I, myself, am an almost completely open immigration type and it's an issue that I love to debate. I even managed to convince a Libertarian candidate running for congress to change his position on birthright citizenship earlier this year.
A few months ago I had an interesting conversation with an immigration restrictionist, who also happens to be a fellow member of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Washington and supporter of Ron Paul, over facebook. Here is the exchange:
RLC Person: Can we talk about immigration? I'd like to try to understand why some of you seem to think the US has no right to prevent citizens from other nations from crossing our borders to live and/or work.
Me: I don't think the US has *no* right to restrict immigration, but I think that the burden of proof should be on those who seek to prevent peaceful people from trying to improve their lives rather than on those who would allow it. I think if you take that view there are only really two reasons why you should prevent someone from immigrating (and please, if you've got another one let me know):
1.) They have a criminal background.
2.) They carry a deadly and contagious disease.
That's it. Get rid of quotas, and let all peaceful people immigrate and it will be much easier to catch those who would do us harm.
RLC Person: Kyle, do you think America belongs to the American people?
Me: What do you mean by "America"? Americans own most of the land in America. But that doesn't mean immigrants couldn't rent an apartment (which is a mutually beneficial trade). I don't accept the argument that one person, or group of people, should be able to prevent a mutually beneficial trade without overcoming a significant burden of proof.
RLC Person: I mean, do you think this nation belongs to Americans, as in US citizens.
Me: I believe in a limited government. Regardless of who controls it (and yeah, I guess theoretically US citizens control the government but I tend to think of the government as "them" rather than "us" since they generally don't represent anything I stand for). Regardless of who the government belongs to, there should be limits on its power. One of the limits should be on their ability to prevent peaceful people from working to improve their lives.
RLC Person: OK, so do you think you have some sort of natural right to move and work in Australia or Mexico or Denmark if that's what you'd like to do? You don't think the people of Australia and Mexico and Denmark have the right to decide who gets to live and work in their nations?
Me: The only right they have to prevent me from doing so is derived from the barrel of a gun. It is not any kind of natural right.
RLC Person: Do you have the right to prevent other peaceful people from entering your home and sleeping in your bed, rocking in your chair, or eating your Quaker Oats?
Me: Yes, I own my home. But this is a false analogy. Immigrants do not break into people's houses. They generally rent apartments from people who enjoy collecting the rent. If no one would rent or sell them a place to stay, they could not come.
RLC Person: No, it is not a false analogy. America is home to Americans, not Australians.
Me: Yes, it is a false analogy. Here is a closer analogy:
Do you have the right to prevent your neighbor from renting his basement out to other peaceful people? Do you have the right to prevent those peaceful people from purchasing food at "your" local grocery store?
The answer is no because your neighbors house is not yours, even though it is in your neighborhood, and the local grocery store owner is the one who owns the grocery store.
RLC Person: That would be all well and good if the neighbors new tennents weren't using the local ER for medical treatment they can't pay for, sending their ESL students to the neighborhood schools etc...
Me: Ok, so now what you are asking is a totally different question. Do we have the right to prevent immigrants from using government services? The answer is an *emphatic* "yes." [In retrospect, I should have pointed out that this may not be a great idea in every case, but ah well... live and learn.]
RLC Person: Even if all of the other issues are worked out...government services, and taxes the issue of limited resources will continue to exist. So, unless we're going to acquire additional land, water, energy etc we still cannot allow everyone who would like to live and work here come without diminishing the quality of life of future generations.
Me: Limited resources is not an issue. You need to understand economics. These people produce things. Every dollar they earn represents more than a dollar of goods or services that they provided to the market. And anyway, the market prevents things from becoming scarce. Scarcity means increased prices and profits, more room for entrepreneurs to enter the market and keep everyone happy. It is NOT an issue.
The price of resources goes down over time, and has for hundreds of years. This reflects the decreasing scarcity of these resources. In fact, the only factor of production that reliably becomes more expensive over time is labor. What does that mean? We have a scarcity in people (and it's created by the government preventing people from immigrating!).
RLC Person: If there is one thing this country is not facing a scarcity of it is people. Additional people require additional space, water and energy. They produce additional trash and pollution.
Me: Additional people also produce clean water and energy, they build places to live (and if you lived where I do, in rural Eastern Washington, claiming that we lack space would not pass the laugh test), and they clean up trash and pollution. The cleanest places in the world are also the most advanced.
People produce more than they consume. Every dollar they earn represents more than a dollar of goods or services that they provided.
RLC Person: Tell it to the trees, the wolves, the rivers, the bears, and all of the other species threatened or endangered by loss of habitat to human activity and the people inhaling the air in San Bernardino and other areas plagued by smog.
Me: Do you think that people create more pollution in poor countries (where they literally do their laundry in the rivers) or in an advanced country like the United States? Isn't it better for the environment to have these people living in a prosperous country than in poverty?
RLC Person: Kyle, the answers to these problems cannot be solved by letting them all come HERE. The answers to the problems of the citizens of other nations rest with them. We cannot house the world any more than we can police the world.
Me: Who are you to decide whether they should be allowed to go anywhere? If they are coming here and renting an apartment from someone who wants to rent it to them of course they can be housed here.
RLC Person: You need to read my previous statement and consider the truth I just stated, Kyle.
Me: It's not a truth. It's just a slogan. It's like saying "We can't police the world so we can't feed the world." Well, we already feed the world. It doesn't matter if they're here or not. These are problems of economics, not government, and the market solves these problems very well.
RLC Person: The problem isn't just economics. What did you read a couple of books or articles and now everythings about the free market? The world is a complicated place and living in it requires more than just a sound economy.......which in case you hadn't noticed......we don't have to share with all of these people you want to throw the doors open to.
BTW, we do not "feed the world". Hell, we don't even feed ourselves. Go to a supermarket, a big one.....say Walmart or other large chain and look at the produce, check out all of those country of origin labels. Go on and look at canned and bottled foods like mushrooms and garlic and see what nation produced them. Head over to the seafood and check out just how much of the shrimp comes from other countries.
I don't know where you've spent your young life, in school I hope but you need to get out in the real world and live a little and see the way things actually are instead of the way you think they are or wish they would be.
At this point a lot of other members from the RLC started jumping in and arguing with her. After a while, she ended up posting a link to a schoolhouse rock song about "elbow room." I think that gives you a pretty good picture of the level of thinking we're dealing with on the restrictionist side.
Additional arguments in favor of a more open immigration policy can be found here, here, here, here and here.
No comments:
Post a Comment