Banning People
The following appeared in the March 2007 issue of The Invisible Hand

H.L. Mencken once said that "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed - and hence clamorous to be led to safety - by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." One of the latest hobgoblins is the "illegal immigrant." What is an illegal immigrant? A person who has crossed a border without filling out the proper paperwork.

The important question to ask is "who has the right to determine who may or may not enter a country?" The only true answer is the person who wishes to emigrate, and anyone who owns property involved in the move (generally land and sometimes a vehicle). The concept of trespass only works with private property. A person has the right to decide who may cross the land that he or she owns. Nobody has the right to interfere with an individual's use of his property when the use does not initiate force on another individual.

As for government property, since governments are funded almost exclusively through stealing they have virtually no legitimately acquired property. Until a more voluntary and accountable system of transportation funding is put in place, government roads must be open for all as they are property held in commons.

It is aggression - the initiation of force, a violation of individual rights - when governments set lines across the earth and say that a person may not cross them. Individual rights have nothing to do with where you are born - they are possessed by virtue of being human. The Bill of Rights is in agreement with this. It does not list things that certain people can do. Instead it lists certain things that the US Government must never do. The word "citizen" is not found in the document.

It is irrelevant to a person's rights whether they contribute positively to any economy or not, but in the interest of proving that doing the right thing is beneficial to everyone except the state, I will mention a few ways in which immigration improves the economy. When immigrants are paid low wages for jobs, the money saved on labor means more to spend on other things (including the creation of jobs for natives). Not only do immigrants produce much of value, they are also consumers. They buy things in America like everyone else. Immigrants also generally pay more to the government than they receive in services, and when they don't, the welfare state is the only loser, not productive Americans. For more economic facts about immigration, see the excellent International Society for Individual Liberty pamphlet at http://isil.org/resources/lit/immigration-english.html.

Many would say that those who oppose immigration are simply racists. Racism is often a factor, sometimes openly and sometimes not. However, I am making an educated guess that racism is not the primary motivation of most people in the Fortress USA crowd, but rather the state-encouraged pathology of considering anything not under control of government to be dangerous. The thought of thousands of people moving around the country - even holding jobs - without government oversight is scary to a lot of people.

Trying to stop those without the proper papers actually makes the country less safe. When people are branded criminals by the state, both they and the law-enforcers become more dangerous. When desperate, on the run, and unable to make legal redress, actual crimes such as trespassing, stealing, and assault may seem like more attractive options to the illegal immigrant. As for the lawmen, think of all the controls and enforcement powers and equipment that need to be put in place to have even moderate success of keeping people from crossing borders. Don't forget how the enforcement apparatus can easily be put to other uses with the common occurrence of government mission-creep.

The question may be raised "But how are you going to keep terrorists from entering the country?" Well, first of all, the deadliest terrorists are already here, already know English, and work for various governments. Second, a libertarian America would not pursue empire abroad and would therefore motivate fewer international terrorists. Third, even with a border that would put the Berlin Wall (or Maginot Line) to shame, terrorists will still get into the country if they want to.

Whether we are talking about immigration, drugs, construction, conservation, exploration, medicine, or anything else, the best solution is always to allow people to exercise and defend their rights without the fist of the state being waved in their faces. When people are limited only by the requirement that they do not initiate force upon others, they can create a world of immense prosperity and peace. The libertarian principle of zero-aggression is the guide to the best future possible.