The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewEric Striker Archive
Libertarian Congressman Proposes Bill to Decriminalize Illegal Immigration
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

A pair of new bills put forth in the House of Representatives will move the United States towards open borders if it gains traction.

The Protect Asylum Seekers Act and Practical Alternatives to Detention Act, both authored by Libertarian Party congressman Justin Amash, would decriminalize unauthorized entry by illegal aliens to the United States and outlaw their detention by border enforcement bodies.

Amash, who until 2019 was a Republican, is the first Libertarian Party congressman in US history. His biggest financial sponsors include Jeffrey Yass, a Zionist billionaire GOP donor, as well as the neo-liberal Cato Institute.

If Amash’s laws were enacted, illegal aliens at the border would be briefly detained, given an ankle monitor, and then released to live in the United States.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has already been using ankle monitors with thousands of illegals as an alternative to detention. While sale of the monitors has made the companies that produce them rich, the illegals themselves cut them off as soon as they get a chance and move to “sanctuary cities,” where immigration laws are not applied.

While Amash’s bill presents a widely unpopular and fringe approach to US immigration law, he has a number of potential allies in Congress. The radical capitalist’s proposal dovetails smoothly with demands from the self-described socialist wing of the Democratic Party, represented by figures like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, whose calls to “Abolish ICE” briefly became a mainstream liberal slogan.

Free market Republicans and the Democrats are eager to legislate on immigration under a Biden presidency, but the president-elect does not appear to be as excited as they are. Yesterday Biden announced that any change to present immigration policies will be slow to prevent a sudden rush of “2 million people on our border,” which has enraged both corporate and far-left elements within the Democratic Party.

Historically, the Obama administration deported 50% more illegal immigrants in its first term than Trump has. Nevertheless, opponents of mass immigration are warning that Biden’s publicly moderate position could be a ruse to avoid public outcry.

As for Representative Amash, who was elected by a 84% white, working class district in Michigan, his refusal to represent the interests of his constituents will not have any electoral consequences. Amish declined to run for re-election in 2020 and, after this parting shot, will soon be out of office.

(Republished from National Justice by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Amnesty, Immigration 
Hide 26 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. KenH says:

    Notice how the coward Amash waited until just after his election to propose this crap. Republicans know this is unpopular which is why they never do it in an election year.

    • Replies: @Anon
  2. It says a lot about the deficiencies of American libertarianism that it derives in part from the writings in the 20th Century of three sterile, damaged women who couldn’t form normal relationships with men, namely, Rose Wilder Lane, Isabel Paterson, and, of course, Ayn Rand. These alienated, rootless and atomized women saw no need to treat the United States as an inheritance and an asset that needs careful and conscientious management to keep its value for future generations of traditional white Americans.

    • Agree: John Johnson
  3. Also I find it annoying that one of the founders of the Libertarian Party, David Nolan, enjoyed a comfortable middle-class life as part of the Silent Generation, yet he felt so horribly oppressed by generally reasonable government regulations on the economy that he had to start a new political party. From hindsight you have to wonder what all his libertarianizing really accomplished. He could have left well enough alone and nothing fundamental would have changed in our current situation.

  4. I will play devil’s advocate.

    Why should U.S farm workers, factory workers and service workers get paid more than Mexican, Chinese, Vietnamese etc. workers? especially if they do the same damn job?

    someone here will post about how Indian coders are terrible, but if the software industry still finds it more cost efficient to hire Indian coders then hire another coder to fix all their mistakes, what is wrong with that?

    Why should westerners get higher wages? if you do “mexican” work collect “mexican” wages. why should the government take steps to artificially inflate your low skilled job salary? the government paid for your k-12 education and subsidized your college education, if after that you only find jobs where you are basically a meat robot, that is on you.

    In a following comment I will take off my devil’s advocate hat but, what follows isn’t a prescription for a solution instead I present an elucidation of what went wrong.

    • Thanks: obvious
  5. Mark G. says:
    @anyone with a brain

    One problem is that employers are not paying the full cost of immigrant employees. Many of them have families that qualify for various forms of welfare. Employers receive the benefits of having them here but the costs are borne by society in general. You want to prevent this privatizing of benefits and socializing of costs. We already have enough native born welfare recipients and don’t need to add more. Polls show that immigrants are overwhelmingly in favor of more government so if you give them citizenship they will use their votes to extract money from wealthier native Americans.

    The common libertarian belief in open borders is something recent. Earlier libertarians like Mises, Hayek, Rothbard and Friedman didn’t believe that. Friedman is frequently quoted about how you can’t have both open borders and a welfare state. You aren’t going to be able to repeal the welfare state if you have increasing numbers of pro-welfare state immigrants voting to block that.

    The most famous libertarian of all, Ayn Rand, was pro-immigration but in her mind immigrants were people, like herself, who were fleeing repressive regimes for America the land of freedom and opportunity. She didn’t live to see the current era where many immigrants don’t fall in that category and want to use things like welfare, affirmative action and so on to benefit themselves at the expense of natives. I don’t think she would have supported something like that.

    • Agree: RoatanBill
  6. Anon[303] • Disclaimer says:

    KenH– Amash is a Libertarian Party member, not GOP.

    The Libertarians want open entry for peaceful people, and to toss out the unpeaceful on their ear, unlike the current GOP-DEM created mess which hassles the peaceful and coddles the miscreants (watch commenters defend that by attacking Amash and Libertarians).

    Ankle bracelets for alleged refugees with immediate and permanent expulsion for misbehavior (like removing it) would be a big step forward.

    Also, Libertarians coined the term ‘immivasion’ for phoney-baloney immigration by our enemies. Libertarians have been saying we’re under such invasion for 5 decades. Unlike the OP and many commenters they don’t try and cure an invasion with immigration policy.

    • Replies: @KenH
  7. anon[116] • Disclaimer says:

    This is why I can’t support libertarians. Limited government essentially means no borders, no illegal drugs, no law enforcement, no oversight of the financial markets, antitrust, etc. We need a lot more regulations on all these not less. The only thing I agree with them on is no more wars and surveillance of citizens.

    Cato Institute is one of the most consistent promoters of open borders. Anything to benefit big business.

    That said, I don’t think Amash is a real libertarian. Being backed by a Zionist says a lot. Zionism and libertarianism are clearly at odds. Maybe this is their plan to move all Palestinians to the US.

    • Replies: @Pericles
  8. TG says:
    @anyone with a brain

    As even Adam Smith pointed out, a person is not paid according to the actual utility of their work, but only for the relative balance of supply and demand for their skill. That’s why truck drivers in Japan and Switzerland get paid more than software engineers in India or Pakistan.

    Americans get paid more than Mexicans because Americans don’t breed like rodents, and Mexicans do. Surely Americans should be allowed to keep the benefits of what they have created for themselves? And if the Mexicans really want a decent life, they should follow the example of every other country without an open frontier that developed a high standard of living, and not push their populations up to the limits. The iron law of development is that FIRST countries moderate their fertility rate, THEN they are at least able to develop increased real per-capita wealth. Never the other way around.

    A world without borders is a world whose population will soon be set by places like Bangladesh and India, where the land is stripped bare of resources and the average person is crushed into subsistence level poverty. The super rich would like this just fine, it would take us back to the 9th century, but you and I, I think, might not care so much for that result.

  9. TG says:

    How about we decriminalize trespassing? If a bunch of poor people in search of a better life trespass onto the gated mansions and private estates of some billionaire, let’s say that’s OK. Even more: just by crossing the border, they should automatically become members of their family and have property rights and access to their health insurance etc.

    Of course that won’t happen. If a bunch of poor people – including minor children – tried to invade the property of one of our oligarchs, if necessary they would be machine gunned on the spot and nary a tear shed. Because open borders are only for little people.

    And of course Israel can defend its borders, that apparently is OK.

    More generally: there is nothing so disgusting as a rich person claiming the moral high ground for pushing policies that will make them richer at the expense of making everyone else poorer. The rich – and their paid-for mouthpieces, and people whose jobs and careers depend on not countering the party line – have absolutely no moral standing to argue for mass third-world immigration. I vigorously reject any such arguments from such wealthy hypocrites, as should we all.

  10. WJ says:

    That Biden is not as excited about illegal immigration as others is a small bit of good news. Obama changed the metric for deportations. Under BO’s administration they counted border turn backs as deportations.

  11. fnn says:
    @anyone with a brain

    Here’s your explanation:

    We know that intelligence matters at the level of the individual, impacting performance in school, work, and life. Decades of research supports that point. But what if your personal intelligence level doesn’t matter as much as the average level of intelligence of the country in which you live? This is what economist Garett Jones of George Mason University calls the “paradox of IQ” in his new book Hive Mind: How Your Nation’s IQ Matters So Much More Than Your Own.

    Jones discovered this paradox when researching the link between IQ and income with his colleague W. Joel Schneider. Within a country, the link between IQ and income appears modest, with one IQ point predicting 1% higher income per person. But across countries, that same IQ point predicts 6% higher income per person. Why would it be that the IQ of the country you live in matters more than your individual IQ for predicting eventual income? This led Jones on a quest to explore some of the reasons why this might be, and potential implications of this paradox, discussed in detail in his new book.

    In an interview, Jones told Quartz, “If something appears to matter more for a nation than it does for an individual, that something may well be causing positive side effects.” He described three key paths that may generate positive side effects: the links between IQ and patience, cooperation, and team performance. A fourth path, the productivity of those around you, multiplies the impact of the other three. All these paths are supported by research studies spanning psychology, economics, management, and political science, specifically large research syntheses or meta-analyses.

    • Replies: @advancedatheist
  12. Alfa158 says:

    Why bother with the ankle bracelets at all? Is that a sop to the bracelet manufacturers so they won’t lobby against the bill? The Libertarian ideology is that national borders are invalid and anyone should be able to live anywhere they want.
    I used to work in marketing for a company that produced some of the first cheap GPS technology that allowed reliable acquisition and tracking under challenging conditions such as indoors and in cars, on someone’s ankle with just a circuit trace for an antenna etc. One of the early adopters of the now more capable ankle bracelets produced by one of our customers was a Florida penal system. A parole officer wrote a report complaining about how the parole system didn’t really want to know where offenders were going. She had a sex-offender parolee who didn’t think the bracelet could work. The officer downloaded a bread crumb track of where the parolee had gone. Basically he was spending all his spare time cruising and parking around playgrounds and schools. The parole officer’s supervisors didn’t want to look at the printout because their performance is evaluated on the recidivism rate of their parolees and they didn’t want to send the guy right back to prison.

  13. @Mark G.

    The most famous libertarian of all, Ayn Rand, was pro-immigration but in her mind immigrants were people, like herself, who were fleeing repressive regimes for America the land of freedom and opportunity. She didn’t live to see the current era where many immigrants don’t fall in that category and want to use things like welfare, affirmative action and so on to benefit themselves at the expense of natives.

    Libertarians tend to romanticize immigrants as potential high achievers who couldn’t flourish in their home countries, but they could very well here. Yet in our era of relatively affordable jet travel, plenty of mediocre people can migrate to the United States as well, when we have millions of mediocre but employable American citizens already here who could hold jobs taken by immigrants. I see examples of unimpressive immigrants in the hospitality industry all the time.

    BTW, Ayn Rand’s immigration story needs more scrutiny because it doesn’t make sense. How did she get a visa to leave Stalin’s Soviet Union and go to the United States, when millions of Russians would have killed for that privilege? And how did she manage to get a job in Hollywood while apparently breaking America’s immigration laws?

  14. @fnn

    Higher national IQ results in a compounding effect which gives you a more livable society, in other words. If we had some kind of science-fictional enhancement to apply to America’s black population which gave them 10 more IQ points, for example, a lot of the standard black dysfunctions would dramatically improve. Blacks would become more educable, law abiding, healthier, more frugal and so forth, though perhaps not up to white standards. But that upgrade would noticeably improve the quality of life in the United States.

  15. Pericles says:

    “Libertarianism for thee, zionism for me.”

  16. The common libertarian belief in open borders is something recent. Earlier libertarians like Mises, Hayek, Rothbard and Friedman didn’t believe that. Friedman is frequently quoted about how you can’t have both open borders and a welfare state.

    I’ve been a libertarian since before there was a Libertarian Party, and I can’t understand how the modern ones lost sight of this basic, obvious truth. Even if open borders should be a long-term libertarian ideal–something I’d seriously question–it clearly isn’t practical until the welfare state is dead and buried.

    • Agree: Adam Smith
  17. KenH says:

    The Libertarians want open entry for peaceful people

    Oh, and how can you prove that an immigrant is “peaceful”? Do we just take their word for it? And having a system of open entry for “peaceful” people is equally insane to the system we have now and is still is an open invitation to the entire (third) world.

    No sane nation allows open entry for all “peaceful” people. If the Ron Paultards and Libertarian central supports this then they are saying that all racial groups are equal and interchangeable which is a pillar of Marxism.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    , @RadicalCenter
  18. Tulip says:
    @anyone with a brain

    Yeah, why not government by the corporations, for the corporations! American wage serfs should just be grateful they got to work on the best feudal manor for as long as they did. Why the hell would you expect that your elected representatives would represent your interests over foreigners, usurers, and robber barons. [I think personally they are just getting people ready for becoming a Chinese colony, so when the new foreign overlords come, they can improve American health care, wages, and housing and gain the support of the masses. If you revolt against the CCP, just remember you’ll be governed once again by the Swamp!]

  19. @KenH

    The Libertarians want open entry for peaceful people

    Oh, and how can you prove that an immigrant is “peaceful”?

    A central tenet of (small-l) libertarian thought is “cover your costs”. Do even one in ten immigrants today even meet that low standard? Few pay any federal income tax, as their wages will fall below the threshold, especially with exemptions.

    Citizenship– hell, just residency– has a monetary value, and our government should not be giving it away for free. That’s not libertarian, it’s welfare.

  20. Franz says:
    @Mark G.

    The most famous libertarian of all, Ayn Rand…

    …Also knocked Medicare as the ultimate in Socialism, insulted anyone that was on it. Then she got lung cancer and saw what the bills were and signed up for… Medicare.

    Libertarians are total hypocrites and I speak with dirty hands since I was one years ago. When it became too obvious that it was just a corporate rah-rah club, it was time to tear up the party card and stay independent.

    In the case of illegals, it’s likely this Michigan twit got a really huge donation from the Cheap Labor Lobby and already has a chalet in Switzerland or a condo in Tel Aviv. That’s what the LP worships no matter what sort of noise they make.

    Am I a sore loser? I dunno. I think between party dues and donations I was out less than \$500. At least when I was in they threw some fine impromptu parties, so no, not sore.

    But generally they’re a pack of self serving shits.

  21. WJ says:
    @anyone with a brain

    Did you read the post? It’s not about jobs and wages. It’s about open borders. It’s damn simple. I don’t want to live in Mexico or Bangalore or Lagos. I don’t want their shitty culture.

    Since you were playing devil’s advocate I will assume you are not just some moronic cuck.

  22. @anyone with a brain

    I will take off my devil’s advocate hat and explain my thoughts.

    Basically any powerful country can do whatever the fuck it wants. U.Stians collected high wages because they had great manufacturing processes compared to the rest of the world. But due to the growth of power of the finance class, the U.S abandoned manufacturing because the manufacturing lobby lost power politically due to hubris leading to loss of leadership in new processes and technology and the growth of finance dominance in the boardroom. Making money began to matter more than preserving industry leadership. Profits were mistaken for prowess.

    At this point the U.S could have become protectionist to shore up its weak manufacturing or pursue the finance path and protect the economic base of the new big finance lobby in town and abandon manufacturing. What was done was the latter. So you had unregulated finance which did its role and allocated capital to new growth ventures which were tech companies, this worked well for a couple of decades and continues to “work” (stocks keep going up). However there are some inconvenient truths such as the fact that Russian and Chinese tech and finance is catching up and surpassing U.S tech and finance. Silicon valley now faces a similar path that Detroit faced in the 70s, getting their ass handed to them by foreign competitors with only protectionism and monopolistic practices saving them from complete ruin. The second unmentioned change has been the loss of a prosperous middle class. Where as manufacturing kept lots of people fed and happy, tech and finance keep fewer people fed and even fewer people happy

    What will happen is that no new lobby will replace the tech and finance lobby leading to finance and tech protectionism and turning a regulatory blind eye to monopolistic practices. Tech and financial services will get shittier, copyright laws will get harsher and tech and finance jobs less open and meritocratic and decreasing in number.

  23. @KenH

    Ron Paul does not support this suicidal policy.

  24. @anyone with a brain

    Because native taxes created the social system that allowed markets to flourish, and their wages a market system that tends toward equilibrium for the survival of that society as well as its ongoing improvement. Foreigners are not part of the market and are not invested in it.

  25. His biggest financial sponsors include Jeffrey Yass, a Zionist billionaire…

    Just taking a wild guess here — this White genocidal Jew does NOT financially sponsor open borders for Israel.

  26. obvious says:
    @Mark G.

    What makes you think that immigrant workers take more welfare than native workers? And who cares? This hubbub about “welfare” is a half drop in the ocean… it’s an unstructured mental fantasy about nothing. There is no worker alive who does not generate his own welfare and THEN some for the capitalist class, so to speak. This attitude beckons to the stupid to play “divide and rule”, as though “furriners cheatin waffles” is the problem. Stop paying rent, taxes, mortgages, debts or going to work at all, and let the “welfare” take care of itself.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Eric Striker Comments via RSS
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
How America was neoconned into World War IV