Immigration Regulation

[Proverb]

Immigration seems to be becoming a "hot-button" topic in the news. Consequently I have been finding myself asking, "What ought a government do in recognising the issue of immigration."

It seems to me at first that an fully-open border policy would be the simplest answer if the government was rights-oriented and pure capitalist. However, with our government in an intimate relationship with the economy I find myself curious as to what a good policy would look like today.

Any Ideas?

[Lemuel]

It seems to me at first that an fully-open border policy would be the simplest answer if the government was rights-oriented and pure capitalist.

I'm not sure what you mean by this ... coul you clarify that statement a little?

[Captain Nate]

My ideal is a strict control of the borders -- we have to know who is coming into our country for our own safety.

Second, permit a lenient, but thoroughly-vetted, visa and workers programs to allow hard working people from other countries to enter the US and work. They can make money, help our economy and maybe become more Americanized in the process, someday even deciding to move their families here in that case.

Edited November 30, 2005 by Captain Nate

[HaloNoble6]

Just as a side note, notice that Dr. Binswanger is making the case for open borders at NYU next month. Link here.

[Proverb]

I'm not sure what you mean by this ... coul you clarify that statement a little?

I'm saying that the major argument against an open border is that illegal immigrants alledgedly put a drain on the economy because they do not pay taxes and that if the government didn't have this foot in the economy the argument would not hold.

[Lemuel]

I think I agree, Cpt. Nate.

While it's not always a given that there will be hostile foreigners, it's a possibility that is too important for a proper government to ignore. After all, national defense begins at the borders.

We're way past the time when nations would politely declare war on one another, and the rules of war were followed by honorable gentlemen. In an age of suicide-bombers, it is clear that savagery still exists in the world, and a proper government should defend the nation's citizens against its enemies.

Certainly America is past "give us your tired, your poor". Some traditions need to go away, but for those who truly crave freedom and have the initiative to handle it responsibly, our borders should be opened.

Many immigrants to the United States come here because of a job opening. They work for an American company that recruited them out of a foreign university, and while they work on a temporary Visa, they become "integrated" into America culture. When they desire citizenship, they are tested, they're background is checked, and eventually they become citizens, fully protected by our laws.

Political refugees are a bit different. I could see some sort of halfway-house program where refugees would stay for a while, look for work, and possibly find some naturalized "sponsor" for a temporary Visa. (Who pays for them? I'd say employers of low-wage-workers, since we're talking about a hypothetical "pure" Capitalist government.) Those that don't find work, can't support themselves, or have any sponsors on the inside are turned away. "Don't have to go home, but you can't mooch here."

Willy-nilly border-crossers? I'm in favor of a strong border patrol pushing these guys back over, but maybe a few of those halfway-houses could be just on this side of the line for them. If they're not ready to move here and get busy, obey the law, and keep out of trouble ... well, we'll have to toss those pesky Canadians right back over.

But legal citizens bringing in mail-order brides? Foreign-exchange students arrying for citizenship convenience? Naturalized immigrants sponsoring relatives? I don't know ... are these enough of a problem for the Feds to get involved? I mean, anyone can be a spy or terrorist ...

Just as a side note, notice that Dr. Binswanger is making the case for open borders at NYU next month. Link here.

Cool! I hope a trasncript is published ... I'd really like to hear that lecture.

[softwareNerd]

There are some earlier threads on this topic. This earlier one (link) is most related to the current subject. There is also this other earlier one (link) which is a related subject about "illegal immigration and the rule of law".

[DavidOdden]

The claim that illegals do not pay taxes and thus drain the economy is totally without foundation in reality. This isn't Sweden, you know. To deny a person the right to live in a freer society where they can pursue a decent life, simply on the grounds that we have a bit of a welfare state going on right now, is just so appalling. The same reasoning would dictate that we should kick everybody out of America, to lessen the burden. That, or simply eliminate the welfare state. Two wrongs do not make a right -- denying a person the right to come to America to live freely does somehow cancel the daily rights violation known as taxation.

There is little merit to the "threat of terrorism" argument. Terrorism has to be fought, for sure -- and that is true whether or not they are US citizens. The same steps taken to control terrorists already in the US can apply to people new to the US.

[Eternal]

Being an immigrant myself, I just want to say that many immigrants (especially those from Europe), used to pay taxes, even though they worked illegaly. It used to be much easier to do this, because INS (the immigration guys), weren't allowed to scan IRS (the tax guys), for people filing taxes without work permit. Unfortunately this policy was changed around 96', and now, if you work illegaly and pay taxes, there is a chance you'll get caught. In a way, this encourages people not to pay, not because they don't want to carry their burden, but because they may get deported if they do.

The way I see immigration, U.S. is benefitting in two ways. First you get cheap labor from countries like Mexico. But you also get highly skilled workers from Europe, and Asia. Those are people that are not only highly educated (two or more college degrees), but are also brave enough to leave their entire lives behind, in order to build better future in a foreign country. Those are the people that are bound to succeed - and the U.S. is getting them without having to spend a dime on their education or training - they're instant workforce. Those are not the people that end up draining welfare resources - those are the people that end up supporting welfare parasites. Remember - we chose to come here, and worked our behinds off in order to become citizens, you were born into citizenship. In that sense, an immigrant is much more likely to be commited to this country.

I do think that illegal immigration should be curbed - mainly for security reasons - there's plenty of criminals slipping through, and the U.S. has enough of its own to worry about. Instead, it should be made easier for people who are really needed and wanted here to get visas. Right now, you have to wait months, if not years to even get your petition looked at...

[softwareNerd]

It is moral and practical to allow anyone to come to the US without restriction if they are not a threat.

Except for criminals who are known to the U.S. or cooperating governments, it is virtually impossible for the US government to know if a particular person is a threat. As has been said, the 9/11 hijackers had valid visas. If a terrorist can apply for a visa and get one and come in through a heavily guarded airport, how will sealing the borders and making everyone come through that same ineffective process make a difference? At its best, the "seal the border" idea seems to be a "feel good" scheme that might produce a false sense of security. The argument seems to go as follow:

• "Seal the border"
  
• "Why?"
  
• "So that we can check everyone coming in"
  
• "How will you do that?"
  
• "Somehow"
  

I would not be averse to sealing the border if:

• immigration was open to people who were not a threat
  
• if the ports letting people in through the seal effectively screened out some bad guys
  

Without that, "sealing the border" would create a false sense of security while shutting out millions of people who want to trade willingly with Americans.

[IAmMetaphysical]

Another element that seems to creep into people's thinking is this idea that if you can't serve the needs of the American people then you can't come in. This notion is inherent in the arguments that "illegal immigrant provide us with cheap labor". Yes this is true, but it should not be the justification for their "RIGHT" to be here. Human rights are human rights, americans don't have a monopoly on rights.

Now I can understand that in the system where all property is privately owned, then one would have the right to not allow anyone on their property for any reason, but this does not mean the right to deny anyone from entering someone else's property. I guess this is where the real problem lies, the notion of public property, that somehow the land which comprises the contiguous states is communally owned by all of us, hence giving us the right to deny non-americans access to this land. How is this land somehow ours? Because we were born here or we were naturalized,i.e. we are Americans. Again we return to this notion that "Americans" have more rights than non-Americans. Where does this notion come from? What about my being born in New York gives me more right to be in New York right now than someone born in Mexico or Guatemala?