I won't comment on the brilliant part, other than to say that it's worth reading and you should check it out.
The basic thesis of the article, which I agree with wholeheartedly is in this quote: "...This prohibition [on immigration], however, is un-American and immoral. The basic principle of America—the principle of individual rights—demands a policy of open immigration."
The problem is in the next quote: "Open immigration does not mean that anyone may enter the country at any location or in any manner he chooses; it is not unchecked or unmonitored immigration."
To have a right to any activity is to have a right to the unchecked and unmonitored pursuit of it. The problem would be apparent to most if I said "Free speech doesn't mean unchecked or unmonitored speech." A state which requires all publications to submit to some kind of approval process can claim to uphold free speech, but not honestly.
Open immigration absolutely does mean unchecked and unmonitored immigration. It also means a great big unchecked flood of immigrants. Morally, we have no right to check this flood and practically it's suicidal not to welcome it. The fear of these huddled masses is sustained by a feast of undeserved respect and it's central to the issue. It has to be faced head-on by all advocates of immigration with the mockery and derision it deserves. When you say "I'm for more legal immigration--but, don't worry, we'll screen out the bad ones." What stands out is that you acknowledge and respect the widespread fear. All statements concerning current US immigration issues will be measured by how they address the concerns about the huddled masses who Pat Buchanan would have us believe are yearning--not to breathe free, but rather to turn America into Mexico. The history and present day reality of immigrants supports Emma Lazarus and shits all over Buchanan.
Harry Binswanger answers the practical concerns best Money Quotes:
It is asked: 'Won't the immigrants take our jobs?' The answer is: 'Yes, so we can go on to better, higher-paying jobs.'
A popular misconception is that immigrants come here to get welfare. To the extent that is true, immigrants do constitute a burden. But this issue is mooted by the passage, under the Clinton Administration, of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity and Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), which makes legal permanent residents ineligible for most forms of welfare for 5 years. I support this kind of legislation.
Further, if the fear is of non-working immigrants, why is the pending legislation aimed at employers of immigrants?
This other article by Binswanger also in Capmag is shorter and deals with the (bullshit) concerns about immigration and terrorism. Capitalism Magazine is a must-read in general.
And This one, by Steve Brockerman shovels a much needed scoop of litter onto the fear of overpopulation.