Judge Andrew Napolitano bravely posted the following two comments on his Facebook page this morning, reinforcing statements he made yesterday on FOX Business Channel’s Varney & Co.
“You can’t ‘legalize’ a natural right.”
“Immigration is a natural right.”
Speaking to Stuart Varney, Judge Napolitano defended the idea that governments have no just authority in preventing individuals from moving in and out of countries. See the brief conversation here.
Well, the Judge was blasted by many of his fans for taking such a “radical” and “Lefty” stand as defending individual liberty and free trade. For some reason conservatives, and many libertarians for that matter, have a hard time with this issue. They’re all about defending free markets, but when it comes to immigration, just as with foreign policy for these folks, the federal government is not to be questioned.
The federal government can’t be trusted with health care, regulating most business transactions, and they do a terrible job delivering letter mail. And yet, for some reason, these conservatives believe the government knows best how many people, and from which country they hail from, should be allowed to enter the arbitrary borders of the United States at any given moment in history. It should be obvious this is nonsense, and yet hundreds of people will berate a man who suggests such a notion.
The problem isn’t free immigration, or open borders, or anything of the sort. The problems most anti-immigration (even those who try to distinguish themselves by including the preface “legal”) attribute to immigrants result instead from the state. See this Mises Daily from a few years ago, in which I lay it all out.
January 29th, 2013 at 7:29 pm
Free movements of people across borders might make sense if were were talking about a world without entitlement programs. However the US has a fairly generous entitlement state compared to places most illegal aliens come from. Illegal aliens effect strain the social services.
January 29th, 2013 at 7:53 pm
I cover that (briefly) in the piece I linked to at the bottom of the post. Even still, the solution isn’t to interfere with the market further by imposing restrictions on immigration; that just makes things worse in the long run. I also have a hard time believing all 11 million (or whatever the number is) “illegals” would end up as net takers of welfare.
January 29th, 2013 at 9:02 pm
Over time, they do end up taking, more than the contribute, to the entitlement state.
http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/the-fiscal-cost-of-low-skill-immigrants-to-state-and-local-taxpayers
January 29th, 2013 at 8:38 pm
I have a solution. End the entitlements.
January 29th, 2013 at 8:52 pm
I agree 200%!
I have been trying to persuade the conservatives and other anti immigrationists for many years…over 30, in fact. Due to the openness toward ideas and debate, the editors at The American Daily Herald have carried a number of my articles and now more people of Judge Napolitano and John Stossle’s visibility are speaking out. Some advocates of what I term Open Immigration or Free Movement have a very consistent message. There are others who are not really pro voluntary exchange where labor is concerned, but are admitting there is a failure in the bureaucracy and some are at least receptive to the fact that the current system is injustice at the core. I have frequently forwarded your article and several others that are my favorites such as those by Future of Freedom Foundation and Independent Institute to those receptive to reason and who claim they support “free markets.” Like War, and War on Drugs, Immigration is really an issue that separates the libertarians from the conservatives.
January 30th, 2013 at 10:09 am
Well Mike, the same is true of Americans, particularly seniors, who take in vastly more in Medicare than they pay in. Again, the problem is the welfare state, not the birthplace of the recipients. See here for an example: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/256212/medicare-and-social-security-what-you-pay-vs-what-you-will-get-maybe-veronique-de-rugy
January 31st, 2013 at 11:39 am
The Judge is an admirable person, and I agree with him 99.9% of the time. And he is right that borders are only a line in the sand drawn by tyrants, however, I do not believe that we always have a natural right to cross them — for this reason — trespass onto some other person or persons’ property.
If the property on the other side of that border is unowned, we do indeed have a natural right to cross onto it. If the property on the other side is owned by someone (or owned in common by a state), then we may not have a natural right to trespass onto it.
This is no different than asking people not to jump a fence that is surrounding your yard. If all land were privately owned, as I’m sure the Judge would agree, then there would be noplace for an immigrant to cross without permission from the owner.
Total private ownership of all lands would be the ideal case, and would essentially make any entry to an area, a matter of getting permission from the owner. In that ideal case, immigration would be an individual problem, not a state problem, and nobody except the affected land owners would have any business being concerned about such movements of people.
January 31st, 2013 at 12:40 pm
I’m pretty sure Napolitano would agree on the private property thing. As for property owned by the state, that’s illegitimate from the word go, so any claim the state has is null.
January 31st, 2013 at 1:47 pm
You do realize though that at this time not all the land is owned privately. I do not agree with the validity of the argument that the “state” has disallowed the right of a people to enter, because certainly not all the members of that “state” do not want them to enter. Some do and some do not but what right have the people who do not want a certain group of people to enter have the right to forbid them and not allow them to enter as the other group desires. I am pretty certain Joel is not arguing that people have no private property rights and I know I am not.
A large cause of the current problem is that there is not a simple entry on public property where all people can enter (and exit!) easily and freely. People used to go back and forth at will. They came and went to work, visit, trade, and vacation. The vast majority were peaceful just as they are today. Sending people along dangerous routes, crawling over people’s fences, trespassing on their property is not good, but the primary blame needs to be blamed on a statist attitude by the government and a few organizations who promote hate and hostility toward all immigrants. Do not get wrapped up in those group’s specious arguments.I should have checked but I thought Joel covered this is his article. I know I have in mine as have numerous careful writers on FFF. FEE. Mises. Independent Institute etc.
February 2nd, 2013 at 11:42 am
I was only being a bit picky about how the Judge’s statement was being used here. I see it as being potentially confusing to those less understanding.
I don’t see anything that Joel or Roger have said that I’d disagree with. I also don’t think the Judge would disagree with me.
I believe that we only have a right to freedom of movement on our own land — not land that anyone else might own. And it’s not a positive right, it’s only a negative right not to be interfered with while on our own lands.
If taken alone, the Judge’s statement that “Immigration is a natural right” is misleading, in the same way that a positive “right to life” and “a right to free speech” is misunderstood by most people.
I understood these rights better after seeing them explained by Rothbard. All human rights are (in the end) property rights.
February 2nd, 2013 at 2:58 pm
All I can tell you is that I began to study this whole issue of not just immigration, but collectivist ideology many years ago. Also important is the study of America’s history of immigrants and how each were demonized in turn. Excellent material on immigration on Future of Freedom Foundation, Mises.org, FEE and Independent Institute among others which reflect economic analysis consistent with a freedom philosophy and historical perspective.
Of course you are correct; if not public property then the issue would be clear cut. As it is not, the “majority” cannot take away the right of self ownership of anyone (not just citizens). Another point is the development and understanding of self ownership which includes the right of movement and ownership of labor. There are so many arguments for open immigration that books have been written. Roger
One of the little mentioned points also is the deceptive “statistical studies” of the groups such as FAIR, CIS, Numbers USA, etc. Their selective use of data has been thoroughly exposed. Worse though is that the Conservatives have completely bought into the ideology of people with whom there is very little agreement. An objective study of the Boards of Directors of these groups and their goals is worthwhile. Lynn
February 2nd, 2013 at 6:37 pm
A few minutes ago, I read the Judge’s article from which that quote was taken. He does explain this right in more detail, and I found that he does seed it the way that I do. “S” o, if I want to invite my cousins from Florence, Italy, to come here and live in my house and work on my farm in New Jersey, or if a multinational corporation wants the best engineers from India to work in its labs in Texas, or if my neighbor wants a friend of a friend from Mexico City to come here to work in his shop, we have the natural right to ask, they have the natural right to come here, and the government has no moral right to interfere with any of these freely made decisions.”
In his own way, I think he’s saying that the right to free travel exists because of an owner’s invitation to an immigrant to occupy private property. That’s pretty much what I said in my first comment.
The whole immigration issue is clouded by state claims on “public” lands. I’m not sure it can be clearly solved as long as the state can make and enforce those claims.
Please accept my apology, if I’ve seemed to disagree with anything you’ve said. I think we are in agreement, and best wishes to you all.
February 2nd, 2013 at 6:40 pm
Darn autocorrect!