Liberty on Immigration
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).
Comments (85)
Cox writes: "If you already have an uncle or a cousin in the States — something that is very likely — you may find it easy to take up residence and get a job." This is false. Even if you have a US spouse emigrating to the US not at all easy. Sponsoring a cousin is all but impossible. Next, Cox writes "And suppose that you are, indeed, one of the great majority of immigrants who want a job and work hard when they get it. What then? Does this mean that the political and social attitudes to which you have been accustomed will simply disappear? I don't think that they will." Actually, I have known a few hard working Italians who used to be leftists but changed their political outlook completely when they emigrated to the States. It's not hard to see why this happens. When they see that finding a job is so much easier in the US than back home, they soon become hard core supporters of the "American model".
Published: September 13, 2006 6:46 AM
Mario,
A few anecdotes doesn't change the fact that the average immigrant isn't likely to change his views when he comes here. The largest immigrant group in the US are Mexicans. Mexican-Mexicans have a 20% illegitimacy rate. Mexican-Americans roughly 40%. Now are the children produced by these families likely to become advocates of limitied government and individual responsability?
Published: September 13, 2006 7:06 AM
I would also point out that Mr. Fields' article is persuasive that laws restricting immigration violate a strict libertarian property rights position, but that's the only point he is persuasive on.
He argues libertarians should be "optimistic." But we should be realists. The average immigrant (who tends to be poor) has little to gain by opposing the welfare state in the short term, even if he ought to oppose it in the long term. And why is the issue assimilation? Whether the average second or third generation immigrant speaks English as his primary language doesn't have much to do with his attitude toward government. Someone like Jessie Jackson is immensly popular among blacks even though blacks are "assimilated," speak English and have had plenty of time to see that the welfare state has been a long-term disaster for them.
Published: September 13, 2006 7:35 AM
Martin Clarke: "A few anecdotes doesn't change the fact that the average immigrant isn't likely to change his views when he comes here."
This is not a fact, it's a conjecture (as mine was). By the way, where did you get your percentages?
Published: September 13, 2006 7:53 AM
The Mexican illegitimacy rate wouldn't be so bothersome if we could believe that they would assimilate to the middle-class norm within a few generations. However, the opposite occurs. The later generations have both higher illegitimacy and crime rates. American inner-city culture is what they are assimilating to, and until that is fixed throwing more and more people in is just asking for massive social problems.
Published: September 13, 2006 7:56 AM
TGGP,
The first generations have to keep their noses clean and are grateful for the opportunity of our comparatively free and honest system. The later generations are already citizens so they don't have to bother.
Open-borders libertarians put the cart before the horse. The welfare state is a reality that must be dealt with. So long as the welfare state exists, immigration is as bad in principle as the welfare state itself: it's yet another form of rent-seeking.
It makes no sense to argue for dismantling the welfare state, while simultaneously arguing to do nothing about the immigration that makes the welfare state sustainable, probably into the indefinite future.
Published: September 13, 2006 8:32 AM
Mario,
It may be a conjecture, but it's a reasonable one. If you moved to Saudi Arabia, would you become a Moslem?
The figures are the ones that are commonly reported. Mr. Cox has somewhat higher figures from what I recall.
Published: September 13, 2006 8:36 AM
What I don't like about this article is that it is written from a central government perspective. The author calls himself a libertarian (a meaningless term), but he has a very clear idea of who, according to him, should be allowed to get into the US and who shouldn't be. He's against the welfare state, but obviously has no qualms about spending loads of tax money to control US borders according to his taste - an impossible task. This is all because he accepts (implicitly) that US citizens have the God-given right to live and work anywhere in the US they please, regardless of where they were born. According to him, therefore, a citizen of Florida has exactly the same say regarding who should live and work in Oregon as a citizen of Oregon himself. Once you abolish this "right" and let local communities decide who can live and work there (as they should be able to do) the whole US immigration debate becomes a non issue.
Published: September 13, 2006 8:36 AM
Marco, looks like I've been getting your name wrong.
Published: September 13, 2006 8:38 AM
Marco,
Which do you think would be cheaper: patrolling Iraq's and Afghanistan's borders and staffing immense bureaucracies to enforce civil rights laws, or deputizing a militia to patrol US borders?
You had better believe if private citizens were free to enforce their borders they would not hesitate to do so. In fact, that's what happens when the federal government's civil rights protections and public roads are not part of the equation: immigrants get shot by ranchers or die in the desert.
Published: September 13, 2006 8:47 AM
Wow, Mises Institute fans choosing pragmatism over ideology. I'm inclined to that too, sometimes, but not with the immigration issue.
I don't care that allowing immigration will maintain the welfare state. If someone has a right to do something, they have that right, even if it encourages bad philosophy. Even if it embraces a philosophy that doesn't allow them the right. Someone has the right to publish a book against free speech (or in favor of the welfare state). I don't like it, but I don't see how I have the right to stop them. Same with immigration: I'd rather we plan out how we're going to create a libertarian utopia by excluding statists, but it prob wouldn't work, and I don't have the right to do it (on a national / state level; of course on the local level, case-by-case, we could duke out who was violating whose property rights).
Published: September 13, 2006 9:08 AM
�Liberals and respectable conservatives say there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.�
“The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.�
“Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,� i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.�
“What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?�
“How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?�
“And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?�
“But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.�
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white racists.
http://the-turning.blogspot.com/
Published: September 13, 2006 9:15 AM
INTJosh,
Your post summarizes why I am no longer a libertarian or, more broadly, no longer a classical liberal. A liberal society that wishes to maintain its character must ban non-liberals. At that point though, it's no longer a liberal society. So it seems the theory is inadequate to the reality.
Published: September 13, 2006 9:21 AM
The immigration debate is what changed me from a libertarian to something of a conservative. A nation has the right to prevent its identity from being obliterated. If we had completely open borders, the south west would be turned Mexican in a matter of a decade.
Published: September 13, 2006 9:39 AM
Reactionary writes: "You had better believe if private citizens were free to enforce their borders they would not hesitate to do so. In fact, that's what happens when the federal government's civil rights protections and public roads are not part of the equation: immigrants get shot by ranchers or die in the desert."
Yes, but at least some property owners probably would allow immigrants to use their land as a thoroughfare, perphaps for a fee, were it not for the laws that effectively nationalize their land, giving border agents access to their property rights and stripping them of the right to use their land as they deem fit.
Published: September 13, 2006 9:43 AM
Cox writes: “But if you think that the more unskilled laborers we have, the larger and more dynamic the economy will be, you have a strange idea about the production of wealth. When I have my car washed, some of the work is done by unskilled labor, but as much as possible is done by machines. If more human squirters and swabbers were available, I'm sure that the price of their labor would go down, and at some point the machines would be completely replaced by muscles. The same might be said about, say, the sweeping of streets or the growing of crops. I don't believe, however, that a low-wage, labor-intensive economy is preferable in any way to a machine economy, paying high wages to well-educated people. If you believe that, you belong in the pre-industrial age.�
This doesn’t make sense. If machines are replaced with labor because the latter is cheaper, why is that not preferable? Such argument pretends to challenge the luddite’s position but it’s equally flawed: machines (or laborers) are not intrinsically preferable than laborers (or machines), it depends on its costs. If labor is cheaper to achieve the same result, to employ labor is more efficient. Do I belong to the pre-industrial age for prefering the most efficient way of production? Of course, the laborers employed also benefit, otherwise they would refuse the offer.
Published: September 13, 2006 10:13 AM
Anthony,
That is correct. Were it not for the federal government, the costs to avoid being shot by ranchers or dying in the desert would have to be paid solely by the immigrants and their patrons. This is why I detect a basic disingenuousness to the open-borders libertarians. They know that the welfare state exists, they know that immigration helps perpetuate the welfare state, yet they argue against any restrictions on immigration. Thus, I can only conclude that when they argue for a free trade in immigrant labor, what they really mean is free trade enabled by public airports, harbors, roads, and civil rights laws that prohibit local governments and businesses from refusing to service or trade with immigrants.
Published: September 13, 2006 10:15 AM
I thought this was a brilliant point by Cox:
Published: September 13, 2006 10:25 AM
If you are one that opposes the state entirely, than by defination you MUST support absolute, 100% free and open borders. Anybody can come in, without any conditions whatsoever.
Also, somebody mentioned something about individual communities being able to deny immigration. That too, seems to be totally in contradiction to a stateless society. If an individual buys or rents property in a community, he has a right to be there and the community can be damned.
If you are going to argue for stateless anarchy, then you MUST follow it to its logical conclusion.
While I don't personally support the stateless anarchy position, I would support open borders, on the PRIOR condition that Social Security, Medicare and all welfare be IMMEDIATELY terminated. Tell the immigrants and existing citizens, your all welcome to be here, but your on your own.
As far as interstate immigration for existing citizens of the U.S. If somebody comes up to me and tells me I can't live in a particular community. They better be holding a weapon when they make that statement to me and better be prepared to back that statement with deadly force.
Published: September 13, 2006 11:31 AM
INTJosh,
“Wow, Mises Institute fans choosing pragmatism over ideology. I'm inclined to that too, sometimes, but not with the immigration issue.�
Not exactly.
“I don't care that allowing immigration will maintain the welfare state.�
Presuming the premise were true, advocating unrestricted immigration which would support and maintain the welfare state would then be quite unlibertarian in principle, would it not?
“If someone has a right to do something, they have that right, even if it encourages bad philosophy.�
But do all who wish to immigrate to a country possess an inherent right to do so? This is part of the question. In a libertarian private property based anarchy, a late-comer does not possess any right of passage and access, unless he can acquire the right by invitation. Because the state has arrogated to itself the monopoly over roads and property access and has obtained and continues to obtain public property aggressively rather than contractually or by homesteading, it is not possible for private property owners the right to exclude late-comers as it would be their right to do under anarchy. Therefore, there is a right to exclusion which has been denied the citizen. The second best alternative is that the state regulates immigration as responsibly as possible. This is not an unlibertarian view.
“Even if it embraces a philosophy that doesn't allow them the right. Someone has the right to publish a book against free speech (or in favor of the welfare state). I don't like it, but I don't see how I have the right to stop them. Same with immigration: I'd rather we plan out how we're going to create a libertarian utopia by excluding statists, but it prob wouldn't work, and I don't have the right to do it (on a national / state level; of course on the local level, case-by-case, we could duke out who was violating whose property rights).�
The fact is property owners inherently possess the right to exclusion and late-comers must obtain an invitation and a right to passage. This natural check against invasion has been nullified by the state and all we can hope is that it is not excessively irresponsible in this role of regulating the arrival of new-comers.
Published: September 13, 2006 11:33 AM
Mark,
“As far as interstate immigration for existing citizens of the U.S. If somebody comes up to me and tells me I can't live in a particular community. They better be holding a weapon when they make that statement to me and better be prepared to back that statement with deadly force.�
Let’s modify this a bit to make it clear what we’d be talking about in anarchy. In anarchy, someone is not likely to come up to you and tell you what you can’t do, but rather, you will ask them what you can do: “can I travel on your road?�, “can I cross over your pasture?�, “can I buy food and water so I don’t die on my trek?� The reason you ask, rather than demand, is because you have no inherent right to do any of these things without the other private party’s consent. So if they do not consent, your option is to choose to become a criminal trespasser, or else return from where you came. If you choose the former, you can expect people will both be willing and justified to back their decisions with violent force.
Much of these rights of exclusion have been denied by the state in favor of the immigrant. Unlimited immigration is as much a violation of rights as is limitation despite invitation by private individual. It is not unlibertarian to hope the state is not completely unreasonable in how it executes its role as sole decider on who is allowed in and who is not.
Published: September 13, 2006 12:03 PM
I find it difficult to believe that so many libertarians seem to be accepting Cox's argument. His "moral" arguments against immigration are deeply statist and fundamentally disturbing to me. Take this statement:
"Well . . . but . . . is a nation really like a house? Can the people living in a nation properly decide to keep other people out of it, as a householder might decide to keep strangers out of his bungalow? Yes it is, and yes they can."
This is an inherently socialist and statist concept. It explicitly says that the community at large holds a veto power over who I rent to, who I sell my house to, who I offer employment to. The country is a big house only if we accept the socialist concept that there is no private property and the government owns everything, or at least holds a veto power over the decisions made for every piece of property.
Mr. Cox is concerned about the downside of letting in a lot of people who don't accept our concepts of freedom into the country, and states that we should be able to keep such folks out of our neighborhoods. I share the concern, but I could easily apply it to any number of people who are already here in the country. By his logic, don't we then have the equal right to start deporting anyone in this country who doesn't adequately respect free speech or property rights? If so, we can start with most of Congress.
I can't accept that the US is a country club where membership is gauranteed by birth and extended only reluctantly to a few outsiders. The US government is an administrative body whose laws and protections extend to anyone who occupies its borders. The government's reach is defined by the geography it covers, not the specific people born there (If it was the other way around, a person born in the US would be subject to US and not French law when they are in France, which certainly is NOT the case).
I certainly accept that the welfare state throws a wrench in the immigration works. I have no problem if we are sparing about who we offer the title "citizen", and if we only allow "citizens" to vote and get government handouts. But I don't think citizenship should be a government license that one must have to work or live within the borders of this country.
Published: September 13, 2006 12:21 PM
Coyote:
A couple of points. It is a fact that those libertarians who are not completely open borders "suicidalists" as I like to call them, are routinely called names by their opponents, such as nativist, racist, etc. These tactics--akin to what the lowlife Sandefurs, Starrs, and Palmers engage in--are not worthy of honorable libertarians.
Second, see the comments by Raico and Hoppe from this blogpost: Do they not give any open border advocates pause at all?
In other words, relatively liberal societies would certainly soon become less liberal if they opened their borders. Surely it is libertarian to oppose become less libertarian, to oppose policies and measures that will result in more rights violations!
As Hoppe points out in further detail here (emphasis added):
Is a libertarian obligated to favor a policy which would result in civil war and the devastation of western culture and life? Cannot Palmer admit that opposing open borders based on such concerns is at least a respectable libertarian position to take?
Published: September 13, 2006 12:35 PM
Coyote,
"I can't accept that the US is a country club where membership is gauranteed by birth and extended only reluctantly to a few outsiders."
This has been the traditional concept of nationhood since the dawn of civilization. The idea of a nation as an ideologically-based administrative entity is a very recent (and Gramscian) phenomenon.
The modern multicultural empires are collapsing from their own internal contradictions, and traditional notions of nationhood are reasserting themselves across the globe. Eventually, this trend is bound to reach the US. That is the one positive to the current mess I will grant you: the importation of millions of ethnically conscious, culturally distinct peoples will eventually result in the break-up of the US along its increasingly stressed ethnic and cultural lines. The now much smaller polities will have to compete for net producers and we will finally reverse a trend of centralization and totalitarian power that started in 1788. There will doubtless be city-states at key transportation and commercial hubs with diverse peoples allowed to transact business there. However, citizenship will be by invitation only among a few established mercantile families.
Or, what I consider more likely, the new arrivals will just join with everybody else at the social democratic trough, and the low-grade nightmare will continue indefinitely.
Published: September 13, 2006 1:02 PM
Paul Edwards:
My intention is not to trespass in any way. I would never do that, nor condone doing that. But, it misses the point in any event.
I will use my own situation as a theoretical model. I currently live in east central Florida. Within the next one or two years, I am planning on leaving and moving to Tennessee or Virginia. Currently, I am researching the Tri-cities area as a possible destination. Let's assume I pick Bristol, Tennessee and am able to find a property owner there who is wishing to sell and is willing to sell to me. Assume further we complete the transaction and I take title to the property in fee simple. At this point, I wish to proceed to Bristol to take physical possession of my land, paying any necessary fee's to private owners along the way.
I get to Bristol. The "community" there decides, for whatever reason, that they don't like me and initiate force against me to exclude me from taking possession of my private property and taking up residence. At that point, and only at that point, would I respond, with just enough force, to take possession of my private property and take up residence.
Of course, if no person in the Bristol community will voluntarily sell or rent to me, then I am just S.O.L. and will have to look elsewhere.
My point is, that neither the "democratic majority", nor anyone else, can exclude me from use of my private property, once I have lawfully obtained it.
Published: September 13, 2006 1:03 PM
I agree with Stephan on this one. We're going to have to measure the costs and benefits very precisely to see if immigration should be allowed. If the consequences aren't good enough, hey, tough luck, Sanchez.
Published: September 13, 2006 1:23 PM
Seems to me that the closed borders "libertarian" argument is equivalent to regulated public utility "libertarian" argument.
To wit - the state arrogated the power to place the utility poles on my property, as well as others, and otherwise purchased property to make an efficient, centralized, public utility. It is not now proper to allow the utility to be privatized, as it has taken my right to exclude it from my property except under terms I would have agreed to. Therefore, it is proper that the state continue to mimic what would have happened had a free market been allowed to work and impose conditions similar to those I would have imposed if I had been allowed to negotiate the sale of my property right.
I'm always leery of those who want the state to "mimic" the result of a market. If that were possible, wouldn't we have to say that Mises was all wet?
Published: September 13, 2006 2:40 PM
Cox erred in his economic analysis: the claim that immigrants are on net costing the state money due to their large families and low initial salaries doesn't fly.
A family that has more than the average number of children doesn't merely create extra tax liabilities, they also enlarge the tax base - those kids will collectively pay more taxes over their lifetime than the kids in a smaller family. The sensible way to do this sort of analysis is to match childhood expenses for schooling and health care with the tax revenue from the kids themselves, not with that from their parents.
Immigrants who come to the US as adults have been nice enough to save us the cost of their own public schooling and childhood illnesses. Their kids who come the US as children or are born here will grow up to earn more than their parents and probably pay enough taxes over their lifetime to offset the cost of their own schooling.
Published: September 13, 2006 2:56 PM
"Their kids who come the US as children or are born here will grow up to earn more than their parents and probably pay enough taxes over their lifetime to offset the cost of their own schooling."
Unless of course the kids grow up to be permanent tax consumers....
Published: September 13, 2006 3:01 PM
Quasibill,
“Seems to me that the closed borders "libertarian" argument is equivalent to regulated public utility "libertarian" argument.
“To wit - the state arrogated the power to place the utility poles on my property, as well as others, and otherwise purchased property to make an efficient, centralized, public utility. It is not now proper to allow the utility to be privatized,�
This analogy breaks here. If the question were should the state move in the direction of ceasing to own public land, public roadways, and other infrastructure and return these things to their rightful owners, then yes it should. This is not the question is it? The question is, all other things remaining the way they are now, should immigration be unrestricted?
“ as it has taken my right to exclude it from my property except under terms I would have agreed to. Therefore, it is proper that the state continue to mimic what would have happened had a free market been allowed to work and impose conditions similar to those I would have imposed if I had been allowed to negotiate the sale of my property right.�
A better analogy is this: given that the state exercises a coercive monopoly over the providing of electric power, should it be slacker, less responsible and more incompetent resulting in more power spikes and more outages and more poorly regulated voltage levels, etc. Given that the state keeps its monopoly on providing power, is it really preferable from a libertarian perspective that it provides it in a third world fashion? Also, it is invalid to suppose that demonstration of an increasing level of incompetence by the state will result in public pressure towards the governments disbanding or lessening of its grip on its monopolies.
Therefore, this is not the same question as should the state give up its monopoly. It is merely a question of what the state should do, given that it will maintain its monopoly.
Published: September 13, 2006 3:30 PM
Hoppe is, of course, correct in his analysis of immigration in the context of property rights. The underlying problem, as indentified by Hoppe, is that we are dealing with something categorically different that mere private property rights. We are dealing with a claim to a positive right to some public property. If every inch of this country were owned by individuals, there could be no immigration problem, per se. Each and every owner would by his own actions sanction or reject every single "immigrant" into the "community" he lives in.
The problem begins when gummint' owns every road from Tijuana to your front door. And the gummint' further OUTLAWS your own preferences in the workplace, housing market, school, etc. In other words, when gummint' takes your right to choose away.
And if gummint' is going to take it all away, the heck if we shouldn't at least require that the beloved immigrants come from good stock, ie, give preference to wealthy or intelligent folks -- precisely not the preferred immigrant nowadays.
The real longterm issue is gummint', and we should perhaps encourage anything and everything that accelerates its decline and destruction (A hundred million illiterate third-world immigrants would do nicely). Sadly, we live in the moment -- and when some greasy unemployed-illegal-immigrant puerto rican is blasting his ghetto blaster in the middle of the night, all blather about freedom of movement means absolutely nothing to me. Either throw hiim out or substitute a quiet Swede in his place.
Pace.
Published: September 13, 2006 3:37 PM
Reactionary writes, "Anthony,
That is correct. Were it not for the federal government, the costs to avoid being shot by ranchers or dying in the desert would have to be paid solely by the immigrants and their patrons."
No, I think you missed my point. My point is that at least some people along the border would allow immigrants in. But they are not allowed to. Their land has been nationalized in the name of border control. And they've been stripped of their property right in their land. If there were true private property, they could allow immigrants onto their land. They are prevented from doing so. Trespassing along the border, like drug crime, is largely a result of a peaceful activity being artificially outlawed by the state.
"This is why I detect a basic disingenuousness to the open-borders libertarians. They know that the welfare state exists, they know that immigration helps perpetuate the welfare state, yet they argue against any restrictions on immigration. Thus, I can only conclude that when they argue for a free trade in immigrant labor, what they really mean is free trade enabled by public airports, harbors, roads, and civil rights laws that prohibit local governments and businesses from refusing to service or trade with immigrants."
Well, free trade in goods also exists in a context of public airports, harbors, roads and regulation. I support free trade not just because I like goods entering in the country but, because, despite the fact that free trade might in some ways benefit certain sectors who don't deserve it, who are unfairly advantaged by subsidy, I believe that government restrictions on trade are intolerable.
Futhermore, government restrictions on immigration enable a police state as much as free immigration enables a welfare state. In fact, a welfare state is most sustainable when coupled with strong border controls, as the Scandanavian examples show. The Progressives Era moved America toward more immigration controls as well as business regulation, trade restrictions, imperialism and prohibition. A welfare state will likely not work well with open borders, which is why most social democrats, from Hillary to Ralph Nader, support immigration controls.
The more they crackdown on illegals, the more we will see the nationalization of employment arrangements, national ID cards, checkpoints, federal jailing, spying, and other such terrible features of totalitarianism. I don't necessarily think, however, that all non-open-borders libertarians are disingenuous, just misguided. I'd appreciate the same benefit of a doubt.
Published: September 13, 2006 4:19 PM
Stephan writes, "In other words, relatively liberal societies would certainly soon become less liberal if they opened their borders. Surely it is libertarian to oppose become less libertarian, to oppose policies and measures that will result in more rights violations!"
No, I think it is libertarian to oppose rights violations, not to oppose things that might lead to more rights violations in the long run. Roderick Long makes this point well in addressing liberventionism:
"Nor am I simply claiming that a policy of nonintervention 'indirectly leads better to the protection of rights than alternative policies.' I don’t see rights as something whose protection should be maximised (which would allow trade-offs whereby more rights protected over here makes up for a few rights being violated over there) but as side-constraints (à la Nozick) to be respected. The nonaggression principle is not a call to decrease the total amount of aggression in the universe by whatever means necessary; it is a call to refrain from aggression oneself. It is addressed to the individual human soul, not to some mythical central planning board with authority to dispose of human lives at will."
I think this also applies to the immigration question. If a government intervention keeps out a worker that someone here wants to hire, it's an unlibertarian intervention.
Published: September 13, 2006 4:29 PM
happy lee writes, "[A]nd when some greasy unemployed-illegal-immigrant puerto rican is blasting his ghetto blaster in the middle of the night, all blather about freedom of movement means absolutely nothing to me."
Puerto Rico is part of the United States. Since 1917, Puerto Ricans have all been US citizens. They are not illegal immigrants.
They also have compulsory English instruction throughout school, by the way.
You might not like them, but they are not the only ones who blast annoying music late at night, and they are hardly alone among people who do so and are here legally.
Published: September 13, 2006 4:58 PM
I was thoroughly unimpressed with Cox's argument.
This whole debate here about whether the borders "should" be open or closed, and if they "should" be open, to what degree, completely misses the point -- it's like debating whether water should be wet or dry. The borders ARE open, they will ALWAYS be open, and there is absolutely nothing the government can do to "close" them, regardless of whether you think "closing" them is desireable or not (which I don't). Period. Discussions like this are purely theoretical and have nothing to do with reality.
It's odd that anyone who considers himself a libertarian, and presumably understands that governments screw up everything they touch, thinks that the same government that can't keep banned drugs out of its own prisons, from people who are literally under lock and key 24 hours a day, can somehow "seal" 3,000 miles of border. That's insane. It won't work, and just like any other such endeavor, it will accomplish nothing but to further erode the freedom of Americans (besides enriching those who can get government contracts). And the more it fails, the more freedom will be eroded chasing an unattainable goal.
Maybe you think you have a (Stalinesque) plan that can make it work. I don't care. It won't work. And even if it would, it won't matter becase you will not be consulted by the government at any point during the process.
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.
Published: September 13, 2006 5:14 PM
JK, I tend to agree. But some libertarians think there should be even less of a governmental effort to keep immigrants out -- because such an effort violates liberties and causes other problems. The anti-open-borders types believe in moving in the opposite direction.
Even if they concede that the borders can't be shut, they might still disagree that the government border guards should be fired and the immigration agencies closed. A parallel is with drugs: Some people might agree that the state can't stop drug use, but will nevertheless oppose having the state stop trying. Libertarians think it needs to stop trying, because the attempt is destructive.
I agree with you that those who want more border controls are not facing reality. However, I do think there is more of a debate to be had than you seem to think is warranted. Some of us want the government completely out of border control; others think that, for now, this is a bad position to take.
Published: September 13, 2006 5:29 PM
A true closed border would require a Stalinist level of force to accomplish.
Assuming you have all the mechanisms of the border on the American side. Probably first a metal fence, with concertina wire on top. Then a minefield of probably 12 feet. Another metal fence with concertina wire. Then a roadway for enforcement. Than a reinforced concrete wall of probably 12 to 15 feet in height. Of course, the concrete barrier would need to extend DOWN into the ground for at least 50 feet to prevent tunnelling. Don't forget manned security towers every quarter mile. And the stationary cameras. And the heat sensors. And the motion sensors. And the troops to man border crossings to prevent run throughs.
Oh, and did I forget. We need to do this all again for the CANADIAN border. And what about the sea border. And the air travel routes.
Bottom line. Give it up. Even if border control was desirable, it is not possible. The battle is lost. Let's surrender BEFORE we sink billions of dollars into a lost cause.
Much cheaper to put out the welcome matt, while at the same time abolishing ALL social welfare programs.
Published: September 13, 2006 6:19 PM
I see little in Cox's arguments that lead me to believe him to be a libertarian. Seems like he wants to keep immigrants out because they'll contribute more to the growth of the state than to the growth of liberty. I'd say that his arguments do even more toward that end.
As for me, I say let 'em all in. I don't care if they're criminals or communists or canaries--I have enough confidence in my ability to lead by example.
Published: September 13, 2006 8:02 PM
I disagree that the border can't be closed.
First, the term "border" is metaphorical. If, for example, you penalized those who employ or rent to illegals, you'd "close the border" without actually going there.
Second, all rich Asian states have no problem whatsoever enforcing their no-immigration policies. In Taiwan, for example, if you hire an illegal Vietnamese you do 5 years hard time. Think Taiwan has an immigration problem? Japan? Korea? Hong Kong? Singapore?
Third, if it's so hard to keep employers in line over immigration, is it similarly hard to keep them in line over other issues? Are there any libertarians around who argue that:
a) it's hard to keep upstream industry from flooding the river with mercury so let's give up?
b) it's hard to get pharmaceutical companies to insure their products don't lead to flipper babies so let's give up?
c) it's hard to insure a bioweapons outfit can contain their experimental diseases so let's give up?
P.S. I assume the pro-anarchy types are kidding and most libertarians want minimal as opposed to no government. Anarchy just leads to mafias as happened in much of Russia in 1991. Mafias are private govts: They give you protection (police service) in return for protection money (taxes) and punish you if you don't pay.
The fact of the matter is that when a government collapses, an organized group is going to seize the monopoly on violence and tax. To my knowledge there is no way a mass of disorganized individualists can beat such an organized group.
Published: September 13, 2006 8:28 PM
The fact that immigrants can abuse the welfare state may be a compelling argument against statisim, but is not a compelling argument against immigration. And the fact that immigrants could in theory come here and take away our freedoms is a very compelling argument for strong protection of liberties and insistence for things like the right to bear arms, but not a compelling argument against immigration.
In addition, the Libertarian philosophy is the only one that is realistic about the real world. The world has billions and billions of people - you can't burry yourself in a hole. You can't put up a fence and pretend that them and all their problems will go away. You are more likely to be overrun if you don't engage them than if you do.
Published: September 13, 2006 10:42 PM
Anthony Gregory,
Thanks for the correction. To think I grew up surrounded by puerto ricans and never knew they were fellow americans! My ignorance astonishes even me.
That said, I stand by the rest of my points.
Published: September 13, 2006 11:59 PM
Closed Border Libertarians, just admit it, WHITE TRASH is far more of a social plauge than any immigran population can be.
Published: September 14, 2006 12:18 AM
excuse me, plague. yes, I admit I sprang from this demo
Published: September 14, 2006 12:20 AM
I have an idea: someone should just add up all the social costs and social benefits of open borders and then testify as an expert to our government so it can make the optimal, profit-maximizing decision.
Or everyone could just reject large state borders as arbitrary lines that mean nothing, except to statists.
The whole idea of nationalized "immigration control" seems absurd from my perspective. Government would have to be a legitimate landowner for this whole debate to even begin to make sense.
Published: September 14, 2006 1:17 AM
paul,
"Therefore, this is not the same question as should the state give up its monopoly. It is merely a question of what the state should do, given that it will maintain its monopoly."
Well, first, let me know when the state will actually give me back the right of ways it seized, my neighbor the corner of his property they seized for the step-down transformer that serves the whole west end of town, and the farmer two townships away part whose farm was seized to build the new gas turbine. I'm not holding my breath, so until then, we're not talking about whether the state should give up its monopoly, either, we're talking about what it should do with it, even when it is now nominally in 'private' hands after the property was stolen.
Second, if all we're doing is arguing "what the state should do" - haven't we left the realm of Austrian economics? If there were a "right" answer here, Mises would be completely wrong. Socialism could work, because all the state would have to do is do the "right" thing by mimicing what a market would do. I actually believe Mises (and the rest) were right, and that that is impossible.
Published: September 14, 2006 7:13 AM
The U.S government can and has enforced the border with Mexico before. It was called "Operation Wetback". Not a very well named plan, but it worked. There is no border control now because the feds do not really want it.
So Mises never argued about "what the state should do"? No "for the love of god, not this" or "ensure property rights"? Wasn't he an economic advisor to the government in Austria for a while?
Published: September 14, 2006 8:21 AM
All of the open-borders critiques would be legitimate if they were speaking from reality rather than a theoretical model. The welfare state with its battery of civil rights laws exists, and people who want no truck with the Third World can have their livelihoods destroyed if they act on that sentiment. Again, so long as the welfare state exists, immigration is just another form of rent-seeking. That is what all the arguments from principle fail to acknowledge.
As a matter of strategy, open-borders libertarians are practicing cultural and political suicide. Immigrants are not flocking to the United States with their well-thumbed copies of Man, Economy and State held to their chests. Rather, they are a ready-made constituency for the welfare state bureaucracy. They also expand the tax base, thereby postponing the welfare state's day of reckoning, probably indefinitely. Hence, it is no wonder that the Bush administration, the Wall Street Journal, and every leftist hippie group out there stand united in favor of rolling out the welcome mat.
Much is also made of the alleged collectivist nature of national borders. However, it is really no step at all from corporate ownership of property by shareholders to public ownership of property by the members of a polity. Assuming you believe the government wrongfully owns the borders, then who has better claim to it, the taxpayers or complete strangers?
Obviously the optimal solution is complete private property but again, we have seen what happens when the government is not there to provide public access or due process: immigrants are shot as trespassers or die in the desert.
Published: September 14, 2006 8:53 AM
happy lee writes, "Anthony Gregory, Thanks for the correction. To think I grew up surrounded by puerto ricans and never knew they were fellow americans! My ignorance astonishes even me.
That said, I stand by the rest of my points."
But if you grew up surrounded by a group of people, and didn't know whether or not they were "fellow [A]mericans," wouldn't that indicate that whether or not someone is a "fellow American" isn't entirely relevant? I honestly think your self-described "ignorance" on this should be inspected before you are quick to stand by the rest of your points.
What does it mean to be an American? And why does the state's designation of someone as citizen or not matter? Just a moment ago, you seemed willing to deport Puerto Ricans. The mere fact that their homeland was taken over by United States, and they were made citizens, has changed your mind. Either that, or you want to keep out citizens. And if it has changed your mind, what about the extenuating circumstances surrounding other peoples?
Published: September 14, 2006 9:50 AM
Reactionary writes, "Much is also made of the alleged collectivist nature of national borders. However, it is really no step at all from corporate ownership of property by shareholders to public ownership of property by the members of a polity. Assuming you believe the government wrongfully owns the borders, then who has better claim to it, the taxpayers or complete strangers?"
Well, most taxpayers are complete strangers. A polity of 280 million people isn't exactly a small town.
However, I'd say the borders should be owned by those who live along it, closest to it. I imagine if this were the case, at least some of them would sell it to a company willing to make a private thoroughfare into the US for all immigrants for a tiny fee—you know, the way roads would emerge in a free society.
In fact, just as libertarians expect that roads would exist in a free society, we should expect that some of them would connect the US to outside countries. In the meantime, closing the borders along the country is no more an emulation of the private property order than would closing all roads to all entry be now.
Published: September 14, 2006 10:15 AM
Anthony,
"In the meantime, closing the borders along the country is no more an emulation of the private property order than would closing all roads to all entry be now."
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?
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.
Published: September 14, 2006 10:31 AM
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.
Published: September 14, 2006 10:33 AM
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.
Published: September 14, 2006 10:57 AM
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.
Published: September 14, 2006 11:19 AM
"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?
Published: September 14, 2006 11:26 AM
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.
Published: September 14, 2006 11:28 AM
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).
Published: September 14, 2006 11:38 AM
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?
Published: September 14, 2006 11:45 AM
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.
Published: September 14, 2006 11:55 AM
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.
Published: September 14, 2006 12:06 PM
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.
Published: September 14, 2006 12:36 PM
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.�
Published: September 14, 2006 12:49 PM
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.
Published: September 14, 2006 1:00 PM
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.
Published: September 14, 2006 1:04 PM
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.
Published: September 14, 2006 1:11 PM
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.
Published: September 14, 2006 1:19 PM
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.
Published: September 14, 2006 1:26 PM
"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.
Published: September 14, 2006 1:34 PM
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.
Published: September 14, 2006 2:12 PM
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?
Published: September 14, 2006 2:19 PM
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?
Published: September 14, 2006 3:57 PM
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?
Published: September 14, 2006 4:09 PM
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?
Published: September 14, 2006 4:12 PM
They don't count, because they were asking for it. Right?
Published: September 14, 2006 4:16 PM
Are you just joking?
Published: September 14, 2006 4:20 PM
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.
Published: September 14, 2006 5:10 PM
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.
Published: September 14, 2006 5:38 PM
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.
Published: September 14, 2006 6:53 PM
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?
Published: September 14, 2006 7:09 PM
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.
Published: September 14, 2006 7:11 PM
"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?
Published: September 14, 2006 7:38 PM
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.
Published: September 14, 2006 9:53 PM
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.
Published: September 15, 2006 2:12 AM
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!
Published: September 15, 2006 2:36 AM
"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.
Published: September 15, 2006 2:48 AM
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?
Published: September 15, 2006 2:22 PM