Ronorama

I believe it's a grave error to think that government can behave in any other way than it currently does.

Stupid Arguments - RE: Immigration

Here's the first installment in my list of stupid arguments I've heard regarding government, law, economics, etc.

I've talked to a number of people who say they have no problem with people immigrating to the U.S. in order to build a better life, but fervently believe that "they should have to do it legally!"

Why? So that they're "on the hook" to pay taxes? Everyone should share in the burden of taxation equally?

What other "benefit" could possibly be provided to anyone by the legal immigration process? Specifically, what benefit does it proved to those of us who are natural-born citizens? Are we in any way guaranteed of anything positive simply because someone has been put through what is certainly an expensive, lengthy, frustrating, and most likely humiliating bureaucratic process?

Of course, I don't know for sure that the immigration process is all of those things, but it's safe to assume. Otherwise, why isn't every immigrant pursuing it?

Posted: Tue, Nov 6 2007 11:19 AM by Ronorama | with 10 comment(s)

Comments

uk visa said:

The main reason, as I see it, that immigration should be managed by the state is to provide security to its existing citizens.

If you don't bother with the expense of checking on the history of immigrants you might end up with a similar situation to the 60s when the US government enabled Castro to empty Cuban prisons and send the inmates to the US.

On the other side it's important that immigrants are enabled to buy a stake in the society they live - to build a better society for all.

# November 7, 2007 3:46 AM

IrishOutlaw said:

This is my new favorite stupid argument against...

<i>However, your pro-immigration movement is being funded by rich white offshore corporations who are trying to destroy the United States and displace it with a North American Union.

In a North American Union (NAU), the vitamin laws between the three nations will be merged, as part of Big-Pharma's push for Codex Alimentarius, a restrictive global food code, in which most vitamin supplements will be made illegal. In Codex, most pesticides that have been banned democratically in the U.S. will be made legal again. With Codex, it will be illegal for any nation, state, or municipality to require labeling of Genetically Modified Foods. With Codex, Organic food as we know it will be destroyed.</i>

The stupidity never ends.

I thought I had heard everything until I heard that they are all part of a NWO conspiracy to overthrow the US, funded by Pharmaceutical companies none the less.

# November 10, 2007 7:05 PM

wovoka said:

There is no "Free Ride In Life" and "Laws Were Meant To Be Obeyed" your arguememt disregards both these axioms and qualifies as "STUPID ARGUEMENT".

# November 14, 2007 12:36 PM

Ronorama said:

Wovoka,

Are you saying that an argument is stupid if it disagrees with either of those statements? Cuz I can't entirely agree with the second one.

I respect the rule of law when it's legitimate, but there are plenty of illegitimate laws that are immoral and should therefore be fought and removed.

Or do I mistake your meaning?

# November 15, 2007 9:16 AM

IrishOutlaw said:

It seems that wovoka may only be a troll. Unfortunate.

There have been and continue to be thousands of illegitimate laws. I wonder if wovoka follows all of them? Some are laws that served a purpose at a time but that are now out of date, others serve only the states interest.

There are laws on the book that say a husband has to walk in front of a motorized vehicle that his wife is driving, waving a red flag to warn the other motorists. This is a stupid law and only a fool would follow it. A good example of a law that (I guess) served a purpose at one time, but isn't worth the paper it is written on now.

I am willing to buy some arguments on immigration, but not many. I thought about UK Visa's comment on Castro emptying the prisons. Good move on Castro's part really. So what did the US do? Tightened up the laws. But, the thing to remember is that those laws effected everyone trying to come here (equal protection I guess) but they didn't stop Cuban criminals from coming to the US. If a Cuban criminal can still hit the shores here, they get to stay. So who are we really stopping?

This post helped me decide to write one on immigration that I will post today I suppose.

# November 17, 2007 2:38 PM

Ronorama said:

IrishOutlaw,

> This post helped me decide to write one on immigration that I will post today I suppose.

Are you speaking of the "Immigration Smokescreen" article over on No Name Group? I just read it...very nicely done! You bring up some great points that I've attempted to make in the past, though in less eloquent fashion.

The group itself seems interesting as well. I think I shall have to sign up and contribute.

# November 19, 2007 2:04 PM

Ronorama said:

This is the continuation, or expansion, of this small item , that I posted earlier on this &#39;blog

# December 28, 2007 12:58 PM

Bill said:

I don't think this country's tradition of individual liberty and separation of church and state would be assisted much if we allowed in twenty million Saudi Arabians, for example.

# July 10, 2008 3:23 PM

Ronorama said:

Bill: "I don't think this country's tradition of individual liberty and separation of church and state would be assisted much if we allowed in twenty million Saudi Arabians, for example."

Unfortunately, those traditions are long dead, regardless of how much lip service they are paid by pols these days.

Still, I fail to see how letting anyone in will serve to destroy individual liberty. Unless, of course, they are able to gain control of government, or they merely take advantage of our inability to defend our liberty due to our individual disarmament at the hands of the existing government.

Sorry, Bill, an irrational fear of what "might" happen is no excuse for restricting liberty by denying freedom of association and free movement.

# July 11, 2008 1:59 PM