No worries, I won’t get into the who-benefits-from-the-Trump/Newsom-back-and-forth about the Los Angeles immigration related demonstrations and riots. Is it right or wrong to call up the National Guard and the Marines? You have to look elsewhere for answers (and they abound from pundits of all political persuasions).

Let me just state my views up front: civil disobedience is to be admired if in service of an objectively moral cause; peaceful demonstrations are fine if held on private land or otherwise not disturbing the daily life of others; riots and similar “expressions” violating others’ individual rights, including property rights, should be condemned, and put down by law enforcement; the hunting down, detention and deportation of law-abiding “illegal” immigrants is immoral—it violates the individual rights of both immigrants, their employers, and of taxpayers who are forced to fund a cause that should be outside the scope of government.

The great tragedy is that it shouldn’t have had to come to this. If Congress and the Presidency had shouldered their responsibility to enact immigration legislation instead of punting for decades, demonstrations and riots would be nowhere to be seen.

I have written repeatedly about immigration over the years. My views have held steady. My shining city corresponds to Ronald Reagan’s as expressed in his farewell address:

I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still. (italics mine)

Respecting individual rights means allowing free movement of people across borders just as allowing free movement of goods and services (with some very limited exceptions). Furthermore, severely limiting immigration risks squandering the opportunity window to attract the most ambitious from around the world to the U.S. before it shifts elsewhere or goes away.

How to get from here to there? My “morally Right or Wrong, not politically left or right” thinking has evolved—somewhat. I’ve long argued that we can’t throw the doors wide-open; that we need a plan for how to allow Americans-in-mind-born-in-the-wrong-country to come home by gradually opening the spigot. Areas of American life that depend on a restrictive immigration policy should be given some time to adjust. Here’s how my president would work with Congress to bring about change.

Over time I have more and more come to appreciate the best way to manage immigration is with a minimum of government involvement, leaving the details to the marketplace. Central planning is immoral as it violates our individual rights to live our lives free of government force; it isn’t any less immoral—and doesn’t work any better—in immigration than in any other area. Limit the involvement of the federal government to

• securing the border,

• deciding how many immigrants to admit every year as a percentage of the population (until supply and demand is in balance),

• screening new arrivals for criminal records (according to U.S. law) and serious infectious diseases and turn away those who don’t pass the test,

• deporting those who commit criminal acts after arrival (while respecting their right to due process),

• excluding immigrants from federal financial assistance (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other welfare programs) until they elect to become citizens,

• providing a path to citizenship (which may be the same or longer and/or more difficult than today)

• implementing an immigration marketplace: allow potential immigrants to register before a predetermined date, subsequently organize an initial drawing giving everybody a number in the queue, and provide a trading platform.

Other than that, the federal government is hands-off. Leave it to prospective immigrants, individual Americans, corporations, educational institutions and philanthropic organizations to buy and sell spots on the immigration marketplace trading platform at prices set by supply and demand (earlier numbers in the queue representing earlier access will be more expensive). Here are a few examples illustrating how it would work:

• War breaks out between Far- and Awaystan. Civilians are displaced in the ensuing chaos and an NGO supported by U.S. individuals and businesses sets up refugee camps. Some refugees express a desire to emigrate to the U.S rather than staying in their war-torn country. The NGO reaches out to its donors with a plea for funds to buy access spots on the immigration marketplace. It gets a decent response and decides that the best use of the funds is to buy spots for the following year, as spots available for this year are too expensive. In the meantime, it will continue to provide support for the refugees in the camps.

• An agriculture company is facing a shortage of unskilled labor on its farms. Checking the price on the immigration marketplace, it concludes that immediately filling the need with immigrants is cost prohibitive. However, looking a few years out, the cost/benefit analysis is more promising. The company buys 200 spots in years three to five and factors in the arrival of additional workers in its planning for those years and beyond. Meanwhile, it accepts that it must pay a higher price for domestic labor in the short term. However, the company continues to monitor the immigration marketplace in case the price drops, allowing for buying spots with earlier access.

• Hiram arrived with his wife and 2-year-old son in the U.S. five years ago after having received a loan from his uncle allowing him to buy an access spot on the immigration marketplace trading platform. Now a successful software engineer, he would like his and his wife’s parents to join them in the U.S. Access spot prices for the next few years are unfortunately too high but with joint financial efforts, he, his wife and the parents can afford to buy spots seven years out. Not ideal, but they are happy to live with the certainty that seven years from now they will live close to one another. And who knows, if Hiram or his wife get promoted, perhaps they’ll be able to afford trading up for earlier access for the parents.

• First International Bank smells a business opportunity in providing loans for buying immigration marketplace access spots. The bank establishes a unit that lends money to individuals in high-paying professions where the U.S. is experiencing a shortage. The loans allow the individuals to buy access spots, something they otherwise wouldn’t have been able to afford. Once in the U.S., they contractually start to repay the loan with interest out of their earnings.

U.S. immigration policy has been mired in controversy since at least the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. The Immigration Act of 1924 upped the ante by preventing all immigration from Asia and setting quotas on the number of immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe. Ever since, immigration has been a source of policy wars between pressure groups wanting to admit or prohibit this or that nationality, type of worker, student, extended family member, and so on. Simplifying the process with an immigration marketplace taking politics out of the equation is the best option for finding a way out of the maze of 185 non-immigrant and immigrant visa categories (one non-immigrant visitor visa category should suffice). And most importantly, it will go a long way towards gradually improving the respect for and protection of the individual rights of both prospective immigrants and of U.S. citizens wanting to hire or otherwise attract them.

Buy the book (ebook, paperback)

Buy the book (audio)