So last night we learned about Hans-Hermann Hoppe's undying faith in the power of the government to plan immigration; today we read an argument from one of Hoppe's natural allies, noted authoritarian Annie Lowrey, agreeing with Hoppe's immigration plan.
Whenever I read policy advocates and columnists pontificating on this or that, a thought often arises unbidden in my mind: How do you people know all this stuff? Here, I am damned if I can figure out how Hoppe and Lowrey propose to reliably spot which immigrants have bright futures and which don't. Neither of their schemes would have admitted Andrew Carnegie, who came here as the son of an impoverished handloom weaver who had to borrow money in order to emigrate. It's hard to see where Alexander Hamilton would have fit in their schemes either, born the bastard son of a Scot and trained as nothing more "innovative" or "high tech" than clerking.
Let's not forget the multiplier effect of immigration; Cornelius Vanderbilt's great-great-grandfather came here as an indentured servant, presumably without an H-1B visa. My own ancestors were so undistinguished that I personally have no real idea what precisely their trades were when they emigrated, but in the male line my family has now produced, in order, two small businessmen, a decorated Army officer, an engineer, and a nurse. (Diminishing returns with me at the very end, I know.) No Vanderbilts, but not a bad return on the investment, no?
Right now, all over the world, there are brilliant men and women languishing in anonymity because of pure accidents of birth. Being born with a brilliant entrepreneurial mind or a staggering capacity for mathematics won't get you far if you're an Mbuti trapped in the Ituri Forest, hiding from armed gangs who think eating you will give them magical powers. Let's open our borders, let everyone in. Screen immigrants like we screen prospective Army recruits- for criminal records and psychiatric disorders- and if they pass, welcome to America.
1 comment:
I enjoy Milton Friedman's take on immigration, which is often deliberately misquoted by restrictionists. (The full context is here, though I admit to excerpting myself.) The choice bit:
"Look, for example, at the obvious, immediate, practical example of illegal Mexican immigration. Now, that Mexican immigration, over the border, is a good thing. It’s a good thing for the illegal immigrants. It’s a good thing for the United States. It’s a good thing for the citizens of the country. But, it’s only good so long as it's illegal."
Essentially, Friedman believed that the 1914-ish immigration situation was as close to ideal that we've had, and that illegal immigration from Mexico is the closest we have to that today.
Post a Comment