Conversation with a Conservative: A compromise between a Conservative and a Libertarian on Immigration

I had a conversation about immigration with a ardent die-hard conservative Republican recently. I feel the discussion was valuable. I got a better sense of their concerns on the issue and it's more than just "foreigners are bad" or "they took our jobs" or "terrorists!!" like many seem to caricature them to be and in addition to educating them on the libertarian perspective, got their thoughts on that perspective.

For background, my ideal immigration policy is no policy - open borders, no govt required registration. Nobody is directly being harmed by people simply crossing a political line in the dirt. However, there are challenges to that view right now due to the policies of our current govt. For example, we currently face a threat from terrorism that our foreign policy exacerbates and invites. If you also have a non-interventionist foreign policy, I believe your risk from the threat of terrorism is significantly less and thus the need (or perceived need) to comb over every person that gets in an airplane or visits from another country is drastically reduced.

At the same time, however, I am a strong pragmatist and feel that libertarians are not going to get anywhere close to a free society by just declaring the govt is immoral and demanding that everyone stop using it. So I am often more willing to compromise on issues than I feel many libertarians are.

After a nearly 2 hour discussion with my conservative friend, we were able to reach an agreed-upon compromise for immigration reform:

Application process is a background check
A single, simple form to apply for immigration. This form should only require the basic information to identify the person and will be used to perform a background check. The only purpose of the entire application process is to determine if you are a threat to others - i.e. if you have a violent criminal history, ties to terrorists, etc. If you do not, you're free to enter the country at your earliest convenience. No multi-month/year long process of various approvals for different types of immigration.

This should change the legal immigration process from taking months or even years to a couple weeks. By making the process significantly more simple as well as shorter, I feel it will make legal immigration much more attractive compared to the risk and disadvantages of illegal immigration. In addition, with a drastically smaller number of illegal immigrants I think illegal immigration itself will be easier to deal with and certainly less of a problem.

A one-time fee
Applying for legal immigration will require a flat fee that simply pays for the cost of performing the paperwork and background check - no more, no less.

No fines or back taxes
There's little value beyond retribution in trying to excise fines or figure and collect back taxes on illegal immigrants already here. Besides, it would likely cost more in trying to audit and calculate those taxes on individuals who likely earned little income and have no record of it than the tax itself would amount to.

No English fluency/literacy requirements or tests
This is simply unnecessary. Plus, allowing immigrants to come out of the shadows of illegality would likely lead to them being more likely to assimilate and learn the dominant national language.

No expiration on legal immigration
There's nothing immoral and nobody is directly harmed by someone remaining here after govt has told them that they have stayed here long enough. If they are not a direct physical threat to anyone, there's no reason to put a time limit on their stay here.

Eliminate the dozen+ types of immigration statuses
A single status, either legal or not. Whether you're coming here for a single business meeting, a week long trip, a summer tour, or to live here for years doesn't matter. As long as you are not a threat to anyone, govt shouldn't care.

Secure the border
If you're going to have any immigration policy and any restrictions or controls on those who come in, it makes little sense if people can bypass and disregard the law and the process anyway. Frankly, however, I believe that the rest of the policies in this compromise would drastically reduce the demand for illegal immigration and thus reduce the need to aggressively patrol and defend the border as we do currently. I'm not sure how effective any attempt at securing the border would be or the costs involved, but I'm fine with enacting it as part of a bill.

No Federal Welfare
One of the concerns of many conservatives are those unskilled immigrants that come here and directly latch onto the govt dole. As a compromise between no restrictions whatsoever and no welfare whatsoever, we agreed that legal immigrants should be able to take advantage of as many state and local govt assistance programs as they are eligible for, but they should not be eligible for federal govt welfare programs. This is a basic decentralization/"laboratories of democracy" position (I hold the same pragmatic position on all welfare programs). Get the national govt out of it and let the states and localities decide how and to what extent to provide assistance to people - in this case immigrants.

Eligible for citizenship after a period
An immigrant can apply for naturalized citizenship after 10 years from the point they were approved for legal immigrant status. Time period is debatable, 10 years was just what we came up with, but some period of time from the point they received approval should be required before they can apply for full citizenship.

---

I just barely touched on these items to convey the basic premise. But it seemed like a good compromise that deals with both the concerns of conservatives while making the system and process more simple and open.

So what do you think? What does this overlook? What problems (besides political) might this create?

Ron Paul Next Steps

With Santorum having dropped out, many are concluding that Romney has virtually won the nomination. Ron Paul, however, is not dropping out and will continue to try to push his delegate strategy. However, in my opinion, with the vacuum of good news about the primary, I'd like to see Paul do something bold to get the attention of people and let them know that not only is this thing not over, but he is a viable (and better) alternative to Romney.

Foreign Policy vs National Security - Being Clear on Both

National security is a high priority on most people's list. Not all agree on how best to provide it, but most agree it's important - especially Republicans.

When Republicans are faced with a candidate (example, Romney) that they think has decent economic policies, tolerable fiscal policies, adequate social policies, and good security policies vs a guy (RP) that has good economic policies, great fiscal policies, tolerable social policies but HORRIBLE SCARY BAD security policies, it makes the first guy seem preferable.

This is why I keep saying, Ron Paul's campaign and supporters HAVE GOT to figure out how to get both his foreign policy and more importantly his national security policies accurately described to Republicans.

To me, foreign policy and national security are two different policies. There is a lot of overlap, but they are distinct. Most people understand his foreign policy, even if they disagree and believe that it would put us more at risk. I believe that Ron Paul's campaign and supporters need to do a better job of making the case for non-interventionism.

However, even more urgently, most Republicans do NOT understand Ron Paul's national security policies - that is, what would Ron Paul do in the event of a credible threat against the US? What would he do if intelligence learns of an eminent attack against the US? He has not made these points clear to Republicans and he needs to do a better job of it if he wishes to win the nomination.

Again, be clear Dr. Paul

I just got to watch last night's debate. I heard Baier's question.

Grrr.... I HATE how unclear Dr. Paul is on this.

Just say:

Firstly, non-interventionism isn't a leftist policy. Non-interventionism - that is, freely trading with countries and avoiding entangling alliances - is a policy consistent with our founders. Let's not fall into the trap of making this a left vs right issue.

Secondly, if you are asking if I would be worried about Iran getting a nuclear weapon if we maintain our current foreign policy of intervention, preemptive attack, nation building, and occupation, then yes, I would be very worried.

If you are asking if I would be worried about Iran getting a nuclear weapon if we followed my foreign policy, then no, I would not be worried. If we aren't threatening them, if we aren't setting a no fly zone, if we aren't flying drones over their airspace, if we don't have 50 military bases virtually surrounding their country, if we aren't interfering with their communications, if we aren't threatening them with attack ourselves, then no, I don't think a nuclear Iran would be a direct threat to the United States.

Because history doesn't happen in a vacuum. You have to see that there is a greater context for what we're dealing with than just since 9/11. And there's more to my foreign policy than just "if Iran gets a nuke, do we attack or not?". 

3 Simple Steps to talking to Conservatives about Ron Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy

One of the biggest hindrances to conservatives supporting Ron Paul is his foreign policy. Some of the most vocal like Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, etc say that he's right on almost everything, except foreign policy. Here's how I've started talking to conservative friends and family about his foreign policy and have convinced most to agree with Ron Paul.

1) The purpose of terrorism

Ask them why the terrorists attack us. If they say our freedom and prosperity, ask them why they aren't attacking Australia, or Japan, or Sweden? Why is the US the "Great Satan"? Then point out that if you  look at the 1998 fatwa, bin Laden's letter right after 9/11, his letter in 2002 or 2006, or the statements of various other terrorists and the core justification behind all of the attacks was our continued military presence, intervention and sanctions on countries in the middle east.

Then ask them, if we were to implement RP's foreign policy - a foreign policy NOT of isolationism, but of non-interventionism; if we were to end the active combat around the world; if we were to return our troops home from over 700 bases in over 135 countries; if we were to stop just giving money to foreign countries, countries that are often ran by authoritarian dictators; if we were to focus our defense spending on strengthening measures of ACTUAL defense; if we were to ensure a strong international intelligence network; if we are open, friendly and freely trade with all countries; if we were to do all of that, (besides saving hundreds of billions of dollars a year), why would they attack us? What would be the purpose? What would they be trying to get us to STOP doing by threatening attack?

If they reply that they believe that without provokation or justification, Muslims will simply attack us, minding our own business, for no other reason than to get their virgins or similar, then point out that they are confusing a rationalization for a justification. Ask them if they've ever asked an Islamic terrorist why they would attack us, and then state that their view is nothing but a ridiculous and ignorant caricature - even of Islamic extremists.

2) Support for Israel

"We cannot abandon Israel to be destroyed." is another common theme (usually among Christians). Yet, Israel has taken care of itself numerous times and dealt with various threats itself, often against US recommendations. Ask them exactly how taking a non-interventionist policy would hurt Israel.

Hurt Intelligence? It is generally admitted that Israel's intelligence network in the middle east is superior to the US.

Hurt Budget? On average, we give Israel $2.5 billion a year (Source), over 90% of which are military grants.

Hurt Military/Weapons? Israel is one of the most well trained military groups in the world. Our money doesn't make or break that. Nor is there any reason to believe that Israel would not be able to produce/purchase their weaponry or would be left "defenseless" if we left.

However, there may actually be an upside for Israel. One of the things that comes with that money to Israel is leverage. The US uses that money as a way to apply pressure on Israel to try to control/influence how it responds to threats. Thus the US, who does not face the same threats as Israel, tries to tell Israel how it must deal with certain situations and threats. This isn't right. Israel should be free to decide how to deal with its threats without US coercion. We remove that money, we remove the restriction on how Israel defends itself.

I would argue that a non-interventionist foreign policy would be better for both sides.

3) World's Police 

Another potential rebuttal is that the US is the only country that can keep the threats of the world at bay. If the US isn't the world's police, who would be?

Firstly, ask them why there needs to be one? Countries can join together voluntarily and address a threat the presents itself without trying to constantly have our boot on the neck of every country in the world.

Secondly, that job brings with it enormous animosity and a monumental expense. Our habit of trying to intervene and control all international events in our favor has helped cause the animosity and resentment that we're dealing with now. And with the current economic and govt spending, we simply cannot afford to be that police force anymore. In addition, we put our young men and women at risk and in harms way, to be injured or even killed, not necessarily to fight a clear and immediate danger to the US, but to squash potential resentment and backlash.

Thirdly, read and find articles to present them evidence on blowback. Here's a good example to start with.

Summary

Basically, our current foreign policy of preemptive military assault, regime change, and nation building does NOT make us safer. It creates an environment where MORE animosity grows and additional terrorists are cultivated.

What would make us safer would be to remove the very complaints that terrorists have against us, that cost us enormous amounts of money and lives anyway, to spend more effort on intelligence and actual "defense" instead of offense, and to be a free and open trading partner with all nations. Where trade flows free, there is peace. Where trade is blocked, war will follow."


TL;DR

Talking to conservatives about Ron Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy:

1) Point out that the terrorists attack us because of our intervention and military presence.

2) Point out that US support for Israel doesn't make or break the country and removing the monetary aid may, in fact, give Israel more freedom and flexibility in how it deals with threats.

3) Being the world's police is enormously expensive in both money and, more importantly, in lives. But beyond that, it doesn't work. Trying to militarily control the world CREATES animosity and generates terrorism.

UPDATE:
Let me also say, Don't give up! With the people I talked to, it was always multiple conversations. I generally just said the same things in response to their same complaints. They seemed to wear a little with each one. And note that NONE of them changed their minds while talking to me. It was only weeks later after having heard these points and going back to their normal lives that they ended up changing their mind.

Proposed Ron Paul "Soundbites" for Debates

I'm a huge Ron Paul fan. I don't agree with 100% of his policies, but the vast majority. I love that he's not suave and speaks simply. However, he seems to have trouble making his points in short time frames. Perhaps it's due to the complexity of the issue, perhaps it's due to the large amount of information he could call on to answer the question, perhaps it's due to the divergence from "mainstream" political thought, thus requires more explanation, but he has trouble getting his message into "soundbites" - that is, one or two paragraphs.

After watching him in debates and feeling like his answers were correct, but just didn't pack the concise punch they could, I took a stab at writing what I would love for him to say in future debates based on what I know of his positions.

TL;DR: I'd love to see Ron Paul answer some of these questions like this:

With the rampant drug problem in this country, how can you say you want to legalize [some drug]?

Let me be clear, I am not "pro-marijuana" or even "pro-heroin" or "pro-cocaine". I think drug use can be a harmful and dangerous thing. However, I am for ending the FEDERAL prohibition on narcotics. I believe in the Constitution and in the 10th amendment. There is nothing in the Constitution about drugs and I believe that those things that are not specifically mandated to the federal govt, fall to the states. In 1919, those that believed that liquor should be banned recognized that they needed a Constitutional amendment to do so. And they needed another amendment to repeal it. Drug prohibition is no different in the need for an amendment to have a federal ban. However, there is none, so it must fall to the states. If all 50 states want to prohibit cocaine, heroin and marijuana, then fine, but not at the federal level, not without an amendment. And personally, I would not support such an amendment.

Being a strong Christian, how can you support same-sex marriage when Christianity states homosexuality as a sin?

Similar to drug prohibition, this once again is an issue of federal overreach. Marriage and its recognition is not mentioned in the Constitution as a power the federal govt has authority to oversee, regulate or restrict. Thus, that responsibility should, by the Constitution, fall to the states. I can be against an act, think it's sinful, and still not believe that it's the federal govt's job to prohibit it. Beyond that, marriage to the federal govt amounts to little more than legal declaration of shared rights (e.g. medical information sharing). Is there really a Christian reason to prohibit two people of the same sex from having the federal govt recognize them as having shared rights any more than one man being granted power of attorney for another man?

By removing national standards by eliminating the dept of education and advocating non-scientific positions like denying global warming and saying creationism is legitimate, as well as ending scientific funding, aren't you putting future generations at risk of falling behind the rest of the world educationally and competitively?

Firstly, the Constitution doesn't authorize the federal govt to dictate educational policies. The Dept of Education has only been a cabinet level agency since 1980. Are you honestly going to tell me that due to their involvement, education in this country has gotten significantly better since then? No, I believe that the US became the foremost scientific and educational country in the world BEFORE govt began funding research in every scientific field imaginable and BEFORE govt began managing education for the entire nation. Govt funding and control does expand these areas but it corrupts the systems, it doesn't really improve them. Plus,

Secondly, my positions on both global warming and creationism vs evolution is that we don't know. We have very good ideas and some evidence that supports a theory, but I believe that the science isn't definitive yet. Listen, I'm not anti-science - I'm a doctor of medicine for pete's sake. I've looked at the science for these theories and while we should continue to research and investigate these ideas, I am not convinced that they are definitive enough to be teaching in classrooms as fact and setting restrictive economy-wide policies by - doubly so when considering that the Constitution doesn't authorize the federal govt to dictate such policies.

With your focus on privacy, freedom and personal rights, why do you want to restrict a woman's privacy and freedom and ban abortion?

It's not about restricting her freedom or invading her privacy. However, as a doctor who has delivered thousands of babies, many of which were not full term, I recognize that what is inside a woman's womb is a life. In addition, the law recognizes it as a life since as a doctor, I was legally liable for that life and that life has inheritance rights. And as such I am a firm advocate for the protection of rights and the right to life is a critical one. Also note that my position is that I don't believe the federal govt has the Constitutional authority to be the "Abortion Police" - to either legalize or ban the practice. If a state wants to ban abortions or allow them, the Constitution doesn't grant the federal govt the authority to overrule that. At the core, I believe that protecting life is the first and most crucial step in protecting liberty.

Your policy calls for closing all military bases in foreign countries. Do you also want to shut down military bases in the US?

Well, I'm not sure that's necessary. How about we take it one step at a time and implement my foreign policy first and evaluate things at that point? I will emphasize is that what I want to do is cut the military, not defense. I think a strong defense and intelligence network is essential to a strong country. However, our military is overgrown and expansive. The military has become a tool of aggression instead of defense. I believe that our intervention in the affairs of other countries and the entangling alliances we get involved with cause us to be LESS safe. [If you agree that govt intervention in the economy causes problems, can't you see that govt intervention in the affairs of foreign countries causes problems? (this line can be added or removed based on who the audience is)] We are now in a position, we have SO many enemies, thanks to over 50 years of intervention around the world, where we feel we have to keep our boot on the necks of every country out there for fear they will try to get back at us. That's not only dangerous and not sustainable, it's not moral.

Are you suggesting that we invited 9/11?

Absolutely not. WE the people did not cause 9/11. But the actions of the US govt over the last 50-60 years did - and on our behalf. WE the people didn't overthrow a democratically elected leader and replace him with a puppet dictator that brutally oppressed his people, but the US govt did. WE the people didn't supply Saddam Hussein with weapons and encourage him to attack Iran in the 80s, but the US govt did. WE the people didn't give billions of dollars to dictators that oppressed their people, but the US govt did. [More detail about what the US govt has done and emphasize the difference between WE the people and the US govt] These aren't the acts of everyday Americans, as the question implies, but the acts of govt.

You have no problem with Iran getting a nuclear weapon? Aren't you basically advocating sticking your head in the sand and hoping terrorism goes away?

Our founders warned us to avoid entangling alliances and to avoid meddling in the affairs of foreign countries for fear of exactly the type of backlash we are seeing now. Look at the 1998 fatwa, bin Laden's letter right after 9/11, his letter in 2002 or 2006, or the statements of various other terrorists and the core justification behind all of the attacks was our continued military presence, intervention and sanctions on countries in the middle east. If we were to implement my foreign policy - a foreign policy NOT of isolationism, but of non-interventionism; if we were to end the active combat around the world; if we were to return our troops home from over 700 bases in over 135 countries; if we were to stop just giving money to foreign countries, countries that are often ran by authoritarian dictators; if we were to focus our defense spending on strengthening measures of ACTUAL defense; if we were to ensure a strong international intelligence network; if we are open, friendly and freely trade with all countries; if we were to do all of that, (besides saving hundreds of billions of dollars a year), why would they attack us? What would be the purpose? What would they be trying to get us to STOP doing by threatening attack?

And the idea that, without provocation or justification, Muslims will simply attack us, minding our own business, for no other reason than to get their virgins or similar is nothing but a ridiculous and ignorant caricature - even of Islamic extremists.