Graham Eyes "Birthright Citizenship"

Lindsey's back with another peculiar idea.

Lindsey Graham recently mentioned that he might be  introducing a constitutional amendment restricting (or banning) citizenship to babies of illegal aliens.  “I may introduce a constitutional amendment that changes the rules if you have a child here,” Graham said to Greta Van Susteren of Fox News.  “Birthright citizenship I think is a mistake ...  We should change our Constitution and say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child's automatically not a citizen.”

So, I am curious how he and the others who are interested in collaborating with him will contruct this bill and make the process efficient [if that's what you call it]? What's ironic is that this is coming from the same guy that supports amnesty for illegals. He goes on to say,

People come here to have babies. They come here to drop a child. It's called "drop and leave." To have a child in America, they cross the border, they go to the emergency room, have a child, and that child's automatically an American citizen. That shouldn't be the case. That attracts people here for all the wrong reasons.

Graham goes further and says that he is a "fair" guy.  Why don't we just end the Welfare State, Lindsay? Wouldn't that inevitably end illegal immigration and decrease "anchor babies"?  And where the hell does his support for a national ID card fall on all this? Any thoughts? I know this is getting a mixed reaction.

Property Rights, the State, and the Border

Libertarian hysteria over Arizona's immigration law misses the point. If one wants the government to seriously enforce immigration law, racial profiling is inevitable because "illegals" are overwhelmingly Hispanic. The real question is simply whether deporting "illegals" is justified. A consistent libertarian's answer lies in his general view of the(if any) role government should play in law enforcement.

Libertarians supporting privatizing public utilities. But given their existence, should we encourage the state to allow all non-aggressive behavior on this stolen property? Or should we pressure the State to act like private property owners? 

Some implications of the latter seem agreeable: No screaming  in public libraries, no fornication at the Post Office, no Nazi Marches through The D.C. Holocaust Museum, etc. Others are more controversial. All property owners discriminate with regard to whom they invite onto their property. They  profile people (for example, members of a local gang) they consider more likely to trespass on their property.

So You Believe in Individual Rights, Libertarianism, and "Border Security." Dude, really?

In lieu of the passage of the totalitarian Arizona immigration law, I feel it's time for the pro-"border security" libertarians to rethink their position.

How can a Mexican man peacefully crossing an arbitrary border, (established by a well-known criminal syndicate) with the malicious intentions of working at Wal-Mart, possibly be considered an "aggressor"? Yes, each person has the categorical right to repel unwanted invaders from his or her property. But how could libertarians possibly claim the US Government, which obtains all of its revenue through aggression, has the legitimate property title to the entire border with Mexico? If you don't think so, exactly whose right to life, liberty, and property is our aforementioned "illegal," (and, by logical extension, the executives who hired him, and the neighborhood who welcomed his family) violating?

There is little to no case to be made here without smuggling statist rationales through the backdoor. The "border security" libertarians are arguing that a criminal state should violently override the people's right to free association. Their justification is a combination of consequentialism and collectivism. The natural rights-based reasoning we typically employ is, on this issue, quite conveniently discarded.