Illegal Immigration

The Jackyderm Party seems to have come to a compromise on immigration. From CNN:

While final details were not available, in general, the compromise would require illegal immigrants who have been in the United States between two years and five years to return to their home country briefly, then re-enter as temporary workers. They could then begin a process of seeking citizenship.

Illegal immigrants here longer than five years would not be required to return home; those in the country less than two years would be required to leave without assurances of returning, and take their place in line with others seeking entry papers.

The rest of the article was just “How sweet, they’re getting along!” filler, and apparently the bill leaves issues of border security unaddressed, but this is an important first step to a realistic, dare I say even libertarian, compromise (purists set phasers to stun!). If they continue and reinforce the Mexican border with heavier security but increase the number of legal immigrants allowed in (or, hopefully, end all numerical restrictions altogether), I think we’ll have a successful compromise that increases both liberty and security.

posted by Stuart Richards
  • Pingback: Hammer of Truth()

  • Dennis Anthony Porto

    This is not remotely libertarian.
    Regardless, I wonder how illegal immagrants are expected to prove how long they have been in the US.

  • http://libertarian.explorecraft.com/LibertarianResponseImpeachBush.htm Paul Anderson

    Although I don’t have a lot of sympathy for those here illegally,
    the critters failed to address the fundamental reasons of why such crossings occur in the first place.

    That a set of laws is violated so rampantly indicates deeper problems which no one cares to consider.

    For example, some have pointed out that much of this is caused by our extensively nanny-styled handouts in the form of government aid – not just wage discrepancies.

    It is probably too late to achieve any meaningful change,
    however, as the prolific displays of the Mexican flag
    indicates a cultural sea-change which eventually will result in another civil war involving a hispanic southwest secession.

    Historians may have some insight into this.

  • Julian (a Vietnam Vet)

    I believe it is too late. We are now overwhelmed with illegals who have overburdened the welfare system that to try to deal with these people invites a war.

    I hope so. We need to thin out the trash in this country anyway.

  • Daniel

    I am slowly starting to convince myself that the hardcore anrcho type Libertarians are right after all and that we should have opern borders. What happened today and what is about to happen (amnesty) proves that it is silly to continue believing in this silly notion that we have a border. WE DO NOT HAVE A BORDER ALREADY WHEN WE ALLOW SO MANY WHO “ILLEGALLY” CROSSED IT TO STAY.

    Besides, I am tired of the mental gymnistics. I am in favor of free trade so can I not be in favor of open borders? Does opern bordes only apply to rich people with corporations? Why not poor people?

  • Andy

    Actually, under anarcho-capitalism all property would be privately owned so it would be up to the individual land owners or groups of land owners as to who could immigrate to where. So there would still be borders under anarcho-capitalism.

  • http://www.foraaugusta.com Stuart Richards

    This is moving towards open borders, though. It is possible to have an open border and a secure border at the same time.

    It’s moving in a libertarian direction, hence my branding it libertarian. It’s not the endgoal by any means, but it’s getting there.

  • http://chrisbennettfromillinois.blogspot.com/ Chris Bennett

    Thining out the trash Julian? Does that mean we get first dibbs to extradite your ass first? We can’t have open borders until the welfare state has been demolished. Until then we need some limits and expediate the immigration system to where
    they aren’t crossing the borders illegally. I don’t want diseased or criminals from other countries causing hell in our cities and neighborhoods let along draining the system in which they are NOT contributing to. Just remember when you think about immigration, some of our ancestors were forced to come here!

  • http://www.foraaugusta.com Stuart Richards

    I’ll bet that the Republicans will slip a provision in there ensuring that immigrants won’t be entitled to any American socialist largesse.

    In fact, I do believe that there is already such a provision in place for federal programs, with the exception being emergency first aid. State programs are free to give or not give to immigrants as they see fit, which… given states’ rights, seems fair. But that way, if your tax dollars are going to illegal immigrants, blame your state and not the federal government.

    I do think that background checks are just common sense, we don’t want any criminals or terrorists coming in, which-again-would strain our system unfairly. But there’s no good reason why honest, law-abiding immigrants shouldn’t be allowed in, since they probably won’t be able to collect any kind of meaningful federal welfare.

  • jeffrey smith

    As long as jobs pay better and this country is generally more prosperous than the countries of Latin America, people will come here to work. And if they can’t get in legally, they’ll get in illegally. There are three possible solutions:
    1) put efforts into lifting Latin America up to a level somewhere approximating ours
    2) allow open borders, meaning setting immigration levels at a figure that matches the jobs available, so those that come here will be able to find jobs. Yes, Americans will lose jobs or be forced to take lower wages, but that will happen even if we didn’t liberalize immigration quotas.
    3) turn the USA into a “third world” economy, with widespread poverty and dismal infrastructure, which will remove incentives to come here and replace them with incentives for people to leave here.

    At the rate we’re going, I think 3 is the course that will ultimately prevail.

  • http://mailto:oftruthcuimalo.e4ward.com curran

    Maybe offer the ‘sovereign’ Mexican state of Sonora stateship, after we clean up our own mess. Sorta worked for California. BTW Mexico is a ‘constitutional republic’ too. Mmm, sarcasic quotes…

    oftruth(A)ignore(T)cuimalo.e4ward.com

  • paulie cannoli

    Andy and I previously debated immigration here

    http://hammeroftruth.com/2006/02/15/libertarian-party-campaign-sites-update/#comments

    especially near the end of the comment thread.

    See also

    http://radgeek.com/gt/2006/04/05/resistance_is

    http://radgeek.com/gt/2006/03/31/libertarians_against

    http://radgeek.com/gt/2006/03/27/the_conservative

    http://radgeek.com/gt/2004/03/22/freedom_is

    And one more for good measure

    http://reason.com/9510/GARVINfeat.shtml

    I’ve often thought that one good way for the LP to expand would be to advertise our pro-open border stance, in Spanish, especially in the border states. (Put Spanish language ads on that we are THE Open Border Party). Any media which includes visuals could show a pencil
    erasing the border.

    Recent immigrants may be less likely to have a US political party or a firm attachment to one. Also, maybe it would help start or expand a Libertarian Party in the northern states of Mexico. Anyone know if there is one?

  • Julian (a Vietnam Vet)

    Paulie Cannoli

    Are you implying that illegal immigrants should have the right to vote in the U.S.? If so, then why not allow anyone anywhere in the world to vote in our elections.

  • paulie cannoli

    Duh, no.

    Immigrants who recently became USSA subjects.

    Although ultimately, no one has any right to vote in an election over who gets to steal other people’s money and property, curtail their freedom (AKA kidnapping and rape), and so on.

  • Andy

    I’ve done outreach at naturalization events where immigrants get sworn in as citizens. Most of the people there were not interested in the LP. We handed out literature in Spainish and even had LP members who spoke Spainish and were Mexican-American. We got very little interest.

    When it comes down to it I don’t think that anybody really believes in open borders. If anyone REALLY believed this they’d leave their doors open and allow any bum off the street to crash in their house. People need their space and everyone believes in some kind of borders.

    Why not advertise ourselves as the welfare party? “Free” benifits for anyone who shows up in America. Oh, wait a second, the Democrats and Republicans are already doing this, the Greens too for that matter.

  • paulie cannoli

    I’ve done outreach at naturalization events where immigrants get sworn in as citizens. Most of the people there were not interested in the LP. We handed out literature in Spainish and even had LP members who spoke Spainish and were Mexican-American. We got very little interest.

    Of course not, it takes the right kind of marketing first.

    When it comes down to it I don’t think that anybody really believes in open borders. If anyone REALLY believed this they’d leave their doors open and allow any bum off the street to crash in their house. People need their space and everyone believes in some kind of borders.

    You’re confusing property lines with regime borders. Here is an illustration of the difference.

    http://radgeek.com/gt/2004/03/22/freedom_is

  • Andy

    Whether you like it or not we have a government and it is not going to go away any time soon. The “regime’s” borders effect our own personal borders.

    The regime actually wants to expand borders to being global, as in one world government, that is why they push for “open borders.” To do this they need to destroy exsisting borders. Merging the USA with Mexico in the Pan American Union is just one stage in the plan.

  • paulie cannoli

    Well yes, but did you read the link in #15?

  • http://libertarian.explorecraft.com/LibertarianResponseImpeachBush.htm Paul Anderson

    Paulie Cannoli
    Are you implying that illegal immigrants should have the right to vote in the U.S.? If so, then why not allow anyone anywhere in the world to vote in our elections.
    Comment by Julian (a Vietnam Vet) — 2006-04-07 @ 8:33 am

    Might as well let them vote since our
    esteemed leadership seems hell-bent on occupying them anyway.
    How many countries do we have troops in?
    I lost count at 130.

  • http://rcpilot136juno.com illegal

    I just wonder what in the world the defenders of the Alamo would think If they could vision what is going on today…Is the Alamo being run by Mexicans…Maybe ,Maybe not ….yet…..If we had adopted and enforced the Mexico laws of Immigration we would not have the leaches in the US …They have their country and should stay there.The Us Government will and have proven they cannot and will not do their so called jobs…..It will only lead to more and more problems for the***** TAX PAYERS *****THAT ARE PAYING FOR THE IDIOTS IN WASHINGTON…..