I've heard and addressed your faith-based "free market will change all human nature at once" argument many times.
The free market doesn't change human nature. It is simply the best system, given the attributes of human nature and the flexibility required in order to adapt to changing conditions and needs.
In fact, if you weren't taking a statist position on this issue, you would be the first to admit that the free market is the only system that doesn't attempt to "change human nature at once" or in any time frame at all.
In reality, free market only works among rational people who agree to respect each-other's natural rights and not to initiate violence, that is in a society that goes through natural selection to reduce the number of people who'd whack you on the head and steal your wallet. Free market didn't help my great-grandparents in Russia when Communists came to take away their property, and they won't help you if a gang of well-armed Communists come to take away yours. Or are you about to tell me that this land is inherently magical and Communism is impossible here even if same economic conditions are created?
If you want to prevent an invasion of parasites, then you simply remove the incentive for them to arrive or to stay here:
1. No state welfare, education, medical care or housing for non-citizens.
2. No more naturalized citizens.
Government services and regulations that benefit the poor are bad for the economy. [Examples of such "services" include Welfare (both personal and corporate to "protect" jobs), Food Stamps, agricultural subsidies that lower cost of some basic food items, various programs that help pay the rent and energy bills, subsidized water / sewage / roads to bring down real-estate costs in poor neighborhoods, etc. Examples of such regulations include hospital emergency room mandates, minimum wage and other employment laws, etc.]
While getting rid of these things for citizens is probably not politically feasible in the near future, eliminating them for aliens would be easy; much easier than building walls and requiring state approval for anyone who wants the "privilege" to work, rent or drive.
Most of the ~6.2 billion non-Americans in this world are poor, and with no entry restrictions most of the people coming to this country would be poor, and their presence in our society would put very strong (but irrational) political pressure to expand those services to the point of collapse.
Wrong. If we were foolish enough to open the door to unrestricted immigration without first removing the availability of state health, education and welfare programs to aliens ( very unlikely), then, given the problems that this foolish policy would cause, the political pressure to remove these programs for aliens would be overwhelming.
You want America to become the only country in the world with truly open borders, and you want it done ASAP, as in right now. I believe this should be phased in over many decades, and will probably take most of the 21st century, and we need merit-based immigration quotas in the meantime.
While this is probably the most that we can expect and that's being optimistic, it is still wrong. Making it "merit" based only makes it more unjust and has the politically destabilizing effect of creating an over-class of aliens who use citizens to preform their menial labor. This is a sure recipe for disaster.
You seem to have irrational faith that all people, or at least most people in this world, are basically good, and would respect your property rights and work hard within the capitalist system. History shows otherwise: most countries in the world have had or have been on the verge of a communist revolution, and having the right to bear arms would only make this revolution more probable and more bloody. The only countries not to go communist were the wealthiest of countries, that didn't have too many poor people they could not control, and the countries where the communists were fought back through interventionism by those wealthy countries.
You have this prejudice that foreigners are somehow inferior to us and that even after going through the self screening process of having the courage to start a new life in an alien environment, that they will remain a poor and exploited underclass, too stupid to advance themselves and seething with resentment.
This is not representative of the behavior of immigrants to countries that have freedom of commerce and no state handouts.
You seem to think that the immigrant success stories you've heard thus-far are representative of the types of immigrants we'd get if we had open borders. The truth is that there has been a lot of natural selection in the immigration process. I've been through the immigration process myself - I was only 10 years old then, but I still understood how difficult it was for my parents to make it here. It took years to get an exit visa from Russia, and we only got it because we were ethnic Jews and had a huge lobby campaigning for us in Washington, and my uncle was living here (he got out around 1979, when USSR wanted to prevent the West's boycott of the Moscow Olympics by letting some Jews out of the country). Getting permission to enter the country was also very difficult. My mother coached me very carefully on what to say when I was interviewed - to denounce Communism, to say my parents always have been dissidents, etc. Immigration would be next to impossible for your average Russian, if it wasn't half of Russia would be here by now. Yes, the ones who voted 80% for Putin, with the rest of the votes going to Communists and Fascists. Most people in the world have exactly the government that they deserve (with the exception of countries like Taiwan and South Korea, where America imposed a better government than then deserve). Some might behave differently in America, but from my experience in observing different kinds of immigrants I believe that most would not.
As you already admitted, most ex-Soviet immigrants are milking the system. The way to eliminate this problem is a policy of open immigration which, in itself, will necessitate the elimination of statist programs and naturalized citizenship for aliens. Those who do not behave in a civilized manor will either not make it here and leave on their own or their behavior will get them deported.
You have irrational faith in the idea that other self-interested nations won't exploit America's open borders for their gain. Remember, just a few decades ago the nations of this world were on the verge of nuking each-other, and nationalism is still very strong in places like Russia, China, and the Middle East. If Russians (or, more likely, the Chinese) came to be in majority in Alaska, would it remain part of America for long?
If they could come here and make a life for themselves without any help (actually interference) from the state, they would become the most patriotic Americans of all, especially because they were welcomed free men and not citizen-slaves to the state.
You have irrational faith in the idea that all the socialist government programs can be done away with overnight, and you make your arguments as if you have a magic wand that would do so. But in reality there is no magic wand, and getting rid of socialism in this country would be very difficult. If you crunch the numbers, you will see that the bulk of people opposing socialism in this country are middle-class and have been here for many generations, while most immigrants vote for more socialism. There are exceptions, of course - the non-socialist immigrants, that is precisely the ones we should selectively allow into this country.
With an open immigration policy, aliens cannot be allowed to participate in socialist programs, nor to become citizens.
You seem to have irrational faith that socialism is the work of the devil and once it's cast out it will stay out for good. The reality is that it takes perpetual vigilance to keep any country from going socialist, and in order for that to happen the people of that country need to be taught to understand capitalism and why it is good and why socialism is bad. In order words, the core culture of this country needs to be protected, which is impossible if you have open borders.
Because of the environment for aliens that is necessarily engendered by an open immigration policy, it is the aliens who through necessity and the familiarity brought about by daily exposure to the realities of the marketplace, will be first to understand and appreciate capitalism. It is from the aliens that the citizens will learn.
As an aside... You claim to be a "Pro-Lifer" - does that mean you support a prohibition on abortion, with the state enforcing criminal laws on women and doctors who have or perform abortions? That sounds far, far more totalitarian than my proposal of long-term gradualism in opening the borders...
I believe that after about three months, the unborn child has a functional nervous system and sufficient human attributes to possibly be considered a person. If there's any doubt about this proposition, then I believe that it is better to err on the side of caution where the life of a person is involved."First, do no harm."
We don't need a state in order to have governments that protect people from murder, but if there is a state that monopolises the use of force, then I see no reason why laws against murder are more totalitarian if they protect everyone equally.
You seem to be unwilling to re-examine your faith-based assumptions in light of many historical examples of mobs of poor people destabilizing societies and throwing them into violent chaos and communist dictatorship. You seem to be unwilling to examine the nature of the current "Welfare state" that was created in modern first-world countries to prevent this outcome. You only see an image of the free-market utopia you've imagined, and you want to transport yourself to that utopia in an instant flight of fantasy, without solving the long chain of challenges that need to be resolved in order to make that utopia possible in the real world.
Underclasses and unstable groups with greater inclination toward criminality and gang behavior are the result of the oppression and perverse incentives of the state. The typical statist "solution" to state caused problems are more state interference, leading to further, more difficult, problems. Open immigration, for the reasons I outlined above, is an important way to reverse this destructive, anti-liberty process.
Just as you make a statist argument for immigration regulations, you could also make an even scarier argument for population control regulations, environmental regulations, business regulations, agricultural regulations, racial regulations, employment regulation or medical regulations.
The list is endless, but all these arguments have one thing in common and that is that all state regulations, which are miserable failures at bringing about their objectives and which all have unintended consequences, fail to take into account the self correcting (self regulating) nature of the free market.