NationStates Jolt Archive

This is an idea I formulated and I would like to know your opinions. It is flawed, but I hope to make it more sensible.

This is a sensitive topic in the nation today, particularly with the latest trend of protectionism as a way to cure the ailment of economic insecurity. The nation's immigration policies, whether it includes open boarders or closed ones, is a one policy to which every community is subjected. For example, if the government were to close the nation's boarders, that would inhibit an individual from moving freely. Even if a community in the US consented to the immigrant entering their property, they would be denied that request because the government has ruled that illegal and there would be a substantial penalty if they violated the law. If the situation were to be reversed, if the US opened the boarders and an immigrant wished to enter a community that did not wish for him to do so, in these cases I am not speaking of gated communities, but of an average town, then he would be allowed in anyway or else the authorities might be summoned. In either case, a great deal of coercion is required to enforce it.

I hold the conviction that immigration is best decided on a method rooted in the concept of private property. If a business wants to hire immigrant workers, then the business should be permitted to do so. However, if no other individual in that community wanted the prospective workers on their property, then the business should be prepared to settle this via a contractual agreement with the community. The government should not prevent another from entering the nation, so long as he is not a criminal, if an individual wishes to host him. This is the same sort of one-size-fits-all policies that are applied to anti-trust laws and various other issues. There is another problem with the current system, it opens the possibility that the current policies can quickly change as a new regime is elected, i.e. what is legal today may not be so the next. This adds a great deal of confusion and to the matter and further complicates it. It represents the will of the majority, but the will of the majority changes so frequently.

What I am proposing is that each community, state, individual etc. should be allowed to decide who enters their private property, not the government. Although I think it would not be in that communities best economic interests to restrict movement, unless I live in that particular state I should have no say in the matter. One scenario that one may see as problematic is if there is a conflict of interests. One wishes for an immigrant to enter, while the other does not. This can be readily solved by a contractual agreement. If I were to put two extremist together to formulate a plan, there is a chance that some sort of moderation would come from it. Not only does this permit each individual, more so than the current system, to decide the immigration issue on their own, it leads to a certain degree of decenrtalization of power which can inhibit personal liberty.
<---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
This proposal needs much work on it for it to be more practical, but this should give you an idea.

Greetings VB,
Personally I don't see anything similar getting a foot in the door simply due to the Constitiutional issues. I can't imagine our government letting go of any power it has obtained by any method.
It's an interesting idea, however, with the emenient domain decision, I have to believe our government is moving toward taking everything as it's own and eliminating states rights all together as their long term goal.

In Switzerland, immigrants are welcomed only after a "trial period" and after their county's population votes. But their immigration level is so low, they can afford that.

Liverbreath']Greetings VB,
Personally I don't see anything similar getting a foot in the door simply due to the Constitiutional issues. I can't imagine our government letting go of any power it has obtained by any method.
It's an interesting idea, however, with the emenient domain decision, I have to believe our government is moving toward taking everything as it's own and eliminating states rights all together as their long term goal.
I agree, the government will not surrender any of its power, at least as far I can tell. When I was writing this I had property rights in mind. If someone does not want you on their property, then unless you come to a compromise, you should not be there. This proposal has the possiblity that it could severely restrict movement within the nation.

a very interesting and innovative idea, but would take considerable effort to implement.

first, who in the community decides whether to allow the immigration? does the whole community vote? would the entire community vote every time an immigrant is brought in? and what are the boundaries of the community? the state, the county, the city, or even just the neighbourhood?

also, lots of bribery would result. people would covertly offer to import immigrants for a hefty price. if the entire community voted on immigrants, swing votes would be bought for the system; if a small committee made the decision, undoubtedly there would be bribery attempts. the system could conceivably deteriorate into the underground system already in place of sneaking women and/or children in and forcing them into prostitution in exchange - especially if prostitution became legal.

finally, even if done honestly, the voting system and ensuing paperwork might take too long for corporations to wait.

it's a sound idea, it would just take some watching. i like your idea of the invidual areas being more in control over the decision, rather than a governmental overview; you definitely raise good points when you discuss the problems with the current system.

i would like to hear your thoughts on the responsibility of nations for other nations' peoples (g8 style), if you have time? this is a topic on which i am ambivalent, and i would like to hear the sort of informed viewpoint on it that you present. open invitation, in case anyone else cares to comment.

first, who in the community decides whether to allow the immigration? does the whole community vote? would the entire community vote every time an immigrant is brought in? and what are the boundaries of the community? the state, the county, the city, or even just the neighbourhood?
That is my problem, I do not know where to move from the foundation. My first idea was that the immigrant would be restricted to those areas, properties, that the owner allows them to enter. The immigrant would not enter those areas where he is not wanted. Already that is difficult to impliment. It could be on a state level to start out if the above idea does not work.

also, lots of bribery would result. people would covertly offer to import immigrants for a hefty price. if the entire community voted on immigrants, swing votes would be bought for the system; if a small committee made the decision, undoubtedly there would be bribery attempts. the system could conceivably deteriorate into the underground system already in place of sneaking women and/or children in and forcing them into prostitution in exchange - especially if prostitution became legal.
If the property rights system works, then there would be no need for bribery. People could work out the difference via a contractual agreement.

finally, even if done honestly, the voting system and ensuing paperwork might take too long for corporations to wait.
Not as much if the corporations deal with the citizens directly rather than the government.

it's a sound idea, it would just take some watching. i like your idea of the invidual areas being more in control over the decision, rather than a governmental overview; you definitely raise good points when you discuss the problems with the current system.
Thank you, I try to place the individual as an independent rather than group them collectively.

i would like to hear your thoughts on the responsibility of nations for other nations' peoples (g8 style), if you have time? this is a topic on which i am ambivalent, and i would like to hear the sort of informed viewpoint on it that you present. open invitation, in case anyone else cares to comment.
You could apply the same concept of individual responsibility on a larger scale to individual nations. I have a major problem with taking money from someone by using coercion and giving it to another, foreign aid in a nutshell. I think that private charity, free trade, and foreign investment are better ways to assist a nation. I am still in the learning process myself, but I think we could learn something from each other on this issue.

That is my problem, I do not know where to move from the foundation. My first idea was that the immigrant would be restricted to those areas, properties, that the owner allows them to enter. The immigrant would not enter those areas where he is not wanted. Already that is difficult to impliment. It could be on a state level to start out if the above idea does not work.


Ever heard of Apartheid? This is effectively the same thing, just not based on skin colour, based on nationality. At least when it moves up from being individuals to being communities it is. Or you coud call it segregation. Either way it is an open invitation to racism.

Very technically at the individual level this is the case anyway in various places, the UK for example. If you are the owner of the land, you can legaly define who you allow to enter or remain on that land. You do not have to explain or justify your decision to anyone. The only exception to this is where a public right of way crosses your land, in which case you can not prevent anyone from using that right of way.

Ever heard of Apartheid? This is effectively the same thing, just not based on skin colour, based on nationality. At least when it moves up from being individuals to being communities it is. Or you coud call it segregation. Either way it is an open invitation to racism.
Technically the owner could refuse to allow anyone at onto his property. It is a matter of weighing ideals, private property and free movement. Both require some degree of coercion.

Very technically at the individual level this is the case anyway in various places, the UK for example. If you are the owner of the land, you can legaly define who you allow to enter or remain on that land. You do not have to explain or justify your decision to anyone. The only exception to this is where a public right of way crosses your land, in which case you can not prevent anyone from using that right of way.
That is the system I proposed, except on a grander scale.

I agree, the government will not surrender any of its power, at least as far I can tell. When I was writing this I had property rights in mind. If someone does not want you on their property, then unless you come to a compromise, you should not be there. This proposal has the possiblity that it could severely restrict movement within the nation.

I really like the concept myself as my first inclination would be to buy up lots of border land and eliminate the need for coyotes with my own handy dandy one way toll both leading directly to the nearest Walmart!
Kidding aside, I am willing to bet that if there is a potiential for a huge profit motive involved, the flow will not be stemmed, however, it could easily be manipulated for this purpose. I'd find it interesting to experiment with for sure.

Liverbreath']I really like the concept myself as my first inclination would be to buy up lots of border land and eliminate the need for coyotes with my own handy dandy one way toll both leading directly to the nearest Walmart!
Kidding aside, I am willing to bet that if there is a potiential for a huge profit motive involved, the flow will not be stemmed, however, it could easily be manipulated for this purpose. I'd find it interesting to experiment with for sure.
That is why the roads would not necessarily be privatized. They would be public which allows for people to move from A to B, but if they arrive at a town that doesn't allow you into any homes or stores, there is really no need to stay there. There are also airports so the immigrant could fly over the privately owned property that covers the boarder. Again they would encounter the same problem. It would be bad economically to become protectionist so there is some incentive to have open boarders.