Defenders of the border wall often ask me if I lock the doors to my house. They believe that if I lock my doors to dissuade intruders, I should support a border wall to keep intruders out of the United States. The United States, the argument goes, is “our house.” But this argument ignores a fundamental difference between my house and the United States.
My house is my private property, and I have a moral right to decide who may enter and on what terms. But the United States is not private property–it is political entity within a certain geographic area. I own my house; nobody owns the United States.
The argument that the United States is “our house” is based on a collectivist premise. It holds that the group can and should impose its values upon the individual. It holds that the individual is subservient to the demands and dictates of the group.
Individual rights do not apply solely to those who were fortunate to be born in the United States. They apply to all individuals, whether they were born in Tampico or Topeka. Every individual has a moral right to take the actions that he believes will sustain or enhance his life, and this includes the freedom to move to another country. Of course, he must respect the freedom of others to take the actions that they believe best for their lives.
Border wall defenders are often quick to point out that they aren’t opposed to immigration–they are just opposed to illegal immigration. But they fail to acknowledge or address the fact that America’s immigration laws are insanely complex and expensive to meet.
America’s immigration laws favor those with money, education, and skills that the government deems desirable. The poor, uneducated, and unskilled have little chance of legally immigrating to the United States. “You aren’t good enough,” is the unspoken message.
But the poor, uneducated, and unskilled have long come to America for the opportunity that freedom provides. We shouldn’t lock “our” doors to such individuals. We should welcome them with open arms.