Being
Illegal
Or
Why Ron Paul Stands Head and Shoulders Above his Challengers on Immigration
by Rick Fisk
by Rick Fisk
DIGG THIS
The worst
rhetorical device used when discussing immigration and border control
is the ad hominem, "illegal alien." It is used daily but
its absurdity is rarely challenged other than to suggest it is a
politically incorrect term.
There is no
such thing as a person whose very nature makes him illegal. Nobody
is born into a state of illegality.
The U.S. Constitution
enumerates the rights we all possess as individuals. It doesn’t
grant them nor does it claim to be exhaustive or authoritative on
the subject. It is quite specific as to who possess rights: people;
persons. In other words, anyone who can fog a mirror has rights.
Geographical
location is thus not a barrier to the endowment of one’s rights.
We possess rights by virtue of being alive. Merely being alive can
never be construed, either morally or logically, to be an illegal
act.
An alien is
generally defined as a person who is a citizen of another country
or state. If you travel from Texas to Arizona, you are an alien
there until you have complied with Arizona law on the matter of
legal residency. That only means you are entitled to certain privileges
such as less-expensive college tuition, a driver’s license issued
by the state, etc. It does not mean that you are illegally in the
state until such time as you become "legal." A state doesn’t
have any legitimate power to deny your rights, but it can deny you
certain privileges if you are an alien.
Traveling,
without interference by some government official, is a fundamental
human right. When I was a kid, you could travel between Mexico and
the U.S. and between Canada and the U.S., without any identification.
Nobody demanded you produce ID. A trip down to Ensenada or Tijuana
was a regular occurrence for my family during the late 60s. Crossing
the border was no big deal and that was at the height of the Viet
Nam war. But today, we are told that this is no longer possible.
The government cannot obey the constitution because that would lead
to anarchy.
See, if you obey the Supreme Law of the Land, that is anarchy. (Orwell
would be so proud).
A border is
not a property boundary; it is a demarcation of legal jurisdiction.
A person, who crosses a border, has not committed a common law crime.
If he hasn’t trespassed, there isn’t a moral or just legal reason
to demand he show papers or submit to a search. By making this demand,
the government is insuring that those who want to retain their privacy
do so by trespassing.
The U.S. Constitution
grants no authority to harass people crossing the border unless
those crossing are obviously intent on committing harm. The only
authority given to congress relating to immigration was to determine
what constituted citizenship. Since it is allegedly supposed to
protect our rights, it has no legal authority to demand identification
or to detain us merely because we cross a border. We celebrate Ellis
Island, but we shouldn’t. It was a detainment camp that violated
the rights of everyone who entered even if they gladly accepted
it. Many people died there unnecessarily.
Now before
you get upset with me, I am not asserting that we don’t have an
immigration problem. We do, but, the current system is so corrupt,
some are considering further ruining the rights of Americans in
order to solve the problems created by it. Unfortunately, most of
the remedies proposed will either make things worse, or only treat
the symptoms.
The issue of
illegal immigration is a political minefield. There are many causes
and therefore no one solution can resolve them. As Dr. Paul has
said on multiple occasions, the first problem that has to be addressed
is birthright citizenship. You can’t do that without replacing or
amending the 14th amendment with something that repudiates
Supreme Court decisions holding that rights are conferred by birthright
citizenship.
The 14th
amendment is an abomination as was the legal opinion of the Supreme
Court that incented its creation. It isn’t terrible because it presumes
to tell states that their citizens have rights. It doesn’t do that
at all. It is terrible because it legitimizes the milestone Supreme
Court decision, Scott
v. Sanford. Justice Taney in that decision "discovered"
a legal loophole. You see, in spite of the plain words of the constitution,
Taney argued that "people" and "persons" really
meant "citizen." Since there was no legal decree making
people citizens by birth, Dred Scott, who was born in the U.S.,
had no rights. What Taney meant to say, was that Dred Scot, a black
man, was not human.
In a better
world, Congress would have impeached all of the Justices who supported
that decision. Instead, they proposed an amendment legitimizing
the decision though intending to remedy the injustice wrought by
the decision. The Dred Scot decision has never been overturned.
If you don’t believe me, read US
v Verrdugo-Urquidez decided in 1990. The court claimed that
"people" is a "term of art" meant to describe
citizens. In other words, rights are conferred by citizenship.
To work and
to travel internationally, you must prove to authorities that you
are a citizen. This renders you guilty until you can prove your
innocence. Due to other abominable laws and decisions, you are also
forced to pay to educate, feed and care for citizens who are such
by consequence rather than allegiance.
Healthcare
is the most oft-cited expense leading to bad immigration policy.
The charity hospitals, country doctors and house calls of the past
are but a memory as are reasonable costs for healthcare. It wasn’t
always so expensive. My father made ninety cents an hour in 1962.
He had no health insurance and didn’t need it. When I was born,
he was able to pay for the entire hospital bill, which included
a 3-day stay and a battery of drugs and test, in cash.
By 1990, when
I was 28, if you didn’t have insurance, you couldn’t pay for a hospital
birth in cash unless you were very well-to-do. Multiply the cost
of just one hospital birth today by the tens of thousands per year
who come here just to do that, and you have the initial cost of
birthright citizenship given to those who have no means.
States have
recently sought ways to curtail the cost of illegal immigration.
California passed a proposition some years back that was struck
down by the Supreme Court. Essentially the court said that privileges
can’t be denied anyone, including non-citizens. Too bad the court
isn’t as generous with rights.
A law passed
in Oklahoma,
sponsored by State Senator Randy Terrill, "terminates public
assistance benefits to illegals; it empowers state and local police
to enforce federal immigration laws; and it punishes employers who
knowingly hire illegal aliens."
Oklahoma
is no longer "O.K." for illegal aliens, Terrill observes. "When
you put everything together in context," he contends, "the bottom
line is illegal aliens will not come here if there are no jobs
waiting for them, they will not stay here if there is no government
subsidy, and they certainly won't stay here if they know that
if they ever encounter our state and local law enforcement officers,
they will be physically detained until they're deported. And that's
exactly what House Bill 1804 does."
Now, this may
seem like a great idea. It’s certainly working to rid Oklahoma of
inherently illegal people. A mass
exodus of the work force in Oklahoma is currently taking place
in advance of the law taking affect November 1, 2007. Parts of this
law deal with the problem, and parts simply trample on the rights
of all people working and living in Oklahoma, not just those considered
illegal.
The Oklahoma
law legitimizes the idea that it is moral and just to compel a person
to show his papers in order to earn a living. It also interferes
with business owners and presumes to tell them who they may hire.
Lastly, the law gives federal police powers to local authorities.
A side effect of this law will be the ruination of Oklahoma’s economy.
The wages for
unskilled labor will rise, but so will prices. In order to attract
workers, assuming that there are enough people to fill those roles,
businesses will have to raise wages and then prices to cover the
margin.
But that’s
not the worst thing that will happen. The worst is that the legislature
of Oklahoma will view the reduction in health and welfare costs
to the State as a surplus that they can spend elsewhere. It will
not only ruin the economy, but will also expand government.
Dr. Paul hasn’t
just offered a solution which seeks to treat a symptom. He has repeatedly
pointed out that the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy poses a hidden
tax on citizens as well as non-citizens; particularly those in the
middle and lower income brackets. By devaluing the currency through
inflation, immigrants who come here to work can’t afford healthcare
and education because the costs are so high. Then again, neither
can a large number of us "legal" people.
Healthcare
has enjoyed an attack from both monetary policy and government regulations,
making anything more than a cold or flu a potentially bankrupting
event.
Ron Paul’s
proposed solutions to the immigration problem make the most sense.
He isn’t suggesting we further encroach on the rights of individual
citizens. Immigration is one of the reasons given by some politicians
for the necessity of a national ID card but Dr. Paul argues convincingly
that it is not needed.
He also hasn’t
suggested that we immediately start deporting people. His call to
end birthright citizenship and welfare incentives, along with a
monetary policy which restores confidence and value to the currency,
attacks the root cause of systemic abuse rather than the symptoms.
However, this will have to be preceded by a fundamental shift in
the view that our rights are granted by virtue of citizenship rather
than birth.
If we don’t
adopt Ron Paul’s suggestions, and instead adopt the solutions proposed
by his challengers, being illegal will be the only option available
to us to preserve our own rights and liberties.
September
1, 2007
Rick
Fisk [send him mail] is
a 44-year-old software developer and entrepreneur. He is married,
has 3 children and resides in Austin, TX.
Copyright
© 2007 LewRockwell.com
Rick
Fisk Archives
|
