Roughly over the past 20 years, I have witnessed the immigration issue increasingly championed as a populist cause by those on the right. In fact, I have shared much of the sentiment. Like many, I have questioned if those here illegally should benefit from our social welfare system. I certainly hear and share the concerns about drug cartels crossing the southern border and other crimes committed by those coming here that involve pillaging property, raping women, and the advancement of sex-trafficking.
However, the approaches taken to address this matter have increasingly become manifestations of protectionism, which should be a real concern. I say this because protectionism has dangerous implications in many ways. For one, it has its roots in socialism. So, with the approaches taken to address immigration becoming more protectionist, I first consider the rhetoric that is commonly used.
We hear more references not only to sealing the border but also to sealing ‘our’ border. This is disconcerting because no civil government inherently has the right to own land. Despite this, our own Federal Government has claimed the right to own and manage vast amounts of land resulting in forest fires, crop failure, and eminent domain abuse that has come at the expense of private property rights. There are also totalitarian undertones to the notion of government land ownership. Regimes like the former Soviet Union claimed complete land ownership and means of production thus suppressing virtually all economic opportunity. I mention all this because our ideas and speech do have consequences.
Let us also look at the approaches addressing border and immigration which once again I deem protectionist. Even before Donald Trump back in 2015 began campaigning for the presidency, there has been insistence on building a wall to seal and protect ‘our’ southern border. Senator Tim Scott, Republican Candidate for president like others promise to complete the wall. The idea apparently is that the Federal Government needs to construct this wall to protect us from those who may do us harm. Where protectionism really needs to take place is for the government to ensure that our rights to protect ourselves are not infringed upon. After all, defending oneself and property is an individual right. Where the government really needs to come in is to punish those who infringe upon our rights and who do us harm while maintaining the rule of law. Now, the problem with having a wall along the southern border is that it is put into place with the underlying presumption that everyone entering our country presents a threat to us, which we know is not the case. Many, if not most, are honestly seeking better opportunities for themselves and their families. So, what we have with the border wall is the federal government going to such drastic measures to protect us from those whom they have not yet proven to be a threat.
Additional protectionist measures are now being proposed that would involve militant approaches to deal with drug cartels that cross the southern border. Florida Governor and presidential candidate, Ron Desantis like others have promised using our military and drone attacks to confront the cartels and have even proposed going into Mexico to wage war against them to ultimately deal with our drug epidemic. This approach is problematic for numerous reasons. For one, it would be an extreme misuse of our military. The military is intended to defend us from those who wish to do our country harm through various attacks and means of invasion. While the cartels indeed enter our country for the purpose of selling drugs which are certainly harmful due to their addictive nature and in larger measure result in death from overdose, I do not see the cartels as invaders. By entering our country, they are not making extensive attacks against our infrastructure or making deliberate and direct attacks against our cities and states, nor are they trying to overthrow our government. What they are doing, essentially, is presenting people with the opportunity to determine how they will protect themselves from potential harm. Sadly, in our country people continue to make choices that are harmful to themselves, in this case using illicit and deadly drugs. Consequently, demand perpetuates for the drugs sold by the cartels. Now, regarding the proposed measures to go after the cartels with military force, we see once again see the Federal government taking drastic measures to act in a paternalist way to protect us, though it is ultimately our responsibility to guard ourselves from what can do us harm.
The ramifications of using military force must also be taken into consideration. If the Federal Government can take upon itself to use force against our neighbors to the south in this way, we need to ask ourselves what is next. Personally, I see exerting power against them for this purpose leading to further imperialistic measures previously used by our military which have always resulted in an ongoing and established presence in countries throughout the world. Consequently, our military forces have been unnecessarily spread, always putting a drain on our resources thus creating an ongoing burden for the taxpayers. Also, important to recall is that past military intervention in various parts of the world has led to further destabilization and have worsened situations. The wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afganastan are good examples. Also, we can’t forget that military force involves risking the lives of our own people. War has always resulted in our service men and woman coming home with severe physical and mental trauma and of course, some don’t come home at all. Not only that, but this approach must also be seen as it fits in with the overall War on Drugs which has persisted for over 40 years. Though enormous amounts of tax dollars have been spent through various Federal agencies, the drug epidemic has persisted. Actions taken by the FBI through drug raids have persistently caused disruption in neighborhoods causing people to feel unsafe often coming at the expense of civil liberties. Perhaps, instead of going to these extreme measures through Federal power, alternative ways to treat people who persist on making these harmful decisions to themselves will prove more effective in addressing the drug epidemic.
Also, important to consider when looking at border control and immigration policy is that they essentially amount to top-down central planning efforts on behalf of the Federal Government. In fact, there happen to be four agencies under the Department of Homeland Security that are charged with securing the United States’ borders. They are the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, the Bureau of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, the United States Coast, and the Transportation Security Administration. The total budget for all these agencies for fiscal year 2024 is $103.2 Billion with 260,000 employees employed by all these agencies.
From the perspective of fiscal policy, the enormous budget demands of these agencies under Homeland Security must be considered, especially since this involves Federal spending. One drawback of taxes paid to the Federal Government is that the money often goes right back to the states. This means that the money trades hands more often than it should as it passes through the Federal bureaucracy, then goes back to the states resulting in waste, consequently leaving an unnecessary burden on taxpayers. Now, important to consider with immigration is that not all states are confronted with the same issues. For example, border states like Arizona and New Mexico face far greater challenges regarding immigration than states in New England or states like Alaska and Hawaii. Perhaps, alternatively taxpayers ought to send less money to the Federal government and each state would be responsible for determining their own priorities and would determine means to address the immigration issue as they see fit.
Also, the $103.2 Billion budget for Homeland Security ought to be considered from the perspective of property rights which the government is called to protect on our behalf. However, when spending this enormous amount of money, they fail to live up to that role. The taxpayers are not protected from the cost runs coming from the un-checked bureaucracy intended to deal with immigration and border control. No different than other government agencies, those under Homeland Security always insist on additional funding for each fiscal year as they seek other ways to grow in their scope and authority.
The aspect of regulation in respect to immigration must also be taken into consideration. Many of these regulations are based on the Immigration and Nationality act of 1952. The intention of this act is intended to address employment eligibility, employment verification, and nondiscrimination which applies to all employers. Homeland Security enforces the requirements under this act regarding verification of employment eligibility. The Department of Justice also plays a role in enforcing the provisions under this act as it pertains to enforcing its anti-discrimination provisions.
We might ask ourselves, how are employers and those seeking work impacted by these regulations. By our system, it is illegal for the two parties to arrange dealings with one another apart from federal and state oversight though the arrangements by themselves do not entail a threat to anyone else’s wellbeing. The shortcomings posed by the regulations regarding labor in these instances are like the burdens placed on those who want to engage freely in other forms of human action. The commonality is that those who want to exercise their freedom are confronted with roadblocks from government agencies through a costly regulatory system before anything has resulted from their pursuits and endeavors.
In cases regarding people from other countries, our government already presumes that they will pose internal threats, bear a burden to our system, or will compromise our workforce prior to entry. Our systems in place also result in people from other countries who are already here working under the table while others do not work at all in fear of being caught and deported. Those who are departed or choose to return to their own countries face enormous obstacles when trying to reenter our country. Consequently, employers here suffer because they miss out on opportunities to hire people willing to work who could potentially be a great asset to them and our workforce.
In final reflection, the border and immigration policies present massive government intervention at the expense of our liberties. As citizens, we are tied to the government’s attempts to oversee this matter despite the ongoing narrative that the policies are intended for our protection. In fact, we see like other central planning efforts, the government relying on its un-checked bureaucracy to solve a problem. This is especially evident when looking at the billions spent by the Federal Homeland Security agencies though as I mentioned, immigration issues indeed vary by state. We should also take heed when a legitimate concern such as the drug epidemic is used to justify a forced government initiative, in this case using our military efforts to deal with cartels. Coinciding with this comes the populist rhetoric that encourages citizens to take pride in the national borders, leading our citizens to believe that protecting the border will provide greater security. Consequently, we find greater reliance on national strength rather than the government first protecting and relying on individuals exercising their own liberty. This is essentially nationalism, none other than a form of socialism. Not only that as a concern, but we should also take heed of rhetoric that addresses the failures of a bureaucracy while pointing to one individual and those in his elite company to properly lead. When people trust this rhetoric, they are demanding a dictatorship and once again deny the virtues of their own liberty.
In His Image 