I keep seeing terms like “border crisis” and “immigration crisis” everywhere, and, though I was able to ignore the misnomers for awhile, the sheer inundation is finally starting to bug me.

Calling the mass influx of immigrants into the US a “border crisis” is like calling widespread drug addiction a “drugstore crisis” or rampant alcoholism a “liquor store crisis”; doing so Ignores the incentives or motivation behind the behavior, and, inaccurately, merely cites the resulting behavior as the problem, in and of itself.

This is the same faulty methodology that has been used to approach the problem of addiction for generations, and addiction has, if anything, increased—it certainly hasn’t been curtailed—and this is because the underlying causes—the incentives, the motivation behind the behavior—are not substantially addressed, therefore the resulting behavior does not substantially change.

More laws, and more armed guards stationed around the drugstores (and, of course, more tax dollars to fund it all) is, quite obviously, not the solution to addiction. And recent history has shown that throwing hoards of people in prison—or simply killing them—for participating in such activities via non-state-approved channels does nothing to curb the behavior; it only results in overly-full prisons, lots of dead people, and a nation teetering on bankruptcy.

Instead, we should address, and remove—or at a minimum vastly reduce—the incentives behind the behavior—and the resulting behavior will diminish proportionately.

The first, and easiest, and costless step would be to end the insane, rights-and-liberty-crushing War on People Who Use (non-state-approved) Drugs. This would immediately end the highly lucrative black market drug trade, and thus end a major incentive for immigrants to risk life, limb, and family running black-market drugs across the border. Not to mention the billions in tax dollars that would immediately be saved.

The second easiest, and also costless step would be to end the unconstitutional Federal minimum wage (and ideally, end any state minimum wage as well). If employers were “allowed” to hire unskilled laborers at market rates, then most jobs taken up by immigrants would be extremely low-paying, and unappealing to most Americans anyway—in fact, perhaps many immigrants would think twice about relocating here, if they knew their potential wage was greatly reduced.

Thirdly, and, obviously, much more difficult to implement, would be to end—or, as I said earlier, at least vastly reduce—all state-funded welfare programs. If we evolved back to the principles of human rights, liberty, property rights, and free markets, the welfare state and other such socialist programs would be unable to stand. You can’t have a free society, then turn around and force, at gunpoint, one portion of the populace to support another portion of the populace.

In other words, what we have is not an immigration crisis, but a government crisis (or, conversely, a rights and liberty crisis); end the government interventionist programs—prohibition, minimum wage mandates, welfare—and return to the principles of a free society, and much of the incentive for immigrants to relocate here would end as well.

Take away the free cookie jar, and the kids will stop trying to sneak into the kitchen.

I honestly don’t believe that Americans have a problem with immigration per se; I believe the problem lies in what the immigrants are doing, once they are in the US. They are getting taxpayer-funded education in public schools (which shouldn’t exist), and getting taxpayer-funded welfare benefits (which shouldn’t exist), and taking up many of the ever-dwindiling, minimum-wage (which shouldn’t exist) jobs that many Americans are already fighting each other for, as rampant government, at all levels, continues to destroy the economy (which shouldn’t be happening). Food stamps, unemployment benefits, welfare checks, free this and free that—all courtesy of the taxpayers, and all of which shouldn’t exist—wouldn’t exist—in a free society. It is my belief that THAT’S what Americans are so angry about. So again, it’s not the immigration, but the government programs, that are actually the problem.

If immigrants came here to work (especially at market rates), to support their families, to educate themselves, to start businesses and pay taxes and contribute to the community…I doubt so many Americans would be so adverse to them coming here, “legally” or not.

And since the right to freely travel, and the right to freely associate, and the right to freely enter into contract, are human rights, not American rights, I have a hard time justifying immigration “laws” to begin with, as they violate human rights and liberty.

But by simply removing the incentives—and thus alleviating the costs and burdens those incentives inflict on the taxpayers—immigration would suddenly drop to predominantly only those immigrants who are willing to work, produce, and contribute, once they get here.

Would that be so bad?