Bernie Sanders, a rich 1-percenter plutocrat from Vermont, craves political power. His main goal in life is to hold as much power as he can over other people, and to do so, he prostitutes himself, trading political favors for campaign donations. Recently, a Vox article exposed that Sanders is little more than a rightwing reactionary, a person who sides with rich corporations at the expense of labor. When asked about open borders–a policy that is unambiguously, by many orders of magnitude, the single most effective way to reduce world poverty–Sanders said he opposes it simply because some donors to rival campaigns support it.

Recently, one of Sanders’s hired guns, an intellectual prostitute named Richard Eskow, wrote a propaganda piece in which he knowingly lied to potential voters about the economic case for open borders. Eskow, now in damage control for the Sanders campaign, does an excellent job deceiving potential voters into thinking that the open borders movement is little more than a Koch-funded conspiracy among libertarian whackos. Eskow knows better, of course. After all, he quotes from my peer-reviewed Oxford University Press book, in which I outline the economic case for open borders, referring readers to leading peer-reviewed mainstream economics articles that explain how it will double world product and help the poor. But, Eskow doesn’t care; he’s willing to lie for his boss, just like Doug and Seth do on House of Cards.

Bas van der Vossen and I will further defend open borders in our forthcoming book Global Justice as Global Freedom, also with Oxford University Press. For a defense of open borders from a leftist perspective, see also Joseph Carens’ book, also with Oxford. (Perhaps Eskow will next try to deceive readers into believing that OUP is a Koch front?)

At any rate, here are some excerpts from the discussion of open borders in one of the early drafts of Libertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know. (Any typos were corrected in the print version.)

What would libertarians do about illegal immigrants?

            Libertarians grant amnesty to undocumented immigrants. They advocate open borders and free immigration.

Libertarians believe free immigration would alleviate much of the world’s most severe poverty. Immigration restrictions prevent labor from moving where it is needed most. They distort the world economy—in fact, immigration restrictions are the single most inefficient policy governments implement. When economists estimate the welfare losses from immigration restrictions, they tend to conclude that eliminating immigration restrictions would double world product. The poorest immigrants would see the largest gains. In his survey article, summarizing the extent research on the deadweight loss of labor mobility restrictions, economist Michael Clemens jokes that we have “trillion dollar bills lying on the sidewalk.” We just need to pick them up.

Libertarians do not just say that free immigration would produce good consequences. They also believe that immigration restrictions are pernicious. Libertarians believe immigration restrictions impose poverty, suffering, pain, and death on some of the most vulnerable people in the world.

Philosopher Michael Huemer explains this with a thought experiment: Imagine starving Marvin heads to the market looking for food. Marvin has little to trade. However, suppose there are people at the market willing to trade food for whatever Marvin has. Imagine that unless someone stops him, Marvin will successfully get to the market, make the trade, and eat. However, now imagine that you forcibly prevent Marvin from getting to the market. You post guards to keep him out. The guards continually capture Marvin and turn him away. Marvin can’t barter for food. He starves and dies.

In this situation, Huemer says, you have done something morally comparable to killing Marvin. His blood is on your hands.

In another version of the story, imagine Marvin is not starving, but is instead desperately poor. Imagine that if Marvin makes it to the market, he will make some trades and instantly become ten times richer. Imagine Marvin will be able to send large amounts of money back to his poor village to feed his entire extended family. However, again, you post guards, who turn Marvin away. In this case, you force Marvin to stay poor. It was not your fault Marvin was poor to begin with, but it is your fault he remains poor.

Huemer admonishes us: In these thought experiments, you do not simply fail to help Marvin. That is, you not doing something equivalent to walking by a beggar without donating spare change. Instead, you actively hurt Marvin by using violence to prevent him from making a trade with a willing partner. It is as if you saw someone else offering a beggar $5 to wash a car window, but you scared the beggar and the driver away with your gun.

Libertarians believe immigration restrictions are morally equivalent to keeping Marvin from the market in the thought experiments above. Some people in rich countries want to hire poor foreigners. The foreigners want the jobs. These jobs make the difference between life and death or prosperity and poverty. Immigrants to the United States usually see their income rise by an order of magnitude or more—they go from desperately poor to relatively wealthy almost overnight. But the United States and other countries post armed sentries around their markets. They use violence to stop foreigners from making life-saving or life-changing trades with willing partners. This is morally equivalent to killing the foreigners or forcing them to stay poor.

Many on the left in American and European politics claim to care about the poor. But their hearts bleed for the American and European lower classes—that is, for people who are wealthy by world standards—not for the world’s poorest people. [This describes Bernie Sanders. Sanders is of course in the global top 1%, just like I am. An American at the poverty line is, after adjusting for cost of living, in the top 15%.] Many people on the progressive left actively try to restrain the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people from making life-saving and life-changing trades with willing employers. They thus condemn the world’s poor to death and misery. The progressive left is delighted with me when I donate money to the poor through OxFam. But the left forbids me from hiring the poor to mow my lawn, even though that helps them more than an OxFam donation.

From the libertarian point of view, if you do not advocate open immigration, any claim to be concerned about social justice or the well being of the poor is mere pretense.

Libertarians add: next time you see a person protesting sweatshops, ask the protestor what she thinks about immigration. She probably opposes allowing poor and unskilled immigrants to travel freely in search of work. But when we have an economic system in which everything—financial instruments, money, factories, services—can be globalized and move freely across borders, except poor, unskilled labor, what happens to the poor people who supply unskilled labor? They will not be able to travel in search of opportunities. They will instead be forced to sit and wait for opportunity to find them. It is thus no surprise that the only opportunities that find them involve low wages and sweaty conditions. In short, our immigration laws make the most vulnerable members of the world sitting ducks for exploitation. [In other words, Sanders sides with the corporations at the expense of labor.]

Those who defend immigration restrictions might agree that such restrictions appear evil at first glance. However, they argue, the restrictions can be justified. They argue that

1. Free immigration would disrupt and destroy native culture.
2. Free immigration reduces the wages of native-born workers.
3. Free immigration would cause high crime.
4. Immigrants will consume too many welfare services.

Libertarians say that even if the first worry were true, it is not a strong enough concern to justify condemning the world’s poor to poverty, suffering, and death. Perhaps there is some value in maintaining a distinctive French culture and identity, but it is not valuable enough to justify forcing millions like Marvin to starve. Moreover, libertarians deny that immigrants destroy culture. First of all, immigrants add to culture. As economist Bryan Caplan points out, America’s cultural centers (such as New York City and Los Angeles) have high immigration. Its “cultural wastelands” (such as North and South Dakota, Alaska, and Alabama) have low immigration. The economist Tyler Cowen might add: most “native” cultures are themselves the product of past cultural synthesis. The native cultures we want to preserve arose from past movements of people and their ideas.

Libertarians respond to the second worry by pointing out that it flies against the consensus of professional economists who have studied the issue. Numerous economists have studied the effect immigration has on native wages. The most pessimistic of these studies tend to conclude that immigration only has a small (<5%) and short-term negative effect on the wages of low-skill native workers. These negative effects disappear after a few years. Other native workers’ wages increase. Immigrants do not usually replace native workers; instead, they bring in new skills and produce new jobs. Thus, even on the most pessimistic accounts, immigration helps most natives. It hurts only a small minority of natives, and it only hurts them a small amount for a small time. This is hardly enough to justify condemning the Marvins of the world to poverty, suffering, and death. Again, note that this is what the pessimistic studies say. In general, economists think immigration would increases most domestic workers’ wages.

Libertarians respond to the third complaint by saying that the facts do not back it up. Sociologist Robert Samson found that first-generation Mexican immigrants are only about half as likely to commit violent crimes as third-generation Americans (of any nationality). The economists Kristin Butcher and Anne Piehl find that immigrants are incarcerated at only 1/5^th the rate of the native born. Given that immigrants tend to be poor, we should expect them to commit more crime, yet they do not. Native-born working class white people—people who themselves tend to oppose free immigration—are much more likely to go to prison than the immigrants they blame for crime. Libertarians conclude: Immigration does not appear to increase crime. Yet, even if allowing free immigration did increase crime, it would have to increase crime dramatically before that would justify condemning the Marvins of the world to poverty, suffering, and death.

Libertarians have a simple response to the fourth objection: If we can’t afford to give immigrants welfare benefits, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t let them immigrate. Instead, it means we should let them immigrate but deny them welfare benefits. However callous that may sound, it is far less callous than forbidding immigration. After all, in neither case do we pay them welfare benefits. Yet, when we allow them to immigrate, we greatly improve their welfare.

Sanders doesn’t care. He’s a union man, and, as my Marxist friends agree, a corporatist. He’s perfectly happy to impose suffering, death, and misery onto the world’s poor in order to protect a minority of Americans’ wages. He’s willing to destroy an entire extra Earth’s worth of economic production (production that would mostly have benefitted the poor) in order to protect a minority of Americans’ wages. And he’s happy to lie to uninformed voters about the economics of immigration, if doing so will help him win the power he so desperately craves.

What a vile, evil man.

UPDATE: In all seriousness, Sanders is probably a nice man who loves his kids, even if he endorses dumb ideas about economic policy. If we want to know why people like this get play in American politics, we shouldn’t focus on blaming the politicians. The problem is that winning politicians have to appeal to votes, but voters are ignorant, misinformed, and irrational. The reason they’re like that is not that they’re stupid, but that democracy incentivizes them to be that way.