Dave Smith and Alex Nowrasteh Debate Immigration

You are the leftist, you think you can hide it by accusing me even though that's laughable.
And you and the other usual suspects do exactly what was discussed in the post I replied to, you create your own narrow definitions of libertarianism (as well as narrowing Ron Paul's movement to libertarians when it was always full of conservative Republicans), and then attempt to use it to drive out everyone else so there is no movement anymore and anyone who is left is just an assistant Democrat.

None of this bullshit fits the definition of projection, jackass. Only the first sentence even comes close, but it doesn't fit because you're the one who fits this description, not me:

office-halpert-watching-government-shtshow-these-people-should-be-in-charge-of-my-life.jpg


Which means you answered my question, "What am I projecting?" by projecting.
 
Last edited:
The Crucial Principle and Data at Stake in the Soho Immigration Debate
{Mises Media | 30 May 2025}

In this episode of the Human Action Podcast, Bob analyzes the key arguments from the recent immigration debate at the Soho Forum between Dave Smith and Alex Nowrasteh. He clarifies the critical issue of how libertarians should approach immigration when the government controls significant property and resources, explores the implications for public property rights, and examines empirical claims made during the debate.

Alex Nowrasteh's Cato Article on Immigrants' Welfare and Entitlement Benefits Consumption: https://mises.org/HAP502a
Alex's Cato Article, "Do Immigrants Affect Economic Institutions?": https://mises.org/HAP502b
Alex's Cato Article, "The Fiscal Impact of Immigration in the United States": https://mises.org/HAP502c
The Soho Debate Between Dave Smith and Alex Nowrasteh: https://mises.org/HAP502d [see this post - OB]
The Human Action Podcast, "Simon Guenzl vs. Dave Smith on Open Borders": https://mises.org/HAP502e [see this post - OB]

 
The Crucial Principle and Data at Stake in the Soho Immigration Debate
{Mises Media | 30 May 2025}
In this episode of the Human Action Podcast, Bob analyzes the key arguments from the recent immigration debate at the Soho Forum between Dave Smith and Alex Nowrasteh. He clarifies the critical issue of how libertarians should approach immigration when the government controls significant property and resources, explores the implications for public property rights, and examines empirical claims made during the debate.

Alex Nowrasteh's Cato Article on Immigrants' Welfare and Entitlement Benefits Consumption: https://mises.org/HAP502a
Alex's Cato Article, "Do Immigrants Affect Economic Institutions?": https://mises.org/HAP502b
Alex's Cato Article, "The Fiscal Impact of Immigration in the United States": https://mises.org/HAP502c
The Soho Debate Between Dave Smith and Alex Nowrasteh: https://mises.org/HAP502d [see this post - OB]
The Human Action Podcast, "Simon Guenzl vs. Dave Smith on Open Borders": https://mises.org/HAP502e [see this post - OB]




It is illegitimate for government to own property. Once one [Dave] makes the case that "well, since government already controls it, it can set whatever policies it wants regarding the right/no right to travel freely", the logical conclusion would be that it can also set whatever policies/laws it wants concerning the 2nd and other Amendments. This whole "debate" falls flat on its face.

At 52:00, Bob has great difficulty understanding that if one is undocumented ["illegal"], they of course take less from government programs, simply because they are not eligible; if an undocumented 20 year old male comes here to work, they have not spent the last 18 years in a public school system as opposed to an American who is "legal" and who has drawn from the system.

Dave and Bob [again] fail. Outside of personal opinion, is there a debate where people can actually discuss these issues with some level of intelligence? Starting off with "well, since government already...." doesn't suffice.


Klaus Schwab: Rebuilding Trust in Government [redefining libertarianism]

Milton Friedman on Welfare and Open Borders: 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.
 
Last edited:
Alex Nowrasteh Explains the Data and Theory Behind His SoHo Forum Immigration Debate
{Robert Murphy | 12 June 2025}

The Bob Murphy Show: Episode 415

Alex Nowrasteh is Vice President for Economic and Social Policy Studies at the Cato Institute. After Bob (on the Human Action podcast) summarized the recent SoHo forum immigration debate between Alex and Dave Smith, Alex had written a substack article responding to Bob’s critique. Alex joins Bob to discuss the controversy, covering the empirical studies, the Hoppean argument concerning government-controlled property, and the current situation in LA.

Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest:
[audio (mp3): https://episodes.captivate.fm/episode/3a7c94eb-3fd5-4497-ab1d-ff177e2c2c16.mp3]

 
Bob Murphy and Adam Haman Respond to Jacob Hornberger on Immigration
{Robert Murphy | 12 June 2025}

The Bob Murphy Show: Episode 416

Adam Haman returns, this time to discuss Jacob Hornberger’s recent video, where he critiques the Haman/Murphy/Dave Smith takes on immigration.

Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest:
[audio (mp3): https://episodes.captivate.fm/episode/13c46b88-8bb3-432c-9dda-40c21f516078.mp3]

 
Last edited:
RELATED:

 
RELATED:



"The correct way for libertarians to think about immigration." Yeah, ok.

Redefining libertarianism seems the new trend. No Dave, libertarians don't support or advocate for a Police State. Perhaps Jewish Dave has some kind of a stake in the Israel/'Merican security apparatus lobby, such in the form of stock options.

How about debating Jacob Hornberger? That way you can correctly identify yourself as a standard statist republican.
 
Hornberger on the Hot Seat: Fleshing Out the Libertarian Position on Open Borders
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjdHHbg3U-g
{Robert Murphy | 17 July 2025}

The Bob Murphy Show: Episode 425

Adam Haman and Bob Murphy interview Jacob Hornberger to get to the bottom of their differing views on libertarianism and immigration.

Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest:
[audio (mp3): https://episodes.captivate.fm/episode/3d4c6887-e22c-42ef-8824-5870d2f7aff2.mp3]

 
  • Like
Reactions: PAF
I'm done partaking in philosotarian navel gazing circle jerks, while the nation is being invaded by millions of demographic bio-weapons all around us.

If you actually listen to the entire conversation you might actually learn something. One of the points covered were "market forces", where government imposes quotas, markets react accordingly, which is why NGO's import them in. Getting government completely out of the business of both permitting and restricting is in the best interest of the people.

Unless, of course, an ever-expanding full-blown police-state is your entire and primary objective.

I suggest listening to it, at least you'll have the knowledge to intelligently discuss/rebut, unlike the stoopid democrats who don't have an ounce of brain.
 
If you actually listen to the entire conversation you might actually learn something. One of the points covered were "market forces", where government imposes quotas, markets react accordingly, which is why NGO's import them in. Getting government completely out of the business of both permitting and restricting is in the best interest of the people.

Unless, of course, an ever-expanding full-blown police-state is your entire and primary objective.

I suggest listening to it, at least you'll have the knowledge to intelligently discuss/rebut, unlike the stoopid democrats who don't have an ounce of brain.

Tell you what, brother, why don't you do me a solid and flesh out all three of their points, in a single paragraph, one for each man.
 
Tell you what, brother, why don't you do me a solid and flesh out all three of their points, in a single paragraph, one for each man.

I'd more than likely muck it up, Jacob is much more eloquent and hits it home, so maybe if/when you get some time you can take a listen.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top