Natural Rights And The American Border – OpEd

By Aaron Sobczak

The American immigration system is far fromeasily navigable. Those who proudly declare that they are “all for immigration as long as it is legal” may be unfamiliar with how convoluted the immigration system is. The described “crisis” usually relates largely to how many immigrants there are in legal limbo. These immigrants in limbo are mostly those who are legally seeking immigration or acceptance as arefugeebut are turned away without reason. Many wait in the U.S. not because they are unwilling to follow legal steps but because the legal steps are either extremely lengthy or unpredictable.

These immigrants waiting, of course, are sometimes placed in camps, where there are numerous accounts ofhuman rights abuses. It is not just immigrants who are having their rights violated because of America’s immigration system but also U.S. citizens, especially those citizens living within 100 miles of a U.S. border, where there is less respect for the fourth amendment.

Some claim such violations are necessary due to economic factors, but this common talking point can be challenged. Economist Bryan Caplan has explained that the immigrant who takes more than they give to the U.S. economy is theexception, not the rule. Most immigrants contribute to the economy, and illegal immigrants have very little access to public assistance programs. Immigrants are even necessary for the current social security scheme to succeed in the long run, especially as Americans are having fewer and fewer children. If Caplan’s research is correct, this would refute most economic arguments against immigration.

However, it does not refute all arguments; there are still those who insist that immigrants from around the world may degrade the American system or support progressive politicians and their policies. This is an argument from preference at best but can be examined. Immigrants from more conservative countries than the United States are less likely to import nonexistent progressive policies from their home country. Especially from a social policy point of view, most immigrants lean conservative. As to the idea that aspects of the American system may be eroded, it should be noted that current immigration policies have been damaging to aspects of American rule of law for decades.

The infamous100-mile border zonein the US is an area where the fourth amendment does not have full recognition. There is no constitutional basis for this as the fourth amendment does not list exclusions. Nevertheless, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has essentially no limits on its ability to violate a person’s privacy in this border zone. Around two-thirds of the American populous lives in this zone, and it engulfs nine entire states plus Washington, D.C. While immigration officers must have reasonable suspicion, this is sometimes hard to justify in qualitative terms. Additionally, there exist immigration checkpoints for motorists where the ICE officer does not need consent to search a vehicle.

These policies would have surely been resisted had they been placed on North American colonists or early Americans. In fact, President Thomas Jefferson’s infamousInsurrection Act of 1807was ineffective and suffered from widespread resistance in America. This act placed significant embargoes on British trade and allowed the president to institute martial law. The fourth and first amendments were violated with this act, and it created theworst recessionin America up to that time. Predictably, most Americans ignored the embargo and participated in a form of peaceful resistance through black market trade.

Immigrant detainee camps are inevitable considering how contradictory and complicated the immigration laws are. What does not have to be inevitable is the level of inhumane treatment present in these camps. According to the Department of Homeland Securityreportsin 2019, Customs and Border Patrol camps held in between four to five times as many people as the facilities were made to hold. Many in the camps were wearing soiled clothes, were held for more than a month without a shower, and children were regularly separated from their parents for extended periods of time. This is more than an emotional plea, though. The rights laid out in the Bill of Rights rest upon assumed inalienable rights and dignities bestowed by a creator. Thus, these rights are universal.

With how dangerous illegal border crossings are, why would any person choose to cross illegally? This comes down to humans giving value to certain objectives. To many, the immediate threat of violence or famine in their home country means that risking illegal entry becomes the better immediate option. The American immigration system is essentially a lottery, and those who are facing imminent danger do not have months or even years to wait for selection. Readers with families can certainly understand the duty to protect their children at any cost.

Those who want to fix the border crisis should advocate for a clearer, streamlined immigration system. Streamlining the ability to enter the U.S. legally would logically result in fewer people in filthy immigration camps, less human trafficking, fewer illegal crossings, and would even give drug cartels less power. More importantly, as immigrating becomes less dangerous and more common, human rights violations by ICE and border patrol agents may become less frequent. Anyone who believes that the rights laid out in America’s founding documents are universal must surely view the situation at the U.S. border as a violation of natural rights and should view businesses and property owners, rather than the state, as the deciding factor on whether or not to welcome a stranger.

• About the author: Aaron Sobczak holds an M.A. in Public Policy with an emphasis on International Policy. He has written for various outlets, and especially enjoys researching topics related to international law, American History, and public choice. He is currently part of the Mises Institute’s apprenticeship program. Aaron lives in Lynchburg, Virginia with his wife.
• Source: This article was published by the Mises Institute