Sure, we term it 'illegal' but it is so only in name. The truth is, there are more unscreened, undocumented, unknown immigrants who have waltzed over the US-Mexico border than ever passed, legally, and screened for disease and criminality, through Ellis Island. What is sort of obliquely ignored in Biswanger's piece is that in order to screen immigrants, you must first control immigration. And we do not, and haven't, and never will until the government secures the border so we can control who comes in and who doesn't. As long as there is a easy means of ingress with no enforcement of legal status once you are here, it is the best option for many, and remains a viable option for the people who Biswanger would have us screen out. What good would screen legals do if illegals can still stream in, essentially unchecked? You'd have more of what we have now--law abiding people waiting to come in while those who have no regard for law being 'rewarded' with early entry.

We have open immigration and look what it gets us--criminals who, because they are undocumented status, commit crimes and flee back to their homeland, only to return to another US city. Free immigrants who are bankrupting Emergency Rooms in the American Southwest. An upswing in Latino gang activity all across the country. A rising tide of anti-white racism in the barrios of every American city.

We also have millions of more or less honest, hard working people who really do want to make their lives better. But many end up crippled, amputated, diseased, or broken due to unsafe work conditions, unsafe industrial equipment in need of repair, chemical exposure, etc. because, due to their undocumented status, they are afraid to complain, and have no power to negotiate safer working conditions. Keeping undocumented workers in the state they are in creates an artificial underclass, who has to take what work is offered, even if it means grave and unacceptable threat to life and limb. In short, they have jobs, but no way to negotiate for a safe working environment. Most do not file work injury claims because of their legal status.

Open immigration phased in make sense. But the first step has to be securing the borders we have and ousting the illegals we have here now. Allowing law-breakers to skirt our laws with a wink and a shrug is no way to welcome new Americans into our society which supposedly enshrines the rule of law over the rule of man.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

What if the USA shared the border with Iran or North Korea instead of Mexico?

Adam, the Atlasphere is not an affiliate of the Objectivist Center or any of the various Rand-related organizations.

And, for whatever it's worth, the columns we post don't necessarily represent any editorial or ideological policy of the site or business.

We try to pick stuff to publish that will be of interest to Rand fans, but we're not out to set an ideological agenda. Other organizations do that much better than us.

The "Atlasphere", a low-brow affiliate of The hemi-demi-semi-Objectivist Center, has a thoroughly statist take on immigration. Compare and contrast.

Just type the following into your comment:

<a href="http://some.url.here/">here</a>

... and it will appear in the text like this:

here

"I completely disagree with Binswanger's essay."

His conclusions, or his arguments?

You would probably get better discussion on the topic here. Why not cut and paste the comments over?

- Jason

I completely disagree with Binswanger's essay.

I posted some of the facts about the relationship between immigration and individual rights he overlooks on ObjectivistLiving. If I have time, I'll try to explain. How do you post a link to something as when people say "I discussed it HERE" and the HERE is a hyperlink??

It is a good article but it says nothing that I have not read or heard before - from libertarians and Objectivists.

"This is an outstanding essay." It sure is, and I said as much when I posted it on my own blog last week. As I said then, and in particular for the reasons for reasons Adam cites, I would urge everyone to read the argument in its entirety.

This is an outstanding essay. Dr. Binswanger does an excellent job of taking every catagory of anti-immigration argument and smashing them one by one. The only thing I would add is that during periods of war restrictions on immigration might become temporarily necessary as a way of protecting a country's citizens from certain kinds of threats.

Binswanger also makes the important distinction between allowing the free flow of people, work and residency into America (or any free country) and allowing automatic citizenship and voting rights. This of course protects the country from political invasions without violating individual rights.

- Jason