Misguided Conservatism:

Repressive Policies on Immigration and Crime

Eduardo A. Gamarra

 

In  the current political environment heading into the 2024 presidential elections, a prevalent trend has emerged among our misguided conservative politicians advocating for repressive state measures—mass arrests, aggressive deportations, and stringent immigration restrictions. This hardline stance starkly contrasts with the nuanced understanding of the role of immigrants and the state espoused by conservative intellectual icons like Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman. Both economists, revered in conservative circles, recognized the state's necessary functions but advocated for its strategic and just application, particularly concerning immigration and crime. This essay challenges contemporary conservative leaders to realign their policies with these foundational principles, which support a balanced and reasoned approach to addressing these critical contemporary issues.

 

Hayek, known for his deep commitment to personal freedoms and minimal government, argued emphatically for the rule of law as a cornerstone of a free society. His philosophy did not endorse a laissez-faire approach to governance but rather a competent state that applies laws fairly and efficiently. Hayek's ideas on migration were particularly progressive, suggesting that freedom of movement is beneficial but must be regulated to ensure social and economic stability. His views refute the idea of mass deportations and excessive force, advocating instead for policies that integrate migrants into the economic system, thereby enhancing overall prosperity.

 

Similarly, Milton Friedman, a champion of free-market economics, understood the detrimental economic impacts of a repressive state. While acknowledging the need for a secure environment for markets to function optimally, Friedman would likely criticize current conservative tactics as economically inefficient and socially disruptive. He saw the potential economic benefits of immigration, arguing that a rational immigration system should not only control but also capitalize on the influx of talent and labor.

 

Today’s conservative politicians ( and I use the term loosely), often propose or implement policies that seem more draconical than practical, potentially causing long-term harm to the social fabric and economic dynamics of the United States.  These measures, including mass incarcerations and wholesale deportations, not only fail to address the root causes of immigration and crime but also exacerbate problems, leading to broken families, community distrust, and economic disruption.

 

This approach starkly contrasts with the teachings of Hayek and Friedman, who advocated for a government that acts wisely—not expansively or oppressively. Their writings suggest that effective governance involves managing immigration through frameworks that maximize economic benefits while minimizing social upheaval. It also involves combating crime through targeted and intelligent law enforcement rather than sweeping, punitive measures that often cast too wide a net.

 

By adopting these repressive measures, contemporary conservatives diverge significantly from their intellectual heritage. Such strategies may offer short-term political gains but are at odds with the long-term principles of conservatism. They undermine the rule of law by promoting arbitrary enforcement and risk economic stability by deterring beneficial migration. 

 

A serious reconsideration among conservative leaders on these issues is long overdue. Adhering more closely to the philosophies of their own intellectual icons would mean advocating for an immigration policy that is as strategic as it is humane and a criminal justice approach that is as precise as it is fair. This would not only align better with true conservative values but also ensure a more stable, prosperous, and just society. In short, conservative politicians have an opportunity to return to a governance style that reflects the wisdom of their most revered economists, rather than the reactionary politics that currently prevails.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Image
 The Youth Vote and Latin America: A Missed Opportunity at Last Night's Debate Last night at Florida International University (FIU), we held a debate watch session sponsored by Pi Sigma Alpha and the Latino Public Opinion Forum. We've done this before, but this time was different. Typically, our turnout is modest—between 15 and 20 students, reflecting the general apathy that permeates political engagement among younger voters. But last night, something shifted. Crammed into SIPA 100 were approximately 90 students, a crowd representing the rich diversity of our student body and a palpable hunger to engage with the political moment. Before the debate began, we asked the students who they thought would win. The result was divided, with many still on the fence, reflecting the ambivalence that often marks younger voters. However, once the debate started, the engagement was undeniable. The students remained glued to their seats for the entire event. Ultimately, the vast majority said
Read more
Timing is Everything: Biden's Missteps in Florida Politics Eduardo A. Gamarra   Biden's reelection campaign ignores two fundamental principles of politics. The first is that in politics, timing is everything. Equally important is the old adage by Thomas "Tip" O'Neill that "all politics is local." These principles are crucial in the delicate dance of political strategy and public perception.  Niccolò Machiavelli's insights in "The Prince" emphasize the importance of recognizing and seizing opportunities, suggesting that political success is determined by strategy and the ability to exploit favorable circumstances. A more contemporary view comes from Steven L. Taylor, whose "Outside the Beltway” articles repeatedly emphasize the critical role of timing in political strategy and decision-making. The Biden administration's recent actions in Florida, particularly concerning Cuban policy, exemplify a disregard for these insights, jeopard
Read more
A Dark Echo: How Scapegoating Immigrants is Shaping U.S. Elections and Undermining Democracy Eduardo A. Gamarra  As we witness the 2024 American electoral campaign, it is impossible to ignore the parallels to one of the darkest chapters in human history. In a chilling echo of the tactics used by the Nazis, one political party in the United States has increasingly resorted to scapegoating immigrants—especially undocumented ones. Just as Adolf Hitler's regime blamed the Jews for every conceivable problem plaguing Germany, from economic crises to political instability, today, specific American political figures are directing fear and anger at immigrants, particularly those from Haiti, Venezuela, and other Latin American countries. They are portrayed as drug traffickers, rapists, murderers, gang members, and even as threats to public health and safety, despite the lack of evidence supporting such generalizations. The disturbing rhetoric recalls how the Nazis vilified Jews by labeling t
Read more