Guest Blog by Jennifer McKitrick
There’s something fishy about some anti-immigration arguments.
They say “We’re not against immigration, we’re against illegal immigration.” OK, so the problem with immigrants is that they broke some laws. But are they good laws? If yes, they’re for laws designed to keep immigrants out, so they are against immigration. If no, then they should be for changing the laws. But they say changing the laws is either unacceptable “amnesty” for illegals that are already here and/or it would encourage more immigration. But the immigration that would happen then would be legal, so if they’re only against illegal immigration, they should have no problem.
So, I think I think that they are less than sincere when they say they are only against illegal immigration. Perhaps the right thing to say is that they only support the amount of immigration currently allowed by law. Which is pretty much being against immigration for the most part. But I suspect it’s really just lip service so they don’t seem so much like xenophobic racists. Of course, they want to protect American jobs, but preferring that companies pay higher wages to Americans rather than lower wages to needy non-Americans has no moral justification that I can see, and is probably based on racism as well.
Jennifer McKitrick is Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Nebraska – Lincoln, and Vice-President of the Molinari Institute and Molinari Society.
The immigration issue sounds just like the ‘confusion’ precluding the U.S. civil war, surrounding the laws passed to make it illegal to feed, shelter, aid runaway slaves.
In the novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Chapter IX, Senator Bird comes home from work one night telling his wife, “There has been a law passed forbidding people to help off the slaves that come over from Kentucky, my dear; so much of that thing has been done by these reckless Abolitionists, that our brethren in Kentucky are very strongly excited, and it seems necessary, and no more than Christian and kind, that something should be done by our state to quiet the excitement.”
Mary Bird blasts her husband for supporting the bill, and that very night an actual escaping slave in need lands on their doorstep. When he acts, Senator Bird chooses to break the law he cast a vote for that same afternoon. When faced with the actual circumstances, the reality he sees with his own eyes, he can’t uphold the law he supported in theory. This makes a great allegory for what I believe must happen to the immigration debate.
In regard to this issue of immigration, you have these laws on the books that in practice have been/are being ignored — not just by the ‘illegals’ but by scores of citizens. Clearly the law is not concordant with real-life circumstances.
Clearly the law is not concordant with real-life circumstances.
This law is necessary for global capitalism to work. Think about capitalism in the U.S. – would it last long if all the working class people could just move into the mansions and corporate offices of the rich? Of course not. Similarly if the U. S. is to continue to be “on top” of all the dirt-poor third-world countries then their filthy masses have to be kept outside and away from our front lawns and capitalist luxury.
I’ve noticed in their arguments against the closed-borders advocates, the open-borders advocates like to throw around the accusation of racism quite a bit.
The open-borders advocates also tend to portray themselves as the true libertarians because they are against the increased government action of securing the borders. But I have yet to see a OBA complain (in articles in favor of open borders) about the government action of preventing people’s freedom of association. I hear a lot of denouncing the border patrol and documentation to control as totalitarian (I agree). But why are they silent where government agents make sure that apartment owners rent, that banks give out loans, that restaurants serve, and that companies hire minorities? Is this not totalitarian as well?
Seeing that the immigration problem is only problem that government created by intervening in the larger picture of freedom of association, I think that those questions are just as important as the immorality of border security.
With legislation such as the Civil Rights Act and Supreme Court rulings against racial covenants it has politicized the personal question of who we want to associate and live with. With their market solutions outlawed by the government, it is no wonder that these people turned to political power to retain their way of living by creating zoning laws (to force certain market values of houses to keep minorities out) and restricted borders.
I think that most libertarians essentially agree with the ideal outcome being completely private property and the property owners deciding who has access. The problem is that we get divided on what the government solution should be. It exactly the same in principal if the libertarians were sharply divided over debates like evolution or creationism in public schools and whether gays should be allowed in the military, with lots of name calling ensuing.
There may be points to be made either way, but so far as they do not concern liberty, we need to leave them out. We need to rise above this and start pointing out ALL the problems with [i]government involvement[/i] on this issue.
Libertarians are always eager to rush to defend narcotics and prostitution and even dog-killing with the disclaimer that they do not personally condone those things. Why aren’t they doing the same thing in regards to defending the right of people to voluntarily exclude others (“racists”)?
Anon2 wrote, “… if the U. S. is to continue to be “on top” of all the dirt-poor third-world countries then their filthy masses have to be kept outside and away from our front lawns and capitalist luxury.”
Hope this becomes widely acknowledged as an old-fashioned, impractical mentality — along with getting your buddies in government to host a war so you can get a few fat contracts and make a killing. Not an economics brain like many commentators here, and because of that, probably, I still hope smart people will self-monitor and practice moderation.
“Of course, they want to protect American jobs, but preferring that companies pay higher wages to Americans rather than lower wages to needy non-Americans has no moral justification that I can see, and is probably based on racism as well.”
First, I think we can do without the claims of racism.
Second, you don’t have to be Ludwig von Mises to know that the result of open borders would be a massive increase in the number of workers and a decrease in the wage rates. In fact, unskilled and moderately skilled black and hispanic immigrants are likely to suffer most by open borders. (I doubt that a professor at the University of Nebraska has much to worry about when it comes to his or her income being reduced as a result of increase supply of labor, though.)
Third, I don’t think it’s immoral or unlibertarian to care more about your family more than the next guy’s family, your town more than the town over, or your country more than the country that borders you.
Fourth, we don’t live in a libertarian society and immigration will entrench the welfare state even more.
Sergio,
I don’t understand your point about wage rates.
As far as the welfare state goes, the question is whether a large influx of immigrants (who are generally poor) will make ending the welfare state more or less likely. I don’t see how anyone can deny that the welfare state will become more entrenched.
Let me ask you this: if Mexico were Islamic and the arrival of large number of Mexican immigrants would result in Sharia in the South West, would you still support open borders?
Forgotten Man said, “The open-borders advocates also tend to portray themselves as the true libertarians because they are against the increased government action of securing the borders. But I have yet to see a OBA complain (in articles in favor of open borders) about the government action of preventing people’s freedom of association. I hear a lot of denouncing the border patrol and documentation to control as totalitarian (I agree). But why are they silent where government agents make sure that apartment owners rent, that banks give out loans, that restaurants serve, and that companies hire minorities? Is this not totalitarian as well?”
That’s a dangerous argument. It amounts to saying, “The government is interfering with the free market by doing X. This is creating problems. Therefore, we must minimizing the harm resulting from X by having the government also do Y.” Such an argument leads, for example, from the high costs of health care created through such policies as medical licensure, admission of pain and suffering damages into malpractice suits, FDA approval procedures for new drugs, and tax deductability of medical benefits to employees, to the argument that government should step in and take over the health insurance industry entirely through tax funded medical care. It makes any government intervention not merely a venial sin that exists in its own right, but a mortal sin that leads on to a continuing series of further sins.
In fact, I believe that is one of the classical libertarian and Austrian criticisms of interventionism in general—that it cannot just be done in isolated cases but generates a continuing process of more intervention through exactly such pressures. And my reaction in both cases is that such further intervention should be resisted, and the case should be made for doing away with the previous intervention that created the pressures. (I think that advocating such further interventions is what classical Marxist theory calls “right-wing opportunism,” though I may have the terminology wrong.)
Neil:
My point about wages is that you seem to assume that immigrants are payed lower wages is some “natural fact of nature” and has nothing to do with other factors (namely, their “illegal status” and the implications it has for their rights, including the right to freely associate and form unions to fight for higher wages).
You also assume that illegal immigration will favor a larger welfare state. That is true only if people do nothing to fight the political inertia we are bounded to (i.e Statism). In pure libertarian terms, if you object to welfare expansion, you should fight the welfare state, no matter if it recipients are immigrants or natives.
Concerning your last question…why do you assume that if Mexico was an Islamic country an open immigration policy will result in the establishment of the sharia in the middle west? That sounds like a xenophobic excuse rather than a serious sociological or political reasoning
Sergio,
“if you object to welfare expansion, you should fight the welfare state, no matter if it recipients are immigrants or natives.”
When did I say we shouldn’t fight the welfare state?
“That sounds like a xenophobic excuse rather than a serious sociological or political reasoning”
I get the impression that you don’t want to respond to my points.
Sergio,
“But you certainly are using the ‘immigrants will increase the welfare state’ as an excuse to fight immigration, not the welfare state.”
Again, when did I say or imply this?
Do you support open borders no matter what the consequences?
Sergio,
I consider myself a libertarian conservative, so I’d say that certain principles (such as freedom of association) have to be implimented in light of other principles. For example, I think the US government should prevent foreigners with documented histories of violent crime from coming to the US, even if Farmer Brown wants to excercise his property rights by employing them.
An open border policy would have bad consequences, in my opinion. If Europe had completely open borders, the smaller countries would cease to exist as we know them in our lifetime. Ireland has 4.2 million people and a booming economy. If anyone who wanted to go Ireland could, Ireland as a unique cultural entity would end. I think that would be a bad consequence.
Excuse me, for I must have been a little hungover when I made my last post and thus was not clear on my position.
Mr. Stoddard, I was writing from a third perspective, not from a closed borders perspective. I was criticizing the open-borders crowd for taking a government policy position rather than the pure libertarian position. Of course, closed-borders libertarians are guilty of not taking the pure property rights position, but they typically do not claim moral high ground, only practicality.
If libertarians ever want to be united on this issue, they need to realize that immigration is only part of the picture. We need to focus on freedom of association. You can’t reprimand those who would restrict who other citizens can associate with and at the same time cast a blind eye towards those who force other citizens to interact with those they would rather not.
Yes, defend the right of a company to bring new workers into their factory, but we must also defend the right of residents to come together and form racial covenants on their block if they wish. We need to defend the right of companies to not hire and the right of restaurants to not serve.
Calling people racists because of their living preferences does nothing to further the libertarian cause and actually derails it by throwing distractions into the debate. I rarely see this in any other issue. I do not see libertarians name-calling those who want Creationism taught in public schools. I see libertarians informing them that not only in a libertarian society would they be able to send their child to a school that taught what they believed, but that they would not have to support those that taught things they do not believe.
So why do I see libertarians name-calling those who do not want to send their children to school with immigrants or live next door to them? Shouldn’t we be pointing out that in a libertarian society, they would have the ability to form covenants, to not serve or hire immigrants, let alone have to pay for their schools and healthcare?
Why is the free immigration crowd silent on this? Is it because they don’t approve of that outcome? Why else would they throw around accusations of racism?
I am interested to hear from Mr. Long and Ms. McKitrick on this.
Neil:
Well, I consider myself a Left leanning libertarian (or libertarian left winger, howver you want to call me). Anyways, I consider anybody who considers himself or herself a libertarian, should defend the right of mobility and free asociation (and private property) as a fundamental. I do not see how you can restrict that principle (except in some very hypothetical situations, of which immigration is not one) at the expense of others.And I think a consistent libertarianism should reject the idea that states (the US or any other) have a “right” to restrict the free mobility of human beings about its artificially created borders. I also don´think the state has the right to impose “cultural identities” or anything of that sort, specially from a libertarian POV.
Forgotten Man:
You still have not presented evidence that libertarians (at least those who write in this blog) oppose the right of freedom of association, including the principle of freedom of association of racists or xenophobes. So I fail to see why you accuse open border libertarians of being inconsistent. And I honestly don´t see on what ground will you oppose people (libertarian or not) of freely calling racists to persons who willingly decided to exclude other human beings for their color of skin or their etnic origin. If those people have a right -and I think they have it- to act as bigots, why are you opposing my right to call them -righfully- “racists” or “xenophobes”?
Forgotten Man:
Using the term “racist” here isn’t name-calling for name-calling’s sake, it is a proposed conclusion to the given evidence. It might be a right or wrong conclusion.
Sergio,
“Yes, I support open borders no matter what consequences (since I am not a consequencialist or any sort of utilitarist…are you?).”
Great because there are lots of countries we are going to need to invade to force open borders on. Or do you not agree with my right to enforce my supposed right to immigrate where ever I choose?
Currently, if I can get several other millions of Americans to join me I’d like to move to Saudi Arabia so I can politically overpower the present population and then turn government oil proceeds over to new immigrants, and tax the hell out of the royal family. 😉
McKitrick”: You sound like a sharp cookie, but what is wrong with we are against “Illegals’ , who invaded our NEST ? This is what we are against..!!!
Immigrants are needed in our country , but we determine how many, and from where …!!!
These hispanics are ‘illegals” and are NOT immigrants.
Immigrants are the persons who enter in a LEGAL manner…
‘Illegals’ are persons who did NOT come here in a legal manner …they forced themselves on us and our Country…
Now we are paying them to be here at the rate of one BILLION dollars a year since 2000. This is what is wrong, that all of the “freebies’ they receive cost us, the tax-payer , NOT the Govt….
They give away our money , and dont even ask us about it, and only to favor for their own personal gain…!!!
Congress is paid off for their Votes to keep ‘illegals’ here for BigBusiness who have made 2.3 TRILLION dollars profit since 2000 til today.
If big business wants them here, let me suggest they pay them to be here , but NOT with my money….
otherwise I join those who say….Go Home, and fix your own system”…!!! Come here only in a legal manner and untol then ,you are NOT wanted….!!!
If these people came to your house and took your money, and ate your free food and demanded you pay them monthly a monetary fee , free housing, food medical bills , you pay for their special teachers to learn the language , and make them breakfasts and lunches, how long would you put up with this crap?
When I hear someone say, “I’m just against illegal immigration,” I always say, “Oh, so you won’t mind it if I get rid of all immirgation laws? Good.”
I’m truly against illegal immigration. In the society I envision, illegal immigration won’t just not happen, it will be downright impossible. In the same way, I’m truly and wholly against illegal drug use, illegal prostitution, illegal swearing, illegal tax-evasion, illegal smiling, et cetera.
There’s a great article about immitgration in the recent issue of The Freeman titled “The Nation is Not a House.” I recommend checking it out.
Forgotten Man asks, “But why are they silent where government agents make sure that apartment owners rent, that banks give out loans, that restaurants serve, and that companies hire minorities?”
We’re not silent. We openly oppose such laws. If a restaraunt wishes to only serve albino Asian female midgets, it should not be forced by the government to also serve non-albinos, non-Asians, males, or non-midgets.
“With their market solutions outlawed by the government, it is no wonder that these people turned to political power to retain their way of living by creating zoning laws (to force certain market values of houses to keep minorities out) and restricted borders.”
They support such laws because they’re afraid of market forces.
Yours,
Alex
sergio wrote: “Yes, I support open borders no matter what consequences….”
Really? lets put your thought process to the test. If a neighboring family ILLEGALLY broke into your home and demanded “entitlements” that YOU personally had to pay including medical, social security, housing, food, education etc then under your thought process you would have no choice other than to cater to their needs, including speaking their language. I guess they can do the jobs around the house that you won’t do. All I have ever asked of any pro-ILLEGAL immigrant, open borders advocate is to simply live what they say they believe in. If you don’t then you would be an elitist and a hypocrite. All I ask is that you prove me wrong.
Larry:
I said I support open borders, not the welfare state, irruption in private property and theft…why is so hard for you people to see the difference between those?
Why does every commentator here discuss the scenario of underprivileged hordes stomping up the front steps, flinging opening the front door and raiding the fridge, etc., of the good householder.
Try the idea of someone fleeing terrible circumstances, hurt, scared, hungry. They try to hide in your garage to escape, trying not to make their presence known because they know its your house and they don’t belong. They don’t want to disturb you, they just need shelter. Maybe they even eat from your trash can.
One day you stumble upon this deprived person sleeping in your garage. What do you do?
It’s pretty unfortunate that Ms. McKitrick speculates that racist ideology is generally a motivating force among anti-“open borders” advocates. Yes, some of them are quite racist (I’ve met some), but it’s lazy thinking to paint all of them with the same broad brush strokes.
However, this begs a question for those libertarians who favor government control of borders: What, then, is your objection to immigration, exactly? I have yet to meet a single self-professed libertarian who supports gov’t control of the borders who can explicitly articulate to me what exactly is the basis of their support of statist force in regards to this particular issue.
So for you libertiarians who favor gov’t control of borders: You meet another libertarian–let’s call him, say, “Bob”–who states that immigration shold be governed strictly by private rights of property and contract and not by government police power. “Bob” favors the complete abolition of the welfare state; the complete and total withdrawal of the state from all economic activity; and an end to all state invasion of the individual’s right to freedom of association. If “Bob” favors all these things, but yet you still maintain a support of gov’t control of the borders, what then is your reasoning supporting your position?
(Keep in mind that “Bob’s” position can’t necessarily be characterized as advocating for “open borders.” It’s perfectly reasonable to assume that if borders are privately owned, private owners would have perfectly legitimate reasons to keep immigrants from trespassing across their property.)
The closed borders folks want to pretend that the government is the owner of private property. This is how they can get away with saying things like “raiding your house…” etc. and not lose their minds.
What am I saying, the closed borders HHH, Kinsella, types have already lost their minds.
Seems to me that there is a widely held perceived association between (illegal) immigration and the welfare state. The argument goes that ‘we can’t let these people in because they’ll take advantage of our welfare policies.’ If we managed to minimize or eliminate the welfare state, would relaxing border controls and immigration laws be therefore justified?