Freedom_of_Association_and

At first blush, the contentious problem of illegal immigration may not seem to have much in common with such divergent political issues as fair housing laws, illicit prostitution, and lack of health care. The difficulties associated with all of these topics, however, flow from the same fundamental cause. In each of these examples –– and more –– most politicians, pundits, and proponents of one suggested solution or another fail to recognize the basic requirements of a free and moral society.

Even though many people have a vested interest in pretending that our modern world is “too complex” for the average person to understand, nothing could be farther from the truth. If citizens truly understood the simple principles necessary to organize and conduct interactions on the personal, business, and community levels, ninety-plus-percent of government employees would suddenly be sans jobs. Though this to-be-desired situation might lead to a temporary spike in unemployment payments, forcing city, county, state, and federal workers to find productive things to do with their time, skills, and effort would eventually prove to be a boon to society.

What is perplexing and sad, however, is that nearly every adult comprehends and applies these principles when it comes to private social behavior. Strangely, though, once the actions in question cross into the “public,” i.e., government-involved realm, all this hard-earned wisdom vanishes into the ether. Somehow, some way, the introduction of a voting lever into the equation transforms the most vile and disgusting actions into the pure gold of moral rectitude.

Whatever the reasons for such evasion and delusion, the reality is that three basic principles suffice to guide us in deciding whether a particular policy is one that may be properly pursued:

1. Our lives belong to us.

2. Our property belongs to us.

3. Our freedom of association belongs to us.

(While a full explanation and justification for these propositions cannot be offered here, numerous sources exist for those interested in a deeper exploration. For example, as a place to begin, see my Web site: www.russellmadden.com. Suffice it here to say that each succeeding principle expands and depends upon the one preceding it.)

Most individuals at least implicitly know that they are not slaves to other people; that they “own” their bodies and their lives and have the right and the responsibility to choose how they will or will not conduct their present and future affairs. From childhood, they also grasp that there is a distinct difference between “what belongs to me” and “what belongs to you.” What they earn through their own efforts –– their property –– is theirs to use as they see fit, even if others may object to how they spend their money or consume the goods they have obtained.

Freedom of association is likewise not rocket science. From our earliest years, we decide who will or will not be our friends. As youths, we select who will share our free time and who we will date. In adulthood, we pick who we will marry and what organizations we will join. As long as our interactions with those around us are peaceful and mutually voluntary, we recognize that no one has the right to force us to socialize with any other particular person or group of persons. Formally, “freedom of association” means the right of an individual to interact (or not to interact) (peacefully) with any other person for any reason whatsoever.

While these three principles are routinely violated by those in government charged with enforcing those very ideas (and supported by far too many citizens who should know better), freedom of association is of special relevance to the topic of (legal or illegal) immigration. The alleged woes attendant with strangers seeking to cross the borders of our nation seem periodically to seize the fearful imagination of the American public. Cries and lamentations of anger and trepidation and condemnation once again dominant the halls of Congress and march across the pages and screens of mass media. The Internet ignites with self-righteous defense of either immigrants or the stringent measures needed to keep them under control. Claims abound that the very existence of our country is at stake.

While there are a plethora of reasons offered against either immigration, in general, or illegal immigration, in particular, three points seem to stand out among the clamor:

Even some self-proclaimed defenders of liberty have clambered aboard the anti-immigration bandwagon. While such a blind spot is unsurprising in those with populist or statist leanings, it is especially curious when discovered in those who purport to support the foundations of a moral and free society.

Immigration-friendly libertarians have been accused of their own blindness in regard to this issue. Supposedly, they fail to recognize the reality of the current situation. Instead of coming to grips with the very significant problems America faces as illegal immigrants pour into our country, libertarians simply retreat behind the unattainable ideal of a free society then wash their hands of what is actually happening. Pie-in-the-sky fantasies are useless, critics say, in dealing with concrete, day-to-day dilemmas.

This objection to libertarian pro-immigration arguments sounds suspiciously similar to that of politicians who warn against “ideologues,” i.e., people holding without compromise to their principles. “Pragmatism” rules the day in state and federal legislatures: treat each and every problem as sui generis, each distinctly differently and unconnected in how they should be approached. As writer Ayn Rand pointed out, such “concrete-bound” thinking renders a person rudderless, flitting from crisis to crisis without a clue, constantly obsessed with symptoms while incapable of –– or uninterested in ––grasping the underlying causes that might actually resolve a whole raft of problems at a single stroke. Such a course is guaranteed to accomplish one thing only: failure.

Even for those championing immigrants, though, putting one’s primary focus on immigration is to misdirect the spotlight. To state it simply: I am not fundamentally for –– or against –– immigration. What I do support is freedom of association. Examining this right through the lens of the immigration debate will help illuminate the requirements of freedom overall.

While libertarians are castigated as starry-eyed idealists for advocating the end of the welfare state as a solution to a major complaint of the immigrant situation, anti-immigration advocates ignore the reality that immigration –– whether legal or illegal –– will never stop. Rather than clinging to the untenable fantasy of –– almost literally –– walling ourselves away from the world at the cost of billions of dollars, those against immigration need to deal with the issue head-on.

Consider the costs Americans incur as a result of (illegal) immigration. Both sides trade warring statistics as to the amounts involved. Even though many illegal immigrants pay taxes on their wages, it is ultimately irrelevant whether they do or do not “pay their own way.” Tax-funded welfare is legalized theft. It violates rights and is thus immoral. No one defending liberty can properly advocate increasing the number of people engaged in such destructive behavior.

Anti-immigration advocates complain that illegal immigrants flood our public, i.e., State-run schools. Classrooms mushroom in size, putting strains on overworked teachers and physical resources. New teachers –– often bilingual –– must be hired and new buildings to handle the influx of students must be constructed with taxes or bonds.

Like many uninsured American citizens, illegal immigrants without health insurance invade hospital emergency rooms. There they seek more expensive medical care for which they are unable to pay, but which hospitals are legally mandated to provide. This simultaneously degrades the quality of care for everyone given the limited numbers of health workers and pushes up costs that hospitals must cover, somehow. Other patients with insurance or who pay out-of-pocket are forced to cover the resulting deficits by facing higher prices than they would otherwise.

Critics also bemoan the fact that immigrants take jobs from Americans because these invaders are willing to work for less pay and under less desirable conditions than are native citizens. This lowers our living standards and creates hardships that would not exist if illegal immigrants were kept out of the job market.

All of this emphasis on costs is, of course, merely a smokescreen. Straightforward solutions exist to prevent illegals from piggybacking on American taxpayers.

Don't like the welfare costs associated with illegal immigrants? Then deny them access to any and all kinds of State-funded welfare. Heck, deny welfare to legal immigrants, too, if you like. Surely, given the rabid anti-immigration mentality gripping the American psyche, this kind of legislation is certainly “realistic” and doable. As part of this reform, deny immigrants access to State-run schools. Too many freeloaders on our health care system? Deny them access to government-financed health care, too. From the point of view of the statist anti-immigration crowd, the beauty of this approach is that there would be no need to end the immorality of welfare for all. Just terminate it for the outcasts. If this dual-level system creates hardships for immigrants who pay income and property or other taxes yet are denied the “benefits” of tax-provided welfare or education or medical care, then tough.

But, of course, anti-immigration advocates balk at such a drastic solution. To abolish welfare for millions of people would be to call into question the very validity and morality of the core ideas and actions of our overbearing nanny state. No longer could statists cling to the fantasy that any person has a “right” to goods or services for which he cannot pay. To end welfare for such a sizable chunk of the population would put the lie to the contention that people have a right to food or shelter or medical care or education. Because if an individual did have a right to such things, how could the ninety-plus-percent of Americans who agree with such nonsense justify denying anyone –– even people here illegally –– access to what is his by right? No, better to keep unwanted immigrants out in the first place so such uncomfortable questions are never asked.

The same analysis applies to the “cost” to native Americans of immigrants willing to take unpleasant jobs for less money than most citizens would accept. No one has a right to any particular job or a particular wage or a particular standard of living. Indeed, no one has a right to any job or wage or economic good, whatsoever. All a person has a right to in regard to employment is to offer his services and to try to reach an agreement with someone willing to pay a mutually agreeable compensation for such work. In other words, people have the right to seek employment, not to be employed. (Compare this to the right to pursue happiness; no one has a fundamental right to be happy.)

With freedom of association (arising from the principles of self-ownership and property rights), medical personnel have the right to refuse to deal with those who cannot pay, regardless of how much the latter might need medical care. The only legitimate course the indigent can follow is to ask for assistance, i.e., for charity.

In the same vein, educators can decline to associate with those who would place an unwanted burden upon them or with those unable or unwilling to pay the requested price or to meet the mandated conditions. Teachers are no more slaves than are doctors.

Nor do business owners have an obligation to provide a livelihood to anyone they do not care to hire or to keep such an individual around if the association becomes undesirable. The flip side of this, of course, is that no employer may force anyone to remain at a job if that person chooses to leave, for whatever reason, regardless of how much the employer might need the help.

The second major complaint frequently offered by those vehemently opposed to granting any leeway to illegal immigrants is that, by definition, such invaders ignore the legality of their presence in this country. We should not reward scofflaws, they say. Violating our immigration laws automatically disqualifies any such individual from any benefit-of-the-doubt. After all, the government is supposed to defend and control our borders and decide who will or will not be granted permission to enter our country.

Immigration opponents have sought to limit the number of people illegally entering our nation by becoming more aggressive in both the laws designed to deny access and in the enforcement of such laws. Sadly, these critics ignore the reality of the unintended consequences of their stricter immigration policies. These actions have had the perverse result of increasing the number of illegal residents, the exact opposite of the stated goal. In the past, many migrant workers (legal or illegal) would have returned to their homes in Mexico after harvest season ended. Given the increased difficulties now associated with re-entering this country, many of these migrants choose to remain in America permanently (if illegally) rather than face possible detention at the border when work opportunities again arise.

By hammering on the issue of “legality,” many anti-immigration advocates reinforce the demonstrably false (and statist) notion that “legality equals morality.” But what is “legal” and what is “right” is not always coincident. Chattel slavery was, for example, legal in this country for many decades. Properly speaking, any legitimate laws should follow from a proper moral code. In other words, no good law violates rights. But the causality runs only one way. Simply passing a law does not lead to automatic moral justification of that law. There have always been and will continue to be far too many laws that do violate basic rights.

Yes, we can, indeed, all agree that people who do not seek permission, e.g., visas or similar papers, to enter this country or who outstay their permission are here illegally. But this begs an important question: should such laws exist, in the first place?

The last thing statist anti-immigration advocates want is for individuals to begin doubting the link (or lack thereof) between “what is legal” and “what is right.” They shrink from the possibility that citizens might someday realize that they are under no moral obligation to obey improper laws. (Compare this to a soldier who is not obligated to obey an improper order from a superior.) Our politicians have long fostered the illusion that they have the right to pass laws on any and all aspects of society, no matter how trivial or specific, and that every citizen must and should obey each and every prohibition or commandment lest the “rule of law” crumble into chaos and societal dissolution.

This stance is, of course, complete hogwash.

For example, citizens on juries have the right (once taken for granted in this country) to judge not only the facts of a case (that is, did a defendant violate a particular law) but also the law itself, i.e., should the law exist, at all; does it conform with proper legal principles by not, itself, violating individual rights?

It is easy to observe how much statists fear widespread rediscovery of this idea. Anyone who has been called to jury duty will likely have it pounded into them by court officials that jurors are permitted only to decide if, in fact, a person has engaged in behavior defined as illegal by a particular statute. But if citizens ever routinely realize that they as jurors are no less a part of our system of checks-and-balances and the separation of powers than are legislators or executives or judges, then they may begin to weaken the foundations of taxation and regulation and control that have kept a small, unanswerable elite in charge of this nation for so long.

So in regard to immigration, what does the State have the legal authority to do?

The United States Constitution has two passages relevant to immigration. The first is Article 1, Section 8, paragraph four: “The Congress shall have power...” “To establish an uniform rule of naturalization...” This is clear enough. Any immigrants who seek to become citizens must be treated the same under the law as all other immigrants: no special favors for one group, no special restrictions on another. (In terms of immigration itself, though, any “uniform rule” is, of course, regularly violated by the establishment of quotas for certain nationalities or professions or types of familial ties.)

The second passage is in section nine of the same article: “The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.” While not explicitly granting Congress the power to limit entry into this country, the implication for doing so (after 1808, anyway) is clear...at least to modern ears. But this section was included to keep Congress from banning the importation of slaves, not ordinary immigrants, and is thus without moral force (as were other, subsequently repealed parts of the Constitution that protected the slave trade).

Even if one chooses to distort the intent of this section to apply to non-slave immigrants, such a provision would violate the right of citizens to freedom of association. If an alien can find people to rent him living space, to sell him food, to pay him a salary, no one has the right to intercede in such peaceful and mutually voluntary social interactions.

In the final analysis, any immigration law designed to hinder or prevent any non-rights-violating foreign-born persons from crossing our border and associating with Americans is immoral, violating both the rights of American citizens who choose to associate with such immigrants and the rights of the immigrants themselves to do likewise. Given the immorality of anti-immigration statutes, no person is under any moral obligation to obey such laws, nor can he legitimately be morally condemned for being an “illegal” or “criminal” for breaking the provisions of such unjustifiable laws.

Anti-immigrant folks begin with a false premise –– that the State has the right to prevent freedom of association –– and reach false conclusions –– that the State has the right and/or duty to regulate who may or may not enter our country and for how long and under what conditions. Of course, this intellectual error is a common one among those who begin with statist premises –– that the State has the right to prevent or to do any X –– and then conclude that welfare/national health care/gun control/business regulations and so forth are proper. Whether the issue is defending slavery or restricting recreational drug use or gun ownership or consensual crimes such as prostitution, gambling, suicide, pornography, polygamy, cohabitation, sex, homosexuality, ticket scalping, seat belts, or helmets, the State does not possess the ability to transmute its immoral actions into moral rectitude simply by passing a blizzard of laws.

The State has one and only one proper purpose: to defend the rights of all the people within its borders. It has no right to demand passports or green cards or to prevent peaceful individuals from entering –– or equally important, leaving –– this country, whether citizens or not. The State does not “grant” anyone rights. It has only the authority to respect and defend the rights we all possess as human beings. Again, one of those most basic rights is freedom of association. Deny that right in immigration or in any other area of life and witness the negative consequences as more and more violations of rights are legalized in this country.

A nation’s boundaries are not the equivalent of a private individual’s property lines. Entering a country without the State’s permission is not the equivalent of trespassing into a homeowner’s house. It is an error to claim that because an individual has the right to do X (e.g., keep unwanted strangers from coming into his home), the State can also do X (keep out certain would-be immigrants). The State has only delegated powers. It has zero rights and does not have the same range of action open to it as does an individual. For example, a person can (rationally or irrationally) discriminate against anyone else based on race, sex, ethnicity, weight, or for any other reason, whether for jobs or housing or customers or personal social situations. That is part and parcel of a person’s right to freedom of association.

The State, however, cannot engage in such discriminatory actions. That is what “equality under the law” means: everyone is treated the same, without favoritism or penalty for non-rights-violating behavior or characteristics. To repeat: the State’s sole legitimate purpose is to defend the rights of anyone and everyone who resides within its jurisdiction. That’s it. Finis.

In conjunction with the issue of legality, anti-immigration advocates also raise the specter of actual crime committed by illegal aliens. “If one person’s life could be saved by keeping out an illegal alien who would otherwise kill someone, then keeping out all illegal aliens is justified.” Even worse, such anti-illegals often claim that, unless their opponents can prove that crime X would have occurred even if the illegal had been deported, then the immigration restrictions are fully justified.

The latter challenge, of course, is basically an “appeal to ignorance” fallacy. That is, because immigration proponents cannot prove that crime X would have occurred anyway, then that means it would not have occurred if the immigrant had been denied access to this country. It is simplistically true that a murder, say, committed by a particular illegal would not have been committed by that individual if he were not present. But it is also not possible to prove a negative: that a similar crime –– for example, murder of the victim in question –– committed by someone else, whether citizen or legal alien, would not have happened had the illegal immigrant been removed. It is impossible to prove before a crime is committed...that a crime was or will be committed! To prevent any crimes from being committed by any illegals, it would be necessary to find and deport all illegals: yet another impossible task.

As for condemning all members of group X because of the transgressions of a few, that is a sadly familiar tactic of statists: e.g., because one person murdered someone with a gun, then all gun owners should be restricted (or its companion statement: if “one life can be saved” by abolishing guns, then all guns should be banned). This principle of collective guilt is used to justify a plethora of laws and regulations whenever a member of a particular group does something bad, whether the offending group is composed of business owners or whites or males or young people or gays or doctors.

But “prior restraint” á la the movie “Minority Report” is not a justifiable legal guideline and must be rejected by anyone seeking to advance liberty. One might as well claim that each and every potential criminal –– immigrant or native-born –– should and must be arrested and removed from society before he has the opportunity actually to commit a crime. But neither omniscience nor infallibility have yet to be demonstrated by anyone...least of all, agents of the State.

In the final analysis, none of the major arguments –– cost, legality, or crime –– offered by those opposed to some or all immigrants can be justified. Nor can “solutions” offered by freedom-oriented think tanks or individuals be seen as acceptable that seek to entrench rights-violations such as passports or green cards or visas, even if such proposals are less draconian than those suggested by the more rabid anti-immigrant advocates.

Freedom –– and only freedom –– will resolve the current problems our society faces. Individual rights, property rights, freedom of association: these ideas –– these ideals –– are the only key to handling both short-term and long-term difficulties, whether the issue is immigration, health care, education, or any other topic. Any other approach that violates the rights of even a single individual must be discredited, condemned, and rejected.


DEATH IS EASY by *Russell Madden* *Softcover, $14.95* *Hardcover, $24.95* *(Preview. Also available in a digital edition, $4.81.)*	FREEDOM, As If It Mattered by *Russell Madden* *Softcover, $24.95* *Hardcover, $34.95* *(Preview. Also available in a digital edition, $5.63.)*