me | 23.07.2005 16:52

Why we don't need laws against "aliens," only laws against CRIMINALS.

I think some of the Minutemen may have the best possible intentions. They want to eliminate problems they associate with immigration. But they are mixed up -- they have the whole thing backwards. And they will find that none of the "solutions" they have entertained so far ("light up the border!","call out the troops!","lock up the immigrants!" etc) are liable to be of any use. These "solutions" have been advocated and implemented for years, so far without any benefit to society. So, what would be a better approach?

We don't need laws against "aliens." "Aliens" are just foreigners. Foreigners don't cause problems by virtue of the mere fact that they happen to be foreign. Anyone who says otherwise is a racist and a fool. But Minutemen don't say this. All they say is, "We have no problem with foreigners, only with people who BREAK THE LAW."

OK, fair ENOUGH. Let's examine that one.

If the law were suddenly changed to stop criminalizing people who merely exercise the right to travel freely, regardless of their national origins, would they no longer object to "illegal aliens"? Logically, they'd no longer be committing a crime, so that would solve the problem, would it not?

Aha! But I'm sure a Minuteman will point out: "What about the PROBLEMS caused by those foreigners? It is not the mere fact that they crossed some imaginary line that is problematic, it is their behavior afterwards that presents problems."

Very well. So let's focus on THAT. Anyone who commits crimes that harm others -- whether they were born here or elsewhere -- must be penalized. No doubt about it. But merely crossing some line drawn by the government on a map, by itself, is not enough to prove any harm to others. So why would we want to enforce a law against VICTIMLESS crimes? A VICTIMLESS CRIME is PURE NONSENSE, only an invitation and excuse for GOVERNMENT TYRANNY. I'm sure the Minutemen can't be in favor of THAT??

Ok, but what about the wellbeing of workers and citizens who were born here? Won't they be adversely affected by competition from workers who come here from abroad? What if those immigrants draw social benefits that they are not eligible for by laws of residency? Won't that threaten the benefits of those who ARE eligible?

Maybe so. In that case, we can have laws that effectively deal with those problems. Now, consider the first problem, workers facing competition from foreign workers. Which approach do you think is more likely to be simple, cheap, and effective:

A)
build desert internment camps to lock up and feed a handful of corporate CEOs and rich politicians who hire undocumented workers, and let them cool their heels there while they await trial for exploiting cheap foreign labor illegally

OR

B)
try to hunt down and arrest millions of workers without documents for working "illegally"?

It's pretty obvious that solution A is the way to go if you're worried about the wellbeing of working class Americans. Once again, immigration laws are worse than useless.

But what about people who illegally draw benefits they are ineligible for? Well, there are laws against that sort of thing. Let's enforce 'em. But not by rounding up people who haven't even violated those laws yet! (ie,
exactly what immigration laws do).

So, if immigration laws are so ineffective for anything like these very sensible and laudable concerns, why do we have 'em? Could it be that immigration laws are VERY EFFECTIVE, but just NOT for the purposes they purport to serve (eg, stopping "criminals" and "terrorists," or protecting American workers), but something else entirely? And what would that be? Who do you suppose is really benefitting from these laws?