5 Reasons to Grant Amnesty to Illegal Immigrants

It's time to get serious and implement the only immigration reform that will work.

(Page 4 of 5)

Georgetown BookshopGeorgetown Bookshop

4. Immigration Is a Natural Right

Last week, Judge Andrew Napolitano explained here at Reason.com that immigration is a natural right. What does that mean? A natural right is a right inherent to our humanity, and the freedom of movement is such a right. The idea that immigration needs to be “authorized” by the government flies in the face of that freedom. Immigrants who come to America seeking the opportunity to work and pursue happiness, or those brought here at too young an age to have any say in the matter, ought to be able to stay to pursue those opportunities. Conversely, employers ought to be able to enter into contracts with any would-be employees they please. The government doesn’t own the country and political borders are just lines on maps. Treating law-abiding people like criminals simply because they didn’t meet the bureaucratic requirements of migration abrogates their natural right to travel and Americans’ natural right to freely associate and make contracts.

Next: What choice do we have?

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.

  • Aresen||

    But they broke the rules!

    / statist mode

  • Drake||

    This is the last time, I swear...

    / idiot mode

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Awesome. I'll sign you up for the volunteers for a tax audit list.

    Something about casting stones and no sin....

  • Marshall Gill||

    So unless I have never "sinned" I can't call murder wrong? Okkkkaayyy

  • Not a Libertarian||

    Setting aside issues of justice and rights, it is the "selfless" GOP politician who gladly accepts 11 million Democratic (or future Democratic) voters. Are politicians really that principled?

  • Rick Santorum||

    Reasons to grant amnesty.

    1. We need more Democrats.
    2. We need to undercut the wages of the working class.
    3. We need corporations to exploit cheap labor.
    4. We need more people on welfare.
    5. We need a bigger government.

    Sounds good, guys! And the food will taste delicious!

  • SIV||

    I saw some Hondurans who put the lie to Shikha Dalmia's assertion that "no one works harder than a Mexican immigrant". Perhaps her analysis was flawed based on her acceptance of "the similarity of wetbacks".

  • Free Society||

    2 good reasons to make an exceedingly short article needlessly 3 pages long:

    1. To increase ad revenue
    2. To piss me off

  • KevOn||

    uMad.com over here

  • thom||

    We should link citizenship to taxes paid. Pay $100K in cumulative taxes, get citizenship, no questions asked. This would weed out a lot of the folks who just want to vote themselves free stuff, and be more appealing to conservatives who are afraid of brown people.

  • jayx||

    If a Mexican pays $100K in US taxes and uses $300K in public services that doesn't sound like such a great deal for the US. Besides, they usually get it handed back as an EITC. To a typical first generation Mexican with four kids US citizenship is worth approximately $750,000. He and the four generations that follow him probably won't pay that much in taxes combined.

  • thom||

    It's unlikely that somebody who paid 100k in taxes would consume 300k in services.

    Additionally, people who collect the EITC are, by definition, not paying taxes.

  • cricket23||


    Illegal Aliens Receive Billions in IRS Tax Benefits

    Friday, 23 Sep 2011 05:17 PM

    By James Walsh

    On July 7, 2011, the U.S. Department of Treasury's inspector general for tax
    administration issued a startling report entitled "Individuals Who Are Not
    Authorized to Work in the United States Were Paid $4.2 Billion in Refundable

    No wonder the nation's finances are in turmoil.

    ******It is clear that unauthorized aliens are filing ITIN tax returns with
    fraudulent data.******

    The Treasury report found that "One common type of
    fraudulent refund involves taxpayers fabricating a Wage and Tax Statement
    (Form W-2) that shows excess withholding and results in a tax refund."

    Read more on Newsmax.com: Illegal Aliens Receive Billions in IRS Tax Benefits

  • Hawk Spitui||

    There was a time when I believed that libertarian ideas deserved a more considered response than a fast punch in the mouth.

    I must have been out of my mind.

  • Libertarius||

    Tell you what, a perfectly voluntary situation (as long as we have a welfare state and positive economic intervention by the state) is for all the open borders droolers to contribute voluntarily to the welfare programs, so the welfare bums can then vote for democrats and thus force everybody else to pay for the welfare bums at the point of a gun.

    The wages of statism is more statism; you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you are going to have a welfare state wherein everybody who supports his own life is forced to support the lives of those who don't care to support themselves, then you either A. lock down the borders and deport every illegal alien you can find, so "the family" doesn't have to pay for them or B. end the welfare state and economic intervention so to eliminate the obviously perverse incentives they represent. Why is this so fucking hard to understand? Why are the pussytarians at Reason so hellbent on destroying America, just like the lefties who hold your leashes?

  • ||

    Or C. fence off the welfare state rather than the borders. Allow immigrants to enter, live, and work on a visa that has no promise of citizenship and explicitly denies targeted welfare to the immigrant and his children.

    Why is this so hard to understand?

  • SIV||

    Why is this so hard to understand?

    I don't know. Ask the reason-staff who seem to think "comprehensive reform with a path to citizenship" is the preferred option and several pro-amnesty commenters who equate the right-to-travel with the "right to vote"

  • ||

    Who are these staff? Don't confuse taking advantage of current events as a jumping off point for an article with support for the legislation that prompts that jumping off point.

    Most of the staff appears to recognize, with most experts in the field, that if you don't solve the problem of next year's immigrants, whatever you do with today's illegal immigrants is not solving much.

    Unless the US massively increases legal immigration, especially on the low end of the skill spectrum (there's no contention on the high end, and of course the protectionist middle class keeping a fence around the middle end), "comprehensive reform" may as well be called "noncomprehensive reform".

  • jayx||

    What about the pressure Mexicans put on local law enforcement, schools, and housing? We really don't have a need or a place for them. So kick them out and keep them from returning.

  • Skyhawk||

    Just like politicians always try to prove how 'Christian' they are to other Christians, the Libertarians that inhabit the Reason comment section, try to out-Libertarian everyone else.
    They cling to the libertarian ideal of open borders while ignoring reality.
    Until we dismantle the welfare state, which is funded by the confiscation of labor/property by threat of violence and/or incarceration, the concept of open US borders is fucking asinine.

  • JWR||

    Skyhawk is 100% right. Couldn't have said it better. Unless the govt stops the redistribution of wealth, this whole article and ideals are a complete waste of time and thought.

  • MacKlingon||

    I posted this the other day but can not help myself when immigration and welfare are mentioned.


  • jayx||

    I like it.

  • ||

    I question the proposition that except for their immigration status they are generally law abiding. To work, you need to provide a SS number. So, every illegal immigrant that ever held a job was, by definition, guilty of providing a false SS number and potentially identity theft.

    Be that as it may, I would agree that in a perfect world we should have the liberty to travel, live and work where ever we choose. However, we do not live in a perfect world. Ours is a generous welfare state financed by prosperity retarding taxation levels and disastrous deficit spending. Under those circumstances, the libertarian ideal of freedom of movement and association must give way to more practical considerations.

  • thom||

    Or working under the table. Lots of undocumented workers work under the table, and even pay taxes on those earnings.

  • Railroaded||

    How the hell are you "working under the table" if you"re paying income taxes? My understanding of that phrase means that you aren't paying taxes.

  • thom||

    Lots of undocumented workers track their earnings and file a return. I guess they feel a responsibility to do so. Be skeptical if you must, but it happens.

  • NihilistZerO||

    ^^Total Bullshit^^

  • Kroneborge||

    "Ours is a generous welfare state financed by prosperity retarding taxation levels and disastrous deficit spending. Under those circumstances, the libertarian ideal of freedom of movement and association must give way to more practical considerations."


  • Hawk Spitui||

    The best reason of all for amnesty...

  • R C Dean||

    Props for the avoidance of the neologisms "undocumented immigrant" and "unauthorized immigrant", Ed.

  • Skyhawk||

    Not to mention 'undocumented worker'. Yeeeeecccchhh!

  • buybuydandavis||

    Reason could shorten this article by saying that they want open borders, therefore they don't want to punish past illegal immigration or discourage future illegal immigration.

  • Libertarius||

    They would have nothing else to write about after that, since every other article is another rationalistic pie-in-the-sky about how great it is to import millions of third world bums who don't have to play by *any* of the economic rules that American citizens have to play by.

  • StackOfCoins||

    Regardless of whether you're right (bums) or I'm right (not bums), regardless of the fact there is a welfare state, if you want to be consistent about freedom, the natural thing to do open the borders. Of course, to be "practical" about it you have to eliminate the welfare state, at the very least to calm down all of your fretting about what a drain immigrants would be. The source of the problem is clearly the nefarious welfare state, NOT immigration.

  • Otisjay||

    "The source of the problem is clearly the nefarious welfare state, NOT immigration."


  • XM||

    If we legalized out of status Americans (I had to try it once), wouldn't they take in 3 times more than they paid in, just like legal Americans? If you came here as a 50 year old, you might be eligible for medicare benefits in 10,15 years and Obamacare next year.

    Illegal aliens also receive 4.2 billion in tax refunds (or says fact check, hmm). It's not too difficult to receive welfare, or should I say, fool the federal government. All in all, the impact of immigrants (negative or positive) in this country probably isn't all that great.

    I'm not sure if immigration is a "natural right". I don't think you should be denied entry because of your race or your belief. Your own government shouldn't prevent your from leaving. But can you relocate to another nation without leaving any record there? Lots of people wish we would just drop dead.

    It seems like only robots who can pick fruits 5 times as fast as any human laborer can resolve the illegal immigration issue. Maybe that's why Latinos don't like capitalism?

  • Kroneborge||

    You might convince me to let them give them a chance in the back of the line, but never that we should just give them all citzenship after they cut in front of the line. Let's not reward bad behavior.

  • StackOfCoins||

    You seem to be protesting breaking a government law that is deliberately designed to prevent people from coming into the country in a reasonable time frame, ie, 'red tape'.

  • Wholly Holy Cow||

    Hmm, seems like it's time for some border crossings into Reason's LA and DC offices. Why not? We'll work real hard, throw you a few bucks to cover expenses. Sure, some of us will commandeer a few computers, write a few unauthorized blog posts, muck around with payroll, etc.

    But anyone should be able to settle in wherever they damn well please, or so I hear. But then again, sometimes I don't hear things too clearly, what with the apples clinking up against the martini glasses and all.

    But hey, personal property rights. Why, they're just for suckers and nativists and mouth-breathers and right-wingers.

    This from the same fucking pansy website that went to closed registration JUST BECAUSE OF ONE TROLL---White Indian!

    So let's all March on Reason. In groups, as individuals. Whenever we feel like, day or night, with good intentions or not.

    Oh, you're not in favor of that. I guess that makes you a fucking bigot!

  • Stormy Dragon||

    See, Reason actually owns there office. You don't own this country, you collectivist twat. I don't need you permission to invite people onto my land or hire them to work at my business.

  • XM||

    If I owned a business, I couldn't violate company hiring policies (agreed upon by shareholders and such) and Human resources to just hire anyone I wanted.

    You have to meet certain requirements to become a citizen here, just as you have to satisfy the job requirement (not to mention passing physicals and other conditions set by the government, depending on the job) of a company to be hired there.

    No one can "own" a nation, but it's ruled by laws passed by the government and their citizens.

  • Hawk Spitui||

    No! No! No! You don't get it!

    Private Property = Magic Invisible Line
    National Borders = Magic Invisible Line
    Cosmotarian = Someone who's self-empowered to decree which Magic Invisible Lines are holy and sacrosanct and which ones can be disregarded at your pleasure because they're only arrrrrbitrary!

  • ||

    Individual Rights = an individual can do whatever he wants so long as he does not violate the rights of another individual
    Government Powers = a government can do only what it is explicitly empowered to do and it cannot violate individual rights without compelling and specifically applied cause

    Those are what distinguish one "magic invisible line" from another.

  • Hawk Spitui||

    Your problem is that neither one of those statements are true, wishful thinking on your part notwithstanding. There are plenty of laws on the books that prohibit behavior not directly infringing on the rights of others. Your definition of "rights" is not one that has ever been recognized in any nation, at any time in history.

    Secondly, the government is very much authorized to regulate and enforce immigration laws, your yanked out the ass "rights" notwithstanding.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    So I guess that means

    Yokeltarian = Someone who confuses the fallacy of composition with sound argumentation.

  • DarrenM||

    There is a difference between legalization and becoming a citizen. (The last entails the first, of course.) Of the 5 points, only #4 might be construed as support for granting citizenship. Even then, it's stretching a little. IMO, no one who is here illegally should ever be granted citizenship, though there would be exceptions (adoption by a citizen, etc.).

  • 16th amendment||

    Regarding your point that illegal aliens pay taxes:

    (1) What is your actual evidence?

    (2) A lot of people who pay social security tax only get all or part of it back through the EITC. One of the reasons they established the EITC is to mitigate the social security taxes low income people pay. Don't forget the additional child tax credit, which is a refundable credit.

    (3) You say that illegal aliens file with fake social security numbers, thereby paying social security tax on which they won't get benefits. But could they also be using these fake numbers to get food stamps, medicaid, medical and such? You seem to be ignoring facts/possibilities that get in the way of the conclusion you want -- which is the illegal aliens are hardworking and pay taxes and get nothing back.

  • Wholly Holy Cow||

    So let me get this straight, S. Dragon.

    If I walk into Reason and commandeer a computer and rewrite S. Dalmia's blogs, eat Nick G's lunch and have B. Doherty's paycheck routed to me, none of those persons could complain because none of those individuals "own" Reason? Just like I have no say in the country's policies simply because I don't "own" it?

    Furthermore, dipshit, I do own this country. We all own it. We the People. We the Citizens. We the Legal Residents. Not We Whoever The Fuck Shows Up and Refuses to Say Who They Are.

    No wonder why True Libertarian ne'er-do-wells hate cops and military. You have no concept of protecting what is rightfully yours, other than by silly fucking word games.

    You could be invaded by leprous Barbie dolls on crack, they'd kick your ass and you'd call it freedom.

  • Wholly Holy Cow||

    It's simply amazing to me the hypocrisy around here.

    Veins burst out of your blessed Rothbardian heads when someone whispers "Eminent Domain."

    Yet, hordes of men, women and children from everywhere on the planet, by train, by plane, by automobile and on foot practice eminent domain (with the total support of THEIR government)*** and you applaud it.

    Just like New London has no right to take Susan K's farm WITHOUT ASKING, Joe Foreigner has no right to settle here WITHOUT ASKING.

    ***How do I know that? How do I know foreign govs love illegal US immigration? Well, it's pretty fucking rare that any country asks for their people back unless they're politically connected, wealthy or they've embarrassed their native country.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Joe Foreigner has no right to settle here WITHOUT ASKING.

    Asking whom? If I have land to sell and he has the money to buy it, what business is it of yours?

  • effinayright||

    Are you fracking serious? The right to enter into contracts and the right to enter and settle in a country are two utterly different things.

    MANY countries do not allow non-residents to own property. Try buying a house in Bermuda unless you're a legal resident.

  • ||

    Ah, yes. I remember Jefferson's words now...

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal subservient to the Government, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness obligations.--That to secure these rights Government powers, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent domination of the governed
  • ||

    Given your grasp of eminent domain, you should recognize that, when the United States government tells me who may live on my property and who I may employ in my workplace, that is a taking of my private property rights for (perceived) public benefit. It is you who are advocating eminent domain applied against the rights of residence, employment, and association of individuals under US jurisdiction.

    Joe Foreigner does ask. He asks his landlord. He asks his employer. They both say Yes. Who is the US to abrogate all those rights?

  • sticks||

    Are you retarded?

  • Wholly Holy Cow||

    Umm, Mike, before JF can ask a landlord, he has to ask the persons at the border first, because the very same system that (theoretically) mans the border is the very same system that treats your property deed as having value instead of it being just a piece of paper.

    As a society, yes, as a group of individuals, we have to come to certain (COLLECTIVE

  • ||

    Hmmm. My deed talks about the county and the state. Nothing about the federal government, the border patrol, or immigration.

    But thanks for tagging yourself as a collectivist. That saves a little work.

  • Hawk Spitui||

    So - exactly who are you relying upon to enforce the rights guaranteed by that deed? Given your aversion to collectives, I assume that when your friendly neighborhood street gang decides to commandeer your house, you'll be handling the matter yourself...

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Yes, because if we had a system of "hue and cry", that group of autonomous individuals engaging in voluntary cooperation would totally be equivalent to a collectivist system of coercion.

    Looks like we need to add the fallacies of special pleading and equivocation to the list.

  • Hawk Spitui||

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Really? That's all you got, an anecdote? There are hundreds of counter-examples; however, I have a feeling you're not interested in those, so I'll leave you with this anecdote. My mom knew the killer, Moseley. He sat in her kitchen once. I guess he was a friend of a friend. Anyway, he asked her out and she told him no because even then she knew he was a sick, creepy piece of shit.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    You're correct in asserting that the United States Constitution doesn't recognize allodial title. Thanks to the 5th Amendment, the ultimate landlord of all real property in the United States is the Federal government, that is fee simple title is the highest title an individual can claim.

    And maybe you're fine with that; however, many libertarians see it as unjust. There are strong arguments from the libertarian viewpoint against this state of affairs. For example, Thomas Jefferson, hoping to convert titles to real property to alloidal title held by private individuals, fought tooth and nail against the continuance of fee simple title. Start with the paragraph that begins, "That we shall at this time also take notice of an error in the nature of our land holdings, which crept in at a very early period of our settlement."

  • Wholly Holy Cow||


    As a society, yes, as a group of individuals, we have to COLLECTIVELY define certain things.

    We all have the same take on personal property. What is yours is yours and mine is mine under the law. Within that same collective, we've also defined residency requirements. So, yeah, dude, believe it or not, the government does define who you can hire, etc.

    You got a better way to organize a society than to have collective definitions of things like property rights, residency requirements, currency value?

    Why is this so hard to understand?

    But then again in your world, the deed that says you own 1313 Mockingbird Lane, is relevant only to Mike and Mike's concerns. No collective agreement needed.

    Me? Fuck that piece of paper. No government is telling me that a piece of paper that says "Mike's property" is gonna infringe on my freedom--which also just happens to be to live in my mobile home on 1313 M-bird Lane.

  • ||

    Property and property rights precede and preexist the state. The state merely recognizes them, subdivides them, records them, and defends them. The state does not invent them.

    It's pretty clear you believe that might makes right. Do you believe that there are any normative principles that might should try to follow? Or does the collective define the collective's power, done and done?

  • Mickey Rat||

    "A natural right is a right inherent to our humanity, and the freedom of movement is such a right. The idea that immigration needs to be “authorized” by the government flies in the face of that freedom."

    If something is a natural right, should it not be protected somewhere in the world? The inconvenient fact is that the authority to restrict aliens from its territory has always been an inherent part of sovereignty. The sovereign may choose not to exercise that authority, but the authority is never denied. Immigration is no natural right.

    "The government doesn’t own the country and political borders are just lines on maps."

    When did White Indian start writing for Reason?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Immigration is no natural right.

    Really? I know some folks who would disagree with you.

    The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. ... He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
  • Mickey Rat||

    That's not asserting that people have a right to immigrate, that was asserting the sovereignty of the states because the king was exercising it against the states interest. The quote recognizes that there should be some "Laws of Naturalization of Foreigners", one wonders at the necessity of that if immigration is a recognized natural right.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    That's not asserting that people have a right to immigrate, that was asserting the sovereignty of the states because the king was exercising it against the states interest.

    Balderdash! Your reading requires some incredible twists in semantics.

    The quote recognizes that there should be some "Laws of Naturalization of Foreigners", one wonders at the necessity of that if immigration is a recognized natural right.

    The Founders weren't anarchists. They believed laws could be passed to protect and strengthen natural rights.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "Your reading requires some incredible twists in semantics."

    Stop projecting. The quote you used in no way, shape, or form suggests the king was violating the rights of potential immigrants, just that his policies were not in the interests of the states.

    "They believed laws could be passed to protect and strengthen natural rights."

    In absence of any suggestion of immigrant rights, the acceptance "Laws of Naturalization of Foreigners" presumes an ability to regulate the migration of foreigners, not an inalienable right.

  • ||

    Actually, "Laws of Naturalization of Foreigners" presumes an ability to regulate the naturalization of foreigners. As well it should, since naturalization and citizenship are not inalienable rights.

  • Agreenweed||

    #6 Because all my white girlfriends were too damn stupid (no offense, I never could find myself a libertarian female).

  • StackOfCoins||

    Pretty sure that's a fantasy dude. I mean, I've seen a couple on the videos this site posts, but they're located in a preserve in LA. I don't think they exist in the wild.

  • Agreenweed||

    Damn. My dreams are crushed. Actually, I do know one, come to think of it. Not exactly a looker, though.

  • Agreenweed||

    Totally off topic...but...
    Did anyone here see the video of neurosurgeon Ben Carson from John Hopkins telling Obama at the national prayer breakfast that we need a flat tax, that the affordable care is not really the best way to do things (he offers his alternative) and that Americans are too damned PC? I like this guy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyyHegP255g

  • Paul A'Barge||

    #PathToLegal yes. #PathToCitizenship no. Immigration may be great for America. Allowing people from corrupt, broken cultures laden with horrible values to become citizens, bring their broken cultural values here and pollute our culture is not good. These people have not come here to change, become Americans and adopt American values. They have come here to feast from out plenty and to infect our culture.


  • judeoconnor@mac.com||

    For an in your face truth go to the boarder and talk to the Americans there that see all this fuzzy wuzzy talk as pure BS and live with the reality of getting shot on a daily bases. How much is most when you're talking eleven million?

  • w adams||

    You can have a welfare state, or, you can have open borders.
    You cannot have both.
    There is a third way which the Democratic party seems to be aiming for;
    Pass a Constitutional Amendment saying;
    "Every Human Being on earth is an American citizen with full rights and priveledges, and from the moment they step onto American soil shall be elegible for all support and benefits available to all native born citizens.
    Any Human Being who is deprived of the ability to step onto American soil, because of poverty and distance shall have equal opportunity to avail themselves of full benefits by applying at the nearest American embassy, in person or by mail."

    We can crank up the presses and print money until anyone, anywhere who sees a U.S. Dollar breaks out laughing.

  • ||

    You can have a welfare state, or, you can have open borders.
    You cannot have both.

    You can have a welfare state that is closed to immigrants.

  • Hi There||

    The only honest reason amnesty will happen is #5 – there is no political alternative.

    But don’t worry, this amnesty is not as bad as the last one, and waaaay better than the next one.

    Just read this: When the Pew Research Center recently surveyed Latinos and asked whether they preferred high taxes and big government or low taxes and small government, they preferred high taxes and big government by a 75–19 margin.

    Sleep tight, America. Only racists believe in borders.

  • tmfa||

    Just a terrible, terrible article for many reasons.

    1. The first reason “Immigration Is Good for the Economy” is true on the macro level. Obviously being able to pay people $2/hr to pick food or doing cleaning work lowers the cost of those services for those that consume it. But what about the impact on people that work in those industries. There are 23+ million Americans who are unemployed/underemployed who could have some of the jobs currently held by those working illegally. Yes, there is a net benefit to the economy by paying people lower wages but at the same time there are individuals hurt in the process. This is never addressed in the article. (to be cont.)

  • tmfa||

    2. The 2nd reason "Illegal Immigrants Already Pay Taxes" seems to be more for an article covering "Myths of Illegal Immigration" rather than an argument for amnesty/legalization. Regardless, the author cites the fact that many illegal immigrants currently pay FICA taxes and says "there's not even a pretense of those payments leading to eventual benefits." Thus, illegal immigrants are currently contributing money to Soc Sec that is not tied to any future benefit payments. But if they were given proper legal status then those benefits would be linked to the worker--it isn't clear if the current legislation would backdate money paid before legal status was granted or if benefits would only start accruing once the illegal immigrant is legalized. Regardless, this, if anything, is an argument AGAINST granting amnesty. Under our current system (supposedly) millions are paying FICA taxes but not getting FICA benefits as Soc Security currently runs yearly deficits & Soc Sec/Medicare costs continue to explode. Once an illegal immigrant is legalized, he/she would be paying the same amount of FICA taxes ( if he/she is one of the 8 million are already "supposedly" paying them) but now be entitled to benefits in the future, making the solvency of SS & Medicare even worse than they are now. So I'm confused as to what exactly the argument is for amnesty.

  • tmfa||

    3 (part 1). The 3rd reason is just downright stupid. "While illegal immigration is a crime, the act of crossing the border without authorization is a mere misdemeanor." Ok and? DUI can be charged as a misdemeanor. Sexual assault can be charged as a misdemeanor. Assault & Battery can be charged as misdemeanors. Are these crimes not important because of their "misdemeanor" status?

    "Immigrants, in fact, may help drive crime down." Completely false. If you take a large pool of immigrants (say none of which commit crime) and add them to the existing population, then the crime rate would go down (since the denominator has increased). But if even one commits a crime, then the overall amount of crime (or number of crimes committed) has increased. So unless the author has some idea of immigrants patrolling neighborhoods/streets to reduce crime, his assertion is completely false.

    "all manners of violent crimes dropped dramatically since 1986, the last time an amnesty was granted to illegal immigrants". Has this author ever heard of correlation does not equal causality? Apparently not.

  • tmfa||

    4. Yes, immigration is a natural right. However, that right is subject to the rules & regulations that the country/territory one intends to visit imposes on its visitors/immigrants. And this phrase "Treating law-abiding people like criminals" makes absolutely no sense. Illegal immigrants that have entered the US illegally are criminals, they aren't law-abiding by definition. Those who have overstayed their visas aren't law abiding by definition (techinically they aren't criminals just by this act). So the illegal immigrants the author is pushing to get amnesty for are by definition not law-abiding and those who entered the US illegally, used someone else's SSN, not paid required income/FICA taxes, etc. are criminals as well.

  • tmfa||

    5. "It would be exceedingly difficult to deport them all—if not totally impossible." No one has said to deport all illegal immigrants. Please cite one politician, ONE, who has called for deportations of every single illegal immigrant.

    "even attempting to do so would require a massive expansion of government bureaucracy, particularly in the form of new government workers to round up illegal immigrants, process them, and deport them." You mean more ICE & BP agents? Since that's pretty much exactly what they do.

    "Individuals would be ripped away from their families and communities." So what? It's not the fault of the US citizens that illegal immigrants put themselves in situations where they could end up being removed from their family/communities. If we applied that logic to everyday life, no person who has been convicted of a crime & is part of a family would ever go to jail.

  • tmfa||

    3 (part 2).
    "Yes, 14 percent of federal inmates are illegal immigrants, but they are largely there for immigration violations." What study/statistic is the author using for this claim? You only get jailed solely for an immigration violation if you are previously deported and then caught trying to re-renter (10 years). I'd venture to say this claim is false but without any type of reference it's impossible to say.

    Again, this author makes the common mistake that pro-amnesty types often make which is look at the crime rate among immigrants, instead of looking at overall number of crimes committed. The issue with illegal immigrants & crime is not that immigrants commit crimes at a higher rate than citizens/permanent residents; the issue is that crimes committed by illegal immigrants (especially those who have been arrested for previous crimes or previously deported or had prior run-ins with law enforcement) are preventable.

    Also the author does not mention anything about identification theft/using someone's SSN/TaxID fraudulently in related to crime. Additionally, the current legislation ("framework" technically) along with prior bills (2007) only disqualified someone who had been convicted of 1 felony or 3 misdemeanors. So individuals who have been convicted of 2 misdemeanors are allowed to stay and get legal status. Why?

  • Boehm Houle||

    A good way to evaluate the claims in the article would be to look at a jurisdiction where amnesty is a de facto accomplishment already - Caliifornia. If you like the results there, have at it...

  • jtelliott77||

    First point: [citation needed]; Straw man; Increase in population in a given area will decrease availability of jobs.

    Second point: Illegal Immigrants take from SS alone, upwards of 12-13 Billion Dollars. That is more than they put in. Very nice in cherry picking evidence, Ed.

    Third Point: Generalization; Illegal Immigrants are still breaking a law- look up the definition of illegal.

    Fourth Point: This same argument can be used if I wish to enter in your house and your property; This is my human right to be on your property, inherently.

    Also, your article said that "...moving them would be too difficult...", so by that syllogism, if there are too many murderers and not enough room in jail at the moment, we should just let them go because it is too difficult?

    In closing, I am starting to wonder how you got the ability to be allowed to write an article with such horrible fallacies as this backing your arguments, and I use the word "arguments" loosely, as most wouldn't consider anything here a valid argument.

  • anzablazer||

    You people don't even no how much illegals have stolen from American citizen. They stole your children's education. Think of all the money spent on educating illegal. That should have been spent on your American children. That was American taxpayer's money that was for your children. Instead, they got overcrowded classroom, less materials even more book that we didn't need for our children, but for illegals. Generations of American children have been cheated out of the higher education that they should have gotten. Now you know why there's has been and on going dumbing down of American children.
    You see when the Illegal drain off all the state education money. The states had to go to the Government for money. The Government took over with the Department of Education. Unionize it all and now you pay three times as much for education that by their own admission is a failure. Those Mexican students that they want to give amnesty to are the ones you pay for the last 12 years. And, what do we get we are call racist. They should be thanking us. Another lie is that illegals pay Tax's. They don't pay State Tax and they don't pay Federal Tax's. How could they? That would mean that the Government knew where they were living and did not go and arrest them for being illegal. The only tax's illegals have been paying is State Sales Tax.

  • Brubaker||

    "...in 2006 an estimated 8 million illegal immigrants—up to two thirds of the total—paid taxes, including both income taxes and Medicare and Social Security taxes."

    Fascinating, but hardly persuasive. In order to obtain employment (other than the most menial, cash based job) it's necessary to have a Social Security number. Since we're talking about illegal immigrants, the Social Security number itself must be obtained illegally.

    Taxes, including income, Medicare and Social Security are then withheld, as required by federal law. Yes, there is "not even a pretense of those payments leading to eventual benefits." That's hardly a testament to the integrity of illegal immigrants. From their perspective, it's just the cost of doing business.

    "Undoubtedly, even more illegal immigrants would pay taxes if they didn’t have to worry about possible deportation as a consequence." Right, everyone lines up for the opportunity to pay more taxes (even John Kerry). Yee-hah! We get to hand over more money!

    It's fine to support legal immigration, but making nonsensical assertions in an attempt to recast criminals as saints is preposterous.

  • cricket23||


    Illegal Aliens Receive Billions in IRS Tax Benefits

    Friday, 23 Sep 2011 05:17 PM

    By James Walsh

    On July 7, 2011, the U.S. Department of Treasury's inspector general for tax
    administration issued a startling report entitled "Individuals Who Are Not
    Authorized to Work in the United States Were Paid $4.2 Billion in Refundable

    No wonder the nation's finances are in turmoil.

    ******It is clear that unauthorized aliens are filing ITIN tax returns with
    fraudulent data.******

    The Treasury report found that "One common type of
    fraudulent refund involves taxpayers fabricating a Wage and Tax Statement
    (Form W-2) that shows excess withholding and results in a tax refund."

    Read more on Newsmax.com: Illegal Aliens Receive Billions in IRS Tax Benefits

  • Peyton32||

    my roomate's step-sister makes $60/hour on the computer. She has been laid off for 10 months but last month her paycheck was $21308 just working on the computer for a few hours. Go to this web site and read more http://www.FLY38.COM

  • NihilistZerO||

    How much $ do remittances remove from the US economy? All the while enabling the Mexican oligarchy to keep the peasants just enough above the line of revolt?

  • ||

    How much $ do remittances remove from the US economy?

    Scratch an anti-immigration zealot, find a mercantilist.

  • cricket23||

    Source: Inter-American Development Bank, March 2006 report, “Remittance 2005”. Mexico remains the largest recipient of remittances, at over US$20 billion, followed by Brazil and Columbia which for the first time reached over US$6 and US$4 billion respectively. Central America and the Dominican Republic combined to reach over US$11 billion; and the Andean countries totaled almost US$9 billion.


    As much as 50% of remittances are unreported. As published in the Development Prospect Group Briefing #3, "This amount only reflects transfers through official channels. Econometric analysis suggests that unrecorded flows through informal channels may add 50 percent or more to recorded flows. Including these unrecorded flows, the true size of remittances, is larger than foreign direct investment flows and more than twice as large as official aid received by developing countries."


  • Rabban||

    Perhaps the open boarders push is just some cynical long ball move.

    Since you can't have a welfare state and open borders

    Then if you want to get rid of the welfare state, open the borders

    Sure we will have to go tits up broke first and might break down like the Balkans but it is worth the risk because borders are an artificial construct from a bygone era of civilization, right?

  • BMFPitt||

    I'm all for it. Whoever is responsible for the pagination in the article should be deported, though.

  • Quimby||

    my roomate's ex-wife makes $67 every hour on the laptop. She has been out of work for 10 months but last month her pay check was $12737 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more here http://www.FLY38.COM

  • ||

    The Immigration law battle is not only between economists and politicians but is basically a racial issue. Those of European origin believe that the law should prevent people of color from living here. But the aroma of Spanish food is in the wind and its spicy odor will have to be sniffed by those that demand the US remain an extension of Europe.

  • cricket23||

    " Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida argued this morning on "This Week" that a key provision of the bill, the so-called "pathway to citizenship" for undocumented immigrants, would not give anything away".

    Sure it does Senator, it gives or sells our American citizenship to 11 million illegal aliens that broke our Immigration Laws to get here!


    It's sad when some politicians and segments of our population want to degrade our American Citizenship to the point where it has no value or meaning.


    "This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1 to 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another amnestybill like this."

    -- Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy on the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.



    "The agreement we just reached is the best possible chance we will have in.
    years to secure our borders, bring millions of people out of the shadows and.
    into the sunshine of America".
    May 17, 2007.

    Ted Kennedy -- Senator from Massachusetts.
    Member of the Democratic Party.

  • cricket23||

    ” Obama of course denies any talk of amnesty, saying instead that he wants illegal immigrants to pay penalties, pay taxes, learn English, and then go “to the back of the line.”

    The line to enter our country starts inside the border of their own country,not ours!

    That's the way the "LEGAL" system works and there's nothing in our immigration laws that says otherwise.

  • cricket23||

    The inscription at the base of the Statute of Liberty concludes, "I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" It says nothing about welcoming people who bypass our entry doors by climbing walls, swimming rivers and sneaking under border fences.

  • cricket23||

    "But what's wrong with granting amnesty to hard-working, tax-paying individuals whose only crime is their immigration status? "

    It's what they do after they get here!

    Illegal alien caught with someone else's passport
    From the NY Times:

    In 13 years in and around New York, Augusto Noguera built an impressive
    life. From humble beginnings in Paraguay, he became a mainstay of his nation's
    expatriate population, running a division of a construction company, working
    for charitable and political causes, and entertaining visiting dignitaries
    at his house in Flushing, Queens.

    The crowning moment came in September, when President Fernando Lugo of
    Paraguay appointed him to an administrative post in the government's New
    York consulate. It was a job Mr. Noguera had eagerly sought, friends said,
    as payback for supporting Mr. Lugo and other candidates in last year's

    There was just one problem: Mr. Noguera was an illegal immigrant.

    Today, he is locked in an immigration detention center in Arizona, awaiting
    deportation. His botched appointment has deeply embarrassed the Paraguayan
    government. And it has stirred a mix of shame, anger and dismay among his
    countrymen in New York, who have been agitating for a more robust consulate
    to help them build organizations and raise their community's profile.


  • pcrudy||

    '...The fact that foreigners are eager to pick crops, clean houses, bus tables and produce allows more of us to afford cheaper food...'

    What has that go to do with being a 'nation of laws not men'? (And notice the clever wording - foreigners - instead of dealing with the facts and the issue - illegal aliens who have broken our laws by entering this country.

    Has everyone gone nuts in this country? Why did we send so many men to their deaths in WWII if not to protect 'Borders Language and Culture"; or, at a minimum to expect men and women to honor their oath to defend and protect our Constitution?

    I would like to ask the man who wrote this a simple question. Would you go yourself - or would you send your son to the first to land on Normandy on 6/6/1944 knowing that future generations would just ignore the law? I would have run off to Canada. No way I would ever fight for what this country has become today - you can keep your cheap shoes and burgers.


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.