Amnesty? Show Me the Victim!

I’ve been having a couple of conversations lately about "amnesty" for "illegals" (so-called). It’s a topic that I’ve not addressed much, but I guess I should.

My whole take on "amnesty" is…amnesty for what? What "crime" has been committed that we need to give out pardons for?

And by "crime", I mean, what act of the violation of another person’s rights or property has occurred that warrants punishment by the State?

If Charlie Richguy offers me a job, and I accept it, no crime has been committed, even though I may have beat out a dozen other rivals for the job. If Larry Landlord has an apartment that I choose to sign a lease for, no crime has been committed either, no matter what anyone may say.

Yet, this is exactly what the anti-immigration crowd wants you to think.

When Charlie or Larry make a business deal with Miguel Fencejumper without the permission of Bill Politician, it is a high crime that needs to be harshly punished. Amnesty then becomes the waiving of the authority of the State to interfere in consensual relationships.

While my gut feeling about saying "I support amnesty" implies recognition that the State has authority over such things – which I firmly deny – I am of the opinion that amnesty is the only just course of action.

And for those of you who want to whine about "rewarding" law breakers, please! Choosing to respect the natural rights of someone is not rewarding them.

Their liberty is not yours to give.

I’ll change my mind about amnesty when someone can show me exactly whose rights are violated by someone moving across an imaginary line that exists only in the minds of politicians, and their fawning conservative idolators.

Show me the victim.