Immigration is not "my issue." In fact, I consider it a distraction from the much more important issues of the eventual debasement of the dollar and the complete socio-fascist take-over of the American economy. Nevertheless, I came across this article from Jake Shannon, LP candidate for Utah federal congressional district 3, that offers common-sense, practical, and pro-liberty solutions to the immigration issue.
Solving the Immigration Problem: Dropping Both Entitlements and Xenophobia
by Jake Shannon, Libertarian for U.S. Congress
Utah's 3rd Congressional District
For some reason, the mainstream media has been pushing "immigration" as a problem in search of a solution. Why this "smoke and mirrors" issue is being pushed so hard, in light of MORE sweeping legislation being passed by the 111th Congress like the Dodd-Frank Bill, is a bit disconcerting to me. The solution to immigration seems to be a self-evident one; simply allow any foreigner, without a criminal background, that is actively seeking work to stay here.
Now please note, I am advocating freedom of entry and residency, and not"amnesty" or the granting of U.S. citizenship. Anyone working here,that is producing or otherwise contributing to the overall economy should be able to freely.
If we had no welfare state, there would be few valid arguments against opening our borders, assuming the foreign citizens weren't allowed to vote and they didn't have a violent or fraudulent criminal history.However, if foreign citizens are allowed to vote, take food stamps,Social Security, "free" medical care, and "free" education, then there are some very serious conflicts of interest.
Immigration is really a secondary issue. End welfare, Social Security,Medicare, the progressive income tax, the minimum wage, public education and the War on Drugs and you will end the enmity towards immigrants(assuming they aren't violent criminals). Keep those institutions and you create bad incentives.
We are subsidizing illegal immigration with our policies, and as Ron Paul says, "when you subsidize something, you get more of it." Now practically speaking, enforcement of laws dictating the deportation of the 8 to 12 million or so illegals is impossible anyway, but let's looks at some of the commonly raised arguments against immigrants:
1) "Immigrants take advantage of welfare and social services."
SIMPLE SOLUTION: Make them ineligible for benefits,and then continue to phase out these unsustainable benefits for natives as well.
2) "An influx of immigrants can influences entire elections."
SIMPLE SOLUTION: Don't allow immigrants vote until they have been naturalized. Sure, allow non-criminal immigrants in as guest workers who can participate in the economy but do note allow them to vote.
3) "Immigrants take our jobs."
SIMPLE SOLUTION: Understand whose jobs they really are; the employer's. The jobs belong to the person doing the hiring. If the employer can find someone willing to do the same or better quality of work for less, can you blame them for hiring them? You wouldn't want someone tell you to pay a higher price for something you could find cheaper (or even for free), would you?
4) "Immigrants comprise the majority of the population growth in the U.S., and this conflicts with the American dream of 'affordable housing'(i.e., creates scarcity)."
SIMPLE SOLUTION: Well, hire inexpensive labor(possible those legal foreign workers) to build more houses. Heck, you will also be able to sell them the very homes that they've helped to build, creating additional demand and jobs. By the way, the dream of affordable housing has really only proven to be a nightmare when quasi-government bureaucracies like HUD, Fannie, Freddie, or the Federal Reserve try to solve the problem of "affordable housing".
5) "Terrorists may pose as immigrants to attack us from within" or"With immigrants come higher crime"
SIMPLE SOLUTION: Look to secure borders as an alternative to expensive, wasteful military bases overseas that only serve to create "blow-back". In addition to saving incredible sums of money by closing foreign military bases, a truly secure border would make enforcement of immigration laws easier. With regards to immigrants causing an increase in crime, that is a myth. If you want to end the violence and crimes at the borders, end the illegal War on Drugs (remember Prohibition? It required a Constitutional amendment, which was repealed because it simply didn't work and only created more crime).
I am against Arizona style legislation since any move to require less evidence from law enforcement is a move in the wrong direction in the fight against tyranny. The Arizona law reduces the burden of probable cause to mere reasonable suspicion. This goes against my goal to eliminate all discriminatory policies based upon race or any other arbitrary grouping (i.e., racial profiling) since the only "suspicious"people will look like they are from Mexico, whether they are an American citizen or not. This is not fair the the American citizens that may or may not look like they may be an illegal based upon some whim of a very human, and hence fallible, police officer.
Incumbent Rep. Jason Chaffetz's Bipartisan Reform Of Immigration through Defining Good Enforcement Resolution (H.R. 1026), or BRIDGE resolution makes mandatory the use of E-Verify by business owners, placing the burden of immigration enforcement not where it belongs, but upon entrepreneurs. This is anti-business and pushing off the responsibility of the Federal government onto erstwhile business owners.
I much preferred H.R. 4321's idea to legalize undocumented immigrants if they learn English, pay a $ 500 fine, pass background checks and register with the federal government. However, since there are no provisions to keep immigrants off the dole or mandate that new immigrants complete the same naturalization process as those immigrants before them I wouldn't vote for it (besides, I am sure there are other problems with the legislation that I didn't see).
Green cards are granted to only 140,000 skilled workers per year, why? Why not allow all skilled workers in? It would only serve to make our economy stronger and our foreign relations stronger. I'd mention the additional tax revenues that could be received but I seek to repeal the16th amendment and abolish the IRS.
I would also vote to increase the number of temporary visas granted to highly skilled workers.
I would vote to allow some immigrants to remain in the country while pursuing legal residency.
I would support legislation that would require hospitals to report illegal aliens if said hospital seeks state reimbursement for treating them. In addition, I wouldn't make it necessary for hospitals to provide care to undocumented aliens IF they can be safely sent back home country without a significant chance of their condition worsening.
On these matters, I tend to agree with Ron Paul and would vote them same way he did. Where I differ on Ron Paul is on the "anchor baby" issue and birthright citizenship. I favor the American tradition of jus soli (law of ground) tradition over jus sanguinis (right of blood) since I am a staunch individualist and I don't believe that one's bloodlines,race, or language should be used for OR against anyone and that people are by their nature, born good.
I would not support legislation to end our current "jus solis' or birthright citizenshipin favor of "jus sanguinis" laws applied nearly everywhere else. The United States is almost unique in our "jus solis" heritage and in my mind it is a robust expression of individualism. It is a chance to break free of the chains of bloodlines, race, language. I do see the problems presented by the "anchor baby" (such an ugly term) issue but feel that the answer lies in ending welfare, not pursuing jus sanguinis.
There are obscure arguments to be debated whether or not America adopted the 'jus solis' from the English common law tradition or not. I've heard many of these arguments and personally find them unsatisfactory or convincing, especially with counter-factuals like Calvin More's Case, 77 Eng. Rep. 377 (1608)which held that:
"the earliest, most influential theoretical articulation by an English court of what came to be the common-law 'rule' that a person's status was vested at birth, and based upon place of birth".
Accordingly, in 1866, in the United States v. Rhodes, Supreme Court Justice Swayne said:
"All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution."
Either way, the Supreme Court of the United States follows precedent good luck changing over 110 years of jus solis without an amendment(now, if you're going to go through all the work to create a constitutional amendment, wouldn't our time be MUCH better spent trying to repeal the 16th?).
Border security is a GREAT idea but some sort of American version of the Berlin Wall certainly is not. Eliminate all of our wastefully entanglements in military foreign affairs and work for a strong military solution that protects our borders from terrorism, criminal immigrants,all enemies foreign and domestic, etc., without comprising our liberties. If those who are here illegally refuse to file for residency or a work visas, or have a criminal background that includes violence or fraudulent behavior, then yes they should be deported.
If they aren't criminals and have filed for residency or a visa and aren't taking welfare, then no deportation. If fact, I'd even favor allowing illegals to stay while their residency or visa applications were being processed (if they passed a criminal background check, they weren't able to participate in welfare, and they carried private insurance so that hospitals didn't have to treat them for free). Failing a criminal background check or having their application for residency or visa turned down (for reasonable circumstances) would be grounds for deportation.
Shouldn't we eliminate all discriminatory policies based upon race or any other arbitrary grouping and let people stand on their own individual merits? Shouldn't we encourage the free movement of labor and capital across borders, especially in a financial crisis such as we find ourselves in?
Shouldn't we begin the elimination of the welfare state and entitlements programs, eliminating any bad incentives someone may have to immigrate and siphon off the system, and to put charity back where it belongs;into the hands of churches, fraternal organizations, and mutual aid societies?
Have we forgotten that the Founding Fathers of The United States of America were immigrants? Shouldn't we always welcome refugees and those seeking political asylum from totalitarian regimes? Have we forgotten that some of the greatest Americans of all time were immigrants (e.g.,Albert Einstein and Nicola Tesla come immediately to mind)?
Let's drop our unfounded fears of those people who only want to enjoy the same freedoms that we do. Let's support the free movement of labor and capital across borders!
Please help me make a difference in Utah's 3rd Congressional District, please donate to my campaign today!
Libertarian for U.S. Congress
Utah's 3rd Congressional District
For more information about this article visit http://adventuresofcitizenx.com/2010/08/07/jake-shannon-on-immigration.aspx