The fruit of immigration controls

September 22, 2006 8:42 AM by Jeffrey Tucker (Archive)

People who favor having federal goons arrest undocumented workers and send them home imagine that this is a great thing for American culture and society. But of course no government program quite turns out that way you expect it to.

In this case, the results have been to create a huge labor shortage in the fruit picking industry. People who only want to come to this country to work and then leave with their earnings--people who received an invitation and who provide productivity and cost nothing and thus satisfy every condition of Hoppeite immigration norms--are not allowed in or are too frightened or favor higher paying jobs that allow a more permanent residency.

The odd result of the crackdown, then, has been that fruit is rotting on trees, and not being made available to consumers. This is bad for producers, bad for consumers, and bad for workers. The only winners are the goons themselves, who can enjoy the satisfaction that comes with treating people like animals (some people like doing that apparently), and the government in general, which gains more power over person and property.

But we were only trying to stop crime and clean up the culture, say the advocates of border crackdowns. And we were only trying to create fairness and equality, say the socialists.

Here is the story:

LAKEPORT, Calif. — The pear growers here in Lake County waited decades for a crop of shapely fruit like the one that adorned their orchards last month.
"I felt like I went to heaven," said Nick Ivicevich, recalling the perfection of his most abundant crop in 45 years of tending trees.

Now harvest time has passed and tons of pears have ripened to mush on their branches, while the ground of Mr. Ivicevich’s orchard reeks with rotting fruit. He and other growers in Lake County, about 90 miles north of San Francisco, could not find enough pickers.

Stepped-up border enforcement kept many illegal Mexican migrant workers out of California this year, farmers and labor contractors said, putting new strains on the state’s shrinking seasonal farm labor force.

Labor shortages have also been reported by apple growers in Washington and upstate New York. Growers have gone from frustrated to furious with Congress, which has all but given up on passing legislation this year to create an agricultural guest-worker program.

Last week, 300 growers representing every major agricultural state rallied on the front lawn of the Capitol carrying baskets of fruit to express their ire.

This year’s shortages are compounding a flight from the fields by Mexican workers already in the United States. As it has become harder to get into this country, many illegal immigrants have been reluctant to return to Mexico in the off-season. Remaining here year-round, they have gravitated toward more stable jobs.

Bookmark/Share | Comments (95)

Comments (95)

David St. Hubbins

The problem is of course that the welfarse state coddles those Americans who would otherwise pick the fruit. If there is a labor shortage, than everyone should be kicked off of welfare.

Published: September 22, 2006 9:10 AM
M E Hoffer

What I found interesting, after a stay out West, was that large numbers of Mexican-Americans have migrated, North-South, across "the border", for, literally, hundreds of years.

The "Norte-Americanos"/ U.S. Citizens should get it through their heads that it is the Welfare State that is the greatest source of problems, potential, and otherwise, in re: Immigration.

Published: September 22, 2006 9:36 AM
Nick Bradley

Jeffrey Tucker,

Oh how off you are! You stated that:

"People who only want to come to this country to work and then leave with their earnings--people who received an invitation and who provide productivity and cost nothing and thus satisfy every condition of Hoppeite immigration norms..."

Immigration of "undocumented" workers to the US has been heavily subsidized by the state. Would you move to California if the state gave (1) your 4 - 6 children a free $12,000 a year education, (2) free medical coverage, (3) your extended relatives can come later if you eventually get citizenship, and (4) various other goodies all for MOVING TO FRESNO TO PICK FRUIT? Who in their right mind would deny such an opportunity. The vast majority of these workers WOULD NOT, I repeat, would not, migrate to the US if there weren't such a springy social safety net.

You claim that the fruit is rotting on the vine. Yes, and? Farmers have been reliant on heavily-subsidized labor for decades. If such a subsidy were not in place, agriculture would be far more mechanized and capital-intensive than it is now.

An excellent study on this subject was put out at the Center for Immigration Studies. The product that they examined was raisins. In California, raisin production is a labor-intensive, menial process where the raisins have to be grabbed, twisted, and cut by hand. In Australia, where there is not an influx of illegal, heavily-subsidized menial labor alternative methods have been developed:

"The Australians have developed a method called "dried-on-the-vine" (DOV) production. This involves growing the grapevines on trellises, then, when the grapes are ready, cutting the base of the vine instead of cutting each bunch of grapes individually. This new method radically reduces labor demand at harvest time and increases yield per acre by up to 200 percent. But this high-productivity, innovative method of production has spread very slowly in the United States because the mass availability of foreign workers has served as a disincentive to farmers to make the necessary capital investment."

The article goes on to examine similar instances of government subsidization of menial labor retarding mechanization. The Apparel and Construction industries are mentioned, but the effects on mechanization are not as severe (as in agriculture).

So your argument is defending an economic system whose structure is solely dependant on generous subsidies from government.

Published: September 22, 2006 9:37 AM
jeffrey

But read the article, friend. One result is that instead of migrating, the illegals take up residency--precisely the opposite of what the border crackdown advocates favor. How does that address the concern over subsidies?

Published: September 22, 2006 9:44 AM
Francisco Torres

In Australia, where there is not an influx of illegal, heavily-subsidized menial labor alternative methods have been developed [...]

It is of little confort for the pear growers to know that grapes can be harvested by machines in the manner that the article describes. The trees are already planted and take years to grow.

The vast majority of these workers WOULD NOT, I repeat, would not, migrate to the US if there weren't such a springy social safety net.

Maybe, but that is not the point. It is one thing to migrate and STAY and another to migrate to pick fruit and then leave with money in the pocket. The crackdown on "illegal" immigrants makes it harder for the temporary workers to come and pick fruit, whereas it ENCOURAGES those already in the U.S. to stay, in hiding if necessary. It is a result of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

The only solution is to allow people to hire any person they want, and let any invited worker to come freely. Most would prefer to return home to spend their money (once the contract runs out) than to stay in California - the most expensive state in the US.

Published: September 22, 2006 9:52 AM
Nick Bradley

M E Hoffer,

you are echoing the rallying cry of MEChA (Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán or Chicano Student Movement of Aztlán), chicano brownshirts who destroy the printing presses of student newspapers who oppose their policies of "bronze supremacy". Their basic line is that "we didn't cross the border, the border crossed us". IS that what you are saying? The state is spending tens of thousands of dollars PER year to subsidize the transfer of menial mexican labor to the US, along with criminal elements.

It must be acknowledged that such immigration patterns would not such exist if it werent' for the generosities of the state. This argument works well when debating those who state that "past immigration was great for the country". You an concede to that person "this is true, but that was before the welfare state." Throughout American History, more immigrants to the US went back home than stayed. Under the current system, they ALL stay. I don't think past immigration was just fine and dandy anyway. The waves of European immigrants in the late 19th and early 20th century brough with them socialist ideals, providing a catalyst for the Progressive Era and the New Deal. Thanks! (sarcasm)

Published: September 22, 2006 9:54 AM
M

Look here, we are being inundated by illegals here in Houston. One way or another something has to be done-- with government or not.

Published: September 22, 2006 10:03 AM
Nick Bradley

Francisco,

I'm glad you mantioned other fruits. Mechanization of other fruits is occurring, albiet slowly (because subsidies to labor have reduced the demand to innovate), with citrus production leading the pack. There are mechanical "shake-catch" methods that are being tried out, but (again), the demand for capital-intensive methods just isn't there due to the abundant supply of subsidized labor.

How is the massive subsidization of immigrant labor NOT the point? Do you really believe that most illegal immigant farmhands just come to pick fruit and go home? That they don't stop to collect all of the goodies? That's they'd rather go back to that cesspool known as North-Cental Mexico? That's they'd rather go back to Baja, Chihuahua, Sonora, or Coahuila? Come on!

Published: September 22, 2006 10:09 AM
Nick Bradley

Jeffrey,

I did not take issue with the article, I took issue with your commentary, i.e. your claims that they cost nothing, were invited, and meet Hoppean standards (I'm sure Hoppe would disagree).

Published: September 22, 2006 10:11 AM
David C

Immigration of "undocumented" workers to the US has been heavily subsidized by the state. Would you move to California if the state gave (1) your 4 - 6 children a free $12,000 a year education, (2) free medical coverage, (3) your extended relatives can come later if you eventually get citizenship, and (4) various other goodies all for MOVING TO FRESNO TO PICK FRUIT? Who in their right mind would deny such an opportunity. The vast majority of these workers WOULD NOT, I repeat, would not, migrate to the US if there weren't such a springy social safety net.

I happen to live in a neighborhood that is mostly Mexican. I can tell you first hand that the vast majority of them are hard working families who specifically do not want a handout. In fact, many avoid programs that they qualify for. The overwhelming motivation for them being here is their kids. They don't want their kids to grow up under the lack of oppertunities that they suffered. Some even give my daughter free babysitting so she'll talk english with the other kids. If the welfare state closed down, do you really think they would pack up and go back to Mexico?

One morning I got up early and went to the neighborhood grocery store, standing in the parking lot were a bunch of Mexicans waiting to be picked up for work. Then I got in my car and headed toward the freeway, and standing by the offramps were a bunch of white people begging for a handout. That should tell you all you need to know.

So I think you made a very compelling argument for killing the welfare state, but not a compelling one against immigration, or against letting farmers hire whoever the heck they want.

Published: September 22, 2006 10:11 AM
W Baker

"People who only want to come to this country to work and then leave with their earnings..."

And the evidence of migrants returning home during more lax years of border patrols and 'repatriation' is clearly seen by the recent census figures from California and other border States... okay, perhaps not. In fact, just the slightest glance at these census numbers turns this argument on its head.

The worst living conditions in California and Texas are light years beyond average living conditions south of the border.

Published: September 22, 2006 10:13 AM
W Baker

If Mexican and other Central and South American workers are so industrious and so family orientated as a whole, why are they migrating. Surely such a huge group of hard working people would have developed a magnificent economy replete with jobs for every strata of society.

Published: September 22, 2006 10:24 AM
Brent

I don't understand people's hate for immigrants, except that they are so... statist. That is a familiar problem.

Published: September 22, 2006 10:29 AM
JIMB

Jeffrey - If I'm not mistaken, there is a line of libertarian argument (do you agree with the argument?) that nation states are not legitimate. But ** can ** a stateless society (i.e. it is non-contradictory to reality) exist? If it is the case that nation-states are a necessity given the nature of social man or even of current political realities, then the arguments you offer are destructive to the only possible institution which (when limited by a vigorously active populace dedicated to liberty) offers a free(er) society.

That I think is a big issue. If it is true that nation-states are necessary, then all the arguments you make (in sum) support the dismantlement of the U.S. which would result in a super-state: a one-world government.

Especially problematic, is non-violent evil (which would spread under the strict version of Rothbard's libertarianism) will not remain non-violent, as that is the nature of evil not to follow the rules. So, if any of these contrary assertions ** could be ** true, you should consider the implications of being your own worst enemy.

Giving control of society to a super-state organized along the lines (initially) of non-violent evil will rapidly devolve. I think that is as plausible or (looking at history) more plausible than the arguments that "competing defense agencies" can or will ever exist.

Published: September 22, 2006 10:34 AM
Nick Bradley

David C,

Thanks for the anectdotal information. When they say they don't want a hand-out, they're saying that they don't want welfare or government housing (besides Section 8). But they probably don't consider hand-outs as $12k+ a year in education, free healthcare, etc.

"If the welfare state closed down, do you really think they would pack up and go back to Mexico?"

--Yes, at least many of them would. If they came here for a better opportunity for thei children, then they had to suddenly pay for it themselves, that eliminates their primary reason for coming here, don't you think?

I'm not going to ask where you live, but I doubt it's in a barrio in Modesto or Fresno.

So you saw them waiting to get picked up at the grocery store. Did you sit and think "wow. I sure am glad that us California taxpayers pay $50,000 a year for his four kids to go to school. But the $9 an hour he makes by doing menial labor that a machine could do MORE than makes up for it." Have you ever though that through?

How does it feel to know that your tax dollars are hard at work helping the Left import a proletariat that will someay vote to confiscate your children's property for the sake of New Aztlan? Is your heart bleeding yet?

Published: September 22, 2006 11:18 AM
Nick Bradley

JIMB,

Leaving Nozick's question of whether the state is an inevitability or not, let's focus on the discussion at hand.

Have you read Hoppe's view on the subject? He puts libertarian claims that borders are a fiction of the state irrelevant and goes deeper. Hoppe states that the government is supposed to administer public proerty and law in the interests of the collective owners, the citiens of the United states. As a result, since one has the right to restrict entry to one's private property, this right expands to the collective whole when it comes to public property.

Published: September 22, 2006 11:24 AM
Reactionary

Francisco,

"The only solution is to allow people to hire any person they want, and let any invited worker to come freely."

Any person they want? Criminals? TB and hepatitis carriers? Can they hire as many people as they want, such that the municipality has to raise taxes to expand the infrastructure?

And why do you think this ingress should be "free?" There is no right to travel nor any right to demand that intervening property owners grant your invitees an easement. So when you say immigrant labor should be able to come freely, what you really mean is they should be able to come in over the government's roads and purchase any goods or services they want with the government there to protect them against discrimination.

Published: September 22, 2006 12:02 PM
M E Hoffer

NB,

I don't understand what it is, that I posted, that you're taking issue with.

And, who would give "non-citizens", re: "new Aztlan", the right to Vote?

Also, out of curiosity, do you really believe that the "Progressive"-era, famously iconographed by TR, was spawned by uneducated Eastern Europeans that migrated to the U.S.?

Published: September 22, 2006 12:07 PM
bstender

If Mexican and other Central and South American workers are so industrious and so family orientated as a whole, why are they migrating. Surely such a huge group of hard working people would have developed a magnificent economy replete with jobs for every strata of society.

Well unless you are set on a racist explanation, the obvious explanation is that Mexico is largely a desert compared to the USA, the economic domination made possible by this left them in the dust. Not leaving anything to chance however, grinding them into that dust has been official state policy for a couple of hundred years. this endowment and policy also explains the rest of the so. american nations relative economic weakness.

Published: September 22, 2006 12:11 PM
Reactionary

M E,

You're overlooking the effect of the current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment. The first generation are subject to being deported and are generally, but by no means always, grateful for the opportunity. Their offspring don't have to be, and they very often aren't.

And do not discount the negative effects of Eastern European (i.e., Jewish) immigration. There's a reason the Northeast and the Rust Belt remain high tax union shops and the South is low tax and right-to-work (despite the best efforts of the NAACP and the Voting Rights Act--read up on who championed those causes sometime.) Rothbard himself savaged the ingrained Marxism of his fellows.

Published: September 22, 2006 12:21 PM
Reactionary

bstender,

It has nothing to do with resources. Otherwise, Nigeria would be an economic powerhouse and Switzerland would be a small group of hardscrabble dairy farmers.

It has to do with culture and with average IQ. You can connect the dots from there.

Published: September 22, 2006 12:28 PM
Nick Bradley

M E Hoffer,

"Also, out of curiosity, do you really believe that the "Progressive"-era, famously iconographed by TR, was spawned by uneducated Eastern Europeans that migrated to the U.S.?"

No. Precisely the opposite. It was EDUCATED European socialist intellectuals that contributed to the Progressive era. I believe that the election of 1896 was a major event that Libertarians have overlooked when it comes to the growth of the state. The Democrats threw out the last Jeffersonian Democrat, Grover Cleveland, put the socialist William Jennings Bryan and his "Cross of Gold" speech on the ticket, and the rest is history: The Democrats leapfrog the Republicans in the field of statism and there is no longer much resistance to centralization and statism.

Published: September 22, 2006 12:38 PM
Nick Bradley

bstender,

Some parts of Mexico have excellent growing conditions. The problem is that years of communal farming had left the soil degraded in some parts and completely inefficient in others. Half of Mexico's land is considered agricultural, but only 10 - 20% is actually cultivated.

Agriculture is HUGE in Mexico; it's just that their government policies retard the industry.

Agriculture accounts for well over 8% of Mexico's GDP, agriculture accounts for only 2% of US GDP.

As for arable land, 12% of Mexico's land is officially "arable", hile that figure sits as 19% for the US.

Some sections of Mexico have extremely fertile areas, but poor property rights prevent it from reahing it's potential.

So, bstender, you are wrong on two fronts. First, natural resources are irrelevant to economic wealth (or even negatively correlated), and I refer to Reactionary's post. Second, even if it was relevant, Mexico has some very nice agricultural areas.

To piggyback on my first conclusion, many of the world's wealthiest states are extremely poor in natural resources; think of the UK, Japan, Switzerland, and others. Now think of resource-rich states: Middle-eastern oil states, African diamond states, African mining states, Russia, etc. My theory is that the states with very few resources had to develop a robust system of property rights to properly allocate such scarce resources, while resource-rich states never developed such systems. The only exception is the US, which imported an advanced property rights system from a resource-poor country (the UK), and applied it to a bountiful land.

Published: September 22, 2006 12:57 PM
Reactionary

Nick,

Reflecting on this thread, I sure am glad Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky were able to exercise their right to immigrate when threatened with imprisonment or assassination elsewhere. Just think where we'd be without them.

Published: September 22, 2006 1:26 PM
Nick Bradley

Reactionary,

Have you ever heard the story of Lenin's return to Russia? Lenin was in exile for quite some time prior to WWI (I think he was in Switzerland). During the War, the Kaisar thought it would be a good idea to overthrow the Czar in Russia to knock them out of the war. So, the Germans smuggle Lenin back into Russia and he overthrows the Czar.

So when somebody claims that the Russian Revolution would have happened regardless of whether WWI happened, just tell them that Lenin wouldn't have been there to provide the charismatic leadership to achieve it.

Published: September 22, 2006 1:44 PM
Stefan Karlsson

With regards to agriculture, the real subsidy problem isn't so much subsidies of health care and education going to illegal immigrants and their families, but the massive subsidies going to their agribusiness employers.

If farm subsidies were ended, America could instead "outsource" much of farm production to the native countries of immigrants, so that they could produce the same farm products there instead of in America, a point made a few months ago by Thomas Sowell, but which have been highlighted by surprisingly few other immigration restrictionists ( I have for example yet to see any vdare.com article on the link between farm subsidies and illegal immigration).

Published: September 22, 2006 1:48 PM
M E Hoffer

"...the real subsidy problem isn't so much subsidies of health care and education going to illegal immigrants and their families, but the massive subsidies going to their agribusiness employers."

I think, the above, is in error. The Health Care and Education subsidies are, even further, gifts to the agri-owner(s). It is the Federal subsidization of Agriculture, price supports/guarantees, subsidized loans/insurances, that provided/provides the necessary predictable income for "Agribusiness" to germinate, in the first place. Without that "stable" revenue stream, from Gov't guarantees, those roll-ups would have scarcely been financed.

And, this: "America could instead "outsource" much of farm production to the native countries of immigrants..."--strikes me as practicable as: "Food dependency=Strength".

Published: September 22, 2006 2:09 PM
Nick Bradley

Stefan,

Do you have a link to the Sowell article?

Also, why do you think that we should outsource so much of our farming when we have some of the best farmland in the world, particularly in California?

The US spends (depending on how you count) over $100 billion a year (federal and state) on education alone, which includes illigal immigrant children and the citizen children of illegals (I estimated 10m children, times the average $12k per year that public education costs in the US). The CATO Institute estimates that farmers recieved $46.5 billion in subsidies in 2004 (they may be inflating the number). So these labor subsidies simply dwarf ag policies.

But perhaps both subsidies combine to create absolutely atrocious conditions. The Ag subsidies results in more crops being grown, which increases demand for cheap labor, which increases the subsidy to labor. Another factor with agriculture is government policy that discourages "family farming" and favors agribusiness through the estate tax.

Here in the states we like to hide our socialism through intricate processes. At least in Sweden it's direct an right there in the open for all to see.

Published: September 22, 2006 2:14 PM
Nick Bradley

"he Health Care and Education subsidies are, even further, gifts to the agri-owner(s)."
-- M E Hoffer,
I would agree with you if you looked at it as providing cheap labor to farmers that would not be available on a free market. The subsidy of cheap illegal labor also goes to the apparel, construction, food preparation, home services, and landscaping industries as well.

Published: September 22, 2006 2:19 PM
Stefan Karlsson

Here is the Sowell article I was refering to:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2006/03/29/guests_or_gate_crashers_part_ii

I would have pasted in the most relevant sections, but the format of the comment section won't allow it, so make sure to follow the link and read the article.

Published: September 22, 2006 4:52 PM
Nick Bradley

Stefan,

That's a good article by Sowell. So we're basically paying farmers to grow more food than there is demand for and providing them with cheap, subsidized illegal labor to do it. It seems rather absurd, but that is the government for you.

My idea for immigration has not been mentioned anywhere else. I believe that an immigrant should first be required to become a citizen of a state before becoming a US citizen. States would sponsor immigrants for a limited number of years, then they can apply for citizenship. That way, individual states can import cheap labor (and pay for them) if they want to. If a state wanted to grow its population, like some states do, they can import workers. Conversely, if a state only wanted, say, foreign doctors, they pursue that policy too.

Published: September 22, 2006 5:44 PM
Johnny Upbeat

Why should my county give free health care to mexican immigrants when I have to pay for my health insurance? It seems I must deal with a bi-lingual culture just so that my neighbor can have cheap lawn care. I don't like having to subsidize his landscaping. Very unfair. Secure the border now, I can't afford any more reckless immigration.

Published: September 22, 2006 9:54 PM
TGGP

Though immigrants may be fleeing a failed economic system, they do not see capitalism as the answer, which is why Mexican politicians continue to enact such failed policies. Fortunately, many of the ones in here cannot vote. Unfortunately, all evidence points to the votes of them or their children going to more redistributive policies. Some of you may say "There is no difference between a Democrat and a Republican for me, so why should I care who wins?". If you are such a person, remember that both parties attempt to maximize their votes and power, and as voters become more redistributionist, so will both political parties.

Published: September 23, 2006 1:15 AM
adi

It seems that immigration controversies we have here in Europe are pretty small compared to US situation.

There is also a issue of time consistency of different immigration policies. Spain recently legalized many illegal immigrants and after that Canary Islands ( near coast of Africa ) have seen a large number of new arrivals from Africa. I wonder if new declarations by the European politicians how they are going to be tought with the illegal immigration will be believed...

Still I dont believe that "iron to the border" policies will help much and they also are too costly.

Published: September 23, 2006 6:24 AM
JIMB

Nick - I've read it. Hoppe points to shortcomings, but offers nothing that doesn't have the same substantial shortcomings, and I think is so perilously close to what we started with, that it offers no real alternate choice.

For example, there is nothing to prohibit a larger society from being taken by an aggressive evil sub-society first organized around non-violence but having the "freedom" to exercise all the vices. The larger society would eventually (if not quickly) fall to violence from the smaller sub-society unless the larger society has virtuous people which will organize themselves into a larger defensive agency ... but that's exactly what is always necessary: a virtuous majority.

[The problem in the U.S. is our unwillingness to collectively say "No" to the powers that be and to disobey them until they are powerless].

So what we are talking about here, isn't at all "structure" but "the heart of man" ... i.e. sin.

Libertarianism - by excluding virtues (which exceed the basic non-violence prohibition), have created, I think, a false option. It very likely won't turn out the way it has been argued, even IF everything was to start out okay.

Published: September 23, 2006 7:42 AM
Nick Bradley

JIMB,

Libertarianism does not exclude virtue. Coerced virtue through the state is not virtue at all.

Published: September 23, 2006 7:49 AM
Dan Mahoney

Perhaps if Jeff Tucker believes his views
on immigration are consistent with Hoppe's,
he'll invite Hoppe to respond?

By some of the logic I see here, the government
shouldn't enforce *any* laws (e.g., against
murder, theft, etc.).

I wonder how many businesses clamoring for
increased immigration will be willing to comply
with existing employment laws?

My point is not to defend govt.
intervention or labor laws, merely to point out
the dishonesty of many of the arguments here.

Published: September 23, 2006 8:02 AM
JIMB

Nick - Punishment for lying under oath? Restrictions on drunkness and driving? Prohibitions against obscene literature being given to underage kids? State sanction of marriage between a man and a woman?

Unless I'm mistaken in how I read your point, I don't think you've a defendable position. It is true there are many times where virtue is preferrable but the state cannot and should not act, but we do very much legislate virtue.

Published: September 23, 2006 8:39 AM
James

Nick, others,
You are right that prior intervention by the government has created a scenario in which immigration has the potential to create problems. However, it is a non sequitur to reason from this to the conclusion that the government should respond to the undesirable results of prior interventions by adding an additional intervention like immigration controls. Any student of Misesian economics should understand this.

Published: September 23, 2006 9:17 AM
banker

"It has to do with culture and with average IQ. You can connect the dots from there."--

For those that lack confidence and seek validation through external means, here is an article for those who measure human beings through "culture" and intelligence tests. It talks about admissions to elite schools and has insightful information on things like iq tests.

http://www.newyorker.com/critics/atlarge/articles/051010crat_atlarge

I post this information for those that think they have figured out the secret to predicting which humans are the most likely to be successful in life. It is funny because living overseas most people identify me as a Floridian (I always tell people Florida and California should secceed from the union).

Published: September 23, 2006 10:54 AM
Irate Creole

Hey Johnny, I'm assuming you don't have a problem with free health care going to the white trash that has probably polluted your county since the 1800s, who don't even bother to cut your neighbor's lawns for cheep. Seriously, you rednecks should thank the Latinos for being someone to rant about. If they werent' here, our greatest social problem would be you!

Published: September 23, 2006 11:06 AM
slightly less Irate Creole

To Banker, I say rock on!

Florida and Cali (two states with Spanish Names where whites act as if they sprung from the ground there) should indeed secceed, as well my beloved Louisiana. We'd take it a step further though, we'd ethnicly cleanse all rednecks with Anglo-Saxon surnames (those with Celtic ones can stay). Then, we'll reverse the homoginization of Acadians and Creoles into the English-Speaking redneck collective (like the 1915 law that enshrined the all-English Classroom). Latinos are good Catholics and possbily the best governor of Louisiana, Bernardo de Galvez, Was Spanish. So they can stay.

Published: September 23, 2006 1:14 PM
bstender

Some parts of Mexico have excellent growing conditions. The problem is that years of communal farming had left the soil degraded in some parts and completely inefficient in others. Half of Mexico's land is considered agricultural, but only 10 - 20% is actually cultivated.

but don't forget to mention that the USA has over 7 times the total arible land

Agriculture is HUGE in Mexico; it's just that their government policies retard the industry.

and dont forget foreign governmental influences.

Some sections of Mexico have extremely fertile areas, but poor property rights prevent it from reahing it's potential.

and access to capital might be mentioned here.

So, bstender, you are wrong on two fronts. First, natural resources are irrelevant to economic wealth (or even negatively correlated),

wow, you base this conclusion on Reactionary's assertions? i suggest you read Jared Diamond, his research is a bit more in depth and sheds much light on this whole subject of how some societies have succeeded and other's have failed. it is, unsurprisingly, a very complex story with no quick answer, suffice it to say that it turns out that racial traits appear to be inconsistant predictors whereas geograpahy/resources play a huge role.

To piggyback on my first conclusion, many of the world's wealthiest states are extremely poor in natural resources; think of the UK, Japan,

when i think of these two, i think of advanced imperialist projects to collect resources from outside their local territory.

Switzerland, and others.

Sits at the heart of the Western Capitalist project, the best organized systematic exploitation in the history of mankind. you can point to all of europe as enjoying the fruits of an advanced colonialist economy.

Now think of resource-rich states: Middle-eastern oil states, African diamond states, African mining states, Russia, etc. My theory is that the states with very few resources had to develop a robust system of property rights to properly allocate such scarce resources, while resource-rich states never developed such systems.

or perhaps this robust system of property rights is a tool of conquest, facilitating aggregation of power. no doubt a successful development, but trace it back as Jared Diamond has done and you will see a very interesting tale of resource availability and development of culture and tools.

The only exception is the US, which imported an advanced property rights system from a resource-poor country (the UK), and applied it to a bountiful land.

but not an exception in terms of being an imperialist conquest.

this caught my eye while checking my stats on the arable land of mexico:
Long before the Europeans arrived, Mexico was home to many indigenous peoples, with the Olmec, Maya and powerful Aztec cultures the most notable.

Unfortunately, the Aztecs were no match for the military skills and weapons of Herman Cortes and his Spanish soldiers, and they were defeated in 1521, as the colonization of this prolific land began.

The Spanish conquistadors quickly expanded their search for hidden treasures; the native peoples were enslaved and forced into hard labor, and the subsequent harsh treatment, malnutrition and European introduced diseases decimated 90% of the indigenous population.

The Spanish found massive silver deposits in Mexico; mines were built, and the treasure was sent back to Spain. News of this lucrative new land spread quickly, and in search of personal riches, colonists arrived by the hundreds of thousands.

plays a part in this story?

Published: September 23, 2006 1:23 PM
Dan Mahoney

On Jared Diamond's thesis, see Michael
Levin:

http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/ml_ggs.html

Published: September 23, 2006 1:29 PM
jeffrey

Dan Mahoney has so much to contribute, and yet only one topic seems to inspire him to post.

Concerning Hoppe, I wrote that hiring migrant workers is consistent with Hoppeite norms; I didn't say whether HHH himself would agree or disagree on this particular point.

In any case, Dan, there are lots of racialist oriented sites out there that would be more welcoming to your contributions.

Published: September 23, 2006 2:19 PM
Nick Bradley

James,

"However, it is a non sequitur to reason from this to the conclusion that the government should respond to the undesirable results of prior interventions by adding an additional intervention like immigration controls."

All I want to do is end the subsidy. If it were possible, I would want to end all subsidies to illegals and let the market determine which immigrants come and which immigrants; this would take the form of a proposition 187 on steroids. Immigrants would NOT recieve ANY benefits whatsoever, including free health care, education for their children, and removal of "birthright citizenship" to the children of non-US citizens. If that happened, only those immigrants who could afford to come here would come. In addition, very few illegals would bring their families with them (i.e. illegals performing menial labor would come to work and go home).

But since we cannot remove the sibsidy in that manner, I propose we enfore immigration laws. Those who are AGAINST a wall along the border have not fully examined the issue:

If a wall was built that was similar to the Israeli-Palestinian wall, which is about 15 feet high, double-layered, and has a large enough gap in the middle for vehicles to more, it would cost $1m - $2m per mile, which is the number I saw quoted in the Accociated press a few months back (in reference to a US-mexico fence). With a 2,500-mile border, the fence would cost $2.5 billion - $5 bilion, with a middle estimate running at $3.75 bilion.

There are anywhere from 1m - 1.5 million illegals entering the country every year. AT LEAST 500,000 of those are children. With the average cost of public education running at an average of $12,000 (!) nation-wide, $6 billion dollars a year would be saved in education costs alone! That means that the wall would pay for itself in a little under 8 months.

I mention these realistic figures to dispel absurd notions like Bill Walker's "Taco Curtain" (via lewrockwell.com) that it would cost us $1 trillion to pay Haliburton to build it. Granted, he says it would be built along ALL us border,s including the Alaska-Canadian and US-Canadian borders, but that would add 4,000 miles to the figure, or $4 - $6 billion. Walker used such hyperbole because he thinks that massive immigration will cripple the welfare state and it will collapse. That is doubtful. One, we would lose our culture and civilization in the process. Two, it is doubtful that these "nuevo Americanos" are going to be a bunch of idealistic libertarians who will not establish their own statist regime. Face it, the vast majority of societies favor statist policies, and they have so for a very long time. The exception was Europe during the 18th and 19th Centuries.

Published: September 23, 2006 3:18 PM
Dan Mahoney

Thanks, Jeff. Always a pleasure.

Published: September 23, 2006 4:15 PM
Nick Bradley

bstender,

"and dont forget foreign governmental influences."

-- So it's not their government's fault, it's other government's fault that their government policies are backward? So nearly 200 years of independence means nothing?

"and access to capital might be mentioned here."

-- I'd agree with you, but you miss the point. Their lack of access to capital isn't caused by some vague Marxist notion of an upper class repressing the workers. But instead, it is again their OWN GOVERNMENT'S POOR policies have made Mexico a miserable place to start a business or attract foreign investment. Property rights are terrible there!

"wow, you base this conclusion on Reactionary's assertions? i suggest you read Jared Diamond, his research is a bit more in depth and sheds much light on this whole subject of how some societies have succeeded and other's have failed. it is, unsurprisingly, a very complex story with no quick answer, suffice it to say that it turns out that racial traits appear to be inconsistant predictors whereas geograpahy/resources play a huge role."

-- I am not going off of reactionary, but merely looking at the countries around the world and examining what kind of natural resources they have possessed. Jared Diamond is a joke, a person who takes an "enviornmentalism" approach to history. Diamond looks at the enviornmental circumstances of a society, but not their REACTION to it! Diamond feels that the people of Easter Island aren't an advanced people because they cut down too many trees (a bit of hyperbole). Read the following article from Mises.org by Gene Callahan on Diamond's work: http://mises.org/daily/1774
Here is a great quote from Ludwig von Mises himself on this type of approach to history:

"The truth contained in environmentalism is the cognition that every individual lives at a definite epoch in a definite geographical space and acts under the conditions determined by this environment....The environment determines the situation but not the response. To the same situation different modes of reacting are thinkable and feasible. Which one the actors choose depends on their individuality"

It is the REACTION to those circumstances that guide history, not the circumstances themselves. An oil-rich country can choose to live off state-owned oil until it runs out, giving the people "bread and circuses" in the meantime, or it can take a different route. Take a look at Dubai. Dubai is developing a modern capitalist economy that will be the center of commerce and finance in the Arab World. They took that route by CHOICE, not because the enriovnment made them go that route.

The only part that I agree with Diamond on is how cities develop. Cities TEND to develop along navigable waterways, be they rivers, seas, oceans, lakes, etc. In africa, very few of the rivers are navigable year-around, preventing cities from springing up. Cities are the catalyst for advanced civilization, and Europe happened to have a plethora of navigable rivers, seas, and oceans. But so did native Americans, and they didn't make use of it.

"Sits at the heart of the Western Capitalist project, the best organized systematic exploitation in the history of mankind. you can point to all of europe as enjoying the fruits of an advanced colonialist economy."

"or perhaps this robust system of property rights is a tool of conquest, facilitating aggregation of power. no doubt a successful development, but trace it back as Jared Diamond has done and you will see a very interesting tale of resource availability and development of culture and tools.

-- At least know I KNOW that you are a marxist-leninist. Explain to me how scarce resources can be properly allocated without a robust system of property rights? Through a powerful government that makes those decisions arbitrarily? I think that is the answer.

-- As for the Aztecs, do not act if they were peaceful people that were merrily going about their business until bloodthirsty Conquistadors arrived. The Aztecs were conducting 100s of human sacrifices a month when the Spanish Arrived and their leaders wore capes of human skin. The powerful Aztecs did not lose because of inferior technology; they lost due to their blood lust for human sacrifices. To a devout Catholic, this must have appeared as literally Hell on Earth; demons ripping the hearts out of people before burning them, then wearing their skin as capes and occasionally performing cannibalism.

Check out V.D. Hanson's "Carnage and Culture", where he documents the Battle of Tenochtitlan in 1521. Aztecs commanders chose NOT to destroy the vastly outnumbered forces of Hernando Cortez. Many times, conquistadors were overwhelmed but not killed because the Aztecs tried to capture them for sacrifice instead (many of them were sacrificed). Cotrez himself was never killed because he escaped after being captured.

You act as if MExico no longer has any resources. On the contrary, they are one of the world's largest oil producers. However, all of thei oil is government-owned through PeMex Co. The MExican government loots the profits of PeMex for revenue, leaving PeMex no money to explore for other wells, invest in new equipment, build refineries, or to expand. Right now, the mexican government's oil monopoly has performed so poorly that it does not bode well for the future of oil in Mexico: PeMex pumps wells in such an inefficient manner that many of their wells are only partly pumped, with the rest left to go to waste.

I'd imagine you are in love iwth such a worker's paradise of government-owned bliss and "capitalist pig" entrepeneurs shut out and "put in their place".

Published: September 23, 2006 7:21 PM
bstender

Nick,

You agree that the US has many orders of magnitude more natural resources to work with but dismiss the subsequent economic domination by the north throughout its history, despite it being official govt policy for that entire time. instead you blaim their relative poverty on their 'terrible' property rights.

-- I am not going off of reactionary, but merely looking at the countries around the world and examining what kind of natural resources they have possessed.

you find no relationship whatsoever, but are afraid to take on Diamond's anecdotes directly. you've also jumped over the three examples you gave that i shot down.

Jared Diamond is a joke, a person who takes an "enviornmentalism" approach to history.

you are parroting Callahan completely out of context. You assault this method and then insert your preferred root cause. (but leave out the lengthy process of backing it up)

...It is the REACTION to those circumstances that guide history, not the circumstances themselves.

so if the Easter Islanders just had more pluck, they could have gone to the moon instead of the USA?

and please explain why environmental circumstances, so easily side-stepped, do not include the temporal governmental environment.

-- At least know I KNOW that you are a marxist-leninist. Explain to me how scarce resources can be properly allocated without a robust system of property rights? Through a powerful government that makes those decisions arbitrarily?

again with the knee-jerk doctrine. even if you were correct it would be irrelevant. and your question is a straw man... "properly" allocating "scarce" resources?

by 'proper' you mean "power rules" and 'scarcity' is more often a result of property laws than than otherwise.

i was making no judgement about the indigenous populations of 500 years ago, i only wanted to note that there is more to the story than property rights laws to explain the economic state of our neighbors to the south.

none of what i have said says that property laws are not useful and even necessary in the state to which we are as a people. but they swell in importance in relation to the amount of individual accumulation one has in relation to his fellows. they codify inequity and "keep the peace" with the threat of force to maintain inequitable arrangements. they are created by and for the elite. (for better and for worse)

Published: September 24, 2006 3:15 PM
Nick Bradley

bstender,

Let's clear up some of the confusion.

1. The only reason that property rights exist is because of scarcity in goods and services. If we all lived in the GArden of Eden where there was limitless bounty, there would be no need for property rights. Do you agree with this statement?

2. MY contention is that the more abundant the natural land is in an area, the less the need for property rights is there. Conversely, in a barren area, property rights are more important. As an example, water property rights would be very important in the desert, as it determines who lives and who dies. In an area that is filled with glacial run-off, lakes, streams, and rivers, water property rights are not as big a priority. Do you agree with this line of reasoning?

3. So, A Priori, lands with a lack of natural resources tend to institute highly developed natural law, with a heavy emphasis on property rights. In lands of "milk and honey", there is less of a need to develop Natural Law (because there is no scarcity), so it is never developed. Do you agree with this line of reasoning?

Published: September 24, 2006 7:44 PM
TGGP

Jared Diamond was better was when he stuck to the important topic of "Differences between ethnic groups in testicle size". Hahaha!

Seriously, Jared Diamond should know better than to say some of the things he says. If he were a less public figure I bet he'd sing a different tune.

I see plenty of evidence of property rights being essential to prosperity, but posessing lots of natural resources seems negatively correlated with it to me (see Africa, Middle East). England and Japan are islands and Hong Kong is just a city. Now having coastal areas for ports does seem like a good thing, but Switzerland seems to have done pretty well separated from its neighbors with mountains.

Published: September 24, 2006 9:35 PM
bstender

nick your question #1 is impossible to agree with, it is a hypothetical and what you call "property rights" needs definition.
but even assuming a real world scenario of great abundance, i think disputes would nevertheless occur or not occur depending more upon the social agreement. plains indians come to mind, living in very meager conditions yet communally.

Your Q2 seems a reasonable hypothesis. but only necessary were the community fractured in some way--different tribes or geographical features. the use of the word 'rights' is leading to something i presume?

number 3 is of course false, as it is based on presumptions in 1 and 2. the Introduction of the concept of "Natural Law" needs definition.

Published: September 25, 2006 7:59 AM
Nick Bradley

bstender,

Any economist will tell you that the reason people have property rights AT ALL is because of scarcity. All #1 is saying is that if there was no scarcity, there would be no property. Why should I own something if I could just conjur up whatever I wanted by blinking my eyes? It may be a reductio ad absurdum argument, but it proves my point.

on #2 -- It is irrelevant to my hypothesis whether the community is fractured or not. If it was all one happy commune, somebody in the commune would have to say who gets what. IF we reduced the scenario to one family of four, somebody in the family would have to decide who gets how much of each scarce good.

So you rejected #3 because it was built on #s 1 and 2. But you said you agreed with #2 as long as it wasn't a utopian commune (which i Disagree with you on). And you dismissed #1 because it was hypothetical; #1 was a reductio ad absurdum argument to prove a point (exxagerating points to their logical extremes).
For a nice primer on Natural Rights and Law, see Locke: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke

Published: September 25, 2006 10:55 AM
Anthony Gregory

"The waves of European immigrants in the late 19th and early 20th century brough with them socialist ideals, providing a catalyst for the Progressive Era and the New Deal. Thanks!"

The demographics behind Progressivism coincided mostly with the Protestant Yankee tradition that was in the US for its entire history, and purifying the immigrant culture was part of its ethic. You can't blame Wilsonianism on the immigrants. The first European managerial statists came to America a long, long time ago.

Published: September 25, 2006 12:53 PM
Anthony Gregory

The public schools were largely set up by nativists who wanted to Americanize immigrants. Now that they take advantage of these compulsory institutions, they are still being attacked. If you don't like the system, blame the Americans who put it in place, not the illegal alien children who attend public schools. Many of them don't even go to public schools. They're too busy working.

Published: September 25, 2006 1:03 PM
Anthony Gregory

"Why should my county give free health care to mexican immigrants when I have to pay for my health insurance?"

It shouldn't.

" It seems I must deal with a bi-lingual culture just so that my neighbor can have cheap lawn care."

Why should I have to pay for your border controls just because you can't stand hearing more than one language?

Published: September 25, 2006 1:05 PM
Nick Bradley

Anthony Gregory,

"The first European managerial statists came to America a long, long time ago."

-- I may be mistaken, but didn't Murray Rothbard write about how our public school system was modeled after the Prussian system designed to make "good little soldiers" and was brought here by German Inteligestia?

"If you don't like the system, blame the Americans who put it in place, not the illegal alien children who attend public schools. Many of them don't even go to public schools. They're too busy working."

Do you have any source for your claim that many illegal immigrants do not go to school? The only ones who don't go to school is when they drop out or get pregnant at 15.

"Why should I have to pay for your border controls just because you can't stand hearing more than one language?"

The cheap lawn care AND the bi-lingual culture would no exist if it weren't for the state subsidies to immigration in the first place.

I don't think anybody here is opposed to open borders as long as state subsidies to both legal and illegal immigrants to come here in the first place are removed. The market acted as a natural selector of who would become an American in the 19th Century. Those that came here and worked hard enough to make it stayed; those that did not went back home. Massive Government subsidies to illegal workers has so distorted the market that this process no longer works. The government has also sibsidized the market for illegal labor through agricultural subsidies.

In the interim, I propose that immigration policy be devolved back to the states, wherein immigrants must first become the citizens of a state before becoming US citizens. States would be able to deny immigrants various subsidies without violating the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment (the Leftist court that struck down Prop. 187 notwithstanding). States would pick the immigrants that they wanted to live there. If California has such a "big" problem with fruit rotting on the vine, they can import menial labor if they so choose. Only a Centralizer would deny the states that right. The quickest route back to liberty, as both Lew Rockwell and Hans Hermann-Hoppe have stated, is through decentralization of power back to the state and local levels. CATO and Reason MAgazine may disagree, and I do not feel it is a councidence that they are leading the charge for open borders from a libertarian perspective.

Published: September 25, 2006 1:49 PM
Anthony Gregory

"I may be mistaken, but didn't Murray Rothbard write about how our public school system was modeled after the Prussian system designed to make 'good little soldiers' and was brought here by German Inteligestia?"

The modern system, yes. But Germans were among the first major immigrant groups. Who is NOT supposed to be excluded?

"Do you have any source for your claim that many illegal immigrants do not go to school? The only ones who don't go to school is when they drop out or get pregnant at 15."

No, but I figure even if 90% or 95% of them do go, then in absolute terms a lot don't go, which can't be discounted if we're to be methodological individualists considering a policy of expulsion.

"The cheap lawn care AND the bi-lingual culture would no exist if it weren't for the state subsidies to immigration in the first place."

What are you talking about? Huge parts of what is now considered the jurisdiction of the United States government have been inhabited by Spanish speakers for a very long time.

"In the interim, I propose that immigration policy be devolved back to the states, wherein immigrants must first become the citizens of a state before becoming US citizens. States would be able to deny immigrants various subsidies without violating the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment (the Leftist court that struck down Prop. 187 notwithstanding). States would pick the immigrants that they wanted to live there. If California has such a "big" problem with fruit rotting on the vine, they can import menial labor if they so choose. Only a Centralizer would deny the states that right. The quickest route back to liberty, as both Lew Rockwell and Hans Hermann-Hoppe have stated, is through decentralization of power back to the state and local levels. CATO and Reason MAgazine may disagree, and I do not feel it is a councidence that they are leading the charge for open borders from a libertarian perspective."

Well of course the issue should be denationalized. And of course they shouldn't get welfare. And of course they shouldn't get citizenship—heck, citizenship itself is not exactly a libertarian construct. But none of this means we should champion federal officials rounding up peaceful people and deporting them, or a wall along the border to keep out both the invited and those attracted to welfare.

Published: September 25, 2006 2:30 PM
Nick Bradley

Anthony Gregory,

"What are you talking about? Huge parts of what is now considered the jurisdiction of the United States government have been inhabited by Spanish speakers for a very long time."

You are from the Bay Area, as am I. Third Generation or longer hispanic families aren't exactly fluent in Spanish anymore. Their culture is American. It is the immigrants that have came to the US since the '65 Immigration Act (Thank you, LBJ) that are creating the biculturalism that is afflicting "Mexifornia" and other parts of the country. I don't buy this "border crossed us" gibberish from the Chicano brownshirts at MeCHA. Those who made such claims clearly "crossed a border", a border that has clearly been in place since the 1850s.

"...or a wall along the border to keep out both the invited and those attracted to welfare."

What is it with the opposition to a wall along the border? $1m - $2m dollars a mile for 2,500 miles. A few billion dollars equals many times over savings in the first year alone. It is not akin to a new government project, it is akin to fixing a leaky faucet. The only way you could oppose such a project is if it is your hope that so many illegals (and legals) enter the country that the welfare state collapses as a result (which I see as unlikely).

Isn't it libertarians who are always saying that liberty arises from the culture, that it cannot be arbitrarily implanted? Isn't this one of the libertarian cases against the Iraq War (i.e. Lew Rockwell's "Liberty cannot be imposed from above")? Why should we now believe that massive immigration from a culture that has NEVER upheld libertarian values to change overnight? Hispanic culture has always been very statist, and that cultural viewpoint will be carried at the ballot box. You are more likely to get marxist values from massive hispanic migration than libertarian ones. What remains of our Founding Libertarian Principles will be "Mexified" out of our society.

You also strike me as a libertarian with no plan of action. Just oppose statism in all forms, even if a lesser form of statism is rooting out a stronger form of statism, eh? You have no plan. Hoppe has a plan, Rockwell has a plan. You do not. Perhaps it is a prerequisite if you reside in Berzerkeley to be reflexively anti-western in orientation.

Go Bears, by the way.

Published: September 25, 2006 7:57 PM
bstender

Any economist will tell you that the reason people have property rights AT ALL is because of scarcity. All #1 is saying is that if there was no scarcity, there would be no property. Why should I own something if I could just conjur up whatever I wanted by blinking my eyes? It may be a reductio ad absurdum argument, but it proves my point

nothing is proven by that statement, (even if you could get an economist to say it!;) i see a few problems; the first is that it is a regime, not a natural law. and your premise fails to explain why property laws are more advanced and elaborate in the richest of nations and insignificant in poor societies rather than the converse. or why people routinely give away their own food and other critical goods in emergency conditions of actual scarcity. and it also fails to explain the expansion of such laws to protect one's things far beyond anyone's concievable needs.

i say again, the need for strong and elaborate property laws, (and elaborate apologies for those laws,) are tools to keep the peace, peace that is under threat NOT because have-nots are unable to percieve this so-called self-evident reality of ubiquitous scarcity, but because of basic inequity, injustice, and artificial scarcity made possible by this legal device.

and furthermore, the notion of 'scarcity' is a bogey. most everyone can relate to conditions of real scarcity, and though almost everyone who has lived through such an experience has done so through cooperative effort and personal fortitude rather than through property laws, it is nevertheless effective to point to it as justification for permitting completely unrelated exploitation to occur, (and more subtly unnerving than the threat posed by the thief) it is an apology for greed, more than anything else i believe. much like the threat of terrorism is used today to justify completely unrelated Imperialism.

and also, btw, i don't think that having the State own all of the property solves more problems. we're all living at the collective level of our own incompetence, to quote Peter. maybe we'll find new better ways to coexist, or maybe we'll just go extinct...odds are running against us at present by my book, swearing allegiance to "Almighty Property" being a critical error.

Published: September 26, 2006 12:27 AM
Anthony Gregory

Nick Bradley:

"You are from the Bay Area, as am I. Third Generation or longer hispanic families aren't exactly fluent in Spanish anymore. Their culture is American."

There are thousands of more recent Hispanics in the Bay Area who speak both languages.

"It is the immigrants that have came to the US since the '65 Immigration Act (Thank you, LBJ). . ."

What about the immigration before the first national immigration laws—at least, the ones not directed at the Chinese—which all came during the Progressive Era? It was not classical liberalism that gave us the first federal restrictions. It was socialists. Going back to 1964 isn't the answer. I say repeal the whole 20th century when it comes to domestic leviathan, including the immigration controls that are part of the welfare state.

". . . that are creating the biculturalism that is afflicting 'Mexifornia' and other parts of the country."

California is a Spanish word. A hybrid between it and "Mexico" does nothing to illustrate biculturalism. California, like most of America, is not a homocultural nation. It never was.

"I don't buy this 'border crossed us' gibberish from the Chicano brownshirts at MeCHA. Those who made such claims clearly 'crossed a border', a border that has clearly been in place since the 1850s."

Sure, and people should get over the nationalism on both sides of the imaginary line, but if we are going to get collectivist and support such lines, we must at least recognize that it was established by Polk's wholly unjust war of aggression.

"What is it with the opposition to a wall along the border? $1m - $2m dollars a mile for 2,500 miles. A few billion dollars equals many times over savings in the first year alone. It is not akin to a new government project, it is akin to fixing a leaky faucet."

A government that can't even keep drugs away from people in prisons is going to seal off 2,500 miles, and you think this is "akin to fixing a leaky faucet"?

Well, I suppose the state will implement this intervention just as you expect it. . . .

"The only way you could oppose such a project is if it is your hope that so many illegals (and legals) enter the country that the welfare state collapses as a result (which I see as unlikely)."

I could also oppose it if I simply do not consider it the proper role of the state to nationalize migration over the border at a cost of coercively appropriated money.

"Isn't it libertarians who are always saying that liberty arises from the culture, that it cannot be arbitrarily implanted? Isn't this one of the libertarian cases against the Iraq War (i.e. Lew Rockwell's 'Liberty cannot be imposed from above')? Why should we now believe that massive immigration from a culture that has NEVER upheld libertarian values to change overnight?"

I didn't ever imply that mass immigration will bring about libertarianism. Do you think shutting it out will?

"Hispanic culture has always been very statist, and that cultural viewpoint will be carried at the ballot box."

So has American culture, for goodness sakes. You are speaking as though America were a libertarian country to guard against a horde of statists.

"You are more likely to get marxist values from massive hispanic migration than libertarian ones. What remains of our Founding Libertarian Principles will be 'Mexified' out of our society."

Latin America adopted Marxism from European culture, not vice versa.

"You also strike me as a libertarian with no plan of action. Just oppose statism in all forms, even if a lesser form of statism is rooting out a stronger form of statism, eh? You have no plan. Hoppe has a plan, Rockwell has a plan."

What plan is that? On immigration, Rockwell favors denationalization, but does not seem to favor the wall:

"The second point is that unfortunately the people who are advocating border control tend to want to put businessmen in jail for hiring an illegal. They want to give more power to the federal prosecutors, more supervision by the federal government, put more people in jail, more cops, more spies and so forth. You know, I don't think that's the way either. I must say I'm not entirely sure what to do. . . .

"I worry about the idea that we should further empower the federal government. I don't think there's any excuse ever to give the federal government more power for any reason whatsoever! I don't care what the excuse is. We need to be focused on decommissioning them."

My greater plan, by the way, is to do all I can to spread the libertarian ethic, for only by withdrawing our consent from the state can we ever bring about liberty. I think while critiques of mass immigration in the context of the welfare state are not without merit, immigration national statism is a deviation from the libertarian ethic, and not useful in the long term. I have no expectations for a quick, short-term solution.

"You do not [have a plan]. Perhaps it is a prerequisite if you reside in Berzerkeley to be reflexively anti-western in orientation."

Yup, that's me. I'm terribly Anti-Western. Heck, Berkeley is so far to the West, it's practically part of the East!

When you criticize U.S. foreign policy, is it anti-Western? No. And neither is criticism of U.S. interventionist immigration policy, which I see as one of the tragic developments of the rise of national collectivism in the 20th century.

"Go Bears, by the way."

Thanks, I suppose. : )

Published: September 26, 2006 1:24 AM
Peter

and your premise fails to explain why property laws are more advanced and elaborate in the richest of nations and insignificant in poor societies rather than the converse

No it doesn't. It seems that way to you only because you're reversing cause and effect. The richest of nations are the richest of nations because they have more highly developed property rights. Poor nations are as poor as they are because they don't.

Published: September 26, 2006 1:54 AM
Nick Bradley

Anthony Gregory,

Nowhere in Rockwell's Interview did he oppose a wall. He is more upset with crackdowns on employers, and he is right. Why should the government crack down on employers who are hiring the same workers the government sibsidizes to come here in the first place???

I cannot find any past statements by Rockwell opposing a wall.

In "Bush Says: Put up a Wall", Rockwell attacks US calls for foreign states to control their own emigres, ala East Germany. But that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about defending borders. So, later in the article Rockwell makes the following statement:

"Hence, if the US wants less Mexican immigration, it is not up to the Mexican government to crack skulls to prevent people from leaving. It is up to the US to prevent entry. So too with regard to every country in the world."

Sounds like a pretty good endorsement of immigration restriction to me.

You are quite aware of Hoppe's view on the issue of immigration.

Rep. Ron Paul belives that we must physically secure our borders.

Arguments against a wall usually employ lame historical comparisons. Many use the Berlin Wall analogy, even though it is erroneous because the Berlin Wall was built by E Germany to prevent emigration, not by the West to prevent immigration. The Maginot Line is also used, but there are many roblems with this comparison. The Maginot line defeated NOT because it was assaulted and defeated, but because the Germans simply WENT AROUND it through Belgium. That would be like saying a US-mexico wall doesn't work afte ronly building it across california and seeing all the immigrants pouring through Arizona.

And fences DO work to stop immigration. A 10-mile border fence near San Diego has dramatically reduced illegal immigration to California. However, Arizona's influx of illegals has risen sharply. A wall across the whole border would fix the problem.

Published: September 26, 2006 4:31 AM
TGGP

Anyone who thinks the government can't stop Mexican immigration needs to look up the offensively named but nevertheless succesful "Operation Wetback". They aren't stopping anything now because Bush and the high-ranking members of the party DON'T WANT TO. This is the issue in which party leaders and the broader American people diverge most on. This also means it is more likely that politicians will be forced by their constituents to do something about,as is unfortunately not the case with much of the welfare state.

Yes, relatively speaking the United States is a rather libertarian country, and Mexico is not. Look at the Fraser Institutes Economic Freedom of the World index and you'll see the U.S much higher. That is why we are wealthier and Mexicans want to come here. Does this mean those Mexicans believe in capitalism? NO! Yes, it strikes you and me as stupid that they do not, but that is unfortunately the case.

Why should I give a flying one whether or not Polk's war was justified? No one around back then is still alive. If Mexico thinks the territory rightly belongs to them, they can suck eggs. Until their government gets its act together to the extent that its people stop fleeing it, I don't see how there is any sense in giving them more territory and people to control.

Published: September 26, 2006 8:16 AM
870873

Under Spanish rule California's population was extremely sparse. What we think of as California is a creation of Anglo settlement from the eastern US. Think Steinbeck, not Garcia Marquez. And there is very little comparison between the coolies of the 19th century and the current polyglot cooked up in the civil rights era.

Also, criticisms of nationalism are ignoring a tidal wave of history. People will always connect with their own over others, and the fortunate trend worldwide is the devolution of the multicultural empires into their constituent nations. Do you want to answer to local patriarchs competing for net tax producers or do you want to answer to Bill Clinton and his globalist corporate backers?

Published: September 26, 2006 8:35 AM
Anthony Gregory

Nick Bradley, this position would indicate at least some hesitation about the wall:

"I worry about the idea that we should further empower the federal government. I don't think there's any excuse ever to give the federal government more power for any reason whatsoever! I don't care what the excuse is. We need to be focused on decommissioning them."

This statement here appears more to be a generic statement that immigration limits are the responsibility of the countries into which people are immigrating, not from which they are emigrating:

"Hence, if the US wants less Mexican immigration, it is not up to the Mexican government to crack skulls to prevent people from leaving. It is up to the US to prevent entry. So too with regard to every country in the world."

And there's this statement: "In the meantime, it does no good to keep calling for a crackdown on immigration. . . . But most people are unwilling to make these distinctions. They see immigration as the problem or the solution, whereas the real problem is the state and the only solution is freedom."

You say, "Arguments against a wall usually employ lame historical comparisons."

Well, my arguments don't. But let me ask you this. Do you trust the state? Do you trust it to guard your liberty, and not violate it? Because it seems to me obvious that any government wall that can possibly keep all the immigrants out is also able to keep everyone in. You trust this government with that kind of infrastructure? I think it's very dangerous.

Published: September 26, 2006 9:51 AM
Anthony Gregory

"Why should I give a flying one whether or not Polk's war was justified? No one around back then is still alive. If Mexico thinks the territory rightly belongs to them, they can suck eggs. Until their government gets its act together to the extent that its people stop fleeing it, I don't see how there is any sense in giving them more territory and people to control."

Personally, I don't think any state should rule the area in question, U.S. or Mexican. If the result of having the government remove itself is more people of Mexican descent in the region, then I suppose that is one result of freedom that those of us who love freedom must tolerate.

Published: September 26, 2006 9:54 AM
Reactionary

"If the result of having the government remove itself is more people of Mexican descent in the region, then I suppose that is one result of freedom that those of us who love freedom must tolerate."

If you're lucky, you'll get a fascist Norte Mexico where the Spaniards still run things. If not, you'll get Venezuela and Cesar Chavez's birthday will be a national holiday.

Published: September 26, 2006 10:32 AM
Anthony Gregory

"If you're lucky, you'll get a fascist Norte Mexico where the Spaniards still run things. If not, you'll get Venezuela and Cesar Chavez's birthday will be a national holiday."

Man, I sure would hate to live in a country where we celebrate the birthday of a tyrant. Good thing none of our revered presidents have been nearly so ruthless, corrupt and dictatorial as Chavez.

Published: September 26, 2006 10:41 AM
Reactionary

Anthony,

Is your argument against closed borders that the US is already authoritarian? Do you think that will be any different after the importation of 20 million pan-Hispanic nationalists?

Published: September 26, 2006 11:16 AM
Nick Bradley

Anthony Gregory,

No, I do not trust the state. That is why most of the Federal Establishment is against the construction of a Wall, and in FAVOR of migrant worker visas! IT is private citizens and "militias" such as the minutemen that support a wall. The Minutemen are building their own fence, with private money. And who is standing in the way of the project? The US government!

The feds have stated that the border is a federal issue and that the minutemen have no right to protect it.

Check out their project: http://borderfenceproject.com/

The Border Fence Project claims that it can build fencing for $5 a foot, equipped with electronic sensors, cameras, etc. It is being built with donated labor and money.

Is it "un-libertarian" to support a mild statist program in opposition to a massive statist program? I think not. The Corporate Right and the Multicultural Left both support massive immgration for thier own purposes. The Multicultural Left gets a nice big proletariat to keep them in power for the foreseeable future, and the Corporate Right gets cheap labor and can pass on costs to the taxpayer. IT is the same reason that big corporations support socialize medicine: They can pass off big costs to the government while stifling smaller competition at the same time. They currently support the corporatist health care system that subsidizes employer-provided health care; the bigger the company, the cheaper plan they can provide per employee. Advantage: Big Business.

Published: September 26, 2006 11:17 AM
Nick Bradley

Reactionery,

"Do you think that will be any different after the importation of 20 million pan-Hispanic nationalists?"

A very good point. Do open-border libertarians believe that the US will become MORE libertarian or LESS libertarian after tens of millions of immigrants from Latin America flood the US?

If somewhore believes it will be MORE libertarian, I would like to hear their reasoning.

I guess, from a libertarian standpoint, one could support massive immigration if it would cause secession.

Published: September 26, 2006 11:24 AM
Nick Bradley

Oops, I meant "someone"; I don't know how a typo that bad got in there :)

Published: September 26, 2006 11:35 AM
Reactionary

"I guess, from a libertarian standpoint, one could support massive immigration if it would cause secession."

That's the theory any way. I don't think we'll be so lucky. I think they'll just elbow in at the social democratic trough along with everybody else. And with a global tax base for the welfare state to draw upon to sustain itself into perpetuity, there will be nowhere to hide.

Published: September 26, 2006 11:39 AM
Anthony Gregory

"Anthony,

Is your argument against closed borders that the US is already authoritarian?"

No. My argument is that immigration controls are themselves statist, and are thus tainted by all the problems of other government programs—they are coercively funded, centrally planned, involve force against innocents, and will have terrible unintended consequences.

Published: September 26, 2006 11:39 AM
Anthony Gregory

Anthony Gregory,

"No, I do not trust the state. That is why most of the Federal Establishment is against the construction of a Wall, and in FAVOR of migrant worker visas! IT is private citizens and "militias" such as the minutemen that support a wall. The Minutemen are building their own fence, with private money. And who is standing in the way of the project? The US government!"

If ever the establishment does turn in favor of an immigration control, you can also bet it won't be for the sake of liberty. Why trust these politicians to change their nature and do something you think will reduce their power?

"The feds have stated that the border is a federal issue and that the minutemen have no right to protect it."

Certainly, they have a right to protect their private property. But the Minutemen emphasize that they are more about alerting the feds about illegal crossings than they are about using force to protect their own property. Also, they were among the big voices for the REAL ID Act. No thank you.

"The Border Fence Project claims that it can build fencing for $5 a foot, equipped with electronic sensors, cameras, etc. It is being built with donated labor and money."

People should be able to build whatever fences they want on their private property. But what if there are people along the border who want to use their property as a gateway to invite people in? The feds would stop them.

"Is it "un-libertarian" to support a mild statist program in opposition to a massive statist program?"

Yes, but I don't consider a federal war on immigration to be a "minor statist program." In fact, I consider it more egregious than any realistically expected boost in welfare statism.

"I think not. The Corporate Right and the Multicultural Left both support massive immgration for thier own purposes. The Multicultural Left gets a nice big proletariat to keep them in power for the foreseeable future, and the Corporate Right gets cheap labor and can pass on costs to the taxpayer."

Bug Business doesn't want them all to be legal, though. If they were all legal, there would be no power relation. The immigrants wouldn't feel as stuck with their employers, and could ask for higher wages. There would be more of an equillibrium achieved in the cost of unskilled foreign vs. native labor.

"IT is the same reason that big corporations support socialize medicine: They can pass off big costs to the government while stifling smaller competition at the same time. They currently support the corporatist health care system that subsidizes employer-provided health care; the bigger the company, the cheaper plan they can provide per employee. Advantage: Big Business."

This is not a bad analogy. But the answer is not more government interventions against Wal-Mart and its employees. It is to get rid of government healthcare.

Published: September 26, 2006 11:46 AM
Anthony Gregory

"Do open-border libertarians believe that the US will become MORE libertarian or LESS libertarian after tens of millions of immigrants from Latin America flood the US?"

I'm not a utilitarian. I oppose immigration controls because they themselves violate libertarian sensibility and principle, distort the market, and put power in the hands of the state. I also oppose censoring Marxists and conservatives, even though there might be negative consequences to their freedom of advocacy. I oppose initiating force.

Published: September 26, 2006 11:49 AM
Reactionary

"But the answer is not more government interventions against Wal-Mart and its employees. It is to get rid of government healthcare."

Which, notwithstanding arguments on principle, gets us back to the heart of the problem: how to get rid of the welfare state when it can always just import more constituents and enlarge its tax base.

"But what if there are people along the border who want to use their property as a gateway to invite people in?"

Then they and their invitees will have to pay adjoining and intervening landowners for the increased load and for rights of passage, which costs are currently offloaded on others. There is no right to immigrate, nor even a right to invite and accept immigrants.

Published: September 26, 2006 12:05 PM
Anthony Gregory

"Which, notwithstanding arguments on principle, gets us back to the heart of the problem: how to get rid of the welfare state when it can always just import more constituents and enlarge its tax base."

I don't understand. Are you saying the welfare state is harder to repeal the more people there are, whether they are paying into it or pulling out of it?

"Then they and their invitees will have to pay adjoining and intervening landowners for the increased load and for rights of passage, which costs are currently offloaded on others. There is no right to immigrate, nor even a right to invite and accept immigrants."

If there is no right to immigrate, there is also no right to have children or do anything else that has such externalities. There is no right to get obese because you will put more stress on the roads and take up more space. There is no right to have a bigger car. There is no right to smoke cigarettes in your backyard. Some intervention—the establishment of commons and the welfare state—becomes an excuse for future interventions to limit the burden on the commons and the welfare state. The rationale for immigration controls ends up being nothing less than the rationale for social democracy.

Published: September 26, 2006 12:14 PM
Anthony Gregory

Sorry, I meant to write that if there's not even a right to invite immigrants, then there is no right to have children. The objections are similar: "Hey! Not fair! We already set up these commons, and there he is bringing in newcomers."

Published: September 26, 2006 12:17 PM
Reactionary

And my last sentence above is I think the point that open-borders libertarians are missing. There is no such thing as a right to travel, which is why you have to erect an armed bureaucracy to protect this made-up right. It is in the very nature of land ownership to be exclusive and discriminatory: it's how you maintain the value of your property. It is really no step at all from a private corporation decreeing, even over the objections of minority shareholders, who is and is not allowed on the property and a polity doing the same thing.

Published: September 26, 2006 12:20 PM
Reactionary

Anthony,

You are correct: there is no right to impose externalities on others. Since you impose externalities just by virtue of existing, societies have to come up with rules to figure out which externalities are punished and which are ignored. This is why libertarianism is not up to the task of dealing with reality. Its principles can be carried through only in a hypothetical world where nobody need impose any externalities on others. Since we're dealing with reality, not theory, the libertarian argument for open borders is basically that their externalities are the ones that should be given deference.

"Are you saying the welfare state is harder to repeal the more people there are, whether they are paying into it or pulling out of it?"

No. I said what I said, but objections aside, yes, because in general people, always and everywhere, want something for nothing and the expanded economic activity postpones the welfare state's day of reckoning, and will probably do so indefinitely.

Published: September 26, 2006 12:39 PM
Anthony Gregory

"And my last sentence above is I think the point that open-borders libertarians are missing. There is no such thing as a right to travel, which is why you have to erect an armed bureaucracy to protect this made-up right."

What do you mean? You are the one advocating an armed bureuacracy — an immigration control agency. Before the immigration policies of the late 19th and early 20th century, America pretty much had free immigration, without any bureuacracy necessary to ensure it.

"It is in the very nature of land ownership to be exclusive and discriminatory: it's how you maintain the value of your property. It is really no step at all from a private corporation decreeing, even over the objections of minority shareholders, who is and is not allowed on the property and a polity doing the same thing."

Is is is not a step, it is a gigantic leap! Bosses also have a right to drug test you -- and yet, libertarians oppose the government's efforts against drugs. They also are expected to give you money in exchange for a service -- and yet, libertarians oppose welfare and national service alike. Private communities can charge a fee for maintaining the commons or providing services -- and yet, libertarians oppose taxes. The jump from private communities to state communities, from private rules to government rules, is the jump from freedom to communism.

Published: September 26, 2006 1:18 PM
bstender

Anthony Gregory writes:
Good thing none of our revered presidents have been nearly so ruthless, corrupt and dictatorial as Chavez.

this is sarcasm i trust...?

Published: September 26, 2006 1:18 PM
Reactionary

Anthony,

Prior to the 20th century, there were no civil rights laws and very little public welfare. Prior to the 20th century, the technology for transporting large numbers of people vast distances did not exist without the sponsorship of imperial powers. There is simply no comparing the situation then with immigration post-1965. By the way, what is your position on the 1965 Immigration Reform Act? Do you think it limited or expanded the scope of government?

Published: September 26, 2006 2:09 PM
Anthony Gregory

My understanding is the act neither clearly limited nor expanded the scope of government, but rather altered a policy in the domain of an existing government power. The essential scope of the state in regard to immigration policy remained the same. It would be similar to the government reducing penalties for marijuana possession while increasing them for marijuana dealing. The basic power is the same.

Published: September 26, 2006 3:28 PM
Nick Bradley

Anthony Gregory,

I really don't see the question of "more or less liberty" as a utilitarian one. Utilitarian would be more along the lines of "what would grow the econmy the most?" If the question of "more or less liberty" is a utilitarian one, then you might as well state that the US under the Articles of Confederation, arguably the closest we've ever came to anarcho-capitalism on a grand scale since medieval Iceland, is no different that the Pol Pot's Cambodia in the grand scheme of things; after all, they are both statist, no? There has to be some shades of gray when examining these issues. One cannot simply state they oppose all forms of statism when a complex (post hunter-gatherer) stateless society has ever existed outside of Medieval Iceland or ancient Ireland.

Published: September 26, 2006 3:46 PM
Anthony Gregory

"I really don't see the question of 'more or less liberty' as a utilitarian one. Utilitarian would be more along the lines of "what would grow the econmy the most?" If the question of 'more or less liberty' is a utilitarian one, then you might as well state that the US under the Articles of Confederation, arguably the closest we've ever came to anarcho-capitalism on a grand scale since medieval Iceland, is no different that the Pol Pot's Cambodia in the grand scheme of things; after all, they are both statist, no?"

It was far from anarcho-capitalist under the Articles, but of course it was lightyears better than Pol Pot's cambodia. The question is, do you support creating a small government, because it might forsetall the creation of a big government? Do you kill 100 people to save 200, or engage in aggressive war and kill innocent people to liberate others? The libertarian answer is no, even if indeed the result of the initiated force is less aggression in the long term.

In other words, I don't think we should ever support trading a little bit of liberty here for more liberty there. It's a dangerous approach to violate libertarian principle in order to protect it.

Published: September 26, 2006 4:59 PM
Nick Bradley

Anthony Gregory,

"It's a dangerous approach to violate libertarian principle in order to protect it."

What libertarian principles are being violated in this case? The right of a foreigner to gain inbridled access to US public property? The right to subsidies by illegal immigrants? The right of employers to hire labor at below-market wages, below market due to government intervention???

Published: September 26, 2006 6:03 PM
Anthony Gregory

"What libertarian principles are being violated in this case?"

The same libertarian principle that forbids government agents from rounding up and deporting you or me for the crime of standing in the public sphere, or having used government property as a thoroughfare to get where we happen to be right now. If immigrants don't have a right to access public property, neither does anyone else. If the implication is the state can forbid immigrants from using it, there's no reason it couldn't forbid others from doing so.

Also, there's another libertarian principle at steak—the same libertarian principle that precludes welfare programs—that is, the principle that taxation is theft. If it is wrong to steal from some to give to others, it's wrong to steal from some to build a wall or fund a border patrol. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Immigration Control.

And then there's the general libertarian principle: Don't trust the state. Don't give it power. Don't make exceptions just because there's something you'd really like to see done.

Published: September 27, 2006 1:53 PM
Anthony Gregory

I wrote, "there's another libertarian principle at steak."

Sorry. I must have food on the mind.

Published: September 27, 2006 2:47 PM
Nick Bradley

Anthony Gregory,

"If immigrants don't have a right to access public property, neither does anyone else."

I don't know if that's necessarily true. Hoppe argures that the Government doesn't own property, but is the caretaker of the collective expropriated assets of the taxpayers. Hoppe believes this gives government, as long as were are still living in a statist world, the right to regulate access to public property by non-citizens.

"Also, there's another libertarian principle at steak—the same libertarian principle that precludes welfare programs—that is, the principle that taxation is theft."

I too feel that taxation is theft. However, it would prevent further theft in this case. This presents a conundrum for libertarians that I feel is not discussed enough.

"And then there's the general libertarian principle: Don't trust the state. Don't give it power. Don't make exceptions just because there's something you'd really like to see done."

Agreed. This applies well when it comes to morals and social norms. But what about when it comes to reducing current intervention by the state?

Published: September 27, 2006 6:51 PM
Anthony Gregory

Nick Bradley:

"I don't know if that's necessarily true. Hoppe argures that the Government doesn't own property, but is the caretaker of the collective expropriated assets of the taxpayers. Hoppe believes this gives government, as long as were are still living in a statist world, the right to regulate access to public property by non-citizens."

So who decides? The taxpayers, or the citizens? How is their decision to be expressed by the state? The market can allow people to express different decisions, but the state can't. Are you advocating democracy on the issue?

If it's just taxpayers, why them? What about people who pay little in taxes but who are greater victims of the state than the average taxpayer? What about the fact that many net taxpayers actually make their profits because regulations is tilted in their direction? Heck, if we give weight to the bigger taxpayers -- big business -- they'd probably want immigrants anyway. And what about children? They aren't net taxpayers. Do they have no rights to walk on public roads?

The point is, we can't pretend like the state is the market, no matter how much we might want to. And we shouldn't let it police "its" property on our behalf, as if it were a private owner. Because it's not.

"I too feel that taxation is theft. However, it would prevent further theft in this case. This presents a conundrum for libertarians that I feel is not discussed enough."

That's utilitarian, the ends-justify-the-means reasoning. By similar logic, we can justify nearly any statism.

"Agreed. This applies well when it comes to morals and social norms. But what about when it comes to reducing current intervention by the state?"

Reductions in state intervention are good. Immigration controls are themselves an intervention. Trusting them is like trusting antitrust law as a weapon against the excesses of corporate welfare. Remove interventions already in place. Never add new ones to reduce the harm of others.

Published: September 28, 2006 11:12 AM
Will Jolly

What most people on here seem to be ignoring is the fact that illegal immigrants are not eligible for welfare. When Clinton signed his "welfare reform" bill in 1996, he explicitly exempted "illegal" immigrants from recieving any form of assistance with the exception of K-12 education and emergency medical care (the denial of which is illegal to anyone under any circumstances). All this bleating about immigrants swelling the welfare rolls is way overblown. The vast majority of illegal immigrants are gainfully employed and, according to one study, two-thirds of all "illegal" immigrants pay, at the very least, Social Security, Medicare, AND personal income taxes. Most immigrants don't sign up for welfare because (A) they generally don't know how and B) they're too afraid of getting deported for being here "illegally". Anti-"illegal" immigrant hysteria is BULLSHIT!

Published: May 11, 2007 6:41 PM
Will Jolly

What most people on here seem to be ignoring is the fact that illegal immigrants are not eligible for welfare. When Clinton signed his "welfare reform" bill in 1996, he explicitly exempted "illegal" immigrants from recieving any form of assistance with the exception of K-12 education and emergency medical care (the denial of which is illegal to anyone under any circumstances). All this bleating about immigrants swelling the welfare rolls is way overblown. The vast majority of illegal immigrants are gainfully employed and, according to one study, two-thirds of all "illegal" immigrants pay, at the very least, Social Security, Medicare, AND personal income taxes. Most immigrants don't sign up for welfare because (A) they generally don't know how and B) they're too afraid of getting deported for being here "illegally". Anti-"illegal" immigrant hysteria is BULLSHIT!

Published: May 11, 2007 6:41 PM

Ludwig von Mises Institute

The fruit of immigration controls

Comments (95)

Blog Search

Blog Archives

Salamanca Live Blog

LvMI on Facebook

Recent Comments

Inside Links

Students

Journals

Outside Links

More Aids

The Quotable Mises

Ludwig von Mises Institute

The fruit of immigration controls

Comments (95)

Blog Search

Subscribe

Blog Archives

Salamanca Live Blog

LvMI on Facebook

Recent Comments

Inside Links

Students

Journals

Outside Links

More Aids

The Quotable Mises