Imigration in America

[Taem]

This topic needs more justice then I'm about to bring to it, but with everything happening around the nation because of Arizona's new immigration laws, I feel the need to voice my opinion on the subject.

First of all, I would like to know a) what the laws are regarding immigrants in the UK, and b) if all the neighboring countries erected boarders around their nations, i.e. is there a huge 10'-tall chain link fence boarding Germany or Switzerland to neighboring countries, or is the countryside all open?

Why? Because I feel America has no idea what it's doing with immigration reform. As far as I know, if you are here illegally, that makes it illegal, right? So how come local police do not have the right to deport them or lock them up for being here? How is it someone here illegally gets the benefits of all of our social programs, such as Medical, and can be issued a drivers license? Literally, this makes no sense. I feel there must be strong lobbyists in Congress pitching for the rights of illegals. The laws need to either change, be strictly enforced, or just abolished altogether and the boarder opened up because the status qua is not working and only encouraging drug smuggling and human trafficking, which of course breeds crime along the boarder.

And perhaps I'm stretching, but I think part of the problem started way back when California and neighboring states were once part of Alto-California. At this time, the half of America past Texas was Mexican, so after the US took over, I'm sure thousands of Mexicans stayed in America. With such a strong presence, it's no wonder Hispanics who consider themselves Mexican have so much sway on our laws. Never have I heard of something being "illegal" that is not only OK, but rewarded with social benefits. And of course this rant would not be complete without the mentioning of what would happen if an American tried to live in Mexico illegally and got caught.

The whole thing frustrates me greatly, and I've lost all respect for the mayor of L.A. Anyways, I have more to say and I didn't get a chance to flush this out at all, but I have to go now! Lots of strong opinions on this one ~ hope I don't wear a new hole in my rear because of this post. I'll add more later when I have time.

[--Pete]

Hi,

At the least, fix your signature.

--Pete

[Jester]

My thoughts? Legalize drugs. Enact generous, low-restriction guest-worker programs, and clear routes to citizenship. The upsides are huge, the downsides are exaggerated. An open border is, all else equal, a happy border.

I don't know what would happen to an American who tried to live illegally in Mexico, but I can only imagine their circumstances would have to be fairly unique. Mexicans have obvious motive to migrate to the US, the same as migrants have always had: high-paying jobs. Americans have no similar incentive to move to Mexico.

The US does deport a lot of illegal migrants every year. But you get a lot more of them, and most stay under the radar. Partly, this is because they're good at staying unobtrusive, but mostly, it's because employers are happy to have them, and so have no incentive to report them.

In Europe, they have the European Union, which means more or less free access for guest workers anywhere, no questions asked. Gordon Brown recently got into some trouble regarding popular opinion and one woman's comments about the number of Polish and other Eastern European workers in the UK - there are quite a lot, but many are going home due to recession. Unsurprisingly, despite their perfectly legal right to live and work in the UK, there is still substantial resentment at their presence. As Matt and Trey once put it: "They took our jerbs!"

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

My thoughts? Legalize drugs. Enact generous, low-restriction guest-worker programs, and clear routes to citizenship. The upsides are huge, the downsides are exaggerated. An open border is, all else equal, a happy border.

All else is not even remotely equal. That's the prolem.

The happy border fantasy may be close to true between two states not generally screwed up -- the US and Canada-- but between a political/social basket case, Mexico, and the leading democracy and economy in the free world, America, such is not the case.

I don't know what would happen to an American who tried to live illegally in Mexico

Then I suggest you first look up Mexican immigration and alien laws. They are both strict and restrictive. I think part of that is due to their southern neighbors being even messier basket cases ... but really, Jester, look them up.

If our laws were as strict as Mexican laws, they'd be crying louder than they do. The Mexican government are a despicable group of hypocrites, on the matter of their complaint on immigration North, compared to their own statutes.

It ain't pretty. Look them up. Don't take my word for it.

Occhi

[kandrathe]

Decriminalize drug use and tax it like beer, wine, spirits and tobacco. But, criminalize smuggling anything across the border, just as you would beer, wine, spirits, guns, butter or tobacco.

Enact a strict mandatory 1 year jail term + $100,000 fine for the person hiring any worker without proper documentation. Plus, exact a similar fine to the company as a whole.

Enact the condition that any foreign alien who enters the US undocumented forever forfeits any possibility of legal immigration. First offense, gets you an all expenses paid ticket home. The second offense, costs you a year working for the government erecting the border fence, and each subsequent offense doubles the term.

Remove from the law the "born in America" clause, that was implemented after the Civil War to allow the former slaves babies citizenship.

Foreign workers must register and become documented at a US embassy in their country of origin. They must list their employment sponsor, and when approved will forward to the designated embassy the funds for their legal travel.

Or, maybe we should just mirror Mexico's "General Law of the Population"

1) We will prohibit anyone from entering the US if they upset "the equilibrium of the national demographics."
2) We will bar anyone from entering the US if they do not enhance US "economic or national interests", are found to be either physically or mentally unhealthy or show "contempt against national sovereignty or security."
3) We will bar anyone from entering the US if they have any criminal misdemeanor or felony convictions.
4) In order to register for citizenship, they must show a birth certificate, provide a bank statement proving economic independence, pass an exam and prove they can provide their own health care.
5) Illegal entry into the country is a felony punishable by two years' imprisonment. Document fraud is subject to fine and imprisonment; so is alien marriage fraud. Evading deportation is a serious crime; illegal re-entry after deportation is punishable by ten years' imprisonment. Foreigners at any time, at the governments discretion, can be kicked out of the country without due process or appeal.
6) Law enforcement officials at all levels -- by national mandate -- must cooperate to enforce immigration laws, including illegal alien arrests and deportations.
7) The US military is also required to assist in immigration enforcement operations. US Citizens are empowered to make citizens' arrests of illegal aliens and turn them in to authorities for a reward.
8) A national alien tracking database with documents all tourists and foreign nationals. A National Population Registry tracks and verifies the identity of every member of the population, who must carry a citizens' identity card. Visitors who do not possess proper documents and identification are subject to arrest as illegal aliens.

Also remember that Mexico's legal system is based upon the Napoleonic system, where the accused stands guilty and must prove their innocence.

Literally, this makes no sense.

Think of all those 10 million potential voters... Think of all the bureaucrats groveling for their potential votes. Thus, you understand the politics of amnesty, and the nationwide relaxation of requirements to show photo Id at the polls.

[Jester]

All else is not even remotely equal. That's the prolem.

True enough.

The happy border fantasy may be close to true between two states not generally screwed up -- the US and Canada-- but between a political/social basket case, Mexico, and the leading democracy and economy in the free world, America, such is not the case.

The idea is what, that Mexicans are exporting their political instability along with their workers? The big cause for problems is the drug trade. Get rid of that, and your problems are controlled - so long as you like having relatively open borders. If not, then closing them is going to remain a problem, and illegal migrants will continue to find ways through.

Then I suggest you first look up Mexican immigration and alien laws. They are both strict and restrictive. I think part of that is due to their southern neighbors being even messier basket cases ... but really, Jester, look them up.

If our laws were as strict as Mexican laws, they'd be crying louder than they do. The Mexican government are a despicable group of hypocrites, on the matter of their complaint on immigration North, compared to their own statutes.

It ain't pretty. Look them up. Don't take my word for it.

The question was not "what happens to Guatemaltecos when they do the same thing to Mexico that Mexicans do to the US." You're right, it's not pretty, and I have looked it up. The question is what happens to *Americans*. I somehow doubt they get treated the same, if only because their reasons for being in Mexico illegally would have to be radically different. Not to mention that mistreating a US citizen might have consequences, whereas nobody in Mexico really gives a hoot what Guatemala thinks (or Nicaragua, or El Salvador, or any of the Central American countries.)

But, yes, the Mexicans are being deeply hypocritical about this. My advice to them would be similar to my advice to the states - open the border, generous work programs, well-signposted citizenship programs.

-Jester

[eppie]

i.e. is there a huge 10'-tall chain link fence boarding Germany or Switzerland to neighboring countries, or is the countryside all open?

We used to have that between east and west germany.

How is it someone here illegally gets the benefits of all of our social programs, such as Medical, and can be issued a drivers license?

That is because they are human beings first, illegal second.

[kandrathe]

We used to have that between east and west germany.

Mexico is not building a wall to keep their people from fleeing to freedom.

That is because they are human beings first, illegal second.

I don't recall that the natural law rights of human kind were a drivers license, free medical care, and to demand welfare from a system toward which you've not contributed. I have pity for the squalor and tyranny from which they are fleeing, but by rewarding successful illegal immigration we are encouraging people to fling themselves into the chasm of unknown dangers. You don't realize how many die trying to get here. That is not humane.

We are a nation built on LAW. And so the first lesson must be that legal entry is the only path to successful immigration. All other paths must be fruitless.

[Delc]

Do you really think a fence along the Mexican border will accomplish anything? What effect will that have on people who simply come here legally for travel, or on student visas, and then 'forget' to leave? We have miles of ocean blocking our border with Cuba, yet they still seem to get here.

[kandrathe]

Do you really think a fence along the Mexican border will accomplish anything? What effect will that have on people who simply come here legally for travel, or on student visas, and then 'forget' to leave? We have miles of ocean blocking our border with Cuba, yet they still seem to get here.

You protect the border against those who have intentions other than legal work. Cubans who get here are automatically afforded special immigration status.

The biggest disincentive for students, and travelers remaining after their visas expire would be the lack of a means of income without legal documentation.

[Lissa]

The biggest problem is the Federal Government isn't enforcing it's own law (the fact that it's against the law to be here without proper papers, every country has this). Arizona took it upon itself to actually enforce a Fedearl Law at the state level, they just are taking it to an extreme because of the situation there. Just to give you an idea of how bad it is for drug/gang killings in Arizona, back in 2004 or 2005 (I can't remember which year exatly), Quark and I were discussing about the number of murders in Philadelphia that year up through August (it was around 500 murder for a population of around 5,000,000, about 0.01%) and I noted to Quark that in Tucson, there were about 250 known murders at that point for the year and that the Police had roughly 250 more missing persons report (which most would also be murders where the body hadn't been found) for a population of 700,000 (0.035% at 250, 0.07% at 500). And since then, it's only gotten worse with rival smuggling group (those moving illegals) attacking each other to make more money off those trying to get across the border illegally along with the various drug trafficing groups where the number of killings has gone up substantially.

What would you do when presented with that kind of situation and it appears the Federal government isn't doing its job?

[--Pete]

Hi,

The biggest disincentive for students, and travelers remaining after their visas expire would be the lack of a means of income without legal documentation.

I find it strange that someone who's credo is no government interference is so willing to saddle us with 'papers'. I'd think you'd look at it as: "first papers that say you can work, then papers that say what work you can do, and then papers that say where you can work, and live, and travel."

I guess principles must give way to prejudices, else prejudice would not survive.

--Pete

---

Hi,

What would you do when presented with that kind of situation and it appears the Federal government isn't doing its job?

Look for the real cause of the problem, and fix that rather than using placebos to 'treat' the symptoms.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

I find it strange that someone who's credo is no government interference is so willing to saddle us with 'papers'. I'd think you'd look at it as: "first papers that say you can work, then papers that say what work you can do, and then papers that say where you can work, and live, and travel."

The only burden for citizens is that they ensure the documentation of job applicants, know when their visas expire, and ensure they are reauthorized at that time. This is required now. I'm not adding anything new, other than changing the importance of the enforcement and the penalties to be commensurate to that importance. Our problem with illegal immigration starts with the willful breaking of the law by US citizens who are prohibited from employing illegal immigrants.

We are both immigrants, or descended from them. How fair is it that the ones who break the law, get to be the first in line? What about the lawful ones who patiently wait their turn? Part of my job is actually helping students and temporary workers get visas to be in this country legally. I have sponsored people from all over the world, to come to study, live, and work here legally. And, if they consider staying, to help them apply for a green card, and go through the lawful naturalization process. The humanitarian side of this is that the "sponsor" company or school should ensure the proper entry, duration and exit of their own guests. Too often, the laws are not followed, and the American's who break them are not punished.

This has nothing to do with prejudice, and you know that. For me this has to do with integrity; what it means to be a nation, the price paid for liberty, the blood soaked wages of citizenship. The proper coarse for citizenship is to earn it, by demonstrating that you are willing to work for it. There is no physical measure, but rather one of character and heart. Also, I've never made a claim to "no government". Government has a primary role in preserving national sovereignty. Where I chaff is when government interferes with a citizens life, liberty or property when that citizen has caused no harm.

[Jester]

We are both immigrants, or descended from them. How fair is it that the ones who break the law, get to be the first in line? What about the lawful ones who patiently wait their turn?

So why not just abolish the line? Everyone gets in, the market reaches an equilibrium on its own, and nobody has to break any laws. The poorest no longer have to trust coyotes to sneak them across the border. Employers no longer have to break the law to employ mutually beneficial labour. People who followed the existing process lose nothing. Migrants would be much easier to keep track of, since they no longer have to fear any contact with the government.

Sometimes, the way to stop people from breaking laws is to abolish the laws they were breaking. Who does migration harm? Do the benefits outweigh the costs? I think the answer there is overwhelmingly yes. How do you offset an aging population? With young workers. Where might you find a willing pool of young workers, eager to take cheap jobs? Migrants. It's a gigantic gift of free labour, children you didn't have to raise or educate, coming to work in your country anyway. And, when they make their money, the majority will head back home, where they can live cheaply and support their families.

It's not a solution free of its own problems, but it solves the big ones by simply letting people do what they want. Liberty!

-Jester

---

The proper coarse for citizenship is to earn it, by demonstrating that you are willing to work for it. There is no physical measure, but rather one of character and heart.

What does a child born in the US have to do in order to earn their citizenship? Nothing. Geography of birth is sufficient. That's as terrible a measure of character and heart as I can possibly imagine. And yet, it's how the vast majority of citizens "earn" their citizenship.

-Jester

[eppie]

This has nothing to do with prejudice, and you know that. For me this has to do with integrity; what it means to be a nation, the price paid for liberty, the blood soaked wages of citizenship. The proper coarse for citizenship is to earn it, by demonstrating that you are willing to work for it. There is no physical measure, but rather one of character and heart. Also, I've never made a claim to "no government". Government has a primary role in preserving national sovereignty. Where I chaff is when government interferes with a citizens life, liberty or property when that citizen has caused no harm.

I agree fully with Pete and Jester.

The rights you have because you were born in the US you have for the same reason as somebody has them when being born as the son of a king and queen. So you are also a convinced monarchist?

Nobody asks you to give away your rights because you were born in the US, but please don't come with some rational reason based on your political views to explain why it is correct that others should not get the same rights just because they were born somewhere else.

Well, actually we could do these things (and this should make you happy) if we do away with all trade restrictions western countries have put up to remain rich and obstruct the free market.

[kandrathe]

So why not just abolish the line? Everyone gets in, the market reaches an equilibrium on its own, and nobody has to break any laws. The poorest no longer have to trust coyotes to sneak them across the border. Employers no longer have to break the law to employ mutually beneficial labour. People who followed the existing process lose nothing. Migrants would be much easier to keep track of, since they no longer have to fear any contact with the government.

Do you know any nation where entirely open borders has been tried? Let's petition this to begin in Canada, and the EU first. The main reason why every free nation has somewhat strict controls on immigration, but hardly any controls on emigration would be to place a reasonable hurdle to prevent abuse (e.g. criminal enterprises).

Sometimes, the way to stop people from breaking laws is to abolish the laws they were breaking. Who does migration harm? Do the benefits outweigh the costs? I think the answer there is overwhelmingly yes.

That depends on the ratio of producers to moochers, and how much the State offers in social welfare to all comers. Remove the socialistic benefits, and this scheme might work. For example, one impact locally, is that some of our schools are teaching children who speak over 60 different languages. How does that impact their education, the cost of education, and the education of the non-immigrant children? It most surely helps with diversity, but has harmed the staples (reading, writing, math) which are the pathway to successful careers. There are strong libertarian reasons for unrestricted immigration, but that presupposes a lack of interference by the State. Since we have a socialistic welfare state, open immigration would be a ready siphon from the producers to those who would surely come to feed at the abundantly filled trough of government purloined riches.

How do you offset an aging population? With young workers. Where might you find a willing pool of young workers, eager to take cheap jobs? Migrants. It's a gigantic gift of free labour, children you didn't have to raise or educate, coming to work in your country anyway. And, when they make their money, the majority will head back home, where they can live cheaply and support their families.

I'm open to allowing large increases in regulated immigration, and in fact, it would be better than what we have now.

It's not a solution free of its own problems, but it solves the big ones by simply letting people do what they want. Liberty!

Not really. Anarchy would not ensure liberty. We need a structure of government to protect peoples rights. If citizenship affords no protections, or benefits, and increased costs, then it becomes a useless anachronism.

What does a child born in the US have to do in order to earn their citizenship? Nothing. Geography of birth is sufficient. That's as terrible a measure of character and heart as I can possibly imagine. And yet, it's how the vast majority of citizens "earn" their citizenship.

I'm not opposed to requiring more of our (able) children to earn their citizenship through national service, and by demonstrating an understanding of what the duties and rights of citizenship entail. In some ways, through mandatory attendance in school, our children do "work" for 8-12 years or so to earn their citizenship. But, as a matter of State protection of children (at home or traveling abroad), it would be best for them to be afforded all the rights of an American citizen at birth. As a natural born citizen, I do feel in some way that I've inherited the right of citizenship through the actions of my ancestors (jus sanguinis or jus soli). In my youth, I did do my national service, and I did pay attention in school to my civics lessons, and I've studied my history so I'm not the "normal" case anyway. I come from a long lineage of builders, so I can actually drive around this area and see their handiwork.

[kandrathe]

The rights you have because you were born in the US you have for the same reason as somebody has them when being born as the son of a king and queen. So you are also a convinced monarchist?

This is an inanity of equivocation. I did not inherit the divine right to rule my country. My parents were citizens, and I was born in the US, which by rule of LAW makes me a citizen. I did not inherit my citizenship.

Nobody asks you to give away your rights because you were born in the US,

Well, maybe. Some places would not allow me to hold dual citizenship (due to split allegiances). I don't understand your premise.

... but please don't come with some rational reason based on your political views to explain why it is correct that others should not get the same rights just because they were born somewhere else.

Again, I think you are confusing two concepts together. Where do you think "rights" come from? In my book, certain rights are bestowed upon us by our Creator, which are natural law rights, or common law rights. Other so-called "rights", are regulated for us by our governments. Permission to drive a motor vehicle, for example, is given to us by law. Non-citizens should always be afforded "human rights" or natural law rights for being human, and all the other "rights of citizenship" for being a citizen. Non-citizens should be humanely treated, but they should not expect to be given the benefits of citizenship without earning them properly. This is part and parcel of what "nationality" means. Perhaps you favor a one world government?

[Jester]

Do you know any nation where entirely open borders has been tried? Let's petition this to begin in Canada, and the EU first. The main reason why every free nation has somewhat strict controls on immigration, but hardly any controls on emigration would be to place a reasonable hurdle to prevent abuse (e.g. criminal enterprises).

Well, Europe now has almost no internal borders anymore. With EU membership, you can travel from poor Poland to the rich UK to work - and many people have. I think the results have been tremendously beneficial to everyone involved. The US has been benefiting from this kind of internal migration for ages, it's just disguised by the fact that 50 states are "one" country.

Canada has adopted even sharper restrictions than the US, and my advice is again the same - foreign workers help, rather than hurt. Increase migration, reduce restrictions, open up the border.

I'm not saying literally destroy the border, with no customs, no passports, nothing at all. Just that coming to the US to work, or even to live, be far less restricted than it is now.

That depends on the ratio of producers to moochers, and how much the State offers in social welfare to all comers. Remove the socialistic benefits, and this scheme might work.

If you're really concerned by this (I wouldn't be), just set up a block of a few years on new migrants receiving benefits. Lots of countries do this. That will stop anyone who simply cannot work from coming and receiving benefits. But, overwhelmingly, migrants come to work. Work makes production, production creates taxes, taxes fund programs. They are an enormous net benefit to the social welfare system, not a cost.

For example, one impact locally, is that some of our schools are teaching children who speak over 60 different languages. How does that impact their education, the cost of education, and the education of the non-immigrant children?

I suspect the answer is "very little", but I'd have to see some evidence on that one before making a call. Kids are adaptable, second languages are beneficial rather than harmful, and the basic costs of schooling should be similar - you still have to buy a building, pay a teacher, get textbooks, etc, but you don't need two teachers, two buildings, or two textbooks.

It most surely helps with diversity, but has harmed the staples (reading, writing, math) which are the pathway to successful careers.

Has it? Plenty of countries teach second, third, fourth languages. Their kids don't seem any worse for wear. I'll need some evidence before believing that one.

There are strong libertarian reasons for unrestricted immigration, but that presupposes a lack of interference by the State. Since we have a socialistic welfare state, open immigration would be a ready siphon from the producers to those who would surely come to feed at the abundantly filled trough of government purloined riches.

So restrict access to the welfare state for a few years following migration. In general, migrants come to the US to work. Always have.

Not really. Anarchy would not ensure liberty. We need a structure of government to protect peoples rights. If citizenship affords no protections, or benefits, and increased costs, then it becomes a useless anachronism.

This isn't anarchy. It's relatively open migration. That's the system the US had in place for the majority of its history. Was that anarchy? Did that collapse the country? Did that eliminate the government, preventing them from enforcing rights? This is just a strawman. Nobody is talking about abolishing the US government.

As a natural born citizen, I do feel in some way that I've inherited the right of citizenship through the actions of my ancestors (jus sanguinis or jus soli).

You mocked Eppie's response as equivocation, but here you talk about your "right of blood" to citizenship. By what right does blood confer anything? In what way do we deserve what our ancestors did, had, or were? How is this different in principle from inheriting a title of nobility, or a crown? You don't inherit "character" or "heart" from your parents. (Okay, you kind of inherit your literal heart. But that's different.)

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Well, Europe now has almost no internal borders anymore. With EU membership, you can travel from poor Poland to the rich UK to work - and many people have. I think the results have been tremendously beneficial to everyone involved. The US has been benefiting from this kind of internal migration for ages, it's just disguised by the fact that 50 states are "one" country.

There are issues where people abuse our "state" welfare systems, such as, the caravan of people who drive up from Chicago to Minneapolis to get their free money once a month. There are also issues of tax reciprocity, or lack thereof. People often move out of state to gain the benefits of lower taxation, but work in Minnesota (a high tax state). As Occhi alluded, the same differentials occur between states, but are less pronounced.

I'm not saying literally destroy the border, with no customs, no passports, nothing at all. Just that coming to the US to work, or even to live, be far less restricted than it is now.

My mistake then, as I thought you envisioned a system of unrestricted travel.

If you're really concerned by this (I wouldn't be), just set up a block of a few years on new migrants receiving benefits. Lots of countries do this. That will stop anyone who simply cannot work from coming and receiving benefits. But, overwhelmingly, migrants come to work. Work makes production, production creates taxes, taxes fund programs. They are an enormous net benefit to the social welfare system, not a cost.

If this were wrapped into an immigration reform bill, then I would support it.

Plenty of countries teach second, third, fourth languages. Their kids don't seem any worse for wear. I'll need some evidence before believing that one.

The cost is in that the children and parents who come are temporarily unable to function in an English speaking society. The time it takes to catch them up drags down the ones who come prepared to learn. Try to find a State certified teacher who speaks Swahili, Thai, Chinese, Spanish, Hmong, and Russian just to name a few...

So restrict access to the welfare state for a few years following migration. In general, migrants come to the US to work. Always have.

Most have, but not all.

This isn't anarchy. It's relatively open migration. That's the system the US had in place for the majority of its history. Was that anarchy? Did that collapse the country? Did that eliminate the government, preventing them from enforcing rights? This is just a strawman. Nobody is talking about abolishing the US government.

It's not a straw-man if I understand you correctly. So, then you and I are in essence in favor of the same thing... regulated immigration, no social welfare for non-citizens, and less restricted by national quotas.

You mocked Eppie's response as equivocation, but here you talk about your "right of blood" to citizenship. By what right does blood confer anything? In what way do we deserve what our ancestors did, had, or were? How is this different in principle from inheriting a title of nobility, or a crown? You don't inherit "character" or "heart" from your parents. (Okay, you kind of inherit your literal heart. But that's different.)

I thought you'd catch that. What I feel and what are the *real* reasons can be different. I can feel "ownership" of the Foshay tower, because my grandfather helped build it, but I know I do not own a bit of it.

[Jester]

You're not going to create a system with zero problems, zero abuse, no cases of fraud, and so on. That's simply not possible. As I said earlier, the question is about weighing the costs and benefits.

Try to find a State certified teacher who speaks Swahili, Thai, Chinese, Spanish, Hmong, and Russian just to name a few...

Is this really that hard? There are tens of millions of Spanish speakers in the US, and I'm sure at least a few million speakers of Cantonese or Mandarin. Russian and Thai are also fairly common. Hmong and Swahili are probably a little tougher, but I can't imagine the collective costs to states of tracking down these teachers is more than a drop in the ocean relative to total educational costs - peanuts measured against the benefits of open migration.

It's not a straw-man if I understand you correctly.

That would be a tautology. But no, you didn't understand me correctly. I am not talking about a complete abolition of all immigration regulation, and I haven't said that. What I said in post one was: "Enact generous, low-restriction guest-worker programs, and clear routes to citizenship." This is obviously not the same thing as anarchy. Consider my position here analogous to my position on the drug war. I advocate thinking of the issue not as a problem to solve but an aspect of society to be regulated in a way that supports maximum liberty with sensible, minimally interfering regulation.

So, then you and I are in essence in favor of the same thing... regulated immigration, no social welfare for non-citizens, and less restricted by national quotas.

If by "less restricted" you mean "not restricted", and "no social welfare for non-citizens" you mean having blocks of several years for various welfare services become accessible, rather than a total ban on all social welfare services for non-citizens, then yes, we are in favour of the same thing.

-Jester