Many Americans see illegal immigration as an “invasion.” But at least some Americans are upset about the feds invading their property to keep out the migrants. From USA Today:
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff says public opposition to a host of new border security programs stalls government efforts to tighten security.
Such opposition ranges from Texas ranchers who don’t want border fences built on their property to northern border-state residents who don’t want to get passports to cross back-and-forth between Canada and the USA. Chertoff says he is frustrated by the growing number of “people who say, ‘Yes, protect us, but not if it inconveniences me.’ ”
In an interview shortly before the sixth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Chertoff said he considers it one of his “biggest obligations” in his remaining 16 months in office to eliminate the “not-in-my-backyard attitude” when it comes to relatively small costs and inconveniences.
Reasons like this persuaded me years ago that even when mass migration is political and invasive, dismantling the welfare state and privatizing as much land as humanly possible are the only responses that don’t lead to intolerable collateral damage in terms of liberties and property rights. And they’ll actually work in reducing the burden of politicized illegal immigration, rather than just adding more totalitarianism to America like the Read ID Act, employer sanctions, and other measures that probably wouldn’t even work. Thanks to Jason Ditz for the link.10:26 am on September 6, 2007 Email Anthony Gregory