*"Note that the Constitution expressly protects the rights ofpersons, not just those of American citizens."*
======= No, it doesn't. That is the major flaw with many far left individuals' thinking. On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:18 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > *What Immigration Problem? > *by Sheldon Richman <http://www.fff.org/aboutUs/bios/sxr.asp>, November > 11, 2011 > > Arizona, Alabama, and Georgia have each enacted stringent laws aimed at > curbing illegal immigration. Before saying more, let’s be clear about the > alleged problem. What is an “illegal immigrant”? It’s simply a person > possessing natural rights, mind you who comes to the United States > without the permission of the U.S. government. Now isn’t it curious that in > this country, which began in rebellion against and secession from an > empire, people are upset about other people moving around without > government permission? In revolutionary times the smuggler of goods was a > hero, and the customs agent was a villain. If we were true to the best > parts of our heritage today the “illegal” would be a hero, and the border > agent would be a villain. > > This shows how far we have slipped from America’s substantially > libertarian origins. This is really quite sad. > > Imagine if we Americans needed government permission to move from state to > state. We’d be appalled at the hassle, not to mention the grave > interference with our freedom. Would we put up with it? I hope not. > > Then what is the justification for having an elaborate, presumptuous, > tax-financed bureaucracy whose purpose is to determine who may live in this > country? Rights belong to all human beings, not just to Americans. Note > that the Constitution expressly protects the rights of *persons,* not > just those of American citizens. > > But, we are told, a country is not a country without secure borders. Why? > This premise goes unexamined. > > A country is defined by its traditions and attitudes rather than by its > border checkpoints and armed guards. It is disheartening to hear people > claim to believe that America is not synonymous with government and yet > favor harsh measures to “secure our border” and stop free migration. > > All the economic arguments for stemming the flow of immigrants fall when > examined even casually. The nativists can’t quite get their story straight. > Are the newcomers ambitious go-getters trying to “take our jobs,” or are > they freeloaders planning to collect welfare? Those who are afraid of the > former fail to understand that people not only produce when they hold jobs, > but also consume. Newcomers expand the market and the division of labor, > which Adam Smith taught us is the path to higher living standards. Some > opponents of immigration bring up the current high unemployment as an > objection. But that is purely a government-produced phenomenon, and it has > nothing to do with immigrants. Seriously, scapegoating does not become us. > > As for any government-financed services that immigrants might use, let’s > not forget that they also pay a good deal in taxes. There’s no reason to > think they are a net drain on the welfare state. > > But that is really beside the point. If we don’t want people living off > the taxpayers and this should apply to American citizens as well we > should transfer welfare services to private charity and the free market. > There is no good reason for government the essence of which is physical > force to be running schools and hospitals, which are the tax-financed > facilities most likely to be used by immigrants. I really see no moral > difference between a citizen and a noncitizen taking advantage of a > government program. The most objectionable aspect of government largess is > not *who* accepts it but *how* the politicians obtain the resources that > they then distribute. Taxation is robbery. > > Finally, there is a good deal of worry on the Right these days that > immigration is making “white America” a thing of the past. Those who hold > this view say earlier immigration presented little concern because most > newcomers were European and could assimilate into American culture. But > this is selective memory in the first degree: virtually every group from > Europe was at one time spoken of in the same degrading and alarmist terms > as are today’s Latino and Muslim immigrants. In fact, as Thaddeus Russell > documents in his fascinating book, *A Renegade History of the United > States* <http://www.thaddeusrussell.com/>, almost every European > immigrant group including Italians, Irishmen, Poles, and Jews were > initially not considered to be white! As a result, many of the new > immigrants felt close to blacks and African-American culture. Only with the > passage of time were they admitted into the ranks of the white race by the > establishment. > > The more things change, the more things stay the same. > > http://www.fff.org/comment/com1111i.asp > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
