-Caveat Lector-
Immigration Quandary, Libertarians split on this issue
by William L. Anderson, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Immigration Quandary by William L. Anderson
Mention immigration to Austrian economists and other free-market economists and you
will hear a cacophony of opinions that range from "completely open the borders" to
"completely close the borders." It is hard to imagine a more divisive subject among
those with libertarian philosophical and economic bents, and it plays out in the
political arena with strange bedfellows, including folks like Harry Browne and Patrick
Buchanan, both of whom have widely publicized and differing views.
Added to the mix is an article by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, who applies a private property
rule to immigration, saying that in an anarcho-capitalist society, legitimate
immigration can occur only when the lawful owners invite "foreigners" onto one's
property. And as one examines the different libertarian opinions on immigration, it
becomes difficult to find common ground. Thus, I take on this divisive and thankless
task myself.
Those who prefer open borders say that people are no different than products. If one
believes in free trade, and the freedom to bring capital over international borders,
then one should have no problem with labor also passing unmolested from country to
country. Since labor is a factor of production, it would seem hypocritical to allow
all other factors to freely cross borders, but then block labor.
The open borders advocates also can easily attack the Patrick Buchanan argument that
immigration lowers wages for domestic workers. While it may be true in some instances
that newly arrived immigrant labor indeed can depress wages, the same argument can be
made for any other factor of production. For example, libertarians do not believe that
the current sugar import quota program is legitimate just because more sugar imports
would push down prices of U.S.-grown sugar. In fact, libertarians argue that forcing
up the price of factors of production, be they labor or commodities, is blatantly
anti-consumer and ultimately harms the economy.
Furthermore, the presence of immigrants does help ease severe labor shortages in some
areas of production. Fruit and vegetable prices would be much higher, one can argue,
if the immigrant workers--both legal and illegal--were suddenly deported and domestic
workers were left to pick the produce themselves.
Indeed, it is difficult to make an economic argument against open immigration. The
social and political scene, however, is a different story and many libertarians are
missing the important point that what happens in the social and political spheres
matters in every way. It is not difficult to declare that open immigration into the
United States has the real capacity to ultimately destroy what is left of our free
market economy and our freedoms themselves.
I write this as the grandchild of immigrants from Sweden and Scotland. My ancestors
came to this country in search of a better life and they found it. What they did not
find, however, was a complete cradle-to-grave welfare system as currently exists in
the United States. While I can say, "They came here to work, not to seek handouts," I
must temper my remarks with the reality that the government did not make such
"handouts" available to them. Had there been a welfare system as we have now, I cannot
say with certainty that my ancestors would not have taken advantage of it.
For all its glorification by the left, the welfare system is nothing more than the
forced transfer of wealth from taxpayers to those who spend wealth to benefit
themselves. Our current rule by judges takes the welfare state even further, as court
after court has ruled that public schools and public and private hospitals must take
in all comers, including those who might be in this country illegally and have no
ability or proclivity to pay for the services they receive. Such rulings have severely
burdened taxpayers of Southern California who voted overwhelmingly to limit public
services to immigrants in the now-infamous Proposition 187. Of course, the leftist
media painted those who voted for Prop 187 as vicious racists who approved the measure
only because of their inordinate hatred of dark-skinned minorities.
Once it becomes apparent to certain groups, ethnic or otherwise, that they can have
special services and privileges available to them, they will leap to take advantage of
them. I use the example of immigrants from eastern and southern Europe and their role
in organized labor. Areas where these immigrants and their descendants live tend to be
highly unionized, especially in the cities of the Northeast.
Because of their special government-protected status, unions are part of the welfare
state. Granted, unionized workers are expected to punch a clock, but their benefits
are gained by the covert (and sometimes overt) threat of violence, all of which is
approved by government. Indeed, unionism has appealed to many in those and other
ethnic groups because they can appeal to their "status" as an "aggrieved minority."
Ultimately, all of this is reflected in the political sphere. Welfare state
politicians are able to garner votes from immigrant groups on the basis of the
"wronged minority" appeal. The political message is that such groups have lower
economic and social status than majority (read that, white males) groups because the
majority groups have conspired to keep them poor and uneducated. Therefore, the
welfare political classes say, elect us and we will give you "justice."
As one can see from recent voting patterns across the USA, the welfare state message
has an enormous appeal to immigrants. Counties and municipalities that have large
numbers of immigrants vote in those same large numbers for politicians who wish to
expand the welfare state by raising taxes on productive citizens and giving them to
those who are less productive.
While the social and political ramifications of the current policies of immigration
are bleak, it is by no means easy to limit this new wave of humanity crossing our
national borders. While Buchanan's demand to build a large fence and concrete ditch
the length of the U.S. border with Mexico may sound appealing to some, it could never
come to pass. First, as a construction project, it would be extremely costly and would
certainly require a stiff tax increase. Second, not only would vast amounts of
resources have to be diverted from other productive uses to build the wall, the labor
force needed to man the border barrier would be huge.
If this barrier were built and effectively cut off immigration (which I suspect is a
doubtful outcome), then most taxpaying Americans would find their taxes increasing and
consumers would have to pay higher prices for many commodities and services now
produced by groups dominated by immigrants. Therefore, I believe it would be difficult
to be able to sell this proposition to most Americans.
That does not mean, however, that I believe our current status of immigration is a
good thing. Any group of voters that can be commandeered to help expand the welfare
state and to disrupt peaceful, productive economic activity poses a threat to a free
society. It is not that Mexicans and other immigrant groups are actively seeking to
end economic and political freedom as we have known it. Rather, they ultimately become
the pawn of political classes who would like nothing more than to control the lives of
those free and productive citizens who now are beyond their reach.
There are no perfect solutions but dramatically reducing the availability of public
services, decentralizing political decision making, and making it impossible for
voters to vote themselves goods and services at others' expense will take us most of
the way. Advocates of a free society cannot afford to ignore these issues as they seek
strategic means of beating back the forces of statism.
---------
William Anderson (send him mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], anderwl(at)prodigy.net,), is a
former Mises Institute scholarship student who now teaches economics at North
Greenville College.. See Anderson's Daily Article Archive at:
http://www.mises.org/articles.asp?mode=a&author=Anderson
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
