Keeping Missouri Safe from Mexicans

David Weigel | November 28, 2007

Wiley (endangered) Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt is pre-emptively attacking efforts to give illegal aliens drivers licenses in the Show Me State.

"The New York Governor concocted a scheme to issue drivers licenses to illegal immigrants," Blunt told reporters at a news conference in Joplin on Tuesday. "A plan like that may sound good to politicians in New York City or Washington, but it would not be good here in Missouri. Under my plan, people who are here illegally would not get a drivers license. And if anyone tries to help them get one, they will be prosecuted and punished."

I understand that the demogoguery dam has burst and it's hard to keep track of this stuff, but what's that last bit mean? Are there fifth columnists in the Missouri DMV who are handing out licenses to people with fistfuls of pesos and kindly winks? If not, it's already illegal to forge drivers' licenses, but under-21s try and get around our ridiculous drinking laws by buying fakes. Will Jefferson City be cracking down on all of them? Just the ones who help out illegal immigrants? I have visions of SWAT teams breaking down the doors on East Walnut in Columbia, breaking up games of flip cup and Wii Golf as they search for laminating machines.

Kerry Howley on the brown panics in states less-than-deluged by Mexicans.

Comments

Episiarch|11.28.07 @ 9:49AM|#

I wish they would focus on the real dangers, like Cylons. They are here and THEY HAVE A PLAN, people!

BakedPenguin|11.28.07 @ 9:55AM|#

Episiarch - yeah, but they're hot. HOT.

I, for one, welcome our new sexy... ah, forget it.

Back OT, how long until an IllegalMexican is caught for VehicularHomicide while DrivingUnlicensed, and this is used as a further argument against immigration? It's the WoD redux.

|11.28.07 @ 9:56AM|#

Are there fifth columnists in the Missouri DMV who are handing out licenses to people with fistfuls and pesos and kindly winks?

In Illinois, the former Governor Ryan is being sentenced to prison precisely because the DMV was issuing licenses to unqualified and, in some cases, undocumented aliens...And then using the bribes, er, fees to feed the Governor's election campaign fund. Not that corruption is specific to the immigration issue, just that state licensing (of many types) provides one more environment for corruption. Immigration is just the latest cover on the same old book.

Edward|11.28.07 @ 10:02AM|#

"How much longer can we maintain huge unassimilated subgroups within America, filled with millions of people who don't speak English or participate fully in American life? Americans finally have decided the status quo is unacceptable, and immigration may be the issue that decides the 2008 presidential election."--Ron Paul "The Immigration Question

"http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul314.html

|11.28.07 @ 10:03AM|#

As long as they're going to restrict drivers' licenses to people who can actually drive.... ha, ha; just kidding.

*tasers motorist for no apparent reason*

"Your identity papers, bitte."

Alice Bowie|11.28.07 @ 10:07AM|#

"How much longer can we maintain huge unassimilated subgroups within America, filled with millions of people who don't speak English or participate fully in American life? Americans finally have decided the status quo is unacceptable, and immigration may be the issue that decides the 2008 presidential election."--Ron Paul "The Immigration Question

Perhaps U guys need to watch some more BLACK ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION (BET) or VH1 or MTV.

U think Mexicans r BAD ???

I think i'd rather my daughter date a hard-working Mexican Illegal than

1. 50 Cent
2. Puff Daddy
3. The Real Slim Shady

None of these characters speak english or assimilated.

Edward|11.28.07 @ 10:09AM|#

'Birthright citizenship similarly rewards lawbreaking, and must be stopped. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the perverse incentive to sneak into this country remains strong. Citizenship involves more than the mere location of one's birth. True citizenship requires cultural connections and an allegiance to the United States. Americans are happy to welcome those who wish to come here and build a better life for themselves, but we rightfully expect immigrants to show loyalty and attempt to assimilate themselves culturally. Birthright citizenship sometimes confers the benefits of being American on people who do not truly embrace America.'---Ron Paul "The immigration Question"

|11.28.07 @ 10:09AM|#

O, Meester DMV Eh-Man, jou arrr soo hhan-some. Jou do Jezebella little teeny tiny fah-vor, ¿si? Y Jezebella show jou how much she apprreciat. [wink]

|11.28.07 @ 10:11AM|#

Exactly how many IllegalMexicans are in Missouri anyway? Maybe LaRaza is planning the SecretReconquista of GreaterStLouis.

Alice Bowie|11.28.07 @ 10:11AM|#

...Americans are happy to welcome those who wish to come here and build a better life for themselves, but we rightfully expect immigrants to show loyalty and attempt to assimilate themselves culturally...

So should Jews Stop wearing bennies and Sheiks stop wearing Turbans ?

Alice Bowie|11.28.07 @ 10:12AM|#

St. Louis is SO GHETTO...Mexicans would actually make the place more decent.

Episiarch|11.28.07 @ 10:12AM|#

Maybe Matt will take the step of banning EDWARDDOOOOOO that Nick didn't take. Step up to the plate, Welch!

It's one thing when Edward made stupid comments and could be mocked. Endless quotes from Ron Paul cluttering threads is a different matter.

Edward|11.28.07 @ 10:17AM|#

Right, ban the guy who quotes what the Saviour actually said. Fucking brilliant!

Deric Ondero|11.28.07 @ 10:29AM|#

Let's see. Mexicans are brown, smell funny, speak english with a strange accent, and eat strange foods with weird spices. Who else does that sound like?

ISLAMOFASCISTS! And here we go with you PANSY-ASSED WEAK-WRISTED LIBERTARIAN IMPOSTERS rolling over as this THREAT TO OUR WAY OF LIFE streams across our GODDAMNED SACRED BORDERS!

Syloson of Samos|11.28.07 @ 10:32AM|#

Episiarch,

Qouting Ron Paul seems like fair game to me.

Kolohe|11.28.07 @ 10:37AM|#

I see the new Welsh overlord status has also not brought forth a tyrannical spelling regime

|11.28.07 @ 10:43AM|#

Alice,

I'm not usually one to play the grammar-stasi, but using letters like u and r in place of words, and having little apparent grasp of the rules for capitalization and punctuation in English while making a point about language use will tend to undermine your credibility.

Also, while your support for Mexican immigrants is heartening, I detect a slightly less accepting attitude toward another racial group. Did you know that stereotypes are still stereotypes, even when they are positive in nature?

|11.28.07 @ 10:45AM|#

Maybe Matt will take the step of banning EDWARDDOOOOOO

Banishment, no.

Ridicule, yes.

Shunning, even better. [hint, hint]

Genuine quotes, even out of context, must be allowed.

sez moi [for what that is worth]

shecky|11.28.07 @ 10:48AM|#

Quoting Ron Paul seems like fair game to me.

I agree. Though it's pretty tired by now.

But let's not underestimate the IllegalMexican threat to the Show Me State. Unless action is taken, we'll soon have to endure a flood of brown skinned, huge brown eyed children illustrations from the Precious Moments Chapel.

|11.28.07 @ 10:49AM|#

Gosh, most of what Ron Paul says makes pretty good sense to me.

Unassimilated immigrant groups are a recipe for serious trouble - just ask the French cops soaking up shotgun pellets.

Incentives for lawbreaking are a problem.

Now, on the issue of whether citizenship may implicate more than mere location of birth, it sounds to me like Ron Paul, like myself and many others, is what is known as a "deep" libertarian. He apparently believes that a free society doesn't just happen, but is dependent on a particular shared culture.

Syloson of Samos|11.28.07 @ 10:52AM|#

R.C. Dean,

He apparently believes that a free society doesn't just happen, but is dependent on a particular shared culture.

We've never had an entirely "shared culture," so there. The U.S. is far too large, too diverse for that to have ever been the case.

Episiarch|11.28.07 @ 10:56AM|#

Genuine quotes, even out of context, must be allowed.

Nothing "must" be allowed. This is a private website. The owners, and their employees who handle it, can do whatever they want on it, including banishment.

shecky|11.28.07 @ 10:56AM|#

The only necessary shared culture is the desire to better one's lot in life. Everything else regulates itself.

Rhywun|11.28.07 @ 11:18AM|#

Now, on the issue of whether citizenship may implicate more than mere location of birth, it sounds to me like Ron Paul, like myself and many others, is what is known as a "deep" libertarian. He apparently believes that a free society doesn't just happen, but is dependent on a particular shared culture.

We already have the free society and the shared culture, more or less. It seems to me that kids who are born here are just as likely to soak that culture in as their parents who turned their lives upside down to get here. So what's the big deal?

Dave Woycechowsky|11.28.07 @ 11:24AM|#

1. Most people, even some "anti-immigrant" people, but most especially employers, want there to be a lower class of people around with fewer rights than regular people.

2. Presumably the immigrants who come over are okay with being in this lower class.

3. However, nobody wants to be honest about the fact that this is what is really going on -- so we call this lower class "illegal immigrants" and do what we can to keep the immigration issue from being resolved. Now we don't have to admit that these people belong to a different class (albeit willingly). Rather, we simply say that it is the violation of the immigration laws that robs these people of human rights, as a practical matter, so there are no tricky metaphysical issues involved (eg, the limits of prospective consent, ability to consent on behalf of one's children).

4. Really we should just admit them if they sign an agreement, on the part of themselves and any heirs, to renounce certain rights in exchange for being allowed to come in. Then we could deal with issues like auto insurance and licensing in a more straightforward manner, instead having to enforce the lower status of the immigrant through ill-tailored mechanisms like drivers license denial.

Edward|11.28.07 @ 11:27AM|#

I think you should consider the possibility that Ron Paul is a Christian nationalist as much as he is a libertarian. His Christian nationalsim explains his appeal to right-wing extremists in the (thankfully) marginal Christian Identity and Nazi movements. Given his views on a "robust Christian nation" and his nativist anti-immigrant rhetoric, he might not be the best loser for libertarians to embrace. You know, lie down with the dogs...

|11.28.07 @ 11:29AM|#

The trouble with Missouri is it's full of hicks. Not the inbred southern variety. But cow tipp'n, bible thump'n, boot wear'n, hicks none the less.

This IS the WOD all over again. If the problem is lack of assimilation, how does erecting barriers to assimilation help?

|11.28.07 @ 11:31AM|#

Dave W.,

So you agree that indentured servitude is the answer :) After seven years, FREE-DOOOM!

|11.28.07 @ 11:33AM|#

Nothing "must" be allowed.

Sorry- "must" was the wrong word; and it is, as you say, up to the site's proprietors to decide what (or who) is acceptable.

Edward is intensely annoying, but I find him no more obnoxious than certain other regular visitors (and the insipid, sanctimonious scolding thereof), and easier to ignore.

Reinmoose|11.28.07 @ 11:34AM|#

Dave Woycechowsky -
I largely agree with you here.
My solution to some of the inequality issues is easy - eliminate the minimum wage and privatize roads, allowing road owners to determine who can drive on their roads.
Fixed!

|11.28.07 @ 11:35AM|#

St. Louis is SO GHETTO...Mexicans would actually make the place more decent.

Dunno about St Louis, but here in Motown we have a neighborhood commonly referred to as Mexican Town. It is not even close to the worst neighborhood in the city. If they can find gainful employment here, I welcome our friends from south of the Rio Grande.

Edward|11.28.07 @ 11:37AM|#

Ron Paul voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004) to make sure federal courts can't consider challenges to "under God."
He voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999), and he supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)

Some libertarian, that Ron paul.

lunchstealer|11.28.07 @ 11:40AM|#

Seriously Edward, take it to a different damn thread. I mean it's one thing to be a one-note antiPaulite in threads that are about Paul, but now you're just spamming.

Episiarch, I think the banhammer still resides in Radley's very tolerant hands. Nick's running the overall Reason.com stuff, so he might also have banhammer capacity, but Matt's in charge of the print edition, not the .com stuff.

Although I bet that any of the staff who really got a bee up their ass could get somebody banned if they wanted. But it's Radley that's the first line on that one right now.

|11.28.07 @ 11:43AM|#

"privatize roads, allowing road owners to determine who can drive on their roads." That's pretty dumb. Traffic and the economy would come to a nice screeching halt.

And yes Edward should be able to quote Paul. Paul's a "Texas libertarian" which allows him to deviate from libertarianism when said libertarianism would be unpopular in his district...But, seeing as how all other candidates are just as if not more flawed on a libertarian calculus and no other candidate talks the talk as well as he does, he is probably the de facto libertarian candidate...

Reinmoose|11.28.07 @ 11:44AM|#

Edward -
Well observed. But what exactly is our alternative? Rudy? Hillary? Edwards?
It makes sense to back the candidate with the most consistent voting record and the most consistent matching with our values. You'll note that the press that RP gets tends to be about the level of support of his supporters. If nothing else, libertarians are showing what a force they are by propelling a candidate with positively no support to national attention with 5% in national polls and 8% in some primary states. That's quite a bit of power.

|11.28.07 @ 11:44AM|#

I have visions of SWAT teams breaking down the doors on East Walnut in Columbia, breaking up games of flip cup and Wii Golf as they search for laminating machines.


It happened here in Chicago...

http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/immigration.authorities.federal.2.336639.html

Reinmoose|11.28.07 @ 11:46AM|#

That's pretty dumb. Traffic and the economy would come to a nice screeching halt.

Way to back up your statement MNG. If the gov't doesn't do it, everyone will be helpless.

Syloson of Samos|11.28.07 @ 11:49AM|#

Is there something wrong with finding some of the positions of Paul problematic or questioning whether one should support them?

|11.28.07 @ 11:53AM|#

Yeah Reinmoose, one thing I hate about the government is how they keep the free flow of traffic that is the essence of our economy stifled up. Oh SNAP, they DON'T DO THAT do they? In fact they ensure that the roads are available to all people, all the time. You know, breaking that up and putting each road in the hands of any Johnny DumbAss who can afford to buy a stretch of it would really solve that problem.

|11.28.07 @ 11:58AM|#

"privatize roads, allowing road owners to determine who can drive on their roads." That's pretty dumb. Traffic and the economy would come to a nice screeching halt.

LOLZ That's why nobody has any shoes and we all walk around barefoot. If only we hadn't privatized footwear!

Oh wait

|11.28.07 @ 12:06PM|#

We've never had an entirely "shared culture," so there. The U.S. is far too large, too diverse for that to have ever been the case.

Well, not if you define "shared culture" to mean everyone has to agree on every single thing. But only someone putting up a straw man would say that.

The argument among deep libertarians is how much and what kind of culture must be shared.

The basic idea is that no country can function under a limited minarchist government without a health civil society, and a health civil society in turn depends on some minima of shared worldview among the vast majority of its citizens. As far as I know, there is not one single historical counterexample to this notion.

Reinmoose|11.28.07 @ 12:08PM|#

MNG -
nice to see you back here. I'm glad that you think things through before you respond angrily to someone.

|11.28.07 @ 12:11PM|#

the reason crew sounds like a bunch of ID'ers criticizing evolution, whenever this train starts up...

example...

"and this is used as a further argument against immigration"

for the umpteenth time - being against illegal immigration (illegal immigration being a criminal act btw) has very little to do with being for or against IMMIGRATION.

and then of course, there's the blatant race card about this just being about bigots afraid of brown people. would you accept the same argument from proponents of affirmative action claiming that those who are against racial preferences are also bigots? of course not, but logic goes out the door when this subject comes up.

as for people who help illegal immigrants obtain illegal drivers licenses - forging a drivers license, etc. is (in most states) a felony.

i guess mexicans are all bigots, too - for defending their southern border against their neighbors to the south illegally immigrating? oh yea, and they do it with armed military, fencing, etc.

every nation has the right to protect their sovereignty. that is entirely consistent with libertarianism, all snarky comments aside.

Syloson of Samos|11.28.07 @ 12:13PM|#

R.C. Dean,

...and a health civil society in turn depends on some minima of shared worldview among the vast majority of its citizens.

I guess you'd have to define what you mean by worldview, since we clearly live in a society with many competing, significantly large worldviews from my perspective; religious v. secular being two such competing groups.

As far as I know, there is not one single historical counterexample to this notion.

There is no way to know either way given the rather recent invention of opinion polling. However, given that the nation-state of rather recent import it seems likely that earlier, cobbled-together kingdoms and empires actually did contain such diversity.

Syloson of Samos|11.28.07 @ 12:17PM|#

whit,

If someone doesn't support the current system of immigration law why should they be troubled if people get around it? Let's say someone disagrees with the current system of marijuana laws in most states and the federal government? Should they be overjoyed that those laws are enforced?

fyodor|11.28.07 @ 12:21PM|#

RC,

Is there something about Mexican immigrants' worldview/culture that obstructs their ability to participate in a free society?

|11.28.07 @ 12:42PM|#

Is there something about Mexican immigrants' worldview/culture that obstructs their ability to participate in a free society?

I'm not RC, but let me go check...
Nope, Mexico is on my list of functioning democracies.

Edward|11.28.07 @ 12:44PM|#

But what exactly is our alternative? Rudy? Hillary? Edwards?

If Ron Paul is all you've got, libertarians are better off staying out of electoral politics altogether and just doing educational work. The guy's a sure loser with all sorts of wacko associations.

|11.28.07 @ 12:46PM|#

Flail harder, Gov. Blunt! You're still sinking!

Syloson of Samos|11.28.07 @ 12:56PM|#

J sub D,

That would of course be a reason to object to immigrants from nations around the world. Indeed, that would also be true of various historical immigrations, including that of say the Irish.

|11.28.07 @ 1:00PM|#

From the archive...

whit | November 28, 1857, 12:11pm | #

for the umpteenth time - being against harboring fugitive slaves (harboring fugitive slaves being a criminal act btw) has very little to do with being for or against FREEING SLAVES.

|11.28.07 @ 1:05PM|#

every nation has the right to protect their sovereignty. that is entirely consistent with libertarianism, all snarky comments aside.

Could you please define 'sovereignty' in such a way that it includes prohibiting the migration of people who neither intend nor cause the nation any harm yet excludes, say, the nation executing everyone whose last name starts with a vowel?

If you can't, then your notion of sovereignty is most definitely not consistent with libertarianism.

|11.28.07 @ 1:25PM|#

Really we should just admit them if they sign an agreement, on the part of themselves and any heirs, to renounce certain rights in exchange for being allowed to come in.

From Ed Crane at Cato...

Suppose we increased the level of immigration, but the rule would be that immigrants and their descendants would have no access to government social services, including welfare, social security, health care, business subsidies, or the public schools. I would argue first that there would be no lack of takers for that proposition. Second, within a generation, we would see those immigrants' children going to better and far cheaper schools than the average citizen; there would be less poverty, a better work ethic, and proportionately more entrepreneurs than in the rest of U.S. society; and virtually everyone in this group would have inexpensive high-deductible catastrophic health insurance, while the truly needy would be cared for by an "immigrant culture" that gave proportionately more to charity. If my hypothesis is true, and I believe it would be for virtually any immigrant group you could name, it is something to think about, isn't it? That kind of freedom's why people came here in the first place -- not for a government that takes 43 percent of your income, regulates you to death and tells you which books your child must read in school.

|11.28.07 @ 1:35PM|#

I guess you'd have to define what you mean by worldview, since we clearly live in a society with many competing, significantly large worldviews from my perspective; religious v. secular being two such competing groups.

And if you haven't noticed, the increase in diverging worldviews in this country has been accompanied by a diminution in civil society and the growth of the Total State. I'm not saying that there is a strong causation on display, I'm just saying I'm not seeing any refutation of deep libertarian principles.

However, given that the nation-state of rather recent import it seems likely that earlier, cobbled-together kingdoms and empires actually did contain such diversity.

Kingdoms and empires are not noted for being minarchies that any libertarian would want to emulate.

|11.28.07 @ 1:38PM|#

Could you please define 'sovereignty' in such a way that it includes prohibiting the migration of people who neither intend nor cause the nation any harm yet excludes, say, the nation executing everyone whose last name starts with a vowel?

I can easily imagine a nation under the rule of law, which law specifies (a) no punishment will be imposed just because you have a name ending in a vowel and (b) no one is allowed in without official permission.

One rather imagines that, for example, most European nations fit this definition.

|11.28.07 @ 1:42PM|#

I can easily imagine a nation under the rule of law, which law specifies (a) no punishment will be imposed just because you have a name ending in a vowel and (b) no one is allowed in without official permission.

And I can easily imagine a nation under the rule of law, which law specifies (a) Congress may at times pass legislation that requires the execution of everyone who has a name ending in a vowel and (b) anyone is allowed in without official permission.

How is that nation any less sovereign than the one you posit?

Edward|11.28.07 @ 1:43PM|#

Bad News for Ron Paul

Young Americans Are Leaning Left, New Poll Finds

By ADAM NAGOURNEY and MEGAN THEE
Published: June 27, 2007
Young Americans are more likely than the general public to favor a government-run universal health care insurance system, an open-door policy on immigration and the legalization of gay marriage, according to a New York Times/CBS News/MTV poll. The poll also found that they are more likely to say the war in Iraq is heading to a successful conclusion.

Read more http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/27/washington/27poll.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin

Syloson of Samos|11.28.07 @ 2:20PM|#

And if you haven't noticed, the increase in diverging worldviews in this country has been accompanied by a diminution in civil society and the growth of the Total State. I'm not saying that there is a strong causation on display, I'm just saying I'm not seeing any refutation of deep libertarian principles.

Are you suggesting that a libertarian society is basically a homogenous society? If so, that at best seems pardoxical.

Kingdoms and empires are not noted for being minarchies that any libertarian would want to emulate.

Actually, a lot of kingdoms and empires have had little to say about the daily lives of their subjects and were rather loosely run affairs which left most government to the locals to sort out.

|11.28.07 @ 2:26PM|#

Could you please define 'sovereignty' in such a way that it includes prohibiting the migration of people who neither intend nor cause the nation any harm yet excludes, say, the nation executing everyone whose last name starts with a vowel?

No, I can't, because the concept of "sovereignty" neither includes or excludes either one of those things.

"Sovereignty" is simply the exclusive authority to make law within a given jurisdiction.

However, sovereignty certainly includes the authority to protect the integrity of that jurisdiction, which is probably what the parent was probably referring to.


If you can't, then your notion of sovereignty is most definitely not consistent with libertarianism.

That may or may not be true, but this I can assure you of - the day that it's ascertained that sovereignty and libertarianism are mutually exclusive, it will be libertarianism that will massively lose adherents, not sovereignty.

|11.28.07 @ 2:27PM|#

"From the archive...

whit | November 28, 1857, 12:11pm | #

for the umpteenth time - being against harboring fugitive slaves (harboring fugitive slaves being a criminal act btw) has very little to do with being for or against FREEING SLAVES."

perfect example of playing the race card (not that mexican is a RACE, but it is played that way).

this is not about race. it's about sovereignty. it's about what EVERY country has a right to do, which is protect its borders.

you are doing exactly what leftists do when their slavish adherence to racial preferences is questioned - they play the race card.

this has nothing to do with race. it has to do with enforcing our borders, and the laws that protect them from ANY illegal immigration - regardless of race. it is a matter of chance that we happen to live next to a third world country, so its natural that there is far more illegal immigration from the south than the north, but they BOTH need to be vigorously prosecuted and enforced.

canada, as a counterexample, happens to live next to a country that doesn't do a lot of illegal entries (apart from yer occasional pot trafficker or murder suspect escaping the death penalty) :) so they don't have to deal with the issue.

a good friend of mine is a canadian citizen chiro who chose to escape socialized medicine and work here in the US as a chiro. she goes through a lot of crap to do so, and also pays dual taxes. the point is she follows the law.

i have no enmity towards illegal immigrants. likely, if i was born in their circ's i'd do the same thing. that's irrelevant to the legal issues involved.

it never ceases to amaze me how supposedly "reason(able)" people will play the same petty rhetorical tricks, and name calling when defending their issues, as those on the far left or right that they criticize for doing the same.

as a libertarian, i believe the govt. has FAR too much power, and intrusion into our personal and professional lives. one area where the govt. ABSOLUTELY has (and should enforce more vigorously) authority and power is in protection of borders.

but it's nice to know that one can have never have a rational discussion with those that choose to play the race card.

racism was, and still is, abhorrent. enforcing national borders is not.

do you honestly believe that enforcing our borders is tantamount to enslaving people (based on race, or any other reason?).

|11.28.07 @ 2:40PM|#

However, sovereignty certainly includes the authority to protect the integrity of that jurisdiction, which is probably what the parent was probably referring to.

And that is why I qualified the immigrants as neither intending nor causing harm to the nation.

this I can assure you of - the day that it's ascertained that sovereignty and libertarianism are mutually exclusive, it will be libertarianism that will massively lose adherents, not sovereignty.

No one is arguing that they are mutually exclusive. I am arguing that "protecting sovereignty" does not imply a libertarian outcome, just as "respecting the legality" does not imply a libertarian outcome.

|11.28.07 @ 2:51PM|#

whit,

It speaks volumes that you read my comment and thought I was talking about race rather than the fact that slavery was legal.

I did not play the "race" card. I played the "sovereign nations often have laws that are anti-liberty and the fact that a nation is sovereign in and of itself does not imply that every one of its laws is right and should be obeyed or respected" card. I used fugitive slaves because the most obvious example would find me accused of playing the "Godwin" card.

but it's nice to know that one can have never have a rational discussion with those that choose to play the race card.

You played it. I didn't.

|11.28.07 @ 2:57PM|#

And that is why I qualified the immigrants as neither intending nor causing harm to the nation.

In regard to sovereignty, it's an irrelevant distinction. If a roving band of mad landscapers took it upon themselves to mow my lawn and trim my hedges without my consent, I still have the authority to evict them, even if their presence is beneficial. Likewise, the sovereign has authority to evict, although that authority may be constitutionally or legislatively limited.

In the days when kings were sovereigns, it wasn't unusual for them to evict entire classes of people from their kingdoms at their whim. In a constitutional republic, that authority is somewhat more constrained, but still operative.

|11.28.07 @ 2:59PM|#

as a libertarian, i believe the govt. has FAR too much power, and intrusion into our personal and professional lives. one area where the govt. ABSOLUTELY has (and should enforce more vigorously) authority and power is in protection of borders.

I don't disagree. But protection of borders does not mean arbitrarily prohibiting entry because the prospective immigrant happened to be born somewhere else. Protection of borders means prohibiting his entry because of specific intended or actual harm to the society -- for example, if he is a terrorist, felon, carrier of disease, agent of a foreign power, or the like.

Being more restrictive than that is simply a violation of individual rights and is completely inconsistent with libertarianism.

|11.28.07 @ 3:01PM|#

"It speaks volumes that you read my comment and thought I was talking about race rather than the fact that slavery was legal."

right. so the point is that slavery was once legal and was defended as such. illegal immigration is now illegal and is defended as such. therefore defending the concept of illegal immigration being a crime and enforcable is comparable to defending slavery, since both were or are part of the legal framework and thus defensible?

got it.

lol

look, i readily agree that many laws that criminalize X shouldn't. for example, i think laws criminalizing marijuana are retarded.

i do not think laws criminalizing illegal immigration are retarded. i think they are essential, just, and incredibly important.

i would distinguish laws against slavery (morally abhorrent and impinging upon fundamental human rights) with laws against marijuana use (stupid, but not infringing upon fundamental human rights).

but yes, we both agree that malum prohibitum =/= malum in se

in rereading yer post, i can agree that you did not really play the race card, so my apologies for that. i find the comparison to slavery (for above mentioned reasons) to be ridiculous (much as if you compared anti-mj laws to the same slavery laws), but i get yer point.

to clarify my position - i do not support illegal immigration laws BECAUSE they are the law. i support them because i think they are just, necessary, and well within the authority of govt. to impose. that would distinguish them from anti-mj laws, which i do think are within the authority of govt. to impose (state govt's, i think most federal anti-mj laws run afoul of states right issues - such as medical MJ etc.), but neither just nor necessary.

|11.28.07 @ 3:04PM|#

In regard to sovereignty, it's an irrelevant distinction.

But in regard to whether the exercise in sovereignty is consistent with libertarianism, it is entirely relevant.

I do not disagree with sovereignty or the fact that it exists. I disagree with statements that imply that the exercise of sovereignty is in and of itself consistent with a libertarian society.

Sovereignty is a positive, not normative, concept. Libertarianism is a normative, not positive, concept. The former does not serve as an argument in support of the latter.

|11.28.07 @ 3:09PM|#

whit,

I think the U.S. government has the authority (not the ability, just the authority) to stop people from crossing the border. I don't think anyone disputes that.

The question at hand is whether they SHOULD. It is just as much in keeping with the U.S.A.'s sovereign power to adopt immigration laws that look like the U.S. in 1848 as to adopt immigration laws that look like Germany in 1943.

|11.28.07 @ 3:13PM|#

"It speaks volumes that you read my comment and thought I was talking about race rather than the fact that slavery was legal."

i think that rather succinctly sums up the differences here.

well put.

this is one area where i strongly diverge from the reason-libertarian-groupthink-circlejerk :) (just kidding) as to what libertarianism means.

otoh, i am less concerned with what libertarianism, in some sort of pure, ethereal, whispy sense - MEANS, than what is just in a society. i believe that libertarian principles create a more just society -thats why i support them. i do not think that borderless nations are good for the society within. i think they create perverse incentives and dilute a nation's strength.

simply put, i think part of libertarianism is recognizing that govt's primary concern is OUR problems, not THEIR problems - this doesn't make me a strict isolationist, but it certainly makes me lean towards such. and just as it is wrong to be running off trying to be world's beat cop every ten minutes, it is equally wrong to be the world's welfare net and allow anybody who wants in - to come in.

|11.28.07 @ 3:15PM|#

Being more restrictive than that is simply a violation of individual rights and is completely inconsistent with libertarianism.

What rights would those be? State the specific right and it's origin. Libertarianism certainly provides for authority to exclude (property rights), even for arbitrary reasons. Sovereignty is merely a property right writ large.

|11.28.07 @ 3:19PM|#

i would distinguish laws against slavery (morally abhorrent and impinging upon fundamental human rights) with laws against marijuana use (stupid, but not infringing upon fundamental human rights).

I believe that both laws allowing slavery and laws prohibiting marijuana use are morally abhorrent and a violation of fundamental human rights. The former is much more abhorrent and a much greater violation, but the difference is a matter of degree, not kind.

to clarify my position - i do not support illegal immigration laws BECAUSE they are the law. i support them because i think they are just, necessary, and well within the authority of govt. to impose.

I, on the other hand, believe that the current US immigration law is, in aggregate, the single greatest violation of individual rights the US government currently perpetrates.

|11.28.07 @ 3:20PM|#

"The question at hand is whether they SHOULD. "

well, yes. the 2nd question.

"It is just as much in keeping with the U.S.A.'s sovereign power to adopt immigration laws that look like the U.S. in 1848 as to adopt immigration laws that look like Germany in 1943."

except that the US in 2007 is neither the US in 1848 or germany in 1943. fwiw, i posted (many moons ago) some stats and links regarding our immigration policies over the past couple centuries and changes thereto. we have had periods of relatively lax immigration, and lots of time when we were very strict, even in many cases - moreso than now.

i will spare you the godwin accusation, but comparing our current policies to germany's in 1943 is laughable and yet again another silly attempt to inject race (and the race card).

the issue is NOT race. it's really that simple. talented people of ANY race etc. are going to find it much easier to get a visa or apply for citizenship that non-talented people of any race. it's really that simple. the idea that this is race based is laughable and an amazing analogy to how the left tries to argue for racial preferences, etc.

i believe that nobody has the right to unlawfully cross a border and then declare themselves a citizen (or quasi citizen) with all attendant rights. i can't do that with canada or mexico, and their citizens should not be able to do same with us.

fwiw, even US citizens LEGALLY present in mexico face FAR FAR FAR more restrictions than mexican citizens legally present in the US (which i can go into in depth if necessary).

regardless, the analogy could just as easily be made to japan, mexico, or any other # of countries - vs. the stupid germany analogy. when in doubt do what the left does - claim that any policy you don't like is FASCISM and/or "the same as the nazis". when in fact, said claim is laughable, but it makes the argument so easy cause one side then becomes "nazilike" for daring to make the argument

|11.28.07 @ 3:25PM|#

What rights would those be? State the specific right...

The right to travel. The right to reside. The right to property. The right to labor. The right to free association.

...and it's origin.

...their Creator...

Sovereignty is merely a property right writ large.

No it is not.

|11.28.07 @ 3:30PM|#

"I believe that both laws allowing slavery and laws prohibiting marijuana use are morally abhorrent and a violation of fundamental human rights. The former is much more abhorrent and a much greater violation, but the difference is a matter of degree, not kind."

well, we can respectfully disagree, but i find your argument suspect. if laws against MJ are TRULY a violation of fundamental human rights doesn't that practically compel you to conscientiously object, stage sit-ins, get arrested etc., harbor mj fugitives at risk to yourself, etc.? seriously. if the US imposed slavery, i certainly would. i would put my freedom (and even life) at stake to protect fugitive slaves. so, if laws against MJ are truly a violation of fundamental human rights, then clearly that demands ACTION!!! :) im really only a little sarcastic here. imo, this is the kind of silly bombast that is both philosophically unsound, and makes libertarians look like buffoons. but again, we can disagree.

imo, there is no fundamental human right to smoke mj, or do any drug. it is stupid to criminalize mj use, and personally im all for decrim, but im not hopping down that bunny trail and claiming that smoking a doobie is some sort of sacrosanct human right. imo, that's ridiculous, but we can disagree.

"I, on the other hand, believe that the current US immigration law is, in aggregate, the single greatest violation of individual rights the US government currently perpetrates"

ok. and that pretty much sums up our differences. i think it is one of the few areas where the (federal) govt. is not just authorized to do X, but is obligated to do X, for the commonweal and all dat stuff.

i mean really, in the age of Kelo, etc. the govt. has been pretty bad at protecting property, and there is no greater property than our nation - as a whole - purple mountains majesty, etc. this may sound selfish, and even a little william f buckleylike (lord forbid), but it's OUR country, people who just run across the border have no claim to same - regardless of race, gender, etc. etc. etc.

im pragmatic enough to recognize that is a fundamental aspect of sovereignty - it's OURs not THEIRs. im not going to fly, swim, run, etc. into somebody (plural) else's country and DEMAND that they accept me. i have NO SUCH right. nor does anybody else crossing illegally into our country.

|11.28.07 @ 3:35PM|#

"Sovereignty is merely a property right writ large."

bingo. i saw you post this right after i posted my post. exactly my point.

we allow far too many govt. "takings" (kelo, etc.). it is the job of govt. to PROTECT our (both collective and individual) stuff.

that's about as basic as you can get in the role of govt.

govt. should leave people alone to engage in self-destructive behavior (which eliminates most nannystate legislation) but not create perverse incentives to be self-destructive (many welfare laws especially pre-clinton welfare reform). govt. is at its worst when it tries to protect us from ourselves, and most noble when it enhances individual autonomy AND responsbility (gun rights, free speech, etc.).

and govt. MUST protect OUR borders. simply put - they are OURS. it may not be "fair" any more than being born of wealth parents is "fair" in the cosmic sense, but that's just too darned bad.

as soon as govt. tries to be cosmically fair and just gives non-citizens all the benefits of citizenship, well, then... there goes the whole ball of wax.

Mike Laursen|11.28.07 @ 3:36PM|#

If Ron Paul is all you've got, libertarians are better off staying out of electoral politics altogether and just doing educational work.

Personally, I agree with you, but what I don't get is why you are so obsessed with/worried about it.

|11.28.07 @ 3:45PM|#

imo, there is no fundamental human right to smoke mj, or do any drug. it is stupid to criminalize mj use, and personally im all for decrim, but im not hopping down that bunny trail and claiming that smoking a doobie is some sort of sacrosanct human right.

The fundamental human right at play here is your right to liberty -- specifically, your right not to be kidnapped and thrown in a prison for doing something that caused no one any harm.

And why don't I stage sit-ins and risk my freedom or life to protect people's right to drugs? First, as I noted, it is a much less severe abrogation of rights than, say, slavery. Second, perhaps 95% of the US Code and 70% of any state code violate individual rights, which poses a scheduling problem for protests. And third, while I find most use of it illegitimate, I recognize the positive fact of the exercise of the state's sovereignty as well as its democratic backing, and I know I will lose.

|11.28.07 @ 3:50PM|#

i will spare you the godwin accusation, but comparing our current policies to germany's in 1943 is laughable and yet again another silly attempt to inject race (and the race card).

I will note that, once again, you've completely misinterpretted a comment in order to hurl a baseless charge of race-baiting and seize the moral highground.

I've no more compared out immigration laws to Nazi Germany's in 1948 than I've compared them to the United States' in 1848. I picked two examples at opposite ends of the spectrum. That's all.

You're clearly very fond of this "How DARE you call me a racist?!?" shtick, but it's getting old.

|11.28.07 @ 4:04PM|#

That would of course be a reason to object to immigrants from nations around the world. Indeed, that would also be true of various historical immigrations, including that of say the Irish.

I don't see as one follows the other. I was just removing the objection that Mexicans in particular wouldn't be able to assimilate into a democratic society. If it seems I implied that those from an authoritarian nation would be unable to, chalk it up to my meager language skills. :-(

|11.28.07 @ 4:15PM|#

"The fundamental human right at play here is your right to liberty -- specifically, your right not to be kidnapped and thrown in a prison for doing something that caused no one any harm."

right. but that's not the same thing as saying its a fundamental human right. the freedom not to be enslaved is. there are all sorts of self-regarding acts that are not human rights. the right to remove body parts and sell them for profit. that causes nobody (*but myself) any harm. are you arguing its a fundamental right to do so? etc. etc.

"And why don't I stage sit-ins and risk my freedom or life to protect people's right to drugs? First, as I noted, it is a much less severe abrogation of rights than, say, slavery. Second, perhaps 95% of the US Code and 70% of any state code violate individual rights, which poses a scheduling problem for protests. And third, while I find most use of it illegitimate, I recognize the positive fact of the exercise of the state's sovereignty as well as its democratic backing, and I know I will lose."

well, then you aint much of a conscientious objector or you aint down with the struggle, man!

seriously, while i agree in sense, i think its silly rhetoric to say that smoking MJ is a fundamental human right. the right to be free from slavery is. here's a nice litmus test. if yer willing to lay down yer freedom or even your LIFE to defend against something, that's probably a fundamental human right. if yer NOT (yer not even willing to risk a little jail time for mj protests) than it's NOT. rhetoric means less than action.

im not willing to go to jail for mj decrim because i readily accept its NOT a fundamental human right. you want it both ways, and then throw in the third element "well i wouldn't win anyway"

where would MLK have gotten with THAT attitude?

lol

|11.28.07 @ 4:20PM|#

"I've no more compared out immigration laws to Nazi Germany's in 1948 than I've compared them to the United States' in 1848. I picked two examples at opposite ends of the spectrum. That's all."

get real. there are all sorts of nations with restrictive immigration laws (hint: many of them - ie scores) that do not carry the godwin'esque baggage of nazi germany. heck, look at japans for pete's sake.

methinx YOU doth protest too much. one can make an apt comparison (to an apt pupil?) without trotting out the tired it's comparable to the nazis schtick. you know how that's gonna play.

US immigration policy, as i said, is not particularly restrictive. but i have no problem with its level of restrictiveness (imo) and comparing it to da nazis is silly, at best.

|11.28.07 @ 4:26PM|#

The right to travel. The right to reside. The right to property. The right to labor. The right to free association.

As I've pointed out, libertarianism very much provides for exclusions to those rights. You have no right to any of those things on somebody else's property.

No it is not.

Yes, it is. At least to the extent that has the authority to make law over all territories in it's jurisdiction.

|11.28.07 @ 4:37PM|#

here's a nice litmus test. if yer willing to lay down yer freedom or even your LIFE to defend against something, that's probably a fundamental human right. if yer NOT (yer not even willing to risk a little jail time for mj protests) than it's NOT. rhetoric means less than action.

There are pockets on the planet where slavery is still de facto legal. Are you saying that you fly from place to place and immolate yourself on the steps of the respective responsible legislative houses?

In 1700, virtually no one would have laid down his freedom or life to fight slavery. Are you saying that slavery was not a fundamental human right in 1700?

im not willing to go to jail for mj decrim because i readily accept its NOT a fundamental human right. you want it both ways, and then throw in the third element "well i wouldn't win anyway"

If a fugitive slave, an illegal immigrant, and a marijuana user came to my door seeking to be hidden from the respective authorities, I would hide them, risking prison time in the process. If the authorities threatened to do a Waco on my house if I didn't open the door, I probably would open the door.

What does this say about the status of slavery, migration, and drug use as individual rights? Nothing.

|11.28.07 @ 4:41PM|#

You have no right to any of those things on somebody else's property.

True. But the state has no legitimate authority to deny me the rights to house on my property, employ on my property, or sell my property to, anyone I want. That the state prohibits the free travel of the person I choose to associate with on my property is a violation both of his rights and mine.

|11.28.07 @ 4:43PM|#

At least to the extent that has the authority to make law over all territories in it's jurisdiction.

State sovereignty is a positive fact, not a normative conclusion. It cannot be used to support normative arguments.

|11.28.07 @ 5:01PM|#

How about, whit, you get over your "baggage" and take a stab at addressing the point, instead of lecturing me about which examples I'm allowed to pick.

If the federal government adopts a policy of having ICE personnel stand at the border and yell "Allie allie ox-in-free!" it will be no less an exercise of their sovereign power than if they adopt restrictions comparable to those of the NAZIS NAZIS NAZIS NAZIS NAZIS.

It's a policy judgement - the federal government can adopt whatever immigration policy it wants. Sovereignty is just as much of a dodge as you pretending to be offended because I described the Germans' immigration policies as restrictive.

|11.28.07 @ 5:05PM|#

But the state has no legitimate authority to deny me the rights to house on my property, employ on my property, or sell my property to, anyone I want. That the state prohibits the free travel of the person I choose to associate with on my property is a violation both of his rights and mine.

Would that include prohibiting Charles Manson from traveling to, associating on, or employing on your property?

Also, given that travel to your property would, by necessity, require access to public (commonly owned) property, where do you derive the right to grant access to property that isn't yours?

The Libertarian Guy|11.28.07 @ 5:24PM|#

"The trouble with Missouri is it's full of hicks."

Full? Gosh, I didn't know I grew up in an entire state full of "hicks".

/sarcasm off

Seriously, Warren... there is some civilization here in the Show-Me State. Even here in Springfield, Missouri... maybe even more than Jefferson City, as it is full of politicians, which are worse than hicks.

Edward|11.28.07 @ 5:34PM|#

"Personally, I agree with you, but what I don't get is why you are so obsessed with/worried about it [Ron Paul]."

Relax. I'm just breakin' your balls.

Edward|11.28.07 @ 5:44PM|#

Ron Paul
Has a lot of gall
Bein' a Jesus freak and all
Talkin' about God in the constitution
And a libertarian revolution
At the same time
As he's closin' the borders
Takin' Nazi money (if not orders)
Bashin' Mexicans for not bein'
American enough
And that kind of stuff
We should call his bluff
Just who are you really, Mr. Paul,
All libertarian hotsy-totsy
Are you really one of us,
Or are you just a Nazi?

|11.28.07 @ 6:02PM|#

Would that include prohibiting Charles Manson from traveling to, associating on, or employing on your property?

Nope. Prohibiting the free travel of Charles Manson would be an action taken with just cause. Neither do I argue against reasonable prohibitions of specific immigrants for just cause, such as their being terrorists or felons.

Also, given that travel to your property would, by necessity, require access to public (commonly owned) property, where do you derive the right to grant access to property that isn't yours?

Long-standing common law regarding access to property by guaranteed rights of way. The fact that the state happens to "own" the rights of way does not change the fact that they cannot legitimately prohibit travel upon them without just cause.

Mike Laursen|11.28.07 @ 6:54PM|#

Relax. I'm just breakin' your balls.

Well, everyone should have a hobby.

|11.28.07 @ 8:08PM|#

The fact that the state happens to "own" the rights of way does not change the fact that they cannot legitimately prohibit travel upon them without just cause.

Like, for instance, being in the country illegally?

Mad Max|11.28.07 @ 9:35PM|#

"Ron Paul voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004) to make sure federal courts can't consider challenges to "under God."

"He voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999), and he supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)

"Some libertarian, that Ron paul."

School prayer? The Pledge of Allegiance? Support for traditional family structures? Oh, my God, Dr. Paul is *just like Hitler!* Wake up, people!

Fortunately, radical ideas like the Pledge of Allegiance will never be accepted by mainstream Americans, so there's no chance of Dr. Paul getting elected.

"Paul's a 'Texas libertarian' which allows him to deviate from libertarianism when said libertarianism would be unpopular in his district...But, seeing as how all other candidates are just as if not more flawed on a libertarian calculus and no other candidate talks the talk as well as he does, he is probably the de facto libertarian candidate..."

That makes it sound as if Dr. Paul supports school prayer, etc., just to fit in and be popular with his Texas constituents. If popularity was what he was courting, wouldn't he endorse things like, I don't know, the welfare state?

"Mexico is on my list of functioning democracies."

"Young Americans are more likely than the general public to favor a government-run universal health care insurance system, an open-door policy on immigration and the legalization of gay marriage, according to a New York Times/CBS News/MTV poll. The poll also found that they are more likely to say the war in Iraq is heading to a successful conclusion."

Young Americans should put down their bongs.

"it will be no less an exercise of their sovereign power than if they adopt restrictions comparable to those of the NAZIS NAZIS NAZIS NAZIS NAZIS."

"Just who are you really, Mr. Paul,
All libertarian hotsy-totsy
Are you really one of us,
Or are you just a Nazi?"

WARNING WARNING GODWIN OVERLOAD WARNING WARNING GODWIN OVERLOAD PLEASE REMAIN CALM DO NOT ADJUST YOUR SET DO NOT MENTION THE WAR GODWIN OVERLOAD

Mad Max|11.28.07 @ 9:41PM|#

"Mexico is on my list of functioning democracies."

That would depend on your definition of "functioning."

|11.28.07 @ 10:23PM|#

Like, for instance, being in the country illegally?

If the law under which one is illegally in the country is unjust, then prohibiting entry or travel based on that law is a prohibition without just cause.

|11.28.07 @ 10:28PM|#

If the law under which one is illegally in the country is unjust, then prohibiting entry or travel based on that law is a prohibition without just cause.

I see. And I take it you arrogate to yourself the authority to decide whether or not a country justly has the authority to exclude you?

|11.28.07 @ 10:44PM|#

I take it you arrogate to yourself the authority to decide whether or not a country justly has the authority to exclude you?

This whole notion of a political theory based on individual rights is new to you, isn't it...

But I'll play along.

Yes. I do take that authority upon myself, just as I accept the authority to decide whether or not a country justly has the authority to enslave me.

|11.28.07 @ 10:59PM|#

This whole notion of a political theory based on individual rights is new to you, isn't it...


Not exactly. I'm just having a hard time figuring out how we got from a political theory that promotes government keeping it's nose out of the citizenry's business to one that requires a country to bend over and take all comers. Seems to me that one is a bit of a reach. Especially when, despite the likes of Reason and Cato insisting that it's the "libertarian position", I've yet to find much of a precedent for it in any libertarian thinking outside of Lysander Spooner, nor am I personally acquainted with many libertarians that actually hold that view...

Yes. I do take that authority upon myself, just as I accept the authority to decide whether or not a country justly has the authority to enslave me.

In other words, foreigners are only obliged to obey those of our laws with which they agree.

Congratulations! You've just provided a wonderful illustration as to why Americans will let hell freeze before they agree to having their borders opened! And quite justifiably, too!

|11.28.07 @ 11:09PM|#

Yes. I do take that authority upon myself, just as I accept the authority to decide whether or not a country justly has the authority to enslave me.

As an addendum...

Lest you think that I am applying one's right to make one's own judgment on just government authority arbitrarily, I believe that the principles that limit government to just powers are well defined and not at all arbitrary.

|11.28.07 @ 11:27PM|#

In other words, foreigners are only obliged to obey those of our laws with which they agree.

No more or less than any native.

People can believe anything they want about a law's legitimacy. People can choose to take upon themselves the moral obligation to disobey illegitimate laws. But whether people obey or disobey laws they find illegitimate has precious little to do with the theory of just law and a lot more to do with the government's exercise of its authority, legitimate or not.

|11.28.07 @ 11:37PM|#

I'm just having a hard time figuring out how we got from a political theory that promotes government keeping it's nose out of the citizenry's business to one that requires a country to bend over and take all comers.

The government's policy of actively preventing people from hiring those they want regardless of where they were born seems to be a big nose in the citizenry's business. Since labor protectionism is the root reason behind immigration law and visa quotas, the whole system is based on the government's meddling with the citizenry's business.

I've yet to find much of a precedent for it in any libertarian thinking outside of Lysander Spooner, nor am I personally acquainted with many libertarians that actually hold that view...

While somewhat contentious, free migration is the long-standing position of the Libertarian Party.

Dave Woycechowsky|11.29.07 @ 9:54AM|#

i>So you agree that indentured servitude is the answer :) After seven years, FREE-DOOOM!

I agree that the limits on "indentured servitude" (perhaps not the best term, but will use it in this reply) would be about the best, healthiest, most productive debate US society could have at this point.

There is a whole spectrum of positions on where the allowable line between permissible indentured servitude and impermissible indentured servitude can or should be drawn. I don't have strong opinions on exactly where the line should be drawn, but I think my opinions would be better and more refined if we had this debate honestly.

Take driver's licenses: if there is to be a lower class of citizens, then they should be allowed to drive (at least in some instances) and they should be licensed and insured. Yet, here we have people worried that driver's licenses will be used to get welfare privileges or voting privileges or privileges to attend public schools. What should happen is that there should be an open and honest debate over whether lower class people should be required to sign away, as a condition of entry, their voting privileges, their welfare privileges and/or their privileges of having their children attend public schools. Then make id cards mandatory so that anything a lower class immigrant person has signed away can be enforced against them with vigor.

Which is not to say that lower class people should have no rights. Maybe, for instance, it is good policy to let them maintain the right to have children and/or the right to send the children to public schools. But this should be settled openly and contractually with the immigrants at the time of entry, and as condition of entry and continuing legal status, rather than having this nonsense about driver's licenses be used as a surrogate so we don't have to make the distasteful admission that we are happy to have a lower class with less rights. It is intellectually dishonest, and, perhaps even worse, it leads to economic inefficiencies like uninsured drivers who are hard to locate.

|11.29.07 @ 1:11PM|#

Dave,

I disagree with your notion that "we" make any conscious choice to keep around a cadre of second class citizens, and then intentionally write immigration law to fill that role with illegal immigrants.

Millions of second class residents may be the net result of immigration law and its enforcement, but that is mostly an accident due to bad law combined with lax enforcement because it is bad law.

At its core immigration law is pure protectionism. As such, it was passed and is maintained for the sake of the working class, not employers. That employers can take advantage of illegal workers who cannot appeal their mistreatment to the state is simply the result, not the intent.

Since the whole point of immigration law is to keep workers out, I think that US society has no desire or interest in any debate about how to let them in under a regime of fewer privileges.

|11.29.07 @ 1:32PM|#

But I do have an interest in such a debate...

I propose that they not be called "second class citizens" or "indentured servants" or anything of the sort. Rather, they should be called "residents".

The rights they would enjoy are exactly the actual individual rights that any person should enjoy.

Where they differ from citizens is in the entitlements and privileges that accrue to citizens. I would draw the line as follows: If an entitlement or privilege given to citizens is generally universal for generally universal reasons, it should also be accorded to residents. Such privileges that would be included by this rule are driver's licenses, public schooling, and emergency medical care. Those that would not be included are welfare and the like.

I would further add that children born of noncitizen residents, while they may be US citizens by birth, are on the same entitlement and privilege schedule as their parents.

The US could move to this immigration policy simply by lifting all quotas and time limitations on visas and changing the privileges that accrue to citizen children of immigrants. Voila... No illegal immigrants. No second-class citizens. No anchor babies. No violation of individual rights based on where one was born. Problems solved.

|11.29.07 @ 1:40PM|#

And I should add that all this is entirely within the sovereign authority of the US to do...

Dave Woycechowsky|11.29.07 @ 1:44PM|#

I propose that they not be called "second class citizens" or "indentured servants" or anything of the sort. Rather, they should be called "residents".

I vote for "second class citizens." That way they may feel some pride as "citizens" of a sort, and also we will not fall into MikeP style doublethink about how we really regard these people, metaphysically.

|11.29.07 @ 1:55PM|#

"...metaphysically...?"

I assure you that metaphysically, as well as in every other way, I will regard these people as individuals ...just as I do today, regardless of whether a person is a citizen, legal immigrant, or illegal immigrant.

What whatever "we" you are talking about will do may be problematic. But starting with a label such as "second class citizen" isn't helpful.

Just got back from 4 years the|11.29.07 @ 6:15PM|#

What whatever "we" you are talking about will do may be problematic. But starting with a label such as "second class citizen" isn't helpful.

Honesty is always helpful. Better to channel efforts into making sure that these people are not forced by economic duress to sign away too many rights so that we don't start to regard them as subhuman.

|11.29.07 @ 6:30PM|#

Better to channel efforts into making sure that these people are not forced by economic duress to sign away too many rights so that we don't start to regard them as subhuman.

1. "These people" have more options in the economic realm than citizens do. They have at least two countries to choose from, while US citizens in general have but one.

2. The very definition of rights precludes signing them away. If you are stretching "rights" to things better termed "entitlements" or "privileges", see 1.

3. I hope I never meet your "we" in a dark alley. They sound thoroughly contemptible.

B|11.30.07 @ 5:09PM|#

I love reading the hilariously disingenous comments by Reason contributors claiming they are not tarring as bigots people who oppose the violation of American law and sovereignty. I am curious though, if you are not calling such people bigots, what exactly are phrases such as "brown panic" supposed to imply?
It should be common fucking sense that people who are not even allowed in this country should not be given a drivers license. Your whole hang-up on the geography issue is as irrelevant as it is stupid. An illegal should not be given a license, whether he lives in Texas or Vermont.



"Could you please define 'sovereignty' in such a way that it includes prohibiting the migration of people who neither intend nor cause the nation any harm yet excludes, say, the nation executing everyone whose last name starts with a vowel"

Your contention that these people cause no harm is flat-out absurd. Buy hey, way to just brush aside the entire crux of the argument, as well as the evidence to the contrary. I guess you think increased crime rates, linguistic balkanization and the resultant ethnic ghettoes, depression of wages (to name only one deleterious economic effect) and the huge financial drain imposed by these people on public facilities, public hospitals in border states and communities in particular, result in no harm whatsoever. And let us not forget, these people are breaking the fucking law. That you can actually claim such a cavalier disregard for our laws does not weaken our sovereignty underlines how patently absurd your "argument" is. For christ sake, barely a week goes by without Mexico telling us what we can and can't do on our border. Do you think this is independent of the fact we have millions of Mexican citizens living here illegally? But hey, you can just do what Kerry Howley does when someone is arrogant enough to actually respond to her silly immigrations arguments: make blanket accusations of racism, making sure to include a dollop of juvenile sarcasm for which this site has become known.

|11.30.07 @ 5:44PM|#

Your contention that these people cause no harm is flat-out absurd. Buy hey, way to just brush aside the entire crux of the argument, as well as the evidence to the contrary.

If this is the crux of the argument, then perhaps someone should actually argue it.

Instead, this thread is rife with statements like...

And let us not forget, these people are breaking the fucking law. That you can actually claim such a cavalier disregard for our laws does not weaken our sovereignty underlines how patently absurd your "argument" is.

Neither "sovereignty!" nor "illegal!" is an argument for or against what the sovereign law should be.