Immigration: Blessing or Curse?

(The Center for Faith in Politics posted a link to this story from National Review, and posed some questions related to the subject matter of that story. They asked, "Is immigration good for the country? Christian? Just another form of hospitality?" My response follows below.)

First of all, let me say that the federalization (and subsequent foreign deployment) of National Guard troops is despicable, and makes a mockery of our defensive abilities here domestically.

Let me say that as libertarian I am all for private forces (read: the people) defending their own stuff (or the property of individuals who have granted them the authority to act on their behalf) from aggressors. I have corresponded with Michael Gaddy of the Minuteman organization, and I discovered that his motivations for his involvement we largely based on the fact that home invasions, livestock theft and killing, and property destruction (i.e. fence cutting, etc.) are rampant along the US-Mexico border.

If the government is to exist, one of its central functions must be to protect property owners from aggressors. I do, however, believe that the government's immigration policies are to blame for this problem. Immigrants would not be crossing private lands at nearly the frequency at which they presently are doing so if immigration were unrestricted.

Focusing on national security for a moment, let me explain why an open immigration policy would likely augment our safety, rather than undermine it. Presently we have a whole black market industry in place where "coyotes" are paid a fee in exchange for their services in assisting would-be immigrants in crossing the border undetected. Were it not for the illegal status of most immigration activities, this cottage industry would not have developed at nearly the speed. Thus, any ill-intentioned foreigners who wish to cross undetected into our land to do us harm can easily blend in with the crowd of other illegals, and are far less likely to be identified than if they immigrated through a more efficient, less secretive, public right-of-way (roads, etc.).

With regards to the economic effects of immigration, we often hear complaints of "jobs lost" to immigrants. This has been a common "talking point" for the anti-immigration set since the "Know-Nothing" party of years past. This concern is mistakenly held by many. I say mistaken for a simple reason. This idea is based upon the assumption that there are a fixed, or in some sense limited number of jobs potentially available in this country. This is not so.

When an immigrant comes to this country, he or she is not simply taking a job, but also buying gasoline, paying rent, and paying the asking price on consumer goods. All of these activities
create wealth, and, consequently expand the economy which of course results in, you guessed it, more net jobs.

An additional benefit of this influx is that it drives down production costs for manufacturers, farmers, and other producers due to decreased labor costs. This drives down the price of consumer goods for all Americans, and, additionally, makes American enterprises far more globally competitive, which in turn brings in more business from around the world. All of this is good for America.

On an ethical level, I must cry foul at the immigration opponents' desire to use force against immigrants. What we are talking about here is, effectively, curtailing free exchange between labor and employers. Immigrants are not trespassers simply for coming into this country. They are invited laborers. By whom are they invited? By those who wish to employ them, to sell them goods, or to rent or sell them real property. This is not an explicit invitation of course, but money speaks louder than words. By arguing for a partial or total prohibition on immigration, we are talking about arresting people who are generally living in rented appartments, working jobs for grateful employers, and buying things from grateful business proprietors. Whence cometh the trespassing?

Of course, the anti-immigration lot are mostly concerned about protecting the cultural status quo. They do not want to see signs in Spanish, to hear people speaking Spanish in "their" country, or, frankly, to have any incentive to learn another tongue. These people think of America in terms of what they want to see and hear, not what rights we ought to recognize. They are effectively trying to exercise property rights over property that is not theirs. Oft-heard claims of increased crime rates in border areas are neatly circular, since this often refers to the crime of illegal immigration. Let's be honest here: are we really concerned that people who are willing and able to save up some capital, travel sometimes thousands of miles, endure untold hardships, and leave their home and family, all for the hope of better opportunity in the "land of plenty" are going to, upon arrival in their eden, suddenly become irresponsible criminals?

This issue, by the way, would be far easier to deal with if we didn't have immense tracts of land which presently "belong" to the government via the Bureau of Land Management, et al. If all land was either privately owned or available for homesteading, the trespassing claims would be far easier to adjudicate. Unfortunately, land which should be open to homesteaders is instead retained by a government which has done little (in most instances) to improve the land, and which, therefore, has no common-law claim to the land.

In conclusion, immigrants, both legal and illegal, contribute to our economy and to our standard of living. I welcome them. As a Christian, I welcome the cultural education that each immigrant is capable of bestowing upon me, because that makes my compliance with Christ's great commission far easier.