[OddLane]

ping

[Sherman Logan]

Furthermore, if we look to the broader issue of legal immigration, there’s nothing to suggest that the men who drafted the United States Constitution supported the sort of unfettered immigration we have endured since passage of the Hart-Celler Act fundamentally altered this nation’s demographic destiny.

Really silly argument.

The Founders may not have supported unfettered immigration in principle, but somehow this country didn't get around to putting ANY restrictions on immigration until 1875. With significant restrictions not being passed till the 1920s.

IOW, meaningful restrictions on immigration were in place for only about 50 or 60 years out of our 240 year history.

Such restrictions have excellent arguments for their passage. A consistent American tradition of restriction is not one of those arguments.

[BfloGuy]

Excellent post. Thank you.

Illegal immigration is, indeed, a form of corporate welfare. Business gets cheap labor and the rest of us are forced to support the laborers' families. The libertarians ignore that last part or pretend it's a negligible burden.

[joe fonebone]

I consider myself a small l libertarian... myself, and those I know, do not support open borders in any way shape or form... as a matter of fact, the so called “compassionate conservatives” and the commies are the ones that support this open border crap ( bush, perry, mccain, mcromney, etc.) now the nut job wing of the libertarians (ron paul) may buy into this crap, but not us small l types.... lumping all libertarians into one basket is like saying all republicans are conservative.....

[Mr. Jeeves]

Wow, this article reads like it was written by a college freshman forced to write a 5,000 word essay. Way too much extraneous verbiage to offer up one simple, scarcity mentality-driven concept: "We can't let dumb people in or they will steal our way of life." But the process of letting unskilled immigrants in has nothing to do with Ron Paul or Gary Johnson or Libertarians in general or any open borders concept, it has to do with saboteurs on the Left who want to change America into a Third World country with themselves at the top of the social order. And those saboteurs have already struck, way back in the Sixties. Their vision is the law of the land - today.

An "Open Borders/No Benefits" policy, if implemented correctly, would be vastly superior to what we have now - which is more like "Let's Help Terrorists Come Live With Their Mothers." :)

[Mach9]

While an “open debate” on this subject is long past-due, a full debate, a full exposition of the problem of illegal immigration would be more helpful. Perhaps I read too fast to catch its inclusion of VOTING and related ID-requirements, or immigrant welfare as provided by the kindness of strangers particularly via employers and churches rather than the federal or state governments. If those arguments were neglected, this article doesn’t even represent an open debate. And I’m not sure I could trust an overview of the immigration problem that didn’t connect the democrat (never mind libertarian!) dots between open borders and “open,” no-ID-required voting.

[hellbender]

The number of legal immigrants to the U.S. today is unprecedented, and most of them come from countries with no tradition of limited govt. or even the rule of law. Very few bring skills which are needed in an technologically advanced economy. Most of the Pubbie candidates are fatally soft on this issue, which is going to sink our republic permanently. Bachmann has by far the best position.

http://www.numbersusa.org/

[HiJinx]

Ping!

Click the keyword Aliens to see more illegal alien, border security, and other related threads.

[cripplecreek]

If there are 30 million illegals in America its enough to create some 50 congressional districts based on census counts alone.

What’s it cost to administer a congressional district? How much average pork and earmarks are taken by a congressional district.

Think about an America with 50 fewer primarily democrat congressmen. A vote for amnesty is a vote for the elimination of America.

[PGalt]

OUTSTANDING informative, educational article with tremendous links! Thanks, OddLane. A great thread, also.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

For them, the question is not so much whether a particular cohort of immigrants will be an asset to the United States but whether we have any right to prevent them from settling in this country in the first place, which many answer in the negative.

This seems, to me, an improper mixture of the notion of rights and powers. An individual may certainly have the right come to the United States, but the United States most definitely has the power to create rules, laws, or regulations governing who can come here and how they can come here. We're not, then, talking about our "right" to keep immigrants out, but creating a structure by which we can accept immigrants into the country and eventually become American citizens.

Is this really that difficult to understand? Why is this even an issue?