Alabama's War on Immigrants

The state's harsh immigration law will only worsen its economic woes.

Conservatives are resorting to ever more draconian measures to take back the country from “illegal immigrants.” The latest state to declare an all-out jihad is Alabama. But as with slavery and segregation, they are using the government to commit sins that will eventually require even more government to undo.

Alabama’s law is by far the worst in a slew of similar bills across the country. Like Arizona, the ringleader, Alabama requires police to arrest—without bond, in its case—anyone unable to produce proof of residency. But that’s the kindest thing in the law. It’ll also bar courts from enforcing contracts involving undocumented workers, leaving them no legal recourse against employers who refuse to pay, for example. What’s more, undocumented households will face felony charges if they try to obtain basic municipal services such as running water.

But the provision that has struck terror in Alabama’s Hispanic community is that schools will now be required to collect information about the residency status of students and share it—albeit minus the names—with state authorities. Thousands of Hispanic kids have reportedly dropped out of school, fearing that this is a set up for future deportation.

The idea obviously is to make life so miserable for undocumented workers that they will leave the Heart of Dixie voluntarily. It is deeply ironic that a state that once violated human rights to maintain cheap, black, slave labor is now doing so again to keep out cheap, brown, voluntary labor that, even George Borjas, the Harvard economist much loved by restrictionists because he opposes more open immigration policies, grudgingly admits raises an average American’s wealth by about 1 percent.

But there are parallels galore between the restrictionist and the segregationist crusades.

The most obvious is that they both invoke a grand American principle to justify a dubious cause. Racists justified slavery and Jim Crow in the name of states’ rights then and restrictionists are justifying their attack on illegals in the name of the “rule of law” now. But rule of law in the service of bad laws is a form of tyranny.

There are 11 million undocumented workers in this country because U.S. immigration policies have closed practically all options for them to legally work and live here. Every country has a right to control its borders. But both liberal and illiberal immigration policies are consistent with this right. Dispatching drones and erecting electric fences to prevent willing foreign workers from being hired by willing domestic employers are tactics more suitable to a police state than a free republic.

But a bigger similarity between restrictionists and segregationists is their total blindness to what they are doing to a minority community. If restrictionists have their way, undocumented kids will have a hard time attending school, going to college, or ever gaining citizenship.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration, buckling under restrictionist pressure, deported nearly 400,000 undocumented workers in fiscal 2011, an all-time record. Given that nearly 52 percent of illegals live in mixed-status families, this means that many American children and spouses lost a source of income. Even more tragically, a study released by the Applied Research Center last week found that at least 5,100 children whose parents have been detained or deported are under foster care—a number it expects will grow to 15,000 over the next five years.

Closing off economic opportunities and tearing apart families will ghettoize a subset of Hispanics just as segregation and Jim Crow ghettoized southern blacks. Right now, a country caught up in a restrictionist fury might not care.

But a civilized society doesn’t forever tolerate such blatant inhumanity. Ultimately, some triggering event forces it to confront its turpitudes.

For decades, Americans looked the other way as blacks endured lynchings and daily indignities in the Jim Crow south. But then a relatively minor incident—the disappearance of three voter rights activists in Mississippi (who were subsequently found murdered by the Klan)—shocked the nation. In its aftermath, President Lyndon Johnson pushed through the Civil Rights Act in 1964, paving the way for a giant growth in federal power, some licit and some illicit. 

The act rightly banned government-based racial discrimination. But it also banned private discrimination by businesses. This certainly abrogated their right of voluntary association, but there were no other credible options to root out the systemic racism that froze blacks out of mainstream southern society prepared to impose its ways through violence.

But the Civil Rights era also inaugurated affirmative action programs giving less qualified blacks a leg up. This was unfair, but a nation experiencing a massive guilt attack couldn’t make such fine moral distinctions. And conservatives, who’d lost their credibility by being on the wrong side of history, couldn’t convince it otherwise.

Something of this sort is likely to repeat itself. Restrictionists can’t forever suspend America’s innate sense of justice and equality. Ultimately, the country will have to take responsibility for the havoc their agenda has wreaked on the Hispanic community—especially since Hispanics will comprise a third of the population by 2050. It’ll be impossible to reject their demands for government reparations and programs.

So the question is what do conservatives hate more: big government or undocumented workers? If it is the former, then they should stop drinking any more restrictionist poison. And if it is the latter, then they should stop pretending to be the party of limited government.

Reason Foundation Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia is a columnist at The Daily, where a version of this column originally appeared.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Mr Whipple||

    Meanwhile, the crops are rotting in the fields, in Alabama.

  • WTF||

    DEY TOOK UR JERBS!!!...uh, wait..what?

  • jtuf||

    Meanwhile, New Jersey and New York residents are using government land so that they can have the fun of being unpaid field hands ( http://www.rocklandfarm.org/cr....._farm.html ). I support immigration for moral reasons, but I think we could easily replace illegal immigrants working in agriculture with hippies who pay for the fun of working in agriculture. Farm managers just have to sell the jobs as eco-tours.

  • ||

    This has got to be one of the sharpest comments I've seen on the subject of the agricultural "labor shortage."

  • Mono||

    The Mechanization of American farms has long been retarded by the cheap immigrant labor.

    That retardation has in-turn retarded more fruitful(higher paying) skilled jobs.

    Our farms need to modernize, they wont do that so long as labor is to cheap.

  • Ragnar||

    What part of "illegal alien" do you not understand? They are here illegally, and the states have a legal right and duty to catch them.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    So make a legal avenue for (for instance) migratory crop pickers. Right now there isn't one. Americans simply don't want to do the work.

  • DJF||

    Yes there is, its called a H-2A visa. Some farmers just don’t want to pay the higher wages that legal temp workers get so they hire illegals.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-2A_Visa

  • Tacos mmm...||

    Did you actually read the article in the link you posted? Can you imagine why many farmers don't rely on H-2A's? Wages are the least of it. It's a beaurocratic nightmare.

  • DJF||

    What bureaucratic nightmare, it just says that people who hire H2A workers have to follow US laws. Do you object to the requirement that they be feed, or not be locked into their housing or that they get “one wash tub per 30 people with hot and cold water”

  • Beloved Rev. Blue Moon||

    I object to any legal requirement with respect to consenting adults and workplace conditions. If I want to choose to work below the federal minimum wage, or in conditions where I am not fed or given a washtub, that is my right as a free adult.

  • ||

    Do you also circle a chair a half dozen times before you go sit on the couch? You make no sense. You want a way for them to come legally, but do not want the way that has been provided. You are a nut.

  • ||

    But no more than half of your employees can be H-2A. So even if farmers wanted to hire legal immigrants and provide them with all that crap, they would still screwed.

  • ||

    Visa exceptions? No government regs? No paperwork? You've got to be kidding me. The cries of racism and discrimination are being raised so often it has become laughable. If Congress is the one who wrote the immigration laws, it is up to ICE and others to enforce those laws. Otherwise, repeal them!

  • Archie||

    Is the H-2A program a legal avenue or not?

  • Apocalitarian||

    It's a legal avenue, but it's complex as fuck!

  • Realist||

    How about eliminating welfare, food stamps and free housing. Then the lazy fucks that are living off tax payers will do the work the ILLEGALS are doing. Or they will starve to death...win/win.

  • J||

    Agreed. It is called Work Fare. Wisconsin has tried it and though it needs some ironing out it would help to solve Welfare problems and illegal immigration, IMO.

  • ||

    I'm not convinced "the states have a right and duty to catch them". If the federal government ignored its responsibility to regulate interstate commerce, would that be Alabama's right and duty too?

    If Dalmia is right, and they've barred the courts from "enforcing contracts involving undocumented workers", then that's not within the state's right and duty. The only right I'm convinced illegal aliens don't have is the right to vote.

    Stripping people of their right to contract enforcement isn't trying to catch them. It's trying to persecute them into fleeing the state. Why pretend otherwise?

  • Maxxx||

    US Constitution Article 1; Section 10
    No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

    How is that part of Alabama's law constitutional?

  • ||

    I don't understand how that could be legal.

    On top of being illegal, it's morally pathetic. Absolving people of their contractual obligations like that--unconscionable.

    The idea that a fundamental right like that could be given or taken away by the government is pretty frightening too. Other people's fundamental rights should never be a popularity contest. We're all a minority somehow.

  • WTF||

    The federal and state governments stopped giving a crap about the Constitution quite some time ago.

  • sarcasmic||

    What you quoted is irrelevant.

    Only seven words in the Constitution matter:

    general welfare... regulate commerce... necessary and proper

    Nothing in there about contracts.

  • DJF||

    Because hiring illegals as workers in the USA is illegal. Contracts don’t override US law. Just because you have a contract for a hundred slaves does not mean you get to import them into the USA.

  • ||

    Slavery is against the law because it fundamentally violates people's rights.

    Contracts are the ability of individuals to protect their own rights.

    Those two things are incomparable. Prohibiting slavery and refusing to recognize someone's contractual obligations is not the same thing. In fact, they're kinda opposites.

    If you want to compare Alabama refusing to recognize people's contractual rights to something slavery related? It's the second half of the Dred Scott decision--saying that Dred Scott had no right to sue because being of African ancestry, he wasn't a citizen.

  • DJF||

    “””Slavery is against the law because it fundamentally violates people's rights.””

    What fundamental right? To gambol across the plain?

    And slavery became against the law when Congress and the States made it against the law, just like they previously had made it legal.

  • ||

    Importing slaves is against the law. Picking crops isn't.

    "What fundamental right? To gambol across the plain?"

    "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N.....nstitution

    Gambol today, gambol tomorrow and gambol forever!

  • DJF||

    “”’Importing slaves is against the law. Picking crops isn't.”’’

    Importing people without a work visa to pick crops is against the law. There is a way to import temp farm workers, its called the H2A visa.

  • MWG||

    You've clearly never been through any sort of legal immigration process in the US, have you?

  • ||

    We weren't talking about violating the rights of farmers if they import illegal aliens to pick their crops.

    We were talking about the wrongness of the government to specifically refuse to uphold the contractual rights of individual illegal aliens.

    I wasn't talking about the rights of farmers--I was talking about the rights of immigrants. People don't lose their rights the moment they cross the border. It is not legal to violate the rights of illegal aliens--not to mention immoral.

  • jtuf||

    As a point of comparison, will the courts enforce a contract that violates federal labor laws? Can an employer bring a worker to court if he doesn't work for $2 per hour as specified in the employment contract?

  • adam||

    Except that under federal law, you still have to pay illegal workers for the work they do.

  • Realist||

    Dalmia is never right.

  • wareagle||

    If Dalmia is right
    ----------------------
    Dalmia lost me at the "jihad" reference. When you are going to traffic in rhetorical bullshit, it is difficult to take you seriously.

  • ||

    I tried to read the article just to see what terrorist activity, what holy war, the Alabama people were starting. Oh, they don't want to pay for illegals. Hmmmmm. That is jihad alright.

  • Ragnar 1850||

    What part of "runaway slave" do you not understand? They have run away from their masters are in the North illegally, and the states have a legal right and duty to catch them and return them to their owners.

  • jtuf||

    Actually, many northern sates didn't want to return slaves. The feds demanded that they do so anyway.

  • MWG||

    WOOOOOSSSHHH!!!

    That point went right over your head.

  • Suki||

    Alabama is the latest? Reason has been griping about the new Alabama law for months. Must not be that widespread and the libertarian solution of moving to better laws is in effect.

  • Skr||

    I beleive Colorado is the latest.

  • PIRS||

    Ragnar,

    Do you believe that all laws are just? Can you not even think of a single law that you consider unjust?

  • ||

    What part of "der Jude ist verboten" do you not understand?

    /godwin

  • Skr||

    The law is driving legals out of the state as well dumbass.

  • ||

    "It’ll also bar courts from enforcing contracts involving undocumented workers, leaving them no legal recourse against employers who refuse to pay, for example. What’s more, undocumented households will face felony charges if they try to obtain basic municipal services such as running water."

    I'll grant these things are unconscionable.

    "Racists justified slavery and Jim Crow in the name of states’ rights then and restrictionists are justifying their attack on illegals in the name of the “rule of law” now."

    They're using the rule of law to justify this now, but I think the motivation behind it is budget cuts.

    Alabama is looking to release thousands of convicted criminals for budget reasons. Alabama has had to lay off thousands of state employees.

    Massive layoffs of state employees is the very last thing we should expect to see state governments do--it shouldn't come as any surprise to see them try to wring illegal aliens out of their budget first.

    When the economy takes a downturn and voters have to start going without services they had before, they get a lot more picky about who's getting those limited services. This is what happened in Alabama; this is what happened in Arizona...

    Passing ObamaCare in the economic environment we were in, making people who were already getting pickier about who their taxes were going to pay for--pay for each other even more? That just threw kerosene on the fire.

    If I'm looking for someone to blame for all of this, I'd blame the states for their bloated budgets. I'd blame government employee unions. I don't make any distinction between illegal aliens helping themselves to my paycheck and freeloading native-born Americans helping themselves to my paycheck. But in tough times, it shouldn't be surprising to find that a lot of Americans do.

  • WTF||

    Well, sure - as the saying goes, you can have unrestricted open borders or you can have a welfare state; you can't really have both and expect it to work.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    A welfare state won't work for long regardless.

  • WTF||

    True, as we are currently seeing.

  • Slap the Enlightened! ||

    Neither do open borders - as Europe found out the hard way. We're next.

  • ||

    ahahahahaha, still retarded as ever.

  • ||

    Hey Slappy, are you friends with this guy?

  • k2000k||

    Europes problem has nothing to do with open borders. People have been moving across borders for thousands of years. Europes problem is a 'spiritual' and a demographic one. Because so few native Europeans are having kids they have to rely on importing foreigners. That isn't too much of a problem except their goverments and educational system were actively resisting efforts of trying to naturalize these foreigners. It is only recently that we are seeing nativists groups really gain traction. Moreover the mentality of the welfare system has killed what used to make Europe dynamic. There is a void in Europes cultural dynamic that leaves it ripe militant islamisism or EU-totalitarianims to exploit.

  • ||

    Or you can not give immigrants welfare.

    Blows your mind, doesn't it.

  • WTF||

    Or better yet, not give anyone welfare, but that's not likely to happen anytime soon, either.

  • ||

    Neither is open borders, go figure.

  • ||

    "You can have unrestricted open borders or you can have a welfare state; you can't really have both and expect it to work."

    It's also unreasonable to expect all of one or the other. I'm certainly not willing to suffer injustice quietly--so long as we have a welfare state.

    Because we have a welfare state, our elderly grandparents should be threatened by the government for hiring the wrong person to mow their lawn? Because we have a welfare state, single-moms should be threatened as criminals because they patronize affordable child care?

    Elderly people have a right to hire whoever they please to mow their lawns. Single moms have a right to choose the child care option that they think is best for them.

    Just because the government decides to finance a welfare state--that doesn't make the rights of elderly people and single mothers go away.

    Sometimes the people who are telling us that it's the states' right to enforce federal immigration law--are the same people who are telling me it's my duty to enforce federal immigration law too!

    And I have no such obligation.

  • WTF||

    Ken, I don't really disagree with your points, my point was simply that the presence of an expansive welfare state in combination with open borders creates a perceived conflict regarding unskilled workers and others coming over the border to become net tax consumers rather than contributors. Not that they are any worse than native net tax consumers, it's just that the influx of additional numbers exacerbates the problem.

  • ||

    I'm with you on this. But a lot of other people say that--and mean something else.

    They mean that so long as we have a welfare state--my right to hire whoever I want to mow my lawn is out the window.

    I'm not willing to wait around for however long it takes to get rid of the welfare state--before I start to invoke my freedoms and rights.

  • jtuf||

    While we're at it, financial companies have the right to hire whoever they please to trade their stocks. Why do you assume that immigrants only do unskilled work?

    http://www.intercourseandconce.....ration.htm

  • ||

    Just because I used two examples doesn't mean I didn't know there were others.

    I chose those examples, in part, because they fly in the face of anti-immigrant types, who point to people in those occupations as being particularly burdensome on state social services.

  • jtuf||

    OK.

  • Apocalitarian||

    Oh, come awn, most people who hire illegals are "have mores" and they are usually fucking idiots.

  • ||

    Hmmmm. So Alabama needs to let thousands out of prisons, and has a shortage of farm workers... a solution suggests itself.

  • ||

    I have a solution, make working X number of hours on a farm a requirement for collecting "welfare benefits".

  • George V||

    "Dispatching drones and erecting electric fences to prevent willing foreign workers from being hired by willing domestic employers are tactics more suitable to a police state than a free republic."

    Police states do those things to keep people from leaving!

  • WTF||

    Let her go, she's on a roll:

    The latest state to declare an all-out jihad is Alabama.

  • George V||

    I've seen some pretty good rolls on America's Dumbest.

  • ||

    "Every country has a right to control its borders."

    Ummm, no.

  • Gerholdt||

    That would be one of the most basic characteristics of a nation-state.

  • ||

    Powers or authorities, even if legitimate, are not rights.

  • Realist||

    Ummm, yes.

  • MWG||

    Um... no. Countries don't have rights.

  • ||

    How about we call it an "obligation"?

  • Anon||

    As far as I am concerned, Alabama has the right to pass any state law they want to (within the bounds of the Constitution). If they made a mistake, then they'll find out about it, and can repeal it.

    I know Reason is an 'open-borders' crowd, but (as WTF noted above) the current welfare state certainly can't handle the current population; adding an influx of more certainly doesn't help the situation, which is probably why this law was passed in the first place.

  • Anon 1850||

    As far as I am concerned, Alabama has the right to pass any state law they want to (within the bounds of the Constitution). If they made a mistake, then they'll find out about it, and can repeal it.

    I know Reason is an 'free-soil' crowd, but (as WTF noted above) the states certainly can't handle the current population of free Negroes; adding an influx of more certainly doesn't help the situation, which is probably why this law was passed in the first place.

  • JEP||

    WTF was pointing out that the cure is worse than the sickness. If the sickness is the inability of the welfare state to handle the current population of illegal immigrants, the cure isn't to enact yet another drastic exaggeration of government power. It's to correct the welfare state.

    While I'm not sure that this immigration law is going to have the obvious moral consequences of something like Jim Crowe, I think Dalmia is right to point out it may have some rather nasty ripple effects in terms of misuse of government power and our society mistreating human beings, whether they're citizens or not.

  • MWG||

    "adding an influx of more certainly doesn't help the situation..."

    It depends. Illegal immigrants contribute to both SS and Medicare and never see the benefits of either program. When it comes to illegal immigrants and the welfare state, the bag is mixed.

  • Apocalitarian||

    WHAT! That assumes employers are collecting and contributing to the tax scheme. The most appropriate statement one can make is, they might pay sales taxes, assuming the merchants pay it to the municipalities/states.

  • MWG||

    Though I'm too lazy to google it, I believe a majority of illegals work using fake SS#s.

  • Joe M||

    I don't feel like waiting for Morning Links. So:

    Police Clear Zuccotti Park of Protesters

    The protesters, about 200 of whom have been staying in the park overnight, initially resisted with chants of “Whose park? Our park!”...

    The police action was quickly challenged as lawyers for the protesters obtained a temporary restraining order barring the city and the park’s private landlord from evicting protesters or removing their belongings....

    The officers had gathered between the Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges earlier and rode in vans to the one-square-block park. They entered about 1 a.m.

    As they did, dozens of protesters linked arms and shouted “No retreat, no surrender,” “This is our home” and “Barricade!”

    Fuck them. They were there are the pleasure of the park owners the whole time. If you needed any confirmation that a sizable portion of the OWS protesters don't have the faintest comprehension of property rights, scoffing at the rights of others while sneeringly claiming something is "theirs", here it is.

  • WTF||

    The police action was quickly challenged as lawyers for the protesters obtained a temporary restraining order barring the city and the park’s private landlord from evicting protesters or removing their belongings....

    By what fucking logic does a judge grant a restraining order barring the owners of a private property from removing trespassers?

  • Joe M||

    Exactly! This means you could just walk into anyone's house and pitch a tent in their living room.

  • Realist||

    Lots of fucking assholes on this board think that's just fine

  • ||

    No, there's just one fucking asshole who thinks America is his house!

  • Apocaliptarian||

    I usually pitch a tent in my house, and then I finish up.

  • jtuf||

    Maybe it's time to reciprocate with Occupy Academia and Occupy Earth. How would people react if conservatives and libertarians started pitching tents in the middle of land grant universities and national parks with the intent of living there permanently?

  • k2000k||

    You know I'd really love to see this. I bet leftists would shit their collective pants.

  • ||

    And the icing on the cake is that Bloomberg is concerned about "health and fire hazards" in the camps.

    Tresppasers vs. Nanny State?

  • ||

    You know what this article could use? Some cites.

  • ||

    citey thingies..

  • ||

    citations?

  • ||

    Fry: "OOh OOh I"m having one of those things...you know, a headache with pictures."
    Leela: "You mean a thought?"
    Fry: ""Mmhmm Mmmhmm!!"

  • ||

    I've heard how few if any "natives", white people especially, are clamouring for the field work being vacated by the Mexicans. 246 years of having black slaves de-evolved white Americans into a bunch of lazy slackers who think any kind of manual labor is beneath them.

  • DJF||

    Its also has seems to have turned most blacks and hispanics into “lazy slackers” tsince they too won’t do that job either. That includes most illegals since they are not working in the field either and quite those jobs as soon as they can. The US has at least 15 million illegals and the farmers all over the country complain about not having enough workers even in states which don’t enforce immigration laws

  • ||

    I'm an open borders guy myself, but I think you're missing the point there.

    Plenty of white people are just as willing to work as hard as anybody else. When I was working my way through boarding school, for instance, I worked on local farms baling hay, etc.

    It's not that white Americans are too lazy to take those jobs; it's that they're unwilling to take those wages.

    I stocked drywall when I was just out of high school for a while too--the work was just as hard as baling hay, but it paid better. Once I got employable, I could make a lot better money with a lot less physical effort--but that doesn't mean I was lazy. I took an office job because the pay was better.

    Agricultural jobs for commodities like that will always pay poorly. A bush of corn is a bushel of corn, and the only way to differentiate it is price. If farmers can't be price competitive because of their labor costs, they can't compete period. So, they'll always pay toward the bottom of the wage scale.

    Yeah, there are lazy people out there, but the reason so many white people are reluctant to take those farm jobs isn't because they're lazy; it's because the wages are so low.

  • ||

    Yeah, there are lazy people out there, but the reason so many white people are reluctant to take those farm jobs isn't because they're lazy; it's because the wages are so low.

    I agree with your logic, but you should also remember that usually the "lazy" meme is pointed at unemployed Americans. A low wage is still preferable to zero wage (ignoring unemployment welfare of course).

  • k2000k||

    But then there is the fact that many unemployed Americans can suckle at the teet of goverment. Why would I work a job that pays less than being unemployed?

  • ||

    A better way of saying what you said is that unemployed Americans view farmwork as a negative transaction; they value the labor they would put into the job more than the wages they would earn. So trading nothing for nothing is better than trading a highly valued labor for low wages. But saying Americans value themselves too highly and calling them lazy are two sides of the same coin.

  • jtuf||

    So it's not that American citizens can't compete with illegal aliens for farm jobs. It's that agriculture can't compete with other sectors for legal employers. I think many Americans are willing to turn a blind eye to illegal immigrants, because those illegal immigrants are stuck in sectors that represent an unpopular part of the economy.

    Maybe we should start a campaign to get universities to hire illegal aliens as college professors at half the going wages. First, if illegal aliens have the right to work on farms, they have the right to teach college courses. Second, I would love to see how academia reacts to the suggestion.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Maybe we should start a campaign to get universities to hire illegal aliens as college professors at half the going wages

    They already have that; it's called the "adjunct professor/instructor".

  • MWG||

    Academia probably isn't the best example as it's a field filled with immigrants.

  • ||

    C'mon, now Brian. Who had black slaves, if but a small percentage of aristocrats in the old south. Surly you don't mean that my ancestors from the North who shed their very blood literally in order to free those very black slaves from bondage have somehow cursed their descendants to be lazy slackers because the people they conquered were guilty of such?

  • wareagle||

    my ancestors from the North who shed their very blood literally in order to free those very black slaves from bondage
    --------------
    by your reckoning then, the blacks who fought FOR the South were attempting to preserve bondage. Just stop. Presentist thinking is getting you nowhere. At one point, Lincoln was offering a continuation of slavery in return for Southern states changing their minds about secession. Slavery was A component of the war, not the sum total of it.

  • ||

    Give Illini a break, he might have read Bill O'Reily's new book.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....story.html

  • ||

    Don't tell this to my current history professor.

  • ||

    Hmmm? Brian implied that all white people in America are descended from slaveowners, and that we are somehow now lazy because of it. I simply reminded him that the majority of white Americans rose up to abolish slavery and squash the evil that was the confederacy, and to ensure that our honorable southern brethren could be citizens today of this great nation, thankfully. Some even shed their blood in doing so. Hence the reference to my ancestor. My thinking may be presentist, but yours is revisionary.

  • George V||

    Interesting. Makes me (a white person) wonder why I ever worked on a farm!

  • ||

    Emigration is a negative right, no one should be able to force you to stay anywhere you do not wish. Immigration is a positive right of the kind Libertarians are supposed to oppose, I thought.

    The emigrant wants to be left alone, a negative right that makes no demand on others. The immigrant is demanding that they be allowed to move somewhere they neither own nor of which they are a citizen. So they are making a demand upon others, a positive right.

    Do I really have a natural right to move to Canada, even though I own no land there, and am not a citizen? Wouldn't this be a demand made upon Canadians?

  • Beloved Rev. Blue Moon||

    The immigrant is demanding that they be allowed to move somewhere they neither own nor of which they are a citizen.

    What relevance does citizenship status have? Let us say that I own an apartment building and I choose to rent to an "illegal" immigrant. What right do you have to interfere with that transaction? Enshrining citizenship as some kind of noble trump card that vitiates contracts is odious, to say the least.

    Do I really have a natural right to move to Canada, even though I own no land there, and am not a citizen? Wouldn't this be a demand made upon Canadians?

    "Canadians" do not own "Canada." Individual land owners own individual businesses and other pieces of property. In no way does a particular immigrant place a demand on "Canadians," other than those demands forced upon Canadians by their government.

  • John Rohan||

    Rev. Blue Moon said:

    In no way does a particular immigrant place a demand on "Canadians," other than those demands forced upon Canadians by their government.

    Somehow, you seemed to have missed a few things that a surge in population brings with it, no matter how Libertarian or "laissez-faire" that government is: costs for maintaining public safety, waste disposal, and resource depletion, etc. You know, little details like that...

  • Slap the Enlightened! ||

    Let us say that I own an apartment building and I choose to rent to an "illegal" immigrant. What right do you have to interfere with that transaction?

    Considering that by doing so you're aiding and abetting the commission of a crime, every right in the world. Since when does owning property give you the right to authorize the commission of crimes on it, let alone profit from them?

    "Canadians" do not own "Canada." Individual land owners own individual businesses and other pieces of property.

    According to whom? How would they prove they own it? Where are those rights recognized and who protects them? The local bowling team?

  • White Nationalist Slappy||

    Teh law is teh law!

  • ||

    It's wrong because it's a crime! It's a crime because it's wrong!

  • ||

    Heller, when you are reduced to such pathetic arguments, I am not sure if it is you or rectal spoofing you. Here is to hoping that you have better arguments than you have presented here.

    Does your right to contract include the right to contract a murder? Oh, so it isn't unlimited.

  • Archie ||

    "'Canadians' do not own 'Canada.'"

    Canadians make the laws governing Canada, including its immigration policy. Works the same way in the U.S.

  • ||

    "Canadians" do not own "Canada."

    Really? This is a strange argument. Are you saying that no one owns it? If it is not "privately" owned, it is owned by all of Mankind? If I own this land, why can't I use it as I wish? I obviously can't.

    Assume that Canadians don't own Canada. Does this mean I can lay claim to it, and sell it? Since I can't, someone owns it. Who?

  • k2000k||

    "Canadians" do not own "Canada."
    Yes...they do.

  • ||

    What relevance does citizenship status have?

    Citizenship is membership in an association of individuals. The group of individuals gets to decide who joins. You might argue that since you do not choose where you are born that you have a natural right to citizenship in the State where you are born. As such, you would have the natural right emigrate to disassociate with whomever you choose.

    There is a natural right to disassociation, emigration. There is no right to forced association, which is immigration.

    This isn't an argument against the merits of immigration. I believe that "tall fences and wide gates" is the best policy, but don't believe that it represents a natural right.

  • ||

    I'm allowed to move onto land I don't own if I'm invited or if I rent the land. In other words, if I make an agreement with the land owner. Illegal immigrants do the exact same thing when they come here.

    Unless illegal immigrants are squatting on your property or trespassing in your home, you're dead wrong.

  • k2000k||

    Unless illegal immigrants are squatting on your property or trespassing in your home, you're dead wrong.

    But illegal aliens are trespassing. They are here uninvited outside the laws of our country. I think our current laws are entirely screwed up and need to be fixed. But we cannot turn a blind eye to illegal immigration. For the many who are here simply to make life better, there are also many here who have malicious intent. I may not like what Arizona or Alabama are doing, but they are only doing it because the Federal goverment has abrogated their responsibility to adequetly solve this problem through border enforcement and immigration reform. Besides if the people of Arizona and Alabama don't want illgals what right do I, a Washingtonian, have to force them to accept them.

  • jtuf||

    + 1 to Field Marshal Gill

  • jtuf||

    A nation is an assembly of citizens. Assembled people have a right to decide who gets to join their assembly.

  • ||

    I.e., the assembly of citizens have the right to decide who can become a citizen.

    But they do not at all have the right to decide who gets to live and work in the dominion they claim sovereignty over.

  • ||

    MikeP, if they don't get to decide who gets to live and work in their domain, then what is sovereignty?

  • ||

    Sovereignty is the positive fact that a government has the exclusive power over what laws and enforcement exist in a territory.

    It is not a blank check that magically makes any and every law enacted or enforced legitimate, as any number of examples of sovereign states would show.

  • k2000k||

    You contradict yourself MikeP. By saying that sovereignity means having the exclusive power to enforce laws that exist in a certain territory that also means they get to decide who gets to come into the territory based on current law. By saying the US doesn't have a right to say who can and cannot come into our country is to deny our sovereignity. The laws we make may be bad laws but it is our decision to make them and not some other nations or supranational body.

  • ||

    I contradict nothing. Of course the US has the power -- not the right, but the power -- to say who can come into the country.

    The US also has the power to arbitrarily pull people out of their houses and summarily execute them. Does the fact that the US doesn't do that deny the US its sovereignty?

  • Beloved Rev. Blue Moon||

    Yes, the assembly of choosing the government.

    Either immigrants have universal human rights, or they do not. One of those rights is the freedom to contract. The other is to do as they will if they are not infringing on the rights of others.

    If immigrants cannot move freely, then I suppose you advocate their instant execution? After all, they don't have due process rights either, by your logic.

  • ||

    Either immigrants have universal human rights, or they do not. One of those rights is the freedom to contract. The other is to do as they will if they are not infringing on the rights of others.

    If immigrants cannot move freely, then I suppose you advocate their instant execution? After all, they don't have due process rights either, by your logic.

    You use the word "logic". It doesn't mean what you think it means.

    You imply that human rights are never in competition with each other, which they clearly are. My right to private property delineates your right to freedom of movement. My right to free association does not demand that you allow me to associate with you.

    If I believe that your right to the use of your property limits my right to freedom of movement, I am advocating my own instant execution?!!?

  • jtuf||

    1) Let's triple the number of immigration visas we give out each year.

    2) Illegal immigration is a red herring. Liberals use the issue to bash conservatives, but the Dems aren't pushing to raise the number of immigration visas. The Dems like keeping a class of illegal immigrants dependent on their good graces. Legal immigrants aren't beholden to the Dems, so the Dems don't make any moves to increase their number.

  • ||

    1) Immigration visas are a red herring. Instead of requesting more licenses from the state, we should simply abolish licensing. Either you have a right to do something, or you do not. The state should never be allowed to hand out rights to a select few.

    2) So you are claiming the Dems raise the number of visas but keep it restricted in order to get votes. But didn't you just advocate the exact same thing in 1)?

  • Archie ||

    "Either you have a right to do something, or you do not."

    Right, they do not have a right to reside here.

  • Beloved Rev. Blue Moon||

    You mean, "Rev. Blue Moon does not have the right to have someone work for him."

    You are not just abrogating their rights to contract and move about peaceably, you are abrogating my right to contract.

  • ||

    They do not have the positive right to land to live on. But they do have the negative right. So if someone shares/gives/sells them land to reside on, then they certainly can reside here.

  • Archie ||

    "So if someone shares/gives/sells them land to reside on, then they certainly can reside here."

    No they don't have a right. If an immigrant who is a violent felon who happens to own some property they don't have the rights to remain here. They will get kicked out.

  • Beloved Rev. Blue Moon||

    Who said anything about violent felons?

    And your argument is circular. "They don't have the right because they don't have the right" is not a cogent argument.

  • ||

    Yes they do have the right. A person who does not harm others while he is here should be allowed to reside here regardless of previous convictions. You are interfering in a private, voluntary action.

  • Archie ||

    They have a right according to what?

  • ||

    Better question: they don't have the right according to what?

  • Archie ||

    According to U.S. law.

  • ||

    Since when can US law take away human rights?

  • Archie ||

    Why don't you show me where the U.S. agreed that allowing people to immigrate is a human right?

    Is there universal agreement on what are our human rights? If so what are they?

  • ||

    Oh yeah, and they have the right because they are free, meaning they can do whatever they want as long as it does not interfere with your right to do the same.

  • k2000k||

    Refer to the US constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. Does the constitution give the US goverment the right to enforce its borders and permit/bar individuals from entering this country?

  • k2000k||

    Or is there anything in the constitution that prohibits the US from doing so? Ultimately when you get down to it that is what decides how the US should proceed. If the constitution enables something you don't like then try to spark a movement to get an amendment passed.

  • ||

    Section 8.

  • ||

    And Amendments 9 and 10.

  • k2000k||

    Or is there anything in the constitution that prohibits the US from doing so? Ultimately when you get down to it that is what decides how the US should proceed. If the constitution enables something you don't like then try to spark a movement to get an amendment passed.

  • ||

    No.

  • ||

    That "No" was in answer to...

    Does the constitution give the US goverment the right to enforce its borders and permit/bar individuals from entering this country?

  • ||

    Of course it does. "The People" in the Constitution are not "humanity". The purpose of the Constitution was NOT to secure the human rights of every human being on the planet. It also imposes no responsibility to allow people to become under the umbrella of that protection without the will of those same "people", namely the citizens of the United States.

    Can you direct me to the parts of the US which are not owned? I would sure like to claim them and sell them or build on them. The territory of the United States is private property jointly held by the citizens of the United States. The right to freedom of movement does not imply a right of trespass.

  • ||

    The territory of the United States is private property jointly held by the citizens of the United States.

    It's hard to think of a more illibertarian position than this.

    I gather that you also think the territory of 1930s Germany was private property jointly held by the citizens of Germany. So harassing, disempowering, expelling, imprisoning, and finally executing those who the citizens thought shouldn't be there was okie dokie?

  • ||

    I gather that you also think the territory of 1930s Germany was private property jointly held by the citizens of Germany.

    You are correct, nothing Libertarian in what I wrote. I misspoke. I did not mean "territory" but "US government owned." I did not mean that private property, held by individuals, or jointly by individuals in groups such as families, corporations, cities, States, or Rotary Clubs was owned by the US.

    My point was that all property in the US, or Canada for that matter, is owned by someone. "Public" land isn't owned by humanity but by the the members of the organization of individuals called "citizens". The same "citizens" get to decide who joins.

  • ||

    "Public" property -- except that which is explicitly owned by the government, such as courthouses, air force bases, and parks -- is much more accurately viewed as unowned, not as owned by the government or the citizenry. There are reasons that the common law has long recognized commons and rights of way: they are needed in order to secure the right of access to private property itself.

    Regardless, the bottom line is that claims of public sovereignty or even government ownership of property not in private hands cannot be used as a legitimate reason to prohibit immigrants' accessing private property. Any such argument will quickly fall into the same parallels with 1930s Germany.

  • ||

    Oh yeah, and they have the right because they are free, meaning they can do whatever they want as long as it does not interfere with your right to do the same.

    Does this include my right to associate, or not, with whomever I choose?

    Why the assumption that a government isn't an example of free association? Unless you are restricted from emigration you are always free to disassociate yourself. Why do you assume that the association of individuals called government does not posses the right to choose with whom to NOT associate?

  • jtuf||

    The Alabama law should be repealed, because it violate's the right of illegal immigrants to make contracts and access the courts. Any action by states against illegal immigration should be limited to imprisonment and deportation.

  • ||

    The immigration visa system also violates the rights of potential immigrants to make contracts with Americans.

  • ||

    Is Neuroscience the Death of Free Will?

    Who can spot the glaring hole in this guy's argument?

  • ||

    Shikha, I have a question.

    With the new restrictions on low cost illegal labor in place, have wages for some jobs gone up? If they did would you report it?

    Illegal immigration has been a blue collar job killer, jobs that used to pay 30 to 40k per year, (roofing) now pay around minimum to 10$ a hour. Without workers comp., SS or any other safety net.

    Are wages up or down in AL?

  • ||

    So you also support wage/price controls?

    Or do you just not like competing with brown people?

  • stonewyrm||

    I wonder what the pay rate for these jobs would be if the people taking them were legal and had more choices.

    Illegal immigration is a problem for me because it sets up a group of second class citizens, with fewer rights and recourses. This depresses their wages, as well as the market for that skill set as a whole.

    Increase the amount of legal immigants and I bet the farmers will be paying much higher wages than they do today.

    I support more legal immigration, and less of the 1/2 assed slavery system we have today.

  • DJF||

    Farmers already can use the H2A program which allows the import of temp farm workers. They don’t like to use it because illegal’s work cheaper and the farmers don’t have to provide things like washing and cooking facilities.

  • ||

    You forget to mention that no more than half of your employees can be H2A.

  • ||

    No I am not in favor of wage and price controls, but government has rules that if followed raise the price of labor for the law abiding.

    As for competing with brown people, I am a 1%er, and do not have to compete in that fashion. What about our native born morons and schmucks?

    Say you need a dishwasher for your restaurant. You could hire local teenagers and deal with having an unstable workforce as they leave your job to go off to school/follow a band etc. You could hire some local guy or gal who decided to finally get off the couch and get a job. OR you could hire an illegal immigrant who WALKED here from another continent, who owes money to mobsters (for sneaking him across the boarder) that make our mobsters look like Elmo, who put up with half a dozen corrupt police agencies to get to your restaurant. That illegal will work for less and be a better employee. You the business owner will be happy.

    But our native born schmucks will not be able to find a job that pays enough for them to afford a 1 bedroom apt..

    Either we have no labor laws, or we insist that everyone follow the laws we have.

    BTW, it is mostly poor whites and blacks who have to compete, not me.

  • ||

    No I am not in favor of wage and price controls, but government has rules that if followed raise the price of labor for the law abiding.

    but if your reason for supporting this law is that it will supposedly keep wages from being lowered, why not also support wage controls? You don't seem to have a problem with telling employers who they have to hire, so you shouldn't have a problem with telling them how much they have to pay. I mean, an American who will work for less is equivalent to an immigrant who will work for less, right?

    Unless of course, your justification was bullshit and you just don't like Mexicans.

  • DJF||

    Whys support wage controls when you can just allow the market in legal American workers determine what wages should be.

  • ||

    So if legal American workers started behaving like illegal immigrants, and lowered wages by working for less, you would have no problem with that? Thanks for proving my point.

  • Metazoan||

    ...an artificially small market.

  • nanda||

    egyptians and everyone else is looking the other way as churches are being burned and christians massacred.

    immigration issues are issues of identity and culture. if everyone who wanted to come here did, this place would be just like where they came from. then there will be no more refuge. apart from westerners (the dummies) no one is going to allow immigration on a scale to change their nation or allow it at all.
    the US and Europe are pretty much doomed anyway. the west is dying and with it that will be the end of liberalism and mass prosperity. those few places that have anything will not allow the poor hordes to enter their nations.

  • ||

    Ah, now we come to the crux of the argument. The government should treat you differently based on where you came from, because (as we all know) this determines how you will they behave. Brilliant. Just brilliant.

  • Ben||

    I certainly think the Alabama law has many issues, and I agree that it's overly persecutorial. However, Dalmia gets really tendentious really fast. For example:

    There are 11 million undocumented workers in this country because U.S. immigration policies have closed practically all options for them to legally work and live here. Every country has a right to control its borders. But both liberal and illiberal immigration policies are consistent with this right. Dispatching drones and erecting electric fences to prevent willing foreign workers from being hired by willing domestic employers are tactics more suitable to a police state than a free republic.

    1. The 11 million illegal aliens in this country aren't here because of the lack of legal options. That makes zero sense on it's face: Pablo (the name of the Hispanic dude in all the high-school texbooks) didn't read the paper one day and discover that the U.S. didn't have any legal options for him to immigrate, and then subsequently decide for himself that was a good reason to pack up and leave Mexico. They are here because they chose to come here in wanton disregard of the law. They may have noble motiviations for that choice, but that was the choice.

    2. According to Dalmia, ever country has a right to control its borders, but free republics aren't allowed to make that choice. That's just poppycock: in fact, a policy of non-enforcement of ratified law is what's inconsistent with a free republic. If you don't like the law, then get the people's Congress to pass something different; but disregarding the law is what's more suitable for a police state.

    I don't like the Alabama law either, but neither do I think it's acceptable to simply disregard the the law and accept illegal immigration as a legitimate economic activity (so, natives get 1% richer on illegitimate cheap labor? a) big surprise and b) what the hell does that have to do with the price of tea in China?).

    Ultimately, I think people who are already here and established are going to have to be given an option to stay here permanently, and legitimately - but we will never get there if we can't substantially end the influx of illegals (and that can be accomplished with a mix of enforcement and changes to the immigration laws).

  • ||

    1. The 11 million illegal aliens in this country aren't here because of the lack of legal options. That makes zero sense on it's face: Pablo (the name of the Hispanic dude in all the high-school texbooks) didn't read the paper one day and discover that the U.S. didn't have any legal options for him to immigrate, and then subsequently decide for himself that was a good reason to pack up and leave Mexico.

    I think you are misunderstanding what she wrote. She was simply saying that the reason so many immigrants are illegal is because it is hard to be legal:

    There are 11 million undocumented workers in this country because U.S. immigration policies have closed practically all options for them to legally work and live here.

    emphasis added

    2. According to Dalmia, ever country has a right to control its borders, but free republics aren't allowed to make that choice.

    Again, you should read it more carefully. She didn't say that free republics aren't allowed to make the choice, she said that once you restrict immigration through aggressive means, you are behaving like a police state and not a free republic. She's taking issue with consistency, not authority.

    And yeah she could have written it more clearly.

  • ||

    You're wrong. If elected leaders can simply not enforce your law (some laws can only be enforced aggressively), then that's what's inconsistent with free-republicanism. It's no longer free OR a republic when rule of law is merely an inconvenience.

    Bad laws should be changed, not ignored.

    And...I did read it carefully. Clarity isn't the issue. She's just barking up the wrong tree.

  • ||

    You're wrong. If elected leaders can simply not enforce your law (some laws can only be enforced aggressively), then that's what's inconsistent with free-republicanism. It's no longer free OR a republic when rule of law is merely an inconvenience.

    That still doesn't counter what Shikha said, which is that restricting immigrant workers that are wanted by citizens with aggressive means is already inconsistent with a free republic. The question of whether a free republic should be restricting this comes before the question of rule of law.

    And...I did read it carefully. Clarity isn't the issue. She's just barking up the wrong tree.

    Considering you mischaracterized what she wrote twice, I highly doubt you did.

  • ||

    That still doesn't counter what Shikha said, which is that restricting immigrant workers that are wanted by citizens

    But the way a Republic decides how many workers are desired is through representative law, not the random polling of individuals.

  • adam||

    "The 11 million illegal aliens in this country aren't here because of the lack of legal options. That makes zero sense on it's face: Pablo (the name of the Hispanic dude in all the high-school texbooks) didn't read the paper one day and discover that the U.S. didn't have any legal options for him to immigrate, and then subsequently decide for himself that was a good reason to pack up and leave Mexico. They are here because they chose to come here in wanton disregard of the law. They may have noble motiviations for that choice, but that was the choice."

    God you are dumb. 'Pablo' read the paper one day and decided he wanted to go the US because Mexico sucks. Then he looked into how to do it, found out that it's well nigh impossible to do it legally, and then decided to do illegally.

  • ||

    Wow. This article's demonization of Alabama and it's rightful citizens is absolutely appalling. Shame on the author!

  • ||

    No, shame on you for failing to make a counter-argument.

  • ||

    I did not think it worthy of a counter argument, because I thought the manipulation was obvious to everyone. Apparently, however, you missed it. The immigrants of concern here are "ILLEGAL". They shouldn't be there, here, or anywhere without a visa you moron. Therefore, the only thing they are entitled to is a ride home and they should be thankful to get that. Kapish!?

  • Realist||

    "Alabama's War on Immigrants"
    You mean Alabama's War on illegal Immigrants....you stupid fuck!

  • ||

    No Realist they have pretty much declared war on the legals as well. If you listen to conservatives here in Alabama they profile and generalize that anyone brown "must" be an illegal. That is why Alabama is ranked 48th of 50th for K-12 educational advancement. they are a stupid assed red state.

  • Realist||

    So letting more stupid fucks in will increase their IQ?

  • ||

    Awesome. So now the immigrants who are being denied access to rent or own homes in order to pay property taxes to pay for their local schools can't, and they're 'stupid fucks' for it.

  • ||

    Bullshit!!!

  • ||

    I think the author is an immigrant who does not yet have full grasp of the language, inadvertently leaving out the key word: "illegal". Once her kids assimilate, everything will be fine. Of course by then we'll all be speaking Spanish, unless of course one lives in Alabama.

  • ||

    It is time to retire the rhetorical bludgeon of calling any policy, opinion or discourse of which one does not approve a "war on _________".

    I guess anybody who objects to my posting is waging "war on comments".

  • ||

    Don't take away my "War on Drugs!"

    ^only time you will see a libertarian say this.

  • ||

    Remember when the Bush administration announced a "War on Terror", a spokesman had to explain to the press that this meant "a WAR war."

  • adam||

    I'm pretty happy Alabama has done this. The economic consequences will be limited to a small state, and agricultural one too where the consequences will be pretty dramatic, and will let the rest of the country see what a disaster this type of policy is. Hopefully that will influence the national debate.

  • ||

    That is assuming anyone will notice/care in the first place. This is Alabama we are talking about.

  • John Rohan||

    Ahh.. but the national debate will want to see the full results of this law. The farming losses, as well as the reduced costs of crime, education, and incarceration, etc. Let's see how the balance sheet looks overall.

  • Jeff||

    Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

    The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

    Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

    What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

    How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

    And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?

    But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

    They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

    Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

  • ||

    Stormfront is that way, buddy ---->

  • WTF||

    Good use of CAPS, not enough [BRACKETS].

  • ||

    Then you have the AG of Alabama, dumbass Luther Strange telling the justice Dept. he will not comply with their request for information from schools about how they are getting information? He has blatantly told the schools, do not comply. This jerk should be arrested for federal obstruction of justice. He is nothing more than a cheap imitation of George Wallace on the school steps. Handcuff the idiot and haul him away.

  • Realist||

    So you like total federal government power???

  • ||

    Not that I'm "pro-anti-immigration" or whatever, but crying racism and Jim Crow at every state law that smells like "DEYTUKYERJERBS" is getting pretty obnoxious.. but then again, trying to tackle this from any other perspective would require..you know.. effort. Piss poor work, Shikha.

  • Beloved Rev. Blue Moon||

    The cognitive root of anti-immigration laws is racism, though. People like MikeP and others have been playing whack-a-mole with anti-immigrant advocates for years, and yet the same arguments surface over and over again, and when you ultimately pressed anti-immigration advocates, you get to a "culture / national greatness" argument, which is nothing more than veiled racism.

    Why not cut to the chase? Scratch a nativist, find a racist.

  • ||

    Exactly. What do you think nationalism, is Sy?

  • MWG||

    For further proof, see D. Porter's comment below.

  • MWG||

    ...and Realist's response.

  • ||

    See many of the comments below blatantly referring to immigrants as leeches, criminal, inferior, etc.

  • MWG||

    Posts on immigration have a way of bringing out nationalist and conservatives. It's entertaining in a way as it gives me the opportunity to see what I might have sounded like not too long ago.

  • ||

    Yeah, this is one of a plethora of issues that turned me away from "conservatism". Point out that this nation has experienced waves and waves of immigration, and they'll say "b-b-but those people assimilated", then I ask them "How do you explain chinatowns, little Italies, Germantown, etc.? Is that 'assimilation'?"
    It's becoming a cultural deal, for whatever fucking reason. Most hispanics would tend to be with the Republicans/conservatives on religious or moral issues, but they fucked that up with decades of alienation.

  • asdf||

    I was surprised to learn recently that a fairly large number of new world/developed countries still have strict racial quotas for immigration. Japan especially so; they even refuse to accept war refugees on the basis of race, and they get plenty of flak for it. Obviously the US shouldn't do that, but in relative terms, we're f'ing enlightened humanitarians. And in terms of demographics/voting blocks, since its socially acceptable (and to some extent encouraged) for minority groups to band together politically to increase their influence, it always makes sense for them to advocate for increased immigration. Its cynical but rational for minorities to use immigration to increase the net and proportional numbers of all minority groups to make voting blocks more fractured because this erodes the political/numerical hegemony of majority groups (ie catholics might be the biggest single religious group in a country, but if you import enough muslims/protestants/etc to shift their percentage from 55-45%, you can take away their veto-proof majority status). And since majority groups (be they racial, ethnic, religious, etc.) usually won't or can't organize politically as a majority (eg most white people wouldn't vote republican solely BECAUSE they are white), it becomes this cynical numbers game where demographic differences get more entrenched and pols turn to racial pandering for votes.

  • ||

    Nationalism encompasses a bit more than anti-illegal-immigration. I think there's a lot of legitimately racist people that support immigration laws, including a fuckload of left-wing democrats. In fact, I've noticed a shitload more OWS'ers and progressives championing this issue. Just saying.. screaming "racism!!" when there's a shitload more to the issue is dumbing down the issue.

  • ||

    "when there's a shitload more to the issue is dumbing down the issue."

    Take notes, class..

  • Apocaliptarian||

    OH FUCK OFF! So in libertopia, every town, community, organization of people MUST include every one who wants to live there regardless of said migrant's willingness, ability, or intention to obey whatever compact the community makes. It's called freedom of association, deal with it.

  • ||

    No, I'm pretty sure that's called tyranny.

  • ||

    What is this bullshit of including/not including? This is about where a person can live and work. If you think you can restrict people from owning land or being employed in a certain place you really need to fuck off, slaver.

  • ||

    Seems like another one of those "Libertarians are forcing me to not be able to leech off others, therefore my rights are being trampled" trolls.

  • ||

    Meh, probably, and my main argument isn't with the idea that anti-immigration laws are bad. I think most of here agree with that. My main problem is that with our current fucked up immigration system, who's more wrong on this issue, the feds or the state?

  • John Rohan||

    Why not cut to the chase? Scratch a nativist, find a racist.

    How is that different from hispanic groups who push for easier/open borders? Many of them support increased immigration for racial reasons too.

    I wonder what is your definition of a 'nativist'? I support immigration, but at a slow, controlled level, that allows assimilation. Mass immigration gives rise to ghettos and communities who feel no loyalty to their adopted country. I personally have seen it happen in the USA, UK, and Germany.

  • ||

    "Hate," eh? What, are Americans supposed to LIKE watching their country being unlawfully infested by a bunch of third world leeches, many of whom rob, steal, pillage, rape, and murder? Are you daft? Give me a break! Some things are simply intolerable for obvious reasons.

    BTW, illegal aliens aren't "immigrants." They are common criminals.

  • Realist||

    This^

  • ||

    Ich bin damit einverstanden, sie sind Blutegel. Sie infiltrieren und saugen das Lebenselixier der Deutsch Menschen. Sie müssen ausgerottet werden!

  • ||

    Das^

  • MWG||

    "BTW, illegal aliens aren't "immigrants." They are common criminals."

    No they aren't. In the legal sense, being in the county illegally is on the same level as speeding.

  • ||

    Clearly deserving of immediate execution by gunshot to the head, in both cases.

  • ||

    Is there no integrity in journalism whatsoever (we know the Post and Vargas have none)anymore? The term is illegal alien, and the war has been declared in all states. Even Californians want the parasites removed.

  • ||

    Yeah Race War, fuck yeah!

  • ||

    Dude, I was in SD when the "Day without a Mexican" thing happened.. It looked like it was going to turn into a race war.. both sides were waving their respective flags and screaming at each other from behind barricades. I think there's plenty on both sides who want to see that happen.

  • Beloved Rev. Blue Moon||

    gee, I see "leeches" and "parasites", and people wonder why the charges of racism fly like feathers.

  • ||

    Ich bin damit einverstanden, sie sind Blutegel. Sie infiltrieren und saugen das Lebenselixier der Deutsch Menschen. Sie müssen ausgerottet werden!

  • Cyz||

    Hey look! A couple of Jews shilling for flooding White countries with non-whites! What a surprise!

    Not!

  • John Rohan||

    There are so mahy things wrong with this article that I hardly know where to start:

    Conservatives are resorting to ever more draconian measures to take back the country from “illegal immigrants.”

    Why did you put "illegal immigrants" in quotes there? I see you prefer to use the word "undocumented" but these people are, in fact, illegal immigrants. No one really disputes that point, including them. (The official term btw, which isn't used as much anymore, is "illegal aliens").

    The latest state to declare an all-out jihad is Alabama. But as with slavery and segregation, they are using the government to commit sins that will eventually require even more government to undo.

    It's actually the other way around, Ms. Dalmia. The open borders that you advocate will require more and more government (more schools, more law enforcement, more resource controls, and more civil suits, like contract enforcements mentioned below...).

    It’ll also bar courts from enforcing contracts involving undocumented workers, leaving them no legal recourse against employers who refuse to pay, for example.

    If that is true (and I have my doubts), that is an unjust provision. But the easy solution is not to travel to another country illegally and then take a job. Simple.

    What’s more, undocumented households will face felony charges if they try to obtain basic municipal services such as running water.

    Charging with a felony is a little overboard, and I doubt that would ever be enforced anyway. However, even the most die-hard libertarian has to admit that the use of public resources by someone who is not a member of the community and does not have permission to use them, constitutes a theft, which local residents all have to pay for.

    But the provision that has struck terror in Alabama’s Hispanic community is that schools will now be required to collect information about the residency status of students and share it—albeit minus the names—with state authorities.

    Crazy me, but I think taxpayers, at a minimum, have a right to know how many illegal immigrant children are actually attending public schools. Are you against the public being informed? Isn't that what Reason.com is all about?

    Thousands of Hispanic kids have reportedly dropped out of school, fearing that this is a set up for future deportation.

    The percentage overall was actually extremely small, but since they should be deported (sent home) and attend school in their native country, I'm not sure what your problem is here.

    The idea obviously is to make life so miserable for undocumented workers that they will leave the Heart of Dixie voluntarily.

    Well, of course. Isn't that more humane (and cost effective) than official deportation?

    even George Borjas, the Harvard economist much loved by restrictionists because he opposes more open immigration policies, grudgingly admits raises an average American’s wealth by about 1 percent.

    That article doesn't really support your case, saying, among other things, that the wages of high school dropouts are depressed by 3-8 percent due to competition with illegal immigrants.

    But there are parallels galore between the restrictionist and the segregationist crusades.

    In find it more than a little insulting the way you compare these two groups. There is one HUGE difference between the way blacks/freed slaves were treated in the old south vs. illegal immigrants today: blacks were actual citizens of this country, entitled to full rights as such. Illegal immigrants are not citizens. But they have full rights just the same - but in their home countries, not in a foreign land. Do you think I should be allowed to move to Japan, demand the right to vote there, and when refused, compare my plight to that of the oppressed Korean population in the 1800s?

    There are 11 million undocumented workers in this country because U.S. immigration policies have closed practically all options for them to legally work and live here.

    The United States takes in more immigrants (both legal and illegal) than any other nation in the world - by a WIDE margin, as a matter of fact. We are also only one of two developed nations that provide birthright citizenship (Canada is the other), and we even have a visa lottery for heaven's sake!


    Every country has a right to control its borders.

    That's the other true thing you've said here. Too bad it contradicts everything else you said.

    For decades, Americans looked the other way as blacks endured lynchings and daily indignities in the Jim Crow south. But then a relatively minor incident—the disappearance of three voter rights activists in Mississippi (who were subsequently found murdered by the Klan)—shocked the nation.

    Now you are comparing enforcing immigration laws to lynchings!! (facepalm). Is the Holocaust next? Anyway, there are galvanizing incidents like this almost every day, but maybe not in the way you would like. Nearly every day I read in the news about another murder, drunk driving, or other offense committed by someone in this country illegally (including President Obama's uncle!).

  • ||

    Cites.. you need em.

    Hier..
    "t's actually the other way around, Ms. Dalmia. The open borders that you advocate will require more and more government (more schools, more law enforcement, more resource controls, and more civil suits, like contract enforcements mentioned below...)"

    Und Hier
    "The United States takes in more immigrants (both legal and illegal) than any other nation in the world - by a WIDE margin, as a matter of fact."
    Und MegaHier,

    "blacks were actual citizens of this country, entitled to full rights as such. Illegal immigrants are not citizens."

    And uh.. no, you dumbass. Might want to read a bit. Blacks OR freed slaves weren't afforded the right to citizenship in this country until the 14a overturned it.

  • John Rohan||

    Cites? I didn't see very many in the article... but anyway:

    1. OK, Sy, you want me to actually cite the fact that more people require more resources for schools, for law enforcement, for the justice system, and deplete more resources? You actually want me to provide a citation for that? Just being clear here.

    2. Be glad to. Just look at this eye-opening chart:
    http://www.nationmaster.com/gr.....immigrants

    "People who have moved to the U.S. account for 20 percent of the world’s total migrants":
    http://www.lifeslittlemysterie.....ants-0736/

    BTW, I should mention that the US doesn't take in the most immigrants per capita. But overall, it takes in much more than anyone else. The contrast is even more stark when you take in to account that the massive numbers of migrant workers to go to wealthy Middle East countries are considered "immigrants" even though those nations have no intention of ever accepting them permanently.

    3. Uhhh, "dumbass", I never said that blacks were granted citizenship before the 14 amendment. In fact, I never said when they were granted it. And for your info, Jim Crow laws and segregation remained issues long after the 14th. Remember, reading is your friend, not your enemy! I also can't help pointing out that people normally resort to insulting language only when they have no arguments to offer.

  • ||

    Hey, your words not mine:

    "There is one HUGE difference between the way blacks/freed slaves were treated in the old south vs. illegal immigrants today: blacks were actual citizens of this country, entitled to full rights as such."

    Blacks in the 'Old South'. I'd like to know at what point in history the South was referred to as "The Old South" and at what point you think blacks in that region were granted full rights as citizens in this country.

  • ||

    Assuming that Shikha supports government-funded institutions of the nature you described, your claim about illegal immigrants requiring more resources would be correct if you weren't assuming that the now-legal immigrants in question weren't paying the taxes necessary to support the per capita increase in population.

    Enough with this question-begging bullshit. You're not going to see many people here giving a shit about marginal increase in government spending in these areas; you're going to see people here giving a shit about why government is spending ANY money in these areas in the first place.

  • John Rohan||

    Blacks in the 'Old South'. I'd like to know at what point in history the South was referred to as "The Old South"

    You can refer to it however you want. I was thinking of it as anytime since the birth of the USA to the end of Jim Crow. Certainly in 1868, when the 14th was adopted. But I'm not a southerner, so some can certainly disagree. I'm not really interested in a game of splitting hairs here because it has nothing to do with my main points on immigration today.

  • ||

    Which I'm pointing out are pretty invalid points to make, but hey, keep trying.

  • ||

    Africa for the Africans,Asia for the Asians,white countries for EVERYBODY!

    Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

    The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

    Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

    What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

    How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

    And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?

    But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives alike say I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

    They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

    Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

  • John Rohan||

    Jake Malone, In some forums I would agree with you, but you are making the wrong accusation here. I am pretty confident that the open borders members of this comment forum would support the same thing for Japan, Taiwan, etc.

    However, I do concede that certain politicians, academics, and immigration activists, do push for the benefits of migration into the US & Europe, yet seem to be against it for anywhere else (the vehement opposition of Israelis moving into Palestinian territory is probably the most extreme example).

  • Xajow||

    "Jake Malone, In some forums I would agree with you" Ah. Things become clearer.

  • John Rohan||

    Actually, that was before I noticed he's posted the same thing again and again.

  • Xajow||

    I have a question. You (JakeMalone) say "Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries." Who exactly is this "everybody"? I've never seen that argument made by anyone.

    "But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race[...]." Except there is no white race. There is no black race or brown race or yellow race or plaid race. There is only the human race. If that upsets you, I submit that is your problem and no one else's.

  • John Rohan||

    Xajow,

    If there are no races, then racism doesn't exist either.

  • Xajow||

    Not true. That the thing some people use as a reason to be irrationally prejudiced against others is not real does not mean the irrational prejudice is not real.

  • Jeremy||

    There is no Satan, and yet, Satanists exist. There was no Christ, and yet, Christians exist. There are no female basketball players, and yet, the WNBA exists.

  • Xajow||

    To the idea that crossing a border without permission from government should be considered a crime: Nonsense. Crossing the U.S. border to work in the U.S. should be, at best, only marginally more difficult than crossing state borders within the U.S. People can and frequently do move freely within the U.S. from one state to another for the purpose of work. So why should people from Mexico coming to the U.S. to work be something that has to be controlled with visas and quotas?

    To immigrants and their rights: 1) Do not conflate residency and citizenship. I.e. voting is a privilege, not a right. 2) Immigrants, legal and illegal, have the same rights as everyone else, because they are human beings first and immigrants second. Their place of birth does not determine what rights they have.

    To the matter of H-2A visas: When there are millions of people desiring to come here to work, the 40,000 to 50,000 H-2A visas granted each year are not enough. And when a person needs work now to help feed his family, waiting the 3-6 months for approval of an H-2A visa makes getting here faster seem like a better option. And very likely many people who come here as immigrants, i.e. they remain rather than going back to their country of origin, would probably go back regularly if crossing the border legally was considerably easier than it is now.

  • ||

    Apparently we must keep Americans pure from Mexican blood. That's what I've learned from the newcomers on this thread.

  • k2000k||

    Apparently we must keep Americans pure from Mexican blood. That's what I've learned from the newcomers on this thread.

    Oh quit with the goddammed hyberbole. Theya re making equally valid points just as you are.

  • John Rohan||

    People can and frequently do move freely within the U.S. from one state to another for the purpose of work. So why should people from Mexico coming to the U.S. to work be something that has to be controlled with visas and quotas?

    For these reasons:

    1. The US and Mexico are separate sovereign states. They have even been at war with one another in the past. They also have internationally recognized borders and commerce laws.

    2. Many migrant workers go home at some point, but many of them do not. They remain, their children become citizens, and then local communities have to change their plans to support them in the long term, rather than short term.

    3. At some point, the United States will become "full", if it isn't already. You can I can disagree on what point that is, but the fact remains that the country has finite resources. For example, the SW USA is in the middle of a severe water crisis, and quite frankly to survive in the long term, people need to emigrate from this region, not immigrate into it.

    3. Drug violence is not something anyone wants freely exported into the USA. I know you all are for drug legalization, but it's not here yet for the US or for Mexico, so we still need border checks for guns and drugs.

  • Xajow||

    "1. The US and Mexico are separate sovereign states. They have even been at war with one another in the past. They also have internationally recognized borders and commerce laws." So? The northern states and the southern states of the U.S. were at war in the first part of the 1860s. Georgia and New York have their own laws, their own governments and their own law enforcement agencies. Yet a native of Georgia is free to travel to New York without a visa. There is no law establishing a quota on the number of New York natives who may move to Georgia.

    "2. Many migrant workers go home at some point, but many of them do not. They remain, their children become citizens, and then local communities have to change their plans to support them in the long term, rather than short term." This would likely change if crossing the border legally was made significantly easier. And again, this happens with people who move from one state to another within the U.S. That change happens is not a reason to have strict limitations on immigration.

    "3. At some point, the United States will become 'full', if it isn't already. You can I can disagree on what point that is, but the fact remains that the country has finite resources. For example, the SW USA is in the middle of a severe water crisis, and quite frankly to survive in the long term, people need to emigrate from this region, not immigrate into it." That there are finite resources are what trade is for. Anyway, there are also finite resources in labor, and immigration is one way to help with that. And if people emigrate from one place, they necessarily immigrate to somewhere else. Which means even if you get people to emigrate from the southwest to somewhere else, all those other places then have to deal with population increases. So by your reasoning, U.S. states should establish laws controlling immigration of people from other U.S. states.

    "3. Drug violence is not something anyone wants freely exported into the USA. I know you all are for drug legalization, but it's not here yet for the US or for Mexico, so we still need border checks for guns and drugs." No one is arguing for not checking for drugs or for known violent criminals at the U.S. border. I'm all for having places people coming into the country need to pass through so we can check for known criminals and people with diseases and the like. But that doesn't require a maze of red tape, immigration quotas or police state tactics.

  • John Rohan||

    Georgia and New York have their own laws, their own governments and their own law enforcement agencies. Yet a native of Georgia is free to travel to New York without a visa.

    Yes, states have their own borders and laws also. But we have a Supremacy clause in the constitution. We also have a Supreme Court to arbitrate any disputes between states. There is no such body with any authority over both Mexico and the USA.

    That change happens is not a reason to have strict limitations on immigration.

    Depends on the change. Certainly you would feel differently if the change consisted of an outbreak of the ebola virus. As it is, if you allow in an unlimited number of immigrants too fast, at the very least you risk language balkanization and national split (heck, take a look at Belgium's problems with this issue). Language really isn't a problem with people moving from Georgia to New York (unless you have a very severe southern drawl). I'm for free immigration too, but at a pace and a number that the host country can absorb without detriment.

    That there are finite resources are what trade is for.

    Ahh.. the free trade solution! That can certainly help, but it has limits too. Water is heavy and expensive to transport. Everyone loses when an growing population has to share a pie that won't grow (unless technology provides a solution; right now desalination is extremely energy intensive). And don't even get me started on what it means for wildlife & the environment.

    So by your reasoning, U.S. states should establish laws controlling immigration of people from other U.S. states.

    You are looking at it backwards, actually. It's more a reason why several states in the SW USA probably will at some point be forced to limit the inflow of people, even from other US states. But at the very least, we don't need to invite immigrants into states like Arizona that, frankly, can't support any more population growth.

  • Xajow||

    "There is no such body with any authority over both Mexico and the USA." This is why we have diplomacy.

    "As it is, if you allow in an unlimited number of immigrants too fast, at the very least you risk language balkanization and national split [...] I'm for free immigration too, but at a pace and a number that the host country can absorb without detriment." The government is no better at determining that number (if it exists) than it is at determining how the market should be run, which is to say, not any good at all. And the language balkanization complaint has been raised since the very beginning of the country, and so far, it hasn't really been an issue.

    "But at the very least, we don't need to invite immigrants into states like Arizona that, frankly, can't support any more population growth." You're missing the fact that the market in labor can best handle this. When the resources become that scarce, the jobs will move to where the resources are not so scarce, and therefore so will the immigrants. Immigrants follow the jobs.

    "Certainly you would feel differently if the change consisted of an outbreak of the ebola virus." Actually, I'm pretty sure my loyalty to principles of liberty would stay the same even in the face of the outbreak of disease. Even during an epidemic, people still have rights. Yes, people with dangerous communicable disease should be quarantined before being allowed into the country, but that doesn't mean everyone else should be punished.

  • John Rohan||

    You're missing the fact that the market in labor can best handle this. When the resources become that scarce, the jobs will move to where the resources are not so scarce, and therefore so will the immigrants. Immigrants follow the jobs.

    Riddle me this. Exactly how do you explain to an Arizona resident that it's his best interest to allow unrestricted immigration from Mexico until they deplete the water so completely that everyone has to leave?

  • Xajow||

    How do you explain to a native of Mexico that he should remain in poverty, let his family wonder when they will eat again, and stay out of the entire U.S. because there are water issues in Arizona?

  • John Rohan||

    How do you explain to a native of Mexico that he should remain in poverty, let his family wonder when they will eat again, and stay out of the entire U.S. because there are water issues in Arizona?

    Sure it sucks, but he and his million buddies aren't going to be able to survive in a state that has no fresh water anyway.

    BTW, why the USA? Shouldn't the Mexican government be the ones addressing his needs? What you said there sounds an awful lot like you feel the USA should be responsible for the welfare of all the world's citizens. It's a noble thought, but simply impossible. It also lets too many Latin American (and other) governments continue corruption and shirk their responsibilities at home when they can just send their disaffected populations north for the United States to take care of.

  • Xajow||

    "Sure it sucks, but he and his million buddies aren't going to be able to survive in a state that has no fresh water anyway." So they'll move to another state.

    "Shouldn't the Mexican government be the ones addressing his needs?" If you mean offer him a welfare state, then no.

    "What you said there sounds an awful lot like you feel the USA should be responsible for the welfare of all the world's citizens." I don't see why you would think that. I did not argue that the U.S. government should take care of these people. My argument is that people should be free to move from one place to another with minimal government interference.

  • k2000k||

    So? The northern states and the southern states of the U.S. were at war in the first part of the 1860s. Georgia and New York have their own laws, their own governments and their own law enforcement agencies. Yet a native of Georgia is free to travel to New York without a visa. There is no law establishing a quota on the number of New York natives who may move to Georgia.

    As John Rohan said there is no supreme body to arbitrate disputes between the states. There is the UN however nothing they do is binding and they have no way of enforcing, thanfully, their rulings anways. If the Mexican nation is willing to adopt the US constitution as its supreme document and become a part of the US then I have no problem whatsoever with it. But the fact is that New York and Georgia are not different nations they are states that a part of one nation. The is no North American Union or United States of North America.

  • Xajow||

    "As John Rohan said there is no supreme body to arbitrate disputes between the states." I'm still unclear as to why one is needed just so that people can move from one place to another.

    "But the fact is that New York and Georgia are not different nations they are states that a part of one nation." That is relevant to the issue of immigration because...? John needs no permission to travel from New York to Georgia. There are no patrols on the Georgia border to keep out people who try to enter without permission. But Juan needs special permission from the U.S. government to move from Mexico to Texas, even temporarily. Why? When John moves from New York to Georgia, no one's rights are harmed. When Juan moves from Mexico to Texas, no one's rights are harmed. Having a North American Supreme Court would not change that in any way. So why should I welcome John's free travel but oppose Juan's?

  • John Rohan||

    >So why should I welcome John's free travel but oppose Juan's?

    There are several reasons why movement within a central government is easier/has less need of regulation than across governments. Using your John vs. Juan example:

    1. Language. Enough said.
    2. Education standards are different. John has grown up taking classes on the history of the USA, it's culture, and it's system of government. Juan has had a similar education - but focused on Mexico instead.
    3. Civic investment. John is much more invested in his country. Regardless of what state his is from, he is still subject to the draft, performs jury duty, etc.
    4. Health. We know what vaccinations John has had by law. Juan has had different/less vaccinations mandated by Mexican law.
    5. Nearly all of John's money is spent in the USA. Much of Juan's money is wire transferredto Mexico and spent there.

    I'm sure there are many others - these are just a few off the top of my head.

  • ||

    Much of Juan's money is wire transferredto Mexico and spent there.

    Scratch an anti-immigrant zealot, find a mercantilist.

  • John Rohan||

    Scratch an anti-immigrant zealot, find a mercantilist.

    I don't suppose it even occurred to you for a moment that I am anti-illegal immigrant, not anti-immigrant. Probably not.

    I would also love to hear you expound on the benefits of immigrants sending their money abroad, rather than spending it here. I'm all ears.

    BTW, remittances sent home are Mexico's second largest source of national income. The entire country is literally on welfare, a concept that is supposed to be anathema to libertarians.

  • ||

    I don't suppose it even occurred to you for a moment that I am anti-illegal immigrant, not anti-immigrant.

    No, it didn't. After all, every one of the 5 enumerated points off the top of your head holds without regard to whether the immigrant is legal or not.

    Somehow I doubt that you think the fix for illegal immigration is changing the law so that immigration is generally legal.

  • ||

    The entire country is literally on welfare, a concept that is supposed to be anathema to libertarians.

    The entire country is on welfare due to people working outside it and sending money back to it in exactly the same sense that your household is on welfare when you go work at your employer and send the money back to your household.

  • Xajow||

    "I don't suppose it even occurred to you for a moment that I am anti-illegal immigrant, not anti-immigrant." Then why object to making immigration easier? If the issue is really limited to the problem that people are coming here illegally, then why not argue that the law should be changed rather than that we need all these strict laws. And please, don't bother with the stupid "we could stop murder by getting rid of laws against murder" argument. Murder is a violation of another person's right. Just as John moving from New York to Georgia to find work is not a violation of anyone's right, so Juan coming here to find work is not a violation of anyone's right. That you and the other "I'm only against illegal immigration" folks insist that all the red tape and laws are somehow necessary makes obvious that it's more than just illegal immigration that is the problem for you.

  • John Rohan||

    then why not argue that the law should be changed rather than that we need all these strict laws

    No, the solution wouldn't be to simply declare all illegal immigrants legal. I'm all for cutting red tape, but you still need a process where you know how many people you are allowing into the country, making it possible to actually plan for the amount of housing, school spaces, demand on the electric grid, and (again) water we will need.

    If you simply opened the border tomorrow to all comers, how many would come over the next few months? 1 million? 10 million? 100 million? You don't know do you?

    One poll showed that fully a third of Mexicans would migrate to the USA if given the chance:
    http://www.pewglobal.org/2009/.....d-migrate/

    That's about 33 million from Mexico alone! Do you honestly think that communities would be able to absorb that many people in a short amount of time? We would have to set up refugee camps for them all, and it would take years to recover and fully integrate them into US communities. I just don't see how that would be in our best interest. At all.

  • Xajow||

    "No, the solution wouldn't be to simply declare all illegal immigrants legal." Of course it would not. Which is why I did not argue that it would.

    "I'm all for cutting red tape[...]" Are you? I can't tell.

    "[...] but you still need a process where you know how many people you are allowing into the country, making it possible to actually plan for the amount of housing, school spaces, demand on the electric grid, and (again) water we will need." You seem to be assuming the government can effectively do that. I remain skeptical. I'm not opposed to check points where people immigrating go to be allowed entry. But that does not require visas, waiting periods of months or years, and an overabundance of red tape.

    "If you simply opened the border tomorrow to all comers, how many would come over the next few months? 1 million? 10 million? 100 million? You don't know do you?" I do not need to know. For one, I'm not arguing opening the border to all comers. I'm arguing for significantly less restrictive immigration law. For another, I know that even if I did know how many would come, it would do be no good, even if I were a monarch planning the economy because the economy cannot be planned from the top down.

    "One poll showed that fully a third of Mexicans would migrate to the USA if given the chance [...] That's about 33 million from Mexico alone! Do you honestly think that communities would be able to absorb that many people in a short amount of time?" That depends on what you mean by absorb and how many communities you're talking about. Could they all settle in Flagstaff, no. But then, they're not going to do that. They're going to spread out to other states. Just as they have always done.

    "We would have to set up refugee camps for them all, and it would take years to recover and fully integrate them into US communities." I do not see why that would need to happen. You seem to be assuming all 33 million Mexicans would arrive at the border on the same day and simply stop moving once they crossed the border. I know of no reason to make such an assumption.

  • Xajow||

    "There are several reasons why movement within a central government is easier/has less need of regulation than across governments." Perhaps, but none of the reasons you listed seem be among them.

    Juan's need to deal with English here is not a reason for him to need permission from the federal government to move even temporarily to the U.S. for work.

    Given what most U.S. citizens seem to know about how government works, I doubt is sufficient reason to be consequences of Juan's lack of classes in the subject.

    Subjected to the draft? There is no draft.

    As for vaccinations, if you want to make immigrants get vaccinated as part of the process of coming here, I doubt you'd get a lot of objection to that.

    And so what if Juan's money is sent to Mexico? His family gets to have food and shelter, and raise their standard of living. I should object to that? Possibly Juan and his family may be able to reach a point where Juan doesn't have to come here and be a laborer because the money Juan and his pals send home is used to improve their living conditions. This is what capitalism does. Why should I be opposed to that?

    "I'm sure there are many others [...]." I have yet to see them, from you or from anyone else.

  • John Rohan||

    Juan's need to deal with English here is not a reason for him to need permission from the federal government to move even temporarily to the U.S. for work.

    You don't think the ability to read street signs or follow instructions in English is useful for a worker in the US? I noticed that you and several other people seem to think that immigrant workers are completely interchangeable with US workers, like spare parts in a car. That's one of the problems with relying on Economic models vs. real world conditions. Do you really think that tribesmen and burkha clad tribeswomen from Afghanistan would be fully interchangeable with a US workforce with no loss of efficiency whatsoever?

    Subjected to the draft? There is no draft.

    Males over 18 still have to register for the draft. Illegal immigrants are encouraged to do it, so it doesn't prejudice any attempt to become a citizen later, but there is no way to keep track of them.

    And so what if Juan's money is sent to Mexico? His family gets to have food and shelter, and raise their standard of living. I should object to that?

    In the short term, no. After all, he earned it, so he should be able to spend it as he sees fit. But in the long term, it doesn't serve US interests to have so much of its money leaving the country. If you see yourself as a citizen of the world, and you don't give a damn about one nation over another, then obviously you shouldn't care. If you see yourself first as an American, then it's a concern.

    Possibly Juan and his family may be able to reach a point where Juan doesn't have to come here and be a laborer because the money Juan and his pals send home is used to improve their living conditions.

    Then why hasn't it happened yet? Mexico is still as lawless, corrupt, and dependant on US remittances as they ever were, with no end in sight.

  • Xajow||

    "You don't think the ability to read street signs or follow instructions in English is useful for a worker in the US?" Of course it is. That still does not explain why you apparently think that is a reason for him to need permission from the federal government to move even temporarily to the U.S. for work.

    "I noticed that you and several other people seem to think that immigrant workers are completely interchangeable with US workers, like spare parts in a car." As the wise man once said: Well, you're wrong. And I have no idea where you got that notion. No workers are interchangeable. They are individuals. My argument is they should be treated as such.

    "Do you really think that tribesmen and burkha clad tribeswomen from Afghanistan would be fully interchangeable with a US workforce with no loss of efficiency whatsoever?" What a ridiculous question. If I am ever stupid enough to make an argument that they are, ask me again. Until then, stop ascribing to me arguments I have not made.

    "But in the long term, it doesn't serve US interests to have so much of its money leaving the country." Which interests are those, exactly? A geographical neighbor having a rising standard of living and becoming a better partner in trade and having our long term economic interests come more into alignment seems to me like it would be good for long term U.S. interests.

    "If you see yourself first as an American, then it's a concern." So I keep being told, by you and others. The reasons why, however, seem to be altogether vague, and therefore unpersuasive.

    "Then why hasn't it happened yet? Mexico is still as lawless, corrupt, and dependant on US remittances as they ever were, with no end in sight." And making immigration difficult is a help in this issue exactly how? Why hasn't it happened yet? Did someone promise all of Mexico would be quickly transformed? I did not. Some people in Mexico have improved their living conditions. It's a slow process, amigo. Not a magical enchantment.

  • John Rohan||

    And making immigration difficult is a help in this issue exactly how?

    Maybe when Mexican leaders realize that they can't use the United States as their safety valve anymore to send away their disaffected populations, they might finally get off their asses and fix their problems at home.

    BTW, according to the 2010 census, there are 31.8 million hispanics in the USA right now who consider themselves Mexican (I can't link to it, because I am only allowed two links per comment. But just google "census" "hispanic population 2010")

    So the truth is, we've already tried it your way. We've already taken in more Mexicans as immigrants than any other country on Earth, over ten percent of our own population, and nothing has changed. Their per capita GDP in constant terms has grown slightly but it's very dismal compared to other nations, like the USA:
    http://www.tradingeconomics.co.....-data.html (Mexico)

    http://www.tradingeconomics.co.....-data.html (USA)

  • Xajow||

    "So the truth is, we've already tried it your way." Not in reality. The laws were not changed to anything even close what I am advocating, so no, we have not tried it my way.

    "We've already taken in more Mexicans as immigrants than any other country on Earth, over ten percent of our own population, and nothing has changed." That there may be 30 million Hispanics here who identify as Mexican does not mean we have 30 million Mexican immigrants. Anyway, change is happening even now. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12538168 And according to the web paged to which you linked, the Mexico GDP per capita is predicted to grow faster than the U.S. GDP per capita. So saying nothing has changed or is changing, is apparently to ignore the reality of the situation.

    Again, it's a slow process, not a magical enchantment. But it is a process that would be aided (as many things would be) by less government interference. If you want to see capitalism work better and/or faster at helping people, stop trying to hobble it.

  • ||

    Cartman: Es ist Zeit für Reich!

    Mob: Wir müssen die Mexikaner zu vernichten!

  • Brittanicus||

    WE ARE FINALLY WINNING? E-VERIFY IS GAINING MORE MOMENTUM.

    Phone the Washington switchboard at 202-224-3121 and they can direct you to all House Representatives responsible for moving Chairman Lamar Smith's ‘Legal Workforce Act’ (bill H.R.2885) to the House floor and enactment.

    Stand with Arizona, Georgia, Alabama, Indiana and the State of South Carolina and be a voice against the overreaching Department of IN-Justice. If the DOJ can intimidate these few states, trying to stop the overwhelming encroachment of the federal government over state laws. If the federal government fails to carry out its responsibilities, then don’t condemn the states. It’s not American taxpayer’s job to supplement their own people, when we have accumulated our own poverty. Stand with the TEA PARTY as we represent the American people; not the special interest lobbyists, not the open border zealots, not unions, not the church, or radical majority groups.

    E-VERIFY--Lamar Smith's Legal Workforce Act (H.R.2885) would require 100% of companies—large and small-- to use E-Verify for all new hires within 2 years. This bill would also require all federal, state, and local agencies as well as federal and state contractors/ sub-contractors and critical infrastructure sites to use E-Verify within 6 months; eliminating the majority of illegal alien workers from the 8.5 jobs they are holding in this country. Increase employer penalties and fines for knowingly hiring illegal alien workers. Require the Social Security Administration to send no-match letters to employers if existing employee's name and social security number don't match in their system. Require the Social Security Administration to notify owners of a Social Security number if their number is used multiple times.

    Contact the ‘Ways and Means Committee led by Majority Speak John Boehner (R-OH) must adopt the Mandatory E-Verify Bill (H.R. 2885.) and should be under interminable flak of challenging voters, as never before. Reps. Chip Cravaack (R-Minn.), Tim Johnson (R-Ill.), Reps. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.V.) and Joe Walsh (R-Ill.), Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) John Sullivan (R-Okla.) Rep. Ralph Hall (R-Texas) and as of yesterday Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.) is now co-sponsoring House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith's Legal Workforce Act (H.R.2885.) New members are rapidly joining this marathon bill. But don’t expect Liberals or career Democrats to attach themselves to this law. Eventually it will be the fresh faces of the TEA PARTY leadership that will bring success.

    ONLY 37 CO-SPONSORS TO GO, BEFORE THE E-VERIFY LEGAL WORKFORCE ACT BEFORE IT REACHES THE CHAMBER FLOOR.

    Yesterday I watched a CNN cable discussion on voting rights of Democrats and Liberals. Democratic House members held a forum on Monday judgmental against states that have passed legislation that tighten voter registration laws, saying the move is a clear and deliberate attack on traditionally disenfranchised poor communities. This is garbage; it is to stop organizations as ACORN in subverting the ‘Rule of Law’ when it comes to voting. Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) cast doubt on GOP claims that fighting fraud is the objective of the new laws. In 2012 we have an historical presidential election, which must be honest and not fraudulently compromised by organizations as ACORN. Nobody is going suppress lawful registrations or absentee ballots. But the past has illustrated that Liberals Progressives have used any method to cheat the system.

    State prosecutors are still unraveling the incidents of voter fraud in numerous states, as Democrats intentionally didn’t bother to check seriously flawed registration. We need to oversee every precinct polling station as in previous elections; illegal aliens have been voting and could certainly change the direction of a close vote. To reduce this fraud of our trusted Democracy, we must have a nationwide official picture ID. Statistics from Indiana, Missouri and Georgia, Wisconsin and South Carolina show that ID requirements work well and do not suppress turnout, as Democrats often claim. In all states the aim is to enact a mandatory photo ID, to restore Trust to the electoral process. If Democrats are so heavily disenfranchised by their states voting in a ID photo law, how do low income cash a check or pick up medicine?

  • ||

    Odd how no one except Mexicans seem to have trouble getting legal work status. I work in IT and am surrounded by Indians and Pakistanis who have somehow navigated thru the minefields that seem to stump Mexicans. I'm very sick of being accused of racism for calling illegals illegal and having the unmitigated gall to actually want to take action on it. Can we change immigration laws and make it easier? Sure, I'm all for it, although I suspect it won't help the Mexican immigrants who have seem to have no respect for our laws.

  • Xajow||

    *sarcasm follows*

    Right, because paying Coyotes hundreds of dollars and risking death in the desert or imprisonment is really what poor Mexicans want to do rather than obey the law.

    *sarcasm ends*

  • Monorprise||

    I would not dispute that a guess worker program, perhaps moderated and policed by State anchorites(who have the manpower & local knowledge, unlike the Feds) may be in order.

    But that does not change the fact that The Mechanization of American farms has long been retarded by the cheap illegal immigrant labor.

    That retardation has in-turn retarded more fruitful(higher paying) skilled jobs in the development, manufacture, maintenance, and driving of theses more efficient machines.

    Our farms need to modernize, they wont do that so long as labor is to cheap.

  • ||

    Q: What's the difference now between "liberals" and "libertarians"?

    A: On the issue of massive illegal immigration and massive 3rd world "legal" immigration there is no difference. Both liberals and libertarians are violently hostile to the immigration concerns of regular Americans who want to live and work in a safe, 1st world country - where native born Americans can find jobs that pay living wages.

    And Ms. Shikha Dalmia - I take strong exception to your comment that folks in Alabama are on some kind of "Jihad". The United States never had any problems with Islamic extremists waging "jihad" against us until $*#(*$@ idiots in 1965 opened up the immigration flood gates from the entire world, including the Islamic world.

    Please go peddle your Libertarian nonsense/treason to some other country - maybe Islamic militia held areas of Somalia or Lebanon.

  • ||

    I agree with Jack Ellis about these LeftyTarians @ Reason. They sound like cowardly leftist that hide behind the libertarian tag line. Reason has become an embarrassment and posting this screed from Ms. Shikha Dalmia is proof.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement