American-Rattlesnake » trade http://american-rattlesnake.org Immigration News, Analysis, and Activism Mon, 30 Apr 2012 21:48:34 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 An Open Debate About Open Borders http://american-rattlesnake.org/2011/12/an-open-debate-about-open-borders/ http://american-rattlesnake.org/2011/12/an-open-debate-about-open-borders/#comments Thu, 29 Dec 2011 13:21:58 +0000 G. Perry http://american-rattlesnake.org/?p=4087

One of the most persistent divides between traditional conservatives and their libertarian/anarcho-capitalist counterparts involves a fundamental philosophical disagreement about immigration. While most conservatives view immigration primarily through the lens of preserving American culture by only accepting those immigrants who are assimilable and will tangibly benefit our society in the future, a view expressed repeatedly during debates over illegal immigration in this country, many libertarians view the subject in an altogether different light. For them, the question is not so much whether a particular cohort of immigrants will be an asset to the United States but whether we have any right to prevent them from settling in this country in the first place, which many answer in the negative.

Libertarians extol the primacy of individual rights, which in this case entails the right to emigrate from your country of birth whenever you so desire-something that I don’t think any conservative would take issue with-and to immigrate to whatever country you want to live and/or work in for an extended period of time, which is where the divide between the two camps emerges. Libertarians view the issue as one of freedom of association-and by extension, contract-wherein willing employers, such as large agribusinesses and meatpacking plants, seek out willing employees coming from nations with under-performing economies that can’t meet the personal and financial needs of their citizens. They believe that the nexus between trade and unfettered migration is inextricable, if not completely self-evident, and that the two can not be severed if a nation hopes to grow its economy. While this may well be true as a matter of law, there are numerous holes in this thesis intellectually, which opponents of open borders-even anarcho-capitalists such as Hans-Hermann Hoppe-have exposed through well-researched arguments of their own.

However, underlying the debate over whether immigration and settlement is a natural right is the assumption that all libertarians/anarcho-capitalists agree on the immigration issue, which is not as much of  a given as it would seem on the surface of things. One of the things that I’ve attempted to do with American Rattlesnake is debunk commonly held assumptions about immigration issues, and the assumption that libertarians all subscribe to Gary Johnson’s point of view is one that needs to be reexamined. There are many libertarians and  anarcho-capitalists who recognize both the practical difficulties and existential problems inherent in society based upon unfettered immigration, especially one with the vast social welfare apparatus of the United States. One of the chief exponents of the view that welfare programs need to be curtailed in order to solve the immigration problem is Gary Johnson’s opponent in the Republican presidential race, Congressman Ron Paul. Paul has repeatedly emphasized the need to do away with the generous, taxpayer subsidized social welfare programs that-while not serving as the initial magnet-provide incentives for illegal aliens to extend their stay in this country indefinitely. The population density of legal immigrants is also heavily correlated with the availability of welfare benefits. Even acclaimed economist Milton Friedman, who held a rather benign view of immigration in general, emphasized the incompatibility of a welfare state with unfettered immigration.

The same opinion is held by many libertarians today, including self-professed constitutionalist Andrew Napolitano, who views Arizona’s landmark immigration law primarily through the prism of the Constitution’s supremacy clause and potential violations of the 4th Amendment via racial or ethnic profiling by law enforcement officers. I’m not sure that the Constitutional objection to statewide laws is dispositive, because-as Andrew McCarthy has pointed out repeatedly in National Review-there is no precedent for prohibiting states from enforcing laws that are consistent with federal statutes. Furthermore, if we look to the broader issue of legal immigration, there’s nothing to suggest that the men who drafted the United States Constitution supported the sort of unfettered immigration we have endured since passage of the Hart-Celler Act fundamentally altered this nation’s demographic destiny. This is a concept that is seldom grasped by arm-chair commentators on immigration these days, whose default option is to repeat the platitudinous-not to mention, factually incorrect-bromide that we are a “nation of immigrants.” What they neglect to mention is that most this nation’s founding fathers would have been implacably opposed to the present lassez-faire system of immigration, a fact that Thomas Woods-as anti-statist an individual as you’ll find among academics-expertly limns in this Human Events column published during the height of the amnesty debate in Washington D.C.

Yet, even if we were to concede that there’s no firm historical or Constitutional foundation for this nation’s current open borders policies, can it not be argued that there is a compelling moral case for the views espoused by those at the Wall Street Journal editorial boardCato Institute, Reasonoids, and other trendy, beltway cosmotarians? You would definitely think so if you took their arguments at face value. The notion that we have no moral basis for barring certain immigrants from entry into the United States is certainly widespread in certain libertarian circles, but I don’t believe that makes the idea, ipso facto, libertarian. Julian Simon, in a 1998 essay published in the Journal of Libertarian Studies, articulated the perspective felt by many that individual autonomy takes precedence over other “public” goods, including our national borders. In an anarcho-capitalist reality, nation-states would not exist, therefore deciding who should or should not be admitted to your nation would be a moot point.

But while it might seem logical that freedom of movement, freedom of association, and freedom of contract-and at its most essential level, the individual him or herself-are all prioritized over the wishes and feelings of citizens who have a vested interested in preserving the character of their nation, there are those that don’t think these competing values are necessarily mutually exclusive. In a persuasive essay written for Lew Rockwell several years ago, N. Stephan Kinsella made a very compelling argument that while the disposition of property in our society is unjust-insofar as the state has no right to expropriate land that rightfully belongs to individuals-so long as that property is entrusted to the state it has a responsibility to act as caretaker for the rightful owners. In this case, it has the responsibility to prevent the ingress of people that citizens do not want to welcome into their country. While those who are opposed to communitarianism in even its most minimal form might reject Kinsella’s public pool analogy, I think he makes a convincing case that some prophylactic measures need to be enforced to prevent the exploitation of your property-even if it’s already been subjected to theft by the state.

There are many cogent arguments against the current trendy libertarian support for open borders, several of them outlined by the first presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party, John Hospers, in paper published by the Journal of Libertarian Studies over a decade ago entitled A Libertarian Argument Against Open Borders. The concluding paragraph of the essay is especially perceptive in its analysis of the problem:

Occasionally, we hear the phrase “limousine liberals” used to describe the members of the liberal establishment who send their children to expensive private schools while consigning all the others to the public school system, which educates these children so little that by the time they finish the eighth grade they can barely read and write or do simple arithmetic, or make correct change in a drug store. It would be equally appropriate, however, to describe some other people as ”limousine libertarians” —those who pontificate about open borders while remaining detached from the scenes that their “idealism” generates. They would do well to reflect, in their ivory towers, on whether the freedom they profess for those who are immigrants, if it occurs at all, is to be brought about at the expense of the freedom of those who are not.

This passage describes, in a nut shell, the quintessence of cosmotarianism, and why most Americans-and even some in the libertarian movement-continue to reject it. I could post the most meticulously researched George Borjas journal article, the most statistically devastating backgrounder from the Center for Immigration Studies, or the most irrefutable essay by Mahattan Institute scholar Heather Mac Donald. And although all of these sources are invaluable in the fight to define the terms of this debate, they wouldn’t hold a candle to the self-evident fact that none of the greatest exponents and defenders of open borders, be it Tamar Jacoby, or Jason Riley, or Nick Gillespie, abide by their own exhortations. None of these individuals partake of the glorious mosaic which their unyielding ideology has done so much to create.

You won’t find many Reason Magazine editors or Cato Institute scholars living in Bergenfield, New Jersey, Maywood, California, or Eagle Pass, Texas. Why, you might ask? Because they would rather pass off the tremendous costs of their bankrupt philosophy onto ordinary Americans than to admit that they might just be wrong. These people are insulated from unfettered immigration’s worst effects, including chronic unemployment, violent crime, and environmentally devasting pollution from Arizona to California and throughout the country. They have the luxury of ignoring the impact of this country’s changing demographic profile while promoting the patently absurd notion that our open borders are a boon to all but the small percentage of high school dropouts.

What’s more, they make the equally ludicrous assertion-outlined in the Caplan speech above-that importing millions of unskilled, uneducated immigrants, who will be dependent upon costly government services, from quasi-socialist nations will expand this nation’s economic liberty. Forget the fact that we now enjoy less economic freedom than our northern neighbors, a development concurrent with the greatest expansion of immigration in this country’s history, the entire premise underlying this concept is flawed. You do not build a prosperous, 21st century, post-industrial society around foreigners from countries with low human capital. And the amount of time, energy and economic resources that need to be shifted in order to improve the educational prospects and earning potential of these immigrants, e.g. the billions funneled into ESL programs each year, is so cost prohibitive that it outweighs whatever benefits can be gleaned from such an arrangement.

Another seeming inconsistency in the archetypal libertarian solution to our immigration problem is the reluctance of most libertarians to support any sort of relief for American taxpayers who are tasked with paying for millions of illegal aliens and immigrants who are dependent upon costly social services. Particularly, public schooling and emergency health care. Invoking Friedman’s argument once again, we find that while many libertarians will concede that dependency upon welfare programs is a bad thing they will do nothing to limit access to these programs by illegal aliens or permanent residents. To the contrary, if any such bill-which is immigration neutral-is proffered, they will stalwartly oppose it. Just ask new Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson, who supports the DREAM Act, despite the fact that taxpayers would be subsidizing the in-state tuition discounts of its recipients. Paleolibertarian writer Ilana Mercer deftly skewers  purported libertarians who routinely call for the abolition of the welfare state while adding a proviso that excludes immigrants and illegal aliens from the fiscal demands of their libertopia.

True believers in liberty, like Mercer and the late Murray N. Rothbard, recognize the inherent contradiction in persuading your fellow Americans to reject the embrace of the state while simultaneously welcoming millions of non-Americans into the country who prefer a larger and more intrusive government in almost every respect into our society. They realize that the banal platitudes used to support unfettered immigration are grossly inaccurate, if not transparent lies. They also realize that the interests of the National Association of Manufacturers, the Chamber of Commerce, the Farm Bureau, and the hospitality industry do not necessarily coincide with the interests of the free market, and that to a large extent our current immigration policy is another form of corporate welfare, which putative libertarians would be quick to denounce in any other context. The time-saving, productivity-increasing technological innovations that would normally be welcomed by these same individuals are rejected by those who apparently think pre-industrial stoop labor is the best method of improving  our agricultural production. Finally, they recognize that the  utopian, globalist conception of freedom-where people living in Gabon or the Hadhramaut have just as much say in how we are governed as American citizens living in New York-contravenes the distinctively American, Constitutional, federalist, representative republic designed by this nation’s founding fathers.

In short, the issue before the house is not whether it is an abandonment of principle for libertarians to embrace sensible immigration restrictions, it’s why institutional libertarians representing organizations like the Cato Institute and the Reason Foundation have stifled an honest, open intellectual debate about this subject. Even as the negative repercussions of our government’s devotion to open borders become harder to ignore for all but the most oblivious, the gatekeepers of respectable opinion on this subject continue to narrow the parameters of discussion to their own narrow, ahistorical perspective. I don’t expect that to change any time in the near future, but those of us who want an intellectually honest debate about the most important issue of our time can at least begin to clarify its terms, if for no other reason than to educate those novices interested in how mass immigration has impacted our society who are asking themselves how they should view these changes from a liberty-oriented perspective.

 

 

]]>
http://american-rattlesnake.org/2011/12/an-open-debate-about-open-borders/feed/ 4
Stowaways To America – A True Story http://american-rattlesnake.org/2010/08/stowaways-to-america-a-true-story/ http://american-rattlesnake.org/2010/08/stowaways-to-america-a-true-story/#comments Mon, 09 Aug 2010 10:30:08 +0000 Michel Evanchik http://american-rattlesnake.org/?p=527

photo courtesy of Alan Miles -  http://www.flickr.com/photos/alanrmiles

 

The following story was told to the American-Rattlesnake by a graduate of the Maritime College of the State University of New York, who has an unlimited master’s license and has been a sailor for over a decade.  American-Rattlesnake has maintained their anonymity at their request.

Working as a merchant mariner, stowaway stories were not new to me. I got my own story to tell on a vessel carrying two Ethiopian refugees back to the USA. This is not going to be a tale of woe and sympathy for refugees. It is a tale of woe for America – the great nation that once offered freedom and opportunity has turned into one beset by our vulnerability – to all the tired and poor that looks to take advantage of our liberal generosity.

I was working on a vessel that arrived in Djibouti, on the Horn of Africa. This is a port where they load camels with a single lifting strap and crane onto livestock vessels. This gives you a good idea to how primitive the port is.

Djibouti does not treat its fellow Africans graciously. They are detained in a manner far worse than in any American detention center. The refugee camp is located just outside the port. After the stowaways were on board it was clear that no country wanted to take them. The French, who administer some of the port’s operations, were happy to be rid of this problem. Prior to departure, six people actually got onboard and were caught and taken off the ship. The number that were caught trying to climb the anchor chain and board the ship were countless. Think of rats fleeing a sinking ship, but in the reverse, and you’ll get the idea.

So we set sail and two more refugees were discovered within 24 hours of departure. Normal protocol would be to notify customs immediately and return to Djibouti. But as the luck of the refugees would have it, the captain was a Ted Kennedy fan and a big liberal from Massachusetts. So he stonewalled and delayed notification and continued sailing towards the Suez Canal. By the time the notification was made, we were at an anchorage awaiting canal transit. There are enormous fees involved with this and the option of returning to Djibouti had passed. To the Captain’s surprise, Egypt refused the landing of stowaways. We sailed through the canal with the stowaways detained on board. Upon arrival in Malta to receive fuel, landing of the stowaways was again refused . We were ordered to anchor our vessel as far out as possible, to ensure that the stowaways would not flee the vessel and swim ashore.

Our remote anchoring was not a problem for the stowaways, who both spoke broken English – they specifically look for British or American ships only. They told us that they were planning to get to California, where they had family to support them. Whether this family was there legally or not was not answered. One of the stowaways told us how he had stowed away before and was repatriated after six months of comfortable living in a detention center. He told us how, due to American humanitarian codes, he was treated very well as a stowaway and detainee. This latest attempt was worth it even if he was to get repatriated again. Even more indicative of how America is viewed, was his optimism in saying, “if I don’t get in this time, then next time!”

This humanitarian code is another item that speaks to how misguided America has become. The code states that the stowaways need to be fed and exercised. So they had to be taken for escorted walks on the vessel. I work a minimum of twelve hours a day and have broken sleep in between. If I told the Captain I would like to have a scheduled exercise period, I would be a laughing stock.

The Captain told me that after dinner I needed to bring dinner to the stowaways. I asked if I should give them the scraps from my plate. He replied that I should be ashamed of myself . They were just poor people who needed food. I replied that if leftovers are good enough for homeless US Veterans that pick out of garbage cans, it should be for the stowaways as well. But I am not one to defy a command, so I retrieved two steak dinners from the galley. As I served the stowaways their meals, they asked if I could also go fetch them some coffee with milk. I said that this was not Denny’s and slammed the door as I left.

Upon arrival to the USA, the ship was detained and boarded by the US Coast Guard and Customs. There was also a K-9 police unit with bomb-sniffing dogs. The entire crew was rounded up and held in the mess hall. We were prohibited from leaving the mess hall until a thorough search of the vessel was completed. The only crew not detained were those still on essential duty, such as those in the engine room, who were watched by military guard. No one was permitted to go to their berthing quarters, not even crew who had just finished their shift and needed sleep. When I needed to go to the bathroom, I had to be escorted by an armed guard. They waited outside the bathroom until I was finished and then escorted me back to the mess hall. The entire process of security sweeps, crew verification and interviews took several hours. During all this time the crew was huddled in the mess hall. Some crew members slept on the floor since they couldn’t access their beds. I wondered whose humanitarian code took into account our conditions of detainment. After the long security procedures were completed, cargo operations began with no allowance for the crew as to what they had just gone through. I had been up for 24 hours and was told to “turn to” as my shift was starting. Where was the humanitarian code for me and my fellow American workers?

As to the stowaways, perhaps they are gloating at their success and made their way to sunny California. As for the Captain, he was not fired. nor even reprimanded for his lax actions. He put the whole crew at risk and showed no regard for the consequences we would suffer to aid and abet two stowaways. This story could have ended very differently. It is not uncommon for stowaways to attack or even kill crew members that they feel are a threat to their easy passage to America. My guess is that the Captain is still living in his liberal fog as to the danger that stowaways pose. He is probably congratulating himself for helping some of the poor and huddled masses to liberation. I wonder if he saw the irony in all this as we were all stuck together, tired and huddled in the mess hall.

]]>
http://american-rattlesnake.org/2010/08/stowaways-to-america-a-true-story/feed/ 5