Ilya Somin: "'Enforcing The Law' Doesn't Justify Separating Migrant Children From Their Parents"

This is worth a read.
   I wondered why The Daily Nous would link to Reason, even given its congenial conclusion on this topic...until I got to the thinly-concealed open borders stuff in the Somin piece. Progressives, PCs, libertarians and neo-liberals are all on the same page about that stuff...I wonder whether that coalition is resistible?
   A younger, more lefty, cosmopolitan me was occasionally starry-eyed about open borders, a world state and world-government. I still think the arguments for those things are attractive in certain ways, and ought to be taken seriously. Philosophically, that is. But I'd never consider them as live options for real change. For one thing, we'd lose crucial rights immediately (e.g. First- and Second-Amendment rights). In actual fact, I think such ideas are blueprints for tyranny and disaster. They're exactly the kinds of ideas that I think make the left dangerous. We managed to eke out a pretty just and reasonable political order...stop fucking with it. Stop acting like massive changes are without risk. I'm not against experimentation and fine-tuning. What I'm against is a headlong rush into every crackpot idea the left dreams up. I do agree that open borders (and world government) are ideas that shouldn't be rejected out of hand. But I also think they're very likely to be disastrous, and shouldn't be on the table for serious consideration any time in the foreseeable future.
   If your views about immigration force you to adopt a de facto open borders position, or something like it, then it's time to revise your views about immigration. And that's merely a specific application of a general principle: if your ideas about some specific point (of policy or whatever) require a massive overhaul of the entire system (whatever system it might be), then you're probably wrong, and you probably need to rethink the specific point. Sometimes a specific anomaly or puzzle or problem reveals the need for a revolutionary change. But usually not.
   What Burkean conservatives get right is: massive overhauls are not to be trifled with. We should be doing something to help people in central America. We shouldn't risk catastrophe here to do so. You can only do what you can do. If we'd have taken illegal immigration seriously previously, we'd be in a better position to take in asylum-seekers now. But we didn't, and we aren't. And, don't forget, many of the "asylum-seekers" are lying; they're being coached to say the things that will get their feet in the door...whereupon they can disappear and, likely, stay forever.

[Which, to be clear, doesn't mean I think Somin is wrong about the other stuff. I just can't believe there's not a better way to do it. I didn't even really pay very close attention to his arguments. There's just got to be a better way.]