The popular debate in the media over immigration is almost always about what the ideal immigration policy should be, from the financial perspective of native born U.S. citizens. This is an awful way to debate an issue that is entirely a question of human rights, as I see this issue. But let me make it clear, this campaign is for those who reject the current debate and affirm that this is an issue of rights. Specifically, it is for those who would like to see the right for free movement of people across borders to be acknowledged and protected by the United States.Given that purpose, what about the wall? What about the National Guard at the border? What about the House bill to make crossing the border without permission a felony? Well, all of that gets sorted out in unexpected ways when you decide that your ultimate goal is to secure the right of free migration.
For instance, I personally hope that “illegal” immigration does become a felony, but for very different reasons than those who proposed the law. I would like to see so-called “illegal” immigration become a felony for two reasons. First, as Dr. King said, “I know that only when the night is dark enough can you see the stars.” I plan to use the methods of nonviolent civil disobedience as developed by Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. to bring about a dramatic change in immigration policy, and I believe that those methods are more likely to be successful if the civilly disobedient activist is jailed rather than deported. Second, under the current legal tradition, immigration law is unprotected by the Constitution because the Supreme Court has abdicated its role as it relates to immigration law. But I feel very confident that if immigration were tied to criminal law rather than administrative law, the Supreme Court would have to take up the issue. If it did, the Court would have very little choice but to make drastic changes in the law because our current immigration law is explicitly sexist and implicitly racist. The Supreme Court itself has said as much, but has said that Congress is in charge of immigration law (the plenary power doctrine), so they can be as sexist and racist as they want to be. This is an abdication that I do not believe they would continue if immigration violations were made criminal.
Because the current debate encourages us to think in a very limited way, I invite you to do your own research on the right of free movement across borders.
Nonviolent Migration 
October 18, 2006 at 12:03 am
SO, YOU HAVE A BLOG THAT PEOPLE CAN’T FIGURE OUT WHAT YOU ARE ABOUT? AND A CAMPAIGN THAT NONE OF US WHO DON’T THINK LIKE YOU CAN BE RIGHT? SOUNDS VERY ELITIST AND NOT VERY ATTRACTIVE TO US IDIOTS. I MUST RESPECT YOUR DECISION TO DO THIS IN A NON-VIOLENT , CIVIL DISOBEDIENT WAY , TRULY. BUT , I PRAY YOU DON’T GET THROWN IN JAIL WITH THOSE “MURDERERS”, THE MINUTEMEN. MLK AND GANDHI WERE LAYING DOWN THEIR LIVES FOR PEOPLE WHO WERE CITIZENS AND BEING OPPRESSED BY THEIR GOVERNAMENT, A RIGHTEOUS “FIGHT.” YOU ARE SUPORTING THE “RIGHTS” OF PEOPLE WHO ARE BOTH BREAKING LAWS OF A FOREIGN COUNTRY AND MANY OF WHOM WANT TO KILL YOU , JD , ME. AND RAPE YOUR WIVES OR GIRLFRIENDS THESE “MIGRANTS” ARE NOT ALL LETTCE PICKERS WHO WANT TO FEED THEIR FAMILIES. I HOPE YOU REALIZE THAT.
October 18, 2006 at 3:35 am
Yosgro,
Please, come to the border. It will change your mind in a way that I can’t.
We’re not elitist, but we don’t take sides in a misguided debate. The Democrats and the Republicans have got us all thinking that this is a conservative vs. liberal issue. It isn’t at all. It isn’t in history, and it isn’t in principle. Read the David Carens article if you would like to hear what conservative political theory says on the issue of immigration. Check Ronal Regan’s record if you want to know the last president to give amnesty to “illegal” aliens. But one party thought it was politically expedient to take one side of the issue, and the other major party decided that they could succeed at taking the other side, and that is how the debate shaped up. We’re not trying to be elitist, just non-participatory and not deceived.
To be honest, I was surprised that the political lines ended up being drawn as they were. Before this became a popular issue, I thought the Republicans were going to take the limited government role and the Democrats were going to take a union worker role, but it all shaped up differently than I expected it. But just because the parties took unexpected sides doesn’t mean I changed my mind on the issue.
Oh, and yosgro, you’re not an idiot. You know I never said it, and I’m sorry if you felt I somehow implied it. I appreciate humility, but cherish sincerity.
October 19, 2006 at 1:20 pm
I got interupted, but I was saying that I didn”t think you were calling me and idiot , just that the last paragraph of the blog I commented on seemed to imply that none of us could figure out what your blog was about and such. I try my hardest not to get into any name calling. This country is too divided already and we need to have some common ground. Jesus wants us to love one another but stand up for Truth. I will always try to do both.
One other thing I can’t understand is the insinuation from Columbia “protesters” and you that the Minutemen are “murderers , racist, xenophobes.”All these, I belive are mischaracterizations at minimum and lies in actuality.
I respect, at least , you telling them , that their means were not helpful. They should take the plank out of their own eyes before telling me and the Minutemen to take the speck out of ours. I pray you don’t realy think these people are murderers.Xenophobes , like homophobes is a typical pejorative label used for anyone who disagrees with their way(I hope not your way) of thinking.Racist , I don’t know as I don’t know their hearts, but I believe they want secure borders and know that the US government won’t do it.
Amen & Amen,
God bless you,
PTL, always,
in love of Christ,
Don DaSgroogie, aka, Yo Sgro
October 19, 2006 at 4:45 pm
A small percentage of the minutemen may cite cultural concerns, ie. a disdain for Hispanics and their culture, but the majority cite economic concerns. So I don’t believe the majority of the Minutemen and their supporters are racists. But I do believe that the majority of these individuals have a lot of claims about immigration that are factually incorrect. And that’s why we’re here.
October 20, 2006 at 12:19 am
Don,
The spokesperson for the Chicano caucus at Columbia said on TV that the Minutemen were racists, xenophobes, and murderers. She seems to be able to back it up with evidence. When I said “they may be” I wasn’t saying that I thought they were, what I was trying to say is that even if they are, we should approach them differently than the protesters did.
My beliefs about the Minutemen are the ones at the end. When I said that I don’t think most Minutemen were villains, I meant it. When I said they were wrong on the immigration question, I meant it too. When I said that one of the problems with the Minutemen is that they have more allegiance to the law than to the truth, that’s what I meant. And taken together, those three things are my most honest feelings about the Minutemen. I think the Minutemen are simultaneously wrong and faithful. In other words, they are people of integrity who uphold the wrong thing.
Slavery was wrong, even if it was the law. The minutemen are like people who tried to prevent slaves from fleeing north. They take it upon themselves to uphold an unjust law because the government isn’t doing a good enough job at it.
In Darius’s kingdom it was illegal to worship God, but it didn’t stop Daniel. The minutemen are like those who forced Darius to throw Daniel into the lions’ den. They uphold an unjust law.
Of all the things to become zealous, committed, and passionate about, upholding an unjust law doesn’t seem to be the right one. I think history has shown us that the great heroes and heroines are those that become zealous and committed and passionate about changing unjust laws.
In a democracy, much more is required than upholding the law. Because in a democracy, we make the law what it is.
October 20, 2006 at 2:39 am
As I figured we have major differing views and not compatible. I don’t see the law as unjust. No sense discussing anyomre. The Darius and Daniel analogy is poor and flawed. Daniel was obeying God’s law not a man made law. As a Christian I must obey God’s law if it conflicts with man’s law, according to my promting of the Holy Spirit.If our government , even George w. told me I cannot worship God or preach the Gospel , I must disobey. Or if some Judge on the Supremes orders my wife(if I had one) to have an abortion I would she would not obey. I don’t think you want to define the immigration debate in terms of God or you will offend a friend in JD. But we can debate WWJD on it but I don’t think the Lord had any position on it except love one another. I , and all my Christian brothers and sisters would love the person who comes to us in need.But God put in place a government (see Romans 13) and whoever resists the authority of government resists God.The law is more important than you seem to accept. God gave us government to control crime and evil.Illegals are criminals and terrorists are evil. so I, must respectfully disagree with mos tof that which your blog is trying to convince us .
Love , in Christ , our Savior,
Don, aka, DaSgroogie
October 20, 2006 at 3:10 am
Don,
Take your line of reasoning back 50 years. Was Rosa Parks evil?
There are times when the law is not right, and in those times, you must break the law. But you must break it in a certain way. First, you try to work within the system to change the law. Then, if you find those avenues closed to you, you announce to the authorities that you will be breaking the unjust law and when and where the civil disobedience will occur. Then you break the unjust law. And lastly, you submit peacefully to the unjust law.
And Don, why cut the discussion short? I’m not worried about offending JD. And to quickly say that we have irreconcilable views is to give up hope for understanding. If you’re bored with it, or if it isn’t a priority to you, then I understand. But don’t say we’ll never understand each other. (And by understand, I mean something close to empathy, where we really understand what it is that the other person means and why the other person believes as he does.)
October 20, 2006 at 3:55 am
Why is the law unjust in your view?
We are a sovereign nation. We must limit our immigration. Latinos, Asian, Arabs of all nations are permitted here if they follow the law of immigration. If you don’t like it change the laws
I am enough of a junkie that I still lose control of my impulses and continue to debate politics when I know I get frustrated and the arguments get divisive, ask JD.
If we all decide which are just and unjust laws and everyone is “doing what seems right in his own eyes” we have anarchy. If you want to disobey the laws you feel are unjust , go ahead ,but you must suffer the conseqences. I respect your take on civil diobedience but I think using Rosa Parks or slavery to make your case in the immigration debate is like using the gay rights issue and comparing it to civil rights with the blacks.Two different situations , one(the illegals) is breaking and entering our house and the other infringing on a citizens right to the same public facilites.
One is due to a person’s color and one is because he/she is not permitted to use our facility as they are not part owner of the country.
But God bless you , you are passionate and sincere and as the saying goes we can besincere but sincerely wrong. Just my opinion I was were you were many years ago and know where you are coming from.
Sleep well ,my brother,
Love in our Lord’s name, prayerfully
Don DaSgroogie
October 20, 2006 at 9:39 pm
As for everyone picking and choosing which laws to obey, Gandhi and Dr. King both address that specifically. They (and I) are completely opposed to that idea. I’m not saying that it’s moral to break immigration law if it is for a personal advantage. Dr. King addressed it many times. People are so quick to put me into one camp or another, according to what they understand the sides of the immigration debate to be, but in doing so, they end up putting words into my mouth.
Let me make something clear, I’m not on either side of the current debate.
I wish that our immigration laws were strictly enforced. If they were, businesses and farmers would lobby Congress to increase the number of immigrants allowed into the country because they can’t survive without them. Then there would be more legal immigrants and less illegal immigrants. And I haven’t yet met anyone who didn’t wish there were less illegal immigrants.
But the truth is that we create the “illegal immigrant.” Our economy demands that they come here (with or without authorization), and then our laws prohibit them from entering. Hence, we create the illegal immigrant: if our economy didn’t demand them, there would be no immigrant; if our laws didn’t prohibit them, there would be no illegal immigrant.
The number of illegal immigrants in the country is simply the distortion between the number of immigrants our economy requires and the number of visas our laws allow. I’m much more prone to think that our restrictive laws are unjust than our robust economy.
But beyond all this, there is a simple truth, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. The United States used to declare one of those inalienable rights as “the inealienable right for man to change his home and allegiance.” That immigration law was the supreme law of the land, as outlined by the Constitution, and was in effect until the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed. This Act, among the most overtly racist laws we have ever known, has never fully been undone.
If the inalienable right to speak freely were taken away, and noone minded because those few who were speaking freely were not allowed to voice their dissent to the change of law and also simultaneously stripped of the vote, (and oh by the way, we were somewhat “benefitted” because there were no more dissidants bothering us with their troublesome speech), and we continued on this path until 108 years later a lot of people somehow felt it was the duty for a “sovereign” nation to suppress speech, would that make it true and right and just? No. I say emphatically, No.
Democracy requires a freedom of speech. It requires a free press. It requires a universal vote. It requires these (and other) things or it isn’t a democracy. And democracy requires that the polity is self-selected. It requires that some of the polity are not excluded or disenfranchised.
And I know I’ve been talking too long, but Don, as a Christian, you ought to know that sovereignty, as it is commonly brought up in the immigration debate, has atheistic roots. But that is a discussion for another day.
Take care, my brother, and I’ll talk to you soon.
October 20, 2006 at 11:06 pm
I am admittedly ignorant of what you are aleging about the former inalienable right of changing allegiance and home, or the Chinese Act. So, I can’t address that point. I have no idea either what you are talking about “sovereign” being atheistic, excuse me!. I agree with your economic points about immigration. What I am frightened of is your blog is “free immigration” and that , to me, sounds like “come on in , and bring all your guns, drugs, disease , jihad and all who need a place to have your baby.”
I guess I need to know what you mean by free immigration. Somewhere I read that around 7% of the non-skilled or low-skilled jobs are filled by “illiegals”. I think if we had businessmen and woman who would pay a pay more of a living wage and not under the table, we could fill nearly all of those jobs. I would think then they would also see the need and benefit of using technology to pick lettuce, mellons etc. Then Mexico, Honduras, et al. would train these people in their own countries.We will always have need for some low skilled workers but if we paid more then we could help out our poor first. But I am not an economist, that is for sure. I say , like JD, (God forbid) limited , increase in immigration from all over the world, not free open borders.Amen & Amen
Love, In Christ our Lord and Savior,
Don DaSgroogie
October 21, 2006 at 2:24 pm
By free migration we mean that we would like to move eventually to a system where a person’s place of birth does not determine where they can go, who they can associate with, which government will control them, or where they can work. That is to say, a person’s place of birth should not exclude them from entry into the United States. Their criminal background could exclude them, but their place of birth could not.
The first thing I would like to see happen is for the individual country quotas to be lumped into one quota. The reason for this is because under the current system, where small, faraway countries receive as many visas as Mexico, we create a system where certain nationalities are advantaged while others are disadvantaged. If one million Mexicans are applying for visas every year, and only 30,000 Nepalis are, then our immigration law that gives Nepal and Mexico the same number of visas (I think it’s 50,000 per year) actually has the effect of allowing free migration from Nepal but restricting 95% of migration from Mexico.
What I would most like to see is first, lump all those nation’s quotas together so that one applicant doesn’t have an advantage over another simply because the place of their birth. Second, start increasing levels of legal immigration. This will have little effect on the number of total immigrants, just whether these immigrants are legal and documented. Finally, our goal should be to eliminate all quotas and instead allow the labor market to determine how many immigrants it needs. Make immigration a matter of clearing a criminal background check and doing whatever other procedure is necessary to protect the United States, and that’s it. If a person meets the requirements we set, they can enter. That way the economy controls the levels of immigration without distortion from immigration laws. Finally, I want to return to the belief in the “inherent and inaleinable right for man” and woman, “to change his home and allegiance.”
As for caring for our own first, I say that the role of government is to stop preventing people from helping themselves first. After that, “our own” includes the immigrant; it includes the Samaritan and the Jew, the U.S. born and the Mexican-American. I don’t see any reason to favor one over the other.
October 21, 2006 at 4:45 pm
I can’t figure out how to edit a comment, and it’s bothering me that I couldn’t remember the right date a while back, so let me correct this. It hasn’t been 108 years since we abandoned the “inherent and inalienable right for man to change his home and allegiance” in favor of racist immigration policy, it has been 124 years. It was 1882 not 1898 that that happened. I have no idea how my mind came up with 1898. Sorry about that.
October 21, 2006 at 8:31 pm
Again I agree with some of your ideas but the main idea of free and open borders goal is rather utopian and would never happen , at least unless everyone became Christian and loved one another unconditionally or until Jesus returns to bring peace.I don’t think Atta and the other 9/11 bombers had criminal records before they declared war on us.. We have Islamaic radical jihadists who want to convert or kill by the sword who would love open borders. Also , we have 10% or more of the South of the border aliens coming into our country with TB and other serious contagious diseases.We would have everyone who wants a free meal or welfare coming here. It is not at all plausible and workable yet.Our social services could not manage this. We are the most generous country God ever made and this would create more bigotry rather than decrease it. We would still need the border agents to police all of this.But, PTL, that you still have idealism. I have seen that humans are not born loving. The heart is deceitfully wicked today as when the book of Jeremiah was written.I prefer realism.We live in a predominately Christian nation where MLK’s I have a dream can possibly be realized but with some of the Islamic fascists , this is impossible. They want ot kill us and open borders would make that easier. Over forty years beyond MLK’s speech some of us still judge a person by his color , creed ,income or nationality.Again I give you credit for trying and pray that someday this could happen. But I am soon 55 and am hoping more that the Lord returns and thinking He will return before this dream is made real. But if you want a one world order like this free and open borders sounds like, then this may bring the Lord back sooner.
God bless and keep you.
In love, through only the power of His Holy spirit,
DaSgroogie, aka Yo Sgro
October 21, 2006 at 9:42 pm
Just a few things:
I do view “open” immigration as utopian, and I’m not quite sure that it will ever be realized. I do know that it could be realized if we implement the right, pragmatic policies. It’s the goal.
Obviously we need more visas to be given out and a solution for migrant workers. Migrants don’t want to become US citizens. We need comprehensive immigration reform. A fence or 500 more visas isn’t going to help.
And I think there is an argument for restricting immigration. If immigration is great enough (perhaps by opening the flood-gates all at once) to destroy our social programs, then there is an obvious ground for restricting immigration. We , as a nation, have finite resources and there is only so much we can do. And as someone who wants to assure that every American has health-care, I can’t see the logic of equality if we all become poorer.
In the social sciences this is known as a zero-sum game. If we have a block of wealth, we can divide that wealth up a lot of different ways. You can take half of the wealth and I can take the other half. Suppose that a third person comes into play, and they take a third of our original wealth. We get to divide the remaining two-thirds among ourselves. What has happened? The original amount of wealth has stayed the same, it’s been divided differently, but, in the end, our loss is equal to the third individuals gain. Typically the block of wealth is constantly expanding, and the individuals who immigrating and taking some of the wealth for themselves are also generating new wealth and making the block larger.
But in a mixed economy, where the government provides social services, there is a potential that the block of wealth could shrink, and the gain in wealth that the immigrant recieves is less than the loss than current citizens. Perhaps the loss is a wage of 2 dollars, or school districts that can’t provide enough teacher, or a hospital that doesn’t have the resources to care for all of it’s patients, etc. The market is supposed to adjust for the immigrant (and they pay taxes, too), but the market can fail, or simply respond too slowly.
That’s my argument for restricting immigration, but I certainly don’t think we’re there yet. I hope this makes sense — I’m not an economist, I just play one on TV.
October 21, 2006 at 11:13 pm
Now that makes sense!!!
What say the co-blogman?And what about all the other problems of terorists, diseaed, etc.? I only wish George w. and Congress would have done something consturctive(not a fence necessarily) with the 6 years plus they had.God forbid the Dems would never put any restraints on any behaviors or possible votes.Your waiting for the Lord, brother,
Don
October 22, 2006 at 4:17 am
What does the coblogger say, you ask? I say that compared to our current immigration nightmare, open immigration would be utopia. But please remember that the United States had open immigration from 1776 until 1882. Since then, we’ve had racist immigration laws.
And I can think of nothing more plain to understand than the law of the harvest or the law of cause and effect. Jesus put it this way, “Do men gather flowers of thorns or figs of thistles?” Paul put it this way, “Be not deceived, God is not mocked, for whatsoever thou sowest, so shall ye reap.” If you plant an apple seed, it will not produce oranges. Or vice versa.
We planted racism when we abandoned our commitment to that utopia you talk about in favor of the Chinese Exclusion Act. Why should we expect to reap flowers from that kind of planting?
As for zero-sum or negative-sum… what evidence do we have to think that our economy is either of those games? Even if it were (which I don’t believe it is), and I was forced to choose between allowing immigrants to work here legally on one hand, and forcing stingy rich guys to pay for the benefits of the poor, I have to side with the right to immigration. I say government’s first role is to get out of the way of those who want to work hard in the pursuit of happiness. Whatever it can do after that is fine, but as my farmer friends remind me, the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.
What is the proper role of government? I believe it is to secure to each individual those inalienable rights which s/he is endowed with.
October 22, 2006 at 10:54 am
I wasn’t aware that President Bush and his immigration policy was still forbiding Chinese from immigrating!!! Boy I learn something new and more terrible about our country everyday!!!And no Mexicans and Costa Ricans, Brazilians, Arabs either , huh? Please don’t use the racist word so lightly like liberals do. We are still a melting pot but some still want a salad. This is still the greatest country in the world and open to all who want to come here legally.We do reap what we sow and if we sow people breaking in and having no respect for our laws, spreading disease , bringing down wages for low and non-skilled workers, , then we reap crime and poverty, and disease.
I think JD has a good moderate vision. I am glad to say that finally.But you are correct–God is not mocked !!!The one who sows to please the Spirit will reap eternal life.Let us not grow weary in well doing!!! Let us love one another and all who want to come to this country the right way.
With the love of Christ ,
Don DaSgoogie
October 22, 2006 at 3:23 pm
The problem is neither the Republicans or Democrats have done anything to change the situation.
First, we know we’re not going to deport those here illegally. Why have we not put them on the path to citizenship and provided them the resources to pay their fair share in taxes. In addition, maybe they want to stay and eventually become citizens; they should have that right.
Second, we need some solution for those who are migranting for 4-8 months to work on farms. California Pears rotted on the trees this year due to a lack of workers.
Third, we have to increase the number of immigrants allowed to come to the United States. Yet, congress does nothing.
Congress does nothing. They vote to build a small fence (with no money to built it).
If it is simply a matter increasing taxes on the wealthy, then perhaps that’s something to consider. But this will not solve some of the logistical problems.
And open immigration could be implemented tomrrow if we had a truly limited government — the type that neither current Republicans nor Democrats seem to be in favor of. And although I consider myself to be an absolutist civil libertarian, I’m not in favor of libertariainism in a totalistic sense. As I mentioned, I want, and I believe the rest of the US will be on board very soon, universal health-care either through a single-payer system or a fill-in-the-gaps system (like the new system just implemented in Mass.).
October 22, 2006 at 4:23 pm
Once again I agree with most of what you (or wherever you read this from) propose.
However , the governments primary obligation and it should not be limited, is to protect us, secure us and the public safety.This is why we need a secure border and a improved, reasonable immigration policy. But overall I applaud thes ideas.
Again, we may differ but we are getting closer.
PTL,Amen & Amen
Jesus loves all and wants all to be free and safe.When the Lord Jesus sets you free , you shall be free indeed.Love, In christ,
Don DaSgroogie
September 18, 2007 at 1:59 am
Hi all!
Very interesting information! Thanks!
G’night