Immigration and Big Government
By Anthony Gregory • Friday May 21, 2010 1:45 PM PDT • 15 Comments
If the Tea Parties and conservative activists want to be serious about opposing big government, they need to abandon their love of border police, immigration controls and statist nationalism. The hysterical response to those on the left comparing the Arizona law to Nazism reminds me of the equally hysterical response to those on the right comparing Obama to Hitler. We are never to compare America’s big-government policies to those of the Nazis, unless we ourselves don’t like those policies. That seems to be the standard on both left and right.
The borders cannot be sealed. There is just far too much a stretch of land to try to control. A fence won’t work. People can easily circumvent walls. Any attempt to truly “crack down” on immigration would devastate America. The cost in civil and economic liberties, and the diminution of the freedom of association, are much too severe to treat cavalierly. How is the U.S. government going to “stop” illegal immigration, when it cannot do anything else right? Do we want to see more than 10 million people rounded up and deported? If not, what are we talking about exactly, and if so, how can this possibly be done without destroying the rest of America’s freedom? And where does the Constitution even authorize the federal government to control immigration? Naturalization is the prerogative of Congress; immigration is not.
Those who favor small government and free enterprise should oppose the overbearing state necessary to control immigration. Yes, commentators are right that other nations control immigration, but why should America be more like other nations? If Western Europe is a bad model for economic policy, why should our border policy mimic theirs?
Republicans are split on the Arizona law, but the underlying factor appears to be politics, not principle. This was not always the case. Ronald Reagan implemented the last major immigration amnesty, and if he’s good enough for today’s Republican Party to look upon with nostalgia (as opposed to the Bushes who followed him), why do today’s conservatives ignore one of Reagan’s most sensible policy prescriptions, in the area of immigration?
For more on immigration, see Jonathan Bean’s Race and Liberty in America and the Institute’s immigration archives.
Tags: American History, Immigration, The State 
Sovereign nations do what it takes to control their borders. Controlling a border is very rudimentary military science. The cheapest method is concertina, land mines, and machine gun towers. The president needs no legislation to order a general officer to secure the southern border. This would solve smuggling, illegal entry into the US, and protect US citizens.
As for immigration, I think we have enough Mexicans. How brought some folks from some other part of the world?
Oh yes, when people say we can’t round up all the people illegally in the US, they are wrong. This is also rudimentary military science. The military would get nine out of ten easily. It wouldn’t cost an arm and a leg either.
Reagan did some good things and some bad things. Amnesty was one of the bad things.
S. Cantrell | May 21, 2010 | Reply
That’s quite a militarized police state that you’ve constructed for us, S. Cantrell. It sounds remarkably like a military dictatorship.
OneWorlder | May 22, 2010 | Reply
@ S. Cantrell
That is nonsense, and you clearly didn’t read the article. Would you yourself be willing to go door-to-door rounding up the “illegals” (an arbitrary distinction), breaking up working families, separating kids from parents?
Or do you just call for anonymous jackboots to do all of your dirty work for you?
One more question: you implied in your first paragraph that reducing “illegal” immigration would protect US citizens. Protect them from what? What ratio of “illegal” immigrants commit crimes as compared to other segments of the population? The answer might surprise you.
Chase B | May 22, 2010 | Reply
I liken border jumping to Felony Trespassing—both crimes involve ignoring No Trespassing signs. . .
I love how you Criminal Trespasser Apologists always try to lump Legal and Illegal together. . .
Legal is where they walk up to the front door and knock, and are invited in. Illegal is where they jump the fence into your back yard, open the sliding door, and make themselves at home—regardless of your wishes.
There IS a difference. Learn it.
Reverend Draco | May 23, 2010 | Reply
Hypothetical: We adopt an open order policy. Name the negative outcomes? What qualifies as “enough” immigrants? Numbers, please.
I propose opening the border, to hell with the consequences.
Tristan Band | May 23, 2010 | Reply
Immigration is using governmental power to prohibit individuals from moving their own bodies over a space of land.
Sovereign territory is not property. It is just land where the government is entrusted to protect rights to life, liberty, and property. That is the only legitimate prerogative of government.
Immigration controls violates the liberty of a person to move freely as long as they do not violate another’s property rights and it violates property rights by prohibiting people from allowing certain people on their property.
And as for the proposal above what about the taxes needed to pay for all that? Landmines, watchtowers, and a massive roundup effort by the military (including the necessary investigations) would cost a ton of money. Keeping a (small) military as a government is justified to protect the people living in this nation from foreign attacks and so to protect life, liberty, and property. But since stopping people from just crossing to look for a new life does not do that, so by doing what you suggest you are supporting wrongly coercing American citizens to pay for this.
You can not be a libertarian and support immigration controls.
Liberty | May 23, 2010 | Reply
Ejecting ten million people from America would amount to totalitarianism.
Anthony Gregory | May 24, 2010 | Reply
Wow, shocking responses. I will dismiss the open border proposal. As for totalitarianism try to remember these people are here illegally. They are not citizens of the US. Unemployment is unacceptably high.
These people are a serious burden.
If we rummage through the historical record we can find examples of large numbers of people being moved to some other place forcibly by the military. The forced relocation of the five civilized tribes comes to mind, otherwise known as “The Trail of Tears”. In this case, it could be reasonably argued that the indians had a right to live where they were. To this day all reservation indians live under the absolute rule of the us government. So in the case of these people, they are indeed under totalitarian rule.
You must think that is just terrible, but consider what would have happened if no reservations were ever established, or if the indians of the southeast were not moved away. Blood would have flowed on both sides until there were no indians at all.
Mexico suffered greatly from the depredations of the Apache. Their solution was to offer a bounty paid in silver for the scalps of all Apaches, men, women and children. It worked, there are no Apaches in Mexico.
Mexico and the Us are not Totalitarian States. So utilizing such a word as totalitarianism in this case is way over the top.
The longer this problem goes on the worse the cure. No new laws need be enacted. The president only has to give the order.
S. Cantrell | May 24, 2010 | Reply
Anthony:
You make many good points, but it is something of a straw man to suggest that anyone is suggesting we could deport 10 million people. However, it is not unreasonable to think that if the government started doing a lot more deportations, millions of people would just return to their home countries. I believe that when President Eisenhower started stepping up deportations, a lot of people just packed up and went back home before the Feds arrived at their door.
I totally understand the libertarian argument for open borders, but the thought of tens of millions of people flooding into the country (which would certainly happen with the repeal of our immigration laws) does concern me. With our current welfare state in place, this could be a complete disaster.
Mark F. | May 24, 2010 | Reply
Gee, so many of you would be better off in North Korea. Machine gun nests, watch towers—you would have it all. For those of you adverse to people of color, you would have loved the former East Germany. Alas, one has fallen, the other is ready to implode from the high cost of these adult toys.
John Beach | May 25, 2010 | Reply
Anthony:
You make good points. Unfortunately, we live in a welfare state and most of these people come from countries that have had centralized planning of their economies and corruption as tenets of their nationhood. I just read your colleague’s book on Latin America (Alvaro Vargas Llosa) and find that these problems have existed since pre-Colombian times. If this were a free market nation, I would have no problem with open borders. However, the Democrats and other big-government types see these people as votes to mine for their centralization programs.
I would like to have your input.
Efrem | May 25, 2010 | Reply
Efrem and Mark F. trot out a couple of long-ago debunked “arguments”:
“Unfortunately, we live in a welfare state…” “With our current welfare state in place, this could be a complete disaster”
In my article “Ask the Right Question,” I pointed out (among other debunking) that the proper place to “defend” the welfare system (and public schools and hospitals) is at the point of service, not on some border hundreds of miles away. By requiring recipients of welfare (or schooling or hospitalization) to prove their citizenship, the people who do NOT USE those services are not subject to arbitrary inspection of their papers. Furthermore, there are ALREADY rules and regulations REQUIRING welfare workers to get such proof of citizenship, but THE GOVERNMENT WELFARE WORKERS ARE NOT FOLLOWING THEIR OWN RULES AND REGULATIONS!!
Reverend Draco hasn’t learned the difference between HIS property and OUR country. His analogy s****. I am NOT in his house, but I am in OUR country! I support his right to his property, but in turn I expect him to allow ME to invite anyone in the whole world to use OUR public roads—without being blocked—because *I* invited them to MY property so that I may entertain them and/or trade with them.
His “illegals” only have that status because the Federal government created “laws” that are unconstitutional and therefore “illegal” themselves. Anthony Gregory touched that subject in his article above and I covered it in detail in my article “Immigration control is UN-Constitutional!”
Also, in my article “Ask the Right Question” (link above), I point out that the “jumping the fence” started about 40 years ago when the Feds illegally put gates and armed guards on the regular border crossings. They created a problem where it did not exist before.
Efrem is “concerned” that “If this were a free market nation, I would have no problem with open borders”.
Many individuals of our time maintain that we should not abolish immigration control until the immigrants have assimilated into our society. And further, that we should continue to deprive them of liberty until we have (somehow) abolished government welfare. Or that we should not abolish government until we have learned to live together without higher authority.
These positions are worthy of the silly old fool, who resolved to AVOID the water until he had learned to swim. If men are to wait for liberty till they become wise and good in slavery they may indeed wait for ever.
Paraphrased by Dennis Lee Wilson from ~ Thomas Babington Macaulay (1800–1859):
If we are REALLY concerned about ENDING the violence that has been happening on our border with Mexico, perhaps we should review history and consider how our grandparents ended the violence from a problem that they created in their time. I worked that out in my recent article PROHIBITION FAILED–AGAIN! What is the Lesson of History?
Dennis Lee Wilson | May 28, 2010 | Reply