The Government-Created Immigration Problem

From Campaign For Liberty:

The State-Created Immigration Problem


By Jerry Salcido


Published 08/19/10


Arizona's recently passed (and more recently overturned) law which supposedly cracks down on illegal immigration (although it would be more appropriate to say it accomplishes a crack down on liberty) is troubling. Unfortunately, other states, such as my home state of Utah, are looking to pass similar statutes.





The bill up for vote in Utah empowers the police to question a person regarding his immigration status so long as the police officer has "reasonable suspicion" that the person is in the country illegally. An officer, however, cannot simply detain a person based on that reasonable suspicion alone. The suspect must have first committed another offense. Well, everything is an offense against the State these days. Is your license plate light out? That's an offense. Did you fail to come to a complete stop before crossing a sidewalk while leaving a parking lot? If not, you've committed an offense. Is your dog loose in your neighborhood without a leash? Another offense. The "offense," therefore, becomes a pretext to allow the police to question an individual about his immigration status.





Such laws are the consequences of the State's attempt to manage what it considers an immigration problem. These reactionary laws, however, tend to be problematic themselves and they are apt to infringe on individual liberty. What then are we to do with immigration? Some take the position that we beef up our border security, build a wall, hire more border patrol agents, patrol the border with helicopters, and empower state law enforcement agencies to act as agents of the federal government in regulating the borders. Others recommend full or partial amnesty. Still others suggest altering the laws to liberally grant work visas.





Which of these suggestions, if any, should we as liberty lovers advocate? I posit that we are to do nothing about immigration. I reject any talk of amnesty, increasing the number of border patrol officers, and passing any more laws or giving the State (whether federal or state) any more power to control, quell, or liberalize immigration. I deny that any focus should be immigration at all. I argue that immigration is not the issue.





Let us do nothing about immigration. Instead, let's do a whole lot of something about restoring individual rights, private property rights, freedom of contract, and reducing the power of the State. If we can adhere to correct principles of liberty, like those discussed below, immigration will be an issue no longer.





Individual Liberty





Often forgotten in the immigration debate is the fact that those entering the USA from the south and elsewhere without the blessing of our beloved government are sovereign individuals with the same natural rights as those legally in the country. Why does this matter?





As individuals we have equal claim to the natural rights bestowed on us all by Providence regardless of whether we were born in Butte, Montana or Quetzaltenango, Guatemala. The most basic of those natural rights is that no man can prevent you from doing anything you choose so long as you do not violate the rights of another. Thus, freedom of travel is and should be considered a God-given right and should be uninhibited to the extent it is exercised within the bounds of the principle of liberty.





Under this basic principle of liberty, the Mexican, Central, and South American who travels north must be allowed to do so within the bounds of his natural rights, that is, without infringing on another's liberty or property rights.





Private Property Rights





One obtains private rights in property through labor. Under a philosophy of natural rights you own your labor and everything that your labor produces, and no one has any right to deprive you of your self-generated production. The principle of private property can be applied to the current immigration issue in several ways.





Welfare - There can be little doubt that many immigrants make their way to the United States in order to take advantage of state provided benefits which can include food, shelter, and cash. While living in Central America I personally participated in conversations with a number of people who admitted that they were heading north to reap welfare benefits. Stop creating that demand for the violation of property rights, which is welfare, and the market will reflect a decrease in the supply of the individuals, including immigrants, who wish to benefit there from.





Private Land - As discussed above, individuals own their labor. If an individual uses his labor to improve land, then that individual creates an ownership interest in the land. In a free society there would only be privately-owned land and unclaimed and unimproved land, that is, un-owned land. Individuals who should wish to travel to another part of the earth such as to the U.S. could travel via the un-owned land or via the owned land with the owner's permission. To the extent that such an individual violated the rights of a land owner by trespassing on private property in his venture to the U.S., the land owner would still have a private cause of action against the trespasser and there would be no need for sweeping immigration legislation.





Income Tax - I hear a lot of people complain that illegal immigrants do not pay income taxes and so they have an unfair advantage in the market place. They can get paid under the table and therefore can charge less for their labor than the income tax paying legal citizen. Although probably a true statement in many cases, the illegal immigrant should not be faulted for not paying income taxes because he is simply acting in accordance with free market forces. Instead, if we are to cast any blame, it should be directed to the oppressive State that imposes an income tax. With a healthy respect for private property rights there would be no income tax, taking such contentions out of the immigration context.





Freedom of Contract





Abiding by the principle of freedom of contract would also contribute to making the immigration problem a non-issue.





In a state of nature you have a right to contract with anyone you wish for whatever goods or services so long as in so contracting you are not violating the rights of another. When it comes to immigration, however, even those who generally advocate principles of individual liberty and private property rights simply throw freedom of contract out the window. Respecting the natural right to freely contract with others, coupled with an adherence to the principles of individual liberty and private property rights, would create an environment of prosperity in which immigration would be considered a valuable economic commodity rather than a burden on the shoulders of society.





Interfering with the Employer-Employee Relationship - An oft-suggested resolution to the illegal immigration issue is to penalize business owners for hiring illegal immigrants. I have to guffaw when I hear such drivel. If a business owner wishes to hire an illegal immigrant it is because the market demands it. The immigrant's labor must provide value that is not otherwise provided by the legal citizen; otherwise the business owner would not hire the immigrant. And ultimately, it is the consumer who benefits from the immigrant's reduced-cost labor. By interfering with the business owner's and the immigrant's freedom of contract the business owner suffers, the immigrant suffers, and the consumer suffers. It is a lose-lose-lose situation for everyone. Not surprisingly, those who do not understand economics continue to push for such restrictions.





Trade Restrictions Generally - On a more macro level, government restrictions on trade and the freedom of contract generally increase the prices of all goods and services, either directly or indirectly. Removing the impetus on trade placed by the government would result in equilibrium of supply and demand, including the supply and demand of immigrant workers. With true freedom of contract high immigration numbers would simply mean that the market demands more labor at that time. Low immigration numbers would mean the demand for labor is low.





Illegal Drugs - Freedom of contract argues against prohibitions on the sale of products now considered illegal drugs. Many of the complaints surrounding illegal immigration are focused on the crime often associated with the importation of illegal drugs. Such crime, however, is a direct consequence of rejecting the natural right of the freedom of contract. Thus, such crimes cannot logically be attributed to illegal immigration and if individuals were permitted to manufacture, distribute, sell, and buy drugs the violence would stop.





Conclusion





The problem is not immigration. The problem is an over-intrusive State. It is the State that places restrictions on individual liberty such as the freedom of travel. It is the State that legislates property violations in the form of welfare. It is the State that imposes an income tax. It is the State that interferes with the ownership of private land. It is the State that interferes with the individual's freedom of contract and penalizes employers for hiring illegal immigrants. It is the State that has caused a literal war on our nation's borders with its war on drugs.





If we wish to make immigration a non-issue then our focus should be on restoring our natural rights and on reducing the size, scope, and power of the State. When individuals are allowed to act without hindrance within the bounds of their natural rights is when the illegal immigration "problem" will solve itself.







Copyright © 2010 Campaign for Liberty