Mexican Immigration

Another mid-term election is coming up (yawn) and with it, the old bogeys have been dragged out of cold-storage in an effort to focus the attention of the masses on something – anything! – other than the incompetent avarice of their overseers, and to incite them to GO TO THE POLLS to provide the ruling caste with the mandate they so desperately need as pretense for their continued exploitation. One tried and true motivational scapegoat heard much about these last few years is the ‘illegal immigrant’.

‘Illegal immigrant’ is a broad term, encompassing any individual on domestic soil born in a foreign land who has been unable or unwilling to navigate the often nightmarish, time-consuming or impossible barriers-to-entry placed in his way by the State. However, the illegal immigrants we seem to mind most are the ones who are the most distinguishable from us by linguistic preference or visual appearance. Recently, ‘illegal immigrant’ has become almost synonymous with ‘undocumented Mexican immigrant’.

In this article, I will examine a few of the most common objections to Mexican immigration from the part of those who hold this point of view with the aim of debunking any such opposition.

They take our Jobs!

To ‘earn your bread by the sweat of your brow’ should not be considered the pinnacle aspiration of human existence. It is good for jobs to disappear! Whatever happened to all the Buggy-Whip, Cobbler, or Collating jobs of yester-year? They disappeared. Good! What happened to the people who once filled these ranks? They found other occupations for which they possessed a comparative advantage! If you are unable to find an occupation for which you possess any comparative advantage to society, I have no sympathy for you.

They work here and send the money back home!

Money is not wealth! If we doubled the amount of currency in circulation, would our nation be twice as wealthy? Let’s imagine an extreme example: Let’s say we allow Mexican immigrants in the U.S. to send 50% of ALL dollars in the U.S. to Mexico! What would be the result? Let’s look at two possible scenarios:

1) 50% of ALL dollars are shipped to Mexico with NOTHING given in return. –To understand the effect of this, we need to understand one of the functions of money: to serve as a medium of exchange. The Mexicans (in Mexico) in possession of all of these dollars would have a tremendous claim on goods and services for which no value was provided in return. A catastrophic misallocation of resources! A perversion of incentives! Admittedly a bad situation.

2) 50% of all dollars are voluntarily given to Mexican immigrants in the U.S. in exchange for goods and services, and the recipients of the dollars then send them overseas to friends or relatives. In this scenario, the Mexicans (in Mexico) would still have a tremendous claim on goods and services, but that claim would have been procured by CREATING VALUE in the United States. Those who traded the dollars would only have done so for goods or services which they found worthwhile. It doesn’t matter if the dollars were exchanged for picked fruit, landscaping, neurosurgery or drugs, because value is perceived subjectively. All participants perceive a benefit from voluntary exchange, or it would not take place. What happens next? The Mexicans (in Mexico) will eventually re-exchange the dollars that have been sent to them for -

a. Goods and services in the U.S.A – creating those jobs you thralls seem to love so much.

b. Goods and services in Mexico or anywhere else they accept dollars – only postponing temporarily the return of those dollars to the U.S.A. Even if we assume that these dollars never again see their sovereign soil (not a realistic assumption), we still have lost nothing! Every dollar removed from domestic circulation proportionately increases the demand (job-creating power) for every dollar that remains! No net loss to national prosperity has occurred!

All of the voluntary, reciprocal exchange of goods and services that took place in the second (and more realistic) scenario is what is known as an ‘Economy’; and having more of it is a good thing if you want to live in a prosperous society – even if you are a Xenophobe.

They are supplanting our culture!

Who cares? Mexicans have great food and awesome wide-brimmed sparkly hats! Individualism is cooler than Collectivism anyway – which leads nicely to the next concern –

They take advantage of our social services!

Since there is a great dichotomy in thinking on this subject, I will identify and address two possible viewpoints in my attempt to refute this concern:

1) You think it our (Christian?) duty to provide for any person unable to provide for himself or herself, and thus see compulsorily-funded social service programs as a necessary function of any healthily operating society. I am assuming that the basis of this belief rests on the idea that all human animals have a ‘right’ to such things as medical care, education, housing and fodder - regardless of their ability to pay for such goods or services. I applaud you, Good Samaritan and Noble Utopia Planner! However, if this is the case, what ‘right’ do you have to exclude others from such services based upon which side of an imaginary line they were born? If you answer that some MUST be excluded or the whole system collapses, I have to wryly smile and ask if you really think that setting up imaginary lines on the ground is a more equitable and sensible method of choosing who is excluded from access to scarce resources than unrestrained competition and voluntary exchange.

2) You think compulsorily-funded social service programs are a cancer, an affront to personal liberty and societal vitality – If this is the case, may I assume that you would like to see these systems abolished? If so, I ask you to peruse the historical record and observe that no system of social privilege has ever been abdicated by those who benefited thereby without tremendous resistance. Have you considered that perhaps the imminent (or actual) collapse of the system might be prerequisite to mustering the national will required to bring about change? Might those who take advantage and strain the viability of such systems even be perceived (with enough squinting) as heroes!? Can we at least acknowledge that the root of the problem is the mentality that sets up such perverse systems of resource-reallocation in the first place, and not the poor souls who simply (and inevitably) respond to incentives?

They commit crimes!

Certainly – at a significantly lower rate than our native population. Still, good citizen: I applaud your supreme respect for and abject genuflection to the LAW AND ORDER imposed upon you by your Elected Overseers – MAY THEY ALWAYS BE OBEYED!

My conclusion

Welcome North, my south-of-the-border, brown-skinned brethren! Bring your renowned work-ethic, tasty tortilla-sandwiches, family values and Mariachi music with you! We want you here. We need you here!

Next Year's Resolution

Dear Old Self,

What gives you the right, presumptuous resolution maker, to bind me with your oaths? Is it possible that you have not yet learned that a promise poisons everything? Well! Permit me to spread the poison evenly! I will make a promise to you as recompense for your hubris and conceit in thinking yourself qualified to command me, your self-evident superior: I will foil all your best laid plans and break in pieces all your pretty pictures! 'Your' New Year belongs to me. Do not forget it!

Sincerely,

Your Ghost of Ego Future

Santa Loves Freedom

I have been on vacation in Washington, D.C. for a couple of weeks to visit my sister Neicy. On Thursday, at her invitation, I attended a Christmas party hosted at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, where she is currently working as in intern in their Occupational Therapy program. I wore a shirt from the Mises Institute with a picture of Jean-Baptiste Say on it and the subtitle: Markets Clear.

The party was going nicely. There was food and karaoke. Neicy and I had eventually ended up in a corner talking with some of her co-workers, when I noticed that Santa was working his way across the room in our direction. He stopped in front of me, and exclaimed, "Jean-Baptiste Say! Mises.org! Fantastic!" I was shocked. I had no idea that Santa loved freedom.

I suppose I should have known. All the clues were there. Could it be mere coincidence that Santa's workshop is located at the North Pole, in an area where - under international law - no state can claim ownership over the territory or the region of the Arctic Ocean surrounding it? Would it not require a regulation-free environment in order to produce the staggering variety and output of toys required by his international operation? Who better than this man without a country to understand the idiocy of statism and patriotism? Indeed, could any living individual possibly be better acquainted with the human condition than Santa himself, intimately acquainted as he is with the secret actions and desires of all, whether asleep or awake? I learned that Santa has two sons who both work as videographers - one for Reason and the other for the Cato Institute. Santa "cut his teeth" as a young man on the works of Albert Jay Nock and cited as his favorite works from that author his 1935 book, Our Enemy, the State and his 1936 essay, Isaiah's Job.

Curious to learn more, I asked Santa about his political views and got a surprisingly refreshing reply. Santa told a story about a man named Otanes in Persia in the 6th century BC, mentioned in Herodotus' Histories in Book III ch 80-83. It seemed that Otanes took part in a coup, along with Darius and five others, to overthrow the king of Persia. Following the murder of the king, the conspirators argued amongst themselves over what kind of government should be established. One, named Megabyzus argued in favor of oligarchy. Darius argued for monarchy, and the other four conspirators agreed with him. Otanes was opposed to all of this. Herodotus quotes him as reasoning,

"How can monarchy be a fit thing, when the ruler can do what he wants with impunity? Give this power to the best man on earth, and it would stir him to unaccustomed thoughts."

Still, the call for a monarchy carried the day. Otanes, seeing he was defeated, then addressed the others,

“Fellow partisans, it is plain that one of us must be made king (whether by lot, or entrusted with the office by the choice of the Persians, or in some other way), but I shall not compete with you; I desire neither to rule nor to be ruled; but if I waive my claim to be king, I make this condition, that neither I nor any of my descendants shall be subject to any one of you.”

To these terms the six others agreed. Otanes did not participate in the contest to rule others - content to rule himself - and Herodotus noted that to the day of his writing, the house of Otanes remained free.

Added Santa: "That's about as close to anarchy as you can get."

On The New Idol

From "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" by Friedrich Nietzsche

Translated by Walter Kaufmann

Somewhere there are still peoples and herds, but not where we live, my brothers: here there are states. State? What is that? Well then, open your ears to me, for now I shall speak to you about the death of peoples.

State is the name of the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it tells lies too; and this lie crawls out of its mouth: "I, the state, am the people." That is a lie! It was creators who created peoples and hung faith and a love over them: thus they served life.

It is annihilators who set traps for the many and call them "state": they hang a sword and a hundred appetites over them.

Where there is still a people, it does not understand the state and hates it as the evil eye and the sin against customs and rights.

This sign I give you: every people speaks its tongue of good and evil, which the neighbor does not understand. It has invented its own language of customs and rights. But the state tells lies in all the tongues of good and evil; and whatever it says it lies--and whatever it has it has stolen. Everything about it is false; it bites with stolen teeth, and bites easily. Even its entrails are false. Confusion of tongues of good and evil: this sign I give you as the sign of the state. Verily, this sign signifies the will to death. Verily, it beckons to the preachers of death.

All-too-many are born: for the superfluous the state was invented.

Behold, how it lures them, the all-too-many--and how it devours them, chews them, and ruminates!

"On earth there is nothing greater than I: the ordering finger of God am I"--thus roars the monster. And it is not only the long-eared and shortsighted who sink to their knees. Alas, to you too, you great souls, it whispers its dark lies. Alas, it detects the rich hearts which like to squander themselves. Indeed, it detects you too, you vanquishers of the old god. You have grown weary with fighting, and now your weariness still serves the new idol. With heroes and honorable men it would surround itself, the new idol! It likes to bask in the sunshine of good consciences--the cold monster!

It will give you everything if you will adore it, this new idol: thus it buys the splendor of your virtues and the look of your proud eyes. It would use you as bait for the all-too-many.

Indeed, a hellish artifice was invented there, a horse of death, clattering in the finery of divine honors. Indeed, a dying for many was invented there, which praises itself as life: verily, a great service to all preachers of death!

State I call it where all drink poison, the good and the wicked; state, where all lose themselves, the good and the wicked; state, where the slow suicide of all is called "life".

Behold the superfluous! They steal the works of the inventors and the treasures of the sages for themselves; "education" they call their theft--and everything turns to sickness and misfortune for them.

Behold the superfluous! They are always sick; they vomit their gall and call it a newspaper. They devour each other and cannot even digest themselves.

Behold the superfluous! They gather riches and become poorer with them. They want power and first the lever of power, much money--the impotent paupers!

Watch them clamber, these swift monkeys! They clamber over one another and thus drag one another into the mud and the depth. They all want to get to the throne. Often mud sits on the throne--and often also the throne on mud. Mad they all appear to me, clambering monkeys and overardent. Foul smells their idol, the cold monster: foul they smell to me altogether, these idolators.

My brothers, do you want to suffocate in the fumes of their snouts and appetites? Rather break the windows and leap to freedom.

Escape from the bad smell! Escape from the idolatry of the superfluous!

Escape from the bad smell! Escape from the steam of these human sacrifices!

The earth is free even now for great souls. There are still many empty seats for the lonesome and the twosome, fanned by the fragrance of silent seas.

A free life is still free for great souls. Verily, whoever possesses little is possessed that much less: praised be a little poverty!

Only where the state ends, there begins the human being who is not superfluous: there begins the song of necessity, the unique and inimitable tune.

Where the state ends--look there, my brothers! Do you not see it, the rainbow and the bridges of the Übermensch?

Thus spoke Zarathustra.

Fall of the Berlin Wall

Beginning with Poland in 1989, soviet states began to refuse to cooperate with the centralized oppression of Moscow, setting off a series of largely bloodless revolutions which spread within months through Eastern and Central Europe. Today is the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, which is often viewed as the culminating event signifying the fall of the old Soviet Union.

I would to God that we could see a similar revolution take place on our own soil. But who will be our Poland? Could it be Texas, Vermont, New Hampshire... Alaska? And what shall we tear down in place of the Berlin Wall? Perhaps we could topple the Washington Monument. Still, it must be said that if such a rebellion of states from centralized authority were to be consistent in principle, it could only properly end with the abolition of all forms of state oppression - an end to statism itself - and it does not seem to me that the people of the United States are anywhere near to being prepared for this.

Poland

At the recommendation of a friend, I have been reading James Michener's 'Poland'. For those of you unfamiliar with Michener, his books are renowned for their meticulous research and attention to detail. 'Poland' has so far been an educational and engaging work of historical fiction covering eight centuries of Polish history.

A persistent theme in 'Poland' so far has been the plight of the Polish serfs. One passage in particular caught my attention this morning as I read in chapter six, which covers the political and social upheavals that took place in Poland during the late eighteenth century. The following exchange takes place on page 260 between twenty-two year old Feliks Bukowski (a fictional character of minor nobility on a wife-finding tour of Poland) and the historical Princess Lubomisrka in her palace at Lancut. Feliks, himself the owner of peasants, had for the first time become aware of the difficult life faced by the Polish peasantry, and in a private moment with the older, well-traveled and evidently very well socially networked princess, he expresses his troubled conscience:

"But Feliks persisted: 'Will your peasants be set free?' and she replied evasively: 'Wolfgang von Goethe was the most brilliant man I ever met, master of the universe. But Ben Franklin was the wisest, master of the human soul. I never liked Tom Jefferson much - too revolutionary, too scientific and inhuman. And each one of these exceptional men told me that for the present, some kind of serfdom was inescapable; slavery in America, peasants in Poland. If America thinks it can end its slavery, it will perish. The day when serfs are set free in Poland, it will perish.'"

Reading this, I thought about how the present mode of doing things, even when patently incorrect or unjust, often seems inescapable and irrefutable to those engaged in it. We get used to things the way they are, and in short order it seems impossible to imagine doing things in any other way. The intellectual strategy used by oppressors to justify their actions throughout the course of human history has most often been to make oppression seem inevitable - so that even if it is resented as inequitable, it will be met with passive resignation and tolerated.

We the People of the United States

I recently had a conversation with a good friend at work who had just finished Glenn Beck's book, 'Common Sense'. He asked if I would be interested in borrowing it from him. When I told him that I didn't agree with Beck's message, he sounded surprised and asked, 'Why not?' I replied: 'I don't appreciate the reverence he pays to the Constitution, among other things.' An incredulous look came across his face and he asked: 'But don't you think that the Constitution holds the key to recovering the individual liberties that have been lost in this country?' We discussed the issue briefly - I explained why I felt that the Constitution was no guarantor of freedom and he explained why he felt it was - and then we each went our separate ways, neither of us much closer to being convinced of the truth of the other's case than when we started, which seems to be typical of any debate. I have had several such discussions concerning the Constitution during the past few months, and the conclusion of each has left me feeling not quite satisfied that I had explained myself sufficiently. In this post I would like to give a fuller explanation of why I feel the way I do.

In June of 1776 the Second Continental Congress of the United States assembled a committee to prepare a document which would govern the land following the cessation of British rule. The resulting Articles of Confederation, based on the principle of unanimous consent by the various state legislatures as a prerequisite for action, immediately became the de facto government of the United States and was ratified in 1781. The Articles formed a nation and created a form of central government, but proponents of centralized power and control, many of whom later coalesced to form the Federalist Party, were not satisfied. They wanted a strong central government with power to enforce taxation among the States and increased ability to incur national debt. Counted among the proponents of strong central government were Northern merchants who longed for tariffs on finished goods imported from overseas and Southern gentlemen who craved official recognition of the institution of slavery and the extradition of slaves who had escaped to northern States. The Articles of Confederation, with its limited grants of power to Congress and concept of strong State sovereignty, was of no use in enforcing such matters. Legislators in the North could not force the South to obey any tariff which robbed Southern citizens to enrich Northern merchants, and legislators in the South could not force Northern populations to officially recognize the practice of slavery, which many felt was an abomination. With almost no federal bureaucratic positions created under the Articles, those who aspired to lofty positions of power were similarly disappointed.

Inevitably, a crisis occurred which provided a pretext for a renewed assault on individual liberty along federalist ideological lines. In 1786, an uprising of veterans and farmers in Massachusetts led by Daniel Shays organized to oppose the confiscation of their property and imprisonment for failure to pay the taxes which were being collected to remunerate speculators who had financed the revolutionary war effort. An army privately financed by wealthy Boston merchants[1] put the movement down, but the practice of using any threat to the existing power structure as a pretext for a further extension of power and erosion of individual liberty was a well known tactic even in the 18th century and would be put to good use.

One year later, in May 1787, a gathering of American elites met in Philadelphia to discuss what they perceived to be the weaknesses of the Articles. Each delegate came with the particular vested interests of his home state in mind. Most of the delegates from the various states (Rhode Island delegates did not attend) were in favor of further centralizing power, with the name "Shaysite" being applied to anyone who was not. After a month of heated debate they came to the only conclusion which could possibly meet the demands of the majority of those present: the government of the United States of America would be abolished. A new federation would replace the Confederation of States outlined under the Articles, and a constitution would be drawn up to enumerate its powers. Further months of vigorous and vitriolic debate followed before a final draft was adopted on September 17th. By this time, many of the delegates, so displeased with the results, had returned home. Several others refused to sign, but in the end, 39 of the original 55 delegates appended their names to the document which would be sent to the several States for the process of ratification - ultimately completed June 21st, 1788. Following is an overview of the major points in the new constitution:

Article I - Established a bicameral Congress of the United States, and gave it the power to:

• Establish representation and levy direct taxes in proportion to population among the States, implicitly recognizing the institution of slavery with the "three-fifths" clause
• Borrow money and establish a national debt
• Regulate commerce, as it saw fit, excepting taxes on exports
• Set standards for the naturalization of citizens
• Coin money and fix the value therof, as well as the value of foreign coin
• Monopolize the delivery of mail
• Grant monopolies in the form of intellectual property rights
• Declare war
• Raise and support an army and navy, with certain limitations
• Provide for calling forth state militias to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions
• Make laws necessary and proper for the execution of all powers granted the Congress
• Suspend Habeas Corpus when required for "public safety"
• Forbid individual States from forming compacts with each other or declaring war without the consent of Congress

Article II - Established an Executive Branch of the United States, with power vested in a President of the United States of America and gave him power to:

• Command the army and navy of the United States, including the militias of the several States
• Grant reprieves and pardons for any offence, except in cases of impeachment
• Make binding treaties, with the approval of the Senate
• Appoint ambassadors, public ministers and consuls, Supreme Court Judges, and other officers, with approval from Congress
• See to it that all laws be faithfully executed

Article III - Established a Judicial Branch with power vested in a Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as the Congress saw fit and gave it the power to exercise dominion over disputes within the territory of or concerning the United States of America. The right to trial by jury in all criminal cases was established. Acts of treason were defined along with subsequent punishments to be carried out by Congress.

Article IV - Further established the subordination of individual States to federal power, giving Congress the authority to prescribe laws concerning the interrelationships of States and ensuring the extradition of slaves and criminals. The process by which new States were to admitted into the Union was outlined, republican government within each state was stipulated and the federal government was given the explicit responsibility to protect against invasion and domestic violence.

Article V - Outlined the process of amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Article VI - Established the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, and prohibited religious tests as a qualification for public office.

Article VII - Outlined the process of ratification.

The Constitution of the United States of America, so composed, represented tremendous growth in the centralized power of the American government. At the conclusion of the Philadelphia Convention, as the delegates stepped forward to sign their names, Benjamin Franklin, a delegate from Pennsylvania, remarked to a colleague that he had often noticed the half-sun insignia on the Convention President's chair and wondered to himself if it were a rising, or a setting sun. He was now sure, he said, that it was a rising sun[2]. Franklin's interpretation was certainly correct, for the signing of the Constitution was a beginning, and not an end to the centralization of power and the monopolization of justice by America's political caste.

I contend that the liberality with which the federal government has over the years interpreted its enumerated powers is a natural consequence, and not an aberration of the principles which were engrossed upon parchment that summer in Pennsylvania. Those who wish to restore principles of individual liberty must realize that reform within the existing framework of the Constitution cannot effect lasting change, for a step back is of no ultimate consequence to the marcher who is not induced to face a different direction. Once accepted, all principles march on until they reach their inevitable conclusions. The central principle which justified the creation of the U.S. Constitution is that it is acceptable to use force to centralize power in the hands of the few, so that the many might be protected from themselves. No doubt the majority of men and women in the world today believe this; yet I choose to be among those who are of the opinion stated by Thomas Jefferson in his 1801 inaugural address:

"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."

Yet, the irony implicit in Jefferson uttering these words as he prepared to sit upon his throne does not escape me -- perhaps it would be best if instead I allow Henry David Thoreau to conclude my rant against the law of this great land with words from his 1854 essay, "Slavery in Massachusetts":

"The law will never make men free; it is men who have got to make the law free... I would remind my countrymen that they are to be men first, and Americans only at a late and convenient hour... The question is, not whether you or your grandfather, seventy years ago, did not enter into an agreement to serve the Devil, and that service is not accordingly now due; but whether you will not now, for once and at last, serve God - in spite of your own past recreancy, or that of your ancestor - by obeying that eternal and only just CONSTITUTION, which He, and not any Jefferson or Adams, has written in your being."

Sources

1. Subscription list for paying and supplying a militia, 4 January 1787, Massachusetts Archives Collection, Records, Vol. 189: 64, MA.

2. BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, debates in the Constitutional Convention, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, September 17, 1787.James Madison, Journal of the Federal Convention, ed. E. H. Scott, p. 763.