A proposal for The Freedom of Migration Act is presented here for public scrutiny. Please do not take even one word at face value; examine my facts and logic. Challenge me, have fun.

Henryk A. Kowalczyk

Read More→

Previous posts

Archive

Video Presentation of the FMA

Some viewers of this video complained that…
with parallel slides and narration the pace is too fast to follow.
I could redo this video, making it twice as long; then, likely fewer
viewers would have time and patience to watch it. I took a lazy
approach; if you find this video intriguing, but missed something
viewing it the first time, you can always watch the video again.
My apologies. HAK


“Why do we have such a big immigration mess?” The lecture at the Heartland Institute.

Follow me Also on:

About

In the last several years I have put some effort into better understanding our immigration crisis, collected a lot of data, and tried to draw logical conclusions. This resulted in my proposal for the Freedom of Migration Act. This concept is far away from what most Americans think about immigration. I might be completely wrong, but if most Americans were right we would not have an immigration crisis either.

For a moment, please try to free yourself from all foregone conclusions, and look at our immigration mess with a fresh eye. My seven letters to Mr. Romney summarize my reasoning behind the Freedom of Migration Act concept. This site contains my older writings and videos on the subject as well, so you can trace my thought process.

The Freedom of Migration Act concept is a work in progress not a dogma given to you to believe in. Examine it, pinpoint weaknesses of my facts and flaws in my logic. The ultimate goal is on working together on the best possible immigration policy we could have. Your comments are welcome and appreciated,

Henryk A. Kowalczyk
www.henrykkowalczyk.com

16 Responses to About

  1. John Zois. says:

    Henryk, just like passengers on a moving plane @ 36,000 feet, we are unable to control and choose our surroundings. Visions and ideas are only as good as the people at the controls, that are flying the plane, you are flying in. Everything can be improved with change, taking action doesn’t mean it will improve however,it is a good place to start. To help us find solutions to issues on any thing(s)for that matter, from a different perspective. Simplicity is only an idea, a dream, but one worth dreaming about. When people realize and say, do we really need someone flying the plane? Do we really need a plane to travel? They should start asking the most important question. Do we? Interesting question. Why?

  2. Edward Manring says:

    Henryk, your ideas are very interesting; and I have read most of your blog on the subject. There are several things that I want to say, however. I do not see why having an enterpreneur manage immigration will do anything about the people who can come through the border illegally. Your system will provide a way for them to come through legally, but those without skills (who happen to be the most numerous) and who cannot get the enterpreneur to sponsor them will still come across the border; and you will have the exact same problem we have now. I still think that a system of border security MUST be established. I have worked with illegal Mexican immigrants in Denver for years; and I have found that the ones I have known are not capable of adapting to American culture very well. For one thing, they have had the equivalent of a 3rd grade Mexican education; and although they are now adults, they have absolutely no learning skills. They are just helpless in our society–they do not seem able to learn English or anything else of a technical nature. Those who posit that they should come to the U.S. and establish businesses and get technical jobs are just whistling in the wind–most of them cannot do it. That is part of the problem.

    • admin says:

      I agree with you that many poorly educated foreigners might come. However, not all poorly educated people will have courage to leave their village and travel into unknown. Only those who have strong desire to improve their life, those who have strong will to work hard and overcome whatever obstacles they might face, will come here. I would welcome them all.

      • Wilson says:

        While many open border aeatcvods are disgustingly self-serving (for power or profit), some truly mean well and wish everybody could be an American. They raise a legitimate moral argument that limiting immigration isn’t fair. Why should some people have a better life simply due to luck of where they were born? Their fair way is unlimited immigration. Sounds nice in theory but fails the reality test and actually backfires in its maximizing the number of Americans goal. The problem is that the more we degrade our environment, the less people will be able to be Americans in the future and the quality of their lives will be diminished. Fair or not, we can’t realistically take every person who would like to come here. The U.S. is already in ecological overshoot even if future immigration were zero. Every time a person moves from a lower ecological footprint country to a higher ecological footprint country (like ours), the world eco-footprint rises further into overshoot. Thus, immigration to the U.S. exacerbates not just our problem, but the world’s. So while it would be nice if everyone who would like to live in the U.S. could, that would not just be impractical but unethical considering the environmental consequences. This is the moral case not to cause harm through immigration. Some say the interests of humans should come first, but that view is shortsighted. The way to maximize the interests of humans going forward is to not destroy ecosystems and deplete resources today. It would make some people feel good to take everybody in now and not worry about the effect on future generations but don’t we have a moral obligation not to be so selfish?

    • Natsumi says:

      When stripped from all of the degeaogumry, local laws against illegal immigrants boil down to having police chasing people for willing to work harder and for less than others. In my book, if more people are willing to work for less, more wealth is created. What is wrong with this? Mr. Romney, as a capitalist, please correct me if I am wrong. The degeaogumry is from the Left; their false assertions that millions of illiterate and poor are not a drag on our economy, that they add value to our national ambitions of growing wealth, when the truth is that it adds to the half of the population that pays no federal income taxes and ultimately puts them in a position to collect welfare in the form of Earned Income Tax Credits. Such drains on our Treasury require a transfer of wealth from the haves to the have-nots by raising taxes on the former. Such actions deplete funds that would otherwise be available for private investment. The degeaogumry is from those who would have us believe that it is sufficient that illegal aliens make up for their shortcomings in their federal tax contributions by paying a few hundred dollars of property taxes, sales taxes and other minor taxes. Any such taxes are do not even come close to making up for the costs of the burden of keeping them in this country. The degeaogumry comes from those who have no compunctions with advocating for the continued presence of 14 or so million illegal aliens in the face of 11 percent unemployment. They include the racial and ethnocentric and the unscrupulous businesses that are an unholy alliance that cares little for the plight of current citizens. The former two look for racial/ethnic political power, and the others pose as advocates for free market economy when they really want freedom to exploit the illegal immigrant work force, free from government interference for the purpose of making money. No, the onus isn’t on Romney to prove that you are wrong, but on you, an advocate for amnesty for illegal aliens. Thus far you are unconvincing.It’s despicable, arrogant, an oversimplification and an insult to the citizens of this country for some to dismiss the concerns of millions of citizens by boiling this down to police chasing illegal immigrants all because they do not like competing with illegal aliens. I also argue that even if it did, citizens have a right to expect the government to consider their welfare over that of unwelcome foreigners who were never invited into their midst. Mr. Kowalczk seems to think that this country is a machine, a thing in which people are fungible; that foreigners have equal expectations to the privileges of citizens. It is obvious that our Founding Fathers didn’t believe this, as they didn’t believe foreigners should have an automatic right to citizenship. This is evident by the fact that the federal government retain the authority to establish rules for naturalization, thus the People retained the right to decide which foreigners would permanently reside in this country. Too bad Mr. Kowalczyk doesn’t comprehend this.

    • Walid says:

      While many open border avdaceots are disgustingly self-serving (for power or profit), some truly mean well and wish everybody could be an American. They raise a legitimate moral argument that limiting immigration isn’t fair. Why should some people have a better life simply due to luck of where they were born? Their fair way is unlimited immigration. Sounds nice in theory but fails the reality test and actually backfires in its maximizing the number of Americans goal. The problem is that the more we degrade our environment, the less people will be able to be Americans in the future and the quality of their lives will be diminished. Fair or not, we can’t realistically take every person who would like to come here. The U.S. is already in ecological overshoot even if future immigration were zero. Every time a person moves from a lower ecological footprint country to a higher ecological footprint country (like ours), the world eco-footprint rises further into overshoot. Thus, immigration to the U.S. exacerbates not just our problem, but the world’s. So while it would be nice if everyone who would like to live in the U.S. could, that would not just be impractical but unethical considering the environmental consequences. This is the moral case not to cause harm through immigration. Some say the interests of humans should come first, but that view is shortsighted. The way to maximize the interests of humans going forward is to not destroy ecosystems and deplete resources today. It would make some people feel good to take everybody in now and not worry about the effect on future generations but don’t we have a moral obligation not to be so selfish?

  3. Chris says:

    Henryk, we have huge number of ppeloe predominantly entering this nation from Latin America. Like immigrants before them, they too will make their mark upon this nation. I would like them to make a positive mark, but the situation does not look good.Right now, their employers are taking advantage of them. Contributing to this situation is the fact many of them do not know how to speak English. So they are a disadvantage in understanding the local laws and customs and in getting a decent job. When they have children, as ppeloe generally do, they put a strain on public services that the taxes they pay are unable to compensate. So their presence here tends create resentment. When they concentrate in enclaves, that just adds to the problem.Most Americans do not have a good understanding of their political system. Relatively few participate actively, and that is why our political leadership too often behaves as if they represented ppeloe from another planet instead of this one. Waves of uneducated ppeloe entering this country cannot improve the situation. Instead, if new immigrants do not learn English and try to understand the country in which they have settled as you have done they will simply change it, little appreciating it for what it once was.

    • Dave says:

      I am not an anti-immigration fanatic. I urtdnseand the desire to come to my country and make a better life. I would just like people who are doing that to come and try to do it legally. I don’t have unreal expectations of immigrants.I believe Immigrants should follow a few simple rules.!. Follow the Law of my country2. Try your best to assimilate. Learn the language, customs etc. I am not saying forget your heritage but you belong to a different group, now: You are an American.3. Build our nation up don’t tear it down.These rules are important because just because you can get to America does not mean you deserve to stay. I want those who really want to better themselves, their families and our country. I don’t want Criminals, Terrorists, angry exiles, or any other non-desirables. Everyone in this county is descendant of immigrants.

      • Chiwiny says:

        I think that anyone shluod be allowed to come here. Are the people who were born here more important or less reckless in nature than those born somewhere else? I think it might be good if there was an optional program which educated immigrants about American principles and ideals and how to function normally in this society. America is a nation that was founded by immigrants. Did people have to be processed as they were arriving in the 16 /1700 s? To assume that those who come here need to go through some kind of system to insure that that aren’t going to commit crimes is ludicrous. It would be better to just let them come here and then arrest them if they break the law. Preventative laws do more damage than good because they restrict the freedom of everyone rather than punishing only those who commit crimes. Remember, a person is innocent until proven guilty.

  4. Gregory says:

    One problem with open borders is the relative ease for people from one particular third-world country to enter America – Mexicans. Africans don’t have it that easy, nor do Asians, nor do Eastern Europeans, or anyone from across the sea. They have to pay for airfare to get here, whereas Mexicans can just walk over.

  5. Jason says:

    This is such an excellent idea that we should wait for the countries of Switzerland, China, Sweden and Australia to implement the same policies so that we can reciprocate fairly.
    Good luck with that.

    • Suresh says:

      Henryk, we have huge number of ppoele predominantly entering this nation from Latin America. Like immigrants before them, they too will make their mark upon this nation. I would like them to make a positive mark, but the situation does not look good.Right now, their employers are taking advantage of them. Contributing to this situation is the fact many of them do not know how to speak English. So they are a disadvantage in understanding the local laws and customs and in getting a decent job. When they have children, as ppoele generally do, they put a strain on public services that the taxes they pay are unable to compensate. So their presence here tends create resentment. When they concentrate in enclaves, that just adds to the problem.Most Americans do not have a good understanding of their political system. Relatively few participate actively, and that is why our political leadership too often behaves as if they represented ppoele from another planet instead of this one. Waves of uneducated ppoele entering this country cannot improve the situation. Instead, if new immigrants do not learn English and try to understand the country in which they have settled as you have done they will simply change it, little appreciating it for what it once was.

  6. Dave Leach says:

    Hi! My challenge for you is at http://www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com/immigration-fun/

    Thank you for the fun!

  7. Dave Leach says:

    The immigration policy that makes sense to us grows out of what we believe are the relevant facts: that is, does legal immigration take jobs from citizens and drain our economy, or improve jobs for citizens and turbocharge our economy? Does a growing population deplete our resources and crowd us intolerably, or expand our brain pool which supplies our technology and all our natural resources? Please see my survey at https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/B3R5BSQ and one of my articles at http://www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com/immigration-policy-proceeds-facts-believe-reviewing-evidence-together-isnt-fun-attacking-alleged-motives/

  8. Joel Fetzer says:

    You all may be interested in my new book on open borders: http://www.palgrave.com/page/detail/open-borders-and-international-migration-policy-joel-s-fetzer/?sf1=barcode&st1=9781137513915 . It finds that the effects of free migration would not necessarily be very negative.

    Best,

    Joel Fetzer
    Professor of Political Science
    Pepperdine University
    Malibu, CA

  9. Carlosafo Broom says:

    Illegal Aliens should be deported ASAP and US borders secured.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>