Immigration: Letting illegals buy citizenship...would Paul support?

[rpwi]

Immigration is a tricky issue as most of us know... The most effective deterrents against immigration would be national ids, employer checks, and having institutions to self-report illegals (kind of like how the tax system forces us to self-report to the government). It would work (like it does say in Switzerland) but it would be a horrible yoke we the people would have to endure from the government and any national id system would inevitably be abused.

How about this for a more libertarian ideal... for $100,000 per person, an illegal (or any want-to-be immigrant) could fast-track buy their citizenship. Yes...most wouldn't be able to afford this directly...but they could if they borrowed the money from a private business or family to do this...just like buying a home. Say there is an interest rate of 4% offered by a financial institution...that means 4k per year in interest payments. Most illegals could easily pay this.

Advantage of this plan... Illegals no longer would have to live an underground existence. Say 11 million illegals payed for this...that would be over a trillion dollars...a lot of money to pay down the debt. This plan would mean the government wouldn't discriminate against those who wanted to come legally or not. No long waiting periods or bureaucracy...for those who are serous about becoming citizens of the US. Would you rather have an immigrant pay a coyote 3000 dollars (going rate) to merely attempt a dangerous border crossing or for the immigrant to safely pay 100k to government to alleviate the our national debt?

Think Paul would support the idea?

 

[otherone]

no.

 

[Enforcer]

This is the most absolutely ridiculous thread on this board.

In the first place, there is no such thing as an "illegal" when referring to an immigrant. There is no law that makes immigration "illegal." There is a statute (8 USC 1325) that is called "Improper Entry," which is a civil violation, not a crime. But, that statute presumes that there is a legitimate "proper" avenue that addresses the immigrant's fact situation in the first place (and unfortunately there is not.)

Either way, 8 USC 1325 is purely civil and it imposes no criminal penalties. As a matter of fact, that statute has to reference Title 18 of the United States Code (that deals with crimes) to impose criminal penalties for eluding the authorities, lying to them, committing fraud, etc.

According to the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

What we have are unalienable Rights, bestowed upon all men and among them are Life and Liberty. The founding fathers could not have been thinking about citizenship when those words were penned. It would be eleven years before there was an constitutional America to be a citizen of. Additionally, it was the founding fathers that were the immigrants, having come into this country without the permission of the Native Americans.

UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, unlike inalienable Rights cannot be bought, sold, traded, nor denied by mortal man. You cannot negotiate them away. For example, you cannot barter with your life and allow someone to take it if they promise to put your children through college. You cannot deny to immigrants the Right to come here and work and force them to become citizens.

Citizenship is a privilege. Taking advantage of an opportunity willingly offered is a RIGHT. You cannot pass a law infringing upon the Liberties of other human beings. Citizenship gives people certain privileges, such as being able to vote and being able to be let out of jail on their own recognizance.

"Where rights as secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which will abrogate them." Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966).

"Constitutional rights may not be infringed simply because the majority of the people choose
that they be."
U.S. Supreme Court in Westbrook v. Mihaly 2 C3d 756

Do immigrants have constitutional Rights? Try shooting one of them as they enter the United States without papers and you'll find out. If they have a Right to Life, they for sure have a Right to Liberty. Neither of them are granted by a majority of the people.

As for employers that hire the undocumented foreigner:

"No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." (Fifth Amendment to the Constitution)

Notice that all persons (as differentiated from citizens) are entitled to Liberty. We cannot take away the immigrants Liberties NOR can we criminalize an employer for offering a job to the person of his / her choice. It is not required that one become a citizen and have a say in our government just for the ability to exercise unalienable Rights.

To his credit, Ron Paul has acknowledged that our immigration laws need to be relaxed so as to allow the foreigner to come here. But, it will never become a law (in our constitutional Republic) that one must become a citizen in order to exercise a Right bestowed upon them by their Creator (whomever they deem that to be.)

 

[vechorik]

People should buy their way through the criminal justice system!!??!?!?
That's exactly what you propose.

 

[thoughtomator]

If Paul stands for one thing only it's the rule of law, without which there can be no liberty. Seriously doubt he would consider citizenship an object to be purchased.

 

[rpwi]

This is the most absolutely ridiculous thread on this board.

...How of curiosity do you think illegal immigration should be legalized?

 

[rpwi]

People should buy their way through the criminal justice system!!??!?!?
That's exactly what you propose.

When the law is setup to prevent economic harm, then economic compensation in the form of a payment to the government is a just counter-balance.

 

[rpwi]

If Paul stands for one thing only it's the rule of law, without which there can be no liberty. Seriously doubt he would consider citizenship an object to be purchased.

Keep in mind...buying citizenship would not be the exclusive way to get citizenship...we we would still have the old ways.

I'm surprised at the distaste for this plan. In classic economic theory, using market prices to ration scarce products and services is considered the logical thing to do. If person A is willing to pay more for a 1000 pounds of copper than person B...chances are he values the copper more and would probably more efficiently use the copper. Same principal should apply to immigration.

The reason we have immigration laws...is let's be honest...it's pretty much because many other countries have overpopulated and messed up their governments. Instead of these want-to-be immigrants fixing their problems locally...they look to a shortcut and find a country that has through half-way responsible behavior, doesn't have as many of their issues. So they don't fix their local issues and they bring their problems with them to the US. Most (not all) on this forum probably agree illegal immigration laws are needed on this basis (in the same way that almost every other country in the world has similar or much harsher immigration laws).

Now most of us agree that there needs to be avenues for legal immigration. Why not reward those who want to contribute to the US economy and government citizenship? Wouldn't you rather have these types of people immigrant than those merely here to eke out a few extra bucks from a crowded low-skill job market? Put another way... Let's say citizen X is living under an oppression regime...he would value being a citizen at say 180k. Citizen B voted for a backwards politician who is wrecking his country. To feed his irresponsibly large family he would like to work in the US...the monetary value that he would for US citizenship would be 50k. All things being equal, who would you rather have as an immigrant? Skilled workers and political dissidents? Or is it that we don't have enough janitors and need more unskilled immigrants?

Isn't it an attractive proposition that there would exist an avenue by which a want-to-be immigrant would bypass all the games/delays/regulations/coyotes/lawyers/etc...and merely just buy their citizenship ship and this helps pay down the debt?

 

[Enforcer]

...How of curiosity do you think illegal immigration should be legalized?

Being that no such thing as illegal immigration exists, I am in favor of a Guest Worker program with no automatic path to citizenship. Such a program would eliminate the perceived "need" to have a constitutional amendment doing away with birth citizenship since the children of Guest Workers would be whatever nationality the parents are.

 

[Enforcer]

Keep in mind...buying citizenship would not be the exclusive way to get citizenship...we we would still have the old ways.

I'm surprised at the distaste for this plan. In classic economic theory, using market prices to ration scarce products and services is considered the logical thing to do. If person A is willing to pay more for a 1000 pounds of copper than person B...chances are he values the copper more and would probably more efficiently use the copper. Same principal should apply to immigration.

The reason we have immigration laws...is let's be honest...it's pretty much because many other countries have overpopulated and messed up their governments. Instead of these want-to-be immigrants fixing their problems locally...they look to a shortcut and find a country that has through half-way responsible behavior, doesn't have as many of their issues. So they don't fix their local issues and they bring their problems with them to the US. Most (not all) on this forum probably agree illegal immigration laws are needed on this basis (in the same way that almost every other country in the world has similar or much harsher immigration laws).

Now most of us agree that there needs to be avenues for legal immigration. Why not reward those who want to contribute to the US economy and government citizenship? Wouldn't you rather have these types of people immigrant than those merely here to eke out a few extra bucks from a crowded low-skill job market? Put another way... Let's say citizen X is living under an oppression regime...he would value being a citizen at say 180k. Citizen B voted for a backwards politician who is wrecking his country. To feed his irresponsibly large family he would like to work in the US...the monetary value that he would for US citizenship would be 50k. All things being equal, who would you rather have as an immigrant? Skilled workers and political dissidents? Or is it that we don't have enough janitors and need more unskilled immigrants?

Isn't it an attractive proposition that there would exist an avenue by which a want-to-be immigrant would bypass all the games/delays/regulations/coyotes/lawyers/etc...and merely just buy their citizenship ship and this helps pay down the debt?

Do you not understand the concept of unalienable Rights? Or do you just ignore the challenges that you are faced with on this thread? You think that people that are forced to buy their citizenship just to exercise their unalienable Rights are going to make good citizens? As America imports more and more foreigners to compete in a global marketplace, you want the Guest Worker to displace you at the voting booth? Do you do drugs by any chance?

 

[vechorik]

When the law is setup to prevent economic harm, then economic compensation in the form of a payment to the government is a just counter-balance.

View this video please, then we'll discuss it.
"Immigration by the numbers -- world poverty and gumballs -- updated 2010 "

 

[otherone]

Do you not understand the concept of unalienable Rights? Or do you just ignore the challenges that you are faced with on this thread?

For some reason, folks forget that the restrictions on government that protect the freedom of the individual, as set forth in the Constitution, apply to EVERYONE.
Actually, I haven't heard a convincing argument against 'illegal' immigration yet....

 

[rpwi]

Do you not understand the concept of unalienable Rights?

That's not a logical, objective statue or provision in the constitution. It is from the Declaration of Independence which is not a legal document.

Or do you just ignore the challenges that you are faced with on this thread?

Well...this thread was more about ideas on how to reform the immigration system...not necessarily a debate as to whether we should prohibit or legalize immigration.

You think that people that are forced to buy their citizenship just to exercise their unalienable Rights are going to make good citizens?

Nobody would be forced to buy citizenship. Only immigrants looking for a fast-track process. This plan does not affect the current alternative avenues by which one can currently become a citizen. But specifically to answer your question about those willing to pony up money, then yes...I think they would make better citizens than those merely coming here to be economic leaches. Now you can still become an economic leach under my plan...you just have to pay the big leach in the US government 100k (that shouldn't be more than 5k a year...very easy to afford).

As America imports more and more foreigners to compete in a global marketplace, you want the Guest Worker to displace you at the voting booth?

That question doesn't make sense. I have no problem voting with citizens who have entered the country properly.

Do you do drugs by any chance?

I do not do drugs.

 

[rpwi]

For some reason, folks forget that the restrictions on government that protect the freedom of the individual, as set forth in the Constitution, apply to EVERYONE.
Actually, I haven't heard a convincing argument against 'illegal' immigration yet....

Imagine two herds of sheep. Herd one irresponsibly over-grazes while herd two does not. Should herd two be compelled to let sheep from herd one graze on their more responsibly managed pasture? Or should herd one fix the problems they created to start with?

 

[Diurdi]

Legal immigration. It worked 100 years ago, and it will work now as long as you put some checks on the welfare system to prevent welfare immigration.

 

[otherone]

Imagine two herds of sheep

Aesop was never my strong suit. How about a real example, with less collectivism?

 

[Enforcer]

View this video please, then we'll discuss it.
"Immigration by the numbers -- world poverty and gumballs -- updated 2010 "

That video is trash. Here is an excerpt of an article I did two years ago:

In 1982, the unemployment rate for the United States was nearly 10 percent. By 2000 the unemployment rate had dropped to below 4 percent in the United States.

http://www.miseryindex.us/urbyyear.asp

Several weeks ago talk show host, Neal Boortz, told his audience about a historical study he did. Boortz divided our nation's history into NINE time periods of 25 years (from the start of our nation to the current time.) Each of those 25 year periods represents the working lifetime of a person.

According to Boortz, he credited the Republicans and their tax initiatives for
America's most prosperous of those time periods. And Boortz said that between 1982 and 2007 was the time period when America had the most jobs, we made the most money, paid the fewest taxes and had the most in assets.

In 1986, Newswatch Magazine reported that, according to official immigration authorities, the United States had an estimated 10 MILLION people in the United States without papers AND an additional TWO MILLION coming in each year. AND between 1986 and 2000, the United States granted SEVEN AMNESTIES!

What I want to know is HOW did the United States have its most prosperous years in an era where we started out with 10 MILLION people here without papers, two million more entering annually, "open borders," AND SEVEN AMNESTIES? BTW, the relative numbers haven't changed in population growth nor in the numbers of people here without papers. Okay guys, we need an answer.

Since that article was written, we have witnessed foreigners leaving the United States, self deporting because in a free market economy, when the jobs are non-existent, there is no need for the foreigner to lounge around and do nothing in the U.S. when they can do it at home in a familiar setting.

 

[otherone]

in a free market economy, when the jobs are non-existent, there is no need for the foreigner to lounge around and do nothing in the U.S. when they can do it at home in a familiar setting.

+rep.
When there are no opportunities ('specially when one does not know the mother tongue) and no gub'ment cheese (etal), illegal immigration is less of an issue. Of course, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, should probably look for another teeming shore, as we haven't seen Freedom here for 150 years....

 

[Enforcer]

That's not a logical, objective statue or provision in the constitution. It is from the Declaration of Independence which is not a legal document.

Yes, the Declaration of Independence is a legal document. It is at the head of the United States Code Annotated AND it has been cited as authority in over a hundred court cases, including but not limited to federal court decisions.



Well...this thread was more about ideas on how to reform the immigration system...not necessarily a debate as to whether we should prohibit or legalize immigration.

Nobody would be forced to buy citizenship. Only immigrants looking for a fast-track process. This plan does not affect the current alternative avenues by which one can currently become a citizen. But specifically to answer your question about those willing to pony up money, then yes...I think they would make better citizens than those merely coming here to be economic leaches. Now you can still become an economic leach under my plan...you just have to pay the big leach in the US government 100k (that shouldn't be more than 5k a year...very easy to afford).

It would be easy to afford if you are Rockefeller or Bill Gates... or maybe Warren Buffett. 100k on a $10 an hour salary ($65 a day after taxes) is a good chunk of change Sport.

That question doesn't make sense. I have no problem voting with citizens who have entered the country properly.

You can enter the country properly and not have to become a citizen in many instances: students, white collar workers, seasonal agricultural workers... just NOT Guest Workers that are not in most of the visa categories.

I do not do drugs.

If you aren't doing drugs, your post doesn't make sense.

 

[Elwar]

Of all of the ways of getting money to the government I have concluded that the best way is to get it through the immigration process. It is the only way where force is not used and people have a choice. You can pay money and become a citizen, or you can just not be a citizen.

It happens all the time in smaller forms of government. These are often referred to as "clubs".

This also keeps the government honest because they want to encourage citizenship. If you have an oppressive regime, nobody will want to pay for citizenship. It would be a free market form of creating the best form of government as people shop for the best citizenship.