NationStates Jolt Archive

The Goal Is Freedom: A Matter of Priorities

December 14, 2007
by Sheldon Richman

Sheldon Richman is the editor of The Freeman and "In brief." TGIF appears Fridays. Comments welcome. TGIF will be on hiatus until the new year.

'Tis the political season, which means the season to bash immigrants. This goes especially for so-called illegal aliens, i.e., residents without government papers. (As if that's a big deal.)

Candidates and others who are so set on securing the Mexican border -- the Canadian border seems of less concern -- and expelling those who had the audacity to come to the land of the free without permission mainly rely on two arguments: jobs and welfare. If those are the best arguments they've got, they haven't got much.

The first is easily dismissed. Any free-market advocate knows that what is in short supply is not work but workers -- if government does not interfere with individual freedom. In the nature of things there is always more work to be done than people to do it. This is not news, just another way of saying that we live in a world of scarcity. Free people can loosen the bonds of scarcity, but can never eliminate them. This will be true as long as a quantity of resources or an hour of labor put to one purpose can't simultaneously be put to some other purpose. Under freedom long-term involuntary unemployment is thus impossible. If tomorrow we need only half the number of people it takes today to make a steady supply of some product, we'll be able to afford things we can't afford today and our living standard will rise. That's progress.

To be sure, we live in a society blanketed by government intrusion that ossifies the labor and other markets in a variety of ways. This includes taxes, minimum-wage laws, occupational licensing, anticompetitive favors to business, union laws, and more. Such interventions may make it tougher for unskilled or low-skilled workers to find new jobs if the old ones are lost to someone willing to work for less. The wrong way to address that problem, though, is to go after immigrants who are "taking jobs from Americans." The moral claim to freedom, including the freedom to associate with those who have jobs to offer, should not be a function of where one was born or how one got here. It's a function of being human, period. Let's free the market rather than restrict peaceful individuals.


Welfare State

A similar point applies to welfare. I don't know what percentage of immigrants, "legal" and otherwise, takes benefits paid for by the taxpayers. Everyone can cite a study to support his intuitions on the matter. Such cherry-picking of data always make me uncomfortable.

Fortunately, we don't need data on an issue like this. If you don't want people taking welfare benefits, go after the dispenser of the benefits -- the state -- not the people who simply accept what is offered. If you fear that immigrants will strain the government's schools and hospitals, ask why government is in education and health in the first place? You don't hear Wal-Mart and other private retailers complaining about new customers.

To listen to some immigration opponents, you'd think the worst thing that can possibly happen is for a foreign-born person -- especially one without government papers -- to take a welfare benefit. Why it matters where a welfare recipient was born, I can't say. After all, independent migrants pay taxes, so why are they less entitled than American citizens? No one should be eligible, but if immigrants are to be singled out, shouldn't they be tax-exempt too? Hmmm. That's not a bad deal. Can one renounce one's citizenship and remain here as a tax-exempt immigrant?

At any rate, I can think of worse things than welfare for "illegal aliens," including (in no particular order):

1. Native-born Americans' taking welfare. They were born in the "land of the free." Shouldn't they know better?

2. Police-state tactics designed to prevent immigration or to catch people who made it through. Those tactics include storm-trooper raids at workplaces, witch hunts of employers who, taking the idea of free enterprise seriously, hire whomever they please, and ominous national-identification devices. Make no mistake about it: In the pursuit of "illegals," all the brutal power of government is focused on individuals not because they infringed anyone's freedom, but because of who they are.

3. The routine exploitation of people who are vulnerable to thugs and cheats because of their "illegal" status. When you don't dare call the police lest you risk deportation, you are ripe for victimization.

Freeman contributor Charles Johnson (blogger at Rad Geek People's Daily) put it well: "As for the welfare state, they ["illegals"] are welcome to milk it dry, as far as I'm concerned. The sooner the damn thing is on the brink of collapse, the better. Besides which, receipt of government benefits is not ipso facto a violation of anyone's rights -- it's the funding that's the problem, but illegal immigrants aren't complicit in the existence of taxation -- and insofar as they are able to receive some minimal pay-outs from the State, that may as well count as partial restitution for the daily threats, terror, and violence that the state and federal governments routinely inflict against the property and liberty of all undocumented immigrants."

Freedom is more important than these extraneous concerns. It's really time we got our priorities straight.

Happy New Year!

http://www.fee.org/in_brief/default.asp?id=1764

There are two primary justifications for immigration control: protecting the jobs and wages of American workers and protecting the welfare system.

Now, it is quite obvious that the welfare system is a red herring, as it is its nature to help those who don't have the funds to help themselves, so immigrants would simply be using the system for what it is meant. Furthermore, if it is the entire concept of the welfare system that offends those for immigration control, what meaningful justification can that be for the violent aggression against those who might benefit from it. As this article points out, the aggression should be placed against the state thieves rather than peaceful immigrants.

The argument for the jobs and wages of American workers is even better. The idea that the state should intervene within labor markets to protect wage levels is nothing more than socialism, and this argument is nothing more than a call for socialism. And we aren't even talking about real socialism, here, but that general strawman that conservatives erect as target practice for their vitriol.

So here it is: either admit your irrationality and weak arguments for what they are (a cover for your despicable ethnocentrism), or hoist the red flag and pronounce the glory of state socialism!

http://www.fee.org/in_brief/default.asp?id=1764

There are two primary justifications for immigration control: protecting the jobs and wages of American workers and protecting the welfare system.

Now, it is quite obvious that the welfare system is a red herring, as it is its nature to help those who don't have the funds to help themselves, so immigrants would simply be using the system for what it is meant. Furthermore, if it is the entire concept of the welfare system that offends those for immigration control, what meaningful justification can that be for the violent aggression against those who might benefit from it. As this article points out, the aggression should be placed against the state thieves rather than peaceful immigrants.

The argument for the jobs and wages of American workers is even better. The idea that the state should intervene within labor markets to protect wage levels is nothing more than socialism, and this argument is nothing more than a call for socialism. And we aren't even talking about real socialism, here, but that general strawman that conservatives erect as target practice for their vitriol.

So here it is: either admit your irrationality and weak arguments for what they are (a cover for your despicable ethnocentrism), or hoist the red flag and pronounce the glory of state socialism!

Where is the poll? Choose A if you are an irrational racist/ethnicist; Choose B if you are a socialist. :)

I chose B!Socialism is superior!:D

Be careful how you use the words 'Conservative' and 'conservative'. They mean two quite different things to people in the UK. I suppose it would be like the difference between 'Republican' and 'republican'.

Anyway... *goes to read article*

There are two primary justifications for immigration control: protecting the jobs and wages of American workers and protecting the welfare system.

The border control nuts will also bring up the issue of National Security on the basis that immigrants are criminals, possibly violent criminals, possibly Muslim terrorists.

Poll needs another option:

"I do not oppose open immigration"

Poll needs another option:

"I do not oppose open immigration"i cannot agree more. I absuolutly hate the term "Illegal Aliens". It makes me shiver

That has to be the most ignortant poll I have ever seen....good work. :rolleyes: Of course anybody against open immigration is either a racist or socialist...:rolleyes:

Poll needs another option:

"I do not oppose open immigration"

Yes. I needs to vote, but I don't like either option.

That has to be the most ignortant poll I have ever seen....good work. :rolleyes: Of course anybody against open immigration is either a racist or socialist...:rolleyes:

It is a wonderful poll, since there are no other reasons. Now, Confess!

i cannot agree more. I absuolutly hate the term "Illegal Aliens". It makes me shiver

Illegal aliens, illegal aliens, ILLEGAL ALIENS!

It is a wonderful poll, since there are no other reasons. Now, Confess!

The only thing to confess is that the OP is a moron. I pick the absent other option as neither of the option in his idiotic poll apply to me.

You should stop farting in my thread.

The border control nuts will also bring up the issue of National Security on the basis that immigrants are criminals, possibly violent criminals, possibly Muslim terrorists.

Which, of course, is only exacerbated by forcing all of the non-criminal immigrants to flood the under-the-radar route which would only be taken by truly criminal immigrants.

You should stop farting in my thread.


You should make a thread that doesn't deserve to be farted in, this one does. FARTS!

Poll needs another option:

"I do not oppose open immigration"

Then the poll does not apply to you.

Then the poll does not apply to you.

The poll doesn't apply to 99% of the people.

I don't think that there is anything analogous to open immigration in a free society, as it is the choice of the property owner whether or not they wish to admit people onto their property, but I will say that it is despicable that conservatives pretended to oppose Kelo V. New London, but now praise the eminent domain that is snatching up land all over the border. So much for private property.

No, the OP raises very valid points. The only slight issue I would have with his commentary is the assumption that being socialist means you wish to restrict immigration, but that's only implied, and it's instead said that people wish to restrict immigration for socialist reasons, which is perfectly fine.

In other words, I generally agree, I just feel there should be an option to say that you don't aim to restrict immigration.

I voted both choices just to skew the poll. :D

I voted both choices just to skew the poll. :D

Me too, and to see the outcome easy. No point in taking this silly poll seriously.

No, the OP raises very valid points. The only slight issue I would have with his commentary is the assumption that being socialist means you wish to restrict immigration, but that's only implied, and it's instead said that people wish to restrict immigration for socialist reasons, which is perfectly fine.

Yes, I don't mean that all socialists wish to close borders, just that the argument being made is the same argument that those who do wish to close borders often try to pin on socialists in other arguments.

I voted both choices just to skew the poll. :D

No, I recognize that some may own up to being a closet strawman socialist and a racist.

ANY white person who supports their country in ANY way is a radical facist right-wing racist nutjob. I can't believe some of these people actually LIKE themselves, everyone knows that whites are the root of all evil.

Me too, and to see the outcome easy. No point in taking this silly poll seriously.

I appreciate all of the bumping you are doing for my thread, but if you have a disagreement, you should post your reasons for disagreement as I am more than willing to defend my opinion.

Greater Trostia is correct that some bring up that there is the other "national security" argument. But that is also can be tossed on to the "I am a racist, and I offer up nonsensical arguments to cover up that fact" pile.

ANY white person who supports their country in ANY way is a radical facist right-wing racist nutjob. I can't believe some of these people actually LIKE themselves, everyone knows that whites are the root of all evil.

It is not just whites who offer up nonsensical arguments for violent aggression against those from other nations.

It is not just whites who offer up nonsensical arguments for violent aggression against those from other nations.

You racist! You and your Kapitalistic Empire of hate shall topple eventually!

Wow, it was really fun voting for both of the options on your poll, especially since the more I think about it, the two groups do have some similarities....

No, I recognize that some may own up to being a closet strawman socialist and a racist.

Neither option pertained to me, because the poll is too narrow in its choices. Due to that, I figured that I might as well have some fun. :D

Can I just be clear here, do you want complete, unregulated, free movement in and out of the USA?

It made some interesting points, even though I disagree with everything the article said. I can't really speak from an American perspective, but as a Brit I'm against open immigration. I'm certainly not a libertarian like the writer of that article seems to be. I'm in favour of keeping a welfare system. I also think that it's the responsibility of a government to act in the interests of its own people first. I think an open borders policy would conflict with this responsibility. Sometimes that responsibility will conflict with both the idea of the free market and with the wishes of potential immigrants into the country. So be it.

Poll needs another option:

"I do not oppose open immigration"

that makes two of us. cameroi goes even further and opposes any and all restrictions on any unarmed civilian crossing any border at any point in any direction for any reason at any time.

nations have a right to control the laws imposed on everyone within their borders, but not to control anyone's freedom of movement, without coviction of a violent fellony by due proccess.

=^^=
.../\...

Can I just be clear here, do you want complete, unregulated, free movement in and out of the USA?

Yes, and everywhere else. However, I'm not a right winger.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13296401']It made some interesting points, even though I disagree with everything the article said. I can't really speak from an American perspective, but as a Brit I'm against open immigration. I'm certainly not a libertarian like the writer of that article seems to be. I'm in favour of keeping a welfare system. I also think that it's the responsibility of a government to act in the interests of it's own people first. I think an open borders policy would conflict with this responsibility. Sometimes that responsibility will conflict with both the idea of the free market and with the wishes of potential immigrants into the country. So be it.

So you do, in fact, disagree with it because you're at least somewhat socialist, as one of the poll options states?

Neither option pertained to me, because the poll is too narrow in its choices. Due to that, I figured that I might as well have some fun. :D

Many people are saying that there are too few choices.

Let me just point out that the poll was rhetorical and I only did it because it was requested, and I felt it would draw more people to the arguments contained within the OP.

Now that I know people simply have an urge to vote in meaningless polls, but cannot bring themselves to pick a stance that actually isn't theirs, I will avoid polls like this from now on.

But the fact of the matter is that the poll follows directly from the post that started the thread. If you have a disagreement with the poll, you have a disagreement with my argument.

To everyone thinking about posting, I know it sucks to read, but address the argument and not the poll.

To everyone thinking about posting, I know it sucks to read, but address the argument and not the poll.

You're obviously right, though, so why bother?

So you do, in fact, disagree with it because you're at least somewhat socialist, as one of the poll options states?
I suppose my opposition to unrestricted immigration does have at least some some socialist motivations to it. I've never really thought of it as a socialist thing, traditionally in Britain's it's been the nasty prejudiced old right wingers who oppose immigration and the nice friendly lefties who were in favour of it.

Can I just be clear here, do you want complete, unregulated, free movement in and out of the USA?

What I want is no USA to move in and out of in the first place. What I can hope for is and end to quotas, an end to violent removal of those who have done no harm to anyone, an end to government thugs raiding businesses because they hired someone without consideration of where that person was born, and an extension of the ability to defend one's rights to all of those peaceful people living within the borders of the US.

There can be gates, there can be checks, there can be documentation, but there can be no violence instigated against an individual based solely on where that individual is born.

Assinine statements like that are why liberals lose elections.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13296401']It made some interesting points, even though I disagree with everything the article said. I can't really speak from an American perspective, but as a Brit I'm against open immigration. I'm certainly not a libertarian like the writer of that article seems to be. I'm in favour of keeping a welfare system. I also think that it's the responsibility of a government to act in the interests of its own people first. I think an open borders policy would conflict with this responsibility. Sometimes that responsibility will conflict with both the idea of the free market and with the wishes of potential immigrants into the country. So be it.

So you wish for government intervention into the economy and society at large in order to benefit one class of people against another? Sounds a little pinko to me. Where do you draw the line, does the government bear the responsibility to remove industry from private hands and place it in state, corporate, or union hands if it improves the welfare of its own people?

Let me ask you this, do you feel that there is a moral responsibility placed on the government to exploit one group of people for the benefit of the people that lives under the government?

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13296427']I suppose my opposition to unrestricted immigration does have at least some some socialist motivations to it. I've never really thought of it as a socialist thing, traditionally in Britain's it's been the nasty prejudiced old right wingers who oppose immigration and the nice friendly lefties who were in favour of it.

Well, as usual it depends on the lefties and the righties. As the OP rightly points out, those in strong favour of the free market should be in favour of an open border. By seeking to keep the border tightly controlled, especially to defend British Workers and the Welfare System, an intrinsically socialist stance is taken.

I'm not accusing you of anything, but it is interesting to observe, especially when it pertains to America. There's this knee-jerk reaction among much of the right wing against socialism, and then they're keeping the border closed for socialist reasons.

Personally, I don't mind providing welfare to immigrants, on the basis that it's very unlikely people uproot themselves like that just for welfare, but instead for better work and similar, so they will have benefits for the economy anyway. Does this position make sense?

Assinine statements like that are why liberals lose elections.

So do you generally support massive state interference with the natural workings of the labor market for the purpose of artificially inflating workers' wages? Or do you just not like dirty Spanish-speaking foreigners?

You're obviously right, though, so why bother?

Hopefully conservatives will see an argument coming from a rights and property based side and realize that their own arguments are hypocritical.

The open-borders argument is generally made by a rather left leaning contingent, and if there is less hostility toward the maker of the argument, there will be more open discussion of the contents of the argument.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13296427']I suppose my opposition to unrestricted immigration does have at least some some socialist motivations to it. I've never really thought of it as a socialist thing, traditionally in Britain's it's been the nasty prejudiced old right wingers who oppose immigration and the nice friendly lefties who were in favour of it.

Yes, that is the way it is in America as well.

Personally, I don't mind providing welfare to immigrants, on the basis that it's very unlikely people uproot themselves like that just for welfare, but instead for better work and similar, so they will have benefits for the economy anyway. Does this position make sense?

I disagree with it, but it makes much more sense than the closed borders argument.

There can be gates, there can be checks, there can be documentation, but there can be no violence instigated against an individual based solely on where that individual is born.

This still doesn't fully answer my question, are you opposed to the state preventing some people from getting into the USA, even by peaceful/non violent means?

As to your original point: no I don't consider it socialist, even though it might have some indirect socialist consequences. It seems to me more like state sponsored capitalism, because the state is intervening for the good of the economy and the market, rather then particularly the good of the worker.

This still doesn't fully answer my question, are you opposed to the state preventing some people from getting into the USA, even by peaceful/non violent means?

Yes, I do not believe there is any moral justification for preventing an individual from crossing a national border.

As to your original point: no I don't consider it socialist, even though it might have some indirect socialist consequences. It seems to me more like state sponsored capitalism, because the state is intervening for the good of the economy and the market, rather then particularly the good of the worker.

I cannot imagine how an influx of labor could be bad for the economy or market, and I have always heard the economic argument posed in terms of protecting blue-collar jobs.

And I wouldn't quite call that state-sponsored capitalism, as that would imply political intervention on behalf of the owners of capital, which this is not. I tend to consider all government intervention into the market with the the intent of improving the economy as a whole as a form of socialism (obviously not the only form of socialism).

This poll is really bad, only two options? both of them on different levels, one political the other philosophical.

You can vote for both?

It's not really a poll and the authors arguments wobble all over the place, clearly just for a laugh.:sniper:
"In soviet Russia, freedom enjoys you!"
Harrison Ford, "you can have your car in any colour you want, so long as it's black".

Harrison Ford, "you can have your car in any colour you want, so long as it's black".Harrison Ford?

Harrison Ford?

Yes, Harrison Ford. Don't you remember that Han Solo made the Millenium T car?

Harrison Ford?

Wow, I didn't even notice that.