Dave Smith and Alex Nowrasteh Debate Immigration

[PAF]

Gene Epstein
5.21.2025


Is it consistently libertarian to support government restrictions on immigration?





Dave Smith and Alex Nowrasteh debate the resolution, "Government restrictions on the immigration of peaceful and healthy people make sense from a libertarian standpoint, especially in present-day America."

Comedian and host of the podcast, Part of the Problem, Dave Smith defends the resolution. Taking the negative is Alex Nowrasteh, the Vice President for Economic and Social Policy Studies at the Cato Institute. He's the coauthor (with Benjamin Powell) of Wretched Refuse? The Political Economy of Immigration and Institutions.

The debate is moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein.

Dave Smith and Alex Nowrasteh Debate Immigration

Dave Smith and Alex Nowrasteh debate the resolution, "Government restrictions on the immigration of peaceful and healthy people make sense…

reason.com

_________________________


My personal opinion after watching the entire debate:

After Dave's Pro-Government support and "solutions", Alex rightfully responded: "Dave has the gull to call me a Beltway Libertarian??? That's the most "In The Swamp" argument that I've ever heard from a "libertarian"! Where are your principles?!"

As I personally believed all along, Dave seems to be one of those ones who are attempting to redefine libertarianism, which is why I never liked the guy [and still don't]. It was a good debate, but perhaps Dave needs to follow his own advice and examine his own positions to see where it leads [pro-government populism]. I'll leave you guys to watch and decide for yourselves.

Closing arguments [Dave] begin at 1:28:00 At 1:33:35 Alex smashed the guy.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Yes, it is.

 

[CaptUSA]

I'll have to watch the debate, but I sure do hope that they discussed natural immigration vs. artificial government-subsidized immigration.

A person can have different opinions depending on which type of immigration you're discussing. And it clouds the discussion if you don't first draw that distinction.

 

[PAF]

I'll have to watch the debate, but I sure do hope that they discussed natural immigration vs. artificial government-subsidized immigration.

A person can have different opinions depending on which type of immigration you're discussing. And it clouds the discussion if you don't first draw that distinction.

Dave attended the debate ill-equipped and kept promoting pro-government statists solutions. Alex discussed actual data and true libertarian principles. Dave conceded that Alex was right about many areas, but insisted that "it didn't matter".

IMO, Dave should just come out of the closet and quit referring to himself as a libertarian, simply because he isn't one. Just like Common Core "education", he is a danger to young and innocent minds.

Please, Dave, just go away. Or stick to comedy and leave people alone.

 

[axiomata]

Dave attended the debate ill-equipped and kept promoting pro-government statists solutions. Alex discussed actual data and true libertarian principles. Dave conceded that Alex was right about many areas, but insisted that "it didn't matter".

IMO, Dave should just come out of the closet and quit referring to himself as a libertarian, simply because he isn't one. Just like Common Core "education", he is a danger to young and innocent minds.

Please, Dave, just go away. Or stick to comedy and leave people alone.

Dave needs to realize that he is typically so effective at debates is because he takes the libertarian position in them. If he wants to keep his average up, he should do that more often. He did not in this one.

 

[CaptUSA]

Dave attended the debate ill-equipped and kept promoting pro-government statists solutions. Alex discussed actual data and true libertarian principles. Dave conceded that Alex was right about many areas, but insisted that "it didn't matter".

IMO, Dave should just come out of the closet and quit referring to himself as a libertarian, simply because he isn't one. Just like Common Core "education", he is a danger to young and innocent minds.

Please, Dave, just go away. Or stick to comedy and leave people alone.

So I got a chance to watch the debate. As I expected, they spent most of the time talking past each other. And yes, mostly because they didn't first establish whether they were talking about natural immigration or artificial immigration. Dave started getting into the NGO's, but they all quickly diverted from that topic.

It's no surprise that Dave won the debate - he's clearly the more polished speaker. AND, he was speaking in terms of the reality in which we live rather than libertarian utopia that can only exist in our hopes. I do think Dave was flirting with a xenophobic position that I don't support.

Alex made tons of good points, but most of it wasn't relevant to the current situation. He also didn't address the "order of operations" problem. Meaning, that he kept saying you have to end the drug war and the welfare state, and these issues need addressing regardless of immigration. Totally true, but any country would have to end those things FIRST, then once they're eliminated, you can then relax the borders. You can't do it the other way around and expect to survive.

And Alex is using all kinds of faulty studies that suggest immigrants are a net-positive to our economy. That is true with natural immigration, but completely and totally untrue with government-subsidized immigration. It will take a couple of generations to offset the taxpayer costs of importing people, housing people, feeding people, providing transportation and funneling money to the NGO's that profit from it all. By then, the Enlightenment ideals this country was founded upon will be utterly diluted.

"Immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate" - even if true, is completely irrelevant to the victims. Crimes are additive. You can lower the crime "rate" while still increasing crime.

And Alex's argument about the growth of government under low vs. high immigration makes so many leaps of logic it's hard to address them all. "Rate" of growth

Alex's best points related to "government" being the instrument to undo the damage that the government has already done. Hard to argue with that. But can we agree that the government needs to stop subsidizing the invasion??

 

[PAF]

So I got a chance to watch the debate. As I expected, they spent most of the time talking past each other. And yes, mostly because they didn't first establish whether they were talking about natural immigration or artificial immigration. Dave started getting into the NGO's, but they all quickly diverted from that topic.

It's no surprise that Dave won the debate - he's clearly the more polished speaker. AND, he was speaking in terms of the reality in which we live rather than libertarian utopia that can only exist in our hopes. I do think Dave was flirting with a xenophobic position that I don't support.

Alex made tons of good points, but most of it wasn't relevant to the current situation. He also didn't address the "order of operations" problem. Meaning, that he kept saying you have to end the drug war and the welfare state, and these issues need addressing regardless of immigration. Totally true, but any country would have to end those things FIRST, then once they're eliminated, you can then relax the borders. You can't do it the other way around and expect to survive.

And Alex is using all kinds of faulty studies that suggest immigrants are a net-positive to our economy. That is true with natural immigration, but completely and totally untrue with government-subsidized immigration. It will take a couple of generations to offset the taxpayer costs of importing people, housing people, feeding people, providing transportation and funneling money to the NGO's that profit from it all. By then, the Enlightenment ideals this country was founded upon will be utterly diluted.

"Immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate" - even if true, is completely irrelevant to the victims. Crimes are additive. You can lower the crime "rate" while still increasing crime.

And Alex's argument about the growth of government under low vs. high immigration makes so many leaps of logic it's hard to address them all. "Rate" of growth

Alex's best points related to "government" being the instrument to undo the damage that the government has already done. Hard to argue with that. But can we agree that the government needs to stop subsidizing the invasion??

The bold is a given. Is that "utopian" too??? If not, why not, and if it is, does that require that we eliminate the Bill of Rights and Right to Travel Freely [THUS the EVER-EXPANDING Constitution-Free Zone]???

As for "natural immigration or artificial immigration", it was clear to me that Alex addressed that, but Dave failed to do so.

Based on your [lengthy] response, it becomes obvious that no matter what is presented as fact, people will still hold their selfish position even if they cut off one's nose to spite one's face. As Alex pointed out, as long as it involves violence, people, and governments, are perfectly good with that. History dictates that as well.

No surprise that Dave "won" the debate??? Logically, and economically, Alex totally won the debate, even smearing "libertarian" Dave, and as a byproduct promotes the most amount of liberty.

Concerning the welfare state/open borders, as Alex noted, this is what so many statists fail to understand, or even acknowledge [see bold]:

Milton Friedman: Look, for example, at the obvious, immediate, practical example of illegal Mexican immigration. Now, that Mexican immigration, over the border, is a good thing. It’s a good thing for the illegal immigrants. It’s a good thing for the United States. It’s a good thing for the citizens of the country. But, it’s only good so long as it’s illegal.

Even here [again] Dave failed to respond.

 

[CaptUSA]

(Man, replying to each piece is a chore, so hoping this works until I figure it out on here)

The bold is a given. Is that "utopian" too??? If not, why not, and if it is, does that require that we eliminate the Bill of Rights and Right to Travel Freely [THUS the EVER-EXPANDING Constitution-Free Zone]???

If the bold is a given, then start there. Once you do that, you can move to the next step. But to move to the next step BEFORE addressing that issue is a HUGE mistake. It's inviting an invasion at our expense.

As for "natural immigration or artificial immigration", it was clear to me that Alex addressed that, but Dave failed to do so.

Really? I must have missed that. Care to say when or how it was addressed?

Based on your [lengthy] response, it becomes obvious that no matter what is presented as fact, people will still hold their selfish position even if they cut off one's nose to spite one's face.

Pot meet kettle.

No surprise that Dave "won" the debate??? Logically, and economically, Alex totally won the debate, even smearing "libertarian" Dave, and as a byproduct promotes the most amount of liberty.

Well, that's your opinion. The audience disagreed and Dave won the tootsie roll because of it.

Even here [again] Dave failed to respond.

Yep. Dave failed to respond to that. But the response is easy. Friedman is talking about natural immigration - not government-subsidized immigration. As bad as it is for government to prevent the free movement of people, it's even worse for government to subsidize the artificial movement of people to fleece the taxpayers for their favored NGO's. This whole deportation thing is an attempt to undo the damages of that policy.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I'll have to watch the debate, but I sure do hope that they discussed natural immigration vs. artificial government-subsidized immigration.

A person can have different opinions depending on which type of immigration you're discussing. And it clouds the discussion if you don't first draw that distinction.

I'll have to watch this at some point. But I had the same thought with regard to the debate.

There are essentially two subjects being mixed together here.

One is freedom of immigration.

The second is what is being done via immigration.

If this was applied to gun rights, it's like debating the right to bear arms at the same time as defending all of the uses of arms.

It's a false dilemma, as in the following:

- If it's "libertarian" to defend the right to bear arms,
- Then, it must also be "libertarian" to defend all uses of arms, including intimidation, robbery, murder, and various govt/military uses of arms.

 

[Anti Federalist]

My nation is my home, for me and my posterity.

It is not Global Economic Zone Tango Hotel X-Ray 1138.

We get to decide who comes here, from where, and how many of them, or none at all.

Full stop.

 

[familydog]

Alex the lolbertarian vs. Dave the libertarian. The former is a dangerous joke who reduces human beings to numbers on a chart and the latter is a closeted right winger too embarrassed to be honest with us. Clearly Dave won and I'm glad to see the audience agree.

 

[PAF]

My nation is my home, for me and my posterity.

It is not Global Economic Zone Tango Hotel X-Ray 1138.

We get to decide who comes here, from where, and how many of them, or none at all.

Full stop.

It's just a matter of time, whether short term or long, before enough people are broken out of the Common Core / Statist mind-set. There are enough of us who value fiscal responsibility and economic freedom, as well as the preservation of Individual Rights, that your line of Adolf thinking will go by the way side.

Nationalist-Communism [ie your "we we we"] and the police-state that you support, will eventually fail.

If it makes you "safe", you are free to erect a prison wall around your own home on your own dime. You can even fly battery-operated remote controlled drones over it from the comfort of your couch.

Full stop.

 

[CaptUSA]

PAF,

Care to address the Scott Horton proposition mentioned in the debate?
If there's a skirmish that causes a mass migration from a foreign nation to the US, should there be no limit? Millions? Hundreds of millions?
Does the existing population have no say in the matter?
If governments are instituted among men, does it not derive its just powers from the consent of the governed?
Are the Irish being xenophobic and anti-liberty by wanting Ireland to be populated by the Irish?

 

[Anti Federalist]

It's just a matter of time, whether short term or long, before enough people are broken out of the Common Core / Statist mind-set. There are enough of us who value fiscal responsibility and economic freedom, as well as the preservation of Individual Rights, that your line of Adolf thinking will go by the way side.

Nationalist-Communism [ie your "we we we"] and the police-state that you support, will eventually fail.

If it makes you "safe", you are free to erect a prison wall around your own home on your own dime. You can even fly battery-operated remote controlled drones over it from the comfort of your couch.

Full stop.

You do not believe in a nation or a community, so I would not expect you to agree.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Are the Irish being xenophobic and anti-liberty by wanting Ireland to be populated by the Irish?

 

[PAF]

PAF,

Care to address the Scott Horton proposition mentioned in the debate?
If there's a skirmish that causes a mass migration from a foreign nation to the US, should there be no limit? Millions? Hundreds of millions?
Does the existing population have no say in the matter?
If governments are instituted among men, does it not derive its just powers from the consent of the governed?
Are the Irish being xenophobic and anti-liberty by wanting Ireland to be populated by the Irish?

My apologies, even though it was mentioned, I am not familiar with the "Scott Horton proposition" enough to intelligently comment on it. I listened to the debate focusing on economics and fiscal issues, and Individual Rights, and how they apply to authentic libertarians who value such things. I left all emotion out of the equation in order to give both Dave and Alex fair hearings. Unfortunately, as Dave has done before [because he is not a true libertarian], he fell very short as I noted above. While some may consider Alex a LOLbertarian, it is because they are admitted promoters of government and not respectful of or supporters of Individualism.

As for no limit, millions, hundreds of millions... that does not concern me. As Alex noted, if it did, why haven't there been 350,000,000 coming into the country in the past couple of years alone? Why not a billion? So, I don't concern myself with inflated scare tactic scenarios which have not and will not happen. That is something government does in order to obtain votes and line the pockets of the Industrial Complexes. Also as many seem to forget, there are large numbers of Americans who become Ex-Pats and move abroad, including yours truly who is a dual-citizen. There are influxes of people all around the world. Should the other countries throw us out? If so, why? I contribute to their local economies every time I buy something. They appreciate that, and so do I.

You're asking the wrong person concerning "governments are instituted among men". While true to a degree, I personally don't entertain supporting government, corporatist complexes who profit off of the tax payer, or having them grow larger.

As for Ireland and other countries, Alex again gave an example. While they are paying for immigrants to come into their land, the hosting country FORBIDS the immigrants from gainful employment. If they can't/don't work, what would one think would happen? Just like here in the U.S. where they are trying like HOLY HELL to roll out eVerify and REAL-ID - it is all planned according to the New World Order. Why can't people just work and leave them TF alone??? See here [again]:

Milton Friedman: Look, for example, at the obvious, immediate, practical example of illegal Mexican immigration. Now, that Mexican immigration, over the border, is a good thing. It’s a good thing for the illegal immigrants. It’s a good thing for the United States. It’s a good thing for the citizens of the country. But, it’s only good so long as it’s illegal.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Bertrand de Jouvenel - “On Power: Its Nature and the History of Its Growth”

 

[Swordsmyth]

You do not believe in a nation or a community, so I would not expect you to agree.

Worse, he believes in destroying them.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Bertrand de Jouvenel - “On Power: Its Nature and the History of Its Growth”

Left and right wings of the same vulture.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Left and right wings of the same vulture.

Quite right.

Leading to "Atomized Man": cut off from his history, his family, his culture, his posterity and his liberty.

Alone and adrift in a world of seething, polyglot humanity, all racing toward nothing on endless debt wheels, where he will own nothing, know nothing, have nothing and be nothing.

Sound familiar?