Anti-Immigration Nonsense

[Hogeye]

In numerous editorials and letters I see two recurring points being made.

1) Since illegal immigrants break the law while legal immigrants do not, the legal ones deserve to stay but the illegals don't.

2) Since illegal immigrants occupy our land without permission, they should be kicked out.

Both of these points seem rather odd, and frankly, illogical to me. In particular, the conclusions I would draw from these arguments are quite the opposite of what the writers seem to expect.

Point one seems to assume that it is a good thing to obey the law. This is patently absurd in my opinion. I agree with St. Augustine ("an unjust law is not law at all") and Dr. Martin Luther King ("one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.") So the first thing to ask is whether political laws violating freedom of travel and freedom of association are just. To ask this is to answer it. Thus, the illegal immigrants are doing the morally right thing to evade and ignore the unjust immigration laws, just as pot smokers do the right thing when they ignore unjust prohibition laws, and concealed carriers do the right thing when they ignore unjust laws against self-defense.

Point one is often made with reference to all the expense and trouble that legal immigrants go through to get citizenship. Again, I draw the reverse conclusion than these anti-freedom writers. Would I rather have a neighbor who dog-like jumps through all the bureaucratic hoops, and licks the hand of its master? Or do I prefer neighbors who stick to their convictions, assert their rights, and refuse to kowtow to the State? Again, to ask is to answer.

Point two hinges upon who owns the land. Apparently, those who assert that illegals should not occupy "our" land without permission believe in statist communism - that the government owns all the land. Since I strongly disagree - I believe in private ownership - point two is amazingly unconvincing. Those who think people own land, houses, factories and shops, must reject the notion that central government politicians rather than the owners should be able to say who comes and goes. That's up to the owner. Do companies like Tyson and your local construction firm invite the undocumented workers to work there? Of course. Do landlords voluntarily rent to illegals? Of course. Obviously the owners have given permission for the illegals to be on their property. The government and its INS jackboots should bug off, and let free people work, produce, and exchange in peace.

I've been reading about the problems of Latin America, and why those countries didn't progress to modern liberal capitalist economies like Western Europe and the US. Peruvian economists Hernando de Soto ("The Mystery of Capital", "The Other Path") and Alvaro Vargas Llosa ("Liberty for Latin America") point out that, unlike Europe and the US, the peasants were never legalized in Latin America. To this day the "informals" do not have property rights, and their homes and livelihoods are in constant legal jeopardy. They don't have the legal infrastructure to raise capital. Thus there are in effect two castes. It is ironic to me that, just as parts of Latin America are finally breaking through to a society that respects rights, the xenophobes in the US seek to turn their own country into a corrupt class-based banana republic. They seem overjoyed at the prospect of turning a huge number of people into a propertyless underclass, penalizing anyone who offers them legal jobs, and arresting them at will. Their program seems designed to turn the US into a class-warfare, death-squad ridden Guatemala or Ecuador.

Hogeye Bill
5/14/06

[Hogeye]

I sent this to the local papers today, although they probably won't publish it since my last letter was so recent. I'm a little surprised that this letter, posted in several places, has received so little comment. I expected it to be rather controversial.