Comments (29)

• Paul Prentice

  This article is very well done. It pleases me that economics graduate students exhibit such clear thinking. I would like to clarify one point. Your article, and many others in the libertarian realm, mistakenly confuse "immigrant" with "illegal alien". Thus, you and others state that those who are against the illegal invasion (i.e., those who are for the rule of law) are anti-immigrant. Your economic arguments would be better-accepted if you would avoid such confusion.
  

  Published: June 28, 2007 8:51 AM

• Tim Kern

  Mr. Prentice makes all valuable points. I would like to add that the US Bureau of the Census is one great tool of those who divide us, pitting all groups against all other groups, resulting in a population drawn and quartered into so many factions, all trying to get some of some other faction's property, through the miracle of unfettered democracy.

  First, as Mr. Vuk and Mr. Prentice imply, government is too big, with too much power. People of ill will are naturally drawn to that, to become our rulers. Ben Franklin said as much.

  Second, we all seem to know, deep down, that we are being bled by a government that consumes half of what we make, and it's growing. As the population tips past 50% in favor of parasitism, the minority is doomed. Forced to work harder voluntarily, it eventually cannot keep up with the tyrants' demands, and is forced to work involuntarily. At least in this respect, Marx was right -- only he liked it that way.

  Third, look back at the Census. It is constitutionally required only to provide an enumeration of the population. All additional questions ("From the list of a couple dozen factions below, choose which race most closely describes yours") merely serve government and special-interest purposes, being used by the greedy, opportunistic, and ill-willed to point out "unfairness" to the point of absurdity, and often to the point of violence.

  There is nothing wrong with a locality's wanting to know some particular demographic; nor is there anything wrong with a marketer's wish to target a market -- but in the federal government's eyes, we are all equal, remember? The federal government isn't about demographic splits in the population; it's about equal treatment -- of individuals, not groups -- for all.

  Restore the Constitution and the problems largely solve themselves. So, the revolution starts next Wednesday? It's as good a day as any. (Before you have me arrested for inciting insurrection, please answer this: Is restoring the Constitution a "revolutionary" act, or is opposing its restoration treasonous? ... Time's up.)

  Published: June 28, 2007 9:08 AM

• Nat

  Paul Prentice is 100% correct. Those who equating immigrants with illegal aliens are the ones who are anti-immigrant.

  Published: June 28, 2007 9:32 AM

• Evans Munyemesha

  What you call 'illegal alien' is nothing but an invention of bad law and the State. A person who wishes to associate voluntarily with others of whatever country without the approval of the immigration officer or the State has done nothing wrong, and therefore could not be an illegal. But the State, by attempting to criminalize voluntary associations, violates the principles of freedom of movement and of association, and therefore, the State is the one that has engaged in an illegal act.

  Published: June 28, 2007 11:26 AM

• Reactionary

  Evans,

  There is no such thing as "freedom of movement." In the absence of government, all movement would have to be with the permission of the adjoining property owners. That's why, when government doesn't interdict them, illegal aliens run the risk of being shot as trespassers or dying in the desert.

  Published: June 28, 2007 11:45 AM

• Reactionary

  "When the Chinese and Irish first arrived, many felt that they were going to steal jobs and destroy the economy. However, time revealed the fallacy of these claims. It is by no mere accident that the most booming areas of this country are in New York City and the West Coast."

  Laughable ignorance.

  Published: June 28, 2007 11:50 AM

• Nick Bradley

  Good Point Reactionary. Have you read HH Hoppe's views on Immigration? Here is a sampling from his JLS paper entitled "The Case for Free Trade and Restricted Immigration."
  

  
  Here's a quote:

  "According to proponents of unconditional free immigration, the U.S. qua high-wage area would invariably benefit from free immigration; hence, it should enact a policy of open borders, regardless of any existing conditions, i.e., even if the U.S. were ensnarled in protectionism and domestic welfare. Yet surely, such a proposal strikes a reasonable person as fantastic. Assume that the U.S., or better still Switzerland, declared that there would no longer be any border controls, that anyone who could pay the fare might enter the country, and, as a resident then be entitled to every “normal” domestic welfare provision. Can there be any doubt how disastrous such an experiment would turn out in the present world? The U.S., and Switzerland even faster, would be overrun by millions of third-world immigrants, because life on and off American and Swiss public streets is comfortable compared to life in many areas of the third world. Welfare costs would skyrocket, and the strangled economy disintegrate and collapse, as the subsistence fund—the stock of capital accumulated in and inherited from the past—was plundered. Civilization in the U.S. and Switzerland would vanish, just as it once did from Rome and Greece...
  

  
  Put differently, while someone can migrate from one place to another without anyone else wanting him to do so, goods and services cannot be shipped from place to place unless both sender and receiver agree. Trivial as this distinction may appear, it has momentous consequences. For free in conjunction with trade then means trade by invitation of private households and firms only; and restricted trade does not mean protection of households and firms from uninvited goods or services, but invasion and abrogation of the right of private households and firms to extend or deny invitations to their own property. In contrast, free in conjunction with immigration does not mean immigration by invitation of individual households and firms, but unwanted invasion or forced integration; and restricted immigration actually means, or at least can mean, the protection of private households and firms from unwanted invasion and forced integration. Hence, in advocating free trade and restricted immigration, one follows the same principle: requiring an invitation for people as for goods and services.
  In contrast, the advocate of free trade and free markets who adopts the (conditional) free immigration position is involved in intellectual inconsistency. Free trade and markets mean that private property owners may receive or send goods from and to other owners without government interference. The government stays inactive vis-à-vis the process of foreign and domestic trade, because a willing (paying) recipient exists for every good or service sent, and hence all locational changes, as the outcome of agreements between sender and receiver, must be deemed mutually beneficial. The government’s sole function is that of maintaining the trading process (by protecting citizen and domestic property)."

  
  

  
  

  Published: June 28, 2007 12:34 PM

• billwald

  Repeal the Constitution. Amend the Articles of Confederation to include 50 sovereign nations under one foreign policy.

  Published: June 28, 2007 1:02 PM

• Reactionary

  billwald,

  Prior to a Supreme Court ruling in 1854, immigration was regulated by the individual States, not the federal government. That is what is deliberately ignored in the immigration debate: it is a local matter, not a national matter.

  Published: June 28, 2007 1:28 PM

• Robert Brazil

  From Hoppe, as quoted by Nick Bradley:

  "In contrast, free in conjunction with immigration does not mean immigration by invitation of individual households and firms, but unwanted invasion or forced integration..."

  I don't completely follow Hoppe's argument. Even with illegal immigration, the immigrants do not invade my home or property. In a very real sense, they are no different from the legal residents. They are free to roam on public streets (which would not exist without government) or on private property when invited (which would also be the case without government).

  Violations of person and property are the problem, not government-granted immigration status. Thus, the problems with free immigration stem mainly from the fact that more people will partake in the legalized theft of the welfare state, placing more of a burden on society's producers. Tax consumers (and other violators of person and property) are the problem, whether they are "legal" or "illegal."

  In conclusion, I am opposed to free, unrestricted immigration under current conditions, but only because it would exacerbate the problems created by government.

  Published: June 28, 2007 4:01 PM

• Vedran Vuk

  May I first say, it would be difficult for me to be anti-immigrant as then I would be anti-self exercising a performative contradiction by remaining in the country.

  Mr. Prentice makes a good point for clarification on illegal and legal immigration. However, both pose a drain on tax money.

  The illegal immigrant cannot receive things like social security and welfare. However, illegal immigrants must still be treated in emergency rooms as well as dealt with our criminal justice system and jails if crimes are committed. This consumption is much less than a legal citizen could qualify for.

  Although, we must consider that a legal immigrant does not necessarily have to be a drain on tax money. Naturalized citizens such as my parents pay more every year in taxes than they will ever receive back in benefits.

  Illegal immigrants consume less. But, they are paying almost zero taxes other than sales taxes and indirect taxation of goods through higher prices. They can as a whole be said to be net gainers from the system. With legal immigrants the picture is more fuzzy.

  I hope this clarifies my view on the difference. Each group is still consumes social services and both groups often form voting blocks with a certain leaning in turn leading to further social conflict.

  Published: June 28, 2007 6:26 PM

• TGGP

  The article makes some good points in that the state exacerbates conflict between demographic groups. However, it is wrong to say no such conflict exists where the market exists instead of the state. As mentioned, the Irish fought with others over jobs. As described in The Myth of No Irish Need Apply, they often formed labor organizations and forced their employers not to hire non-Irish with the threat of violence (just so nobody here thinks I'm anti-Irish, I am myself a descendant of irish immigrants). Similarly, Thomas Sowell's "middle man minorities" especially when they are "market-dominant minorities" have often been hated because of and despite the role they play in economies. I have hosted Sowell's excellent essay on the subject, "Are Jews Generic?", here. Finally, in disorderly countries clans or ethnic/religious groups are still prone to feuding with each other. Examples include Somalia and Constantinople before the Nika rebellion.

  Published: June 28, 2007 6:59 PM

• Reactionary

  To add to the references to Hoppe, I'd also recommend William Lind's writings. To wit, multiculturalism is the death of the secular state. The good news is that this signals the return of a regime where people are free to include or exclude as they may desire, and the costs of immigration will be borne solely by the immigrants and their customers. The bad news, depending on one's perspective, is that unassimilable ethnic minorities and sexual deviants will find it difficult to obtain decent housing or gainful employment.

  Published: June 28, 2007 8:41 PM

• Brainpolice

  I agree with evans and robert. Furthermore, for the true libertarian (rather than conservative) take on immigration, see Walter Block: http://mises.org/journals/jls/13_2/13_2_4.pdf

  Published: June 29, 2007 12:38 AM

• Hans Luftner

  Paul Prentice: "Your article, and many others in the libertarian realm, mistakenly confuse "immigrant" with "illegal alien". "

  I'm sorry Paul, but the state created this entirely artificial catagory of immigrant called "illegal alien" & now we're arguing over to what extent we should oppose this group. It seems to me this alone proves that The State Breeds Social Conflict.

  Nat: "Those who equating immigrants with illegal aliens are the ones who are anti-immigrant."

  How?

  Published: June 29, 2007 3:12 AM

• ProfaneCreation

  As Libertarians we can see the lies and foul play committed by the State everyday. One of the ways the State does that is by putting every single person under the authority of one monopoly protector under a nation State. The State assumes many things and creates regulations and other social ills that will cause social conflict. What the State of the USA and other Western States don't understand is when you force people to integrate and create all these diversity programs its going to cause conflict. I am a bit of a National-Anarchist in the respect that when the State disappears, people of a culture group A will want to be with the A culture. People are naturally adherent to other people that are similar in culture, race, ethnicity and so forth. So when the State collapses (and it will) there will be thousands of different areas controlled by certain groups and as the people that control the property in that region, they can allow whom ever they wish to allow in their area. Sort of like in ancient times when people were given permission to go into walled cities. So in a sense immigration is an invitational construct and not a right. For another point on cultural autonomy, here is an excellent article by the great Rothbard himself.
  http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard134.html

  Published: June 29, 2007 9:57 AM

• Nat

  Luftner,

  Illegal aliens are tresspassers. Immigrants are not.

  Munyemesha,

  Tresspass is not an invention of the State.

  Published: June 29, 2007 10:15 AM

• Robert Brazil

  Nat:
  "Illegal aliens are tresspassers. Immigrants are not."

  I disagree. Trespass occurs on private property. Unless we accept the mythology of democracy as representative of the will of the sentient, singular "people," the presence of illegal immigrants on public streets is not and can not be trespass.

  Every one of us might have a different view of who should be allowed in and who should be kept out. In reality, the laws (and the half-assed, non-enforcement of them) are a reflection of the will of politicians and special interests, who are the de-facto owners of so-called "public property," which is really stolen property.

  Published: June 29, 2007 11:54 AM

• Hans Luftner

  Nat:
  You didn't actually explain what you meant by "Those who equating immigrants with illegal aliens are the ones who are anti-immigrant."

  & a government's jurisdiction is not property. Even if it were, they're all still immigrants. So it wouldn't even matter. That demonstrates nothing.

  Published: June 29, 2007 12:29 PM

• Brainpolice

  [quote]Illegal aliens are tresspassers. Immigrants are not.[/quote]

  This is a false claim. Tresspassers on what? Oh yes, government-claimed land, that does not represent a legitimate property title. The borders of nation-states do not represent legitimate property titles. The anti-immigration stance hinges on government ownership of land; and a notion of collective ownership of property in which, "we" are presumed to own it collectively.

  Someone who "illegally" immigrates is someone crossing what is effectively unowned land, since there is no discernable just owner to "public property". In effect, the government is putting up a barrier to entry and ownership of unused and unowned land. The solution to the immigration issue is, of course, the privatization of land. The solution to the public roads is not to arrest anyone who uses them, but to privatize them. Same goes with "public land".

  It seems to me that once the libertarian has genuinely rejected nation-states, they cannot accept anti-immigrationist claims. If the libertarian rejects nation-states, they must reject the "borders" of those nation-states as illegitimate property titles. Indeed, anti-immigrationist claims start to smell of plain old (1) protectionism and (2) nationalism. I don't recall ever reading anywhere that nationalism (perhaps aside from "national liberation", which has nothing to do with legitimizing nation-states) is part of the libertarian tradition.

  Published: June 29, 2007 5:12 PM

• Brainpolice

  As for how this relates to the state breeding social conflict, it seems quite obvious to me that enforcement of imaginary lines on a map known as national and state border creates hostility. In the same way that trade sanctions are a boon to international war, artificial land barriers created by states are a boon to cultural war. To think that "border enforcement", which essentially requires a police state, is going to ease hostility strikes me as nonsensical.

  Yes, yes. Many complain about "forced integration", and they have some legitimacy to their claim. However, illegal immigration is not "forced integration"; indeed, it is an action going against the state's laws. I view it as an act of civil disobedience to an unjust law. Furthermore, those who complain about "forced integration" never seem to also direct their fury towards "forced segregation" which is just as evil, and which state border enforcement IS.

  Published: June 29, 2007 5:18 PM

• la44t2gwyhvf23

  In contrast, markets draw people into peaceful social relationships, and encourage and reward harmonious interaction among people.

  Does this mean we should repeal child labor laws, transportation safety regulations, and anti-trust laws? If you look at history rather than economic theory you get a different perspective.

  I agree that capitalism is the best system we know of, but it is not perfect.

  Published: July 1, 2007 4:34 PM

• Joshua Katz

  >Does this mean we should repeal child labor laws, transportation safety regulations, and >anti-trust laws? If you look at history rather than economic theory you get a different >perspective.

  Of course we should. Then we should get rid of the evil entity that would ever think of subjecting us to such laws.

  Published: July 2, 2007 1:23 PM

• Reactionary

  Brainpolice,

  When immigrants venture off the state's roads and don't get the state's notice and opportunity for hearing they get shot by ranchers or die in the desert. When there are no civil rights laws, people slap restrictive racial covenants on their property and hang signs like, "No Irish need apply" in their windows. Immigrants are forced to adapt to the prevailing culture or face ghettoization and lifetime poverty. The present situation could not be less libertarian.

  Published: July 2, 2007 3:46 PM

• Scott D

  la44t2gwyhvf23,

  1. Child Labor Laws: Largely irrelevant in the developed world, destructive to the poor in the 3rd world, who must put their children to work or starve.

  2. Transportation Safety Regulations: irrelevant. Firms that provide transportation don't usually want to kill their customers, and will be required by their insurance providers to maintain high standards. Those that refuse to offer indemnity and don't buy insurance may exist, but will need to offer dirt-cheap prices to compete. If customers still use their services, knowing the risks, that is their choice.

  3. Anti-trust: does all harm and no good. Anti-trust has become a tool of special interests to prevent innovation and punish efficiency. Cui bono: look at who is pushing for these suits to go forward and what interest they have in the outcome.

  You'll find that history supports the libertarian case quite well when you strip out statist ideology and arguments from emotion.

  Published: July 2, 2007 4:30 PM

• Kevin B.

  Reactionary: "Immigrants are forced to adapt to the prevailing culture..."

  So, rather than immigrants being forced by nature to adapt to the culture they are moving into, you propose that it is more humanitarian to have non-immigrants forced by man to adapt to the culture of the immigrants? Libertarian?

  Published: July 2, 2007 6:38 PM

• TGGP

  Reactionary, did you just completely ignore that I posted a link showing "No Irish Need Apply" to be a myth?

  "border enforcement", which essentially requires a police state
  It requires a wall or fence or some other physical barrier. We enforced the border under Eisenhower's "Operation Wetback" and then went back to normal without a police state. We enforced the immigration restrictions of 1921 and 1924 without a police state. Mexico enforces its own southern border without a police state. Finland enforces its border with Russia without a police state. You are talking nonsense.

  Published: July 4, 2007 1:53 AM

• Brainpolice

  [quote]t requires a wall or fence or some other physical barrier.[/quote]

  What kind of wall, fence, physical barrier? Oh yes, NOT private property, GOVERNMENT PROPERTY, I.E. stolen goods. Governmental borders are the very essence of the state's monopoly on the territory. "Border enforcement" is enforcement of the state's land monopoly. Period.

  [quote]You are talking nonsense.[/quote]

  Not at all, you are talking nonsense. "border enforcment" is a statist, protectinist policy. Period. Border enforcement is expressly unlibertarian, and anti-immigration sentiment has allowed the libertarian movement to be hijacked by a bunch of nationalists and racists.

  Published: July 6, 2007 1:20 PM

• Brainpolice

  "Border enforcement" inherently requires an expansion of police socialism. "Border enforcement" is the defense of the government's land monopoly, through the use of police socialism. "National sovereignty" is a canard because nation-states are not legitimate. Immigration restrictionists are nothing but a bunch of nationalists, protectionists (like Pat Buchannan) and racists (no, I'm not being PC, but telling the truth). Anti-immigration is paleo-conservative and fascist, not libertarian.

  Published: July 6, 2007 1:25 PM