There’s a tremendous flaw (actually, several) in the reasoning of this article in Reason, comparing Trump’s tariffs to the Berlin Wall
Law professor Ilya Somin makes a very poor analogy between Trump’s Mexican tariffs and the Berlin Wall in this article entitled and subtitled, “Trump’s Plan to Force Mexico to Lock In its Own People: The President’s effort to coerce Mexico into blocking the emigration of its own people undermines the distinction between keeping people out and locking them in. It thereby makes US immigration policy analogous to the Berlin Wall.”
What’s wrong with this? Let me count the ways (and I’ll probably miss a few). Firstly, Mexicans can go to other countries that will let them in, and that’s most of the countries (or perhaps all of the countries) in the world—including the US, but more about that later. The only country involved here is the US, which like any other country has a right to (a) ban or restrict any immigrants it wants, and (b) put tariffs on any goods it wants for any reason it wants.
On the other hand, the East German government (via, among other mechanisms, the Berlin Wall) kept its own people in and did not just restrict them from going to a single country. They were not allowed to go to huge chunks of the rest of the world—the West, freedom. Nothing even remotely like would be happening in Mexico if tariffs were to be implemented.
But there’s another huge error. Trump is not proposing to actually keep Mexicans out of this country. The idea is to keep those who have tried to enter illegally out. We even accept some of those who enter illegally, if they are determined to have a bona fide claim of asylum. These are the sort of restrictions any country has a right to impose, and most do impose, and if another country (in this case, Mexico) is facilitating the flouting of these rules we (or any other country) have a right to use lawful means to economically pressure them to stop.
You may agree or disagree with Trump’s tariff proposal (there’s plenty of room for disagreement), but there is zero analogy to the Berlin Wall—which by the way (historical note coming) only applied to keep the people of East Germany and out of the city of West Berlin, not the entire country of West Germany. Of course, the East German people were also kept out of West Germany and the entire West, but the Berlin Wall was not the main mechanism for that. The Berlin Wall was built because of the fact that Berlin, the former capital of a unified Germany which started WWII, was located in the heart of East Germany and even towards the eastern part of that heart, geographically speaking. Therefore West Berlin constituted a tiny piece of enticing freedom wholly embedded within the unfree East Germany.
Author Ilya Somin probably chose “Berlin Wall” as an analogy because it raises an emotional response; just about everyone knows something about the Berlin Wall and that is that it was a bad thing. But for the sake of accuracy, he should have at least written about the Inner German border which was the actual Cold War border between the countries of East and West Germany. It was a dangerous line to cross, and could (and did) get people shot:
[The Inner German border] was formally established on 1 July 1945 as the boundary between the Western and Soviet occupation zones of former Nazi Germany. On the eastern side, it was made one of the world’s most heavily fortified frontiers, defined by a continuous line of high metal fences and walls, barbed wire, alarms, anti-vehicle ditches, watchtowers, automatic booby traps, and minefields. It was patrolled by 50,000 armed East German guards who faced tens of thousands of West German, British, and US guards and soldiers. In the hinterlands behind the border were more than a million North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and Warsaw Pact troops.
The border was a physical manifestation of Sir Winston Churchill’s metaphorical Iron Curtain that separated the Soviet and Western blocs during the Cold War. It marked the boundary between two ideological systems—democratic capitalism and single-party communism. Built by East Germany in phases from 1952 to the late 1980s, the fortifications were constructed to stop the large-scale emigration of East German citizens to the West, about 1,000 of whom are said to have died trying to cross it during its 45-year existence…
The better-known Berlin Wall was a physically separate, less elaborate, and much shorter border barrier surrounding West Berlin,
Not very much like tariffs. But what the hey, don’t let that stand in the way of an emotional argument.
Somin goes on:
The whole point of the [tariff] plan is precisely to force Mexico to lock in its own people.
This argument can be countered by the ones I’ve already mentioned: the people of Mexico are not locked in, they can go just about anywhere in the world if they’ve got the money and the visas. Some Mexicans can even come here—many, actually, especially to visit. But in addition, many of the “migrants” involved are not Mexicans at all. In other words, they are not Mexico’s “own people”—(a point Somin concedes later in his piece, but which IMHO is somewhat irrelevant to his argument either way, pro or con).
In addition, Mexico is free to comply or not to comply with whatever pressure the US exerts. Is pressuring a country the same as “forcing” it? Of course not. Pressure of the sort Trump proposes—tariffs—are a legal tactic, and if they are implemented then Mexico can make its own decision about what to do.
More:
Defenders of Trump’s action could argue that there is a distinction between locking people in completely and “merely” preventing them from leaving for a specific destination (such as the US). But surely we would still condemn the Berlin Wall if the East German government had said its purpose was to block its citizens from moving to the West, but they were still free to leave for other communist nations.
Another false (and in fact rather ludicrous) analogy. A more appropriate equivalent would be if the US were trying to stop Mexicans from traveling to Western countries as a whole, or European countries as a whole, or even one other other country besides the US, or any place they would actually still be free to travel—or even to emigrate to, if those countries let them. But there is only one country involved here, the US, not the West or any other group or any other particular way of life. And, as I said before, they also would not even be blocked entirely from coming here, only from coming illegally.
Somin goes on:
Blocking the right to emigrate is a violation of international law.
But no one is blocking Mexicans’ right to emigrate, or even suggesting such a thing. They would continue to be free to leave the country.
I will add that the only reason Trump feels the need to do this is that there is not an effective wall in place, and that’s because Congress has blocked it. So the tariffs are a policy he is proposing because of the lack of a wall that works.
Whether Trump’s tariff proposal is a good idea or a bad one is an entirely separate issue, a practical issue the pros and cons of which can be discussed. Such a policy can be objected to and criticized without resorting to preposterous and emotion-laden analogies.
Regarding those tariffs and all the criticism thereof—I’m not saying tariffs are a good idea to actually implement, but I was under the impression that at the moment they are a bargaining chip, an opening bid in a complex negotiation. Isn’t that how these things tend to work? The tariff proposal (or actual tariffs, if they are implemented) may not be successful, but so far isn’t this one of those Art of the Deal things? I thought that was glaringly obvious.
[NOTE: Somin is a libertarian, if I’m not mistaken. He was born in the USSR and came here at the age of five, and teaches law at George Mason University.]
Just another super-intelligent fool using brilliantly perverse reasoning to make a nonsensical point.
Alas, one is no longer surprised. (Being anti-Trump justifies anything and everything.)
File under: Absurdity uber alles.
It’s not about locking in Mexicans.
It’s about getting Mexico to stop allowing illicit immigration from Central America crossing their borders to menace ours. Mexico’s immigration policy is much tougher than ours, and they generally enforce it with zeal.
They’ve been very lax of late. The tariff across the bow certainly got their trade negotiators moving in a big hurry.
The goal is emigration reform, not immigration reform (e.g. refugee crises, human trafficking, mass exodus). It is to address the disparity forced by globalist and democratic interests who exploit labor and environmental arbitrage. It is also a policy of immigration that does not exceed the rate of assimilation and integration before planned parenthood. The conflict is not due to diversity nor any other ball of yarns spun by the anti-nativists. That said, Mr/Mrs/Mx Pro-Choice, tear down the walls.
Ilya has always been the leftyest of the Volokh gang and I’ve found him generally uninteresting and easily ignored.
It is a shame that a person with such faulty cognitive ability (or is it simple dishonest hubris?) even has access to a keyboard or microphone. Much less a classroom where captive minds that have been systematically stripped of historical perspective are exposed to him.
I should have passed beyond a sense of astonishment at the puerile reasoning thrust upon us by our intellectual class; but, the bar below which they will stoop gets ever lower. It is sad when it parallels that of the celebrity class, which we have long endured.
No need to comment on the specifics of his diatribe since you have covered that base. I will observe that Trump has already tried various methods of getting Mexican cooperation. It has become clear that the only viable alternative is pain. I would have closed the border completely, to see how long it would take for the Mexicans to change their attitude. I would also consider a healthy fee on any remittances sent electronically.
Note: I wonder if Trump was one of those pudgy school boys who were the target of every bully, and learned the hard way that until you fight back, it will just get worse. It seems too many are willing to accept the U.S. as the veritable international punching bag.
There’s a reason the disreputable Mr. Sailer refers to libertarianism as ‘applied autism’.
“Trump is not proposing to actually keep Mexicans out of this country. The idea is to keep those who have tried to enter illegally out.”
Yes, yes. We keep hearing this incapability of making the legal/illegal distinction over and over. From a libertarian no less.
“The whole point of the [tariff] plan is precisely to force Mexico to lock in its own people.” — Somin
No, the point is to, ah hem, “incentivize” Mexico to put troops on its southern border and stop the illegal entry of Central Americans. It’s not a great incentive mechanism, just one of the few Trump’s got.
The issue is not primarily about having a wall. It is our idiotic laws and/or jurisprudence surrounding asylum and perhaps DACA. The illegal border crossers actually run towards our border patrol cops, not away from them. Fix that, and you’ve fixed much of the problem.
“Ilya has always been the leftyest of the Volokh gang and I’ve found him generally uninteresting and easily ignored.”
He’s good on niche issues like eminent domain. But yeah, I don’t find him interesting either.
Michael Towns:
Well, I certainly find him “interesting” here.
And not in a good way.
It’s interesting how an intelligent person can be so dense when blocked by his or her own anger at someone, and it’s interesting how far gone some libertarians can be.
I have mild libertarian impulses myself. But many libertarians are way beyond the pale, and it’s interesting to see them twist themselves into pretzels in the attempt to make their arguments.
At least, I find it so.
While Ilya Somin is reasonably good on eminent domain, and while he strikes me (from some 600 miles away) as rather likable, personally I think that the other Ilya (Shapiro) is the brighter light.
Neo certainly calls this piece of dreck what it is.
(Nobody’s trying to keep people out of the U.S. in general — we only require that they have permission to enter, which visitors, legal immigrants, and resident aliens do; and which most of the 7 billion who care to apply for entry can get, though some statuses are easier to get than others. We are not all that exclusive.)
.
More generally, I’m not much of a fan of Reason. It seems to me that it wobbles between being doctrinaire and rationalistic, and confused and befuddled. Sometimes, of course, it lands on a perfectly sensible spot on the board.
I suppose that in a way that’s a drive-by, since I offer no examples. So, FWIW.
“I have mild libertarian impulses myself. But many libertarians are way beyond the pale, and it’s interesting to see them twist themselves into pretzels in the attempt to make their arguments.”
I agree! Ilya is doing a fantastic job of destroying any ascendant libertarian impulses I have deep within me. Too many kooks.
Federal law imposes a minimum of 3 years imprisonment for employers who are convicted of unlawful employment of illegal aliens. A minimum of 10 years imprisonment applies when convicted of doing so for commercial gain.
Stopping illegal immigration is simple, just go after the employers.
No jobs = self-deportation.
When lawsuits emerge, win them in court, then charge those who brought suit with obstruction of justice.
Consequence people, there must be consequences.
GB: The problem with punishing employers for hiring illegals is that at a time when even cops are not allowed to inquire meaningfully about immigration status, why would you think that a private citizen who is hiring for a job can?
E-verify is almost useless.
Any realistic attempt to avoid hiring someone that you _know_ is not in the country legally, unless the fake documents they hand you are written in crayon, is going to get you sued to oblivion.
Ilya Somin is way off base here, but I do find his concept of “foot voting” interesting. He has also done some interesting work on the subject of why democracies tend to elect such mediocre leaders.
Because of his pet concept of Foot Voting (I think it was he who coined the phrase) he has a knee jerk reaction to anything that inhibits the flow of people across borders.
Some of the people Trump wants to force Mexico to lock in are not Mexican citizens, but Central American refugees. But, if anything, Mexico has even less right to prevent other nations’ citizens from leaving than its own. Moreover, Trump’s policy makes no distinction between Mexican migrants and non-Mexicans. –Somin
That’s a nice bit of glossing over. My impression is that most of the people Trump is currently concerned are non-Mexicans. The rate of Mexican illegal immigration is down but the thousands of Central American knocking on our door today for “asylum,” come through Mexico.
As I understand “asylum” in terms of international law, one may seek asylum in the next adjacent country. Asylum seekers are not entitled to pick and choose their asylum destination.
Mexico is far more repressive than the US when it comes to letting people settle in Mexico.
Roy, that’s interesting. I’ve never heard of “foot voting,” which I assume means “voting with your feet.” I’ll have to see what he has to say about that. Also, I gather he has problems with “rational ignorance.” I’d very much like to look into that, because I do too.
The antifa and the left have an expansive concept of foot voting: if they can get away with “milk shaking,” and then “brick bonking,” in time “curb stomping” will also be acceptable.
“we only require that they have permission to enter, which visitors, legal immigrants, and resident aliens do;” – Julie
Just got the news last week that one of our friends from Liberia – a LEGAL immigrant, who works as a truck driver to support his family – qualified for citizenship. His wife – a LEGAL immigrant, who works as a care giver in a local nursing home – is still waiting for final approval.
Her brother and his wife – both LEGAL immigrants, working full-time – are hoping to apply soon.
All four of them are the kind of people we want to have immigrating to America, and what Mexico and Central / South America are doing by facilitiating the invasion of ILLEGAL immigrants makes it more difficult for people like them to come here LEGALLY.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/06/crossing-the-border.php
” The Daily Mail quotes this White House tweet: “Last night, U.S. Border Patrol agents apprehended more than 100 illegal aliens from Congo, Angola, and Cameroon near the U.S.–Mexico border.” This proposition has the added advantage of truth: “Our southern border is now a magnet for illegal immigration from all over the world. It’s time for Democrats to help close the loopholes!”
There is a back story here. How did these folks get to Mexico and why didn’t they seek refuge or lawful entry to the United States from there?”
Good questions.
Couldn’t be because they didn’t meet any qualifications for lawful entry, could it?
AesopFan,
I am glad your friends got their citizenship, but I am frustrated to hear that when I have not been able to get an answer on residency for my wife after nearly a year!
That PowerLine story about the illegals from central Africa raised a lot of questions for me. How did they get from that far away, across an ocean, to try to cross our border illegally? It is almost impossible they just “happened” to do it on their own, someone had to be not only helping them but in all likelihood planning and organizing the whole thing
Roy Nathanson on June 4, 2019 at 2:40 am said:
AesopFan,
I am glad your friends got their citizenship, but I am frustrated to hear that when I have not been able to get an answer on residency for my wife after nearly a year!
* * *
I hope you will get answers soon, but who knows what is going on in the offices of the Immigration Service?
I have mild libertarian impulses myself. But many libertarians are way beyond the pale, and it’s interesting to see them twist themselves into pretzels in the attempt to make their arguments.
At least, I find it so.
Pretty much all of humanity is beyond the pale compared to my standards. In some part of their life or subject matter, they will twist themselves into pretzels to preserve their ego and identification (filters) in order to sustain their conclusions with modified facts.
They were not allowed to go to huge chunks of the rest of the world
that would be nice as that implies they could move internally, which they also could not…
which is why Marcus Wolfe was tagged along with a KGB officer to make our internal passports for our new travels… like now, where you need passport to travel internally in the US or a new ID…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi
The GDR had the highest concentration of allotments and dachas in the world
One in 90 East Germans worked unofficially for the secret police
Berlin wasn’t the only place split by a concrete wall
You could easily wait 15 years for the opportunity to buy a car
Behind in many things, the GDR led on recycling
Communist brands are still available in your local store!
GDR mums donated 200,000 litres of breast milk to milk banks in 1989
The state introduced quotas and financial support to get women to work
only applied to keep the people of East Germany and out of the city of West Berlin, not the entire country of West Germany
not true..
not true at all…
soviet states require INTERNAL PASSPORTS…
Currently, only the Russian Federation is known to still have internal passports as a part of their bureaucratic heritage, though it is no longer used to restrict the movement of people: a Russian internal passport is essentially an identification document in the form of a booklet.
Internal passports are known to have been issued and used previously by:
Russian Empire and its successor states,
France,
Confederate States of America,
United States (in slave states prior to the Civil War),
Soviet Union (see Soviet Union internal passport),
Ottoman Empire,
South Africa, during apartheid,
China,
Iraq (until 2016, replaced by National Card), and
Ukraine (until 2016, see Ukrainian internal passport)
Internal passports were required for African Americans in the southern slave states before the American Civil War, for example, an authenticated internal passport dated 1815 was presented to Massachusetts citizen George Barker to allow him to freely travel as a free black man to visit relatives in slave states
Real ID Act:
The Real ID Act of 2005, Pub.L. 109–13, 119 Stat. 302, enacted May 11, 2005, is an Act of Congress that modifies U.S. federal law pertaining to security, authentication, and issuance procedures standards for state driver’s licenses and identity documents, as well as various immigration issues pertaining to terrorism.
The Real ID Act implements the following:
Title II of the act establishes new federal standards for state-issued driver’s licenses and non-driver identification cards.
Changing visa limits for temporary workers, nurses, and Australian citizens.
Funding some reports and pilot projects related to border security.
Introducing rules covering “delivery bonds”
(similar to bail, but for aliens who have been released pending hearings).
Updating and tightening the laws on application for asylum and deportation of aliens for terrorism.
Waiving laws that interfere with construction of physical barriers at the borders.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
On December 20, 2013, the Department of Homeland Security announced that implementation of Phase 1 would begin on January 20, 2014, which followed a yearlong period of “deferred enforcement”. There are four planned phases, three of which apply to areas that affect relatively few U.S. citizens—e.g., DHS headquarters, nuclear power plants, and restricted and semi-restricted federal facilities such as military bases
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
On January 8, 2016, DHS issued an implementation schedule for Phase 4, stating that starting January 22, 2018 “passengers with a driver’s license issued by a state that is still not compliant with the REAL ID Act (and has not been granted an extension) will need to show an alternative form of acceptable identification for domestic air travel to board their flight”.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Starting October 1, 2020 “every air traveler will need a REAL ID-compliant license, or another acceptable form of identification (such as an United States passport, United States passport card, U.S. military card, or DHS trusted traveler card, e.g. NEXUS, SENTRI, etc.) FOR DOMESTICA AIR TRAVEL.”
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
As of May 2019, 49 states and territories have been certified as compliant, and 7 have been granted extensions
Artfuldgr on June 4, 2019 at 12:48 pm said:
…
soviet states require INTERNAL PASSPORTS…
* * *
Thanks for the interesting information.
I was already familiar with the Real-ID Act because for a couple of years I had to arrange travel home for returning missionaries in our area, and part of that was making sure they had valid Driver’s licenses or other ID. We had a very exciting couple of days everytime one of the elders or sisters lost wallets or passports just before leaving.
Fortunately it didn’t happen very often!
If you aren’t familiar with the Act, non-compliant states are those who hand out licenses to non-citizens or non-legal-residents.
As soon as you become a law professor, your brain is automatically disconnected from reality.