On January 29th, I published a post entitled, How Should Christians View the Immigration Debate? I know those arguments carry little weight with secular readers, and for that matter also probably run counter to many beliefs held by Christians influenced by politics, but I stand by what I wrote.
Here, I intend to address several common arguments for more stringent immigration control based on secular political ideas. Some are weaker than others, and while I intend to present them fairly, feel free to comment below if you think I am in error due to a straw man argument or flaws in my reasoning.
Image credit
Illegal immigration is wrong because it is illegal
I start with the classic appeal to legality. It blends the informal fallacies of appeal to authority and status quo bias without actually making any case whatsoever for the position in question. My best counterargument is to rephrase this kind of statement in a historical context using an example no one is likely to misunderstand.
Aiding runaway slaves is wrong because it is illegal.
The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 is just one of many examples where government once declared something illegal which we consider virtuous, or at least not inherently criminal, today. Other examples include the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts penalizing criticism of the Adams administration, the Sedition Act of 1918 criminalizing speech or text in opposition to the war, and enforcing prohibition laws against people making and trading alcohol. Examples are numerous, and can easily be tailored to any given audience.
The fundamental issue remains the same: If there is no victim, there is no crime. Beyond this point, arguments at least attempt to make such a case.
Illegal immigration fuels crime
This argument is on firmer ground, because illegal immigration and other undocumented border crossing can often be directly connected to other illegal activities like drug smuggling, human trafficking, and gang violence. However, here a new distinction must be made. This argument typically conflates malum prohibitum and malum in se crimes. The latter involves violating of someone's life, liberty or property while the former is already addressed in answering the preceding argument.
There is nothing inherently criminal about using, buying, selling, or transporting illegal drugs. I don't recommend it, and most are objectively harmful without any beneficial justification, but vices are not crimes.
"Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in his search after his own happiness. Unlike crimes, they imply no malice toward others, and no interference with their persons or property.
"In vices, the very essence of crime—that is, the design to injure the person or property of another—is wanting."
—Lysander Spooner, Vices Are Not Crimes, (1875)
It is the consequences of prohibition laws, not vice directly, which chiefly fuels violent black markets and associated gang crime. It is the enforcement of prohibition laws, not the weakness of vice, which escalates the cost of drugs for addicts to the point where crime may be the only way to feed the addiction. And it is the nature of prohibition laws, not the nature of vice, which restricts access to effective addiction treatment. Trying to legislate morality by forbidding goods does not address the root problems behind those demands, punishes people who use such goods responsibly, and drives smugglers toward more concentrated goods. In the 1920s, rum runners favored distilled spirits over beer and wine. In the 2020s, drug mules bring fentanyl instead of cocaine and heroin. The same perverse incentives, just separated by a century. The solution is freedom, not control.
Human trafficking is a malum in se crime with real victims. This is an excuse for enforcement, but not an explanation why it is necessary or moral. Restricting open travel and trade is security theater instead of effective prevention and investigation. Preventing person A from doing something harmless because person B did something harmful does not make sense. This is the same authoritarian paternalism of teachers punishing an entire class because one student misbehaves. It creates new injustice instead of offering prevention or protection. Decriminalizing immigration shines light on exploitative labor practices. I won't believe the government really cares about sexual trafficking until the Epstein client list is released and people face charges.
Borders matter because national sovereignty matters
Open borders supposedly make a mockery of our national sovereignty. Even if I accepted the premise of national sovereignty in the first place, this remains an unsupported assertion. Are strong borders and stringent immigration or trade controls really essential to national sovereignty? This argument often comes from conservatives who might otherwise state support for the ideas of individual liberty and free trade, so I suspect it's more a slogan than a seriously considered position.
Additionally, many "illegal immigrants" are people who entered the country legally and just failed to leave when their visas expired. This may be a tourist, student, worker, or any number of other categories. Why is government permission to travel necessary in the first place, and why is staying after some papers expired criminal? How is this existence without permission a threat to anything but the egos of authoritarians? How do border walls and more border patrol agents address this?
Illegal immigrants are manipulating politics
No, illegal or undocumented immigrants cannot legally vote. To be fair, I also reject the legitimacy of all elections, but I do acknowledge the escalating concerns with each election cycle that something fishy might be going on. This suspicion didn't start in 2020, and isn't just a Republican concern. I remember there were Democrats thought something might be up in 2016, or for that matter, 2000. But using immigrants as a scapegoat is dumb regardless.
Maybe Democrat posturing as "pro-immigrant" gets some favor from those who do run the bureaucratic gauntlet that is the current naturalization process, but if Republicans would stop talking like xenophobic nationalists and start welcoming immigrants while advocating for real naturalization reform, they wouldn't need to fear immigrants. Why turn what should be part of free markets and free migration into a partisan dispute that doesn't need to be there in the first place? Immigrants who want to earn a better living for themselves are likely to be aligned with a lot of conservative values, too. They want to keep what they earn instead of watching the government devour a percentage of every dllar, and often come from cultures that value God and family.
Immigration is trespass because of property rights
This kind of argument comes with many variations and degrees of nuance, so my response will be lengthy. Some also least superficially might seem to appeal to my own preconceptions, principles and (perhaps) prejudices. Mostly because I can't resist alliteration. These are framed in the context of broadly Lockean views of property rights, trespass, freedom of association, and democracy.
The Transitive Property of Democracy
The most basic version I will call the Transitive Property of Democracy. Members of a modern democratic society are all presumed to have delegated a portion of their property claims to government, which acts as a collective protector of property rights. This means that just as we have meets and bounds for tracts of land, or claims to right-of-use in various fixed and movable goods, government by extension claims a property right to its entire territory through this manifestation of popular will.
Because you have the option to vote, this representation exists even if you do not vote, or did not vote for any election winners. Also, this means the collective can override the wishes of any individual or minority group, even though we supposedly want to protect the rights of minorities. Also, this means you have a say in what your neighbor can do with his property, and your neighbor has a say in what you can do with your property, if either of you can get enough strangers to side with you, because... reasons?
I reject democracy on several grounds. None of us can delegate rights or authority we do not possess in the first place. There is no inherent legitimacy in majority opinions. Political partisanship, especially as seen in the USA, but to a lesser degree globally, presents voters with a false dilemma. There is zero evidence for any agent/principal relationship between governments and their citizenry. I therefore dismiss this argument entirely.
The Thief's Stewardship Principle
Many who are closer to being as skeptical of politics as I am offer a much more nuanced, and superficially more principled, view on borders. We might agree that everything government has is stolen. Just like you would prefer a car thief to properly maintain a car in the interim until it can be restored to its proper owner, members of society would prefer that governments claiming vast tracts of stolen land treat it in a way the rightful owners (native inhabitants, homesteaders, etc.) would prefer until such time as the scope of government can be reduced and such ownership can be restored.
I even agree with some examples these people might cite. I am a librarian. The library here is funded by property taxes at present. Taxation is fundamentally extortion under color of law. However, it is highly probable that people would want libraries in some form whether government monopolized the service or not, and we do provide a valuable service to our community in spite of the usual political issues of perverse incentives, the economic calculation problem, and partisan extremists bickering over what to censor. It is our job as librarians, and your job as patrons of the library, to take care of these books, buildings, and other resources until such time as a voluntary solution can be built.
I can see how this principle applies to many government services. However, I fail to see how this extends to preventing immigrants from crossing national borders or from using the roads. There is a superficial similarity in that roads are another service monopolized by government, but the purpose and usage differs vastly. Government claiming ownership of the western wilderness is not like government claiming roads or government controlling the library. These are not the same categories of government usurpation, and the same principles do not apply to such different circumstances.
The Free Rider Problem
We pay gas taxes, license fees, registration fees, and sometimes still tolls on top of all that to the government to operate these road networks. However, it does not follow that use without payment is theft from those who pay to use these roads. This is sometimes called the free rider problem, but is that really a problem in this instance?
When developers build new neighborhoods or business parks, they usually build roads first. These serve the construction crew, prospective investors and buyers, residents, delivery drivers, employers, employees, customers, lost tourists, and anyone else in need of a road from point A to point B. Outside some extremely wealthy and exclusive communities, or secure business environments, these are rarely gated and secured. Whether maintained privately or ceded to a political entity once the project is done, there is no "free rider problem." The roads are there to be used, and the people who pay to use them know some users will not pay. Bicyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as drivers, but do not pay gas taxes, licensing, registration, or any other fee in most jurisdictions. Pedestrians pay nothing, and yet get crosswalks, sidewalks, and even their own paths in many neighborhoods.
Whether government extorts people, or private investors build them through voluntary funding, there is no trespass inherent in anyone who uses them to travel peaceably even if they do not pay. This is also a matter of history. The first US interstate highway system was funded almost entirely by private investment "...to procure the establishment of a continuous improved highway from the Atlantic to the Pacific, open to lawful traffic of all description without toll charges." The investors were largely automobile enthusiasts, businessmen, and civil leaders. Why would it be different now?
The Welfare State
The last of these arguments which attempt to frame authoritarian immigration control as support for property rights and broadly "libertarian" philosophy is also popular among Republicans. They say we can have either open borders, or a welfare state, but not both. Related concerns are other "public services" monopolized by governments at various levels and funded by taxation, such as hospitals and urgent care centers, or schools.
"...[U]nauthorized migrants can't receive benefits from programs including food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (or welfare), and Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, among other federal aid." - CBS
They are eligible for emergency medicaid, and school lunch is not contingent upon verifying legal status. Even legal migrants are subject to a 5-year waiting period for most benefits programs [ibid.]
Does prevention of immigration lead to the end of the welfare state? No. It does create a privileged class of government enforcers who violate not only immigrants, but also Americans, especially in the so-called 100-mile Constitution-free zone and are all funded by more taxation. Does concern about welfare beneficiaries justify other trespasses against peaceful people? Every pregnancy is a potential future welfare recipient, too. Do we want to prohibit immigration via conception, whether "anchor babies" or just poor folk? I sure as hell hope not.
Conclusion
Your property rights end at your property line, and government is not acting as your agent when enforcing its territorial claims. Visas and passports are proof of governmental overreach, not a defense against bad actors. Travel and trade are two of the building blocks for prosperity. Legality does not define morality. Collective guilt based on the malum in se criminal actions of a minority does not make sense.
The typical conservative complaints based on crime, welfare, and elections do not justify border control. We need to end prohibition, dismantle the welfare state, and stop relying on a paternalistic government to manage our lives. Freedom cannot wait until after we achieve Utopia that never comes. We kill the state by living free, with or without its permission, and certainly not by imagining more government power is somehow a stepping stone to liberty.
A lot of libertarians like to quote Hoppe's ideas about sponsorship, but I would remind them that taxation still extortion, an expropriating property protector is still a contradiction in terms, and his assumptions regarding immigration and their effect on a prosperous society do not necessarily hold up under scrutiny. Comparative advantage still applies, and in increase in opportunity to exchange can only benefit all participants in a free economy. Hoppe is smart, but I think he has some self-contradictions to work through here. If I am wrong, feel free to clarify.
I know this has been a long post. Typos, spliced sentences, and other errors may abound, I may not have clearly articulated my objections to each kind of argument, I may have mischaracterized them to some degree, and I probably skipped someone's pet theory. Let's make this the starting point for serious debate. I think many bordertarians and populist "build the wall" conservatives have good intentions, and I don't want to demonize people who disagree with me as closet racists. Well, most of them, anyway. I've met a few who don't get such benefit of the doubt. But let's try to be at least slightly civil.
