Cafe Hayek - Latest Comments in Illegal Immigrants and Emigrants

Re: Illegal Immigrants and Emigrants

Danuta — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 11:47:58 -0000

just turn TV on Wolf Blitz program, and some ugly news from OUR current President::: Social Security benefits for ilegall emigrants.?????

Is thid a joke, or OUR Ptesident is juzt proving, that US citizens ans legal emigrant does not count.

Iligalls, are commiting a crime, and then will be rewarded for. What about US???????, what about fellow americans, legalls. Iligals should be behind southern border, , not reward for their crime.

What is going on with current President, it is some revanege for a lastelection ,this man out of HIS mine????

Can someone tell US all Americans,how anyone in Congres can vote for aa such ugly proposition. This is a stub in a back to all of US citizens!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re: Illegal Immigrants and Emigrants

xteve — Thu, 21 Sep 2006 22:31:52 -0000

"Re-read your sentence. It’s self-refuting. You call the group “illegal immigrants” and then write “whether or not they commit this so-called crime.” If they are illegal immigrants, then they committed the crime! That’s what ‘illegal immigrant’ means. LOL"

The "so-called crime" I was referring to was that of using the welfare system, as that is not a crime. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

"and I’m pretty sure you think it’s sophistry yourself"

Don't tell me what I think. Stick to what you know.

I was merely pointing out the weaknesses of the welfare arguments, which you refuted via the fraud strawman. Sure, if they use bogus social security numbers, by all means arrest them, whether they're native or immigrant, legal or illegal. But that's not a welfare argument. It's not an immigration argument at all. It's an argument against social security fraud. One or both of us hasn't been making his arguments clear. If that's me, then I apologize. But I stand by my analysis of the welfare arguments & how they don't apply to the argument of whether current immigration law is just.

"Any immigrant who comes to America benefits from the welfare state."

By that broad definition of "benefit", anyone born in America benefits from the welfare state, too, which is why, logically, it is not an immigration issue, much less an illegal immigration issue. But I'm not going to repeat all my arguments.

"Uh....have you read any of the amnesty proposals put forward by the Senate?"

I don't recall defending any Senate proposals. That's another strawman.

"You are purposefully obfuscating again."

Don't tell me my intentions. Stick to what you know. I'm sorry you misunderstood my reply. Perhaps I had misunderstood your point. If so, I still do.

"I challenged you to explain why the socialist cannot simply ignore laws protecting property rights, simply because the socialist believes the laws to be unjust."

If he felt the laws were unjust & said so in a blog post I would happily debate him & explain why I felt he was wrong, rather than just tell him it's the law. I would defend my rights if he violated them. I'm asking you specifically why you feel that illegal immigration is wrong, & the only answers I hear from you are because the law says so, plus a bunch of irrelevant tangents & strawmen. Perhaps I misunderstand your points, as surely you misunderstand mine.

"Under your principle of authority, it seems anyone can ignore any law whatsoever."

I addressed that already. You seem to suggest that if I think one law is unjust & should not be enforced, then I'm suggesting that all laws are unjust & should not be enforced. This is a logical fallacy. I assume this is the basis for your charge of "anarchism" you claim I fail to address. We can debate the moral legitamacy of a particular law without throwing out the entire United States Criminal Code if we judge that one law invalid. I'm suggesting we can debate the moral legitamacy of a law separately from what the law actually states, & if we find that the law has no moral legitamacy, then not only should we advocate changing the law (I suspect we agree here) but (& here is where I suspect we disagree) it would be morally unjust to call for increased enforcement of that law, because to do so would conflate submission to authority with justice & would constute a moral transgression on the part of the government. There are many examples in history of people legitimately subverting truly unjust laws in spite of the government's will, whether it be taxation without representation, slavery, prohibition, gold confiscation, cohabitation laws, hiding jews in your attic, the draft, etcetera. We disagree regarding whether current immigration law is another example of such a law. Fair enough.

You seem to think I'm deliberately trying to frustrate you. It's not my intention. I think it's more likely that each of us is trying but failing to fully understand the other's arguments, & that compounds over time, particularly in such a spirited debate.

"(1) What are the legitimate ends of government?"

I tend to agree with Frederic Bastiat's essay The Law. You can find it at bastiat.org.

Perhaps I would benefit from your own answer to that question.

"(2) What durable authority do laws have? (You seem to believe the law has none, and I do.)"

I'm not sure what you mean by "durable authority".

"(3) Are laws restricting immigration just? (You seem to think they are not, and I do.)"

I believe the immigration laws as currently written are not. They cannot be enforced without violating other, more sacred, rights, both of the immigrants & our own. Failure to enforce the current immigration laws may demonstrate some problems with other laws, but does not mean they cause the problems with these other laws. I acknowledge your point regarding barring violent criminals (I'll add those with infectious deseases to that list), but I don't think the laws, as written, reflect that goal. Poorly, at best. I believe that anyone in the US, regardless of immigration status, should be prosecuted for violations of persons or property, but do not feel that merely violating immigration laws constitutes a violation of persons or property.

Does that help?

Re: Illegal Immigrants and Emigrants

xteve — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 13:06:08 -0000

The problems with the welfare argument, Jeff, are that:

(1) it tars with the same brush those immigrants who don't use the welfare system;

(2) it would also apply to legal immigrants who use the welfare system, making it not an issue limitted to illegals;

(3) it would also apply to native-born Americans who use the welfare sytem, making it not an immigration issue;

(4) it assumes that those who use the welfare system are responsible for propping up an inherently immoral & unworkable welfare system.

Then under the guise of "equal protection under the laws" you advocate punishing all members of a certain group (illegal immigrants) whether or not they commit this so-called crime but not those of another group who also commit this so-called crime. & I disagree with Milton Friedman on a lot of other issues, too, so that appeal to authority won't work with me.

You also failed to clarify your position on the Declaration of Independence, but that's mostly not relevant. Except:

"Remember this? "Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.""

They thought the immigration issue important enough to list it, as I pointed out before, so I doubt they considered the right to immigrate as light & transient. But that's not important. I only brought it up because I was confused by what I saw as your conflicting values. I still am, but I now recognize that as not being pertinent to the issue.

Don's original thesis seemed to boil down to his sentence "If an immigrant's failure to get government permission to come into America is sufficient to render him or her a criminal worthy of scorn and punishment, then the same arguably is true of emigrants who fail to get government permission to escape from a particular country." Perhaps I overlooked some finer points of your previous posts, Jeff, but until now I read you as saying that they do deserve scorn merely for breaking immigration law. Now I think you suggest that illegal immigrants who commit other crimes should not be exempt from prosecution merely because they're illegal immigrants. If that's your position, then I agree, but I question what that has to do with them being illegal immigrants.

But then you say "it does call for deporting all people who violate immigration law. I’m definitely for that" which suggests I was right the first time, rendering your other stuff about any other crimes they may or may not commit irrelevant.

"since many will claim the laws protecting property are unjust — merely note the abundance of soft socialists in the country. Since they believe the law is unjust they need not follow it. Right?"

On a more relevant thread I'd be more than happy to debate whether private property is just or unjust. But we're talking about whether the immigration laws are just or unjust. If you're arguing that since some laws are just then therefore all laws are just, & if I don't agree then I must be suggesting that since some laws are unjust then therefore all laws are unjust, then I should point out that that contains at least two logical fallacies.

I think our disagreement boils down to these issues, so I see no point in dwelling on the others tangents we got on. But one more quick tangent: you keep spelling my name wrong.

Re: Illegal Immigrants and Emigrants

xteve — Mon, 11 Sep 2006 15:40:42 -0000

"You have given a good case for changing the law, but it is a poor case for exempting some people from the law while imprisoning others, i.e. for violating the principle of equality under the law."

Oh, but I never advocated that. I'm against the imprisonment of anyone & everyone who has not transgressed against persons or property. You must be confusing my position with someone else's.

"Will you acknowledge that no law whatsoever could be enforced, if we abandoned enforcement because some people think the law is immoral?"

"I subscribe to the principles of the Declaration of Independence"

Contradiction? Or is this some other Declaration of Independence?

"My claims are not oriented towards establishing the nature of the border, but the nature of a jurisdiction."

I thought you were when you described borders as "a vital national interest, tantamount to the existence of the state" & "one of the very few entities that the state can legitimately subject to collective control." I must have misunderstood.

"Jurisdiction can be lost by ways other than an invading army, in particular by lack of enforcement leading to widespread lawlessness."

How do you define jurisdiction? Absolute power over the subjects? Still sounds authoritarian. I would think more people would respect the laws if the laws were more respectible. i suspect we would have a different approach to governance.

"You are essentially arguing that equality under the law is a “sloppy approach to ethics.”"

Absolutely not. The "sloppy approach to ethics" was in reference to your conflation of subsidizing a business with not locking up non-violent people merely for not asking the state for permission to work there. My exact phrase was: "That's almost like saying that anyone who has not harmed you is your benefactor" which makes no reference to equality under the law.

I'm actually in favor of equality under the law. Our disagreement is on how to secure it. I'm advocating amnesty for ALL who do not trangress against persons or property, while it seems you're advocating locking them ALL up. We agree on the ALL part, hence equality under the law. When the state imprisons those who have committed no such trangression, it then become the state who is transgressing.

Do you deny the possiblilty of an "unjust law"? If there is such a law, should we all just take our lumps & blindly obey?

"He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands."

That's from the Declaration of Independence (whose principles you subscribe to) & is one of the "repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States."

So were the Revolutionaries in fact traitors who should have had the full weight of the British jurisdiction forced on them? They saw unjust laws & ignored them. They didn't wait around for the government to "give" them the freedoms that all men are born with. In fact, the entire Declaration of Independence could be summed up as "we have the right to justly ignore unjust laws." Eventually the crown granted them amnesty, while still infringing those same rights to others in Canada, Britain, & elsewhere. By applying your arguments, you would disagree with this outcome on the basis of these inequities that resulted, yet claim to subscribe to the principles that called for it. Which one of us actually believes in the principles of the Declaration anyway?

"There is nothing unreasonable in the establishment of border controls oriented towards barring entry to violent criminals, people who have committed fraudulent acts, and people suspected or known to seek the overthrow of the US government."

Sounds reasonable. Under which of those catagories falls those who get a job, rent an apartment, raise a family & coexist peacefully with their neighbors? I suspect you'll tell me it's fraudulent to not ask the government's permission first, but that just means we have a different definition of fraud. I would assert that there must be evidence of an injured party.

"You are aware that US had a national government under the Articles of Confederation, and the manifest failures of that form of government lead to the “more perfect union” of the Constitution...right?"

Of course. I was asking what about it "demonstrated [your] point most aptly." Incidently (not that it's relevant) the "manifest failures" of the AOC relative to the Constitution are not universally agreed upon. Ever hear of the so-called "Anti-Federalist Papers"? Did you know that many signers of the Declaration & other prominent patriots actually opposed ratification? But perhaps that's another debate for another time.

Re: Illegal Immigrants and Emigrants

xteve — Sat, 09 Sep 2006 17:00:02 -0000

Jeff, what exactly do you believe the purpose of government to be? From reading your last post in particular, I would almost gather that you believe it is to enforce whatever laws it comes up with, regardless of their merit, right or wrong. I'm not being flippant. It really seems to me like that's your possition.

If the government enacted a truly immoral law, would you insist that they enforce it? If yes, why? If no, would you be willing to acknowledge that some of us might view the current immigration laws as immoral?

Are these immigrants causing damage to anyone or their property? Some surely are, like some people do in any group, & when they do, someone should stop them from commiting those particular crimes. But failure to submit to the whims of others is not a transgression against people or property. So why punish them? Just to maintain power? Doesn't that strike you as somewhat authoritarian?

"Advocating for amnesty on the basis of harm to employers is thus tantamount to a government bailout of business, and no capitalist would do that."

Failure to punish someone for not doing anything violent or immoral is not the same as presenting them with a gift. That's almost like saying that anyone who has not harmed you is your benefactor. It's a sloppy approach to ethics.

"True, and not only to prevent exercise of foreign jurisdiction but to prevent a loss of jurisdiction “on your side of the line.” "

The existence of a border seems incidental to whether the government cracks down on someone under their jurisdiction. A border is just the line between two juristictions. We can debate the issue of who the government should let cross that line, & under what circumstances, but I don't see how a border possesses any other properties apart from that, nor any benefit to assuming any of these new properties.

"I should think the experience of governance under the Articles of Confederation would have demonstrated this point most aptly."

I'll confess ignorance here. To what are you refering?

Re: Illegal Immigrants and Emigrants

JohnDewey — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 08:37:16 -0000

Jeff Younger: "Giving illegal immigrants amnesty and allowing them to stay thus violates the sacred principle of equal protection of the laws."

Well, I disagree. Not enforcing one law - which we haven't done for decades - doesn't mean that we're sacrificing equal protection when we enforce other laws.

But what are you proposing be done anyway? Immigration law requires that all suspected illegal immigrants be granted an individual hearing. We simply do not have the lawyers and immigration judges to deport 12 million people.

What solution do you have for the employers - and their customers - who now depend on 7 million illegal immigrant workers?

If you are truly concerned about our nation's security, it seems to me the only solution is to somehow document these 7 million workers and every other immigrant worker who resides in our country. How is that documentation going to happen if those workers do not document themselves voluntarily? Do you really think we have the resources to find 12 million illegal aliens? especially when at least half the U.S. population has no intention of turning them in?

Yeah, I believe we need to change the laws. I also believe we should end the arrogant attitude some have about these workers - workers who have been welcomed with open arms by millions of U.S. citizens. These workers are victims of those idiotic laws you so cherish - the ones we enacted but refused to enforce because the cost is astronomically high.

Re: Illegal Immigrants and Emigrants

xteve — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 23:38:38 -0000

"Borders are a vital national interest, tantamount to the existence of the state. Therefore, borders are one of the very few entities that the state can legitimately subject to collective control."

All that national borders mean is that on one side of a line you have the juristiction of one government & on the other side of the line you have the juristiction of another government. When a government "protects its borders" it's to keep the other government, usually in the form of an army, from excercising its juristiction on your side of the line. Borders are not "entities" for the government to "subject to collective control" (what an unnerving phrase!) for the purpose of social engineering. The "nation" is not the govenment's property, thus cannot enforce any property rights over it. I agree that we should change the laws, but in the mean time unust laws may be justly ignored.

Re: Illegal Immigrants and Emigrants

JohnDewey — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 10:35:18 -0000

Jeff Younger,

You do have a chance of being legally accepted into George Mason University. Unskilled Mexicans with no relatives in the U.S. have no legal means to gain entrance to the U.S. employers eager to hire them.

We need the labor of the 7 million illegal workers here in the U.S. Like it or not, we've become dependent on them. Our economy would suffer without those workers, and without the other 5 million illegal aliens that some would have deported.

Re: Illegal Immigrants and Emigrants

Geoffrey Brand — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 07:43:58 -0000

The important point is that people have rights ..

governments do not.

People have property rights …

governments do not have property rights..

Legitimate governments are organized by the consent of the governed to protect peoples rights..

Legitimate government’s do not exist to exert non existent rights of some abstract entity called “the State”

Feel free to keep people out of your own home..

Please do not use government to exert control over property you do not own..

John Locke’s discussion of natural rights is always a good review..

Re: Illegal Immigrants and Emigrants

Christopher Rasch — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 07:38:30 -0000

So, if I'm to understand the border control advocates, the Berlin Wall, when built and staffed by East Germans, was a symbol of totalitarian dictatorship, but if built and staffed by West Germans, would've been a legitimate defense of a nation's sovereignity?

If so, it's curious that the morality of shooting would-be refugees changes with the color of the shooter's uniform.

Re: Illegal Immigrants and Emigrants

xteve — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 20:42:44 -0000

"To a large degree, arguments opposing open immigration stem from anticipated crushing weight on the welfare apparatus. While I agree with the "rights" perspective, the fear that the existing welfare state will explode to accomodate the new immigration is real. The rights argument is more persuasive coupled with a disintegration of the welfare state."

If you were saying that so-called illegal immigrants who did NOT take advantage of the welfare state were exempt from your fears, & that natural-born citizens taking increasing advantage of the the welfare state WERE a matter of concern, I would understand your point better, as a criticism of the welfare state. As it's written, though, it sounds like quite a double standard, & I'm unsure why one would feel the need to couple the immigration debate with the welfare debate, except as an excuse to emotionally manipulate the immigration debate.

As for the house analogy: I see how that could discredit the emigration analogy, but it ends there. The immigration debate is nothing like me denying someone entry into my house; it's like YOU denying someone entry into my house. America doesn't own my house.

Re: Illegal Immigrants and Emigrants

Bob Smith — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 20:25:45 -0000

Prof. Boudreaux,

I think that the point that is trying to be made is that in both instances the individual is coming here without the prior approval of the American government. In the case of the emigrant from Cuba or East Berlin, we were/are willing to accept them freely; in the case of the illegal immigrant less so. Having worked with "undocumented workers" I will tell you that they are not looking to join hands with those on the welfare rolls, but rather are looking for the same opportunity to improve their lives and the lives of their families as anyone else. Isn't that the American Dream? Isn't that the true meaning of the words on the Statue of Liberty? While I am unwilling to point a finger at anyone specifically, I doubt that there would be all this Sturm und Drang if we were seeing similar numbers of "undocumented workers" coming over the border from Canada or England.

Re: Illegal Immigrants and Emigrants

shecky — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 12:39:26 -0000

"Surely there's a difference between locking up guests in my home and refusing to allow them to leave, and locking people out of my home and refusing to allow them to enter whenever they want. The two are simply not the same."

Your example doesn't apply. It's more like you locking people out of your house, while your spouse lets them in the back door. America clearly speaks out of both sides of it's mouth on the issue, deriding illegal immigrants while seeking their labor. In one way, this issue is like Walmart bashing, moaning and groaning about how bad Walmart is for America, so bad we can't stop ourselves from shopping there.

"In the case of illegal immigration to America, immigrants are demanding acceptance, transfer payments from taxpayers, and other benefits *from the very legal order they have defied in entering the country.*"

It seems to me illegal immigrant demands boil down to, "leave me the hell alone and let me work".

More curious is that making immigration open and legal would allow immigrants to legitimately add to the taxpayer kitty. However, it would make them legitimately eligible for the benefits. Interestingly, most seem to pay into the coffers already (yet may never see many of those benefits).

Re: Illegal Immigrants and Emigrants

dj superflat — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 11:34:25 -0000

i assume that you were trying to make a point by a very strained analogy. but if you really think the comparison holds, this is the first of your posts that i think is just plain silly (that is, not well thought out, rather than something thoughtful i might nonetheless disagree with). giving the benefit of the doubt, i assume we're all missing some aspect of the analysis, some subtlety you believe justifies the comparison. care to elaborate further?

Re: Illegal Immigrants and Emigrants

Ann — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 11:16:33 -0000

I agree with Henry and CS. Surely there's a difference between locking up guests in my home and refusing to allow them to leave, and locking people out of my home and refusing to allow them to enter whenever they want. The two are simply not the same.

Re: Illegal Immigrants and Emigrants

CS — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 10:55:12 -0000

Prof. Boudreaux,

Isn't there an important difference between immigration and emigration here? In the emigration case people oppose the legal order of a country, *so they leave it behind and make no further demands of it.* In the case of illegal immigration to America, immigrants are demanding acceptance, transfer payments from taxpayers, and other benefits *from the very legal order they have defied in entering the country.*

Further, in general one can oppose false imprisonment without endorsing trespass. Suppose I travel to Mars, homestead an area, and establish a gated community with set rules of admission and various regulations. As owner of this property I could also require that parents have their minor children comply with the rules, and that maturing adults either promise to abide by them or depart my property. Surely in this case there is no unlimited obligation to accept individuals into the property/community.

Now, one can make a plausible argument that actual states do not have such rights, as they are established through coercion and the forced incorporation of land. But essentially every 'title' to real property anywhere on Earth has its distant origins in some sort of violent expropriation, and thus the same argument would allow me to justify setting up camp in your living room.

Re: Illegal Immigrants and Emigrants

Henry — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 10:48:53 -0000

There's a relationship between illegal emigration and illigal immigration? This is news to me. Maybe I should tell the prison system that there's a relationship between the fact that some people are not allowed out of prison without permissions and ... what? ... that some people aren't allowed INTO prison without permission?

All kidding aside, there is absolutely no relationship between being disallowed from leaving an organization, and being disallowed to join an organization, except inasmuch as in the case of citizenship, one must always belong to at least one club, and leaving a club must correspond to joining another. Unfortunately the current debate on illegal immigration does not encompass the topic of political asylum.

Re: Illegal Immigrants and Emigrants

TGGP — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 10:25:57 -0000

Why even bother restricting emmigration from Cuba if the Cubans do their restricting for us? When they shipped their criminals and insanse asylum inmates is when we should have restricted them.

The real answer to your question is that Americans don't give a whit what other governments say. We don't live there and their laws do not apply here. We do care about our own rule of law.

Re: Illegal Immigrants and Emigrants

Michael Giampaoli — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 09:57:44 -0000

To a large degree, arguments opposing open immigration stem from anticipated crushing weight on the welfare apparatus. While I agree with the "rights" perspective, the fear that the existing welfare state will explode to accomodate the new immigration is real. The rights argument is more persuasive coupled with a disintegration of the welfare state.