Is There a General Right to Immigrate to the U.S.?

[peejay 327]

Is There a General Right to Immigrate to the U.S.?

Written by Philip Cafaro

Wednesday, 09 June 2010 17:23

Recently, Arizona's Gov. Jan Brewer signed State Senate Bill 1070 into law, the strongest effort yet, at the state level, to reduce illegal immigration. Clearly, with the highest numbers of illegal border crossings in the country and many hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants in the state, Arizonans are fed up with the status quo. They want immigration laws enforced and they want them enforced now, not five or ten years down the line, maybe.

The Arizona law has proved highly popular with the general public. In recent weeks, despite much negative media coverage, national polls have consistently found 65 to 70 percent support for the new law across the country. With continued high unemployment and economic uncertainty, most Americans have little sympathy for law breakers who may be taking employment away from their fellow citizens.

As an advocate for immigration reduction, I support the Arizona law and other efforts to enforce our immigration laws. It seems to me that any talk of reducing immigration levels is just idle chatter without a commitment to enforcing whatever numbers we agree on. And pretty clearly, such a commitment has not been present in recent decades. That's why the United States has 12 million or more illegal immigrants today.

*

Predictably enough, Arizona's new law has provoked protests. In a blog posted in the electronic version of the New York Times, Vivek Malhotra, advocacy and policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, warns that the bill threatens to set up a "police state."

Malhotra claims that the bill is inherently discriminatory. "This law does nothing short of making all of its Latino residents, and other presumed immigrants, potential criminal suspects in the eyes of the law," he writes. "It authorizes police officers to stop and ask people for their immigration papers based only on some undefined 'reasonable suspicion' that they are in the country illegally . . . But how do you know people are unauthorized to be in the United States just by looking at them?"

Malhotra brings up some reasonable concerns. (His blog is one of five from various points of view, all under the title "Will Arizona's Immigration Law Survive?".) Even those of us who want to see our immigration laws enforced - a huge majority of Americans - don't want to set up an onerous system with government officials constantly badgering us for our papers. And any system we set up will have to avoid racial profiling and respect the civil rights of all concerned.

Still, it seems to me that we should be able to come up with an approach that enforces our immigration laws, in ways that are neither overly intrusive nor unjust. After all, we do this with laws against drunk driving, check fraud, and many other infractions, large and small. The law itself prohibits police from engaging in racial profiling, and Gov. Brewer has indicated that she will require special training for Arizona police in fairly implementing the law.

What is so special about immigration law-breaking, that some people think it is impossible to curtail?

One answer, I think, is that we have gotten out of the habit of actually enforcing our immigration laws. For many years now, federal immigration enforcement has been rare and spotty. Partly for this reason, many people don't see breaking immigration laws as important. In fact, some see immigration laws as themselves unjust, and go so far as to equate breaking those laws with civil rights and moral heroism.

In another blog posted along with Malhotra's in the Times, Tamar Jacoby, President of Immigration Works USA, a national federation of cheap-labor employers, says that Arizona may be "immigration's Birmingham." This is a reference to the harsh tactics of Birmingham, Ala., sheriff Bull Connor in 1963, which helped push forward civil rights legislation at the national level. The Rev. Al Sharpton has threatened to civil disobedience campaigns in Phoenix and Tucson in opposition to the law.

But are Rep. Raul Grijalva and Al Sharpton really this generation's answer to Martin Luther King, Jr., and Ralph Abernathy? Is preventing the arrest and deportation of illegal immigrants really the moral equivalent of ending segregation, or securing African-Americans the right to vote? Not a chance.

King, Abernathy, and company were fighting unjust laws and helping America reach its potential for a more perfect union. Grijalva, Sharpton, and their allies are fighting the reasonable implementation of just laws and helping to undermine democratic governance and the rule of law. As a student of American history, I find attempts to compare these two efforts more than inapt; I think they are obscene.

*

This leads to a second answer to our question: what makes immigration law-breaking special? It is special, because many immigrants' rights advocates don't think breaking immigration laws is wrong. In effect, they believe that immigrants have a right to settle in the United States regardless of our laws.

While this is not the explicit view of the American Civil Liberties Union, it seems implicit in their overall stance on immigration. In recent years, the ACLU has reflexively opposed any efforts to enforce U.S. immigration laws. They have opposed targeted workplace raids. They have opposed the use of the federal E-verify database. They have opposed random police checks for illegal residents. In fact, the ACLU has opposed every major initiative to enforce federal immigration laws over the past several decades. Now, apparently, they oppose asking people who have been picked up on other charges about their immigration status.

One is forced to ask: if all these laws, including the new Arizona law, are unfair and biased, what law - what law that actually worked - would the ACLU accept as fair and unbiased?

My sense is that the answer for the ACLU and many supporters of mass immigration is "none." No law that actually worked would be acceptable to the ACLU, for the simple reason that they don't think immigration laws should be enforced.

Of course, these folks say otherwise. Over and over, we are assured that the other side accepts the idea of enforcing immigration laws. But they never give an example of an enforcement mechanism that is both fair and workable. Instead, they demonize proposed solutions, such as Arizona's new law.

*

Now I don't want to demonize anyone myself. For all I know, ACLU lawyers genuinely believe that the Arizona law will lead to racial profiling. But if they were honest, they would admit that their main problem with the law is that it might lead to actual enforcement of federal immigration laws.

The problem, for the ACLU and other immigrants' rights advocates, isn't that that the law won't work without unintended consequences. The problem is that the law might actually work.

Here we come to a fundamental disagreement between the 70 percent of Arizona citizens who support the new law, and immigrants' rights advocates such as Vivek Malhotra. His essay and the ACLU's general stance on immigration matters seem to assume two things:

First, that immigrating to the U.S. is a basic human right, held by all people.

Second, that it is unjust to enforce U.S. immigration laws.

But the Malhotra and the ACLU are wrong; neither of these propositions is true.

In the first place, it is clear that no general right to immigrate into our country exists in American law. The Constitution names no right to immigrate, and the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the federal govern¬ment's right to regulate and limit immigration into the country.

Neither does such a right exist in international law. The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not assert a general human right to immigrate into the country of one's choice. Nor do other major framework international rights treaties, such as the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950) or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966).

Immigration proponents might want to argue that such a right should exist, whether or not it does currently. That is, they might assert a moral right to freely immigrate wherever one wants, and that national and international laws should be amended accordingly. However, I don't think they have a sound argument for this conclusion.

In fact, creating a general right to immigrate into the U.S. would be a disaster for our country, driving down wages, increasing income inequality, overrunning social services, leading to unsustainable population growth, and generally undermining the common good. It would also undermine U.S. citizens' right to self-government, since - and this can't be repeated often enough - a large majority of Americans want less immigration into the U.S., not more.

Finally, asserting a general right to immigrate into the United States obscures the responsibilities that citizens of other countries have to stay in their countries of origin and work to create better societies for their descendants. It may be true that individuals can pursue better opportunities in the U.S. than in Mexico, Guatemala, or the Philippines. But how will those countries ever become good places for average people to live if their most enterprising citizens keep leaving, and if the political elites who hoard wealth and opportunities can keep "exporting" potential trouble-makers?

*

For all these reasons, there is not and never will be a general right to immigrate into the United States. But if that's true, it necessary follows that enforcing U.S. immigration laws is not inherently unjust. Our immigration laws are there for a reason. They should be respected by all concerned; followed by citizens and non-citizens; and enforced by the police and other law enforcement officials.

It seems particularly misguided to play racial politics with immigration law: a recipe for social polarization and growing lawlessness. If the vast majority of illegal immigrants in Arizona are Hispanic, that cannot justify allowing illegal immigration to go unchallenged. Arguments that efforts to enforce the law are racist, because doing so would catch mostly one racial or ethnic group, are obviously specious. Should the FBI have avoided efforts to break up organized crime in New York City after World War II, because the "Five Families" all had Italian names?

The citizens of Arizona are fully entitled to pass a law demanding that immigration laws be enforced in their state. That's what the majority of citizens from across the country will no doubt demand, if and when Congress takes up national immigration legislation.

http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010060910510/border-and-sovereignty/is-there-a-general-right-to-immigrate-to-the-us.html

[Saddle Bronc 124]

No. The only nations to which one has an intrinsic right to enter at all is one to which they hold citizenship (whether by being "naturally-born citizen" or legal naturalisation). There is no specific right to immigrate to ANY nation (to be immigrating there, one must by definition NOT have its citizenship) without filling out proper paperworks!

(also, those renouncing citizenship of a nation who wish to enter THAT nation should, IMO, be put in the queue with other applicants--as by renouncing, they forfeited all intrinsic right to enter. A US judge accidentally enforced this in 2008 when she stopped Conrad Black from going to Pigtown--he was born in Canada, but renounced its citizenship for British peerage--terming him "flight risk")

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Send them to Australia instead.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

In his farewell address to the nation in January 1989, Reagan beautifully wove his view of free trade and immigration into his vision of a free society: "I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and heart to get here."

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2705

[Darnell 8,479]

Hey PeeJay - thanks for posting this. Mr. Carfaro op-ed piece echoes most of my position on this topic.

What floors me, though, is the propensity for US Companies to hire illegal aliens for work in USA. 'Just arrive in USA, get put to work'. The fine for 'that' crime should be large enough to bankrupt any US Company, removing the 'free will choice' to hire illegals, with a 'fear of the fine'.

It's not big enough, yet, that fine. When it is, IMO, our neighbors from the South will stop coming over.

[luckytxn 2,265]

There is a general right to try to immigrate here. Doing it legally is cool and I am for it all the way.

[Darnell 8,479]

lucky - i disagree - it's a privilege, not a right. For some, that's a clear distinction. For others, is verra blurred. I know , I know, I could be accused of nitpicking with words, here, but is vast difference between the two words.

[tmma 467]

NO.

[luckytxn 2,265]

Anyone has a right to try anything they desire but the privilege comes from being granted.

[peejay 327]

Hey PeeJay - thanks for posting this. Mr. Carfaro op-ed piece echoes most of my position on this topic.

What floors me, though, is the propensity for US Companies to hire illegal aliens for work in USA. 'Just arrive in USA, get put to work'. The fine for 'that' crime should be large enough to bankrupt any US Company, removing the 'free will choice' to hire illegals, with a 'fear of the fine'.

It's not big enough, yet, that fine. When it is, IMO, our neighbors from the South will stop coming over.

Illegal aliens will stop coming when they realize they will never get permanent residency and never get legal work authorization by illegally immigrating and by self serving politicians amnestying them. That is reason #1 why there should never be another illegal alien amnesty. It is nothing more than a reward and magnet for more illegal immigration. It's been done 7 times in the past and this idiocy must stop. Amnesty has never stopped illegal immigration, so you have to ask why 7 bills have been passed in 25 years doing just that.

The other component is to ream the employers that hire illegal aliens bloody. When the cost of hiring illegal aliens exceeds the crooked profits they can make for doing so, they will toe the line. Once E-Verify is universally mandatory these crooks will have no defense for their corruption. So why isn't E-Verify mandatory. Ask Obama and his Dumbocratic cronies. They have the Whitehouse and both houses of congress.

The key is to quit rewarding both the employer and the illegals. Party hacks like Obama and his Dumbocrat cronies think they can get away with doing one without doing the other. Send them packing on election day. They are just stabbing Americans in the back. Why keep electing people that screw you?

[HappyKnappy 30]

Anyone has a right to try anything they desire but the privilege comes from being granted.

That's right! You see, if you shell out $1365, you get the RIGHT to submit your paperwork. The privilege comes from an approval by UCSIS, granting you the right to reside legally in this land. Paperwork submission does not guarantee approval, but you exercised your right to apply.

[HappyKnappy 30]

...USCIS, typo.

[evli1966 88]

In his farewell address to the nation in January 1989, Reagan beautifully wove his view of free trade and immigration into his vision of a free society: "I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and heart to get here."

http://www.cato.org/...php?pub_id=2705

It is amazing how this quote keeps turning up and interpruted to support illegal immigration. Reagan was for the rule of law and open borders for legal immigration no where has he stated he was in favor of illegal immigration except when he tried but failed to secure the borders using the 1986 immigration act.

We already have open doors to anyone that wishes to come here legally.

I pose that the interpretation you present is flawed; Reagan wanted to secure the borders from the migration of illegal aliens and in order to increase border security he wished for a world where you did not have to worry about the illegal alien crossing over the borders but immigrated legally through the system.

I give you this quote as well:

America welcomes more immigrants than any other country. But in keeping open that door of opportunity, we also must uphold the rule of law and enhance a fair immigration process, as Ronald Reagan said, to "humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship."

Here is what reagan intended with the amnesty act of 1986 and it is not what supporters of amnesty or illegal immigration think it is.

"In the mid-80's, many members of Congress - pushed by the Democratic majority in the House and the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy - advocated amnesty for long-settled illegal immigrants. President Reagan considered it reasonable to adjust the status of what was then a relatively small population, and I supported his decision.

In exchange for allowing aliens to stay, he decided, border security and enforcement of immigration laws would be greatly strengthened - in particular, through sanctions against employers who hired illegal immigrants. If jobs were the attraction for illegal immigrants, then cutting off that option was crucial.

......

There is a practical problem as well: the 1986 act did not solve our illegal immigration problem. From the start, there was widespread document fraud by applicants. Unsurprisingly, the number of people applying for amnesty far exceeded projections. And there proved to be a failure of political will in enforcing new laws against employers.

After a six-month slowdown that followed passage of the legislation, illegal immigration returned to normal levels and continued unabated. Ultimately, some 2.7 million people were granted amnesty, and many who were not stayed anyway, forming the nucleus of today's unauthorized population.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Commentary/2006/05/An-Amnesty-by-Any-Other-Name

There is also this by soemone who knew and worked with Reagan well with the similar views

"What would Reagan do? For a start, he’d probably look to history, and avoid making the same miscalculation twice."

http://article.nationalreview.com/316178/what-would-reagan-do/kathryn-jean-lopez

I pose this question to anyone; if the amnesty bill of 1986 failed why advocate for another such bill which would essentially do nothing except what the first did except on a scale 4 times larger then 1986 and set the precedence that all illegal aliens will eventually gain citizenship even if they ignore the rule of law?

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Does no one else see how fuzzy the line is in the above article between legal and illegal immigration? Reading the article about reducing immigration the author isn't just talking about illegal immigrants - he is talking about all immigrants, legal or otherwise. This is where things become very disturbing - when people stop making the distinctions between those of us who are doing this legally and those who don't.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Kathryn41

[evli1966 88]

That's right! You see, if you shell out $1365, you get the RIGHT to submit your paperwork. The privilege comes from an approval by UCSIS, granting you the right to reside legally in this land. Paperwork submission does not guarantee approval, but you exercised your right to apply.

Does no one else see how fuzzy the line is in the above article between legal and illegal immigration? Reading the article about reducing immigration the author isn't just talking about illegal immigrants - he is talking about all immigrants, legal or otherwise. This is where things become very disturbing - when people stop making the distinctions between those of us who are doing this legally and those who don't.

BTW Kathryn you scared me thinking I just posted something wrong.