As more and more immigrants are detained (google LA times and "detaining immigrants"), I'm reminded of the article from Becky Ackers from the Foundation for Economic Education (google "Becky Ackers immigration"), when she showed that immigration interference was the last thing the Founders wanted. And our continued demogoguing this issue will only steal our freedoms and smother prosperity.

Ms. Akers said it was the post-Civil War Congress, full of hubris after conquering the South, that arbitrarily decided to ban the immigration of convicts and prostitutes. When litigation over these new laws reached the Supreme Court, in the case of Chae Chi Ping v. U.S. (1888), the "Court appealed to national sovereignty, international norms, congressional edicts, democracy - anything but the Constitution."

All that's authorized in the Constitution is "naturalization," a process to help newcomers become citizens. Libertarians and classical liberals should want the free movement of goods, people and ideas. And as the War on Terrorism leads to an ever intolerable Police State, a tight Border will only make it harder for free-thinking entrepreneurs like you and me to ESCAPE!

If you worry that Terrorists will sneak through the border, then stop interfering Overseas, which is what causes terrorism. When you stick a finger in a beehive, you get stung. Both Washington and Jefferson supported commerce, not entangling alliances, when it came to foreign affairs. President John Quincy Adams in his 1821 Address warned specifically about entanglement in foreign conflicts:

"America... well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extraction, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force... She might become dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit." - John Quincy Adams; Address, 4 July 1821

So, friends, let's let the immigrants come in. They add value. For those immigrants who take welfare, end the welfare. We know from DeToqueville's "Democracy in America," that he marveled, in that 1830s period before the takeover of Big Government, that Americans formed mutual aid societies for the poor, and associations to ... found seminaries, to build inns, to construct churches, to diffuse books, to send missionaries to the antipodes; ... found hospitals, prisons, and schools." If we let private, charitable associations take care of the poor, including any poor immigrants, then the so-called "immigrant problem" would disappear.

So obey the Founders on international relations, immigration and welfare, and we would instantly build peace and prosperity in America and around the world.

If, on the other hand, we ignore the increasing detention of immigrants, the tightening of the border will prove dangerous if the growing Police State causes us to flee for our lives - because there will be no ESCAPE!

UPDATE: As 2007 ends and Congress goes home, they are passing a bill to protect the Middle Class from the Alternative Minimum Tax. But they're "paying" for this with a tax on expatriates, as they leave the country. So I'm right! Border control has the opposite effect of trapping us inside!

This year's DoD Authorization bill contains a Section (1605), setting plans for collusion with the Police for Martial Law in the event of an Emergency. Why would the Pentagon be planning Martial Law if it didn't plan on implementing it?

This pending Law comes on top of the White House Directive claiming dictatorial powers to "coordinate" the continuity of "constitutional" government during such Emergencies, which will happen since examples of emergencies include minor terrorist acts like the building attack of 9/11 and the Katrina storm that hit New Orleans. Since "Constitutional" means separation of powers among the three branches of government, for the Executive Branch to assume control of "coordination" means dictatorship.

Moody's now predicts a housing price collapse of 30%, but Bush's subprime bailout is dangerous idea. The best Wall Street minds predict the bailout will cut house prices even more! And, sadly, there may even be some abuse or crime being covered up in the bailout.

With every housing collapse - caused as usual by the Federal Reserve's overreactive rate cuts in response to economic conditions - there is legislative payback imposed by Congress, and the scapegoats are the small businesses with no resources to defend themselves politically. This happened in the 1990s, when the mortgage brokers - usually mom-and-pop operations - suffered class action lawsuits and "high cost" mortgage regulations as a result of an inflationary "Bust" that was caused by the Fed. The political scapegoating never ends, and the Fed always remains "above the fray"? Why do financial professionals ignore the cause?

And now it's happening again, with House passage of this bill to help the poor homebuyers up to their necks in subprime mortgages. And another story here. And here's NAMB's grassroots alert on the threat.

Heritage's Ronald D. Utt says, "H.R. 3915 Would Impose New Burdens and Limits on Moderate Income Borrowers." I was the lobbyist for the National Association of Mortgage Brokers (NAMB) during the class action crisis of the late 1990s. So I know how endless this attack on small business is. Here's a Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) blog on the bill. Another CEI expert puts partial blame on bond rating problems.

So the question becomes, instead of just fighting the annual attack from Congress or an Agency, why not look to a more powerful solution, like taking on the whole idea of unconstitutional government, central banking and fiat currency?

The Ron Paul Presidential Campaign certainly is discussing these larger issues. Under the Founder's Constitution, says Candidate Paul, individuals could buy and sell freely among each other, with no government interference unless there is force or fraud. Local courts - or, increasingly, private dispute resolution - could adjudicate disputes. "Reputation," not regulation, would protect consumers, who would become better shoppers when they know that "caveat emptor" rules, and private third party information sources would become the lynchpins of quality.

And credit would become more stable in price, as the "see-saw" Fed is replaced with a banking system free of "Boom-Bust" Cycle-causing support or interference. Currency would be backed by hard resources such as gold, and credit would be priced like any other good or service - according to the classic law of supply and demand. Consumers would regain value in their dollar. Here's a YouTube video on CentralBanking. And here's Auburn University's Mises Institute, summarizing Ron Paul's economic plan.

With no housing/mortgage regulation at the federal level, since no such Power is authorized by the Constitution's Article One Section Eight to the Federal Government, even excessive State regulations would be overturned under a proper reading of the Commerce Clause - which protects interstate trade from government-imposed costs.

Here's the Cato Institute on why Ron Paul is the "darkhorse" potential next President.
CNBC's Maria Barteromo just interviewed Paul on the Fed's role in causing our Recession.

But do any mortgage brokers have a clue as to the role of central banking and fiat currency - or any of the other unconstitutional laws - in their suffering during Recessions? I tried to educate the industry in 1996, when I got NAMB to invite financial consultant Bert Ely to speak at the Convention, how brokers are the victims of the inflation, caused by the Fed. He said "brokers find themselves at the end of the Fed's whip."

And Congressman Paul has studied this matter since Nixon depegged the dollar from gold, and now serves as the Ranking Member of the Banking Committee's Subcommittee on Monetary Policy. Here's Mr. Paul on the Fed's new chairman, Ben Bernake.

So, while NAMB certainly will fight the latest attack from the House bill (now pending action in the Senate by Banking Chairman Dodd (D-CT)), will any financial professionals get involved in the Ron Paul Campaign, to help him raise the much more important issues of unconstitutional laws, and Federal Reserve/Fiat Currency-aggravated inflationary Boom-Bust cycles, and how they victimize small business and the non-wealthy? Let's hope so.

But if "having a chance to win" is a requirement to support a candidate, luckily, you're in luck. The Zogby Polling Company now gives Paul a chance to win! And the Washington Post says the Paul Campaign is making "libertarianism" the new "it philosophy".

Back to housing bailouts, AEI's Wallison is against it, at least for the GSEs. And the New York Times says the credit spigot to businesses now is being shut off. Here comes the Recession. And here's Cato on government's money monopoly.