What is with all the immigrant hate?

Miscellaneous General
101

Correct.

One area I believed Mises erred.

An understanding of market anarchism would tell you that “laws” technically still exist in a market anarchy, only the function of law is not monopolized. In an anarchy, “laws” may exist in the form of customary and private law, and they are left to the free market.

Nonsense. Such a wall is payed for through tax dollars, and therefore will only increase usage of political means as such, and requires the usage of eminent domain. Furthermore, the construction of such divisionary walls has historically been used to stifle freedom, by keeping people in (what can keep people out and can also keep them in). They only reinforce coercive territorial monopoly. We do not need an America version of the Berlin wall.

I have much trouble with the idea that the state is generally working against freedom, yet when it comes to immigration all of a sudden the state can be as interventionist and restrictive as it pleases without infringing on liberty at all.

Something that inherently requires the violation of freedom cannot be used as a means to preserve freedom. The state cannot exist without violating liberty to some extent because the means necessary to bring it into existance and maintain its existance involve the initiation or threat of force. This is one of the fundamental flaws in minarchism as a political philosophy (I.E. a state that does not violate the NAP is a floating abstraction). But I did not intend to get into an anarchist vs. minarchist debate here.

I propose that there be no rule of men. That is what anarchism etymologically means: “no rulers”. This does not necessarily entail a lack of law, a lack of social cooperation or a lack of order. Arguably, morality can only exist as something to be freely chosen. In the absence of free choice, morality ceases to exist; it becomes meaningless as a concept. Political rule, involving the principle that people must be forced to act moral, is therefore self-defeating in moral terms.

102

Of course, there will always be individuals and groups of individuals

whose intellect is so narrow that they cannot grasp the benefits which social

cooperation brings them. There are others whose moral strength and will

power are so weak that they cannot resist the temptation to strive for an

ephemeral advantage by actions detrimental to the smooth functioning of

the social system. For the adjustment of the individual to the requirements

of social cooperation demands sacrifices. These are, it is true, only temporary

and apparent sacrifices as they are more than compensated for by the

incomparably greater advantages which living within society provides.

However, at the instant, in the very act of renouncing an expected enjoyment,

148 HUMAN ACTION

they are painful, and it is not for everybody to realize their later benefits and

to behave accordingly. Anarchism believes that education could make all

people comprehend what their own interests require them to do; rightly

instructed they would of their own accord always comply with the rules of

conduct indispensable for the preservation of society. The anarchists contend

that a social order in which nobody enjoys privileges at the expense of

his fellow-citizens could exist without any compulsion and coercion for the

prevention of action detrimental to society. Such an ideal society could do

without state and government, i.e., without a police force, the social apparatus

of coercion and compulsion.

The anarchists overlook the undeniable fact that some people are either

too narrow-minded or too weak to adjust themselves spontaneously to the

conditions of social life. Even if we admit that every sane adult is endowed

with the faculty of realizing the good of social cooperation and of acting

accordingly, there still remains the problem of the infants, the aged, and the

insane. We may agree that he who acts antisocially should be considered

mentally sick and in need of care. But as long as not all are cured, and as

long as there are infants and the senile, some provision must be taken lest

they jeopardize society. An anarchistic society would be exposed to the

mercy of every individual. Society cannot exist if the majority is not ready

to hinder, by the application or threat of violent action, minorities from

destroying the social order. This power is vested in the state or government.

-Von Mises, Human Action

103

Does it not seem perhaps ironic that those politicians (modern liberals) who do not support the construction of a wall and the enforcement a law, on average, are those same politicians that advocate socialized medicine, higher taxes, price controls, etc. far more than all other politicians? Have they suddenly diverged from their ostensible task of increasing the size of government with regard to immigration? Of course not. Those who espouse to increase the state are incredibly efficient at doing so and will chose those means by which such an end may be most effectively achieved.

104

Does it not seem perhaps ironic that those politicians (modern conservatives, including of the paleo variety) who support the construction of a wall and the enforcement of a law, on average, are those same politicians that advocate unionism, protectionism, police statism, etc. far more then all other politicians? Have they suddenly diverged from their ostensible task of increasing the size of the government with regard to immigration? Of course not. Those who espouse to increase the state are incredibly efficient at doing so and will chose those means by which such an end may be most effectively achieved.

Hint: The paleo-conservatives tend to have an interest in protectionism, unions and a general police state. Many unions openly welcome the prospect of a restriction of the labor market, because that’s what their specialty is. And many protectionists see immigration restriction as complimenting their preferance for restricting trade quite well. Of course, I am of the opinion that immigration restriction is a form of protectionism, and I don’t think anything Hoppe has said really debunks this claim.

105

Aren’t you glad there are laws against murder, otherwise people would run around killing each other day and night.

106

It would thus be appropriate to say that Ron Paul has divulged from his belief in freedom and Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, etc., have divulged from their belief in statism. Correct? Somebody should let them know that their subjactive evaluations of what means will most efficiently achieve their purported ends are such that they will incur a psychic loss, ex poste.

107

On this particular issue, no, I don’t believe Ron Paul has divulged from his belief in freedom (and I believe that Ron Paul’s belief in freedom is a limited one, albiet more strong then any other politician). Nor do I believe that Democrats such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama favor a genuine policy of completely free immigration.

108

Can anyone provide me with the list of “freedoms” that we are losing because of immigrants? Because the only things I am losing, I am losing to the government. Is there a list somewhere of which government programs will be discontinued when these damned “illegals” are stopped? I don’t know of such a list and it would sure be beneficial in changing my mind that it is the immigrants and not the government who is stealing from me.

109

Before I depart I would like to make this point. You are right, as far as men are concerned there is no “right” set of morals. There is no set of logical tools that can prove that a man who desires to eat the flesh of other men is morally in the wrong, so to speak. We simply cannot know what the ultimate purpose of the universe is. But we can, as Mises, did, construct and use a set of logical tools that prove what sort of system, a system of freedom (where by cooperation is maximized), would most efficiently allow for men to achieve earthly ends. If you are to subscribe to complete anarchy than you necessarily do not subcribe to a system of freedom. You subscribe to a system of nothing. In taking your view, it would be futile to criticize the state of any group of men as they have, in essence, ultimately resulted from their own creation. You may not pass judgement on a system which outlaws freedom and makes legal murder. Nor may you pass judgement on system that protects freedom and outlaws murder. They have both resulted from the, at some point in time, anarchical state of men. When laws are created to protect one thing and not another, they necessarily infringe upon the “freedom” to do something. Whether that be murder or trade, a judgement call is made, and as far as your beliefs are concerned such a judgement call, whatever it may be, cannot be criticized, since there is no ultimately right judgement call. You seem to assume that men will naturally construct a system of freedom. Only the anglos have done so thus far, why such faith in general? Anarchism is not synonymous with freedom, and if you understand such a thing, and still hold on to it, then you can necessarily not pass judgement on anything.

110

The purpose of a criminal code–or any legal code for that matter, including a private one–is to provide notice of consequences, not to prevent crime.

111

I can’t believe no-one has brought this up yet.

Natural Order, the State and the Immigration Problem by Hoppe.

It’s not about hate; it’s about respecing private property.

112

yes, efficient allocation of capital and labour is important, but presupposes the existance of the capital, and is not affected by the presence of illegals or otherwise. it relates to suffocating bureaucratic rules and regulations, which is a separate issue.

point number two, if you’re going to ignore macroeconomic terms like “per capita gdp” or “unemployment”, there’s no point talking about anything other than your personal experience. or anybody’s personal experience. i read your post, now you should do a search on mises under “irish potato famine” and convince yourself about the consequences of population growth without capital expansion, or read malthus (henry hazlitt has a good bit on him in conquest of poverty, which is downloadable from mises).

finally, i’m not a racist, merely point out what i thought was obvious: democratic sta****tes will only open borders when there’s a real labour shortage across the vocational spectrum. that is, when immigrants can be accomodated without lowering wages.

113

The US is attractive to the people born in other countries because of (relative) FREEDOM, not free handouts. If immigrants wanted free healthcare and free education for their kids in their own language, they could have stayed home because most countries in the world have them. Foodstamps probably can’t even buy enough burritoes at US prices to match a street beggar can get in Mexico City; on top of that, I’m not even sure how many illegal immigrants dare to file tax returns in order to qualify for foodstamps and other welfare programs. Government intervention and welfare programs, all of which have to be supported by taxation, are what make much of the rest of the world poor. That’s why immigrants come here, in search of freedom and opportunities. If anything, the poor immigrants may have stronger inner yearning for freedom than we do. Would you pack up and walk through hundreds of miles of desert, risking death by exposure, so that there might be a better future for yourself and your family? I’m not even sure that I have that kind of fortitude.

The divisive xenophobic politics is what push some immigrants and their offsprings into the waiting arms of statists for protection. If you look through the voting patterns, immigrant blacks vote Republican much more than native-born US national blacks; same with Hispanics and Asians. First-generation naturalized immigrants have a very high proportion vote for Republicans, unless there is immigrant-bashing making them feel insecure; the well-known Cuban Americans voting pattern is not unique in that regard. That’s why I have been saying, Republican immigrant bashing is really political suicide for the party; for libertarians, such bashing is also against the principle.

114

I agree, and thats the point too. For the majority of us, we don’t follow the laws on purpose, they just provide punishments for things we wouldn’t do anyway. The idea that fear of those punishments, even though it sounds like a good case, is not a good argument for why we don’t do those things. Very few of us are walking criminal code books. Even things that we all know the punishments for, like murder, are things that the majority of us wouldn’t do anyway. There are some laws that we might know about that we don’t follow because they are either a.) inconvenient or b.) laws we just don’t agree with. How many people here have never sped? How many have consumed alcohol under age or smoked pot? But most of us, today, have a system of belief that says, “as long as I am not harming anyone else or causing them a loss, I am good.” We follow that principle above the law. We (for the most part) believe that all just laws are based on that principle. And we have a belief system on how to deal with people that go against that principle. The minarchists believe in using the force of the state to punish them and anarchists believe in using private means to provide for it.

So to bring the discussion back into focus on immigration…

What loss is suffered from immigration? Isn’t the force that is being used to cause us a loss coming from the state, not from the immigrants? Is placing the blame on immigrants (instead of the state, where it belongs) letting people off the hook that are “citizens” who use and abuse the exact same government programs? Since the laws provide for punishment of something, are laws against “illegal” immigration only laws against immigration and anyone with the belief that they are “harming no one” will just ignore them as unjust?

115

The shortest answer is that it’s a lot easier to get the government to keep out competition than it is to increase the value of one’s labor.

Oh, and the fact that they look different adds another incentive for many.

116

Sailor,

For every one of the illegal immigrants you mention that has done so well, and I applaud her, I can show you a legion that are of another ilk. If you read the police reports in your local newspaper you will notice that, on most days, the surnames of those arrested for violent crimes and driving violations will be Spanish. One good apple does not provide enough reason for not getting rid of this problem. Where I live illegals are responsible for most of the crime, both violent and traffic. If not for this fact my locality would have to spend less on police services and would be able to spend that money on more worthwhile pursuits.

I also disagree with those that say that the illegals give more to the nation than they take from it. Given the fact that most illegals have no insurance and use the emergency room for all of their medical needs thus foisting those costs onto those of us that do have insurance, that they collectively have a tendency to send huge amounts of money out of the country creating a real drag on the economy, that they have a tendency to drive vehicles that should not be on the road without insurance and flee from accidents costing the other driver and all of us increased insurance costs and have a tendency to take the jobs that our young sons and daughters could be doing to get started (look at the unemployment rate among young black males) and drive down the wages for those jobs thus having a deliterious effect on income citizens on the edge of poverty. Given all of that (and I could go on) I don’t even think the ‘give and take’ question should be posed by those that are on the illegals side.

117

I think it would take all day to point out everything that is wrong with Hoppe had to say in that. Even if we take out the drivel on the idea of separating “ethno-cultures” and focus on the property issue, it is off base. What the government has taken from people by force isn’t private property, it is government property. Taxes and land taken from citizens by the government doesn’t belong to all citizens, it belongs to the government. If you don’t think this is true, show up at your local elementary school in your boxers and hang out in the classrooms. Or go build yourself a house in area 51. There is no “public” ownership of anything. It is either private or government. If anything immigration laws represent a collective attitude that private property is forfeit to the “greater good”. Imminent domain is used to take private land away from the owners and put it in the hands of the government so they can patrol or build fences or whatever it is they choose to do. It shouldn’t be a surprise, I guess, that this collective attitude is so widespread since it is used so often to sell a load of crap to the average citizen. Even to the point were people who claim to believe in a free market are asking for government intervention into the market to save American jobs. If I claimed to believe in the free market but also touted immigration laws, I would be embarrassed for myself.

118

totally agree. but the first bit sells well even to the non-racists, those who are solely self-interested.

119

Glad we at least agree that bureaucratic rules and regulations get in the way of capital growth. Even the benighted lawmakers have a vague inkling of that as all minimum wage laws usually make exemption for farm labors. If farms are not legally allowed to hire workers (immigrant or otherwise) whose productivity is below the minimum wage, the farm can not turn out produce and therefore the farm capital is impaired; likewise, a chicken processing factory, if not allowed to hire workers at free market arrangement, its capital is impaired; likewise, a landlord with an empty building or apartment to rent. bureaucratic rules and regulations, including paper requirement for legal existence and employability, can only serve to impair capital by getting in the way of the merry meeting of capital and labor at freely chosen exchange rate.

If we really want to worship “per capita GDP” and “unemployment” statistics, then we’d have to love immigrants, the more illegal the better, the more law they break the better: when a federal raid is staged on that chicken processing plant, the overtime pay for the federal agents is fully counted as GDP, never mind the chickens are left unpacked and to rot; it gets even better if some immigrant gets really sick, his entire hospital bill will be counted as GDP . . . never mind that the chickens are left unpacked. You get the picture. “GDP” and “unemployment” are merely tools that vaguely and hopelessly trying to approximate reality. Government make-work programs may reduce “unemployment” but do not in reality help elevate standard of living. Irish Potato Farmineis a classic case of how protectionism (Corn Law) and government make-work programs do not work. Laws designed to keep one group of labor out in order to artificially inflate another labor group is not only protectionism but also a make-work program . . . at the expense of impairing existing capital of course as some farms and chicken factories will cease to operate, and the vast majority of savers get gipped by the resulting inflation.

“democratic states will only open borders when there’s a real labour shortage across the vocational spectrum. that is, when immigrants can be accomodated without lowering wages.”

That’s like saying democratic states will have to have ever-inflating fiat money to make sure wages do not ever go down in nominal terms. Nominal wages going down should not be a real problem if the same amount of money can buy more products (including imports) and more services (including those rendered by import labor). Your statement is quite a revelation though: it’s not that the immigrants are socialists, but we are!

120

LOL, excellent.

The entire anti-immigration debate is based on collectivist ideas, from protecting a culture that doesn’t really exist, to protecting “american” jobs, to collective ownership of property, there is no escaping it. Even the argument that it will cause the government to take more from us to pay for government programs is lending validation to those programs in the first place.