Illegal Immigration

[nickcoons]

http://www.nickcoonsforcongress.com/blog/view.php?id=22

Last month, a Phoenix police officer was killed by a drunk driver when he slammed his truck into the officer's patrol vehicle. He was charged with manslaughter and aggravated assault. The drunk driver had four warrants out for his arrest, two of which were for DUI, and he was an illegal alien.

I was listening to talk radio the other morning as the host was discussing this tragic event, focusing the discussion on the drunk driver's illegal status in the United States, and using this incident as an argument to solidify his position that we should track down and deport everyone that's in our country illegally. The implied rationale is that illegal aliens are statistically more likely to drive drunk and injure or kill someone, and because of this we should round up all illegal aliens and send them home, including the peaceful individuals that make up the vast majority.

Here in Arizona, we probably hear more about immigration than in most other places in the country, and I know that this can be a sensitive issue for many people. Statistically, a higher percentage of blacks cause violent crimes than whites. Would someone be taken seriously if he suggested that we should round up all blacks and put them in prison, even the peaceful individuals (which are the vast majority)? Certainly not! How can the same be said for immigrants?

Libertarians believe that people should be treated as individuals. Someone should be judged based on the actions they choose, not based on the actions of others, even if these others exhibit some of the same traits such as skin color or nationality. The focus should be put on the violent criminals that make poor decisions and injure or kill others by their wreckless habits. When we attack a group of individuals that have harmed no one, we take the focus off of those that are actually causing us harm.

There was a time when penniless immigrants came to America to work hard and make a better life for themselves and their families, and most of us living here today are descendants of these immigrants. Why is it that at one time we welcomed the hard-working characteristics that made our country great, and today we discourage them with a maze of paperwork, thousands of dollars in fees, and years of making their way through a complex system? If you've ever experienced this process, you have no doubt why so many choose to sidestep it.

In general, I believe there are two types of immigrants that come to the United States:

1. The hard-working type that built America from scratch.
2. The lazy type that wants a free handout from our social welfare programs.

I propose that we implement the following in order to solve our immigration problem:

* Simplify the process such that anyone wanting to enter the US to become a resident will submit to a background check (approximately $25). From start to finish, this may take from a few days up to a week.
* Deny access to any social welfare programs to non-U.S. citizens.

This will do two things. First, it will encourage the hard-working individuals to enter in to our country through the simplified legal process, and we would welcome them because they will contribute positively to our economy and to society overall. Second, it will discourage those looking for a hand-out from entering the country, legally or otherwise, because there is nothing here for them if they aren't willing to carry their own weight.

[libertea]

Let the flames begin.



* Deny access to any social welfare programs to non-U.S. citizens.


How about denying access to any social welfare program to all.

[Kludge]

From an old thread...


(In opposition to removing immigration restrictions)[All] I care about is that we allow people to immigrate to our country who want to become Americans, learn our language and learn the history of our country's founding and the principles behind it. If they do not understand this, they will join the dumbed-down American slop who are voting for candidates who will finish destroying our country and stomping out our liberty.

Addressing the above issue is necessary in all immigration arguments here...

[libertea]

Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
(In opposition to removing immigration restrictions)[All] I care about is that we allow people to immigrate to our country who want to become Americans, learn our language and learn the history of our country's founding and the principles behind it. If they do not understand this, they will join the dumbed-down American slop who are voting for candidates who will finish destroying our country and stomping out our liberty.


Is this not already a requirement for citizenship? Last I heard, only citizens can vote.

[apropos]

The implied rationale is that illegal aliens are statistically more likely to drive drunk and injure or kill someone, and because of this we should round up all illegal aliens and send them home, including the peaceful individuals that make up the vast majority.

Incorrect. The rationale is that if we had simply enforced our immigration laws, this death could have been prevented. If you are going to argue about the rights of the individual, what about the dead police officer's right to go home to his family alive? Or the rights of his children to grow up with a father? If we're going to argue rights, that door swings both ways. If the death could have been prevented by simply following the law, this makes the death senseless and preventable.

Yes, we should judge people based on their individual actions. Because each individual illegal alien in this country is breaking the law, there should be consequences...namely, deportation. Frankly, if an individual has so little respect for federal law that he will enter and maintain an illegal presence here, can we find it truly surprising to see other patterns of lawless behavior. We certainly see such here.

[LibertyEagle]

Is this not already a requirement for citizenship? Last I heard, only citizens can vote.

Our own countrymen don't understand what this country was founded upon. What makes you think immigrants are currently taught this?

[LibertyEagle]

incorrect. The rationale is that if we had simply enforced our immigration laws, this death could have been prevented. If you are going to argue about the rights of the individual, what about the dead police officer's right to go home to his family alive? Or the rights of his children to grow up with a father? If we're going to argue rights, that door swings both ways. If the death could have been prevented by simply following the law, this makes the death senseless and preventable.

Yes, we should judge people based on their individual actions. Because each individual illegal alien in this country is breaking the law, there should be consequences...namely, deportation. Frankly, if an individual has so little respect for federal law that he will enter and maintain an illegal presence here, can we find it truly surprising to see other patterns of lawless behavior. We certainly see such here.

yes!!!!

[nickcoons]

How about denying access to any social welfare program to all.

That would be the ultimate goal, but I believe in incrementalism.

[libertea]

Our own countrymen don't understand what this country was founded upon. What makes you think immigrants are currently taught this?

I'm sorry, I must not have read the post before I replied.:rolleyes:

[nickcoons]

Incorrect. The rationale is that if we had simply enforced our immigration laws, this death could have been prevented. If you are going to argue about the rights of the individual, what about the dead police officer's right to go home to his family alive? Or the rights of his children to grow up with a father? If we're going to argue rights, that door swings both ways. If the death could have been prevented by simply following the law, this makes the death senseless and preventable.

Yes, we should judge people based on their individual actions. Because each individual illegal alien in this country is breaking the law, there should be consequences...namely, deportation. Frankly, if an individual has so little respect for federal law that he will enter and maintain an illegal presence here, can we find it truly surprising to see other patterns of lawless behavior. We certainly see such here.

Entering the country illegally, like drug use, is a victimless crime. And like drug use, the law should be abolished because no one is harmed by the action. The fact that no victims exist due to entry is solid grounds from a libertarian perspective of abolishing the law.

Your same argument could be used to say that people in DC who possess guns show patterns of lawless behavior, even though we both know that these laws are unjust, and breaking unjust laws does not give someone the psychological characteristics of a criminal that would indicate that they will at some point in the future be engaged in violent crime.

The act of entering the country, and the act of killing the police officer were two entirely different acts. The police officer's right to life was violated when the driver smashed his car into the patrol vehicle, not when the immigrant entered the country. The focus needs to be placed on the violent acts if we are to prevent these. Grouping people by saying, "a very small percentage of people within a group are violent criminals, so we must get rid of the entire group," is not going to put the focus where it needs to be, which is specifically on the people that commit the violent crime, no matter what group(s) they belong to.

[KenInMontiMN]

To hold that entering the country illegally to work here is victimless is nonsense, considering ten million unemployed, another million incarcerated for victimless felonies, and who knows how many deployed overseas in private or military uniform and on the public dime. All of that subsequent nonsense is not possible without the vast illegal influx, though I would agree that those American citizens aiding, abetting, and encouraging illegal entry and employment are the point of focus where the issue is best attacked and controlled- as opportunity dries up many will return home of their own volition making widespread authoritarian sweeps directed toward the illegals by gov't agencies less crucial.

Applying any sort of amnesties or streamlining of the legal immigration process in a nosediving economy, prior to reintroducing the unemployed, the wrongly incarcerated and the militarily exiled back into the labor stream is absolutely and irresponsibly unconscionable. The illegal influx has enabled all of this, and has been quietly allowed and encouraged for those purposes- in short it has served as a replacement worker program to replace millions of individuals the gov't had other more sinister plans for.

[nickcoons]

To hold that entering the country illegally to work here is victimless is nonsense, considering ten million unemployed, another million incarcerated for victimless felonies, and who knows how many deployed overseas in private or military uniform and on the public dime.

There mere act of entering the country, whether legally or not, is not an initiation of force, and is therefore victimless. The whole idea that an influx of immigrants necessarily leads to unemployment (because immigrants don't take jobs, they also consume requiring the creation of yet more jobs), to over-incarcerations, and military irresponsibility.. that's the nonsensical argument.


The illegal influx has enabled all of this, and has been quietly allowed and encouraged for those purposes- in short it has served as a replacement worker program to replace millions of individuals the gov't had other more sinister plans for.

It's an interesting conspiracy theory, but the two scenarios you describe (allowing easy entry by immigrants, and releasing wrongly-incarcerated individuals along with returning the military) are not mutually-exclusive. There's no reason both can't be done. Each person in the economy is a consumer, and so their presence necessarily creates jobs. The fear that rampant unemployment will exist with additional labor is unfounded because of this.

Additionally, as I proposed, those on the dole would no longer be able to remain here stagnant. They would have to contribute or leave, because those would be the only two options for their survival. The whole process may end up causing a bit of a deflation, but in the long run that wouldn't be a bad thing. I rather like the idea from decades ago of a single income in the middle class being able to support the entire family without having to worry so much about making ends meet.

[KenInMontiMN]

At subsistence level labor reward there is little consumer class growth and virtually nothing in the way of new job creation.

There is all sorts of room for streamlining immigration if and when the rest is accomplished, but not until that is actually needed- and right now and into the foreseeable future there is absolutely no place for such streamlining, we already have rampant unemployment and those skies are only darkening.

There will never be anything resembling a return to one individual median income supporting a family comfortably through a process of more open borders and ongoing massive trade deficits. Those policies level the reward for labor globally, which for Americans means a strong diminishment of opportunity and reward levels for working and are in fact the exact reason why it does take two wage-earners these days to make it work.

Dr. Paul recognized that borders must be controlled better than they are now in both these aspects and supported withdrawal from trade agreements and imposing reasonable tariffs to raise revenue and diminish the economic hemorrhaging that massive trade imbalance represents, along with better border security applied both at the border and at the employment desk. And he is right to do so.

No national economy can survive an ongoing glut of labor through open borders along with ongoing massive trade imbalance, forever. These are the exact reasons why the private external debt of this country is every bit the co-contributing problem that has destroyed our economy, along with the massive public debt. They are both huge and both equal in size, and together they have strained the world's ability and willingness to extend further credit to the US causing today's situation.

And these are exactly the reasons why a purely libertarian take on immigration issues is exactly in line with the internationalist-globalist agenda, a good part of the reason why such libertarian economic positions can't garner even 5% of the vote in an election. These are the exact positions that have fed the bankers and the corporate execs accounts and done so much to cause the extreme stratification in earnings in this country. There is no surer way to put the USA on equal footing with the third world in all regards than to hold the doors wide open to unfettered and illegal immigration, along with no control and no revenue intake gained from imported goods produced through the use of exploiting the cheapest labor markets overseas and south of the border.

When push comes to shove, doing the right thing by Americans means improving the economic playing field for the American worker with less than a college degree, since that is and will continue to be the status of most Americans. The notion that we can improve the general overall lot through creating more college-educated Americans is nonsense- we have already done so and the result is diminished returns for the 4-year degreed, because of similar flooding of the markets with an oversupply of job candidates. It's watered down the value of thse credentials to an extent. It's a bottom-up process. Improve the economic conditions of the lower-skilled wage-earner by ceasing active policies aimed at maintaining the ongoing labor glut and trade imbalances, and the pendulum will swing back toward a growing middle class instead of the eradication of the middle class that has been advanced across the past few decades.

[libertea]

At subsistence level labor reward there is little consumer class growth and virtually nothing in the way of new job creation.



Hello KenInMontiMN. I appreciate your thoughts as this is a good intellectual argument. This debate can get down in the mud and it is good to see it discussed in this manner.

I think the above quote might need a little more clarification. I am looking at unemployment statistics at

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/metro_10292008.htm

I do not see a direct correlation between unemployment rates being higher for areas of higher immigration. I see both high and low unemployment rates in areas of both high and low immigration. If they come and new jobs are not created, would not unemployment be consistently higher in high immigration areas? There are many factors that contribute to job creation and unemployment. Low wages mean more opportunities for small businesses which account for the creation of 2/3 of all new jobs. This can be looked at as simply further "division of labor" which is commonly believed to improve the economy. Limiting the work force creates an artificial imbalance in the supply and demand equation with regards to labor. It has the same effect as having the government set a minimum wage rather than have the market set it.

[nickcoons]

There will never be anything resembling a return to one individual median income supporting a family comfortably through a process of more open borders and ongoing massive trade deficits.

Why are you coupling open borders with massive trade deficits? Who said anything about the latter, and how does it even enter into the discussion?


And these are exactly the reasons why a purely libertarian take on immigration issues is exactly in line with the internationalist-globalist agenda, a good part of the reason why such libertarian economic positions can't garner even 5% of the vote in an election.

Right, that must be it. It couldn't possibly be the fact that most people are apathetic to understanding the issues, and have never even heard the word "Libertarian" before :rolleyes:.

Any connection between libertarian economic positions and the internationalist-globalist agenda is purely coincidental, because they don't have the same reasons for coming to their conclusions as we do. They want control, and we want to remove control.


These are the exact positions that have fed the bankers and the corporate execs accounts and done so much to cause the extreme stratification in earnings in this country.

Positions don't feed anyone, only the implementations of positions can do that. 100 years ago our borders were far more open than they are today, and they've been getting progressively locked down. You can't draw a correlation like this between two things when one of them doesn't exist.


There is no surer way to put the USA on equal footing with the third world in all regards than to hold the doors wide open to unfettered and illegal immigration, along with no control and no revenue intake gained from imported goods produced through the use of exploiting the cheapest labor markets overseas and south of the border.

I don't agree. Again, more people equals more consumption, which leads to the need for more production. People would not immigrate to the US unless they were able to work and contribute to the economy, because they would have no means of survival otherwise. No longer would any resident immigrant be able to collect any social welfare benefits. In fact, bringing the cheap labor here might have the side-effect of bringing back manufacturing.

[nickcoons]

I do not see a direct correlation between unemployment rates being higher for areas of higher immigration.

Nor do I. Here in the border state of Arizona, we have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. As you indicated, unemployment rates are determined by all sorts of factors, not just immigration policy or distance to a border. But your observation that increased immigration does not mean increased unemployment seems accurate.

[apropos]

Entering the country illegally, like drug use, is a victimless crime. And like drug use, the law should be abolished because no one is harmed by the action. The fact that no victims exist due to entry is solid grounds from a libertarian perspective of abolishing the law.

Violence is not a prerequisite to "victimize" someone. Taxation is not in itself a violent act, yet few here would call that a victimless crime. If we want to apply Bastiat to the situation, we can examine what is seen and what is not seen. Illegals enter the country and many do not participate in overt crimes. Schools, however, become overcrowded. Educational resources are diverted away from Americans to provide ESL. Healthcare suffers the extra burden. Public housing (paid for on your dime) are provided to illegals like Obama's aunt. Losing a third of one's paycheck is in fact a very vicious crime, because it literally takes the food out of your mouth. And realistically, the public dole is not going anywhere.

When you mention that more people means more consumption means more production, this is an example of the broken window fallacy. Breaking someone's window is a "good" thing because we keep the guy who makes window panes in business. George Bush has applied this economic theory to Iraq on more than one occasion. When millions of illegals come to this country, we are forced to divert money and resources into expanding/adapting the infrastructure instead of focusing on higher order goods. It is the illusion of progress, when in fact we have to spend more and work harder to accomodate all these people and break even.

This "people bubble" is actually bogging us down because we have to continously revisit issues that would otherwise be solved with fewer people (i.e. legal Americans). We import 1M+ legal immigrants per year and many million more illegals. The number is compounding every year.


Your same argument could be used to say that people in DC who possess guns show patterns of lawless behavior, even though we both know that these laws are unjust, and breaking unjust laws does not give someone the psychological characteristics of a criminal that would indicate that they will at some point in the future be engaged in violent crime.

Strawman. We're not talking about guns, which are protected rights by the second amendment. There is no amendment guaranteeing universal American citizenship. Nor am I suggesting we judge people based on future actions. I am suggesting we judge and deport these illegals based upon their concrete actions of the past...their illegal entry into this country.

[nickcoons]

Violence is not a prerequisite to "victimize" someone. Taxation is not in itself a violent act, yet few here would call that a victimless crime.

My statement to which you responded in no way narrowly defined violence as a requirement in creating a victim.


Illegals enter the country and many do not participate in overt crimes. Schools, however, become overcrowded. Educational resources are diverted away from Americans to provide ESL. Healthcare suffers the extra burden. Public housing (paid for on your dime) are provided to illegals like Obama's aunt. Losing a third of one's paycheck is in fact a very vicious crime, because it literally takes the food out of your mouth. And realistically, the public dole is not going anywhere.

You seem to have either not read or ignored a major component of my original post. My proposal is that immigrants (legal or otherwise) would not be eligible for any government-funded services. So if immigrants want education, housing, health care, etc. then they must pay for it out of their own production. I wouldn't support a measure that allowed people into the country if it meant that they could then sign up to receive social welfare services. That was a major component of my post, which seems to nullify your concerns.


When you mention that more people means more consumption means more production, this is an example of the broken window fallacy.

This and the rest of this paragraph was written under the impression that immigrants will increase the burden on taxpayers.


Strawman. We're not talking about guns, which are protected rights by the second amendment. There is no amendment guaranteeing universal American citizenship. Nor am I suggesting we judge people based on future actions. I am suggesting we judge and deport these illegals based upon their concrete actions of the past...their illegal entry into this country.

Not a strawman. Your position is that people who break laws inherently show patterns of lawless behavior. Gun control laws are unjust regardless of whether or not the Constitution protects gun ownership. The simple fact of owning a gun, just as the simple fact of entering into a country, is completely victimless (in every violent and non-violent sense of the word).