In lieu of the passage of the totalitarian Arizona immigration law, I feel it's time for the pro-"border security" libertarians to rethink their position.
How can a Mexican man peacefully crossing an arbitrary border, (established by a well-known criminal syndicate) with the malicious intentions of working at Wal-Mart, possibly be considered an "aggressor"? Yes, each person has the categorical right to repel unwanted invaders from his or her property. But how could libertarians possibly claim the US Government, which obtains all of its revenue through aggression, has the legitimate property title to the entire border with Mexico? If you don't think so, exactly whose right to life, liberty, and property is our aforementioned "illegal," (and, by logical extension, the executives who hired him, and the neighborhood who welcomed his family) violating?
There is little to no case to be made here without smuggling statist rationales through the backdoor. The "border security" libertarians are arguing that a criminal state should violently override the people's right to free association. Their justification is a combination of consequentialism and collectivism. The natural rights-based reasoning we typically employ is, on this issue, quite conveniently discarded.
While my criticism is harsh, let it be known that I am sympathetic to the motivating grievances of the "border-security" libertarians. I am proudly politically incorrect and despise the racial groupthink of many pro-immigrant groups. I also realize that illegal immigration is problematic because of free-riders seeking to take advantage of the welfare state.
But neither of these factors are justification for state-sanctioned violence against innocent people. Relieving a thief of his loot is not aggression. "Illegals" are not criminals for accepting government welfare money stolen from taxpayers any more than Americans are for using public roads or Federal Reserve Notes produced with stolen money. There is no way to get around it: If an "illegal" is (as the vast majority are) nonviolent, deporting him from his job and legitimately-acquired property is theft and kidnapping.
The solution to the serious problems of "illegal immigration" is to uphold the non-aggression principle: abolishing the welfare state and allowing free and open immigration. In this case, country of origin wouldn't be an issue: We'd undoubtedly be welcoming an incredibly bright, motivated, and hardworking group if the only incentive for immigrating was finding work.
- Blog Policy
- Login or register to post comments
Connect with YAL
to the YAL channel on 
Upcoming Events
-
Info This seminar offers an introduction to the thoughts and thinkers of the...
-
Info The contrast between liberty and power in the history of the...
-
Info The summer’s final Freedom University boasts lectures on the hottest...
-
Info This is an all day, family-friendly convention for freedom-minded folks in...
-
Info Taking RSVP now for a June 30th - July 1st convention.We need to secure...
well said
"A nation withou borders, is no nation at all."
First of all, I disagree with your statement of "all" of the American government's revenue being obtained through agression. I do agree that the majority of illegal immigrants probably hold no ill will towards Americans and most likely have no malicous reasons for coming here. However, I do not understand how you could deny the necessity of strong, well defended boarders in today's world. Also, the welfare state is not the only incentive for illegal imigration, although it is without doubt the greatest. You are clearly an intelligent person, so I don't think I need to explain to you the disadvantage American workers would be at to non-citizen labor forces, and how their "under the table" employment damages our economy.
But you presented your thoughts with reasonable tact and intelligence, so although I don't know if I entirely agree with your views, I certainly do respect them.
Hey James,
Thanks for your comment. I can return your compliments to Matt :) and only want to address one point since I'm sure he'll reply to the rest.
I understand the motivation for this position, but think about why exactly illegal immigrants lower wages undercut American workers: They escape the minimum wage. The problem here is not the immigrants' willingness to work for less; it's the government's interference in the market place which doesn't allow Americans to work for less. And by artificially driving up wages, the government destroys jobs which American workers might otherwise hold.
If we actually would get rid of the economic chains on citizens and businesses like inflation caused by monetary policy like wage laws and printing all the time, this whole illegal immigration thing would not be an issue because the market would be much stronger.
Many people are discussing the violence as a motivation for stricter laws. Personally I think if there was not prohibition on drugs that would not be a problem. The state merely complicates itself into over-complications of certain solutions when the root cause is right in front of them like drug laws, minimum wage, etc.
Illegals are taking advantage of the market that American citizens can not touch due to things like welfare. Why work for cheap like that when you can just sit at home and not pay taxes? My dad works at a power plant but then works on the side as a carpenter and gets paid per diem by a tax lawyer so neither of them have to pay taxes on the minor work. That's how so many companies are able to get away with it because all of these workers are not permanent. These workers are risky because of the fact that many could very well be sent back at any given time due to the migra.
If you ever drive on the outer loop of Houston you'll hundreds of illegals and maybe even legal hispanics underneath the bypasses waiting for work. It's just natural. People need work and there is work out there that many people like us wont do. So I just think it's a matter economic policy that should be changed. Now the people in office wont do that... So they'll have to think realistically which actually in this case is bad because it may just escalate the violence.
Personally I think if they are going to keep up all these drug and wage laws they(the feds) need to actually fulfill their duty of keeping order along our border rather than siphoning off our resources to do that in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Then again I am just rambling at this point. *Sigh*
Bonnie,
That is a very good point. In fact, I honestly can't believe I never considered that. Thanks for pointing that out!
I dont think we are missing the main problem. We are a body politic with privileges and duties. An influx of none natives without rules and standards disrupts that process and can be more of an invasion. Ask the original americans about it sometime, oh yeah, there gone. Are we libertarian or anarchists? I agree removing the incentives to come here is important. By removing the incentives less will come. Plus we must accept that there are nation states that are very authoritarian they could invade and subvert our political structures and universities. We know this because it happened in our past. There are very easy ways to come here and work. Becoming a citizen is harder but not impossible. Lets not begin to make utopias like our authoritarian counterparts. I do not agree with the status quo and I despise the arizona law. But I go with mises/paul on this and not rothbard. We are not there yet as human beings. You seem to think if you leave the doors unlocked angels will come in and everything will be ob-kaby. The land of this country is supposed to belong to its people and there decendents its held in trust for them both natural born or legal immigrants. By by legal we mean part of a body politic.
We are a body politic with certain duties and privileges??? I don't consider in a privilege to not be aggressed against, I consider my labor and my appropriations from nature to be prima facie mine. No one is claiming that angels will come to our country if our borders are open. I am claiming that I have and should maintain absolute control over my property, which may include the right and ability to entertain guests without regard to the geographical location of my guest's birthplace.
The last part of your comment speaks in inane collectivist terms. Property rights are individually held, not nationally held. You are not agreeing with Mises, or even Hoppe, if you are claiming national property rights.
There are parasites in this country and they didn't immigrate here!
OOPS. sorry I mean we are missing one of the main problem.
I guess that arbitrarily-drawn district down in Southeast Texas that sends Ron Paul to Congress every two years should be eliminated, too. And that arbitrarily-drawn shape to the north of Tennessee that's going to send his son to the Senate - throw that out, too.
There's a difference between libertarians, who seek to promote liberty and freedom, and anarchists, who seek a society with no government. Frederic Bastiat argued that governments are established to prevent plunder, and no developed people today live outside the notion of a nation.
Readers, don't confuse Matt's naiveté with libertarianism. The two are completely different and wholly incongruent.
Matthew, anarcho-capitalism has played a significant role in the history and formation of the modern libertarian movement. Ron Paul's favorite economist, Murray N Rothbard, dismissed the state as nothing more than a criminal gang. Not all libertarians are anarchists, but you are dead wrong to say they are distinct and incompatible belief systems.
My friendly advice- Learn more before waxing self-righteously about this--and any--subject. You clearly haven't read much contemporary libertarian theory. :/
Interesting that you use Bastiat in you argument. Bastiat's protege and intellectual heir, Gustav de Molinari, was against government. Bastiat himself, in what I've read of his works, argued that THE LAW should prevent plunder, but also that the law is being used for the exact opposite of it's intended purposes. Murray Rothbard synthesized the anarchism of Molinari with the economic methodology of Mises (Rothbard and Mises both being influential to Ron Paul) in order to come up with his political economy which has been published in a few different books.
However, without using argument from authority, using your own wits, how exactly do borders, other than the borders which are correlations of the non-aggression axiom, create a free society? What exactly IS libertarianism if it isn't the non-aggression axiom and it's corollaries?
A quick comment: The opportunity cost of a liberty loving politician such as Ron Paul residing over a single congressional district in the U.S. in exchange for the totalitarian government we have is too high. So yeah, I'd give up Ron Paul's seat in congress for a government-less society. Are you suggesting that Matt or anyone else on this blog endorse the status quo because we have a seat in congress?? Ludicrous and nonsensical argument.
In conjunction with George's point, I'd argue that the law, which Bastiat argued prevent plunder, is not a product of government, but a product of society.
Matt Hurtt,
The defining feature of libertarianism is the desire for a minimalist state -- a state with clear limitations on its power. It is completely compatible with libertarianism to believe that interfering with the peaceful movement of private individuals and their ability to contract freely with each other regardless of national borders is outside the appropriate realm of government.
Yes, some an-caps take the argument further, but anarcho-capitalists and libertarians have a long history of productive cooperation. There are some issues on which they disagree, of course (privatizing defense and the courts being a main point), but that doesn't mean that there isn't a considerable amount of agreement on what is not simply naiveté.
Meanwhile...I hope that campaign is working out well for you :)
A Facebook creep reveals that he who would (*gasp*) question my libertarian bonafides is a fan of Fred Thompson and Sarah Palin. and refers to himself as "the legislator."
Hokkkkkaaayyyyyy.
On a more serious note-- no hard feelings dude. It'd be wonderful if you learned more about libertarianism. Reading YAL is definitely a good step.
Hahaha...Matt Hurtt is actually a former LI colleague of mine with a penchant for dramatic and amusing self promotion -- thus "The Legislator." He's got some respectable libertarian leanings though definitely still a conservative on a number of major issues.
Oh man guys!! Frederic Bastiat said, so it must be true!!!
Yes matt I agree anarcho-capitalism has played a significant role in the history of the modern movement, but its not the only view of libertarianism. Rothbard whom I think is important to understand what roles individuals can play in a free society is not our only philosopher. anarcho-capitalism is anarchy and its logic is excellent, but If someone is more inclined to Frederic Bastiat or mises or paul so be it. They are still libertarian. Should we work for the day we can have a world of open boarders. Yes. But again should we strive to provide everyone healthcare? Yes. This conflict is taking libertarianism to the same standards as the socialist utopias because thats what it is a utopia. Will you force all people to be free and not want a nation or boarder? Freedom is a natural state and yes boarders are not natural. But the state seems to come about through out human history very naturally at first. So it is safe to assume humans will create states indefinitly. If we have nation states we have boarders. If we have boarders we have something on the other side of them. Some times they are good things like workers or families sometimes they are invaders. I dont think the mexican workers are invaders so much but what if they where? What if we shared boarders with nazi germany or soviet russia? What if they wanted our resources through war? What if they dont care what rothbard said? This attitude reminds me of the old cool liberal guys back in the 90s who just read that new book is professor thought was just so intellectual. Lets not start smelling our own farts guys. How do you know what matthew thinks or values or what he has read or what his experiances are? Its is this your not libertarian shit thats not libertarian. Are we gonna take " who are you reading and turn it into who are you wearing"? The people of israel before the time of kings lived with no boarders or central authority. But they damn well kept outsiders out till they converted. The bible tells of government out of control throughout. But it also talks of the times which where very rothbardian. When Israel had no kings.
Here's the way I see it. There's two sides to this issue, the ideological side, and the pragmatic side. I think we all pretty much agree ideologically. If we remove the litany of laws and regulations like: minimum wage, the welfare state, drug laws and so on and so forth, the issues raised by illegal immigration would go away. Nobody that I've seen here advocates the law passed in Arizona, and I think we all can easily agree that is unconstitutional, and a civil rights failure of epic proportions. I think our disagreement extends more to the pragmatic side of the issue.
Here's really the problem I see with the immigration issue. Yes, illegal immigration is only a problem because of our ever-present overbearing state. So what? The gluttonous state has been around for a long time, and it's only getting bigger. Does that mean we ignore these issues and pretend they aren't there? I should certainly hope not! I say since we're spending so much time and money overseas protecting South Korea's border, Germany's border, Iraq's border, and all sorts of other ridiculous countries' borders, why not just bring all our troops home and send them to work protecting our national security along our borders? Maintaining military forces at home rather than overseas would cut spending significantly, allowing us to pursue our desired economic reform without flooding the market with workers. Then ultimately, we could progress towards the ideal of open borders.
It's not a perfect solution, and it doesn't fit perfectly with the idealogical notions of pure libertarianism or minarcho-capitalism for that matter, but it is a practical way for us to achieve our ultimate goal. That goal being peace and liberty.
"Yes, illegal immigration is only a problem because of our ever-present overbearing state."
Not true. Illegal immigration is a problem, because of the crimes that are being committed. I guess on the east coast where all of you fools live you don't have to worry about home invasions, kidnappings, beheadings, staged murders, burned bodies, human smuggling, drug smuggling, delays on the freeway because a van was pulled over for having 30 people stuffed in the back...the list goes on. The media must be censored on your part of the country.
Since you college kids have so much time to spare, why don't you actually read the bill and how Arizona has been affected by illegal immigration before you spout off at the mouth using "big words" to make yourselves sound right and cool. SB1070 is needed and this is coming from an Arizona NATIVE; not some dorky political buff who thinks they understand Ron Pauls' vision.
First of all, many of the "college kids" I know, are actually very well aware of what is in the Arizona bill. So please, stop assuming that we are all ignorant college kids. I'm sure that if I were a citizen of Arizona, I'd probably be angry or scared of what's happening too. But surely you realize how distinctly un-american this law is. It absolutely poses as a direct threat to the civil liberties of citizens who are not white, primarily mexicans. But I would assume that you feel this is acceptable as long as it "makes you safe," which is something that it will not do. Immigration reform needs to be dealt with, that much we know. But we also know that sacrificing liberty for security will give us neither. As for us thinking we understand Ron Paul's vision: yes, there is a plethora dimensions of change that must occur for his "vision" to be realized, and it may take time to understand them all. But understanding the core of his vision is rather simple, for the idea of liberty is remarkably easy to grasp. Unfortantely, under current circumstances, it is not as easy to obtain.
Where were all of you when the federal government enacted the same legislation? Since the federal law has been in place since 1940, a better question would be: How come no one has challenged the federal law after all these years? Why is it that the Family Assistance Administration can ask for proof of citizenship, but law enforcement officers are not allowed to do the same after a crime or violation has been committed when they have reasonable suspicion that someone is here unlawfully ? Why does a new employee have to show right to work ?---it can be said without argument, I-9 forms are intentionally designed for the non-citizen yet all of us have to fill them out to eliminate discrimination (whatever that means). Double standards exist, but everyone only cares about the new Arizona law.
As far as my civil rights and liberties go, none are taken away from me with this law. Why? Because I can produce a Driver's License should I ever be stopped for a traffic violation (knock on wood). In the state of Arizona, only lawful residents can obtain Driver's Licenses therefore no "show me the papers" question will ever be asked of me; not just because I'm white.
It is a shame the division this topic has made between the Ron Paul supporters. I am shocked and flabbergasted by the amnesty comments. Ron Paul would never have agreed to full amnesty nor would he have awarded criminals who committed identity theft and crossed a border into a country that is not theirs. So it is quite concerning to see so many who profess their libertarian values speak these untruths.
Begging your pardon anonymous, but I'm from Texas. I live in Congressional district 14(Ron Paul's district). I've worked for a home building company alongside many immigrants, some I'm positive are legal, some probably aren't. So, cease and desist with the silly ad hominem attacks if you please.
In answering your comment, yes, illegal immigration is a factor in the crimes being committed in the South. However, it's not the only one. Many of the crimes you've cited have to do very specifically with drugs. What I, and many people here, would say is that making drugs illegal creates a black market for those drugs. It becomes very profitable to deal drugs and as a result criminal organizations are born. If we make it legal, those organizations will go away in much the same way the mob went away after Prohibition was lifted. It's really quite that simple.
That being said, I believe you'll note that I actually call for closing the border in the short run. I think we should seek to make citizens out of these illegals, but use our military to prevent further incursions. The reason for this is simply because of the turmoil that's brewing across the border with these rampant gangs and a failing Mexican government.
The problem with the Arizona bill is that it does not respect the rights and liberties of American citizens. It does not protect from unreasonable search and seizure, and is therefore unconstitutional.
Illegal immigration is not bad because people are moving here and working, but rather because of the laws we have in place. Until we remove the laws that make it impossible for a "documented" citizen to compete with the "undocumented", we cannot allow illegal immigration.
#1 Illegal immigrants will win the job battle any day that a employer thinks they can get away with it. Businesses want to make the most profit they can, and the lower the wage, the more profit they get. We need to first do away with minimum wage and the set work week.
#2 Illegal immigrants don't pay the majority of taxes. Sure they pay sales tax and may help to pay for some other taxes wherever they're staying, but overall, they don't pay much in taxes. Along with that, they use government services, without paying for them of course. We need to create a tax system that is based solely on a national sales tax so that everyone who consumes in the U.S. and stays here, pays for the services that come with it. We also need to get rid of the welfare/nanny state which the undocumented can benefit from.
#3 It takes away from people who ever went through the excruciating process of coming here legally. People had to go through ridiculous hoops to come here in the past. What I believe we should do is reopen Ellis Island and make more places like them. One of the main reasons this was in place was to keep so many people from coming (the economy can't handle so many immigrants) and to keep diseases from entering the country. Now I don't mean that we should bar people with AIDS and other untreatable diseases from coming to this country however, we should keep people from coming until they get better if it is a curable and contagious disease.
If we did these three things, then we could talk about amnesty and immigration reform. But until then, amnesty/easier immigration is not an option and would destroy the economy of this country.