It is considerably more difficult to fight illegal immigration if we don't always remember the goal is open borders. The author below advocates for just that ...openly. MALDEF, La Raza, GALEO and the rest of the illegal alien lobby lack the courage to admit to the same goal. THE FREE FLOW OF PEOPLE INTO OUR NATION. Many of you will not take the time to read the OP-ED below - for those who do, pls send it to your congressman and ask him why he doesn't speak up on the open borders/SPP agenda.
-DA King

Open borders, integrated economy
U.S. would benefit from a policy that allows freer labor migration
By Kevin R. Johnson -
Published 12:00 am PST Sunday, November 18, 2007

Following is an excerpt from Kevin R. Johnson's new book, "Opening the Floodgates: Why America Needs to Rethink Its Borders and Immigration Laws." Johnson is associate dean for academic affairs and Mabie-Apallas Professor of Public Interest Law at the University of California, Davis.

Time and time again, U.S. immigration law has been well behind global and domestic changes, resulting in numerous laws and incidents that we now regret as a nation. Sadly, the United States is still behind the times. In terms of immigration policy, the nation still lives in a world of kingdoms with moats, walls and barriers, rather than a modern world of mass transportation, the Internet and daily international intercourse.

It is a cliché to say that the globalizing economy and technological improvements in communication and transportation have made the world a smaller place. But it is true. Increased trade, movement and interconnections between nations are much more common now than they have ever been. Many citizens of the modern world have ties to multiple nations. Migrants often have deep ties both to their native countries and to their countries of destination.

To this point, the U.S. immigration laws have responded in rather limited ways to the phenomenon of globalization. Incremental reforms have done little to address the nation's true immigrations needs. Similarly, the rights of immigrants have tended to expand over time but have done so in fits and starts. After years of consideration, the U.S. government took the cautious step of recognizing dual nationality, which quickly grew in popularity among Mexican nationals living the United States. However, the U.S. immigration laws have failed more generally to respond to the globalizing economy.

Open borders are consistent with the integrating world economy. I have outlined arguments for a far-reaching change in the U.S. immigration laws that would respond to the rapidly changing world in which we live. Open borders would mark a true revolution in current U.S. immigration law and would create an admissions system in which migration more closely approximated demand.

The elimination of exaggerated border controls would offer many benefits to the United States. As part of a globalizing economy, the nation stands to reap economic benefits from freer labor migration. As a matter of economic theory, international trade with Mexico and much of the world, which the United States has eagerly embraced, differs little from labor migration. A utilitarian approach would allow for labor migration and add the benefits of new labor to the national economy.

Importantly, the removal of controls would end the sheer brutality inherent in current immigration enforcement, which results in physical abuse, promotes racial discrimination and relegates certain groups of U.S. citizens and lawful immigrants to second-class status, both inside and outside the United States. Permeable boarders would allow for the admission of immigrants in numbers approximating the demand for immigration and make it unnecessary for many noncitizens seeking entry into the United States to circumvent the law. The immigration laws would not created the need for aggressive enforcement, with its discriminatory impacts and deadly results.

Last but not least, strong policy arguments exist for the abolition of border controls. Experience demonstrates that, at least within modern sensibilities, overzealous border controls simply cannot be enforced by the U.S. government. Undocumented immigration is not viewed as criminal by many law-abiding Americans. Nor is the employment of undocumented immigrants. Abolition of border controls would recognize the economic and social reality of immigration. Millions of undocumented immigrants make valuable contributions to the U.S. economy but are forced to live on the margins of society and, subject to exploitation because of their uncertain immigration status, work in poor conditions for substandard wages. Foreign-policy benefits would accrue from a system in which nationals of other societies were welcomed rather than labeled a public menace, barred from entry and treated as pariahs in our midst.

It may well be that "despite the rapid globalization of the world economy, the countries of terra firma are unlikely to abandon the concept of individual, sovereign nations in favor of a world of free borders and unrestricted migration," Victor C. Romero, a professor at Penn State University, wrote in his law review article "Expanding the Circle of Membership by reconstruction of the 'Alien.' " Times have changed, however. It is to be hoped that the time will come when the United States will realize that closed borders are far from inevitable and, in fact, do not serve the national interests. Closed borders result in immoral consequences that, in the annals of history, have shamed the Untied States and will continue to do so. The Berlin-Wall-lite that the government is in the process of erecting between the United States and Mexico is not consistent with American values and dreams. Rather, an "open Republic" is more consistent with the values for which this nation proudly stands.

Because it is difficult to estimate the impacts of a move to open borders on migration, there are unquestionably risks in moving to a system of open entry. We cannot be certain how many people will take advantage of open entry into the United States, although the available evidence suggests that the nation would not experience a flood of migrants. A transitional program might ease the adjustment and minimize the risks of public disorder. However, the United States' past experience with virtually open borders suggests that a mass migration need not necessarily follow.

The successful European Union provided the model for a second-best alternative. Border controls among member states are minimal. Free migration within the member states has not resulted in mass migrations. Labor can now move to the location of highest demand and most efficient use. Growing pains, of course, resulted at the outset, but the system soon achieved stability and acceptance. Overall, the move to a common labor market was relatively uneventful.

However, the opening of internal borders in the EU was accompanied by a building of borders at the outer perimeters of the Union. Critics have claimed that a Fortress Europe has had negative effects on asylum seekers and created problems like those seen at the U.S. borders. North Africans seek to enter the EU though Spain by hazarding a dangerous crossing of the Mediterranean Sea. Migrants die. Hate crimes against immigrants have risen with some frequency in the EU nations. In 2005, social strife resulted in France as Muslims protested their second-class status in French society. The problems experienced in Fortress Europe suggest that a North American Union is a second-best alternative to more generally permeable borders.

In the end, the politics for any true immigration reform effort will be challenging. Many reform proposals have been made by politicians and academics, but political support has not been forthcoming. Nonetheless, the issue of immigration – and, more important, immigrants – is not going away. Indeed, as the United States remains the last true superpower and immigration has become a global phenomenon, it is increasing in importance. Economic globalization means that world migration is here to stay. As a nation, we can no longer fool ourselves by pretending migrants will go away or listen if we tell them they are not welcome.

Ultimately, migration of people is inevitable. The United States must make an important choice. It can have laws that effectively and efficiently regulate admission into the country. Or, it can have laws, like those it currently has, that are inefficient, wasteful and futile, and that damage the nation.

Kevin R. Johnson is associate dean for academic affairs and Mabie-Apallas Professor of Public Interest Law at the University of California, Davis. He co-manages an ImmigrationProf blog at http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration.
http://www.sacbee.com/325/story/498477.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments posted at article link:

scrappykid at 1:40 AM PST Sunday, November 18, 2007 wrote:
Exactly what you'd expect from a UC Davis academic
I have an even better idea. Why not make UC Davis a sanctuary city so you idealistic, clueless open borders people can REALLY live the dream?

rebelnet at 2:48 AM PST Sunday, November 18, 2007 wrote:
Integrated economy YES, open borders NO!

btsacbee at 2:56 AM PST Sunday, November 18, 2007 wrote:
abolition of border controls
strong policy arguments exist for the abolition of border controls...
A country is defined by three elements... borders, a common language, and culture. If we dont have borders, then we might as well just give up our sovereignty now. The writers propose that having open migration will not cause a mass migration problem, using other countries as examples. Unfortunately the US isn't other countries. We are the largest economic power in the world. Almost half of the world's population--live on less than $2 a day. If we advertise that we are no longer enforcing immigration law, then how many people do you think would like to come to here for a chance at a better life. Lots i'm guessing based on the millions of people that come now. If you would like to see the kind of poverty that exists in overpopulated countries, look around. Our social welfare systems are at a breaking point as it is.Go to an emergency room and see how long you wait with all the uninsured trying to get treatment.

kd6rxl at 12:38 PM PST Sunday, November 18, 2007 wrote:
1 million/year should be enough
This country already lets in more legal immigrants than the rest of the developed world combined, or close to it. Unlike oh-so-progressive Canada and New Zealand we basically have no skill, education, or financial ability requirements. The current level of 1 million , mostly poor, unskilled, uneducated immigrants a year ought to be enough to sate the perfessor's diversity fetish and white liberal guilt trip.
As a 50-ish computer programmer who was encouraged to 'retire' while my company, Intel, was campaigning for more H1-Bs in my specialty I also have to note the perfesser isn't in a field where he faces much competition for his job from foreign 'talent'.

Warro at 5:51 PM PST Sunday, November 18, 2007 wrote:
I looked up the author's biography out of curiosity. I could be wrong, but I read that he is a law professor and professor of Chicano studies at UC Davis. He teaches immigration law and ethnic studies. He has authored a number of books and other papers.

anayeli at 11:09 PM PST Sunday, November 18, 2007 wrote:
His argument? We should open the borders because people want to come here. Google this guy and don't forget , your taxes pay his salary.

Don at 10:33 AM PST Monday, November 19, 2007 wrote:
Arrest the real criminals and the problem would disappear
In the same way that meth is not the criminal -- the dealer is, employers of the undocumented workers are the true criminals causing the problem. There would be no need for a fence or wall and immigration officials could concentrate on hard-core illegal immigrant criminals if our federal immigration and labor laws were enforced and a well-regulated guest worker program were in place. But instead, our elected officials prefer to pay lip service to the problem of illegal immigration while actually encouraging it to reap the benefits of cheap labor extracted under the fear of deportation. As for the export of manufacturing and tech jobs overseas, we should quit telling ourselves the lie that "people can live very well on $5 a day in those countries" and place tariffs on goods produced under hazardous conditions for barely subsistence wages. We didn't end slavery -- we just outsourced it.

tippy at 7:53 PM PST Monday, November 19, 2007 wrote:
How about a two way street ever go to mexico and have to buy insurance
because they wont accept our's. can't buy land only lease, have to slip
the boader guard money to get passed without them taking your car apart.
I am sure many could go on and on, its just a few I have noticed when
going to mexico.
They want all kinds of things here but they dont want to give the same to us also look at how they control the southern border of Mexico, we should tell them we will do the same as they do to the neighbors to the south

jd4750 at 6:50 AM PST Tuesday, November 20, 2007 wrote:
France's experience
So the 2005 "social strife" among France's young Muslim population--what most people would call "rioting"--happened because their immigration policy is too RESTRICTIVE? I think the French might disagree. In fact, their presidential election demonstrates that. They didn't elect a conservative because they're in love with Bush!

BrianSDCA at 9:12 PM PST Tuesday, November 20, 2007 wrote:
Open the borders and import poverty
This guy might be intelligent, but he is cuckoo. If the borders were flung open as he proposes, the quality of life, including his, would soon equalize and be no different than that of most of the nations that all of the illegal immigrants are trying to get away from.