by Caleb Nelson
[371] It requires philosophy. Philosophy changes a culture, and culture changes the country.
“The world crisis of today is a moral crisis,” said Ayn Rand, “and nothing less than a moral revolution can resolve it: a moral revolution to sanction and complete the political achievement of the American Revolution. [We] must fight for capitalism, not as a ‘practical’ issue, not as an economic issue, but with the most righteous pride, as a moral issue. That is what capitalism deserves and nothing less will save it.”
[372]
Review
Q1: Compare and contrast issues and principles.
Q2: Defend capitalism through practicality, then identify why this argument fails.
Q3: Defend capitalism through the greatest good. Why is this argument evil?
Q4: What is the high ground that must be taken from collectivism?
Q5: Look at some news headlines from today and see if you can spot some of the Progressive Power Tactics in the stories. List them.
Q6: Explain the morality of capitalism.
A Principled Look into Some Major Issues of Today
This book is primarily concerned with principles, not issues. Many people can passionately debate issues all day long, but end up advocating evil because they never even ask themselves what principles their opinions and policies should be based on.
We hesitate to bring up specific issues for concern that the reader will focus merely on those and rather than gaining the necessary experience in identifying foundational principles and drawing correct, non-contradictory conclusions from those. However, we think it is also important to give some examples of how principled thinking can clear the clutter from the road and set the stage for true reform. For this reason we have chosen a few issues to give an introduction into examining them in a principled manner.
Chapter 15: Immigration
“Whenever an issue leads to an unresolvable conflict, you will find, at its root, the violation of someone’s rights.”
[373] - Ayn Rand
Immigration is a hotly debated and emotional topic for many people. One of the main problems is that immigration is actually composed of several separate issues. These separate issues must be kept apart in evaluation and discussion in order to progress or come to any understanding.
Immigration, as an issue, is actually composed of the following specifics:
· Illegal immigration;
· Legal immigration;
· Border security; and
· The current undocumented population in America.
But before we even address these smaller issues we have to know what principles we are going to base our decisions on.
Immigration is defined as the act of moving into a country with the intention of remaining there. There are many people who want to live in America. For centuries various peoples have uprooted their lives and families in order to be replanted on American soil. These people want to pursue what has come to be known as the American Dream. The American Dream is a concept that has become distorted and misused over the years. It does not mean home ownership or two cars in the garage. It does not mean a guaranteed job and pension. It does not mean making sure our children have more things than we did. It means being free to act on our own judgment, to make and keep and use wealth to make life better for ourselves and our families.
George Washington described the American Dream eloquently, writing that, “The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations And Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.”
[374]
In the early days of our Republic, America was open to receive all people to a participation of the protection of individual rights as merited by their respect for the rights of others. Today, however, while some receive special permission to immigrate, entry to most people is forbidden by law.
PRINCIPLES OF IMMIGRATION
The first question to ask is if a foreigner has the right to move to America. The second question is if America should welcome them.
The answer to both questions is, “Yes.”
The prohibition against immigration is immoral because it is in violation of the principle of individual rights. The moral alternative to this prohibition is a policy of open immigration. This does not mean that anyone can enter the country anyway or anywhere they want. It also doesn’t mean that just because someone comes to America to live that they must be granted citizenship. It means that anyone is free to enter and live in America as long they come through a designated checkpoint and pass a screening process. The purpose of such screening would be to keep out enemies of America, criminals, and people with certain contagious diseases. Since the proper role of government is to protect individual rights, these are the only people that a government may morally reject from entering its borders. Such a policy is both politically and morally right.
It is moral because everyone has the right to act according to their own judgment as long as they don’t violate that same right of others. The use of force prevents a person from acting in accordance with their judgment. In a civilized society, no one may initiate the use of force against others. The only question that matters is if a person has a right to take make their own choices or not. If they do, they must be left free to do so.
The right to act on one’s judgment includes the right to contract with others. To help ourselves achieve consistency, let’s use some examples to identify the principle, then apply it to immigration.
Suppose a man in Wisconsin wanted to work at the local grocery store, and the owner of that store wanted to hire him. Should they be free to do business? Yes. No one’s rights are violated by an employer hiring an employee. No rights are violated upon the firing of another employee in preference of a more desirable one (except possible breach of contract). The fired employee may still act on his judgment, seeking employment elsewhere, or increasing his skills to make himself more desirable as a worker. There is no such thing as a right to a job.
Suppose a woman in Utah wished to move to Colorado, and that a landlord in Colorado wished to rent her an apartment. Should they be free to do so? Yes, because they have the right to act on their own judgment and they are not violating anyone else’s rights.
We recognize the principle; now let’s slightly alter these examples.
Suppose that the man who wishes to work at the grocery store in Wisconsin is from Honduras. Suppose the woman wanting to rent the apartment in Colorado is from China. Do these people still have the right to act on their judgment and contract freely together?
It should be clear: foreigners have the right to move to America. Americans have the right to contract, hire, and associate with them by mutual consent. Laws that prohibit this violate the rights of both parties.
Geographic location and national lineage do not bestow rights. As writer Craig Biddle explains, “America’s border is not properly a barrier for the purpose of keeping foreigners out; it is properly a boundary designating the area in which the U.S. government must protect rights.”
[375]
IMMIGRATION OBJECTIONS
Biddle astutely lists the most common objections to a policy of open immigration and compellingly explains why they are unprincipled and immoral:
1. “This is our country, and we have a right to refuse entry to foreigners.”
No one owns America. It is divided into sections of “public” and private land. If private land-owners wish to allow foreigners to make use of their land, they have the right to do so. If they wish to prohibit such use, they have that right as well.
“Public” property is allegedly owned by everyone and no one in particular. There is no way to identify which portion of such property belongs to Mrs. Jones. There is no principled reason to deny the appropriate use of such property to immigrants.
2. “We Americans have a right to
our culture, which immigrants erode.”
This can mean three things:
We have a right to the racial makeup of our culture;
We have a right to our own language;
We have a right to our own lifestyle choices.
Those seeking to preserve the racial makeup of their culture are following in the footprints of some sort of Nazi-like racism. This is not a valid reason.
An official language is necessary in political and legal proceedings for clarity and consistency. However, no one has the right to force another person to speak that language. Most immigrants learn to speak English out of practical necessity, especially when not sheltered from this need by the welfare state, which makes it unnecessary to compete with others. It is also easier for them to learn English when they aren’t associated with the black market status of illegal aliens for which English is unnecessary.
Those who wish to pursue their own lifestyle choices in dress, cuisine, etc., are advocating the freedom to pursue one’s happiness and should advocate the same right for others, including immigrants.
3. “We Americans have a right to our jobs, which immigrants take, and to our wage rates, which immigrants lower.”
As we said earlier, there is no such thing as the right to a job. If a man loses his job or receives a lower wage because an immigrant is willing to do it better or for less, his rights have not been violated. He is still free to act on his own judgment, gaining more skills or seeking employment elsewhere. He has no right to have the government prevent the employer and immigrant from doing business. This is an invalid argument.
Consider the implications of saying “Americans have a right to American jobs.” This is collectivist thinking, it does not see individuals, but groups, and asserts that being born in this country bestows some sort of birthright and entitlement. Seeing this issue in collectivist terms of us vs. them is a nationalism that is similar to racism, which believes some people are superior to others by virtue of their identity.
4. “Immigrants come to America to live on the public dole via our welfare programs, and we simply can’t afford to support them.”
Most immigrants come to America to work hard, live in relative freedom, and be self-sufficient. If some do come here for the welfare programs, that is an argument, not against open immigration, but against the welfare state.
To help address this, immigrants should be barred from participation in this coercive redistribution of wealth. This includes “free” education and “free” medical goods and services. “In order to live the good life,” explains Biddle, “immigrants, like all human beings, need to develop and maintain the virtue of independence; they need to face the demands of reality and live by their own thought and effort. Precluding them from receiving the so-called “benefits” of welfare will help them to develop or maintain that virtue.”
[376]
To say we can’t afford to pay for immigrants is actually a critique against redistributionist statism, not immigration.
5. “Statistics show that immigrants commit a lot of crime. The more immigrants we allow into the country, the more crime we will suffer.”
Immigrants don’t commit crimes, individuals do. Individuals have agency. Nationality and race play no part in determining what an individual will choose to do. Like native-born Americans, immigrants should be held responsible for their actions and considered innocent until proven guilty. Individuals who commit crimes should suffer the consequences.
6. “Open immigration might be practical under laissez-faire capitalism, but it is not practical under a welfare state. We cannot institute open immigration until we’ve achieved laissez-faire capitalism.”
This amounts to, “We can’t practice the principles of freedom until we live in freedom.” Each aspect of a free society must be accomplished one step at a time, over time. You have to start somewhere.
7. “Open immigration makes it easy for terrorists to enter the U.S.; American security requires immigration restrictions.”
The solution to terrorist attacks on America is not the violation of individual rights, but the annihilation of states that sponsor terrorism. A secure border (all 12,000 miles of it!) would merely serve to make it more difficult and expensive for people to enter the country illegally and would not serve to greatly increase our protection against terrorism.
8. “Granting amnesty to ‘illegal’ immigrants would make a mockery of the rule of law, they should be held accountable for breaking the law.”
What mocks the rule of law is the existence and attempted enforcement of anti-immigration laws.
The solution with respect to over twelve million so-called “illegals” is to grant unconditional amnesty (which is not necessarily citizenship, the requirements for which is a separate matter) and a Presidential apology for the violation of their rights and the necessity of suffering “Black Market Living.” It is possible to live legally in the U.S. without being a citizen.
(Note: Use of the pejorative term “illegals” is both demeaning and disingenuous. We have all broken laws before, and most of us break many every day, including traffic laws, illegally downloading music, littering, and smoking in a public place. Boston civil-liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate titled his book Three Felonies a Day to refer to “the number of crimes he estimates the average American now unwittingly commits because of vague laws.”
[377] The fact that you illegally copied a music disc twenty years ago does not mean you must be subjected to having your neighbors call you an “illegal” or a “pirate” for the rest of your life.)
Legality is no guarantee of morality. Would it have been a mockery of the law for German citizens to refuse to turn over Jews to the Gestapo? It was the law!
Upholding the rule of law doesn’t mean supporting whatever laws happen to be on the books. It means supporting and maintaining an objective government that recognizes and protects the requirements of man’s life—which means: the principle of individual rights. This does not mean you should disobey every illegitimate law; there are contexts where it is good to obey morally wrong laws because it follows your hierarchy of values and protects your life (e.g. we pay taxes to avoid going to jail).
CONCLUSION
After such a principled look at the issue of immigration, Biddle brings us to this concluding plan of action:
1. Make open immigration the law and do away with quotas, visas, green-cards, etc.
2. Secure the border and establish objective screening points to turn away or detain criminals, terrorists, and people with certain infectious diseases.
3. Grant amnesty (not citizenship) to the current undocumented immigrant populace and apologize for the trouble our immoral and unjust laws have caused them.
4. Exclude non-citizens from welfare and public schools—and exempt them from paying taxes to support these programs.
5. Declare war on foreign states that threaten us. Don’t wait for enemies to come to our borders. Announce that from now on we will destroy our enemies where they are.
[378]
Many claim that the issue is too complex to handle, but that is no excuse. By using principle to cut through the haze of groundless emotion, we can help defend the rights of foreigners who come to America, and the rights of Americans to associate with them.
Review
Q1: What smaller issues make up the larger immigration issue?
Q2: What is immigration?
Q3: What right is it based on?
Q4: What is the purpose of America’s border?
Q5: What are some common attacks against open immigration?
Q6: Why are these attacks unprincipled and immoral?
Q7: Why should immigrants be barred from welfare services? What effects do you think this would have?
Q8: Should immigrants be barred from voting? Why or why not?
Chapter 16: Education
“I believe that the school is primarily a social institution . . . . [and that] the true centre of correlation of t
he school subjects is not science, nor literature, nor history, nor geography, but the child's own social activities.”
[379] - John Dewey
THE PRINCIPLES OF EDUCATION
Is education a right? A right is a moral principle defining our freedom of action in a social context. Such a principle guarantees the freedom to continue your existence, sans interference from others. Rights protect your freedom of action. Therefore, you have a right to seek education; you have a right to trade with others to obtain education. What you do not have is a right to an education at the coerced expense of someone else.
Remember that “free” doesn’t mean without cost, it just means that someone else has to pay for it. The next question is, “Who has to pay for it?”
The government program of “free” education initiates force against its citizens by:
Appropriating their property;
Coercing the parents to school their children in a manner prescribed by the government, violating their right to act according to their own judgment;
Coercing the teachers to instruct the subject matter prescribed by the government.
A government-run education program is immoral because it violates the rights of parents, children, taxpayers, and teachers.
Isabel Paterson said it best: “There can be no greater stretch of arbitrary power than is required to seize children from their parents, teach them whatever the authorities decree they shall be taught, and expropriate from the parents the funds to pay for the procedure.”