Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Immigration Issue, settled by way of Preemption

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Immigration Issue, settled by way of Preemption

    A Congressman said the following about the squatter-issue in the first session of Congress, 1789, decades before a viable solution was finally implemented:
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    Last edited by FibrillatorD; 26 Jun 07,, 19:03.

  • #2
    I have no problems with immigrants.

    The problems with these illegal immigrants are;
    1. They impose a cost on our welfare state
    2. They refuse to assimilate

    My solutions are simple.
    1. Eliminate the welfare state
    2. Amend the 14th Amendment so that anyone born in this country inherits the same residential status as the parents rather than automatically becoming a citizen
    3. Secure the border
    4. Issue temperary worker permit to low skilled laborers
    5. Make English the official language of the land so all official documents can only be in English
    6. Eliminate minimum wage

    Follow my proposals and I can guarantee you we get fewer trouble makers and more hardworking Americans here.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by gunnut View Post
      I have no problems with immigrants.

      The problems with these illegal immigrants are;
      1. They impose a cost on our welfare state
      2. They refuse to assimilate

      My solutions are simple.
      1. Eliminate the welfare state
      2. Amend the 14th Amendment so that anyone born in this country inherits the same residential status as the parents rather than automatically becoming a citizen
      3. Secure the border
      4. Issue temperary worker permit to low skilled laborers
      5. Make English the official language of the land so all official documents can only be in English
      6. Eliminate minimum wage

      Follow my proposals and I can guarantee you we get fewer trouble makers and more hardworking Americans here.
      1) I agree.

      2) I think this could have the effect of institutionalizing a "second class" of citizen in this country, which makes me very uncomfortable. One of America's unique strengths is our high level of social and economic mobility.

      What do you think?

      3) I agree.

      4) I don't know enough about how the labor force works to know if this is good or bad or neutral.

      5) I agree.

      6) I agree.

      Four out of six ain't bad, eh? :)

      -dale

      Comment


      • #4
        gunnut,

        1. They impose a cost on our welfare state
        2. They refuse to assimilate
        1. the wealth the illegal immigrants create/spend in america vastly offsets the cost to our welfare state,

        2. they do after at 2, at most 3 generations. this has been a historical pattern with almost every single immigrant group in america.

        the main problem with illegal immigrants is not so much practical but legal: they are, after all, illegal immigrants. but that's enough a problem for americans to be concerned about, of course.

        how to solve this problem? most of your suggestions are not politically feasible, some of them are not fully desirable. here might be a politically feasible solution instead: massive tax credits for american corporations to invest in mexico. expand peace corps work/volunteering in mexico. increase foreign aid to mexico and make sure this aid is channeled into education. further liberalize trade.

        in short, make mexico more desirable to stay in. we have seen a quantifiable connection between mexican economic growth and the number of illegal immigrants. these steps would not only help mexico, but bolster the american economy, AND solve the illegal immigration issue. without resorting to draconian motives, and most likely at one-tenth the cost.
        There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

        Comment


        • #5
          The real problem, is, as astralis points out, Latin America. It's jacked up pretty bad and until that gets fixed there is going to be an exodus. While there is an exodus, however, we do not have to remain an easy mark.

          I agree with Friedman: high wall, wide gate.

          -dale

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by dalem View Post
            2) I think this could have the effect of institutionalizing a "second class" of citizen in this country, which makes me very uncomfortable. One of America's unique strengths is our high level of social and economic mobility.

            What do you think?
            Of course I don't mean we don't give anyone citizenship. This nation was founded by and built upon immigration. What I mean is to eliminate the so called "anchor babies" that many illegal immigrants use to gain a legal foothold. It's almost like jumping the line.

            They hop the fence. Give birth here to an American citizen. Then use that connection to apply for legal status.

            People from other regions of the world have to go through the process, jump through the hoops, wait for years in their home countries for limited quotas. Just doesn't seem fair to me.

            We have an immigration process set up already. They should wait for their turn just like everyone else. I know everyone wants to come here, that's why it's not fair for them to cut in front of the line.

            Originally posted by dalem View Post
            4) I don't know enough about how the labor force works to know if this is good or bad or neutral.
            Right now it's much easier to apply to immigrate here for highly skilled people. Low-skilled labors get low priority. We should relax that a bit since we have such a low unemployment number and can use some low-skilled labors.

            Originally posted by dalem View Post
            Four out of six ain't bad, eh? :)
            Not bad. Not bad at all. :)
            "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by astralis View Post
              gunnut,



              1. the wealth the illegal immigrants create/spend in america vastly offsets the cost to our welfare state,
              That estimation varies wildly according the different studies.

              They may generate wealth, but a large portion of that wealth doesn't stay here. It's transfered back to Mexico. Remittance is the 2nd largest income for Mexico right after oil. That's just wrong.

              Originally posted by astralis View Post
              2. they do after at 2, at most 3 generations. this has been a historical pattern with almost every single immigrant group in america.
              The problem here is traditionally the immigrants came from Europe or Asia. Their homeland was far away. Communication was poor. Mass media in their language was non-existant.

              Mexico is right next door. Their relatives and friends can literally be a day's drive away. They can turn on their radio and TV sets for a number of programs in their native language. There's really very small incentive to learn the English language and the American culture. Did you know there are more Spanish radio stations in LA county than English?

              Originally posted by astralis View Post
              the main problem with illegal immigrants is not so much practical but legal: they are, after all, illegal immigrants. but that's enough a problem for americans to be concerned about, of course.
              We should enforce the border and at the same time grant more temperary worker permits to encourage people to play by the rules.

              Originally posted by astralis View Post
              how to solve this problem? most of your suggestions are not politically feasible, some of them are not fully desirable. here might be a politically feasible solution instead: massive tax credits for american corporations to invest in mexico. expand peace corps work/volunteering in mexico. increase foreign aid to mexico and make sure this aid is channeled into education. further liberalize trade.

              in short, make mexico more desirable to stay in. we have seen a quantifiable connection between mexican economic growth and the number of illegal immigrants. these steps would not only help mexico, but bolster the american economy, AND solve the illegal immigration issue. without resorting to draconian motives, and most likely at one-tenth the cost.
              These are great ideas also. But we need to somehow control Mexico's corruption. All that aid money will just like the pockets of politicians. The poor doesn't get anything at all.

              Did you know the 2nd richest man in the world is a Mexican residing in Mexico? He will soon overtake Bill Gates as the richest man in the world. Kinda scary knowing that 10% of his countrymen are illegally in the US working as low-skilled laborers.
              "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by astralis View Post
                gunnut,
                1. the wealth the illegal immigrants create/spend in america vastly offsets the cost to our welfare state
                I have to disagree there. The uneducated illegal immigrants I see here in Texas, send much of their earnings back home to their native country.

                In terms of "milking the welfare state" they obtain their SSNs, sometimes Drivers Licence through the underworld. This often means associating with the criminal world ( there are many Mexican gangs here - drugs, etc. you name it)
                I have even run into illegals that are happy to tell you mama back home in Mexico gets a Social Security check from the US! The rot is DEEP.

                2. they do after at 2, at most 3 generations. this has been a historical pattern with almost every single immigrant group in america.
                Quite correct. However, immigrant groups in the past has not tried to "take over" the landscape.

                They were legal immigrants. They did not DEMAND they stay illegal.

                That's like a bank robber "demanding" the right to rob.

                The latin American illegal is a phenomenon not seen before here in the US as with other immigrant groups who really do try to assimilate- only it takes 2-3 generations.

                How many Vietnamese, Chinese, Italian, Irish, Indian etc. groups do you see driving down the street blasting their car radios MAKING you listen to their cultural music?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                  Of course I don't mean we don't give anyone citizenship. This nation was founded by and built upon immigration. What I mean is to eliminate the so called "anchor babies" that many illegal immigrants use to gain a legal foothold. It's almost like jumping the line.

                  They hop the fence. Give birth here to an American citizen. Then use that connection to apply for legal status.

                  I am not sure that's entirely accurate. By the time that child is adult to sponsor a family based immigration visa, parents are likely to be long dead. (FYI, the waiting list for family based immigration is more than 7 years). Having a child born in america does not offer any advantage for immigrants, legal or illegal. If you Google, you will find many stories, where parents are deported while the child is left in USA, in custody of some relatives.


                  They may generate wealth, but a large portion of that wealth doesn't stay here. It's transfered back to Mexico. Remittance is the 2nd largest income for Mexico right after oil. That's just wrong.
                  They generate wealth by working for a rock bottom wages, without benefits or any kind of right. They create wealth for those mamoth companies who are supposed to follow law. If these illegal immigrants have broken law, so do these companies who employ and exploit them.

                  I don't condone illegal immigration and I have been following the ongoing CIR debate in Senate very actively. I feel like throwing up everytime Sen.Kennedy stands up to speak. Many senators are falling over each other to support the bill.
                  Last edited by kams; 27 Jun 07,, 03:28.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by dalem View Post
                    The real problem, is, as astralis points out, Latin America. It's jacked up pretty bad and until that gets fixed there is going to be an exodus. While there is an exodus, however, we do not have to remain an easy mark.
                    -dale
                    No doubt, very true. But this seems to me somewhat of a separate issue. Or, at least, its an issue that must be dealt with separately from the more pressing reality of 12 million people living today in a third world within our own borders, outside the law.

                    Its high time we acknowledge the costs of letting this sector continue to expand. And bring the law into a better fit with the reality on the ground. Then we can reap even more benefits from their labor, and allow the millions of otherwise-honest immigrants to have an official stake in things.

                    We've tried before, and failed, to push standing law on entire peoples living according to a separate code.

                    We need to extend the umbrella of the law over this vast demographic before we can effectively enforce it upon them.
                    Last edited by FibrillatorD; 27 Jun 07,, 03:22.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by kams View Post
                      I am not sure that's entirely accurate. By the time that child is adult to sponsor a family based immigration visa, parents are likely to be long dead. (FYI, the waiting list for family based immigration is more than 7 years). Having a child born in america does not offer any advantage for immigrants, legal or illegal. If you Google, you will find many stories, where parents are deported while the child is left in USA, in custody of some relatives.
                      I know personally of American citizens born to illegal foreigners. Very often the family stays here due to the children. For every story of a set of parents deported and the children left behind, there are probably dozens of those who stay.

                      Originally posted by kams View Post
                      They generate wealth by working for a rock bottom wages, without benefits or any kind of right. They create wealth for those mamoth companies who are supposed to follow law. If these illegal immigrants have broken law, so do these companies who employ and exploit them.
                      That's exactly right. Those companies should be heavily fined. And the money used to pay for border security and administration cost.

                      And you know why they work often at below minimum wage? Because there IS a minimum wage. Remove minimum wage and let the market determine the pay. Wage will not be artificially inflated and more Americans will not be artificially priced out of the competition. Minimum wage exploits the poor, not help them.

                      Originally posted by kams View Post
                      I don't condone illegal immigration and I have been following the ongoing CIR debate in Senate very actively. I feel like throwing up everytime Sen.Kennedy stands up to speak. Many senators are falling over each other to support the bill.
                      Yeah I saw a clip on TV of Teddy singing in Spanish. I didn't know if it was a joke or real. Maybe I gave him too much credit. He really CAN sink to that level.
                      "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        gunnut, texasjohn,

                        That estimation varies wildly according the different studies.

                        They may generate wealth, but a large portion of that wealth doesn't stay here. It's transfered back to Mexico. Remittance is the 2nd largest income for Mexico right after oil. That's just wrong.
                        I have to disagree there. The uneducated illegal immigrants I see here in Texas, send much of their earnings back home to their native country.

                        In terms of "milking the welfare state" they obtain their SSNs, sometimes Drivers Licence through the underworld. This often means associating with the criminal world ( there are many Mexican gangs here - drugs, etc. you name it)
                        I have even run into illegals that are happy to tell you mama back home in Mexico gets a Social Security check from the US! The rot is DEEP.
                        all valid concerns. however, both of you are mistaken in the impact. to LIVE in the US, these illegal immigrants have to buy food, find shelter, clothing, etc etc. they are not sending most of their money back to mexico (mexicans back home buy plenty from america: thus the impact is reduced there, too), simply because they have to save and spend enough HERE just to get by.

                        the question of remittances was also one of the mercantile arguments against chinese immigration to the US in the 19th century. free-trade economists demonstrated the folly of that argument even back then, so this has been a long-lasting fallacy, it seems.

                        even the question of social security is a relative short-term concern, as well; again, by second or the third generation, immigrants have broken out of the cycle and thus pay back into the system.

                        Mexico is right next door. Their relatives and friends can literally be a day's drive away. They can turn on their radio and TV sets for a number of programs in their native language. There's really very small incentive to learn the English language and the American culture. Did you know there are more Spanish radio stations in LA county than English?
                        however, to get beyond the basic minimum-wage jobs, a command of the english language is necessary. this is why night-classes in english are usually packed, as i've noticed before in california. there is a HUGE incentive to learn english and american culture: people want to get better jobs. people want their CHILDREN, at least, to get better jobs.

                        UAlbany’s Mumford Center Finds Bilingualism Persists, But English Dominates

                        The very high immigration level of the 1990s does not appear to have weakened the forces of linguistic assimilation. Mexicans, by far the largest immigrant group, provide a compelling example. In 1990, 64 percent of third-generation Mexican-American children spoke only English at home; in 2000, the equivalent figure had risen to 71 percent.


                        But we need to somehow control Mexico's corruption.
                        that will come with more economic development. once the pie is big enough, and legal measures are more valued, the incentive to become corrupt falls.

                        texasjohn,

                        The latin American illegal is a phenomenon not seen before here in the US as with other immigrant groups who really do try to assimilate- only it takes 2-3 generations.

                        How many Vietnamese, Chinese, Italian, Irish, Indian etc. groups do you see driving down the street blasting their car radios MAKING you listen to their cultural music?
                        and most evidence shows that assimilation of mexicans/latin americans takes 2-3 generations, as well.

                        as for your cultural music example...i take it you've not been to chinatown or places like westminister, CA. or for that matter, washington, DC, where i hear african (ethiopian mainly) music played quite often ;) we don't even need to talk about the existence of the sicilian mob. besides, what is america but a combination of cultures? should i get upset if i hear a german man blast mozart out? ;)

                        in the end, i'm NOT saying that illegal immigration is not a problem. but the main concerns about illegal immigration should focus on security concerns (terrorist infiltration, gang violence) and legal concerns (them being illegal) as opposed to a focus on economic or assimilation problems.
                        Last edited by astralis; 27 Jun 07,, 04:30.
                        There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by FibrillatorD View Post
                          No doubt, very true. But this seems to me somewhat of a separate issue. Or, at least, its an issue that must be dealt with separately from the more pressing reality of 12 million people living today in a third world within our own borders, outside the law.

                          Its high time we acknowledge the costs of letting this sector continue to expand. And bring the law into a better fit with the reality on the ground. Then we can reap even more benefits from their labor, and allow the millions of otherwise-honest immigrants to have an official stake in things.

                          We've tried before, and failed, to push standing law on entire peoples living according to a separate code.

                          We need to extend the umbrella of the law over this vast demographic before we can effectively enforce it upon them.
                          I'm not getting your point. (busy night at work for me. ;) )

                          -dale

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by astralis View Post
                            to LIVE in the US, these illegal immigrants have to buy food, find shelter, clothing, etc etc. they are not sending most of their money back to mexico (mexicans back home buy plenty from america: thus the impact is reduced there, too), simply because they have to save and spend enough HERE just to get by.
                            Yes, I agree. However they are quite good at taking advantage of our generous welfare state.

                            California's emergency room is stretched to the limit. Our school budget is at nearly $60 billion a year and our students perform horribly.

                            That's why we should reduce welfare system, privatize education, and make health insurance like car insurace where consumers buy their own.

                            Originally posted by astralis View Post
                            in the end, i'm NOT saying that illegal immigration is not a problem. but the main concerns about illegal immigration should focus on security concerns (terrorist infiltration, gang violence) and legal concerns (them being illegal) as opposed to a focus on economic or assimilation problems.
                            I agree.

                            Security is my main concern. It's hard to control and keep track of many people than few people. That's why I want an orderly immigration/worker program.

                            We should issue more temperary worker permits for people who want to come over to work low-skilled jobs. If they know they can re-enter without any problems after going back to visit family/relatives, they have fewer incentives to come here illegally and then stick around.

                            However I still think we should fix the 14th Amendment so we don't grant citizenship to just anyone born here.

                            Of course these are ideal solutions. We don't live in an ideal world.
                            "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                              I know personally of American citizens born to illegal foreigners. Very often the family stays here due to the children. For every story of a set of parents deported and the children left behind, there are probably dozens of those who stay.
                              That American child does not confer any legal rights to parents is what I am trying to say. Why do you think illegals are here, to make a better tomorrow for them and more importantly their children. So repealing 14th amendment will not help much.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X