The problem with the “open borders” cant of the Left is that there is no plausible path from that state and concordant with that absurd demand to anything else that the Left or progressives claims to stand for.

And so today talk of “open borders” has entered mainstream liberal discourse, where once it was confined to radical free market think tanks and libertarian anarchist circles.

While no serious political party of the Left is offering concrete proposals for a truly borderless society, by embracing the moral arguments of the open-borders Left and the economic arguments of free market think tanks, the Left has painted itself into a corner. If “no human is illegal!,” as the protest chant goes, the Left is implicitly accepting the moral case for no borders or sovereign nations at all. But what implications will unlimited migration have for projects like universal public health care and education, or a federal jobs guarantee? And how will progressives convincingly explain these goals to the public?

I believe that de facto or de jure open borders are incompatible with any sort of welfare state, for a variety of reasons. The evidence isn’t conclusive but also points this way as well. And I care about what works and what is most likely to be true rather than my (or anyone’s) feelings. And I care about risk and opportunity cost — two things almost everyone else ignores.

In the heightened emotions of America’s public debate on migration, a simple moral and political dichotomy prevails. It is “right-wing” to be “against immigration” and “left-wing” to be “for immigration.” But the economics of migration tell a different story.

The transformation of open borders into a “Left” position is a very new phenomenon and runs counter to the history of the organized Left in fundamental ways. Open borders has long been a rallying cry of the business and free market Right.

That in particular is what is puzzling to me. Rarely have I seen progressives embrace and even extend hard-Right positions — stances that are obviously harmful to them, their priorities, and to all Americans and legal immigrants who wish to become Americans.

To paraphrase a drill sergeant of mine, compassion isn’t a plan. Just letting half the world in and hoping for the best won’t help us and it won’t help (for long) the people we allow to immigrate.

I am strongly against open borders. It’s a failed experiment in the making, and as the article states it’s a “victory for the bosses.” As for birthright citizenship, I am ambivalent on that, but leaning against. The worry I have is that its revocation could lead to a permanent class of stateless people with no protection or recourse — in other words, the same place “open borders” is far more likely to take us toward.