Immigration
Immigration
Is there no end to the interference of governments that ends up transforming an issue of little importance into a national crisis?
I am not fundamentally for—or against—immigration. What I do support is freedom and, specifically, freedom of association.
Not so very long ago, the issue of immigration and/or travel to the United States was not a huge “crisis” demanding extraordinary measures and burning up large swaths of the national political landscape. This was especially true for those who temporarily just wanted to spend extended time in this country working.
Migrant workers would readily cross our border with Mexico and seek out various job opportunities for picking crops, employment that very few American citizens cared to accept. The migrants would stay until the harvests were done. Then they would meander south to return to their homes in Mexico, to repeat the process when their labors were once again desired by the farmers “up north.”
For some arcane reason, this basically stable situation became a target for the government, a “problem” that needed to be “fixed”…by the government.
And, lo and behold!, the State’s “solutions” created problems that the politicians would then point to in order to “justify” more and more interventions, i.e., increases in power and control, by the very State that upset the apple cart, in the first place.
When the federales made it more difficult to return seasonally to the states for work, many migrants feared they would miss out on the opportunities to earn the money they needed to support their families in Mexico. More and more decided simply to become “illegal” immigrants rather than periodic migrants so they would not lose their income by being unable to cross the border from Mexico. And, naturally, many of those workers were not exactly thrilled by the idea of indefinite separations from their families. So many wives and children joined the men who were now attempting to exist in the interstices of “legal” society.
The State’s response? Crank up the restrictions still more. “E-Verified” worker checks so these folks could get “permission” to work.
And, natch, workers often sought out fake IDs (engaging in identity theft) so they could qualify for the menial or back-breaking jobs towards which they migrated.
Lots of unintended consequences to go around:
Green cards. Visas. Lawyers. Coyotes smuggling immigrants. Murders. Rapes. Human trafficking (slavery), sex or otherwise. Increasing animosity towards foreigners. Restrictions. Denials. Family separations. Illicit drugs pouring into our neighborhoods. Deportations. “Dream” acts. Children abandoned. Families dying trying to cross a desert in searing heat. Criminality sweeping upward.
The convoluted mess morphed—and continues to do so…—into pain, anger, annoyance, and tragedy that did not and does not have to exist.
The ol’ pattern writ large:
The government declares there is a problem where none (or a minor one) exists.
The government intervenes to “correct” the problem it has no authority to address.
The government’s “solution” makes the situation worse. And worse. And…
The government uses the results of its own bungling interference to intervene even more.
The government’s insanity creates a burgeoning spiral of negative fallout until there really is a problem…
Ad infinitum…
Holy cow, Batman. Where have we witnessed this kind of bewildering and frustrating nonsense before…?
How about trying, ya know, freedom for once…?
When I was fourteen, I went on an academic-related bus trip. One night, we stopped in El Paso, Texas. With a few hours to kill, I wandered across the border alone—again, at night—to visit the tourist traps in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. I made a purchase and headed back to the bus. When I reached the border and crossed the bridge sometime later, NO ONE WAS THERE. No Border Patrol agents. No one to “inspect” what I had bought. No one to impede or delay me AT ALL. No tourists. No one even to say “hello” or “boo.”
And, by golly!, the nation did not collapse. I was not murdered. No one was hurt. NOTHING BAD HAPPENED.
Mexicans weren’t streaming across the “undefended” border into the states under the blanket of night. Americans weren’t sneaking into Mexico to do whatever mischief they wanted to do.
NO ONE WAS AT THE BORDER EXCEPT FOR ME.
I know. I know. A miracle must have occurred, right?
Uh. No.
People just lived their lives, not bothering anyone else. Most people simply stayed home.
Sure, sure. Anecdotal and all that. Still…
Virtually all the problems mentioned in regard to immigration were and are largely caused by the federal government’s interference in areas not under the feds’ constitutional purview: education, welfare, health care, employment, immigration. And too many people’s answer is more government interference?!?
Incredible.
I hear a lot about “illegals” and “respect for the rule of law!”
However, if those who shout these mantras truly believe what they were saying, they would and could not support the current policies of the United States government because: anti-immigration laws (and all the rest) are unconstitutional.
The Constitution grants no delegated authority or enumerated power in this area beyond (1) limiting the slave trade:
Article 1, section 9: “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.”
Anyone with an ounce of integrity and knowledge of history knows that this refers SOLELY to slaves…the Founders just didn’t have the guts to use the proper word.
And (2) setting the standards for naturalization.
Article 1, section 8: “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization…”
Some contend that the president can regulate immigration using some mythical power granted by Article 2. Sure, the president swears to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” But trying to enforce laws that should not exist, i.e., are unconstitutional, is not “defending” the Constitution.
Two areas of concern: THAT’S IT. These are the ONLY two enumerated powers, areas of delegated authority available to the Feds in regard to immigration. Anything—ANYTHING—beyond that is unconstitutional. Only anti-immigration evaders who willfully ignore history could misconstrue that section as generally limiting immigration. For those who yap about “illegal” aliens and the “rule of law” to complain about this topic is laughable, hypocritical, and inane. All the things they want to do are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. How convenient of them to appeal to the Constitution when it aids them and to ignore it when it contradicts their prejudices and desires.
Funny, also, how so many critics hide behind that term—“illegal”—while ignoring the foundation for our laws, i.e., the U. S. Constitution, i.e., they engage in illegal activities to manage “illegal” immigration. Maybe critics should read more Thomas Jefferson regarding how unconstitutional laws are null and void.
(Besides the fact that justice and rights are more important than mere adherence to “the law,” viz., the Underground Railroad freeing slaves vs the Fugitive Slave Act/Law putting freed slaves back into bondage. But the feds had no authority to pass such a law, in the first place.)
Pointing to some court case or another to bolster their untenable position won’t do either. It doesn’t matter how erroneously the Constitution has been “interpreted” over the centuries to violate people’s rights. Just because a government has the ability or the power to do X does not mean it has the authorization to do X. (I won’t say “has the right to do X” since a government has zero rights to do anything. Rights don’t apply to a government, only to individuals; to say they do is a category error fallacy.)
And for those ignorant and dangerous folks, i.e., most Americans, who say that, “Well, the Constitution doesn’t explicitly forbid the government to do X, therefore it can do X”: that is a heinous, morally vacuous and bankrupt recipe for tyranny and a “justification” for the 95+% of unconstitutional, illegitimate things governments on all levels do every day; carte blanche for politicians to intrude into virtually any and all areas of life, from the size of holes in Swiss cheese to whom people may marry to waging war without declaring war against nations that pose no real threat to our country.
Such a stance in a complete inversion of how a legitimate government should behave.
The government may properly only do what it is permitted or authorized to do…and then, only within strictly delimited contexts. The only proper purpose of government is to defend the rights of its citizens from violations of their rights by individuals, groups, foreign countries, and—most especially—the government itself.
The government is to act only as our agent, our servant, if you will, to do those things that we prefer not to do or cannot easily do directly ourselves. When the State usurps our role as master and becomes the dictator of our lives, there is no end to the mischief and destruction it can commit.
(As an example of delegating authority versus failing to enumerate and forbid every conceivable action in the universe, imagine hiring a lawyer to manage your divorce. The lawyer—as your agent and in your name, “for your own good”—sells your house. You object, saying he was only supposed to handle your divorce. He says, “But you didn’t explicitly forbid me to sell your house!” How would you feel?)
People who seek to keep peaceful others out of our country are bullies (using the force of government to violate the rights of association, of travel, and of contract between and among peaceable others), thieves (using money stolen from innocent citizens to fund things like the border patrol and walls), and cowards (not taking my money themselves and/or not patrolling the border themselves to keep out those whom these bullies find “undesirable” but instead hiding behind the guns of government agents to get the results they desire.)
All people within the borders of this country share the same fundamental rights and basic protections, regardless of where they come from and how long they are here or are planning to be here. We have those rights because we are human beings, not because we are American citizens. Being a citizen generally means you plan to be here permanently and want to vote, etc. But secondary rights are contingent on certain conditions. If one doesn’t care about such things, one could reside here for a lifetime and just ignore elections and all the rest. (And, yes, one should be a citizen in order to vote. In person. On one day. With minimal provision for absentee voting in a small number of situations.)
Freedom of association implies one has the freedom to travel to engage in that association. And freedom of contract (including employment) is also a corollary of the freedom of association, i.e., one has the right to engage in voluntary legally binding association with other willing parties.
For the first half of this country’s history, no one was required to have a passport to enter this country or to travel abroad (as far as the U.S. government was concerned). That is the situation to which we should return. My rights don’t end merely because I want to cross an imaginary, manmade line on a map.
One of the biggest sources of friction between citizens and immigrants—especially in the case of “illegals”—is the government providing (i.e., stealing money from its people for) education, health care, welfare, and other government benefits.
The answer to that whole shibboleth, of course, is to prohibit any non-citizen from getting government welfare of any kind. (Of course, citizens shouldn’t receive such ill-gotten largesse, either…) Sadly, we can rest assured, however, that the statists and collectivists will never pass such a law. To do so would put the lie to their altruistic claim that people, in general, have a “right” to these government goodies. After all, if they are a right for citizens arising from their mere existence as people, then immigrants, legal or otherwise, also have a claim to these “rights” to health care, education, housing, welfare, and more. But if these goods and services aren’t a right for non-citizens, they are not a right for citizens, either.
Oops…
Freedom of association, freedom of contract, freedom of travel: these are rights (among many others, of course) that all humans possess as part of being humans, regardless of where or when they were born. Maybe more critics should read our Declaration of Independence: all people possess certain rights because they are human beings, and among these—but not limited to these—are the right to life, liberty (including the liberty to associate, to travel, and to contract voluntarily with anyone anywhere), and the pursuit—though not the guaranteed acquisition—of happiness.
Too bad so many people focus on nonessentials and ignore the fundamental issues at stake. Seeking more ratcheting of government power to “solve” a problem will only make it worse. The answer to any problem created by government interference (viz. “Net ‘Neutrality,’” the Drug War, health care, education, “poverty,” retirement, “gun” violence, etc. etc.) is not to advocate for more government control but to push for removal of the interference that created the problem in the first place.
There were no significant immigration problems before the government stuck its big thumbs into the pie. Migrant workers came to the U.S., they harvested the crops, they took their money home. How anyone can view the current mess and think that larding more anti-freedom laws will “improve” the situation is baffling beyond belief. (And the same principles, of course, apply to professionals who want to work here.)
What about: “A nation without borders is not a nation!” or “A country that can’t control who comes in is not a country!”
Well, jeez. No one said anything about not keeping an established boundary so we know where a nation’s (legitimate) laws and legal authority are applicable. Unless and until the peoples of the earth become angels, I want something keeping out the bad folks.
Aye, but there’s the rub. How do we know who the “bad” guys are, and how do we keep them out if we have “open” travel…particularly if we abolish passports and government-issue identification cards?
Most basically, you don’t need passports or IDs. (See my articles, “Identify Yourself” and “Your Papers, Please.”) After all, a passport doesn’t have a stamp somewhere that says, “Felon! Don’t admit!” Any really bad dude or dudette will have a fake passport and/or ID. Besides which, passports are no more a guarantor of good behavior than are drivers licenses. Or gun permits. Or occupational licenses. Or… All are equally useless and intrusive.
If the government wants to prohibit nasty folks at the border (and it should), its agents will already have to have a list of whom to watch for. And if there is no such list, then what’s the point of checking passports, in the first place? Names aren’t even required or particularly reliable. (Plus, people have the right to travel anonymously.) Photos would suffice. If a traveler doesn’t match someone on the list, then on she goes without any government record of her passage.
So, sure, check for REAL (not legally manufactured) criminals, people on the run who have committed actual violations of others’ rights, then send them packing (or, better, detain them until home authorities can bring them to justice). A free country would and should not ban anyone who violated some illegitimate law elsewhere for behavior that should not be illegal in the first place (e.g., drug consumption). Keep out actual miscreants, but retain no records on innocents—who they are, where they go, whatever—no bans or restrictions on their liberty.
The only other reason to prevent someone from crossing a border would be to deal with an individual with a deadly communicable disease that threatened innocent lives. Even then, the government would have to prove within a short period of time that such a prohibition was warranted.
Except for these two conditions, no one anywhere should have to apply to travel or reside somewhere (assuming they are able to support themselves or have others willing to support them). Visas, passports, and the rest of the paraphernalia associated with travel and immigrations are incompatible with freedom of travel, freedom of association, and freedom of contract.
No one needs to seek permission to do that which is his by right.
Of course, the requirements set out above are those that should prevail in a truly free society.
Given that the State has created a complete clusterfuck in dealing with immigration and have FUBARed how we should handle this area of life, the present SNAFU will be beating us over the head with its problems for the foreseeable future.
But without knowing what the ultimate goal is and how it should operate when we reach it, we’ll never be able to latch onto what the proper course of action should be as we seek to dismantle the labyrinth of contentious nonsense that has trapped us for far too long.
For a more formal discussion and analysis of this topic, see my 4200 word essay, “Freedom of Association and Immigration.”
A 4200 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.
Twitter
https://twitter.com/maddrus/with_replies
Amazon
https://www.amazon.com/Russell-Madden/e/B00C7XTUEK
YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/user/1maxruss
You can help support and encourage my writing by purchasing one of my 300+ articles, essays, short stories, novels, or book collections on Amazon or by becoming a paid subscriber to my Substack.
Chat available.