10 thoughts on “Good Luck With That”

  1. Rand,

    No, they are suing Arizona for passing a law on immigration, which falls under the domain of the federal government, not state government. And making it a state crime to not carry proof of citizenship at all times.

    What I find so interesting is why conservatives are so much in favor of of law which basically makes it a requirement for everyone to carry identity papers proving they are a citizen reversing the American legal tradition of requiring the government to prove you are guilty. Instead under this law you have to prove you are innocent. And yes, in theory, even if you are an citizen you could have a conviction on your record for just not carrying your “papers” proving you are one unless the state of Arizona decides a Driver’s License is enough documentation for citizenship.

    I do know if I am forced to travel through Arizona on business I will have my passport and Birth Certificate with me, just in case they need my “papers”…

    Yes, I hope the DOJ wins as it will be a win for individual freedom.

  2. Under existing but unenforced federal law, immigrants are required to carry proof of identify at all times. My wife is a legal immigrant. We’ve experienced this first hand. Arizona is simply enforcing the law, thus making the federal government look bad. That’s why they’re being sued.

  3. Thomas,

    It’s interesting that you mention driver’s license. Suppose I choose to drive without one? We always have to prove our innocents. It’s only in court that we have the presumption of innocents and even there I wonder.

    What is your solution to an invasion of illegal aliens?

  4. Yes, I hope the DOJ wins as it will be a win for individual freedom.

    No it won’t.

    It’s nonsense like this that makes doctrinaire libertarians look like the loons they are. True, most illegal immigrants come here looking for work, but a certain number also come here to prey on both their fellow informal immigrants and we native-born citizens. Without effective control of our national borders, we have no way of keeping the latter class out.

    But even the job seekers have no compelling moral right to be here. Moving to a foreign country, even one next door to your own, is a big step and not undertaken lightly. If, as has been the case for a century or more, job opportunities are so relatively abundant in the U.S. and so relatively rare in Mexico as to induce large numbers of its citizens to overcome their normal inclinations not to disrupt their lives with a transnational relocation, then it’s by no means out of line to examine why this is so.

    Broadly speaking, it’s because Mexico is still largely mired in a peasant-centric traditionalist feudal culture while America’s is egalitarian and infused with a popular belief in progress at both the cultural and individual level. The latter creates employment opportunities while the former does not.

    Why should people, who have done nothing to build the culture that creates the jobs – and, indeed, may be actively hostile to that culture – nonetheless get a free pass to come here and bid down the value of those jobs against native citizens who have contributed to maintaining and advancing the culture from which said job opportunities arise? It’s the Little Red Hen story writ large. Good libertarians, who would never countenance the “moral right” of random passersby to steal fruit off the trees of some hard-working farmer’s orchard nonetheless imagine that they are being “consistently pro-liberty” by defending those from inferior cultures who opportunistically loot unearned value from ours.

  5. Ken,

    Driving is considered a privilege by the state, a driver’s license shows you earned the privilege of driving. But you not need to carry one to walk down the street or sit in the park. At least not in the rest of the U.S.

    As for what I would do, its simple. First I would put the immigrates that had the courage and motivation to come to the U.S. on a fast track to citizenship. It s the right thing to do to make up for the racial basis of the quota laws that have been in place for the last 80 years. I would also require that the decades long backlog of requests for immigration be cleared with 1 year. Given the economic boost immigrates provide it would be a huge stimulus to the economy to make them legal. Remember, one of the drivers of economic growth is population growth so this would be a stimulus to the economy.

    Then I would create a new law that would allow additional immigration on a race free first-come basis. Each Monday morning, 9:00 am ET 30,000 slots would be made available. Potential immigrates would apply for these slots at kiosks at U.S. embassies or consulates on a first come, first served basis. The first 30,000 each week would have a background check done and when passed be cleared for entry into the U.S.

    I would also restored the “guest worker” program ended in the 1960’s for agriculture that use to provide the work force needed for seasonal agriculture. Individuals from Mexico and Latin American would again be able to enter the country for 9 months each year on worker passes to serve the needs of this industry which depends on the low cost of immigrate workers to survive.

    In short, I would reverse the last 80 years of race based immigration policy, designed to protect the “WASP” character of the U.S. and put it on a solid moral basis.

  6. Dick,

    [[[Broadly speaking, it’s because Mexico is still largely mired in a peasant-centric traditionalist feudal culture while America’s is egalitarian and infused with a popular belief in progress at both the cultural and individual level. The latter creates employment opportunities while the former does not.]]]

    Which is why the best and brightest came here from Europe, for the opportunities it provided them. I know its why my grandparents came here from Poland and Hungry. And we should be happy that we are still able to draw them since as Julian Simon noted, the ultimate resource for any country are its people.

  7. First I would put the immigrates that had the courage and motivation to come to the U.S. on a fast track to citizenship.

    So you would put lawbreakers ahead of my wife who came here through the legal process?

  8. Would you put Rosa Parks in jail because she broke the law?

    Same principle since the laws were based on race. This is one of the differences that the founding fathers intended for the U.S. from other countries, that laws must also be moral, which was why the Bill of Rights was created. Yes, it took a while in some areas, 80 years for laws on Slavery to be abolished, over the protest of states that felt it was their right to have such laws, and another 100 years for the Jim Crow laws, again over the objections of states claiming it was their right to have such laws. Immigration is the next major civil rights battle to eliminate the WASP superiority complex that has been the main black mark on the nation’s history.

    BTW as a side note I think the entire process for becoming a citizen should be streamlined. The reason its been made hard is of course the underlying philosophy of the current laws to keep the barrier high to preserve the WASP culture of the U.S.

    And for the record, my wife is from the Philippines and had to go through the process of becoming a citizen. As did her brother who is a U.S. Army Sargent and has served in the invasion of Iraq and also in Afghanistan. Both agree it needs to be both streamlined and made more open to those outside of northern Europe.

Comments are closed.