There are five key reasons I support and open border policy in America (or any free nation). This subject is one of the primary areas of disagreement I find myself in when talking to many other constitutionalists, conservatives, and conservative-turned-libertarians out there. I have always been confused by what seems to be an inconsistent position when compared to their other reasoning. This, as with most of my blog posts, is an attempt to present my reasoning to these and others to not only let them see as clearly as possible my own perspective, but to hopefully elicit a response from them that may either show the weaknesses of my reasoning or enlighten me by showing errors I have made in reasoning or fact or perhaps even guide me in strengthening my own position. I always have a little apprehension when posting something like this, as so many people whose opinions I respect and admire disagree with me on this subject. Perhaps I am just missing something, we shall see. So, without further digression into my emotional state, I will lay out my thinking.

Reason 1) Philosophical Honesty and Consistency:

Philosophical Belief A) I believe that all people are created/born equal. I believe this equality comes with certain inalienable rights. I believe that a free market is the best socio-economic mechanism to support such equality of freedom. I do not believe that these inalienable rights are only applicable to the citizens of a single nation, just as I do not believe that they only apply to certain races, creeds, or genders. I believe it is possible to forfeit one’s rights. When an individual shows their self unwilling to operate with respect of the rights of others by violating or encroaching on the rights of another, or refuses to operate within the boundaries of the laws set up to protect those rights, they have given up their rights by choosing to operate according to another code of life. The desire of a person to find a place of freedom and opportunity should not be restricted in a place that is free or tries to protect the rights of the free. Restricting our border is not one of the laws protecting the freedom of individuals.

Philosophical Belief B) I believe that those who value security over freedom deserve neither. I hear many who want restricted borders say they support such a policy for the sake of the security of our free nation. They also say that “freedom isn’t free” in support of maintaining  a military to protect this nation. I too believe that freedom is not free, and I that we need a military for the defense of this nation. The difference is, I believe that freedom is not free for anyone, including the regular citizens. Freedom comes with two things: Opportunity and Risk. These three are inseparable. You cannot remove risk without also removing freedom and restricting opportunity. This land of opportunity, land of the free, will always be a land of risk as well, unless we choose security over freedom and in removing our risk we find we have lost our freedom and opportunity as well. If we block our borders in fear, then we have chosen not to pay the price for freedom. If that is the type of people we have become, then what else are we willing to give up to calm our fear? If that is the type of people we have become, then we not longer deserve freedom.

Reason 2) Historical Precedent:

I hear many conservatives and constitutionalists pointing out that the times of greatest growth and prosperity in this country were tied to policies of the past where freedom was far greater. They recognize that mistakes were made, but that overall, wherever the principles of freedom were applied, we were propelled towards greatness. Most, however, fail to acknowledge the effect of our open borders during that time. Obviously that was one of the keys to our greatness, we are a nation proudly comprised almost entirely of immigrants. Without open borders, we would not exist as we do today. We remain one of the most sparsely populated in the world, yet we act as though we are full or times have changed too much for policies of the past to work in today’s world. Opponents of our constitution use this sort of thinking to chip away at our freedom all the time. Many arguments over the need for the second amendment come to mind. How is it that constitutionalists stoop to using the same line of argument just because it suits them?

Free markets care no more for borders than hurricanes. When the market needs something, such as labor, it will find it, wherever and however it is most economically available. When protectionism is used to manipulate the market, the market is no longer totally free. The market will still find a way, but it remains unconcerned about the borders. There are many reasons for our loss of the manufacturing sector in this country that has lead, in large part, to our decades-long trade deficit. I believe one of those reasons is the restriction of labor from entering the country. The effect of this is two-fold. 1) The fact that there are fewer laborers here drives up the cost of labor by reducing supply, making foreign nations more attractive from a cost standpoint. 2) The negative effects of other government actions on employment such as excessive support for unions, minimum wage laws, taxation levels on employers, forced insurances, and other labor restrictions and regulations have not been felt because we have not had the immigration levels we used to have, so the slowed growth in the labor markets caused by such government actions are not immediately seen. Instead of periods of higher unemployment caused by population growth which would be stabilized by a robustly growing economy and by emigration or a natural slowing of immigration, we instead have poisoned our economy, finding ourselves outpaced by other countries in technology and production, and leading to high rates of unemployment caused, not by growth in the population, or even shifts in technology that change labor requirements, but by a failing economy that is propped up by other nations so that we can be drained of as many resources as possible before we wake up.

History shows that the strongest supporters of restricted borders are those who have most recently immigrated. The greatest motivators for this and other protectionist policies are laziness and greed. We don’t want to have to compete against so many people. We want life to be easier, and we want all the success and prosperity for ourselves. We work hard for a while, then we want the ability to stop working once we have “made it”. It is little different from a leading company lobbying for regulations in their industry that either do not affect them, or make it more difficult for new competitors to enter the market. The short-term effect, of course, is that the company remains a leading company despite declining quality, solidifying the fortunes of those leading the company, but generally resulting in negative consequences for employees and customers. The long-term effect is an incompetent company that either fails entirely, or in the case of our current government, gets bailed out by taxpayer money, further damaging the average consumer. By engaging in protectionism, we are simply doing the same thing on a larger scale, sabotaging our own free market in the process.

Reason 3) Economic Impact:

The negative economic impacts of simplifying and opening up our immigration policy are predominantly the result of our safety nets. One of the arguments of those who oppose open immigration that I agree with is the financial burden of giving government benefits to large numbers of new citizens, as open immigration policies would certainly lead to. The temporarily higher unemployment would certainly be unsustainable. This, however, is not a problem of immigration, but of government benefits. At the very least, benefits would have to be restricted to persons who had put into the system for a certain period of time. Ideally, of course, such benefits would be eliminated over time. The safety nets we currently have are unsustainable anyway, without even considering a significant population growth, thus it is obvious that this issue is one that must be addressed through reforming the safety net system, rather than limiting immigration. When you clean up your own house, having guests over is not such a problem. In fact, opening the borders could lead to a wake-up call concerning the financially unsustainable nature of our current safety net system. Much like the motivation one feels to clean house when they know company is coming.

On the positive side, bringing in a large supply of labor willing to actually work could be the salvation and resurrection of the manufacturing and industrial sectors. The real costs of offshore operations are higher than many people realize, and cheaper labor here could bring a lot of that business back to this country. Furthermore, competition is always a benefit in a capitalist system. It forces everyone to work their hardest and be as innovative as possible, and the result is a growing and advancing society. A lot of our labor force could use a wake-up call. We do not seem to have the drive, strength, and innovation of previous generations. Certainly, a lot of other things will be required to bring back manufacturing in this country. Cheap labor is not the only reason most of it left our shores. Other costs and regulatory actions caused by our governmental policies have been motivators in driving companies offshore. Hopefully, much like the wake-up call to the financial burden of safety nets, open immigration could be the wake-up to the real reasons industries have been driven away, thereby accelerating changes in how our system treats businesses. The short-term effect will be rough, but all addictions (in this case protectionism) require a period of withdrawal, but in the end, health is improved.

Reason 4) The Golden Rule:

If I were in a country without freedom and opportunity, and I were able to leave it for another country that was free, I would want to be allowed to do so. If this country continues down the path it is on, I may be seeking such a free nation. Such a free nation would offer me no garauntees, but I would rather take my chances as a free man than live without freedom in a supposedly secure existence. A truly free country, as I mentioned in the beginning, would by definition be one that was not heavily restricting of immigration. Were my plight bad enough, I could even see entering another country in violation of their laws and taking my chances. I would prefer not to do this, but my loyalty is to freedom, not to law. We already have many bad laws here, I do not necessarily fault others for violating bad laws, or for seeking a better life, even if they increase their risk by living outside of the good will of the system they are in. I am not condoning law-breaking, but I do think that many times we talk about civil disobedience of laws that we find violate our freedoms and protesting our government, but we ridicule immigrants for not following everything to the letter. Again, all men are created equal.

Reason 5) Government Power:

Our Constitution commissions our government to protect the rights and freedoms of its people. Other aspects of power are intentionally limited in order to keep the government limited and small. To allow a government to, in effect, choose who “its people” are, is to grant them power that they should not have. They are there to protect and serve us, not to pick and choose who they protect and serve. I certainly understand that a large and sudden change in the number and culture of voters could be a risk to our republic, I submit that we have made it through that before, during the rapid immigration of the 1800s, and we can survive it again. In fact, there would be a very good chance that many of the new voters would be lovers of freedom, since that is why they came here, and they may help to override the votes of citizens who have lost sight of the real value and importance of freedom. Perhaps if a higher percentage of voters were those who did not take what we have here for granted, we would have a better chance of keeping what we have and getting back some of what we have lost.

The other aspect of government power is the power needed to enforce the immigration laws. Securing the border itself is expensive, particularly with our current immigration policy. There would be far fewer persons attempting to sneak across the border if it were easier to get through legally. As it stands, a real securing of our border would require a wall and surveillance, requiring a great deal of money and manpower. I have mentioned my distrust for a border wall before, so I will not go into that again here. As for enforcement once persons have already crossed the border, social security numbers, national ID cards, and various other mechanisms that all seem to me to be a bit too much invasion of privacy have to be in place for effective enforcement. I think the cost and the violation of privacy could be avoided by removing the restrictions on immigration.

A note on terrorism: One of the biggest and most used arguments for closely guarding the border (particularly the southern border) and policing the populace is the fear of terrorists, and the ease with which they have and potentially could cross our borders. I view these arguments much the way I do the anti-gun arguments. A secured border may make it more difficult for terrorists to enter the country, just as a gun ban makes guns harder to get, but it does not prevent it entirely, and the increase in security is not worth the loss in freedom and finances. Also, threat of terrorism has been used far too much in this country and in others throughout history to allow massive power grabs by the government allowed by the people because of their fear. It is another matter of desiring security over freedom. If we allow the actions of terrorists, such as the tragic events if 9/11, to influence us to give up our freedom, then the goal of destroying America that those terrorists had has indeed been accomplished. We cannot permit our fear to rob us of our lives.

What I am supporting is not a complete lack of watchfulness over our borders. It is a removal of the restrictions on immigration. A basic background check, such as is possible depending on the country they come from, and a close eye on the border is fine. In fact, with the non-criminal types allowed in, those trying to sneak in will truly be the ones with something to hide. The current resources for enforcement would not be spread so thin, and what enforcement was needed would be far easier to accomplish successfully. I am also not in support of catering to immigrants by spending government resources on language changes or special infrastructure. We are a melting pot, we do not need to preserve any culture but our own. It is up to the immigrants to take care of their roots and culture. The market can handle whatever changes would be required in the private industry. We need not fear new people, nor do we need to go out of our way to bring them here. We only have to be free, and the rest will take care of itself.

Life is a competition, play to win, but no cheating. In the long run, if you win by keeping others from playing, then you are a loser already.

4 Responses to “Why I Support Open Immigration”