Liberty Magazine‘s October issue has two very powerful, provocative pieces on immigration, by Stephen Cox and Bruce Ramsey. Cox’s especially presents an unusually forthright, honest, and open libertarian case against unlimited immigration. (I did not read yet the pro-immigration piece by Richard Fields, so can’t comment on it.) I will also say that the latest issue of The New Individualist also has an eloquent Objectivist defense of fairly open borders. But Cox’s piece is very well done and though provoking. It would be interesting to see the response by honest libertarian open-borders advocates to his many fine points.For more on this topic: Hoppe’s writings on immigration; and my A Simple Libertarian Argument Against Unrestricted Immigration and Open Borders (and followup).
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/5601/liberty-on-immigration/
Liberty on Immigration
Previous post: Marketwatch on Mises.org
Next post: Can the State Improve a Hobbesian World?
{ 85 comments }
← Previous Comments
A little bit of objectivity is called for here.
What is the wave of Mexican immigration but 1)a mass movement of Mexicans demonstrating their preference to earn higher US salaries; 2) a mass movement of Mexicans demonstrating their preference for greater economic and personal freedom; 3)a mass movement of Mexicans demonstrating their preference of US welfare policies to Mexican welfare policies; 4) a mass movement of Mexicans to give their children US citizenship. Each of these motivations is fundamentally economic at its core, and requires a different economic solution. Involving any level of government destroys the economy of any solution and cannot but be racist in application.
Conversely, getting rid of government will strengthen the rights of property owners, and ALL land in the US will come to be owned by invested private owners. This will by itself raise the cost of immigration, fo no longer will immigrants be as free to traverse federal / state/ private property as they are now.
Number two, the welfare-state preference will cease to be a driver – if all residents had to pay for food, housing, schooling, and medical care as well as save for their own retirements, this would also be a check on immigration.
Number four, removing “birthright citizenship” as Ron Paul has advocated would serve as a check on immigration initially, however as we erode federal government away, this citizenship would be replaced by state or local “citizenship”, then dissolve into property rights. All would need permission of property owners to move about or occupy a space. This would also be a check on immigration.
The bottom line is that examining open borders within the context of the current regime is unproductive, because it simply ignores the fundamental differences between the two systems that are relevant to the case.
As an aside, I have been an “illegal” immigrant (Trinidad & Tobago, in my case), working beyond the term of my temporary visa, and it did not result in the collapse of Trinidadian society, unlike the subsequent immigration of rappers like DMX, LOL.
Vince,
Your post is from the immigrant’s perspective. Did the people already here get a say in whether the labor pool would be expanded and the population density increased because the elites in government and business said they should be?
Birthright citizenship and legal immigration turns the immigrants’ sentiments naturally to the federal government, not the state where they take up residence. The institutional memory of the anti-federalist system which was originally intended is fast disappearing.
Also, if Mexicans are so liberty-oriented, why is their country a kleptocracy? Either Mexicans are simply opportunistic, or the Mexican elite are offloading their angry underclass on the United States to avoid reforming their system. It would follow that open-borders advocates are the Mexican elite’s useful idiots.
Your last sentence seems to be an acknowledgment of the problem that unchecked immigration can pose. It also acknowledges that culture is a real thing. And given that, it is fair to say that people have a right to defend their culture. A liberal society, for example, must discriminate in favor of like-minded individuals if it wishes to maintain its character. Otherwise, it will be taken over by more ruthless, more motivated non-liberals.
Reactionary, I am sensitive to your concern about cultural and political effects on immigration – I just wanted to point out that in the absence of pervasive government, the dynamic would shift quite a bit, possibly enough to negate the concerns about cultural annihilation.
And it may be useful to look at who Mexico’s policies are driving here – not middle and upper-class Mexicans, who enjoy many advantages, but poor and working class Mexicans. You can’t really believe these people (as a group) are escaping a kleptocracy to steal abroad, can you?
But I can’t see how you can square restrictions on who can be hired or who can be sold / rented housing with a liberty-maximizing outlook.
“Wouldn’t it? Could you address Paul Edwards’ argument above? Given the reality that the state has appropriated the right to discriminate to itself, can we not ask that it discriminate in a responsible fashion?”
I would say this is intolerably dangerous. First of all, when it discriminates, it does so through central planning and with collateral damage against invited immigrants. It keeps out people that some Americans want in. There is no way for the state to emulate the market — this is one of the strongest critiques of the state.
Here’s a parallel. In a free society, without the so-called neutrality laws, we would be free to send our money to revolutionary groups overseas. We’d be free to aid in foreign liberation. But so long as the state monopolizes American militarism abroad, what is the proper libertarian position regarding what it should do? Non-intervention is the default. Although in principle we would be free to go to Iraq, for example, and help Iraqis liberate themselves from Saddam Hussein, the war as it actually has happened has been entirely unlibertarian. It has employed violence against innocents. It has relied on taxation. It has been conducted all wrong and resulted in losses of liberty. It has in fact been run by power-hungry politicians whose only real-life motivation is expanding and protecting their own power, regardless of how many innocent lives are hurt, and who are not held liable for their actions. Thus we see that trusting the state to do something that we would in principle be allowed to do voluntarily is a huge mistake. All of these problems apply to violent state enforcement along the borders.
“Exclusivity and discrimination strike me as hallmarks of a private property order, as Hoppe has documented. Doubtless, they would be practiced to a much greater extent in a libertarian society, as they are wherever government is unable to outlaw them.”
How about affirmative action? Private schools tend to use it, as should be their right. Does that mean that public schools, emulating what the private sector is allowed to do, should use affirmative action? Or is there some reason we might want to err against discrimination practiced by the state?
Reactionary,
Mexicans are not so liberty oriented. Neither are Americans, which is why our government is so quick to manipulate the Mexican government when it tries to liberalize its drug laws.
Furthermore, Americans do express their preference for this pool of labor whenever they buy anything produced by Mexican immigrants at a lower cost.
Anthony: “How about affirmative action? Private schools tend to use it, as should be their right. Does that mean that public schools, emulating what the private sector is allowed to do, should use affirmative action? Or is there some reason we might want to err against discrimination practiced by the state?”
Yeah, I don’t know of any libertarian arguments in favor of affirmative action (even engaged in by the state).
Stephan, your article, which I enjoyed reading a couple times, is not actually a “libertarian defense of [state] affirmative action.” It is rather a libertarian defense of not empowering the federal government to overturn state affirmative action policy.
As you say in your article: “[A]ffirmative action practiced by state universities is unlibertarian.”
It is the federalism, not the state policy, that you are defending. And I agree with you on the federalism, which is why I would oppose letting the federal government overturn a state restriction on immigration. But that restriction, as conducted by a government, is in my view still unlibertarian.
You have long expressed frustration that centralist libertarians would conflate a decentralist opposition to the feds overturning a more local policy with support for that policy. But now you seem to be doing just that.
What relevance does your article have to this discussion, except to reveal that you agree, in principle, that “affirmative action practiced by state universities is unlibertarian”? And if you agree with this, is it because there is something wrong with trusting the state to discriminate?
Reactionary;
“Your post is from the immigrant’s perspective.”
I disagree, it is simply an analytical perspective – these people are voting with their feet – why?
“Did the people already here get a say in whether the labor pool would be expanded and the population density increased”
As it regards their rights in their own property, yes they should. To the extent that this is denied them, government is to blame, not immigrants.
“because the elites in government and business said they should be?”
These elites would have much less power, save for government, so why aren’t you applying that argument here, instead of taking elite rule for granted?
“Birthright citizenship and legal immigration turns the immigrants’ sentiments naturally to the federal government, not the state where they take up residence.”
See my point, which you make, re federal citizenship, above.
“…if Mexicans are so liberty-oriented, why is their country a kleptocracy?”
Wouldn’t that EXPLAIN, rather than REFUTE this reason for emigration?
“…the Mexican elite are offloading their angry underclass on the United States to avoid reforming their system.”
Agree, again, you make my point.
“Your last sentence seems to be an acknowledgment of the problem that unchecked immigration can pose.”
My last sentence was tongue-in-cheek, not meant to be a policy statement. T&T are indeed struggling with cultural degradation, but the rot in their case comes from THE US.
Anthony,
Your position seems to me unnecessarily absolutist. E.g., the fact that the state has taken over law enforcement hardly justifies an argument that police should not arrest murderers. Your position also precludes an argument against a reduction in marginal tax rates, on the grounds that the state should not tax at all.
And I’ve yet to see you address the practical reality: immigration enables the welfare state (and, increasingly, the military) to import more constituents. Like I said earlier, perhaps the importation of millions of ethnically conscious, culturally distinct peoples can bring about the devolution of the United States. But the more likely outcome seems to be an indefinite expansion of the federal government’s tax base.
Reactionary,
“Your position seems to me unnecessarily absolutist. E.g., the fact that the state has taken over law enforcement hardly justifies an argument that police should not arrest murderers.”
Murder is a clear violation of rights. Traveling is not. It depends where you’re traveling to.
But treating public property like private property leads to some absurd implications. Do you think the state should prevent people from carrying guns in public, just because a lot of people wouldn’t want you carrying a gun into their homes?
“Your position also precludes an argument against a reduction in marginal tax rates, on the grounds that the state should not tax at all.”
No, any step that shrinks the state and expands liberty is good. State border controls do the opposite.
“And I’ve yet to see you address the practical reality: immigration enables the welfare state (and, increasingly, the military) to import more constituents.”
So does childbirth among the poor. So does freedom of speech for statists. But direct state restrictions on these, even if they reduce the welfare or warfare state in the long-term, are intolerable.
“Like I said earlier, perhaps the importation of millions of ethnically conscious, culturally distinct peoples can bring about the devolution of the United States. But the more likely outcome seems to be an indefinite expansion of the federal government’s tax base.”
I think it’s more likely that it would bring down leviathan.
Anthony,
Taken in context, it seems that in writing this: “[A]ffirmative action practiced by state universities is unlibertarian.”, Stephan was stating part of an argument he was intending to and went on to refute later in the same article:
Kinsella:
“But this argument is unpersuasive. First, the standard for what is “rational” or “irrational” government policy is nonrigorous. Under libertarianism, the owner of private property is the one who gets to decide what to do with it. Ownership is simply the right to control. Of course, the owner’s own preferences, values, and judgments factor into his decisions of how he uses the property. But beyond saying that the owner has the right to control his own property as he sees fit, how can libertarianism distinguish between “irrational” and “rational” uses of property? As I have pointed out elsewhere, the fundamental social and ethical function of property rights is to prevent interpersonal conflict over scarce resources. Libertarianism provides no objective way to classify uses of property as “rational” or “irrational” (except perhaps with reference to which actions generate profit and which generate loss, but surely we do not want to say that all non-profit uses of one’s property is “irrational” or “immoral” in the Randian sense).
“The problem with public schools is that they are owned by a criminal agency, and supported by stolen property. Of course they should be shut down. But given that state universities exist, the question is simply, How should they be run? Well, if they are going to be schools, then they must do what private schools do: namely, own and control facilities, hire teachers, attract students, set admissions policies, and so forth. I.e., try to run the place, by and large, as a private owner would.
“Would a private school ever employ affirmative action in its admissions policies? Apparently so. There seems to be an assumption among hyper-individualist libertarians that everything should be based on “merit,” whatever that means. When the liberal points out that rich WASP “legacy” students get admitted into Ivy League universities based on their parents’ previous attendance or through political pull, rather than merit, conservatives and libertarians brush this off, although it is a perfectly good point. George W. Bush was probably admitted into Yale not because of merit, but because of his family connections. And so what? For the libertarian, this poses no problem: the owner of property can do what he wants with it. A college can set whatever admissions criteria it wants. It is not surprising most universities want to use merit as one factor, in order to attract bright students. It is also not difficult to see why a legacy system might develop.
“As for affirmative action, it is not necessarily “irrational”. Is it necessarily “irrational” for a university (private or public) to try to obtain a more racially-diverse student population? Who knows? What if the trustees of the university believe they can attract more and/or higher-quality students if they can claim they are more diverse? What if the trustees simply want to help out historically-disadvantaged minorities? What is wrong with wanting to give a leg up to minorities? What is irrational about wanting to work with, employ, or service one’s own kind? Any of these can be reasons for employing affirmative action.
“Affirmative action by universities is not irrational. It is simply the exercise of authority over property rights. The problem with public schools is that they exist, not that how they decide to control the property that they have, given that they do exist.
“… Moreover, unlike a law regulating sexual conduct, an affirmative action policy of a state university has no victims (in the libertarian sense). The problem is with the taxation that funds it, not with the university administrators setting admissions policies or otherwise using the property as if they own it.”
Anthony,
Well in this instance, the immigrant is travelling at the behest of the central government and regardless of the objections of the local population. There is no right to travel, whereas there is at least arguably a right to bear children or preach your philosophy. It also follows that you have no right to insist intervening property owners grant an easement for your guests. Therefore, immigration is not the exercise of a fundamental right.
“No, any step that shrinks the state and expands liberty is good. State border controls do the opposite.”
So would you oppose ANY state border controls? Can I bring in my buddies in the Russian mafia? People with communicable diseases? Can I bring in 1 million, 5 million, 20 million people if I desire?
It strikes me that state border controls emulate private property, and the absence of border controls establishes a tragedy of the commons.
Paul, sure, but it seems to me that it’s unlibertarian for the state to discriminate, just because the taxpayers might want it to, in either case.
Stephan says, “The problem with public schools is that they exist, not that how they decide to control the property that they have, given that they do exist.”
Taken to its extreme, this would imply that, given that there are public roads and other facilities, no particular policy is more problematic than any other. Roads along the border that do not discriminate are not any worse than roads that do discriminate.
But beyond this, there is the actual exercise of police power along the border. This employs taxation and central planning, whereas a policy of no such controls means less state activity. If it leads to more state activity elsewhere, that’s interesting, but a utilitarian concern when we’re discussing the state activity at hand.
If public university affirmative action is acceptable, and immigration controls by the state are tolerable, given that the state is so involved, then this seems to open the door to virtually any state policy over what it already controls—no free speech in public universities, no free speech on public roads, random searches in public parks—since these would of course be allowed on private property.
Reactionary, insofar as there is no right to travel, there is also no right to preach your philosophy or have kids — all of these rights are grounded in property rights. And if you can say someone has no right to immigrate into a country’s public sphere, does it not also follow that someone has no right to speak in the public sphere?
The business about cracking down on employers is especially troubling. I fail to see how this isn’t a direct assault on the private property rights of those who already live here, and their right to invite people onto their property. If the externalized costs associated with such invitations, due to the socialized sectors of society, are enough for us to support more state action to prevent them, then I do not see how this argument can’t extend to nearly any other policy.
“So would you oppose ANY state border controls? Can I bring in my buddies in the Russian mafia? People with communicable diseases? Can I bring in 1 million, 5 million, 20 million people if I desire?”
I don’t trust the state with the power to stop it, or think that the reason 20 million diseased persons don’t enter the country is because of the state.
“It strikes me that state border controls emulate private property, and the absence of border controls establishes a tragedy of the commons.”
The state establishes a tragedy of the commons. State border controls don’t emulate private property any more than a policy of gun control in the public sphere, or random searches in public, emulates a property right to impose such conditions on those who enter private property.
Adding to what JK said here:
“Some say ideally, no attempt should be made to restrict immigration, but the welfare state should be immediately and totally shut down; but since the welfare state is a reality that isn’t going away anytime soon, we have to face that reality and restrict immigration. It’s strange that such people won’t face the realities about ‘sealing’ borders.”
I think sealing the borders is totally unrealistic, and just as politically implausible as (as well as much more technically implausible than) repealing Civil Rights and welfare and privatizing lots of the commons. I’d prefer any move in that direction, which shrinks the state. The fact that politicians like Hillary are more willing to consider harsher crackdowns should tell us something. I very much doubt those who implement immigration policy have the maintanence of a liberal society and the prevention of tyranny in mind.
Anthony,
“If public university affirmative action is acceptable, and immigration controls by the state are tolerable, given that the state is so involved, then this seems to open the door to virtually any state policy over what it already controls—no free speech in public universities, no free speech on public roads, random searches in public parks—since these would of course be allowed on private property.”
I think it is more precise to recognize that the negative consequences you cite above are a result of the fact that the aggressive state monopolizes and controls the universities, the public road systems the parks and in general access to the geographical territory it claims jurisdiction over. It is because it monopolizes in the first place that these risks are always looming, not because we might hope, given that it monopolizes, that it might monopolize in a less destructive, rather than a more destructive manner.
“The fact that politicians like Hillary are more willing to consider harsher crackdowns should tell us something.”
Does it give you no pause that the Wall Street Journal and the Bush administration are so firmly in favor of increasing immigration?
“I very much doubt those who implement immigration policy have the maintanence of a liberal society and the prevention of tyranny in mind.”
They don’t. What they have in mind is a social democracy with a global tax base.
And you bring up an important point re: liberal societies. Again, a liberal society must discriminate against non-liberals in order to maintain its character. At that point of course, it ceases to be a liberal society. With all due respect to the classical liberals, this is why I don’t bother with the pretense of liberalism.
Reactionary, I am not necessarily in favor of “increasing immigration.” That’s not my goal, at least in political terms. Bush’s immigration policy is terrible, and involves more draconian enforcement, more spying, more federal bureaucracy. The WSJ likes having a class of cheap laborers, but does not call for getting the feds out of the way. I oppose all of this nonsense, including the immigration laws Bush has and will likely sign.
Paul, you write, “I think it is more precise to recognize that the negative consequences you cite above are a result of the fact that the aggressive state monopolizes and controls the universities, the public road systems the parks and in general access to the geographical territory it claims jurisdiction over. It is because it monopolizes in the first place that these risks are always looming, not because we might hope, given that it monopolizes, that it might monopolize in a less destructive, rather than a more destructive manner.”
Sure, but doesn’t that concede that such policies are negative consequences?
Anthony: Paul is right: I was setting up the standard libertarian contention that “Affirmative action (by states) is unlibertarian” to show that it is not a sound argument. In my view, “Affirmative action by universities is not irrational. It is simply the exercise of authority over property rights. The problem with public schools is that they exist, not that how they decide to control the property that they have, given that they do exist.”
But I disagree that “Taken to its extreme, this would imply that, given that there are public roads and other facilities, no particular policy is more problematic than any other.” In fact as I argued in my piece on immigration, some rules set by a state regarding the use of property it owns are preferable to others–ceteris paribus, a rule that provides more in-kind restitution than one that does not is preferable, for example.
Elsewhere you said, “I think sealing the borders is totally unrealistic…” So then what are you worried about? Are you really serious here? Of course we could put up a big fence–for about $10B as Pat Buchanan argues, I think–and it would certainly drastically reduce illegal immigration. Would it be 100%? Of course not. I don’t see the relevance.
Along these lines, someone else said “The world has billions and billions of people – you can’t burry yourself in a hole.” ? Sure you can. “You can’t put up a fence and pretend that them and all their problems will go away.” ? Who is pretending this? “You are more likely to be overrun if you don’t engage them than if you do.” ? So, if we open the borders, we’ll be overrun; if we don’t open them, we will eventually be overrun; …. so… we should do it sooner rather than later? What kind of argument is this?
I think it’s fallacious to refer to a government wall as something “we” are putting up. It is a collectivist myth, just like talking about welfare in terms of “we.”
And what I’m concerned about, despite the fact that sealing the borders is unrealistic, is that it violates liberty even for the state to try. As for the wall, to the extent that it can effectively keep people out, it can also effectively keep people in. You really trust the state with that?
Stephan, you say, “ceteris paribus, a rule that provides more in-kind restitution than one that does not is preferable, for example.”
In-kind restitution? It seems to me that the greatest victims of the US government are foreigners who have lost family members in aggressive wars. Does this mean US policy should be bent to their preferences?
They don’t count, because they were asking for it. Right?
Are you just joking?
Is there a problem with a bunch of U.S. citizens marching into Mexico, waving U.S. flags while demanding Mexican citizenship, and threatening to vote to redistribute the property of Mexican citizens to themselves?
Some of you act like it would be unlibertarian to use defensive force to remove a missile which was in process of being built to be aimed and launched at your house. Plenty of illegal immigrants are marching with Mexican flags while saluting famous socialist Mexican organizers. It’s an invasion. It’s a direct threat to expand the welfare state.
What Constitutional limits are there to total redistributive theft? There are now none. There are no limits to taxes, no limits to confiscation, no limits to regulation, no limits to guild monopolization and accredidation. The only limits left are the perceived pragmatic practical reactive consquences such actions would bring.
Dealing with law-breaking illegal immigrants is a proper police function of a limited government. A crime is committed every time an i.d. is forged, a crime is committed every time an illegal immigrant visits a hospital and doesn’t pay, a crime is committed every time an illegal sends their children to a public school. If good fences make good neighbors, bad government makes neighbors enemies. And nobody has the right to invite someone else into your house or anywhere else when it’s being charged to your tab. And those being threatened with the bill certainly have the right to prevent others from facilitating the occurence of that bill.
That’s the reality. And anyone who advocates open borders is partially responsible for the costs incurred by others. It’s as silly as all of us barging in the next Ford Motor Co. corporate shareholders meeting and casting votes whether we own stock or not. The fact is U.S. citizenship equals “legalized” theft. And anyone who uses that means of theft is a criminal. You might as well be passing out M-16 machine guns and C-4 explosives to Al Queda if you advocate citizenship for illegal immigrants. Target rich indeed.
rtr,
“Is there a problem with a bunch of U.S. citizens marching into Mexico, waving U.S. flags while demanding Mexican citizenship, and threatening to vote to redistribute the property of Mexican citizens to themselves?”
Yes. People shouldn’t demand citizenship. I’m not a huge fan of the institution. Of course, only a very tiny minority of Mexicans marched into the US, waving Mexican flags while demanding US citizenship, and threatening to vote to redistribute the property of American citizens to themselves.
“Some of you act like it would be unlibertarian to use defensive force to remove a missile which was in process of being built to be aimed and launched at your house. Plenty of illegal immigrants are marching with Mexican flags while saluting famous socialist Mexican organizers. It’s an invasion. It’s a direct threat to expand the welfare state.”
What about all the Americans marching with American flags saluting famous socialist American imperialists?
Taxation is indeed coercive and evil, but it is imposed by politicians, not the immigrants, even if they have immigrants’ approval. Trusting those same politicians to expand their power and use tax money to crack down on immigration so as to keep the state smaller seems rather paradoxical to me.
“Dealing with law-breaking illegal immigrants is a proper police function of a limited government. A crime is committed every time an i.d. is forged, a crime is committed every time an illegal immigrant visits a hospital and doesn’t pay, a crime is committed every time an illegal sends their children to a public school. If good fences make good neighbors, bad government makes neighbors enemies. And nobody has the right to invite someone else into your house or anywhere else when it’s being charged to your tab. And those being threatened with the bill certainly have the right to prevent others from facilitating the occurence of that bill.”
Illegal immigration itself is a statist construct. Perhaps some immigration is unlibertarian, but just because the state deems something “illegal” doesn’t make it wrong. Yes, the state should stop funding social services for illegals and others. But why trust that same state to keep immigrants out?
“That’s the reality. And anyone who advocates open borders is partially responsible for the costs incurred by others. It’s as silly as all of us barging in the next Ford Motor Co. corporate shareholders meeting and casting votes whether we own stock or not. The fact is U.S. citizenship equals “legalized” theft. And anyone who uses that means of theft is a criminal. You might as well be passing out M-16 machine guns and C-4 explosives to Al Queda if you advocate citizenship for illegal immigrants. Target rich indeed.”
Who advocated citizenship? I don’t believe in citizenship. It’s a statist institution. Natural law isn’t conditional upon which governments claim a person as their own.
I also don’t think illegals have a right to vote. No one, in fact, has a right to vote — only property rights are true rights.
Anthony Gregory, you would be correct in theory if all actions of illegals were free trade voluntary reciprocating actions. But they’re not. They have by definition committed fraud by entering illegally. They continue to commit fraud by remaining here when it is against the law. So what if it’s an artificial Statist consruct. It’s also an artificial Statist construct that Mexican citizens don’t get U.S. paid for social security benefits upon retirement. Would it not be wrong in a libertarian society to sell urine as lemonade? Are you going to compensate those victimized by the unpaid hospital bills, taxes for public schooling of illegals’ children, etc.? Until that time, they have to go.
If people want to immigrate to the U.S. there’s a thing called a *line* at pre-approved places of entry. An illegal has no more right to be in the U.S. than a homeless person has a right to squat in your backyard. Are you going to object that it’s an “expanded power statist institution” to remove someone squatting in your backyard by any means whatsoever, whether it be a private security, you yourself, or the limited government state police? If someone wants to come to the U.S. legally they can voluntarily leave, be deported by force (perhaps after a period of forced recompence servitude if they incurred any expenses which were paid for by others such as hospital bills, public education, etc.,) and then *get in line*. Is that too much to ask or expect? Is that too burdensome an “injustice”?
Granting or advocating citizenship or normailization is imposing the threat of democracy on an already far too limited freedom which is massively under assault. The fact remains every illegal that has availed themself to social services including public schools for their kids is a criminal who has stolen from U.S. citizens. There’s absolutely nothing artificial whatsoever about that fact, about those actions of theft which have occured. That’s part and parcel as much an imposition as any politician’s. So they should be allowed to continue to thieve, to get away with any theft they have so far gotten away with? They should be allowed to thieve at an even greater rate? Or maybe they should be imprisoned or deported. No, the welfare state must be dismantled *first* before open borders are feasible. Otherwise you can personally house and feed them in your backyard. The U.S. is a warzone of redistributive theft. That’s not going to be solved nor the victory made easier by inviting more enemy combattants into this warzone of theft.
The only paradox I see is that everyone who is a U.S. citizen must fill out papers to enable government theft of their wages but illegals are exempt. There’s no expanded powers involved, only selective enforcement of proper police functions. There’s a robbery in process of the U.S. taxpayers. The State police (or any theoretical defensive entity) has a duty to respond appropriately.
I understand how it came up, but the affirmative action analogy is the worst so far. Affirmative action is not something that encourages the police state. Further, noone has yet answered Anthony’s query: If it’s okay for the state to restrict immigration on “its” property, then surely it must be okay for the state to require licenses for those who wish to carry firearms on “its” property. No responsible property owner would allow just any yahoo walk onto his property armed – should the state “act like the market” in this respect?
Finally, I’ll go back to my analogy which noone has addressed – should the state act like a responsible property owner on the public property it created by condemning right of ways etc. for public utilities? I know that if were making that contract on the free market, I would have retained alot more control over my property to make sure I wasn’t locked in to one supplier. Since that option has been foreclosed by the state’s arrogating the monopoly on itself, should I encourage the state to act in a better manner, and regulate the monopoly it created in a way that would somewhat mimic what I would have done in a free market?
Or should one always advocate that the state should act less, not more?
rtr, if you can identify illegals to deport them, why can’t you simply identify them and cut them off welfare?
Fraud is inherently criminal. Violating an immigration statute isn’t, any more than violating a law on taxes, gun ownership, ownership of gold, drugs, etc.
“If someone wants to come to the U.S. legally they can voluntarily leave, be deported by force (perhaps after a period of forced recompence servitude if they incurred any expenses which were paid for by others such as hospital bills, public education, etc.,) and then *get in line*. Is that too much to ask or expect? Is that too burdensome an ‘injustice’?”
I think so, yes.
“Granting or advocating citizenship or normailization is imposing the threat of democracy on an already far too limited freedom which is massively under assault. ”
I didn’t advocate citizenship for anybody.
“The fact remains every illegal that has availed themself to social services including public schools for their kids is a criminal who has stolen from U.S. citizens.”
How is it not criminal to accept such benefits just because one is a citizen? I honestly don’t see the difference. There are net taxpayers and net tax consumers both among those born in the country and those who come from abroad.
“The only paradox I see is that everyone who is a U.S. citizen must fill out papers to enable government theft of their wages but illegals are exempt. ”
What are you talking about? Plenty of illegals pay taxes. Citizenship is not what determines whether you pay taxes; employment is.
“There’s a robbery in process of the U.S. taxpayers. ”
I agree. The robbery is being conducted by the U.S. government, and I don’t wish to empower that institution in an effort to make it stem the excesses of its own criminality.
“The robbery is being conducted by the U.S. government, and I don’t wish to empower that institution in an effort to make it stem the excesses of its own criminality.”
What empowering is occuring? What enforcement exists from the deportation of illegals that wouldn’t exist in any libertarian society?
You’re making a see no evil, hear no evil differentiation argument. Then why not allow terrorists to live freely within the U.S.? There’s no bar or standards of criminality to be applied whatsoever? Is there no legitimate action whatsoever the U.S. government can or should undertake? Should all U.S. police forces do nothing to stop bank robberies, looting?
Well you stumbled upon the answer to why the likes of Hillary Clinton are getting tough on immigration. It’s a politically practical necessity of survival of the welfare state (stemming “the excesses of its own criminality”), not to mention not losing the base of unions and middle class swing voters.
“if you can identify illegals to deport them, why can’t you simply identify them and cut them off welfare?”
So if we can identify a bank robber after he’s robbed a bank, all we should do is redeposit the money back in the bank, cut him off the stolen loot? He gets to walk the streets a free man like no crime occured?
rtr:
I don’t understand what you are saying either. You keep making questionable analogies and I think you are missing Anthony’s point that violating an “artificial construct” setup by the government is not equivalent to murder or bank robbery.
So besides the burden of the welfare state and over zealous Congressmen, what are the other reasons for regulating immigration? It seems that this is where the center of the debate is.
They have by definition committed fraud by entering illegally.
How does that constitute fraud? Are you using the word “fraud” to mean “something – anything – I personally don’t like”, or “against the State’s laws”, or what?
It’s also an artificial Statist construct that Mexican citizens don’t get U.S. paid for social security benefits upon retirement.
It is not – absent the state, nobody would get that.
If people want to immigrate to the U.S. there’s a thing called a *line* at pre-approved places of entry.
And why should the state’s pre-approved places of entry and the concomitant lines be at all relevant to a non-statist?
While there are good libertarian arguments for closed borders (and also good arguments for open borders, though I tend to side with the former), yours is not among them!
“What empowering is occuring? What enforcement exists from the deportation of illegals that wouldn’t exist in any libertarian society?”
In a libertarian society, there’d be no such thing as “illegals.” There’d be trespassers and the invited, and I do think that most persons currently classified as illegals, who have a place to live and work, would fall under the latter category.
If you’re in favor of border enforcement, how much power would you give the government to do it? A national ID card? A federal database of everyone who’s eligible to work in the U.S.? Road checkpoints to check everyone’s citizenship status? Being required to carry proof of citizenship with you everywhere? A giant wall on the border? What measures would you allow the government to use to keep out “illegals” before you feel the tradeoff in terms of infringement on your own freedom is unacceptable?
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.