Log in
2012 May 23 |
 |
http://www.theatlanticright.com/2010/04/27/the-libertarian-party-toes-the-amnesty-line/
0
0
  |   4 comments

Libertarian Party Logo

To borrow one of Allahpundit’s favorite phrases: heartache!  Why?  Because of an email I got today from Wes Benedict, Executive Director of the Libertarian Party (emph. mine):

From an economic point of view, immigrants are an asset, not a liability. Business owners usually understand that, but politicians often either don’t understand or don’t care. In an environment of fear, which is where many politicians seem to want to keep us, they use immigrants (both legal and illegal) as scapegoats so they can duck blame for problems caused by too much government. Republican George W. Bush gave us the enormously expensive Medicare prescription entitlement. Republican Senator John McCain famously put his 2008 presidential campaign on hold to rush back to Washington to bail out failed banks and businesses. When times are tough, focusing on immigrants helps distract from these homegrown threats to our economy.

Perhaps I have a soft spot in my heart for immigrants and foreigners. I’ve traveled extensively and lived overseas. I worked for six months in South Africa and was welcomed by blacks and whites into their communities. I’ve spent over six months of my life traveling throughout Mexico. Recently having lived in Texas, I’ve met and worked with a lot of Mexican nationals who were in Texas working hard in the construction industry. I can imagine that if I’d been born in Mexico or Central America, and the American immigration laws were so convoluted, I’d have found my way around them one way or another.

I realize immigration, legal and illegal, is a controversial issue both for Americans in general and for Libertarians. Obviously, some immigrants take advantage of our welfare system. (That’s one more reason to get rid of government welfare.) And some immigrants commit violent crimes. (That’s one more reason to get rid of victimless crime laws that waste police effort and fill up our prisons with people who haven’t hurt anyone.) However, those aren’t good reasons to stop people from coming to America. America was founded by immigrants, many of whom were escaping economic and religious oppression. I think support for immigrants, many of whom are poor and honest, shows our humanitarian side to those who want to characterize Libertarians as uncaring individualists.

I’m also very concerned that the immigration debate will be used as an excuse to impose a National ID card. (Let me see your papers!)

Now is the time to stand up for liberty. We must not let the federal government use immigration restrictions as a sneaky way to crack down on all Americans and take away our freedoms.

See this Cato study on the economic effects of immigration reform.

I can’t really get behind the “if the law sucks, don’t follow it” declaration he makes.  At least, not for this (I realize this make me an inconsistent bastard; guilty as charged).  We are a nation of laws, and the ones that are bad can be changed, repealed, or declared unconstitutional.

I was hoping that this was just an “I don’t blame them” moment.  Unfortunately, reading the actual LP position on immigration didn’t reassure me:

Crossing an international border to support your family and pursue dreams of a better life is not an inherently criminal act like rape or robbery. If it were, then most of us descend from criminals. As the people of Texas know well, the large majority of illegal immigrants are not bad people. They are people who value family, faith and hard work trying to live within a bad system.

When large numbers of otherwise decent people routinely violate a law, the law itself is probably the problem. To argue that illegal immigration is bad merely because it is illegal avoids the threshold question of whether we should prohibit this kind of immigration in the first place.

Actually, I don’t have a problem with that first sentence.  It should not be treated as a crime along the lines of rape or robbery.  If an illegal does rape or rob, then go ahead and charge with with that crime.  But, crossing the border alone is not grounds for the “they’re going to kill us all!” mentality that we sometimes see on this issue.  That said, illegal immigration is a crime, and those violating it should be found guilty.

Luckily, the LP recognizes that.  However, they then state that a law that is violated so much must be necessarily bad, so it should be changed.  But I don’t think their solution is very good:

For those workers already in the United States illegally, we can avoid “amnesty” and still offer a pathway out of the underground economy. Newly legalized workers can be assessed fines and back taxes and serve probation befitting the misdemeanor they’ve committed. They can be required to take their place at the back of the line should they eventually apply for permanent residency.

Essentially, it’s almost word-for-word the Bush/McCain legislation from a few years ago.  The problem with the solution, even one that places them “at the back of the line” is that now we have millions of non-permanent legalized…visitors (because they’re not yet residents).  It’ll create a new level of entrant to the country somewhere between work visa and legal resident.  But it won’t even be that, because they won’t have a visa.  They’ll just be here.  They’ll be free to come and go, to strain the welfare system when they get sick, and we’ll hope they pay taxes.

No doubt that many will pay their taxes.  But I think it’s too much to hope that all the newly legalized immigrants will do so.  And the effort involved to make sure they do would create an increase in government of the kind the LP is supposed to hate.

Now, I do agree with Benedict and the LP that it should be easier to immigrate here.  I think the economic benefit argument is sound.  If Americans won’t do them, then somebody needs to.  In effect, it creates a competitive market for labor between workers from different nations of the kind we now see when a corporation chooses to set up shop in a different country.  Republicans are on record of (rightly) calling measures against that “protectionism,” and it is also protectionism to limit competitiveness for a job.

On the other hand, that does not mean that we throw out our immigration laws of the moment just because we have a difficult problem in front of us.  We just need to find a way to deal with it.  Personally, I like one proposed by former independent candidate for President, Frank McEnulty, during the 2008 election.  In an email exchange I had with him, McEnulty suggested to me that that if we took away the social benefits for illegals, they would simply go home themselves.  I thought it made a lot of sense.  Of course, I wouldn’t have any problem with them returning thereafter, so long as they go through the proper channels to do so.

Of course, McEnulty’s idea may not be a practical solution in today’s political climate.  But I think it’s still one worth considering.

As can be seen, there are ideas for solving the current problem out there that don’t involve either auto-legalizing all the illegals, but also don’t involve a massive round-up operation that would make FDR proud.  We have certainly solved larger problems before, so there is no reason why a good answer can’t be thought up.

  1. Pingback | Link #110673 ›
    What Is “Lawful Contact”? [...] The Libertarian Party Toes the Amnesty Line [...]
  2. Posted by Brian
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #110694 ›
    Brian Michael, I'd just first point out that reacting to the idea of making illegal immigration a felony by saying it doesn't compare to rape or murder is kind of missing the point. There are a lot of white collar crimes that are felonies, including welfare fraud, identity fraud, and identity theft. A lot of people here illegally are already considerable as felons just because they use false identification to drive or make a living. Tracking down fake or stolen identities are a major operation within ICE (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16169899/ ). So, no new law needs to be passed to make these people felons. That isn't to say I'm arguing for making illegal immigration a felony, I'm just putting it in perspective. I think talking about making it easier to come here is missing the point. No matter how high the immigration limits are, as long as its easier to come here illegally than legally, there will always be illegal immigrants. If we decide to increase the immigration quotas, I think we'll find that out. Ultimately, the problem isn't with how many immigrants we let in, or how we secure the border, but with with why people are leaving Mexico. The whole immigration debate is sort of avoiding the real issue, which is the poverty and poor labor laws there. The Mexican government does its job to always deflect these issues back on the United States, but at some point we're going to need to put pressure on Mexico.
    • Michael_Merritt Martha Stewart didn't spend just months in prison for insider trading because her felony was considered as severe as Bernie Madoff-level fraud or identity theft. There are different levels of felony for a number of different crimes. That being here illegally is a crime doesn't make it to the level of robbery or murder.
      If we decide to increase the immigration quotas
      The problem isn't with how many people we let in, it's with how damn convoluted the process is. I have a co-worker who applied for a green card a couple years ago, and only just got it last July. Those last few months were a nail-biter, and a lot of uncertainty whether she would get the thing, and from what I know, that process was very difficult. All that, for someone who was going about the proper channels to be here legally. My hypothesis is that if the process is made easier, and not so lengthy, that we would see less illegal immigration because people would be more willing to take the time to complete the process. Sure, many people would still cross illegally because, yes, the easier/less time consuming thing to do is cross illegally (though it depends on how they're doing it, esp. with human smuggling cases). That said, I think there is merit to your view of the problems causing illegal immigration. Mexico is generally pretty poor; everybody knows that. There is something to be said about encouraging them to develop their economy and their private sector. However, with that development, my points about competing for workers would come into play (assuming an increase in education): we should want those people to come over here and lend their expertise to us.
      • Posted by Brian
        | Quote | Trackback | Link #110731 ›
        Brian Yea I wasn't saying there wasn't a difference between types of felony. Its just that the comment from the LP is in reaction to suggestions that it should be treated as a felony instead of a misdemeanor. There are a lot of people who prefer to view illegal immigration as similar to a traffic violation, and the immigrants should just be fined and nothing else made of it. Anyway, the immigration process needs to take time simply because there needs to be a queue, because we can't let in everyone who wants to come in at the same time without problems. Its also important to realize that part of the problem with the poverty in Mexico has been the corrupt government and the lack of enforcement of labor laws. The Mexican government can basically pick and choose whether they consider a strike is legitimate, and if they decide it isn't, the company can go on hiring, and police is sent to disperse the strikers. Illegal immigration to the US however functions like a release valve which takes pressure off the Mexican government, since workers that don't like conditions in Mexico can come here. Tougher immigration enforcement potentially could put pressure on the Mexican government to make the situation more fair. I'd also argue that NAFTA has also led to problems in the Mexican economy (and increased illegal immigration) but thats another subject.
1