This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Health & Fitness

Halima Needed a More Humane Immigration Policy, Pt 3

Many argue that the world is somehow different today, and that we would be reduced to anarchy if we returned to the open-border policies of the 19th and early 20th century. Not true.

First of all, what we have now is anarchy. As mentioned in Part 2, restrictions on immigration guide people into a world where the rules are written by people who simply do not have to respect the rights of those over whom they rule. "Power corrupts," as Lord Acton aptly observed, "and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Just as was the case a hundred years ago, we're not lacking in space. The claims of over-population alarmists notwithstanding, a glance from the top of Mount Agamenticus in southern Maine proves that we have plenty of room for more people.

Obviously private property should be respected, but there is no reason the federal government and state governments could not open up portions of public land for settlement, as was done in the West in the latter part of the 19th Century.

(Please forgive a minor digression: If, after World War II, the United States had given all the federal land in Nevada — estimated to be over 80 percent of that state — to Jewish immigrants, they could have turned it, instead of Palestine, into a shining oasis. The State of Israel would instead be safely within the confines of the United States, enjoying the full protection of the Constitution and saving the Middle East decades of religious violence. Just a thought.)

Of course, this assumes that cities could not already accommodate an influx of immigrants. Nonsense.

As economist Donald Boudreaux observed in "Absorbing Immigrants" (Ideas on Liberty, June 2002), 

"An important element of the ability to absorb [immigrants] is living space. Americans today enjoy record levels of residential living space. For example, in 1915, the typical dwelling in America housed 5.63 people; today it houses fewer than half of that number — 2.37 people. Combined with the fact that the square-footage of today's typical dwelling is, on the most conservative estimate, 20 percent greater than it was a century ago, our ability to 'absorb' immigrants into our residential living spaces is today more than twice what it was during the era of open borders."

The job market, too, would be just fine. While there is some evidence that liberal immigration policies hurt low-skilled workers in the short term, the long-term effect of open immigration is greater prosperity for all. Also mentioned in Part 2, the period in our history noted for open borders coincides with a period of economic expansion unparalleled in the history of the world. That's not an accident.

As Boudreaux notes, "Don't lose sight of our labor market's great flexibility. It easily absorbed the massive increase of women workers during the second half of the twentieth century. Over this time, 46 million jobs were created for women, which is more than half of the 80 million jobs created during that same time."

Some anti-immigration types say we have a de facto, if not a de jure open-border policy in this country already, because the borders are so porous that anyone can come in. "Twelve million illegal immigrants" is their rallying cry for more immigration controls.

Talking to them is a lot like talking to folks who want more restrictions on people's economic activities and gun-ownership, and the answer is the same: if the massive edifice of current law is insufficient, one more law isn't going to make a damn bit of difference. 

Safety is certainly a concern to many. Under open borders, wouldn't terrorists be able to come here and wreak havoc on our way of life? 

The price of a free and open society is the presumption of innocence, a principle that will certainly be abused by bad people intent on doing bad things. In 1995, it was two homegrown terrorists from Michigan who blew up a federal building in Oklahoma City. Should we build walls around our states?

Americans who are serious about battling terrorism should urge their government to stop murdering people, not punish the innocent by forbidding them the chance to improve their situation.

The Framers of our Constitution created the largest free-movement zone in the world. 

Leonard Read, the great libertarian writer and thinker, said that "Man's mobility — his own uninhibited travel and the free movement of his goods and services — is the road to health, education, peace, wealth, that is, to human evolution." This is absolutely true — regardless of one's country of origin.

Human trafficking is a disgusting practice, the remnant of an institution westerners thought they had successfully abolished in the 19th Century. This modern-day slavery survives partly because liberal societies have largely abandoned one of the principles that made them great: free movement.

While many denounce the practice of human trafficking and call for more and stricter laws against it, they tilt at windmills. The solution is more freedom, not more laws. The best way to prevent future victims of human trafficking is a more humane immigration policy.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?