our system is not, but immigration has been good for America. My parents came over when they married to California as farm workers, and they would follow the proxies from California to Nebraska to the state of Washington. They didn't know English, they didn't have a driver's license, they didn't have a high school diploma, and they didn't have Obamacare, and never took over. And yet they tried, and yet they were able to try. Why didn't they, because of our free market system that allows for that freedom of movement, freedom of to sell your labor to whoever wants to buy your labor, to save, to accumulate capital, take that capital, then invest it in the business, and take risks, fail, and then make them. That's exactly what my parents did. Now we can accelerate that process for a lot of immigrants, but they move into America, take these basic skill jobs, they move on and up quickly. My parents work in the fields too hard and too long. And if I could do anything different is what happened to reduce that time. But still, the point is, if people in their position could amass wealth in America, and then their child can go and work at the White House, not that that is the sign of success, you know, to work for the state. I never turned my friend over to you. But it is something to behold, to have in one generation your son to be in the powerful offices in the world, right? It's a testament to this country and our free market system and how it can generate wealth. So I'm not afraid of new technology, I'm not afraid of removing this or any of that. Immigrants are gonna do well, always. Thank you. I know we've got a couple of individuals here who are really dying to ask the questions, so we're gonna get into some of these questions. Okay. Hello, everyone. I'm Juan Parque from South America, Libertarian. I'm truly inspired by their, of course, more railroad, but also, Professor Hans Lerman Hoppe has contributed a revision to Libertarianism. And let me put here a point that I'm more pro-close-border than Stephan Quincella and even as a Latin American. Why is that? It's wrongly bold, right? So, here's the thing. My sister married a Norwegian guy and horse and she went through this two, three year process of adapting to the culture because, let me tell you, I live in Quito, Ecuador. The streets are dirty. The bus stops are dirty. People don't treat each other very elegantly, so to speak, because, you know, they're always in a rush, but the streets are dirty. People are not punctual. People are not worried about excellence overall. I'm not whatever word you want to use on my own culture, so to speak. But let me say this. In Latin America, we have been isolated 10,000 years from the rest of the world of exchanges and commerce and all those things. We return as cherries of builders of civilization which is my point. And at least 500 years from the Spanish side, right? So, the thing is, I truly don't see there and this puts some really contradictory of the South American that America should have closed borders, allow people middle by middle so they can adapt to Western values. Why is it that migrants did so great things over the last decades in the US because the migrants that usually came were not after the World War I states benefits and political correctness and equality in the bad sense that you get the equal treatment under an equal merit, right? So, I truly believe that you should have a period of adaptation. Of course, it could harm me or benefit me. I don't really care. But I truly see America as a very exceptional experimental liberty in human history. And my question to both, especially Stephan Quisela is why not present this radical case for closed borders where you actually choose for people that have gone through this very, I don't know, how, let's just introduce this term, just to finish my question, cultural capital prerequisites so that people come from here and actually add as immigrants of all used to do, the entrepreneurial people came. Now you will have forwarded people just making a man of his head, trust me, it will be your comments. Let me just answer quickly and Daniel can have whatever comments he wants. Look, the bottom line is things would improve, in my view, if we did a few things. Number one, we increased the number, the quotas that people can come here. The guest worker program would be a good idea for seasonal workers. If we started selecting for economic merit in the sense of people that wanna come here and do something economically productive. I'm in favor of all that. That would be an improvement because it would reduce the harm done by both of the alternative policies that we have now. Number one, it would reduce the forced integration aspect that Hoppe talks about because if you have people coming for an actual job, they're not coming to just parasite off the rest of us. And on the other hand, if people wanted to bring people over as guests or invited workers, they could do that. So it would reduce the forced exclusion aspect of the harm that Hoppe points out. So I would be in favor of expanding the numbers and making them more merit-oriented so that you could say the quality is better. I know exactly how you do it. And the problem is that as Mr. Garza pointed out, we want to have industrious people. The real problem is a political problem. The problem is that people that make these standards are politicians who are not industrious people. These are the parasites that rise to the top of society and they are not free market oriented. They're not libertarian and it's hard to believe to expect them to adopt policies that will achieve this. But if they did, I think it would be an improvement. Did it? Yeah, I agree that the ERCA, the Immigration Reform Control Act, the wrong regular events, absorbed the $3 million that time we're here illegally or without authorization. But it didn't allow for future flows of immigrants. And even just this week, during the State of the Union speech, Donald Trump said that he wants to expand our immigration numbers because of the labor here. So even he sees benefit. Now, obviously he doesn't want to expand on the humanitarian side and the family unification side. But even he sees that we should expand. Why? Because in restricting legal immigration and we induce more illegal immigration. And that's not good for America. I think what has been good, again, is has been absorbing the flows of immigrants and those who really want to come to America and be a part and be American. I think that that's been critical. Now, I would be for sort of a state, I guess with the program, as long as it didn't shut the door to permanency, if somebody wanted to pull that trigger. But to keep somebody in a temporary working program and that's where you'll stay, I find unacceptable. But to this gentleman's point. Can you elaborate on why that's unacceptable? On the temporary working program. Because again, you're creating a two tiered society. You're creating two classes of people in America. One citizen that is fully invested and takes ownership of America who has a franchise and agency and one who doesn't. Is that bad for the first class of American citizens? Or is it bad for everybody? It's bad for the entire society. It's bad for the children. It causes a stigma on them in people that there's also, I think a, I guess you're treated as a child of a lesser God in a sense. And that can never be good to the psychosis of the person or the ethos of the person. There has to be, look, we criminalize everything. There is an over-criminalization that takes place. And now I understand that to have security at the border, we need to criminalize the issue of who convenes and who doesn't. And that tag is put on the person. We even call people illegals. As if humanity can be illegal. I find that offensive, actually. I don't think any human is illegal. In the 1920s, we passed a law, this prohibition. And we prohibited the production, the consumption, and the distribution of alcohol. It was a felony. And for one of a beer, Americans were arrested and thrown in jail for one of a beer. And so it turns out that it was a bad law and we changed that law. Here, for what of opportunity we want to criminalize, the people come in and go in. For what of opportunity? Because that's what they're coming to America for. They want to contribute. They want a better life for themselves and for their children. They want to shine. And so, I think we should look for ways to absorb folks who want to do good, who want to create wealth, as opposed to criminalizing it. I'm going to take questions from the audience. All right, some people have been both in our vision of immigration, in which there are no borders, there's free movement, anyone can live anywhere. And I'm going to call that in a question based on the ideas of Robert Nozick. Is it not the case in an anarchist society neighbors gather together, neighbors, they would form associations, they would establish sort of boundaries and levels of requirements for participation in a community and then in establishing that, that would essentially be our immigration law, but in a competitive landscape. So I guess what my question is, does a strictly rights-based analysis apply here when the alternative would create a similar equivalent system and should we really be asking the questions that people in those associations would be asking about who to work, who to include in our society and how to integrate them? I think I understand the question. Let me condense as quickly as possible and if people want to read up further. Look, your question basically, the idea is this, we have an idea of government distortion in place right now that harms people. What do we do about that? What policy should we have? What should we be moving towards? We have to have an ideal in mind. This is why menarchists and anarchists differ on these things. Yeah, in a free society, in a private law society, as Hoppe calls it, in an anarchist society, and by the way, Nozick was not an anarchist, of course, Nozick was a status. His whole book, Anarchy, State, and Utopia is an argument in defense of the state. It's a completely flawed argument, but even real anarchists, unlike Nozick, yeah, we accept that there'd be private property regimes and agreements and contracts and customs, and there would not be totally free movement of people. That's why the idea, like of Hoppe was to say, you have anarchy, you have monarchy and democracy, and this idea we have that was a movement towards prosperity or an improvement society is not necessarily true. That the move from monarchy to democracy was worse in some ways. And so the whole idea is that if we wanna model what we should be moving towards, maybe the way that a monarchic society would operate is closer to a free society than the democratic society would be. This is how these arguments go. So the whole idea, I believe, is that the policies that we should adopt would be those that would reduce what I call forced integration, which is the idea that anyone can move anywhere, be next to each other, they can use public roads, which is public infrastructure, paid for by taxpayers, there can be any discrimination. Look, I'm not favored personally. I'm the cause of politics, I'm a libertarian, I'm an individualist, citizen of the world, Montessori, blah, blah, blah, right. But people do segregate different ways. This is how life works. And if people want to segregate, you better let them do it instead of making it illegal. The government is in no place to do that. So the policy that the government should adopt should be one that does just not try to force people to live with each other. They don't want to, but it allows free movement of people. And by and large, when people want to hire people to work on their lawns, or to work in their factories, or to be neighbors in their communities and buy their real estate, these are voluntary transactions. And ultimately, I think a cause of politics and individualist attitude will prevail over old world, old fashioned kind of racialism and bigotry and segregationism. But to the extent people want to pay for that, they've got the right to do it. And Daniel. Hi, good morning, I'll repeat, we do have a concept, like the gentleman was saying, very much in that same spirit. Look, our forefathers, our brothers and sisters and grandfathers and mothers died in four battlefields to defend the principle of this country, which is to be a free country, free people of voluntary exchange, to have freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, that we defend those principles to this day, I think it's important and that if the state does exist, it exists to protect those freedoms. And the people will believe in those freedoms. And so if anybody would subvert those, would be an enemy to those values of those principles, I would question their entry into America. I am going to reserve, use my moderated privilege for the last question, but I don't think we're there yet. So I think we can take at least one more on the next question. So the question relates to tribals of natural people, just naturally being tribal animals. And also with respect to IQ differences among different groups. And this idea that the indigenous people of any kind that really were just really, really told me, that many Europeans got there, while they were fighting with each other, for me, I mean, before they really got there. And the European brought ideas of, the first, I mean, the first voluntarism really was the European last Western idea. And I mean, it may be a little good to say that immigrants should assimilate, but they're not, they don't, they, I mean, from the border, from Mexico, from Mexico, from Don Quixote, everyone was born there. And they, well, they drive around with flags in the cars, and there's flags, they're not American flags, but it's a club of other countries, South American countries, and of course, immigration is free as anything, and I migrated to New Hampshire. But given the current reality, Lionel Town, the whole state of Arizona, the scenes going on down there, to statistically, Latinos go to the left, and. I think we've got the question, so I think this one's primarily for Daniel, which is, are, well, they're not assimilating, right? You've emphasized that assimilation is very important, and the claim of a questionnaire is, well, you know, either how can we enforce that, or if we're doing it now, it doesn't seem like the answer. Well, you do the hard work. In Texas, we have 30 million residents, 10 million of which are Hispanic. In California, you have the exact same, the same percentage of Latinos in California. Yet in Texas, every state, why elected official is a Republican? And the governor, the lieutenant governor, I mean, all of them. Yeah, quickly. In California, every single one is Democrat. So there's two different things going on. Two dynamics happening in two very big states where half of the Latinos live, and basically is that in Texas, they do the hard work, they connect. They, I'll just, not that this is a good politics here, but it's quickly because I have to dispel this, they're not assimilating thing. The Latino vote is not baked into the left. If it is anywhere, it's because one side has allowed it to. In Colorado, Michael Bennett won the Latino vote, 90% of the Latino vote, and 85% of President Barack Obama in his reelection. Yet Corey Gardner decided that he wasn't gonna take that vote for granted, and he went and did the hard work, and went into the churches, went into the chamber of commerce, and met with Latinos where Latinos earned their vote, and he got 45% of the Latino vote. In the state, I had just voted 90% for a Democrat. So it's not baked in, but it requires hard work, and it requires connecting. Now, it also requires that the Latino vote feel a sense of ownership in America. And if we're gonna do half major for immigration, then they probably never will. And that's a problem. So what we do at the Libri Initiative is actually work with the Latino community to engage them on public policy, on issues that are impacting them. Work from a libertarian point of view, now a more pragmatic libertarian point of view as opposed to an anarchist vote. Which is, anyway. So by the way, it's important that you go to where Latinos are at. We're not gonna hurt you. You just have to get your heart here. Thank you. Stepan has kindly skipped an answer to this question. And so I'm gonna just give my final question, which is many of us here are even with it's begrudgingly. So we do vote. So let's talk about it pragmatically, but if we wanna move the world in a more libertarian society today, a freer society today, we're probably not gonna get exactly what we want. What can we get realistic? So for example, we have a current debate that's happening right now. The president is asking for 5.7 billion for infrastructure and border security nature. So we're gonna add border security. And the left has presumably a priority, which is the DACA community, 700,000 kids. And our argument is we can solve both by actually leveraging one against the other. Why don't we go ahead and do a permanent solution for the DACA community, where we put them on a path to citizenship, and the president gets what he's asking for. Well, does that include the wall? Somebody will ask, look, we're opposed to a wall because we feel that there are other things that we can do that, I mean, there's enough wall already along the border. We need adult migration, we need art book. A bunch of reasons we're opposed to the wall. But we're willing to be pragmatic to answer your question on this issue and say yes, give the president what he's asking for, which would include some infrastructure in order for us to get this long-term solution, and get on with the business of fully assimilating 700,000 kids in America. Stefan comments on what's pragmatically achievable today. Okay, quickly. It's hard. As opposed to comparing the anarchy to pragmatism, I mean, I think anarchy is pragmatic, is the idea that the government can get anything good done is what's not pragmatic, but that's my anarchist tendencies. The wall would, I mean, the wall seems practical in some ways, but the wall would require not only taxation, which I oppose, I don't wanna pay my fair share of that, but it would require theft in the domain of thousands of acres of private property. And I don't even know if it would work because the wall would be on American soil, it can't be right on the border because that's not possible because of the river. So it'd be on American soil, so some of these immigrants cross over the river and they get close to the wall, they're still on American soil, so then the walls kick in. The whole thing is pointless. As for pragmatism, I believe that the way to achieve liberty is for us to keep evolving towards greater wealth per person, which requires more technology and more liberty and more people, right? Because we have the division of labor. And so the only way to achieve liberty in the long run is for us to be wealthy enough that the state becomes irrelevant. So pragmatically, I think anything that increases liberty and wealth is going to achieve more liberty. And I think immigration, despite some of the flaws given the government, the way the government controls it, gives us more division of labor, right? And more people, more human capital. So I think the way is to let more people come into the country that will do something productive and make us bigger and stronger and freer in the long run. All right, thank you. We're gonna end it here. We're basically out of time, so round of applause for our speakers. Come on out. Very good. Thank you. Do you want to plug any? Check out the, if someone is very interested in the Libra Institute, the next step is to... Sure. www.be-libra.org, B-E-L-I-V-R-E.org, or go to Facebook, where we have a million followers on the Libra Initiative. And then on Twitter for our Libra Initiative. Thank you. Is there anything that you'd like the audience to do in terms of keeping up with your break, or I guess... Just my name's all you need. Thanks.