How I’d Reform Immigration
Jason Kuznicki on Mar 30th 2006
It seems Sandefur and I have some disagreements on immigration. I’m not entirely clear on how deep they go, so I’m offering some clarifications.
The first is terminological but important nonetheless. Sandefur writes,
The absurdity and hysteria of the situation is typified by the incidents in the past few days in which students at high schools in the Ventura and Santa Barbara areas walked out of their classes to protest a bill which would make it illegal to be in the country illegally. One teenager I saw on television holding a sign protesting indignantly, “How Can A Human Be Illegal?” (The answer to that is: by breaking the law.)
But the present controversy is not about making it illegal to do something illegal.
At the moment, “illegal” immigration is neither a felony nor a misdemeanor. Indeed, being here “illegally” does not even carry a civil penalty. Entering the country without the government’s explicit permission is grounds for deportation under the current law, but, barring some act of fraud during the entry process — or a criminal or terrorist connection — deportation is purely an administrative procedure. And I think that this is more or less how things should be.
One piece of legislation now being considered would change all of that, making unrecognized immigration an actual felony. The protesters, then, aren’t so clueless as they seem. They are protesting something real, and I agree with them here.
Second, I disagree with Thomas Jefferson when he writes,
[Immigrants] will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children.
Subsequent evidence runs against Jefferson’s prediction. The United States has absorbed substantial waves of Irish, East European, and East Asian immigrants, none of whom came from countries or cultures that habituated them to freedom. Many spoke little or no English and were almost wholly ignorant of the American system. Yet after a generation or two — and often much sooner — they turned out pretty much like any other group of Americans.
What we are experiencing now is entirely within the bounds of the demographic precedents set by these other groups: As a proportion of the general population, the number of immigrants today is roughly on par with levels that we have experienced in the past, as this (intentionally?) misleading graph actually demonstrates quite well (hint: look at the percentages).
Given the demographic similarities and historical precedents, I have little reason to fear that Latinos will somehow be different — unless, that is, we give them incentives not to assimilate.
Immigrants into Citizens I have little reason to fear, but I do have some reason to fear.
I am not worried about the overall attitudes or values of the immigrants themselves. The people who like communism, fascism, theocracy, or other forms of arbitrary government generally will not come to the United States. And those who want to mooch off a welfare state will go where the benefits are the greatest, not where they are the smallest: The contrast between France and the United States is instructive here.
I am worried, of course, that a few hostile immigrants may come here to foment revolution, commit terrorism, and the like. But these are distinct crimes that should be dealt with through other channels, as they are far removed from the goals of the overwhelming majority of newcomers.
I am also worried that we might unintentionally create a group of second-class citizens, people who live here permanently yet do not vote, pay taxes, understand American values, or participate in civic life. This must not be allowed. While immigrants may arrive with the best of intentions, if our policies give them disincentives to join American society, then they may not do so. I find that this is happening with Muslims in Europe, and I am anxious that we avoid this entirely avoidable problem.
So here are my policy recommendations.
1. Let the United States reserve its sovereign right to control entry, but let it still be easy to enter the country. Prosecute and/or expel genuine criminals mercilessly, but tolerate the rest. Presume innocence. Remove those with dangerously contagious diseases, of course — but end the ban on immigrants with HIV, which of course is fatal, but which is not a particularly contagious disease.
2. Shrink the welfare state so that only the industrious will come here — and only the industrious will stay.
3. Keep birthright citizenship, which prevents the growth of a permanent noncitizen class. Ever since there have been democracies, second-class citizenship has been a problem, and it is a problem we do well to avoid.
Does birthright citizenship result in so-called anchor babies? Of course. But a permanent underclass of unanchored foreigners would be much, much worse. As the Washington Times notes, many European nations have dropped birthright citizenship in recent decades. But, while the Times would — bizarrely, and for once — have us emulate Europe, I would not. Ending birthright citizenship has hurt Europe’s efforts toward absorbing its immigrant population. The result — millions of permanent noncitizens creating social institutions divorced from the rest of society and often radically opposed to it — cannot possibly be good. We must not go this way.
Birthright citizenship funnels entire families toward assimilation, because those who suddenly find themselves citizens, or relatives of citizens, will have far more reason to participate in civic life. After all, the new citizens will be called on to pay taxes, to vote, to stand for office, and to serve in the military. Whether or not these people really wanted to be Americans, they will soon find that it is in their best interests to become Americans, both on paper and their hearts, minds, and aspirations. And this is exactly what we want.
4. Make everyone take civics lessons. No exceptions. Preserving our freedom first of all means knowing what freedom really is. Shouldn’t everyone know this stuff? And consider this as a reason why civics class should be mandatory for all.
5. Do not expand the guest worker program, at least not without extending the hope — and the expectation — of eventual citizenship. Guest worker programs of indefinite duration create all the same problems as the lack of birthright citizenship. Indeed, guest worker programs may even be worse, as they not only create but institutionalize a second-class citizenship. Large guest worker programs have powerfully contributed to the problems with immigrants in France and Germany, and again, we ought not to emulate their example.
6. If you are going to promote bilingual education, let it be for everyone. Learning a second language expands an individual’s ability to compete in the world market; it opens him to new ideas and new ways of thinking. It teaches tolerance and respect.
If we do not adopt bilingualism for all, then let the newcomers learn in English. As the dominant language of business the world over, English is a fine choice. Moreover, plenty of other immigrant groups have made the adjustment, and it is condescending to suggest that Latinos cannot do likewise.
Of course, so long as English remains the most profitable language, there will be natural incentives to learn it anyway, and bilingual education will be little more than a flashpoint in the culture wars — not a serious threat to national unity.
It should be clear, then, that I applaud the following:
The Senate Judiciary Committee voted on Monday to legalize the nation’s 11 million illegal immigrants and ultimately to grant them citizenship, provided that they hold jobs, pass criminal background checks, learn English and pay fines and back taxes.
The panel also voted to create a vast temporary worker program that would allow roughly 400,000 foreigners to come to the United States to work each year and would put them on a path to citizenship as well…
The rift among Republicans on the committee reflects the deep divisions in the party as business groups push to legalize their workers and conservatives battle to stem the tide of illegal immigration. [Senator Arlen] Specter acknowledged the difficulties ahead, saying, “We are making the best of a difficult situation.” But he said he believed that the legislation would ultimately pass the Senate and would encourage the millions of illegal immigrants to come out of the shadows.
“We do not want to create a fugitive class in America,” Mr. Specter said after the vote. “We do not want to create an underclass in America.”
More can be found here; I particularly liked this second story because it focused on some of the incentives and disincentives that immigrants face in joining the American community — both legally and in terms of their personal identification. For once, the poll numbers were beside the point. As they should be:
Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, [defended] the legalization program, which would ultimately grant immigrants citizenship.
“Where is home?” Mr. Graham asked his colleagues Monday. “Their home is where they’ve raised their children. Their home is where they’ve lived their married lives.”
“Whatever we do,” he added, “we have to recognize that for several generations people have made America their home.”
Exactly.
[Now is also a good time to reiterate the disclaimer that applies to the entire site: I speak only for myself here, not for my employer, for the CRS, or for the U.S. government.]
Filed in The Barracks
Kuznicki:
You’re going to teach people what freedom really is by having the government force everyone to take a civics class against their will?
Why not teach by example, and abolish coercive schooling?
[...] var site=”s15kuznicki” « How I’d Reform Immigration [...]
Libertarians Against Property Rights: “You Will Be Assimilated” Edition
Over at Positive Liberty, Timothy Sandefur and Jason Kuznicki seem intent on retreading an argument over immigration that I last saw in the clash of…
It’s admirable of you to think through the immigration issue. I increasingly find, though, regardless of what they say, when someone on the right starts to bring up the issue of immigration, if you peel away enough layers of obfuscating discourse, the kernel that you find is usually, “I hate Mexicans.” As such, any attempt to reason out the issue is going to come to nothing because the “arguments” put forth are usually just, “Those Mexicans are ruining our country. They’re lazy, they don’t learn English, and I remember back when there were only white people in this neighborhood etc. etc.”
Attempting to reason with such people is an exercise in futility.
Andrew Reeves,
The politicians themselves probably do not hate Mexicans or whatever brown people may be at the center of the discussion. Rather, they pander to the people who actually do hold the bigoted views whose votes will bring them into power.
Frankly, I find the latter more distasteful as it entails a sacrifice of principles in order to achieve power.
So I’m wondering what relevance Thomas Jefferson’s comments would have considering that he was only 2nd or 3rd generation himself on this continent. Didn’t Americans of his generation grow up thinking of themselves as British since this wasn’t its own country yet? Was it a case of “if you’re here when we signed the Declaration of Independence, you automatically are an American and then we shut the doors”?
The guest worker program would seem to cater to the people that just come here to earn money, but maintain a household in Mexico and want to eventually go back there after they’ve saved up. Many villages in Mexico are very dependent on remittances from workers in the US, so they don’t want to lose out on this income. It’ll be interesting to see what the outcomes of the Mexican election this summer are–will it affect inequities in educational and economic status? They just changed the laws so that Mexicans in the U.S. could vote at consulates, so that might make a difference.
You seem to have a very positive spin on American values but with respect to the day-to-day ones like eating at McDonalds and disrespecting your parents and having the biggest car possible, I guess I don’t see why there’s any harm in hanging on to old values. You can’t deny the tremendous American cultural influence with globalization, even for Mexicans who stay on the other side, but Americans feel threatened that it might work both ways? I feel assimilation is such a negative term, going back to the tendency of killing off Native Americans and replacing their languages with English customs and language rather than the mestizaje of Latin America. Is the “freedom of expression” only going to be an American value when you think like everyone else?
With respect to your shrinking the welfare state proposal even more, considering that most people using these services are not immigrants, would you expect a mass influx of native-born Americans to Canada? That is one American value that would definitely be threatened—people here do not expect to go to other places for economic refuge these days. A note that “industrious” is not synonymous with “able to get a job” in this day of layoffs and downsizing.
There is no such thing as true freedom. At least while living, anyway (in the philosophical sense, then, true freedom is a condition without any laws which act on you, including those of mortal or immortal demesne). Otherwise, civic “freedom” is anarchy. There must be an imposition of a government to control how its citizens will act. Under the system currently enabled by this country, we have laws that help the people know what is allowed, and what is not. But then, they can choose not to. There is freedom even in the worst of situations (the new film adaptation of V for Vendetta makes this very clear). But to act toward a group, one must curb one’s desire to dance naked around bonfires and just randomly destroy or kill. Gain is acheived through effort and loss, not through sloth. Thus I agree with Jason that civics lessons would be required for people who which to participate in our economy, and that to perticipate, this means they will need to pay taxes, pay fees, and be elligible to serve nationally. In exchange (the gain from their effort and loss) they can own land, own property largely without restriction whatsoever from porn to ponies (of course, owning people is prohibited, though indenturement is slavery anyway), and participate in the furtherance of their intrests by voting and being able to speak and act their mind.
Because this nation is a nation of (essentially) free people, there are restrictions where acts would infringe on the rights of others, and as such there is [potential] criminal liability attached to virtually all acts that would concern another person or property in this country. Civics lessons teach people (as many natural citizens learn in school) that acts have consequences and the most dire of these can result in loss of (most) freedom. This is afforded with a choice, and as such, due process of law requires, save for extraordinary circumstances, a person’s right against search and seizure must be waived. Prisoners in state and federal detentions sign slips attesting to this. I think this is only fair for potential citizens to have. If you want to become a member of this nation, you must abide by the rights of all that dwell therein.
Even if there are idiots in the government that think otherwise.
Jaime:
Well, I’m an anarchist. So merely pointing out that a view leads to “anarchy,” or to the end of law as such, is hardly going to dissuade me from it.
However, you and I may have different ideas about what “true freedom” means. I don’t think that political freedom is primarily defined by the absence of law. I think it’s defined by the absence of coercion. Since government law is systematized coercion, that entails the absence of government law down the road, but that’s a secondary consequence, not the definition.
I have nothing against using force to restrict people from violating others’ rights (there is a right to self-defense, and there is a right to defend innocent third parties from aggression). What I’m suggesting is that forcing people to take a civics class against their will is itself a violation of the rights of the person you’re forcing to take it. Playing hooky from a civics class victimizes precisely nobody, violates nobody’s rights, treads on nobody’s property. Thus there can be no justification whatsoever for having government use coercive means to make people take it when they do not want to. If you do advocate that, then you advocate violating people’s rights in the name of evangelizing your political program.
Fair enough. What I’m asking is that you abide by my right not to be forced to attend a civics class that I don’t care to attend.
Red Geek:
And I argued that “forcing” can never occur. One must consent to abide by a request. One can refuse, and no one ever said otherwise. There is an imposed condition that results from not agreeing, but no one has taken away your right to refuse the law.
This is a nation that only works when people agree to sustain it. Unfortunately, 75% of our voting public has no clue about their real freedoms in this nation, but I would rather people around me consider the consequences of their actions if they should choose to include me in their anarchic ideas. I desire true freedom, but I take on myself the restrictions that I would ask others to take on so that I am secure.
Jaime:
The “imposed condition” being what, exactly?
If it’s something like what is done to undocumented immigrants today (arrest, confinement, and exile), then I should like to know by what right you think that you (or some third party) can impose this condition on me. You seem to want to treat this as if it were a matter of a contractual quid pro quo — I either agree or don’t agree to attend your class, and in return you agree to give me something that I want. But the peaceful enjoyment of my own life, liberty, and property are not goods in your possession that you can legitimately agree or decline to turn over to me. They are things that you owe me whenever and wherever we happen to interact (just as I owe you the same respect for your rights), prior to any agreements, contracts, covenants, or pledges we may or may not have made. I never agreed to take the class you propose forcing me to take, and I never agreed to accept anything from you that you made (or had any right to make) conditional on taking it. So what right would you have to make me take it, or to use any force against me as retribution for refusing to take it?
If it’s some other penalty that you have in mind, one not involving the use of force against my person or my property, then maybe you could clarify what you mean to do to people who refuse to attend the class.
Where does that supposed right come from? Whose property my land? If it’s mine then how do you have a right to keep Mexicans off it?
Great, libertarians for state propaganda. What next?
The sovereign right to control entry is very simple: If, on your property, you have harbored people who either have harmed me in the past or who have an intent to harm me in the future, then I have a right to act against them — and against you. I have delegated this right to the state, which acts as my agent, and which has taken responsibility for people who may harm me within a given geographic area.
As to Mexicans, I would let nearly all of them enter who wished. Don’t jump to conclusions.
And as to civics lessons, how do you suppose that a liberal society either takes root or endures if its population does not understand or has contempt for liberal ideas? The results — well, just look at Iraq and Afghanistan.
So long as government is in the business of education (which, in the long term, it should not be), then at least let that education be a complete one, and let it start with the most important subject.
Jason:
Well, that’s mighty white of you.
Could you explain more carefully what specific immigrants have violated your rights in concrete, actionable cases, and what you consider to be a proportional response to those violations of rights? (Do you think, for example, that refusing to take a damned government-sponsored civics class is an actionable violation of your rights? Or that arrest, confinement, and exile is a proportional response to it?)
Kennedy’s point isn’t that liberal ideas are unnecessary or irrelevant. It’s that whatever their merits may be, you haven’t got the right to force people to take classes on liberalism.
Rad Geek, your comment above is so offensive that I almost do not care to answer your questions.
If you really believed that what I actually care about was to keep America white, then I trust that you would not be debating me. You’re playing to the crowd, not making any serious argument, when you talk about how “white” my views are.
And if you’d actually considered the ideas in my original post, you would realize how idiotic your comment was. I welcome people of all races to come to the United States; with only a few exceptions (that is, criminals), I support open immigration. I even mentioned how well the East European Jews adapted to life in the U.S. — and I expressed a firm belief that Latinos could do the same.
How dare you insinuate that I’m a racist? Really, how dare you?
As to the one serious question you do raise, forcing children to go to school is not a violation of anyone’s rights; it is fully proper that a society should do so. If kids don’t want to go to school, well, that’s too bad. They don’t have the full rights of a citizen until adulthood.
Jason, I’m not insinuating that you’re a racist. “That’s mighty white of you” is an idiomatic expression that was once common among whites in the American South. It’s now used by some people, especially African-Americans, to sarcastically suggest that someone is being condescending or presumptuous (while presenting themselves as doing you a favor). The meaning is roughly equivalent to “That’s mighty big of you,” when uttered with a sarcastic tone of voice.
So what I’m insinuating is that pronouncements about who you’d “let … in” to other people’s property are condescending and presumptuous. I’m glad that you advocate measures that are less illiberal than those advocated by, say, Sandefur, but fundamentally it is not up to you to decide how welcoming or unwelcoming to be here. (To what are you “welcoming” people who aren’t setting foot on your property?) Much less is it up to you to decide whether or not to use violence against them to force them off of other people’s property (and then, having declined to, pat yourself on the back about how “welcoming” you are). Really, how dare you?
You could claim that you have some rights here because — as you argued in your reply to Kennedy — you have a right to use force against people who have harmed you or threatened to harm you. But I directly asked you what specific violations of your rights (threatened or enacted) you had in mind that would justify doing this to undocumented immigrants. And also whether arrest, confinement, and exile (”deportation”) was a proportionate response to whatever specific violation of your rights you had in mind. You haven’t answered either of those questions, but until you’ve answered them you haven’t provided any reason for claiming that you’ve got some kind of right to screen immigrants or enforce any immigration-restriction policy at all, as long as they are not trespassing on your own property.
“Society” doesn’t force children to go to school. Their parents do; or their guardians do; or government truant officers do, depending on the breaks.
It may be that parents and guardians have a legitimate right to do that. If so, they get that right from the fact that they are, for some purposes at least, acting on behalf of the child for the purposes of contracts and legal decision-making.
Are you suggesting that government officials (legislators, school officials, truant officers, etc.) have the same rights to make decisions for children that their parents or guardians do? If you are, where do they get that right? (Do they have the right to make your children get braces or do their homework, if you don’t make them do it?)
Anyway, you didn’t suggest that your “civics lessons” would be limited to schoolchildren; you said that you’d “make everyone” take it. Since adult immigrants are currently forced to take civics classes as a prerequisite for naturalized citizenship, I took it that you intended to include adults as well as children. If that’s not what you meant, then I apologize for misreading you.
Jason,
You don’t own a large territory, so how can you delegate a right to so police one?
Let’s say I’ve delegated my right of self defense to a private company. Does that company have the right to stop you at an arbitrary border of it’s choosing and require that you demonstrate you are no threat to me?
Rad,
Nobody’s buying it, and this is precisely why you should deal with arguments first.
Jason,
Whereas America was founded as a product of government directed civics classes?
Kennedy: Nobody’s buying it, and this is precisely why you should deal with arguments first.
Look, just to be clear, I think that there are plenty of racist creeps involved in immigration debates, but that Jason is not one of them. When I am arguing with them (contrary to Jason’s suggestion, I do argue with some of them) I don’t flinch at calling their position racist. That’s not a failure to “deal with arguments first;” it’s a characterization of the type of argument being mounted. Maybe a racist argument is cogent and maybe it’s not; but whatever it is somebody mounting one does have a responsibility to own up to the fact that that’s what she or he is doing.
However, I don’t think that that’s what Jason is doing, and whether anybody is “buying it” or not, I was not suggesting that it was. If you think saying “That’s mighty white of you” is necessarily intended as an insinuation of racism, you’re mistaken. (See, for example, here, here, or myself here, in contexts that clearly have nothing in particular to do with accusations of racism.)
If I wanted to say that his argument was racist, I would have said, “Your argument is racist,” or something to that effect.
It’s getting hard to keep up with all of you, but I’ll give it a shot.
1. I assert the right to protect my property through means that go beyond merely regulating those who set foot upon a certain plot of land. I may also protect my legitimate interests through other means — as in prohibiting criminals from entering the country. It’s impossible, after all, to protect your land day and night while still making a living, and the task of the government is likewise made easier if criminals are screened out at the border.
2. The *only* groups I have advocated deporting are criminals and terrorists. These people have no right to be here, because criminals have fewer rights than the rest of us.
3. Perhaps I am being condescending by disallowing the criminals while “letting” others in. Fine, so be it. I’m condescending because I’d let ordinary people come and go as they please. (What am I supposed to do with them, if not to let them through?)
4. If others wish to let criminals onto their property, then I will disregard their so-called rights, too. They’ve forfeited them. Criminals aren’t welcome in any legitimate sense, even if my neighbor happens to “welcome” them.
5. I submit that #3 and #4 fully answer your questions, RadGeek, regarding “what specific violations of your rights (threatened or enacted) you had in mind that would justify doing this to undocumented immigrants. And also whether arrest, confinement, and exile (”deportation”) was a proportionate response to whatever specific violation of your rights you had in mind.” I further submit that all of this was glaringly obvious quite some time ago.
6. Yes, society does raise children. You can claim all you like that the parents have an exclusive right to do this, or that the children have exclusive rights over themselves, or whatever the current libertarian dogma is. But “raising” children happens through a process that involves everyone — and it is foolish to think otherwise. Either we raise them so as to instill liberal values –or we fail as a society.
(I am not suggesting, however, that “government officials (legislators, school officials, truant officers, etc.) have the same rights to make decisions for children that their parents or guardians do.” I am suggesting that they have the right to make one decision, which is in all of our interests, whether we choose to acknowledge it or not.)
7. And immigrant adults too? Absolutely, if they want to become citizens. If not, then they are free not to take the classes. But in that case they should not count on the benefits of citizenship. I trust that with so small a barrier between themselves and equality, they will make the right choice.
8. My “white” arguments. Forget it. A simple misunderstanding.
Jason: “I may also protect my legitimate interests through other means — as in prohibiting criminals from entering the country. It’s impossible, after all, to protect your land day and night while still making a living, and the task of the government is likewise made easier if criminals are screened out at the border. … The *only* groups I have advocated deporting are criminals and terrorists. These people have no right to be here, because criminals have fewer rights than the rest of us.”
1. Do you think that the government would be within its moral prerogatives to use similar “screening” procedures to keep criminals, terrorists, etc. from moving from, say, Ohio to Michigan? From Detroit to Ann Arbor? After all, insofar as it succeeded, that would materially improve my safety a lot more than stopping criminals from moving from Tijuana to San Diego.
2. There are two different aspects to immigration policy: border patrol and internal policing. Suppose that someone who is not, in fact, a criminal, a terrorist, the bearer of a dangerous disease, or anything of the sort, doesn’t want to deal with immigration paperwork and somehow skirts your border patrol. Suppose that she stays at my place while she works for a willing employer who doesn’t care about her immigration status. Should she be arrested and deported if she is found out? Should I be forced to do “screening” for her immigration status before I give her a place to stay? Should her employer be forced to do the same?
3. What kind of crimes do you have in mind when you say that “criminals” should be stopped at the border and/or exiled from the country? Do you think that U.S. citizens who commit similar crimes should also be exiled, or prevented from re-entering the country if they leave it? If not, what makes the difference between the two cases?
Jason,
So can my minions detain you at any time and place of their choosing and screen you for criminality? Heck, why can’t they wake you up in the middle of the night and do it on your property? Who knows what they might find, catching you unaware? I have a right to protect my property you know.
John –
Your minions may try. And my minions will try and stop them. But this is all just rehashing Nozick.
RadGeek –
“Do you think that the government would be within its moral prerogatives to use similar “screening” procedures to keep criminals, terrorists, etc. from moving from, say, Ohio to Michigan?”
Indeed I would. These “procedures” are called prisons, and we use them all the time. As to interstate border checks, the federal government prohibits these things, and I think that it strikes the right balance in doing so. This also answers your point #3, although a good many people are in prison for pretend crimes, like selling recreational drugs. I’d set them free, of course.
As to your questions in #2, my answers are no, no, and no.
Jason,
Three things.
First, while you probably do have a right to use force to defend yourself against certain kinds of known criminals, even by forcing your way onto my property against my will in order to take her into custody, it’s quite another thing to claim that you have a right to force your way onto my property in order to do ex ante screening of everyone who passes through it, in order to find out whether they are criminals or not. But of course that’ latter is precisely what the border patrol and internal immigration cops need to do in order to enforce an immigration policy. Do you think that your right to self-defense extends to commandeering my property for ex-ante screening? If not, where will your immigration cops even find a place to stand?
Second, to confine criminals in prisons the burden is on the government to demonstrate guilt. As you note, domestic cops have no power to make you stop at checkpoints and do ex ante screening without probable cause. (Actually, they do get away with this on the roads, but that’s low-intensity occasional screening rather than systematic.)
But if your argument in favor of ex ante screening is that you have a right to keep criminals away from you, why doesn’t that give you an even stronger right to have the government do the same thing at state lines, or just randomly search other people’s houses whenever they feel like it? They have no less probable cause for people crossing state borders, than they do for people crossing international borders. And whatever microscopic contribution to your safety you think it makes to stop a criminal from moving from one city a thousand miles away from you to another city a thousand miles away from you, you surely make yourself more safe by stopping a criminal from moving into your state, city, or neighborhood.
It’s true that limiting checkpoints to the border crossings would be less inconvenient (since it means fewer checkpoints) than an extensive internal checkpoint system. But precisely because it’s less disruptive the actual meaningful contribution that it makes to anyone’s safety is correspondingly microscopic. As you remove the defeating condition, the supposedly justifying condition also evaporates.
Third, if the moral justification for confining and exiling immigrant criminals is the same as the moral justification for arresting and confining domestic criminals, why treat them differently at all? Why not throw both in prison, or exile both, rather than adopting different responses depending on the nationality of the person who’s allegedly posing a threat to your safety?
Jason,
Thanks for your patience, by the way. I realize this is a pretty long pile-on and a lot of questions being fired your way over a disagreement that, from the standpoint of policy results, no doubt seems quite small when fully considered. (I’m just of the opinion that similarities or differences in moral principle are much more worth spending time on than similarities or differences in concrete policy outcomes.)
Jason,
Why? What are my minions doing wrong if your’s aren’t doing anything wrong?
John T. Kennedy writes,
To which I replied, “Your minions may try. And my minions will try and stop them. But this is all just rehashing Nozick.”
And came the reply,
Ultimately, it’s not about right or wrong when we are merely discussing who is doing what to whom — divorced of all context. If your “minions” were acting on probable cause, observing due process of law, affording me the expected rights to trial by jury, representation, habeas corpus, and the like, then I would not object.
If, however, they were merely raiding my house to prove an abstract point in political theory, then I’d gladly call the cops (with whom I’d already contracted in advance to provide the service your “minions” were supposedly providing).
RadGeek –
No, I don’t. They will build permanent stations on government-owned land, and they will pass through others’ property when necessary — without the power to search it or to report what they find against the owner of the property.
I favor ex ante screening for noncitizens, because noncitizens simply don’t have the rights that citizens do. If they don’t like it, then they are in any case not obliged to come here.
The issue of external versus internal checkpoints is easy to resolve because of two considerations: First, yes, there is certainly a trade-off between convenience and security. We choose convenience inside the country, but security for those arriving from without. I don’t see a problem with this.
Second, the contribution to security is not “microscopic.” Had our immigration policies been properly enforced — say, rather than wasting resources on drug interdiction or Mexican laborers — 9/11 might not have happened. Most of the hijackers had clear ties to criminal organizations and were in the country without proper documentation. Evidence that existed beforehand could have determined quite conclusively their intent to carry out an attack, and that would have been that.
In any case, I don’t expect you will care for my answers, as you are an anarchist, and I am not. But it has been a stimulating discussion.
Rad Geek, in response to the comment on April 2nd (work and scheduling not permitting a more timely response):
The imposed condition is the response from non-agreement, in this case whichever “penalty” or consequence the government would indicate is the response to contravening the doctrine in force.
To allow other people the same liberty of action and safety. To do this, all must be held to the same condition, the same force, the same argument. Agreement is not required, as it is their government. If you desire anarchy, leave.
Is your peace and enjoyment had at the expense of others’? This is the quid pro quo that is of consequence. To permit YOUR peace, one must allow others’ under the same provisions, else there is hypocrisy. One expects others to be adherent to laws one desires not to effect them?
I have no right to force you to a choice, nor have I insisted you to comply with my choice. If I had, I would have ordered you so. But I beleive in the choice you ask for and the respect you demand. But I demand it equally of all people around me. You enter my country, wish to partake of my labors, and be free from the laws that I am subject to? You are given a choice, and it’s a very free one: (1) take the class; (2) leave. You are allows any particular freedom, so long as you know your actions have consequences.
There is no force. Knowing this when given the choice makes it no less of a free choice. One can try to reject the class and stay, at which point actionable efforts incur valid responses in a legal form: you are removed from the country by authoritative means, either escorted, or moved bodily.
Greetings:
My thoughts on immigration — particularly Hispanic immigration — differ widely from those espoused by either prominent political party. Before I share, let me explain that I have belonged to both parties. Years ago I ran for State Representative as a Democrat. Later, when the Dem’s, moved too far Left, I served as a member of my state’s Republican Central Committee. Today, I am a Republicrat and proud of it.
My concept: Move to annex (Estado Mexicano) the United States of Mexico (America) and make President Fox the 2nd. Vice President of the United States - whose primary duty will be to promote assimilation. This will strengthen the composite nation setting it above the now fractionalized america; provide greater distribution of wealth, earth resourses and human resources. More important, it will send a powerful message of humanitarianism to the world. We can accomplish this and should. It is time to tear the wall down — not to build more!
docpotter on immigration
[...] How should I reform immigration? [...]