Ken Schoolland

FREE MARKET SOLUTIONS TO WORLD CRISES

COLLABORATION WITH TYRANTS

In the late 1930’s representatives of thirty-one nations met at the Council of Evian in France to discuss the restrictive quotas on Jewish immigrants who were desperately trying to flee their Nazi oppressors. All nations except one, the Dominican Republic, refused to modify the quotas in order to accommodate European Jews.

This tragedy was symbolized by the voyage of the SS St. Louis. The SS St. Louis was a ship carrying 937 Jews from port to port throughout the Atlantic, trying to find a nation that would finally allow them to disembark. They were turned back at every stop. They could even see the lights of Miami, Florida, where a Jewish-American community was ready and willing to take them in and help them get settled in the United States. But the authorities refused.

So the Jews were provisioned and sent back to Germany where 700 of them eventually perished in concentration camps. They were killed, along with 6 million other Jews and many millions of Poles, Catholics, gypsies, and political rebels who would have fled and would have helped to fight Adolph Hitler, if only they had been allowed through the Golden Door.

Citizens of the world were not ignorant of the conditions that Jews faced in pre-war Germany. Before the outbreak of World War II, the Nazis burned synagogues, shattered the windows of Jewish homes and shops across the country, and hauled 25,000 Jews into concentration camps. But when the U.S. President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, was asked if he would permit more Jewish immigrants, he coldly replied, "This is not in contemplation. We have the quota system."¹

Of course, this reply was music to the ears of a tyrant like Hitler. Indeed, it motivated him to announce to his generals that they could begin their "final solution to the Jewish problem." Why? Because other nations of the world did not want the Jews either.² If extermination was carried out quietly, no one of power would object. If there was no haven for the Jews, they would recognize the futility of resistance and they would succumb more easily. By refusing an opportunity for Jews to escape, all the leaders of the world were Nazi collaborators.³

What? Collaborators? But isn’t that too harsh a judgement? Consider the situation: Suppose person A is in a room where he faces torment and death at the hands of a murderer, B. The victim tries to escape through a door that is shut in his face and locked by a guard, C, who keeps him in the room. Is the guard outside (C) also responsible for what befalls the victim (A)? In theoretical terms the reply from most people is a resounding "Yes."⁴ Occasionally, however, there are some who say that C is not responsible because it is none of his business what happens to A.

In theoretical terms, most people are sympathetic to the victim. But in real life, most people are willing to close the door, and their eyes and ears, to the victims of tyranny. It happens around the world every day.

CONTEMPORARY COLLABORATION

As we approach the new millennium, people sometimes think that civilization has reached a higher moral plateau. Nazis are almost universally condemned as evil villains because of genocide perpetrated against the Jews. The Nazi specter is invoked whenever tyrants anywhere practice widespread slaughter. Even people who were close to the Nazis may take a public relations beating in the press. For example, the Swiss have been accused of assisting the Nazis by refusing refuge to the Jews and by acting as intermediaries for the sale of gold and art that was stolen from imprisoned Jews.

Yet the very same news columns that carry the fierce denials of embarrassed Swiss officials,⁵ tell of current examples of similar treatment that refugees face every day--and there is no public embarrassment. A glaring example in recent years has been the abominable situation in Haiti, just off the Florida coast. The U.S. government assisted the military tyrants in their rise to power, cut off the economic lifeline, and shut the door on refugees as part of the same terrible immigration policy.

According to reports in the New York Times, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) funneled money over the years to military operatives who overthrew Haiti’s first democratically elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, and killed hundreds of his supporters.⁶ As world opinion turned against this dictatorial regime in Haiti, the U.S. government self-righteously placed trade embargoes on that little island nation to pressure the leaders into accepting the return of Aristide. The military leaders profited through dominance of the black market in petroleum while the general populace suffered enormously. As hundreds of American businesses closed their assembly lines and manufacturing facilities, at least 10,000 people were thought to have died as a direct or indirect result of the sanctions.⁷

Haiti, already one of the world’s poorest nations, became even more destitute and thousands tried to flee in rickety boats. These boats were often overcrowded, poorly provisioned, sunk by storms in shark infested waters or attacked by pirates. Yet all of these threats comprised less of a risk than continuing the harsh life in Haiti--or else these people would not have left shore.

How did the U.S. government officials respond? President George Bush ordered the U.S. Coast Guard to round up the refugees and forcibly return them to the brutal regime from which they were trying to escape. This is the man who claimed to be so concerned about the people of Somalia and Kuwait that he would send, at extraordinary cost, the U.S. military on missions to the other side of the planet. But desperate people floating off the American shore were sent back to Haiti, Cuba, and Guatemala or to years of detention in prison compounds.

On the campaign trail in 1992, candidate Bill Clinton called this policy brutal and inhumane. Clinton promised to change this policy if he was elected. But when he did get elected, Bill Clinton reversed his position, strengthened the border patrols, and reinforced the penalties on anyone who tried to rescue the boat people. One such case was of Petros Maratos, captain of the cruise ship Royal Majesty, who was fined $3000 for each rafter that he rescued and delivered to American shores. Three times he was fined, totaling $57,000.⁸

Replied Maratos, "I'll always rescue these people. I don't care about the fines. I care about human lives." But not every ship captain feels the same. Indeed, before the Royal Majesty picked up one raft of survivors, the refugees saw two other ships pass them by. The heavy fines discouraged rescue in at least two ways: 1) officers and crew try to avoid costly penalties and 2) the law helped to assuage the conscience of seamen that may be troubled by inhumane behavior and the violation of other laws. Under both federal and international laws, boat captains must assist those in danger.⁹

Are law enforcers merely behaving as neutral administrators? It seems that they are not. While quick to impose fines on a ship that delivered refugees to American shores, U.S. authorities ignored illegal dumping of garbage by ocean shippers for many years. The shipping lobby is of much greater significance than that of refugees. As a result, human beings are not being treated the same as garbage--they are treated worse than garbage.

Bill Clinton recently acknowledged, and apologized for, the covert role that the U.S. government played in training and arming the military regime in Guatemala over the past 35 years. During this time as many as 200,000 people were killed. This includes the Guatemalans who fled to America for safety, but who were forcibly returned by the Clinton administration. Many of them were later massacred by the U.S. backed regime in that country.¹⁰

And who are the primary beneficiaries of such callous policies? Dictators. The number one problem faced by any dictator is control of the populace. The primary means of control is to remove choice from the victims. Once victims know that escape is hopeless, they succumb more easily to whatever discipline is imposed. On the other hand, victims who escape have a haven from which they can adequately prepare for return and rebellion or they can begin to support those who remain and resist. The victims who remain under tyranny benefit from the supply of material support and the spiritual encouragement that occurs when there is hope.

The free market solution to this crisis of humanity is to open the borders--not only to refugees, but to the products of their labor.

COURAGE AND STRENGTH

Many destination countries react to an increased flow of immigration at the border with tougher immigration barriers, stricter enforcement, and harsher penalties. Desperate immigrants are then forced deeper underground where they pay "coyotes" who smuggle them across borders for higher fees and at much greater risk.

At least 350 refugees from Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Mexico died last year crossing the hot desert regions of the American southwest in order to avoid new high-tech measures that U.S. border guards installed along the border. Surely more died without even being noticed. And in the southeast, dozens of Haitian refugees were murdered by machetes or tossed overboard to the sharks by smugglers who were fearful of getting caught.¹¹

Refugees from China pay as much as $30,000 to travel in the crowded, filthy, and rat-infested bowels of freighters and fishing trawlers that journey for as long as three months to get to American shores. On the other hand, a well-connected Chinese with a simple stamped, paper document, a "visa," is allowed to make the same trip by plane in half a day, with no hazard, for less than $1000.

The courage and fortitude of the undocumented immigrant rivals any venture undertaken by the American founding fathers who journeyed from abroad hundreds of years ago for the same reasons. Such are the ironies of history. Masses of Swedes, Irish, Portuguese, Japanese, and Chinese newcomers of yesteryear fled their homelands to escape poverty and oppression. And it was on their backs that the America’s, both North and South, were built.

Unfortunately, many of the descendents of those early pioneers aren’t as courageous or tolerant as their ancestors were. In fact, they are timid and intolerant. They do not welcome the contest. They want to shut out the new newcomers.

Short of opening the doors to immigrants, there are important market measures that could be adopted by countries to reduce the pressure for immigration from abroad. The first of these measures is for nations to stop supporting the repressive regimes that abuse their citizenry.

The U.S. government is a nation with a particularly onerous record on this score. The U.S. taxpayer has been compelled to support an extremely sordid gang of thugs over the decades: from Duvalier, Mobutu, and Marcos to Shah Pahlavi, Noriega, and Suharto. Indeed, the National Taxpayers Union once asserted that the U.S. government financed both sides of 14 different wars over a 20-year period. The Center for Defense Information states that the U.S. sells weaponry to 150 nations, 80% of these nations are undemocratic and two-thirds of that number are listed bythe U.S. State Department as having governments that are abusive of human rights.¹²

Much of the support for repressive regimes came in the form of tax-funded military supplies. As the Cold War came to an end the Clinton administration accelerated the international sale of the most sophisticated weaponry, including sales to those governments fighting ethnic separatists in Chiapas, East Timor, and Turkey. Since the end of the Cold War, the American share of worldwide arms transfers climbed spectacularly from 21% in 1989 to 70% in 1993.¹³

According to the World Policy Institute (WPI), the U.S. tripled weapons sales on the world market from 1991 to 1993. Said WPI director William Hartung, "Any fair accounting of the economic impacts of weapons transfers must begin by acknowledging that in any given year, approximately one-third of all U.S. arms exports are paid for by U.S. taxpayers."¹⁴

Assistance to repressive regimes comes in many forms. Almost half of America's foreign aid is in the form of military assistance. And hidden in other budgets are the tax-funded costs of development and promotion of weaponry, benefits that are shared with foreign purchasers. The remaining half of foreign aid, purportedly for economic assistance, contributes an important element of support to the survival of oppressive regimes because it is frequently funneled through the hands of officials who use every opportunity to siphon off wealth and to use it as a tool to build allies and to punish enemies. As is often asserted, "Foreign aid is money that is taken from poor people in rich countries and given to rich people in poor countries."

There are alternatives to foreign aid which are beneficial, rather than harmful, to the intended beneficiaries. Poverty and immigration pressures abroad can be ameliorated by the elimination of restrictions on trade and investment. Increased trade not only empowers the workers of every poor country by enriching them, but trade opportunities always provide powerful incentives for increased investment. Investment is the massive, voluntary transfer of wealth, material, and expertise that is targeted for economic development rather than as a political tool for manipulating governments abroad.

BALKAN BLUNDERS

One of the most horrendous examples of government bungling abroad has been the recent war in Serbia. People of the developed world feel an impulse to help others who are less fortunate, but all too often this impulse is directed through government action in a way that makes life worse, not better, for the people they wish to help.

Becoming frustrated with negotiations over Kosovo, Bill Clinton and his NATO allies withdrew peacekeeping observers from Kosovo and initiated a bombing campaign of strategic points throughout Serbia. When the military forces of Slobodan Milosevic unleashed retribution on ethnic Albanians, military spokesmen declared numerous times, in front of the television cameras, that this backlash was anticipated. This comment was usually followed by another announcement declaring that Milosevic must shoulder the full burden of responsibility for the Kosovars who died.

What? NATO commanders anticipated the backlash and did nothing to protect the civilians from a man who was accused of being an international criminal, a mass murderer? Indeed, NATO must share responsibility for the onslaught that occurred against Kosovo refugees.

A former student of mine from Serbia, Misho Ognjanovic, summed up the effect of Bill Clinton's bombing campaign:

When I call my cousins and friends in Yugoslavia some of them are crying, some of them are joking and the feelings are mixed, except in one: Milosevic is stronger than ever before. Even those Serbs who opposed him, now they stand together supporting Milosevic policies just because they feel that Serbs must defend the country against foreign invaders. Americans are considered in the same way as Nazis, and the majority of blame is geared towards Americans and the English. Hatred towards Albanians is unbelievable, and it appears that everybody would now go on to Kosovo and murder them. Albanians are seen as the enemy and it appears that no negotiation with them is possible anymore. The Yugoslav government declared martial law throughout the country. Thousands of Serbian men are drafted and they are determined to fight because everybody feels that they have a patriotic duty to defend the country. [3-27-99]

The war is now over and the tide may finally be turning against Milosevic. But was there really no better way to achieve peace than by a bombing campaign? If governmental action in so many areas of life is filled with bungling, corruption, and hypocrisy, won't the same or worse occur during wartime? Indeed, there were clear indications of incompetence when the protagonists could not even agree that the bombing campaign should be called a "war."

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY

The private sector is often recognized as more efficient than the government in many areas. Because of competition, entrepreneurship, accountability, and personal risk and reward, there are incentives for lower costs, rapid and efficient service, and much more innovation. But in matters of war the government maintains a tight grip on its monopoly. Technological wizardry from private contractors is brilliant, but government strategists seem constrained and unimaginative.

Slobodan Milosevic is accused of being a brutal international criminal, yet NATO governments did nothing to target him personally. Even the word "assassination" carries a negative connotation while the killing of innocent civilians is sanitized by calling it "collateral damage." Assassination by the U.S. government is constrained by a 1976 executive order that was issued in reaction to the revelation of 26 bungled CIA attempts on the life of Fidel Castro. Therefore, the U.S. military is incapable of overtly killing the one person who is said to be the key to the Serbian mission. Confronted with journalists’ questions about a failure to bomb the Serbian presidential palace, one White House spokesman even declared that Serbian sensitivities would be offended because the palace held a Rembrandt.

There is yet a deeper reason for this refusal to hold criminal leaders personally accountable. The real reason is rooted in the ancient horror that monarchs had for potential regicide. Death was for the peons. Attacking a king was unthinkable because the enemy might do the same in revenge. Therefore it was better to slaughter civilians and draftees in the countryside--just as a royal plays chess with pawns. The game is over when the king is captured, treated courteously, and ransomed back--but rarely killed.

On the other hand, if the rules of the game called for full personal responsibility for the killing of innocent victims, then surely rulers of all stripes would be much more careful in their behavior. Such accountability was the idea behind the war crimes trials after World War II and the current case of the former Chilean dictator, General Augusto Pinochet. But why should rulers only be held accountable after the battles are over or after their retirement? By demonstrating the evidence in an international court and declaring one an international outlaw, the machinery could be set in motion for legal and aggressive assassination that could be used immediately to cut the battle short and save thousands of innocent lives.

MARKET ALTERNATIVES

One could imagine how differently the Serbian war might have played out if private or public bounties were offered for international outlaws. Billionaires like Ross Perot, well-heeled organizations like the National Rifle Association, government contractors like General Dynamics, or even the Department of Defense might pay a million dollars, or ten million dollars, to the first sharpshooter who could "take out" Milosevic. No doubt there would be many volunteer soldiers of fortune to take up the challenge--war veterans, the Mafia, and even the tyrant’s own bodyguard.

There is no guarantee that the replacement for Milosevic would have been a benign ruler, just as there is no guarantee that the Kosovo Liberation Army will be benign and respectful of individual rights. Nevertheless, even a nasty new tyrant who steps up to replace the old tyrant has a strong motive to be more restrained in the future knowing that a series of bounty contracts would still be cheaper, and would kill fewer innocent civilians, than a single B-1 bomber.

In addition, fewer restrictions on private, voluntary contributions would allow generous citizens of NATO countries to voluntarily provide an abundance of more than food, clothing, shelter, and medical relief as they do now. Associations could well be formed to pass weapons and military supplies along to ethnic groups that are preparing for their own defense. Under current law, this is illegal.

The premise of these prohibitions is that we are better off when Bill Clinton, a master of deceit to his family and his country, does our global thinking for us. Thus, Americans are not allowed to help people to defend against tyrants and are required to pay taxes for the dictators that the administration decides to support.

Is this a joke? Could David really beat Goliath on the battlefield? This is no more a joke than the tragic history of U.S. government support for dictators around the world.

History is replete with examples of ragtag guerrilla forces defeating the most sophisticated armies on the face of the earth: i.e. Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan. And when the American revolutionaries defeated the vast army and resources of the British Empire it was largely assisted by the voluntary support of private French citizens. The same kind of military assistance from America to others is illegal today.

PREVENTATIVE MEASURES TO WAR

It is worth examining non-military, market alternatives that our children might someday employ to avoid a quagmire similar to that of Serbia. Some of these measures are slower and less dramatic than bullets and bombs, but they are preventative in nature and beneficial rather than deadly.

It is perplexing that Bill Clinton embraces the market alternative to military force in relations with China. Instead of bombing Beijing and the military infrastructure on behalf of the oppressed peoples of Tibet, Hong Kong, and the western Muslim provinces of China, Clinton argues that commercial engagement gives the greatest opportunity to bring about prosperity and, ultimately, a respect for freedom and individual rights.

While contradictions in his behavior suggest that Clinton does not really believe his own words, he is correct in asserting that open trade encourages investment. Both trade and investment enrich and empower the populace while providing incentives for legal reforms on civil liberties, judicial due process, contract law, and property law. Open travel between countries permits commercial, cultural, and academic understanding that fosters prosperity and a web of valuable interdependence.

Most importantly, when America practices a free market, it practices what it preaches to the world and builds trusting friends instead of skeptics and enemies. Why shouldn't the skeptics laugh at Clinton's sermons about opening trade when they know that the U.S. has strict limits on so many products, from T-shirts and woolens to sugar and steel, that may be imported from the entire Third World? There are many examples of this hypocrisy in Europe and Japan as well. "Give aid, ban trade." Build elaborate showpiece dams and power plants, but don't let people earn a living from the sale of products that they are most adept at producing.

While Clinton championed the loosening of trade restrictions on China, in the Balkans it was a different story. Clinton and his NATO allies obstructed openness at virtually every turn since the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe a decade ago. The Iron Curtain came down, but trade and immigration barriers remained in place. Many budding post-communist market economies were kept from joining the trade blocs of Europe and the west.

Trade sanctions cut off production and employment opportunities while strangling potential investment and the accompanying transfer of expertise. Travelers were harassed and denied visas. The populace was left with the frustration of sinking poverty and the subsequent ethnic hostility that always follows. This is true in every nation.

When an economy turns sour, ethnic division and hostility intensifies--even in American cities such as Los Angeles, New York, and Washington D.C. The number of deaths in American cities surely rivaled the number of deaths in Serbia during the year that preceded the NATO bombing.

OPEN IMMIGRATION

One immediate solution for those suffering these ethnic hostilities is simply to allow people to escape. But this is probably the hardest preventative solution to implement.

The intellectual argument for open trade and investment has largely been won. It is easy to see the benefits that are derived on all sides of these transactions. Sure there are temporary dislocations due to change. And there is a perpetual temptation by politicians to pervert the market with special interest favors from government. But the long view for global trade and investment is positive. Still, there remains a fierce resistance to the notion of open immigration.

Until now, this essay has taken the humanitarian approach on the issue of immigration. But the humanitarian appeal loses its luster when people, who are safe and secure in their homeland, begin to consider an influx of thousands of newcomers. Newcomers are perceived to be a serious threat. Nervous citizens may say that it is theoretically all right for C to allow A in the door, but citizens do not agree in practice. People often cry out that it is not okay for immigration authorities to allow A to take jobs and welfare. Nor is it all right to allow newcomers to commit crimes, to overpopulate, or to change the cultural environment.

Of course all the same arguments could apply to the newborn children of citizens. Infants do not speak the language; they do not know the customs and manners of society; they do not have talents and expertise; they will be dependent for a time; they might commit crimes; they will add to the population; they are certain to take jobs and to change the culture. But not a single person in the world suggests that infants should all be deported until they are prepared to avoid those problems.

As offspring of citizens, infants are appreciated for their potential as members of the human community--as the highest value on earth. It is in their nature to strive, to grow, and to learn. They will produce goods and services for life. They will enrich the world by their existence. And they cannot be made the scapegoats for the shortcomings of their predecessors. The attitude is very different, however, toward the offspring of noncitizens and this is not because people think that immigrants are incompetent.

Every year I pose a question to the students of my international trade classes: "You are an employer in America and you know only one thing about two job applicants who stand before you. One is an American citizen and the other is an immigrant. Which do you suppose to be the harder worker?" In ten years, there has rarely been a student who said they thought that the American citizen would be the harder worker.

Of course this does not mean that Americans are not hard workers. But it does reflect on the impression that students have about the diligence and courage of people who have risked everything that is familiar to themselves in order to take on a whole new world. So how do citizens respond to these newcomers? The brave welcome this competition. The meek try to eliminate it.

Suppose that a man is trying to woo a lover, but he has a rival. The brave man welcomes the competition because it is a challenge and a proof of his virtue. The brave man does not feel threatened and can even appreciate and befriend the rival. Losing in the competition serves as a lesson in growth and creativity. Conversely, the meek man would rather get rid of the competitor by hook or crook because he is uncertain of himself and fears that the woman would prefer someone else if only given the choice.

Character is at the core of our immigration dilemma. All other explanations are rationalizations for the meek.

PRODUCERS

While it is often claimed that citizen laborers have a right to eliminate their competitors, it is rarely claimed that a citizen employer has a right to hire whomever he finds most suitable for the job and for the reasons that he chooses.

The laborer's claim, the desire to eliminate a competitor, is not a "right." It is a form of tyranny over the life, liberty, and property of others who wish to engage in production and commerce. The second claim, the employer wishing to decide how to use his business, is derived from a man's right to his own life, liberty, and property. This principle is fundamental to the free market that politicians of industrial nations so often preach in theory and so often subvert in practice.

Immigrants help to make American businesses competitive and to keep them from leaving the country when their costs rise and their productivity falls. The immigrants are people who are often willing to work hard for long hours and little pay--a condition that is still better than what they leave behind in the old country. They take on dangerous and unpleasant tasks that most Americans would not touch. And they are eager entrepreneurs who create goods and services for consumers while creating employment and incomes for native Americans, many of whom have forgotten how.

In a survey of the nation’s top economists, thirty-eight of whom had been past presidents of the American Economic Association or members of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors, Stephen Moore and Julian Simon found that 100% believed that immigrants had a positive effect upon the economic conditions of the U.S. These were the questions and responses.

"On balance, what effect has 20th-century immigration had on the nation’s economic growth?" Eighty percent said "very favorable," twenty percent said "slightly favorable," zero percent said "slightly or very unfavorable." "What level of immigration would have the most favorable impact on the U.S. standard of living?" Sixty-three percent said "more," thirty percent said "same number," zero percent said "fewer," and seven percent said "don’t know."¹⁵

In a comprehensive survey of research on immigrants in the U.S., Simon also found that most immigrants come when they are in their most productive years. Overall, new immigrants average only one year less in education than the native population of the U.S., but their children are highly motivated and excel in school. Immigrants have a higher proportion of advanced degrees than the native population, especially in high productivity areas of science and engineering.

Immigrants, even those from poor countries, are healthier in general than natives of the same age. Family cohesion with a tradition of hard work is stronger than among natives. Simon also reports that fourteen separate studies concluded that immigrants do not cause native unemployment, even among very sensitive categories of low paid, minority, low skilled, or even high skilled groups of natives. Another twelve studies revealed that immigrants do not have a negative effect on wages.

Simon concluded from a review of the research that immigrants who are allowed to work contribute more in taxes than they draw out from government in welfare services. And over the years, immigrant earnings exceed the earnings of comparable native groups.

If so, then why aren’t immigrants treated as treasures of the earth? Why aren’t politicians the world over competing with each other to lure these valuable human resources to their land in the same manner that they compete to lure capital, the product of all this human labor?

OVERCOMING FEAR

The answer seems to be "fear." Native citizens fear outsiders. And native citizens of the wealthiest nations of the world, oddly enough, seem most fearful of people from the poorest nations. It should be no surprise that the official term for immigrant, "alien," is the same word used for creatures from outer space. A series of contemporary Hollywood movies entitled "Aliens" describes hideous monsters trying to conquer earth by penetrating men, women, and children and proliferating in human disguise.

The success of these movies was established by tapping the pervasive anxiety that people have for the unknown. Immigrants to the U.S. from Europe, especially Northern Europe, have always had easier access than immigrants from Asia, Africa, or Latin America. The more unfamiliar a person is, the more others are afraid. The first of U.S. immigration laws were blatantly racist--specifically excluding Chinese and Japanese.

Blatant racism is now finally taboo, so the arguments against immigrants are veiled in more acceptable terms. The overpopulation argument states that newcomers are undesirable because there is no room, not enough physical space.

If people really objected to living in crowded conditions, then surely they would all be moving out of the cities and into the remote countryside. The fact of the matter is that most people like crowds and have been moving into urban areas for centuries. They do so because of the many advantages of urban life: the activity, the industry, the cultural diversity. Cities are attractive because they are capable of supporting a lifestyle that is more desirable to all those who move there. Migrants reveal their preferences with their feet.

As anyone who has flown across the United States can affirm, there are vast expanses of land which are virtually uninhabited. The land area of the United States could support ten times the current population and still be less densely populated than Japan. If only one percent of that number were allowed into the U.S., the country would be able to accommodate the entire refugee population of the world today. This includes 12 million refugees who have fled across international borders as well as 18 million more who are estimated to have been displaced within national borders due to civil strife.

Permanent resettlement should not be dismissed as impossible. Along with the Swedes, Irish, Chinese, and Japanese who settled and prospered in America, history is full of examples of great populations of settlers who were successfully absorbed into new countries. In recent years, large numbers of Vietnamese were eventually resettled in the U.S.; Asians expelled from Uganda were resettled in Britain; Palestinians were given citizenship in Jordan; and half a million Bosnians were relocated in Europe.

Some people in the U.S. fear that immigrants coming from countries with high birth rates will aggravate pressures toward population growth in the United States. This fear is unfounded. Experience in the U.S. and other industrial nations demonstrates that nothing slows birth rates more effectively than prosperity. Indeed, if it were not for immigrants the U.S. population count would actually be in decline.

Another argument against immigrants is that they will bring ethnic discord. Of course this depends on how they are treated when they arrive. If they are respected as equal human beings and allowed to prosper freely in a free society, there is no reason to expect conflict.

A good example of multicultural success is Hawaii. The desirability of Hawaii is not entirely the climate. A million people have come to the islands over the past two centuries as a melting pot of cultures from all over the world. The diversity has not led to perpetual confrontation between ethnic groups. On the contrary, interracial marriage and harmony in the islands serves as a model for the world.

DEFINING CRIME AND VIRTUE

Still others claim that immigration has to be tightly restricted in order to prevent a rise in crime. Such a discussion requires careful examination of the definitions of crime. Immigrants can be considered criminals for fleeing tyranny and abject poverty if they cross a border without official certification. Pompous rulers, even ones who have killed thousands of victims, can be greeted warmly with great pomp and ceremony.

If the U.S. government was really opposed to violent criminals from outside the perimeter, then officials would not have greeted the greatest of villains with enthusiasm: i.e. Marcos, Shah Pahlavi, Suharto, Noriega, Mobutu. Not only were these mass murderers warmly received, but they were offered billions of taxpayer dollars to pay for more of their villainy. If society is to preach justice to the world, it must first deal with this hypocrisy: "If you kill one person you are called a murderer. But if you kill thousands of people you may be acclaimed a great leader." It is to the memory of these "great leaders" that statutes are built, holidays celebrated, and children's schoolbooks are written.

In America there is a particularly interesting holiday dedicated to U.S. Presidents, celebrating the birthdays of two presidents who stood for opposite achievements. George Washington fought and killed for independence while Abraham Lincoln fought and killed for forced union. These were the opposing sides of the war in Serbia as well--independence versus forced union. The contradictions inherent in all of these events does not teach children virtue. Rather, it teaches them that crime is a relative matter--relative to power and victory.

Before rejecting immigrants because of their potential to commit crimes, citizens of the world need to be clear about what crime really is. Once that is truly clear, then real crime should be punished, rejected, or deported on a consistent basis--applied to all equally, not just to those without power.

Crime is not only a practice of the poor. Rich and poor alike, native and immigrant, may commit crimes. But a good way to prevent crime is to open the opportunities for work and to reward productive effort.

Usually it is the most adventurous and energetic who leave behind all that is familiar in order to come to a new country. These are the ones who are most willing to support themselves with work, but labor laws stand in the way of employers who would hire them.

Minimum wage laws restrict employment of many newcomers who have yet to build their productivity with language and workplace skills. In addition, other immigrants are prohibited by guilds and unions from practicing the professions that they know best. Many are competent and experienced doctors, carpenters, lawyers, engineers, tradesmen, and taxi drivers, but occupational laws stop them from using their talents. Altering or terminating many of these labor restrictions would open great new opportunities for immigrant labor, resulting in lower prices for consumers, improving the international competitiveness for employers, and opening many new businesses that hire native citizens.

Another common complaint about refugees is that many of them come for the welfare. Taxpayers across the country hate paying for non-citizens. But this hatred is misdirected. The immigrants did not make the welfare laws and they should not be made the scapegoats for the existence of these laws.

The answer to this problem is quite simple: stop coerced financing of immigrant welfare and get out of the way of employers who want to hire them. Those immigrants who want to come to a new country would still come if life was better than what they were leaving behind.

WALK THE TALK

The truly ethical manner for human interaction is voluntary. Voluntary charity, voluntary employment, voluntary trade, and voluntary movement will bring respect, harmony, and prosperity to the participants. These are the elements of a free market. Indeed, voluntary action is even superior in managing the protection of a free and prosperous society.

It is imperative, now as much as ever, that people reconcile their rhetoric about a free society with the behavior that they demand of political leaders.

From a speech given at the ISIL World convention in Costa Rica, August 1999

FOOTNOTES:

1. Horberger, Jacob G., "Locking Out the Immigrant," The Case for Free Trade and Open Immigration, Future of Freedom Foundation, Fairfax, Virginia, 1995, p. 93.

2. An apparent exception to this blockade of Jewish émigrés came from Japan in the late 1930’s. In carrying out the Fugu Plan, the Japanese government was exploring the possibility of bringing as many as 50,000 Jewish refugees from Germany to help establish administrative and economic control over Manchukuo and China. This was opposed, however, by the president of the American Jewish Congress, Rabbi Stephen Wise. Wise condemned this plan as a means of exploiting China and the plan never materialized. Deacon, Richard, Kempei Tai, Charles E. Tuttle Co., Tokyo, 1990, p. 144-46.

3. Two books are recommended for a more thorough treatment of this history: Morse, Arthur D., While Six Million Died: A Chronicle of American Apathy, 1967, and Perl, William R., The Holocaust Conspiracy: An International Policy of Genocide, 1989.

4. Informal surveys of my economics classes have been conducted on this question every semester for years.

5. "Swiss denied entry to 39,000 refugees," "Cuba, U.S. hold talks on refugees," Honolulu Advertiser, Dec. 5, 1996.

6. "CIA reportedly paid Haiti military leaders," Honolulu Advertiser, Nov. 1, 1993.

7. "Democracy remote for Haiti," Honolulu Advertiser, Feb. 2, 1994

8. "Piracy done with fines," Honolulu Advertiser, Nov. 6, 1993

9. “$24,000 cruise ship fine for rescuing 8 Cubans”, Honolulu Advertiser, Oct. 22, 1993

10. "Returned Guatemalan refugees massacred," Honolulu Advertiser, Oct. 12, 1995

11. "Dangerous journey awaits storm refugees," Honolulu Advertiser, Apr. 17, 1999; "Dozens tossed overboard by Haitian smugglers," Honolulu Advertiser, Aug. 24, 1995

12. More information about the Iran/Contra case might have surfaced because, unlike most of these covert transactions, arranging the supply of weapons to the Contra rebels in Nicaragua was specifically prohibited by an act of Congress. The deal entailed passing funds to the Contras through intermediaries in the Iranian government. This provided assistance to Iran during its war with Iraq, while the CIA and other U.S. agencies were assisting Saddam Hussein with perhaps as much as $4 billion in military assistance. More information might have surfaced on this case if numerous people who were under investigation had not been pardoned by President George Bush in the last days before he left office. There was a widespread expectation that Bush would have been implicated, but the pardon ended the interrogation and trial of principle figures who had not yet even been convicted of anything. While the U.S. government was supplying weapons to El Salvadore and the Contra rebels in Nicaragua to fight communism in the late 1970's and early 1980's, it was simultaneously supplying sixteen times as many dollars worth of military loan guarantees to China, the largest communist country by population. Information about current weapons sales can be obtained from the website for the Center for Defense Information, America's Defense Monitor, Washington, D.C., www.cdi.org. The data cited in the text of this article was derived from their film, "The Human Cost of America's Arms Sales," Nov. 8, 1998.

13. "Arms sales boom," The Economist, Aug. 13, 1994.

14. "U.S. dealers dominating world arms market," Honolulu Advertiser, Apr. 17, 1994

15. Simon, Julian, Immigration: The Demographic and Economic Facts, The Cato Institute, Washington, D.C., 1995