Because Illegal Immigration Has Never Been Such an Issue...

 A national lobby, Americans for Legal Immigration, said Wednesday 22 states are now considering versions of the Arizona legislation.

They range from one other border state, Texas, to Mississippi in the deep south, to large northern states like Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Most recently, Colorado and Alabama went forward with legislation, according to the organization.

Activists "have been working hard contacting state lawmakers in every state in America asking them to stand up with Arizona," said William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC.

The Arizona law took effect last month but with key provisions thrown out by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton, including a requirement for police to check the immigration papers of anyone stopped under "reasonable suspicion" of unlawful status.

More here. Note that "considering" is a long cry from "enacting," but still.

Think of the illegal immigration issue as the "Ground Zero Mosque" issue on the national level. It's a distraction from things that really matter. In the middle of two wars going badly, an economy in the crapper, a government that has shown no restraint when it comes to spending, regulation, or anything else, states are being urged to double down on a policy that will have no material effect on anything.

The Arizona law itself is misguided for at least three reasons: It's constitutionally dubious, it interferes with the basic function of local law enforcement, and it fails to address the reasons why people come here illegally (surprisingly none of the advocates of cracking down on illegals wants to give them the means to come here legally).

If you look at the actual "facts on the ground," as opposed to lurid press accounts of violence in Mexican cities, illegal immigration has never been less of an issue in recent memory. Illegal entries into the country are down from their peak sometime early in the 21st century; immigrant heavy areas have less crime than non-immigrant-heavy areas; throwing a new and more noxious level of regulation on businesses who may be hiring people is not the smart move when unemployment is way up.

But the important thing is we keep people out, especially people who may want to work jobs that no one else does.

A couple of weeks back, I debated the author of the Arizona law, state Sen. Russell Pearce, on Stossel:

Reason on immigration here.

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.

  • Jason||

    states are being urged to double down on a policy that will have no material effect on anything

    I think it will have a negative impact on law enforcement budgets from the cost of enforcement and a negative impact on the economy from the loss of willing laborers.

  • ||

    I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Law enforcement budgets go UP every time they have something new to whine about. The FOP is behind this because it means hiring more cops, paying them more, more disablities, etc.

  • -||

    Anyone notice that Chuck Schumer has gone oddly silent? Afraid to step on the mosque-mine, Chucky? This leaves Rep. Peter King as New York's most visible and vocal media monkey. I almost miss Chucky.

    Anyway.

  • ||

    Chuck has a mosque in between his moobs and is afraid it and they will finally be exposed.

  • cracker||

    wez gots threads on ragheads and now spics. when do wez get a new thread on spooks?

  • Slut Bunwalla||

    Think of the illegal immigration issue as the "Ground Zero Mosque" issue on the national level. It's a distraction from things that really matter.

    So why have you been making 30 posts a day about it?

  • ||

    +1

  • ||

    I hate being beaten by Slut.

    Wait. That didn't come out right. . . .

  • DJF||

    “””So why have you been making 30 posts a day about it?”””

    He terrified that Reason’s supply of illegal Haitian “interns” will be discovered and deported and the Reason staff will have to make their own coffee and wear their own blue dresses

  • BeltwayLurker||

    Speaking of interns, which one wrote this and stuck Gillespies name under a title that has "illegal" and "immigration" right next to each other?

  • ||

    Nick, I have to disagree.

    "The Arizona law itself is misguided for at least three reasons: It's constitutionally dubious, it interferes with the basic function of local law enforcement, and it fails to address the reasons why people come here illegally (surprisingly none of the advocates of cracking down on illegals wants to give them the means to come here legally)."

    Interfering with local law enforce - I understand and agree that it should be the fed's job to handle immigrantion but a law is the law. Illgeally being here is still breaking the law.

    The bigger disagreement I have is with give them a means to come here. Well, first they already broke the law correct? Second, why should the people who willing broken the law be given a chance to be legal above the people who wait patiently in line to become a citizen. Why are we rewarding bad behavior. Finally, the country is like a house to me - you get to chose to invite in. A lot of people might disagree but there would be millions of people who would want to live in this country, why do the people south of us get special treatment? You get to invite into your house, why isn't it the same way with the country. I agree the path needs to be streamlined but do you take in white collar engineers, scientists etc, or farm help, or what?

    I believe you should be in this country because you want to be an american, you believe in the values and want to make it better. I live in Houston, and sorry alot of these illegals immigrants (Which your crime stat is off, alot doesn't go offically reported) don't seem to care about this country, are beholden to their old country, ways and language. Not all mind you, but alot and most (Especially the one's waving other countries flags demanding rights and citzenship).

  • ||

    Finally, the country is like a house to me - you get to chose to invite in.

    So why do you support government's telling you you can't invite certain people into your house?

  • Psychic Octopus||

    Notice that you don't get to choose who to kick out of the country. Not if they are citizens, I mean. I am sure everyone could come up with a list (a different one each, of course) of who to kick out.

  • ||

    1. Max
    2. Tony
    3. Chad
    4. ????
    5. Profit!

  • MWG||

    You're obviously new here so I'll try a keep the sarcasm to a minimum.

    "Illgeally being here is still breaking the law."

    This is common argument amongst conservatives, and a poor one at that. Did you support Jim Crow? What about the Fugitive Slave Act? After all, the law is the law, right?

    "why should the people who willing broken the law be given a chance to be legal above the people who wait patiently in line to become a citizen."

    Have you ever been through the immigration process? I have on numerous occasions and I can assure you, there is no magical line where one only needs to be patient before they're let in.

    "Why are we rewarding bad behavior[?]"

    Risking your life in the Sonoran Dessert to come to the US to find employment and support your family is 'bad behavior'? Oh right, the law is the law.

    "Finally, the country is like a house to me - you get to chose to invite in...You get to invite into your house, why isn't it the same way with the country."

    The country isn't 'like a house', it's more like an apartment building. We all live in the same building, but it's really none of your business who I decide to invite over.

  • Don Mynack||

    Curious, are you a permanent legal resident? Then, by law, you are required to keep your green card on you at all times (Or risk deportation), maintain your immigration status (or risk deportation), and pay federal, state, and local income taxes (or risk deportation). Does it anger you that illegals can choose to ignore these laws at will, while you cannot? Just curious.

  • Psychic Octopus||

    They risk deportation more, as they simply cannot comply with those rules, whether or not they want to.

  • MWG||

    I was waiting for a response such as this. I've been through the immigration process on behalf of my wife (a foreign national), her mother, and her sister (I swear I'm not a polygamist).

    My wife's sister was denied a tourist visa on the grounds that (according to the guy who interviewed her at the consulate) she might get married to an American and stay in the US... as if that's any of the governments business, right?

    Before going through the shitty process on behalf of my wife, (which violates even the most limited sense of privacy and right to freely associate, let alone marry who you want) I was decidedly anti 'illegal immigration'. The process is so prohibitive that it's analogous to alcohol and drug prohibition in that it fuels lawlessness and corruption.

    So to directly answer your question:
    "Does it anger [me] that illegals can choose to ignore these laws at will, while [I] cannot?"

    No it does not as I know there is no way for them to come here legally.

    OTOH, I could have chosen to ignore the laws and paid for my wife to fly from Brazil to Mexico to make the extremely dangerous journey from across the border where she would've risked her life, limb, and the possibility of rape... which I actually think says a lot about the average Hispanic male who comes here alone to support his family back home in Mexico or Central America.

    I've said enough for now. Your question seemed genuine and deserved my time to respond.

  • Raven||

    Went through the same thing myself, and you are absolutely correct.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    If I wasn't me I would say you are me with that post. But I am me and I didn't write that. So evidently there are at least two people in the US that went through the same shit faktory that I did with my wife. I couldn't possibly put into effective words the rage I have about the whole shebang...and I got off easy.

    "keep on protecting us from the DANGEROUS aliens"

  • MWG||

    It was around that time that I started calling myself a 'libertarian'.

  • BeltwayLurker||

    You are the biggest retard currently commenting here.

  • ||

    when you invite them into your apt i have to pay for them,and so therefore yes it is my business as to whom you invite in. you must be young and niave

  • Mike Laursen||

    The bigger disagreement I have is with give them a means to come here. Well, first they already broke the law correct? Second, why should the people who willing broken the law be given a chance to be legal above the people who wait patiently in line to become a citizen.

    Wow, it's common to use the phrase "begging the question" incorrectly, but here you've given us a golden opportunity to illustrate its correct use.

  • Mike Laursen||

    Finally, the country is like a house to me - you get to chose to invite in.

    Oh, boy, this line of argument, again...

    Thinking by analogy is full of potential pitfalls. In this case, glossing over an important difference in scale.

  • Mike Laursen||

    I agree the path needs to be streamlined but do you take in white collar engineers, scientists etc, or farm help, or what?

    Keep asking questions like that and you may get it.

    A central authority cannot do a good job of deciding the right number of this or that kind of person to let in. They don't have all the knowledge they need, nor the bandwidth to gather all the knowledge they need, nor immunity from special interests.

    On the other hand, a distributed decision making system where each employer decides who the best person to hire for each job they have available requires nothing more than each individual employer knowing the specifics of their situation. There is no central pool of power tempting the power hungry to co-opt it.

  • Mike Laursen||

    I believe you should be in this country because you want to be an american, you believe in the values and want to make it better.

    So, can we let in the folks who do share our values. Because I have friends from Japan and Canada who do love America, would be great assets to the country, but aren't being allowed in.

    And can we kick out current American citizens who don't share American values to make room for immigrants that do?

  • Anonymous Crank||

    @Spaceno39, Don't waste your time. Illegal imigration is one area where many libertarians have a MONSTER blind spot.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    And by "blind spot", you must mean "refuse to kowtow to my bigoted and selective motivations".

  • SIV||

    What a fucking ashole. Go hang out on some lefty blog where they will cheer your crying RACISM! at everyone you disagree with.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    I have yet to see a solidly rational argument against immigration. Most of boils down to collectivism/tribalism. Some of it is legitimate concern about the welfare state, except even that is usually just the "hook" for launching into bigoted diatribes.

    Care to lay out a case that will not inevitably descend into these ridiculous notions?

  • SIV||

    So even making what you call a "legitimate" case against immigration policies is bigoted in your eyes. Why don't you criticize the state for it's severe restriction of all but token immigration of those who won't be a burden on the welfare state (skilled,educated,monied). I guess it is more fun to call people racists for bitching about subsidized immigration of an underclass.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    This does not even make a lick of sense. If your opposition is to current immigration policy because it creates an underclass that is deprived of rights, then we are in agreement. However, that means you have a problem with the "illegal" part of immigration, not the "immigration" part. The best way to solve the "underclass" issue is to protect contract rights, specifically, if I want to contract with Jose from Juarez, then the government should stay out of it.

  • ||

    TAO, maybe the government should add a surcharge of $10K for each child that Jose has to cover the costs of schooling, and another $2K to cover medical costs.

  • ||

    Very, very few people are "against immigration." They just want it done legally, and not in vast and social-tension-creating and budget-busting numbers. If the legal process is too slow and bureaucratic, fix it. That's why this quote is just b.s.:

    surprisingly none of the advocates of cracking down on illegals wants to give them the means to come here legally

    We also want to keep out the gangsters, predators, etc.

    As for immigration as a whole, this is another area where the doctrinaire have a blind spot. Just because something is good, and even good for you, does not mean unlimited amounts of it are good and good for you. It's almost always possible to have too much of a good thing.

    Let's say all 380+ million residents of South America decided to move to the US and walked across the border from Mexico. It seems obvious that this would be a refugee catastrophe of unimaginable proportions. If you agree, then (to vary the old joke about prostitutes), you're "anti-immigration" as well, and we're just arguing about numbers.

  • Mike Laursen||

    Let's say all 380+ million residents of South America decided to move to the US and walked across the border from Mexico. It seems obvious that this would be a refugee catastrophe of unimaginable proportions.

    A hypothetical completely different in quality from what happens in real life. The number of immigrants we get, legal or illegal, is naturally limited by the immigrants' ability to find jobs here.

  • ||

    Or find victims or welfare or charity here.

  • Neu Mejican||

    [sigh]

  • Mike Laursen||

    Tell you what. If all 380+ million residents of South America come here and start victimizing everyone and turning into Welfare Queens, I'll concede you were right and we can both homestead some nice vacant land in South America.

  • ||

    But if it's just tens of millions, straining social services, bankrupting hospitals, and swelling the ranks of ethnic gangs, then it's OK?

  • Mike Laursen||

    No, of course the things you mention are problems. But they (a) can be controlled in other ways than "we gotta keep all the Mexicans out!" and (b) they aren't as severe problems as you make them out to be.

  • Psychic Octopus||

    Never mind that the way the USA is going, if there aren't serious turnarounds soon, would take no additional immigrant for all of that to happen.

  • ||

    Hurr Durrr Durrr, teh brown peeple! Bigots, racists, hurr durrr durrr.

  • Federal Dog||

    "I have yet to see a solidly rational argument against immigration."

    Who is arguing against immigration? Name those people.

    All I see are some people opposing illegal aliens.

  • Duckworth-Lewis||

    Racist

  • Sam Grove||

    People with blind spots think everyone who disagrees with them has a blind spot.

  • Jason||

    How about a free market in goods, services, and labor?

  • ||

    Enough is enough! Legal U.S citizens unite! Help take the steps to save our country take our jobs back and stop this illegal immigrant invasion. Support our cause before illegal immigrant criminals have more rights than us. This is our last stand! If other online articles report unemployment is around 20% and there are 310 million in the U.S census reports. Then there is as many as 62 million people in the U.S that are unemployed & are able to work full-time. Do we have to reach 150 million unemployed before we take action? Also we must take steps to lower local city and state councilmen salaries too they are all robbing & hurting the people they serve. So please read and sign this online petition. "Petition to Reduce the Wages of Congress Men and Women from $174,000 per year to $50,000 per year at “change.org’. " Link is below!

    http://uspoverty.change.org/pe.....0_per_year

    Pass it on!

  • ||

    If other online articles report unemployment is around 20% and there are 310 million in the U.S census reports. Then there is as many as 62 million people in the U.S that are unemployed & are able to work full-time.

    I don't think the definition of unemployment is what you think it is.

  • ||

    I was going to comment, "They took'ur jobs!!!" but it looks like you beat me to it.

  • Psychic Octopus||

    Reducing welfare benefits would go a longer way to reducing unemployment than even shooting every immigrant.

  • slayer of berries||

    So you want the poor to starve to death, eh?

  • Psychic Octopus||

    Yes. I am also a racist, of course.

    If the illegals can make do with their lowest-of-the-low salaries and not starve, and even send money to their countries of origin, obviously Anglo-Saxons and African-Americans are simply high spenders who can't manage money. It's in their races.

  • ||

    Pass it on it!

    FIFY

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    What would be interesting would be to see the US DOJ being kept busy filing and proecuting lawsuits against all these states that pass such legislation. Maybe it would provide the impetus to have Congress actually do something.

    Wait a minute, that might be a bad idea....

  • ||

    I'm sure all the problems they have in Mexico have nothing to do with Mexicans. It's just a coincidence.

  • Psychic Octopus||

    So you agree that the problem with Saudi Arabia is not enough churches and synagogues?

  • ||

    I would say it's part of their problem. How many churches and synagogues give massive funding to terrorist groups?

  • Psychic Octopus||

    You seriously don't think armed attacks on abortion clinics or their prominent doctors is terrorism?

  • ||

    How often does that happen, and what proportion of those attacks are funded by nations, international organizations, or even by any group at all?

  • MWG||

    If by 'problems' you mean the violence on the border that has killed close to 30,000 in the last few years or the extreme amount of corruption the infests the govt. in general, that's actually a result of our demand for drugs here in the US and the governments demand that a worldwide war on drugs be fought tooth and nail, damn the consequences and externalities.

  • Tony's Lawyer||

    You will be receiving a cease and desist order filed by Tony for the unauthorized use of the word "externalities".

  • MWG||

    Yea... I knew that word would provoke a response.

  • Mike Laursen||

    Your mind is a nuanced and subtle instrument.

  • Jason||

    I think my fellow libertarians would agree the problems in Mexico are the lack of libertarian policies. :)

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Only Statists think that the State should have a say in where people live. If the State should not prohibit your freedom of movement, why should it prohibit Jose from Juarez's movement?

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    The notion that a country is defined, in part, by its borders?

  • ||

    That doesn't answer why it should prohibit Jose from Juarez's crossing the border.

  • ||

    Because Joe from Albequerque can't cross the other way. See, there are no moronic 'libertarians' on the other side who think that this open borders thing is a great idea. Hell, the only way Mexico likes the open borders idea is if it's one way for people, and two ways for cash.

    And do you know what? This is a case where I gonna pre-empt your 'what so if they do something bad, does that mean that we should do it too/' argument.

    If we have open borders, and everyone else has decided to keep their nations intact, we will very quickly be filled and looted. And if you can't see that then you're incapable of coherent thought.

  • ||

    Do you not believe in free trade either given that other countries might not let in our exports?

  • The Angry Optimist||

    If we have open borders, and everyone else has decided to keep their nations intact, we will very quickly be filled and looted

    Who's "we"? I have no plans on being "looted". What, do you think that massive amounts of Third Worlders are just going to steal the gold out of our streets or something? Do you think that the common man in the rest of the world is going to turn to mob violence and looting?

    Gosh, and one wonders where I get the "bigot" idea from.

    It is not I who is incapable of coherency.

  • Psychic Octopus||

    Mexico has as close to open borders with Americans as it can without creating a nationalistic backlash. Americans can enter without a visa, can buy land with few restrictions, and are rarely punished for overstaying their authorized stay (and they are usually welcome to apply again, unlike overstayers to the USA). Now if you're a Cuban, Central American, or Asian, that's a whole other ballgame. Oh yes, if you go to jail as an American in Mexico, good luck... (but I tend to think of that as another issue)

    And no, no country would be quickly filled and looted. First, people face great costs (including psychological) in moving internationally, and these wouldn't disappear. Second, it would even out soon: the capacity of absorption of any country isn't infinite, and as soon as living standards stalled while those in the third world continued rising, immigration would stop, then reverse. Now yes, it would be stressful to society, which is a good point against fully open borders, but is not a good point about what to do with illegal immigrants who are already there or how to reform the entry system.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Albequerque

    A - L - B - U - Q- U - E -R -Q - U - E

  • Psychic Octopus||

    If the legitimate mission of the state is to protect its citizens freedoms, then the borders argument should work in favor of immigration: protecting the freedom of your citizen to hire, within the state's borders, people no matter their origin.

  • ||

    A national lobby, Americans for Legal Immigration, said Wednesday 22 states are now considering versions of the Arizona legislation.

    Wow. Finally we have an organization that is more misnamed than the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

    From their platform...

    ALIPAC supporters have a diverse range of opinions, yet we are united in the belief that more should be done to reduce illegal immigration.

    ...

    Most ALIPAC supporters also believe

    -- Legal immigration levels should be reduced from the current historically high levels to lower and more traditional levels.

    If someone formed an organization named Americans for Legal Drugs, would you think that their platform would hinge on increasing enforcement of drug laws and that most supporters would also believe that alcohol should be illegal too?

  • MWG||

    I just visited their site. As expected, I found little that would suggest they're 'pro legal immigration'. In their platform they said "ALIPAC supports those that legally immigrate..." thought they offered no examples of how. I guess if you're anti illegal immigration, that, by default, makes you pro legal immigration...

  • ||

    I have read the constitution several
    times looking for the part that give
    the federal govt the exclusive right
    to regulate immigration. I can't find
    the word immigration anywhere in the constitution. The constitution only
    give the federal govt the exclusive
    right to grant citizenship. That is
    naturalization and that is in the constitution. The tenth ammendment
    gives the state the right to regulate
    anything that is not given to the federal govt by the constitution.

  • ||

    The 'nation', meaning the land and territorial holdings of the US is the property, by virtue of legal citizenship, of the people of the United States, said property further broken into various smaller lots, each with varying levels of autonomy and jurisdiction.

    The 'government' are the persons chosen by the people of the United States to manage that property.

    Thus, we, the people, via our representation, can choose who enters our property in much the same way as we, as individuals can choose who enters our homes. Hence the term 'home country', 'homeland'.

    Many who call themselves libertarians, who claim to value private property rights, refuse to extend the idea of 'property' to a national level and treat the unimpeded flow of non-citizens into our nation.

    They refuse to see how that could damage the very structure that makes the US a desirable destination.

  • ||

    Many who call themselves libertarians, who claim to value private property rights, refuse to extend the idea of 'property' to a national level and treat the unimpeded flow of non-citizens into our nation.

    Private government property rights?

  • Sam Grove||

    A post office manager told me I couldn't petition there because it was "private federal property".

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Many who call themselves libertarians, who claim to value private property rights, refuse to extend the idea of 'property' to a national level and treat the unimpeded flow of non-citizens into our nation.

    It is not in spite of our libertarianism that we want to limit government powers in this way, it is because of it.

    You need to check your premises - I say that in all seriousness. Right now your basic premise is that all property rights flow from the government.

    Additionally, if I want to have Jose from Juarez on my property, who is the State to stop me?

  • ||

    No, actually, it is exactly the opposite.

    People defined their borders--property lines--often with fences, enough homes grouped together and towns and villages formed--often with walls around the town center, and fences or marked perimeters to denote farmalands, rangelands and hunting grounds. This process continued upward. It hit snags here and there--feudalism being one--but eventually got to the modern nation-state, whose powers are(at least in theory) derived solely from the consent of the populace.

    Any 'say' the State has over property, of any type, exists because we decided it was needed.

    All property rights flow from that most basic state--I own my stuff.

  • ||

    All property rights flow from that most basic state--I own my stuff.

    Then how did you get to the result that government owns your stuff?

  • ||

    Backwards...again. We own the governments stuff. We pay their salaries, don't we?

  • Sam Grove||

    We own the governments stuff. We pay their salaries, don't we?

    Riiight.

    So can we fire them for incompetence?

    Can you withhold your agreement to participate in the contract?

    I think not.

  • ||

    Then why do you think the government has any legitimate authority whatsoever to tell me what I can do with my property and to limit access to it by others I want to have on it?

  • ||

    And, by the way, this...

    We pay their salaries, don't we?

    ...is pretty hilarious.

    It is far more accurate to say...

    They take large portions of our salaries, don't they?

  • The Angry Optimist||

    All property rights flow from that most basic state--I own my stuff.

    Therefore, as owner of your stuff, neither I, nor any of your neighbors, despite banding together and forming this thing we call a "State", should have any say whether you have Jose from Juarez over to your house for chicken and waffles.

  • ||

    That's absolutely correct, you are free to invite him over, go ahead.

    Just remember that we, and many of your neighbors, after banding together and forming this thing we call a "State", set up borders with others states that we obligated ourselves to honor.

    So, while Jose is more than welcome at your house, there's some hoops he's gotta jump through to get there.

    But here's the best part--at least for you--because we've organized this way, where we, the people, own the government, if we can get enough people together we can vote to change things!

    22 states are now considering versions of the Arizona legislation.

    --but you better hurry, it looks like someone else is working towards defending the borders instead of airly fantasizing about how great a world without borders would be.

  • MWG||

    Tyranny of the majority?

  • ||

    Abso-fucking-lutly.

    Because that's how things work--the protections for minorities that we honor under our system were enacted by majorities--not minorities. The majority understood that the majority could become tyrannical towards those not of the majority and set up strictures to ensure that while minority opinion may not carry the day, it will get a fair hearing.

    And all you've got to do to change things is have an idea good enough that you can sway the requisite number of people.

    We got kinda sick of minority rule there around 1776, y'know?

    Or hadn't you realized that monarchy is minority rule?

  • MWG||

    So does the US govt. have the right to shoot, on site, people that commit crimes on US soil, the same way I have a right to shoot, on site, someone who is breaking into my home?

  • ||

    So does the US govt. have the right to shoot, on site, people that commit crimes on US soil, the same way I have a right to shoot, on site, someone who is breaking into my home?

    Not just the people, but their dogs.

  • MWG||

    Lol, touche!

  • ||

    I have thought about this one. Common crimes tend to fall under the juridiction of various sizes of human population, from city, up to national. So some crimes are outside the national purview.

    But, using the 'breaking into my home' idea, I'd have to say that the Government, at all levels--from the individual citizen, to the federal government, has the right, to shoot on sight, anyone breaking into the nation.

    In the past, people who broke into a nation with the intent to stay and the blessing of their home government had a name. They were called 'invaders'.

    At one point in history, lots of invaders crossed the border determined to stay. They had the blessing of their home governments. Eventually they forced out the locals--even killing some of them. How about that? Of course, we call those invaders 'colonists' and 'pilgrims' today, and the locals get lumped under 'indians'.

    So we, of all people, should be aware of how this works.

  • MWG||

    So then it's NOT about private government property rights, but about repelling a foreign 'invasion'?

  • ||

    Just noting similarities, MWG.

    Funny how you skipped over the other similarity--my pointing out that, at one time, it was us.

  • Psychic Octopus||

    If the idea of government is a landowners association, then you should be able to secede or refuse to join.

  • ||

    Well, they had a referendum of secession, you must've missed it. It worked out that you couldn't. Sorry.

  • Psychic Octopus||

    May the South Rise Again!

  • Joe R.||

    Your reasoning started off with question-begging, and got worse from there, reaching a high point with your lack of understanding of why libertarians don't want to empower the government over the individual.

  • Joe R.||

    Reaching a low point, I suppose. Anyway.

  • ||

    I'm sorry, you must've missed the point where the government(in the form of the judiciary and the DoJ), put a stay on a law supported by a majority of the individuals in Arizona.

  • MWG||

    Yes, it was about one govt. (federal) limiting the power of another govt. (state).

  • Mike Laursen||

    You are ignoring a huge qualitative difference in scale between an individual or small group owning a piece of property, and an entire nation managing common territory.

    The situations are so dramatically different that it is traditionally to think of the former scenario as "property" and the latter as "territory" or "commons".

  • ||

    The 'commons' belongs to the citizens of whatever it is the commons of, yes?

    It is not the property of random non-citizens.

    If I own a million acres, those are no less mine than if I own one acre.

    I think many of you create a difference where there is none and dangerously blur the idea of property to a point where ownership can be easily negated.

  • Mike Laursen||

    OK, you're obviously not smart enough to realize that changing the scale of something changes the nature of it. (In this case the concept of ownership.)

    Sorry, I can't have a conversation with you. You are too dimwitted.

  • ||

    How? How does a parcel of land being one or one million acres change my ownership of it? I paid for it, it's mine--no matter it's size.

    Management of the land would be different, due to the size, but the fact of ownership would not be.

    You, Mike can't have a conversation with me because you cannot come up with an argument to support your idea that the size of something can alter one's clear ownership of it.

    So, you resort to insult.

  • Federal Dog||

    "Think of the illegal immigration issue as the "Ground Zero Mosque" issue on the national level. It's a distraction from things that really matter. In the middle of two wars going badly, an economy in the crapper, a government that has shown no restraint when it comes to spending, regulation, or anything else, states are being urged to double down on a policy that will have no material effect on anything."

    Yes, illegal aliens are completely irrelevant because they never affect the economy, spending, regulations, etc.

    Why is it people here spend so much time yammering on -- and on, and on, and on, and on -- about open borders and, have not one freaking word of objection to wholesale welfare statism that makes open borders financially impossible.

  • ||

    I object to wholesale welfare statism that makes open borders financially impossible.

  • ||

    Fortunately, open borders legislation could handle that problem easily:

    Issue a new unlimited visa that allows unrestricted entry, residence, and employment but explicitly denies targeted welfare.

  • Mike Laursen||

    And, of course, since the formerly-illegal immigrant now has a visa, you can charge them all the usual taxes and payroll deductions.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Oh yeah, you know us. Nary a word about the welfare state.

  • MWG||

    I object to wholesale welfare statism that makes open borders financially impossible.

  • Fraggles||

    Is everything so black and white for you? I happen to be one stuck in the same situation. I was educated in country of origin( no cost to society). I started business that pays over 80k in taxes. I own 600k house. Am I contributing enough ? So tired of reading comments of people that do not see how complex this problem is. I know at least 3 families that works their a... off. One of them runs business that gives employment to 5 people( and own 500k house). Taxation without representation. You think you understand the problem but you are so far away. Just deport us all.

  • Federal Dog||

    "Just deport us all."

    No need. If you can no longer suck up profits to which you have no right, you will leave of your own accord.

    Good riddance to you predators.

  • ||

    Note that "considering" is a long cry from "enacting," but still.

    "Considering" as in "there is a significant probability that such a law will be enacted"?

    Or "considering" as in "one member of the legislative minority submitted a bill to do something which won't be even be given a committee hearing."

    There's one legislator in Hawaii who annually proposes a "shall issue" gun law, which gets about one second of scrutiny by the majority party committee chair for the first relevant committee before being tossed in the "not a chance in hell I'll hear it" pile.

    That isn't "considering", in my book.

  • Shannon Love||

    ...and it fails to address the reasons why people come here illegally...

    Shame on Arizona for not fixing all the problems of the 3rd world with their state's legislation! How crass and thoughtless of them! Don't they know they have the magical ability to solve all of histories ills with a stroke their governors magic wand pen?

    ...surprisingly none of the advocates of cracking down on illegals wants to give them the means to come here legally.

    That's a weird statement because in my experience virtually all proponents of enforcing immigration laws want to make it easier for people to legally immigrate. In fact, one of their constant themes is the vast disparity between how hard legal immigrants have to struggle to gain residency and citizenship versus how easy illegal immigrants have it.

    Conversely, proponents of illegal immigration from Mexico and Latin America never seem to be eager to increase immigration from Asia or Africa. Likewise, middle and upper class proponents of illegal immigration always seem opposed to immigration reforms that would make it easier for the skilled and educated to immigrate.

    I think proponents of illegal immigration (open borders, whatever) vastly underestimate the sense of moral revulsion caused by the utter disregard for the law that support of illegal immigration shows. For people who take the rule of law seriously, this revulsion magnifies illegal immigration into a serious symptom of the breakdown in the rule of law.

    For others, it might just be jealousy. Imagine being a small business person drowning under a tsunami of regulation and bounded by laws at every turn looking at literally millions of scoff laws excused and even applauded by our nations elites.

    The law is for all or none. The selective enforcement of law creates a profound sense of injustice and chaos that influences people's behavior more than the actual material effects the lack of enforcement really has.

    ... throwing a new and more noxious level of regulation on businesses who may be hiring people is not the smart move when unemployment is way up.

    Are you sure you want to make an unemployment argument when you are arguing for increasing the number of people looking for jobs by importing them? Have you suddenly renounced your belief in the law of supply and demand?

    Suppose I am a 16 year old African-American out looking for my first job (which has to be a low skilled job.) Explain to me why importing millions of mature adult workers to compete for the jobs I can do really helps me?

    What good does it do low-skilled Americans if we don't make it harder for business to hire if the business won't hire Americans anyway? From their perspective, we have just made it easier for businesses to hire their economic competition.

    Severe unemployment, combined with open disregard for immigration law on the part of the authorities is a recipe for a political explosion. You cannot imagine a more dangerous combination of tens of millions of Americans desperate for jobs being thrown into direct competition with even more desperate illegals willing to work for 3rd world wages.

    I sincerely hope your bizarre rejection of the principles of the free-market in the isolated case of illegal immigration is warranted because otherwise, there will hell to pay.

  • ||

    That's a weird statement because in my experience virtually all proponents of enforcing immigration laws want to make it easier for people to legally immigrate...

    Conversely, proponents of illegal immigration from Mexico and Latin America never seem to be eager to increase immigration from Asia or Africa. Likewise, middle and upper class proponents of illegal immigration always seem opposed to immigration reforms that would make it easier for the skilled and educated to immigrate.

    At least on this forum, you are 0 for 3 in these suppositions.

  • ||

    in my experience virtually all proponents of enforcing immigration laws want to make it easier for people to legally immigrate

    High fences, wide gates has at least a few supporters here.

  • ||

    True.

  • MWG||

    True from a libertarian perspective, but as you can see, Shannon (A conservative, whether she likes the label or not) made the claim, but offered no argument in favor of lifting quotas on legal immigration.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Shannon the "conservative" who played the "poor black kid" card?

    Even the Right is getting heavily into victimology these days.

  • MWG||

    It's a bipartisan effort depending on the debate. That said, in terms of immigration, you'll probably find very few liberals who are open borders, though I think they tend to be a little more compassionate of those who are here illegally than conservatives, after all, the law is the law, right?

  • Neu Mejican||

    Even As is typical the Right is getting heavily into victimology these days.

  • Shannon Love||

    Shannon (A conservative, whether she likes the label or not) made the claim, but offered no argument in favor of lifting quotas on legal immigration.

    Well, my post was going overly long already so I left that out.

    Everyone supports some limits on immigration and no one advocates letting absolutely anyone who can make it here become a citizen. Where to draw the line is a matter of judgement. You don't see many Hispanic advocates of an open border with Mexico supporting a similar policy for China or India.

    Since we struggle to find enough work for our existing population of low-skilled workers, I personally see little reason to import more. We should reserve such immigration niches for people who would qualify as refugees. I would also like to see a wider diversity of immigration than we are seeing now.

    I would, however, support an open border policy for anyone with a college education or skills (like machinist or technicians.) The more economic creatives we can get, the better. In the modern world I don't see the benefit in making such people spend years and years jumping through hoops to become citizens.

  • MWG||

    "You don't see many Hispanic advocates of an open border with Mexico supporting a similar policy for China or India."

    Yea, and this is relevant how?

    "Since we struggle to find enough work for our existing population of low-skilled workers, I personally see little reason to import more."

    Yes, and US car manufacturers can provide enough cars for the US population. Do we really need to import cheap Japanese and Korean cars?

    US farmers can provide enough food to feed US citizens more than adequately. Do we really need to import cheap food from 3rd world countries?

    The examples go on and on...

    "I would, however, support an open border policy for anyone with a college education or skills (like machinist or technicians.)"

    Won't that just drive down middle-class wages the same way low-skilled foreign labor drives down low-class wages.

    Holy hell Shannon, at least try and be consistent.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    I sincerely hope your bizarre rejection of the principles of the free-market in the isolated case of illegal immigration is warranted because otherwise, there will hell to pay.

    We have to destroy the free market in order to save it.

    Shannon, why do you not believe in the free exchange of labor?

    Basically, you just laid out a textbook case in favor of economic protectionism and bizarrely couched it in terms of the "free market".

    By your logic, we should go around summarily executing people, because less people = more jobs for those left.

  • Shannon Love||

    We have to destroy the free market in order to save it.

    No, I'm using the law of supply and demand to demonstrate how illegal immigrations is hurting a specific segment of America. I am specifically refuting the idea that illegal immigration is all good for everybody.

    I personally benefit from illegal immigration because they do not compete against my high skilled computer work but I do consume their low cost, low skill labor. However, my ex-neighbor who never graduated high school and who works construction has to compete head-to-head.

    ...why do you not believe in the free exchange of labor?

    As Milton Friedman eloquently argued, the enormous intervention in the economy and the existence of the welfare state short circuits the free-market in labor on the American side.

    If nothing else, labor law makes it nearly impossible for American citizens to compete against illegals who can skirt the law. For example, its much harder for an American worker gain a competitive edge by working for less than minimum wage or working unpaid overtime. (The law is designed explicitly to prevent such competition.) The government will use the workers own tax paperwork to bust the employer. Employers know this and are much less willing to hire Americans under the table.

    Prior to the 1930s native workers competed on an equal footing with immigrants and the market did work to automatically regulate immigration

    On the Mexican side, there are no free-market mechanism. Things are better since NAFTA but Mexicans are still not free to improve their lives without fear of violence. By consuming the labor of illegals who are forced by the Mexican institutions to flee here to work, we are using the violence of the Mexican institutions to cut ourselves a better deal. We might as well just hold a gun to their heads ourselves and be done with it.

    Also, unlike NAFTA or the relocation of factories to Mexico, illegal immigration puts no pressure on Mexican institutions to reform. In fact, it rewards them for economic oppression. The more poor people they force northward the more money they make.

    There is nothing "free" about the international flow of low-skilled labor.

    Basically, you just laid out a textbook case in favor of economic protectionism and bizarrely couched it in terms of the "free market".

    No, I'm making a concession to real-world conditions. I reject the notion that the free-market is defined as existing as long as American government does not act. In the real-world, creating a free-market means creating a highly unnatural bubble like void of state power in a world suffused in such power. It requires an almost impossible balancing act between giving enough power to the state to prevent external forces from distorting the free-market while at the same time not letting that power run riot inside the bubble.

    Again, in my argument above, I was refuting the idea implicit argument that illegals do not cause job loss or reduced wages for some American workers. If we accept the laws of supply and demand, increased labor supply reduces the price of labor. It's just that simple.

    I really don't think I have to refute your strange synthesis of a strawman and slippery-slope fallacy that comprise your last two paragraphs.

  • ||

    If we accept the laws of supply and demand, increased labor supply reduces the price of labor. It's just that simple.

    How does this simple theory of yours explain the 20th century, when the supply of labor increased sixfold while the real price of labor also increased sixfold.

  • ||

    As Milton Friedman eloquently argued, the enormous intervention in the economy and the existence of the welfare state short circuits the free-market in labor on the American side.

    The law of supply and demand has not avoided this distortion. But it still does it's useful work. Only now we do not garner the lion's share of the benefit.

    How much of our manufacturing has gone overseas? How much of our customer service has gone overseas? Why?

    The price of labor being kept artificially high is probably a big reason, no?

  • ||

    How much of our manufacturing has gone overseas? How much of our customer service has gone overseas? Why?

    What is your point? Under free markets, these are good things, no?

    Manufacturing output in the US is higher than ever with lower labor input than ever. This is a good thing!

    The price of labor being kept artificially high is probably a big reason, no?

    What makes you think the price of labor is artificially high? That sixfold increase is due to productivity improvements. The US is, hour-for-hour, the most productive nation on the planet. This is good, not bad!

    Maybe at the extreme low end -- i.e., high school dropouts -- welfare for natives has an impact on wages and therefore immigrant competitiveness. But you aren't saying that manufacturing or service jobs fall into that domain, are you?

  • Psychic Octopus||

    Also, unlike NAFTA or the relocation of factories to Mexico, illegal immigration puts no pressure on Mexican institutions to reform. In fact, it rewards them for economic oppression. The more poor people they force northward the more money they make.

    Only in the short term.

    In the long term, Mexico too has a limited labor supply. If it exports it all northwards, the next step is when the workers try to move (legally or illegally) the rest of their families northwards. Then the remittances piggy bank collapses.

    The US immigration policy making it harder and ever harder for whole families to migrate actually extends the time before Mexico has to deal with this, buying more time for Mexican institutions to remain ineffective.

  • MWG||

    "That's a weird statement because in my experience virtually all proponents of enforcing immigration laws want to make it easier for people to legally immigrate."

    Care to cite? I used to be a pretty hardcore conservative against illegal immigration (the law is the law type), and I'm believe your statement is bullshit.

    "I think proponents of illegal immigration (open borders, whatever) vastly underestimate the sense of moral revulsion caused by the utter disregard for the law that support of illegal immigration shows. "

    Jim Crow - How dare those blacks sit in the front of the bus or drink from my fountain. Don't they know the law?

    Fugitive Slave Act - Send those negro slaves back to the south. The law is the law!

    Drug laws in general - I don't care if it's only weed, he needs to go to prison. The law is the law!

    "Conversely, proponents of illegal immigration from Mexico and Latin America never seem to be eager to increase immigration from Asia or Africa."

    Bullshit.

    "Likewise, middle and upper class proponents of illegal immigration always seem opposed to immigration reforms that would make it easier for the skilled and educated to immigrate."

    Bullshit.

    "Are you sure you want to make an unemployment argument when you are arguing for increasing the number of people looking for jobs by importing them? Have you suddenly renounced your belief in the law of supply and demand?"

    Actually, border crossings are down since the recession, which actually supports the belief in supply/demand.

    "You cannot imagine a more dangerous combination of tens of millions of Americans desperate for jobs being thrown into direct competition with even more desperate illegals willing to work for 3rd world wages."

    Illegals are working for 3rd world wages? Bullshit, unless you can prove otherwise... trust me, I've looked for the evidence and it isn't there.

  • MWG||

    This was meant for Shannon Love...

  • Shannon Love||

    I don't think that just saying, "bullshit," is the devastating argument you seem to think it is.

    Care to cite?

    Well, the governor of Arizona had words to that effect a few weeks ago. If you name someone else you think is representative I could track down their stance on the matter.

    I purpose an alternative challenge. Can you cite a prominent opponent of illegal immigration who hasn't gone on record as supporting making legal immigration easier? Can you cite anyone who has advocated reducing legal immigration?

  • MWG||

    "I don't think that just saying, "bullshit," is the devastating argument you seem to think it is."

    It's bullshit by the mere fact that you can't back up any of your claims with evidence.

    "Well, the governor of Arizona had words to that effect a few weeks ago."

    Could you provide a link to her supposed call for greater legal immigration?

    "Can you cite a prominent opponent of illegal immigration who hasn't gone on record as supporting making legal immigration easier?"

    Tom Tancredo ran a presidential campaign based largely on his opposition to illegal immigration. Today he supports a moratorium on immigration.

    http://www.carryingcapacity.org/03aa2.html

    My own county Sheriff, Joe Arpaio, has never come out in favor of lifting quotas or making legal immigration any easier.

    Hell, even the organization Americans for Legal Immigration cited in Nick's post aren't really for greater legal immigration. Go check their site.

    I came up with 3 in about 2 minutes. Again, can you cite any examples of conservative opponents of illegal immigration who support lifting quotas on legal immigration?

  • Shannon Love||

    Actually, border crossings are down since the recession, which actually supports the belief in supply/demand.

    Yes, it certainly does. However, that turn is iron proof that some American wages would be higher if the illegals were not here in the first place.

    Illegals are working for 3rd world wages?

    Not literally 3rd world wages but since their baseline is the wages in the old country, they will work for wages significantly lower than Americans would accept. After all, that is the argument for illegal immigration is it not? Illegals will do hard, boring, disgusting jobs for minimum wage whereas Americans will want $20 dollars an hour for the same job. The "jobs Americans won't do" is really, "jobs Americans won't do dirt cheap."

    I am willing to accept the argument that dirt cheap low-skilled labor is better overall for America but I think it silly to say to it does not hurt our existing pool of low skill workers. I think we ignore the possibility they will lash out at our peril.

  • MWG||

    "Illegals will do hard, boring, disgusting jobs for minimum wage whereas Americans will want $20 dollars an hour for the same job."

    Again, do you have any evidence the average illegal works for even minimum wage? The data isn't there, I've looked. OTOH, I live here in AZ and know that the typical day laborer earns well above the minimum wage.

  • ||

    You don't even realise that what you're saying makes it worse, do you?

  • Shannon Love||

    Btw, bonus points for the Fugitive Slave Act mention. It's been several weeks since someone attempted to refute me by referring to a law passed 1845.

    Why didn't you go whole hog and explain how my thinking was an exact reflection of the Sugar laws of England in 1605? Better yet, didn't the Roman Senate do something relevant?

  • MWG||

    Way to miss the point. You're arguing that 'the law is the law' when you say, "I think proponents of illegal immigration (open borders, whatever) vastly underestimate the sense of moral revulsion caused by the utter disregard for the law that support of illegal immigration shows."

    That is a bullshit argument. You also fail to mention the fact that I also brought up the more recent Jim Crow laws. I could just have easily brought up Texas' anti-sodomy law, or current laws against marijuana use. In any case, the fact that the Fugitive Slave Act is an old law doesn't make your argument that 'the law is the law' any more stupid.

  • ||

    "In the middle of two wars going badly, an economy in the crapper, a government that has shown no restraint when it comes to spending, regulation, or anything else, states are being urged to double down on a policy that will have no material effect on anything."

    Immigration may be a whipping boy for that stuff, but it's relevant.

    If you live in a state where they're letting violent convicted criminals go free because they can't solve their overcrowding problems, then illegal aliens in prison aren't exactly a distraction.

    If you live in a state where they're laying off teachers or cutting the school week down to four days a week, then illegal aliens in the public school system aren't exactly a distraction.

    If you're creating a new healthcare entitlement and forcing people to pay for each other's healthcare, then illegal aliens in the ER aren't exactly a distraction...

    Is illegal immigration being used as the proverbial whipping boy? Absolutely. Is treating them like the proverbial whipping boy the solution to these problems? Absolutely not.

    But illegal immigration isn't exactly a non-factor in any of these matters either.

    There does seem to be a bit of injustice going on here any way you slice it... Forcing state taxpayers to cover the costs of a federal responsibility isn't exactly fair.

    It may also be fundamentally unfair and discrimination for states to deny state services on the basis of national origin, but taxation in this country has traditionally meant representation... ...and if our state legislatures can't represent us on this issue, then it isn't clear why it's fair to require us to continue to pay for a federal responsibility.

    Regardless of whether there should be open borders--it's fundamentally unfair to expect the taxpayers of Arizona and other states to pay for what the federal government itself is arguing is a federal responsibility.

    The federal government should be reimbursing the states for services supplied to illegal aliens (a federal responsibility), and until they do that, I have a hard time knocking state taxpayers for trying to stand up for themselves.

    Nothing justifies racial discrimination by the police, but it remains unclear to me that racial discrimination is the intent or necessary outcome of these laws. ...and either way, if enforcing immigration laws is an exclusively federal responsibility, then the federal government should be covering the costs. That's what "responsibility" means.

  • ||

    what is so fucking hard to understand the word illegal go to any construction site in texas and see how many you see these are jobs people do want. it all about the employer saving money because of greed so to say they only do work we won,t do is a lie.

  • ||

    It just came to me... the real plan is for federal government to spend so much money and fuck things up so badly that people start wading back across the Rio Grande. It's working.

  • Odd Barker||

    I debated the author of the Arizona law, state Sen. Russell Pearce, on Stossel

    More like a shouting match. Dear Lord.

  • ||

    Let's face the real problem: Muslims gaily marrying illegal immigrant Mexicans, then having birthright citizen babies, all while refusing to say Merry Christmas. THAT is what imperils us.

  • Jason||

    A Mexican marrying a Muslim?

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Funniest thing I've heard in a long time.

  • Psychic Octopus||

    Yes! They should build a mosque in whatever is the Mexican Ground Zero!

  • Bobby||

    "illegal immigration" that should say it all, its breaking the law!! "no material effect on anything." How can they say that? I live in fortworth, tx and know many highschool and college students who cant get a job, because the "illegal's" have them all! wake up america!!!!

  • Mike Laursen||

    The illegal workers have all the jobs? May I suggest that the core problem might be that the economy sucks because of other factors, instead of or in addition to, illegal immigration?

  • Geneina||

    The vast majority of illegal aliens commit multiple felonies to get jobs - document fraud, perjury on I-9 forms and identity theft under state laws.

    The Social Security Administration estimates that 75% of illegal aliens have a fraudulently obtained Social Security number (felony).

    In Utah, based on data from the State's Workforce Services, it is estimated that 50,000 children have their Social Security numbers being used by illegal aliens to get jobs. Under Utah law, this is identity fraud, a felony.

    In Arizona, Identity Theft 911 estimates that over one million children are the victims of identity theft.

    These kids have their credit destroyed, may have arrest records linked to their Social Security numbers, are denied means tested benefits and can have their medical records corrupted with life threatening consequences.

    Illegal aliens literally destroy the good names and lives of millions of American children. These are not good honest people and they do not deserve a path to citizenship.

    For more information, see Illegal, but not Undocumented: Identity Theft, Document Fraud, and Illegal Employment. www.cis.org/identitytheft

  • ||

    Anyone from ICE to the Administration to Congress could trivially fix this by ceasing their hunt of illegal employees by Social Security Number.

    Back in the days of saner enforcement, illegal aliens could use ITINs to identify themselves to employers. Everyone was better off: employees could work; employers didn't have to be deputized immigration enforcers; the government collected taxes that would never turn into benefits; and Americans didn't have their identities stolen.

    Then some bright moron had the idea of pursuing illegal immigrants and their employers through workplace paperwork, and all those easily had gains were lost -- at very high collateral cost.

    Immigration law truly truly sucks.

  • Suprashoesweb||

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

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

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement