Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Congressional race: Immigration as an issue
I'm still wavering on a run for CD4 against David Price. I feel like I'm in that classic Jack Benny routine:
Mugger: "Look, bud! I said your money or your life!"
Benny: "I'm thinking it over!"
At the WakeLP County Convention, we had a Q&A session with me (possible Lib candidate) and BJ Lawson - one of two Republicans running for the privilege of getting squashed by Price in the general election. BJ was in his Libertarian-wooing mode, and doing that whole I'm-not-about-the-Party, I'm-about-the-man thing. A trifle disingenuous coming from a guy who wrote a long I-am-not-a-Libertarian I-am-a-true-Republican post on his blog. But mostly it was one of the boring-polite sort of sessions with huge swathes of agreement. He's really a likable fellow, and seems to be headed in what I would consider the right direction. I'd like to see him run for some more local office rather than Congress, actually. Leave the windmill (err, Price)-tilting to Libertarians for this session. But I guess it's too late for that.
One issue that stood out for me was immigration. I take the classic LP open-boarders position. BJ talked about a specialness of America that he wanted to see preserved. We weren't back-and-forthing, or I would have pointed out that the 'special' thing to me about America is that many Americans welcome immigrants, not that everyone speaks the same language or even has the same values. At any rate, I just had a look at his website, and there's an interesting piece on immigration on his blog. The piece is discussing Price's immigration stance, which Lawson seems to find too permissive and I find too restrictive. I wanted to deconstruct one paragraph in particular for my own thinking-out-loud value and as a launching point for discussion with NC Libertarians on the immigration issue.
Lawson:
While it is true that many folks here illegally are hard-working and productive contributors to society, it is also true that they are here, well, illegally.
Me:
This seems in some ways the weakest argument from a (radical) Libertarian perspective - shouldn't one break unjust laws? Shouldn't one at least judge the justice of a law, rather that simply hiding behind the philosophical shortcut of "It's illegal!" when it's something you don't like anyway but have no good arguments against? I wonder if BJ thinks all laws should be followed - always - just because they are, well, laws.
Lawson:
Furthermore, people here illegally are ripe for exploitation, and while the standard of living enjoyed by illegals here in this country may be better than in their home country, they are still vulnerable to abuse.
Me:
This one is really strange - to me it reads "We're going to deport you for your own good." How's that?!
Lawson:
The welfare state benefits we provide such as education, social services, and healthcare are bankrupting healthcare institutions.
Me:
Probably an overblown concern. But let's stipulate it for a sec. Let's get rid of those burdens, rather than throwing the baby of new Americans out with the bathwater of failed welfare institutions. Actually the rank bathwater gets kept, and only the baby gets tossed. Eww. Priority time!
Lawson:
Finally, our open borders don't distinguish those seeking the American dream from those with criminal intent. Heinous crimes committed by illegals risk rising backlash against all immigrants, and illustrate the threat that these criminals pose to our families and children.
Me:
This is truly bizarre, and makes absolutely no sense. Nothing short of mind-reading can distinguish between "those seeking the American dream" and "those with criminal intent" - regardless of where the criminal comes from. I could say the same about the coworkers in my building - but I don't demand that they be screened every morning or - worse - refused entry to the building because they might be criminals. This one also includes that we'll-deport-you-for-you-own-good touch with the suggestion that deportation/border control can protect immigrants from a "rising backlash". That backlash is, I beleive, precisely the product of peddling such anti-immigrant rhetoric.
¶ 9:45 AM
Mugger: "Look, bud! I said your money or your life!"
Benny: "I'm thinking it over!"
At the WakeLP County Convention, we had a Q&A session with me (possible Lib candidate) and BJ Lawson - one of two Republicans running for the privilege of getting squashed by Price in the general election. BJ was in his Libertarian-wooing mode, and doing that whole I'm-not-about-the-Party, I'm-about-the-man thing. A trifle disingenuous coming from a guy who wrote a long I-am-not-a-Libertarian I-am-a-true-Republican post on his blog. But mostly it was one of the boring-polite sort of sessions with huge swathes of agreement. He's really a likable fellow, and seems to be headed in what I would consider the right direction. I'd like to see him run for some more local office rather than Congress, actually. Leave the windmill (err, Price)-tilting to Libertarians for this session. But I guess it's too late for that.
One issue that stood out for me was immigration. I take the classic LP open-boarders position. BJ talked about a specialness of America that he wanted to see preserved. We weren't back-and-forthing, or I would have pointed out that the 'special' thing to me about America is that many Americans welcome immigrants, not that everyone speaks the same language or even has the same values. At any rate, I just had a look at his website, and there's an interesting piece on immigration on his blog. The piece is discussing Price's immigration stance, which Lawson seems to find too permissive and I find too restrictive. I wanted to deconstruct one paragraph in particular for my own thinking-out-loud value and as a launching point for discussion with NC Libertarians on the immigration issue.
Lawson:
While it is true that many folks here illegally are hard-working and productive contributors to society, it is also true that they are here, well, illegally.
Me:
This seems in some ways the weakest argument from a (radical) Libertarian perspective - shouldn't one break unjust laws? Shouldn't one at least judge the justice of a law, rather that simply hiding behind the philosophical shortcut of "It's illegal!" when it's something you don't like anyway but have no good arguments against? I wonder if BJ thinks all laws should be followed - always - just because they are, well, laws.
Lawson:
Furthermore, people here illegally are ripe for exploitation, and while the standard of living enjoyed by illegals here in this country may be better than in their home country, they are still vulnerable to abuse.
Me:
This one is really strange - to me it reads "We're going to deport you for your own good." How's that?!
Lawson:
The welfare state benefits we provide such as education, social services, and healthcare are bankrupting healthcare institutions.
Me:
Probably an overblown concern. But let's stipulate it for a sec. Let's get rid of those burdens, rather than throwing the baby of new Americans out with the bathwater of failed welfare institutions. Actually the rank bathwater gets kept, and only the baby gets tossed. Eww. Priority time!
Lawson:
Finally, our open borders don't distinguish those seeking the American dream from those with criminal intent. Heinous crimes committed by illegals risk rising backlash against all immigrants, and illustrate the threat that these criminals pose to our families and children.
Me:
This is truly bizarre, and makes absolutely no sense. Nothing short of mind-reading can distinguish between "those seeking the American dream" and "those with criminal intent" - regardless of where the criminal comes from. I could say the same about the coworkers in my building - but I don't demand that they be screened every morning or - worse - refused entry to the building because they might be criminals. This one also includes that we'll-deport-you-for-you-own-good touch with the suggestion that deportation/border control can protect immigrants from a "rising backlash". That backlash is, I beleive, precisely the product of peddling such anti-immigrant rhetoric.
¶ 9:45 AM
