Edmund Burke might say that we simply are not built that way–we are not rootless cosmopolitans, and attempts to build societies on rootless-cosmopolitan principles will go badly wrong in horrible ways. We care first about ourselves, second about our descendants, third about our families, fourth about our neighbors, fifth about people we see on TV who we can easily identify with, sixth about people who speak our own language, seventh about people from countries we have visited or see often on TV in ways that make us identify with them, and eighth about everybody else.

Thus even if we want (for some reason) to achieve rootless cosmopolitan ends, the means we must use are to encourage the growth and development of societies that reflect this hierarchy of moral concern, because societies that don’t will not long survive.

It’s a rather profound error to characterize voluntary trade between American employers and Mexicans workers as equivalent to ”humanitarian spending,”

True. But it is also a profound error to characterize immigration as equivalent to voluntary trade. Setting up a call center in Saudi Arabia is voluntary trade. Hiring a guy in Oaxaca to mine World-of-Warcraft gold for you is voluntary trade. Bully for voluntary trade across borders, bully, indeed, for the right to engage in voluntary trade across borders. The right to engage in voluntary trade across borders is simply not the same, however, as the right to become a resident or citizen of another country. There are all sorts of good reasons to want individuals to be able to choose their own country of citizenship and residence. I endorse this goal myself.

It is not, however, part of the ‘liberal baseline’ (if liberal here means the classical liberal tradition) to assume that anyone has a right to be the citizen or resident of the country he chooses. The classic liberal has reasonable arguments for denying this as a right, including: a) a state is a contract between its members, and they can exclude whomever they want, b) a free, liberal society has cultural preconditions that open immigration might damage. Now, as it happens, I support high levels of continued immigration into the US, but not because I think support is written into classical liberalism.

In other words, it is objectionable to force citizens to discriminate against aliens on the ground that aliens are worth less.

No, because the nation isn’t unanimous in its choice of immigration policy. E.g., a primary reason there’s conflict over this issue is that some Americans want to employ certain immigrants and other Americans don’t want to allow that, each group acting in its own self-interest.

But it’s not war per se that you find odious; here you are telling us all what we should be willing to die for:

“Let me just say that I would be willing to die in a war against a state that made it policy to deny me my natural liberty to enter into voluntary, mutually benficial exchanges with every other human being who does not happen to have a social security number.”

Yeah, I’m sure that’s why there are 150 million babies born every year, because parents hope to pass on their … economic ideology.

WW’s position makes no sense. It is retail selfishness and wholesale or national humanitarianism. It is incoherent.

HORSESHIT. This would imply that anyone not eligable for service (for any reason) gets less weight in your moral calculus than those who are eligable. You do not behave this way in your everyday life.

As someone once said, “I hate liars”.

Mind you, I think you can support some immigration restrictions without basing them on the flawed logic I spelled out above. But not protectionist immigration restrictions.

That’s a catch-22, and it strikes me as morally perverse.