Immigration Control: Federal Social Engineering

Central planning by the federal government is officially opposed by conservatives until you show them a marker that says "United States" on one side, and "Mexico" on the other. Then: "Congress needs to build a fence!"

The believers in fences offer many arguments. Some of them say this: "Those people want to get free government welfare. We cannot afford it."

The defender of liberty replies in two ways: "First, these programs should be abolished. They are based on government planning and coercive wealth redistribution. They are the main problem, not any immigrants who may sign up. Second, the sooner they go bankrupt, the better. Let immigrants sign up." The problem is this: most conservatives approve of these welfare programs in theory and practice. The big ones are Social Security, Medicare, and tax-funded education. Conservatives do not want these programs de-funded. They see them as part of the American way of life.

Second, the conservative says this: "These immigrants will undermine our social way of life. They're just too different. The American way of life cannot survive open immigration. Change will overwhelm the American way of life."

The defender of liberty responds: "The free market changes America every day. Innovations undermine our way of life, moment by moment. Innovation makes our lives better." Second, he replies: "Why do you think Congress can pass a law restricting freedom of travel and freedom of contract, and thereby preserve the good parts of our way of life? Why do you trust the federal government's good judgment in matters social and economic? Why have you become an apologist for central planning? Why have you become an advocate of social engineering by federal politicians and bureaucrats?" Conservatives remain silent. They have never thought of this, and they don't want to have to re-think what they say they believe in, namely, that Congress cannot safely be trusted on matters economic. They are saying that Congress can provide a Goldilocks solution: not too much social change, but not too little. The defender of liberty asks: "When has Congress ever legislated a Goldilocks solution? When has the federal bureaucracy ever enforced it as written, let alone as justified by members of the voting bloc in Congress that passed it?"

Third, the conservative says this: "Immigrants will get jobs here. They will take jobs away from Americans."

I want to focus on this argument, for it is the most common one. It invokes nationalism over liberty. It equates nationalism with restrictions on the freedom of contract. It says: "Not everyone should have the legal right to bid on jobs inside our borders. Only those who are legally inside our borders already, or who will be born to those already inside our borders, should possess this right." It says: "Our ancestors got here before there were any immigration laws. We deserve the right to bid. Outsiders don't. It's first come, first served."

MAY WE HELP?

This attitude is in direct opposition to both Christianity and the free market. A fundamental principle of Christianity is the principle of service to God by service to our fellow men. This is made clear in Matthew 25. "Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me" (v. 40). The context is the final judgment. The principle of service is also basic to free market economics, which teaches that income derives from service to the customer. This goes back to Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations (1776).

But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chuses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens.

The fundamental economic principle of immigration control is that service must be made illegal in order to protect the above-market incomes of producers inside a nation's borders, thereby reducing the availability of services to customers inside the borders. The job holders form a cartel with a goal: to keep out competitors, thereby keeping their wages above market. The job holders prevail on Congress to post this sign facing outward on the border: "No help wanted." Not wanted by whom? By members of the job holders' cartel. It is now illegal for customers to post this sign: "Help wanted."

The earliest manifestaion of this mindset in America was the retailers' hostility to Chinese immigrants in California. It started with the gold rush of 1849, the year after the federal government completed President Polk's theft of one-third of Mexico, which included California. Chinese workers worked long hours at far lower wages. They were price competitive. This hostility by retailers got worse over the next quarter century. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was the first example of a federal law excluding specific nationals. It was not repealed until 1943, when China was an ally in the Pacific war. The President who signed the 1882 bill into law was by far the most appropriate President in American history to have done so: Chester Arthur. Before becoming Vice President, and then President after the assassination of Garfield, Arthur had the been the head of the Port of New York, the government's most lucrative customs house. It was known at the time as being a major source of political kickbacks to the Republican Party. The stink got so bad that President Hayes removed Arthur from the position.

We are not taught the following in history courses. Not until 1948 was it legal in California for whites or blacks to marry Asians. The California State Supreme Court overturned the law. The vote was 4 to 3. That was the first state to overturn laws against inter-racial marriage: by one vote. We look back, and we are amazed. Why would anyone have believed that state politicians had the wisdom to assess accurately the collective social benefits and liabilities of inter-racial marriages? This was social engineering by state politicians. Most conservatives today -- but not in 1947 -- reject such a suggestion. Yet most conservatives believe today that federal bureaucrats can be trusted with this same power with respect to immigration.

Conservatives quote Ronald Reagan. "A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation." Conclusion: from 1788 to 1882, the United States was not a nation. Silly, isn't it? Then why do conservatives quote it?

This historically silly slogan assumes that passing a law is the same as achieving the law's official goal. We have immigration laws on the statute books today. We also have 10 million illegal aliens. Maybe 20 million. Maybe 30 million. The government cannot even count them. It would cost at least $23,000 each to deport them. Each case must be tried in a court. It would tie up the U.S. court system. They cannot -- will not -- be deported. Fact: the USA does not control its borders. This control is only symbolic: a token to placate the voters. Are we therefore a token nation?

Should we trust social engineering by politicians? Why?

BORDERS, BADGES, AND GUNS: A BRIEF HISTORY

Federal restrictions on immigration in 1917 applied to various kinds of social behavior. But immigration restrictions from 1882 up until World War I mainly had to do with keeping Chinese out of the country. The Immigration Act of 1924 extended this to many nations. Wikipedia summarizes:

The Immigration Act of 1924, or Johnson--Reed Act, including the National Origins Act, and Asian Exclusion Act enacted May 26, 1924, was a United States federal law that limited the annual number of immigrants who could be admitted from any country to 2% of the number of people from that country who were already living in the United States in 1890, down from the 3% cap set by the Immigration Restriction Act of 1921, according to the Census of 1890. It superseded the 1921 Emergency Quota Act. The law was primarily aimed at further restricting immigration of Southern Europeans, Eastern Europeans. In addition, it severely restricted the immigration of Africans and prohibited the immigration of Arabs, East Asians, and Indians. According to the U.S. Department of State Office of the Historian the purpose of the act was "to preserve the ideal of American homogeneity." Congressional opposition was minimal.

This tradition of immigration control lasted from 1924 to 1968, when Teddy Kennedy's Immigration Act of 1965 was signed into law by Lyndon Johnson.

A sign of freedom prior to World War I was this: there were no passports anywhere in the West. Wikipedia says:

A rapid expansion of rail travel and wealth in Europe beginning in the mid-nineteenth century led to a unique dilution of the passport system for approximately thirty years prior to World War I. The speed of trains, as well as the number of passengers that crossed multiple borders, made enforcement of passport laws difficult. The general reaction was the relaxation of passport requirements. In the later part of the nineteenth century and up to World War I, passports were not required, on the whole, for travel within Europe, and crossing a border was a relatively straightforward procedure. Consequently, comparatively few people held passports. During World War I, European governments introduced border passport requirements for security reasons, and to control the emigration of citizens with useful skills. These controls remained in place after the war, becoming standard, though controversial, procedure. British tourists of the 1920s complained, especially about attached photographs and physical descriptions, which they considered led to a "nasty dehumanization."

"Your papers, please!" World War I brought us that grim phrase.

The conservative tradition in America, 1788-1882, was open borders. So was the liberal tradition. The Constitutional tradition in America was open borders. Only in 1882 did this begin to change. It escalated in 1924.

If you listen to the proponents of immigration restriction today, you would think the George Washington and James Madison in 1787 persuaded the Constitutional Convention to authorize congressional restrictions on immigration. You would think that this was part of the American constitutional tradition. But the U.S. Constitution has no reference to any such restrictions.

Anytime somebody says that there have to be some sort of social criteria beyond non-criminal judicial status, in order to gain residence in the United States, he is saying that politicians in Congress, and permanent tenured bureaucrats in the executive, are competent in understanding what America needs today, and what America will need in the future.

Conservatives don't believe this in many areas of life, but with respect to two things -- imported goods and imported people -- they believe that Congress knows better, and the tenured executive bureaucracy knows best. This is the default mode of thinking for most conservatives. They believe with all their hearts that Congress can be trusted, and tenured executive bureaucrats protected by Civil-Service laws are in effect a kind of priesthood. "These people know what America needs."

Why should anyone believe this?

"HISPANICS ARE GOING TO BREAK UP AMERICA!"

Recently, I was sent this email:

It's true that for much, perhaps even most, of our history, we had practically no immigration restrictions at all. We also had a nation consisting of a land-mass begging for inhabitants, workers, farmers, inventors, educators, etc. But we insisted, if not legally, then as a practical matter, that these new arrivals learned our language, conformed to our laws, and considered themselves citizens of their adopted nation.

Who were "we"? How did "we" do this? By letting people alone, judicially speaking. The federal government said nothing. The federal government was not regarded as having any say in the matter.

A few could not and sometimes returned to the old country, but most stayed and become passionately loyal Americans. What's profoundly disturbing is that many of the new arrivals, particularly the Hispanics, appear to have little or no intention of assimilating, and in some cases, of even learning or using our language. If continued this will become a sure-fire formula for societal disaster, most likely in the form of the country simply breaking up, just as did the seemingly impregnable old USSR. I'd bet more than even odds that this will happen in the fairly near future - once it starts it'll proceed with the speed of a massive seismic shift.

What the author of the letter did not say is the following: "I trust the Congress of the United States and the permanent civil-service bureaucracy employed by the executive to make decisions regarding social stability in the United States, today and in the future." If he had been willing to do this, I would have acknowledged that at least he had thought through the implications of his position. At least he was willing to say what is implied by his view of immigration. He believes in Congressional social engineering with respect to immigration. He also believes the federal bureaucrats have both the ability and the moral responsibility to make decisions about who should live here, and under what circumstances. He is saying, inevitably, that federal bureaucrats have the ability to make accurate social forecasts about how specific non-criminal and physically healthy immigrants are going to affect American society in the future.

I do not share his faith.

He doesn't trust Hispanics. He thinks Hispanics are going to speak Spanish all their lives. He thinks they won't integrate into the country.

Where is the evidence that Hispanic kids who were born in this country and who have attended public schools and who watch American television and listen to rap music cannot speak English? They can even speak rap. I don't speak rap. I cannot understand what those people are saying. But Hispanic teenagers are fluent in rap. I guess we can call them tri-lingual.

I don't notice that Hispanics riot very often. People in La Raza march in groups carrying placards with slogans, but they are smart enough to have the slogans in English for the television evening news.

The fact that Hispanic parents, some of whom do not speak English, demanded and got their own high school in Los Angeles, right next door to all-Black Jefferson High, should come as a surprise only in this sense: the school board voted for this. That the parents demanded a dress code is also no surprise. It is called Nava College Preparatory Academy. All of the students speak English. Most of them speak rap.

THREE GENERATIONS

Most immigrants who came from Eastern Europe and Central Europe in the late 19th century and the early 20th century could not speak English. We don't know what percentage of them learned to speak English, but there were whole sections of New York City in 1900 that spoke Yiddish and other Central European languages. But the children learned. They mastered English. They did the translating for the parents. There was nothing odd about this.

There is even a sociological pattern about immigrants. The recent immigrant parents want to maintain the old country's traditions. They want the children to maintain these traditions, but they also want them to be successful. Their children steadily abandon the parents' traditions. They want to be integrated. They want to be like their friends at school. They want to be seen as Americans. Their children assimilate even more completely.

It is difficult for people over 12 years old to learn a foreign language if they never have before. A few adults have the knack, but most people don't. There is nothing odd about this. It is probably genetic: stages of development. Small children master languages at incredible rates, meaning incredible rates for older people. Multilingual children who grow up in multilingual environments are common. My father, who was stationed in Egypt during World War II, said that boys in the streets could speak German, Italian, and English with ease. They had been selling services to various invading armies, and they got along just fine.

People adjust. They respond to incentives. If there are economic incentives and opportunities to assimilate, the children of immigrants do.

EIGHT WORDS THAT DEFINE AMERICA

There are eight words in the English language which generally define Americans, as long as they are not in Congress. These eight words are central to understanding the American character. They have been basic to the American character for over 300 years. Here they are:

Live and let live.

Let's make a deal.

When civil governments get involved in the affairs of men, then these two sentences get compromised. The anti-immigration forces are opposed to this one: "Live and let live." The protectionists are opposed to this one: "Let's make a deal." Quite frequently, we find people who are committed to both positions, and they call themselves conservatives. Conservatives love to see customs houses. They love to see customs agents. They love to see immigration control officials. They trust Congress. They trust the bureaucracy. But only at national borders. In other areas of life, they insist that they believe in the principles of limited government. But show a conservative a national border, and he abandons his principles. He substitutes trust in the federal government as soon as he sees a national border.

Keep this in mind: residency is not the same as citizenship. Conservatives confuse the two concepts. Americans did not begin making this mistake until World War I.

THE WORLD WE HAVE LOST

The older America has one shining representative today. It is a magnificent token of what it was to be an American before World War I. There is nothing else like it in the world. Click this video, and watch the first three minutes. This is the world we have lost.

***************************************************************************

For my detailed study of immigration theory, see "The Sanctuary Society and Its Enemies," Journal of Libertarian Studies (1998).