Disagreement With Collectivist Anti-Business Conservatives on Immigration
by Scott Lazarowitz: The
Possibility of a Ron Paul Third-Party Run for President
are up in arms over Barack Obama’s "executive order" regarding
and deportation laws, his granting
amnesty to about a million young people whose parents brought
them over to the U.S. when they were children. "He’s pandering
to the Hispanics in an election year," they cry. "Obama
is inviting more ‘invaders’ into the country, a whole new group
of voters for Democrats!" and so forth.
Obama’s move is political. Does Obama really care about the
lives of all these people, and about protecting them from immoral
deportations? Not really, given how deportations have skyrocketed
in record numbers during his administration.
But very briefly
for those worried
about Obama’s Executive Orders: Yes, there is a huge problem if
those orders involve further
dictatorial intrusions, restrictions on our liberty, or property
or wealth confiscations.
But I have
no problem if such an Executive Order involves ignoring or nullifying
existing intrusions, restrictions or confiscations.
When an act
of positive law, an ordinance, government-imposed mandate or restriction
violates someone’s life and liberty, then that is an immoral
act of positive law (enforced by armed police), and it must be repealed
matter who repeals it, Congress or the President, struck down by
courts, nullified by the people – whatever – or whether "proper
constitutional procedures" are followed. If something is an
immoral act of aggression against innocent human beings, get rid
of it, immediately!
and morally, the conservatives who see entrants not officially authorized
by the U.S. government as "invaders," do not realize how
their views of State-controlled exclusion
support the federal government’s central planning of the population
as far as who gets in and who doesn’t. And with such central planning,
they thus support the collective ownership of the entire territory.
However, when the collective assumes ownership and control of an
entire territory, then everything within the territory goes
with that collective (or State) control.
It is impossible
to empower a collective population with that kind of group territorial
ownership but at the same time say that each individual, each parcel
of "private" property, and each business within the territory
is privately owned, and that each private owner has ultimate
control and sovereignty of one’s property, business, and one’s life.
In reality, each individual is merely "renting space,"
and is owned by the collective.
Part of this
communistic approach to things by the conservatives can be seen
in their apparent obsession with citizenship. Do you see
how some conservatives are obsessed with Obama’s citizenship, like
that matters? Oh, the constitution says something about "eligibility,"
but the Constitution
itself is extremely
But being a
"citizen" really does go with that idea of collective
ownership of the territory and of everything and everyone within
Is an individual
more a citizen of the government than of the country or of
the territory? Unfortunately, many people conflate
the country of America with the government.
is really a euphemism for how the government owns us. And
the more imperialistic and hegemonic the U.S. government has become,
the more it has claimed ownership over other territories, foreign
lands and economies, and the foreigners themselves.
What we have
now is a contradiction of the principles of liberty and self-ownership,
as referenced in the American Declaration
are many narcissistic people who want to believe that the individual’s
rights to life and liberty mentioned in the Declaration only
apply to Americans. But no, all human beings have inalienable rights
to life and liberty.
So, if we accept
the premise that "all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," and
that such rights are natural, inherent rights that each individual
has as a human being, then we would have to acknowledge that of
course all human beings have a right to freedom of movement,
freedom of travel, and the right to migrate anywhere in the world,
as long as they don’t trespass on private property.
consumers of goods and services in America, we should want
to have as many people migrating to America as we can have. The
more immigrants, the more people who are available not only as laborers,
but as businesspeople and entrepreneurs to employ more Americans.
issue shows the conservatives’ contempt for consumers, and for private
property rights and freedom of contract. The conservatives approve
of the intruder government’s seizure of and control over private
businesses and contracts between employers and laborers, at the
ultimate expense of consumers.
planning intrusions not only violate the property and contract rights
of both business owners and workers in the moral sense, but such
government intrusions have shown to be impractical, and cause distortions
chaos, as Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises would call it.
And as Future of Freedom Foundation President Jacob Hornberger noted
Socialism versus Freedom and the Free Market,
out that the central planner, no matter how brilliant, can never
possess the requisite knowledge and expertise to plan and direct
a complex market activity. One of the primary reasons for that
inability is that market conditions, which turn on ever-changing
subjective valuations of people, are changing constantly, and
they’re different in every particular locale across the land.
With the idea
of immigration freedom, Hornberger compares the freedom to travel,
work and establish voluntary employment contracts with how Americans
of different U.S. states interact:
look at the United States, the largest free-trade and free-movement
zone in history. People are free to cross borders of the different
states. No border patrol. No customs. No interstate checkpoints.
No passports. No papers. It works the same way when people cross
from county to county.
have to be that way. The Framers could have said, "Each state
shall have the sovereign prerogative of controlling its borders
from the people of other states." Thank goodness they didn’t
do that, because if they had, there is no doubt that many a state
government would today be exercising that power, to protect its
state from competing workers and producers …
principle of free trade and free movements of people that characterize
the domestic United States is what should be adopted for international
borders as well: people freely crossing back and forth, visiting,
touring, buying, selling, investing, opening businesses, working,
and living their lives as easily as people do domestically.
The true moral
defense of private property rights and contract rights in immigration,
labor and employment is this: Each individual has a right of ownership
of one’s own life. The businessperson has started one’s business
with one’s own effort, labor and capital. Therefore, that individual
has a God-given right to do with one’s own property whatever one
wishes, as long as one does not violate the persons or property
that any third party who interferes with that individual’s business,
including the contracts that such a businessperson establishes voluntarily
with one’s customers and employees, that third party is being an
intruder, a trespasser.
and trespassers include government bureaucrats and their armed agents
attempting to enforce artificial socialist controls over the lives,
property and businesses of others.
And from the
laborers’ perspective, the foreign worker has right to work, earn
an income to support one’s family, and has a right to travel as
long as one doesn’t trespass on private property, and has a right
to establish voluntary contracts with employers.
have a right to trade their wealth with the businesspeople and seek
the best quality service or goods at the best price, and it’s no
one else’s business.
collective- and government-ownership of the territory, businesses,
labor and the people effects in an egregious diminution of liberty
and is a disservice to consumers.
socialist, central planning control over businesses forces the consumers
to be served by only non-immigrant workers, many of whom may be
less qualified than immigrant workers may be.
In a free society
of private property and the sanctity of private contracts, the
consumers would rule and be better served by the producers of
goods and services, the employees of whom being the best available
workers according to the producers’ own judgments and the
consumers’ satisfaction – but NOT according to non-productive government
prefer the current situation of socialist government controls, economic
central planning, restrictions, intrusions, even police state policies
such as the Arizona "Your Papers, Please" law, and arrests
and deportations, in the immigration issue.
people erroneously view immigrants as draining America’s wealth
and productivity and making us less safe in our communities. I would
agree that the welfare state has acted as a magnet for the foreign-born
But at the
same time, America had also been a magnet for the very productive
and motivated amongst foreigners wanting to come here for a better
life for themselves and for their families. (But not so much now
foreigners, or for native-born
In fact, a
study has shown that, with large changes in immigration laws
since 1965, there is "no evidence that (immigrants) have reshaped
the social fabric in harmful ways," and concluded that "America
is neither less safe because of immigration nor is it worse off
really have reshaped America’s social fabric are the welfare state
policies of FDR and LBJ, and government’s seizure of control over
education, which have added to the destruction of the family and
the discouragement of independent living and critical thinking among
the general population.
worse off economically not because of immigrants but because of
the obscene growth of the government sector, which siphons
wealth from the productive sector.
is worse off economically because of government’s intrusions in
Americans’ economic lives, with taxation-thefts and regulatory trespasses,
and especially because of government bureaucrats’ imbecilic fiscal
and monetary central planning.
is less safe not because of foreign immigrants but because of the
state, and because of U.S. government foreign policy, which
for many decades – certainly well before 9/11 – has consisted of
invading and occupying foreign lands, interfering with foreign peoples’
business, and bullying and provoking foreigners.
But when some
of these collectivist-conservatives on the radio bark about immigrants
as "intruders" who "don’t belong in our country,"
there is a definite need for clarification on who the real intruders
The ones who
really don’t belong in America are the communist-oriented non-productive
bureaucrats in Washington. The legislators who make laws that violate
our liberty, their aides who actually write the bad laws that are
really meant to favor special interests and established businesses,
the contractors, the government "workers" with their bloated
In other words,
the non-productive government sector, many of whom are hostile
to the very principles of private property and individual freedom
that made America the once-great nation that it was.
Those are the
real intruders, the true foreign invaders occupying our precious
lands. They are the ones who should be given a dishonorable
discharge, deported, exiled, given the heave-ho, and taken away
to places more acceptable to them, such as North Korea or Iran or
Cuba, rather than their continually making America into their Soviet-style
police-state paradise of plunder and pillage and siphoning off the
hard labor of the productive class.
Washington prison wardens really ought to cut the government’s shackles
that tie us down, enslave and imprison us. So too should they cut
the shackles of the entrepreneurial immigrants who would otherwise
start businesses, provide jobs, and provide goods and services to
consumers (that non-productive government bureaucrats don’t
are now realizing how impossible it is for Washington central planners
to run things in a territory as large and populated as the U.S.
So, eventually we will have to break up into smaller sections or
just return sovereignty and independence to each state. Obviously,
migration into states would then be handled much more easily.
Obama has only begun to set people free, first with the immigration
issue. Maybe next by ending the illicit
and immoral drug war. (Or maybe
But as long
as Executive Orders set people free, how could anyone in
his right mind oppose them?
Lazarowitz [send him
mail] is a commentator and cartoonist, visit his
© 2012 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in
part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Best of Scott Lazarowitz