Immigration Reform: Bringing the Arguments Back Home

Originally published: Facebook · May 7, 2010
Addendum I: 2019 · re: “kids in cages” news cycle
Addendum II: 2025 · re: state-incentivized immigration and market distortion

I gave up on politics a long time ago, but I’ve been thinking about immigration off and on for the last decade. The passage of SB1070 in my home state of AZ really helped me bring most of my thoughts together in a (more) cohesive fashion. The recent wave of news on the immigrant detention camps has led me to want to re-share these thoughts.

As some may or may not know I am not particularly a fan of government in general and consider myself an anarchist, and so, while most of my issues with immigration laws will probably be viewed through that lens, I think even minarchists, or “Constitutionalists,” miss something when dealing with the issue of immigration and will try to address as much as possible through other lenses as well.

Roderick Long posted a nice little quip on his blog a few years ago that included a quote stating that the Constitution merely recognizes natural, or God-given, rights and does not grant any rights itself (ironically, he also tied it into immigration, and quite nicely, I might add). While I fully agree with the sentiment expressed on his blog, I’m going to take this a slightly different direction than he did.

A Framework First

However, before I get into it, let me get a few things cleared up first:

Personally, I don’t really care what the Constitution says or doesn’t say. I believe that rights are rights and no government can define or redefine them. I believe in the non-aggression axiom, or in simple, easy to understand terms, I find Richard Maybury’s Two Laws: “Do all you have agreed to do.” and “Do not encroach on others or their property.” to be satisfactory as a starting point on understanding natural rights and in determining whether a particular law is a good or bad (just/unjust) law (for those who do care what the Constitution or government says). If a law contradicts or encourages the breaking of one of these Two Laws then it is a bad law and infringes on natural rights. Implied in these laws are the rights of property, association, and the pursuit of happiness (among others).

As someone who, for a large portion of my life, was interested in becoming a politician (I cringe at that thought now), I am familiar enough with the Constitution to state that I do agree with the part of the quote from Roderick Long’s blog mentioned above in that the Constitution merely recognizes existing, natural, rights, and does not create or give government the power to create rights. I would also argue that the sentiment or intent was for the Constitution to protect the rights of the People from the government (a point many, or even most, would agree with), though its very existence and the government it creates (or authorizes) is a prima facie violation of those very rights it claims to protect.

The Constitutional Question

The Constitution tries to separate the power of government between the federal government and the states. And this is one point that has been brought up often in defense of SB1070 several times in that the argument goes, “AZ had to act because the feds dropped the ball on immigration reform long ago.” I won’t dispute that the feds have had their hand in immigration policy and even have an entire department dedicated to such policy and enforcement, but this argument in defense of the AZ bill led me to wonder what the feds Constitutional role in immigration policy really is. And, like so much else, the answer is not much, if any at all.

Only one clause has anything to do with immigration policy, and that is found in Section 8 (Powers of Congress) where it says, “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization…”

Now, depending on how you define “naturalization” will depend on whether you think the feds have any role or not, but my interpretation is that naturalization is the process of granting citizenship to a person who already resides in your country (or territory or whatever) and history seems to support that idea as the first naturalization laws in the US were for people who had lived in the US for a minimum of 5 years (increased to a minimum of 14 years residency 3 years later and then repealed back to 5 in another 4 years). So, I find this argument (excuse) disingenuous as immigration policy is clearly a state issue and not a federal issue (even if the feds have taken it on over the last several decades with congressional laws and INS/DHS/ICE policies) as the feds can only naturalize those who have already immigrated — not set policies on who can or cannot immigrate.

Even more so, I find the whole concept of the border to be entirely a states issue, if it is to be an issue at all. Without the individual state borders the national border does not exist in the first place. Without AZ, the US border no longer has that same connection with Mexico, its border there only exists because of AZs border with Mexico. Now, I find the whole idea of national borders to be silly anyhow. It’s an imaginary line that arbitrarily separates people and property. What is the difference between the border between Phoenix & Scottsdale and the border with AZ and Mexico (except for the fence and armed guards)?

Let me once again, step back into a new train of thought before continuing this argument so as to tie things all together a little nicer at the end.

Property, Association, and the Real Issue

The Constitution also alludes to the right to own private property, and this is, to me, one of the more important rights a person has. Unfortunately, this is another area where the feds have imposed and have only made a mess out of the immigration issue. In simple terms, and especially with regards to the sentiments on borders expressed above, if a person is on your property it is either by invitation (whether you’ve hired them as an employee for a specified wage or are having them over for a cup of tea) or by trespass. The latter is a violation of one of the Two Laws and the former falls under your right to freely associate.

As I mentioned above with the Two Laws, the freedom (right) of association is a natural right that the USG (US government) claims to recognize. While not specifically listed in the Constitution, most people assume it is and credit it thus, and even the Supreme Court has held that such a right is implied in the first amendment. This is what separates the border between Phoenix & Scottsdale and the border between AZ & Mexico. In one (Phoenix & Scottsdale) the government isn’t restricting your ability to associate while in the other (AZ & Mexico) the government is restricting your ability to freely associate (even if your association is only for purposes of employment, for example).

So, I think it is clear, that not only is immigration policy an encroachment on both property rights and association rights (thus bad laws to begin with), but that immigration policy is also seemingly unconstitutional as well in that it violates the first amendments freedom of association and the 10th amendments as the power of regulating immigration is not granted to congress in the first place. That said, just because the states have the Constitutional authority to regulate immigration, I do not believe it is wise, or right, of them to do so as clearly pointed out above, immigration policy itself is an encroachment and violation of multiple natural rights.

So now that I’ve got that out of the way let me just clarify in short that all immigration laws are strictly policies that restrict the freedom of association and how one can use their own property.

Addressing the Common Arguments

With that said, let me address some of the arguments I’ve seen in defense of SB1070 and Trumps immigration policies, such as:

• “Illegals are ILLEGAL by definition"
• "Illegal immigrants bring increased crime"
• "Illegal immigrants don’t speak English"
• "So and so was killed by an illegal"
• "So and so was kidnapped by an illegal"
• "Illegals take American jobs"
• "Illegals don’t pay taxes"
• "Illegals clog up vital resources (ER, etc…)"

"Illegals are ILLEGAL by definition”

As has clearly been defined above, immigration law clearly fails the test of the Two Laws and as a bad law; there is no reason to follow or to hold anyone accountable to such a law. The law is a violation of rights itself anyone using this argument needs to grow a pair and stand up for rights (yours and others).

”Illegal immigrants bring increased crime”

There is a large amount of data floating around out there about crime rates, incarceration rates, legal and illegal immigrants population trends, etc. All of the data I have seen seems to hint at there being a decrease in crime rates during a period of time in which both legal and illegal immigration rates increased. Which would strongly hint at immigrants not bringing an increase in crime to an area. The Center for Immigration Studies (They are fairly strong advocates of a very strong immigration policy that heavily restricts legal immigrants and fully restricts illegal immigrants) has a report about Immigration and Crime and conclude the report with the following quote: “I would say that, in conclusion, this report first demonstrates the difficulty in trying to come to a clear conclusion about immigrant criminality…. some people seem to think immigrants have high rates of crime while others are equally as sure that it’s low. But, in our view, anyone who asserts that the issue is settled and that they know the answer to this question is simply unaware of all of the new information.” This argument also ignores the fact that illegal immigrants have increased risks associated with committing crimes (deportation and additional charges), so have a decreased incentive to commit crimes in the first place.

For argument sake, let’s assume that crime rates are increased with the increase of illegal immigrants. Now, first it should be noted that by “crime rate” I’m referring to what the press or the government would refer to as “crime” and not ignoring non-criminal crimes or “crimes” of ignoring bad laws that violate rights. If it is criminal to just exist without filling and receiving an approval stamp on the proper paperwork, as the immigration laws establish for legal immigration, then what incentive is there to operate in the normal market sphere? This whole “illegal by definition” attitude creates a black market of vigilante justice, which in the eyes of the government is just more crime. If I’m illegal and in violation of the law just for existing and someone encroaches on my property by way of theft, it is to my disadvantage to involve the authorities as I am then at risk of being arrested or deported for my illegal status. The only way to receive justice is to “steal” my property back, or to exert some sort of pressure (possibly even violent pressure in defense of my property, person, or family). In the eyes of the government I am illegal and have now committed a second crime in trying to achieve justice. This also supports the oft-overlooked data that suggests that illegals seem to have a higher percentage of crimes committed against them.

Obviously, if you want accurate crime rate statistics, as they are currently illegal, most of their actions can be considered criminal, so when comparing crime rates you’d want to separate out that which already taints the pool for an accurate comparison. You’d also want to sort out crimes that are necessary to maintain their ability to reside in the US (such as identity theft (discussed below to a limited degree), black market trade, etc…) as those crimes are part and parcel with their being able to continue living here and harm no one else.

It is the stories of increased crime in AZ (despite the stats clearly showing decreased crime rates) of rampant kidnappings, human trafficking, drug wars, farmers murdered on their property near the border, etc… that are also used in defense of these atrocious policies. One thing that people tend to overlook amongst all of the emotionally charged anecdotal stories is that, first, the crime rate (and violent crime rate) is down. Second, the data seems to suggest that it is immigrants (legal and illegal) that are higher risk of being victimized in one of these kidnappings or border farm murders (and yes, I know they are trespassing, and this is an argument for another day, but trespassing hardly justifies murder or finds killing another human being a proportional response). The problem with anecdotal stories is that they are entirely emotionally charged and can be manipulated. For example, in a city I used to live in, a teenager was killed in a car accident when he fell asleep at the wheel and crashed going around a turn where he failed to turn and drove off the road. In response, the city lowered the speed limit of the road behind the outcry from the emotional response about the dangerous curve in the road. This accident obviously had nothing to do with the curve or the speed limit, but with the young man falling asleep, but the emotionally charged and distraught population wanted/needed to see justice (or action in this case) and wholly backed the change in speed limit. These stories of kidnappings and murdered farmers serve the same purpose. While tragic and heart-wrenching, they are not reasons to enact new laws that trample rights, when in fact it is already the rights trampling laws (immigration policy, war on drugs, etc) that most likely provoked such criminal actions to begin with, especially when so few details are known of the particulars surrounding the farmers killing.

The other problem with anecdotal stories is that they work both ways. I personally knew three illegals in AZ and none of them are from Mexico, or South America. One is from Canada, one is from Europe, and the other is from the Middle East. Two of them were originally here on work or student visas (legally) and have had their visas expire. Both of them have been trying to renew, but are stuck in a bureaucratic nightmare that has seen more delays than imaginable and finds both of them in a position of risk of deportation. Yet, because they both “look” the part, neither of them are at much risk of being stopped and asked for their papers. The third just gave up on trying to go through the legal channels and knows that the risk is low as their appearance also fits the part. Then there are two others in similar situations I know through friends that have tried or are trying to maintain “legality” but have either already been deported (to Canada) or is currently facing deportation (to Europe). There was another immigrant I knew from South Africa and Greece who followed all laws, had proper visas, etc… owned a business, employed multiple people, had his children in private schools. This man was paying into the tax system on a personal and business level, was about to open a 2nd location, and didn’t take from the system (had private healthcare and sent his kids to private school). The exact kind of immigrant the government claims to want. Yet he and his family was deported for not having 60% of his staff at manager level or above. I reached out to several political connections at state and federal levels, even to someone I knew high up a DHS at the time, but even with letters from this DHS executive, a state rep and a senator, they were still deported back to South Africa (though they moved to Greece shortly after).

This also underscores that, while most of AZs immigrants (legal and illegal) are from Mexico, a large number of illegals in AZ are from Canada. For those that aren’t familiar in the fall and winter, AZ gets an influx of seasonal visitors from the north. Locals refer to them as “snow birds.” They arrive in droves beginning around October and leave in droves Around April. What many don’t pay much attention to is that a large number of these seasonal visitors make their trips more permanent as well. Now, I’m not trying to say that AZ has as many Canadians as Mexicans, but that this is also a fairly common source of illegal immigrants in this state and the nation, not to mention other immigrant groups (Italians, Irish, Portuguese, Chinese, Indian, etc…).

”Illegal immigrants don’t speak English”

Which brings us to the defense that “Illegal immigrants don’t speak English.” Honestly, so what? Yes, it’s convenient when you go somewhere to not have any communication barriers, but did you ever think about it from their side? Do you think they enjoy not being able to understand you? I can assure you they are just as frustrated at not being able to communicate as you are. I don’t have any stats in front of me, and I’m sure they’ve changed since I last looked at them, but some time ago I saw English immersion stats for AZ and the rate at which illegals learned English was fairly impressive. This is hardly noticed by those encountering the Spanish speaking immigrants in service positions as once they learned English they were often promoted or moved on to other jobs and were usually replaced by another low-wage Spanish speaking individual. This argument also underscores a prejudice against the culture of the immigrant. This was something that the Chinese immigrants of the late 1800s dealt with, and the Irish and German immigrants of the early 1800s dealt with. However, the Irish and Germans also had two advantages. First, in that they came from the same places as America’s founders and looked like the rest of the current civilian population. Second, in that the immigration laws were fairly open and made more sense than our current policies. They were still harassed, but at least if they learned the language they could blend in and avoid the harassment; whereas the poor Hispanic immigrants have to face America’s backwards racial prejudices in their attempts to become American citizens.

”Illegals take American jobs”

So, that shows that “Illegals take our jobs” then. Not so fast. I’m not going to get too much into the numbers here as it has been done so much better in so many other places, but I will quickly point out that this is a clearly economic argument focusing on a free market for wage seekers and employers to associate freely and allow the market to determine the wage best suited for particular jobs. Just because immigrants (and yes, most of them here happen to be Hispanic, but I feel the need to once again point out that they aren’t all Hispanic) are more likely to accept low-wage jobs demonstrates only that immigrants are willing to work harder for less as they try to get their feet on the ground. Much like how in the ongoing economic crisis many people are taking more menial jobs to keep their feet on the ground. It’s more of a “take what you can get” approach than anything else. Anyone using this argument in defense of immigration policy is slapping freedom of association and the natural state of supply & demand in the face. In fact, it is my contention that the minimum wage laws do more to hurt American jobs than the immigrants do.

”Illegals don’t pay taxes”

But “Illegals don’t pay taxes!” Good for them. I try my best to not have to pay taxes also. I order online whenever I can, pay small shipping fees and have small, empty boxes, shipped to various addresses around the US while I walk out of the store with my goods in hand, etc. Now, some will try to argue that this paying of taxes is important for whatever reason, blah, blah, blah. Taxes do nothing but fund rights abridgments. Taxation is itself a rights abridgment as it is coercive theft. If you want services, voluntarily pay for them, don’t coerce others through force to pay for your pet projects. This is another argument for another time, so I’ll leave it at that before continuing to the aspect of immigrants and taxes. However, it is a fairly known fact that a large number of illegals DO pay taxes. Identity theft is high amongst illegals as they try to move up from the low wage day labor type positions into higher wage positions that often require some citizenship documentation. I’m not as concerned with the identity theft by illegals as with identity theft on its own, as most of the identities stolen are those of deceased persons so as to avoid being caught by double paying taxes under the same SS# as another US employee — and in many cases the identity information is sold to them by the family of the deceased. This being another area where it is obvious that USG regulation has created a black market. IF the USG would just allow people and companies to transact business on their own terms this whole issue of immigration would go away.

”Illegals clog up vital resources (ER, etc.)”

And the last argument I’ve heard in defense of this bill and immigration policy in general is “Illegals clog up vital resources (ER, Police, etc.).” First of all, there are a few different angles this argument takes. One is economic in nature, another is prejudicial (or even racist), and the other is political. I’m going to quickly dispel the economic argument without rehashing it all here and note that in short that the city of Tucson, one of the cities most cited as an example for why this reform was needed In the first place, just voted with 83% in favor of suing the state to repeal this law. The Mayor cited economics as one of the reasons behind the lawsuit (as well as racial profiling issues). I’d also like to point out that the market, when not prevented from working (as is possibly the case here with many hospitals not being able to adjust pricing if they accept government insurance plans or being able to turn people away who cannot pay or don’t have insurance.

Addendum I — 2019, re: “kids in cages”

The arguments above remain unchanged by the more recent news cycle around immigrant detention facilities. The structural critique is about the policy framework, not which administration is currently implementing it.

What these people, and children, are going through is something no one should ever have to deal with. Especially anyone coming to America. A nation founded on immigrating for a better life. A nation built on the backs of poor and destitute looking for a way out and for opportunity. A supposed Christian nation that should be showing love and hospitality, not hate and indifference.

Addendum II — 2025, re: state-incentivized immigration and market distortion

Fifteen years on, the argument hasn’t changed, but the situation has gotten more complicated in a way worth addressing directly, because the loudest voices on immigration right now are making some arguments that aren’t entirely wrong, even if they’re drawing the wrong conclusions from them.

The core issue today (the source of much of the hostility that wasn’t as present in 2010) is that the state has actively incentivized immigration in ways that distort everything the original argument above describes. When the government funds travel in, housing, food assistance, healthcare, and job placement priorities for immigrants at a level that exceeds what natural citizens receive, it is no longer simply failing to restrict free association. It is now paying for what amounts to trespassing, at taxpayer expense, while simultaneously driving up housing costs, consumer goods prices, and competition for jobs in ways that harm the very communities these programs claim to help.

This is not an argument for immigration restriction. It is an argument against government intervention in immigration. The same argument, applied in the other direction. The problem isn’t the immigrants. The problem is the state distorting what should be a clean and simple market signal: someone is either on your property by invitation or they’re not. When the government starts paying people to be somewhere, subsidizing the trespass, and creating a parallel benefit structure that functions as a competitive advantage over citizens who pay into the system, it manufactures resentment that wouldn’t otherwise exist and causes real economic harm.

This is the same mechanism as the 2008 financial crash, the Great Depression, and every other crisis that looks on the surface like a market failure but is in fact a government distortion failure. When the state incentivizes an action through subsidy, you get more of that action than the market would naturally produce, misallocated resources, rising prices in affected sectors, and a political backlash that scapegoats the participants instead of the policy (summarized as more immigrants, less assimilation, coupled with higher taxes and inflation, plus clogged resources). The immigrants aren’t the problem. The subsidy is. And the correct response is to eliminate the subsidy not to militarize the border, separate families, or deport people who came here following the incentive structure the government itself created. Without the subsidy, those who can’t afford to be here can go back to where they came from or try somewhere else, like up to 1/3 of immigrants to the US used to do before the 1960s.

The honest truth remains as simple as it was in 2010: someone is either on your property by invitation or they’re trespassing. The government paying them to be there, and then punishing them for responding to that incentive, is not justice. It is a mess entirely of the government’s own making.