This House Supports Free Immigration

Many thanks Con for keeping up a spirited debate! Good luck! LAST POST: "There is no evidence to support this. Aforementioned, there is no evidence to support the claim. I went on to the answer query put forth and gave credence to the fact that this has nothing to do with free immigration. As with the initial argument, brain drain (is an issue of pay and skill) should be separated from the issue of free immigration. "If Cons argument on overpopulation in America My argument isn"t primarily about overpopulation, it"s about an overpopulation of unskilled workers seeking jobs. This will kill the economy. America already has high unemployment rates, my opponent wishes to add to this. I do not seek to hinder our country. A: Unemployment is not the sole matter of free immigration, when our companies seek cheap labor from international sources. Maybe we should selling production to China too. ""I don"t believe in giving visas to software people from the Third World when we have got all kinds of unemployed software people here." This exactly proves my point. Unemployment will reach an all-time high under this resolution. A: Exactly, I have unwitting answered my own argument above. "However, in any case the problems of immigration and welfare are analytically distinct problems, and they must be treated accordingly. This is clearly incorrect. Welfare and immigration are clearly and distinctly linked with each other. One is not causation, but there is a correlation between the two. This is simple, more immigrants come and need welfare, thus welfare is overstretched and creates problems. Clearly the two are related. A: The proof is in the pudding. "In consideration of the United Kingdom, I am currently here and have just started school at Harrow. Congratulations on that, but as this is a personal experience it cannot be considered evidence in this debate. A: I gave the evidence quite clearly e.g. The Guardian; shows 4 out of the top 6 universities in the world are indeed from England, a country basically the size of FL. Free immigration has really trounced the education system in England. "Therefore, I cannot accept that the education has been affected in the UK. But this is merely in one area (and based off of personal experience) in the United States illegal immigration to California has affected their $42-44 billion deficit, causing teachers to be laid off and clearly effecting education. A: I am not opposed to CA teachers being laid off, in fact I think we should disband the entire Teacher Union while we are at it " it is nothing short of being the 4th Reich! "My English Aunt who recently discovered she had cancer underwent emergency treatment and medication in 2010, she has since made a full recovery and has no bills to pay. Here it can be deduced that immigration has not affected the medical system as Con suggests. I am happy to hear that your aunt has made a full recovery, but as I have stated above this is personal experience and cannot be considered evidence. Furthermore, in Arizona $2 billion dollars of their $4 billion dollar deficit is directly attributed to education, health care, and incarceration of illegal immigrants. [3] This deficit brings down services for everyone because there isn"t enough money. If we accepted this resolution, even more people would come and drain more money out of our economy. A: As above, education, health care, and the justice system has nothing to do with free immigration. The point here was that the is a free and fantastic health care service where everybody is seen immediately, regardless of condition " a health care system which has not been trounced by free immigration as you expressed in using the UK as evidence. "No welfare problem or attack on social services (as Con has pointed out) is ultimately the result of immigration. I have shown (with sources) that social services are directly affected by immigration. A: as above. "Con argues that immigrants bring with them foreign customs, practices, and ideas, which, on balance, compromise the tradition of American liberty embraced by native-born Americans, I have never said this in my speech and I never will. My opponent is putting words in my mouth, I did not say that these cultures would compromise American culture. A: you said: "it doesn"t encourage cultural diversity at all." I have shown it does. "The only question remains what to do about public property. The issue here with free immigration is not property issues at all. A: Yes it is, this is why you do not want new people in our country. "Immigration controls are expensive. We already have immigration controls in place. What my opponent would rather do is just open up the country completely. A: an absurd "no". "Moreover, just like all the other socialist federal programs in America, free immigration is totally constitutional. As I have shown in the beginning of my speech, the constitution has no place in this debate. A: Yes it does, the courts have held otherwise and support the argument I advance. The constitution is a living document as is the European Convention of Human Rights. The Constitution has repeatedly been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, federal appeals courts and Congress in order to address the ever-changing needs and demands of the people. While many argue that "We the People of the United States," refers only to legal citizens, the Supreme Court has consistently disagreed, e.g. Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886). In Yick Wo, the case involved the rights of Chinese immigrants, the Court ruled that the 14th Amendment's statement, "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," applied to all persons "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality," and to "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here." Another fine example is (Kaoru Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 (1903). Plyler v. Doe (1982): In Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law prohibiting enrollment of illegal aliens in public school. In its decision, the Court held, "The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a 'person' in any ordinary sense of that term" The undocumented status of these children vel non does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents." Allow me to now advance my position: EQUAL PROTECTION: THE CONSTITUTION: When the Supreme Court decides cases dealing with First Amendment rights, it typically draws guidance from the 14th Amendment's principal of "equal protection under the law." In essence, the "equal protection" clause extends First Amendment protection to anyone and everyone covered by the 5th and 14th Amendments. Through its consistent rulings that the 5th and 14th Amendments apply equally to illegal aliens, they also enjoy First Amendment rights. In rejecting the argument that the "equal" protections of the 14th Amendment are limited to U.S. citizens, the Supreme Court has referred to language used by the Congressional Committee that drafted the amendment: "The last two clauses of the first section of the amendment disable a State from depriving not merely a citizen of the United States, but any person, whoever he may be, of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from denying to him the equal protection of the laws of the State. This abolishes all class legislation in the States and does away with the injustice of subjecting one caste of persons to a code not applicable to another. . . . It [the 14th Amendment] will, if adopted by the States, forever disable every one of them from passing laws trenching upon those fundamental rights and privileges which pertain to citizens of the United States, and to all persons who may happen to be within their jurisdiction." While illegal aliens do not enjoy all of the rights granted to citizens by the Constitution, specifically the rights to vote or possess firearms, these rights can also be denied to U.S. citizens convicted of felonies. In final analysis, the courts have ruled that, while they are within the borders of the United States, illegal aliens are granted the same fundamental, undeniable constitutional rights granted to all Americans. IMMIGRATION: A moment"s reflection will convince any disinterested party that free immigration is not necessarily invasive. Immigration consists of no more than moving to a foreign country. For the purist libertarian, national boundaries are only lines on a map, demarcating one "country" from another; there is no such thing as a legitimate nation-state. According to Rothbard: [T]here can be no such thing as an "international trade" problem. For nations might then possibly continue as Of course, if they are themselves murderers, and are escaping to another country in order to avoid paying the just penalties for their foul deeds, or are escaping with private property stolen from its rightful owners, this is an entirely different matter. No longer do we have here innocent people merely attempting to better their own lives. Now, the "migrants" are themselves the criminals. Walter Block " A Libertarian Case for Free Immigration cultural expressions, but not as economically meaningful units. Since there would be neither trade nor other barriers between nations nor currency differences, "international trade" would become a mere appendage to a general study of interspatial trade. It would not matter whether the trade was within or outside a nation. Therefore, immigration across national boundaries should be analyzed in an identical manner to that migration which takes place within a country. If it is non-invasive for Jones to change his locale from one place in Misesania to another in that country, then it cannot be invasive for him to move from Rothbardania to Misesania. Alternatively, if migration across international borders is somehow illegitimate, this should apply to the domestic variety as well. As long as the immigrant moves to a piece of private property whose owner is willing to take him in (maybe for a fee), there can be nothing untoward about such a transaction. This, along with all other capitalist acts between consenting adults, must be considered valid in the libertarian world. Note that there is no freedom of movement of the person per se. This is always subject to the willingness of property owners in the host nation to accept the immigrant onto their land. Rothbard explains: [T]he private ownership of all streets would resolve the problem of the "human right" to freedom of immigration. There is no question about the fact the current immigration barriers restrict, not so much a "human right" to immigrate, but the right of property owners to rent or sell property to immigrants. There can be no human right to immigrate, for on whose property does someone else have the right to trample? In short, if "Primus" wishes to migrate now from some other country to the United States, we cannot say that he has the absolute right to immigrate to this land area; for what of those property owners who don"t want him on their property? On the other hand, there may be, and undoubtedly are, other property owners who would jump at the chance to rent or sell property to Primus, and the current laws now invade their property rights by preventing them from doing so.It is almost a certainty that there will in fact always be "other property owners who would jump at the chance to rent or sell property to" immigrants. If this is not obvious based on common sense experience, the economics of discrimination suggests no other possible conclusion.16 If there are many owners who refuse to rent or sell to immigrants, the price the latter will have to pay will be high. But this will tend to induce those landowners on the margin to agree to accept immigrants. It must be the rare case indeed where in a country of millions of property owners there is not a single one willing to accept newcomers, even at the very highest prices they are willing to pay. In such a rare case, all those who adhere to libertarianism must indeed unite in opposing immigration, for, with Rothbard, there is no one "on whose property . . . someone else ha[s] the right to trample." But this is a theoretical curiosity, not something relevant to reality, or to public policy analysis. In real world countries, certainly including the U.S., there can be found thousands, if not millions, of landowners willing to sell or rent space to people from all parts of the globe, no matter how obscure. For example, restaurateurs pecializing in the foods common to foreign lands may wish to hire authentic foreign-born cooks. As a practical matter, it is inconceivable that some citizen property owners, whose families themselves immigrated in the past, would not be interested in taking in their countrymen, particularly at the very high remuneration available if most landlords do not wish to deal with the immigrants. The case is equally clear for allowing immigrants to settle on unowned land. When there is virgin territory, there is no legitimate reason for immigrants (or domestic citizens) to be prevented from bringing it into fruitful production. States Rothbard: "Everyone should have the right to appropriate as his property previously unowned land or other resources."18 "Everyone," presumably, includes immigrants as well as citizens or residents of the home country. Mises, from a utilitarian rather than a natural-rights libertarian position, considered immigration an important element of freedom and progress: Walter Block " A Libertarian Case for Free Immigration 175 The principles of freedom, which have gradually been gaining ground everywhere since the eighteenth entury, gave people freedom of movement. The growing security of law facilitates capital movements, improvement of transportation facilities, and the location of production away from the points of consumption. That coincides" not by chance"with a great revolution in the entire technique of production and with drawing the entire earth"s surface into world trade. The world is gradually approaching a condition of free movement of persons and capital goods. THE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT AND THE HISTORY OF FREE IMMIGRATION AND LIBERTY: The early 1920s were a logical time for such legislation, for it was the tail end of what is called the Progressive Era. The progressives were a loose movement of Americans who advocated a hugely expansive and interventionist government, both at home and abroad. They championed electoral reform, business regulations, income taxation, and government-enforced personal morality. By the time the three presidents of the Progressive Era " Theodore Roosevelt, William Taft, and Woodrow Wilson " were done with their progressive reforms, America had seen the largest expansion in government power, and most significant shift in national politics, since the Civil War. Much of their agenda was accomplished in these three administrations " antitrust legislation, food and drug regulation, environmental "protection," a graduated income tax, central banking, and sweeping reforms in local political procedures. The United States embarked for the first time on an imperialist foreign policy in 1898 with the Spanish American War, and the progressives continued this policy in Latin America and eventually in the nationalization of American industry and mobilization of millions of conscripts for U.S. entry into World War I. The progressives also tended to believe in temperance, and they had a strong anti-immigrant streak not unlike Con. Their successes in these two arenas didn"t come until the very end of the Progressive Era, with the alcohol prohibition of the Eighteenth Amendment and Volstead Act of 1920, and with the Immigration Act of 1921. The Republican administrations in the 1920s had some distinct differences from the progressives, but they implemented the policies on immigration and alcohol for which the progressives had fought for years. Of course, the progressives were right once in a while, as on equal rights for women under the law. And the Great Society politicians in the 1960s were right once in a while, as in the relaxation of immigration controls in 1965. But by and large, the Progressive movement was one of the most harmful episodes for American liberty and constitutionally limited government in U.S. history. It was an essentially socialist movement, and American progressives of the early 20th century understood the incompatibility between a free immigration policy and a managed economy, as well as the logical correlation between such an economy and immigration controls. Sometimes the progressives cloaked their advocacy for immigration controls under a guise of wanting to help the immigrants, but, as with their Progressive foreign policies, their humanitarian rhetoric about foreigners did not translate into genuine compassion in the real world. Whereas many millions of free immigrants came to America in the early 20th century, the decades that followed the passage of the Immigration Act of 1921 saw a severe decline in free immigration. This was tragic for those who wanted to enter America, most notably when huddled masses of European Jews sought refuge from Hitler"s terror but were denied entrance into the land of the free by Franklin Roosevelt, one of the most socialist presidents in American history. The history of free immigration in America coincides well with the history of liberty, and it shows the socialist origins of anti free immigration controls. In its history, its theory, and its practice, free immigration controls are just one more boondoggle of dysfunctional, immoral, unconstitutional, and socialist central planning. A welfare state may depend on such controls, but a free society should reject them. Severe restrictions on free immigration compromise the liberty of the people inside as well as outside the borders, and they should be among the policies opposed in their efforts to bring liberty back to America. ONE LAST POINT: If free immigration were per se invasive, then, perhaps with the exception of true natives, the Indians, as Americans are all either immigrants or descended from them, our occupancy of this country would be legally questionable. Since no advocate of immigration restrictions has ever expressed any such reservations, there is a problem of logical consistency here, and immoral hypocrisy. I refer back to all of my original points, specifically the 98% that con failed to acknowledge, or deliberately sidestepped. "Freedom is a great thing, unchecked freedom is anarchy" " checked freedom is NOT freedom in the slightest. (Menlo Park,Calif.: Institute for Humane Studies, 1977), p. 229, emphasis in original. 10For how long? Who knows? Whose business is it anyway? Walter Block " A Libertarian Case for Free Immigration 171 see Lysander Spooner, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority (Larkspur, Colo.: Ralph Myles, [1870] 1966). 12See Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the American Civil War (Chicago: Open Court, 1996), for a thorough-going analysis of slavery. 14Murray N. Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State: A Treatise on Economic Principles (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, [1962] 1993), p. 550. See also Rothbard, For A New Liberty; and Ludwig von Mises, Nation, State, and Economy, Leland Yeager, trans. (New York: New York University Press, 1983). 15Murray N. Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty (Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press, 1982), p. 119 16On this topic, see Gary Becker, The Economics of Discrimination (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957); Thomas Sowell, Race and Economics (New York: Longman, 1975); idem, The Economics and Politics of Race: An International Perspective (New York: Morrow, 1983). 17That is, opposing it totally, as private property rights violations. However, even in this case there would be no need for a law prohibiting immigration, only one banning trespass in general. 18Rothbard, Ethics of Liberty, p. 240, emphasis added. See also Hoppe, Economics and Ethics of Private Property.