ONCE AGAIN, it seems, there are Minutemen on the alert at our borders. However, the original Minutemen were on guard against an armed, organized body of soldiers, here on purpose to subject the Americans to the tyranny of a foreign king. Their namesakes today, in contrast, are resisting a mere trickle of unarmed, peaceful civilians whose only distinction is that they cannot speak our language.

What excuse do the Minutemen have for harassing harmless foreigners? Since when do we need permission to go from one place to another? Do they imagine that there is only so much earth, only so much fresh water, so that any additional people must result in everyone having less for hirself? Is it not true that the more people there are - and the more they vary in their talents - the more each one of us can specialize on the things se does best, and the richer the society will be?

Surely it is obvious that if these foreigners are anything like us, they get hungry every day: they will go out and offer to help the farmers till the fields. The result will be that wages will go down; the farmers will start to cultivate fields that, previously, were not worth working. The price of food in the markets will go down. Everyone will spend less money on food, and have more to spend for other purposes. Is it not so?

No, it is not. The farmers do not sell at the price that gives them the most profit, they sell at the price the U. S. government demands - that is why, when you see a Great! Holiday!! Sale!!! there is a little note, "except milk." For the same reason - minimum wage laws - other prices do not go down. The additional people do not bring additional goods into existence.

Do the additional people take goods out of existence - as far as other people are concerned? In a civilized society, the only way you can get a good for yourself is, with the agreement of everyone else - by charity, or by trade. Either way, no-one has any complaint. Is it not so?

Once again, it is not. Nowadays, goods of many kinds are provided "free" - that is, at someone else’s expense. Needless to say, such goods are handled wastefully - but the blame for the waste attaches to whomsoever gave the good away, se should have anticipated that it would be wasted. In a civilized society, you offer your goods to the highest bidder, who presumably is whomsoever most values the good.

The instance that provokes most contention is that of health care. It seems as if the system is that when you go to the doctors’ office, or the hospital, they do what they think best - and then argue about payment afterwards. The treatment that is ideal for the patient may be far beyond his or her means. However, there are reasonable answers to this problem - namely, spreading the risks over a large number of persons exposed to different afflictions. Imagine a membership organization that collects a fee from every member every day - except when he or she is not fit. Then that organization has a strong incentive to cure the patient - quickly; it would pay doctors or nurses to cure the patient, and would employ only doctors and nurses who did that thing - quickly. Payment for results, not for expenses! Of course, organizations that charged $100 a day would command better doctors and nurses and treatments than those of organizations that charged only $10 a day, but the patient would get whatsoever he or she had chosen to purchase; no-one would have any complaint.

Another obvious cause of contention is education, which consumes a large part of the tax revenues. But there is a reason why the schools are so expensive. It is, because attendance is compulsory. Surely it is true that, if there were no charge to attend the school, almost all the children would come to classes that taught useful things, such as speaking English properly. But compulsory schooling results in the schools trying, vainly, to teach children who have no interest, or no aptitude, and also in their teaching many non-essential subjects that appeal to only a fraction of the students. Once again, there is no reason to blame the immigrants: the system is set up so that it can survive despite its being inefficient.

Indubitably, it would be very nice if everyone in these United States spoke English (and indeed one must learn so to do, if one aspires to citizenship) but if there is a choice between hiring someone who speaks good English and asks for $8 an hour, or someone who speaks very little English but will work for $5 an hour - then it may very well prove that you can satisfy your customers better by putting up with broken English and some gestures.