5 days Ago
President-elect Donald Trump’s appointment of Thomas Homan as his “Border Czar” reminds us how the enforcement of America’s socialist system of immigration controls has been a major factor in the destruction of the liberty of the American people for at least the past 80 years. For one thing, even the use of the term “czar” conjures up images of pre-communist Russian rulers who wielded omnipotent, dictatorial powers over the lives of the Russian people. But Homan’s title is more than just symbolic.
While it’s tempting to think that his czar-like dictatorial powers are directed only against foreigners, such is simply not the case. As Chandran Kukathas points out in his excellent book Immigration and Freedom , a necessary aspect of the enforcement of America’s socialist system of immigration controls is the destruction of American liberty. Kukathas writes: “To put it simply, immigration controls are controls on people, and it is not possible to control some people without controlling others.
More to the point, it is not possible to control outsiders (aliens, foreigners, would-be immigrants) without controlling insiders as well. Immigration controls are not merely border controls but controls on the freedom of the people living within those borders. The purpose of this work is to show why this must be so, and to explain why it is significant.
The conclusion it defends is that if we value freedom — as we should — we ought to be wary of immigration control.” This is a point that, not surprisingly, is ignored by libertarian advocates of immigration controls. In expressing their support for this statist program, they simply stop there.
They do not go further and address the destruction of liberty that comes with the enforcement of the statist system that they are supporting. The reason is obvious: Acknowledging their support of enforcement, which destroys liberty, would counteract their ostensible libertarian devotion to advancing freedom. Consider, for example, workplace raids.
According to an article in the New York Times, Homan told CBS’s “Sixty Minutes,” that such raids, which have not been conducted under President Biden, would resume under Trump. (Side note: It was Biden’s decision not to employ immigration-control measures like workplace raids and separation of children from parents that have caused right-wingers to accuse Biden of supporting “open borders,” notwithstanding the fact that Biden has brutally enforced the statist system of immigration controls in other ways.) Under principles of a genuinely free society, people have the right to associate with whomever they want.
Under the right of freedom of association, an employer has the right to hire whomever he wants. That’s because it’s his privately owned business. His business doesn’t belong to society or to the state.
It’s his. Therefore, he has as much right to hire whoever he wants, including Catholics, Jews, heterosexuals, gays, transgenders, foreigners, or anyone else. No one, including the government, has the legitimate authority to initiate force to prevent an employer from associating with whoever he wants, including with respect to his hiring decisions.
Thus, when the government enacts its socialist system of immigration controls and then enforces it with workplace raids, it is obviously destroying the fundamental, natural, God-given right of freedom of association. Interestingly, right-wing libertarians sometimes express support for freedom of association in the context of anti-discrimination laws. Defending a right to discriminate against others on the basis of race or color or sexual orientation, right-wing libertarians point to the right of freedom of association, which necessarily entails the right to discriminate against others for whatever reason.
Yet, when it comes to immigration-enforcement measures like workplace raids, right-wing libertarians go silent. But the fact is that such raids destroy the fundamental right of freedom of association as much as anti-discrimination laws do. But the destruction of liberty goes even further than simply arresting illegal immigrants who are working at a privately owned business.
That’s because the government has not only made unauthorized entry by foreigners into the United States illegal, it also has made it a criminal offense for an American business owner to knowingly employ an illegal immigrant. Related Articles Commentary | Democrats only value Latinos when they vote for Democrats Commentary | Neil Patel: Trump’s victory marks the end of the nutball era of American mismanagement Commentary | California is suing its way to higher energy costs Commentary | Adam Sieff: What’s next for Democrats? Start with fixing California. Commentary | Californians just voted Republican —they just don’t know it yet Thus, you have two criminal offenses that destroy liberty — one imposed on the foreigner and another one imposed on American citizens.
Thus, in a workplace raid, it is entirely possible that the immigration goons who are enforcing the socialist system of immigration controls will arrest, handcuff, and cart away not only suspected illegal immigrants but also the managers or owners of the business that has employed them. Why do so many Americans, including rightwing libertarians, support a socialist program whose enforcement destroys the rights and liberties of the American people? The biggest reason is that they’re looking for security. They are convinced that foreigners are coming to get them, rape them, kill them, kidnap them, steal from them, or take their jobs away from them and they’re looking to the government to keep them safe from all the things they are fearing.
So, they are willing — even eager — to trade their liberty for security. But as Benjamin Franklin so astutely pointed out, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” I would add that those who are willing to make such a shameful trade inevitably end up getting neither liberty nor security.
Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. This commentary was originally published by the Future of Freedom Foundation.
.
