In browsing around the innumerable stocks of informational insight at LewRockwell.com, I came across an article by libertarian thinker Glenn Jacobs (aka Kane of World Wrestling Entertainment) that really altered my perspective on the whole illegal immigration debate.
His article centers around the argument that in regards to illegal immigration laws such as the ones recently passed in Arizona, one should consider the implications they may have on an individual’s property rights. Governmental abuses of one’s property in response to enforcing illegal immigration laws allows the state to dictate to certain individuals and private businesses who they can and cannot hire or associate with and who may access ones private property regardless of the owners wishes.
Jacobs notes that,
While our system of property rights is already imperfect, the current immigration policy leads to even greater infringements on these rights. For example, if one owns property on or near the border, the government may claim the authority to build a fence or a wall on one’s property, and government agents may come and go as they please without the property owner’s permission.
In short, Jacobs suggests that at its core, illegal immigration is itself “a crime against the State, and should fall into the category of victimless crime.” If we approach the issue of illegal immigration from the mindset that it is actually a nonaggressive state determined “crime” in which no one individual has had their rights directly infringed upon, then I believe that the basis for enforcing and creating such laws fall flat. Just as all “victimless crimes” enable governments to regulate a myriad of actions and behaviors, such laws relating to illegal immigration could eventually encase all individuals in an environment where the state establishes a kind of “papers please” society that many have feared.
The government’s crusade against illegal immigration will ultimately give way to a trail of abuses of not only “illegal immigrants” themselves, but of the American people and their liberties. Rather than curbing the massive welfare system that entices so many immigrants to risk their well being to come here and take advantage of, the government would instead prefer to open the gates toward the inevitable abuse of the people’s freedoms and the restriction of their rights.
Despite whatever your own personal objections to the illegal immigration debate may or not be, Jacobs’ article is definitely worth a glance if you’re looking for an alternative and less often heard insight into what I believe to be an interesting, although difficult subject.