In defense of immigration: Almost everything you think you know is wrong
In response to this morning’s post featuring both refutation of unfair attacks on Ron Paul and criticism of Ron Paul’s unlibertarian position on immigration, reader NH writes:
“Sheldon Richman is WRONG and so are YOU Brad. We have a country with borders and we have a right to regulate orderly entry.
Sorry but it is NOT libertarian to aid and abet the world government proponents who want open borders. IS that what you are doing? It’s an Orwellian nightmare!
SDS by the way, is a communist organization, so I am wondering why you have this on your site? We are not a democracy, we are a republic. If the NAU is instituted, you will have a constitution where your rights are given and taken away by GOVERNMENT. Is that what you want?
Sorry, illegals do NOT have rights in OUR country anymore than we have rights in THEIRS.
Why does America have to be the dumping grounds when no other country does that?
Lefties are NOT libertarian.”
Before I respond, here’s the Sheldon Richman quote again:
“I’ve long known that Ron Paul takes an unlibertarian position on immigration. Still I am deeply disappointed to learn, from an article in the latest Liberty magazine, that he calls the illegal entry of Mexicans into the United States an “invasion.†This description, given in a fundraising letter, is outrageous. These are human beings, with rights, seeking better lives in an environment more free than the one they are in. For the overwhelming majority of them, complying with U.S. law, an immoral law that violates all our rights, means never getting here–ever. They mean us no harm; on the contrary, they seek a place in the division of labor.
Therefore, they are not invaders and their entry in no way constitutes an invasion. This is belligerent Pat Buchanan-talk, and it is unworthy of Ron Paul. I hope he will rethink his position.”
Well, let’s take this one step at a time. While this isn’t all that specific:
“Sheldon Richman is WRONG…”
…I think it’s pretty safe to say that NH is not contending that there is no such Liberty magazine article, or that Liberty magazine doesn’t exist, or that the Liberty magazine article cited is in error and that there was no such Ron Paul fundraising letter. Rather, he apparently means to say that it is wrong to say:
“…that Ron Paul takes an unlibertarian position on immigration.”
He also may or may not have intended to say that it is wrong to say that immigrants:
“…are human beings, with rights…”
…but that second supposition is, of course, the logical consequence of the first supposition, regardless of whether NH actually thought things through that explicitly or not. That is to say, Ron Paul favors restricting immigration, via coercive government — and libertarianism, as a rigorously consistent philosophy of individual liberty, does indeed favor completely open immigration, because immigrants:
“…are human beings, with rights…”
While Ron Paul could be said to be pretty libertarian for a politician (and is perhaps the best exemplar of libertarianism among nationally prominent politicians), his positions are a mix of conservative and libertarian positions — and immigration is one area in which he takes a conservative (i.e. tyrannical), rather than libertarian, position. Open immigration is the libertarian position. I’m prepared to demonstrate that, at great length, and am well suited to doing so. I’m 38 years old and I’ve been thinking about, discussing and promoting libertarianism for almost the entirety of my adult life. Furthermore, I’m a mere upstart compared to Sheldon Richman. I hear that he’s been doing this stuff for… well, “a while now”.
Alternatively, perhaps NH is aware that open immigration is the libertarian position and merely wishes to express his or her disapproval of that position. NH is free to do so and I support NH’s right to free speech. I’ll also exercise my own right to free speech to say why NH is wrong — because immigrants:
“…are human beings, with rights…”
I believe human beings have rights by virtue of simply being human beings. Like the US Founders, I believe true rights, natural rights, are inalienable. It doesn’t matter which country you are in — you have the same rights no matter where you are because it is just as wrong for any government to violate those rights in any country. That’s the origin of the word. It’s all about universal ethical judgements that transcend the whims of human tyrants. Right is the opposite of wrong. Thus, rights are areas of your life it is wrong to forcibly interfere with.
By contrast, the pernicious myth that rights are bestowed by governments, and (by implication) taken away at their whim, is the foundation of wholesale tyranny. Oddly enough, we can see that NH probably understands that deep down because she or he said:
“…you will have a constitution where your rights are given and taken away by GOVERNMENT.”
But, unfortunately, NH hasn’t completely wrapped his or her mind around the notion, as s/he goes on to almost immediately contradict that understanding with this muddle-headed nonsense:
“Sorry, illegals do NOT have rights in OUR country anymore than we have rights in THEIRS.”
So we have the advocate of immigration tyranny accusing me of wanting to make human rights subject to government whims before immediately taking that very position his or her self!
I’ll spell it out. I think kidnapping someone who hasn’t harmed anyone else is wrong — even when it’s done by people wearing nifty, shiny badges.
Now, then…
“We have a country with borders and we have a right to regulate orderly entry.”
Who’s this mystical “we“? I don’t own a country. I reside in one. Presumably the same goes for NH. The government acts as if they own the country, but that is demonstrably false by any ethical standard of ownership. While I am not the government, NH could conceivably be a component of it. Still, “we” don’t “have” (possess) a country. The government illegitimately possesses this country, and I say “illegitimately” because it (not we, but it) doesn’t own the country. Since it can’t be rightfully said to own the country, I deny the legitimacy of its efforts to regulate entry — and we are not it.
“Sorry but it is NOT libertarian to aid and abet the world government proponents…”
It’s not wholly libertarian to aid any government proponents — which is why no politician is wholly libertarian. I can say that with certainty, as I’m a recovering former politician. Yes, Ron Paul is a politician.
As it happens, I am not aiding “the world government proponents”. What part of the word “anarchist” do you not understand? I am engaged in actively denying the illusionary legitimacy of any government, the very foundation of any program for tyrannical rule, and have been doing so for quite some time. I’ve stomped and spit on a UN flag before and the only reason I’m not doing so at this very moment is that I don’t have one handy — just because the UN merely wants to be a government, and that’s good enough to piss me off. In terms of sheer prioritization, though, I tend to focus my energies on actually existing governments. By contrast, you apparently have allowed fear of the rabid chipmunk UN to drive you to embrace the US federal Leviathan itself, so long as Ron Paul makes sure your own chains rest lightly and lets the greater weight of oppression fall upon brown people who talk funny and aren’t from around here.
That, sir, is why you are a fool.
“It’s an Orwellian nightmare!”
Speaking of Orwellian nightmares…
“SDS by the way, is a communist organization, so I am wondering why you have this on your site?”
SDS is a radical left organization. I am a free-market oriented anarchist. Anarchism is left wing.
Beyond that, I’ll work with almost anyone on issues where we agree. I’m prepared to list several issues where a radical free-market libertarian would agree with the more conventional left. Libertarianism, properly understood, is left wing. See here, here and here. Heck, for that matter, read this as supplementary material afterward.
“We are not a democracy, we are a republic.”
Again, “we” are individuals, not a government. I’ve met plenty of avowed communists in SDS who understand that point better than you do. You’re the one who has internalized Stalinist thinking by identifying with the State rather than as an individual.
As it happens, I don’t want any state, regardless of how “democratic” its trappings are. I happen to believe that a market anarchist society is the most deeply democratic society possible in a positive sense, rather than the negative sense you and I would both use to refer to statist majoritarianism and “the tyranny of the majority”. Why? Market anarchism essentially can be summarized as “the consensual society”, as in “the consent of the governed” (i.e. a voluntaryist and polycentric legal order, the Jeffersonian vision of protection of inalienable rights taken to its logical extreme by adding as many protective checks and balances as the market itself, rather than political government, can provide). The drawbacks of a constitutional republic, in contrast, are what have gotten us into this mess because, as Joseph Sobran once noted:
“There can be no such thing as ‘limited government,’ because there is no way to control an entity that in principle enjoys a monopoly of power…”
NH continued:
“If the NAU is instituted, you will have a constitution where your rights are given and taken away by GOVERNMENT. Is that what you want?”
Like that great libertarian and anarchist Lysander Spooner, I don’t want ANY constitution. Of course, you’re the one who supports a government, in which the legislated authority could impose such a super-state on us, just because you think its okay to use violence to keep people from going about their business if that business happens to cross some imaginary line you’ve fetishized as part of your worship of government.
And, once more, NH writes…
“Sorry, illegals do NOT have rights in OUR country anymore than we have rights in THEIRS.”
Humans have rights, regardless of geographical origin. That the gang some might be trying to escape from violates peoples rights in a harsher, more frequent and possibly more systematic manner than the gang that have imposed themselves on you and me is hardly a reason to cheer this gang on when it then does violence to those escapees. To do so, as you and Ron Paul advocate, is monstrous.
“Why does America have to be the dumping grounds when no other country does that?”
Dumping ground? You’re talking about human beings. Go look in a mirror. If you have a shred of decency in you, you’ll vomit at the sight of your own face over what you just said. Shame on you.
And, finally…
“Lefties are NOT libertarian.”
Neither most right-wingers nor most left-wingers are libertarians. I, however, am both a libertarian and a variety of leftist. To assert that “lefties are not libertarian” is thus an example of the sort of cognitive bias explained in black swan theory.
Also, I’m not the only one.
ADDENDUM: Refer also to this short comment by Brainpolice.
Share This
I understand now that you are one of those radicals who wants NO government (and had I known would not have bothered to comment since that position is so unreasonable) but I am saying this would never happen because entities like the UN would swoop down and try to institute a gov’t where there was none.
I’d rather have a sovereign country and band together with others to prevent this. People do have a right to do that if they wish.
And Ron Paul does NOT want to ‘limit’ immigration, he just feels as most of us do that willy-nilly open borders, something that no other country allows, is not fair either. Why should my friend’s husband in Europe have to have a sponsor and a job and wait forever before coming here while those who come from countries that are attached by land, simply walk over and take advantage of free healh care and other benefits gleaned from the gov’ts confiscation of the fruits of the hard labor of others, almost immediately?
By the way, not that it matters, but I am an immigrant myself. I needed to have a job, a sponsor and a place to live before I could come here. I earned the right.
I am just curious about your feelings about private property — do you believe in communal property? I may have the right to visit your home if you let me in, but you would have the right to say I could not have a key to enter anytime I wished, such as when you were not there, because you own that home and it would be unreasonable to think you would leave the door unlocked so that I or others might raid your refrigerator for example, and use up the things you bought with the money you earned.
Anarchism is not going to work because not everyone is responsible and you would have a society based on who could steal from others the best, the strong preying on the weak. As long as there is more than one person on a desert island, there will be some sort of ‘government’ whether written or understood.
Re: “Anarchism is not going to work…”
That’s a myth. Also, I’m far better prepared to explain why it would than you are to back up your assertion that it wouldn’t.
Ah the musings of the “vulgar libertarian”. Great piece Brad. Keep up the good work and perhaps someday, people NH might actually get it…
Thanks, Brad. I can’t understand how anyone who claims to love liberty can call for government interference with the free movement of persons. The state is the enemy of liberty. One clarification: I’m not as old as I look. :-)
I find it amusing how often free market anarchists are accused of being communists, to top it off, by people who are making collectivist property claims (I.E. national territorialism).
It’s nice to see some libertarians finally calling out Ron Paul and his supporters on his un-libertarian positions. Here where I live, most non-anarchist so-called libertarians are at least mildly sympathetic to the Minuteklan and other racist organizations, proving that their sympathies to whiteness trumps their commitment to a consistent libertarianism.
I have seen similar contradictions play out when many libertarians support worker databases, registration of undocumented workers, militarized borders and other Big Brother plans as long as the elites promise they will apply only to poor Brown folk with the bad luck to have been born a few kilometers south of the US. These hypocrisies need to be called out and it’s good to see that you’re doing it. Locally, we have a Ron Paul-esque talk show host, Charles Goyette, who exhibits a similarly white-biased form of libertarianism (i.e., it’s all good until you cross some imaginary border and then his commitment to libertarianism disappears).
The idea, as far as I can tell, is that these supposed libertarians assume that the their white skin will inoculate them from the Gestapo methods they advocate for Brown people. Sadly, that has not been our history. Expanded police powers expand. That’s just how it goes. ID’s and police databases of any real significance got their start here in attempts to enforce the Chinese Exclusion Act and soon spread. And don’t we all have government ID’s now? In fact, anti-immigration legislation has often been the back door through which the elites have slipped policies that expanded the police state apparatus. It is the latent or even overt white supremacy of many libertarians that has blinded them to this fact.
That said, having attended many pro-immigrant rallies, marches and actions, I have to say that I was heartened to see one cadre of libertarians at a demonstration last year handing out fliers in Spanish explaining libertarianism and supporting open borders. Even though I’m an anarchist-communist, that’s the kind of libertarian I’d like to see more of. This Ron Paul crap has got to go.
Brad, your position is the correct one. Borders are evil, and border control is largely implemented as tyranny. It has become much more difficult to move about, even within the country, owing to all this Tyranny Safety Administration, or whatever TSA stands for, at the airports.
However, borders are implicit in the constitution’s description of delegated powers of Congress - foreign nations are mentioned, and these are defined with borders (sadly). I would say that the article one, section 8 power to regulate commerce with foreign nations implies customs outfits at the borders to review commercial products entering and leaving (and impose tariffs, taxes, duties, or imposts) but there is no clear power to limit travel across the border by peaceful persons.
Similarly, there is a power to “establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” but there is no power to limit or regulate immigration.
Nevertheless, of comparatively narrow-minded conservatives with burrs under their saddles about border control, Ron Paul is relatively good on many issues - income tax, Federal Reserve, limiting government to its constitutional powers, ending the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia, etc. Of the candidates from the two major parties, he stands out.
Mind you, I’m for “none of the above.”
It never ceases to amaze me how some libertarians can be so blinded by the “non-aggression principle.â€Â
If the U.S. were all private property, there would not be open borders. There would be controlled entry. So in order to abide by the non-aggression principle, you absolutist libertarians want something to be allowed to happen that would not happen under your idealized libertarian anarchist system.
Of course, that depends on what one means by “controlled entry”. Let’s say some democratically managed workers cooperative operates a highway between Tijuana and San Diego as their own property. Their choice to allow only transit by those who have pledged to behave themselves in a non-aggressive manner while traversing their property hardly compares with the bureaucratic controls of the State. If we assume the travelers are paying customers or have had their transit costs paid by sponsorship or mutual aid of some sort, they could reasonably expect decent customer service rather than ICE harassment. That’s a serious qualitative difference, and Devon ignores it at the peril of his credibility.
First of all, this has nothing to do with my “credibility.”
Of course there would be differences. But, the libertarians who subscribe to the non-aggression principle are required, in order to be consistent, to completely open the borders. No force can be initiated. It’s truly ludicrious. Again, there would be not be such a policy in the private property anarchism you envision. People would not be allowed on property, whether it’s “cooperative” property or individual property - there would be regulations on who and how many were allowed to enter.
This is one more example of why absolutist libertarianism (anti-initiation of force) doesn’t make sense. Consequentialist libertarians is the only rational libertarianism. If you want to think that initiation of force is immoral, that’s you’re prerogative, but at least recognize that it’s only an ideal. I’m sad to inform you that there will never be a world where everyone has protection of absolute self-ownership (never mind whether or not that would even be a good idea). What you’re aiming for is truly quixotic. So, the best you can do, is to try to *approximate* that ideal given the tools at your disposal, which may include the tools of the State.
Re:
Strawman, in this context.
Well, we could discuss the various definitions and connotations of the word “moral” and overanalyze that, but I’d rather not allow you to waste my time in that manner.
[snark]Go hang out in a feminist forum and tell them rape isn’t actually immoral, it’s just not very practical on consequentialist grounds. I’m sure you’ll find it a most illuminating discussion.[/snark]
It’s very relevant to this context. Deontological libertarians want open borders beause they think people have a natural right to be from all initiation of force. A problem with that is people have no such right. And, even if they did, that would not be a good enough reason to not initiate force if initiating force led to better consequences than refraining from it. So, whether they do or not is irrelevant. And, it’s easy to come up with examples where initiation of force leads to preferable consequences.
Whether rape is moral or immoral depends on what you mean by immoral. If you mean it’s immoral because there’s something intrinsically wrong with it, because people have a natural right to self-ownership, then I disagree. If you mean it’s immoral because legalizing it leads to bad consequences for society and myself, then I agree. Again, consequences are what matters. Deontological libertarianism is irrational. Consequentialist libertarianism is rational. There is no reason to think that abstaining from *all* “initiation of force” necessarily results in a more free, happy, and prosperous society, much less a happier self, than not engaging in none of it. This mystical opposition to “initiation of force” is self-destructive.
Take it from Benjamin Tucker, who after he turned more rational and became an egoist, said: “the ultimate end of human endeavor is the minimum of pain. We aim to decrease invasion only because, as a rule, invasion increases the total of pain (meaning, of course, pain suffered by the ego, whether directly or through sympathy with others). But it is precisely my contention that this rule, despite the immense importance which I place upon it, is not absolute; that, on the contrary, there are exceptional cases where invasion–that is, coercion of the non-invasive–lessens the aggregate pain. Therefore coercion of the non-invasive, when justifiable at all, is to be justified on the ground that it secures, not a minimum of invasion, but a minimum of pain. . . . [T]o me [it is] axiomatic–that the ultimate end is the minimum of pain.”
I content that initiation of force, i.e. not allowing unrestricted travel across borders secures a minimum of invasion. Pun intended. The silly non-aggression principle be damned.