Americans Should Protect Americans – And Arizona Should Lead

flags half staff

With nearly every country south of the Border sliding into neo-Marxist governments, Arizona should brace itself. The flood of migration north could become biblical when economy after economy in Latin America crashes under disastrous economic policies.

But there is a better way, heralded by Arizona Congressman Paul Gosar and co-sponsored by Arkansas Congressman Rick Crawford; namely, H.R. 465, the Protect U.S. Investments Act. Every member of the Arizona Delegation should co-sponsor this bill.

The Protect U.S. Investments Act would deny visas and remittances to foreign public officials who expropriate U.S. investments in violation of investment treaties with the United States, among other enhancements to the 1962 Fidel Castro-era “Hickenlooper Amendment,” which mandates the President cut-off aid to countries that expropriate U.S. investments. These additions are modest, targeted sanctions on paper; but they pack a wallop in the real world. Here’s why.

The expropriators might not care if their economic policies drive their countries into the ground. They might not care if they inundate neighboring countries and U.S. border states (like Arizona) with masses fleeing the latest experiment in “real socialism.” And, at the end of the day, they might not even care if they are left standing on a pile of skulls, Cambodia-style.

But, at least in Latin America, nearly all of these modern-day Barbary pirates have condos in Miami, stash cash for a rainy day in the U.S. financial system, and love to visit Disney World during Christmas break.

The Protect U.S. Investments Act would terminate access to all of these luxuries as a consequence of expropriating U.S. investment.

Few things would motivate better behavior from would-be dictators of the proletariat.

Support for the Protect U.S. Investments Act recognizes that winning the war on unconstrained immigration requires both a strong geopolitical offense and a strong border defense. The strongest geopolitical offense, which is consistent with avoiding unnecessary foreign entanglements, involves protecting U.S. private investment abroad from expropriation, especially when treaties are violated.

This principle reaches back to the congressional issuance of letters of marque and reprisal against the French and the equally obnoxious Barbary pirates of North Africa, which regularly raided U.S. merchant shipping between 1798 and 1805. The Founders understood that a modest and appropriate foreign policy aims at promoting U.S. interests primarily through the soft power of win-win commercial relationships; with hard power focused on vindicating the natural rights of U.S. citizens from foreign depredation.

Moreover, holding specific foreign government officials responsible for their role in abusing human rights is nothing new. President Donald J. Trump sanctioned particular North Korean and Venezuelan government officials for human rights abuses in 2016 and 2017; and President Ronald Reagan similarly sanctioned particular Soviet and South African officials in 1986.

If anything, the targeted sanctions authorized by the Protect U.S. Investments Act are even more justifiable than the targeted sanctions deployed by Presidents Trump and Reagan. This is because the Founders understood that property rights were the foundation of human rights, and the Protect U.S. Investments Act is closely tailored to protecting the rights of U.S. citizens, not policing the world to vindicate human rights abuses in general.

In fact, the Protect U.S. Investments Act’s sanctioning of particular foreign public officials for expropriating U.S. investment is not only fully in line with both the philosophy of the Founding Era and historical practice, it also constitutes a noninterventionist foreign policy best practice.

As observed by the Cato Institute in its Policy Analysis No. 884 (Feb. 18, 2020), “if using sanctions, the United States should limit them to individuals or symbolic targets rather than restrict entire categories of trade.”

Simply put, the Protect U.S. Investments Act is the right policy at the right time.

And yes, U.S. private investment in Latin America can make the difference on unconstrained immigration to Arizona and other border states.

Right now, U.S. investors are consciously deploying private capital to help ween Latin American economies from their tragic boom-bust cycle of socialist experimentation that drives mass migration. The most advanced effort involves the investment of nearly $100 million in the Honduran “zone of economic development and employment” known as “Próspera”.

Próspera allows U.S. companies and investors to do business in Honduras “as if” they were in the best imaginable jurisdiction in the United States. English and Spanish are the official languages. The common law is the base civil law. Regulated industries are able to operate in the zone under full reciprocity. All disputes are resolved by default through an arbitration center headed by retired U.S. judges and international litigators, including retired Arizona Supreme Court Justice John Pelander, Arizona Court of Appeals Judge John Gemmill, and Arizona Trial Court Judge Ken Mangum. Security and law enforcement is furnished and administered independently from Honduran governmental authorities. Liberty is guaranteed to equal or exceed the U.S. Bill of Rights baseline.

These policy foundations are gamechangers for Latin America. Consider what the brilliant Scott Alexander, a blogger read by almost any big name in Silicon Valley, said months earlier:

“Prospera’s institutions aren’t just better than Honduran institutions. They might well be better than the institutions of America, Europe and the rest of the developed world.”

Because of the innovative Próspera platform, in just 24 months (and despite launching in the middle of Covid), the Próspera platform has brought to Honduras:

  • the first robotic construction materials manufacturing plant,
  • the first drone transportation company,
  • the tallest tower ever built on the Island of Roatan,
  • several new innovative FinTech and Biotech companies,
  • international interest in hundreds of millions of dollars of nearshoring investment by companies seeking to relocate their supply chains from China,
  • AND much more.

U.S. investment in Próspera is visibly proving (again) that free markets and private capital deliver human prosperity with ease. Próspera is creating the West Berlin-East Berlin contrast that brought down the Soviet Union. And by bringing the best of the United States to Latin America, Próspera eliminates the need to escape to the United States.

Próspera is just the beginning. The “Charter City” or “special economic zone” movement is growing rapidly all over the world.

Without a dime of taxpayer funding, and without being directed by globalist schemes, private U.S. investment capital is poised to deliver prosperity abroad in a decentralized fashion, just as it built our own country. By making association with the citizens of the United States a voluntary win-win proposition again, a foreign policy built on good will—not fear—could be within grasp again. And beating the CCP’s politicized, centrally-planned belt-and-road initiative with free markets will be a piece of cake.

But protecting U.S. investments in places like Próspera through the Protect U.S. investments Act is the key to this effort.

If you would like to help support efforts to advance the Protect U.S. Investments Act, we have a lot of work to do. It would be a great idea to share this op-ed with Congressmen Andy Biggs (AZ-5; Zach.Barnes@mail.house.gov), Debbie Lesko (AZ-8; Annie.Clark@mail.house.gov), David Schweikert (AZ-1; kevinknight2000@yahoo.com), Eli Crane (AZ-2; Ashton.Earl@mail.house.gov), and Juan Ciscomani (AZ-6;  Caroline.Bender@mail.house.gov).

It’s time for Americans to stand together both at home and abroad.

Nick Dranias, General Counsel, Honduras Próspera Inc. (organizer of Próspera ZEDE); Policy Advisor, Heartland Institute.

Jeff Utsch, President, Heirs of the Republic

The opinions expressed herein are personal to Nick Dranias and Jeff Utsch; they do not represent the positions of any other organization.