Our support of free immigration should not be analyzed apart from the rest of the elements of "Liberty Under God," a nation as envisioned by America's Founding Fathers. It is particularly important that work be undertaken not just to remove legal obstacles to immigration, but to develop a vast network of voluntary associations which are prepared to transmit American culture and values to the immigrants. A nation that attracts immigrants because it offers government handouts does not attract the highest quality immigrants. A nation that values the liberty to work, risk, save, and succeed and offers such a culture to immigrants attracts kindred spirits.

The fourth and final objection to the freedom of immigration is a non-economic argument to the effect that it means turning the country over to foreigners and thus destroying its language and culture. In his treatise on Capitalism, Prof. George Reisman answers this argument:

The fact is that for a capitalist country the opposite is true. The freedom of immigration is the principal means of extending the language and culture of such a country. For the immigrants come voluntarily, in order to take advantage of freedom and to benefit themselves. They come with the knowledge that they are now in a better country than the one they left behind, and so are well-disposed to learning its language and absorbing its culture. And because they come from many different lands, each with its own language, the language of the new country is the logical common ground for them to choose in dealing with one another. Learning it is also virtually indispensable for practical success, since almost all of the existing wealth of the country is in the hands either of its native inhabitants or of earlier immigrants who have learned the language to be able to deal with the native inhabitants. It was in just this way that English came to be the language of tens of millions of people who originally did not speak English; people who, along with learning English, made the most important parts of Anglo-Saxon culture their own, such as the idea of the rule of law and the sanctity of private property. The immigrants, of course, do not merely absorb their new country’s culture. They help to make it better. They contribute to it not only all their business, scientific, and artistic achievements, and what is valuable in their own heritage, but, perhaps most important of all, a constantly renewed sense of personal ambition and personal achievement. They are a fresh inspiration in every generation. The fact that while two hundred years ago English was the native language of perhaps 12 million people out of a world population of 1 billion, and is today the native language of over 350 million people out of a world population of about 4 billion, is due principally to the existence of the freedom of immigration into the United States. The ability of the United States to become the leading economic and military power in the world would not have been possible without its freedom of immigration, which both attracted the numbers and powerfully contributed to their per capita productivity. Had the United States adhered to its policy of free immigration— along with the rest of its freedom—it is probable that today it would have a population approximately twice as large and a standard of living at least twice as high as the population and standard of living it presently has. As such, it would so far surpass any combination of external powers as to be absolutely unassailable. It should now be clear that the freedom of immigration into a capitalist country is to the long-run economic self-interest of all of its inhabitants. It enables more talent to flourish and thus increases the rate of economic progress in that country, through the greater operation of the pyramid-of-ability principle.

---

Next:
A Biblical Discussion about Immigration with Chuck Baldwin

Thursday, June 1, 2006

This was a letter to the editor of Boston Globe.

Elena Latona writes sensibly about immigration, including pointing out that we had open borders until the 20th century (Letters, Nov. 12). That policy worked well.

Some argue, though, that America could in the past better 'absorb' immigrants. Wrong. Consider that still only three percent of land in the lower 48 states is devoted to urban and suburban uses - and that we have today PER CAPITA ten times more miles of paved roads, twice as many MDs and firefighters, three times as many teachers, and five times as many police officers. Also, ten times as much capital is invested today per worker than in 1910.

For these and other reasons, America is better able than ever economically to absorb immigrants.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University

---

MALTHUSIANISM VS. COVENANTALISM

Gary North's essay on Darwin, Malthus, and a Biblical world-view

In his book The Myth of Over-Population, R.J. Rushdoony shows that the symptoms of "overpopulation" are actually symptoms of government intervention. Darwinian and Malthusian assumptions govern the modern State, and both the Republican and Democrat Parties.

Order Now: The Myth of Over-Population

---

Recent Blog Posts

• The Benefits of 40 Million Illegal Aliens
• The Criminal Culture of Immigrants
• Immigration and the War on [Some] Drugs
• Greene County Libertarians: Immigration
• Immigration and Gun Control
• Welfare and Immigration

---