Random Thoughts on Immigration

Shane Orr

Let's play pretend ... Say you leave your middle class life in the US for a summer of volunteer
work in the fictional third world nation of Bambudican. You are operating a micro-finance program.
After a long, hard, summer you pat yourself on the back and go to the airport, anxious to return to the
comforts of the US. A life of little food, no showers, no electricity, and life-threatening disease is
tolerable for a season, that is not how you want to spend your life. You get to the airport, enter
customs, scan your passport, and are told by the worker that you are not allowed to enter the US
without a Visa and a reason for wanting to enter.

“But I am a citizen, I was born in the US, and that is where my home is! There must be a
mistake!” You frantically scream.

“Actually, you no longer are a citizen,” the worker calmly states. “You see, about a month ago,
while you were busy establishing micro-ventures and avoiding Malaria in Bambudican, the US decided
to simplify its immigrations system. The US passed a law that said anyone in the US on the day the
law became public last month is a citizen, anyone not in the US on that day is no longer a citizen or
legal resident. Whether you were a citizen or legal resident in the past is irrelevant. Since you were
not in the US the day the law became public, you are no longer a citizen. The law also made it more
difficult for foreigners to enter the US. You do not meet the criteria for entering. Sorry. But, you are
welcome to stay in Bambudican as long as you want. However, you really need a shower. You stink!”

Most people in the US would claim that that the law passed in the hypothetical situation is
unjust. But, our current concept of citizenship is not too different from how citizenship is determined
in the hypothetical law. The two systems just have different arbitrary dates for determining citizenship.
The hypothetical system bases citizenship on where a person is physically located on a random date.
Our system bases citizenship on where someone is arbitrarily born. The logical similarities of the two
systems implies that they should be viewed with similar sentiments of justice. But, they are not.

I do not mention this as an indictment against society. I possess the discrepancy of sentiments
myself. I worry that the discrepancy is produced by the status quo bias. We view nothing wrong with
an immigration policy that deliberately restricts positive human migration becase we assume that is
how it has always been. We then assume that the status quo is correct. Further, since many people in
the US have an incentive to keep the status quo on immigration as the status quo there is little incentive
to take a step back and analyze the issue. Typically, only when the status quo harms us individually are
we willing to take a step back and ask if it is just.

Many unjust policies throughout history were deemed just as the time. It is only when
humankind looks back these the policies, and thus is no longer subject to the status quo bias, that
humankind unanimously agrees they were unjust. This is why the thought experiment I led with can be
helpful. By thinking up fictional policies we can remove ourselves from the status quo bias. If
fictional policies produce different sentiments of justice than logically similar real policies then we
must ask ourselves if we are falling for the status quo bias. Examining this question is the purpose of
my essay.

I must warn you that I do not propose any solutions. I give no policy recommendations, nor do
I critique current law. The goal of this essay is to clear the dirt surrounding the issue so we can
understand it better. Then, solutions should fall into place. But, I leave the solutions to you.

Why does immigration matter?

The place to start in analyzing immigration is to examine why it is even an issue. Why does it
matter that some people are citizens or legal residents and some are not? Can't we all be on the same
footing? To answer these questions we have to turn our attention towards government.

Governments are designed to govern. To effectively govern a government must decide who
qualifies as the governed and who does not; who is in the in-group and who is in the out-group. This
includes the sub-questions of asking who's rights will be protected by the government, and who
qualifies for government services and programs. Theoretically, the modern nation-state has developed
legally black and white criteria for deciding the in-group and out-group. Citizenship or legal resident
status qualifies you as 'in', without these you are 'out'.

Being born in the US puts most people in the in-group (the governed). Thus, qualifying for
government protect and aid is dependent on the arbitrary act of the location of one's birth. Those born
in the third world and in the greatest need of protection and aid have little chance of directly sharing in
America's spoils. They indirectly share in America's economic success through globalization, but this
is beside the point. Nation-states typically apply a 'born here' model of citizenship because
sovereignty is tied to land and not tied to things like ethnic group or religion. Naturalized citizenship
or legal residency is possible. But, These two groups make up such a small percentage of the
population that their existence does not play a key role in examining immigration.

There is nothing stopping a governance system from applying different criteria in determining
who qualifies as the governed. A system can use authenticity, religion, language, or a mixture of all
three. For example, non nation-state models of governance such as tribal systems uses kinship and
language to determine who is in the in-group. Physical place of residence is only relevant when it
helps decide kinship issues. The Ottoman Turks had a multi-layered system of Muslims within the
empire being the in-group, non-Muslims within the empire and Muslims outside the empire as being in
quasi in-groups, and non-Muslims outside the empire being in the out-group. It is even possible to
determine in-group status by arm wrestling ability. The important point is that most systems develop
the in-group / out-group distinction in arbitrary ways. After all, what is more arbitrary than where one
is born?

Not only is the US version of the in-group / out-group distinction arbitrary, but it is also
artificial. Governments must create the distinction through legislative concepts of citizenship, and then
enforce it through the legal system. Citizenship does not naturally exist within society. Without top-
down state intervention the idea of citizenship, and thus the in-group / out-group distinction, would not
exist.

The previous paragraphs were theoretical explanations of who qualifies as the governed and
who does not. Things are not so simple in real life as practical and moral concerns complicate the
picture. Practically, it is difficult to pick and choose who's rights will be protected. The US has
established law and order within its borders. The resulting safety is not dependent on whether someone
is in the in-group or out-group. Non-legal and legal residents alike share in the benefit of being able to
walk down most streets in the US without worrying about being robbed or stabbed in the back. The
atmosphere of law and order does not discriminate.

Moral concerns also complicate applications of the in-group / out-group distinction (governed /
not governed). Some don't feel right depriving people of health care, education, and other government
provided social programs simply because they are in the arbitrary out-group. This is true despite it
being practically possible to deny specific people access to government programs such as health care
and education. These moral concerns force proponents of government programs to admit that non-
legal residents should have the same access to them as legal residents. Otherwise, proponents of
government programs are stuck with a perverted form of justice where place of birth dictates justice's
sphere.

If the only difference between two people is the legal / non-legal distinction then both should
morally qualify for the same services. The reason is that the legal / non-legal distinction has no moral
basis. It is an arbitrary human construction. Turning this into a moral distinction is as nonsensical as
making moral distinctions over the last four digits of people's social security numbers.

Some claim that denying non-legal residents access to government programs is justified because
non-legal residents do not pay taxes. This idea is popular because it eliminates cognitive dissonance.
Proponents of government programs face dissonance between two ideas; 1) everyone should have
access to items such as food, health care, and education, and 2) a line must be drawn somewhere for
practical reasons.. The first idea is grounded on views of justice. To eliminate dissonance the line in
the second idea must also be based on justice. Claiming that it is unjust to give government aid to non-
taxpaying, non-legal, residents allows people to draw the line on access to government services in a
self-perceived just fashion. But, this idea fails scrutiny.

The problem this the idea is that proponents of government support programs never justify the
programs for legal residents on the basis of tax payments by them. Such an idea would imply that the
rich are more justified in receiving government aid than the poor. Therefore, a moral double standard
is applied between legal and non-legal residents. To maintain moral consistency, the standard used to
justify aid to legal residents must also be used for non-legal residents. Alternatively, the standard that
bars non-legal residents from aid must also bar legal residents.

If non-legal residents are barred from government services because they have no contributed
enough in income taxes, then legal residents should be barred as well. But, barring residents from
government services because they have not earned enough income to pay a certain amount of taxes
contradicts the idea of government aid programs to the poor. By definition, the poor earn little income.
Also, non-legal residents do pay income taxes and this is the largest tax for the poor.

My point is that the in-group / out-group distinction that determines who receives government
support must be based on arbitrary grounds. Ideas of justice cannot drive the distinction unless we
pervert justice to an unrecognizable form. Cognitive dissonance cannot be eliminated. Proponents of
an expanded welfare state must accept this dissonance. I am not arguing that the welfare state is
wrong, I am simply pointing out that access to the welfare state must be based on arbitrary grounds.

Ultimately, the in-group / out-group (legal / non-legal) distinction is based on efficiency and not
morality. In more technical terms, the distinction is based on pragmatic reasons and not normative
reasons. Nation-state governments must make the distinction to effectively govern. The distinction
becomes even more important the greater the welfare state expands. Under an expanded welfare state
the distinction drives who will be caught by the social safety net.

This first section gives us the foundation for the rest of our discussion. I tried to show that the
immigration issue is important because it resolves the issue of who a government actually governs. I
then tried to show that this must be based on arbitrary and artificial grounds. It cannot lie in ideas of
justice.

Non-legal immigrants break the law. How should this effect our judgments?

Non-legal immigrants break the law. No one disputes this. They know it is against US law to
enter the US without documentation, but they do it anyway. How should this affect our view of
immigration in general, and non-legal immigrants in particular?

Some think that the crime non-legal immigrants commit justifies harsh treatment against them.
After all, they are criminals! This idea turns on a simple syllogism: illegal immigrants break the law /
breaking the law is immoral / therefore, illegal immigrants are immoral. The last prong of this
syllogism leads some to conclude that non- legal immigrants are immoral for coming into the US. This
act of immorality justifies harsh action against them and hateful views towards them.

My critique of the preceding syllogism turns on a critique of the idea that breaking the law is
always a priori immoral. The problem with this a priori assumption is that laws are broad and
absolute. The only exceptions to laws are the exceptions written into them. These include defenses in
the Criminal Law such as self-defense and necessity. But, even the exceptions are absolute. Questions
of personal morality, however, are rarely absolute. Moral decisions often require weighing and
compromising ethical values.

Ethical values are only absolute until they are pitted against other so-called absolute ethical
values. In these cases the layman's idea of 'absolute truth' collapses. The only way to avoid conflicting
values in any tough decision is to push the idea of values up to the abstract level of first truths. But,
values this abstract rarely bring clarity to real life decisions. Laws, however, rarely conflict. One is
rarely presented with a decision where the two options are to either break law A or break law B.
Companies in highly regulatory environments might occasionally face such situations, but us regular
folk rarely do.
 Now, let's apply the two previous paragraphs to immigration. An immigrant might believe that
entering the US illegally is ethically wrong because breaking the law is ethically wrong. In this case
the immigrant would have an ethical value stating 'breaking the law is wrong.' Few people, including
myself, would disagree with this as a general truth. But, the immigrant might have a wife and kids.
Further, the immigrant might believe he has a moral duty to support his wife and kids. Therefore, he
has another ethical value stating, 'I have a duty to support my family.' Once again, few people,
including myself, would disagree with this as a general truth. Finally, let's suppose that the only way
the immigrant can support his wife and kids is by illegally entering the US. What should he do?

I do not claim to have an answer to this question. In fact, there is no absolute answer. It
depends on the specific circumstance. I bring up the question to show how ethical values can conflict
within a single moral decision. The conflict occurs even when both ethical values are legitimate. The
conflict is not a product of illogical ethical values. It is a product of faulty society.

The reason we are more likely to criticize someone for betraying the value of 'breaking the law
is wrong' at the expense of the value of 'I have a duty to support my family' is because that is the only
value we, as outsiders to the situation, see. We only see that the immigrants are going against the value
of 'breaking the law is wrong.' We assume this is the only value present because we cannot see other
values present in the individual decision such as 'I have a duty to support my family.' Every tough
decision presents its own set of circumstances and inter-winding values. In such decisions it is
impossible for an outsider unknowable of the specifics of the situation to make a critique one way or
the other. The outsider simply lacks the requisite information.

Nott only can we not say that breaking the law is always wrong, but the value of 'breaking the
law is wrong' operates differently from other values.. The value of 'breaking the law is wrong' is
valuable because it is a means to the end of social order. Conversely, the value of 'I have a duty to
support my family' is a end itself. Values that are means to ends must be analyzed differently than
values that are ends.

That said, let's analyze the ethical value of 'breaking the law is wrong.' As we just said, this
value is a means to the end of social order. The end of social order centers around preventing people
from infringing on others' rights. Preventing the infringement of rights is one of the purposes of the
law. Laws are in place to protect people's right to physical property (theft), right to the property of their
own body (assault, battery, rape), or right to life (murder). Since the purpose of the law is to protect
rights, an examination of the morality of breaking the law must begin with an examination of how
rights are effected when specific laws are broken.

Let's look at immigration. Who's rights are infringed when an immigrant enters the US
illegally? No rights are infringed when we define rights in the Lockean sense of life, liberty, and
property. Under this view of rights it takes deliberate acts of aggression directed towards other human
beings to infringe rights. Non-legal residents, by simply being in the US, are not committing
deliberate acts of aggression aimed at taking advantage of others. A non-legal immigrant is not
invading someone's property rights or right to life anymore than a legal resident.

It is only when rights are extended that it is possible for an illegal immigrant to affect the rights
of others. The extension of rights includes the right to a job, health care, education, and the right to an
adequate amount of food. These rights are claims that people must do stuff for you. True, it is the
government that provides these things and not people directly. But, the funding comes from people via
redistribution.

The right to a job is the right most frequently mentioned regarding the immigration issue. The
claim is that if legal residents have a right to a job then non-legal residents are infringing people's rights
when they enter the US and take a job that would otherwise go to a legal resident. Let's call this the
“They took our jobs!” theory. This theory has an empirical claim and a moral claim. I will briefly
touch on the empirical claim before moving to the moral claim.

The empirical claim is that non-legal residents causes an increase in the unemployment rate for
legal residents. I label this as an empirical claim because it cannot be arrived at through a priori reason.
Whether this statement is true depends on the economic system and the production value of non-legal
labor versus the production value of legal labor. It is easy to envision an economic environment where
the added economic productivity created by non-legal workers leads to a net increase in jobs available
to legal workers. Years ago I looked at the empirical data on this issue, and they were mixed. I do not
know what the data currently say on the subject. All I want to emphasis is that the truth might be that
non-legal workers create jobs for legal workers through increased economic productivity.

But, we can deduce through a priori reason that immigration, whether legal or non-legal, always
produces positive gains for society as a whole, with society defined as everyone in the world. The
reason is that immigrants will only move to new labor markets if the expected benefits of employment
in the new markets are greater than those in their current markets; minus transaction costs such as the
costs of moving, costs of uncertainty, and costs of leaving one's extended family. Additionally, the new
markets will only hire the immigrants if the expected productivity of the labor divided by the costs of
labor is greater than the productivity / cost ratio already in the markets.

This creates a situation where the labor transaction that brings the immigrants to the new
markets must bring lifestyle gains to the immigrants and efficiency gains to the firms hiring. If both of
these events are not present the transaction would not occur. Both of these events, in theory, should
make society better off. The immigrant is better off due to the lifestyle improvement, and society
benefits from the firm's increased efficiency in a host of ways (expanded output and more jobs, cheaper
or better goods, increased returns to shareholders). That is how it works in theory. Unfortunately, most
a priori economic deductions are destroyed by random government regulations.

Going back to our original discussion, let's assume the empirical data show that non-legal
residents entering the US do lead to a net decrease in jobs for legal residents. This leads us to the moral
claim contained in the statement, "They took our jobs!" The word 'our' is the possessive adjective to
the word 'jobs'. These words together imply a moral right to jobs for those in the our group over those
in the they group. The they / our distinction is just another way of stating the in-group / out-group
distinction. Those making this moral claim must base the right on the same foundation that creates the
they / our distinction. The they / our distinction is based on citizenship. Citizenship is based on
physical place of birth. Therefore, the right to a job must also be based on citizenship and physical
place of birth.

One caveat needs to be added. Those against non-legal residents entering the US don't claim all
US citizens have absolute rights to jobs. They claim that legal workers have rights that take precedent
over non-legal workers. The random variable of being a legal worker is a necessary, but not a
sufficient, condition to having a right to a job. If the variable of being a legal worker is met then other
variables such as worker productivity, work ethic, and connections come into play. These latter
variables are market driven. But, one does not get to the market driven variables unless the first
variable of being a legal worker is met. I think this sums up the mainstream view of the "They took our
jobs!" camp. This does not change the fact that the they / our (in-group / out-group) distinction remains
a variable in the just distribution of labor.

I mentioned earlier that citizenship is both arbitrary and artificial. This means any so-called
right based on citizenship must also be arbitrary and artificial. But, rights are meant to distinguish and
protect based on moral distinctions. Citizenship does not create a moral distinction because the idea is
arbitrary and artificial. It is not a coherent view of rights that says people in the US are more entitled to
a job than people in Mexico simply being born in the US. If I created a concept of citizenship based on
the first letter of one's last name, and based moral rights on this idea, would that be just? Would it be
just to say Smith's have greater rights to jobs than Wilson's do because of alphabetic precedence.
Hopefully, we would all say no. This is no different than saying groups can have morally superior
rights to jobs over others based on place of birth.

Now let's review. We covered a lot of ground, so let's try to put it all together. I first said that
values often conflict. This conflict makes it impossible to hold any value, such as "Breaking the law is
wrong" as absolute. That was my first critique of the concept that breaking the law is immoral.

Then, I said that the ethical value "Breaking the law is wrong" is different from most values
because it applies to means and not ends. One must examine the end of a specific instance of breaking
the law to determine its moral worth. We then examined the end of illegally entering the US. One of
the ends might be that an illegal immigrant takes a job from a legal worker. I briefly mentioned that
this might be false empirically, but assumed it is true. For this end to be immoral the legal worker must
have a right to a job over the illegal worker. This right must be based on the legal / illegal distinction.
I tried to show that there is no moral standing to base a right to a job on the legal / illegal distinction
because the distinction is artificial and arbitrary. Without this right there is no moral wrong in an
illegal worker having a job at the expense of a legal worker. Therefore, the immorality of entering the
US illegally cannot be based on having a job at the expense of others.

I hope this brief discussion helps counter some of the hateful views towards non-legal
immigrants. Non-legal immigrants are often working for the same ends every one else is – providing
substance for themselves and their families. We cannot let the arbitrary and artificial idea of citizenship
steer perceptions of non-legal residents. This is no different that letting the arbitrary idea of race steer
perceptions.

Should immigrants assimilate into society?

How far should immigrants go to assimilate into their new society? Should they learn English
and become 'American Patriots'? Or, is it OK for them to retain their culture and language? These
questions revolve around the greater question of what society we want to create.

Going back in time to when the US government was created helps shed light on this question.
The framers of the US drew heavily on the ideas of political individualism and it's political offspring
liberalism. By liberalism I am not talking about contemporary views of liberalism involving expanded
government. The classical view of liberalism is different from the contemporary view. Classical
political liberalism and political individualism stressed the importance and worth of the individual over
society. It downplayed the 'we' of society.

We can go back to the Greeks to help understand how a 'we' society works. The Greeks viewed
society's needs as taking precedent over individual needs. Individuals existed to enhance society. A
pure democracy based on majority rule was the result of this ideology. This is why everyone in the
Athenian city-state was expected to participate in the political process. In such a political system
individuals who desired a different lifestyle than the will of the majority were often persecuted or
banished from the city. The Athenians were so scared of living under tyranny from one individual that
they created a system that led to the majority will forming a tyranny.

Alexis de Tocqueville famously referred to such as system as the 'Tyranny of the Majority.' An
example of this is if a country with a Muslim majority takes a vote open to all residents and decides to
ban all religions besides Islam. A 'we' society like the Greeks, and most Muslim societies, might not
think this is politically wrong since the majority approves of it.

The Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta also shows the communal nature of
Athenian politics. Thucydides records numerous political speeches concerning the war. Typically, the
speeches talk about the glory and honor of Athens, and the sanctity of the Athenian empire. Rarely do
the Athenian politicians base the merit of the war on the security it brings to the individuals of Athens.
From reading Thucydides, one gets the impression that the Athenians are not fighting for individual
safety and security, but for a vague notion of Athenian honor and glory. It is the communal, as
expressed through the state, that matters; not the individual members of the community.

Classical liberalism inverts this. In classical liberalism the political system exists to protect the
individual's rights over society. The Bill of Rights, for example, protects minorities from persecution.
The minorities can be either intellectual minorities, religious minorities, or racial minorities. Through
freedom of speech, association, religion, and the equal protection claue the US Constitution attempts to
protect minorities from being harassed and enslaved by the majority will of the people. James
Madison, the chief architect of the US Constitution, writes in Federalist 10 that pure democracies
typically end in mob rule and rarely protect individual rights of life and property.

Why does this digression to the Constitution and Madison matter? Well, it shows how classical
liberalism attempts to create a society where individuals are free to pursue their own interests as long as
they are not infringing on other's rights. Classical liberalism answers the question of 'What society do
we want to create?' by asking who the 'we is. It downplays the importance of creating a collective
national identity or culture. The 'we' is an organizational structure to secure individual freedom. The'
we' exists to protect the freedom of the 'I'.

Under the tradition of classical liberalism and political individualism immigrants have no
obligation to learn English or accept in US customs or practices. The government, the 'we', protects
immigrants' rights to live as they please, as long as they do not infringe on other's rights. As I tried to
show earlier, immigrants who form their own communities and maintain their native language and
customs do not infringe on other's rights. People do not have a right to only hear English while
standing in line at the grocery store.

Some might say that immigrants have a duty or obligation to assimilate into the culture they
move to. But, duties and rights go hand-in-hand. One person's right is another person's duty. For
example, the right to property creates a duty not to steal. Without a right there is no duty. Since no
rights are infringed when immigrants do not assimilate, no duties are placed upon immigrants to
assimilate. For the sake of clarity, duty and obligations are the same thing.

Of course, practical concerns will force immigrants to assimilate into the greater society.
Immigrants come to the US for a better life. To accomplish this it is helpful to learn English, and to
dress and act like an American. But, practical concerns to assimilate are different than statements that
immigrants should assimilate because they have a duty / obligation to do so. Practical concerns are
between the immigrant and himself. Society has not say-so in this matter.

Occasionally, immigrants' failure to assimilate does infringe other's rights. For example, it is
custom and law to drive on the right hand side of the road in the US. An immigrant entering the US
has a duty to adopt this custom because driving on the left hand side of the road infringes on another's
right to both property (car) and life. That is why this custom is legally enforced. But, I cannot think of
any similar infringement of rights for the failure to follow US customs or learn English.

The previous section was an analysis of how the question of whether immigrants should
embrace an American lifestyle is answered under the idea of political liberalism existing from the late
18th century to the late-19th century; ideas that effected the US's founding. But, thought has changed a
lot over the past hundred years. Also, the modern welfare state has created a different political
dynamic. The welfare state goes against the classical notions of liberalism and individualism by
encouraging a national identity and consensus.

So, do we disregard the ideas of political liberalism and political individualism as relics of the
past? Do we accept in its place ideas of national identity and a Rousseauian general will, which force
immigrants to take on the culure and language of their new home? I leave these questions for you to
ponder. I'm sure my hidden rhetoric gives away my thoughts.

Can our political system lead to an ideal solution of the immigration issue?

We're done analyzing the nuances of the immigration issue. Now, let's look to the future. What
can we expect from our current political system in crafting an ideal solution? Where will hindrances
occur?

Common sense tells us that non-citizens outside the US do not have a say-so in the US political
process. Further, politicians act in a self-seeking manner to win votes and stay in power. This creates a
dynamic where the only way the needs of those outside the US will be accounted for is if voters in the
US account for them. Voters in the US should account for the needs of those outside the US because
these people are fellow humans. Unfortunately, voters in the US have a self-seeking interest not to
account for the needs of potential immigrants.

One only needs to turn on the news to see that voters are following their presumed self-seeking
interest. Most immigration discussions are geared around protecting the status-quo as it currently
exists in the US. Immigrants are viewed as a threat to the status quo; a threat to jobs, a threat to
culture, and a threat to security. What is best for potential immigrants is rarely discussed. Uproars are
made that a 40 year old American might lose his job to an immigrant. But, no mention is made that a
40 year old Mexican is out of a job due to stringent immigration policies in the US. Nor is there
mention about the lost economic productivity, lost economic growth, and lost increased standards of
living worldwide that results when governments interfere with labor markets.

If politicians only act to win votes, and voters only vote in self-seeking ways, where does this
leave immigration policies? Not in a good position. It leaves us with one-sided, self-seeking policies.
It leaves us with policies designed to protect the status-quo in the US, with no concern over the fate of
the millions outside the US who's lives would be enriched by living in the US. This is the type of
policy we currently have. Who we let in highlights this. A worker abroad with critical skills for the US
economy can gain entrance into the US much easier than a common day-laborer. The reason is that the
former benefits voters through clear economic growth, while the latter does not clearly benefit voters.
 In our political system the only way the needs of those outside the US can be accounted for is
through the voices of those in the US. Since the pursuit of self interest will not provide this voice, it
must be provided through altruism. Protection based on political altruism is a fickle form of protection
that typically fails.

It is not just because of cold-heartedness that altruism fails in protecting potential immigrants.
Voter dynamics play a role as well. Voting is like buying a package of goods, not just one good.
Politicians represent many ideas and interests. You cannot vote for politician A's view on subject 1 and
politician B's view on subject 2. You either vote for politician A or B, and everything that comes with
it. It is like buying a phone. You might like the Android's ease of use, but you also might like the
diversity of apps for an iPhone. Unfortunately, you cannot mix and match. It is one or the other.
(Note: I've only had the cheap free phones. I know nothing about Androids or iPhones. So, don't take
the phone analogy too literally.)

Since we must vote by politician, and not by specific interests, we usually take our most
passionate interests and vote for politicians best representing them. We are not as concerned with what
politicians thinks about our minor interests. Further, our top interests are typically those that affect us
personally. Altruistic interests are minor interests that we do not place much emphasis on when voting.
Altruists might want open borders out of altruism towards those outside the US, but these will be minor
interest that play a small part in the altruist's voting decision.

We must now turn to interest group politics since altruistic voters will have little effect on
immigration policy. There are two groups that have self-interests in immigration policies. They are the
capital owners in fields that hire immigrants, and the workers in these fields. The capital owners have
an interest in open borders because this leads to more productive labor. More productive labor leads to
increased returns on invested capital. Workers in these fields have an interest in closed borders due to
job protection.

This perceived clash of interests reveals another reason why I am pessimistic that our political
system will take account of the needs of those outside the US. What politician would put the needs of
greedy capitalists over the needs of middle-class construction workers trying to support a family? Who
is going to side with the fat cats only concerned about profits over the hard-working middle class that is
the backbone of America? The previous two sentences are sarcastic, but, they represent the majority
mindset in the US.
 There are two points I want to make concerning this mindset. First, the middle class workers
desiring closed borders for job protection are just as greedy and self-seeking as the owners of capital
wanting open borders for increased returns on investments. Is wanting to protect your job at the
expense of other honest and hard working people less greedy than wanting to maximize investment
returns? I don't think so. If it is a matter of greed, then it is a wash.

Second, this idea presumes the Marxian idea of inevitable class conflicts. There is rarely a
conflict between the interest of capital owners and interest of workers. Occasionally, a conflict might
arise between capitalist owners seeking increased investment returns and specific workers, such as
union members or workers within the closed borders of the US. But, if we get rid of the artificial and
self-seeking divides of unions and legal workers then all class conflicts disappear. In free labor
markets the interests of capital owners are the interest of workers.

What now?

I have spent most of this essay critiquing certain assumptions held on the immigration issue. I
have not posed many solutions. The reason is two-fold. First, I don't know if I have a solution. I am a
libertarian by nature, and as I a result am a fan of open borders and free immigration. The only reason
people would be barred from entering the US would be for known security risks.

But, the libertarian ideal of open borders coexists within the libertarian ideal of the minimal
state. Open borders within the minimal state is the ideal. However, we do not have a minimal state, we
have an expanding welfare state. Open borders within a welfare state might be harmful. It is certainly
inefficient. The welfare state requires an in-group / out-group dichotomy that my libertarian ideals
want to do away with.

This friction is the center of most immigration issues. Do we pay for English classes and job
training? Do we provide illegal immigrants with education and health care? These questions assume
that government has a duty to provide basic services to people. The friction lies in deciding which
people. The libertarian minimalist state eliminates this friction because it does not even provide these
services to legal residents.

Where does this leave me? Well, I am not really sure. This leads to the second reason why I do
not offer many solutions. My desire is not to force my 'what to do' opinions on you. Hopefully, this
essay allows you to examine the issue of immigration with better clarity. Then, given your ideal of the
role of the state within society, you can come up with a solution that match that ideal.
 A Final Note on the Empirical Issues

I do not address empirical issues regarding immigration in my essay. Empirical issues include
whether non-legal immigration increases the employment rate for legal workers, whether non-legal
immigrants have higher crime rates than legal residents, and to what lengths non-legal immigrants
assimilate in their new culture. These are empirical questions because they cannot be answered
through reason alone. We find answers to these questions by studying what happens in the real world.
A random guy sitting in Afghanistan, smoking a cigar, and writing whatever comes to mind cannot
answer these question. Since I am that random dude in Afghanistan, I don't attempt to answer these
questions. Sure, I could try to find answers in the social sciences literature, but research is boring.
Plus, I am sure the studies, like all studies in the social sciences, are inconclusive when taken as a
whole.