In an article on the Foundation for Economic Education website, Thomas Lehman presents arguments in favor of open immigration. I don't have a whole lot to add to the article, but I thought the rest of you may find it interesting.
There are a few things about the article that I really like. First is the way he poses the question of immigration to a society whose very foundation is one of open immigration and wonders why we're so closed to it now. The article was written in 1995, so the terrorism concern wasn't nearly what it is now; however, I don't believe the tone of the article would change much even if it were one of the issues considered...which leads me to the second thing I really like about the article.
He points out that the domestic element is of greater concern than the foreign element in terms of loss of our freedom and economic superiority, which is true for so many of the problems we face today. After years of creating terrorists abroad, the state has turned its focus inward to protect us from those terrorists. We find our borders more closed today than ever, and anyone who goes in or out is automatically presumed a terrorist until proven otherwise. The fact that our foreign policy has created this threat in the first place is completely and utterly lost on those in positions of power. Thus grows the power of the state, reaching into every aspect of our lives more every day.
Likewise, the fact that so many are up in arms about the migration of IT jobs to foreign consulting firms is testament to how unwilling we are to understand our own role in creating an environment where such cost-cutting measures are necessary. I had to laugh when Kerry promised to "close the tax loophole" that businesses supposedly exploit in order to reduce costs.
In so many ways, we've been digging ourselves into a hole for 200 years...one from which escape seems difficult, if not impossible. I'm always amazed how the answer to this is typically to keep digging, hoping we'll find the way out further down. Sometimes we dig sideways for a while, but anytime the going gets tough in that direction we turn our efforts once again downward. The solutions to these issues are simple in concept, but difficult and often painful in implementation. Will we ever be willing to endure the hardships that may come with undoing all the damage we've done to ourselves?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Dude, I've been pulled aside and patted down damn near every time I've entered another country (before and after 9/11), especially when travelling alone --- because single youngish females are profiled as potential drug mules and money carriers (the more harmless-looking, the higher the interest). Fair? No, but such is the business of crossing borders, and we did not invent that particular reality.
And as far as our foreign policy creating terrorists . . . you might want to read up on post-colonial Dutch domestic and foreign policy, which (to paraphrase one Dutch politician) most recently embraced a philosophy of peace through tolerance until their own Theo van Gogh was whacked. Now they're rethinking that stance, and of course the ultraconservatives are taking advantage of the situation. If we're all self-responsible to some fundamental degree (a Libertarian idea, yes?), then how can the state "create" terrorists abroad? If subjugation and the perpetuation of squalor were the main criteria, then the whole flipping world would be a terrorist seedbed. I think there's a little more to terrorist ideology than the butt-end of imperialist economics --- else why would a significant number of them come from middle-class backgrounds? Think it through.
Forgive my rant. I'm in a rare mood...
"Dude, I've been pulled aside and patted down damn near every time I've entered another country..."
So you would argue that this is an unfortunate necessity of life and that we must accept this type of treatment...to what end?
"...such is the business of crossing borders, and we did not invent that particular reality."
Indeed not. We "invented" exactly the opposite...a society based on free immigration and emigration, without artificial barriers to prosperity. Upon this we built a society that was a beacon of freedom to the rest of the world. But now fear and protectionism are the order of the day, and we're reaping the fruits thereof. The fact that it exists elsewhere in no way compels me to feel that it's right or appropriate.
Theo van Gogh...
First off, I certainly wouldn't paint any violent act committed by an Islamic fundamentalist as "terrorism". Nevermind that he pissed off a whole bunch of people...that was his choice, and I fully support his right to do so. I'm sure he knew the risks associated with his actions, and he chose to accept them. His death was murder...plain and simple. Murder is wrong and should be punished.
So...what were the Dutch "tolerating" that they're no longer willing to tolerate? Will they no longer tolerate murder? Will they no longer tolerate Muslims living in their country? Will they no longer tolerate anything that might piss off someone else? They're rethinking their policy because one guy got whacked for making a religious statement that may or may not have been true? Are they rethinking other policies, too? Are they rethinking their policy of allowing the use of automobiles because someone got hit by a car? Are they rethinking their policy allowing the use of electricity because someone got electricuted wiring up a ceiling fan? How reactionary can we get?
"...how can the state "create" terrorists abroad?"
Say you're sitting in your living room one day, reading the latest propaganda from DC about how great and wonderful our leaders are and how they all just want to help us and provide for us and keep us safe and warm...all the while knowing it's B.S. Or maybe you don't know it's B.S. Maybe you believe that they really are competent and capable and selfless and really have our best interests at heart. All is well with the world. You've just completed your tax return and forked over 20-35% of the fruits of your labor to those same individuals, who will no doubt spend it making sure you remain free and fed and dignified. Or maybe you've just flushed $20,000 dollars down the toilet, and you're wondering what the hell you're getting for all that money. Maybe you've just taken your beta blockers because your blood pressure is through the roof, and you're thankful that the FDA took all those years to ensure that they were safe and effective, and you know that the thousands who suffered and died waiting for them would be proud that they could sacrifice their health or their lives to ensure your safety. Regardless of what you happen to be doing, it's a sunny day out, with nary a cloud in the sky, and you're just glad that you're alive to witness it.
Suddenly, you start to hear a low rumble, then a loud boom thunders across the sky as a missile arcs over your house at 750 miles an hour and slams into the strip mall down the street. Buildings explode into clouds of dust, body parts fly in all directions, and a shopping cart lands at your feet, bits of burning plastic clinging to it.
Another missile flies by, then another, and another. Suddenly, bombs start to fall all around you as planes streak across the sky. It's the Saudis! They've come to liberate us from our exploitive Capitalist regime!
Hurrah!!! Arranged marriages and clitorectomies for everyone! Burkas, chadors, and surwal are finally back in fashion. Fairooz sings the national anthem, and the imam chants the Pledge of Allegiance every day at teatime.
Put yourself in their shoes. How would you feel if the military forces of another country descended upon this nation, killed hundreds of thousands of our fellow Americans, deposed our government, and replaced it with a puppet regime of their choosing? Would that drive you to fly a plane into the Saudi royal palace?
Far-fetched, yes, but my point is that terrorism is not merely a symptom of living in a "free" society that other cultures may find objectionable. The notion that Arabs are bent on our destruction because of our freedom is ludicrous. Yes, they may find our way of life distasteful. They may believe we are infidels destined to spend eternity as fruit flies. They may even hate us because we think we've got it all figured out. But is that enough to drive someone (or a group of people) to acts of terrorism?
Believe me...I've thought it through. Subjugation and perpetuation of squalor are not the main criteria. Intervention by a foreign military for reasons of ideology or economy are much more compelling.
My question is this...what gives our government the right to intervene in the affairs of another country through military force or political/economic coercion...especially when it is to the direct detriment of Americans? Do you sleep better at night knowing that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power in Iraq? Do you feel safer because we're "fighting the war on terrorism"? Or maybe it wasn't about that. Maybe it was all economic. So where are the lower gas prices? Where are all the benefits that should come from spreading democracy throughout the world? What benefits, you may ask? Let me know when you think of some.
"So you would argue that this is an unfortunate necessity of life and that we must accept this type of treatment...to what end?" To the end of maintaining something like a civilization based on laws, which is rarely elegant or convenient.
"Indeed not. We "invented" exactly the opposite...a society based on free immigration and emigration, without artificial barriers to prosperity." So long as you're a white male landowner or an astoundingly resourceful guy, a la Ben Franklin. :) That was our colonial heritage. The inclusions and expansions you see today grew out of struggle more than magnanimity or vision. Fear and protectionism, I think you'll find, go back to Massachusetts Bay Colony, the striking of some of the original humanist clauses from the Declaration, etc. "Liberty" was a narrowly defined ideal at the beginning of this particular national experiment, and it's stretched ever so slowly, sometimes losing ground, before advancing again. It's still happening, actually.
"Do you sleep better at night knowing that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power in Iraq? Do you feel safer because we're "fighting the war on terrorism"?" Um, no, and I think it's safe to say that the rest of your rant doesn't coincide much with what goes on in my mind on a daily basis.
I will say this, though . . . it's wonderful that you're passionate about getting to the truths of situations as you understand them. But you know what, Ron? Some of us have been thinking things through on uncomfortably deep levels for a long time, sometimes while our friends skipped along the more engaging planes of their own lives and shied away from "deep conversations." (Thirteen volumes of the Leblog will back me up, inanely enough.) I think you're on a worthwhile track, but you're starting from a very Romanticized version of history, for one, and I think you'd be far better served by source material (Great Books, anyone?) and your own substantial brain power than editorials, punditry and newsletter tantrums of the utopia/dystopia variety --- i.e., rhetoric.
Yeah, I know I'm a total noob in the critical thinking department. :) I'm absorbing information as quickly as I can, but it's an ongoing learning process, so I do still get taken in by the rhetoric at times. Still, a lot of the information I've come across is based on generally accepted source material...Bastiat, Mises, Hayek, Smith, Locke, etc.
I certainly don't believe that the Founding Fathers had it all right. And there was a lot about them as individuals that was less than admirable. Libertarians are generally aware that "We, the People..." meant "We, the [white] people...". There was definitely room for improvement. I do believe, though, that the principles of liberty were basically sound then and still are today. And I believe that we're worse off for stretching or discarding them than we would be had they been adhered to. Still, I guess one can't expect too much from this initial experiment. It may take a few iterations before we figure it out.
"To the end of maintaining something like a civilization based on laws, which is rarely elegant or convenient." I definitely agree that laws are necessary, whether they're elegant, convenient, or otherwise. The question is, which laws align with the role of government that most advances liberty while providing protection from the enemies thereto? (my favorite reference for this being The Law, by Frederic Bastiat) I don't believe that our current drug laws fall into that category, so I don't agree that your being searched for drugs or whatever is right or necessary...especially since doing so has a negligible effect on the amounts of illegal drugs that make it across our borders in the first place. Likewise with terrorists...they'll find a way in whether a dog sticks his nose up your ass looking for C-4 or not.
I think the question we should be asking ourselves is, why are we targets for terrorism in the first place? I think it will be impossible to significantly curb or eliminate terrorist attacks on American soil until we seriously consider getting to the root of this question.
By the way...the "you" in my rant wasn't meant to coincide with you, Kathy. I know you well enough to know you don't think like that. It was meant in the more abstract literary sense. :)
"Yeah, I know I'm a total noob in the critical thinking department. :)" Not so much as you think. Part of the reason I'm not a full-time member of the academe is my impatience with negotiating the tightrope between passionate but unidimensional students and well-read but vitriolic and partisan scholars. You're far better off being a noob in the Zen sense than an ossified or wilfully opinionated veteran.
"I think the question we should be asking ourselves is, why are we targets for terrorism in the first place?" An excellent question, and I don't think there's a single answer. In asking that, though, I think we also need to ask a related question: "Why have we not been targets for terrorism until now?" The UK, most of central Europe and the northern Mediterranean have lived with domestic and international terrorism for the last fifty years. I'm not trying to downplay 9/11 by any means, but in some ways it was a violent initiation into what much of the "West" has been living with all along. The IRA, Basque separatists and the Red Army haven't hesitated to target civilians for the "cause." It just wasn't happening over here, so we didn't have to think about it. Now we have to think about it.
"By the way...the "you" in my rant wasn't meant to coincide with you, Kathy. I know you well enough to know you don't think like that. It was meant in the more abstract literary sense. :)" Noted. Sorry, though, my first instinct when presented with a straw man is to whack it out of the way. :)
Post a Comment