Hundreds March for DREAM Act

Brent Finnegan -- June 10th, 2010

Hundreds of area immigrants and residents marched and rallied in support of the DREAM Act Wednesday evening in downtown Harrisonburg. Organizers urged Sen. Mark Warner to co-sponsor the bill that would grant children of unauthorized immigrants who arrived with their parents as minors “the opportunity to earn conditional permanent residency.”

DREAM Act march Harrisonburg. Photo by Patrick Lincoln

Participants gather at Blessed Sacrament Catholic Church. Photo by Patrick Lincoln.

Rebecca Martinez reports in today’s Staunton News Leader:

Alejandra Avíla, 17, a rising junior at Staunton’s Robert E. Lee High School, was brought to the United States from Uruguay when she was 9. The family’s visa expired, and though her father is applying for residency, she’s technically “undocumented.” Although public elementary and secondary schools cannot turn away undocumented students, Alejandra worries that she won’t be eligible for financial aid or might even be deported before she can attend college. She said, having grown up in this country, she considers herself an American and wants the senate to see her situation differently than the wider immigration issue.

Dream Act Rally

According to the language of the Senate bill:

Authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to cancel the removal of, and adjust to conditional permanent resident status, an alien who: (1) entered the United States before his or her 16th birthday and has been present in the United States for at least five years immediately preceding enactment of this Act; (2) is a person of good moral character; (3) is not inadmissible or deportable under specified grounds of the Immigration and Nationality Act; (4) at the time of application, has been admitted to an institution of higher education or has earned a high school or equivalent diploma . . .

Warner has not indicated that he would co-sponsor the bill.

A note about the number of march participants: Organizers say 230, DNR says 250, News Leader says “more than 100.”

87 Responses to “Hundreds March for DREAM Act”

  1. cook says:

    U. S. immigration policy is an absolute disaster on every level. Because the current immigration situation is woven throughout the fabric of our economy and our society, any attempt to fix the system is rife with collateral damage and unintended consequences. As a result we find ourselves paralyzed, unable to do anything to climb out of this hole. What is the first step? The first step is passing the DREAM Act. Anyone who grasps the complexity of the situation – whether “left” or “right” – ought to be able to support the principle behind the DREAM Act: kids brought here as small children and raised the USA should have the opportunity to earn documentation.

  2. Randall See says:

    Well said, Aaron.

  3. Joe says:

    I agree. Another Amen from me.

    However, I think the first thing that needs to be done is controlling our borders. The Federal Govt clearly doesn’t have control, they either need to get out of the way of the states, or step up to the plate.

  4. Lowell Fulk says:

    “And who will help me pay the cost of closing the borders and rounding up the illegal immigrants and housing them and shipping them back to whence they came?” asked the Little Red Hen.

    “Not I!” said the Elephant.

    “Not I!” said the Donkey.

    “Not I! said the curious creature with tea bags for hair.

    “Well then, screw it.” said the Little Red Hen. “I think I’ll just make some bread then.”

    But that’s another story….

  5. Joe says:

    We already pay for the Govt to do the things you suggest.

    Last I checked we had something called ICE.

    They seem to be wasting our money on that agency, since they can’t do their job.

  6. David Miller says:

    I don’t currently support a militarized border. I don’t see a migrant work force as a grave threat to our national security. The drug war itself could fill that bill easily though, another day perhaps we can exceed 200 comments on that subject. As far as the Dream act. It only makes sense, if anyone argues that sending kids back to the country where they were born (even if they haven’t seen those lands for eons) isn’t thinking beyond their biases. If we spend billions of dollars educating kids, I want them in my workforce, not shipped out!

    • It’s not just migrant workers illegally penetrating our borders, David, it’s the “OTM” populations that are more of a threat.

      Just Google otm mexican border and you’ll learn we’re grabbing lots of muslims penetrating our borders through Mexico.

      Last week, when the 14-year old was shot illegally penetrating our border, it’s been documented that the Mexican military opened fire on our border security people.

      What we need to be doing is shooting a lot more illegals who are actively crossing our borders…I bet the stream would quickly dwindle.

      • I probably should not bring this up as I fear it could get touchy, but, Dave, I confess not to having encountered this “OTM” acronym before. Given that shortly after bringing it up, you mentioned Muslims, does that mean the “M” stands for “Muslim”? If so, what are the “OT”? Maybe “Openly Terrorist” or “On Top” or “Organized Terrorist” or maybe that old goody of the Scientologists, “Operating Thetan”? If these are people we should be quaking in our boots about, can you tell me how many of the Muslims here in Harrisonburg are “OTMs” and how we can spot them?

  7. Annie says:

    The Dream Act has my vote! We’ve spent our tax money educating these young people in our public schools, we should not have their talent wasted or force them to do something illegal just to obtain work.

  8. David Miller says:

    From Tony Wilt
    “I am opposed to any amnesty programs offered to anyone in our country illegally. Parenting a child or marrying a U.S. citizen shouldn’t be grounds to allow an illegal alien to remain in the U.S. I am in support of current methods of securing our borders and would be in favor of enhancing those efforts.”

    So, read the constitution recently Tony? Specifically the 14th amendment? I mean really, you can hold whatever opinion you want but do you at least know the laws to which you disagree?

  9. Joe says:

    I disagree with your quote from Wilt.

    the War on Drugs, like the War on Proverty, have been major failures for our Govt.

    We should end both

  10. kuato says:

    Well said, Cook. I am an ardent supporter of the DREAM Act, just to have said so.

  11. Delataire says:

    If these illegal aliens attend a university, will they be paying instate tuition or the same fees that a legally admitted foreign exchange student pays?

  12. Sam Nickels says:

    Dear Delataire,

    Currently, an undocumented student (“illegal” is as offensive to these people as “nigger” is to the Black population) can try to apply and get into a college, but certain ones will not accept them. Of those who do, they are required to pay out of state tuition. The Dream Act would give them legal status, meaning they could apply for in-state tuition. This would only be fair, since their parents have been here working and paying taxes as long or longer than their children have been here. People often don’t realize that undocumented workers generally pay all the taxes everyone else does (payroll, car sticker local tax, property tax through their rent for the school system, gas tax, state retail tax and everything, etc etc etc). Their children should be entitled to everything my child is entitled to.
    Sam Nickels

  13. Joe says:

    wait…who cares if it’s offensive to call someone illegal…if they are in fact illegal.

    it’s offensive to me that they break the law.

    • Jeremy Aldrich says:

      The people are not illegal.

      As I have pointed out to you elsewhere, you have repeatedly violated copyright law in your comments on other sites. Yet saying that you are “an illegal” would obviously be ridiculous, wouldn’t it?

      • The people within our borders without having documents, or brought in with their parents who penetrated our borders are in the country illegally…it makes their presence ILLEGAL.

        Some have attempted to throw water on that point, but I’ve previously published the statute…

        We should have immigration laws applying to illegal aliens at least the same as Mexico’s.

        • Jeremy Aldrich says:

          Would you mind linking to the law you’re referencing?

          And why do you think our laws should be like Mexico?

          • Are you doubting there’s such a law?

          • Jeremy Aldrich says:

            In light of the 2007 Kansas Court of Appeals ruling stating that, “While Congress has criminalized illegal entry into this country, it has not made the continued presence of an illegal alien in the United States a crime unless the illegal alien has previously been deported and has again entered this country illegally,” I am wondering what statute you know about that they don’t.

  14. David Miller says:

    I care

  15. Joe says:

    Jeremy, how many times do I have to prove you are wrong?

    if someone is here illegally…then yes they are in fact illegal.

    Every none citizen of the US has been required by law to carry their documents on their person and has since Congress passed the Alien Registration Act in 1940

  16. Jeremy, you’re ability to Google something relating to law always tends to make you look less-educated than I believe you to be.

    The case you cited relates to sentencing for a drug dealer and his sentencing. The trial court took note that the defendant was an illegal alien and stated that if the court were to have placed the defendant on probation that, believing that the act of illegally penetrating our borders to be a CONTINUING offense, the defendant would be in violation of his probation from the outset.

    The Court of Appeals found that the illegal penetration of our borders to be a misdemeanor under Title 8 of the United States Code, Section 1325, which is a misdemeanor, to have been a crime committed in the past and is not a continuing offense, thus entitling the defendant to probation, though the court conceded that such a conviction rendered the defendant eligible for deportation, but such deportion was not a function of Kansas law.

    Nowhere in the opinion you cited does it state that the illegal penetration of our borders is not a crime. In fact, the court stated that if this defendant had previously been deported and had re-entered illegally, then such re-entry would necessarily constitute a continuing offense that would have rendered this defendant ineligible for probation.

    You never seem to amaze me, Jeremy, but then, you erroneously believed that a statute designed to remove Constitutional officers couldn’t be used to do exactly that in the way I used it. I think that may have been only the second time in Virginia history that statute has been used. Damn, I’m good.

    • Jeremy Aldrich says:

      Let me highlight the following:

      Dave B.: “it makes their presence ILLEGAL”

      Kansas Court of Appeals: “[Congress] has not made the continued presence of an illegal alien in the United States a crime”

      And quit trying to rewrite history. I didn’t think your crusade-du-jour against Becky Neal was illegal, but rather that Ms. Garst had other options for seeking her temporary removal from office until a fair trial could be held, rather than the public witch hunt that she spurred instead. But hey, way to go on destroying a family and spending hundreds of man-hours so the state could recoup $950.

  17. Brooke says:

    Dave – go back and read his last reply to you. He actually made your point before you did: that crossing the border illegally is a crime, under the Constitution, but continued presence only is if one has already been deported previously and has again entered the country illegally.

  18. No kidding, Brooke. Jeremy appears to believe that once people illegally penetrate our borders, that’s that…his case from Kansas doesn’t say that.

    • It’s a pretty bold debating strategy to create a straw man, beat it to pieces, then when someone points out that the straw man wasn’t really what the other person was saying, laugh it off.

      Crossing illegally is a crime if you are caught. But being undocumented is not a crime. Their presence is not illegal as you stated. If you would like to produce contrary evidence, please do so.

      Speeding is a crime if you are caught. Being someone who once speeded is not a crime. Get it?

      Maybe I’m not explaining it well. Try hearing it from Rudy Giuliani.

      • republitarian says:

        Did you just say we could beat you if we called you a straw man?

      • Jeremy, this new argument ranks at the pinnacle of stupidity — even for you.

        Are you trying to tell all of us, with even a semi-straight face, that a crime is only a crime when you’re caught in the commission of the act?

        Have you every heard of Ann Olsen or Keith O’Connell? These two people were amongst the first people in the City I could refer to as friends.

        They were murdered by Brent Simmons.

        Brent Simmons was caught nowhere near the scene of the murders, but using your warped sense of illogic and your inability to comprehend even the most simple of legal concepts, we need to open the door on his cell and let the little parasite breath real air out here amongst us, where he might last for 10 minutes.

        Please, don’t throw Rudy is my face. He’s as Republican as you are….

        The statute is plainly available for anyone above the IQ level of dull normal to read and to comprehend.

        § 1325. Improper entry by alien

        (a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts

        Any alien who

        (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or
        (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or
        (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

        Title 18 of the United States Code is the federal criminal code.

        • “Where there is no evidence of prior illegal entry, a violation of section 1325 is a misdemeanor. Under the common law rule, an officer could execute a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor only when it was committed in the officer’s presence… In early drafts of its policy, based on legal advice, the City took the position that illegal entry was a continuing offense. The misdemeanor would thus occur in the presence of any arresting officer and could give rise to a warrantless arrest. This analysis did not remain viable after our decision in United States v. Rincon-Jiminez, 595 F.2d 1192, 1194 (9th Cir.1979), in which we held the violation of section 1325 was completed at the time of entry.”
          – 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Gonzales v. City of Peoria

          Crossing illegally is a misdemeanor, not anywhere close to murder.

          • You’re beating a rather dead horse, Jeremy, and it’s not making the horse any more dead.

            You keep proving the point the point you appear to be arguing against.

            I bet you drive, frequently, around the City’s one roundabout, don’t you?

          • Jeremy Aldrich says:

            I have sufficiently explained and reexplained the law, with sources from court cases.

            Your position seems to be that because crossing illegally (in violation of section 1325) is a crime, people who have done so should be arrested for “being illegal”.

            However, because crossing illegally is a misdemeanor (unless you have been previously deported), there is a statute of limitations of five years on being arrested, and try getting a conviction on a misdemeanor charge without some pretty strong evidence. Hence, people are not arrested and charged with a violation of section 1325 unless they are caught in the act of crossing illegally. Could you please reference anyone in the last 20 years who has been convicted of the misdemeanor offense of crossing illegally other than someone caught in the act? Bet you can’t.

            Additionally, there is no such crime as “being illegal”, just as “being someone who sped” or “being a previous drug user” are not crimes in and of themselves. So get over your self-righteousness, and realize that the people in our community who previously committed the misdemeanor offense of crossing illegally, even those who did so in the last five years, are NOT going to be rounded up and convicted of violating section 1325. And unless you are willing to slap the label “illegal” on everyone who has previously committed a misdemeanor (including yourself), you might want to rethink your use of that word, too.

      • Joe says:

        Jeremy, being undocumented IS a crime and have been for over 60 years.

        Check the Immigration Law of 1940

  19. Delataire, those aren’t Mexico’s Immigration laws.

    Here’s a summary of Mexico’s immigration law:

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14632

  20. Let us note that the DREAM act is focused on people brought here as children who have lived here since and gone to school here and so on. They did not make the decisions; they are not responsible for their “criminal” status. I would suggest that those eager to punish these people have a serious problem with their moral standards.

    And, the remarks about speeding and other such things that nearly everybody does are relevant. Something about peopel throwing stones in glass houses or pots calling kettles black here? Really, when I see and hear the nastier versions of this anti-immigrant stuff, especially when it starts huffing and puffing about the wickeely illegal status of a bunch of kids, I find it pretty appalling.

  21. Joe says:

    how is the queston about speeding relevent? If I drove 35 in a 25 last week, and got home safely without a ticket…who did I hurt? Was it wrong…sure…but who do I continue to hurt?

    an illegal continues to hurt the system when they are not here legally. They don’t contribute to the education system which they enjoy, typically (unless they committed more crimes by faking docs) they don’t have insurance to pay for medical treatment, they don’t feel safe calling law enforcment when they are victims or witness crimes, being here illegally is far from a “victimless crime”

    as far as the Dream Act, it has good intentions but I fear the result might not be so promising. Wouldn’t this just encourage parents to bring their children here illegally?

    • Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind says:

      “an illegal continues to hurt the system when they are not here legally”
      Ha, ha, ha, ha …. I couldn’t help but laught at the picture of a contorting system filled with pain

  22. David Miller says:

    “They don’t contribute to the education system which they enjoy”

    Your just plain wrong, factually. Do you at all understand how our tax system works?

  23. David Miller says:

    wrong except here “they don’t feel safe calling law enforcment when they are victims or witness crimes” (except your spelling of enforcement)

  24. Delataire says:

    Barkley, if one of your neighbors committed a crime and told you about it, you would have to report that person otherwise be held as an accessory for having knowledge of the crime. A person of “good moral character” would turn the other person in.

    When some kid comes here illegally at age 5 and lives for however long in the country, using resources and benefits. Doing so without telling anyone that he or she and his or her parents are in the country illegally is an accessory to the crime. You may not like it, but people living a secretive life of crime are not of good moral character.

    That is why in my opinion the “Dream Act” will not pass. It’s just another cookie being tossed out to the masses to placate them for a few months while the next new improved version of whatever act is worked on.

    • Deb SF says:

      A first grader is living a “secretive life of crime” and is “not of good moral character” and is “an accessory to the crime”? Do you really expect a 5 or 9 or 11 year old or even a teenager to rat out their family? Any kid, anywhere, for any reason? For heavens sake, they *love* their family. Maybe that’s the real “family value”.

      Why would a kid know much about this? Don’t parents protect their kids from all kinds of things, from marital and money problems, from stories of aunts with illnesses, uncles in trouble with the law and a host of other family secrets? Somehow, I don’t think these terrible alien illegal parents are all that different from us other parental types who have been living here all along.

    • I think one has a moral, but no legal responsibility to report a crime.

    • Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind says:

      “Good moral character” sounds like a good idea, but too subjective. Perhaps we shold ask Nietzsche

  25. David Miller says:

    Whats funny is that everyone debates each other, businesses takes full advantage of NAFTA. If you think that immigration is an issue but NAFTA isn’t then you’re not paying attention. We need a NAFMA (North American Free Migration Agreement) counterpart to NAFTA, without that there will never be equality. Putting Capital over Labor is a bad idea. Tell me why its fair to ride over to Walmart in your Nissan that’s built in Mexico and buy a lawnmower built in Mexico and then come home, hop on your computer that was assembled in Mexico and tell me how horrible all these “people living a secretive life of crime” are destroying our country. I’d like to know how? They pay taxes (income withheld by every law abiding employer in this country, sales tax on everything, heck they even contribute more than you and I by paying fees to places like Western Union (American owned and taxed) to send money home to their relatives. Then you get on your high horse and find them lacking

  26. Well, I see no reason to report someone for violating what I consider to be an immoral law. The kids who are demonstrating on this matter are following in the footsteps of Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King, Jr. They are openly declaring that they have (and are) violtated/violating the law, while calling for its repeal or alteration. This is not “being secretive,” although maybe they were when they were six or 11. This is about as moral and forthright as one can get, I would say. Anyone who wants to say that violating the law is always immoral probably would have applauded arresting people who helped slaves to free from their masters. Do we avoid reading King’s Letter from Jail because he wrote it in a jail after being arrested for committing a crime?

    Frankly, I find it ridiculous that we have this outfit here calling itself the “Valley Family Forum” that parades itself as this great public guardian of family values, while making a big deal about keeping people from getting married. I have not heard a peep out of them about preventing families from being torn apart if one is an illegal immigrant. And these people have the nerve to get all snotty and pompous when a politician does not come and bow down to them and kiss their rings? Bah!

  27. Dave Briggman says:

    OK, Jeremy, since you asked:

    Out of about 3,000 arrested for violating 8 USC 1325 in February of this year:

    The latest available data from the Justice Department show that during February 2010 the government reported 1 new conviction in the Northern District of California for these matters. with a lead charge of 8 USC 1325 – Entry of alien at improper time or place; etc.

    The latest available data from the Justice Department show that during February 2010 the government reported 1 new conviction in the Middle District of Florida for these matters. with a lead charge of 8 USC 1325 – Entry of alien at improper time or place; etc.

    The latest available data from the Justice Department show that during February 2010 the government reported 1 new conviction in the Northern District of Florida for these matters. with a lead charge of 8 USC 1325 – Entry of alien at improper time or place; etc.

    The latest available data from the Justice Department show that during February 2010 the government reported 3 new convictions in the Northern District of Georgia for these matters. with a lead charge of 8 USC 1325 – Entry of alien at improper time or place; etc.

    The latest available data from the Justice Department show that during February 2010 the government reported 15 new convictions in the Central District of Illinois for these matters. with a lead charge of 8 USC 1325 – Entry of alien at improper time or place; etc.

    The latest available data from the Justice Department show that during February 2010 the government reported 1 new conviction in the District of South Carolina for these matters. with a lead charge of 8 USC 1325 – Entry of alien at improper time or place; etc.

    I chose these out of the 2994 convictions under this specific statute in just FEBRUARY of 2010, because these Districts within the U.S. District Court system don’t border another county, meaning that they probably weren’t caught actively penetrating our borders.

    Now, while I’m beginning to tire of making you look like a monkey butt, I feel like I can never pass up the opportunity to do so, so I could spend a few bucks looking with PACER and examine border convictions under the same statute, however, I’ve spent a lot of discretionary money this month showing the community that “your man”, his family and his business have a financial interest in hydrofracking.

    Now if you’re willing to pay for my access to PACER, I’m sure I’ll have no trouble finding further convictions under this statute, whether they be in El Paso, or Phoenix, or San Diego. I bet you no one else reading this thread will doubt my ability to further prove you wrong, Jeremy.

    • Jeremy Aldrich says:

      “Adventures in answering a question that wasn’t asked”. As you know, Section 1325 includes more than the provision making it a misdemeanor to cross illegally. Your citations are most likely convictions for marriage fraud or entrepreneurship fraud, which are also found in section 1325. Here is my question again: “Could you please reference anyone in the last 20 years who has been convicted of the misdemeanor offense of crossing illegally other than someone caught in the act?” Since you’re checking out PACER, surely you can find a name that cross-references with a news story somewhere, right?

      • Dave Briggman says:

        Jeremy,

        I said I was entering into PACER only IF YOU PAY FOR ALL OF MY FEES INCURRED WHERE I TO FIND A SINGLE PERSON, BY NAME.

        • I checked PACER…couldn’t find a single case you referenced that was about the misdemeanor of crossing illegally. Many of them, I couldn’t find at all in the PACER system when doing a search by charge. For example, Central Illinois and Northern Georgia did not list any cases dealing with 1325 between 1/1/2009 and the present.

          But, some I did find. And guess what? They were all marriage fraud and entrepreneurship fraud, as I said (such as in Eastern Virginia).

          I used TRAC to see if I could find any more of the cases. Following a for-pay link from this page, I sought information on a case from Northern Georgia. The defendant’s name was not given but the person plead guilty and was sentenced to 60 months probation and a $500 fine, beyond the limit if the crime had been the misdemeanor of crossing illegally.

          So as for your assertion that you’ve found all these cases that “prove me wrong”, I’m reminded of a quote from the great film “My Cousin Vinny” about an opposing attorney: “Building a case is like building a house. Each piece of evidence is just another building block. He wants to make a brick bunker of a building. He wants to use serious, solid-looking bricks, like, like these, right?…He’s going to show you the bricks. He’ll show you they got straight sides. He’ll show you how they got the right shape. He’ll show them to you in a very special way, so that they appear to have everything a brick should have. But there’s one thing he’s not gonna show you. When you look at the bricks from the right angle, they’re as thin as this playing card. His whole case is an illusion, a magic trick.”

          You can’t prove even ONE person who fits the bill?

    • While I await your list of names of people charged with the misdemeanor offense of crossing illegally without having been caught in the act, I thought you might enjoy this link from 2005 which talks about how the southwest border districts deal with misdemeanor offenses under section 1325.

      • Joe says:

        Jeremy you are highlighting part of the problem. The Federal Govt has failed to enforce their own laws, so states like Arizona are forced to act.

        It’s a Federal Crime to be here illegally, and now it’s a state crime in Arizona…other states will follow suit very soon.

  28. Dave,

    So, all of these were convictions for people caught while entering, or caught long after they entered, or of people who failed to report about an illegal alien, or what?

    Yes, we all know that it is against the law for people to enter illegally, by definition. Rather makes your list kind of a “so what?” without more details.

    And if some of these convictions are of heads of households or others with family here, possibly all of them legally, who have been here for long periods of time, do you applaud this and so how wonderful it is that they were busted and convicted?

    Oh, and are you ever going to fill us in on who those really scarey “OTM”s are that you were huffing and puffing about earlier? Is the fact that some are coming across the heavily guarded Mexico-US border worse than if they come across the much less heavily guarded US-Canada border, or maybe just get off an airplane after flying in?

  29. Dave Briggman says:

    Actually Professor Rosser, I used jurisdictions away from border crossings because, presumably, they weren’t caught in the act of border penetration and then moved to a different jurisdiction for trial.

    While one cannot be sure these people weren’t relocated to a different jurisdiction without looking at their federal case file, it’s probably really safe to assume that they were arrested well after they entered the country illegally.

    The OTM issue is a much greater concern from our southern border because of the skin color of the OTMs crossing the border from the south…perfectly reasonable to me…or do you have some problem with our government knowing exactly who is entering our country.

    The US-Mexico border is heavily guarded? I don’t think so…only in a few sectors.

  30. Dave,

    I’m still trying to find out what “OTM” stands for, please.

    As for all these jurisdictions, while a few might be recent entry, quite likely many of them are people caught in raids on workplaces such as we have had around here at some of the poultry procesing facilities. I confess that I am not at all worked up about illegal immigrants, and I am a bit surprised that someone who identifies as a libertarian is, which is my understanding of your proclaimed position. Most of the heavy duty libertarians at George Mason are not at all anti-immigration and think it mostly helps the economy, quite aside from the humanitarian issues involved.

    • OTM= Other Than Mexican, i.e. other Central American or, in the boogieman world of fearmongering, terrorists from abroad who look just like the brown-skinned people south of the border, according to folks who also think all black people look alike.

    • Joe says:

      I love how folks start calling you “anti-immigation” when someone isn’t in favor of illegal immigation.

      they are two different things.

      and most of the libertians at Mason are against illegal immigation because we live in a welfare state. you can’t have it both ways. most will tell you they would be in favor of an open border, but because we live in welfare state you can’t have it. So pull back the Govt regulations and Govt handouts, and allow people to move here that want an opportunity….

      • Joe,
        Do you know any of the libertarians at GMU? I do. Most of them think all this anti-immigration stuff is baloney and against human liberty. Legal versus illegal, the whole business is just wrong, and the laws involved are wrong. Period.

        • Professor Rosser,

          The Libertarian “purist” has absolutely no use for borders…but ironic how many of them admit locking their doors in their homes and cars at night…to keep people out.

        • Joe says:

          I know a few, and in fact agree with the idea that we should have open borders. The country benefited the most when we had a free market society. However with the growth of the welfare state we live in today, immigration law is necessary.

          Prof. Williams had a good piece on it not that long ago.

          • And you, having the philosophy, is a perfect example why the LP will never succeed…and we don’t have open borders because we’re a welfare state?

            Good God, I hope you don’t believe the crap you’re shoveling to us.

            Joe? You look your doors at night and while you’re gone because you don’t want people who don’t belong in your houses in your house.

        • Joe says:

          I know a few.

          And, I do agree. I wish we had open borders, but we can’t because we live in a welfare state. Cut back on the welfare statement, mandates etc…then we can have a more open border. When people are responbile for themselves, there is no need for the laws.

          Prof. Williams had a good piece on it not that long ago.

  31. For the record, I am for some restrictions on entry, particular of people who have dangerous communicable diseases (who were kept out prior to the 1924 law restricting immigration that was passed under pressure from the KKK), as well as likely terrorists or convicted felons. So, Dave, the business about locking one’s house is to keep out thiefs and criminals. The record, in case you did not know, is that immigrants have a lower crime rate than natives.

    Williams is the most publicly known of the Mason libertarians, but his stints subbing for Rush Limbaugh have moved him away from the positions of most of his colleagues at GMU on a number of issues. The welfare state is one thing, immigration is another. Most immigrants work hard and pay taxes.

    I would say to anyone who gets too huffy about legal vs illegal immigration that once upon a time there were nearly no limits on immigration. If we had not passed that law in 1924 to please the KKK, we might have saved the lives of millions of Jews who were not let into this country during the Nazi Holocaust. In any case, given the questionable moral origins of the restraints on immigration to this country, I find it hard to take too seriously anyone who gets all worked up about the legal versus illegal aspect of this. The law is wrong, and I wait for the Valley Family Forum to live up to what it claims to defend, but does not, real family values.

  32. Joe says:

    once upon a time we weren’t a welfare state, where we could afford to have open borders. I long for those times.

    It’s not a surprise we saw the rise of Immigation laws, and quotes during the Progressive Era.

  33. Joe says:

    Rustici was one of my favorite members of the Econ department at Mason. His passion for econs is hard to miss.

    I weould say Dr. Buchanan is the most “famous” Mason member of the Econ department at Mason, but that’s just my personal opinion.

  34. Joe,

    Do not know Rustici. Of course, Buchanan is the most famous, followed by fellow Nobelist Vernon Smith, although he has left for Chapman mostly, and Buchanan’s famous coatuhor, Gordon Tullock, who just recently retired. Jim is 90 and does not run any blogs or get on TV or whatever, although he does still make an occasional public appearance and give talks, which is he going to do in Richmond in about a week at a History of Economics conference where he will discuss the Chicago economics department in the old days (where he got his Ph.D.).

    The newer gang runs blogs like mad, e.g. Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok with the widely read Marginal Revolution, Bryan Caplan with Econlog, Don Boudreaux with Cafe Hayek, Peter Boettke with Coordination Problem (formerly “Austrian Economists”), and Robin Hanson with Overcoming Bias, along with a couple of others. If anything, some outsiders say they are running too many blogs. A core group out of that is Cowen, Tabarrok, Caplan, and Hanson, who reportedly lunch regularly.

    When the restrictions on immigration were passed, we had very little of a welfare state. That was 1924, and the anti-immigrant movement only had a few links to the Progressive Movement, probably the most important one being Woodrow Wilson, although he was dead by 1924, and that year was one when the Progressive Movement was completely out of power. Again, given that most immigrants get jobs, work hard, and pay taxes, not to mention have low crime rates, the whole argument about immigration and the welfare state is simply misplaced.

  35. Joe says:

    immigration laws came into place BEFORE 1924. You just happen to be mentioning a famous one.

    but i certainly see a connection between the Progressive Movement, the KKK, racism and President Wilson..not that big of a surprise really. Also, it’s not surprising that the Unions supported the law.

    Most of the views on race, racial identiy came from the Progressive Era and lead to Nazism.

    I suggest for further reading, check out a man named Madison Grant, and his close friendship with many of the Presidents from that era.

    and you seem to be putting the cart before the horse, in regards to your comment about immigrats paying taxes, jobs etc…of course they do, that’s why we have the law.

    it’s the illegal ones that are the problem.

    now we wouldn’t have that problem if, we either did away with much of the Progressive welfare state policies or enforced the law.

Reader Tweets

Latest Flickr photos in the hburgnews Flickr pool
Announcements & Press Releases
  • Friendly City Grand Opening Set for July 9

    Friendly City Food Co-Op, Harrisonburg’s consumer-owned grocery, invites the community to come see its new destination for natural, organic and locally-produced products at the store’s grand opening 11 a.m.-5 p.m. July 9 at 150 East Wolfe Street.

  • Friendly City Becomes Member of National Cooperative Grocers Association

    HARRISONBURG, VA — Friendly City Food Co-op, slated to open this month in Harrisonburg, Va., has become the newest member of the National Cooperative Grocers Association (NCGA), a business services cooperative serving 120 consumer-owned food co-ops nationwide.

  • Harrisonburg Recognized as a Bike Friendly Community

    May 2: Harrisonburg was honored when the League of American Bicyclists announced the latest round of Bicycle Friendly Community (BFC) designations over the weekend to kick off May as National Bike Month.