Fallacies of Conservative Immigration Arguments by Jacob G. Hornberger !!!
(2019-05-24 at 13:32:18 )

Fallacies of Conservative Immigration Arguments by Jacob G. Hornberger

Conservatives often use the national-home argument to justify their support of a system of immigration controls.

They say that the United States of America is a "national home," one owned and controlled by the United States government.

As the owner of the "home," the argument goes, the United States government has the "right" to lock the door and determine who to let into its home.

Conservatives sometimes say to me, "You lock your front door, Jacob, and you do not let everyone into your home.

Why should the federal government not have the -right- to do the same with our home?"

The answer is that the United States of America is not a national home.

Whenever I receive this argument from conservatives, I tell them that they they are thinking about Cuba, where the government owns or controls everything.

Since the government is the sole employer or controller of everything in the country, it stands to reason that it is going to consider the nation to be a national home, one whose door it is able to lock.

The United States, on the other hand, is founded on the principle of private property.

Here, people are free to own their homes, ranches, farms, lots, businesses, and other real and personal property.

Under the principles of private ownership, they have the right to do anything they want with their own property.

That is because it belongs to them, not to the government.

Thus, if I want to invite a Mexican citizen into my home, that is my right.

That is what private property is all about.

It is mine, not the governments.

It is also freedom of association is all about, which is an essential aspect of liberty, which is a fundamental, natural, God-given right, one that precedes government.

As such, neither the government nor anyone else can interfere with who I decide to invite into my house. I am free to unlock and open my door to anyone I want.

The same holds true for any business I own. It is mine, not societys and not the governments.

As such, I have the right to employ anyone I want, including Mexican citizens. It is my money, not societys and not the governments.

If people do not like the fact that I’ am hiring Mexican citizens in my business with my money, they do not have to patronize my business. They can go elsewhere.

By the same token, however, that does not mean that such foreigners have the right to enter your home or business.

You have the right to keep your door locked. You have a right to post a "No Trespassing" sign on your yard. The right of freedom of association naturally encompasses the right of freedom to not associate.

Conservatives often accuse us libertarians of opposing borders. They are wrong. We do not oppose borders. We simply support the right of people to freely cross borders. Simply because people are free to cross borders does not mean that borders disappear. It simply means that people are free to cross them.

For example, every day countless Marylanders cross the Potomac River and enter Virginia. No one knows how many because the government does not keep track.

Some of them might be coming to Virginia to steal jobs, open businesses to compete against Virginia businesses, sell things in competition against Virginia companies, sell or buy things, increase the trade deficit between Maryland and Virginia, or even murder, rape, steal, or commit an act of terrorism. None of that is enough to justify letting the Virginia government begin controlling the border.

Conservatives often confuse the term "border" for boundary lines that demarcate private real estate. Borders are a political construct that demarcate different political jurisdictions. Boundary lines demarcate the real estate that people privately own. The fact that we libertarians favor open borders does not mean that we favor a right to trespass onto peoples private property by crossing the boundary lines that demarcate private property.

What conservatives do not get is that the mere act of crossing a border does not violate anyones rights.

It is only when one enters onto someones privately owned property that ones rights are violated.

For example, think of all those Marylanders crossing the Potomac and entering Virginia. They are n’ot violating anyones rights when they cross the border. If they enter Virginia and then break into someones home, they are violating the law because they are violating someones rights.

Thus, when a Mexican crosses the border by trespassing on someones ranch, he is violating the landowners rights by trespassing onto his property.

If the foreigner were free to cross the border on a road or bridge, he would not be violating anyones rights, any more than a Marylander is violating anyones rights when he crosses the Potomac and enters Virginia.

Keep in mind that the only reason the foreigner is trespassing on someones ranch on the border is because of the system of immigration controls. If borders were open, foreigners would be crossing the border the same way that Marylanders cross the border and enter Virginia.

Some conservatives argue that if all the roads were privately owned, the private owners would discriminate against foreigners by refusing to let them travel on their roads.

Therefore, they say, the government, as the owner of the roads, should prohibit foreigners from using when or after they cross the border.

They are just projecting their own prejudices.

After all, millions of United States of Americans are renting or have sold housing to an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants here in the United States.

Moreover, countless businesses have hired most of those 11 million.

Why do homeowners and business owners do that?

In large part because they like the color of money.

There is every reason to believe that private owners of roads would be equally inclined to like the color of money.

Nonetheless, as long as government owns the roads, we United States of Americans should continue standing fast and refuse to permit the government to discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, color, creed, sex, or national origin.

Anyone should be free to use the governments roads.

Reprinted here with permission from Mr. Jacob G. Hornberger of The Future of Freedom Foundation!! Their Great Website!!