Immigration and Health Care - what can we afford?

This is, as usual with me, kind of a sideways look at the issues that people have been bringing up lately, mostly in liberal forums and among liberal friends' facebook posts. The issues might seem only tangentially related, but, when I look at them together, I find an interesting set of connections. These issues are illegal immigration (specifically, open borders), and single-payer health care.

What connected the two for me was a series of articles (isn't it funny how each day seems to have a 'theme', in which articles show up in multiple disparate feeds and sources?) about the struggle that much of Western Europe is having with their health care systems, and the effect that an increased flow of refugees has had upon them. In parts of Sweden, overcrowding and a lack of funding has actually led health care groups to start giving rural families lessons on how to deliver a baby by themselves.

Now, Western Europe is learning a lesson that I learned in childhood. I did not grow up in a wealthy family. Actually, I grew up in a family that bounced back and forth between working poor and lower-middle class. At some times, we were actually quite poor by U.S. standards. We never lacked food, shelter, clothing, or medical care, however, and we actually had a fair number of nice toys. How did we do it? My mother prioritized, and she passed down that skill to us. In fact, I learned to prioritize, myself, as a child, for the toys that I wanted. I knew for a fact that I could not have all of the toys I wanted. I taught myself to think about what I wanted, check the prices, consider our family situation, and place all of my energies towards begging specifically for the subset of toys where "they can afford it" crossed with "I want it most". I found that, if I did that, I would pretty reliably wind up with what I wanted most on my birthday and Christmas, and I could build up my toybox over time on these principles. This served me well when I started earning my own money.

What happens when we look at the issues of immigration and single-payer together? Actually, I was able to come up with a chart that gave me an interesting view of the political philosophies and their response to these two issues. It is doubly interesting when I view these two issues as mutually exclusive in that we simply cannot, as a country and a society, afford both of them.

Conservatives oppose both open borders and single-payer health care. Why choose between two burdens upon the society?

Libertarians (large-L on purpose, as libertarians differ widely and overlap with conservatives) are in favor of open borders, but oppose single-payer health care. This is generally on principle, though some have tried to explain how it would still work when reality is applied.

Moderates want to kind of half-do both things; open up immigration further without inadvertently letting in the gang members and human traffickers, and have government-paid/government-involved health care without making it an actual universal social welfare program. As is usual for treading the very line of a fence without falling to either side, it's a very delicate balancing point with a very narrow margin for error.

Liberals want to do both, Western Europe be hanged (unless they're using it as an example that is, at this point, largely imaginary).

Now here's the interesting part. From what I've seen and read, there's a new (tiny) faction to consider, the one that actually deserves the badly misapplied label "Alt Right". And their stance is distinct from the rest. They seem to approve single-payer, but oppose open borders; in fact, they seem to oppose all immigration and all citizenship by people who are not white. Ironically, the system they desire is like the one that is breaking down in Sweden. Conservatives have oft celebrated the fact that our system works best in our country because of the great diversity of peoples and cultures; the Alt Right would sacrifice diversity in favor of socialism, while the Liberals seem determined against all notions of reality to force both to happen.

Illegal Immigration and Adverse Possession

I've heard this argument before, by people who are discussing the problems inherent in illegal immigration and amnesty. "It's as if they just walk into your house and say, 'I live here now; feed me!'" I'm not sure how it happened, but that argument developed in my brain until it became a possible solution for the problem we are currently facing: what do we do with the illegal immigrants who are already here?

Most of us can definitely agree that illegal immigration should be stopped, and we need to secure our borders. We face a plethora of problems, as simple as workers sneaking over the border to send money back home and as compelling as terrorists and human traffickers plying their trade in our cities. Right now, we are being given two main options in dealing with this problem: Amnesty and Deportation. Just yesterday, Eric Cantor was ousted in his primary by a candidate who ran on the Republican platform and only disagreed with Cantor on one issue: he favored deportation over amnesty.

This is the problem: Not all illegal immigrants are alike.

On one end of the spectrum, you have Jose (I'm making up names as examples here), a fellow in his fifties whose mother brought him in when he was three years old. Unaware for all of this time that he entered the country illegally, he has gone through the school system, apprenticed with a plumber, earned an associate's degree in business, and now works as a residential plumber as well. He owns his own home and pays both income and property tax. He knows retirement is drawing near, and he has been contributing to Social Security all his working years. He has just celebrated his twenty-fifth wedding anniversary with his lovely wife, and he has two grandchildren.

On the other end of the spectrum, you have Luis. He slipped into the country five years ago, because he saw an opportunity by which to earn a lot of money. Now he funnels teenaged girls from one station to another. They have been lied to; they believe that they will be married to rich American men, but they are about to learn that these men are going to shackle them to a wall in the basement and threaten them with deportation if they try to escape. As for himself, Luis is on Medicaid and receives food stamps in a state that does not check citizenship status for either. He's living off the fat of the land, and figures that he can become a secret millionaire by the end of the year.

Most people on the side of amnesty will agree that Luis is a problem. They are willing to sacrifice having Luis here if it means not deporting Jose. Most people on the side of deportation will agree that Jose is not a problem. They are willing to sacrifice deporting Jose if it means deporting Luis. I would like to offer a third way forward, and to do so, I would like to look at the old common laws regarding Adverse Possession, or squatter's law.

According to squatter's law, it is possible, but not easy, to gain ownership of a property that belonged to someone else. Squatting is not as simple as living secretly in the structure. To gain ownership, you have to live on the property openly, act as if you are the owner, and improve the property for your own use. You must maintain this 'ownership' for a number of years without being so much as challenged by the actual owner, and you must not conceal your possession from the owner. One good way to do this is to move into a vacant home and have the electricity turned back on in your name. If you have spent several years (the exact number depends on the state) paying the electrical and telephone bills, paying the property taxes to the town, and repairing the home, then you can go to the town hall and file for the title. If you are evicted from the land, or even if the owner tries to evict you from the land, your counter is reset to zero.

I would argue that our failure to oust Jose (in my example) is our problem, not his. I would like to offer guidelines for a sort of "amnesty" based on squatter's laws. We should unquestionably secure our borders and do a better job of preventing illegals from sneaking in. My solution is meant for the ones who are already here.

I propose that, if an illegal immigrant has lived openly in the United States for a period of years (I am flexible as to the specific number, but I recommend at least ten), has not committed any serious crime (I wouldn't count traffic violations, for instance), and has paid taxes and FICA, and the U.S. government has not at any time required him to so much as attend a court hearing on his immigration status. he should be granted legal immigration status. Note that this is not the same as offering full citizenship. He is now 'in the system', and can work towards citizenship if he so chooses, or face the general paperwork and cost involved in extending his stay.

As much as I hate the way the liberals twist and misuse the term "fairness", I find myself using the term in this instance. I do believe that it is honestly fair to consider squatter's law in cases like Jose's. The greatest benefit I can see with this system is that it will give illegal immigrants a disincentive to engaging in crime and an incentive to paying taxes. Right now, since they are 'already criminals' who might be deported (or ignored), there is little to prevent them from dealing drugs or engaging in other profitable crime. Under a 'squatter's law' system, the aspiring illegal immigrant may say, "There's no way I am going to deal drugs now. I'm two years away from filing for legal status, and if I'm caught selling, that goes right out the window." In addition, this proposal would better allow immigration officials to concentrate on the Luis's, because when Luis and Jose are considered utterly equal, going after Jose is much easier and better for their numbers. Depending on the way the law is written, it may also pave the way for diminishing or removing the hold that slavers have over their prey, which in turn will give law enforcement officers a powerful tool in cornering the actual criminals hiding easily in the illegal immigrant population.

I would love to see Republicans pushing this solution. The population that make up the majority of our illegal immigrants are, in matters of social issues and (among the Joses') work ethic, are the Republicans' natural allies.