by Ron Paul
In our own country, we should be ever vigilant against any attempts to disarm the people, especially in an economic downturn. I worry that violent crime will rise sharply in the coming days, and as states and municipalities grow even more financially strained, the police will be less able or willing to respond to crime.
In many areas, local police could become more and more absorbed with revenue-generating activities, like minor traffic violations and the asset forfeiture opportunities of nonviolent drug offenses. Your safety has always, ultimately, been your own responsibility, but never more so than now. People have a natural right to defend themselves. Governments that take that away from their people are highly suspect.
Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms served as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can ultimately resist tyrannical government.
Halbrook, Stephen. “Were the Founding Fathers in Favor of Gun Ownership?” Washington Times, November 5, 2000. http://www.independent.org.
Lott, John. 2010. More Guns, Less Crime. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
HATE CRIMES
Passing legislation concerning crimes against minorities is supposed to show compassion and prove that our society does not discriminate. In fact, these laws do the opposite. Confidence that such efforts will help protect minorities causes a gross misunderstanding of individual rights. If all individuals should be treated the same under the law, providing greater penalties to those who commit crimes against certain racial or sexual orientation groups nullifies this effort. It means that the law provides lesser penalties to those individuals committing crimes against people without that favored orientation.
A power given to government to place a greater penalty on someone, assuming they understand the motivation for the crime—always a subjective conclusion—is a consequence of the victims belonging to a certain group. If this can be done, the power is exactly the same power that once was used to excuse violence if it was against a black or gay person. The only solution is to insist that all rights are individual and unrelated to belonging to a particular group.
The fallacy of this type of legislation has led to the routine understanding of groups having rights rather than all individuals having equal rights. Too often, we hear reference to gay rights, minority rights, and women’s rights, etc., which undermines the concept of individual liberty.
The idea that a crime can be judged as to whether it was motivated by hate for certain groups introduces the notion of a thought police. If someone is robbed, beaten, or killed, the penalty should be unrelated to what the perpetrator was thinking at the time. It hardly matters. The actions are the actions. Imposing preferential penalties endorses the concept of relative rights, which is of course a very dangerous, slippery slope. It implies that some victims have greater worth than others. The extra and arbitrary enforcement power mocks the principle of equal justice before the law. Why should the penalty for assault be different depending on race, sexual orientation, or membership in a particular group?
Because some criminals have in the past been punished less harshly due to their victims’ belonging to a particular group is hardly a justification for a criminal to be punished more harshly for the same reason. It’s best we drop the whole concept of hyphenated rights and refer only to individual rights.
If we continue to arbitrarily punish someone more severely for committing a “hate” crime, we must make an assessment of the thoughts and speech of the perpetrator. It won’t take a giant leap for Congress to punish bigoted speech even without an act of violence. Political correctness has already gone too far, with great social penalties for people who inadvertently and without malice or in jest offend certain ethnic, racial, or sexual groups. The mischief makers believe certain groups deserve protection from the slightest insult from rude people. This ironically bestows less respect to groups that “need” special protection due to a perceived weakness.
Most of the effort to punish “hate crimes” and restrict speech is driven by political concerns. If it comes to speech restrictions imposed by government, patriotism will be the preferred excuse.
When hate crime legislation is written or proposed it comes up short in promoting justice.
When hate crime legislation is not driven by political concerns, it relates more to social order than anything else. The perceived goal is to address certain crimes and for emotional reasons exact greater penalties for certain individuals. Most people think of this in a one-sided manner. Included are crimes that involve white on black or other minorities, straight on gay, Christian on Muslim, Muslim on Jew, yet the reverse of these generally is not labeled a hate crime.
Extending this to international events, it’s not a hate crime for American bombers to kill innocent Muslims. That’s only collateral damage. Retaliation against Americans occupying a foreign country 7,000 miles from our homeland is called terrorism, supposedly motivated only by ingrained and irrational hate.
Hate crime legislation and the obsession with political correctness seem to satisfy the urge to condemn thoughtless people by misusing the law. This misuse then accomplishes nothing in solving the problems, while it promotes a perverted view of equal justice—a result that was never intended.
IMMIGRATION
There seem to be two extreme positions on immigration: completely closed borders and totally open borders. The Constitution, common sense, and the philosophy of freedom offer a principled alternative to these two rash options.
It’s best to try to understand why immigration is such a hot-button issue for most Americans. There are many reasons why the politics of immigration are so emotionally charged. The most telling reason is related to economic concerns and violence; immigrants, it is said, take jobs from American working people; federal mandates require states to provide free medical and educational benefits to illegals; a weak economy exaggerates the economic consequences of legal and illegal immigration.
The political motivations are important contributing factors as well and are the concerns of many Americans. It is assumed that all immigrants, including illegals, will benefit liberals and Democrats at the voting booth. Evidence exists that some illegals do vote and they don’t vote for Republicans. Illegals are counted in the census, creating a situation where they can statistically add up to several congressional districts. Texas, for instance, gained four new seats after the 2010 census was completed and this was, to a large degree, a reflection of our immigration policies.
Due to the immensity of this emotionally charged problem, a simple answer under current conditions will not be easily found. In the ideal libertarian world, borders would be blurred and open. It would be something similar to what the Constitution did with the borders between the various states. Civilization has not yet come even close to being capable of such a policy, though it engages some in a theoretical discussion.
The libertarians who argue for completely open borders for the free flow of goods and people fail to realize that a truly libertarian society would not necessarily be that open. The land and property would be privately owned and controlled by the owners, who would have the right to prevent newcomers from entering without their permission. There would be no government havens or welfare benefits and new immigrants would come only after a sponsor’s permission.
Under today’s circumstances, with a government-precipitated recession (a depression for those who earn under $30,000 a year) and promises of welfare, obviously some rules are required.
It’s important to note that the greatest resentment comes from government-mandated free services and a government-created unemployment crisis. Fix these two problems and finding a scapegoat for our economic crisis wouldn’t be necessary.
A free and prosperous economy always looks for
labor; immigrant workers would be needed and welcomed. This need could be managed by a generous guest worker program, not by illegal immigrants receiving benefits for the family and securing an easy route to permanent citizenship and thus becoming pawns of partisan political interests.
Since Washington will not soon come to its senses and allow for the needed economic corrections to restore a healthy free market economy, we are forced to deal with current conditions, which are rapidly deteriorating.
Even today with all our government excesses we have millions of people and businesses protected by private security. Dow Chemical has fences and private security guards, as do most of the chemical plants located a few miles from where I live. There are no trespassers and if a problem occurs, the police or sheriff is called.
But if a rancher on our border wants to stop trespassers on his land, he is forbidden to do so. The Feds don’t even allow the state law enforcement officers to interfere! This, they argue, could lead to violence if an appropriate use of force is not used. Shooting suspected illegal aliens on sight would be a horrendous error and serious people are concerned about it happening.
At the federal government–maintained borders, where a war is going on, the violence is already out of control and growing. The conditions we have created with illegal trafficking in immigrants is serious, but the recent escalation has involved the drug cartels and border guards, the military, and the police, a consequence of the ridiculous notion that drug prohibition is a sensible social policy.
Everyone by now should know that our current war on drugs makes no more sense than alcohol prohibition did in the 1920s. One only needs to study the drug trade and corruption ongoing in Afghanistan to see the danger of the war on drugs. The huge profits that can be made are a significant incentive for corruption across the board.
Even with a healthy economy and stricter border controls, the issue of what to do with twelve-million-plus illegals already here would persist. One side says use the U.S. Army, round them up, and ship them home. The other side says give them amnesty, make them full-fledged citizens, and reward the lawbreakers, thus insulting and unfairly penalizing those who have patiently waited and obeyed our immigration laws.
The first choice—sending twelve to fifteen million illegals home—isn’t going to happen and should not happen. Neither the determination or the ability to accomplish it exists. Besides, if each case is looked at separately, we would find ourselves splitting up families and deporting some who have lived here for decades, if not their entire life, and who never lived for any length of time in Mexico. This would hardly be a Good Samaritan approach to the problem. It would be incompatible with human rights.
The toughest part of showing any compassion or tolerance to the illegal immigrants who are very much Americanized is the tremendous encouragement it gives for more immigrants to come illegally and avoid the wait and bureaucracy. Considering what they face at home, they see the risk of sneaking in as being minor compared to the risk of dying in poverty in Central America.
Some of the resentment by Americans is that many immigrants are “Americanized” rather quickly.
Most immigrants do not come for handouts; rather, they come for survival reasons and have a work ethic superior to many of our own citizens who have grown dependent on welfare and unemployment benefits. This anger may reflect embarrassment as much as anything.
Many claim that illegal immigrants take American jobs. This is true, but most of the jobs they “take” are the ones unemployed Americans refuse at the wage offered. Rarely is this even minimum wage; it’s usually higher. It’s hard to hide the fact that resentment toward a Hispanic immigrant is more common than that toward a European illegal immigrant.
Immigration laws, out of practicality, can never be equally enforced on those who have been assimilated for five to ten or even twenty years as compared to those caught currently coming through our border states in the Southwest. On the immigration issue I have found no one with the wisdom of Solomon. My humble suggestions on what to do follow.
Restore our economy to a healthy free market with sound money and eliminate deficit-financed government. A vibrant economy will minimize the problems and produce a high demand for both domestic and immigrant labor.
Abolish the welfare state. The incentive to always take a job—at whatever wage available—must prevail. A healthy economy, absent Federal Reserve–induced recession or depression and inflation, will keep real wages high.
With free markets and private property, a need for immigrant labor becomes obvious. Make it legal and easy with a generous visitor work program.
Enforce the laws now on the books with more border guards; permit states to enforce the law; allow landowners to provide private property security assistance, just as we do every day throughout the United States, and to work with Federal Border Control authorities. Private landowners have a right to post No Trespassing signs on their property to achieve this.
Do not grant automatic citizenship to children of illegal immigrants born in the United States, deliberately or accidentally.
Stop all federal mandates on the states to provide free education and medical care for illegal immigrants. The absurdity that South Texas schools are overburdened with Mexican children going back and forth over the border each day to our public school systems is resented by cash-strapped school districts.
Bilingualism should always be voluntary and not compelled by law.
Don’t punish third parties for not being keen to act as law enforcement agents in regard to illegal immigration. Blaming American employers and fining them for hiring an individual, directly or indirectly, possibly with a counterfeit identification, strikes me as a compulsory servitude not permitted under the Constitution. Determining who is legal or not is a police and court function, not a responsibility of private business.
Same goes for the Catholic Church. When those who suffer the chaos of immigration and drug wars on the border are helped by the Church, the Church should never be seen as an accomplice to a crime. Let the Church show the compassion that’s required to pick up the pieces of a government-created mess.
End the drug war. The deteriorating economic conditions and the mess with immigration invite the violence of the drug lords and corrupt officials on both sides. It’s time to break up the coalition of the religious drug warriors and the drug dealers who fight any effort to decriminalize drugs. It’s time to treat all drugs the way we treat alcohol and cigarettes, substances that kill millions more than hard drugs do. The drug war is deadly and allows drug lords to make a lot more money than legalized drugs ever would. The drug war and the illegal immigration across our southern borders cannot be separated.
Immigrants who can’t be sent back due to the magnitude of the problem should not be given citizenship—no amnesty should be granted. Maybe a “green card” with an asterisk could be issued. This in-between status, keeping illegal immigrants in limbo, will be condemned by the welfare left as being too harsh and condemned by the confused right as being too generous. It will be said that it will create a class of second-class citizens. Yet it could be argued that it may well allow some immigrants who come here illegally a beneficial status without automatic citizenship or tax-supported benefits—a much better option than deportation.
Those immigrants, legal or illegal, who incite violence or commit crimes of violence should be prosecuted under the law and lose their right to stay in this country.
The police should not be prohibited from determining an individual’s citizenship if the person is caught participating in a crime. This is far different from stopping anyone anytime and demanding the individual present documentation of a legal status. That invokes the principle of “reasonable cause,” not reasonable suspicion.
This solution is far from perfect, but solutions to government-induced problems are never easy. Since our economic problems have been the major contributing factor, all other solutions come up short. Maximum freedom for everyone is the best way t
o go in solving any of our problems.
Another concern I have with the immigration issue is that the strong border protection proponents are as interested in regulating our right to freely exit the country as they are in preventing illegal entry. No longer can we travel even to Canada or Mexico without a U.S. passport. Our government keeps tabs on our every move, which involves a lot more than looking for drug dealers, illegal immigrants, or stopping a potential terrorist.
Financial controls have been growing since the 1970s, and as the financial crisis worsens, not only will our coming and going be closely monitored, so will all our financial transactions.
Taking your money out of the country physically or electronically is strictly regulated by the eagle eyes of the FBI, the CIA, the Department of Homeland Security, and, you would never guess, the IRS as well. Violations of currency transaction laws, even when not associated with any criminal activity, are severely punished. Expatriation is frowned upon. Currency controls—limits on all overseas transactions and purchases—are commonplace in a faltering economy with a falling currency, which we will have to deal with one day.
A tight border policy to keep certain people out is one thing, but tight border control to limit our ability to leave when we please is something else. America is already working on an electronic financial curtain, which I predict will steadily get worse. The leaders of neither the Republican nor the Democratic party can expect to protect our civil liberties when times get tough: Both support illegal wars; both support Patriot Act suppression of our privacy; both strongly endorse the multitrillion dollar bailout of Wall Street. Neither party will protect our right to vote with our feet and take our money with us. The right of a citizen to leave the country anytime with his wealth and without government interference is a sharp dividing line between a free society and a dictatorship.