Libertarians and Immigration
A question that's been eating at me for a while:
Why do libertarians object to illegal immigrants?
Perhaps there are libertarians who do not, who extend their principles to encompass newcomers and their liberty to live and work where they please, without government interference. But my experience of libertarian pundits and of my own libertarian friends is that generally, they do not. The most anti-big-government libertarian of my friends also takes it as a given that illegal immigrants are a social ill.
Now, maybe some of these folks (my personal friend excepted, naturally) are merely using "libertarianism" as cover for another set of policy objectives. In that case, the explanation is that they're not sincerely libertarians. But what am I not grasping about the sincere ones?
If governments have no right to interfere in private economic activity and the pursuit of happiness, why can a government restrict the flow of labor from one place to another by erecting a border or, more intrusively still, by regulating how many immigrants are allowed to find jobs here? Immigration quotas don't seem to make any libertarian sense at all. And if not for the quotas, no one would be illegal. The "law" being broken is the law that government bureaucrats get to decided who can come in and who can't, while the government gets to set arbitrary numbers of immigrants from each group. ("Sorry, we've had all the Norwegians we can take for the year. Try us again in January.") The immigrants are only "illegal" because the very government authority that libertarians purport to despise labels those people as illegal.
Why shouldn't someone be able to get a job where there are jobs to be had? Why should someone be prevented from taking a job because too many other people from country X or Y have entered the country? (Talk about your identity politics....) Why shouldn't farmers be allowed to hire the people who want the harvest jobs? And why shouldn't an internet startup be free to hire a bunch of hotshots from IIT?
Seriously, I'd love any thoughts on this.
Crossposted at http://dagblog.com
Why do libertarians object to illegal immigrants?
Perhaps there are libertarians who do not, who extend their principles to encompass newcomers and their liberty to live and work where they please, without government interference. But my experience of libertarian pundits and of my own libertarian friends is that generally, they do not. The most anti-big-government libertarian of my friends also takes it as a given that illegal immigrants are a social ill.
Now, maybe some of these folks (my personal friend excepted, naturally) are merely using "libertarianism" as cover for another set of policy objectives. In that case, the explanation is that they're not sincerely libertarians. But what am I not grasping about the sincere ones?
If governments have no right to interfere in private economic activity and the pursuit of happiness, why can a government restrict the flow of labor from one place to another by erecting a border or, more intrusively still, by regulating how many immigrants are allowed to find jobs here? Immigration quotas don't seem to make any libertarian sense at all. And if not for the quotas, no one would be illegal. The "law" being broken is the law that government bureaucrats get to decided who can come in and who can't, while the government gets to set arbitrary numbers of immigrants from each group. ("Sorry, we've had all the Norwegians we can take for the year. Try us again in January.") The immigrants are only "illegal" because the very government authority that libertarians purport to despise labels those people as illegal.
Why shouldn't someone be able to get a job where there are jobs to be had? Why should someone be prevented from taking a job because too many other people from country X or Y have entered the country? (Talk about your identity politics....) Why shouldn't farmers be allowed to hire the people who want the harvest jobs? And why shouldn't an internet startup be free to hire a bunch of hotshots from IIT?
Seriously, I'd love any thoughts on this.
Crossposted at http://dagblog.com
Advertisement
Theoretically libertarians should not care, but since in my experience most self-identified ones are more of the "me, me, mine, WANNAAAA" school than adhering to any rational theory, only a portion of them share the canonical view on immigration.
And then there are of course the conservatives who used to call themselves "independents" but now have to use "libertarian" because it is the word du jour.
September 24, 2009 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
This issue will never go away. Ever. As long as we have national boundaries.
And I get confused over the definition of libertarian.
The biggest racist slugs will come out as libertarian.
The nicest most anti racist people will come out as libertarians.
Supposedly all libertarians are against big government. That seems to be the mantra of the repub party.
My take on big government is that when your population reaches 300 million people, you need big government.
I am just a 60's liberal. Libertarian scares me as a concept.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvGJvzwKqg0
September 24, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
dick, I agree with you that Libertarianism is terrifying- it's just anarchy, but with less Sex Pistols and pink mohawks. However, I do find libertarianism to be one of the non-liberal political views that I can stomach, as I find the social conservatism to be one of the most reprehensible concepts in modern politics.
My brothers is a big-L Libertarian, (from before it was chic) and I've been very upfront with him that it is the only form of modern American conservatism that I find remotely logical, but that the idea of it still is terrifying. Libertarianism at its core relies on a nearly incomprehensible assumption that industry will be honest if left alone- with the implicit (although seldom explicit) proclamation that regulation is responsible for corporate dishonesty (and yes, if there are no laws to govern corporations, they can't break them- but what libertarian is going to admit to that wording, even though its the same as their argument that 'in a world where guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns'.
True libertarianism (nevermind the clown-shoe wearing neoconservatives claiming to be libertarians now) is built on blinders and anachronisms.
For the record, my big-L brother is pro-immigration reform, gay marriage, choice, and against the wars. He just has batshit ideas about economics. The real deal, so to speak
September 24, 2009 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the few legitimate functions of government is to defend the borders. If a government can't keep people in the neighboring countries from walking into its territory, then it has lost all reasons for existing. An invasion of territory is an invasion, whether the invaders are armed or not.
Libertarians are not in favor of abolishing government - that would be anarchists. They are just in favor of stripping it down to its basic functions.
September 24, 2009 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those who want to advocate open borders are not working for the interest of the citizens of the Nation, The United States of America.
Open borders advocates are interested in citizens of the World. A noble cause but misguided or short sighted.
We have laws in this country, for a reason. Lawful conduct promotes peace and harmony.
Legal immigration is the lawful way, illegal is unlawful.
A Country and its citizen workers through enactment of laws, get to decide our Nations economic conditions.
For a certainty I can empathize with those living in countries where economic conditions are an atrocity.
But in an effort for our US citizens, to not be forced into these conditions as evidenced in other countries.
We The People, the working class, need protection from despair, hunger, and all sorts of maladies.
We The People want to ensure that slavery in this Country will forever be abolished. That living conditions in America will never fall behind a standard WE THE People of the United States have determined as our goal.
Now those who would cry that we need more foreign workers, more immigrants, come from two camps. The Greedy and those whose intentions are good, but misguided.
I’ll address the greedy first.
Sure they want more laborers than there are available Jobs. Now they may appear as advocates for the poor worker; only looking to better his life.
Don’t be fooled, the only betterment of life the greedy employer is looking for is his own.
It’s because they recognize the Law of supply and demand. More workers than jobs, then labor cannot make demands. Demands like I stated above, demands that Our People do not have to hunger, or despair, or live in squalor, because in order to prevent this from occurring, we the American worker must be able to demand a living wage.
Of course the Greedy aren’t interested in your demands, they only care about making more profit. I’ll address the misguided when I return back home.
To answer your first question though. .
“ Why shouldn't someone be able to get a job where there are jobs to be had?”
Did it occur for you to ask “What does the Job pay? Can I buy the gas?, can I pay the rent?, can I afford the babysitter?”
With so many American workers, American citizens or legal immigrants, looking for Jobs. Why would you flood the market with more workers? Could it be to skew the law of supply and demand, towards the interests of the greedy?
Would it be fair to say “It isn’t that we won’t do the work, it’s that we won’t work that cheap” We are only demanding that which satisfies our needs. A living wage that meets the American Citizens standard. A standard that must be protected. Or we'll live as the rest of the World's, Wage slaves.
Of course the employer wants to hire the cheapest labor he can find; it’s called profit.
Of course Manufacturers moved overseas, it's called looking for cheap labor to make more Profit. Not caring that American workers lost jobs and lost they're standard of living. Unless you want to become a wage slave, then they might return.
Or better yet flood the American work force with impoverished foreign workers, diving down wages, then we Manufacturers can return to the safety of the American Shores. But not until we can reduce environmental regulations too. Another attack on citizen standards.
Does that sound like greed?
September 24, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Libertarians oppose illegal immigration because in our society, uncontrolled immigration would result in the destruction of this country. We have a welfare state that gives money to everyone who can't/won't provide for themselves. A flood of immigrants would bankrupt the country immediately. In addition, it would result in changing the culture of the country, of what it means to be an American. What if 400 million Chinese showed up one day? China would just be a little less crowded, but America would suddenly become a majority Chinese country. Our culture, our language, our traditions, all would radically change. No nation can survive this way. That is why the flood of Latino immigrants is such an issue, it is threatening to change this country into a Spanish country as opposed to an English country.
September 24, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've recently returned from Spain, the hordes are massing. Viva la revolucion!
September 24, 2009 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, I am a libertarian of sorts. But, it is my belief that any liberties derive from nature and the nature of things dictates the natural process of life. Thus, immigration is natural and such condition of nature can not be ignored. We can attempt to legislate to attempt to stem the natural flow, but the course of nature is timeless, but effective. However, let's not be hypocritical and call it like it is; in early American history, we touted our devine principles of democracy and broadcasted to the world that this country welcomed the poor and huddle masses who yearned to be free. And so they did. They came in droves from accross the Atlantic, but when othes, who did not look European, began to trickle in, laws were passed to stem the flow. Today, Native Meso-Americans are once again migrating with the ebb and flow of nature,and European Americans are crying foul and violation of law.
September 24, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
It may have been a natural law when peoples migrated across the Bering straits and the inhabitants of the land were dispersed far enough away from each other, so as to avoid conflict. That is NOT the reality today.
It is a dream of some to establish a one world government, where everyone worked together and we could sit around the campfire singing Kum Bay A.
It is a good dream, a good hope that someday all people would be able to live in harmony, but that day is non- existent on a Large scale.
Like any dream it’s good to face the realities. How can a Libertarian defend slavery, or Sharia law, or even The Reformed Church of the Latter-day Saints, where it's okay to marry family members at an early age?
There is no reason for a Nation not to define a moral conduct, or laws to keep immoral people in check, what's next, legalize pedophilia or bestiality or woman women in public for wearing pantsuits? Is that the Libertarian Utopia.
Imagine the challenges every time a new immigrant group who claimed NO FAIR you allowed them but not us. We have a right to bring our huddled masses of Taliban supporters, where woman are no more than chattel. Or maybe some group who feels slavery should never have been abolished.
No we establish laws to maintain the tranquility for all AMERICANS.
A legal immigrant knows he is giving up a right to choose for himself what laws he’ll obey. He understands the obligation to obey the Laws of His New Country, whereas an open border policy or your so-called Natural law say’s, I am not a legal resident and I don’t intend to be. I am a drifter here today and maybe gone tomorrow to cross another border where the grass is greener.
Imagine even at the simplest of laws of nature. A shepherd entrusted to care for his master’s flock, and some other strange herd comes across, because the fence had a breach.
Now the shepherd discovers the land he had cultivated and tended to, is no longer capable of sustaining his herd.
Would you say this shepherd is selfish if he doesn’t sustain this strange flock as he watches his die? Of course not, so what natural law are you trying to convince us that members of our flock should perish, so strangers can survive?
The shepherd cries you cut my fences, my boundaries, and you say he is wrong to have put up a fence. The shepherd cries out, the strange flock has brought with it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brucella_melitensisa
A harmful bacteria, yet you imply that I am selfish, I am violating a natural law; because I want to protect those under my care. My Flock, American citizens.
September 24, 2009 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm. This is interesting. And what I'm gathering is some very different perspectives on what libertarianism is.
September 24, 2009 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Google "open borders" and "libertarianism" -- you can then read the 77,000 or so hits.
September 24, 2009 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. Most people do not bother to understand or adhere to the theoretical principles of libertarianism: it is just a convenient slogan for unbridled selfishness. It is mostly about "my" liberties, not everyone else's too.
September 24, 2009 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink