The sight of thousands of poor people walking hundreds of miles to escape poverty and violence is tragic (see above picture from the Wall Street Journal), whatever one thinks of open immigration. The story reveals lots of problems. Let me focus on one that may have been unnoticed.
In a tweet of October 18, President Trump wrote:
In addition to stopping all payments to these countries, which seem to have almost no control over their population, I must, in the strongest of terms, ask Mexico to stop this onslaught – and if unable to do so I will call up the U.S. Military and CLOSE OUR SOUTHERN BORDER!
What does he mean by “these countries”? He probably does not take “country” in the sense of geographical features, like when we say “this country has high mountains.” He probably does not mean the population of these countries, because he would then be saying that these populations have no control over their populations. Granted that a political theorist could refer to a sort of social contract whereby the people of a country would have agreed to prevent themselves from fleeing. But it is unlikely that they would have unanimously agreed to a sort of Berlin Wall. At any rate, it is not sure that Mr. Trump completely masters complex contractarian models.
Perhaps he meant that all the South American governments should collectively control all their populations. But we wouldn’t expect such an interpretation from a nationalist who believes in national sovereignty.
What Mr. Trump presumably meant is that “the governments of each of these countries seems to have no control over its population.” This is a quite remarkable statement. Why would it be good that a government controls its population and can prevent its members from leaving? And if that’s good for other countries, is it good in the United States too? Shouldn’t it be the population that controls the government, not the other way around?
Like all issues, the problem of migrations can be approached in a collectivist-authoritarian or individualist-libertarian way. There are many arguments, methodological, economic, and ethical that favor the second approach. This implies a presumption of individual liberty.
On the specific problem under consideration, two easy—if admittedly incomplete—solutions should be obvious, assuming the U.S. government adopts the correct approach. First, “trade, not aid” or, in this case, “trade, not threat.” If poor South American workers had open access to the American market for their goods, they would have better hope of escaping poverty while staying put. Second, stopping the tragic war on drugs would probably much reduce gang violence in these countries. If American consumers want something, don’t prevent the foreign poor from selling it to them.
READER COMMENTS
Andre
Oct 23 2018 at 7:58am
South American?
Pierre Lemieux
Oct 23 2018 at 11:40am
Good point, Andre! I should have written “Central Americans.” But can’t “South Americans” be also used as a generic term for all “non-North Americans”? And many of my arguments would apply to other South Americans.
Benjamin Cole
Oct 26 2018 at 9:18am
Well, except Mexico is considered part of North America.
The Pierre Lemieux speedboat ran up and down the waterfront on this one. Trump and the English language are not on good terms, but I understood what he meant.
In a world without nations, perhaps we could have no borders. But we have nations, and I hope the rule of law.
Macroeconomists and libertarians need to ask themselves why populations globally are turning against free trade and open borders.
And I ask this: as a citizen of a sovereign nation, should I foreign-policy, trade policy, and military policy are made by multinationals and not by voters?
nobody.really
Oct 23 2018 at 1:03pm
Hypothetical 1: Bin Laden launches an attack on the US from Afghanistan. The Afghan government says, wow, that was naughty—but, as Lemieux advises us, it’s not our job to control our population; it’s just our job to fight to the death against anyone who attempts to interfere with those living inside our nation’s borders.
What result? (No fair googling the answer….)
Floccina
Oct 24 2018 at 12:32pm
Good point but…
One of my most out of the mainstream positions was after 9-11, I did not support the toppling of the Taliban, I thought that the USA military should go in and go after Al Qaeda and leave the Taliban in control. I thought that it would cause too much chaos toppling them.
AMW
Oct 23 2018 at 1:07pm
Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama are all on the North American continent. So, strictly speaking, citizens of these countries are North Americans. In fairness, though, most citizens of the US probably think of North America as just Canada, the US and Mexico, and consider anyone from south of Mexico to be South American.
AMW
Oct 23 2018 at 1:09pm
Are you honestly equating migration with the slaughter of innocents?
Sad.
nobody.really
Oct 23 2018 at 2:16pm
Are you honestly adopting Trump’s speech patterns? S….
…no, I can’t do it.
Rather, I’m posing an earnest question about libertarian theory: To what extent should government/the collective impinge upon the autonomy of its own members to appease the interest of outsiders—especially outsiders with the power to threaten the interests of the collective and its members?
Hypothesis 2: The citizens of Guatemala benefit from US aid. Some citizens choose, on their own initiative, to take actions that will predictably piss off the US, threatening that aid to the detriment of all Guatemalans. Should the Guatemalan government intervene? Should the answer depend upon the Guatemalan government’s opinion of the actions of these individuals (realizing that the Guatemalan government’s opinion has no relevance to the US’s opinion)?
You and I might distinguish between Bin Laden attacks and migrant caravans. But it’s not you or I who decides what retribution will result, so it’s not clear to me that our opinions are very useful guides for answering the question. Perhaps we’d want to consider the likely consequences of various courses of action.
The again, perhaps not. Different people may arrive at different conclusions. That’s the fun of the hypothetical.
Bedarz Iliachi
Oct 24 2018 at 3:10am
Why it is necessary for a Honduran who wishes to escape poverty to immigrate to USA? Can’t he escape poverty in Mexico? Mexico is a pretty middle-income country.
Is this caravan just people wanting to escape poverty and violence? Isn’t it organized in some fashion by people whose motivations might go beyond the actual welfare of the Hondurans?.
The rights of asylum from war and famine are standard in international law and agreements. A person wanting asylum must seek asylum in the first country in which he is free from war, persecution and famine. If Honduras or any other Central American country is suffering violence, war and famine that creates refugees then he refugees must seek asylum in the first safe country they encounter. They have no reason to make for USA,
nobody.really
Oct 24 2018 at 4:45am
Not sure what this refers to. Last April, ABC News reported that similar “caravans” have occurred on and off since 2010. While travelers have been banding together for safety and fellowship since the days of Canterbury Tales, these Latin American treks have become so regular that now an immigrants rights group–Pueblo Sin Fronteras (“People Without Borders,” a riff on Doctors without Borders)–claims to provide organizational support to the efforts.
Pueblo Sin Fronteras has been around for about 15 years now. I haven’t heard that they have any ulterior objectives. That said, the current caravan is suspiciously well timed for energizing Trump’s base just before an election. If Pueblo Sin Fronteras’s objective is to get the US to adopt more immigrant-friendly policies, this seems like a profoundly counterproductive way to go about it. Honestly, they couldn’t have waited another two weeks?
nobody.really
Oct 24 2018 at 11:29am
By the way, did anyone else read the title of this post and expect to the post to address something like China’s One Child policy? You know, policies related to controlling the growth of the population?
Pierre Lemieux
Oct 28 2018 at 11:19am
As more than one reader have pointed out, I should have written “Central American” instead of “South American.” Can I plead Gallicism in my defense? In French, “Amérique latine” refers to all Romance-language countries on the American continent. Says Wikipedia, “L’Amérique latine englobe ainsi l’Amérique hispanique, certaines îles des Caraïbes, ainsi que la quasi-totalité de l’Amérique du Sud et de l’Amérique centrale.” (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Am%C3%A9rique_latine#Territoires_parfois_inclus_dans_l'Am%C3%A9rique_latine)
Comments are closed.