Capitalism Magazine > Politics > Immigration  Newsletter | Feed | Support Us | Blog | Search
  


Immigration: Why the Debate is Tragically Flawed

by Michael J. Hurd  (March 4, 2009)

In a free country, it’s self-evident that there’s room for everyone. This is because free people are also, by definition,self-responsible. The only people who need to be kept out of a free country are violent criminals and others who are objective, physical threats. In a totalitarian country, nobody would want to get in, so, in that case, immigration is a moot point. But the United States, while certainly not totalitarian, is no longer entirely free, either. It’s a mixture of individual freedom/personal responsibility and, at the same time, a land of freebies and a haven for moochers who want to live off the government.

In a welfare state based partially on giveaways and partially on freedom, immigrants start to become a threat.

This is because the personally responsible don’t want more moochers, and understandably so, as they’re already paying the way for moochers who already live here. And the moochers who already live here are naturally threatened by having to compete with more moochers coming over the border.

The difficulty today is that it’s politically incorrect to talk this way.

We don’t want to hear words like “moochers” and (especially) “personally responsible.” Because of this, we’re forced to regard immigrants as either one or the other. Liberals speak of immigrants as if they're all virtuous, self-responsible people, while conservatives speak of them all as evil, mooching threats. Both are unfounded generalizations. More than that, it’s not immigrants who are the problem, any more than it’s natural born citizens who are the problem.

The problem is with the moochers (alien and/or homegrown alike), and the enabling/codependent government that makes such mooching possible. I wish there was a way to get rid of all the moochers, illegal, legal, alien and naturally born, and keep all the self-responsible—regardless of their country of origin. Better yet, I wish we had a free country once again. The immigration debate would be resolved, and self-responsibility would be the dominant trend. Nobody, whether born in North Dakota or El Salvador, could use the force of government to live off of another.

People who claim that immigrants “take jobs away” are all wrong. The premise of this accusation is that there are a finite number of jobs.

But in a free, productive and rational society, there is no limit to what needs to be done. There is no limit to consumer demand and there is no limit to the requirements of a work force to make it all possible. If immigrants take over jobs in one sector of the economy, the increase in overall productivity will lead to more demand and greater need for better types of jobs in other parts of the economy.

If the economy continues to sour because of the threat of increased taxation, increased government spending (especially through national health insurance), and increased regulation (e.g., in the real estate market),then employment (along with all economic growth) will suffer.

But, it won’t be the fault of immigrants. Immigrants will merely be the scapegoat for politicians who seek to undermine and hamper the free economy with ever-more taxation and regulation.

It is true that some politicians support immigrants for the wrong reasons.

Politicians who feel they have the most to gain will naturally support policies such as government welfare, government health care and public education benefits for illegal immigrants. The ferocious debate over these matters tends to boil down to two sides, both of them wrong. 

One side argues that, “These immigrants shouldn’t get benefits. Benefits are for legal Americans, not illegal Americans.”

The problem is that nobody is morally entitled to these forcibly attained benefits. The Constitution does not provide for a health/welfare/education state, and robbing some of the population to force them to pay for the health care, welfare and education of others is, in fact, nothing more than tyranny.

 

The conservatives propose that we keep the tyranny in place, but only for natural born Americans. The liberals (in what is clearly a grab for more political power) say we should expand the tyranny to include those from other countries, legally here or not. So long as the conservatives concede the point that such tyranny is warranted and justified in the first place, their liberal opponents will continue to win in the long run.

 

I sympathize with some of the conservatives on this issue, because many of them state or imply that the end of the road is some kind of U.N. system of world government in which Americans will eventually be taxed and forced to pay for the welfare benefits of everyone on the planet.

That is, of course, the end of the road where welfare state liberalism will take us, if left unchecked as it is now.

Yet conservatives are naïve if they think that supporting such a state in America, while containing it only to America, will work.

 

Tyranny is like cancer. If you enable its growth anywhere, it will spread everywhere. There are also the issues of driver’s licenses and voting rights for illegal aliens. Conservatives are, of course, right that such policies are brazen violations of the law. You can’t be both a citizen and a non-citizen at the same time. The government cannot declare some individuals ineligible for citizenship on the one hand, while at the same time treating them as legal citizens when it suits their political (read: vote getting)purposes. Once again, the rational solution would be to simply allow everyone into the country who isn’t a violent criminal or any other kind of objective, physical danger.

 

The country and the economy can only benefit from the entry of rational, productive and self-responsible people. That’s what brought this country to greatness in the first place. We are a nation of immigrants.

Unfortunately, since the country is now part welfare state moochers and part productive people, you cannot guarantee that all those wanting to get into the country are self-responsible. Some are coming for the opportunity to stand on their own, and some are coming for the freebies. The only solution? Get rid of the welfare state and return to a strictly Constitutional, limited government republic. Until or unless that happens, immigrants will continue to seem like a threat. In reality, some of them are, and some of them aren’t. The real threat, however, began when we departed from limited government in the first place, particularly from the FDR/New Deal-era forward.

 

Freedom, and the self-responsibility that goes along with it, is the only answer. And all comers are welcome!


Dr. Michael Hurd is a psychotherapist, life coach and author of Effective Therapy (New York: Dunhill, 1997) and Grow Up America! Visit his website at: www.DrHurd.com.




 
Author Archives | Comment | Print | Email | Delicious | Digg | reddit | Facebook | StumbleUpon

Views expressed are author's and not necessarily CapMag's. Excerpts limited to 250 words, so long as a
hyperlink is provided to the original article. See our terms of use.

 

Capitalism Magazine Classics

"Francisco's Money Speech"

"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d'Anconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money?

End States That Sponsor Terrorism

Fifty years of increasing American appeasement in the Mideast have led to fifty years of increasing contempt in the Muslim world for the U.S. The climax was September 11, 2001.

Religion vs. Liberty
Secularism is not a sufficient condition for freedom--but a necessary one.

United Nations Declaration of Human Rights Destroys Individual Rights
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a charter of tyranny.

In Defense of the "Barbarous Relic"
Why The Enemies of Capitalism Smear The Gold Standard

Hatred of Western Civilization
Why Terrorists Attacked America

Repeal Sarbanes-Oxley
Treats Businessmen as Guilty Until Proven Innocent

Immigration and Individual Rights
Does a foreigner have a moral right to move to America? And should America welcome him?

A Tale of Two Novels
Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged Versus James Joyce's Ulysses

The New Right vs. Capitalism
The political right in America no longer stands for individual rights, limited government and capitalism.

The "Crony" in Russian "Capitalism" is Socialism
The fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 did not usher in capitalism. It merely replaced communism with socialism.

Israel Has A Moral Right To Its Life
Israel is America's frontline in the war on terrorism.

Moral Values Without Religion
The alternative to the dogmatism of the religious right and the emotionalism of the egalitarian left is a code of moral absolutes based on reason and individualism.

 

Related Articles on Immigration:

Immigration: Why the Debate is Tragically Flawed

The High Cost of Washington's Price Manipulation Policy

Immigration and Individual Rights

Illegal Immigration

A Russian Immigrant's Lesson in American Patriotism

The Solution to "Illegal Immigration"

Immigration Quotas vs. Individual Rights: The Moral and Practical Case for Open Immigration

Immigration: Pave Your Own Way

America: Open Up That Golden Gate

Leave Our Borders Open!

"The New White Flight"

American Border Secrets

Legalizing the Illegals

The Freedom To Move as an International Problem

Spitting on Their Graves

More Articles on Immigration

 

Copyright 2009-1997 Capitalism Magazine. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Terms of Use. Submissions