The bill, whose fate in the House is uncertain, would appropriate $40 billion over the next decade to “secure the border.” --- easy solution .... allow them to enter but - record their identity - give them zero social services - make them pay taxes on their income. - make their children citizens of their parents home country. - charge them for their crimes against America and deport the criminals.
feel free to add to this list. On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 10:15:18 AM UTC-5, MJ wrote: > > > *What the Immigration Bill Overlooks > *by Sheldon Richman <http://fff.org/author/sheldon-richman/> July 9, 2013 > > In passing the monstrosity known as immigration “reform,” the Senate > overlooked a few things of importance. This is unsurprising. A bill on > immigration that is backed by leading Republicans and Democrats, big > business, and government-co-opted unions is bound to have missed some > things. > > The bill, whose fate in the House is uncertain, would appropriate $40 > billion over the next decade to “secure the border.” This would entail > hiring 20,000 more border patrol agents and building 700 more miles of > fence along the U.S.-Mexican border. The spending would include $4.5 > billion on technology for surveillance. As the *Washington Post *reported, > “The border security plan includes unusual language mandating the purchase > of specific models of helicopters and radar equipment for deployment along > the U.S.-Mexican border, providing a potential windfall worth tens of > millions of dollars to top defense contractors.” > > The bill would also set up a procedure under which the 11 million human > beings who are in the United States without government permission could > become citizens in 13 years. To come “out of the shadows,” so-called > illegal immigrants would have to pay fines and taxes. The *New York > Times*notes that the “tough border security provisions must be in place > before > the immigrants can gain legal status.” > > In conventional terms, the bill seems fairly complete. So what does it > overlook? Several things: > > First, by nature all individuals -- not just Americans -- have rights. > Specifically, they have a natural right to engage in any peaceful activity, > that is, any conduct that does not aggress against other people. Among > those rights, therefore, is the right to travel and settle anywhere, so > long as no one else’s rights are violated. Considering that plenty of > Americans would eagerly rent apartments to and hire, say, Mexicans, > migration is included among the freedoms all people possess. > > Second, and closely related, an ancient and honorable principle holds that an > unjust law is no law at > all<http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/tgif-is-edward-snowden-a-lawbreaker/>( > *lex iniusta non est lex*). The idea is that no one should be compelled > to do what is unjust or be prevented from doing what justice requires or > allows -- such as freely moving about. Conservatives and progressives alike > are vexed that the 11 million U.S. residents without papers violated the > law to get here. How dare they! But according to the ancient principle, > what they violated was a not a law but a mere legislative decree, which > conflicts with the natural law and hence is contrary to justice and > freedom. It is an established maxim that no one is obligated to obey an > unjust law. Since that’s the case, we should not be talking about amnesty > for residents without papers; amnesty implies wrongdoing, and these human > beings did nothing wrong. They should be left free to go about their lives. > Incidentally, there also should be no amnesty for the government officials > who have harassed residents without papers rather than leaving them in > peace. “I was following orders” is no excuse. > > Third, the free-enterprise system, which conservatives claim to support > and pretend that we have, necessarily includes the freedom of business > owners to hire whoever is willing to work for them. It is the height of > hypocrisy for conservatives to call for harsh penalties on businesspeople > who hire “illegal workers.” When it’s a choice between free enterprise and > border control, most conservatives choose border control -- and that speaks > volumes. The flip side, of course, is that any individual should be free to > accept a job offer from any business owner. The government -- and all those > who want a border lined with armed agents and barbed wire-adorned walls -- > should butt out. > > Finally, if we mean what we say when we express sympathy for the world’s > poor, we cannot in good conscience maintain barriers to free immigration. > The foreign-born are people too, as deserving of a shot at the good life as > any American. When individuals move from capital-poor to capital-rich > societies, their productivity increases, enabling them to better provide > for themselves and their families. (They also present new opportunities for > exchange to the indigenous population.) > > It is cruel and hypocritical for America not to do the one thing that > would best lift the fortunes of the world’s poor and oppressed. > > http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/what-the-immigration-bill-overlooks/ > -- -- 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. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
