by Tibor R. Machan
Tibor Machan, a contributing editor of The Freeman, holds the R. C. Hoiles Endowed Chair in Business Ethics and Free Enterprise at the George L. Argyros School of Business and Economics, Chapman University.
The same mentality that drives interstate squabbles about bringing goodies home from Washington may well underlie the controversy about illegal immigration. When government plays Santa Claus, those on the receiving end will become very interested in how many gifts are being handed out and who receives them — especially when the recipients believe they and their kin filled Santa’s bags in the first place.
Although advocates of the welfare state treat entitlements like basic rights — such as those to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — the entitlements are actually something very different. For me to respect others' rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, all I need do is refrain from interfering with them. The right to property, too, means no more than abstaining from trespassing on others' dominions, from stealing and robbing and extorting from others.
Entitlements are another thing entirely. Your right to health care or education or Social Security implies that others must provide resources to you — they need to fill the government’s coffers so that you may draw the benefits you are said to be entitled to. Without this taking from Peter to pay Paul system, the welfare state doesn't work — which is why some economists advised former Soviet bloc countries to wait until people become prosperous before they install welfare programs. After all, if no one is prosperous, you cannot raid anyone's wealth to distribute it to others.
Okay, the welfare state is a reality in most developed countries, including the U.S.A. So just as citizens of different states now indulge in group-think about our versus their take from the feds, many Americans look on illegal immigrants' getting stuff from our treasury the same way. They aren't entitled — we are — so keep them out, otherwise they will get our goodies.
Yes, when illegal immigrants go to hospitals to receive emergency service, get education benefits, and so forth this may look to bystanders like kindness and generosity, but those who are taxed to pay for these services may not share that attitude. Instead they may think of it the same way as recipients of entitlements in one state think of the disproportionately larger share received by those in another state: it is wrong. You didn't contribute your share, so you shouldn't receive, even if it's a matter of feeding your babies and healing your sick.
Group-Think
Group-think does this to people. And the tragedy of the commons exacerbates the problem. We Americans, so the thinking goes, have supplied the treasury's resources, so it is we Americans who should be getting what's in there, not people from other countries. Yes, if they come here by following our rules, that's different. Then they have earned the right to get into the game of America's complex wealth redistribution. But if they do not follow our rules, they have no right.
Can we avoid this messy and acrimonious way of dealing with people? Is there a way that people from abroad can join Americans in benefiting from the political-economic system whose promise of a better life has attracted millions and millions over the decades?
There is, indeed. Leave the government out of the wealth-redistribution game entirely. Let it just do the one job it ought to be doing, namely, securing our rights — those basic ones laid out by the American Founders. Let's abolish all entitlements, and there will no longer be the constant mad scramble that makes citizens hostile toward one another and toward potential immigrants.
Is this likely to happen soon? No, not until the country goes bankrupt, which may not be so far off. And one reason it will go bankrupt is that everyone has come to think that what's in the public treasury is for him or her to raid — it's ours, is it not?
Well, those from across our borders are starting to think so too — after all, some of their relatives have made substantial contributions to that treasury. Are they then not also part of the group that may reach out and take some of the goodies?