A
Stato-Libertarian Analysis of Immigration
- By Wilton D. Alston and Stefan Molyneux
“We are all callable of
believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally
proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually,
it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check
on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality,
usually on a battlefield.”
~ George Orwell
After much
discussion, debate, soul-searching, and research, we think we finally
understand what the closed-border libertarians are really trying to say about
immigration. We think we understand the logic, and why it makes sense to some
people. And while we don’t agree, we also must admit that the logic is, in
fact, sound if (and only if) you’re
interested in using the power of the State for some “good” purpose. The belief that
the coercive power of the State can be used for good is perhaps the most
dangerous idea in history.
In this case, “good”
simply means that the power of the State – power that plumb-line libertarians
supposedly agree that no one should
have – should be used for purposes that appeal to some libertarians! (Talk about cognitive dissonance.) It is the sweet Kool-Aid of this fallacy – a
fallacy we thought we had long since abandoned
– which so many otherwise radical libertarians seem to be drinking.
Essentially, the
popular libertarian argument (as best we can repeat it) for closed borders go
like this:
The
state should use aggression as required to keep too many illegal aliens from
entering the U.S. because otherwise, the amount of aggression the state uses
against legal citizens to support those illegal aliens will have to increase.
This argument
is based on the pragmatic assumption that choosing the lesser of two evils is
beneficial. Being shot in the foot is preferable to being shot in the chest.
Voting to increase the power of the
state in the hopes of creating conditions which will somehow reduce the power of the state may seem
like a mad, dangerous and self-defeating plan, but it appeals to a rather
surprisingly large number of libertarians, so it is well worth analyzing.
Let us analyze
this logic and assumptions that undergird this premise, so as to better
understand it.
a. Aggression – defined as action taken by
the state against any citizen, e.g., taxation, incarceration, fines, imposition
of rules, etc. – exists at a present level (call it X) that is relatively
stable.
b. Without the state providing a chokepoint
for entry into the U.S.,
the number of illegal aliens would skyrocket in an uncontrolled manner.
c. While it may be argued that the free
market for labor and housing can absorb some influx of new people, it cannot be
argued that this market would absorb the huge number of people who would
immigrate to the U.S.
without the state-imposed chokepoint noted above.
d. No matter what their socio-economic,
educational or cultural pedigree, any significant influx of illegal aliens – i.e.
those who enter the U.S. without taking all the proper steps to become citizens
– will result in a net increase of people receiving state-based aid, e.g.,
welfare, food stamps, subsidized housing.
e. The inevitable result of this significant
influx in illegal aliens must necessarily
be an increased level of aggression against current citizen (call this new
aggression level Y), as manifest by increased taxation, specifically to fund
the needs of illegal aliens.
f. Any significant influx of illegal aliens will
also result in a measurable increase in people who not only take advantage of
socialist state policies, but who would also support the creation of more such
policies via the vote.
g. The support of illegal aliens for
socialist state policies will result in even more aggression by the state
against legal citizens.
h. Finally, since these illegal immigrants
will rely so heavily on state largesse, a pro-statist voting bloc will be
permanently created.
Evidence, Evidence, Evidence…
While a number
of the fallacies in this argument have been successfully
dismissed by others, we still feel compelled to examine the general premise
via another rubric: historical evidence. If the proposition is: “Giving the
state more power over immigration will lead to a reduction in the power of the
state,” there is no need rely on mere theory,
since we can simply review the abundant historical evidence. All we need to do
is look at the past hundred years or so.
Clearly, state
immigration controls have expanded radically
since the 19th century. According to the theory, these massive
increases in immigration controls should have reduced the power of government
as a whole.
It’s hard to
imagine any libertarian needing a chart to see the empirical flaw in this
proposition.
We can also ask:
“Has the fear of immigration ever contributed to expansions in government power
in the past?” If immigration scares have been used to expand government power in the past, it’s hard to imagine how such fears
in the present can ever reduce
government power in the future.
One of the
greatest expansions in US state power – in fact, the expansion that is arguably
required for all other expansions – was the creation of state schools in the
mid-19th century.
A central
justification for the introduction of state education was a fear of
immigration. A general paranoia about foreign values “taking over” American culture
provided great fuel for the introduction of standardized cultural
indoctrination in the form of state schools. Particularly, Protestant Americans
in the mid-19th century feared that the growing influx of Catholic
immigrants would place American society under control of the Pope! (And let’s
not forget the 1901 Anarchist Exclusion Act, which prohibited the entry into the US of people judged to be
anarchists and political extremists. How many of us would be turned back or
deported today?)
We can also
look at how state power was affected by the fears of the “yellow peril,” or the
large increase of Chinese and Japanese immigration in the mid-19th
century. Did the desire to keep such immigrants out result in an increase, or a
reduction in state power? (Hint, take a look at the Asian Exclusion Act, Chinese Exclusion Act,
etc.)
The Dillingham
Commission labored from 1907 to 1911 writing a 42-volume
report warning that the “new” immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe threatened to subvert American society. These
recommendations were the basis for the Quota Acts of the 1920s. Open
immigration as a concept took a severe blow during the First World War – as
state power vastly increased. In 1921, the Emergency Quota Act restricted immigration from any given
country to 3% of the number of people from that country living in the US in 1910.
(For more of this timeline, please click here.)
Over and over,
we can see that increased fears of immigration (and by extension immigrants) are
followed by overall increases in
state power.
Many
libertarians look back with fondness to the Founding Fathers and the
Constitution. Of course, there were virtually no immigration restrictions in
the 18th century, when the United States was far more free
than it is today. As immigration restrictions have grown, so has state power.
Cause and Effect
It could be
argued, of course, that it was the increases in state power that resulted in additional immigration restrictions.
In some cases, this may be true – but in many other cases, such as public
education, fear-mongering empirically preceded
expansions in state power, and were directly used to justify such increases. The
“cause and effect” relationship between ideas and laws is very difficult to
prove – and in some cases may be impossible – but the essential lesson here is
that increases in immigration controls have
never
led to overall reductions in state power, but have always preceded overall
increases.
This is
perfectly logical, since we know that increases in specific government power
and spending are almost never offset by decreases elsewhere. When we demand
that immigrants be kept out because we are afraid of them abusing the welfare
system (a
demonstrably false fear), we are demanding that government increase its spending on immigration
control. Do we then rationally expect government spending to decrease on welfare, let alone overall?
It will never
happen, because it never has
happened.
As Santayana famously
said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
But, I Thought We Wanted Anarchy?
A cartoon we saw
some time ago provides most of the context one needs to understand the typical
stance of the most ignorant anti-immigrationists. Certainly, the more reasoned
thinkers, and honorable people like Ron Paul, understand that such a view is
lunacy. The problem is, if one supports closed borders “this one time” one is
in bed with those who have a, shall we say, less nuanced view of freedom. In
for a penny, in for a pound?
The problem
with supporting or nourishing this view, if only just a little bit, is this: anarchy and free markets are never a given.
It is of limited use that we all agree on that end point, since that end point
will likely never come in our lifetimes. It is important that we agree on what
is a step in the right or wrong direction, since many such steps will come in
our lifetimes. Building a border wall, an idea with
which even Ron Paul apparently agrees, is a step that is rather close at
hand in the mind of many. If the most libertarian, by far, of the candidates for President of the United States thinks building a
wall to keep Mexicans out is a good idea, at what point do we simply say, “Hey,
not so fast my friend?” If we’ll compromise on this, what else will prove “practical”
in the long run?
Expanding
government power to keep some people out, under the theory that they might
either vote or use social services – and thus lead to expanded aggression – is not truly
libertarian. If you think aggression now is necessary to forestall more
aggression in the future, this is essentially the same argument underlying gun
control and pre-emptive intervention all over the globe. Of course, if those
who vote for increases in state power are in the wrong morally as well as
practically, what does that say about those who support increases in state
power over immigration?
It is also
strange to note that libertarians argue that the state is woefully and destructively
counter-productive in social policies – in every area except immigration. The
welfare state creates more poor, we argue – do we really believe that increased
anti-immigration policies will do anything but create more illegal immigration?
If the state is successful in keeping immigrants out, that just raises the
economic value of getting in – since the demand for illegal labor will not
disappear. The prospect of increased wages for those who get through will simply
raise the price that can be paid – in bribes or other countermeasures – to get
through. The government can’t keep drugs out of prisons, but it can effectively
keep immigrants out? It’s exactly the same principle.
Thus the
argument for immigration controls calls libertarian itself into question! On this one issue, libertarianism does not
work. On this one issue, apparently, a libertarian (laissez faire) immigration policy is ultimately bad for liberty! This
is almost identical to the logic employed by those who believe a truly
libertarian foreign policy is bad for liberty, or gun control advocates who believe
a truly libertarian gun policy is bad for liberty, or drug warriors believe a truly
libertarian drug policy endangers liberty.
Conclusion
We’re far from
the only libertarian thinkers who are a little disturbed over
Ron Paul’s stance on immigration specifically, and the closed-border
argument in general. What concerns us is that so many otherwise seasoned,
battle-worn libertarians are willing to cast aside that which we thought was
inarguable and unassailable – our belief in the absolute evil of the State –
because we’ve supposedly got a horse in the race.
We gave up
believing that all we needed was the “right guy” in office just about the same
time we realized, in the words of the immortal Harry Browne, that “government
doesn’t work.”
A central
tactic of governments around the world is to make people afraid of each other,
rather than of their governments. Libertarians are generally cognizant of this
reality in many areas. We understand that environmental fear-mongering is
designed to justify increases in state power, as does playing on fears about
drug use, poverty, sickness and so on.
It is time
that we expand this understanding to immigration as well. A recent LRC
Blog entry echoes this truth:
“…even when mass migration is political and
invasive, dismantling the welfare state and privatizing as much land as humanly
possible are the only responses that don’t lead to intolerable collateral
damage in terms of liberties and property rights.”
By giving the
government more power to keep others out, we are only giving the government more
power to keep us down.