Read Parrish Miller on Immigration

Great thoughts, Parrish.  Thank you for writing about this important subject.  I love the top of your blog with the "hate the state" banner.  What's scaring me is that we now have libertarians who hate the state except on this one issue.

In order to have a realistic discussion about these important issues, we must first establish some basic definitions. The first important definition regards the nature of ownership. You own your own property. This includes your clothes, vehicles, and other personal possessions in addition to your buildings and real estate. As an owner you have the right to deny access to or use of your property to anyone for any reason (or even for no reason.) Ownership does not include an entire country, however. Neither the government nor the residents of a country have any legitimate claim of collective ownership over the totality of a country.

...

Put simply, if no one is actually occupying your private property, you can’t claim that you are being invaded.

...

Contrary to the arguments of those who oppose free immigration and open borders, it is actually immigration restrictions which infringe on the rights of property owners.

...

Culture is not some fragile bird which must be protected from predators; rather culture is a living, growing thing which is only enhanced by the contributions of new individuals. The culture argument is particularly preposterous in the US where the culture (such as it exists) is a complex amalgamation of the various, preexisting cultures of immigrants from around the world. The idea that US culture has somehow reached an apex of perfection and that additional immigration will now dilute it rather than continue to build and improve it is pure poppycock.

It's hard not to quote the whole article because the writing is so clear and correct.  Keep up the good work, Parrish, and all others like you who stand for liberty.

Why America today can handle more immigrants than ever before

How many people can America support?

Okay, now that you've answered, how do you know that your answer is correct? What reasoning lies behind it? Is there any other rational reasoning process that could lead to a different result?

America today is far wealthier, healthier, resource-rich, and spacious than it was a century ago. Our ability to absorb immigrants is greater than ever. There's one reasoning process, and it makes perfect sense to me.

Of course, the fact is that the correct answer will be decided by the free market, if it's not injured and deprived of its free and moral character by regulation and socialism. And for that matter, a free market will be able to absorb more people, anyway, because it creates wealth and prosperity. But the thing you should realize is that you really have no idea how to decide how many people can be absorbed into our economy, and therefore you shouldn't seek to impose policy based on your estimate on everyone else.

Immigration policy for "our" country

This morning somebody asked my opinion of an email about illegal immigration, which began as follows:

Our country is worth reading a 8 minute speech. It is our country and to those that disagree go home as our fences keep people out not in.

I disagree starting with this fundamental premise.

It is not "our" country. Any time you start arguing from a "we" I submit that it's a sign that your thinking is off. Perhaps only off a little, but sometimes off a lot.

This is not "our" country. Only limited parts of it are mine. A small chunk in Dallas/Fort Worth, to be exact. The rest of it belongs to someone else. Some of it belongs to you guys, most of it belongs to people who aren't involved here.

God only gave me dominion over my part.

When you quit saying that some of it is mine, some of it is yours, etc., and start saying that all of it is "ours," you're thinking collectively, socialistically, Communistically. We are not a commune.

And you've also usurped property rights. "Thou shalt not steal" says the Lord. But the 'patriot' blurs the lines of ownership, pretends we all own it collectively, and thus justifies himself in exercising ownership over the property of others. I don't think God is fooled by such justification.

Hopefully all of us here would scream bloody murder if a movement started in the country that said "The children belong to all of us. Therefore we will all vote on how they are to be raised. We will vote to outlaw spanking, we will vote to outlaw parents teaching religion to their children, we will vote to remove children from the homes and raise them in government centers where they can be taught to seek the greater good, to serve society as good people should. They are OUR children, and OUR children deserve the best." We would rightfully respond "They are most certainly NOT 'our' children. These two are MINE." And we would fight or flee in order to see that our children do not become the state's children.

Of course there's a gigantic power in this country that exercises dominion over the entire thing. And it even offers to let us have a say in how that dominion will be exercised, and to vote on who is going to take turns having the power. The gigantic power continually repeats the collectivist mantra: that we are all in this together, that it all belongs to all of us, that we all have the right (really those who happened to get the turn at power this term) to tell individuals what they may and may not do with what is theirs, or even to take away all or some of it, to make completely blameless actions into illegal acts.

But since I can't exercise dominion over what is not mine, I can't legitimately delegate such a right to that power. Of course, God commands me to submit to it, and so I do. Even when it is not just. Even when it exercises dominion over the little pieces of property God has given to me. But I won't exercise that dominion over others, and I won't authorize anyone as my agent to do so on my behalf.

So in the end, here's what I think about immigration: the entire thing can be easily resolved with property rights, and that's the only righteous way to resolve it.

Here's some links to articles where I've seen this view expressed, or similar views expressed, or have expressed the same myself.

• mises.org


• tx.lp.org


• unanimocracy.com


• unanimocracy.com forum discussion


• unanimocracy.com

It's wrong for me to tell someone they can't hire someone based on where they were born or happen to live. It's wrong for me to tell a property owner he can't sell or rent his property to certain people. It's wrong for me to take money and resources that don't belong to me to provide services to other people, whether they are "citizens" of "my" country, or not. It's wrong for me to exercise force against other people when they want to compete with me in whatever market/industry I participate in, rather than being industrious and adapting and finding another way to survive. It's my responsibility to provide for my family, by doing work that other people find valuable and will pay for, not by using force to prevent other men from fulfilling the same responsibility. It also so happens that economics teaches us that it is best for the economy if we do it God's way, rather than exercising such force.

What does the Bible say about immigration? Plenty. Look for "alien" and "stranger" in your Old Testament. You won't find a single statement that is encouraging to the view that God looks favorably on those who want to restrict immigration. That's my position.

Pizza for pesos!

Pizza Patrón has announced their intention to continue accepting the Mexican Peso at their stores. Good for them! I'm sure they are making a lot of money off of this service. Good for them! Unless somebody was using force to affect the transaction (for example, by pointing a gun at someone, or passing a law requiring authorities to point a gun at someone), such voluntary transactions mean that people were served, and society, on balance, advances. In general, they will prosper in proportion to the value of the service they provide.

One reason people want to restrict immigration is because of security concerns. It's true that right now we are at great risk from people sneaking in to the country who might desire to harm us. We certainly need some diligence. But private property is a better way to resolve this. I don't let people on to my property unless I trust them. If we all followed the same policy, we'd be a lot safer than we are now. All of us would be on the lookout for dangerous or suspicious individuals. But unfortunately we have this "we are in this together" mindset about so much that "we" do. This mindset is just another name for socialism. We've socialized large portions of the land of this country, including land along the borders, and we've socialized the service of defending that land. The result of socialism is always that resources are misallocated.

Another reason people want to restrict immigration is to "protect American jobs." But this is a wrong position to take. There's nothing better about Americans than other people. It's not moral to use American guns to protect American jobs, period. Besides, America's economy would be better served if we allow the free market to make things more efficient. More efficient generally means lower costs, which generally means some people are going to have to find another line of work. Again, this is better for all of us.

People are also concerned about immigration because of our government's policy of giving so many free handouts. These handouts generally go even to illegal immigrants, and they consist of resources stolen from other people. Obviously these handouts are sinful and harmful, but as Walter Williams is fond of saying, "That's a problem of socialism, not a problem of freedom." In other words, if your socialism means you need to restrict my freedom, the real solution is that your socialism needs to be eliminated, not that my freedom should be curtailed.

God's immigration policy to Israel was amazingly broad: "You shall not oppress a stranger, since you yourselves know the feelings of a stranger, for you also were strangers in the land of Egypt." (Exodus 23:9) Over and over again the same sentiment is expressed. If somebody comes in, they are allowed to stay, unless they are stealing and harming people. Most of the thievery in our nation is committed by the government, not immigrants.

Prohibiting people from immigrating amounts to a sinful theft of property rights: you are denying people the freedom to do what they will with their own property, which is to decide who is and is not allowed on it. It's sinful. It's also economically harmful.

More on Pizza Patrón tomorrow.