Ronorama

I believe it's a grave error to think that government can behave in any other way than it currently does.

"Legal" Immigration

This is the continuation, or expansion, of this small item, that I posted earlier on this 'blog. In that post, I asked what benefit is provided by the legal immigration process to those of us already living in the good old US of A. I'd like to examine the question a bit further to see what fallacies underly the belief that immigration must be a formal process.

When you enter a doctor's office, there is typically a diploma (or several) hanging on the office wall. If you take your car to a reputable auto repair shop you will often see a certificate from ASE or some other certifying body. When I interviewed with my current employer I presented my credentials as a Microsoft Certified Database Administrator (MCDBA). All of these documents indicate that the bearer has completed some sort of training or testing to verify that they are qualified to provide a particular service. Even though in some cases these certificates are required by law (which is a discussion for another time) they nonetheless add value to their services in the form of consumer confidence, and most people are willing to pay a bit more for the services of a certified provider versus one who is uncertified.

What if, however, you entered your doctor's office or auto repair shop and saw, not a certification, but the provider's birth certificate? Likewise, what if I had simply provided my prospective employer with a copy of my birth certificate, rather than my MCDBA certification? Would this document have indicated a single thing about the ability to perform the service offered? What about a work visa, passport, or green card? Do these documents add any value for consumers of our services? No, of course not. They simply indicate that the bearer has met some set of arbitrary, bureaucratic requirements in order to obtain the government's permission to live and work within our political borders. Why, then, is there the presumption that they are necessary for an individual to move freely about the country?

Do any of these documents serve to reassure us that the holder will be a productive member of the community? Do they, in fact, say anything useful about the possessor at all? If you have racist or nationalist tendencies, then perhaps they do, but I can think of no other reason these documents should hold any weight whatsoever.

Many who oppose illegal immigration do so simply because the rest of us are already saddled with a myriad of stifling rules, taxes, and regulations, and so everyone else who desires to come to this country must abide by those same laws. This completely ignores the question of the validity of those laws to begin with. However, rather than call for the abolition of taxpayer-funded entitlements, most people prefer instead to rail against the "flood of illegals" that are supposedly "draining our economy." They fail to realize that these "free" services may be part of what attracts immigrants to the US in the first place, though one wonders how an immigrant without a valid government ID would go about obtaining government services.

These people are correct in one regard...the taxes and endless entitlement programs are indeed a drain on the economy, as are the rules and regulations. Exactly how they affect the economy is a subject for another post, but the fact is that the government programs should be the target of public ire...not illegal immigrants.

Comments

Steve1776 said:

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”     - James Madison 1751-1836, Father of the Constitution for the United States, 4th United States President.     Source: 1792 in disapproval of Congress appropriating $15,000 to assist some French refugees.

# December 30, 2007 12:30 PM

Bill said:

Your analogy of the doctor's birth certificate is faulty. The doctor presents a degree is his office because it vouches that he can indeed perform the service he provides. On the other hand, the border patrol asks for a birth certificate because it confirms a different aspect about the holder - that he is indeed a citizen of the country and is allowed to enter. The two documents serve different purposes, and to equate them is a fallacy.

A more accurate analogy would be that if you don't have money, the doctor denies you the service. If you don't have citizenship, the border patrol denies you entry.

# July 10, 2008 3:51 PM

Ronorama said:

Bill,

You said: "The two documents serve different purposes, and to equate them is a fallacy."

I agree completely. That's my point...that proof of citizenship reveals nothing useful about the person involved. It's a fallacy to assume that a non-citizen will behave any differently than a citizen, or that he/she has any more or less "right" to be in one country or another than anyone else.

I believe government (and a great many of the governed) DO equate the two. They believe a birth certificate (or other proof of citizenship) is necessary to prove that the individual is trustworthy, capable, responsible, etc. My argument is that one's citizenship says nothing about any of these things, so it's wrong to require it in order to allow entry into a country.

# July 11, 2008 10:22 AM