Immigration and Individual Rights
Craig Biddle
[First half snipped]
Arguments against open immigration abound, but all of them are invalid.
.
McD: Not if we make either nationalist or democratic [contra daft Hoppe]
assumptions.
.
CB: of them names a principle (i.e., a general truth) by reference to which
limiting immigration is a requirement of human life—and each of them calls for
actions that violate individual rights. Let us consider several and see, in
pattern, how they fail to make their case.
1. "This is our country, and we have a right to refuse entry to foreigners."
No one owns America. American individuals and corporations own specific tracts
of land, homes, businesses, automobiles, and the like; and the owners of this
property can rightfully prohibit others from entering or using it. But America
as such—America the country—is not owned by anyone.
There are two kinds of property in America: private property and so-called
"public" property. Whereas private property is owned by individuals and
corporations, "public" property, which is allegedly "owned by everyone in
general," is actually owned by no one in particular. This is why no one in
particular can dictate how it will or will not be used. Consider that if citizen
Jones insists on permitting immigrants to enter "his" portion of "public"
property, but citizen Smith insists on prohibiting immigrants to enter "his"
portion, the conflict cannot be justly resolved. Someone's "right" to "his"
portion of the property "owned by everyone in general" is going to be violated.
This and the countless similar conflicts arising from the notion of "public"
property point to the invalidity of such property—property which, by its very
nature, violates individual rights and generates an endless stream of
irresolvable rights disputes.
There are no facts of reality that give rise to the need for "public" property,
thus there is no principle governing the use of such property; there is only
this person or group's desires against that person or group's desires—and, of
course, the old saw that "might makes right." Since there is no principle
governing the use of "public" property, there can be no principled argument for
excluding immigrants from using such property. But there is a principle
governing the actions that all individuals should be free to take by nature of
the requirements of human life—namely, the principle of individual rights—and
that principle implies that immigrants should be free to use "public" property.7
.
McD: That does not look to be much of an argument.
Why should such commons ever go on existing?
.
CB: Americans who wish to permit immigrants to visit or use or purchase their
private property have a moral right to permit them. And Americans who want to
prohibit immigrants from visiting, using, or purchasing their private property
have a moral right to prohibit them. But no one has a moral right to stop others
from acting on their judgment. So says the basic principle of civilized
society—the fundamental principle of America—the principle of individual rights.
The "This is our country" argument for prohibiting or limiting immigration to
America is invalid and un-American.
2. "We Americans have a right to our culture, which immigrants erode."
There are three possible interpretations of this claim: (a) "We have a right to
preserve the racial makeup of our culture"; (b) "We have a right to preserve the
language of our culture"; and (c) "We have a right to preserve our lifestyle
choices." Let us consider them in that order.
If by "We have a right to our culture" opponents of immigration are speaking of
a right to preserve the racial makeup of their culture, then what they seek is
not to protect American culture but to "achieve" something on the order of Nazi
culture. Nothing more need be said about that.
.
McD: The PC outlook owes a lot to daft wartime "propaganda" [polemics might be
more apt] of WWII. This bigoted jackass shows that up clearly.
.
CB: As to preserving the use of English in America: In one sense, Americans have
both a moral right and a political need to do so; in another sense, however,
they have no such right or need. An official national language is necessary for
the purpose of clarity and consistency in government documents and legal
proceedings. In America, that language obviously should be English, the language
on which the country was built. But there is no such thing as a right to force
someone to speak English, or to bar him from speaking Spanish or French or any
other language. That said, just as American immigrants throughout history have
learned to speak English out of practical necessity, so most American immigrants
today eventually learn to speak English out of practical necessity: The ability
to speak English makes one more competitive in the free market. The major
shelters from this necessity are: (1) the welfare state, which substantially
obviates the need for immigrants to compete, and (2) the status of "illegal
alien," which gives rise to black markets in which English is unnecessary.
Americans concerned about immigrants learning English should oppose welfare
programs and advocate a policy of open immigration, under which the now thriving
black markets would wither away.
Finally, if by "We have a right to our culture" opponents of immigration are
speaking of a right to their lifestyle preferences—their music, their cuisine,
their mode of dress, and so forth—then they should be arguing not against
immigration but for open immigration: The right to one's lifestyle preferences
means the right to one's pursuit of happiness (i.e., the right to seek the
values of one's choice), which one exercises by acting on one's own judgment
while respecting the right of others—including immigrants—to do the same.
The only culture to which anyone can have a right is a culture of respect for
and protection of individual rights. Fortunately for those who love and want to
preserve American culture, the principle of individual rights is the basic
principle of that culture; respect for that principle is an essential
characteristic of a true American; and foreigners who immigrate to America, for
the most part, embody that characteristic.
The "We have a right to our culture" argument against immigration is at worst
unspeakably evil and at best an argument for open immigration.
3. "We Americans have a right to our jobs, which immigrants take, and to our
wage rates, which immigrants lower."
As mentioned earlier, there is no such thing as a right to a job; such a "right"
on the part of one person would necessitate the use of force against others.
Nor, for the same reason, is there any such thing as a "right" to a wage rate,
which would violate the rights of employers and employees to set mutually
beneficial terms of doing business with each other.
If a man is fired from a job—or if his wages are reduced—because a willing
immigrant is able to do the job better or cheaper, no force has thereby been
used against the fired man; he remains free to act on his own judgment. He can
and should either improve his skills or offer his services for less or seek
another job or start his own business or think of something better to do. But he
has no right to have the government prevent the employer and the immigrant from
doing business with each other.
The desire of certain U.S. workers and labor-union members for the government to
grant them an entitlement to a job created by someone else—or to a wage paid by
someone else—is not an argument against immigration, but a consequence of a
false and grossly un-American premise: the notion that "might makes right." In
reality, and in accordance with the basic principle of America, whether a person
is best qualified for a given job is determined not by a gun but by the free
market. No one, and no group, has a right to forcibly exclude from the
marketplace those with whom he or they cannot compete—and no true American would
claim such a right or advocate such force.
The "We Americans have a right to our jobs and wage rates" argument against
immigration is invalid and un-American.
4. "Immigrants come to America to live on the public dole via our welfare
programs, and we simply can't afford to support them."
Most immigrants do not come to America to live on the public dole; most come to
enjoy America's (relative) freedom, to work hard, and to be self-sufficient. The
fact that some immigrants come to America to leech off our welfare state is an
argument not against immigration but against the welfare state—which, by
coercively redistributing the wealth of productive Americans, attracts foreign
parasites (and encourages domestic ones).
Punishing an individual for someone else's wrongdoing is patently immoral—and
the wrongdoing here is not just that of the relatively few immigrants who seek
welfare handouts. The greater wrongdoing is that of the American intellectuals,
citizens, and politicians who established and who maintain the welfare state.
For America to bar would-be immigrants from entry to America because of immoral
"welfare" policies instituted by Americans is the height of injustice.
What should we do about the problem of welfare with regard to immigrants? We
should mercifully bar immigrants from any involvement in this legalized
violation of rights. This would be good both for immigrants and for Americans.
In order to live the good life, immigrants, like all human beings, need to
develop and maintain the virtue of independence; they need to face the demands
of reality and live by their own thought and effort. Precluding them from
receiving the so-called "benefits" of welfare will help them to develop or
maintain that virtue.
More importantly, barring immigrants from receiving welfare will be a step in
the direction of recognizing and protecting the property rights of American
citizens. (The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
of 1996, which barred immigrants from receiving most welfare "benefits" for
their first five years in America, was a step in the right direction.)
Immigrants should also be ineligible to use government schools, which are worse
than welfare programs. Whereas welfare programs merely provide people with
stolen goods for "free," government schools retard the minds of children while
forcibly charging their parents and neighbors for the "service."
.
McD: This is silly.
No ideas can stop us from freshly thinking about reality, or rule out their own
refutation.
.
CB: By not receiving stolen goods, immigrants would retain the natural incentive
to earn their success by working. And by not using government schools,
immigrants would have the opportunity to provide their children with quality
education—whether by sending them to private school or by homeschooling them.
(There are many immigrants here in southern California who already do one or the
other.) Of course, insofar as immigrants are excluded from receiving welfare and
using government schools, they should also be exempted from paying taxes toward
these illegitimate programs.
That is the solution to the problem of welfare with regard to immigrants. (A
similar solution applies to the related problem of doctors and hospitals being
forced to provide immigrants with "free" medical goods and services. The
solution is that such force morally must be stopped.)
The "Immigrants seek welfare, so we can't afford them" argument against
immigration is not an argument against immigration; it is an argument against
the welfare state and all its life-thwarting manifestations. Punishing would-be
immigrants for the moral failings of a few immigrants—and for the moral failings
of Americans and their intellectual and political leaders—is immoral.
5. "Statistics show that immigrants commit a lot of crime. The more immigrants
we allow into the country, the more crime we will suffer."
Yes, there are statistics showing that some immigrants commit crime. There are
also statistics showing that some native-born Americans commit crime. Statistics
showing that some people commit crime, however, say nothing about what any
particular person will do; and group statistics as such are wholly irrelevant to
the question of whether an individual should be free to act on his judgment.
People, including immigrants and would-be immigrants, have free will; they
choose to think or not to think,
.
McD: No, they all think automatically.
.
CB: ... to act on reason or to act on feelings, to respect individual rights or
to violate them. A person's choice to respect or violate individual rights is
not dictated by his national origin or his race or his language, but by his
philosophy, which can be either rational or irrational, depending on whether or
not he chooses to think.8
.
McD: Irrationality has never existed, just like spirituality, faith & other
false ideas. It aptly refers to nothing at all.
.
CB: If an immigrant chooses to be irrational and commits a crime, then, like
anyone who commits a crime, he should suffer the consequences of his wrongdoing.
But the presumption of innocence reigns here: An individual is logically and
morally to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
.
McD: Those are clumsy words for a mere procedure but CB seems to conflate it
with the external facts.
.
CB: Individuals who leave socialist, communist, or theocratic hellholes to seek
a better life in America are not criminals to be punished but heroes to be
admired (would that more Americans were so inspiring). To arbitrarily judge them
as corrupt or to condemn them to the third-world hell into which they were
accidentally born on the "grounds" that some immigrants commit crime is
logically absurd and morally obscene.
The "Statistics show that immigrants commit a lot of crime" argument is an
evasion of the self-evident fact of free will, and it betrays a thoroughly
collectivist mentality on the part of those who advance it.
6. "Open immigration might be practical under laissez-faire capitalism, but it
is not practical under a welfare state. We cannot institute open immigration
until we've achieved laissez-faire capitalism."
This claim—which amounts to: "We can't begin implementing the principles of
laissez-faire capitalism until we live under laissez-faire capitalism" or "We
can't begin upholding the principle of individual rights until the principle of
individual rights is fully upheld"—reverses cause and effect.
The only way to achieve a fully rights-respecting society is to begin moving
incrementally in that direction, by consistently taking action in every area in
which such progress is possible. We must make a concerted effort toward (among
other things) eradicating so-called entitlement programs, liquidating government
schools (i.e., establishing a free market in education), repealing antitrust
laws, eliminating eminent domain, implementing a self-interested foreign policy,
and establishing a policy of open immigration. None of these aspects of a free
society can ever be fully accomplished apart from a principled effort to
accomplish the whole, but each and every one of them can be accomplished
step-by-step over time—if we grasp and appeal to the principle by reference to
which each is a morally necessary measure: the principle of individual rights.
The "We must wait for laissez-faire" argument against open immigration is
invalid and betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of positive
political change.
7. "Open immigration makes it easy for terrorists to enter the U.S.; American
security requires immigration restrictions."
What makes it easy for terrorists to enter America is (a) the 12,000-mile
perimeter of the contiguous forty-eight states (not to mention Alaska and
Hawaii) combined with (b) the fact that the U.S. government has not eliminated
the states that sponsor terrorism.
The solution to the problem of terrorists harming or threatening Americans is
not to violate the rights of would-be immigrants, but to annihilate the states
that sponsor terrorism.
.
McD: That will boost terrorism.
.
CB: Islamic terrorism against the "Great Satan" is not a lone-wolf activity; it
is fueled and made possible by the material and spiritual support of Islamist
regimes—regimes such as those in Iran and Saudi Arabia. To end terrorism against
America, we must end such regimes.
Banning Mexicans, Canadians, Indians, and Sudanese from seeking the American
dream has exactly nothing to do with ending terrorism or protecting America.
Neither closed borders nor limits on immigration can stop terrorists from
entering this country. All that is accomplished by banning or limiting
immigration is the violation of individual rights.
Those concerned about terrorists harming Americans should advocate (a) the
summary elimination of all regimes that have financed or called for or otherwise
incited harm to Americans, and (b) a policy of open immigration to the "Great
Satan." With the state sponsors of terrorism destroyed, and with an American
policy of open immigration in place, anyone attempting to enter the U.S. at a
non-designated location could legitimately be considered a threat to the rights
of Americans and dealt with accordingly.
The "American security requires immigration restrictions" argument against open
immigration is invalid and suicidal. To violate the rights of would-be
immigrants while ignoring the wrongs of American-murdering regimes is unjust and
insane.
The foregoing examples demonstrate that one cannot argue from a
rights-respecting, American perspective against a policy of open
immigration—because the basic principle of America, the principle of individual
rights, mandates open immigration.
Bearing that in mind, what should we do about the estimated 12 million "illegal"
immigrants currently residing in the U.S.?
In light of the immoral and illegitimate law they "broke" by moving to (or
remaining in) America—and in light of the suffering they have endured by being
labeled "illegal" (e.g., having to live in the shadows, not being able to market
their goods or services openly, not being able to use banks or credit cards,
etc.)—the solution to the problem of so-called "illegals" is to grant them
unconditional amnesty and a presidential apology. Just as the principle of
individual rights mandates open immigration, so too it mandates amnesty for
those whose moral actions were made "criminal" by immoral laws. ("Amnesty" is
really the wrong word, as one logically should not have to be "pardoned" for
having acted morally, but there is no accurate word for what has been
necessitated by our irrational immigration policy.)
Some argue that granting amnesty to "illegal" immigrants would make a mockery of
the rule of law and that "illegals" broke our laws and should be held
accountable for having done so. On the contrary, what mocks the rule of law is
the existence and attempted enforcement of anti-immigration laws.
Upholding the rule of law does not mean upholding whatever laws happen to be on
the books. Should the citizens of Nazi Germany have turned Jews over to the
Gestapo? Nazi law dictated that they must. Would the refusal to obey that law
have been a mockery of the rule of law? Should the citizens of theocratic Iran
behead apostates? That is what Shariah law calls for. Would refusal to do so
mock the rule of law? Should Americans living in the North in the 1850s have
returned runaway slaves to their Southern "owners" in compliance with the
Fugitive Slave Act? Did violators of this act mock the rule of law?
Upholding the rule of law does not mean enforcing illegitimate laws; it means
establishing and maintaining a government and legal system based on the
objective social requirements of human life—namely: the recognition and
protection of individual rights. Laws that violate individual rights are
illegitimate laws, and such laws morally must be repealed. Consciously
"violating" such laws in order to sustain and further one's life (or the lives
of others) is not a violation of the rule of law; it is a recognition of the
fact that valid moral principles trump invalid political policies.
(This is not to say that it is proper to disobey any and every illegitimate law.
There are contexts in which it is morally right to obey laws that are morally
wrong—because violating them would harm one's life. For instance, it is morally
right to pay one's taxes, because refusing to pay them will land one in jail.
But such value judgments can be properly made only by reference to the principle
that what is right depends on the requirements of one's life, all available and
relevant facts considered.)
Although the political status of 12 million immigrants now residing in America
is "illegal," the moral status of most of them is: American. They risked life
and limb to get here; they do everything they can to stay here; and they endure
all the trouble that comes with being labeled "illegal"—all in pursuit of a
better life for themselves and their families in the freest country on earth.
What could be more American than that?
As to the specific steps required to achieve a rights-respecting and thus moral
immigration policy for the U.S., here is a broad five-point plan, all aspects of
which should be advocated simultaneously and by reference to the moral principle
that mandates them: the principle of individual rights.
1. Repeal all laws restricting immigration; do away with all quotas, visas,
green-cards, and the like; make open immigration the law of the land.
2. Establish an objective screening process at designated points of entry along
the U.S. border; turn away (or detain) only criminals, enemies of America, and
people with certain kinds of contagious diseases.9
3. Grant unconditional amnesty to all so-called "illegal" immigrants, and
apologize to them for the trouble our immoral laws have caused them.
4. Exclude immigrants from receiving welfare and from using government
schools—and exempt them from paying taxes toward these immoral programs.
5. Declare war on Iran; eliminate its current regime; and announce to the world
that, from now on, this is how America will deal with regimes that threaten our
citizens, our immigrants, or our allies. Turn next to the Saudi regime. Repeat
as necessary.
.
McD: That will merely boost more terrorism.
.
CB: Accomplishing these measures will require substantial time, effort, and
intellectual activism, but there is no shortcut; these are the actions necessary
to solve the misnamed "immigration problem," which is, in fact, a problem of too
few Americans recognizing, embracing, and upholding the basic principle on which
America was founded.
Those who argue that the "immigration problem" is too "pressing" and requires
more "expedient" measures—or too "complex" and requires measures more
"agreeable" to opponents of individual rights—either misunderstand the nature of
the problem or choose to evade it. The problem, however, is what it is, and if
Americans want to solve it, we must recognize its actual nature and proceed
accordingly.
Help defend the rights of foreigners to immigrate to America and the rights of
Americans to associate with them. Fight this battle by understanding and
appealing to the principle of individual rights. It is the proper governing
principle in politics, and it mandates open immigration.
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-spring/immigration-individual-rights.asp
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Unsubscribe: libertarian-alliance-forum-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
NB - The Libertarian Alliance does not necessarily approve of the above message.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment