Freedom of Association and Immigration
In a FREE society, immigration would not be a catastrophic problem.
Originally published 7-25-2007.
The longer we ignore freedom, the worse the immigration mess will become. In the almost seventeen years since I wrote this, the trends have only worsened and the situation deteriorated into a disaster that may necessitate a New Revolution.
A 4000 word essay examining the common objections to immigration and how these should be understood and dealt with inside a framework of freedom and respect for individual rights.
Freedom and only freedom—will resolve the current problems our society faces. Individual rights, property rights, freedom of association: these ideas—these ideals—are the only keys to handling both short-term and long-term difficulties, whether the issue is immigration, health care, education, or any topic. Any other approach that violates the rights of even a single individual must be discredited, condemned, and rejected.
Available for purchase here.
At first blush, the contentious problem of illegal immigration may not seem to have much in common with such divergent political issues as fair housing laws, illicit prostitution, and lack of health care. The difficulties associated with all of these topics, however, flow from the same fundamental cause. In each of these examples—and more—most politicians, pundits, and proponents of one suggested solution or another fail to recognize the basic requirements of a free and moral society.
Even though many people have a vested interest in pretending that our modern world is “too complex” for the average person to understand, nothing could be farther from the truth. If citizens truly understood the simple principles necessary to organize and conduct interactions on the personal, business, and community levels, ninety-plus-percent of government employees would suddenly be sans jobs. Though this to-be-desired situation might lead to a temporary spike in unemployment payments, forcing city, county, state, and federal workers to find productive things to do with their time, skills, and effort would eventually prove to be a boon to society.
What is perplexing and sad, however, is that nearly every adult comprehends and applies these principles when it comes to private social behavior. Strangely, though, once the actions in question cross into the “public,” i.e., government-involved realm, all this hard-earned wisdom vanishes into the ether. Somehow, some way, the introduction of a voting lever into the equation transforms the most vile and disgusting actions into the pure gold of moral rectitude.
Whatever the reasons for such evasion and delusion, the reality is that three basic principles suffice to guide us in deciding whether a particular policy is one that may be properly pursued:
Our lives belong to us.
Our property belongs to us.
Our freedom of association (and contract) belongs to us.
(While a full explanation and justification for these propositions cannot be offered here, numerous sources exist for those interested in a deeper exploration. For example, as a place to begin, see my Web site: www.russellmadden.com. Suffice it here to say that each principle expands and depends upon the one preceding it.)
Most individuals at least implicitly know that they are not slaves to other people; that they “own” their bodies and their lives and have the right and the responsibility to choose how they will or will not conduct their present and future affairs. From childhood, they also grasp that there is a distinct difference between “what belongs to me” and “what belongs to you.” What they earn through their own efforts—their property—is theirs to use as they see fit, even if others may object to how they spend their money or consume the goods they have obtained.
Freedom of association is likewise not rocket science. From our earliest years, we decide who will or will not be our friends. As youths, we select who will share our free time and who we will date. In adulthood, we pick who we will marry and what organizations we will join. As long as our interactions with those around us are peaceful and mutually voluntary, we recognize that no one has the right to force us to socialize with any other particular person or group of persons. Formally, “freedom of association” means the right of an individual to interact (or not to interact) (peacefully) with any other person for any reason whatsoever.
While these three principles are routinely violated by those in government charged with enforcing those very ideas (and supported by far too many citizens who should know better), freedom of association is of special relevance to the topic of (legal or illegal) immigration. The alleged woes attendant with strangers seeking to cross the borders of our nation seem periodically to seize the fearful imagination of the American public. Cries and lamentations of anger and trepidation and condemnation once again dominant the halls of Congress and march across the pages and screens of mass media. The Internet ignites with self-righteous defense of either immigrants or the stringent measures needed to keep them under control. Claims abound that the very existence of our country is at stake.
While there are a plethora of reasons offered against either immigration, in general, or illegal immigration, in particular, three points seem to stand out among the clamor:
Costs
Legality
Crime
Even some self-proclaimed defenders of liberty have clambered aboard the anti-immigration bandwagon. While such a blind spot is unsurprising in those with populist or statist leanings, it is especially curious when discovered in those who purport to support the foundations of a moral and free society.
Immigration-friendly libertarians have been accused of their own blindness in regard to this issue. Supposedly, they fail to recognize the reality of the current situation. Instead of coming to grips with the very significant problems America faces as illegal immigrants pour into our country, libertarians simply retreat behind the unattainable ideal of a free society then wash their hands of what is actually happening. Pie-in-the-sky fantasies are useless, critics say, in dealing with concrete, day-to-day dilemmas.
This objection to libertarian pro-immigration arguments sounds suspiciously similar to that of politicians who warn against “ideologues,” i.e., people holding without compromise to their principles. “Pragmatism” rules the day in state and federal legislatures: treat each and every problem as sui generis, each distinctly differently and unconnected in how they should be approached. As writer Ayn Rand pointed out, such “concrete-bound” thinking renders a person rudderless, flitting from crisis to crisis without a clue, constantly obsessed with symptoms while incapable of—or uninterested in—grasping the underlying causes that might actually resolve a whole raft of problems at a single stroke. Such a course is guaranteed to accomplish one thing only: failure.
Even for those championing immigrants, though, putting one’s primary focus on immigration is to misdirect the spotlight. To state it simply: I am not fundamentally for—or against—immigration. What I do support is freedom of association. Examining this right through the lens of the immigration debate will help illuminate the requirements of freedom overall.
While libertarians are castigated as starry-eyed idealists for advocating the end of the welfare state as a solution to a major complaint of the immigrant situation, anti-immigration advocates ignore the reality that immigration—whether legal or illegal—will never stop. Rather than clinging to the untenable fantasy of—almost literally—walling ourselves away from the world at the cost of billions of dollars, those against immigration need to deal with the issue head-on.
Consider the costs Americans incur as a result of (illegal) immigration. Both sides trade warring statistics as to the amounts involved. Even though many illegal immigrants pay taxes on their wages, it is ultimately irrelevant whether they do or do not “pay their own way.” Tax-funded welfare is legalized theft. It violates rights and is thus immoral. No one defending liberty can properly advocate increasing the number of people engaged in such destructive behavior.
Anti-immigration advocates complain that illegal immigrants flood our public, i.e., State-run schools. Classrooms mushroom in size, putting strains on overworked teachers and physical resources. New teachers—often bilingual—must be hired and new buildings to handle the influx of students must be constructed with taxes or bonds.
Like many uninsured American citizens, illegal immigrants without health insurance invade hospital emergency rooms. There they seek more expensive medical care for which they are unable to pay, but which hospitals are legally mandated to provide. This simultaneously degrades the quality of care for everyone given the limited numbers of health workers and pushes up costs that hospitals must cover, somehow. Other patients with insurance or who pay out-of-pocket are forced to cover the resulting deficits by facing higher prices than they would otherwise.
Critics also bemoan the fact that immigrants take jobs from Americans because these invaders are willing to work for less pay and under less desirable conditions than are native citizens. This lowers our living standards and creates hardships that would not exist if illegal immigrants were kept out of the job market.
All of this emphasis on costs is, of course, merely a smokescreen. Straightforward solutions exist to prevent illegals from piggybacking on American taxpayers.
Don't like the welfare costs associated with illegal immigrants? Then deny them access to any and all kinds of State-funded welfare. Heck, deny welfare to legal immigrants, too, if you like. Surely, given the rabid anti-immigration mentality gripping the American psyche, this kind of legislation is certainly “realistic” and doable. As part of this reform, deny immigrants access to State-run schools. Too many freeloaders on our health care system? Deny them access to government-financed health care, too. From the point of view of the statist anti-immigration crowd, the beauty of this approach is that there would be no need to end the immorality of welfare for all. Just terminate it for the outcasts. If this dual-level system creates hardships for immigrants who pay income and property or other taxes yet are denied the “benefits” of tax-provided welfare or education or medical care, then tough.
But, of course, anti-immigration advocates balk at such a drastic solution. To abolish welfare for millions of people would be to call into question the very validity and morality of the core ideas and actions of our overbearing nanny state. No longer could statists cling to the fantasy that any person has a “right” to goods or services for which he cannot pay. To end welfare for such a sizable chunk of the population would put the lie to the contention that people have a right to food or shelter or medical care or education. Because if an individual did have a right to such things, how could the ninety-plus-percent of Americans who agree with such nonsense justify denying anyone—even people here illegally—access to what is his by right? No, better to keep unwanted immigrants out in the first place so such uncomfortable questions are never asked.
The same analysis applies to the “cost” to native Americans of immigrants willing to take unpleasant jobs for less money than most citizens would accept. No one has a right to any particular job or a particular wage or a particular standard of living. Indeed, no one has a right to any job or wage or economic good, whatsoever. All a person has a right to in regard to employment is to offer his services and to try to reach an agreement with someone willing to pay a mutually agreeable compensation for such work. In other words, people have the right to seek employment, not to be employed. (Compare this to the right to pursue happiness; no one has a fundamental right to be happy.)
With freedom of association (arising from the principles of self-ownership and property rights), medical personnel have the right to refuse to deal with those who cannot pay, regardless of how much the latter might need medical care. The only legitimate course the indigent can follow is to ask for assistance, i.e., for charity.
In the same vein, educators can decline to associate with those who would place an unwanted burden upon them or with those unable or unwilling to pay the requested price or to meet the mandated conditions. Teachers are no more slaves than are doctors.
Nor do business owners have an obligation to provide a livelihood to anyone they do not care to hire or to keep such an individual around if the association becomes undesirable. The flip side of this, of course, is that no employer may force anyone to remain at a job if that person chooses to leave, for whatever reason, regardless of how much the employer might need the help.
The second major complaint frequently offered by those vehemently opposed to granting any leeway to illegal immigrants is that, by definition, such invaders ignore the legality of their presence in this country. We should not reward scofflaws, they say. Violating our immigration laws automatically disqualifies any such individual from any benefit-of-the-doubt. After all, the government is supposed to defend and control our borders and decide who will or will not be granted permission to enter our country.
Immigration opponents have sought to limit the number of people illegally entering our nation by becoming more aggressive in both the laws designed to deny access and in the enforcement of such laws. Sadly, these critics ignore the reality of the unintended consequences of their stricter immigration policies. These actions have had the perverse result of increasing the number of illegal residents, the exact opposite of the stated goal. In the past, many migrant workers (legal or illegal) would have returned to their homes in Mexico after harvest season ended. Given the increased difficulties now associated with re-entering this country, many of these migrants choose to remain in America permanently (if illegally) rather than face possible detention at the border when work opportunities again arise.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Russell Madden: Freedom, As If It Mattered to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.