Here’s one that legal immigrants and House Republicans could get behind. The first step on the path is to go home. Then get in line, like everyone else.
[Update a while later]
No, there is no link. It’s just a thought on the current debate on the bill. Democrats insist on one, House Republicans (and some Senate Republicans, not part of the “gang” (and can we please stop it with the “gangs”?)) are understandably averse. Those are the two primary points of contention. Democrats want to keep the border open to continue the flow of potential new collectivist Democrat voters, and smart Republicans don’t. The notion that Hispanics/Latinos/Whatever are going to vote Republican just because the Republicans support immigration reform is ludicrous. There, now you have a link.
My wife is a legal immigrant as are many of our friends. They complied with the law, so I guess that makes them suckers. When we applied for her not-really-green Green card in 1983, we had to sign papers stating she would be deported if we applied for any form of public assistance for any reason. I guess that law has been changed since then.
Larry – either changed or….simply ignored like other laws King Obama I doesn’t like.
My wife also came in around 1980 when she was 10. Her mom was telling me that it was a pain but not like today. She said it was like several extended trip to the DMV. She did all the paper work herself and it didn’t cost too much money. Now days it takes a immigration lawyer, more than $10,000 and can take 20 years to get through the process. Why would anyone, (that likely has kids and a job) go back to their country and risk thousands of dollars and a two decade wait in a 3rd world crap hole, just so they can have the life they already have?
Add to that an increased yearly quotas [for all countries] and generally speed
the time to process it {if government is incapable- get non-government doing it].
So win-win for everyone.
Lowering the costs and lowering the time needed to emigrate or get work visas will result in near zero illegal emigration [except career criminals who can’t or won’t use legal path] and this would also quicken such criminals being deported, which can only be very good for
the citizens of this country.
There’s no link Rand.
I propose the “Red Card”. Much like the “Green Card” but you basically have to pay full-freight for the cost of your vetting, contribute DNA + fingerprints, “no felonies!”, and all it does it put you into the line to -get- a Green Card (and help the IRS find you). It’s actually shockingly similar to the whole Rubio-thing with rearrangmeent of the pieces and actual (as opposed to completely fake) enforcement.
The people who “are here to work!” should be fine with it. Agribusiness -shouldn’t- care.
Of course, it won’t fly. Because it (a) isn’t about helping the little people find work, and (b) Agribusiness doesn’t care -now-.
“I’m sure that the only reason that I didn’t make this list is because I’m a libertarian.”
No Rand, you can’t be a libertarian who believes in closed borders.
Trent Waddington said,
“No Rand, you can’t be a libertarian who believes in closed borders.”
I obviously can’t speak for Rand, but I’m a libertarian who believes in closed borders, and there are a great many like me.
Your statement is false, and egregiously so.
So you believe in freedom of movement for some people but not others, based solely on their location of birth. The entire concept of a national border is statist. The idea that it is somehow legitimate to initiate force against peaceful people trying to cross it, is completely counter to libertarian philosophy.
You can self-identify as a chicken, but it won’t grow you feathers.
So you believe in freedom of movement for some people but not others, based solely on their location of birth.
So what? In order to have a libertarian society, you need enough people willing to adhere to the tenets of libertarianism, which requires a considerable effort on the part of the participant. Uncritically importing people from elsewhere means that you risk diluting the number of people willing to support that libertarian society.
I think it is unwise to use open immigration as a test for libertarianism.
In order to have a libertarian society, you need
How would you even know that? There’s never been a “libertarian society”. I doubt you could even define such a thing. Libertarianism is about individuals and how they think about and deal with each other.
Trent,
Would you mind it at all if some stranger walked into your house, got a beer from the fridge, plopped down on the sofa and grabbed the channel changer and announced that dinner at 6 would be fine – be sure to let the wine breath?
Logically what you write says you wouldn’t mind that at all.
What? You have property rights? Well who is to protect those rights? That is one of the few legitimate functions of a Federal Government.
“So you believe in freedom of movement for some people but not others, based solely on their location of birth.”
Of course I do.
If you have no borders, what exactly is to stop half a billion or more deciding to move to the US, and thus utterly wrecking it? And make no mistake; opening the borders would result in a flood that makes the current influx look like a puddle.
Does your front door have a lock, Trent? Do you use it? Or do you use it to stop “peaceful people” from entering your home?
The other error you make is to state that being in favor of closed borders is completely counter to libertarian philosophy. That is simply not true, because for a start, for it to be true there would need to be a definitive list of what libertarian philosophy is, and there is no such thing. As proof, I’ll point you to the ongoing disagreements within libertarianism between propertarains, natural rightists, anarchists, conseqationalists, and contractualists.
To argue that there is one and only one definition of libertarianisim is like arguing that there is only one true religion. It’s an instant punch line.
I’m a libertarian. That does not mean that I am a supporter of Ron Paul (whom I consider a demented nut) in spite of a huge number of people telling me that being a libertarian means I support Ron Paul.
I’m a Republican, though I have significant differences of opinion with Republican policy.
I’m a Tea Partier, though I do not agree with all that the Tea Party does.
And I’m also a libertarain, because guess what, no one gets to issue self-authored litmus tests as to what is and is not a libertarian… and in fact, wouldn’t issuing such litmus tests be, by definition, against the philosophy you profess to hold?
If you have no borders, what exactly is to stop half a billion or more deciding to move to the US, and thus utterly wrecking it?
Your faith in humanity is shockingly non-libertarian.
Does your front door have a lock, Trent? Do you use it? Or do you use it to stop “peaceful people” from entering your home?
I own my home. The idea that the state owns the border is statist. I don’t know how I can make this more simple for you.
I’m also a libertarain
Oh, well that explains everything. I was talking about being libertarian, I guess being “libertarain” is something else.
Trent, in your view, what DOES the state correctly control?
You seemingly object to them controlling the borders. So, does it follow that you also object to them preventing agricultural pests (such as the Mediteranian fruit fly and other invasive species) from crossing the border (and to do this, they search for and confiscate some items)? Is that a legitimate function on their part? After all, it’s stopping “peaceful people” from doing what they want to do. Is that statist?
“libertarain”. Yep, you got me there, mea culpa, it’s a typo.
What I am unarguably is dyslexic (literally: diagnosed when I was 12). Normally, my spelling checker would have caught that goof. In this isntance, either it did not, or it did and I missed it. (It has been functioning somewhat intermittently in recent weeks). But really Trent, is typo snark the best you can do?
Or did you do it to dodge the question: wouldn’t issuing a litmus test regarding who may call themselves libertarian be, by definition, against the philosophy you profess to hold?
So, does it follow that you also object to them preventing agricultural pests (such as the Mediteranian fruit fly and other invasive species) from crossing the border (and to do this, they search for and confiscate some items)? Is that a legitimate function on their part?
They can ask, but free people should be able to refuse.
Or did you do it to dodge the question
No.
“I own my home. The idea that the state owns the border is statist. I don’t know how I can make this more simple for you.”
You fail to take the next step:
what entity protects that property right?
There’s no need for a federal government to protect property rights. Sheesh.
“There’s no need for a federal government to protect property rights.”
There isn’t?
Really?
So you won’t press charges if I come and help myself to your stuff?
Luckily for the rest of us, the Founders thought differently than you do. The supreme function of the federal government is to safeguard and protect your rights.
And I’m still waiting to hear from you about how thrilled you’d be if someone walked into your house and settled in.
Trent you are describing anarchy.
Relying on people to act on what they alone consider to be good behavior will never work. People come in a spectrum and societal rules moderates human nature. The age old argument is about how much moderation but to advocate for no moderation is anarchy.
Besides, it is human nature to group up.