Posted on 12/29/2011 5:40:29 AM PST by OddLane
One of the most persistent divides between traditional conservatives and their libertarian/anarcho-capitalist counterparts involves a fundamental philosophical disagreement about immigration. While most conservatives view immigration primarily through the lens of preserving American culture by only accepting those immigrants who are assimilable and will tangibly benefit our society in the future, a view expressed repeatedly during debates over illegal immigration in this country, many libertarians view the subject in an altogether different light. For them, the question is not so much whether a particular cohort of immigrants will be an asset to the United States but whether we have any right to prevent them from settling in this country in the first place, which many answer in the negative.
Libertarians extol the primacy of individual rights, which in this case entails the right to emigrate from your country of birth whenever you so desire-something that I don’t think any conservative would take issue with-and to immigrate to whatever country you want to live and/or work in for an extended period of time, which is where the divide between the two camps emerges. Libertarians view the issue as one of freedom of association-and by extension, contract-wherein willing employers, such as large agribusinesses and meatpacking plants, seek out willing employees coming from nations with under-performing economies that can’t meet the personal and financial needs of their citizens. They believe that the nexus between trade and unfettered migration is inextricable, if not completely self-evident, and that the two can not be severed if a nation hopes to grow its economy. While this may well be true as a matter of law, there are numerous holes in this thesis intellectually, which opponents of open borders-even anarcho-capitalists such as Hans-Hermann Hoppe-have exposed through well-researched arguments of their own.
(Excerpt) Read more at american-rattlesnake.org ...
The perception of the need for newcomers to settle the interior of the country was completely different in the 20th century than it was in the 19th-and especially the last part of the 18th century during the inception of the United States.
I quite agree. However, I was responding to the mistaken idea of the author that we should return to enforcement of immigration restrictions like those put in place by the Founders. Which of course would mean none.
As I understand it, till the later 19th century one generally docked in America, walked off the boat and into the country. There just wasn't any real federal customs or immigration enforcement mechanism in place in today's terms.
The initial immigration restrictions only referenced criminals, Chinese, prostitutes and other undesirables.
He was merely pointing out that the mythos created by open borders dogmatists in order to perpetuate their ideology in the arena of ideas is not based upon a house of cards.
This country isn't simply a "nation of immigrants," and many of the men responsible for creating it, including Alexander Hamilton, had quite prescient reservations about opening our country's borders to any and all comers.
ping
OUTSTANDING informative, educational article with tremendous links! Thanks, OddLane. A great thread, also.
This seems, to me, an improper mixture of the notion of rights and powers. An individual may certainly have the right come to the United States, but the United States most definitely has the power to create rules, laws, or regulations governing who can come here and how they can come here. We're not, then, talking about our "right" to keep immigrants out, but creating a structure by which we can accept immigrants into the country and eventually become American citizens.
Is this really that difficult to understand? Why is this even an issue?
I'm glad you appreciated it.
I still can't believe the open borders idiots who believe that virtually everyone has some sort of "right" to come here.
We also need to change the 14th Amendment with regards to giving citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.
It may not be numerically decisive, but it undermines the concept of citizenship to the point that it's become rendered meaningless.
It's dispiriting that Ron Paul is the only candidate in the race who's even raised this issue when it should be part of the standard talking points of anyone running for the GOP nomination.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.