| | Last week, I attended a debate on immigration between Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute and Michael Erickson, Chairman of Republicans for the National Interest (no, not our own Mike Erickson, thankfully!).
The debate was to address the following issues: What value does immigration pose to a country, versus having restrictive policies or a closed border? What is to be done about potential terrorists and criminals? What are the economic ramifications of immigration? Do immigrants displace jobs? Will open immigration cause an unjust drain on the welfare system––more so than is the case currently? Will overcrowding be a problem? Will an influx of immigrants irrevocably alter the cultural atmosphere? Do immigrants have the right to come to America? Do Americans have the commensurate right to employ and sell housing to immigrants? What does a rational moral code have to say about allowing immigrants into the country?
Although not all of these questions were directly addressed, many of them were.
Yaron Brook lead off the debate with a rousing defense of individual rights and of free association. He defended the right of any employer to hire any worker, and of any worker to work for any employer. The Republican countered that the Mexican farm workers were being exploited and forced to do slave labor. He said that their employment should, therefore, be outlawed as a form of slavery.
Brook replied that it was preposterous to equate immigrant labor with slavery -- that black slaves were brought here against their will and forced to work for plantation owners. The Mexican farm workers, by contrast, came here voluntarily, chose the work, could leave any time they wanted and were sending their earnings, which were more than they could earn in Mexico, back to their families. He acknowledged that in some cases they were treated poorly by their employers, but said this was because they were illegal and were not free to search for better employment opportunities. The solution to their mistreatment, such as it was, is to make their employment here legal, to begin with.
However, Brook said that not everyone should be allowed in. He stated that there were three classes of foreigners who should be denied entry: terrorists, criminals and people with infectious diseases. But all others are welcome, and if their entry were legal, the border patrols would have that much less work to do, since only criminals, terrorists and people with infectious diseases would be trying to sneak across. Everyone else would be allowed legal entry into the country, and would have nothing to lose by going through legal channels.
His Republican opponent argued that the Mexican workers were being paid wages that were too low and that if they were allowed work permits, they should receive a minimum wage that is comparable to what American workers would have received were it not for the foreign competition. This, of course, is the old protectionist argument applied to foreign workers instead of foreign products. But the objections to it are the same: protectionism, whether for products or labor, is anti-competitive and harmful to economic progress. Brook pointed out that the lower wages make possible lower prices, which are beneficial to consumers.
He also said that in a free economy, immigrants would not be a drain on public services, because there would be no public welfare, public schooling, etc. As for changing the cultural landscape, he argued against multiculturalism, and said that immigrants who wanted to become citizens and participate in the political process (instead of simply remaining here as resident workers) should be required to learn English, since it's important for the citizens of a country to speak the same language.
The debate touched briefly on foreign policy, and Brook said that wartime security measures such as monitoring private communications require a declaration of war, so that when the war is declared over, these measures can be repealed. The problem now is that since there has been no declaration of war, there is no standard by which the repeal of these security measures can ever be politically required. He also included as terrorists those who belong to a mosque that preaches Jihad and Islamic radicalism. He said that such people should not be allowed to advocate war against the United States and proselytize for their cause. We certainly wouldn't have allowed Nazis into the country during World War II. By the same token, we shouldn't allow Islamic radicals here, now that we are engaged in a war with radical Islam.
I thought Brook did an exemplary job of presenting the Objectivist position on immigration against a Hamiltonian Republican who was about as far from the Objectivist position on this issue as any statist could be. Just the title of his organization -- "Republicans for the National Interest" -- was a clear indication of his unabashed collectivism.
- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 3/09, 1:23pm)
|
|
