Wednesday, May 05, 2010


Illegal aliens from Mexico are pouring into our country. It’s the federal government’s responsibility, but the feds don’t really want to stop the invasion. Washington feigns concern and wants to appear to be trying to prevent it - while avoiding measures that would actually stop it, like building a real fence. This has been true for both Democrats in the Obama Administration and Republicans in the Bush Administration, as well as congresses controlled by both parties for twenty-five years. Citizens, meanwhile, are getting angrier by the day. They resent pressing one for English in their own country.Somewhere between twelve and twenty million illegals are here already and tens of thousands sneak in every month, mostly into border states like Arizona. They go on welfare, work under the table, or with a stolen identity. They use hospital emergency rooms when sick or injured and don’t pay. They send children to public schools costing at least $10-15 thousand a year per child. They fill prisons at $45,000 a year per prisoner. Hospitals in border states are going bankrupt. School budgets are at the breaking point. According the Federation for Immigration Reform, California’s illegal aliens cost that state more than $10 billion in 2004. Today, California is nearly bankrupt.Illegal immigrant crime is exploding. A month ago, an Arizona rancher and his dog were shot and killed. The murder seems to have been the final straw leading to the passage of SB 1070, a law allowing making illegal immigration a state crime in Arizona. Demonized by leftists as Nazi-like, the law makes illegal immigration a major issue for the November elections. The left sponsored demonstrations in cities all over the country last Saturday, May 1st. I drove down to the one in Portland, Maine to watch.The Arizona law was definitely the aiming point for the few hundred in attendance. They came in from two directions on Congress Street singing a song in Spanish I couldn’t understand and chanting “Si se puede!” I looked that up and it means: “Yes we can!” or “It is possible!” Along with Hispanics and blacks carrying signs were white people with rainbow flags, SIEU and Obama T-shirts, Palestinian keffiyehs, and lots of tattoos. It was slickly organized by the Maine People’s Alliance, a left-wing group of “community organizers” with offices in Portland, Lewiston, and Bangor. The MPA pushes the usual panoply of government-expanding issues like socialized medicine, special rights for homosexuals, fluorescent light bulbs, amnesty for illegal aliens, and more taxes to pay for it all. It’s affiliated with national “progressive” groups like USAction and has an annual budget of over $800,000 with which it lobbies for the above issues.Portland, Maine demonstration

Mike Tipping, communications director for MPA, gave me a press kit which included endorsements by the Maine Civil Liberties Union. He told me his fiance would have had to wait ten years to get into the country if she were not engaged to him, implying that legal restrictions on immigration aren’t reasonable. “There aren’t enough busses to deport all the immigrants living here,” he said, and “families shouldn’t be broken up.”“Then let’s deport them intact,” I said.

He paused and he stared at me for a second. I had tipped my hand.

“But I don’t think that would be necessary,” I continued. “If we fined their employers and stopped giving them welfare, illegals would leave the same way they came.”

“Don’t you think it’s time for immigration reform?” he asked.

“You mean amnesty,” I said. “President Reagan did that twenty-five years ago, but 12-20 million more illegal aliens have sneaked in here since. No. I don’t think it’s time for amnesty. Arizona is doing what it has to do because the federal government isn’t doing its job.”

After the demonstrators gathered in Congress Square, various speakers railed against SB 1070 as “racial profiling.” However, the Arizona law only requires immigrants stopped for something else to show proof they’re in our country legally. Consider how many times we citizens must show our papers in the course of living our lives: at airports, banks, traffic stops, checkout counters, etc. It’s not racial profiling. Liberal Affirmative Action policies are racial profiling.MPA’s Tipping would seem to allow anyone from anywhere in whatever numbers to sneak the United States and stay - and anyone who objects is accused of racism. Hypocritical Mexican President Felipe Calderone called SB 1070 “racial discrimination,” although Mexico’s own laws against illegal immigrants coming into Mexico from poorer countries to his south are much tougher. US law requires resident aliens to carry registration papers on them at all times, yet President Obama says Arizona’s law would “undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans.” Presidential hypocrisy is rampant on both sides of the border.On May 1st four years ago, illegals carried Mexican flags and “Amnesty” signs in similar demonstrations. That indicated where their true loyalties lay but it backfired with Americans who watched it on television. Leftist organizers have since corrected that mistake. All I could see this year in Portland and elsewhere were American flags and “Immigration Reform” signs. Appearances have changed, but their motive hasn’t.

May 1st is Mayday, and Mayday is a warning. We’ll see how it plays out in November.

For those who question immigrant welfare benefits, consider this from the Center For Immigration Studies:


Anonymous said...

Some facts from Immigration Chronicles:

Illegal immigrants on welfare: fact or fiction?
Illegal immigrants swarm into our country and quickly jump on the welfare rolls. They cost hard-working U.S. citizens billions and billions of dollars in taxes because of this subsidy.

That's a familiar, easy charge leveled by critics of illegal immigration. But is it fact or fiction?

It's actually a myth, according to the Congressional Research Service, the investigative arm of Congress. This point is highlighted as one of the "top five immigration myths of the campaign season," a list put out by the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

Here's their look at welfare:

MYTH : The nation spends billions of dollars on welfare for undocumented immigrants.

FACTS: To the contrary, undocumented immigrants are not eligible to receive any "welfare" benefits and even legal immigrants are severely restricted in the benefits they can receive.

As the Congressional Research Service points out in a 2007 report, undocumented immigrants, who comprise nearly one-third of all immigrants in the country, are not eligible to receive public "welfare" benefits -- ever.

Tom McLaughlin said...

See addendum above.

Anonymous said...

Other than the idea that the fence would need to be a mile high and sunk down to the bedrock and made from an impenetrable material, I pretty much agree with Tom (surprise surprise). We are supposed to be a nation of Laws. What is it about illegal that is not understood? All the so called facts and statistics don't change the rules. As long as our gutless politicians ignore the problem it will only get worse.
I cringe at the thought of having to carry 'papers' or a government issued ID card but if that is what it would take I could consider it.

And for anonymous, Hospitals are generally required to treat just about anyone who comes to the door. Welfare or not, who do you suppose ultimately gets the bill for this.

Anonymous said...

How can anyone in their right mind be protesting this law? My gosh, we are a nation of laws, and the rule of law must trump. If you are not here legally, you are breaking the law. How hard is that to understand? Kudos to you once again Tom.

P.S. - I just finished law school! Taking the NY/NJ bars in July! Yippee!

Tom McLaughlin said...

Congratulations Monroe. Study up. Bet you pass it first try.

Anonymous said...

The reason why our gutless politicians don't do something about illegal immigrants is simple. In the USA money is king. There are too many rich and powerful people that WANT these immigrants here....they want their cheap labor and they are probably very happy that most of them have better work ethics than their American counterparts. The day that taking advantage of these immigrants does not make financial sense for the powerful will be the day serious action is taken.

Anonymous said...

Keep in mind that our country was founded by illegal immigrants. You may claim that Native American Indians didn't have written down "laws" to keep out the intruders, but you know that is just semantic BS.

Anonymous said...

I know that if I were a poor, hard working Mexican stuck in that F'd up hellhole than I too would be sneaking my family into the USA (if I could not get in legally). What is my alternative - join a drug cartel?

Anonymous said...

A great deal of history is made up of stronger societies destroying or enslaving weaker societies, written laws or not. You may call it semantics but using that argument is taking the easy way out and it is specious at best. Please don't play the Native American Guilt Trip with me.

Anonymous said...

No Guilt trip intended, just plain facts. Are you saying you condone the stronger societies destroying and enslaving the weaker? If so, countries laws mean nothing to you, so what complaint can you have about Mexicans ignoring ours?

And claiming the Indian comparison is specious without saying WHY you think that is taking the easy way out.

Ralph said...

Get your facts straight you dishonest/ignorant hack.

Here are some facts from the Chicago Tribune, deal with them:

As the illegal immigrant population has gone up in Arizona, its crime rate has gone down. Its violent crime rate is below the national average.

In 1999, Arizona had a violent crime rate of 551.1 per 100,000 people, above the national rate of 523. In 2008, after a large increase in illegal immigrants, the Arizona rate was down to 447, lower than the national rate of 454. Property crime in the state, at 4291 per 100,000 people, is above the national average of 3212.5, but it has fallen much more rapidy since 1999 than in the rest of the country.

Anonymous said...

The Gestapo checking papers to find Jews.

The USA checking papers to see if blacks were "free".

The old USSR.


Anonymous said...

Why demand people carry papers. Wouldn't it be easier to make people wear arm-bands that can be easily seen? But papers and arm-bands can be forged, forgotten, or lost. Why not make people get their faces tattood so that the Guvmint can keep a better eye on who belongs and who doesn't?

Anonymous said...

"Arizona's Governor had been stalling, you know, on signing this. She said it did not reflect any ambivalence about the bill. She just wanted to make sure her pool was clean and her lawn was mowed before she signed." —Bill Maher

"They say there are about 12 million illegal immigrants in this country. But if you ask a native American, that number is more like 300 million." -David Letterman

Anonymous said...

Boy, watching those good old movies about Nazi's will never be the same when it gets to the inevitable line - "Show me your papers"

Anonymous said...

"May 1st is Mayday, and Mayday is a warning. We’ll see how it plays out in November."

I think the New Republic has the right answer for this question:

"While Republicans may pick up a few more percent of the angry white vote in November 2010, they can kiss the Hispanic vote goodbye—and not just in Arizona. That may not have meant much in 1935, but in the years to come, it could seal the Republicans’ fate as a minority party. That’s at least one price they’ll pay for being mean and crazy."

Anonymous said...

Some conservitive thoughts on Arizona's immigration law:

Florida's Republican Congressman Connie Mack:

"This law of 'frontier justice' – where law enforcement officials are required to stop anyone based on 'reasonable suspicion' that they may be in the country illegally – is reminiscent of a time during World War II when the Gestapo in Germany stopped people on the street and asked for their papers without probable cause,"

"This is not the America I grew up in and believe in, and it’s not the America I want my children to grow up in,"

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina: said the law will likely be overturned because it is unconstitutional, and "doesn't represent the best way forward."

Jeb Bush, former Gov. of Florida - "I don't think this is the proper approach."

Karl Rove - "I think there is going to be some constitutional problems with the bill."

Congressman Lincoln Diaz- Barlart of Miami, Florida

"I strongly disagree with the Arizona immigration law,''

Former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough

"It's unacceptable and un American."

Sam said...

Worth repeating, in case Tom missed it the first time:

"Get your facts straight you dishonest/ignorant hack."

Thanks, Ralph.

Anonymous said...

Well I still am not sure why the illegal action should be condoned. If you dont like the laws change them. And because I mention historical events does not mean I approve of them. That is another specious argument.

Anonymous said...

The uproar over this issue is not because people condone the illegal behavior of immigrants, it is because people condemn the gestapo-like (as described by Florida's Republican Congressman Connie Mack) behavior that tramples people's constitutional rights (as claimed by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, Karl Rove, and many others).

Also, nobody claimed that you agreed wtih your mentioned historical events. Making vague posts that claim other people's post are "specious" while not stating what makes them so adds absolutely nothing to the conversation.

Jim said...

Could you please show me in Arizona law sb 1070 where "gestapo-like behavior" is prescribed/permitted. Also, where in the Arizona law (that is mirrored to existing federal immigration law) does it allow for American citizens' Constitutional rights to be "trampled?"

Anonymous said...

Jim, here is a quote by a COnstitutional Law Professor:

The Arizona law appears to be “facially unconstitutional,” Manheim said. “States have no power to pass immigration laws because it’s an attribute of foreign affairs. Just as states can’t have their own foreign policies or enter into treaties, they can’t have their own immigration laws either.”

As to the gestapo, well they were famous for demanding to see peoples papers.

Jim said...

Mr. Manheim seems to be a lousy professor...

The Supreme Court since 1976 has recognized that states may enact laws to discourage illegal immigration without being pre-empted by federal law. As long as Congress hasn’t expressly forbidden the state law in question, the statute doesn't conflict with federal law and Congress has not displaced all state laws from the field, it is permitted. That’s why Arizona’s 2007 law making it illegal to knowingly employ unauthorized aliens was sustained by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
--excerpt by KRIS W. KOBACH published in the New York Times.

Is it "gestapo-like behavior" when a police officer asks for a drivers license during a traffic stop? Or when a TSA agent asks for ID before boarding a plane? Or, when a little league official asks for a birth certificate when signing up for baseball? Or, when a bank teller asks for ID before cashing a check?

You and I are asked to prove who we are almost everyday, why now is it suddenly "gestapo-like behavior" to be asked for ID?

Anonymous said...

"Mr. Manheim seems to be a lousy professor..."

...and so I guess that Florida Republican Connie Mack is a bad congressman, Republican Lindsey Graham is a bad senator, and Karl Rove is just plain bad. (well, actually I can't disagree with any of those, so maybe you have a point). Anyway, this will be argued out by legal experts so we will just have to wait and see.

As for the gestapo techniques, if you are comfortable with the increased police state of bug govmint, so be it...

Jim said...

On this issue anyone who thinks Arizona's new immigration law enables "gestapo-like behavior that tramples people's constitutional rights" is wrong. That includes you, Connie Mack, Lindsey Graham, Carl Rove, and Obama.

Since I don't live in Arizona and am a law abiding citizen your gross exaggeration about an increased police state has no affect on me. And, since 70% of Arizonans are in favor of the new law I support their right to govern their own State's affairs.

Anonymous said...

I did not say that I agree that constitutional rights are getting trampled, I said that many experts believe this to be so. Iam not a legal expert and I am guessing you are not either, so just because you say they are wrong does not make it so. The courts will decide. The issue involves the 14th ammendment. If I'm pulled over for a traffic violation, it violates my constitutional rights, under the 14th Amendment, to be asked for immigration papers. The only reason I would be asked for such papers is if I, an American citizen, were thought to look like an illegal alien. That means that I'm being treated unequally - not the same as someone not deemed to look like an illegal alien.

You agree with the law because the majority of residents agree with it? So I take it that you would also agree if they decided to make slavery legal again and the majority agreed?

And do you really think that American citizens should have to always have their "papers" with them? Out for a jog? Out kayaking on the lake? As a passenger in a car? I guess some people are much less offended by Big Brother monitoring them on an increased level.

Ralph said...

Wow, has Tom been taking a licking in the Daily Sun!!! I love it! For every poorly written, heavily biased, innacurate, mean spirited column he writes he gets several well written, factually acurate, calm and rational responses which totally show Tom for the buffoon he is! He has rallied young and old, from Anthony who posts here as well, to an elderly lady who has started writing brilliant letters against Tom's mean dishonesty!

Keep it up Tom, you are hurting your cause as much as Palin hurt McCain!!!!

Jim said...

You guessed incorrectly.

"just because you say they are wrong does not make it so."

They are wrong according to me and the US Supreme Court. As Kris Kobach said, "The Supreme Court since 1976 has recognized that states may enact laws to discourage illegal immigration without being pre-empted by federal law." See my earlier post for further details.

Your traffic stop scenario is a joke and clearly demonstrates you know little about both the Constitution and Arizona Law SB1070.

Producing a drivers license in Arizona is proof positive that you are not an illegal alien. Since Arizona only issues drivers licenses to lawful people a policeman must assume anyone who produces one is in the country legally.

According to U.S. Federal Law: 8 USC 1306(a) and 1304(e) All aliens (non-citizens) are required to carry with them at all times their immigration documents. This has been Federal Law since 1940. Arizona's Law mirrors this and adds a further penalty to what is already a federal crime of not carrying immigration Id.

Arizona Law SB1070 Section 2 specifically states, "Law enforcement officers may not solely consider race, color or national origin in making any stops or determining immigration status."

I support citizens' rights of any state to enact any law that conforms to both the state's constitution statutes, and the US Constitution's statutes. According to the 13th Amendment slavery is banned in all US jurisdictions, so no, I would disagree with Arizonans if they tried to enact a slavery law.

As I said in an earlier post current law already requires you and I to prove who we are almost everyday. Since Arizona law SB1070 does not apply to legal residents no new/further ID is required to be carried.

Ralph and Sam, is there anything you want to say to Anonymous about getting facts straight?

Anonymous said...

"They are wrong according to me and the US Supreme Court"

Perhaps - we'll find out after the courts decide.

What if I am a passenger in the traffic stop scenario and I am a legal immigrant (a US citizen) and do not have a driver's licence with me, which I am not required to have?

Arizona Law SB1070 Section 2 specifically states, "Law enforcement officers may not solely consider race, color or national origin in making any stops or determining immigration status."

The bill only says that race, color, origin may not SOLELY be the basis. Therefore it can be a factor.

There was a case in 1940, when the Justice Department supported private citizens who challenged the constitutionality of a Pennsylvania state law that required all non-citizens 18 years or older to register with the state once a year, carry an alien-registration card with them at all times and show that card whenever it was demanded by a police officer or a state official. Aliens who refused to register could be fined and jailed.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1941 that the Pennsylvania law was unconstitutional, in part because the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government, not the states, the power over immigration, naturalization and deportation.

Don't bother going on about what you think the differences are, frankly I don't really care. I only care about what is actually decided in court. We'll soon find out.

What facts did I get wrong that you want Ralph to get on me about?

DAWN said...

I read in today's paper that illegal immigration is costing Florida taxpayers $3.8 billion a year. I'm thinking we need to follow Arizona's example and do the same for Florida.

I can't get over the cries of racism going on here. What's the part about "illegal" people don't get?

From what I understand about 70% of the citizens in Arizona approve. Leave em' alone. Let them make a decision for their own state. When it comes time to vote for your own state do so.

Rubio who is running for Senator in Florida just came out today in support of the Arizona law. So maybe Florida won't be far behind.

Anonymous said...

Wow, after reading this and all the venomous comments by the libs after it, I have come to two conclusions; 1) Civil war is not far away. 2) liberals are so tolerant until you disagree with them. Yeah, Tolerant like a freekin Rattlesnake!

Anonymous said...

Where exactly are all these "venomous comments"? Perhaps you are responding to your fantisized caricature of a "lib" instead of dealing with reality?

Anonymous said...

Here is a column by an extreme conservative who writes obnoxiously in-your-face right wing editorials for the Boston Globe:

IT IS REMARKABLE how many Republicans and conservatives deplore the liberty-infringing perils of big government, yet applaud Arizona's draconian new immigration law, which empowers the police to interrogate anyone suspected of being in the country unlawfully. It is also perplexing. How can they brandish "Don't Tread On Me" signs at a Tea Party rally on Monday, then on Tuesday cheer a law making the failure to carry "an alien-registration document" a crime? Surely Americans who extol the work ethic and admire the spirit of enterprise should be dismayed -- not delighted -- when Arizona forbids a willing employer from hiring a willing employee because of something as irrelevant as his immigration status?
Not all Republicans endorse the new statute. US Senate candidate Marco Rubio has spoken out against it in Florida; so has business executive Meg Whitman, now running for governor in California. Other GOP critics include Texas Governor Rick Perry, political strategist Karl Rove, and South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham. But they are decidedly in the minority. According to the latest Gallup poll, 75 percent of Republicans who have heard of the new law support it; only 17 percent are opposed.
I have never understood the anti-immigration hysterics. Industrious self-starters who come to the United States to find work, create new wealth, and improve their lives are not a menace or a threat. They are an asset. No state seeks to drive out hard-working newcomers from New Mexico or Indiana; why should hard-working newcomers from Old Mexico or India be treated any differently? To say that they cross the border illegally only begs the question. Why should it be illegal for any person to come to the United States, assuming his intentions are peaceful and he is not likely to become a public charge or health risk?
For most of US history, there was no ceiling on the number of immigrants allowed to enter the country. There were some specific exclusions -- polygamists and prostitutes were denied entry, for example, and the racist Chinese Exclusion Act barred immigrants from China -- but on the whole, nearly anyone who wished to settle in the United States before the 1920s was free to do so. The immense influx of immigrants made possible by that policy was often the cause of tension and suspicion. It was also an extraordinary blessing, transforming America into the most prosperous, vibrant, and innovative nation in history.
We have an illegal immigration problem today only because federal law makes legal immigration so costly and difficult. A concrete-and-barbed-wire wall along the border will not fix that problem, and neither will punitive sanctions on employers who hire illegal aliens. Meaningful immigration reform would focus instead on simply making it easier for low-skilled or unskilled workers to enter the country lawfully.

[end part 1]

Anonymous said...

I forgot to mention the name of the columnist - Jeff Jacoby. Here is part 2:

Republicans like to think of themselves as champions of law and order -- never more so, many of them, than when damning illegal aliens. To quote Republican state senator Russell Pearce, lead sponsor of the new Arizona law: "Illegal is illegal." That is what passes for a thoughtful argument among many immigration restrictionists.
But there is nothing thoughtful or admirable about insisting that a foolish or counterproductive law be enforced at all costs. In Montgomery, Ala., in 1955, Rosa Parks broke the law that mandated racial segregation on public buses. For refusing to give up her seat to a white passenger, Parks was arrested, fingerprinted, and fined. As she was being removed from the bus, she asked the arresting officer, "Why do you push us around?"
"I don't know," he replied. "But the law is the law and you're under arrest."
A century earlier, thousands of Southern slaves were guided to freedom by "conductors" along the Underground Railroad, the clandestine network of escape routes into the Northern states and Canada. Those "conductors" -- many of them supporters of the new Republican Party -- loathed the Fugitive Slave Act, which mandated the return of runaway slaves and imposed criminal sanctions on anyone aiding a fugitive. No doubt there were Americans who cried then, as Russell Pearce and those who anathematize illegal aliens cry today, that "illegal is illegal" and the law must be obeyed.
Of course respect for the law is important. But when laws are foolish, perverse, and repugnant to American interests and ideals, they should be resisted and replaced. Republicans and conservatives should be leading the fight for real immigration reform. How sad that so many of them would rather fight immigrants instead.

Jim said...

To the Anonymous poster whom I've been having a dialog with:

"What if I am a passenger in the traffic stop scenario and I am a legal immigrant (a US citizen) and do not have a driver's licence with me, which I am not required to have?"

Arizona Law SB1070 does not require anyone to carry a drivers license with them (unless they are operating a motor vehicle). Therefore, in the scenario you described the passenger is not breaking any laws and thus will not be asked to produce ID.

The bill only says that race, color, origin may not SOLELY be the basis. Therefore it can be a factor.

Governor Jan Brewer can answer this better than I...
"Taking into consideration questions and concerns that have been expressed about the SB1070 legislation I signed last week, today [4/30/2010] I signed HB 2162 which defines and clarifies even further the proper implementation and enforcement of the law. These changes specifically answer legal questions raised by some who expressed fears that the original law would somehow allow or lead to racial profiling. These new amendments make it crystal clear and undeniable that racial profiling is illegal, and will not be tolerated in Arizona."

What facts did I get wrong that you want Ralph to get on me about?

When you posted, "The uproar over this issue is not because people condone the illegal behavior of immigrants, it is because people condemn the gestapo-like (as described by Florida's Republican Congressman Connie Mack) behavior that tramples people's constitutional rights" you were helping spread misinformation about the Arizona Law. These statements, whether you agree with them or not are untrue and hold no basis in fact.

Anonymous said...

So the only "fact" you say I got wrong is whether or not the law is unconstitutional. That remains to be seen. Personally, I do not have a problem with the law as it reads after it was ammended. Thank goodness that so many people did cause an uproar about the unconstitutional part of the law that had to be revised.

Anonymous said...

Dawn and others are hung up on "what part of illegal don't you understand?" I agree with Jacoby when he writes:

"That is what passes for a thoughtful argument among many immigration restrictionists.
But there is nothing thoughtful or admirable about insisting that a foolish or counterproductive law be enforced at all costs."

The following are excerpts from a libertarian standpoint written by Anthony Gregory:

In Defense of Open Immigration

...any alleged relationship between free immigration and a growing welfare state is irrelevant to the underlying issue
[The effect of immigration on welfare] is not an argument against immigration but against the welfare state. To be sure, the welfare state should be destroyed, root and branch. However, in any case the problems of immigration and welfare are analytically distinct problems, and they must be treated accordingly.

In the meantime, what is the most libertarian immigration policy? The fact is, landlords, employers, and merchants currently allow immigrants on their land all the time, and in many cases would be more open to immigrants if they did not fear legal repercussions. The only question that remains is what to do about public property, including much of the land along the national borders. Whereas in a free society property owners along the border would be free to allow foreigners to enter their property, opponents of open immigration believe that the government must, in the interim, forbid people from allowing immigrants onto their own land.

Every day we see the willingness of Americans to accommodate immigrants. The market supports them. They work, purchase goods and services, and pay for housing. Their use of public resources and land, if anything, is a problem with the status of so much property as public — just as their potential abuse of welfare is a problem with welfare itself.

Furthermore, the use of the federal government to control borders contributes directly to socialism far more than the immigrants themselves.
Just like all other federal government programs, immigration controls are a form of socialism. They involve bloated budgets, bureaucracy, central planning, taxation, abusive police powers, intrusions in the marketplace, and widespread corruption.

Immigration controls are expensive, and they clearly don’t work that well. More than a million foreigners enter America illegally every year. A serious attempt to keep them out would require even higher taxes, a more militarized border patrol, and vast invasions of the privacy of employers and other Americans. It would potentially require a national ID card, as well as an army of border police and federal agents to round up and repatriate illegals. It would depend on central planning, which, as all free-market economists should know, simply doesn’t work. The border guards have already been implicated in a number of scandals, and the idea that the government can maintain efficiency and honesty in its border police, when the federal government does a poor job of preventing corruption and degradation among city police, prison guards, and even in the highly regimented military, requires quite a stretch of the imagination.

Anonymous said...


As borders are tightened, a black market in immigration will expand, leading to increased violence and government corruption. The war on drugs has utterly failed to keep drugs out of the country, and yet has succeeded in draining away enormous resources and eroding precious civil liberties; a war on immigrants would yield similar results.

Immigration, the Declaration, and the Constitution:

Moreover, just like all the other socialist federal programs in America, closed immigration is totally unconstitutional. Article I, Section 8 provides no authority whatever to the federal government to close the borders. It is a step in the wrong direction to violate the Constitution further, simply to allow one favored government program to slip through. Such leniency with the Constitution, after all, is how we wound up with so much socialism in the first place.

In the case of immigration, we can go all the way back to the Declaration of Independence, in which Thomas Jefferson cited King George III’s obstruction to immigration to the colonies as a grievance:

"He has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands."

For most of U.S. history, there were virtually no immigration controls. Some northern states had Black Codes that kept free blacks from entering. Eventually, the federal government passed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.
The history of immigration in America coincides well with the history of liberty, and it shows the socialist origins of immigration controls. In its history, its theory, and its practice, immigration controls are just one more boondoggle of dysfunctional, immoral, unconstitutional, and socialist central planning. A welfare state may depend on such controls, but a free society should reject them. Severe restrictions on immigration compromise the liberty of the people inside as well as outside the borders, and they should be among the policies libertarians oppose in their efforts to bring liberty back to America.

Anonymous said...

Looks like the libertarian is calling the likes of Tom, Dawn, and Jim SOCIALISTS!

Any rational counter arguements to open immigration from any of you?

Jim said...

I'm in favor of immigration. I am, however, against illegal immigration.

Could you please help me understand why being against illegal immigration is socialism.

Anonymous said...

For crying out loud Jim, you obviously did not even read the article by the libertrian Anthony you need to be spoon fed your info in little bits? Ok lazybones, here is one of the excerpts that relate to your question about socialism (but please refrain from further questions until you check to see if it has already been answered):

"...the use of the federal government to control borders contributes directly to socialism far more than the immigrants themselves.
Just like all other federal government programs, immigration controls are a form of socialism. They involve bloated budgets, bureaucracy, central planning, taxation, abusive police powers, intrusions in the marketplace, and widespread corruption."

THere is more to be found in the full article. Also, the question remains - what is your rational arguement against open immigration?

Anonymous said...

A call for open immigration seems to be a popular libertarian stance. Here is another excerpt from

Immigration controls are simply a form of socialist central planning and economic intervention. What do we know, from both theory and experience, about socialist central planning and economic interventionism? We know that they don’t work, that they’re inherently incapable of working, and that they inevitably produce market distortions and perversions.

A policy of open borders is the only thing that is consistent with the principles of liberty, free markets, morality, love-thy-neighbor as thyself, and economic prosperity. And it’s the only policy that works. In a world mired in socialism and interventionism, Americans should be leading the world out of this morass, and one of the best places to begin is by repealing immigration socialism.

To further explore why a policy of open borders is the only moral and practical solution to America’s immigration woes, I highly recommend the following three books: FFF’s book The Case for Free Trade and Open Immigration, edited by Richard M. Ebeling and Jacob G. Hornberger (libertarians), Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them, by Philippe Legrain (a liberal), and Let Them In: The Case for Open Borders, by Jason Riley (a conservative).

Jim said...

No need to get pissy. A rational answer to questions is all that's necessary.

"...the use of the federal government to control borders contributes directly to socialism far more than the immigrants themselves."

Article 4 Section 4 of the US Constitution mandates that the federal government secure the border against invasion and domestic violence. Border security is a constitutional requirement just like the military, the post office, and postal roads. So again, could you please help me understand why being against illegal immigration is socialism.

"what is your rational arguement against open immigration?

Let me reiterate. I'm in favor of immigration and against illegal immigration. I'm also against open borders. There needs to be checks to keep out criminals and people with communicable diseases.

The US is a welfare state, and open borders combined with a welfare state is unsustainable. If your solution to this is to abolish the welfare state I'm 100% with you. Once the welfare state is abolished come back to me and we'll talk then about open borders.

The most important reason I'm against open borders is because our #1 enemy (Islamic terrorists) would be free to enter the country at will. Open borders combined with inexpensive air travel would give terrorists virtually unlimited access to all major cities and population centers. If you think keeping Americans safe from Islamic terrorists is difficult now, open borders would make that job exponentially harder.

Anonymous said...

Jim, you still haven't read the articles (or at least haven't comprhended them) and you seem to not understand that under open immigration ust any old criminal or terrorist would be allowed in. I'll give you a few months to brush up on this and see how you are doing then.

Unknown said...

Where I'm from, the illegals have fake identities and pay payroll taxes
on their income, yet they don't receive any public services because they are too afraid of being deported if they try to.

Unknown said...

Hilarious. Teabaggers, are we a nation of laws or a nation of liberties? You change your tune depending on who is making the law.
What a complete lack of principle.