Less Antman: ‘There is no libertarian case for restricted immigration’

Less Antman at Anarchy Without Bombs (originally posted June 2010):

It is almost 30 years to the day since Libertarian Party Presidential Nominee Ed Clark set off a firestorm of criticism within the party for indicating that he didn’t think free immigration should be immediately adopted. One of the strongest criticisms came in a post-mortem of that campaign by Mr. Libertarian, Murray Rothbard, who stated:

Immigration provided probably the greatest (or perhaps the second greatest) single scandal of the Clark campaign. New York Times liberals, you see, love Mexicans but only in Mexico; they are not too keen on Mexicans emigrating to the United States. And so the Clark position, which not only betrayed the libertarian principle of free and open immigration, but also froze immigration restrictions in with the welfare system. – Libertarian Forum, Sep-Dec 1980

We all make mistakes, and the purpose of this post isn’t to single out Clark for something he said three decades ago under the pressure of the highest profile campaign in LP history (indeed, Rothbard himself strayed much further only a few years later). But the question of whether Clark’s campaign had violated libertarian principles wasn’t even considered debatable at the time: it was obvious to all libertarians that free and open immigration was as clearly the libertarian position as was free and open trade. It should still be obvious and, in the present environment, it is more important than ever to rekindle that awareness.

An excellent contribution toward that end is today’s post by dL of Liberale et libertaire: Restricted Immigration is not a Libertarian Position. I strongly encourage you to read it in its entirety. There are some hard issues on which the libertarian position is debatable. Immigration (more accurately, freedom of travel) is not one of them.

For those who agree that free immigration is the only position consistent with the non-aggression principle, but who are concerned about the plausibility of some of the non-libertarian objections based on practicality, I would encourage a thorough reading of University of Hawaii Professor Ken Schoolland’s long article for the International Society for Individual Liberty: Why Open Immigration? In particular, Schoolland has demolished the “welfare magnet” theory with an insightful study of migration within the 50 states: there is an incredibly strong correlation between welfare benefits and migration: IT IS STRONGLY NEGATIVE! Immigrants flee the high welfare states to go to the low welfare states (Arizona ranks 46th in welfare benefits: it would be almost the very last place for a welfare-seeker to settle).

Violent crime rates are also negatively correlated to immigration, and immigrants increase the wealth of current residents. Even the security argument is backwards: the underground railroad that has developed to allow workers to enter this country makes it easier for an undetected terrorist to enter, and would disappear without the revenue provided by the demand by millions of secret passage.

Utopia is not an option, and the practical argument over the pluses and minuses of immigration can never be settled to everyone’s satisfaction, but two principles should guide the confused:

(1) When in doubt as to whether aggression will work or not, the default position should be don’t aggress.

(2) To successfully control the borders would require the delegation of an enormous amount of power to government officials, who are fallible human beings prone to the corruption of power, like all other human beings. The type of society we would need to restrict immigration successfully would be Hell on Earth.


Followup Post:

Border Patrol Catches Americans Trying to Get to Mexican Clinic

June 20, 2017

TIJUANA (AP) – Mexican police arrested nearly 50 elderly Americans Wednesday as they exited on the Mexican side of an underground tunnel connecting San Ysidro, California and Tijuana, Mexico. The Americans were being smuggled into the country in an attempt to get them to the nation’s premier heart transplant center, located in the isolated desert town of Vista de Nada. Authorities believe that the Americans, several in wheelchairs and all in poor health, were en route to the world-famous Transplanto Gringo Heart Center, which until recently had been a popular destination for Americans seeking treatment for serious heart conditions and unable or unwilling to wait the 2 years required for heart surgery appointments in the United States. American hospitals have been facing a mysterious shortage of qualified staff since the 2013 passage of the universal ChimeraCare bill, that had been hailed as guaranteeing health care for all Americans while reducing costs and providing a pony to all 6 year olds.

A law that went into effect on January 1, 2017 in Mexico, however, ended this popular “medical tourism,” after the Partido Faux Libertario swept to victory in the 2016 elections with 38% of the vote, but 82% of the seats in the Congress of the Union. President Juan Hermano Brinca, a trained economist from the Universidad de Nuevo León de Vaquerías (UNLV), noted that the Americans were traveling on public roads and unowned land to get to the Heart Center, and that the majority of Mexicans were annoyed by their presence, and would have certainly refused to allow them to travel on the roads and the land nobody owned had they personally homesteaded every meter of the country. ”As Trustee of all of the unowned and public land in the State of Mexico, it is our party’s responsibility to centrally plan the transition to the spontaneous order in the most libertarian manner possible, ” added PFL Spokesman Maleducado de la Hayek.

When asked about the property rights of those who supported the free travel of foreigners within Mexico, Vice President Mirada Perdida responded, “It isn’t their property, since they lost the election. What are you, some kind of socialist?”

(h/t dL’s inspired comment on my last post)

103 thoughts on “Less Antman: ‘There is no libertarian case for restricted immigration’

  1. Michael H. Wilson

    Les is on the money. People who claim to be in favor of the free movement of goods and capital then turn around and are against the free movement of labor. That doesn’t make sense.

    And I never did understand what that cop said. Can someone give me a clue?

  2. Mike B.

    This is from the 2004 LP Platform:

    Immigration

    The Issue: We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new “Berlin Wall” which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. government’s policy of barring those refugees from our country and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.

    The Principle: We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age or sexual preference. We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.

    Solutions: We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.

    Transitional Action: We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally
    _________________________________

    versus:

    This is from the 2010 LP Platform:

    3.4 Free Trade and Migration

    We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escapefrom tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of humanas we ll as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.
    _________________________________

    I prefer the 2004 version on Immigration.

  3. Mike B.

    @5

    No I haven’t. I’m just noting the watered down version of the LP platorm since 2004 which was not that long ago.

  4. Matt Cholko

    Here is my proposed plank for 2012:

    We support the right of people to travel and/or move anywhere they want, at any time, for any reason.

  5. Sane LP member

    You guys are living in a dream world.

    We open up the borders and we will be overrun in a short matter of time.
    All for controlled immigration. And yes, we need to fix the system we have.
    Maybe give big consideration to those with skill-sets that will help our economy.
    We need to get our welfare system and health care figured out first. We can’t take care of all the people on the earth–sorry it isn’t reality.

    I love the comments that those immigrants pay taxes. A lot do and a lot do NOT. They get paid under the table cash. Sounds great. They get paid cash and don’t pay taxes, and I pay my taxes. Sucks.

  6. Matt Cholko

    Sane – so you’re hatin’ on those people who figured out a way to avoid paying taxes? That doesn’t sound very libertarian to me 😉

  7. Sane LP member

    @ # 8
    does that mean that anyone can come on anyone else’s property or business?
    does that mean we don’t care if they carry diseases?
    does that mean we don’t care if they are terrorists with intent to KILL US !

    Yeh, let’s just open the doors to our homes, our communities, our states, and our country to anyone that wants to come in.
    I busted my butt for too long to just watch anyone take it over.

    Time to arm myself to the teeth against this foolishness.

  8. Matt Cholko

    Technically, you have a point about my proposal. However, I made the comment in the context of an immigration discussion. I am not opposed to private property, or the owners’ ability to decide who comes onto their property.

    In answer to your questions:

    does that mean we don’t care if they carry diseases?

    – No, I’m certain that most of us DO care. However, diseased people are people too. Therefore, without giving this a whole lot of thought, I am inclined to say that we should not restrict immigration on the basis of health.

    does that mean we don’t care if they are terrorists with intent to KILL US !

    – Again, I’m certain that most of us DO care. However, the idea that allowing people free entry to our country would increase the number of terrorists coming in doesn’t make sense to me. As it stands right now, our borders are easy enough to cross. Our current policies do little to keep a motivated person out. They may have to try a couple of times, but they’re coming in if they really want to. And that’s the southern border. Up north, it is my understanding that a person can mosy across the vast majority of our border with Canada almost without concern for being caught.

    So, I don’t see where free immigration makes it easier for a terrorist to enter.

  9. paulie Post author

    We open up the borders and we will be overrun in a short matter of time.

    I highly doubt it. The borders with Mexico and Canada were open for most of the history of the US.

    We need to get our welfare system and health care figured out first. We can’t take care of all the people on the earth

    This is addressed in this article, and links therein:

    For those who agree that free immigration is the only position consistent with the non-aggression principle, but who are concerned about the plausibility of some of the non-libertarian objections based on practicality, I would encourage a thorough reading of University of Hawaii Professor Ken Schoolland’s long article for the International Society for Individual Liberty: Why Open Immigration? In particular, Schoolland has demolished the “welfare magnet” theory with an insightful study of migration within the 50 states: there is an incredibly strong correlation between welfare benefits and migration: IT IS STRONGLY NEGATIVE! Immigrants flee the high welfare states to go to the low welfare states (Arizona ranks 46th in welfare benefits: it would be almost the very last place for a welfare-seeker to settle).

    http://www.isil.org/resources/libertydocs/immigration-open.html

  10. paulie Post author

    I love the comments that those immigrants pay taxes.

    Not only do they pay taxes, but they can’t collect, since it’s under false SSNs.

    paid under the table cash. Sounds great.

    Absolutely. More people should do that.

    and I pay my taxes. Sucks.

    Some people pay muggers and extortionists. Others just say no. It’s an individual decision that does have consequences either way.

  11. paulie Post author

    does that mean that anyone can come on anyone else’s property or business?

    No, but fortunately, the entire US is not the property of the US Governgang.

    does that mean we don’t care if they carry diseases?

    Would you like to be checked for diseases every time you cross state, city or county lines? Maybe held in quarantine for a few days while the test results come back (otherwise what’s the point)?

    How realistic do you think it would be to check everyone for diseases at the US border and actually detain them until you get the results back?

    Time to arm myself to the teeth against this foolishness.

    Arming yourself is a great idea, if you don’t plan to initiate force.

  12. paulie Post author

    does that mean we don’t care if they are terrorists with intent to KILL US !

    Addressed in the article:

    Violent crime rates are also negatively correlated to immigration, and immigrants increase the wealth of current residents. Even the security argument is backwards: the underground railroad that has developed to allow workers to enter this country makes it easier for an undetected terrorist to enter, and would disappear without the revenue provided by the demand by millions of secret passage.

  13. paulie Post author

    Yeh, let’s just open the doors to our homes, our communities, our states, and our country to anyone that wants to come in.

    Do you want border controls enforced at state and community lines? Should you need permission before you travel or move to another community, city or state?

    Are communities, cities, states and countries property? If so, who owns them?

  14. Mike B.

    Good points your making Paulie.

    I never understood the last sentence of the 2010 LP plank on immigration:

    …….However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.

    Is this like the movie: Minority Report, which is set in the future where law enforcement can predict that you will commit a crime in the future, therefore, they can arrest you for that crime now.

  15. Michael H. Wilson

    It is my understanding that prior to 1917 we did not have border crossing checkpoints. I suggest you check out the town of Derby Line, Vermont they share a library that straddles the border with their Quebec neighbor.

    As for the terrorist scare tactic, if someone seriously wanted to get into the country there is little that we can do to stop them. The southern border that is the Gulf of Mexico is open to all kinds of traffic. Narco traffickers are bringing in drugs in homemade submarines. Smuggling people would be a hell of a lot easier to watch if it was done in the open.

  16. Robert Capozzi

    la: The type of society we would need to restrict immigration successfully would be Hell on Earth.

    me: This probably describes most if not all the Earth, then. Antman uses the alleged NAP to “prove” that completely unrestricted immigration is THE “correct” L position, but both are just theories, near as I can tell.

    In a more sober world of politics, free of abstract constructs, it seems likely that freer immigration is far more attainable than free immigration. Why advocate a view that stands virtually no chance of happening when more modest change in the “right” direction could? Why waste energy in quixotic endeavors? To score debating points?

  17. paulie Post author

    RC, la: The type of society we would need to restrict immigration successfully would be Hell on Earth.

    me: This probably describes most if not all the Earth, then.

    Most of the earth does not successfully restrict immigration. Wherever the demand exists, people migrate “illegally,” and national government are not very successful at stopping it.

  18. paulie Post author

    Absolutely including the US. There are allegedly something like 12 million “illegal” immigrants in the US. I have no idea how this number is arrived at, but if it’s anything like accurate, does that sound like the US regime is successful at stopping what it deems to be illegal immigration?

  19. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob @ 22,

    “pc, including the US, right?”

    Right.

    The US border has always been open in fact.

    The US border always will be open in fact.

    “Border security” is a utopian fantasy on which a lot of money can be wasted and a lot of rights violated, but it will never, ever, ever be a reality.

  20. Robert Capozzi

    To say that the US border is in fact “open” seems overstated. People are stopped attempting to cross. Perhaps the costs are too high and the mission ill-advised…dunno. Perhaps the focus should be on naturalization…dunno that, either.

    Avoiding reality takes many forms…

  21. paulie Post author

    People are stopped attempting to cross.

    *Some* people are stopped, but mostly simply try again until they succeed.

  22. Matt Cholko

    And, as I mentioned above, my understanding is that damn near nobody is stopped trying to cross our northern border.

    Admittedly, I’m not an expert. Its just what I’ve heard.

  23. paulie Post author

    That used to be the case before 9/11, now people get harassed at the Canadian border in both directions.

  24. Matt Cholko

    I know they get harassed at the “checkpoints” but I have heard that illegally crossing the USA/Canada border isn’t at all challenging.

  25. paulie Post author

    Crossing the Mexico/US border is not very hard. Thousands of people do it every day, or so I’ve read. I’ve seen people do it, and it didn’t look too hard. I thought about doing it myself, just so I could say I did, but I was too drunk.

  26. Matt Cholko

    I may try that myself one day…. What do you suppose the penalty is for a US citizen who crosses the border without going through the checkpoint?

  27. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    You write:

    “To say that the US border is in fact ‘open’ seems overstated.”

    The US has 95,500 miles of border and coastline.

    Even along the most heavily monitored, enforcement-heavy 1,969 miles of that 95,500 miles — the US/Mexico land border — the vast majority of those who decide to cross without government permission manage to do so.

    That’s not going to change.

  28. Aaron Starr

    Today’s Libertarian Party is becoming what it originally started out to be in 1972, before Murray Rothbard dominated the scene.

    Its platform has become less of an absolutist document meant for internal consumption purposes and more of a political document intended to persuade others to consider the Party as an agent of change.

    Having attended every national convention since 1989, I have watched the sentiment of attending delegates evolve over the years. It requires a two-thirds vote of support amongst delegates in attendance at a Convention to amend a platform plank. Based on my observations, I believe it is highly unlikely such a level of support exists to return to the absolutist platform of the past, especially in the area of immigration.

  29. Aaron Starr

    They chose to not even address the issue of immigration in the 1972 Platform.

  30. Michael H. Wilson

    Aaron writes; “Today’s Libertarian Party is becoming what it originally started out to be in 1972, before Murray Rothbard dominated the scene.”

    Where did you get that idea?

  31. paulie Post author

    1992 platform

    http://www.lpedia.org/1992_Libertarian_Party_Platform

    17. IMMIGRATION

    We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.

    We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new “Berlin Wall” which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. government’s policy of barring those refugees from our country and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.

    Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age, or sexual preference.

    We therefore call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally. We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.

  32. paulie Post author

    1990

    http://www.lpedia.org/1990_Libertarian_Party_Platform#17.__IMMIGRATION

    We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.

    Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age, or sexual preference.

    We therefore call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally. We oppose government welfare payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.

    Because we support the right of workers to cross borders without harassment, we oppose all government-mandated “temporary worker” plans. Specifically, we condemn attempts to revive the Bracero Program as government imposition of second-class status on Mexican-born workers.

    We welcome all refugees to our shores and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new “Berlin Wall” which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. government’s policy of barring those refugees from our shores and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.

  33. paulie Post author

    No major changes until 2002, when in addition to the 1992 plank (pretty much) they added an executive summary:

    We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality and welcome all refugees to our country.

  34. paulie Post author

    1986: http://marketliberal.org/LP/Platforms/1986/1986%2008.JPG

    1980: http://marketliberal.org/LP/Platforms/1980/1980%203.JPG

    1976, short but sweet:

    http://marketliberal.org/LP/Platforms/1976.txt

    “Foreign Policy

    The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments. We should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted travel and immigration.”

  35. Robert Capozzi

    p27: *Some* people are stopped, but mostly simply try again until they succeed.

    me: Probably right, although I’ve seen no stats, and there likely are no reliable ones. It’s still an overstatement on TK’s part.

    tk: Even along the most heavily monitored, enforcement-heavy 1,969 miles of that 95,500 miles — the US/Mexico land border — the vast majority of those who decide to cross without government permission manage to do so. That’s not going to change.

    me: 95.5K sounds high, since it every twist and turn in places like AK, MD, VA, FL, CA and others. Smoothed out it’d be much lower.

    The “general shoreline” and Canadian and Mexican borders is under 20K, near as I can tell. Ex AK, and it’s under 15K.

    Were I in Congress, and a bill came up to cut border control, I’d vote for it. Cut it to zero next year, and I probably wouldn’t.

    Complete border control is futile, like murder prohibition. Laws against murder should be viewed NOT as a prohibition, but as a signal to would-be murderers…don’t do that.

    Do I want a signal to would-be immigrants that they should check in before entering the US? All things considered, yes.

    In some absolute sense should anyone be free to go anywhere at any time? I cannot fathom this. In the NAP Construct, there would be no “public” property, so the question is self-answering, even for NAPsters.

    In the meantime, what to do? As a L, my opinion is that immigration is a good thing, one that should be encouraged with signals set up to do so legally and reasonable checks on entry.

    Can the NAP be applied in this case, in this miasma of a non-NAP world? Not in a meaningful sense that I can see.

  36. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob @ 47,

    “95.5K sounds high, since it every twist and turn in places like AK, MD, VA, FL, CA and others. Smoothed out it’d be much lower.”

    Smoothing it out sounds very expensive, and would likely discommode both the land owners on the peninsulas that would have to be bulldozed, and the boat slip owners in the bays that the peninsulas would be used to fill. Absent that (which seems, um, contra-indicated), you’re stuck with 95.5k whether it “sounds high” or not.

    “Do I want a signal to would-be immigrants that they should check in before entering the US? All things considered, yes.”

    That’s easily done: Simply lift restrictions on movement across the border at official points for anyone not bringing criminal/terrorist intent, or infectious disease, across those points — and put the burden of probable cause to stop, and proof to turn back, on the government, not the individual moving across the border.

    Do that, and anyone who isn’t up to something nefarious will gladly cross at those official points, because that’s where the roads, taxicabs, etc. are. Which in turn means that the number of people crossing in the middle of the night in the trackless desert will go down by something like 99.9%, and the resources required to stop them, and to sort out the nefarious types from the people just seeking jobs and such, will similarly drop.

  37. Robert Capozzi

    tk, seems we need to quibble about geometry…OK.

    Say the Chesapeake Bay is an oval of 500 miles of coast. Say it’s opening is 0.5 miles. Yes, one could police all 500 miles of coast, or one could police the opening.

    There is a difference between “simple” and “easy.” I’m drawn to simple solutions for their elegance, but I also realize that that simple solution is not easy. Bummer.

    When engaging in the arena, one has fixed in one’s mind the simple solution while recognizing at the same time the many obstacles to that solution. In the meantime, one could exit the arena while shouting out the simple solution OR one can continue to push toward the simple solution while employing appropriate tactics as they reveal themselves.

    It’s not for me to say which is the “superior” approach. What happens will happen. Waking people up requires a range of tactics, since we all learn differently. The more others awaken, the more we are energized and awaken more fully.

    It seems clear to me that absolutism only works with those prone to absolutist thinking. In my experience, they are few. Most are relativists. Offer an absolutist message to relativists, and, if anything, they are less likely to awaken, as they find absolutism foreign and strange.

    Try to help an absolutist to awaken with relativistic message, and watch the charges of “hypocrisy” and “unprincipled” fly.

    By the numbers, based on my experience, I happen to think my approach is more likely to succeed.

    All good, though.

  38. JT

    Paulie: “That used to be the case before 9/11, now people get harassed at the Canadian border in both directions.”

    It depends on what you mean by “harassed.” I drove across the Canadian border into Toronto last year. They did check my passport and ask me a few questions, then let me through. The return into the United States was more involved, but not far more. That still might qualify as harassment depending on your definition.

  39. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob @ 49,

    You write:

    “Say the Chesapeake Bay is an oval of 500 miles of coast. Say it’s opening is 0.5 miles. Yes, one could police all 500 miles of coast, or one could police the opening.”

    For some reason, I expected Chesapeake Bay to be the extreme example you’d cite, so I checked the actual numbers.

    Per a to-scale map, the actual opening looks to be about 2o miles (about 40 times your estimate), while the shoreline of the bay and its tributaries (the latter not being technically “coastline,” but still constituting locations where waterborne immigrants could choose to come ashore) is 11,864 miles (about 23.5 times your estimate).

    That’s obviously a very good example, especially if the third dimension (water depth — drug smugglers have been caught using submarines, so we shouldn’t assume that people-smugglers aren’t or won’t) is ignored.

    On the other hand, policing water requires more resources than policiing land, and concentration on what look like “choke points” is often an easy way to convince yourself you’re accomplishing something when that concentration simply leaves other areas — like the 150 miles or so straightline, probably several thousand in total, of broken-up coastline north of Chesapeake along the Maryland and Delaware shores — unguarded.

    Chesapeake is also atypical of actual likely points of unauthorized immigrant landing other than in e.g. shipping containers, given its distance from any place for people to migrate from.

    More typical would be Florida’s 1,860-odd miles of “straight-line” coastline, which actually comes to 8,460 miles per NOAA’s calculations. Instead of a few big bays with small mouths, it’s lots of curvy territory, within small boat “lucky” distance of places that lots of people would like to come from.

    “There is a difference between ‘simple’ and ‘easy.’ I’m drawn to simple solutions for their elegance, but I also realize that that simple solution is not easy.”

    Hard but right is better than easy but wrong.

    Cut and paste your absolutism-baiting if you want, but I proposed a non-absolutist solution to the problem as you posed it — reduce the excluded categories of people and put the burden of proof where it belongs.

  40. steven wilson

    Historically, humans have opted to speak largely with their feet. The reason for coming here is the border security. If you poison the water, in time, no one will try to drink from the well.

    The lines on a map have become the lines on a mirror. You are addicted to it.

    If people stop coming here, for whatever reason, then it will be time to leave. Security is found in history.

  41. Red Phillips

    “There is no libertarian case for restricted immigration”

    There is a libertarian case because Hans-Hermann Hoppe has made it. Murray Rothbard, who was cited as an authority, later pretty much adopted the Hoppe position if I’m not mistaken.

  42. Michael H. Wilson

    RC # 49 I spent four years in the Coast Guard and two of those years were in the Gulf of Mexico and I will guarantee you that policing that area is a problem. For one thing there are too many fishing boats of one kind or another from more than one nation. If we can stop drug smugglers we sure as hell aren’t going to stop people smugglers.

  43. Robert Capozzi

    tk51: Hard but right is better than easy but wrong. Cut and paste your absolutism-baiting if you want, but I proposed a non-absolutist solution to the problem as you posed it — reduce the excluded categories of people and put the burden of proof where it belongs.

    me: The challenge is: What’s right and what’s wrong? A strict NPA/property rights argument falls apart in the most extreme, stateless case regarding immigration, since all land would be privately owned. No nation, no “immigration.”

    I like your model as a true north. It’s not really absolutist, and I don’t know if you’re an absolutist or not. Some Ls ARE absolutists, explicitly so. Yet, when push comes to shove, they often come up with fallback positions that open up the possibility of relativistic solutions to current challenges. I encourage this, for I suspect that over time, an absolutist may conclude that their premise is at minimum unworkable and, preferably, is flawed even in theory.

    I look for progress, and I simply make a judgment about what policy shifts increase the peace.

    Hard & right and easy & wrong are not the only choices. One, for ex., might be: Plausible and (near as I can tell) in the direction of virtuous.

  44. Thomas L. Knapp

    Red,

    Hoppe is a libertarian who has made an argument against unrestricted immigration.

    The fact that a libertarian makes an argument doesn’t mean that the argument is libertarian.

    The fact that an argument is made doesn’t mean that the argument is correct or successful (that “the case is made”).

    Wow, I just wrote three sentences on Hoppe without calling him a loon. I must be off my game.

  45. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    I’m absolutely an absolutist — “national borders” are nothing more than imaginary turf lines drawn on the ground by overgrown street gangs, and no one owes them any respect.

    That doesn’t mean I’m not occasionally tempted to offer suggestions as to how advocates of keeping the street gangs empowered might make such a system “work.”

  46. Robert Capozzi

    tk, yes, it’s not unlike my suggestion of Nonarchy Pods as a means to satisfy/placate my anarchist brothers and sisters.

  47. paulie Post author

    RC

    Probably right, although I’ve seen no stats, and there likely are no reliable ones. It’s still an overstatement on TK’s part.

    I think Tom is correct when he says

    the vast majority of those who decide to cross without government permission manage to do so. That’s not going to change.

    You say

    Complete border control is futile, like murder prohibition. Laws against murder should be viewed NOT as a prohibition, but as a signal to would-be murderers…don’t do that.

    There’s a vast difference between migration and murder. That difference is that millions of people don’t see migration as necessarily wrong, and are willing to do it, even if it’s declared illegal. Very few people consider murder to be OK, and even fewer are willing to do it. Thus, enforcing murder laws is plausible. Isolating murderers so they don’t do it again is also plausible. Migrants who are deported can simply keep crossing the border; many have done it repeatedly. So long as millions of people view abortion in the same way as migration, this will be true of abortion as well. To place it in the same category as murder, there would have to be an overwhelming social concensus that it is murder, which does not exist now.

    Laws against migration are like laws against drugs; they don’t stop whatever behavior government is trying to stop, because millions of people don’t agree with those laws and are willing to violate them. The presence of laws like that on the books reduces respect for the system of law as a whole, and diverts law enforcement, court and associated resources away from real crimes with real victims which virtually everyone agrees should be crimes.

    In some absolute sense should anyone be free to go anywhere at any time? I cannot fathom this. In the NAP Construct, there would be no “public” property, so the question is self-answering, even for NAPsters.

    No one here has proposed a system where genuine property lines are not enforced. What some of us object to is the regime treating the whole country as its property or partial property.

    Do I want a signal to would-be immigrants that they should check in before entering the US? All things considered, yes.

    I’d agree with Tom’s incremental solution on that one, although I would also agree with him (not sure if he has said it in this thread yet) that such checking in can’t plausibly achieve its stated objectives without delaying all visitors and commerce at the border (including airports and shipping ports) for at least several days – and that would be prohibitively expensive and damaging to the US economy.

    Furthermore, I don’t see it as any more necessary and proper than requiring people to check in when they cross city, state or county lines.

    But, as a temporary measure I would take it as an improvement over a system which forces people to sneak across, thus, as the article points out, actually making us less secure, not more.

  48. paulie Post author

    It depends on what you mean by “harassed.” I drove across the Canadian border into Toronto last year. They did check my passport and ask me a few questions, then let me through. The return into the United States was more involved, but not far more. That still might qualify as harassment depending on your definition.

    It’s kind of the luck of the draw. I’ve had times in the early to mid 2000s when crossing back to the US from Mexico was just that easy, and others when it was substantially more difficult. As I understand it Canada is now the same way, except that Mexico does not usually stop people at all headed in that direction while Canada does (although I did get stopped once going into Mexico because the guy I was riding with had fake bullet holes painted on his truck, which to the small mind of a Mexican border cop meant he was likely to be smuggling illegal guns into Mexico, LOL). Ironically that time coming back in to the US, while they did briefly question the guy who was driving, they did not even say one word to me at all.

    I know people who have been denied entry into Canada for ridiculous reasons, and I have seen a news report about a guy in Windsor with family in Detroit who crosses the border regularly and gets detained for hours at a time every single time, just because his name is a fairly common Arabic name that also happens to be the name of someone else who is on a terrorist watch list.

  49. Thomas L. Knapp

    IRT Paulie @59,

    This is actually Bob, but you’re quoting him and I missed it in the original:

    “[I]n the NAP Construct, there would be no ‘public’ property”

    Depends on what you mean by “public.” There’s certainly no reason there couldn’t be “common” properties in an NAP-based community.

    For that matter, when it comes to land, I still have unresolved questions as to whether it can even plausibly be privately owned at all.

  50. Robert Capozzi

    p59: There’s a vast difference between migration and murder.

    me: Agreed. Migration seems to be more about how one views the State. If as TK believes, the lines are just gangland territories, and public property is not something to acknowledge by law, then migration is just what Mad Max does when he crosses the desert.

    I don’t. I believe that property and nations are contrivances, institutions people invent to facilitate domestic tranquility, social and economic intercourse. The rule of law is an evolving set of intra-nation contrivances to further that purpose. None of these rules are provably effective, yet, on balance, residents of a nation generally subscribe to them, even support them. We as individuals may arrive at “moral” conclusions where we think the rules should be adjusted. Ls, for ex., want to see fewer rules, with some Ls wanting no monopoly-enforced rules.

    My sense is that most in the nation known as the USA want rules to govern who and how many can come and stay here. This desire is not unanimous, but my guess is it’s close to being unanimous. It’s probably not quite as nearly unanimous as the desire for laws against murder. It might be as unanimous as those wanting laws to protect, say, contracts. Indeed, I’d be surprised if murderers and contract-violators didn’t on some level endorse such laws!

    A great case can be made that immigration laws are far to strict. For me, the “moral” case for no migration restrictions is weak.

    p: Furthermore, I don’t see it as any more necessary and proper than requiring people to check in when they cross city, state or county lines.

    me: My guess is that you — like TK — reject the contrivance known as the “State.” While I’m not completely unsympathetic to this stance, we seem stuck with a global network of states until we’re not. I am open to thought and actual experiments in statelessness, but I do maintain that statelessness in the territory known as the USA seems highly unripe.

  51. paulie Post author

    There is a libertarian case because Hans-Hermann Hoppe has made it.

    Hoppe’s argument is addressed in the article. If you speak a few words of Spanish or know Hoppe’s argument, you’ll be able to recognize it quickly.

    Murray Rothbard, who was cited as an authority, later pretty much adopted the Hoppe position if I’m not mistaken.

    Yes; as Less pointed out immediately after quoting Rothbard.

  52. paulie Post author

    My sense is that most in the nation known as the USA want rules to govern who and how many can come and stay here. This desire is not unanimous, but my guess is it’s close to being unanimous.

    It’s not anywhere close to being unanimous. Millions of people have personally violated the immigration laws, and millions more support them.

    Latinos are now possibly the biggest so called minority in the US, and I saw a poll in a Denver newspaper that a strong majority of them want immigration much less restricted and feel it is a to issue. I believe this was a national poll. Nor are Latinos by any stretch the only people who feel this way.

    As far as unanimity goes, I’d say the migration laws are much closer in popularity to the marijuana laws than they are to the murder laws.

    That is, a majority still support the migration restrictions, but not an overwhelming majority.
    For this purpose I am counting everyone living in the territories claimed by the ruling US regime, not just Anglos, citizens or voters.

  53. paulie Post author

    p1: Furthermore, I don’t see it as any more necessary and proper than requiring people to check in when they cross city, state or county lines.

    RC: My guess is that you — like TK — reject the contrivance known as the “State.” While I’m not completely unsympathetic to this stance, we seem stuck with a global network of states until we’re not. I am open to thought and actual experiments in statelessness, but I do maintain that statelessness in the territory known as the USA seems highly unripe.

    p2: Not sure what that has to do with p1?

    In p1, I am assuming that city, state, county and nation state borders continue to exist for the time being.

  54. Robert Capozzi

    p64: I saw a poll in a Denver newspaper that a strong majority of them want immigration much less restricted and feel it is a to issue.

    me: I too am on THAT train. Conflating “less restricted” with “no restrictions” is not the fair-dealing Paulie we’ve all come to know and love.

  55. Robert Capozzi

    p65: In p1, I am assuming that city, state, county and nation state borders continue to exist for the time being.

    me: And you DON’T assume the US borders will continue to exist for the time being? Yep, could happen like the Soviet Union. In that case, the national borders changed from the USSR to Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, etc. They have migration laws, yes? (Or is that handled by the CIS authorities?)

    But, OK, Moore gets her way. We get 50 republics. Big money on the likely that the Republic of TX has migration laws. Side bet that the Republic of TX’s migration laws are more restrictive than the US. You in?

  56. paulie Post author

    Robert,

    And you DON’T assume the US borders will continue to exist for the time being?

    I just said I DO assume that.

  57. paulie Post author

    Let’s retrace…

    p59: Furthermore, I don’t see it as any more necessary and proper than requiring people to check in when they cross city, state or county lines.

    p Redux: What that means is that city, state and county lines will continue to exist, as will boundaries between nation states, for the time being, for this mental exercise.

    Currently we are not required to “check in” when we cross city state, and county lines, although they do all still exist. I think most people are probably fine with not having to go through border checkpoints between cities, counties and states. How about you?

    My point was in response to your earlier statement “Do I want a signal to would-be immigrants that they should check in before entering the US? All things considered, yes.”

    You followed up my @ 59 with what appear to me at the moment to be non-sequiturs about statelessness (anarchy) and the US breaking up, when I first implied and then explicitly said that I am excluding those options from this particular part of the discussion.

    So, let’s see if we can get on the same page here.

    In this scenario, city, state, county and international borders all continue to exist. Nevertheless, people are not required to check in when they cross city, state and county lines. That does not lead to anarchy or the dissolution of those governmental units.

    So, do you think it’s a bad thing that people are not required to “check in” when crossing those borders? Does it present some fundamental challenge to the existence, security, health, safety or independence of cities, counties or states?

  58. paulie Post author

    RC

    Some Ls ARE absolutists, explicitly so. Yet, when push comes to shove, they often come up with fallback positions that open up the possibility of relativistic solutions to current challenges. I encourage this…

    Tom did just that @ 48:

    Simply lift restrictions on movement across the border at official points for anyone not bringing criminal/terrorist intent, or infectious disease, across those points — and put the burden of probable cause to stop, and proof to turn back, on the government, not the individual moving across the border.

    Do that, and anyone who isn’t up to something nefarious will gladly cross at those official points, because that’s where the roads, taxicabs, etc. are. Which in turn means that the number of people crossing in the middle of the night in the trackless desert will go down by something like 99.9%, and the resources required to stop them, and to sort out the nefarious types from the people just seeking jobs and such, will similarly drop.

  59. Robert Capozzi

    p, no, I don’t favor jurisdictional check ins. I view the US as one nation. All things considered, a national check in sounds like a good idea, jurisdictional check ins…no.

    Although there are secessionists — a tiny fraction of the pop., most accede, accept and largely support the notion of US as nation, near as I can tell, and for good reasons, most of them want SOME controls on who and how many immigrate. SOME want almost no regulation, SOME want more. I want less. A tiny fraction want none at all.

    Note that I see no call for jurisdictional check ins. You? The very notion of jurisdictional check ins is feeling like a diversion to me. It’s a highly hypothetical non-issue.

    NATIONAL immigration policy IS an issue. I favor liberalizing it. I do not favor ending it, in part because I favor screening out to the extent possible criminals and the contagious and in part because my last name is not Quixote.

  60. Don Lake, FYI, not necessarily a unilateral endorcement

    AND ON THE WEST COAST, thx to California American Independent Party’s Ed Noonan:

    From: Viki Mason
    Date: Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 10:44 AM

    Subject: WE NEED HELP ON TWO ITEMS TO STOP ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION:

    WE NEED HELP WITH TWO EVENTS TO STOP ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IN THE SACRAMENTO AREA, IF YOU ARE NEAR THE AREA AND AVAILABLE, PLEASE CONTACT MIKE.

    Right now Mike, with some other members, are working on two very important items and need help. If there is any way you can work with the following please contact Mike for more information, location, etc..

    One, he is working with Jeff Schwilk and FAIR for a rally at the capitol on 3/21 to support Tim Donnelly with his Bills AB 26 ( a mirror of AZ’s SB 1070 ) and his AB 63 that will provide in-state tuition for all military personnel.

    Talked to Gregg Imus about all of this and I will be getting a permit tomorrow to stage a rally at the Capitol in support of these bills on 3/21 at 4pm. Tim plans on coming out and speaking to the rally.

    Still have to talk to Gregg about sound systems, etc. I will let everyone I sent this to know if we get the permit, and for which side of the Capitol it will be held on.

  61. Porn Again Christian

    I have a sure fire way to stop illegal immigration which will save the taxpayers money and create more jobs for Americans.

    That is make it legal.

  62. Thomas L. Knapp

    PAC,

    The problem is, that’s already the case.

    There’s no such thing as an “illegal immigrant,” since there’s no constitutional federal power to regulate immigration.

    The framers considered the idea, rejected the idea (in the face of anti-federalist calls for it), and were recognized for the better part of a century by Congress as having done so.

    The alleged power was miracled up out of whole cloth by an activist Supreme Court in 1875, and not exercised by Congress until 1882, but it is clearly repugnant to the Constitution and therefore, per Madison v. Marbury, void.

  63. paulie Post author

    The framers considered the idea, rejected the idea (in the face of anti-federalist calls for it),

    I don’t remember reading that before. Got more about that?

  64. So What if You "Weren't Born Yet"?

    Matt: @ 38 “I have no idea at all, as I wasn’t born yet.”

    I’m always annoyed when people plead ignorance based on their “not being born yet.”

    Most of world history occurred before any of us were born, yet that’s no excuse not to know about the Civil War, Roman Empire, et. al.

    One either knows something, or doesn’t. When one was born is irrelevant.

  65. paulie Post author

    OK, I was born in 1972, but that doesn’t mean my personal experience has anything to do with my knowledge of what happened that year. My first memories are from 1974, more consistent memories from 1976 on, and political awareness probably not until 1979-1980.

    However, from what I have read immigration was not a major national issue in 1972.

    If someone has something I was not aware of please let us know.

    As I pointed out @ 45, migration was dealt with in the LP Temporary Platform of 1972, but in terms of emigration, not immigration, and it did not have a separate plank.

  66. Nicholas Sarwark

    The alleged power was miracled up out of whole cloth by an activist Supreme Court in 1875, and not exercised by Congress until 1882, but it is clearly repugnant to the Constitution and therefore, per Madison v. Marbury, void.

    Details, please. What specific provision of the Constitution did the Court hold supported regulation of immigration?

    Also, the primary holding of Marbury is not just that unconstitutional laws are void, but also that the Supreme Court makes that decision. You don’t get one without the other.

  67. Thomas L. Knapp

    NS@79,

    Here’s the language of the opinion (Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 US 275), with the constitutional rationale bolded by me:

    The passage of laws which concern the admission of citizens and subjects of foreign nations to our shores belongs to Congress, and not to the States. It has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations: the responsibility for the character of those regulations, and for the manner of their execution, belongs solely to the national government. If it be otherwise, a single State can, at her pleasure, embroil us in disastrous quarrels with other nations.

    Interestingly, though, the subsequent immigration regulation seems to have been based not so much on that ruling as on revisions, in 1880, to the Burlingame Treaty.

    It does not follow from the fact that Marbury v. Madison mentions the voidness of constitutionally repugnant laws that said voidness is a result of Madison v. Marbury or that the decision, or the court, is authoritative. But, yeah, busted 😉

  68. Robert Capozzi

    tk, that seems novel, even to me! Equilibrating “commerce” and “migration” seems like a stretch.

    Methinks I’d prefer to see the notion of “naturalization” stretched first.

    Still, like it or not, the “Constitution” is the text plus all the Supreme’s interpretations of it. What was rejected seems mostly to be a curiousity of little relevance.

    The document was written in haste, subterfuge, and lots and lots of gray areas. We’re dealing with it, largely at sea. Framers =/= Moses…but you knew that! 😉

  69. Matt Cholko

    So what @77 – While technically your comment makes sense, I find it to be rather ridiculous. I was clearly trying to learn about history by asking if anyone knew whether immigration was an issue at that time.

  70. paulie Post author

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_McGovern_presidential_campaign,_1972

    Text search for immigration comes up with nothing.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_McGovern_presidential_campaign,_1972

    Also nothing

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon

    has one mention of immigration, which was from about 20 years earlier, when Nixon was in the Senate.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_McGovern

    Has nothing on immigration.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace

    Nothing on immigration.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Muskie

    Only references to immigrations are to Mr. Muskie’s ancestors.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_J._McCarthy

    Does note that Eugene McCarthy co-authored an immigration reform bill in 1965, but later changed his mind.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M._Jackson

    Only references to immigration involve Mr. Jackson’s ancestors.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Chisholm

    Ditto.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Sanford

    No mention of immigration.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ashbrook

    No mention.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_McCloskey

    Nothing.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Schmitz

    Only mention of immigration is something about an extramarital affair.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Spock

    No mention of immigration.

    I could keep looking, but from what I am gathering, my recollection from my reading that it was not a major issue in 1972 seems to be correct.

  71. paulie Post author

    Oops, one of those first two links was wrong – it should have been to an article about the whole election that year.

  72. Thomas L. Knapp

    Paulie @76,

    The main anti-federalist point man on immigration policy was Agrippa, a/k/a John Winthrop.

    The northern states were starting to industrialize and in order to fulfill their need for labor were letting in people who were (from a southern agrarian anti-Catholic viewpoint) “undesirable” (Irish Catholics, etc.).

    Of course, the southern agrarians took care to have a 20-year prohibition on any federal interference with their importation of African slaves written into the Constitution, but they didn’t want papists, non-English-speaking whites, etc. allowed in up north.

    Hamilton prevailed on the north’s behalf on a “leave immigration out and let the states decide their own immigration policies” line, while the anti-federalists argued a “there’s a national character which a national government should preserve” line.

    Consequently, the only federal immigration laws passed between the Constitution and the Chinese Exclusion Act were laws that allowed federal port officials to enforce state immigration rules, and collect fees and fines to cover the costs of that enforcement.

  73. Tom Blanton

    Well, something must be done immediately. Subhuman mutants are crossing the southern border here and taking our jobs and our welfare checks. These ignorant jackasses bring their own backwards culture and refuse to assimilate here. At times it is hard to even communicate with them. They vote for any candidate that panders to them. I’m certain they bring diseases with them, as well as their weird religions. They are so backward, they aren’t even aware when they are breaking the law.

    A huge 900 foot fence needs to be built along the southern border here so that these damn North Carolinians will stop invading Virginia.

    There are rumors that their “schools” teach them the 3 R’s – readin’, ‘rithmetic, and the road to Richmond. This has to stop.

  74. paulie Post author

    The very notion of jurisdictional check ins is feeling like a diversion to me. It’s a highly hypothetical non-issue.

    It’s just an illustration of what I would consider a better policy at the international level as well. I think international borders can and should be as easy to cress as city or county borders.

    However, I’d also consider the policy Tom discusses towards the end @ 48 to be a good step in that direction.

  75. whatever

    there’s no constitutional federal power to regulate immigration.

    Incorrect. Under Article I, Section 9, the Congress has had the power to prohibit migration since 1808.

    Hope this helps.

  76. Less Antman

    A splendid discussion. And for those who didn’t pick up on a few of my sly Spanish references, Juan Hermano Brinca, a trained economist from the Universidad de Nuevo León de Vaquerías (UNLV), was intended to stand in for Hans Herman Hoppe of the University of Nevada at Las Vegas. As for Murray, I prefer to remember him as my dear ally in the LP Radical Caucus in 1983 (http://mises.org/journals/lf/1983/1983_09-10.pdf), but I did acknowledge his altered views in my first article.

  77. Thomas L. Knapp

    whatever @ 93,

    You might want to consider a remedial reading class. A prohibition on exercise of a power before Date X is not a delegation of a power after Date X.

  78. whatever

    @94,
    Slaves are imported, free people migrate. Read it again, try not to appear so ignorant.

    @96
    So what, the 1808 act prohibit Importation of slaves was unConstitutional?

    Jefferson and others opposed Adams’ Alien Act because he attempted to prohibit migration before 1808. Try educating yourself.

    This isn’t very difficult.

    The migration of foreign nationals and their potential admission to the nation-state is part of the Law of Nations, which Congress has section 8 power to write laws concerning offenses against. The states were already exercising the power and they retain coequal power to admit only as many foreign nationals as they see fit.

  79. Eric Sundwall

    Entry into a country does not constitute citizenship. The nayers never get this and the open borders don’t mention it.

  80. Thomas L. Knapp

    whatever @97,

    “So what, the 1808 act prohibit Importation of slaves was unConstitutional?”

    No, because there was an existing constitutional clause applying to “importation” (“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,” Article I, Section 8). When the prohibition in 1/9 ended, that clause came into effect.

    There was no existing constitutional clause applying to “migration” to come into effect at the end of the “before 1808” prohibition.

    In point of fact, the anti-federalists (notably “Agrippa,” a/k/a John Winthrop) argued (on the basis of a “national character” which they didn’t believe should accommodate e.g. large-scale Catholic immigration) for a federal power to regulate immigration, and the federalists (notably Hamilton) rejected such a power in favor of states making their own rules (primarily because quickly-industrializing Pennsylvania was screaming for immigrant labor and most of the takers were Germans, with a healthy component of Irish Catholics).

    From ratification of the Constitution until the 1882 “Chinese Exclusion Act,” the only immigration regulations Congress passed were laws allowing federal port authorities to enforce state-based regulations, and to collect fines/fees to cover the costs of that enforcement. They knew damn well that the Constitution didn’t allow them to regulate immigration per se.

  81. paulie Post author

    Slaves are imported, free people migrate. Read it again, try not to appear so ignorant.

    The only one who appears ignorant here is you. Scroll up and read Knapp at 75, 80 and especially 86.

  82. paulie Post author

    Entry into a country does not constitute citizenship. The nayers never get this and the open borders don’t mention it.

    Open borders advocates in this discussion have mentioned it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *