I have some thoughts on birthright citizenship over at PJM today.
[Update a while later]
For those who haven’t read the book
77 thoughts on “The Real Anchors”
Comments are closed.
I have some thoughts on birthright citizenship over at PJM today.
[Update a while later]
For those who haven’t read the book
Comments are closed.
An interesting idea, but I can already hear the howls about second class citizens, poll taxes and slavery. Do you think such an idea could be introduced in one go instead of incrementally? Purely technically speaking, not politically, as the whole idea is politically nonviable. If you implemented it in one go you would see an immediate and enormous influx of hardworking immigrants who don’t speak a word of English. And not all of them would have (classically) liberal values.
We should at least get rid of the anchor babies nonsense. Other countries don’t have this automatic citizenship thing; on the contrary, most other countries guard their borders jealously and have strict criteria about who gets let in. For once it might be wise to actually follow the lead of the rest of the world. It’s not like being wide open to anyone with a pitiful story to tell gets us any respect. (Not to mention we’re only selectively wide open — if you aren’t in the ranks of the fashionable victims of the day, the rules applying to your entrance to the US are just as strict and draconian as in any other country.)
Great article, Rand.
And, while many people in my personal life would likely say, “Oh, not this again”, your article about birthright vs. earning citizenship reminds me once again of Craig Ferguson. Born in Scotland, visited New York as a child and became awe-struck by what America promised, and worked his arse off to get back here to the U.S., work hard, and become a citizen himself. Well, after he sobered up, of course…
Work for something, John? Passé, reactionary, racist tea-kkklanner thinking. Like everything else in the USA, citizenship must be redistributed, “spread around.”
What you’re really advocating is the return of some kind of merit qualification for voting, which is not an unreasonable idea but toxic in the US because of the way it was abused in the past. But overall I think it is dangerous to introduce two legal statuses for persons born in the US, whatever their circumstances. You are introducing yet another ability for the government to make a decision about who gets what. There has never been an arbitrary power that was given to the government that did not get abused and extended in a way that its original advocates did not foresee. I don’t want to depend on the outside chance that this will be the first time in history government did not take a power and expand it to their political advantage.
Not a bad article Rand. It gets more to the crux of the ‘illegal immigration’ issue – immoral social programs.
I’m disgusted by the illegal immigration arguments usually offered, because they are hypocrital and rights destroying. I became convinced an open immigration policy is best, mostly due to Craig Biddle’s article in TOS.
[http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-spring/immigration-individual-rights.asp]
The problem I have with restricted voting powers though is it removes self-rule and creates distinct political classes, and history shows it doesn’t work in the long run. The Roman republic still fell, because even though the mob couldn’t vote, they could still had significant influence (and capacity for violence) which was used to great destructive effect by politicians grasping for power. Rule of Man, even if theoretically limited to supermen, is unjust because it does not impartially respect individual rights. Rule of involiable Law, based on the rights outlined in our Declaration of Independence is the only just foundation on which to fashion a government.
I think an oversight of our founders was to make the Constitution too easy to ignore. It contains no significant punishment for public officials who violate it, which means: who initiate force against Americans. The Constitution should have included provisions by which they would be dealt overwhelming force (after objective legal proceedings of course) in response. If a legal threat of death or lifelong imprisonment hung over the heads of our statesmen, they would be less inclined to trample our rights.
Andrea:
Many of those other countries are some form of tyranny. America is exceptional precisely because we were the first nation in history not based on those tyrannical philosophies. Why should we aspire for their respect? They are beneath us. Our nation is better.
America is exceptional precisely because we were the first nation in history not based on those tyrannical philosophies.
Athens?
Andrea Harris,
Other countries are not the United States, whose strength and wealth is because of immigration.
Yes, its no accident that the nation with the most open immigration policy in history is the richest in the world by a far margin over any other. Wealth is created by free markets and free markets apply to labor as well. All restrictive immigration laws do is inhibit the free flow of labor across national boundaries restricting a key factor of production.
Other countries are not the United States, whose strength and wealth is because of immigration.
Horseshit. Our strength and wealth is a result of our freedoms. Automatic citizenship for babies born here was based on an intent to ensure ex-slaves’ babies would have full citizenship. The creators of that ammendment would be aghast at how it is being used today.
“Many of those other countries are some form of tyranny.”
France is some form of tyranny? I must have slept through the last coup d’état.
“Other countries are not the United States, whose strength and wealth is because of immigration.”
Faulty premise? Cause and correlation being often confused, I think you have it backwards. Our freedoms led to strength and wealth, which resulted in a desirable place to immigrate. Our freedoms unleashed the creative power of many of those immigrants, furthering our strength and wealth. The way you state it, if those same immigrants had just happened to head towards anywhere else on earth, then that location would have enjoyed the same strength and wealth.
But of course the worldview of the left is that the USA isn’t any better than the rest of the world, we just happened to be lucky enough to be a favored destination.
I went looking up some other “tyrannies” to see how they did their immigration laws as pertains babies of foreign nationals born there. Well, it seems that in the UK the laws of citizenship are extremely complex — they make ours look like the intructions on how to open a pack of gum. But even though they seem to have relaxed a lot of their laws in late years (and as a consequence are having something of a problem with immigrants themselves), there is no easy path to citizenship for babies of foreign parents.
In Germany the baby is a citizen if the foreign parents have been officially permanent residents for three years, and have been actually living in the country for at least eight.
I don’t see anything in the Finnish nationality laws that allow babies born of foreign nationals to be automatically considered Finnish citizens.
That’s just three crushing, soul-sucking tyrannies I looked up. None of those three seem to have the loophole where you can walk pregnant across the border, drop your kid, and declare that kid an American. The law that was changed to protect people that had either been dragged here against their will (slaves) or were imported by us to work (Chinese railroad workers) should not be abused by people who are coming here without permission.
And on a side note, I don’t really care if deporting all illegal immigrants will somehow depress the economy in some parts of the country. Eventually Americans will do those jobs Americans supposedly won’t do, like mowing their own damn lawns and raising their own damn kids, when it is clear they will have to.
Wow. You really are an extremist Rand, that’s something I might have written. In this era, how can you discuss actual issues. Facts need to be distorted and demagogued don’t you know.
As someone mentioned above, any rule will be abused. There wouldn’t be a need for any change if the media did real journalism… with the focus on educating the population to truth rather than spin.
I think we’ve gone beyond the point where any change of the rules will fix our problems. We need to fix our culture which has become so dishonorable that the rules mean less than nothing to them.
There wouldn’t be a need for any change if the media did real journalism…
There is only a small market for real journalism and I’m very skeptical of the possibility of government funded real journalism. The BBC may be as close as it gets. Either way it’s a problem. As long as we have a government anyway.
Andrea,
“We should at least get rid of the anchor babies nonsense.”
Remember that the 14th Amendment was NEVER intended to allow for anchor babies, the “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” being the key clause. In fact there was a court case involving a child born to two Chinese immigrants, where it was determined (IIRC) that their child was a citizen precisely because they were legal immigrants.
I should clarify, because I know someone’s going to nitpick. In 1884 nobody really made the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants, but the two in question would be called legal today. Further support for the position is shown by “[t]he Supreme Court [holding] that Native Americans who voluntarily quit their tribes did not automatically gain national citizenship.” [I’m quoting Wikipedia, with all that that entails.]
Curt Thompson: “The creators of that ammendment would be aghast at how it is being used today.”
Really? Really? Please see my previous comment.
Athens = democracy = tyranny of the majority. Hence Socrate’s ‘legal’ murder by the people of Athens.
Democracies don’t respect individual rights. They subvert those rights to the will of the largest mass of like minded people. Instead of one tyrant (or a family of them) you get a whole country. Joy. Democracies are actually much worse than monarchial tyrannies. Monarchies are constrained by the fragility of that single human, assassination or limited revolution works if they overstep. Against the mob… there is civil war/schism at best. At worst you are all alone, doomed to oppression by your neighbors. Democracy boasts an unsurpassed malevolent inertia.
As for your examples Andrea (France, UK, Germany, Finland) your descriptions, while they were meant as sarcasm, are actually quite fitting.
I’m not understanding the “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” argument.
Isn’t a person born in within the geographical bounds of the US subject to the US’s jurisdiction (as long as they are not a dipomatic envoy)? Or even in a US territory or commonwealth if they are applying US law?
For instance, illegal immigrants that commit crimes in the US are prosecuted under our laws, not those of their mother country.
I’m thining that clause only keeps foreign diplomats from having US citizen children. And even that might be a stretch – is diplomatic immunity transferrable to newborns?
Ah, I see that Mr. Olcott is one of those heads I win/tails you lose trolls. I’m setting him to “ignore.”
One prominent argument for why the industrial revolution happened in Europe instead of China is the idea of states competing for citizens – the best performing governments attracted the most competent citizens (also a good argument for the “one China” policy being a failure). Truly the vote that really matters is the vote that one makes with one’s feet. Obviously a free and open citizen market is necessary with citizens “interviewing” for the right to live in different countries, much as they might for a job.
Is the US government currently doing a good job competing for the best and most highly competent citizens? Immigration should be a net win for a country if managed well.
While “firing” a citizen might be politically unacceptable :-), there maybe possibilities with regard to offering “early retirement”, and such like. Pay your pensioner’s to live in a lower labor cost country where they can get a better retirement and the government pays less for it, similarly perhaps outsource child raring and education.
Another interesting trick might be to offer a financial inducement for low performing citizens to emigrate. Say offer ten years of welfare as a lump sum to any below average citizen willing to emigrate (especially the criminal class? Save the cost of ongoing law enforcement and incarceration) – it could be a net win for everyone, both countries and the citizen.
Steve A,
No, you have it backwards. Its been the constant flow of immigrates that has been key to our wealth. Look at the number of immigrates, like Alexander Graham Bell, Andrew Carnegie, Andrew Grove, that has been key to our economic success. Most of the workers on the Transcontinental Railroad were immigrates, as well as many who worked in the steel mills and auto factories a hundred years ago. As were most of the cowhands on western ranches and trail drives, usually migrate labor from Mexico. Basically the same folks producing much of the food you eat today.
And one of the big freedoms you ignore was the freedom of workers to move where they wish, or were the work was, without having to ask permission of anyone. And that included immigrates to the United States until those wishing to preserve America as a WASP nation allied with the early labor unions to restrict it in the 1920’s.
Andrea,
[[[And on a side note, I don’t really care if deporting all illegal immigrants will somehow depress the economy in some parts of the country. Eventually Americans will do those jobs Americans supposedly won’t do, like mowing their own damn lawns and raising their own damn kids, when it is clear they will have to.]]]
More likely the lawns won’t get mowed and women will be forced to drop out of the labor force to watch their kids. Of course I suspect the right wing will see those as good things.
But those are minor economic contribution from illegal workers. The big question is who will produce the food you eat? I have seen estimates that as much as 50% of the labor force in agriculture are illegal immigrates. Americans won’t step in to fill those jobs, just ask any fruit or vegetable producer who trusts you enough to tell you the truth, or those that run dairies or feedlots. Most likely the big players industries will just move over the border to were the labor is while the small ones will go out of business.
So tell me, what is better for the economy, importing labor from Mexico or importing milk instead while America’s agricultural industry is destroyed?
So tell me, what is better for the economy, importing labor from Mexico or importing milk instead while America’s agricultural industry is destroyed?
That decision is best left to markets.
Curt,
[[[The creators of that ammendment would be aghast at how it is being used today.]]]
The creators of that amendment would wonder what we were thinking about by restricting immigration in the first place. Afterall, the entire point of the revolution was that we wouldn’t have the same ridiculous restrictive laws that were the hallmarks of the countries like England that were run by royalty.
People do realize that agriculture in a first world country typically makes up around 5% of the work force. Even for New Zealand which does not have illegal immigrants and who’s export economy is primarily based on agriculture only around 7% of the work force is in agriculture. (Most first world countries grow more food than they need.)
Food production does not need low cost labor, this is a myth. Agriculture is a high tech industry in the first world, please do not insult them by inferring that they are low wage peasants. Where I come from, the vast majority of millionaires (and there are a lot of them per capita) are farmers.
a native who gangs with others to prey on his own neighbors?
Would this not qualify as a domestic enemy? Especially if enforcement of the constitution is involved.
I’m a radical. I advocate stripping citizenship and deporting all felons… no matter what office they hold.
Thomas,
As Pete said, most farming does not need immigration to be productive. IIRC, in the 50’s the “square tomato” was developed to ripen at the same time for the Catsup industry. Harvesting was done mechanically. Highly talented engineers, which include many at this website, can solve these issues if the government gets out of the way. We do not need imported low cost labor for essentially anything. Teenagers can fill that need.
“Immigrates” is not a noun. A person that immigrates is an immigrant.
The nonsense is strong in you today.
Heinlein posited civil defense as the highest role a citizen could serve but in addition to that I tink jury service would tie with it. The courts are critical to commerce and jury panels are critical to the administration of justice in a free society. A panel of jurors is the ultimate check on a tryanical government . I think regular participation on juries should be a critical component to an earned citizenship system as much as military service. Militaries are rarely used; courts are used all the time.
Although I thought Thomas made some decent points, MPM and Steve A are right. The immigrants are only able to add value to our country because of what remains of our respect for individual rights, which require a free market.
The nationalistic crap (i.e. buy American, protect American jobs from illegal immigrants) just sucks the life out of our productivity. As if paying more for lower quality products and services is ever going to be in our benefit.
The courts are critical to commerce and jury panels are critical to the administration of justice in a free society.
Rothbard had interesting ideas on private adjucation and law enforcement, with historical precedents even, in Ireland and Iceland if I recall correctly. The court system may be another government monopoly that has imposed itself on society and isn’t very user friendly. I’m not totally convinced, but there is certainly a role for private arbitration and security companies and I suspect that role could be expanded a lot even if we don’t accept Rothbard’s thesis.
Remember the fates of Gaelic Ireland and the Icelandic Republic. Anarchy is a very unstable polity.
The problem with Ireland was living next door to a major seafaring power that was given to invasions, wasn’t it? What went wrong with Iceland? I thought they were doing pretty well, except for the occasional erupting volcano and only recently a major financial crisis.
Rand,
Heartily agree on all fronts. It is past time to repeal the 24th amendment and implement the distinction that to vote, one must pay more in income taxes than one receives in benefits from the federal government in the preceding year.
Of course the pre-Civil Rights act southern abuse of the Poll Tax will be the spectre raised to prevent anything like this from ever happening, so it’s a fantasy.
The debate and comment on this subject is so historically illiterate as to be comical. First, Ryan Olcott is exactly correct as to the meaning “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause of the 14th Amendment. Illegal immigrants are, just like any other criminal, “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US. In fact, they are only illegal under US law. It’s not illegal under Mexican law for a Mexican to enter the US.
Second, the fundamental problem with restricting the vote to only “those who contribute” (however defined) is that you risk creating a permanent underclass of non-voters. Permanent underclasses tend to get pissy after a while – ask the French or Russian aristocracy how that played out.
Third, at the start of the 19th century, pretty much everywhere, US or Europe, that had a vote restricted it to “those who contribute,” defined in various ways. The political history of the 19th and 20th century is the expansion of that right to vote.
Lastly, even Heinlein recognized the historical problems with his idea in Starship Troopers. There’s a reason that his future is set after a massive nuclear war on Earth. Only after that kind of societal disruption would such an idea have a hope in hell of happening.
Maybe once upon a time. The modern interpretation is that juries are not supposed to judge the law itself, regardless of how absurd it may be, only to rubber-stamp convictions if the evidence is sufficient.
fundamental problem with restricting the vote to only “those who contribute” (however defined) is that you risk creating a permanent underclass of non-voters.
The vote was restricted more in the past and worked fine. It is still restricted today, but less and we are less fine. Correlation isn’t causation but it does make you wonder. Ann Coulter has written that giving women the right to vote was a huge mistake.
Those seventeen and under are a permanent underclass and some idiots think they should be given the right to vote. That’s just stupid. They argued for 18 y.o. to vote because, “if they can fight for out country…” the problem is they then gave the vote to all 18 y.o. regardless of whether they were in the military or not. The result, we get Obama because kids don’t understand Carter or Marxism or giving somebody leadership of the free world should require at least some experience as an executive.
Ken,
you aren’t really saying the ONLY 18 – 20 y/o voters put The one in the WH?! Are you? It’s not non-thinking youth who gave him the job, it was non-thinking voters across the spectrum.
I think the anchor baby, based on parents who are here illegally, should go away. Although obviously not the same, we’re living in a situation where a pregnant woman breaks into a bank, and her baby gets a Savings Bond as a prize, for being there at the time of the crime. It’s foolish NOW, and wasn’t the intent of the original law.
As for RAH, he has the answer. There needs to be more of a system than meeting the age mark. I can think of NO other thing we have like that in the country. You have to able to pass a test to drive, but not to vote. It’s insane.
We are on the brink of disaster, allowing people who don’t contribute to vote for people who promise them something in return for that vote.
In concept and practice it’s wrong.
And I blame the “promisers” more than the promisees.
Ken, you aren’t really saying…
No, but they were a strong contributing factor. Obviously we’ve got a problem. Here in Phoenix, illegal aliens were marching in demonstration for the right to vote. This has gotten bizarre.
The theme of Rand’s article (correct me if I’m wrong) is that those that don’t contribute may soon overwhelm those that do and vote themselves a free lunch. I think we’ve already passed that point and they already are. The remedy is likely to involve some turmoil. I don’t think we can allow the press to frame the question. We need to discuss and fix it.
Rand, and his unusual for him radical article, are a good step in the right direction IMHO.
Pete,
You really need to learn more about the topic. Mechanize farming is limited to a few major crops. Many other crops still require laborers.
http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/usa/US-Farmers-Depend-on-Illegal-Immigrants-100541644.html
[[[With U.S. unemployment near 10 percent, many believe illegal immigrants are taking jobs from Americans. But when the United Farm Workers union launched a campaign offering to connect unemployed people to farm jobs, only three people accepted — out of thousands of inquiries.]]]
[[[Meanwhile, farmers are increasingly concerned about losing their workforce to immigration crackdowns. They say without workers to pick the crops, fresh fruits and vegetables will rot in the fields of American farms.
And eventually, they say, those farms would wither away, too. ]]]
Also many of the industrial scale feedlots. chicken farms, packing houses are also dependent on illegal workers.
But go ahead. Drive the U.S. agriculture industry offshore in the name of enforcing a law that is counter to the founding of America and the spirit that made it successful. A law that made illegal the very people we should be welcoming to this country in order to strengthen our economy.
Andrea Harris,
What nonsense? Those are the likely consequences if you follow a locked door immigration policy. Just look at Japan. Its very restrictive immigration policies are threatening its economic future.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/27/AR2010072706053.html
Strict immigration rules may threaten Japan’s future
[[[For Japan, maintaining economic relevance in the next decades hinges on its ability — and its willingness — to grow by seeking outside help. Japan has long had deep misgivings about immigration and has tightly controlled the ability of foreigners to live and work here. ]]]
Yeah, I hear that the lawns of Japan have become really unkempt since they quit bringing in illegal Mexicans to mow them.
Thomas, you are making the same false accusation the media makes… “people against illegal immigration are against immigration.” That’s not true.
The rule of law is coming apart because the administration is above the law and illegals are above the law. We need less laws, equally enforced.
And japanese crops are rotting in the fields. Horrible.
Thomas, you are making the same false accusation the media makes… “people against illegal immigration are against immigration.” That’s not true.
The problem is that if the Left makes the disinction, which is true, their argument falls to pieces.
Thomas,
I grew up in the 50’s when teenagers harvested crops / de-tasseled corn, etc., and welfare was only for Mothers with Dependant Children. Now we have massive government welfare, including multiple years of unemployment insurance, which makes the cost of hiring U.S workers much higher than nominal market forces for unskilled labor. And Government has hidden costs, like taxes, OSHA, EPA, etc.
Your arguments on illegals in agriculture are based on your apparent misunderstanding of all the variables. If a farm can hire them and not pay all the hidden costs because they are already illegal, and make a good profit, this sets the lowest supplier price in the market. Why invest in extra technology unless “true” labor costs are the issue? Thank your friends in government for this mess, as the real reason is a safety valve for Mexico. Go back to the 50’s (i.e, a true free market approach with limited government to real “crime” issues, such as hiring illegals) to solve the farm issues. Engineers did it in the 50’s and we can do it now – get government out of the way!
Go back to the 50’s…
Oh, excellent can we also go back to 1950s income tax levels too please?
Daveon,
The 1950 fed tax levels didn’t affect the average Joe much. Social Security was much lower. State sales tax was between about 3% and 4%, with many states having no income tax. Indiana is now 7% with 3.5% marginal State Income tax, and Illinois is much higher. And we built the Interstates, tons of B-52’s and other military hardware still in use today. And much of the NASA infrastructure.
Other than the ridiculous marginal top 90% Fed income rate, later reduced by Kennedy to 70%, and finally to a still too high 35% under Regan, the 50’s and early sixties were the best time in America. Government wasn’t such a pig.
Indeed, if we wish to balance the budget, first outlaw Government Unions, as was true back in the 50’s. Then eliminate all government defined pensions for jobs that are comparable to private industry, and only allow 401K’s and Social Security. That way each government worker has a stake in the private economy. Only keep special pensions for government workers in dangerous jobs, such as the military, police, and fire, where early retirement might not be voluntary.
And if that wasn’t enough, eliminate in reverse order the various laws, regulations, and departments added since the 1950’s, such as the Department of Education. Probably would only need to go back a few years and the budgets would balance. If some program or regulation during that time is deemed truly necessary, make Congress pass it with the veto-proof majority. And hold Congressional spending going forward to some other likewise accountability.