UPCOMING EVENT: Wednesday, February 5 at noon. FFF is hosting a get-together in downtown Boston after the oral arguments in Ian Freeman’s appeal, where we will discuss the oral arguments. I will be there. Trillium Brewing Fort Point, 50 Thomson Pl, Boston, MA 02210; (857) 449-0083; https://trilliumbrewing.com. Reminder: The Court of Appeals is located at One Courthouse Way in Boston. The oral arguments are scheduled for 9:30 a.m. on the 7th floor of the courthouse. Trillium Brewing is about one block away. See here for more details.
*****
I was recently staying in a hotel and noticed that the two women charged with cleaning the guest rooms were Hispanic. I couldn’t help but wonder whether they were here illegally. If so, they are among the millions of other illegal immigrants who are currently experiencing deep fear over the possibility of being arrested and deported. What a horrible way to have to live life. Moreover, the hotel owner (or manager) has to also live in fear over the possibility of being criminally charged for knowingly hiring an illegal immigrant.
Let’s assume that those two women are, in fact, here illegally. What does that mean? It means that they entered the United States without the official permission of the U.S. government. Under America’s immigration-control system, foreign citizens are prohibited from entering the country without first securing official permission. Even if they are successful in securing such permission — say, after 7 or 8 years — that doesn’t necessarily mean that they will be permitted to work. To do that, they will have to get a government-issued “green card,” which is considered to be part and parcel of America’s “free-enterprise” economic system.
Yet, an important question arises: Why should the government play any role in the employment relationship between the hotel owner and those two women? Why shouldn’t the owner of the hotel be free to associate with whomever he wants? Isn’t that what the principle of freedom of association is all about? Moreover, why shouldn’t the owner of the hotel be free to hire whomever he wants? It’s his money, after all. Isn’t that what liberty of contract is all about?
Clearly, the hotel owner (or his manager) willingly hired those two women. Most likely, that’s because they are hard workers and honest and do their job well. Clearly, those two women willingly accepted his terms of employment. They were happy with what they were offered in compensation. Thus, both sides — the hotel owner and the two women — came out ahead. By entering into their labor contract, they both benefited. They both gave up something they value less for something they value more. Trade enables people to lift their standards of living.
So what if the two women are foreigners? Why should the natural, God-given rights of freedom of association and liberty of contract be limited to American citizens? If someone wishes to hire someone from another country, why isn’t that his right? Why is that decision subject to the whims of the government?
A statist might respond: “But Jacob, those two women are stealing jobs from Americans.” That’s ridiculous. They aren’t stealing anything from anyone. They are accepting a job offer by an employer who wishes to hire them. That job doesn’t belong to an American citizen. The hotel is privately owned. The hotel owner has the right to decide who he wants to hire. Nobody has the right to a job with that hotel. He has a right to seek a job there. But he has no right to be hired. The decision on who is to be hired belongs to the hotel owner. If he wants to hire a foreigner, that is his right.
Here you have the hotel owner and those two women who are clearly happy with their relationship. But now the two women have to live in fear that the immigration police will raid the hotel, arrest them, and deport them, and without even giving them the chance to make arrangements for their children or even saying goodbye to them. And the hotel owner or manager has to live in fear that he could be charged with having knowingly hired an illegal immigrant.
It’s no different with respect to living arrangements for those two women. Whether they are single or married, they have entered into consensual arrangements with apartment owners who rent dwellings to them. The apartment owner is happy. He’s receiving rent. The two women are happy. They have a place to live. Why should government play any role in destroying this relationship? Why is that the business of government?
Statist claim, “But Jacob. The law is the law. We have to follow the law.” Really? Segregation was the law too. So was slavery. So are Jim Crow laws. Are we supposed to blindly follow the law just because it is the law? It seems to me that that’s why God gave us minds and consciences — partly so that we could judge when man-made laws violate God’s law and, therefore, are null and void and undeserving of respect or compliance.
What kind of society uses government to employ force to inflict fear and suffering on people who are doing nothing more than exercising natural, God-given rights, such as freedom of association, liberty of contract, and the pursuit of happiness? How can people who pride themselves on Judeo-Christian principles support such governmentalactions?
On the first full day of Trump’s presidency, a remarkable moment occurred at an inaugural prayer service at the National Cathedral. According to the New York Times, near the end of her sermon Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde looked directly at Trump and said, “The vast majority of immigrants are not criminals. I ask you to have mercy, Mr. President, on those in our communities whose children fear that their parents will be taken away, and that you help those who are fleeing war zones and persecution in their own lands to find compassion and welcome here.” It is so refreshing that she gets it. Time will tell whether her profound words had an effect on Trump’s conscience and his massive arrest-and-deportation plan.
