Freedom for Thee, But Not for We
I expected and got some pushback about my post comparing the Berlin Wall to the wall along our southern border. Happily, it was more civil than the reactions I often get when I talk about immigration and free movement of people.
One fair comment focused on the key distinction between the Berlin Wall and our border wall: the direction the guards were facing.
From the perspective of the state, it’s easy to conceive of border guards facing “in” or “out”—and those facing in suggest much worse than those facing out. But from the perspective of the individual, what matters is whether or not the border guards are facing you. Our border wall keeps Mexicans and Central Americans from freedom and a better life precisely the way the Berlin Wall did East Germans.
Another pointed out the inconsistency between liberal immigration policies and the welfare state. But the solution is not to wall off the country; it’s to wall off the welfare state. David Friedman has pointed out that liberal immigration policies can create political incentives to hold down welfare benefits.
Twenty years ago, West Germany took into its fold an impoverished population whose capacity for self-governance had surely been eroded by years of totalitarian rule. Today, one of that population is its center-right chancellor. Liberalizing immigration would be a project far smaller for the United States, it would bring overall economic benefits, and it would help restore our country’s status as a beacon of freedom.
Those who wish to immigrate to the United States did not create the political or economic conditions in their birth countries. Yet many treat their desire for a life like ours as blameworthy. It’s incoherent for individualists to think that way about immigrants to the United States while treating the reunification of Germany as something to celebrate. Such incoherence is reflected in our ’wall’ policies, which indeed boil down to “freedom for thee (Europeans), but not for we (Americans).”
Worrying Delevopments in Guatemala
In the last week there’ve been deeply worrying developments in Guatemala. Rodrigo Rosenberg, a highly respected Guatemalan lawyer, was killed Sunday outside of his house by unknown gunmen. On Monday, a posthumous video recorded by Rosenberg was released where he blames the country’s president, Alvaro Colom, for his assassination. Constantino Díaz-Durán, former editor of elcato.org, tells the story in a piece appearing in the Daily Beast.
Since Monday, thousands of Guatemalans have flocked to the streets demanding Colom’s resignation, but they have been met by an equal number of government supporters who are resorting to violence and intimidation against the protesters. This is the modus operandi of the hard-left in countries such as Venezuela, Bolivia, Argentina, and Ecuador. But nobody would’ve expected a center-left government led by a mild-manner president like Colom to employ such tactics.
However, there are more worrisome signs that the government is planning to crack down on dissenters. Yesterday a man was arrested after encouraging people through Twitter to withdraw their savings from Banrural, the bank involved in the corruption charges that Rosenberg made against the Colom administration. He’s been charged with “inciting financial panic.” Hours later, another man was arrested for distributing copies of Rosenberg’s video in the streets. The government claims he was “inciting the public.”
Whatever happens in the following weeks will determine the future of Guatemala’s institutional democracy. The United States should be paying closer attention to the situation, considering Guatemala’s position as Central America’s most populous democracy.
Cato on Facebook
Cato on Twitter
Cato on YouTube
Cato Tweets