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

Follow me Also on:

Why do we need a line?

My first open letter to Mr. Mitt Romney on immigration

Dear Mr. Romney,

You stated many times that illegal immigrants should return to their countries of origin and get back in line. Why do we need a line to begin with? I grew up in Poland, then a socialistic country where the government ran almost everything, and we had lines for almost everything as well. Lines are a byproduct of the socialist ideal of a centralized, government-run economy. There are no lines in a free market system. The only meaningful lines that Americans have to endure on a daily basis are the lines in the U.S. Postal Service offices, the government-run quasi-monopoly.

In your generic declarations you often strongly support free market ideas and promise to help individual entrepreneurs. I have difficulty believing you because, when addressing a particular issue, you, as a typical socialist, advocate for the nationalization of the immigrant portion of the U.S. labor market. This has always been a vital section of the U.S. economy. In my book, if you wear one dirty shoe, you are walking in dirty shoes; if you are a socialist on one key issue, you are just plainly a socialist. I am addressing my letter to you as I think about giving you my vote, but I have problems with your stand on immigration. If it makes you feel any better, on the issue of immigration, all of the GOP presidential candidates are taking ideological positions closer to those of Karl Marx than those of Adam Smith, and present political concepts from Hugo Chavez not Ronald Reagan.

Whose line it is anyway?

An illegal immigrant stays here because he or she has a job. If you send this person back to the end of the line, an American employer who employed this person will be in line as well, waiting for this employee to come back. I already hear a choir of voices chanting that this employer can instead hire an unemployed American. As an entrepreneur myself, I know the answer most American employers give to this argument: “If you want to tell me whom I should hire, then pay my bills as well”. If the government wants to micromanage private business, this means nationalization and an end to private entrepreneurship. This is socialism. The bottom line is that these illegal immigrants are here first and foremost because the American economy needs them: they are important workers at some American businesses. In your statements I see that your eagerness to punish illegal immigrants prevails over your promises of promoting the free market and helping American entrepreneurs. Did I get that right?

There is no legal immigration allowed

You say that you support legal immigration. I have bad news for you. We do have some people immigrating legally, but we do not have a legal immigration system. As you seem to like high stake bets, let me put my money behind my thesis that we do not have legal immigration and let you put your money behind your statements that there is one. As our wealth levels are disproportionate, I suggest that if I lose I will donate 1% of my 2011 taxable income to your political campaign; if you lose you will donate 1% of your 2011 taxable income to my work toward establishing a reasonable immigration system in the U.S.

Let us say that a foreign national at some point decides that he or she would like to immigrate to the U.S. Please provide me with the document that this person should fill out, and the name of the U.S. agency with which this document should be filed in order to start the immigration process. If you can produce this document, you will have won the bet. Unfortunately for you, this document does not exist.

A version of this text was published by Huffington Post

Leave a Reply

10 Responses to Why do we need a line?

  1. George Williams says:

    I’ll deign to answer on behalf of Romney

    Dear Mr. Kowalczyk,

    As president, I would be expected to first serve the interests of all enfranchised Americans, the citizen voters and their children, not just those in private enterprise such as yourself. I take my cue from the preamble to our national charter, our Constitution, which states: “We The People of The United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”. The key words for my purpose is “Ourselves and our Posterity”. The focus of my governance would always be the existing population (citizens) and their children; any other purpose would result in a betrayal of my constituency; the nation as a whole. This I will never do.

    Foreigners are not the constituency of the federal government, so immigration should always serve to benefit current citizens. Any benefits, to include citizenship, accrued to foreigners is subject to the democratic will of the Congress, and the President, as these are the elected stewards of the people’s interests. Our federal government would betray those interests if it permitted uncontrolled immigration and increased the worker supply to the point of driving down wages and effectively putting millions of citizens on the welfare rolls while contributing to our National Debt. This nation currently has a real unemployment/underemployed rate of approximately 15 percent, with skilled people employed in low skill, low skilled jobs and others collecting relief payments. The bottom line is that I could not in good conscience represent my constituency in good faith by allowing open immigration, exacerbating the plight of my countrymen.

    Thank you for your concern,

    Mitt

    Don’t forget to vote in November

    P.S. U.S. policy on immigration is similar to all modern Western nations and all others known to me, in that we protect the interests of current citizens over those of other peoples. That is the universal role of loyal, legitimate and moral governments. I know of no other nation in the world that has policies consonant with your beliefs of open border immigration, even in sending nations such as Mexico.

    • Yons says:

      CTom,It always aperaps the folks on the pro side of the illegal alien problem seem to be of the mind that we in opposition are flatly against immigration and nothing could be further from the truth and fact.What pains me the most is that virtually nothing is being done for those poor souls flooding into our nation to promote and enhance their lives in their own countries, and especially the haves and have nothings citizens of Mexico and its corrupt governing body.The truth of the matter is that U S employers not only take advantage of illegals here, but due to the fairly recent agreements take advantage of Mexicans in their own country setting up factories and working them for less than one fourth the wages that a U S Citizen would be paid doing the same type jobs here in the U S.The illegal Mexicans, and other illegal hispanic’s from further south aren’t the problem, the U S employers that dangle carrots on sticks advertising jobs to be had here in the U S A are the problem.What we are witnessing is the winding down of the long time labor/management tug of war that’s existed and constantly in dispute here in the U S.Labor, especially union labor want a bigger and bigger piece of the pie, and the management end would if they could keep all the pie but crust and crumbs.The outright owner of a business should get the biggest share because he has the most to lose when losing time comes around, not to mention all the capitol investments a business owner makes up front.However this brings me to the corporations and the boards of directors CEO’s and company presidents, and vice presidents that seem to THINK they own the whole shebang which in the majority of instances they do not.Have you ever wondered how much holding the bag stockholders (forget the employees) get to weigh them down when one of those exiting greedy CEO’s walks out with their hundred million dollar golden parachutes?I was a project manager for a video card manufacturing company called STB that merged with 3dfx Interactive and in seventeen months after the merger got to watch nine different CEO’s, the last a doctor of medicine, gut the assets of the company forcing it into bankruptcy and ultimately total collapse. Thirteen days after the bankruptcy announcement 3dfx stock fell from $46.00 to under one dollar and hundreds of employees that had worked at STB for decades lost everything they had right along with the other stockholders.That CT is the root of the problem and then there are the completely unregulated speculators most of whom are former corporate CEO bailouts.I hear a lot of conservative argument about business not being so regulated. I say what good does any regulation or law serve unless it is enforced.I firmly believe in strict regulation of greedy cheats and gougers and I know for fact regulations do not have to be strangulating, but common sense regulation strictly enforced and violators upon being found guilty punished .which brings up our congress and their ineptness and inability to formulate viable, equitable business regulations and enforce them.CTom, frankly it is my contention that the vast majority of all the problems that exist in the U S A today reside at the tops of the heaps in the private and public sectors and the rest of us either have to go along for the ride or walk.

  2. George Williams says:

    One more thing, Henryk,

    Any advocacy of free immigration is conditional on the premise that other nations would participate in your proposals. You can’t have free-market migration without at least two participants. As far as I am aware, you do not have a single country even contemplating what you propose. The chance of this country abandoning control of its sovereignty by way of open borders is remote, even with Obama as president. Ultimately, his dependency-minded constituency would cry uncle and demand protectionism through severe curtailment of harmful oversupply of labor. Since much of the free world has tended towards government control of markets and have socialist tendencies, I find it unlikely that few, if any countries would even consider your ideas. You’ve wasted almost a decade on this concept. Don’t you think that it’s time to give it a rest?

    • admin says:

      You are a nativist. As I stated in my letters, it is time to make it official that the time of splendid isolation is over.

      • George Williams says:

        I am a patriot. I’ve spent more than 30-years of my entire life working for this country in our Civil Service, working with the troops, to the extent of deploying with them in Desert Shield/Storm, and the recent conflict in Iraq. You, on the other hand have contributed nothing, coming here from a communist state and demanding that it change to accommodate your personal whims of unrestricted immigration and employment of people who would be beyond the vetting of the citizen’s immigration policies.

        You have no respect for the democratic will of the people; the stewards of this country’s future; the current citizens. I’m afraid that if you wish to hire someone, you’ll have to be satisfied selecting from the pool of 300 million or so citizens.

      • Luca says:

        Good fences do not make good neorhbigs.My proposal of the Freedom of Migration Act and my participation in this blog do not come from me liking to debate. I just did my homework on the issue and arrived with a solution better than any other known to me. The claim that Freedom of Migration Act weakens national sovereignty is not supported by any argument brought by Citizen Tom or anyone else anywhere. It is just hollow, but sounding lofty wordiness. Immigration, as envisioned by the FMA, strengthens the Nation economically, and this is the safest foundation of national sovereignty. Citizen Tom brings Morality as the reason behind restrictive immigration laws. Guess what, I lived under the political system built on the lofty moral ideas. They made them into laws and… killed or imprisoned all of the opponents. The superiority of the American political system over most other political systems before, is in this simple rule that one man’s morality is not legislated over other men morality. Morality was reduced to a plain rule that every man is equal and free to pursue happiness. As long as in his pursuing happiness a man does not deprive another man freedom of doing the same, there should be no law limiting this man actions. I discuss it in “Smiths vs. the Joneses”.“National identity” is another elephant commonly brought into immigration debates. Citizen Tom writes “In spite of and because of our immigrant heritage, we share a similar language and cultural heritage. Because of the stability our shared cultural heritage gives our government, we must act in self defense to preserve that heritage. Hence we are wise to limit the “free movement” of people into our nation to those who have taken the trouble to learn to speak our language.” Let take this statement apart. First, what our language is similar to? It is just gibberish. Second, comparing to European countries, to India and China – cultural heritage that could be called American, in reference to the common experience of people living in the USA for the last 200 years, barely exists. I was raised in Europe, and I am familiar with heritage of major European nations, therefore I can see here in the USA how those traditions transpire in traditions called “American”. What is originally American, and what is the greatest value and American contribution to the human civilization, it is that conviction that every individual have equal rights to pursue happiness. The greatest part of American heritage is in its openness to other traditions, and in its generosity in allowing everyone to have a shot in fulfilling an American Dream. However, this is exactly what Citizen Tom wants to kill.

        • Auth says:

          jay_d_skinner:Deported implies that the US deoprted her not her own country. If she was deoprted, was it because she overstayed her VISA requirements?You indicated that she worked and lived here for 11 years. That indicates she didn’t pay taxes on wages earned, because she was illegal stay. So technically she had all our rights while not paying taxes for any of it.If you lover her that much you can go join her in her country and get married. Then re-apply for residence, if she wants to come back in.Even with that I thinks she has to wait at least a two period before re-submitting. Ask a lawyer versed in immigration & naturalization.References :

      • Taz says:

        Henryk I like your attitude, but we do dirsagee on this issue.Societies are sometimes more fragile than we know. For example, I suspect many of the descendents of the American Indian still wonder how it might have been if they had had an immigration policy of some sort. Just the diseases brought by Western Europeans killed untold numbers. The Europeans that first settled in the Americas did not arrive as if from out of a vacuum. Each brought the culture of the nation from which they came. So it is that each group of settlers produced a different kind of society each reflective of their heritage and their reasons for coming to America. The reality is that while the United States may be a little more than 200 years old, the history that brought it into being goes much further back. The Founders drew from the ancient Greeks and Romans. They contemplated the history and the societies of Europe. But most of all they drew upon their English heritage. That heritage included the English language.Words are not just gibberish. Languages are emblematic of how a society thinks and about the attitudes of the People. Each word is the symbol for an idea or a concept. To a large extent, education is about teaching children the idea or concept each word in their language represents.Here is a thought for your consideration. When we say god, peace, love, war, and government in English, how do those words translate in other languages? What ideas what attitudes do other people have towards those words?

  3. Randall Jasin says:

    Yes,unrestricted immigration or migration worked out well for Native Americans.One often wonders if unrestricted population growth is a great thing.Do we aspire to a population like that of China or India or just some kind of free market thing where America becomes such an unpleasant,nasty place to live and work that only rich entreprenuers come here to exploit the situation?I’m no great thinker,just an average working joe that has seen illegals doing all that unskilled labor like roofing,carpentry, plumbing and,yes,installing furnaces and airconditioners.Jobs that perhaps we could get if we moved our families to Mexico and 10 of us workers lived together in rental unit so we’d have enough money to send our loved ones.Sure sounds like the American dream.And by the way,America is no longer a melting pot-it’s not even a mixing pot,it’s just a pot with a lot of separate ingredients that think this is a shopping mall and not a country.Business is extremely important to a country,but if that is all there is then the country has no soul and will cease to exist.

  4. Jack Kenny says:

    “There are no lines in a free market system. The only meaningful lines that Americans have to endure on a daily basis are the lines in the U.S. Postal Service offices, the government-run quasi-monopoly.” Really?

    Mr. Kowalczyk is indeed blessed if, since coming to America, he has never had to stand in line at a supermarket, department store, restaurant or box office. Are these all “government-run quasi-monopolies”? Or are those lines just not as “meaningful” as the lines at the Post Office?