Focusing on multiracial activism and political advocacy. http://multiracial.com/site 2013-06-19T06:41:35+01:00 http://multiracial.com/site http://multiracial.com/site/images/M_images/joomla_rss.png text/html 2013-05-03T09:00:00+01:00 http://multiracial.com/site http://multiracial.com/site/content/view/1765/49/ May 3, 2013 Dear Member of Congress: We, the undersigned organizations, representing thousands of businesses and millions of Americans from all sides of the political spectrum, write to express our desire for greater accountability in the electronic employment verification (E-Verify) provisions of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (Title III of S. 744). We believe that a simple reform is needed to protect small businesses and their legal employees. Our concern is that the system could create unnecessary burdens on Americans by initially failing to confirm hundreds of thousands of authorized workers. If the present E-Verify error rate (0.26%) was applied nationally, it would fail to approve 156,000 authorized employees every year. As E-Verify’s rollout expands from just 7.5 percent of employers to 100 percent, it is vital to us that the error rate remains at least this low. Errors thrust employers into a state of regulatory uncertainty as to whether their new hire will be able to work or not. Many small employers lack the full time human resource staffs necessary to help workers correct these problems, and they will often incur significant costs attempting to do so. Errors also burden legal workers, forcing them to spend time and money sorting out the errors at federal offices. These errors will disproportionately impact authorized foreign-born workers and naturalized citizens, who are at least 20 times as likely to receive an error as a native born American, according to E-Verify’s most recent independent audit. Based on this number, one recent study found that foreign-born workers would receive 82 percent of all errors. This could create an incentive for discrimination against foreign-born workers. It also places an undue burden on the Social Security Administration, impacting seniors and those with disabilities who rely on a timely response from SSA. Basic accountability can protect both workers and employers. We propose that Congress require that E-Verify’s error rate remain at or below its current level before small businesses are forced to comply with the mandate. This gives the government over four years to work out any issues with the system, and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano has already testified that she believes that the current rate can be maintained. Requiring the government to consider the impact on small businesses and foreign-born workers before E-Verify implementation is just simple accountability. It will protect businesses from the bureaucratic limbo that comes from not knowing if a new hire will be able to work, and it will give authorized employees the confidence that their transition to a new job will not be subject to costly and unnecessary delays. For these reasons, we urge you to support this commonsense reform. Sincerely, Advocacy for Principled Action in Government American Civil Liberties Union American Immigration Lawyers Association American Library Association American Policy Center Arizona Employers for Immigration Reform (AZEIR) Arizona Small Business Association Campaign for Community Change CALEGISLATION CAMBIO CASA In Action Center for Digital Democracy Center for Financial Privacy and Human Rights Competitive Enterprise Institute Consumer Action Council of Smaller Enterprises Electronic Frontier Foundation Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights Liberty Coalition The Multiracial Activist National Center for Transgender Equality National Council of La Raza (NCLR) National Consumers League National Immigrant Justice Center National Immigration Forum National Immigration Law Center National Small Business Association OneAmerica The Rutherford Institute Patient Privacy Rights Privacy Activism Privacy Journal Privacy Rights Clearinghouse Privacy Times Rights Working Group SEIU Small Business Entrepreneurship Council Small Business Association of Michigan Small Business California Small Business Majority Taxpayers Protection Alliance UFCW International Union World Privacy Forum text/html 2013-02-20T09:00:00+01:00 http://multiracial.com/site http://multiracial.com/site/content/view/1764/49/ February 20, 2013Dear Member of Congress: We, the undersigned organizations, representing thousands of businesses and millions of Americans from all sides of the political spectrum, encourage you to vote against a mandatory national “E-Verify” electronic employment verification system established by S. 202 or in subsequent comprehensive immigration reform bills. Although we believe it is irredeemably flawed, we believe reasonable amendments can mitigate some of its negative effects. E-Verify imposes immigration enforcement costs on Americans. System errors will make hundreds of thousands of legal workers visit federal offices to exercise their right to work. Reform: Make E-Verify’s deployment contingent on due process for workers, a low error rate, and a strict limit on wait times for employers and employees to resolve database errors. E-Verify errors disproportionately impact minority groups: including young workers, married women, naturalized citizens, legal immigrants, and individuals with multiple surnames, including many Hispanics. Reform: Suspend E-Verify’s rollout if it has a discriminatory impact on these groups. E-Verify conscripts employers to act as immigration agents. According to Bloomberg Government, small businesses will spend $2.6 billion every year to implement the system. Reform: Avoid draconian penalties and allow businesses to correct paperwork errors. E-Verify will exacerbate identity theft. E-Verify will increase demand for stolen identities and enable thieves to use its database to determine the validity of a Social Security number. Reform: Send written notifications to any individual whose name is checked by E-Verify and prohibit E-Verify use without employees’ prior knowledge. E-Verify creates a de facto national ID system. Since the system permits identity verification, it can be used to monitor access to any public or private service based on immigration status or any other criteria. Reform: Prohibit the inclusion of biometrics and state motor vehicle records in the system and authorize E-Verify to be used only to determine work eligibility. The case for E-Verify presumes that Congress cannot create a system that prevents unauthorized entries at the border. This is wrong. Congress can and should address illegal immigration without sacrificing Americans’ privacy or imposing the costs of immigration enforcement on small businesses and workers. If an E-Verify mandate is enacted anyway, these reasonablereforms are essential. Sincerely, Advocacy for Principled Action in GovernmentAmerican Civil Liberties UnionAmerican Library AssociationBill of Rights Defense CommitteeBlacks in Law Enforcement of AmericaCenter for Digital DemocracyCenter for Financial Privacy and Human RightsCenter for Media and DemocracyCenter for Media JusticeCompetitive Enterprise InstituteConstitutional AllianceConsumer ActionConsumer Federation of AmericaCyber Privacy ProjectDefending Dissent FoundationDRUM - Desis Rising Up MovingElectronic Frontier FoundationEqual Justice AllianceThe 5-11 CampaignFormer Congressman Bob BarrThe Greater Cleveland Immigrant Support NetworkHispanic Leadership FundHome School Legal Defense AssociationInsituto de Educación Popular del Sur de California (IDEPSCA)La Asamblea de Derechos Civiles de MinnesotaThe Leadership Conference on Civil and Human RightsLiberty CoalitionMain Street ProjectMedia AllianceMedia Literacy ProjectThe Multiracial ActivistNational Alliance of Latin American and Caribbean Communities (NALACC)National Small Business AssociationNational Workrights InstituteNew York Immigration CoalitionPatient Privacy RightsPrivacy ActivismPrivacy JournalPrivacy Rights ClearinghousePrivacy TimesRights Working GroupThe Rutherford InstituteSouth Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT)Taxpayers Protection AllianceWorld Privacy Forum text/html 2006-09-22T09:00:00+01:00 http://multiracial.com/site http://multiracial.com/site/content/view/1763/39/ NO IMMIGRATION TROUBLE AT THE CHECK-OUT COUNTER (http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/immigration-trouble-checkout-counter/) by Scott McPherson (http://fff.org/author/scott-mcpherson/) September 22, 2006 To hear anti-immigrant types and their spokesmen tell it, any intelligent American only needs to look around to see all the trouble that immigrants cause us.A heterogeneous society just won’t work, they say. Too many problems with language differences and clashing cultures.And then there’s the burden on the school system; students from non-English-speaking countries have to be accommodated, often at great expense.Along with bilingual education, some people even want bilingual ballots. What’s next, the anti-immigrant asks, street signs in two languages?Law and order is being undermined as well, you should know. Illegal immigrants are “breaking into” to our country!But while demagogues and nativists exploit these alleged problems, a headline from the September 3 New Hampshire Union-Leader aptly demonstrates a major flaw in their arguments. “As the nation becomes diverse,” it reads, “so do grocery stores.”As that headline suggests, private enterprise seems to be handling the “immigration problem” just fine.Walk down the aisle of Compare Foods in Raleigh, North Carolina, the story says, and “the shelves are lined with mainstream products: neat rows of Del Monte canned fruit, Sun-Maid raisins, StarKist tuna, and Capri Sun juice pouches.”The next aisle over, however, is a different matter altogether. There you’ll find a large stock of Hispanic foods. “Traditional grocery stores and ethnic markets are adding new products, hoping to increase sales by making their stores one-stop shopping destinations,” the story reports.Compare Foods is run by Julian Hernandez. His clientele has traditionally been Spanish-speaking, but he wants to attract more English-speaking patrons, so he’s stocking “mainstream” products and employing bilingual cashiers. Signs around the store are written in both English and Spanish.The same thing is happening in the nearby town of Cary. At the Grand Asia Market, signs are written in Chinese and English and the employees are also bilingual. Two years ago they expanded to make room for more diversified stock and added a bakery and a restaurant. “We didn’t want to,” said the store’s owner, Jenny Chen, “but a competitor came into town.”According to the Food Marketing Institute, 90 percent of grocery stores in the country offer some kind of ethnic food items, reflecting the growing purchasing power of America’s immigrants. Hispanics are expected to spend around $992 billion a year by 2009; that same year, Asian Americans will be spending about $528 billion a year.“You have to find out what each group needs and then get it,” said Hernandez. Enough said.Major food manufacturers are even getting into the act. Kellogg’s, Campbell’s, and Hormel are experimenting with new products, advertising, and labeling to attract ethnic shoppers.Most important, no government edict was necessary to make any of this happen. While social engineers on both the political Left and Right fret over diversity, the marketplace seems to be a step ahead of them. Hoping to literally capitalize on people’s differences, many private businesses are radically changing the way they do business. Far from claiming anyone is “breaking in,” these intelligent capitalists are looking for ways to get more people into their stores.This admittedly can require a measure of accommodation that some store owners would rather not have to supply, but unlike government, they respond to these challenges with efficiency, diversification, and ingenuity, rather than handwringing, bureaucracy, and demagoguery.If a population made up of different kinds of people is unworkable, someone forget to tell the nation’s grocery stores. There, aisle by aisle, and in increasing numbers, Americans seem to be handling different cultures, languages, signs, and customs like grownups. When the ballots cast are dollars, the melting pot seems to bubble along just fine.No doubt it could be argued that supermarkets and other private businesses are radically different from public-sector endeavors, like schools. These have the burden of answering to elected boards, city councils, and state legislatures — not customers.This is no doubt correct. But given the deplorable state of public schools, and other government-run activities, shouldn’t that be just one more reason to free more of society’s undertakings from government command and control?Scott McPherson (http://fff.org/author/scott-mcpherson/)Scott McPherson is policy adviser at The Future of Freedom Foundation. An advocate of the Free State Project, he lives, reads, writes, plays music, and homeschools his kids in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. text/html 2008-01-18T09:00:00+01:00 http://multiracial.com/site http://multiracial.com/site/content/view/1762/27/ MORE VICTIMS OF IMMIGRATION CONTROL (http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/victims-immigration-control/) by Sheldon Richman (http://fff.org/author/sheldon-richman/) January 18, 2008 Consistent advocates of individual liberty often point out that government restrictions on free immigration violate the rights of people not born in the United States. Not only are they denied their freedom to move and improve their lot in life, but if they make it into the United States, they are subjected to police-state raids and exploitation because their illegal status denies them access to justice.While the immigrants themselves bear the brunt of U.S. immigration policy and will suffer even more regardless of who becomes president next year, they are not the only victims. Additional victims are to be found among American citizens. For example, business owners who are threatened with huge fines and imprisonment for hiring workers not approved by the government are victims. They have violated no one’s person or property. All they have done is engage in voluntary exchange with workers who do not have government permission to be here. Big deal! I thought we believed in free enterprise in this country. That the political party which claims to embrace free markets countenances employer sanctions and interference with the right of association speaks volumes. Could hypocrisy be more plain?But employers are not the only victims. Another group is found on the U.S.-Mexico border. They are property owners who refuse to let federal agents onto their property to determine whether the proposed border fence should be built there.The Associated Press reports,The government is readying 102 court cases against landowners in Arizona, California, and Texas for blocking efforts to select sites for a fence along the Mexican border, a Homeland Security Department official said…. With the lawsuits expected soon, the legal action would mark an escalation in the clash between the government and the property owners. The Bush administration wants to build 370 miles of fencing and 300 miles of vehicle barriers by the end of the year.A number of property owners have granted the government access to their land. But others have refused.The AP goes on to report, “The government may not need all the properties for the project. Officials need to determine which to buy or seize through eminent domain, or whether alternatives such as lighting, more Border Patrol agents, or technology would work better in those areas” [emphasis added].Apparently, at least some of 102 landowners fear the government will steal their land — using the euphemism “eminent domain” — to build a fence to keep independent immigrants out of the country. Who can blame them for not letting the federal agents on their land? Eminent domain is the doctrine that government is the ultimate landlord of the country and people hold their property at the pleasure of the state. If it wants the land, it can take it. To be sure, the Constitution says it has to pay for the land. But there can be no “just compensation” in a forced sale. What makes compensation just is consent, which is absent with eminent domain.Eloisa Garcia Tamez, 72, who owns three acres in El Calaboz, Texas, is heroically defiant: “I’m waiting for whatever they’ve got coming and I’m not going to sign. I’m not.”Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff says he doesn’t have all day. “The door is still open to talk if people want to engage with us, if they have some alternative ideas. But it’s not open for endless talk. We do need to get moving on this proposition,” he said.Well, isn’t that nice in the land of the free? The government wants to trespass on private property in order to determine whether it will seize it to build a Berlin-style wall to lock out people who are looking for work from willing employers. And the secretary wants no back talk from the mere landowners. He’s a busy man. His patience is limited. Say what he wants to hear or realize the awesome power of the state. It’s the Wizard of Oz blustering about eminent domain.Ignore the little men behind the curtain.Sheldon Richman (http://fff.org/author/sheldon-richman/)Sheldon Richman is vice president of The Future of Freedom Foundation and editor of FFF's monthly journal, Future of Freedom. For 15 years he was editor of The Freeman, published by the Foundation for Economic Education in Irvington, New York. He is the author of FFF's award-winning book Separating School State: How to Liberate America's Families; Your Money or Your Life: Why We Must Abolish the Income Tax; and Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State. Calling for the abolition, not the reform, of public schooling. Separating School State has become a landmark book in both libertarian and educational circles. In his column in the Financial Times, Michael Prowse wrote: I recommend a subversive tract, Separating School State by Sheldon Richman of the Cato Institute, a Washington think tank... . I also think that Mr. Richman is right to fear that state education undermines personal responsibility... Sheldon's articles on economic policy, education, civil liberties, American history, foreign policy, and the Middle East have appeared in the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, American Scholar,Chicago Tribune, USA Today, Washington Times, The American Conservative, Insight, Cato Policy Report, Journal of Economic Development, The Freeman, The World I, Reason,Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Middle East Policy, Liberty magazine, and other publications. He is a contributor to the The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. A former newspaper reporter and senior editor at the Cato Institute and the Institute for Humane Studies, Sheldon is a graduate of Temple University in Philadelphia. He blogs at Free Association (http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/). Send hime-mail (mailto:srichman@fff.org). text/html 2007-03-25T09:00:00+01:00 http://multiracial.com/site http://multiracial.com/site/content/view/1761/27/ IMMIGRATION POLICY REVEALS WHAT WE ARE (http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/immigration-policy-reveals/) by Sheldon Richman (http://fff.org/author/sheldon-richman/) March 25, 2007 The new compromise immigration bill is drawing lots of flak, not least from conservatives who object to granting amnesty to millions of so-called illegal aliens in the country. (I prefer to think of them as independent migrants.) Here I have to agree with the conservatives. The illegals shouldn’t be granted amnesty. Amnesty connotes forgiveness for doing something wrong — and they have done nothing wrong. Indeed, the government should be asking forgiveness from them.But they broke the law to get into the country. Did they? They weren’t under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government until after they entered the country. It’s amusing that conservatives think illegals are covered by the law but not by the Constitution. Talk about having it both ways. The Constitution and Bill of Rights do not distinguish between citizens and noncitizens. Besides, there is no obligation to obey an immoral law.But they came into our country without permission, conservative talker Tucker Carlson and his ilk say incessantly. Without whose permission? The whole population of the United States? The federal government? Why the assumption that either of those aggregates can have the right to give or withhold permission for someone to relocate here? This is a country, not a country club, and rights are natural not national. If someone wants to come here and can do so without trespassing on private property, that’s his right and his own business.Which bring us to something that conservatives need to explain. Why do they applaud “tough sanctions” against employers who hire illegals? Aren’t they advocates of free enterprise? It turns out they are as enthusiastic for social engineering as any state socialist. They are willing to curtail economic freedom when it clashes with their cherished goal of planning the composition of the U.S. population. With friends like these, free enterprise hardly needs enemies. Their demand for tamper-proof identification doesn’t flatter them either.If conservatives don’t like the guest-worker aspect of the immigration bill, I’m with them. But my reasons are different. How degrading such a program is. Mr. and Ms. Immigrant, we don’t want you to move here as a free person to live and work as you wish. But we are happy to bring you here for a few years to do some heavy lifting, after which we will send you back. Dash that.The nativists can’t quite make up their minds whether their chief fear about immigrants is jobs and wages or welfare. No need to lose sleep over either. Immigrants are consumers as well as workers, so they help expand the market and summon more production into existence. The fear about wages is misplaced, since the small effect is quickly offset by the demand immigrants add to the market and the increased investment they make possible.As for welfare, conservatives really ought to be ashamed of themselves. Even if immigrants wanted to live off the taxpayers (they don’t seem to), why would conservatives try to save the welfare state from such strains? There is no better way to convince the American people to dump the welfare state than to show them it is financially unsustainable.As for the stresses on schools and hospitals, it’s been said once but apparently needs to be said again: only government services abhor an increase in the number of customers. Private retailers don’t lobby against letting more consumers into the country.Border security is an issue for demagogues. Timothy McVeigh crossed state borders to commit terrorism in Oklahoma City, but you didn’t hear the “secure the border” mob call for internal passports and walls along state lines. Leave crime to the normal law-enforcement institutions.Immigration is an emblematic issue. What kind of country are we if we refuse to recognize such a basic right as the right to move?Sheldon Richman (http://fff.org/author/sheldon-richman/)Sheldon Richman is vice president of The Future of Freedom Foundation and editor of FFF's monthly journal, Future of Freedom. For 15 years he was editor of The Freeman, published by the Foundation for Economic Education in Irvington, New York. He is the author of FFF's award-winning book Separating School State: How to Liberate America's Families; Your Money or Your Life: Why We Must Abolish the Income Tax; and Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State. Calling for the abolition, not the reform, of public schooling. Separating School State has become a landmark book in both libertarian and educational circles. In his column in the Financial Times, Michael Prowse wrote: I recommend a subversive tract, Separating School State by Sheldon Richman of the Cato Institute, a Washington think tank... . I also think that Mr. Richman is right to fear that state education undermines personal responsibility... Sheldon's articles on economic policy, education, civil liberties, American history, foreign policy, and the Middle East have appeared in the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, American Scholar,Chicago Tribune, USA Today, Washington Times, The American Conservative, Insight, Cato Policy Report, Journal of Economic Development, The Freeman, The World I, Reason,Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Middle East Policy, Liberty magazine, and other publications. He is a contributor to the The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. A former newspaper reporter and senior editor at the Cato Institute and the Institute for Humane Studies, Sheldon is a graduate of Temple University in Philadelphia. He blogs at Free Association (http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/). Send hime-mail (mailto:srichman@fff.org). text/html 2011-06-14T09:00:00+01:00 http://multiracial.com/site http://multiracial.com/site/content/view/1760/39/ MIGRATION AFFIRMS HUNGER FOR FREEDOM (http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/migration-affirms-hunger-freedom/) by Fergus Hodgson (http://fff.org/author/fergus-hodgson/) June 14, 2011 The Mercatus Center has just released a tantalizing ranking of freedom for the American states (http://mercatus.org/freedom-50-states-2011), including individual state profiles and a feast of data analysis. Most compelling, though, is the insight that people know where freedom is, and they’re migrating to it.Over the 2000 to 2009 period, the difference between a state ranked in the bottom third, such as Connecticut at 38th, and a state in the top third, such as Iowa at 13th, translated to higher positive migration equal to 5.9 percent of population. In other words, over-governed states tend to have lost 3 percent of their population through domestic migration, while freer states tend to have added 3 percent to their population.Click here for a three-minute video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bQBAkhz_-A) explanation of the rankings and their findings.So people are voting with their feet, and they’re willing to uproot themselves for less state government.Other rankings of state freedom, such as that by the revealed preferences (http://www.economist.com/research/Economics/alphabetic.cfm?letter=R#revealedpreference),” as economists call them. The preference is for what the authors describe as an individual rights conception of freedom, which they sought to measure.“Individuals should be allowed to dispose of their lives, liberties, and properties as they see fit, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.”Further, people are migrating more for personal freedoms than for economic freedoms. Freedom of speech, homeschooling, legalized gambling, ease of gun ownership, and relaxed liquor and tobacco laws appear, for example, to have a greater influence than the magnitude of government spending and taxation.Economic freedom does appear to attract migrants, but the weighting of importance suggests a desire to rule one’s self, an intrinsic appreciation for liberty, even in the absence of superior economic opportunity. This is akin to the young adult who leaves the comfort of home for a dinky apartment, so he can follow his own rules.It’s also a reality check for the prominent nanny states — New York (50th), California (48th), and Massachusetts (46th). They are no longer the Meccas of immigration they once were. Each has suffered substantial outward migration, with New York the worst. Between 2000 and 2009, its net outward migration was equal to 8.9 percent of its population.But they only have themselves to blame. California, for example, continues to lose residents, but its neighbors, Nevada (6th) and Oregon (8th), have continued to receive migrants. Both Nevada and Oregon were the biggest improvers in the freedom rankings since the first 2007 data, rising from 16th and 22nd, respectively.Not only are people voting with their feet, they’re bringing their wallets with them (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/09/us-taxes-us-idUSTRE7485N020110509), and companies are doing the same (http://reason.tv/video/show/more-taxes-or-more-jobs-what-d). Even a few politicians have shown their true colors and started crossing state lines. In 2009 the as their various Ponzi schemes crumble (http://www.thepelicanpost.org/2011/04/13/research-looming-pension-crisis-ignored/), would do well to look at their Mercatus report card rather than introduce (http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/27296.html) or raise taxes (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-01-13/news/ct-met-tax-hike-what-it-means-0112-20110112_1_income-tax-tax-rate-tax-bill).Freeing a state and attracting migrants can actually save money due to lower enforcement costs. What is the cost of fewer health-insurance mandates, fewer gun controls, fewer occupational licences, and unfettered homeschooling. Nothing — only a willingness to give up the reins over people’s lives.As Nevada and Oregon attest, in just two years states can make substantial improvements relative to their peers and begin attracting residents. This competition for constituents could well be the leading mechanism for keeping government officials in check. Why else would tyrannical regimes outlaw departure?Let’s be thankful we have open borders between the states and at least some degree of federalism and local governance to enable competition.Thanks also go to those who prepared the state freedom ranking, which will hasten the accountability. Jason Sorens, one of the ranking’s authors, should know. He happens to be the founder of the Free State Project (http://freestateproject.org/), the ultimate liberty migration. His idea has already attracted almost 1,000 people to New Hampshire, and the organization hosts the annual Porcupine Freedom Festival (http://porcfest.com/) (which happens to be next week), perhaps the world’s largest gathering of libertarians.Fergus Hodgson (http://fff.org/author/fergus-hodgson/)Fergus Hodgson is Capitol Bureau Reporter for the Pelican Institute, and you can follow him on twitter. text/html 2011-05-12T09:00:00+01:00 http://multiracial.com/site http://multiracial.com/site/content/view/1759/27/ ENDLESS IMMIGRATION REFORM (http://fff.org/2011/05/12/endless-immigration-reform/) by Jacob G. Hornberger (http://fff.org/author/jacob-hornberger-2/) May 12, 2011 The title of today’s Los Angeles Times editorial says it all: “Get moving on immigration reform.”The operative word is “reform.” Here we go again. More calls for immigration reform after decades of immigration reform. I thought that Berlin Wall type of fence they were constructing down on the Southern border was supposed to be their final reform. I thought they said that the fence would solve America’s immigration woes once and for all.But of course, we have heard this reform claptrap for decades. Every few years, the immigration “crisis” surfaces once again. The anti-immigration crowd, reinforced by the mainstream press, goes into one of its periodic paroxysms of outrage over the fact that the United States is being “invaded” by the illegals.People get all upset and demand that something be done to protect our jobs and our nation’s borders.Enter the calls for reform. The anti-immigration crowd demands reform. The editorial writers demand reform. The members of Congress demand reform. The president demands reform. Every statist in the country demands immigration reform.But as soon as the reform is adopted, no one is happy. Almost immediately, the anti-immigration types start screaming about how the illegals are taking over America and not speaking English. The editorial writers pick up the theme and call for action to deal with the new immigration crisis. The statists go into emotional hyper-drive … and call for immigration reform.How many decades of this ridiculous nonsense must be go on before people finally realize that no reform is going to work? Let me repeat that: No matter whose reform is adopted, it’s not going to make one bit of difference. The reform will immediately begin producing a new series of crises, which will then produce more calls for reform.The reason that no immigration reform will ever succeed is because the basic immigration paradigm is fundamentally flawed. Immigration controls are nothing more than a system of socialistic central planning, one in which some government body plans, in a top-down command-and-control manner, the peaceful activities of people. Central planning was a core element in the socialist economic system of the Soviet Union, where people were beset by the same endless series of crises and reforms that Americans have been subjected to in the area of immigration.Why is immigration central planning inherently flawed. As the Austrian economists Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek pointed out, government planners lack the requisite knowledge and understanding that is entailed in the constantly changing valuations that are taking place in the marketplace. The more people whose activities are being planned, the worse the problem.In a free market, each individual is planning his own life and making his own decisions. In doing so, he is taking into consideration a multitude of factors that affect his own individual life, factors that are constantly changing. Since such factors are personal, subjective, and constantly changing for each individual person, there is no way that government planners can accumulate, process, update, and incorporate them into the central plan. In fact, as soon as the planners come up with a plan, it’s already seriously outdated because of constantly changing subjective valuations of the people whose activities are being planned.Consider an immigration central plan. It sets forth a quota for its concept of the ideal number of immigrants from a particular country. It sets forth what the qualifications that the immigrants should have, including educational background, work skills, amount of wealth, and age. At the same time, the planners are examining the domestic scene and evaluating what types of workers are needed in the marketplace.However, the plan always results in perversions and distortions because, again, there is no way that government planners can ever have the requisite knowledge to plan a complex human activity, especially a labor market involving millions of people from different parts of the world. The workers that American businesses need — numbers, types, background, etc. — are constantly changing.Why should it surprise anyone that there are immigrants risking their lives to cross the borders to seek to better their lives through labor? All that reflects is that the central planner’s plan was all screwed up. It failed to allocate a sufficiently large number of workers to a particular country in accordance with the subjective valuations of American employers. That’s because the planner can’t do it, and when he tries to do it, he is afflicted by what Hayek called the “fatal conceit.”Unfortunately, all too often it is the illegal immigrant — the person who has done nothing wrong in a moral sense — who pays the price for the planners’ fatal conceit, by becoming a fatality in the decades-long folly known as immigration controls.What’s the solution to perpetual immigration crisis and endless reform? Abolishing immigration controls and restoring a free market to immigration, which means opening the borders to the free movements of people (and goods and services). It is the only way to bring peace, prosperity, harmony, and morality to the immigration arena.Jacob G. Hornberger (http://fff.org/author/jacob-hornberger-2/)Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News’ Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show Freedom Watch. View these interviews at LewRockwell.com (http://www.lewrockwell.com/decoster/decoster13.html) and from Full Context (http://72.10.39.194/explore-freedom/article/full-context-interview-with-jacob-g-hornberger/). Send him email (mailto:jhornberger@fff.org). text/html 2011-05-27T09:00:00+01:00 http://multiracial.com/site http://multiracial.com/site/content/view/1758/27/ IMMIGRATION STATISM VS. ECONOMIC LIBERTY (http://fff.org/2011/05/27/immigration-statism-economic-liberty/) by Jacob G. Hornberger (http://fff.org/author/jacob-hornberger-2/) May 27, 2011 The Supreme Court has upheld an Arizona law that imposes harsh penalties on employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens. The penalty of violating the law entails the suspension of a firm’s business license. The law requires state companies to verify that employees are legal by using a federal database.Oh, for the days of substantive due process! That was the period of Supreme Court history when the Court protected people’s fundamental rights from infringements by both the federal government and the state governments. Federal infringements were declared unconstitutional by virtue of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment and state infringements by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.Or, perhaps I should backtrack a bit. It’s not that the Supreme Court won’t protect some fundamental rights from both federal and state assault. They certainly do. It’s just that ever since the Franklin Roosevelt statist revolution, the Court has refused to protect economic liberty from both state and federal infringements.For example, if Arizona had enacted a law punishing employers who gave speeches and handed out pamphlets opposing Arizona’s immigration law, the Supreme Court would have easily declared the law to be an unconstitutional infringement on the fundamental right of freedom of speech. The Court would have relied on the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause to protect people’s right to free speech.The same goes for religious liberty, another well-recognized fundamental right. If Arizona required people to attend church on Sunday, the Court would hold that the law is an unconstitutional infringement on freedom of religion.The problem arises with respect to economic liberty, which Supreme Court justices, like good, little statists everywhere, look upon not as a fundamental right but rather as a privilege bestowed on people by government.Look at that Arizona immigration law. How does it punish employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens? By revoking their licenses to do business in the state.Did you catch that? A license to do business! What’s a license? It’s a government-granted permission — a permission that must be bought and paid for and issued before someone can go into business.In other words, in order to sustain and improve their lives through labor and economic activity, people must ask for permission from the state. That’s as antithetical to the notion of fundamental rights as one can get.Did I mention that businesses in Cuba and China must also secure licenses from the state as a prerequisite to engaging in economic activity? Statists everywhere think alike.Do you see how different statists are from libertarians? Libertarians hold that a person has the fundamental, God-given right to not only speak his mind and decide whether to go to church but also the right to sustain his life through labor by engaging in economic activity, including the buying and selling of products and services, and deciding what to do with his own money.Given that economic liberty is a fundamental, God-given right, people should no more have to secure a license from the government to exercise that right than they should to give a speech or operate a church.After all, it’s your life, isn’t it? The government didn’t create you, God did or, if you prefer, nature did. Whatever talents and abilities a person has have come to him from nature and nature’s God, not from government. You have the inalienable right to use those talents and abilities by offering goods and services to other people, who have the right to choose to purchase them or not.Moreover, the fruits of your earnings belong to you, not to the government, and you have the fundamental, God-given right to do whatever you want with your own money. If you choose to use your money to hire Mexicans, Guatemalans, Englishmen, Frenchmen, or Americans, that is your right, just as it is their right to accept or refuse your offer of employment.That’s what economic liberty is all about. Unfortunately, we were all born and raised in an age of statism, one in which statists are everywhere, including on the Supreme Court. As such, we have to put up with such statist nonsense as occupational licensure and sanctions for associating with employees that statists don’t like or approve of.As statism generally continues heading people into endless economic woes, we can only hope that there will be a rediscovery and renewed appreciation for the principles of fundamental rights and economic liberty. Wouldn’t it be great to see the following amendment added to the Constitution: “No law shall be passed by either the federal government or the states respecting the regulation of commerce or abridging the free exercise thereof”?Jacob G. Hornberger (http://fff.org/author/jacob-hornberger-2/)Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News’ Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show Freedom Watch. View these interviews at LewRockwell.com (http://www.lewrockwell.com/decoster/decoster13.html) and from Full Context (http://72.10.39.194/explore-freedom/article/full-context-interview-with-jacob-g-hornberger/). Send him email (mailto:jhornberger@fff.org). text/html 2011-05-31T09:00:00+01:00 http://multiracial.com/site http://multiracial.com/site/content/view/1757/27/ IMMIGRATION AND LIBERAL HYPOCRISY (http://fff.org/2011/05/31/immigration-liberal-hypocrisy/) by Jacob G. Hornberger (http://fff.org/author/jacob-hornberger-2/) May 31, 2011 Let’s give credit where credit is due: When it comes to hypocrisy, liberals can be just as two-faced and duplicitous as conservatives.We’re all familiar with conservative hypocrisy. The favorite mantra of conservatives is: “Private property, free enterprise, and limited government.”Yet, the favorite programs of conservatives are: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public schooling, education grants, community grants, corporate bailouts, protectionism, empire, torture, the drug war, the war on terrorism, and all sorts of other things that violate the principles of “free enterprise, private property, and limited government.”What about liberals? Their favorite mantra is: “We love the poor, needy, and disadvantaged.” In fact, their favorite invective that they love to hurl at libertarians (who favor the dismantling, not the reform, of all welfare-state programs) is: “You just hate the poor, needy, and disadvantaged.”Well, according to this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/us/politics/30raid.html) in Sunday’s New York Times, the Obama administration has initiated a fierce crackdown on businesses that hire illegal aliens.But get this: They’re going easy on the immigrants, just deporting them instead of charging them with any crimes. Instead, they’re going after the American businessmen who commit the dastardly crime of hiring these poor people.The most recent example involves Chuy’s Mesquite Broiler chain in Arizona, which is popular among consumers for its Mexican food and margaritas. The feds busted the place and charged the restaurant’s two owners, Mark Evenson and his son Christopher, with crimes entailing a possible 80 years in jail.Only one of the 42 illegal aliens caught in the raid was charged with a crime, one unrelated to the raid. The others were detained on civil charges, which usually involve deportation, detained as material witnesses against the Evensons, or permitted to remain in the United States to legalize their status.Why the differentiation in treatment?Isn’t the answer obvious? Unlike conservatives, liberals love “the poor, needy, and disadvantaged.” This way, they can say to themselves, “We’re helping the poor by sending them home rather than putting them in jail, like Bush and his conservative cohorts were doing. We’re punishing the evil, greedy, profit-seeking, bourgeois, swine of capitalist pigs who are exploiting the oppressed workers.”Like I say, rank hypocrisy! Hurting people in the name of helping them. How do you get more two-faced than that?Those illegal aliens had entered into a mutually beneficial arrangement with Chuy’s restaurant. Both sides had struck a negotiated deal in which the immigrants were performing labor services in exchange for an agreed-upon wage. Both sides were happy with the deal, given that they both voluntarily entered into it.What better way to help the poor, needy, and disadvantaged than to let them have a paying job in the private sector, especially compared to forcing them to return home to a life of guaranteed poverty? When they’re free to accept gainful employment in the private sector, they make their own money, much of which they send back home to help the poor — e.g., spouses, children, parents, and grandparents.And let’s not forget: The money that is being used to pay the immigrants’ salaries belongs to the owners, not the government and not to society. Since it’s their money, the owners have the moral right to do whatever they want with it, including giving it to anyone they want, including immigrants who are working for them.Of course, given the liberal mindset that everything belongs to society and, therefore, subject to confiscation and redistribution, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that the concept of private ownership of property is anathema to liberals.What business is it of government to interfere with private work relationships that have been voluntarily agreed upon between employers and employees?Answer: No business at all.What have Obama and his liberal cohorts accomplished with their vicious raid on Chuy’s restaurant.They’ve hurt the immigrants, who now no longer have a job and are being forced to return to Latin America to suffer dismal economics conditions.They’ve hurt the owners, who must now spend tens of thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees and possibly spend years in a federal penitentiary for committing the dastardly crime of using their own money to hire some of the poorest people in the world.They’ve hurt customers of Chuy’s restaurant, given the good chance that restaurant operations will be disrupted and possibly ended by the federal assault on its private property and economic enterprise.Why can’t the feds simply leave people alone? Because despite their two-faced mantras, liberals, like conservatives, are consumed with destroying the lives and happiness of people who are simply trying to better their lives and the lives of their families through voluntary contracts and economic activity.Jacob G. Hornberger (http://fff.org/author/jacob-hornberger-2/)Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News’ Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show Freedom Watch. View these interviews at LewRockwell.com (http://www.lewrockwell.com/decoster/decoster13.html) and from Full Context (http://72.10.39.194/explore-freedom/article/full-context-interview-with-jacob-g-hornberger/). Send him email (mailto:jhornberger@fff.org). text/html 2011-06-20T09:00:00+01:00 http://multiracial.com/site http://multiracial.com/site/content/view/1756/27/ THE WAR ON IMMIGRANTS, FARMERS, AND CONSUMERS (http://fff.org/2011/06/20/war-immigrants-farmers-consumers/) by Jacob G. Hornberger (http://fff.org/author/jacob-hornberger-2/) June 20, 2011 The Los Angeles Times published an article (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-newlatinosouth-farmworkers-story,0,3768292.htmlstory) last week about another travesty in the war on immigrants. Georgia farmers are having trouble finding people to pick their fruit crops. The likely reason is that Georgia’s new harsh immigration law, set to take effect in July, is scaring off illegal immigrants.The travesty is not a new one. A few years ago, California farmers had to watch their crops rot in the fields owing to a scarcity of workers to harvest them. Again, it was the war on immigrants that was dissuading workers from coming in and harvesting the crops.A statist would respond, “Oh, Jacob, you must be mistaken. Everyone knows that illegal aliens steal jobs from Americans. Now that Georgia’s anti-immigrant bill is set to go into effect, the Georgians who have had their jobs stolen from them are going to be rushing back to reclaim them.”Well, not so, Mr. Statist. It didn’t happen in California and it isn’t happening in Georgia. Notwithstanding a high unemployment rate in Georgia, the Timesarticle points out, “Few here believe that native Southerners, white or black, wish to return to the land their ancestors once sharecropped or tended in bondage.”For that matter, it doesn’t appear that any Americans who support the war on immigrants or who purport to love the poor are rushing to help the farmers whose blackberry crops must be harvested right away.Let’s analyze the issue from a libertarian perspective.The farmers own and operate their farms, just as they own any money they have in the bank for operating expenses. As owners, they have the moral right to do whatever they want with their property and their money. That’s what private property is all about.The farmers also have the moral right to associate with anyone they want. That’s what freedom of association is all about.The farmers also have the right to entered into any mutually beneficial economic arrangement with anyone else. That’s what economic liberty, freedom of contract, and free enterprise are all about.The immigrants have the moral right to sustain and improve their lives through labor. They have the moral right to travel and move. They have the moral right to enter into mutually beneficial economic arrangements with others. They have the moral right to accumulate wealth and do whatever they want with it. That’s what self-ownership and economic liberty are all about. They also have the moral right of freedom of association.For years in Georgia, as elsewhere across the country, farmers and illegal immigrants had been entering into what they both considered to be a mutually beneficial arrangement. The farmer used his money to make a wage offer to the immigrant. The immigrant, in turn, would decide whether he wanted to accept the offer or go elsewhere.If a deal was struck, both sides benefitted because they both were giving up something the valued less for something they valued more. The farmer was giving up money for wages in return for the prospect of high profits on the sale of the crops. The worker was giving up his time and energy in return for the money he was receiving from the farmer.The agreed-upon wage was far above what the worker would receive in Latin America. Many times, he would send a large portion of his wages back to his wife and kids or parents or other family members back home. What better way to help the poor than that?Now, I ask you: What business does the government, state or national, have interfering with the exercise of fundamental rights? This is purely a private transaction between the farmer and the immigrants. It’s none of the government’s business.The Declaration of Independence, which Georgians and other Americans will soon be celebrating with much fanfare, holds that all people — not just Americans — are endowed with certain fundamental, natural, God-given rights with which no government can legitimately interfere. These fundamental rights include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They also include the right to private property, the right to associate with and contract with others, the right to accumulate wealth and decide what to do with it, and the right to become an owner of private property.Wouldn’t it be nice if this Fourth of July Americans were to ponder the profound words that Jefferson enunciated in the Declaration, words that expressed the mindset and sentiments of the British citizens who rebelled against their own government, in part because that government was restricting immigration into the British colonies? It wouldn’t help those Georgia farmers or their consumers this year, but it could move us closer to getting American on the right road in the future — a road toward freedom, free markets, peace, prosperity, harmony, and moral, ethical, and Christian values.Jacob G. Hornberger (http://fff.org/author/jacob-hornberger-2/)Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News’ Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show Freedom Watch. View these interviews at LewRockwell.com (http://www.lewrockwell.com/decoster/decoster13.html) and from Full Context (http://72.10.39.194/explore-freedom/article/full-context-interview-with-jacob-g-hornberger/). Send him email (mailto:jhornberger@fff.org). text/html 2011-06-29T09:00:00+01:00 http://multiracial.com/site http://multiracial.com/site/content/view/1755/27/ BUCHANANS ANTI-IMMIGRATION RANT (http://fff.org/2011/06/29/buchanans-antiimmigration-rant/) by Jacob G. Hornberger (http://fff.org/author/jacob-hornberger-2/) June 29, 2011 Conservative Pat Buchanan went off on one of his periodic anti-immigration rants in an article yesterday entitled Say Goodbye to Los Angeles (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=316201). In the article, Buchanan laments the fact that thousands of people in the Rose Bowl were cheering for Mexico in a soccer match against the United States.Today there are more than a million Americans living in Mexico. Living permanently, as in retirement. Im willing to bet that 99 percent of them still cheer for American sports teams. In fact, an article I once read about American retirees in Mexico observed that many of them were not assimilating, were hanging out only among themselves, having outdoor cookouts with hot dogs, and not learning Spanish. Worst of all, I am confident that they all were retaining their U.S. citizenship even though they planned to live the rest of their lives in Mexico.Who cares? Why not just leave those Americans alone? Arent they living life the way they want to? Why should anyone force them to learn Spanish, to assimilate among the local populace, to eat tacos and enchiladas, to cheer only for Mexican sports teams, and give up their U.S. citizenship? Why cant they simply be Americans who have chosen to live in another country?Consider foreign tourists to the United States. Suppose the borders were opened during the summer months to anyone from Mexico who wished visit the United States and buy whatever he wanted. Would very many Americans care that the tourists couldnt speak English? Do we care today when foreign tourists come over here and cant speak English well? Arent most Americans helpful and courteous when foreign tourists ask for help and cant speak good English? Isnt that the way American tourists like to be treated when they visit foreign countries?Wouldnt American businesses bend over backwards to accommodate an enormous influx of summer customers? Isnt that what profit-maximization is all about pleasing the customer? Surely, Wall-Mart wouldnt lament the fact that its stores were being flooded by people who couldnt speak English well, would it?Now, suppose the length of time for Mexican tourists is extended from 3 months to one year? Suppose its indefinite that is, a tourist can stay as along as he wants. Lets even say that theyre free to work while theyre here and even open up businesses.How would that be different from millions of Americans working or retiring in Mexico or Costa Rica or France or Italy or Japan? So what if people of one country are living and working in another country. What difference does it make?So what, for example, that there are American lawyers and businessmen living in Paris, conducting law or business on an international scale. So what that they retain their American citizenship. So what that they root for American sports teams. What does it matter? France retains its sovereignty and its borders. French citizens retain their French citizenship. Sure, its possible that Americans living in Paris might influence the French into adopting some American customs and vice versa. Why is that bad?In 1848, the U.S. government eagerly incorporated the entire northern half of Mexico into the United States. I sometimes wonder what people like Buchanan think about that. Do they wish that the United States had never done that? Do they wish that the inhabitants had been forcibly sent south into the half of Mexico that was not being stolen? Do they wish that the United States return the lands, along with all people of Mexican ancestry? Or do they wish that the United States keep the land but force all Hispanics to move to Mexico?When one nation takes over half of a foreign country, doesnt it stand to reason that such lands are going to retain the influence of the foreign nation for a long time, perhaps forever?The lands that the United States took from Mexico had been under Mexican, Spanish, and French law for centuries. The inhabitants spoke Spanish. The cities and street signs were in Spanish. Even Buchanan himself says, Goodbye to Los Angeles, when he could have instead chosen to speak English by saying, Goodbye to The Angels, which only goes to show how deeply entrenched Mexican language and culture still are inside what used to be Mexico itself.Thats what all too many Americans like Buchanan tend to forget. This was Mexico that were talking about. Imagine if the United States started another war with Mexico to take over the other half the half that was not taken in the Mexican War. How long would it take to Americanize the other half of Mexico? A very long time!Buchanan obviously thinks its a bad thing that there are so many Hispanics in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas that is, in the lands that used to be the northern half of Mexico and elsewhere in the United States. He laments that the number of Hispanics in the USA will rise from todays 50 million to 135 million.Unfortunately, Buchanan doesnt explain why more Hispanics is necessarily a bad thing. Are more Anglos in Mexico a bad thing too? I wish Buchanan would visit my hometown of Laredo, Texas, which is located along the Rio Grande and, needless to say, was once part of Mexico. Id estimate that 97 percent of Laredoans are Hispanic. Many of the daily conversations are in Spanish. Many of the street names are in Spanish. Many of the signs in the stores are in Spanish. In fact, Id estimate that at least 20 percent of the populace cannot speak English.Thats how long a nations culture lasts when its forcibly taken over by another country. Yet, Laredo gets along fine. Its actually a quite harmonious and prosperous city in the United States. As a matter of fact, Buchanan would be pleased to know that Laredo has the biggest celebration in the country (http://wbcalaredo.org/home) celebrating George Washingtons birthday. Yes, you read that right the father of our country, not the father of Mexico!On the other hand, it would undoubtedly disturb Buchanan to know that there are people in Laredo who have close family ties to relatives on the southern side of the Rio Grande. Some Laredoans maintain a closer watch on events in Mexico than they do here in the United States. Some might even say that their hearts are in Mexico, just as Americans living in Mexico might say that their hearts are in the United States. So what? By visiting Laredo, Buchanan might learn to conquer his fears of a Hispanic takeover of America.At a time when all forms of statism are cracking apart all over the world, someone must lead the world out of the statist morass. That job lies with us libertarians, the only ones who stand consistently for individual liberty, private property, and free markets in all parts of life, including the free movements of goods, services, and people across borders.Jacob G. Hornberger (http://fff.org/author/jacob-hornberger-2/)Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News’ Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show Freedom Watch. View these interviews at LewRockwell.com (http://www.lewrockwell.com/decoster/decoster13.html) and from Full Context (http://72.10.39.194/explore-freedom/article/full-context-interview-with-jacob-g-hornberger/). Send him email (mailto:jhornberger@fff.org). text/html 2011-06-30T09:00:00+01:00 http://multiracial.com/site http://multiracial.com/site/content/view/1754/27/ IMMIGRATION CONTROLS AND A POLICE STATE (http://fff.org/2011/06/30/immigration-controls-police-state-2/) by Jacob G. Hornberger (http://fff.org/author/jacob-hornberger-2/) June 30, 2011 Yesterday I commented (http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2011-06-29.asp) on conservative Pat Buchanan’s recent anti-immigration rant. Today, I wish to comment on an aspect of immigration controls that both conservatives and liberals rarely confront — the federal government’s police-state powers that come with enforcing immigration controls.I’d venture to say that most Americans who are upset with the abusive tactics of the TSA at airports have no idea that Americans who live along our country’s southern border have had to deal with this type of federal abuse for decades — from the Border Patrol and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Over the years, the mindset among Americans living elsewhere in the country, I think, has been, “Oh, well, it’s not happening to me, so why should I care?”Consider, for example, the fact that in Texas the Border Patrol has the legal authority, under the guise of immigration controls, to arbitrarily enter onto any private property that adjoins the Rio Grande. I have personal experience here. I grew up on a farm that adjoined the river. We could easily see Mexico whenever we drove down to the river to check on our irrigation pump.The Border Patrol had the authority to come onto our farm without asking us, in the perpetual quest for illegal aliens. If we closed the front gate to our farm, they would simply open the gate and drive through, driving and searching all over our farm. If we put a lock on the gate and failed to provide them a key, they’d simply shoot off the lock and just enter onto the property.No warrant. No judicial process. Just simple trespass onto our private property and everyone else’s along the border.Now, I am certain that Pat Buchanan, like every other conservative who favors immigration controls, would be the first to stand up in front of a Heritage Foundation audience and exclaim proudly, “I’m a believer in private property and free enterprise.”I’m also sure that your standard liberal who favors immigration controls would stand up in front of a Brookings Institute audience and exclaim proudly, “I’m a believer in privacy and the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable and warrantless searches and seizures.”But with immigration controls, which both conservatives and liberals have long favored, comes enforcement. And warrantless entry onto private property by the Border Patrol has long been part and parcel of that enforcement.Oh, I should mention that the Border Patrol’s power to arbitrarily enter onto people’s private property extends not just to farms and ranches that actually adjoin the border but also to private property that is miles away the border. They call it the “functional equivalent of the border.”There are also those infamous border-control checkpoints inside the United States to consider. No, I’m not referring to the passport/drug-war checks at the international bridges that span the Rio Grande or other border crossing points. I’m talking about those official checkpoints that the feds have established entirely inside the United States. For example, at the airport in Laredo and on the highway heading north to San Antonio, the Border Patrol and INS are there, asking travelers for their papers and searching their cars and personal belongings — even though most of the people are traveling entirely within the United States.For Anglo travelers, there is usually no problem, so long as they show the proper deference to federal officials. Light-skinned Hispanics dressed nicely or driving a late-model car are usually waved through. But if an Hispanic is dark-skinned or obviously poor or riding the bus, he had better be carrying his passport because he is going to be closely checked and returned to Laredo if his papers are not in order or, even worse, deported to Mexico.Or consider the countless drivers along the border who are arbitrarily stopped by roving Border Patrol agents. A person can just be traveling along a highway and be suddenly pulled over by the Border Patrol and ordered to open up his trunk. No warrant. Just arbitrary stops based on such capricious standards as “The car was riding a bit low” or “The driver was going a bit too slow.”How are all these things reconcilable with a free society? They’re not. Instead, they are the epitome of a police state. They did these things in the Soviet Union. They do them today in Cuba and North Korea.Where do conservatives and liberals stand with respect to these police-state policies? Usually they remain silent about them. But they might well favor them or they might decry them. But what’s important to keep in mind is that such policies are an integral part of enforcing immigration controls. Saying that one is in favor of immigration controls and against a police state is like saying that one favors lightning and opposes thunder.Jacob G. Hornberger (http://fff.org/author/jacob-hornberger-2/)Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News’ Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show Freedom Watch. View these interviews at LewRockwell.com (http://www.lewrockwell.com/decoster/decoster13.html) and from Full Context (http://72.10.39.194/explore-freedom/article/full-context-interview-with-jacob-g-hornberger/). Send him email (mailto:jhornberger@fff.org). text/html 2011-11-11T09:00:00+01:00 http://multiracial.com/site http://multiracial.com/site/content/view/1753/27/ WHAT IMMIGRATION PROBLEM? (http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/immigration-problem/) by Sheldon Richman (http://fff.org/author/sheldon-richman/) November 11, 2011 Arizona, Alabama, and Georgia have each enacted stringent laws aimed at curbing illegal immigration. Before saying more, lets be clear about the alleged problem. What is an illegal immigrant? Its 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 Americas substantially libertarian origins. This is really quite sad.Imagine if we Americans needed government permission to move from state to state. Wed 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 nativist’s cant 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, lets 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 whoaccepts 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.Sheldon Richman (http://fff.org/author/sheldon-richman/)Sheldon Richman is vice president of The Future of Freedom Foundation and editor of FFF's monthly journal, Future of Freedom. For 15 years he was editor of The Freeman, published by the Foundation for Economic Education in Irvington, New York. He is the author of FFF's award-winning book Separating School State: How to Liberate America's Families; Your Money or Your Life: Why We Must Abolish the Income Tax; and Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State. Calling for the abolition, not the reform, of public schooling. Separating School State has become a landmark book in both libertarian and educational circles. In his column in the Financial Times, Michael Prowse wrote: I recommend a subversive tract, Separating School State by Sheldon Richman of the Cato Institute, a Washington think tank... . I also think that Mr. Richman is right to fear that state education undermines personal responsibility... Sheldon's articles on economic policy, education, civil liberties, American history, foreign policy, and the Middle East have appeared in the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, American Scholar,Chicago Tribune, USA Today, Washington Times, The American Conservative, Insight, Cato Policy Report, Journal of Economic Development, The Freeman, The World I, Reason,Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Middle East Policy, Liberty magazine, and other publications. He is a contributor to the The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. A former newspaper reporter and senior editor at the Cato Institute and the Institute for Humane Studies, Sheldon is a graduate of Temple University in Philadelphia. He blogs at Free Association (http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/). Send hime-mail (mailto:srichman@fff.org). text/html 2011-12-20T09:00:00+01:00 http://multiracial.com/site http://multiracial.com/site/content/view/1752/39/ FRUSTRATED WITH IMMIGRANTS? JUST WAIT UNTIL THEY LEAVE (http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/frustrated-immigrants-wait-leave/) by Fergus Hodgson (http://fff.org/author/fergus-hodgson/) December 20, 2011 The enforcement of laws against illegal immigrants remains a bone of contention between states and the federal government (and on the GOP presidential campaign trail (http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/18/politics/gingrich-immigration/?hpt=us_c2)), and the U.S. Supreme Court has now agreed to weigh in (http://www.nlc.org/news-center/nations-cities-weekly/articles/2011/december/supreme-court-to-hear-arizona-immigration-case) on the issue. There is, however, an irony to this battle that appears to be lost on deportation proponents: many people are already leaving voluntarily or choosing not to come.That’s right, for the first time in sixty years (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/07/06/world/americas/immigration.html?ref=immigrationandemigration), net illegal migration from Mexico has gone to zero; it may even have tipped into the negatives. Approximately six out of ten illegal immigrants in the United States originate from Mexico, but in just the past three years apprehensions along the southern border have fallen by 53 percent (http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/newsroom/news_releases/national/12122011.xml). In fact, the Pew Hispanic Center puts the current number of illegal immigrants at 11.2 million (http://www.pewhispanic.org/2011/12/01/unauthorized-immigrants-length-of-residency-patterns-of-parenthood/), down from a peak of 12 million in 2007.A further testament to the reversal is that the demographics of illegal residents are changing. Just 15 percent of today’s illegal residents arrived within the last 5 years, for example; it was 32 percent in 2000 (http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2011/12/2011-patterns-of-parenthood-02.png).And its not only illegal immigrants eyeing distant lands. The Census Bureaus net international-migration measure has been trending downward since 2000 (PDF (http://www.hist.umn.edu/~rmccaa/ipumsla/havana_2010/acs_velkoff_nim_cuba_11-12-10.pdf), p. 17). Even if the accuracy of that data may be questionable, anecdotes abound (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/chinese-immigrants-reportedly-leaving-u-s-because-the-american-dream-is-dead/) of immigrant communities packing up shop and heading home. The Atlantic magazine went so far as to call this trend The End of Chinatown (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/12/the-end-of-chinatown/8732/).As fewer immigrants come, legal or otherwise, and more return home, two grains of truth become apparent for those willing to observe. First, immigration is not the cause (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYk00Ufiqb4) of Americas problems, so its reversal will do nothing to restore economic prosperity or individual liberty. Second, America is no longer the shining city on a hill that many people revere. It is becoming less free and prosperous (http://lockerroom.johnlocke.org/2011/10/28/americas-free-fall-in-economic-freedom/) at an alarming rate, and the changing immigration flows reflect that.Fears about immigrantsOne leading fear regarding immigrants is that they tend to replace domestic workers. This, of course, assumes individuals born in a certain location or holding certain government-granted privileges are more valuable than other individuals. However, if we put aside the nativism, arecent incident (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/23/BUGE1LKC98.DTL) in Asheville, North Carolina, shows that this fear is unfounded.To comply with the E-Verify (http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/gc_1185221678150.shtm) program and avoid legal charges, a wholesaler of flowers fired more than 60 illegal immigrants in 2009. Two years later, despite 8 percent unemployment in the county and higher than 10 percent unemployment in the state, the owner has been unable to find replacements. Those who want to work fail to pass E-Verify, and those that pass fail to work, heexplained (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/a-verification-system-for-new-hires-backfires-10202011.html).The work ethic of these immigrants, and their willingness to accept menial labor rather than pursue welfare (PDF (http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbp/tbp-032.pdf), p. 5), puts many native-born Americans to shame.Okay, but perhaps their departure will require employers to pay better wages to attract locals. That does make some economic sense, but as the warehouse owner points out, Without comprehensive immigration reform, [verification requirements are] going to kill agriculture. In other words, some ventures are simply not viable at a higher cost of labor.And, as Bryan Caplan of George Mason University has noted (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYk00Ufiqb4), Immigration has little or no effect on overall wages. Educated Americans are primarily customers, not competitors, of new arrivals. So pushing foreigners out in the hopes of increasing the employment of native-born Americans is a fools errand.What about crime then shouldn’t that be subsiding as the number of immigrants decreases? Perhaps this will be surprising to some, but evidence suggests that admitted (http://youtu.be/cNIR63oRByk?t=2m25s) that they found no strong evidence one way or the other for the notion that immigrants commit either more or less crime than the American population.Why is immigration falling?The sad part of this story is that people are leaving (or not coming in the first place) because the American dream is on the way out. Migration follows economic freedom (http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/migration-affirms-hunger-freedom/), and the United States is no longer the freest nation on earth far from it. In fact, according to the Fraser Institute ranking, the United States has less economic freedom than Canada and the United Kingdom; and it fell four places, from the sixth to the tenth position, in the latest ranking (based on 2009 data; PDF (http://www.freetheworld.com/2011/reports/world/20-SEP-2011_INTERNATIONAL-NEWS-RELEASE.pdf)).Much of this decline is a result of higher spending and borrowing on the part of the U.S. government, and lower scores for legal structure and property rights, the release notes. Of course the many trillions of official debts and unfunded liabilities (http://lockerroom.johnlocke.org/2011/11/17/federal-debt-cracks-15-trillion-officially-but-thats-not-even-half-of-it/) are hardly enticing to would-be immigrants or Americans. Who would want to be stuck with that tab?Fergus Hodgson (http://fff.org/author/fergus-hodgson/)Fergus Hodgson is Capitol Bureau Reporter for the Pelican Institute, and you can follow him on twitter. text/html 2012-01-23T09:00:00+01:00 http://multiracial.com/site http://multiracial.com/site/content/view/1751/39/ BEYOND THE DREAM ACT (http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/dream-act/) by Fergus Hodgson (http://fff.org/author/fergus-hodgson/) January 23, 2012 We’ve all heard of the policy centerpiece for immigration-reform proponents, the DREAM Act. The battle over this legislation, which would offer a path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants, has labored on for more than a decade now; but, rather than being enacted, the bill has failed repeatedly. Sadly, the legislative battle has stoked animosity instead of intelligent dialogue between opponents and proponents of immigration reform and hardened the resolve of both sides.DREAM Act applicants would need to have entered the United States prior to age sixteen and resided in the country for at least five years. Then, during a six-year period of temporary legal residency, they would have to complete either a two-year college degree or serve two years in the military before gaining eligibility for permanent resident status.Recently, one potentially eligible individual confronted (http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/01/18/defying-mitt-romney-lucy-allain-fights-for-dreamers/) Mitt Romney, a candidate in the Republican presidential primary. “Why are you not supporting my dream?” she asked. Romney, who has vowed to veto the legislation and earned the title of “enemigo de los soñadores (http://www.quepasa-migente.com/noticias/opinion/1283-romney-el-enemigo-de-los-sonadores)” (enemy of the dreamers), replied that he could not support illegal immigration. The questioner then publicly accused Romney of not supporting immigration at all.So, what resulted, other than the clip of this confrontation becoming popular on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4AXnUlrLq0)? Is Romney going to back down? Hardly. Additionally, given that he continues to preach (http://www.5min.com/Video/Romney-Doubles-Down-on-Dream-Act-517248670) the benefits of legal immigration, he and his supporters are likely to dismiss such attacks as coming from ill-informed individuals.Isn’t this interplay familiar and predictable? One person argues for legal immigration only — ignoring that the legal process is arbitrary (http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/immigration-chaos/), onerous, and wasteful — while the other attacks back viciously as though respect for a legal process means scorn for all immigrants.For those who seek a truly open immigration policy, the DREAM Act does not appear to be bringing us any closer to that outcome. That is because the legislation does not address the underlying problem — the legal immigration process — and because the heated argument over it impedes an elevated dialogue.Regardless of whether or not you favor passage of the DREAM Act, ten years of failure suggest that a more nuanced approach is in order, one that focuses on public understanding.Even if Congress were to pass the DREAM Act, which seems very unlikely at this point, its requirements mean that less than one million (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/dec/06/rightmarchcom/rightmarchcom-claims-dream-act-would-provide-amnes/) individuals would benefit. So it would at best aid a small minority of the roughly 10 million (http://www.pewhispanic.org/2011/12/01/unauthorized-immigrants-length-of-residency-patterns-of-parenthood/) illegal immigrants in the country.Further, the limitations of the DREAM Act perpetuate the false notion that immigration ought to be government managed and that only select people merit welcome. What about the dreams of people who arrive here when they are older than 15? What about those who happen to work in industries that do not require a college degree? These individuals are no less valuable as human beings seeking to better their lives, but the DREAM legislation implies the opposite.The fact is that a candidate like Romney takes his position because it is in line with public opinion in the United States. A majority (http://www.illegalimmigrationstatistics.org/tag/public-opinion-poll/) of United States voters oppose the DREAM Act, and until that changes, only a minority of politicians are going to get on board and support it.On the other hand, a majority (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/10/snapshot_100311.html) of Americans believe that increased immigration strengthens the community and want to retain birthright citizenship (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1904/poll-illegal-immigration-border-security-path-to-citizenship%20—%20birthright-citizenship-arizona-law). (They also reject mass deportation as a solution, in favor of some form of legal path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already here.)The popularity of those two different positions may seem contradictory. But it indicates a desire both to welcome immigrants and to respect the law. That leaves great leeway for a freeing up of the legal process, but only with the right message and greater public awareness. Fortunately, the facts speak for themselves, and it is only a matter of making them known:First, the criticism that many Americans have of government intervention applies just as much to immigration controls as to other areas of life. Government officials have no incentive to manage immigration wisely; that is why the legal process continues to be a arbitrary (http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/types/types_1322.html), time-consumingmaze (http://www.cracked.com/article_18552_so-you-want-to-be-american-5-circles-immigration-hell.html). Additionally, even when they try, they fail abysmally — and the more than ten million individuals here without authorization are a testament to that fact.Secondly, along with being a win-win for our own nation, migration is a humanitarian tool for prosperity in a broader sense. This is because a vote with one’s feet is more powerful than a vote at the ballot box. And since migration follows economic liberty (http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/migration-affirms-hunger-freedom/) — the American dream — it thus holds oppressive regimes accountable and rewards free societies.With these two points better understood, American voters will support policies that truly open up U.S. borders after more than a decade of stalemate.Fergus Hodgson (http://fff.org/author/fergus-hodgson/)Fergus Hodgson is Capitol Bureau Reporter for the Pelican Institute, and you can follow him on twitter