Immigration Plus Welfare State Equal Police State
Illegal immigrants are overwhelming the resources of the Welfare State: government–funded hospital emergency rooms are filled with them; public schools are filled with their children. On the basis of such complaints, many people are angry and want to close the border to new illegal immigrants and deport those who are already here.
They want to keep new illegal immigrants out with fences along the border. It is not clear whether the fences would contain intermittent watchtowers with searchlights and machine guns. The illegal immigrants who are already here would be ferreted out by threatening anyone who employed them with severe penalties and making it a criminal offense not to report them.
This is a classic illustration of Mises’s principle that prior government intervention into the economic system breeds later intervention. Here the application of his principle is, start with the Welfare State, end with the Police State. A police state is what is required effectively to stop substantial illegal immigration that has become a major burden because of the Welfare State.
The philosophy of individual rights and capitalism implies that foreigners have a right to come and to live and work here, i.e., to immigrate into the United States. The land of the United States is owned by individuals and voluntary associations of individuals, such as private business firms. It is not owned by the United States government or by the American people acting as a collective; indeed many of the owners of land in the United States are not Americans, but foreign nationals, including foreign investors.
The private owners of land have the right to use or sell or rent their land for any peaceful purpose. This includes employing immigrants and selling them food and clothing and all other goods, and selling or renting housing to them. If individual private landowners are willing to accept the presence of immigrants on their property as employees, customers, or tenants, that should be all that is required for the immigrants to be present. Anyone else who attempts to determine the presence of absence of immigrants is simply an interfering busybody ready to use a gun or club to impose his will.
At the same time, however, the philosophy of individual rights and capitalism implies that the immigrants do not have a right to be supported at public expense, which is a violation of the rights of the taxpayers. Of course, it is no less a violation of the rights of the taxpayers when native-born individuals are supported at public expense. The immigrants are singled out for criticism based on the allegation that they in particular are making the burden intolerable.
The implementation of the rights both of the immigrants and of the taxpayers requires the abolition of the Welfare State. Ending the Welfare State will end any problem of immigrants being a public burden.
Of course, ending the Welfare State is much easier said than done, and it is almost certainly not going to be eliminated even in order to avoid the environment of a police state.
But the burdens of the Welfare State and the consequent resentment against immigrants could at the very least be substantially reduced by means of some relatively simple, common-sense reforms in the direction of greater economic freedom.
In a future posting, I’ll explain how not only the problem of chronically crowded hospital emergency rooms but also the whole so-called crisis of the medically uninsured, which certainly applies to all illegal immigrants, could be radically reduced, if not entirely eliminated, by introducing some simple economic freedoms into medical care.
This article is copyright © 2006, by George Reisman. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute it electronically and in print, other than as part of a book and provided that mention of the author’s web site www.capitalism.net is included. (Email notification is requested.) All other rights reserved. George Reisman is the author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics (Ottawa, Illinois: Jameson Books, 1996) and is Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics.
Comments (14)
Consequences go beyond additional burden on public resources. As in being experienced in India, the pool of immigrants from neighbouring countries like Bangladesh - create a vote bank which major political parties are eager to cater to. Thus not only the public goods are shifted away from the taxpayers, if public good be the justification of tax, but since the immigrants find a better deal in the new country as compared to their previous, the benefits doled out to them attract more immigrants. The consequence is a slow and steady rise in taxation, either directly or via inflation. And as rightly put by the article, there was nothing negative against immigrants - as long as they live on their own money and not on public resources financed by natives’ hard earned income extorted via taxes.
The major consequence has been rise of sectarian violence in bordering Indian states, when the natives protest, is countered as is probably universal, by sending the military and paramilitary forces. The final outcome might be, if I dare to generalize from situation already prevailing in India, would be a split in society with violence becoming a part of daily life.
Published: April 10, 2006 11:05 PM
I just wanted to say that I have really felt ashamed of how people of my race, and my community, and my country have been treating illegal immigrants lately. They are being treated as illegal as in "mass murder" rather than illegal as in "1 mph over the speed limit". The truth is that the US should be putting up lemonade stands welcoming them here and thanking them for making our food and products so much less expensive then they would be otherwise. We should also be thanking them that they are effectively bypassing the minimum wage laws that have truthfully created a lot of opportunities for the poor that would't have existed otherwise. We should be thankfully that 90+ percent of them are just hard working family people that want a better life for their loved ones. I feel bitterly ashamed over the 2000 or so immigrants who have died in the deserts over the last 20 years trying to make it here just because they wanted a job. As a religious person, I don't think a just God would look kindly on that consequence at all and I am embarrassed that my race, community, and country are associated with it. If there is anyone from Latin America reading this, I only pray that you will hate these awfull beliefs and not us, but be forgiving. Maybe the guilt I feel is some sort of personal issue, but I am not happy about this at all.
I think Riesman is right. The fact that immigrants cat get freebies coerced at taxpayers expense is a very compelling argument for getting rid of the coercion, not for getting rid of the immigrants. And when others complain that some may become citizens and vote themselves freebies coerced at others expense - this is a very compelling argument to rally behind a strong constitution that protects income and property, not a compelling reason to kick people out and criminalize helping them. I don't think history will look kindly at the way the US is trying to treat these people. May God have mercy on US.
Published: April 11, 2006 1:22 AM
Now the white Americans know how the Indian People felt when they were invaded by Europrans. At least the Mexicans are not comming for the purpose of stealing land, raping and pilliaging.
Reisman is correct that welfare is a problem but it is caused by our Constitution which grants automatic citizenship to anyone born here.
Compare this mini civil war with the one which occurred in the middle 60's and 70's. The current combatants are not fighting with police and burning their own neighborhoods. In other words, already more Americanized and civilized than the combatants of the previous mini civil war.
Published: April 11, 2006 9:46 AM
"If individual private landowners are willing to accept the presence of immigrants on their property as employees, customers, or tenants, that should be all that is required for the immigrants to be present."
Assuming further, that owners of intervening properties have given permission for the immigrants to traverse their properties to get to their patron's property. Also, people take up space and generate waste. What about the additional load on roadways, sewers, utilities, etc.? And are surrounding businesses free to discriminate against immigrants if they so choose? Will surrounding owners be compensated by the immigrants and their patron for any decline in property values?
Published: April 11, 2006 10:08 AM
Oh... no. Not the "property values" argument again. So everyone is now obligated to compensate everyone else for any change they supposedly cause in someone's property value? And of course, since property values ultimately come from the mind, this implies a "right to the thoughts of others". Reactionary, I don't think that's a road you want to go down, but let me know if you really do. Of course, there's nothing wrong with trying to maintain your property value. If you want to target all potential activities that could decrease its value and set up contracts to prevent the value-damaging things, you have every right to do so. In fact, that's what a homeowner's association or similar organization tries to do.
Published: April 11, 2006 10:16 AM
Person,
Prof. Reisman concludes that the immigrants and their patron agree to their presence and that is the end of the matter. Well, maybe in the academic world of pure theory where the immigrants are teleported without passing over or through any intervening properties to an autarchic fairy tale land not dependent on anybody else's roads or sewers. In reality, people impose externalities and others are going to demand compensation for such. Whether or not they should get it is a policy issue or, more accurately, one of relative power between the competing groups.
There's really no leap at all from a gated community voting on who gets let into the club and a polity doing the same thing.
Published: April 11, 2006 10:29 AM
"intervention creates the need for more intervention" - another example of this: Suppose a potential immigrant is willing to do a local job better and/or for less money, where if the world were free the person would migrate to collect their new job. Introduce intervention in the free movement of people (restrict immigration), for many (not inherently local) jobs it will still be profitable to employ these people remotely (i.e. massive outsourcing/offshoring, much to the chagrin of Lou Dobbs). Now suppose the country decides to eliminate outsourcing/offshoring by whatever means (assuming the means are effective) the result will be that the companies themselves will move offshore (either by direct movement or by local businesses failing and offshore businesses rising to take their place).
CNN has been doing features on immigration recently, interviewing 'illegal aliens' and people that employ them, etc... The thing that surprised me the most was how happy the people that employ them were to be employing them, seemly more so than regular employers employing people 'legally'. I think this is the result of completely voluntary exchange, i.e. the employers aren't paying more than they have to because of state intervention. I suspect that much of the employer/employee relationship that we've come to expect is the result of intervention in the labour market. In a completely free labour market, I'm certain it would be harder for employers to find employees, and easier for employees to find employers. Ironically, worker protection makes it harder for workers to get jobs (someone go tell the French).
Published: April 11, 2006 11:17 AM
Reactionary: If there's no difference between a gated community deciding membership, and a state's immigration policy, there's no difference between a state's immigration policy and the UN (or other supernational organization) dictating where one may live. It's true that people must use some means of transportation, but so what? Privatized transportation would be far more efficient and accomodating of immigrants -- not what I think you want. It's also true that people impose externalities on each other, but "not liking something" has never been by itself a sufficient reason to justify forcibly stopping it. People have ways of setting up contracts to minimize these negative externalities. What some people want, and I'm not naming names or anything, is to get these benefits without paying.
Published: April 11, 2006 11:20 AM
"There's really no leap at all from a gated community voting on who gets let into the club and a polity doing the same thing."
So, what, there is like no difference between voluntary organizations and involuntary coercive ones?
"What about the additional load on roadways, sewers, utilities, etc.? "
Privatize, privatize, privatize...you see where the solution lies? It's not in fence-building but removing collective property.
"where the immigrants are teleported without passing over or through any intervening properties"
How about the citizens that transport them over here? Answer: Privatize roads.
"And are surrounding businesses free to discriminate against immigrants if they so choose?"
Ofcourse...just get rid of the insane laws that violate this basic freedom of association.
"Will surrounding owners be compensated by the immigrants and their patron for any decline in property values?"
You will be compensated to the extent that cheaper houses will have cheaper laborers, cheaper stores, cheaper products, etc...
BTW, if you bought your home near the end of the housing bubble, and then are unable to sell it after the housing bubble bursts, do you get compensated?
Published: April 11, 2006 11:30 AM
I agree with all of the proposed solutions, but I don't think that's what anyone here really wants. If all property were private, there would be no "right" to travel. No movement could take place except by permission of intervening property owners. That's why governments use eminent domain to build roads, ports and airports.
Until we get to such a state, mass immigration is just another form of rent-seeking.
Published: April 11, 2006 11:38 AM
Welfare (i.e. income redistribution for social engineering and vote buying purposes) is not caused by our constitution. "Welfare" is only possible, at least at the Federal level, to the extent that our Constitution is ignored by those who have sworn an oath to uphold it.
Published: April 11, 2006 2:32 PM
If all property were private, there would be no "right" to travel. No movement could take place except by permission of intervening property owners.
Or by paying a toll: needs breed opportunities, and roads would be built the same, eminent domain, or the State, notwithstanding.
Published: April 11, 2006 10:48 PM
If all property were private, there would be no "right" to travel. No movement could take place except by permission of intervening property owner.
This is the same argument as in "if all food production was private, there would be no "right" to eat. No eating could take place except by permission of intervening property owner".
Wait a sec... the food production is private, and we're not starving. In fact, the dietary problem de jour is overeating.
Surely, eating is more important than travelling, isn't it? Well, precisely because of that nobody is even trying to make it public. Communists tried that, and millions died from starvation.
Published: April 12, 2006 9:46 PM
We are conducting a survey on amnesty for illegal immigrants in the UK and the USA for the next 6 months at http://www.skillipedia.com . We want to hear opinions from normal people - not political parties or think tanks.
You opinions or feedback are much appreciated
Thank you for your time
Viz
Published: October 17, 2006 8:58 AM