HOUSTON -- Jeff Daiell, a candidate for the 2010 Libertarian nomination for Governor of Texas, addressed the Monthly Luncheon of the Spring-Klein Chamber of Commerce on Tuesday. He drew a good response to his stand annexed forced annexation of areas such as theirs by majorcities such as Houston.

Daiell first presented "Respecting the Rights of Individuals," an introduction to
libertarianism, then addressed the immigration issue and closed with comments about Texas' Municipal Annexation Act.

Daiell wants the Act amended to require voter approval of any annexation, with one referendum within the area targeted, and also one within the city seeking to annex that area.

"I live in Houston," Daiell said. "I have heard the arguments in favor of allowing broad annexation powers. I reject them as simply another example of the idea that the ends justify the means."

The complete text of that part of the speech written specifically for Tuesday's presentation follows:

Remarks To Spring-Klein Chamber of Commerce

June 1st, 2010

© 2010 by Jeff Daiell. All Rights Reserved.

When I speak strictly as a representative of the Libertarian Party, rather than as a candidate for Governor, this speech ends with that question [of whether members of the audience will join Libertarian in voting for Liberty].

As a candidate for Governor, however, there is another issue I must confront. As a guest of your organization, there is yet another I should address.

The first issue is immigration.

If we look only at the stories and scenes presented in the news media, it is easy to believe that the subject is extremely divisive. I would argue that, were the two sides simply to listen to each other instead of shouting and calling names, a consensus has already been reached: a clear majority of Americans welcome legal immigration.

So I believe the first change that must be made is to make legal immigration easier for those wishing to come to America to be self-supporting.

I suggest that individuals wishing to immigrate here simply be required to prove that they have no outstanding warrants or felony history. Such individuals could go to a U. S. Consulate, or in the case of Canadians and Mexicans, a border checkpoint, with such certification as issued by their own governments.

Individuals with honorable intent would then have no need to trespass on the private property of Americans who live on either border, nor to hire smugglers to bring them here. Such persons, once here, would then have no need to live in the shadow world of undocumented foreigners, and the problems associated with that twilight existence would be solved.

But this step must not be taken in a vacuum. Other changes must be implemented.

The most obvious reform must be to eliminate those statutes and regulations, at all levels of Government, that make it harder for businesses to create new jobs, or which make it difficult for Americans to start their own businesses. We must remove the favoritism toward the large corporations, which tend to depend on capital equipment to handle their tasks, so that smaller firms, which are more labor-intensive, will be able to thrive and to grow. This will lead to more jobs, thus eliminating the fear that immigrants will take work away from those born here.

But what about individuals who would move here to exploit the social welfare system, rather than to be self-supporting? I believe that we must begin to transfer that system to the private sector, to eliminate that motive, and relieve the taxpayer of the burden of a governmental system.

As noted in the main part of my presentation, we need to focus our law-enforcement resources exclusively on crimes of violence, theft, and fraud. This will allow us better to deal with those who would come here for the purpose of committing such crimes.

As with other problems facing America, the answer is not more government, but less.

Since some of these reforms would have to be enacted at the Federal level, I would urge that you consider voting for Libertarians for the U. S. House this year, as well as for State and county offices, so that the process can begin.

The final issue I would like to address is local control, or home rule.

Most libertarians, perhaps all, are staunch de-centralists. We are, for instance, strong defenders of The Tenth Amendment, which says that powers not delegated to the Federal Government are retained by the States or by the people.

But most, perhaps all libertarians, including myself, also favor transferring as much power as possible from the State level to the city or county level.

This is not only a matter of abstract philosophy, but of common sense, especially in Texas, with her 254 counties and over 1,200 incorporated cities and towns.

The citizens and officials in Harris County, for example, know more about conditions in Harris County than any State bureaucracy could; the same is true for every other county in the State.

The same principle and reality applies even further down the ladder: residents and officeholders in the towns and cities know more about their situations than County officials could. And the people and officials in our neighborhoods, smaller cities, towns, and unincorporated areas know more about their situations than bureaucrats and politicians of some huge city miles away.

Therefore, if elected Governor, I would work with legislators of all three parties to amend the Municipal Annexation Act. This statute gives certain cities, such as Houston, the authority to unilaterally annex surrounding areas, known as their Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, without seeking the consent of the residents of those areas.

I would seek an end to the status of “Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction”. I favor requiring a referendum in any area a city wishes to annex, with at least a simple majority required for approval, and a corresponding referendum in the city seeking to annex that area. I favor retention of the restrictions on the power of annexation currently in the Act.

I live in Houston. I have heard the arguments in favor of allowing broad annexation powers. I reject them as simply another example of the idea that the ends justify the means.

Could I, if elected Governor, achieve all of these objectives? That would depend on how much support I got from concerned citizens such as yourselves. That support would be easy to provide: you would need only to pick up the phone, or go to your keyboard, to deliver a clear message to your State Senators and State Representatives: either they work for these reforms, or you will work for a challenger during the next election cycle.

It has been said that almost all Texans believe in Heaven, and most of us believe we're already there. I'm pledged to prove them right, and I hope you'll join me in doing so.