Interesting food for thought....

[kali-kali.livejournal.com]

A Facebook friend of mine posted this article from the Cato Institute (a libertarian think tank) regarding illegal immigration. I know illegal immigration has been discussed here frequently, so thought this was an interesting take on the situation. I'm not American, so I hadn't been familiar with some of the historical bits mentioned (such as the pioneers, of course I did about the Boston Tea Party and the Puritans).

America's Illegal Pioneers

Quote from the article:

"So should we follow our ancestors' example and offer a path to legalization? Critics charge that this would reward their lawbreaking and undermine America's values. But this gets things precisely backwards. America has always attracted ambitious people who hate being told what to do. The Pilgrims preferred to risk their lives taming a new continent than obey the Church of England. Our founders illegally dumped other peoples' tea in Boston Harbor. When Congress banned alcohol in 1919, millions of Americans ignored the law and kept drinking. Every year, many of us celebrate our nation's independence by lighting illegal fireworks."

So... what do you think? Does the writer have a point? Or is he making it too simplistic? (which is a charge I've heard levied against us libertarian folk frequently) I'm interested in hearing opinions.

Comments

[dbroussa.livejournal.com]

I think that the major issue has to do with what the immigrants were doing, and what the consequences of their actions were in each time frame. In the early 19th century, the settlers were moving into what was essentially unpopulated areas that the gov't had arbitrarily assigned into 640 acre plots of land (1 sq mile) for ease of administration. Settlers moved into the land, but could not afford or handle that much land so they "squatted" on smaller sections. Eventually the gov't realized that the 1 sq mile sections were too large and too expensive and re-oriented their claim structure. So, why is that different from today? Well, for one, the settlers were all-in to being Americans. They were not moving out to Kentucky (or rather just the males, leaving the rest of the family back in say Massachusetts or England) with the intention of working the land and sending the profits back to their prior homes. They wanted to make a new permanent life for themselves in their new homes. That spirit can be commended, and should be encouraged. Many illegal immigrants today don't want to be Americans...they just want/need to make money.

The other major disconnect is who is harmed individually and communally by the actions of the settlers or today's illegal immigrants. In the case of the settlers, if they did not squat on the land, then it was likely to lay dormant and vacant with no value to anyone. Their squatting actually improved the land and the overall community. Is this true of today's illegal immigrants? I would say that it is not. While it is true that they are allowing us to purchase a pint of strawberries for $2 that might cost $4 if a legal worker was being paid...is that really good? That means that the market has artificially inflated downward because of their low wages. It also has created a subculture in the US where crime can flourish because they have to live outside of the system. Rape goes unreported as well as employer harrasment, housing discrimination, etc. This is not a good thing for the community.

Make them come legally to the US. Make the system for becoming a US citizen much easier and faster so that it doesn't require a lawyer to get through the process. We can handle the immigration in much larger numbers than we current legally allow, we are doing it with the large number of illegals after all, now we need to regularize entry and reform it as well. As for those that are here illegally...let them get in line to enter legally. While we regularized the settlers of the 19th century, we did it because their actions had low individual consequence and helped the community...the same is not true here.

[sekhmetsat.livejournal.com]

With an unemployment rate officially at 10%, in reality closer to 30%, we can support more immigrants? You really have some rosy glasses there.

[dbroussa.livejournal.com]

Long term, yes we can. Especially if they are the right kind of immigrants. Right now...perhaps not.

[kelincihutan.livejournal.com]

I definitely think he's making things too simplistic. It's easy to say "Oh, but they did it in the 1800s!" from behind a keyboard but when looking at the honestly chaotic situation at many border towns, any reasonable person has to admit that America now is not America then.

Having said that, I don't think that creating a "path to legalization" is necessarily a bad thing. It would be one of the quickest ways to extend the responsibilities--and the rights and protections--of legal residents to illegal immigrants. Furthermore, if a scenario that encouraged illegal immigrants to come forward voluntarily without fear of repercusssions, it would cut the legs out from under any complaints about enforcing the damn border, which you could begin to do the instant any "path to legalization" program went to effect.

From an Indian perpective

[sekhmetsat.livejournal.com]

No amnesty. EVER. I am so very sick of all the illegal sympathy orchestras. They are CRIMINALS. Criminals deserve PUNISHMENT. Not rewards.

[shaolin.livejournal.com]

But that's not following in the example of our Founders. We've been keeping records of who came to America by ship before there was an America. The Founders didn't abolish that tradition after the country was established, so suffice to say, I think they'd be cool with keeping tabs on who comes here from Mexico. It makes sense to know who's coming over and, in inspecting ships in the past, we were able to keep sick people on the ships until they got healthy (or died).

In terms of citizenship, what with the way things are today, it makes sense to have laws for it. We're, regrettably, not living in the era of rugged individualism any more and with the great swath of social programs in existence, I don't want illegals mooching off of us--we have enough legal citizens doing that already.

And even if we still touted rugged individualism and if we didn't have all the social programs, I'm still not OK with not knowing who's coming over our borders. It comes down to being able to enforce our boundaries and our sovereignty.

ETA: The problem that I have with libertarianism is that, in the pursuit of ideological purity, some people seem put themselves on the fast track to anarchy. I think it's OK to say that some laws are justified. I don't see how enforcing our sovereignty and requiring that people who want to live in this country permanently should become citizens, thereby formally entering the social contract, should encroach on our individual liberties in an unreasonable nature. But then it's all a matter of opinion, I guess. But I highly disagree with the conflation of events leading to the Revolution, the Pilgrims, etc., with illegal immigration as it is.

[litlover12.livejournal.com]

I just wanted to say that you have great taste in music. That's a terrific song.

[/frivolous]

[ford-prefect42.livejournal.com]

On the path to citizenship, I don't care. It is utterly tangential and a distraction from the very very simple issue of illegal immigration. Seriously.

Illegal immigration is solved by border security. Period. Secure the borders, so that we're getting very few *new* illegals, and in 20 years, regardless of action or inaction, the problem of the illegals is solved. you can grant amnesty, or not, deport all of them, or not, create a path to citizenship, or just maintain the status quo for 20 years, and the problem of illegal immigrants would still be solved.

If you *don't* close the border, then it is utterly hopeless. amnesty means more illegals coming into the country, deport them and they'll come back, create a path to citizenship and you invite more, maintain the status quo and the problem will get worse and worse.


There is no point in discussing anything related to illegal immigration until and unless the flow is staunched. In short, yes, I *do* want an alligator moat if that's what it takes.

[coldblossom.livejournal.com]

He is being far too simplistic. I think its basically what shaolin said. America now is not the same as America then, and back then pretty much every immigrant was documented via ports of entry.

I am in the staunch "secure the borders" crowd as I believe plugging the leak is far more productive than just bailing water.

Before any reform of immigration policy can even be discussed, the border must be made secure. I do not buy into the BS pushed by DHS that the border "can't" be secured. Its that there aren't enough politicians willing to secure it, and I think we're the only country on Earth that debates enforcing its own sovereignty. Once the incredible leak that is the southern border is plugged, then we can grant a blanket amnesty for all I care. Just stop new ones from coming and document those that are here and that enter in the future through the legal means.

Also something that few people address regarding illegal immigration is that anyone can enter through an unsecured border. It can be Margarita and her six children, it could be Ming and six fellow spies, or it could be Mohammed and his six sleeper mates. "Undocumented" (the favorite word of our liberal betters) means "unknown," and it means nobody knows who is here. One of the most important recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission was to secure the borders, secure the visa process, and actually enforce visa limits and deportations. With the present political situation it seems among the least likely recommendation to be implemented.

[izuko.livejournal.com]

America has always attracted ambitious people who hate being told what to do.

Other ambitious people who hate being told what to do:

• MS-13


• Mafia


• Your local drug dealer


• Bernie Madoff


• Osama bin Laden

I like ambition and rugged individualism, but that really says nothing about what the person is doing. In the past, our immigrants were (as Milton Friedman said... maybe the CATO institute should give him a listen) immigrating to freedom, not to welfare. Additionally, they became Americans. While most of the illegals are here for a better life, many of them are also coming for the benefits, "business contacts," human trafficking, or reconquista.

These United States are now a country, and have been for a long time. We need to operate like a country, and not a frontier.