A Congressman said the following about the squatter-issue in the first session of Congress, 1789, decades before a viable solution was finally implemented:
No, I'm not equating 12 million+ illegal immigrants in 2007 with the millions of pioneers filling American history books. But the legal parallels between the times are striking.
For decades during early American history the government tried, and failed, repeatedly to suppress illegal western migration ("squatting"). It tried applying the status quo of English common law, wherein a squatter had no legal entitlement to another person's land (in most cases, Indian territory) regardless of any improvements he made upon it. It tried burning down their homes and scaring them away.
With immigration, it seems to me we have a modern parallel to the troublesome squatters: an extralegal sector of society, illegal laborers, that's been allowed to explode in size because standing law has refused to adapt to the realities on the ground. Mere enforcement of the same laws serves only to bail water from a leaking ship, when what we need is a boat fit for the kind of ocean we're dealing with.
We need to bring back preemption. In the 19th century, we made official what was already a de facto right to unsettled lands, and the Government received a fair coin for bringing the newly-legalized properties under the full protection of the law.
Today, we need to do something similar with the millions of extralegal laborers that occupy millions of otherwise unsettled jobs. We need to bring the law to meet reality at some viable middleground once again, that must necessarily begin by legalizing the identities of these millions of extralegals. We're lucky to have encountered this kind of thing before.
There are, at this moment, a great number of people on the ground, who are willing to acquire by purchase a right to the soil they are seated upon. What will these men think, who have placed themselves on the vacant spot, anxiously waiting its disposition by the Government, to find their preemption right engrossed by the purchase of a million acres? Will they expect themselves to be preyed upon by these men?... They will do one of two things: either move into the Spanish territory, where they are not altogether uninvited, and become an accession of power to a foreign nation forming to us a dangerous frontier; or they will take this course, move on the United States territory, and take possession without your leave. What then will be the case? They will not pay you money. Will you then raise a force to drive them off? That has been tried; troops were raised, and sent... to effect that purpose. They burnt the cabins, broke down the fences, and tore up the potato patches; but three hours after the troops were gone, these people returned again, repaired the damage, and are now settled upon the land in open defiance of the Union.
Foot Resolution
offered in 1829 by Samuel Augustus Foot in the U.S. Senate. This resolution instructed the committee on public lands to inquire into the limiting of public land sale. The Jacksonian Democrats, who wished to encourage migration to the West, opposed the resolution; the New England manufacturing interests, who demanded a ready labor supply, backed it. When the Foot Resolution was introduced, the advocates of states’ rights saw an opportunity to coalesce with the interests of the West. This touched off (1830) the dramatic debates between Robert Hayne and Daniel Webster.
offered in 1829 by Samuel Augustus Foot in the U.S. Senate. This resolution instructed the committee on public lands to inquire into the limiting of public land sale. The Jacksonian Democrats, who wished to encourage migration to the West, opposed the resolution; the New England manufacturing interests, who demanded a ready labor supply, backed it. When the Foot Resolution was introduced, the advocates of states’ rights saw an opportunity to coalesce with the interests of the West. This touched off (1830) the dramatic debates between Robert Hayne and Daniel Webster.
Preemption Act
statute passed (1841) by the U.S. Congress in response to the demands of the Western states that squatters be allowed to preempt lands. Pioneers often settled on public lands before they could be surveyed and auctioned by the U.S. government. At first the squatter claims were not recognized, but in 1830 the first of a series of temporary preemption laws was passed by Congress. Opposition to preemption came from Eastern states, which saw any encouragement of western migration as a threat to their labor supply. A permanent preemption act was passed only after the Eastern states had been placated by the principle of distribution (i.e., the proceeds of the government land sales would be distributed among the states according to population). Distribution was discarded in 1842, but the preemption principle survived. The act of 1841 permitted settlers to stake a claim of 160 acres (65 hectares) and after about 14 months of residence to purchase it from the government for as little as $1.25 an acre before it was offered for public sale. After the passage (1862) of the Homestead Act, the value of preemption for bona fide settlers declined, and the practice more and more became a tool for speculators. Congress repealed the Preemption Act in 1891.
statute passed (1841) by the U.S. Congress in response to the demands of the Western states that squatters be allowed to preempt lands. Pioneers often settled on public lands before they could be surveyed and auctioned by the U.S. government. At first the squatter claims were not recognized, but in 1830 the first of a series of temporary preemption laws was passed by Congress. Opposition to preemption came from Eastern states, which saw any encouragement of western migration as a threat to their labor supply. A permanent preemption act was passed only after the Eastern states had been placated by the principle of distribution (i.e., the proceeds of the government land sales would be distributed among the states according to population). Distribution was discarded in 1842, but the preemption principle survived. The act of 1841 permitted settlers to stake a claim of 160 acres (65 hectares) and after about 14 months of residence to purchase it from the government for as little as $1.25 an acre before it was offered for public sale. After the passage (1862) of the Homestead Act, the value of preemption for bona fide settlers declined, and the practice more and more became a tool for speculators. Congress repealed the Preemption Act in 1891.
Homestead Act
1862, passed by the U.S. Congress. It provided for the transfer of 160 acres (65 hectares) of unoccupied public land to each homesteader on payment of a nominal fee after five years of residence; land could also be acquired after six months of residence at $1.25 an acre. The government had previously sold land to settlers in the West for revenue purposes. As the West became politically stronger, however, pressure was increased upon Congress to guarantee free land to settlers (see Foot Resolution; Preemption Act). Several bills providing for free distribution of land were defeated in Congress; in 1860 a bill was passed in Congress but was vetoed by President Buchanan. With the ascendancy of the Republican party (which had committed itself to homestead legislation) and with the secession of the South (which had opposed free distribution of land), the Homestead Act, sponsored by Galusha A. Grow, became law. In 1976 it expired in all the states but Alaska, where it ended in 1986.
1862, passed by the U.S. Congress. It provided for the transfer of 160 acres (65 hectares) of unoccupied public land to each homesteader on payment of a nominal fee after five years of residence; land could also be acquired after six months of residence at $1.25 an acre. The government had previously sold land to settlers in the West for revenue purposes. As the West became politically stronger, however, pressure was increased upon Congress to guarantee free land to settlers (see Foot Resolution; Preemption Act). Several bills providing for free distribution of land were defeated in Congress; in 1860 a bill was passed in Congress but was vetoed by President Buchanan. With the ascendancy of the Republican party (which had committed itself to homestead legislation) and with the secession of the South (which had opposed free distribution of land), the Homestead Act, sponsored by Galusha A. Grow, became law. In 1976 it expired in all the states but Alaska, where it ended in 1986.
For decades during early American history the government tried, and failed, repeatedly to suppress illegal western migration ("squatting"). It tried applying the status quo of English common law, wherein a squatter had no legal entitlement to another person's land (in most cases, Indian territory) regardless of any improvements he made upon it. It tried burning down their homes and scaring them away.
With immigration, it seems to me we have a modern parallel to the troublesome squatters: an extralegal sector of society, illegal laborers, that's been allowed to explode in size because standing law has refused to adapt to the realities on the ground. Mere enforcement of the same laws serves only to bail water from a leaking ship, when what we need is a boat fit for the kind of ocean we're dealing with.
We need to bring back preemption. In the 19th century, we made official what was already a de facto right to unsettled lands, and the Government received a fair coin for bringing the newly-legalized properties under the full protection of the law.
Today, we need to do something similar with the millions of extralegal laborers that occupy millions of otherwise unsettled jobs. We need to bring the law to meet reality at some viable middleground once again, that must necessarily begin by legalizing the identities of these millions of extralegals. We're lucky to have encountered this kind of thing before.
Comment