Immigration Viewpoint Incoherence

How is it not xenophobia?

Assume the following are true and known with certainty. Illegal immigrants in aggregate in America (past, current, and future):

1. commit crimes at rates lower than native born citizens

2. are employed at comparable contributions to productivity and output as native born citizens

3. contribute more in taxes paid than benefits received including all those dependents who may be attached to them

4. live lives they otherwise desire to live as compared to where they emigrated from.

You may not like these assumptions, and I am not going to link to the substantial data, arguments, and research that is conclusive as to why these are at least by-and-large true. I am asking you to assume it for argument’s sake.

Now, further assume that these conditions are still true for illegal immigrants if they were granted citizenship immediately, even if the conditions are perhaps weakened in one case or another. Making the illegal immigrants naturalized citizens doesn’t change the fundamental (directional) truth of conditions 1-4.

Given those assumptions, what reason would you still have for prohibiting citizenship for illegal immigrants? To say that doing so would make one or more of the assumptions no longer true for future immigrants is not a good argument. You cannot question the premises to challenge the validity of the argument.

We can certainly argue about if the premises would hold, but that is not the question being posed.

I’m trying to get at something fundamental, which frankly entails an accusation.

What am I missing that would still allow one to oppose citizenship or at least no longer worry about illegal immigrants from the standpoint of the country and citizens within it?¹

When conservatives still oppose immigration including more open immigration and including granting citizenship through amnesty given the assumptions above, they are being xenophobic.

And I am willing to say that xenophobia is a euphemism for something worse because it implies a fear (phobia) that is partially excusable from the standpoint of it being assumed to be irrational. We typically grant some charity to those suffering from irrational fears. But in many cases I think this xenophobic position is too intentional and thought-through to act as if it is something these conservatives are suffering from. They are choosing this position without excuse.

While conservatives often give a hand-wavy argument about a change in culture, this seems quite empty to me. What culture are they referring to? If they mean laws, that is something else. A culture is the general norms, mores, vibes, styles, tastes, customs, ways, language(s), beliefs, dispositions, etc. of a place, group, time, cohort, etc. It is ephemeral and evolutionary while being individually chosen and inertially robust. It is the very essence of loose, vague, and indeterminate.

To the extend there is such a thing, you DO NOT have any right to force your culture upon others (current or future fellow travelers).

Might this granting of citizenship and/or increasing of immigration threaten your wellbeing? To make this claim you will need to establish what of your possession is actually being threatened. Competition is not just a hallmark of successful societies and America’s specialness. It is a fundamental state of nature. It is okay to be afraid of competition. It is not okay to use force to prevent it.

What else might be meant by a threat to one’s welfare?

You DO NOT have any right to your standard of living—no one owes you anything per se or by nature. You DO have a right to your property, to peacefully use your property to your own peaceful ends, and to pursue a standard of living, et al. You DO NOT have the right to impose upon others to support your standard of living or to support anyone else’s.²

We do have the right collectively and individually to the protection of our negative rights.³ I explicitly assumed away unlawful threats in point #1 above. There is always an on-going examination in society about the definition of negative rights and their limits at the margin and in extremes. Opposing immigration on the basis of this seems to amount to opposing outside, contrary, new, or different ideas and arguments. That doesn’t seem socially beneficial in general or American at all.

Again, I ask: What am I missing?

This has been an exploration of why conservatives in some cases still oppose immigration and amnesty despite assuming away the concerns they raise about it. This is a calling-out, if you will.

And it is all from the standpoint of the conservatives’ position and the implied assumption that conservatives are correct that a government has the right to exclude outsiders.⁴ Relaxing the assumptions above might allow for conservatives to regain some high ground,⁵ but then they would be exposed to the defeaters coming from arguments for the rights of immigrants.

I don’t like making derogatory accusations. But at the same time I value cutting through the noise and calling it like I see it. I am willing to believe and entertain the idea that I am missing something fundamental here. Until that argument is presented, I’ll stand by the case I have made.

1. One could still worry about the illegal immigrants in that their status allows for them to be mistreated, abused, and have their rights violated (intentionally and unintentionally).

2. The question of if the government has this right is a very important one for another day.

3. “But what if [scary and real group from afar] wanted to come in and change our laws to overthrow our government and make [thing we all agree is wrong and should be illegal] legal and make some or all negative rights illegal?!?” That fanciful scenario is why we have strong protections in our Constitution, other laws and legislation, and general norms against such insurrectionist over throws. Insurrection and defiance of the Constitution, etc. is weaker today than it should be, but it is still quite strong. I’ll leave it to the reader to consider where on the right and left those threats currently reside.

4. And by extension the right of government to prohibit peaceful exchanges, arrangements, and combinations—you, a non-U.S. citizen, cannot trade with me, live with me, be employed by or employ me, etc.

5. See Garrett Jones for a thoughtful perspective pushing back on completely open borders. Here are a few good, challenging reviews.