Day 12 - balancing ownership and migration rights

Day 12 – O’Keefe – mi casa es … whose?

“How would you feel, John, if someone barged into your house and announced that he was staying, and that his cousins would show up in a few hours?”  Great question!  I wish you had asked!

This question shows up often in arguments about immigration.  It’s usually a rhetorical question; the “questioner” generally doesn’t expect an answer, generally considers this oh-so-clever question to be unanswerable.  But I think it’s a legitimate question.

In my view, the right to migrate is inalienable, but not absolute.  The right to life cannot be limited or abridged; but the “pursuit of happiness,” including rights to own private property and to migrate, are negotiable.  These rights “come not from the generosity of the State, but from the hand of God” (in JFK’s words), but the details still require discussion.  The question about how to balance my property rights and an immigrant’s right to migrate is exactly the right question.

America’s population density is about 91 people per square mile, and the world average is about 122 people per square mile.  Our population density is among the lowest of the industrialized nations.  We are the richest country in the world, with vast amounts of empty land.  The “right to migrate” is meaningless if nations with our wealth and land and population density believe that we can exclude immigrants simply because we choose to do so.

For decades, members of eugenics societies who believe that the world is over-populated have been looking for ways to justify coercive depopulation programs.  In one program in Africa, depopulationists were trying to get women in Nigeria to limit family size, and they asked mothers, “In your view, what is the best family size?”  Nigerian women – Christian, Muslim, or from a traditional religion, it didn’t matter – all said that children are gifts from God and we want as many as God sends.  The Western pollsters pressed: “Just give me a number.”  One woman responded, “Seventeen,” meaning, “I want as many as God sends, but I will try to be polite to you.”  The pollster seized it.  The principle of limitation was established; now the job was to massage the number.

It’s the same with immigration.  Any number we set is artificial nonsense.  The question that matters is whether this immigrant is likely to find a job.  Recently, millions have found jobs.  Immigration is an economic phenomenon, and trying to stop it by legislation is a fool’s errand.

The right to private property is real and important, but limited: we are stewards.  And the right to migrate is similarly real and important although limited: immigrants have the blessing and support of the land’s real Owner.  I don’t think I need to negotiate about my house, although I have never closed my door to anyone, and have housed various strays and wanderers for months at a time.  But a claim to control vast tracts is subject to negotiation and modification.

Mr. Parrott?