Absorbing Immigrants
Does America Have the Space and Resources to Allow Open Borders?
America should re-open its borders to immigrants.
Not until 1924 did the government generally limit the number of people who could come to America and make it their home. If America’s borders had been closed, say, a century earlier, the civilization that we now call “American” would not exist. The Irish, Germans, Italians, Scandinavians, central and eastern Europeans, and many Asians arrived here in bulk during the nineteenth century. Most would have been turned away under the restrictive regime followed since 1924.
When I talk with people about immigration, everyone agrees that the open-borders policy of the eighteenth, nineteenth, and early twentieth centuries was a great boon to America. Without it, we would today be unimaginably poorer and less vibrant. So I then ask: If open borders in the past generated enormous benefits, why not open our borders today? I always get the same answer: “Times change. America had more room and resources then. We could then absorb immigrants better than we can today.”
I disagree.
Room for Immigrants
Since 1820 the years that witnessed the greatest influx of immigrants as a proportion of America’s population were the early and mid-1850s, when annual immigration was about 1.6 percent of the resident population. This figure was approached again in the 1880s and during the first decade of the twentieth century. Today, annual immigration is about 0.25 percent of the resident population—less than one-sixth its level during the first half of the 1850s, and about one-sixth its level during much of the 1880s and the first decade of the twentieth century. (Some people argue that illegal immigrants are undercounted today. Taking the largest estimate I’ve seen of uncounted illegal immigrants, total annual immigrants as a proportion of the U.S. population today would be 1.25 percent of the resident population. While likely overblown, accepting this figure as accurate means that, as a percent of the resident population, immigration today remains well below that of any of the peak years of the past.)
What about our ability to “absorb” these—and even more—immigrants?
An important element of the ability to absorb is living space. Americans today enjoy record levels of residential living space. For example, in 1915, the typical dwelling in America housed 5.63 people; today it houses fewer than half of that number—2.37 people. Combined with the fact that the square-footage of today’s typical dwelling is, on the most conservative estimate, 20 percent greater than it was a century ago, our ability to “absorb” immigrants into our residential living spaces is today more than twice what it was during the era of open borders.
What about land? Contrary to a widely mistaken belief, the amount of land devoted to urban and suburban uses is a tiny percentage of America’s land (even excluding largely unsettled Alaska). While such land use has grown significantly during the past century, today it is at most about 3 percent of the land area of the lower 48 states. (The 3 percent figure is an overestimate because, since about 1960, cities have increasingly incorporated lands that remain largely rural in character but that are classified as “urban.”)
And since at least 1950, the amount of land devoted to public recreation uses and to wildlife refuges has increased faster than has the amount of land devoted to urban and suburban uses. Today, the land area devoted to national and state parks, and to wildlife refuges, is more than seven times greater than it was in 1900. America is nowhere close to being crowded.
Also, we’re much better able to feed ourselves today, even though the amount of land used to grow crops and to pasture animals is no larger now than in 1900. Extraordinary increases in agricultural productivity enable American farmers and ranchers to produce vastly more output on the same amount of land. For example, each acre planted with wheat today produces three times more output than it did a century ago. Similar, and even greater, productivity increases have occurred for nearly all other agricultural products. This productivity explosion is reflected in a much more abundant food supply and lower food prices.
Absorbing Workers
Immigrants, of course, come to America not only to consume but also to work. A measure of our ability to “absorb” workers is capital invested per worker—the amount of machinery and other tools in place for workers to use. Today, the amount of capital invested per worker is more than nine times greater than in 1880 and about 8.5 times greater than in 1924. Because a worker’s productivity rises when he has more capital to work with and his pay is tied closely to his productivity, workers entering the American economy today produce and earn more than workers entering during the open-borders era.
Don’t lose sight of our labor market’s great flexibility. It easily absorbed the massive increase of women workers during the second half of the twentieth century. Over this time, 46 million jobs were created for women, which is more than half of the 80 million jobs created during that same time.
In many other ways, America today is far better able than in the past to absorb more immigrants. For example, compared to 1920, per person today we:
- have greater than ten times more miles of paved roads;
- have more than twice as many physicians;
- have 50 percent more dentists;
- have almost three times as many teachers;
- have 540 percent more police officers;
- have twice as many firefighters;
- produce 2.4 times more oil—as known reserves of oil grow;
- produce 2.67 times more cubic feet of lumber—as America’s supply of lumber stands grows;
- have conquered most of the infectious diseases that were major killers in the past.*
The fact is America today is much wealthier, healthier, spacious, and resource-rich than it was a century ago. And we owe many of these advances to the creativity and effort of immigrants. If open immigration worked until 1924 to enrich America, it can do so now with even greater certainty. Let’s welcome more immigrants so that they can help themselves, and us, build even better lives.
*My principal data sources for this article are Julian L. Simon, ed., The State of Humanity (Blackwell, 1995), and Julian L. Simon, The Ultimate Resource 2 (Princeton University Press, 1996), as well as various U.S. Census Bureau reports
Pingback by Some Want “Illegals” Covered under Healthcare Plan | Foundation for Economic Education on 28 September 2009:
[...] Timely Classic “Absorbing Immigrants” by Donald J. Boudreaux Sheldon Richman is the editor of The Freeman and "In brief." He is a [...]
Comment by Donald Coder on 29 September 2009:
America is a land of immigrants and I am thankful that my immigrant grandparents were accepted. They brought very little with them other than enthusiasm and a desire to prosper. So why is there such an outcry today about the sudden influx of new immigrants? My complaint is that today immigrants are entitled to benefits that cost tax payers money that they never chose to give to new immigrants. Forced charity is tyranny. This is the complaint. Marxism brings a new issue to the concept of open immigration.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 29 September 2009:
Yet another disingenuous article by Mr. Boudreaux where he fails to differentiate between Immigrants and Illegal Aliens. It would be nice if he would educate himself as to the difference rather than constantly setting up the same tire old Straw Man time and time again.
An Immigrant is someone that enters this country legally. This means he follows the laws The People have authored as a sovereign nation that control who can and cannot enter.
Yet again I would remind Mr. Boudreaux that people that oppose – illegal – immigration are not “Anti-Immigrant” we are Anti-Illegal-Immigrant. I am hoping that if I repeat this often enough that he will eventually grasp the difference. I am not certain if he is unable to see the difference or if he is simply unwilling because it is lethal to his side of the debate. I am hoping for the former but expect the later is more likely.
Last I checked property rights are a core issue for Libertarians. Has this changed? If not then we should not want someone entering our nation without our permission any more than we would want someone entering our homes without our knowledge and consent.
I bought my home and We, The People, built this county. We built the economy. We built the infrastructure. We built the culture that allowed the creation of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. Millions of men from the Revolution to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have fought and died to protect the – sovereignty – of this nation and Mr. Boudreaux wants to give it away on a whim.
Mr. Boudreaux offers that we did not restrict immigration until 1924 ergo we should not restrict it now. Using this same “logic” I could argue that since we did not have speeding laws until the 1890’s we do not need them now. This is called a “Wisdom of the Ancients” fallacy. We can add this to his repeated Straw Man fallacy I pointed out earlier. Just because something worked in the past does not mean we should revisit it today. The 13th Amendment outlawing slavery did not exist until 1865 does that mean we should return to Triangle Trade?
In addition to this Mr. Boudreaux assertion is simply wrong. My Great-Grandfather came here long before 1924 and he had to be sponsored before he was allowed to become a citizen. My Great-Aunts had come to the US as indentured servants several years before and one of the sisters married a wealthy business man that was able to purchase their freedom. They did the proper paperwork, swore that “Pop” was a person of good character (i.e., not a criminal) and they had to set up a job for him before he arrived (he went from working in the coal mines in Scotland to working in the coal mines in Chicago).
As is typical Mr. Boudreaux mentions Irish immigration in the 1850’s without examining the differences between the influx of Irish and the current situation.
In 1850 most of the Irish came to the US via ship so entry was regulated so most entered the country legally.
In 2009 there are as many or more illegal immigrants per annum than legal ones (a half-million legal versus a half-million to one-million illegal).
In the 1850’s the Irish came here as a result of poverty and famine caused by England failing to properly deal with a national tragedy resulting in the total population of Ireland dropping by approximately 20% to 25% due to death, disease, and emigration. Once the famine ended the numbers dropped so it was a transient event.
In 2009 we can look back to 1986 when we gave amnesty to 8 million illegal immigrants and this increased the number of people crossing our boarder hoping to capitalize on the next amnesty (McCain-Kennedy). This has been going on since the 1960’s if not longer and rather than decreasing, the numbers keep increasing as the population of Latin America continues to explode. Rather than decreasing by 20% to 25% due to some sort of unforeseen disaster, the total population of Latin America has swelled from approximately 60 million in 1900 to more than 600 million in 2000. This is not a transient event and it will keep getting worse until Latin America deals with a population explosion which is currently on course to meet or exceed China and India in a few decades.
Let me be clear: We cannot absorb and unending floor of poor and uneducated over the next century without turning the US into a clone of the nations these people are fleeing in the first place. Our goal should be to help Latin America become a clone of the US – not – the reverse.
In the 1850’s the US had a total population of approximately 50 million people and we had recently acquired the Louisiana Purchase (1803) and the Mexican Cession (1848) representing more than a million square miles of land. Much of this was unexplored and hostile. The US government was giving away property in gigantic lots in an effort to occupy this area so could claim and maintain sovereignty over the territory.
In 2009 the last time the US added a state was back in 1959 when Hawaii became the 50th star on “Old Glory.” The global population has risen from 2 billion to 6 billion and is expected to continue to expand at an unsustainable rate. Just about every square inch of land on the plant is claimed by one country or another and God is not making more except for a few small volcanic islands that are just as likely to blow up or sink into the sea.
In the 1850’s you could get on a wagon and wander from Chicago all the way to the Pacific without seeing another human.
In 2009 you can drive from San Diego to Los Angeles to Las Vegas and back to San Diego in bumper to bumper traffic. I spent 8 hours commuting from Vegas to Santa Ana this weekend watching essentially the same group of cars the entire time.
What Mr. Boudreaux fails to understand is that it does not matter how much raw land we have available when we do not have the infrastructure to support the number of people occupying the land we already inhabit. There is a reason no one lives in the frozen tundra of Alaska or the forests of Utah. Jobs are not plentiful in areas where the closest gas station is 300 miles away.
In 1850 infrastructure was less of a concern because horses do not need roads, highways, and freeway. We were still predominately a Pre-Industrial / Agrarian society rather than a Post-Industrial / Techno-Society.
In 2009 illegal aliens represent at least 6% of the population. This means they consume 6% of the infrastructure (schools, roads, water, sewage, etc.) while returning a fraction of this investment. In California alone it is estimated they cost the State at least 10 Billion dollars a year. Most Illegals do not have an education so they do not add to the tax base that builds the infrastructure they exploit and it takes at least two generations for this to change. By the time Gen III shows up a newer, larger Gen I has arrived and makes the situation even worse. Even if there were no other arguments for limiting immigration the practical limits of the expansion of infrastructure relative to population would be enough on its own.
These are s is only a fraction of what has changed in the past 150 years since the Irish came here. Someone needs to let Mr. Boudreaux know that things have changed. We do not own slaves. We do not commute to work on horses. We do not have a couple millions square miles of free territory to hand out to anyone that would like a few acres to farm on.
What we do have are massive social programs that are bankrupting us every time someone else comes here and ends up sucking money out of welfare, HUD, EMTALA, and dozens of “safety net” programs that were supposed to help citizens rather than foreign nationals.
The fact is you can be Pro-Immigration and Anti-Illegal-Immigration at the exact same time in much the same way you can be pro-car-ownership and anti-car-theft at the exact same time. One way is legal. The other isn’t. I hope Mr. Boudreaux eventually learns the difference.
Until then, I’ll keep trying to educate him.
Comment by John Anello on 30 September 2009:
Donald Boudreaux and other immigration enthusiast often look to American immigration’s glorious past to justify immigration today. The strongest argument of the pro-immigration crowd is that immigrants today are “just like grandma and grandpa.” However, history and reality demonstrate that this is not the case.
Before the Hart-Cellar Act of 1965 most immigrants came from Europe. They had training and skills that they used to start businesses. They took pride in their new nation and strived to learn its language and its customs. They came here for opportunity, not entitlements. In many cases, the children of these immigrants were fully assimilated to US culture by the time they were grown, many of them had earned advanced degrees and had careers in professional fields.
The Hart-Cellar Act changed immigration forever. It allowed for more immigration from third world nations in Africa and Latin America and less from Europe. Unlike their counterparts of the 19th and early 20th century these immigrants have little or no skills. They have no desire to learn our language and our culture and feel entitled to healthcare and a minimum standard of living. As a result of the countries they come from, today’s immigrants have a difficult time assimilating to our way of life. They come here for entitlement not opportunity. I have already gone over statistics in excruciating detail in responding to Ms. Akers article and I do not wish to go through them again. The fact is that modern day immigration is a strain on our criminal justice and healthcare systems; it is a threat to our national security and can be a public health hazard.
Mr. Boudreaux also makes the case that we have room for these new immigrants! Really?! When was the last time you were walking down the street and said, “Gee, there are no people around.” When was the last time you were driving and said, “My God, there are hardly any cars on the road.” We are a nation of 300 million people and our population is increasing due to high birth rates and immigration. We will undoubtedly face many challenges in the coming decades, including the bankruptcy of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Do you think these challenges will be easier to meet by adding millions of (mostly indigent) people to our already overpopulated country? I do not.
I hate to disagree with Donald Boudreaux. I think he is a brilliant economist and a great friend of liberty. I always read his articles and I find them very insightful and informative. I agree with him on almost every issue, and I consider anyone who fights for limited government an ally. I only oppose him here because I believe immigration will be detrimental to liberty in years to come.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 30 September 2009:
John,
Nice to see you posting again.
The thing I would like someone to explain regardless of if it is Mr. Boudreaux, Ms. Akers, or a Randian Objectivists with the same opinion is why they can be staunch supporters of individual property rights without supporting national sovereignty? It seems contradictory to me.
A nation is essentially the same as a shared property. If you and I buy some land together we have to agree what we are going to do with it under the partnership. Decisions are not unilateral unless that stipulation is agreed to in the contract. Under a shared partnership if you rent the property to the “Reformed Church of Satan” and I find this offensive I can exert my rights as co-owner and visa-versa.
If these Objectivists / Libertarians would support my rights as a co-owner on a micro scale I am at a loss why they do not think this same logic is applicable on a macro scale?
Comment by John Anello on 30 September 2009:
Good Point. The Constitution can be viewed as a contract between the government and its citizens. Article IV Section 4 guarantees each state protection from invasion. The states along our southern border may have a legitimate claim against the Federal government for failure to uphold the Constitution.
Comment by Peter Giancana on 7 October 2010:
I can’t say better than those above the flaws in Mr. Boudreaux’s thesis. I will only add that while reading it, I was struck at how shallow are his arguments. It’s a degree of shallow that I do not usually associate with this publication.
Comment by Rick Dutkiewicz on 7 October 2010:
“The Constitution can be viewed as a contract between the government and its citizens”?
Who can say that with a straight face?
Strange that no one here, not even Don, wants to argue from the point of view of morality or private property. Pragmatism and utilitarianism are the enemies or morality, and their arguments are useless in any situation outside of a lifeboat scenario.
Comment by Doug Calvin on 7 October 2010:
Bravo to all the above – thank you for taking Mr. Boudreaux to task. And yes, the shallow and disingenuous treatment of this subject is disappointing, and doubly so for The Freeman. Immigration is an esteemed, necessary, and just policy for a nation. Illegal immigration threatens the liberty of it’s citizens in a myriad of ways; and that is compounded by the expansion of statism and it’s explosion of the welfare role.
Comment by Denny Jackson on 7 October 2010:
While I agree in theory with open borders, I’ll have to second the opinion that Mr. Boudreaux’s analysis is indeed rather shallow due to his ignoring the reality of the present system of legalized theft and wealth redistribution.
Before we can have open borders ALL the govt-sponsored theft must end. Everything reduces to, as Rothbard says, a matter of property rights. No one has a right to take your property against your will for any reason, and that would certainly include property confiscated by the govt to feed the criminal welfare system accepted by most Americans.
It is ironic that the same people who whine about illegal aliens have no problem at all with the socialist benefit programs that are the root cause of controversies surrounding immigration, migration, borders, etc. IF the welfare programs were eliminated, AND govt regulation of business eliminated, AND private property rights respected and protected, the free market would take care of the immigration controversy, both legal and illegal. Since these changes in the system are about as likely as a politician telling the truth, you can expect the present farce to continue ad infinitum.
Comment by Eiji Wolf on 7 October 2010:
Just a quick comment: make ALL immigration legal – then there will be no problems with illegal immigration.
And cancel all social transfers; let families, friends, and finally, charities, take case of this. There are not that many people who truly have no way other than to rely on the help of others that this rich society could not cope.
Those truly unable to fend for themselves even in adult age are, what, at most 5% of the populace? Why does it cost so much more?
No more problems with state intrusions into private lives and property of people, no more problems with corruption among immigration officials, no more crime connected to illegal “guides”, “transporters” across the borders, no more wasteful spending on attempting to defy economic laws ( such as trying to stop immigration…), no more exploitation of illegal immigrants…
All in all, I can’t see anything bad with immigration, once the state apparatus is taken out of the equation.
Comment by Brenda Lenard on 11 October 2010:
Professor, let me first state that it was a pleasure meeting you this summer at the Public Choice Outreach. However, I felt compelled to nudge you kindly about your arguments in your article. First, after reading your article, I was not sure if I should salute or whip out my tissue to wipe my welled eyes regarding immigrants. You so eloquently wrote about the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries of open-borders policy and its economic impact in the country. Who would not want the immigrants that you described in your article to become a part of the American fabric. However, after closer examination, you seemed to “dodge” or “distinguish” the difference between immigration and illegal immigration. Let me attempt to illustrate the difference to you. First, the immigration that your article illustrates suggests that that individual received a visa or authority to enter the country legally. The illegal immigration that is not mentioned in your articles suggests that, for whatever reason, individuals disregards our laws and enters the country illegally. They do not have authority to be in the country legally.
To further illustrate this point; let’s say we have two individuals who have accumulated a large sum of money. One individual works, saves and carefully spends. One individual accumulated a vast amount of money illegally. Is one individual a criminal and the other prudent? Your article indirectly suggests that they are one in the same because you carefully counter arguments from individuals that have argued against illegal immigration. Although it is not directly stated; however, you do not differentiate between the two groups of individuals.
Lastly, your statistics provide notable insights into how society can “absorb” new immigrants into our society because we have more paved roads, more teachers and more physicians. Furthermore, you state that the “fact is America today is much wealthier, healthier, spacious, and resource-rich than it was a century ago. And we owe many of these advances to the creativity and effort of immigrants.” But your articles excludes some negative aspects of illegal immigration facts such as outlined at the Cato Institute that illegal immigrants have a 10-20 percent higher probability of obtaining welfare services than natives do. Furthermore, the Heritage Foundation indicates that the cost of welfare spending is “unsustainable?” Your omission of the other side of immigration is one skewed. In conclusion, I do not resist, oppose, or denounce immigration for many of the reasons that you mentioned in your article resulted in America’s success from immigrants. However, the issues that you failed to mention and what is worthy of debate such as the ability to provide welfare to illegal immigrants when the effort is “unsustainable” and who are essentially law breakers.
Comment by Scott Hoover on 28 January 2011:
Nowhere in Mr. Bouudreaux’s article did he discuss illegal immigration and/or amnesty for those here illegally. The latter is a serious related issue that would arise if the US decided to open its borders. But that is not the subject matter of the article and is a debate to have about implementation of an open border policy. The former (illegal immigration) would not be an issue going forward because the idea is to legalize almost all immigration.
Dr. Boudreaux simply made the case that opening the borders would not overwhelm the United States of America or its economy.
As far as removing forced charity from the governmental system, from reading Dr. Boudreaux’s work, I feel safe saying that he would wholeheartedly agree.
Comment by Jackson Pemberton on 28 January 2011:
One could argue that even a duly nationalized citizen should lose his citizenship when he shows by his behavior that he considers himself outside the purview of the Constitution which provided that citizenship. Forced exportation has a very strong precedent (if that helps any) in the same centuries Mr. Boudreaus uses. If you want a good example of apples and oranges flawed argument – read Mr. Boudreaux. No, this is not immigration, it is invasion. What is an invader if it isn’t someone who arrives uninvited and who refuses to obey the law of the land in which he has arrived?
Comment by Charles Braly on 24 March 2011:
These posts have been an interesting read. I, too, was surprised that Donald Beaudreaux wrote such a shallow article. I was surprised by his statement that immigration was not significantly restricted prior to 1924(perhaps this alludes to a numerical limit on new immigrants?) I have not researched that issue; however, the distinction between illegal, unregistered immigrants and legal immigrants is significant.
It is entirely appropriate that new members of this society be required to register so they can be held responsible for their actions while living here, as well as learn the fundamental rules of society which will apply to him. Those who fail to follow outlined procedures have not earned the rights and priviliges of other legal ciizens.
It is true that our society is much more complex than in the past…and much of that complexity is multiplied by government involvement, which is normally quite complex and inefficient.
We must get rid of all the redistribution of wealth schemes which have totally changed the issue of amnesty and citizenship. I do not believe the problem will ever be resolved until we stop granting any citizen, including illegal immigrants, the right to the wealth of other citizens. Government does not have the moral right to perform this theft.
The underlying issue is the failure of government to protect individual property rights. Socialism is continuing to show the effects of unintended results…. and this issue of immigration should help us focus on the need to start moving away from it. Democracy and the rule of the majority, unrestricted by a respect for individul responsibilty, will lead down the same pathway of civil unrest and turmoil.
We must stay focused. Beaudreau needs to keep with this major issue and focus on this problem in every article thast he writes.
Comment by Jeff on 15 April 2011:
Though, historically, immigration has worked well for America in the past, today is a different story. When you had personal responsibility and freedom, you had people that understood that they could come here to survive as you saw fit. Today, they are sneaking in under the radar, hoping to land entitlements and a tax free earning wage. Welcome to the American dream.
So long as you have a government that is willing to pander to illegal aliens with entitlements, and tax free employment, while hammering away at actual citizens, you will always have a disparity between citizens adn aliens.
Boudreaux, you neet to pull your head out of the clouds, and realise that this is not 1820.
Comment by Gleason Greene on 15 April 2011:
Believe you are all basically correct but immigragtion has become a strictly emotional issue because our dictatorship believes in entitlements to all; nothing need be earned or justified. We are all GI’s, government issue, to be used as the dictator sees fit.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 15 April 2011:
Gleason,
That’s part of it but not all of it.
Let’s assume a Libertarian Utopia. 20 people decide to purchase land and build a condominium complex.
Do we have the right to build a wall around our shared property to keep people out or are gated communities inherently anti-libertarian? If restricting access to a shared investment is acceptable under “life, liberty, and property” then why is it any different with a nation?
I would argue national sovereignty is an extension of personal property rights. If you do not have the right to enter our complex without our permission and any visitor is required to follow community rules why should this be any different when it comes to national sovereignty and our laws? I can keep trespassers out of the community pool that we all agreed to purchase and pay to maintain but we can’t keep illegal aliens out of our national social programs we implemented under essentially the same circumstances?
I think there is an intentional disconnect on the part of Boudreaux, Akers, and other authors in this magazine that they dismiss without proper examination.
Comment by Gleason Greene on 16 April 2011:
I have to agree with Mr. Boudreaux but I fear the problem is not immigration but our well advanced dictatorial state. Well earned money is taken from as at will to be distributed as the dictator sees fit. This is not only maddening but devalues the currency making us all poorer as the dictator deals out more and more with less and less. Bail outs, immigration, green initiatives, public schools all result in making issues highly emotional leaving little room for using the common sense and true feelings of a free people.
Comment by Rick on 17 April 2011:
“James Madison Fan” said it best. See Sept 29,2009.
Illegal vs Legal
Welfare state vs The Constitution
We all know it is simply the “Ruling Class” trying to broaden it’s power base by adding voters. The purpose is to increase the number of people dependent on the welfare state resulting in continued control of the individual. When will we learn the lessons of Europe.
I’m all for making the legal immigration process simpler. If we were operating truly under the Constitution each state could handle this illegal immigration challenge properly and the boarders would remain secure and we could welcome good people legally.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 18 April 2011:
It wouldn’t be so bad but I’ve been posting on here something like two years now (I think I started in May of 2009 to Ms. Akers in “Mr. Obama: Tear Down This Wall”) and I have yet to see any of these authors address any of the issues that undermine their dogma.
It wouldn’t be so bad but instead of addressing the issues presented by their opposition they intentionally misrepresent these issues as well as any other inconvenient truth.
Mr. Boudreaux, Ms. Akers, and similar authors know most of their opposition is not anti-immigrant. They are well aware some of the staunchest supporters of enforcing immigration law are legal immigrants. But Mr. Boudreaux doesn’t let this prevent him from painting everyone that supports immigration law with the “anti-immigrant” and “racist” paint brushes.
In the world of Mr. Boudreaux and Ms. Akers, people like me are “intolerant.” We are “anti-immigrant” or “racists.” We are “Statists” that want to prevent “free migration” from nation to nation. Of course the fact that every nation on the planet does the same thing doesn’t matter and will not be addressed. The fact I can’t cross the border into Mexico without facing an eight year prison sentence is irrelevant. So is the fact I can’t own property within 20 miles of any beach in Mexico without it being seized by the Mexican government. The effect of an excessive number of poor and uneducated on a nation is also ignored in their manifestos. Only purist Libertarian doctrine will be tolerated. Hybrid ideals are an abomination. .
This reminds me of debates with Young Earth Creationists. You point out dinosaurs and they tell you Diplodocus, Stegosaurus, and T-Rex were all on Noah’s Ark. You point out strata and the Law of Superposition and they tell you it is caused by hydrostatic sorting. Any fact that conflicts with doctrine is instantly replaced with a ready made fallacy that preserves ecclesiastical cannon.
The problem with being a purist is you become a victim of your own beliefs. You can have Socialist leanings without being a Socialist. I think certain things like roads are better controlled by a (limited) government due to economy of scale as well as the “tragedy of the commons” but this does not mean I think we should use Europe or China as a model or that Communism is practical. I support Capitalism and agree with much of what Smith wrote in “Wealth of Nations” but I also see the dangers in purist Laissez Faire Capitalism displayed in the greed of the Robber Barons of the late 1800’s. I see the wisdom of Locke in phrases like “Life, Liberty, and Property” but agree with Jefferson about the necessity of public education in a Republic.
The only litmus test I have in regard to any proposed economic or political idea is; “Is it practical?” If the doctrine is not practical then it doesn’t matter if the alternatives conflicts with purist doctrine or not. The US and Europe – can’t – carry around 5 billion people (and growing) on our back. Once you come to that conclusion the philosophical debate surrounding “free migration” is moot.
Comment by JB on 19 April 2011:
I am amazed at the responses to Mr. Boudreaux’s article. It is alleged that he doesn’t know the difference between legal and illegal immigrants and that he calls those of you who think you own the country “racists.”
I searched his article and he never used the word “racist” and only used the word “illegal” two times. Both times referred to the number of alleged “illegal” immigrants. I think it is plain that he knows the difference and he argues lets make the illegal legal again. You don’t have to like it, but you who attack seem to be setting up the straw man.
Now those of you who think that property rights give you the right to say it is the same thing as owning the nation, I ask, can someone who owns property in this nation invite someone to come here and be with them if the visitor is in your terms “illegal”? If not you are taking away that owner’s property rights. Actually, I would say that your nationalism is tribalism and is in fact statist. You are the ones who want to take away the rights of those who have a different opinion, it seems. You wish to use the force of the State to prevent they who come here seeking to breath free but don’t have the political pull to gain that “legal” entry, and to oppress those who seek to shelter them. Hmm, seems like something from the past.
In any event, Mr. Boudreaux does not call anyone a racist nor does he indicate that he doesn’t know the difference between legal and illegal.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 20 April 2011:
JB,
Please re-examine what has been written and note comments like “Mr. Boudreaux, Ms. Akers, and similar authors.” So the comments are not aimed specifically at Mr. Boudreaux but at the tactics used by his side of the debate. You are also assuming this is the only article Mr. Boudreaux has written on “anti-immigrant” opinions. He has done this repeatedly even though he has been redirected as to the stance of his opposition many, many times. He knows what he’s doing but he still does it.
Mr. Boudreux is using a common tactic by intentionally misrepresenting the opposition as being “anti-immigrant” not “anti-illegal-alien.” He knows this is a misrepresentation but he does it anyway and so do many authors with opinions similar to his such as Ms. Aker. My point about “educating” him is facetious because I know he is being disingenuous.
It is one thing to have a different opinion and debate it ethically. It is something else entirely to intentionally set up an prima facie straw man. That’s the definition of sophism.
If the opposition is truly wrong then there is no reason to misrepresent them. Fact speaks for itself. If you need to adjust fact to defend your stance then you’re probably wrong.
JBWrote: *Now those of you who think that property rights give you the right to say it is the same thing as owning the nation, I ask, can someone who owns property in this nation invite someone to come here and be with them if the visitor is in your terms “illegal”?*
Of course you can ask someone to come to the US to visit. You can come here as a tourist, you can get a work visa, a student visa, and many other kinds of visa to enter the US legally. You can even buy and own property without being a US citizen. You can also immigrate here.
Where your analogy fails is illegal-aliens are not invited. Crossing the border and getting an invitation after the fact is like someone breaking into your home, raiding your fridge, using your shower, napping on the sofa, then asking of it’s okay when you come home and find him reading the comics on the toilet in your bathroom. That’s not visiting. That’s breaking and entering. If you could provide some insight why the pro-alien side of the debate seems unable to recognize the difference I’d appreciate it.
On a broader scale, if you and I are owners in a condo complex we can invite guests onto the property but that doesn’t mean you get to turn your unit into a homeless shelter, use the community pool to bathe every vagrant that walks by, and let them sleep in the laundry room or club house. You have to follow the community rules so even when someone is invited onto the shared property by the owner you and your guests need to follow the rules.
However even this is flawed because illegal aliens are not invited. Illegal aliens cross the border illegally so they are not guests, they are trespassers. If someone climbs the fence of our gated community he is trespassing. The fact that you like trespassers because you can pay them less to clean your home than Association approved vendors doesn’t make them defacto “guests.” I have to follow the rules and so do you. Locke wrote “Life, Liberty, and Property” not “Life, Lawlessness, and Property.” Reading this magazine it seems many authors don’t see the difference between Libertarianism and Anarchism.
The difference between a guest and a trespasser is the first follows the rules for entry and the second doesn’t. The difference between an immigrant and an illegal-alien is one follows the rules for entry and the other doesn’t. Why is that so difficult for Mr. Boudreux’s side of the issue to grasp? He wouldn’t want to come home to an uninvited guest in his living room on principle alone so why does it become less clear when applied on a national level?
Comment by Bladernr1001 on 10 October 2011:
As a Libertarian, I generally support open boarders as it applies to the labor market.
The problem we have created now is that we have injected a welfare state into the system. Furthermore, it has been deemed that immigrants have the “right” to access benefits of the welfare state when they come here. I do not consider this fair to the taxpayers (of course I do not consider the welfare state itself constitutional but that is a topic for a future discussion).
The other thing this situation does is skew the market for labor. By allowing immigrants to access benefits it allows them to underbid the going prices for labor thus putting tax paying citzens (going for the same job) at a competitve disadvantage.
So given this set of circumstances, I do not see any other choice but to limit the influx of immigrants until we square the welfare angle.
Comment by khalil Reid on 23 November 2011:
Illegal immigration is not the same as breaking to a house a house is private property with personal stuff
Comment by Mark on 23 November 2011:
@ James Madison Fan, your big point about legal vs illegal immigration is moot when the author’s objective is to make all immigration legal via open borders.
Anyhow, what a lot of people interpret from your rants is Scots Irish are good, Hispanics are bad.
Please read up on geoism/ Georgism if you haven’t. Thanks
Comment by ThomasJeffersonFan on 23 December 2011:
In a truly free market there is room for everyone.
Comment by New England Patriots Plan on 4 February 2012:
I do not ordinarily comment however i gotta state respect for that post on this 1.