Posted on 12/29/2011 5:40:29 AM PST by OddLane
One of the most persistent divides between traditional conservatives and their libertarian/anarcho-capitalist counterparts involves a fundamental philosophical disagreement about immigration. While most conservatives view immigration primarily through the lens of preserving American culture by only accepting those immigrants who are assimilable and will tangibly benefit our society in the future, a view expressed repeatedly during debates over illegal immigration in this country, many libertarians view the subject in an altogether different light. 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.
Libertarians extol the primacy of individual rights, which in this case entails the right to emigrate from your country of birth whenever you so desire-something that I don’t think any conservative would take issue with-and to immigrate to whatever country you want to live and/or work in for an extended period of time, which is where the divide between the two camps emerges. Libertarians view the issue as one of freedom of association-and by extension, contract-wherein willing employers, such as large agribusinesses and meatpacking plants, seek out willing employees coming from nations with under-performing economies that can’t meet the personal and financial needs of their citizens. They believe that the nexus between trade and unfettered migration is inextricable, if not completely self-evident, and that the two can not be severed if a nation hopes to grow its economy. While this may well be true as a matter of law, there are numerous holes in this thesis intellectually, which opponents of open borders-even anarcho-capitalists such as Hans-Hermann Hoppe-have exposed through well-researched arguments of their own.
(Excerpt) Read more at american-rattlesnake.org ...
ping
Rinos support illegal immigration. Enforcement works, see AZ, AL. Illegals self-deported themselves and unemployment went down.
I really, really hate people like Newt who say we can’t deport and hence, we must start the amnesty boards. The document fraud would be massive and local amnesty boards would turn into fast track amnesty machines. Would amnesty cover also legal workers whose visa is expiring? (Many h1b workers have lived here 15 years legally)
Would we still be deporting illegals who have been here, say, 10 years?
5 years?
Courts and admin could interpret the vague legal code in a way Newt and La Raza did not admit during their amnesty campaign.
This is the defining issue of our lifetime. If we surrender now, there is no going back. We would have permanent liberal welfare population in majority.
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.
The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were "free white persons" of "good moral character". It thus left out indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and later Asians. While women were included in the act, the right of citizenship did "not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States...." Citizenship was inherited exclusively through the father. This was the only statute that ever purported to grant the status of natural born citizen.[1][2]
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.
The 1790 law did not prohibit immigration of the groups listed, only their naturalization as citizens.
It wasn’t until 1875 that immigration of even convicts was prohibited.
That was back in the 1830s. There was no argument over "citizenship", just right to keep living where you'd lived all along or move with the border.
I think that's the last time the US failed to extend citizenship along with the right to occupy as we absorbed new territories, but citizenship and right to occupy (or immigrate) were NOT dealt with simultaneously at that early time. They were considered separate bodies of law.
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.....
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." :)
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.
I’m all for open borders. However, open borders and a welfare state are incompatible ... pick one!
I, too, consider myself a small l libertarian, although my foreign policy views are anathema to almost all big L Libertarians.
Concerning immigration, I am 100% for open borders IF and only IF the immigrant is coming from a nation that is as free as this one and also allows open borders to Americans. There is currently no such nation. Therefore our borders must be guarded as closely as we guard our freedoms, lest we let the enemies of freedom use our Republic to vote away our Constitution and the legal recognition of our natural rights.
The Federal Government was given two jobs: protect the liberties of Americans (provide for the national defense, raise funds to provide for that defense and the operation of the Federal Government), make sure commerce *within the US* remains free (establish currency, deliver mail, make sure states aren’t impeding commerce). It does none of these adequately.
Milton Freidman made this observation years ago...’you can have open borders or you can have a welfare state. You cannot have open borders and a welfare state’.
Milton Freidman made this observation years ago...’you can have open borders or you can have a welfare state. You cannot have open borders and a welfare state’.
http://www.numbersusa.org/
Your post makes the USA sound like it was an open country nobody was ever questioned or detained or repatriated due to a lack of passport or credential. This was not an open country ever.
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.
Wrongo. The present passport system did not develop till after WWI, and the US did not fully enter into the system till just before WWII.
As far as I know there were few if any deportations from the USA until the 20th century. The few laws in place earlier were focused on preventing entry of individuals meeting certain criteria, not removing them once they were in the country.
The US did not even begin collecting records on immigration till the 1820s and records were sparse and incomplete for a long time after that. Nobody cared much.
If your claim is correct, you should have no trouble providing documentation about restrictions on immigration in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.