"Family values do not stop at the Rio Grande River"

George W. Bush is having his year-end press conference right now and it is clear that immigration reform is something the guy is serious about. He is able to speak about the issue in sharp, concise terms and seems unfazed by the prospect of criticism from the anti-immigration lobby.

Bush faces an uphill battle in pushing through any kind of guest worker program, but it is a fight worth having.

That and he is standing behind Rumsfeld, folks.

Comments

Warren | December 20, 2004, 11:36am | #

Yeah terrific. Bush finally gets around to talking about Social Security and Immigration. I think those may be the only two issues I don't think he should be hung for, much less actually support his position. Of course, we passed the talking stage with Rummy long ago.

Gary Gunnels | December 20, 2004, 11:38am | #

That and he is standing behind Rumsfeld, folks.

I doubt he would publicly knock the guy; and its not like he supported his work; he just said he was a "good man."

Jim Walsh | December 20, 2004, 11:41am | #

Well, let's give credit where it's due. Kudos to W. for his stand on Soc Sec and Immigration.

Gary Gunnels | December 20, 2004, 11:44am | #

Maybe Bush will start serenading Rumsfeld with songs by The Smiths? :)

What Difference Does it Make?

All men have secrets and here is mine
So let it be known
For we have been through hell and high tide
I think I can rely on you ...
And yet you start to recoil
Heavy words are so lightly thrown
But still I’d leap in front of a flying bullet for you

So, what difference does it make ?
So, what difference does it make ?
It makes none, ah
But now you have gone, ah
And you must be looking very old tonight

The devil will find work for idle hands to do
I stole and I lied, and why ?
Because you asked me to !
But now you make me feel so ashamed
Because I’ve only got two hands
Well, I’m still fond of you, oh-ho-oh

So, what difference does it make ?
Oh, what difference does it make ?
Oh, it makes none, ah
But now you have gone, ah
And your prejudice won’t keep you warm tonight

Oh ...
Oh, the devil will find work for idle hands to do
I stole, and then I lied
Just because you asked me to
But now you know the truth about me
You won’t see me anymore
Well, I’m still fond of you, oh-ho-oh

But no more apologies
No, no more apologies
Oh, ’cause I’m too tired
I’m so sick and tired, oh
And I’m feeling very sick and ill today, oh
But I’m still fond of you, oh-ho-oh

Oh, my sacred one ...
Oh ...

phocion | December 20, 2004, 12:00pm | #

Anyone else see Bush's trial balloon this weekend about freezing or cutting domestic spending?

gary | December 20, 2004, 1:06pm | #

Very few people are anti-immigration. Those who set up this straw man to attack people who are against ILLEGAL immigration, have an agenda that needs airing. How about it, Mr Taylor? Do you want open borders?

The Lonewacko Blog | December 20, 2004, 1:07pm | #

"Family values do not stop at the Rio Grande River"

No, but the U.S. does.

the anti-immigration lobby.

Using such terms is a good way to reduce your credibility.

Question for those familiar with libertarian ideology: why do some "libertarians" support massive corporate subsidies? If those "libertarians" support such subsidies, are they really libertarians?

While those strawberry pickers who live in fields in California don't use that many public services, most illegal aliens use a wide variety: schooling, roads, emergency room health care, subsidized rent, subsidized college educations, etc. etc.

Many of those illegal aliens and other cheap serf laborers would choose not to come here if they were forbidden from accessing all of our public services.

Those who employ cheap labor are able to pay such low prices because of all those public services. In effect, those employers are receiving massive subsidies. So, the market for cheap labor is not as "libertarian" as it might seem to some.

It seems to me that libertarians should support real markets, not artificial markets with hidden subsidies.

See my Immigration category for dozens of links on this subject.

joe | December 20, 2004, 1:14pm | #

"Very few people are anti-immigration. Those who set up this straw man to attack people who are against ILLEGAL immigration, have an agenda that needs airing."

ILLEGAL immigration is only ILLEGAL because people who are anti-immmigration made it ILLEGAL.

I'm not opposed to drug use - just illegal drug use. That's why I'm opposed to legalizing drugs - because I'm against people doing things that are illegal. Sure, makes perfect sense.

wellfellow | December 20, 2004, 1:34pm | #

Gary,

You're my new hero, quoting Smiths and all. Well done!

The Lonewacko Blog | December 20, 2004, 1:36pm | #

ILLEGAL immigration is only ILLEGAL because people who are anti-immmigration made it ILLEGAL.

So, what you're saying is that we should completely scrap any sense of illegality to sneaking over our border or overstaying a visa.

In other words, if there's no such thing as "illegal immigration" anyone can come here.

Are you sure you want that? Please answer this question: are you sure want completely open borders where anyone can come here?

If you answer "no", then you support the concept of illegality applied to some forms of immigration. Therefore, you're saying you're anti-immigration.

Evan Williams | December 20, 2004, 1:38pm | #

Joe says,

"I'm not opposed to drug use - just illegal drug use. That's why I'm opposed to legalizing drugs - because I'm against people doing things that are illegal. Sure, makes perfect sense.

Priceless!

Lonewacko says,

"why do some "libertarians" support massive corporate subsidies? [...] While those strawberry pickers who live in fields in California don't use that many public services, most illegal aliens use a wide variety: schooling, roads, emergency room health care, subsidized rent, subsidized college educations, etc. etc.

Many of those illegal aliens and other cheap serf laborers would choose not to come here if they were forbidden from accessing all of our public services.

Those who employ cheap labor are able to pay such low prices because of all those public services. In effect, those employers are receiving massive subsidies. So, the market for cheap labor is not as "libertarian" as it might seem to some."

You're confused, and you're attacking those libertarians for the wrong reasons, from the wrong end of this issue. Border/immigration laws and socialized public services are separate monsters; to say that, if someone is more liberal with regards to border laws, then they also support the indirect "corporate subsidies" that result from socialized services, is irresponsible and off-target.

However you may feel about immigration, the blame for these "subsidies" falls not on the immigration/border laws, it falls on the root of the problem, which is government-run socialized public services. You want to strike at the branches, while the roots remain intact, and this just won't do! You also claim that, since some libertarians don't want to strike at a particular branch, that means they support the entire tree. Again, this will not do.

You can't blame immigration for problems that are inherent in gov't social programs. Those programs are built on the idea of stealing from the people and distributing that wealth wherever a centralized agency decides it should go. This foundation is faulty to start with, but now, you want to pin the blame on immigrants? I'm sorry, but, no matter how you feel about immigration (I am by no means an open-borders advocate), this still makes no logical sense.

The Lonewacko Blog | December 20, 2004, 1:44pm | #

Guess who said the following:

This brings up the third issue: Borders. Some people believe that lifting immigration restrictions implies "open borders." That's like saying that an invitation to my house means it's okay for you to crawl through my bedroom window at four in the morning... People who come across our borders at remote locations under cover of darkness, when they were free to enter through the front door, aren't immigrants. They're invaders... The border is a national security feature. I propose to treat it as such.

Answer here.

At least he gets part of it right.

The Lonewacko Blog | December 20, 2004, 1:50pm | #

Border/immigration laws and socialized public services are separate monsters; to say that, if someone is more liberal with regards to border laws, then they also support the indirect "corporate subsidies" that result from socialized services, is irresponsible and off-target.

Yes, well, in our coordinate system, also known as "the real world," those "monsters" are deeply intertwined.

Those "libertarians" who support illegal immigration (and who live in "the real world") should make it quite clear that they support both illegal immigration and an end to all non-directly-paid public services to those illegal aliens. Anything less would seem to be a violation of libertarian ideals.

So, feel free to support illegal immigration. Just add that you don't think those illegal aliens should get any public services whatsoever. Suggested terminology: it's not "living in a field," it's a "camping adventure."

fyodor | December 20, 2004, 1:51pm | #

Question for those familiar with libertarian ideology: why do some "libertarians" support massive corporate subsidies? If those "libertarians" support such subsidies, are they really libertarians?

Support for public tax subsidies for corporations is generally considered inconsistent with libertarian principles. But people can identify themselves anyway they like. At what point of support for unlibertarian positions I would personally stop considering someone "a libertarian" is a bridge I'd just as soon cross when I get to it. Partly because it's hardly of paramount importance anyway.

GH | December 20, 2004, 2:00pm | #

Illegal immigration as corporate welfare. Wow. I must say I never saw that one coming.

Normally subsidy whores send attorneys to DC to ask for subsidies. I don't think Wal-Mart and GE have ever explicitly asked the INS to go fumble the ball. That's just what bloated, inefficient bureacracies do best, all by themselves, without being asked.

fyodor | December 20, 2004, 2:12pm | #

Lonewacko,

I'm personally undecided on whether I would support the absolute libertarian position on borders, which is that they should be no more than lines on a map.

But I feel strongly that the numbers of people we let in should be consistent with the numbers of people who want to come in. Maybe we need to check 'em out to make (reasonably) sure they're not enemies up to no good. Maybe we should let 'em in no more quickly than we can grant them legal status. But trying to use our immigration laws to keep 'em out is immoral and counterproductive.

fyodor | December 20, 2004, 2:31pm | #

Lonewacko,

Your rationale for illegal immigration being a corporate is subsidy is wrong for various reasons.

One is that different citizens already use public services to different extents. It's part of the whole concept of "public" services that they are available to all qualifying individuals. One's cost for public services is never tied to one's use of them or they wouldn't be public. Of course, libertarians are against public services to begin with, and for reasons closely linked to this very aspect of them.

Another reason the subsidy analogy fails (and I say "analogy" because it's a stretch to begin with to say there's an actual subsidy) is that everyone has equal opportunity to hire illegals. Now, if some companies were being selectively prosecuted while others were tacitly allowed to stand outside the law, you would have a point. But as long as enforcement (or lack thereof, as you will assuredly remind me!) is equal and not selective, no one is being unfairly "subsidized." Just because some companies or industries are better positioned to take advantage of the phenomenon does not reflect a "subsidy" any more than any other advantageous phenomenon that is allowed to take its course constitutes a subsidy.

And there's probably other reasons, too.... :-)

Todd Fletcher | December 20, 2004, 2:49pm | #

This is one of the few good things about Bush. I think he stands a better chance of getting some kind of immigration reform through than Democrat would, because being a republican will to some degree dampen the right wing opposition to it.

Lonewacko, they com here for jobs. That they may use social services while here is not evidence that they come here for that reason.

joe | December 20, 2004, 2:56pm | #

"So, what you're saying is that we should completely scrap any sense of illegality to sneaking over our border or overstaying a visa."

No, I'm saying we should allow people to openly cross our borders, and give them visas. I like this part of your quote - "People who come across our borders at remote locations under cover of darkness, when they were free to enter through the front door, aren't immigrants. They're invaders." The key phrase here is "when they were free to enter through the front door. I believe we should allow people to walk in through the front door, excluding only those individuals who pose a direct threat to the safety of our citizens.

If Osama bin Laden wants to enter the country, the Border Patrol should lock his ass up. I subscribe to the radical, anti-immigrant notion that people who move to another city so they can get a better job and live in peace should be treated differently from terrorists.

joe | December 20, 2004, 3:12pm | #

Undocument America-joiners don't take extremely low wage jobs because they prefer them. They take them becuase immigration laws make it impossible for them to take better jobs. If you are worried about companies exploiting New Americans for low wages, and the downward pressure this puts on everyone else's wages, you should support allowing those Should-Be-Citizens to work legally in the US.

Ditto if you're worried about Freshly Minted Neighbors living on welfare - people are a lot more willing to take jobs when doing so isn't defined as a criminal offense.

kwais | December 20, 2004, 3:22pm | #

Fydor,
well said on your last post.

It is only a subsidy if INS selectively enforces against certain companies.

LoneWacko,
I may be in favor of the immigrants, and still againgst the pubic services afforded to them. I am against those public services being provided to people born in the US also. If public services are a corporate subsidy, they are a corporate subisidy when applied to residents also.

kwais | December 20, 2004, 3:26pm | #

When the president does things like this I am filled with hope.

Good on him for immigration reform. Good on him for Social security reform. And good on him for standing by Rumsfield. I think Rumsfield is a genius.

I can once again hope that the whole medicare increase crap was just a delaying tactic. And the McCain-Feingold abomination also.

D Anghelone | December 20, 2004, 3:30pm | #

That and he is standing behind Rumsfeld, folks.

LBJ stood firmly behind Walter Jenkins.

Warren: Yeah terrific. Bush finally gets around to talking about Social Security and Immigration. I think those may be the only two issues I don't think he should be hung for, much less actually support his position.

Shunning the Elders of the Protocols of Kyoto may be the best of his legacy.

Trey | December 20, 2004, 3:45pm | #

This is just a nit-pick, but "Rio Grande River" is redundant and repetitive. "Rio Grande" is all you need.

Now, back to the discussion...

thoreau | December 20, 2004, 4:05pm | #

I'm going to repost (with minor changes) something that I posted a week ago:

Let's think about this from the terrorism angle:

Right now there are 3 major groups of people seeking the services of forgers (for fake papers to cross the border) or smugglers (to avoid the checkpoints): Terrorists, drug smugglers, and people who want to work at peaceful jobs but couldn't get permission from the state.

What if the only requirement for crossing the border was passing a background check to verify that you aren't a violent criminal? The market for illicit border crossings and fake passports would shrink considerably.

Now, what if we also legalized drugs? Suddenly the market for smugglers and fake passports would become even smaller. And suddenly we'd have a very manageable problem on our hands. Basically, what we need to do is make it so that the only people seeking to cross illegally are terrorists. That way the terrorists will stand out. Right now they're camoflaged by lots of other people crossing illegally.

Just a thought.


And here's another thing that I posted in that same thread:


OK, to those who say "I have no problem with immigrants, as long as they come here legally", I get your point. You want the newcomers to show some respect as they walk through the door. Fair enough.

So, how difficult should it be to get in? How much should they have to go through to make that gesture of respect, and how many visas/green cards/whatever-other-term-they-might-use should be issued each year?

Would you be OK with letting in anybody who is willing to go through the process, or should there be limits? If we set limits, then we're arbitrarily keeping out people who respect our laws. Meanwhile, the people who don't respect our laws (or at least don't respect one of them, namely "Thou shalt not work for a company here without consent of the feds") will come in regardless. We could always try harder to enforce the laws against illegal immigration, but we've all seen how tough it is to keep cocaine out of the country.

On the other hand, if we don't set limits (be they explicit limits via quotas, or implicit limits such as a difficult and lengthy process that makes it practically impossible for more than a certain number to get in each year), then the gesture of respect loses all meaning, and even those who don't respect our laws may decide to go through the process anyway out of pragmatism rather than respect.

So, what do you want?

Me, I want a system where the border is carefully guarded but anybody who passes a background check is let in. You may be asking "How will your border protection scheme be any more effective than the current system?" My answer is that if we limit the pool of people interested in crossing to those who are known (or at least reasonably suspected) to engage in theft, violence, and fraud, then we'll bankrupt the blackmarket smugglers and ID forgers who currently get people in, and limit the number of aspiring illegals to a manageable number.



I find that reusing old posts saves time and can be just as effective. Which raises the obvious question, why am I still here if I've already posted all I have to say?

joe | December 20, 2004, 4:17pm | #

Because as a liberal-minded guy, you like to hear the other side before making up your mind, and no one has been able to put up a coherent opposition?

Welcome to my world, thoreau.

Semantician | December 20, 2004, 4:42pm | #

Trey said:
"This is just a nit-pick, but "Rio Grande River" is redundant and repetitive. "Rio Grande" is all you need.

Now, back to the discussion..."


A phrase like "the Los Angeles Angels" must drive you batshit.

thoreau | December 20, 2004, 4:48pm | #

joe is the Diogenes of our board, searching diligently for an honest libertoid.

joe, maybe if you did something about that glaucoma you'd realize that there's actually quite a few of us. Why not roll a joint and sit down with us? :-)

joe | December 20, 2004, 4:52pm | #

ATM Machine. Salsa sauce. MSDS Sheets.

thoreau, let's just say, I worry more about keeping chips in the house than I worry about my eye pressure.

joe | December 20, 2004, 4:55pm | #

...and if I didn't encounter lots of honest libertoids, I wouldn't keep arguing with you losers.

Losers.

;-)

Todd Fletcher | December 20, 2004, 5:07pm | #

thoreau, regarding limits, how about limiting immigration to people who can get employment? We could have job brokers in Mexico who arrange employment in advance, or a one month grace period for an immigrant to find a job. That'll keep the loafers (if any) out, and would adjust the immigration rate to the level of employment the economy needs.

matt | December 20, 2004, 5:34pm | #

Lonewacko:

Last week I asked you this set of questions, but got no response. They were near the end of a long thread so perhaps you didn't see them. Here they are again:

How about instead of taxing me to fund your aggression against immigrants, you and your "closed border" buddies use your own funds to personally patrol the border and keep out those pesky immigrants? Are you willing to go shoot a peaceful immigrant to keep him from crossing the border? Or would you rather tax other people and have the government do your dirty work for you?

So what say you?

Jamie | December 20, 2004, 5:51pm | #

The only problem with making immigration easier, or allowing guest workers is that then there will be some minimum wage in place, rather than market rate. Taxes, documentation, red tape, and government oversight galore. As a practical matter, illegal immigration is fairly easy - I've crossed the border in the desert several times for the hell of it. Granted, I have a GPS, and plenty of water. The numerous deaths each year are tragic, but fairly small compared to the total number of immigrants. The INS is underfunded, incapable, and poorly run. I might prefer the current situation to a "bureau of guest worker affairs." My other objection is that allowing guest workers without affording full rights of citizenship will invariably lead to human rights issues such as can be found in Germany. The racism against the turks is pretty bad, even long after the program was over - it's the feeling that they just don't really belong here.

Stevo Darkly | December 20, 2004, 5:55pm | #

ATM Machine. Salsa sauce. MSDS Sheets.

And let's not forget the king of them all:

PIN number.

thoreau | December 20, 2004, 5:58pm | #

Todd-

That's an idea worth considering. A few objections to consider, however:

1) It would limit immigrants' employment possibilities to those firms that find it worthwhile to go through the expense of a middle-man (job broker). It would also impose an extra search cost on employers seeking immigrant labor. Any time you impose a barrier to a buyer and seller finding each other, you are reducing market efficiency.

2) If employment is a condition of staying here then immigrants who don't like their job will be less likely to quit and find something else. Once again, limiting choices reduces the efficiency of the market. Besides, there are some who argue that immigrant labor will worsen working conditions in the US, and the surest way to make that (probably overstated) fear become reality is to make it harder for dissatisfied people to quit.

3) What about the noble lot of freelance workers? They're found at every rung of the occupational ladder, all the way from day laborers doing yard work to highly paid consultants selling their services to large companies. And immigrants occupy every rung on the occupational ladder, from people who are only qualified for low-skilled manual work all the way to computer programmers and Ph.D candidates in mathematical finance.

fyodor | December 20, 2004, 6:07pm | #

thoreau/Todd Fletcher,

I think it would make more sense to simply have a waiting period (in years) for social services for immigrants. But alas I understand the political and bureaucratic obstacles to such a plan.

Dan | December 20, 2004, 6:15pm | #

Because as a liberal-minded guy, you like to hear the other side before making up your mind, and no one has been able to put up a coherent opposition?

If thoreau's looking for a good argument *against* relaxing immigration restrictions, a libertarian weblog probably isn't the place to start. Libertarians are generally against restrictions on immigration. He'd almost have better chances of finding a good argument in favor of keeping cocaine illegal.

Isaac Bartram | December 20, 2004, 6:20pm | #

Considering the money illegals are willing to pay to "coyotes" why not have Uncle collect a similar sum from each immigrant deduct appropriate expenses and return the balance at the end of some "good conduct" period or he forfeits it if he fails to behave and has to be deported.

Not a libertarian solution, I know. Hey, I'm trying to find some middle ground.

thoreau | December 20, 2004, 6:28pm | #

Dan-

Even though this site leans libertarian, there are quite a few people posting here who favor strict limits on immigration. The best argument I've heard from them usually amounts to something about social services (I give very little credence to arguments like "they don't share our values" or "Mexico is planning to conquer the Southwest by sending us their gardeners").

Strangely enough, the argument bears a striking resemblance to the best (but still bad) argument in favor of keeping cocaine illegal: That cokeheads will consume more social services.

Could there be a lesson in that similarity?

thoreau | December 20, 2004, 6:32pm | #

Could there be a lesson in that similarity?

And as soon as I posted I figured it out: If the government has a "Mommy half" (free stuff!) and a "Daddy half" (your behavior shall be strictly controlled by Those Who Know Better), then the best argument for the Daddy side is that the cokeheads and illegals and whatnot are going to bankrupt the Mommy side if we allow them to run rampant.

And the best argument for the Mommy side is that if we can just perfect people somehow then they won't hurt other people so Daddy won't have to spend so much money incarcerating them.

That seems to be what we're stuck with as long as the government treats us like children.

thoreau | December 20, 2004, 6:45pm | #

And a third thought!

What if Jerry Falwell is right and gay marriage destroys our culture? Will the government still have a Mommy side and a Daddy side?

The answer is no. In the spirit of the dangerous book "Heather Has Two Mommies", the government will then have a White Suburban Mother side to it ("Please, kids, just be nice and I'll buy you a new video game") and a Tough Black Mother side to it ("Don't even think of talking back or you'll get a whoopin! Now clean yo room now!").

drooling richard | December 20, 2004, 7:00pm | #

Thoreau,

Right now, there are two population groups that are legally and illegally immigrating to the US: hispanics and asians.

Here's the problem is a nutshell: the Asians are smart, the Hispanics are stupid. This is our county with our borders. Do we want immigration at all ? If so, who ?

This question is no different than who do or not invitite to Chritmas dinner.

thoreau | December 20, 2004, 7:05pm | #

Here's the problem is a nutshell: the Asians are smart, the Hispanics are stupid.

But you're not a racist, right?

fyodor | December 20, 2004, 7:09pm | #

drooling richard,

Not sure if you're for real, but we don't all collectively "own" the US the way you own (even if temporarily via rent) your home. Plus your property line isn't thousands of miles long like the US border is. Plus your stereotyping is nasty and dumb.

Xavier | December 20, 2004, 7:12pm | #

Thoreau at 6:45
"Tough Black Mother side to it ('Don't even think of talking back or you'll get a whoopin! Now clean yo room now!')"

Thoreau at 7:05
"But you're not a racist, right?"


I think you've lost all moral authority to complain about racism in this thread, thoreau.

drooling richard | December 20, 2004, 7:13pm | #

No, I am not. The term "hispanic" is a US Department of Labor term. The term "asian' would include the Phillipines, with a fair mix of Spanish blood.

It's hard be succint and careful. Any Cuban (hispanic) who risks his life to get here is way OK with me.

thoreau | December 20, 2004, 7:19pm | #

I think you've lost all moral authority to complain about racism in this thread, thoreau.

There's a big difference between the tongue-in-cheek invocation of a positive stereotype and a person who (apparently sincerely) asserts that an ethnic group is stupid.

But I do apologize to any white suburban mothers whom I might have offended by alleging that they don't know how to control their children. Some of my best friends are white suburban mothers.

What? Oh, you mean it was offensive to claim that many black mothers are very strict disciplinarians? Well, I apology to any black women who are upset by that positive stereotype.

drooling richard | December 20, 2004, 7:32pm | #

Thoreau,

35% of childen who's parents immigratated through the Mexican border won't even graduate from high school. There are so many gosh-darned Asians who qualify for medical school in CA, it's hard for Woody to even get in.

Get real.

thoreau | December 20, 2004, 7:36pm | #

Richard, as stupid as my comment may have been, you make me look like good by comparison.

Thanks....I guess.

Xavier | December 20, 2004, 7:43pm | #

"What? Oh, you mean it was offensive to claim that many black mothers are very strict disciplinarians? Well, I apology to any black women who are upset by that positive stereotype."

I'm not sure that it's entirely a positive stereotype. You're at least negatively stereotyping black speech patterns when you say "whoopin" and "yo room." I ordinarily wouldn't complain much about it, but it seemed a little odd that you were complaining about someone else's racism in the same thread 20 minutes later.

I'm less concerned with Drooling Richard. With a name like Drooling Richard, I suspect he's not entirely serious with his posts. I'm not quite sure what he's trying to say anyway. He defended his comment that "hispanics are stupid" by arguing that hispanic is not a racial slur. He's too incoherent to be offensive.

thoreau | December 20, 2004, 7:48pm | #

Xavier-

You do make a good point there about speech patterns, and for that I do sincerely apologize (no sarcasm here). I can assure you that everything was meant tongue-in-cheek (any time that I comment about gay marriage destroying society, just assume that I'm being sarcastic), and in any serious discussion I would never paint black speech patterns with such a broad (and inaccurate) brush. I got carried away and invoked some inappropriate stereotypes.

I still think that the part about strict discipline was benign enough. It certainly is consistent with my own (admittedly anecdotal) observations that black kids are much more likely to call adults "sir" and "ma'am" and less likely to talk back to their parents.

drooling richard | December 20, 2004, 8:10pm | #

"I'm less concerned with Drooling Richard. With a name like Drooling Richard, I suspect he's not entirely serious with his posts. I'm not quite sure what he's trying to say anyway. He defended his comment that "hispanics are stupid" by arguing that hispanic is not a racial slur. He's too incoherent to be offensive."

I said "Hispanic" was a US Department of Labor term, which it is. Hispanics, as defined by the Department of Labor, do not score well on standardized tests. Asians do very well on the same tests.

What else don't you want to know?

Ken Shultz | December 20, 2004, 8:46pm | #

"How about instead of taxing me to fund your aggression against immigrants, you and your "closed border" buddies use your own funds to personally patrol the border and keep out those pesky immigrants? Are you willing to go shoot a peaceful immigrant to keep him from crossing the border? Or would you rather tax other people and have the government do your dirty work for you?"

I've asked him several times if he's a neo-nazi, point blank, but I don't think I've ever gotten a straight answer. Good luck.

He never seems to get tired of posting comments that give an anti-immigrant spin to whatever happens to happen. For whatever reason, it looks like he's just propagating xenophobia to me.

Liberty has enemies. If they show up in the comment section of Hit & Run then Hit & Run should take it as a complement.

Gary Gunnels | December 20, 2004, 9:40pm | #

Stevo Darkly,

Don't forget:

VIN Number

Ken Shultz | December 20, 2004, 9:47pm | #

"Here's the problem is a nutshell: the Asians are smart, the Hispanics are stupid."

I would offer this comment as further evidence to support my theory that whatever it is that makes a certain kind of idiot, well, an idiot also makes him dissatisfied with toiling quietly at his craft.

...such people are possessed, or so it would seem, by an irrepressible drive to proclaim their idiocy to all who would listen, "Hear me world, for I am an idiot!"

matt | December 20, 2004, 10:00pm | #

Ken:

I guess I'll just keep asking him whenever I see a post of his until I get any answer of any kind.

The Lonewacko Blog | December 20, 2004, 10:24pm | #

It is only a subsidy if INS selectively enforces against certain companies.

Huh? The corporations that employ low-wage labor - largely illegal aliens - couldn't pay those same wages if the company or the worker were required to pay for their public services. The same is not true of higher paid workers. Therefore, there's a subsidy to anyone who employs low-wage workers, most of whom are illegal aliens.

I may be in favor of the immigrants, and still againgst the pubic services afforded to them. I am against those public services being provided to people born in the US also.

Every time you support illegal immigration, just explicitly state that you're opposed to those public services, and that your support for illegal immigration is contingent on those services not being provided. Maybe those who support illegal immigration could start a fund to buy tents for strawberry pickers. The private sector at work!

drooling richard | December 20, 2004, 10:36pm | #

I travelled to Bangladesh last year. About 1/2 the people I spent time with, after some weather chit-chat, wanted to know "how can I get into the United States?" They had a made a point of studying the English language, engineering, and science. They wanted their kids to have a better life and would take just about any low-level job in the US to make it happen.

I could only offer the heart-breaking answer: "I don't know." It's complicated and expensive to get here from many parts of this world, and not possible at all for most. From a predominantly Muslim county like Bangledesh, it's darned near impossible now.

Meanwhile, at the Home Depot, the improvrished, Roman Catholic Mexicans who stream across the boarder try to flag us down for some day-labor work.

Xavier | December 20, 2004, 10:41pm | #

I think there are Fourteenth Amendment issues in denying government services to immigrants. I know it's considered a violation of the Equal Protection Clause for states to deny services to recent immigrants to a state. I'm pretty sure the doctrine regarding immigrants from foreign countries is similar. I could be wrong about that, but if I'm right denying government services to immigrants isn't a realistic option.

drooling richard | December 20, 2004, 10:47pm | #

"Hear me world, for I am an idiot!"

Whatever Ken,

Look at the facts: star.cde.ca.gov

If I am wrong, I will correct myself.

Ken Shultz | December 20, 2004, 11:35pm | #

I haven't looked at your link; I'll just assume that you're basing your racist claim on the same standardized test scores as last time and point out that your assumption that this is persuasive is further evidence that you're an obnoxious idiot.

John S Bolton | December 21, 2004, 12:47am | #

It is malice that would wish to greatly amplify the burden on the net taxpayer by means of increased anti-merit immigration. The government has an obligation to defend the citizenry, and no anarchist wish-power can make that go away.

Cletus Nelson | December 21, 2004, 1:23am | #

It seems like the feds are willing to work tirelessly to deny medical marijuana to qualified patients in California because it's FEDERAL LAW but when it comes to upholding immigration statutes there's ALL KINDS of wiggle room...

Let's be honest: Which issue has a greater impact on National Security?

kwais | December 21, 2004, 1:54am | #

Wow!,
Lonewacko answered me, and none of y'all. I am kind of flattered.

Matt,
I thought you put it quite well, when you said

"Are you willing to go shoot a peaceful immigrant to keep him from crossing the border? Or would you rather tax other people and have the government do your dirty work for you?"

I think that is a good test that could be used in other situations too. I think I am going to plagiarize it from you. I hope you don't mind.

LoneWacko,
My support for immigrants is not contingent on social services not being provided for them. My opposition to those services is greater than my support of immigration. If immigration throws a wrench into the smooth functioning of social services, then it is a plus, IMO.

matt | December 21, 2004, 2:25am | #

"I think that is a good test that could be used in other situations too. I think I am going to plagiarize it from you. I hope you don't mind."

Hell, kwais I didn't invent anarcho-libertarianism, I'm just trying to apply its principles consistently. But thanks for the kind words. Feel free to use any and all comments I make. I'd consider it a compliment.

John S Bolton | December 21, 2004, 5:30am | #

Probably tens of millions of people would be willing to pay for and plant land mines on the border, if all immigration-restrictionists were required to do that. The 'peaceful' immigrant is not peaceable, but clearly hostile, when he crosses illegally. If he is blown up by a mine, how can it be proven that he had rights to not be killed in that circumstance, which is demonstrable aggression on his part.

Ken Shultz | December 21, 2004, 8:52am | #

"It is malice that would wish to greatly amplify the burden on the net taxpayer by means of increased anti-merit immigration. The government has an obligation to defend the citizenry, and no anarchist wish-power can make that go away"

A policythat discriminates against people because of their race, creed, color or national origin and, under threat of violence, forces American citizens to support it with the fruit of their labor doesn't require malice at all. A run of the mill, everyday, lazy ignorance will do the job just as well.

"Probably tens of millions of people would be willing to pay for and plant land mines on the border, if all immigration-restrictionists were required to do that. The 'peaceful' immigrant is not peaceable, but clearly hostile, when he crosses illegally. . If he is blown up by a mine, how can it be proven that he had rights to not be killed in that circumstance, which is demonstrable aggression on his part."

Immigrants, both illegal and otherwise, are under the protection of the Bill of Rights, etc., your suggestion to the contrary nonwithstanding.

RTFC.

I think you overestimated the size of your support base; indeed, that's why I would encourage you to take your argument in the exact same form--please don't change a thing--and broadcast it to a wider audience. If I were on your side of this issue, I think you would be my worst enemy.

Gilbert Martin | December 21, 2004, 9:48am | #

This issue is where I part company with what seems to be the prevailing libertarian sentiment that it is some kind of basic inherent right for any individual to be able to live in any country that he or she pleases regardless of whether the majority of that's country's citizens want them there or not.

American citizens (supposedly) have individual rights that are protected against the tyrnany of the majority by virtue of the Constitution.

Non citizens have no individual "right" to enter or live in this country. The majority of American citizens have every right to exercise majority rule and enact laws to limit the entry of non-citizens and it is the duty of government to enforce those laws just as they enforce any other law.

If Libertarians want to make a case for open borders, then they should confine themselves to making that case on economic terms. They should be trying to convince the American people that we are (and will be) better off by allowing more immigrants into the country and that it is in our own economic self interest to do so.

Don't be trying to tell me that Americans don't have any legitimate right to keep non-citizens out of the country for whatever reason they decide they don't want them there. There is still such a thing as national sovereignty. We are not all "world citizens" free to come and go as we please anywhere on the planet without regard for the laws of other nations.

The White Anglo Saxon Protestant Bachelor | December 21, 2004, 10:03am | #

Gilbert Martin -

Well said, and I agree wholeheartedly. Citizenship means something, otherwise there would be no intrinsic difference between being a citizen of the PRC (mainland China) and U.S. citizenship. Any avowed Libertarians want to champion Chinese citizenship as something to be sought after by freedom-loving peoples everywhere, be my guest. They did just manage to enshrine private property as a constitutional value earlier this year, and, hey, you have your choice of candidates from the Communist Party to vote for, so the place is clearly on the improve.

Shirley Knott | December 21, 2004, 10:06am | #

I'm always fascinated at how quickly the 'right to associate' is either adopted as the primary principle or else relegated to being of no importance whatsoever.
I will tell you Gilbert that no one in any country has any right to control who I associate with -- which includes to whom I wish to rent, or whom I wish to hire, or to whom I wish to sell property of any sort.
And what more do we need to know about immigration other than the right of association?
There are no other issues of importance, none whatsoever.
regards,
Shirley Knott
PS. National sovereignty is a foolish legal myth, there is only individual sovereignty. Amazing that there are people who do know this.

Gilbert Martin | December 21, 2004, 10:15am | #

"I will tell you Gilbert that no one in any country has any right to control who I associate with -- which includes to whom I wish to rent, or whom I wish to hire, or to whom I wish to sell property of any sort."

Don't look now Shirley but the US govt has already decided it has the power to do just that in all sorts of ways.


But I would agree with your statement as long as it was stipulated that the person you wish to hire or rent to in this country is legally in this country. You do NOT have the right to set your own individual immigration policy and bring in some friend of yours from Bolivia or whereever by claiming some global "right of association".

The White Anglo Saxon Protestant Bachelor | December 21, 2004, 10:22am | #

fyodor - "But trying to use our immigration laws to keep 'em out is immoral and counterproductive."

By what standard is it "immoral?"

I've posited this hypothetical numerous times under three different screennames, and, so far, nobody's made an attempt at answering it:

Suppose several hundred thousand U.S. citizens — the poorest of the poor, unskilled labor, uneducated, but for all that, decent folks on the average just trying to make a living — suddenly started creeping across the Guatemalan border from Mexico through Texas in the dead of night to work in the cane fields. Say they work well, end up paying taxes, but have to live under cover under the protection of wealthy patrones. Eventually, after two or three generations, their offspring assimilate into Guate society, but in the meantime, they flout national and local law, cry "racism" whenever they are brought to account for it, demand social services normally only available to Guatemalan citizens.

Let's now pretend we're talking about Venezuela, which I believe has an oil subsidy payable to its citizens. Let's pretend it does even if it doesn't. Let's say that soon after Venezuela passes its "US Guest Worker" program, the flood of immigrants from New York stand up and demand their piece of the oil pie.

By what principle or standard are the Americans entitled to anything from the government or citizens of their host country in either scenario, other than to get out with their hides still intact?

Conversely, by what principle or standard are these host countries— either the governments involved, or individual citizens, take your pick — required to provide anything to our American cousins? By what principle are they not justified in turning them away at the border, by force if necessary?

Whatever else immigration principles are or ought to be, they must be both practical — which ultimately means they must be good in theory to actually work in practice — and they must be good for both goose and gander.

Shirley Knott | December 21, 2004, 11:12am | #

Well, Gilbert, the government surely has the power to do many things, including restrict immigration. But of course that was never the argument, was it? Does government have the right?
No, of course not.
As to your second point, why do I not have this right? Kindly substantiate your claim, for I assert that I do have the right to free asssociation, which includes, by necessity, the ability to sell whatever I want to whomever I want -- including leasing property, providing employment, or selling real estate. Whose business is it who I hire or to whom I rent? How does it become their business? What justifies their right to interfere with me and my property?
The questions the anti-immigrationists refuse to address...

Shirley Knott

thoreau | December 21, 2004, 11:22am | #

OK, to those who say "I have no problem with immigrants, as long as they come here legally", I just ask this: How many should we allow to come here? Whom should we allow to come here? How difficult should it be to come here?

Do you want a very stringent process, so that those who come here legally have a stamp of approval indicating that they were willing to go to great lengths to demonstrate their respect for our laws? Or do you want a simple background check to verify that they aren't involved with (or reasonably suspected of being involved with) violence, theft, and fraud?

What exactly do you mean when you say that you want them here legally? Yes, I know what the word "legally" means, but what do you think that should entail, ideally?

The White Anglo Saxon Protestant Bachelor | December 21, 2004, 11:23am | #

Shirley -

"Whose business is it who I hire or to whom I rent? How does it become their business? What justifies their right to interfere with me and my property?"

Government has no "rights," as rights are an abstraction that only accrues to individual human beings. I think you would agree with that.

However, the U.S. , state and local governments have certain powers granted to them by constitutional, statutory and civil law. I assume you wouldn't argue this point either. If I'm wrong, do let me know.

Whose business is it with whom you associate, or choose not to? Nobody, insofar as those associations do not violate the laws of the varying jurisdictions your living within those jurisdictions indicates your assent to.

In other words, "When in Rome..." do as the Romans do, become a Senator and change whatever it is the Romans are doing, or move.

Gilbert Martin | December 21, 2004, 11:46am | #

"As to your second point, why do I not have this right? Kindly substantiate your claim, for I assert that I do have the right to free asssociation, which includes, by necessity, the ability to sell whatever I want to whomever I want -- including leasing property, providing employment, or selling real estate. Whose business is it who I hire or to whom I rent? How does it become their business? What justifies their right to interfere with me and my property?
The questions the anti-immigrationists refuse to address..."

I have already adressed it. You have the right to associate with whom you please within the confines of this nation with anyone who is in the country legally. You do not have the right to bring someone into this country contrary to immigrations laws based on some claimed global "freedom of association". Nor do you have a right to sell or rent property to someone who has no right to buy or rent it because they are here illegally.

You can "assert" whatever you wish - that doesn't make it so. As I said before, there IS such a thig as national sovereignty. Freedom of association applies to US citizens and others who have been granted legal entry into the US within the confines of the US. It is NOT some global "right" that applies across the entire planet.

The White Anglo Saxon Protestant Bachelor | December 21, 2004, 12:07pm | #

thoreau - "Do you want a very stringent process, so that those who come here legally have a stamp of approval indicating that they were willing to go to great lengths to demonstrate their respect for our laws?..."

Fair questions, all of them. Here's my answer. An optimum immigration standard ought to take into account the following principles:

- Immigration, in and of itself, is neither a positive or negative value, it is simply a fact. It follows, therefore, that permitting unrestricted, unregulated immigration is not, at all times and in all cases, a positive virtue.
- Visitorship does not equal residency, and residency does not equal citizenship. Priviledges accruing to citizens do not necessarily accrue to residents, etc.
- Citizens of an area or nation have at least as valid a right to evaluate the cost/benefit of making room for immigrants and acting on that evaluation as potential immigrants have of the reverse.
- Citizens of a nation or area have a right to self-protection. As their various governments in a democratic republic act as agent for the people in that self-protection, that agent has not only the power, but the responsibility to evaluate the potential threat to citizens immigration represents, and to act on it. There is no set parameter to the nature of that threat. The U.S. Constitution includes provisions for promoting the economic health and wellbeing of citizens as well as preventing the threat of bodily harm from outside agents.
- The burden of proof lies with the immigrant to demonstrate the cost/benefit to the citizenry he wishes to join or live among, and to certify that his presence will not constitute a threat.

This isn't an all-inclusive list, but it pretty much covers the basic principles of what I consider to be rational immigration policy. The mechanism is secondary.

Note, ye Libertarians, that I am emphasizing individual responsibility here — something you folks are supposed to respect. The "open borders" idea, or anything similar, is essentially a collectivist notion, assuming that moving masses of people are intrinsically benign.

There is no individuality without individual accountability. Until the "withering away of the state," that joyous day both Leninists and Libertarians look forward to, immigrants must hold themselves accountable to the rule of U.S. law, which is the agent of protection for individual United States citizens.

thoreau | December 21, 2004, 12:16pm | #

WASP Bachelor-

OK, you've laid out your defense of the notion of a ban. You're basically saying that "We don't want them!" is reason enough to keep them out. If we accept that premise, then you can basically justify any limit that you want.

I don't see much point in continuing this argument. I see where our disagreement is, and I don't know what else to say. My standard arguments clearly won't persuade you, and your standard arguments clearly won't persuade me.

Thank-you for sharing your views in a civil manner.

The White Anglo Saxon Protestant Bachelor | December 21, 2004, 12:22pm | #

thoreau - There is more to say because you misunderstand me completely. Nowhere in my post did I say anything about a "ban." If you'll put up with a cross-post, here's a reply I just made to joe on the other immigration thread:

..."but in tagging your opposition "prohibitionist," you're stealing a concept. I don't see anyone seriously arguing for a complete moratorium on legal immigration. Sure, there are proposals floated all the time for some hiatus, but nobody takes them seriously.

Those of us with reservations about unrestricted, unregulated immigration, with little or no burden of proof on the immigrant that he is not a threat, much less that he is a benefit, to the citizenry he wishes to join or live among, want only that and nothing more.

I just think we closed Ellis Island way too soon."

thoreau | December 21, 2004, 12:27pm | #

Actually, I do think I can address one of your points:

We completely agree that, at the very least, immigrants should prove that they aren't a threat. I have repeatedly stressed that the border should be heavily guarded but anybody who passes a background check should be let in.

But how does an immigrant prove that he's a benefit to our society? One tempting answer is "by finding a job". Except that a lot of people might view his employment as a negative thing, since he's allegedly taking a job away from them.

So, how would you suggest that an immigrant prove that he's a benefit to society? We already agree (I think) on a minimum standard for proving that he isn't a threat. Now the question is how to handle the second half of your criterion.

thoreau | December 21, 2004, 12:29pm | #

And now I read your latest post. Substitute the word "restriction" for "ban" and my point stands.

The White Anglo Saxon Protestant Bachelor | December 21, 2004, 12:30pm | #

Thing of it is, thoreau, that in the name of liberty and individuality, "open borders" type Libertarians are thinking in collectivist terms, and they don't even seem to know it. Imposing no standards at all with regard to immigration is assuming the goodwill, not of individuals, but of immigrants en masse.

If it is the human rights of individual immigrants you wish to protect, well and good. Let them each, individually, stand up and claim those rights from the duly appointed agents of the U.S. citizens.

If my principles are somehow incorrect, I'm always open to being shown the light, but so far, I have seen no principles at all espoused by your side, just unconnected sentiments that amount to "immigration good, citizenship bad."

Let's hear your competing principles. And, while you're at it, let's hear your answer to the hypothetical I posited in my 12:07 post. What if 100,000 or so American citizens a year jumped borders elsewhere?

matt | December 21, 2004, 12:41pm | #

WASP:

"What if 100,000 or so American citizens a year jumped borders elsewhere?"

What cocnern is that of mine? I have no right tell others where to live or where to emmigrate.

This whole "open borders = collectivist" idea is complete hogwash. You, Lonewacko, and other closed border proponets want to use the collective power of the state to keep peaceful people out of a certain geographic area.

Since Lonewacko won't answer my questions I'll post them for a third (and I guess final) time and feel free to answer them if you'd like:

How about instead of taxing me to fund your aggression against immigrants, you and your "closed border" buddies use your own funds to personally patrol the border and keep out those pesky immigrants? Are you willing to go shoot a peaceful immigrant to keep him from crossing the border? Or would you rather tax other people and have the government do your dirty work for you?

The White Anglo Saxon Protestant Bachelor | December 21, 2004, 12:47pm | #

thoreau - "But how does an immigrant prove that he's a benefit to our society?"

Another damn fine question. I doff my chapeau.

I think Libertarians would agree that that should be an individual analysis and evaluation. We have those processes in place for H1-series visae. Foreign graduate students, for example, pretty much have to present their bona fides at the door and have them checked and rechecked periodically. In return for access to higher education in the U.S., they basically indenture themselves to university research programs and live on a stipend, promise either to vacate when the terms of their visa expire, or seek more permanent visa status. In other words, there is something more substantial going on than "Here I am, ready to look for work, let me in."

As to low-skilled and manual labor-seekers and their potential U.S. employers, let them show their bona fides as well.

If I'm an employer, I ought to be able to certify that I need 300 head of human to hoe pinto beans north of Nogales, and that I can't get lazy, fat-ass WASPBs to take the jobs. If I'm a "guest worker," I ought to be willing to certify I have a position waiting for me at such and such a place, with such and such an employer, and that I plan to get the hell home when the terms of my authorization expire. To the extent that occurs, we have no problem.

If I want to live here on a permanent basis, on the other hand, I ought to stand up and say so, be evaluated on my individual merits by the duly elected agents of the citizens I intend to live among or join, and respect the decision that comes as a result of that evaluation.

The White Anglo Saxon Protestant Bachelor | December 21, 2004, 12:53pm | #

matt:

"What cocnern is that of mine? I have no right tell others where to live or where to emmigrate."

You misunderstand the question attached to that hypothetical: "By what principle are those emigrants entitled to anything, even breathing space, from the people among whom they want to live? We're not talking rights here, because rights are a dependent abstraction. Behind rights have to be some set of principles that confer those rights. If you're a Christian, human rights are granted by God. This strikes me as arbitrary, and ultimately answers nothing.

What principle, is it that apparently confers all rights of choice to immigrants, and no rights of choice at all to those among whom those immigrants wish to settle?

The White Anglo Saxon Protestant Bachelor | December 21, 2004, 12:57pm | #

matt - Let me answer a couple of specific questions of yours, as I do take them seriously.

"Are you willing to go shoot a peaceful immigrant to keep him from crossing the border?" Please tell me what border. If it is my land, then, yes, I do reserve the right to use force against intruders. Assuming he's indeed peaceful, and will move on when asked, I'll stop short of shooting him, because I'm basically a nice guy. But when he starts spouting about his rights on my land, he's sniffing around for a buttful of buckshot.

"Or would you rather tax other people and have the government do your dirty work for you?" Constitutionally, this is EXACTLY what the U.S. government is empowered to do. Indeed, it is its primary function — To protect U.S. citizens from foreign invasion.

thoreau | December 21, 2004, 1:10pm | #

OK, so far you've made the case for temporary work or study visas. Now, what about somebody who works as a freelancer? Freelancers are found at every rung of the employment ladder, from unskilled labor to temporary office help to skilled construction contractors to pool nurses (labor pool, not swimming pool) to computer programmers to management consultants reporting directly to Fortune 500 CEOs. Should they have to return home between jobs?

As to more permanent status, you say:

If I want to live here on a permanent basis, on the other hand, I ought to stand up and say so, be evaluated on my individual merits by the duly elected agents of the citizens I intend to live among or join, and respect the decision that comes as a result of that evaluation.

OK, but what does that mean? Presumably the aspiring long-term worker will have to demonstrate more than just that he isn't a thief, thug, rapist, or scam artist.

What should the aspiring long-term worker have to demonstrate in order to be allowed to stay here for an extended period of time and work?

Gilbert Martin | December 21, 2004, 1:14pm | #

"You, Lonewacko, and other closed border proponets want to use the collective power of the state to keep peaceful people out of a certain geographic area."

It's called national sovereignty. Whether we have open borders, closed borders or something in between is indeed quite properly a decision to be made by majority rule of US citizens. No non-citizen has some inherent "right" to be in this country.

The White Anglo Saxon Protestant Bachelor | December 21, 2004, 1:35pm | #

thoreau - "What should the aspiring long-term worker have to demonstrate in order to be allowed to stay here for an extended period of time and work?"

Fair enough again, and since I was married to someone in just such a situation, and divorced her partially because of an unsatisfactory answer and a pissy attitude, I'll answer.

Basically that, while they are here "freelancing," they will submit to duly authorized inquiry as to what they are "freelancing" in, that they will not try to avail themselves of priviledges and benefits to which non-citizens are not legally entitled, that they won't bring dependent relatives with them which they are unable to support, and that if they or their dependents wind up on the dole, they go home. Oh, and the standard clauses against espionage, criminal activity and subversion.

Citizenship hath its priviledges. The same reasoning that dictates I may have to put up with letting my mother move in with me in her dotage, but I don't have to take in yours, dictates that as long as the entitlement system exists, I may have to shell out for my fellow citizens, but Mexico can take care of its own tired and poor. Unless, of course, they are ready, willing and able to pull their own weight, and take on a citizen's share of the burden here in the U.S.

Let me also suggest some mechanical changes to immigration I think make sense. First, I would abolish "permanent residency," or limit it to a specific term, say, ten years, max. Then you either have to decide you want to pony up and take on the responsibilites and priviledges of full citizenship, or go home. Why not? It's your choice either way, we're just presenting you with a slate of choices that limits our liability.

Second, if you're here as an exemplar of "free markets," "free trade," or some such too-often self-serving abstraction, then you ought not to be representing political philosophies or asking for favors that deny free markets or make such impossible. In other words, non-citzens should be enjoined by an agreement they make upon entry from applying for any publicly-supported benefits whatsoever for themselves or for their dependents. Sure, they pay taxes, but they signed up for that when they showed up. Does it suck? It sure does, but they didn't have to come in the first place. They also should be enjoined by an agreement at entry for agitating for "immigrant rights," or other redress of political grievances that a citizen would have access to government to appeal for.

Let's see, what else. Oh, that's enough for now.

matt | December 21, 2004, 4:26pm | #

WASP and GB:

Sorry I have not responded (busy, busy, busy today), but I'll try and post a response by tomorrow if you want to check back. Have a good evening.

Jadagul | December 21, 2004, 9:51pm | #

I think one problem in this discussion is the existence of something Libertarians don't like to deal with: public property. It's really annoying, but as of now it exists, and any legal theory has to deal with it.

If I own private property, I can keep people off it. It doesn't matter if the person is a Mexian, Indian, or Californian. (There are, of course, legal restrictions on this power, such as the requirements that places of public access have to let everyone in, and anti-discrimination statutes. I don't like them. It's my property, and I should be able to let or not-let people on as I wish, damnit!) But the country also has public property, which is, in theory, owned jointly by everyone. So everyone together can ban people from this property (witness military installations, for instance; we the people, in our position as owners of the Pentagon, make it off-limits to the general public). Now, there are restrictions on how we can ban people--there has to be a public interest or some such, and we can't discriminate--established by constitutional law. But in theory we can ban people from public property. So immigration limits should be viewed as everyone voting not to allow foreigners onto public property. This seems legitimate, if not necessarily a good idea. It only means we can vote to do this, not that we must.

On the other hand, this defense would seem to suggest that if I want to let an immigrant onto my property, that's within my rights, and no one can keep me from doing this. On the other hand, how's he gonna get there if he can't enter public property? And if he does, where does he go? After all, he can't use the streets or sidewalks...how does he get around? So this probably does justify a limit on immigration.

But even if it's justified, it seems silly. REgardless, the whole problem would go away if we just ditched public property. So in the Ideal Libertarian Society, immigration bans would be wrong. In our society, they have some claim.

John S Bolton | December 22, 2004, 12:31am | #

Actually it wouldn't just go away; you would still have the problem of invasions, attempted conquests and subversion by foreigners. What would there be to stop the establishment of a new state by foreigners with support from their government? Those who really want the worst dystopia, have often said that they wanted no government. Those who want absolute despotism for America, don't have to directly say that they want dystopia; they can say that they want free immigration, including that of the armies which would fulfill their dystopian wishes.

matt | December 22, 2004, 2:01pm | #

WASP:

""Or would you rather tax other people and have the government do your dirty work for you?" Constitutionally, this is EXACTLY what the U.S. government is empowered to do. Indeed, it is its primary function — To protect U.S. citizens from foreign invasion."


Arguing what's Constitutional is a lot different that arguing what is correct based on a set of principles. If we had this conversation 200 years ago slavery was Constitutional, and the government was empowerd by that Constitution to protect the slaveowners property.

For me WASP, it all comes down to this principle on immigrat