The idea may be libertarian: sponsorship of immigrants by American citizens? Although the borders are (slowly) being closed against “undocumented” immigrants seeking better opportunities in the Fifty States, there is still a major problem and massive disagreement in the States over immigration. (Axios reports that border jumps (“illegal entry”) in February dropped to the lowest level since FY 2000: just 8,300 as compared to 130,000 in February of both 2023 and 2024.)
Immigrants, talented, eager to enjoy even our limited liberty and opportunity (as compared to much of the world), and willing to work honestly are needed – and generally wanted by Americans, including many companies. What most people do not want is criminals, predators: we have enough and more, thank you!
Contrast this with the current situation, where some governments – generally without much (if any) consent of their voters – fight with other governments and government agencies over providing help and “sanctuary” for border jumpers, regardless of their criminality. And indeed, some bend over backward to keep those who commit crimes out of the hands of law enforcement, courts, and prison keepers.
Consider Aurora Colorado, and its latest appearance in national headlines. The Daily Mail reports on “Border Czar” Tom Homan’s warnings after apparent intelligence leaks let dozens (if not hundreds) of Tren de Aragua gangsters escape a coordinated series of raids by ICE and other agencies.
It is highly suspect that the leaks came from various police agencies involved in the operation on February 5th, but some may be actual employees of CBP and the Border Patrol. The sentiments of both Colorado State government and that of the City and County of Denver are well-known – while suspected native American criminals are hunted down without mercy, a lawless and gang-related border jumper has a friendly reception and a helping hand from the Woke and Regressive government thugs in those jurisdictions. Although Aurora itself is not officially a “sanctuary city” like Denver (with State support), it is a de facto sanctuary for border jumpers in general and the criminal element among them in particular. And as the last two months have shown, AntiTrumpers abound in the ranks of government employees, in part fueled by the termination of many FedGov employees.
Furthermore, these advocates of completely unregulated migration (one way only, mind you) all too often work overtime vilifying anyone who dares propose anything else, or questions the “benefits” of such a system. (Or lack of one.)
For some of those partisans, there may be no compromise possible – not point of agreement. Whatever their motivation, the demand is for no limitations and no limits. To many, that seems the equivalent of not just making it illegal to lock the doors and windows of your house or apartment, but prohibiting any attempt to protect anything in the house. Including the person of anyone in that residence.
But perhaps there is a possible point of compromise that allows for open borders and yet safety and protection of property and lives. The proposal some libertarians and others have made is a sponsorship system: one in which Americans (citizens, not green-card holders) sponsor an immigrant.
How? By posting a financial warranty or bond for the immigrant’s behavior and well-being: sufficient to pay for the basic costs of living (housing food, education, medical care, etc.). Annually reevaluated and renewed. And held by a third party – not a government agency which could “borrow” the funds.
And perhaps, a binding covenant that the sponsor will suffer the punishment (together with the immigrant) for any crimes committed by the immigrant. Up to and possibly including the death penalty,
Harsh. eh? Even if it is not a cash or letter-of-credit bond posted, but in essence an insurance policy. The costs, of course, would depend on the nature – past history and evaluation – of the immigrant. And the financial resources of the sponsor.
No doubt there would be many details. And it is highly unlikely that such a reform could make it through both houses of Congress. Let alone across the desk of the Oval Office – not using one of those signing machines or a teleprompter.
But certainly something worth discussing.
Dear reader, what are your thoughts?
Keep in mind, this belated Saint Patrick’s Day, that is how many Irish immigrants (including some of our ancestors) escaped from Ireland and England. As indentured servants and virtually slaves in some cases. Someone sponsored them, and in general, accepted responsibility for their actions.
Could it work?
The Price of Liberty 
There’s an easy way to answer whether your “compromise” is acceptable: Are you willing to apply the same “sponsorship” requirement to gun ownership and newspaper publishing? You can have a gun or print a newspaper as long as you find someone who’s willing to put up a bond in case you commit murder or libel.
Whether you own a gun or print a newspaper is exactly as much my business as whether you cross some political gang’s turf line. Which is to say not at all.
LikeLike
An excellent point, Tom. People want to view these matters in different ways, and are inconsistent. Is this fallacy not similar to those who seem to believe that the rights (supposedly) protected by the Bill of Rights (the US or various State versions) apply only to American citizens, and are not given by the Creator to ALL people? Sadly, there are many people like that.
LikeLike
Yes, it’s fallacious. I personally find Justice Rehnquist’s opinion in US v. Verdugo-Urquidez instructive in that he identifies two different categories of people protected by the Bill of Rights, neither of them conditioned specifically on citizenship.
One category is “persons,” which includes everyone.
The other category is “the people,” which includes both citizens and those with a “longstanding connection” to the United States.
There are, of course, other sections outside the Bill of Rights that specifically apply to citizens (e.g. qualifications for public office), but the furthest any of the Bill of Rights protections seem to go in excluding anyone would be that rights of “the people” — the right to keep and bear arms and to not be subject to unreasonable search/seizure, for example — aren’t necessarily protected for those just passing through or temporarily visiting.
I’m not sure what constitutes a “longstanding connection.” That Mahmoud Khalil fellow they’re trying to deport earned his first degree from an American university in Lebanon a number of years ago, married an American woman when he arrived here (after a long-distance relationship from abroad), and is a graduate student at an American university for the last three years. Is that “longstanding?”
A number of the migrant workers I’ve met have either been here for years, or else belong to families that have been moving back and forth with the work seasons for generations. The first thought most people would have about that sentence would be “yeah, Mexicans,” but as I’m sure you know being as where you’re from, a lot of Canadians at least USED to come down to the middle American farms states to work harvests.
LikeLike
I am somewhat familiar with both the northern border and the southern border. When a young woman, my father’s mother (who was petite and with a rather dark complexion) was nearly denied reentry to Texas by the Border Patrol, sure that my grandfather had picked up a little Mexican sweetie. That was in the 1920s. I and my wife have both lived up on the Highline in Montana, just south of the borders with Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and knew many people who were married across the border or whose parents/grandparents did, and more Montanans who went to university in Saskatchewan or Manitoba, to boot. So the sort of nonsense Khalil is going through hits close to home.
LikeLike