This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at realfreemarket.org.



Your Ad Here

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

Illegal/Unlicensed Immigration

I was watching "60 Minutes" to see the Conan O'Brien interview. Of course, they waited until the end of the show to air that part. There was an interesting story on "illegal immigration".

The story was about a canal on the border between Mexico and California, the All-American Canal. A lot of illegal immigrants died trying to cross that canal.

"The law banning illegal immigration is valid!" was an unstated hidden assumption. Instead, they were debating "Should safety features be installed on this canal, even though most of the people who die are illegal immigrants. Making the canal safer would merely facilitate illegal immigration."

That's a common State mind control trick. You debate Y, while X is taken as a hidden assumption. X is the real important issue. That really was a story advertising "illegal immigration", even though superficially they were talking about the canal.

There was one particularly offensive part. They interviewed a woman, whose husband died crossing the canal. He was an illegal immigrant. He got caught and deported. The way immigration law works, once you're caught as an illegal immigrant, you can never again reenter the country legally. He tried crossing the canal to get back in the USA, and drowned in the canal.

The interviewer said (paraphrasing) "He was committing a crime. He was trying to enter the country illegally." He implied "HAHAHA!! He deserved to die!" The woman agreed with the interviewer, rather than saying "Hey! Illegal immigration is a bad law!"

In the entire segment, they didn't interview anyone who said "The law banning unapproved immigration is bad." The segment was really a hidden advertisement for the State ban on illegal immigration.

Maybe people should call it "unlicensed immigration" or "unapproved immigration" rather than "illegal immigration". The phrase "illegal immigration" has as an unstated hidden assumption that certain types of immigration should be illegal.

"Illegal immigration" is one of those issues used to distract the clueless slaves. People blame illegal immigrants for declining real wages. They really should blame a corrupt economic system. Trillions of dollars a year are spend on direct and indirect bailouts. That's much more damaging than "illegal immigration".

I live in NY. It's perfectly legal for me to move to California and get a job there. Why is it illegal for someone to move from Mexico to California? National boundaries are arbitrary and created by the State.

Illegal immigration derives from the idea "People are property of their government." The leaders of various countries signed treaties, agreeing to respect each others' property. By banning/restricting immigration, State parasites agree to not compete with each other. Otherwise, the most skilled workers would move to the country with the most favorable laws. By banning/restricting immigration, it's easier for every country to have corrupt laws.

The more often that the State propaganda engine hypes an issue, the bigger a lie it is. For example, "Support the soldiers and police!" is repeated as often as possible. The issue of "illegal immigration" is also discussed as often as possible.

In a Communist society, there's a fixed pool of jobs due to the State. If you import workers, that drives down wages. In a really free market, adding workers doesn't decrease real wages, as long as each new worker performs work worth more than his wages.

However, most mainstream debate focuses on "What are we going to do about illegal immigration?", rather than questioning the validity of the law. Even Ron Paul says that the law banning illegal immigration is valid.

The current hype against illegal immigration is a stark contrast to the policy 100-150 years ago. The USA had an open immigration policy. Ambitious people who lacked opportunity in their home country would move to the USA. It was so bad that leaders in Europe were concerned about a "brain drain", as the best workers moved to the USA. The solution was to cripple the US economy. With the creation of the income tax and Federal Reserve, economic freedom in the USA was severely cut. The USA has much less economic freedom now, compared to before 1913.

In a really free market, there's a natural equilibrium. Workers will only move to an area if wages are greater there compared to their old home. In the present, then State immigration ban ruins this equilibrium. State restriction of the market makes it hard for new workers to start new businesses, creating the perception that extra workers drive down real wages.

In a really free market, there's no such thing as "illegal immigration". As long as you can find a job and someone willing to sell/rent a place to live, you can move. Smart workers looking for better jobs would naturally lead to an equilibrium.

I don't "own" my US citizenship in the same sense that I own a car or house. I can't move to another country and sell my right to live/work in the US to another person.

State parasites promote "illegal immigration" for two reasons. First, "illegal immigration" is a good issue to divide and conquer the masses. It creates a scapegoat for economic problems other than the real cause.

Second, "illegal immigration" is related to "people are the property of the government". State parasites made treaties to enforce immigration laws, because they agree to respect each others' property. Without illegal immigration, the best workers would move to the country with the most favorable laws. Then, State parasites in various countries would be competing with each other to offer the best working conditions.

There's no such thing as "illegal immigration" in a really free market. National boundaries are arbitrary and created by the State. It's silly that you get more or less opportunity based on where you are born.

13 comments:

The Public Eye said...

Excellent post as always. Viewed from a slightly different angle (although you touch on it in different parts of your post), this whole ridiculous debate over "legal" versus "illegal" immigration amounts to propaganda for two implicit (and dangerous) statist assumptions: (i) the state has "responsibility" for "managing" labour markets and the economy, and (ii) in the most important sense, the state "owns" the nation.

Scott said...

Great article and I agree. Immigration laws are no different than slave laws that said other states were required to send back escaped slaves to their state of origin.

dionysusal said...

A "nation" is composed of "citizens," and a "citizen" is supposed to be a member of a political body ("nation") who owes a duty of allegiance in return for a duty of protection. These two "duties" are the only things separating men who are "citizens" from men who are "illegal aliens."

Do these alleged "duties" exist and if so, exactly how were they created? Is the "protection" offered by the "United States government" offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis like other services? No, of course not. "Citizen" is not synonymous with customer. Customers, unlike "citizens," have the choice to say no to a particular service or product without being threatened and killed. You accept and pay for the services provided by men and women doing business as a "state" or be murdered.

Now if "duties" and obligations are not created by violence, then there’s no "duty" to protect anyone and there is no "duty" of allegiance. These are the only two things separating men who are "citizens" from men who are "illegal aliens" and neither one exists.

Because neither "duty" exists there are no "citizens" and no "nation." It then follows there is no such thing as an "illegal alien." The only "officially recognized" "legal" status with any existence is called "res nullius" meaning: "The property of no one." This is why the very idea of a "free government" is ridiculous. Because human beings are not property there can be no valid "government" as "govern" means control and control implies ownership.

Anonymous said...

You are correct. People should be free to move to whatever country they like. Governments are artificial barriers to the free movement of goods, services and people.

In continental Europe, people are more likely to be bilingual. Due to a poorer education system in the UK, people only speak English. If there is an influx of people from the EU into the United Kingdom, then employers will more likely employ them as they speak two or three languages very well as opposed to English people that only speak a second language less well.

Employers are simple, stupid people. They won't think of allowing time for English people to learn a second language. The government will be too slow and stupid to improve education. So the influx of EU citizens will displace English citizens from jobs as employers want people that speak two languages strongly NOW.

There is a myth that some people from certain Eastern European countries are harder workers than the English. So again employers employ them. Plus the wages back home are less, so they will accept lower wages.

We already have adverts in the UK, saying that supermarkets will only employ Polish speakers as the health and safety instructions are printed in Polish.

Some of these adverts were determined to be ILLEGAL, but the clowns that posted them said they were AN ADMINISTRATIVE MISTAKE.

Anonymous said...

FSK, you are a software developer.

You have been doing your job for years in your own country.

How would you like it if I came along and said you CAN'T WORK ANYMORE BECAUSE YOU DON'T SPEAK SPANISH?

Because I have worked for over a decade in the UK as a software developer and I see job adverts posted over here saying I can't work unless I speak Spanish.

I won't shame the clown employer that posted this, but it is a big well known software company.

Anonymous said...

For writing software in the United Kingdom for a major US software company, you would think being a native English speaker would be enough.

Typically software developers don't communicate with end-users in big software companies. I mean they are not consultancies. If the software has a bug, then customer support will field the complaint, write a report and then hand it to the software developers.

But a certain major US software company specifies in its job adverts in the UK, that it strongly prefers candidates that speak Spanish etc.

Why?

This is unfair, because English is a major business language of the world. So UK citizens end up only speaking English well, but people from the continent typically speak two languages well.

So immigration, although good, has the net effect of meaning that good software developers who were educated in the United Kingdom and lived all their life in the UK, CAN NO LONGER WORK IN THE UK.

FSK said...

It is more complicated than that.

If employers are demanding stupid things in their ads, why don't you start your own software business?

It's hard, due to State restriction of the market. However, software is one of the areas where it's relatively easy to start a business with little investment besides your time.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your reply FSK.

In answer to you, I do run my own software business.

However while it was taking off and before it gave a stable income, I did apply for jobs.

For a lot of people starting their own business is not possible. Recent graduates might not have enough experience or ideas.

And for every business, there is a certain element of luck.

A decade ago, I was a good software developer, but had no ideas of my own. As such I could not have really started my own business. A decade ago, I could be at my most productive when working in a company.

So why don't you start up your own software business?

Rey said...

Here is where your argument falls apart. Very few people care if Felipe and Maria walk across the border without papers and go to work at the local landscaping company for 2 dollars an hour. If both the employer and the employee agree to a fair wage no foul. Its when Maria gets pregnant and demands 10,000 dollars worth of medical care from the government or places her children in the local school district or receives any of the other services that legal residents, whether citizens or not are forced to pay for, that they are stealing from others. Once they commit theft, game over.

FSK said...

I'm focusing more on "Don't get hospitalized again!" rather than "Start my own business." I'm much more interested in the "promote freedom" area than pure software.

Bootstrapping a business isn't as easy as it sounds. I'm going to try.

Regarding illegal immigrants "stealing" State services, there should be no welfare State or State-paid schools. That's the same argument as saying a tax evader "steals" from the State.

Anonymous said...

If you work in the United States on a non-immigrant H1B work visa and you lose your job you get no welfare payments despite actually paying social security for the time you worked. Whether this is fair or not, I leave as an exercise for the reader. .

However if you return to live in the United Kingdom after losing a job in the United States, the UK government won't give you unemployment benefits either because you haven't lived in the country recently. So you can end up screwed, despite paying social security.

I recently listed to a Ronald Reagan speech in which he said people would be better off paying their money to a private company for social security as then it would actually be properly invested. Instead the government spends the social security straight away and relies on future taxpayer money to pay the commitments. He said there was no actual fund of social security.

Anonymous said...

I'm a United Kingdom citizen. I have lived in the UK most of my life and paid taxes here.

However on the occasions I've been unemployed or ill, I've essentially been told to b***er off by the state and its employees, due to two different reasons.

I've only survived because of some savings I've had.

So I regard with a sick humour when I read about war criminals coming to the UK and getting given a big 1 - 2 million pounds house to live in and 10 - 20, 000 UK pounds a year in benefits. They buy video games and big flat screen televisions.

The red carpet is rolled out to crooks and people too lazy to work.

But if you are a hard-working tax-payer that falls on bad times for a few months, the state will tell you to f*** off.

Anonymous said...

Some newspapers say the the Nu (Lie)Labour Zanu Party in the UK brought in a lot of immigrants to screw over the opposition parties i.e. to rub their noses in equality.

I'm not sure how screwing over another political party by bringing in a lot of foreigners worked, but it was the official newspaper line at the time.

Perhaps the immigrants would be permanent Labour voters as I heard that some immigrants came over here and then claimed child welfare benefit for the children THEY LEFT BEHIND IN THEIR COUNTRY OF ORIGIN.

Totally crazy!

I'm a UK citizen and when I got injured and couldn't work I got no welfare benefits at all, despite paying a vast amount of tax when I was working.

Nice to know all that tax money has gone abroad in child benefit.

This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at realfreemarket.org.