Exclusive Content > Editorials
Amnesty: The devaluation of American Citizenship
katzenjammer:
--- Quote from: massadvj on April 29, 2014, 02:47:25 pm ---I am probably alone in this thinking here on this site, but I think our existing laws are decidedly too anti-immigrant, and that has contributed to the problem. Now, now. Here me out.
If we go back to the 1950's and 60's when we didn't have a welfare state, and people could come and go as they pleased, there really was no problem. People came up to pick fruit or whatever, and when the work was done they went back. But then we made social welfare and unemployment available, so there was an economic incentive to just stay and do the seasonal work and collect unemployment the rest of the year. The increase in border security also became a deterrent to coming and going. It was easier to just move the family over once and be done with it.
The whole problem is caused by the economic divide between the US and Mexico. Increasing border security and keeping migrant workers out will only widen the gap between the two countries. We are both better off by allowing their workers in. We get cheap labor to produce more affordable products, and they get much needed capital to improve their economy. Free trade is always a win/win in the long run, and far better than erecting barriers, which only empowers government and special interest groups.
I propose that we loosen up our laws and let anyone in who is qualified and wants to work, but strictly enforce the law insofar as qualifying for public assistance and other benefits, which should be a prerogative of citizenship. If it were up to me, this would include voting and access to public education. The end result would be a robust exchange of labor between our two countries with the hope of creating a future common market. It would also check states and especially the federal government from becoming too socialistic, whereas increasing border security only incentivizes socialism.
--- End quote ---
Your view is essentially the Libertarian Party view (at least is was for some time, haven't checked on it recently). It is an area in which I personally part ways with the LP. This view is one of the idealistic "wouldn't it be nice!!" views that has slim to no chance of ever being realized. You address the completely suicidal aspect of having open borders and a generous welfare state. A nation cannot survive with both. And, unfortunately all of the momentum and movement that we have experienced in this nation over the past several decades is to provide MORE & MORE of an overly generous welfare state. And because of the fact that none of this is "short-sighted" mistakes or unintended consequences of generous hearts, the likelihood of it ever being rolled back as your approach demands, will simply never happen. That train has left the station long ago. In fact, we have created an entitlement system that is destined to implode at some point even if its benefits were limited to the actual citizens of the nation. Adding more hands and mouths just hastens that implosion.
massadvj:
--- Quote from: Bigun on April 29, 2014, 02:52:25 pm ---IF we had a government that we could trust to "faithfully execute the laws" I would be more than willing to enter into a discussion of your ideas (some of them have REAL merit) but as things currently stand I'm not interested!
--- End quote ---
The problem is we have way, way too many laws. The best system is one in which there are a few sensible laws, and those laws are strictly enforced. The government is simply unable to enforce laws that artificially restrict the law of supply and demand, especially when the demand is widespread. It really should stay out of the way of free commerce. This is why our drug laws are a failure, why prohibition failed, why we can't legally restrict abortion in most states. Besides, if property rights are "inalienable" then a Mexican should have the right to come here and negotiate a price for his labor if he so desires. It should not be a requirement of citizenship.
Asking the government to pick the winners and losers in the labor market is overreach. We need to focus on smaller, more efficient government that says what it means and has the power to make it stick.
massadvj:
--- Quote from: katzenjammer on April 29, 2014, 02:59:01 pm ---Your view is essentially the Libertarian Party view (at least is was for some time, haven't checked on it recently). It is an area in which I personally part ways with the LP. This view is one of the idealistic "wouldn't it be nice!!" views that has slim to no chance of ever being realized. You address the completely suicidal aspect of having open borders and a generous welfare state. A nation cannot survive with both. And, unfortunately all of the momentum and movement that we have experienced in this nation over the past several decades is to provide MORE & MORE of an overly generous welfare state. And because of the fact that none of this is "short-sighted" mistakes or unintended consequences of generous hearts, the likelihood of it ever being rolled back as your approach demands, will simply never happen. That train has left the station long ago. In fact, we have created an entitlement system that is destined to implode at some point even if its benefits were limited to the actual citizens of the nation. Adding more hands and mouths just hastens that implosion.
--- End quote ---
I completely agree with you. I agree the system is destined to implode, and I'd say that with open borders our entitlement system will implode sooner rather than later. I consider that a good thing. Socialism and closed borders go hand-in-hand.
Bigun:
--- Quote from: massadvj on April 29, 2014, 03:01:05 pm ---The problem is we have way, way too many laws. The best system is one in which there are a few sensible laws, and those laws are strictly enforced. The government is simply unable to enforce laws that artificially restrict the law of supply and demand, especially when the demand is widespread. It really should stay out of the way of free commerce. This is why our drug laws are a failure, why prohibition failed, why we can't legally restrict abortion in most states. Besides, if property rights are "inalienable" then a Mexican should have the right to come here and negotiate a price for his labor if he so desires. It should not be a requirement of citizenship.
Asking the government to pick the winners and losers in the labor market is overreach. We need to focus on smaller, more efficient government that says what it means and has the power to make it stick.
--- End quote ---
Again I agree with a lot of what you say Victor! Especially the idea that we have WAY to many laws and their attendant regulations! But the Washington establishment does not WANT what you and I want! THAT is the problem!
massadvj:
--- Quote from: Bigun on April 29, 2014, 03:04:28 pm ---Again I agree with a lot of what you say Victor! Especially the idea that we have WAY to many laws and their attendant regulations! But the Washington establishment does not WANT what you and I want! THAT is the problem!
--- End quote ---
No, but we can take solace in the fact that they are mostly impotent when it comes to enforcing what they want. I certainly don't want them turning the country into a fortress. Walls that keep people out can just as easily be used to keep people in if it comes to it. Freedom, no walls, and a government committed only to protecting freedom is a much better alternative.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version