Could you perhaps clarify your position, in simplistic terms, for those of us who aren't SVG.
What term would you use to describe someone who chooses not to follow the prescribed route for citizenship or residency and chooses instead to simply come here and avail themselves the privileges available here? To what degree do you believe the government may exert control over our borders?
I don't see why I the question must be asked in terms which imply that EVERY illegal is a freeloader.
Statistically, a minority of illegal immigrants avail themselves of privileges offered by our government, as they are generally not eligible.
Of course, there are exceptions to the rule. The solution to these exceptions is to eliminate any means by which non-citizens may avail themselves to privileges. End handouts. You wouldn't propose punishing a citizen for accepting handouts, would you? My guess is you'd be content to simply end the handouts.
To whatever extent the government is taking my money and giving it to illegals, I blame the government for aggressing against my wallet, not an illegal for taking a buck (who
wouldn't take free money?).
While I do not believe it is appropriate for government to deport people for the crime of simply "being" somewhere without permission, I would maintain naturalization processes.
This would mean that people who fail to follow procedure would stop being "illegal", they would simply have no claim to any government privileges. I can even see requiring them to pay upfront before utilizing government-subsidized services, like taking an action to civil court.
There is a strong tendency to take the factual wrongs of a tiny minority of illegals, and project them on every illegal.
Fact is, most illegals aren't freeloaders, they work hard for low pay (although some folks don't like that either, admittedly).
So, I say: if an illegal gets handouts, end them. If he commits a crime, jail or deport him. If he wishes to avail himself of privileges afforded by government, give him a naturalization procedure.
I fail to see how the entirely non-aggressive act of being in a place constitutes a
malum in se offense.
Each
malum in se offense argued as resulting from illegal immigration is something which illegal immigrants only
may do, and is something which only a fraction of illegals commit, and as usual I refuse to concede to the moral justifiability of punishing the many for the crimes of the few.
You'll notice that every attempt to suggest illegal immigration is aggressive follows the following pattern: "I consider it aggression when illegals come here
and..."
Well, whatever comes after than "and" very well might be aggression, but the fact that you need an "and" to reach the level of aggression should suggest that whatever precedes the "and" (i.e., merely coming here) is not itself an act of aggression.
To any who commit a "and", throw the book at them.
To answer your second question, I am inclined to allow government a presence at major border crossings. Noncitizens should be allowed to cross after a thorough search and identity check, and citizens should be allowed to cross unhindered, absent probable cause. I would have no ethical qualm with presence along remote parts of the border, although I question its practical utility.
By the way, in response to something someone said earlier: Mexico has sensible immigration policy, unlike the U.S.
They have a procedure with red tape, but most everyone who is willing to go through the tape will be allowed in. It's kind of akin to shall-issue licensure. There are very few illegals in Mexico since anyone who isn't already a criminal can immigrate legally, so being an illegal is, in Mexico, a damn good indicator that you're up to something illegal.
It works pretty well, but it's dependent on making the procure doable for those who wish to accomplish it.
The U.S., on the other hand, has notoriously hard-to-meet immigration standards. With the result that being "illegal" really, truly doesn't imply a thing about the suitability of a person for our society.
Not to mention that the very system of creating second-class people out of illegals disincentivizes assimilation, and incentivizes organized criminal activity (did you know MS -- and a slew of other hispanic gangs -- were started by Salvadoran ex-combatants who wanted to provide mutual security for each other against indigenous gangs? Is it surprising when young illegals, who are victimized by local gangs with no chance of legal backing, turn to starting their own gangs, and as a result eventually become radically anti-societal?)
Like nearly every instance of regulating
malum prohibitum behavior, our immigration laws create a self-fulfilling prophecy of criminality.
