Byzantine:Anarchists are brothers-in-arms with the Marxists
Anarchists are brothers-in-arms with the Marxists
After the amount of bull sh/it I've heard from the Mises Institute recently, I'm so disillusioned with this movement because of you viruses that I'm beginning to agree.
Fortunately I'm not the only one.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
edward_1313: It has nothing to do with some sort of lack of labor that would exist and thus crumble our economy if they weren't present.
Actually, it has everything to do with the lack of labor at the price point that market is willing to pay. There is no lack of oil in this country either, if you are willing to drill for $200/bbl, there's plenty oil. We import oil for the same reason, for a price point that can make a lot of additional economic activity possible (i.e. viable and profitable). If you really understand economics, a lack of something always means lacking something at a given price point. Yes, removal of relatively inexpensive source of energy and labor will most definitely have detrimental effect on the economy.
edward_1313:Illegals can always underbid actual citizens (don't have to pay taxes), and thus, it will always be far more profitable for private businessmen to hire them.
First of all, there are a lot of legal immigrants hired in this country, and they do pay taxes. If we are talking about illegal immigrants, at their wage level, workers do not pay income taxes under the current IRS code; instead, low income workers get earned income tax credit, which is a hand-out by the government. Obviusly, by law, illegal immigrants are not eligible for that. According to SS administration, 25 million wrong-SSN notices were sent out last year. SSA only sends out notices if an employer's informational returns contain 10 or more wrong SSN's. Personally, I think illegal immigrants are not the only ones using fake SSN's, as there are only 12-15 million illegal immigrants and not all of them work for employers law-abiding enough to file informational returns and hire at lest 10 illegal immigrants each. There must be a lot of real Americans using fake SSN's, perhaps to dodge income tax or avoid income garnishment or simply those trying to have a start-over. In any case, people who use fake SSN's automaticly forfeit their SS benefit because their payments are being creditted to someone else' accounts. So we have a situation where illegal immigrants (and Americans who prefer to hide their identities) paying into the social security system but will derive no benefit from such payment. Then the third category is people who get paid off the books; both immigrants and non-immigrants can and do that. I don't see how you could draw the conclusion that "illegals can always underbid actual citizens because they don't have to pay taxes." At different income levels and different law-abiding levels, they either both pay or both can be tax evaders; the only difference is at the low-income level, where the vast majority illegal immigrant laborers are, citizens can get "earned income tax credit" and social security benefits, whereas illegal immigrants can get neither despite their payment into the tax system if the employers are stickers enough to demand a social security number.
If you truely believe that employers unscrupulous enough to break the law are the only ones really benefiting from illegal immigrant labor, shouldn't the law be changed so that law breaking can no longer be beneficial? It's a bit like the anti-drug laws. If anti-drug enforcement is what makes drug trafficing profitable, it's all the reason more why such irrational laws should be repealed.
edward_1313:Do you really deny that completely unrestricting the flow of immigrants would necessarily drive the power of the state to even higher levels? Just from a practical point of view it's terribly obvious.
I deny that hypothesis in unequivocal terms. If those immigrants came here just for free public school and free public healthcare, they could have stayed home. Most third-world countries have that kind of "free" stuff. The whole anti-immigration lobby is quite self-contradictory: what kind of Mexican parents would want to come to this country and have their kids taught in Cuban or Pueto Rican Spanish if they are supposed to want their kids taught in their native tongue? Most spanish teachers in this country speak Cuban or Pueto Rican Spanish instead of Mexican Spanish. The whole caricature of immigrants makes no sense to anyone with a modicum of economic sense. The real reason why people come to this country is because compared to other countries, the US is still relatively free, therefore in relative terms the US is still a land of opportunity. That's why men and women like Mises, Hayek, Rand and even Hoppe came to this country. Do they necessarily drive the power of the state to even higher levels? Well, aside from Hoppe's advocacy for immigration control.
On the other hand, increasing immigration control most certainly drive the power of the state to even higher levels. Just like war on drugs and welfare, action by the government is never free and almost always very expensive, both in monetary terms and civil liberty terms. Immigration enforcement would certainly be no exception. Besides the gaggles of tax dollars that would be spent on building useless walls and fences, plus effectively trade barriers that get in the way of free market trade, a far more pernicious boondongle will be the so-called "high-tech wall." Get ready for the national ID system. When they really get into investigating those 25 million instances of fake social security number uses, chances are that the majority being rounded up by the drag net will not be illegal immigrants but real Americans who do not want to be found.
Byzantine: Undoubtedly. The rates of social pathology are far higher among Mexican immigrants and their progeny.
Undoubtedly. The rates of social pathology are far higher among Mexican immigrants and their progeny.
Here we see evidence of those suffering from a particular social pathology called racism committing political suicide again. For what it's worth, many Canadians come south to seek medical service, whereas those strapping Mexicans who pass the desert endurance test probably are less likely to need medical attention than any of us here chipping at the keyboard all day :-)
With all due respect to Canadians in general, some parts of the great north are suffering from socialism in a big way (although I hope those heading south are trying to escape precisely that), whereas the unwashed masses coming from down south probably have a stronger organic sense of family and duty in life than some of us here. In any case, both groups should be recruited for the cause of liberty and freedom, not banned or maligned in some misguided attempt to preserve the rotten social welfare system here . . . and certainly not wasting tax money on enforcement against them for their very existence in this country, and most certainly not let the government develop a system of tracking and reporting activities of all members of the society under the guise of immigration enforcement.
Anarchists are brothers-in-arms with the Marxists because the anarchist, to be true to his creed, must seek the permanent levelling of organic society. This endeavour is necessarily at odds with capitalist business pursuits.
To the contrary, an anarchy is precisely what an organic society is. Furthermore, even social anarchists have historically been conflicting with Marxists over means, since Marxists propose the use of the state as a pre-text to a future stateless classless society. Even the anarcho-communists such as Bakunin were critical of Marx and took very different views on strategy.
Do you ever ask yourself why you are on the side of the social democrats and neo-conservatives on this issue?
We're not. I've never met a social democrat or neoconservative that rejects political borders in principle and rejects all state ownership of land. So it would be quite erroneous to conflate the anarchist arguement against borders and immigration controls with what passes for "open borders" for social democrats and neoconservatives.
Do you ever ask yourself why you are on the side of the white nationalists on this issue? I can play this game too.
I don't want to keep immigrants out. I just want to keep the majority of immigrants out, or at least assure that the costs of immigration are borne by the contracting parties and not by everyone else. Do you ever ask yourself why you are on the side of the social democrats and neo-conservatives on this issue?
Social democrats support open immigration because they believe it will help them increase the size of the state to suit their aims - the growth of the welfare state. Closed border advocates support closing the borders because it will help them increase the size of the state to suit their aims - the growth of the police state.
Anarchist support the annihilation of the state. They are against the agressive use of force and the very existance of the state. We oppose border restrictions because it necessitates the growth of state power, and entails another increase in the level of violence.
Marxists support the creation of a society stratified into Masters and Slaves, as demonstrated by the history of the USSR. If you think that they actually expect to create a classless society, you are deluded.
Can you spot the difference? Apparently not.
If that were the case, we'd be ardent supporters of the State, the actual entity that has displaced and destroyed every natural, organic institution that has been in existence. But we're not. Nor are we anarcho-collectivists who do in fact express the views you described above. So it is far from obvious how market anarchists can be described by any of the above.
Byzantine:Or perhaps they just want to preserve a polity that at least retains some heritage of limited government and property rights.
Then they are gullible enough to believe that the way to achieve such goals is by increasing the size of government (population flow control and ID tags) and eroding existing property rights (in how people spend their own money and whom they allow into their own houses). The heritage of limited government and property rights as envisioned by the founding fathers did not entail immigration control at all. The first set of anti-immigration laws was introduced in the second half of the 19th century, sponsored by the labor union movement. Needless to say, the communistic labor union movement advocates neither limited government nor property rights.
Byzantine: when the central state collapses, people coalesce into different communities all with their more or less uniform ethos--that's what organic society does. The pre-state institutions of family, faith and tribe become resurgent to establish order and enable future planning. All of these institutions are, to some extent, coercive. At the very least, they follow a generally uniform code of behavior and do not allow a competing ethos.
You are very wrong on this. Trade and collaboration between different groups of people took place long before there was a centralized government. When a central state collapses, trade routes that exist under the aegis of that state would indeed be disrupted; however, the resulting sub economic units that emerge after such a collapse are usually by no means made up of uniform population. Trade and collaboration, even at a local level, still have to take place to facilitate division of labor. Preference of individuals would still have to be sufficiently different from each other to make trade possible. After a long period of relative isolation, uniformity (in the eyes of outside observers at a later time) may indeed emerge due to extended period of inter-breeding among a group of people who are geographically and economicly isolated; the isolated group however may not have been "pure" to begin with. Take for example, after the collapse of Roman Empire, the British Isles did not turn back into "pure" Celtic land; nor did Rome turn back into pure Romans. Instead, a new people called English emerged, mixing a lot of Celtic and Roman blood, plus several big doses of Saxons and Normans (who themselves were mixed breeds) etc.. who stumbled across the North Sea during the dark ages.
JimS: Byzantine:Or perhaps they just want to preserve a polity that at least retains some heritage of limited government and property rights. Then they are gullible enough to believe that the way to achieve such goals is by increasing the size of government (population flow control and ID tags) and eroding existing property rights (in how people spend their own money and whom they allow into their own houses). The heritage of limited government and property rights as envisioned by the founding fathers did not entail immigration control at all. The first set of anti-immigration laws was introduced in the second half of the 19th century, sponsored by the labor union movement. Needless to say, the communistic labor union movement advocates neither limited government nor property rights.
Actually that's incorrect. In Thomas E. Woods' "33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask" he addressess that precise question, namely, the postion of the founding fathers with regard to immigration. He found in various documents that Jefferson, Madison, Washington, etc. were very conscious of immigration policy. Their worries mainly consisted of the idea that those who emigrated to the states would, in many cases, because of different cultural attitudes, upbringing, etc., not share the same affinity for freedom, and, as a result, the state would gradually grow in size and eventually become that which it had seceded from. Their scruples were rather justified too.
So please, please, please do not misquote the founding fathers to further some opinion. It's fine to further an opinion by citing eminent intellectuals but to falsely do so makes one look quite bad.
One other thing I wanted to throw out there is this: I am a fervent supporter of freedom, despite what the raving madman Niccolo may have to say (who, may I say, would make far more headway in his quest to convert "statists" to "agorists" if he didn't come off as being so da/mned angry all the time; I'd be more apt to take him seriously if he approached everything in a composed and intellectual manner; in fact, I find Agorism rather interesting). Nonetheless, one thing that has always struck me as, what you may call, a "weakness" of freedom is the fact that the existence of freedom itself implies the freedom to take away freedom. To let everyone votes means to let everyone who despises freedom vote against freedom. To let everyone immigrate means to let anyone, regardless of whether they believe in freedom, immigrate.
In other words, what makes freedom so magnificent makes it brittle at the same time. It's own definition allows for it's own destruction. That's not to say that I think we should begin to limit certain freedoms to protect freedom because that would be contradictory and I certainly believe freedom is the most desirable of all human states. But the founding fathers seem to have understood this concept perhaps more practically than most and the institutions which they developed were designed to protect freedom. Even their efforts, while perhaps the most successful to date, have been quite easily dismantled. It begs the question, is freedom always doomed to begin with?
edward_1313:Their worries mainly consisted of the idea that those who emigrated to the states would, in many cases, because of different cultural attitudes, upbringing, etc., not share the same affinity for freedom, and, as a result, the state would gradually grow in size and eventually become that which it had seceded from. Their scruples were rather justified too. So please, please, please do not misquote the founding fathers to further some opinion. It's fine to further an opinion by citing eminent intellectuals but to falsely do so makes one look quite bad.
I'm sorry, but you are the one misquoting the founding fathers. Where do you see in the original US Constitution clauses for immigration control? The founding fathers were certainly correct in recognizing that some people from the old world may not share the same affinity for freedom as we do, a case in point would be those pro labor union voters in the 19th century who came up with the anti-immigration agenda; they were largely derived from northern and central European stock, who half a generation after their own immigration became against immigrants from other parts of Europe. Even today, Hoppe's racialisticly motivated advocacy for government eugenics through immigration control is another case of those old world continental caste system that is historically quite incompatible with Anglo-American values. What did the Founding Fathers decide after considering the isssue? They did nothing in the laws that they introduced. Why? Because a law or constitution to screen out continental statists from continental Europe would in itself introduce a government bureacracy just as overbearing and abusive as those typically found in continental Europe.
edward_1313:To let everyone votes means to let everyone who despises freedom vote against freedom. To let everyone immigrate means to let anyone, regardless of whether they believe in freedom, immigrate.
The message of freedom and liberty should be a compelling message in and of itself. The very foundation of libertarianism is built on the assumption that people by and large want freedom and liberty, on their own volition. By their own action of fleeing from the government of their birth places, chances are that immigrants have a higher libertarian-to-statist ratio than people who never move beyond their places of birth. It is no co-incidence that immigrants are grossly over-represented among the big-gun libertarian thinkers throughout the century and half of libertarian history.
edward_1313:In other words, what makes freedom so magnificent makes it brittle at the same time. It's own definition allows for it's own destruction.
If you believe at heart that brittle freedom needs to be protected by Plato's Sage King, then you are not really a believer in freedom. Power corrupts, absolutely power corrupts absoutely; great men are usually bad men. The "you" here is a rhetoric "you," not necessarily you, Edward.
edward_1313:It begs the question, is freedom always doomed to begin with?
No it is not. People want to be free to do what they want on their own volition; yet at the same time, most people are not so principled as to refuse taking advantage of another person when the opportunity presents itself without associated cost. That's why political power is corrupting. That's why freedom-sustaining social system should not have political inequality. Once political privileges are allocated to a subgroup, and open season declared to pilfer from another group, freedom will indeed be in jeopardy: it will be a slippery slope going down that road of political victimization. That's why immigration enforcement is pernicious: it divides participants in the market place into two categories: those who are legal and those who are illegal by their very existence; it will be a simpe exercise to add additional members into that "illegal" category after the statist machine is in place to do the enforcement.
Byzantine:Immigration was considered a state matter . . . That is something else that is overlooked in this debate: immigration really is a local issue, not a national one.
I actually agree that immigration policy should be a state and local matter. There shouldn't be a federal citizenship that is not derived and automaticly derived from state citizenship. That means, a would-be immigrant should have at least 50 jurisdictions to shop from; if any one of them grants immigrantion, the person is in.
Byzantine:They may be delighted to work for the kind of money they can get here as compared to back home, but they will also happily consume all the government services that we're stupid enough to provide.
As opposed to the majority of anyone else? There are 47 million uninsured Americans and 50 million under-insured Americans. You can't be seriously telling me that there are nearly 100 million immigrants in this country. The welfare state system itself is broken, immigrants or no immigrants is quite irrelevent to the issue.
Byzantine:you are darn sure not going to get rid of the welfare state by expanding its tax base and constituency.
Immigrants are far less entitled to welfare than non-immigrants, and immigrants are not entitled to voting as much per centage-wise. For the same level of income and wealth, there are far higher per centage of non-immigrants on welfare than that of immigrants . . . simply because the latter are not eligible in many cases. You simply can not logically accuse immigrants of working off the books (hence creating an economy that the greesy hand of the government can not reach) and accuse them of expanding tax base and constituency for the welfare state at the same time.
Byzantine:There are only two possible outcomes to the US's post-1965 immigration experiment.
There is no post-1965 immigration experiment. There is only the post-mid-19th century anti-immigration experiment, and it's a catastrophy. The more strict the immigration control is, the higher per centage of "law breakers" end up coming in among the immigrants who come in despite such restrictions.
Byzantine: blood is thicker than water
That must have been why King Harold was busy fighting and killing his brothers before turning to the Norman invaders, all the while retaining celts and saxons in his army. Must also have been why, before that, after the fall of Rome, western Europe splintered into numerous small polyglot feudal holdings with ethnically essentially identical lords (often times blood relatives) at the top fighting each other while each commanding states/statelets that had numerous nationalities left over from the Roman days.
JimS: I'm sorry, but you are the one misquoting the founding fathers. Where do you see in the original US Constitution clauses for immigration control? The founding fathers were certainly correct in recognizing that some people from the old world may not share the same affinity for freedom as we do, a case in point would be those pro labor union voters in the 19th century who came up with the anti-immigration agenda; they were largely derived from northern and central European stock, who half a generation after their own immigration became against immigrants from other parts of Europe. Even today, Hoppe's racialisticly motivated advocacy for government eugenics through immigration control is another case of those old world continental caste system that is historically quite incompatible with Anglo-American values. What did the Founding Fathers decide after considering the isssue? They did nothing in the laws that they introduced. Why? Because a law or constitution to screen out continental statists from continental Europe would in itself introduce a government bureacracy just as overbearing and abusive as those typically found in continental Europe.
I never said anything about the quotations coming from the Constitution. I was simply referring to specific quotations by various founding fathers in different documents. For instance, one quote from Jefferson in his Notes on Virginia was that such immigrants would "bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty." or he proposed a thought experiement, "Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans were thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom? If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addittion of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here."
These are just a couple of the quottions. Others with the same tone of idea came from Franklin, Washington, John Jay, Rufus King, and Hamilton to name a few.
If you still believe I am misquoting them, then I am at a loss as to how I can convince you it's not something made up from nothing.
And if I may be so bold, I think it would not be over the top to think that the founders would think it insane and rather stupid to federally require all immigrants be allowed to enter in light of the fact that we live in an extreme welfare state.
I too think we should leave it up to the states. This would indeed be preferable to a federally mandated allowance of all immigrants. But the fact still remains, the maginitude of federal welfare programs is enormous. Any sensible person would only commit to the unlimited admittance of immigrants if the various welfare programs were also left up to the states. Atleast give people the option of moving to places where their tax money won't go to floods of lower class peoples.
JimS: The message of freedom and liberty should be a compelling message in and of itself. The very foundation of libertarianism is built on the assumption that people by and large want freedom and liberty, on their own volition. By their own action of fleeing from the government of their birth places, chances are that immigrants have a higher libertarian-to-statist ratio than people who never move beyond their places of birth. It is no co-incidence that immigrants are grossly over-represented among the big-gun libertarian thinkers throughout the century and half of libertarian history.
JimS: If you believe at heart that brittle freedom needs to be protected by Plato's Sage King, then you are not really a believer in freedom. Power corrupts, absolutely power corrupts absoutely; great men are usually bad men. The "you" here is a rhetoric "you," not necessarily you, Edward.
There are so many on this forum that if you say the slightest thing that may even be perceived as degrading the principle of freedom you get pounced on. Jim, I adore freedom; I think it's the most fantastic and wonderful thing in the world. Just because I say it may have certain weaknessess with regard to its own resilience or endurance doesn't suddenly mean I've become a socialist. You read the other portion of what I wrote. I also said that it's weaknesses don't, however, justify taking freedom away from certain people. It's so exhausting to have to defend myself against false claims, so please don't quote me out of context.
JimS: No it is not. People want to be free to do what they want on their own volition; yet at the same time, most people are not so principled as to refuse taking advantage of another person when the opportunity presents itself without associated cost. That's why political power is corrupting. That's why freedom-sustaining social system should not have political inequality. Once political privileges are allocated to a subgroup, and open season declared to pilfer from another group, freedom will indeed be in jeopardy: it will be a slippery slope going down that road of political victimization. That's why immigration enforcement is pernicious: it divides participants in the market place into two categories: those who are legal and those who are illegal by their very existence; it will be a simpe exercise to add additional members into that "illegal" category after the statist machine is in place to do the enforcement.
Some times I'm not so sure whether more than less prefer freedom as libertarians define it. The freedom we believe in is, more or less, responsibility for oneself. You decide your own destiny. A substantial number of people, who knows how many, want "freedom", not in the sense just described but in a sense which would more accurately be described as power. Like you said, this is certainly a product of the state. But the state itself is a product of people. The wealth building power of freedom creates natural disparities and eventually certain people start demanding more than what they have even though they would ultimately have far less than what they have as a result of freedom. I do think there is a natural tendency for certain people to develop the need for regulation, especially in wealthy societies. The selection and evolutionary process deems it inevitable.
JimS: Immigrants are far less entitled to welfare than non-immigrants, and immigrants are not entitled to voting as much per centage-wise. For the same level of income and wealth, there are far higher per centage of non-immigrants on welfare than that of immigrants . . . simply because the latter are not eligible in many cases. You simply can not logically accuse immigrants of working off the books (hence creating an economy that the greesy hand of the government can not reach) and accuse them of expanding tax base and constituency for the welfare state at the same time.
Sure you can. Public schools and hospitals typically enforce the sort of policies that don't require legitimate identification. These two programs alone are among the biggest in the US. Futher, the prison system, which is payed for by taxes, certainly houses a fair amount of immigrants. They're certainly not paying taxes. And I've been to various food stamp offices. Some consist of both workers and applicants who speak exclusively in Spanish. All of the signs and forms were in Spanish. It felt like I had left the country. But I suppose you would assume these were all legitimate citizens right? Further, actual policies have been implemented to allow federal funds to be utilized by undocumented immigrants for college purposes.
They are clearly many ways to get around the law. Especially when many of the policies enforced take on a "sanctuary city" type character. They simply don't inquire whether you're a citizen. And it makes sense. Politicians want their votes and they're willing to grant favors for those votes. There's no sort of strange doctrine which stipulates that to receive benifits you have to give in return. It's far more often the case that those who receive the most pay in the least. Come one you should know this.
And I definitely wouldn't assume that there are more non-immigrants than immigrants who receive a higher percentage of public benefits with comparison to their income. One, it's impossible to quantify such a thing. Two, we don't really know how many undocumented citizens there really are. Three it would in fact seem the opposite when you rationally consider the situation. Those who are willing to risk their lives coming to the US must be in absolute dire straights. They're typically of the lowest class in Mexico. Higher crime rates, lack of education, etc, characterize illegal immigrants at very high relative rates. These are the sorts of people that immediately begin to drain the public benefit system, prompting higher taxes. Further, they fall into the tragic and viscious cycle of the welfare state which has plagued the blacks since the civil rights movement.
It's ok to hold to the opinion of open borders for ostensibly libertarian principles but to simultaneously think that everything will be hunky dory as a result is just pure lunacy.
edward_1313:These are just a couple of the quottions. Others with the same tone of idea came from Franklin, Washington, John Jay, Rufus King, and Hamilton to name a few.
Yet, what exact federal law did they institute to restrict immigration? Nothing. Nothing at all! That's exactly my point: you were misleading by omission. Yes, like I mentioed before, some of them indeed had misgivings about some of the ideological habits that some continental European immigrants living mostly under feudalistic crown heads would bring with them. Yet, their decision was not to do anything restricting the immigration of such continental Europeans even if these continental Europeans were used to live under special feudal political privileges and unused to how relatively free market worked.
edward_1313:I think it would not be over the top to think that the founders would think it insane and rather stupid to federally require all immigrants be allowed to enter in light of the fact that we live in an extreme welfare state.
I think it would be quite safe to assume that the founders would think it insane to have our extreme welfare state :-) Employing another few hundred thousand federal agents to enforce laws against population migration, just so that certain domestic job holders might be protected in their old jobs, while ripping off millions of employers and property owners in the process, would probably be even more insane in their eyes.
edward_1313:The wealth building power of freedom creates natural disparities and eventually certain people start demanding more than what they have even though they would ultimately have far less than what they have as a result of freedom. I do think there is a natural tendency for certain people to develop the need for regulation, especially in wealthy societies. The selection and evolutionary process deems it inevitable.
IMHO, the real cause of "prosperity rot" is the wealth building power of freedom eventually leads to a level prosperity that a certain segment of the population can afford to live off the fruit of the labor of others, if only they can come up with a scheme to make the others part with a portion of their labor. New-age religions like global warming and prohibitionist crusades like war on alcohol, war on drugs and war on immigrants all fall under this category of razzle and dazzle. So long as states have to compete against each other, it would be obvious that the polity that embraces a philosophy of live-and-let-live and leave-people-the-heck-alone would have the most success. People would be voting with their feet through . . . migration.
edward_1313:Public schools and hospitals typically enforce the sort of policies that don't require legitimate identification. These two programs alone are among the biggest in the US. Futher, the prison system, which is payed for by taxes, certainly houses a fair amount of immigrants. They're certainly not paying taxes. And I've been to various food stamp offices. Some consist of both workers and applicants who speak exclusively in Spanish. All of the signs and forms were in Spanish. It felt like I had left the country. But I suppose you would assume these were all legitimate citizens right? Further, actual policies have been implemented to allow federal funds to be utilized by undocumented immigrants for college purposes.
These issues are really beating around the bushes. Food stamps, hospitals, public schools (even including college level) represent a tiny proportion compared to the mainstays of entitlement programs, such as SS and medicare. Even among these fringe benefit programs, non-immigrants obviously represent the overwhelming majority of recipients. There are 47 million uninsured Americans and 50 million under insured, compared to only 12-15 million illegal immigrants. Besides, those who pass the desert endurance test probably are more physically fit than the average population in the US. You can't be possibly suggesting that immigrant children now account for the majority of public school attendants in the US. Spanish-speaking food stamp office? how many English-speaking ones are out there for every Spanish-speaking one? There are entire towns living off food stamps in the interior of the country, and they most certainly speak English. As for prison inmates, I'm pretty sure that they'd rather be somewhere else, immigrants or non-immigrants; you have to pick bones with irrational prohibitionist laws on this one . . . some of those are precisely anti-immigration laws. The immates would be out working on someone's lawns and make a living instead of being fed and housed by taxpayers in a prison.
Another point about public education and college funds, isn't the whole point of public funding for education based on the assumption that education is a worthwhile investment? So long as the person is here to stay instead of carrying his educated brain somewhere else after graduation, the person should statisticly be contributing more to the society than the cost of the education, no? Of course, assuming no irrational prohibitionist laws get in the way of his employment.
edward_1313:They are clearly many ways to get around the law.
Exactly. More public spending on a prohibitionist war on immigrants would only lead to even more law breaking and corruption, while wasting tax money in the process. That's if we are lucky. If we are not lucky, the same laws that enable government officials to do the monitoring and controlling may well prove more effective against us normal Americans instead of against "those desperate people" who already proved their worth getting around laws and fences.
edward_1313:Those who are willing to risk their lives coming to the US must be in absolute dire straights. They're typically of the lowest class in Mexico. Higher crime rates, lack of education, etc, characterize illegal immigrants at very high relative rates.
Not necessarily. Much of the rest of the world have not become as "soft" as us urbane Americans. Many of them still have the gumption of some of our grandparents' generation had when they walked 5 miles in snow to go to school everyday. Today, the DSS would arrest the parents for letting the kid risking his life. The border crossers are not necessarily desperate. They are just young and optimistic . . . like those youths from upstate New York shacking up in NYC, three roommates to a one-bedroom apartment. On top of those border smugglers, another huge group of "illegals" are tourists, students and special-skills people who simply over-stayed their visa. Instead of us Americans who can pick up the phone and call the hotel front desk (or at most having to call the front desk of another hotel) when we decide to extend our stay in a city for another day, they become illegals under current immigration law. They are neither paupers nor un-educated. In fact, many of them are very well educated and have valuable skills.
It never ends does it. Every argument thus far made against "illegal" immigrants can be leveled at "legal" citizens, but lets ignore the reasons for those problems and find the nearest scapegoat. Find any legit reasons against immigrants that don't directly relate to some government program or action. We wouldn't even have anything other than a natural market reaction in immigration (come when there is enough money, leave when there isn't) if not for government regulations regarding immigration. Why spend thousands of dollars to sneak into the country and work for crap wages if you could just come and go? Make a few thousand dollars here and take that home and invest in your community, taking skills and connections along the way. The only reason they stay is because cost wise it is cheaper to stay in the US.
Byzantine: Incorrect. Please read up on the 1965 Immigration Reform Act. The quantity and character of immigration has been deliberately changed.
Incorrect. Please read up on the 1965 Immigration Reform Act. The quantity and character of immigration has been deliberately changed.
That was just one instance of tweaking, out of a long line of social engineering in the name of immigration control dating back to the second half of 19th century.
Byzantine: Don't believe me? Pop into the nearest Hispanic ghetto and tell everyone how "down" you are with them.
Don't believe me? Pop into the nearest Hispanic ghetto and tell everyone how "down" you are with them.
Ever wonder how ghettoes are created? Legally codified and enforced discriminations, just like in the case of the original Jewish ghetto, where the word "ghetto" came from. Did successful merchants, bankers, doctors, lawyers and civil servants suddenly become scum of the earth when they were forced to move into the ghettos by law? Well, if you were a Nazi, that's what you believed.
Byzantine: Again, the practical reality is that the welfare-warfare state uses immigration to expand its constituency and its tax base. That's why neo-conservatives and social democrats all favor it.
Again, the practical reality is that the welfare-warfare state uses immigration to expand its constituency and its tax base. That's why neo-conservatives and social democrats all favor it.
Welfare-warfare state is thriving in places of poverty like West Virginia quite well . . . even without immigrants. Neo-cons and social democrats are usually not in favor of free immigration at all; they want to have more control over immigration, not less. Statists can make good use of any government intervention policy to expand the role of government.
Byzantine: I think most anarchists at least subconsciously favor government immigration because in an actual anarcho-capitalist society, they know that vagrants and unassimilable ethnic minorities would face the consequences of their pathological conduct.
I think most anarchists at least subconsciously favor government immigration because in an actual anarcho-capitalist society, they know that vagrants and unassimilable ethnic minorities would face the consequences of their pathological conduct.
You are being self-contradictory. Anarchists do not favor government doing anything; that should be obvious. Illegal immigration and vagrancy are two entirely different issues. The last dozen or so homeless beggars that I saw were all un-hyphenated Americans who spoke English with proper local accent (most probably born and grown up in families that have been here for generations), and I live in an area of significant ethnic minorities. The evaluation of "unassimilable ethnic minorities," well that's a little trickier. The overwhelming majority of all the gold and silver that the Spanish Empire manged to loot from the New World ended up in Italy and the Netherlands because there were no Jewish bankers left in Spain after the Star Chambers. European capitalism started in Italian city states and the region bordering the North Sea and English Channel, mostly using gold that the Spaniards looted from the New World. The Italian city states and the region around the North Sea and English Channel had a good mix of tolerance and diversity, with thriving commerce; individuals minded their own business instead of trying to make their neighbors conform to their own thinking. The pathology of monoculture should be quite obvious.
Byzantine: Please point me to a single statutory provision responsible for the fact that HIspanics generally live among other Hispanics, blacks among blacks, whites among whites, etc.
Please point me to a single statutory provision responsible for the fact that HIspanics generally live among other Hispanics, blacks among blacks, whites among whites, etc.
Ever heard of laws against illegal immigrants? The very laws that you are supporting and advocating strengthening. That's why there are neighborhoods of concentrated Hispanics: many of them are not legally allowed to work in this country, so a neighborhood that would allow them to work without keeping tab on them is naturally attractive to them. As for black neighborhoods, it hasn't been long since the end of the legal discrimination in this country; judging by your writings, I suppose racial discrimination is still live and well. White neighborhoods? Perhaps among white trailer park trashes. What used to be very white wealthy neighborhoods are no longer "white" per se. I live in one of the neighborhoods that used to have one of the most white/blue-blood demographic in the country. As I look around, there are numerous Jews, Asians, Hispanics and middleasterners, all much higher than their respectie ratio in the general population of the country as a whole. Why relatively low black count? My theory is that, as I mentioned before, successful blacks in this country in the decades and centuries past had a high rate of "passing" into "whitehood" by marrying with other relatively light-skinned blacks. I'd be very surprised if half the self-declared whites in this country can pass the one-drop-of-blood test. None of the whites that I know of who can trace more than five generations of lineage can, and 90+% of my friends and acquaintances identify themselves as "white/caucasian."
Byzantine: Correct, but now instead of mostly Northern and Western Europeans, we are importing mostly the Third World. There is a qualitative difference, as one can tell when one visits the Third World.
Correct, but now instead of mostly Northern and Western Europeans, we are importing mostly the Third World. There is a qualitative difference, as one can tell when one visits the Third World.
That must have been why Greenland and Wales are so much more prosperous than Sigapore; also why so many Swedes have gone to places like Sigapore, Hongkong, Taiwan and Dubai to work as office secretaries in the last quarter century as Swedish economy stagnated under socialism.
Less than a decade and half ago, Eire (Ireland) was deemed the third world basket case of Europe . . . people ascribed all sorts of unflattering reasons why that was the case: from too much potato consumption, to chronical alcohol poisoning, to Catholicism, to historical British culling of Irish intelligentsia . . . yet today, Eire has one of the highest per-capita income in Western Europe, higher than any of the major Western European countries (Germay, France, Italy, Spain and the UK). If the "drunk Irish" can do it (and wag their success in the face of their erstwhile British oppressors), I'm pretty sure that almost all humanity is capable enjoying the reward of free trade and less government.
JimS:Ever heard of laws against illegal immigrants? The very laws that you are supporting and advocating strengthening. That's why there are neighborhoods of concentrated Hispanics: many of them are not legally allowed to work in this country, so a neighborhood that would allow them to work without keeping tab on them is naturally attractive to them. As for black neighborhoods, it hasn't been long since the end of the legal discrimination in this country; judging by your writings, I suppose racial discrimination is still live and well. White neighborhoods? Perhaps among white trailer park trashes. What used to be very white wealthy neighborhoods are no longer "white" per se. I live in one of the neighborhoods that used to have one of the most white/blue-blood demographic in the country. As I look around, there are numerous Jews, Asians, Hispanics and middleasterners, all much higher than their respectie ratio in the general population of the country as a whole. Why relatively low black count? My theory is that, as I mentioned before, successful blacks in this country in the decades and centuries past had a high rate of "passing" into "whitehood" by marrying with other relatively light-skinned blacks. I'd be very surprised if half the self-declared whites in this country can pass the one-drop-of-blood test. None of the whites that I know of who can trace more than five generations of lineage can, and 90+% of my friends and acquaintances identify themselves as "white/caucasian."
Especially with regard to blacks, I would say that ghettos have not resulted because of racial discrimination in the least. It's happened because of the opposite; free handouts, special rights, etc. When people refer to the ghetto in modern society they're not only referring to segregated communites but typically poor communities characterized by crime and degeneracy.
I'm actually a believer in the hypothesis that Jews are, on average, more intelligent than other folk and the reason for this is because they've been truly discriminated against for thousands of years. A genetic selection process (created by humans unknowingly) has essentially chosen for Jews of higher intelligence and that is why they boast an astronomical amount nobel prize winners, geniuses, etc in relation to their incredibly small population. So while it may sound sort of absurd, not giving everything to a certain race may actually be more beneficial for them. The black community was evolving and integrating into society quite successfully until Martin Luther King came along and Lyndon Johnson decided that the blacks should be compensated for what the evil whites had done to them. What has happened to them? It's ruined them. Stupidity rather than intelligence is being breeded under the rules government has set up. The same will apply to the hispanics as they will start out and remain in the never ending cycle of the welfare state. It's a sad state. Over just a couple of generations the people who evolve out of these sorts of programs are much different than regular people. They're more aggressive, less independent, sexually hyper, the list goes on. The reason black ghettos exist as they do is not because of discrimination it's because of something that is utterly opposite.
Why do you want to promote the propagation of these sorts of people (and I'm not referring to any race specifically; I'm referring to welfare bred peoples in general)?!
One more point. I enjoy the bluntness of Byzantine with regard to race. Far more progress would be made if people would just speak what they truly thought instead tiptoeing around it. What Byzantine has said isn't really racist it's more so on the lines of --typcially lower class peoples are less intelligent, less independent, and more apt to make use of government benefits (is this really that off?). They're no less human but more like children (higher time preferences). The fact that you interpret everything as bigoted or racist shows your own bent perception about everything. Your comments or reflection on others comments are far more evidently racist and bigoted.
edward_1313:When people refer to the ghetto in modern society they're not only referring to segregated communites but typically poor communities characterized by crime and degeneracy.
There's nothing modern in that perception. That's exactly the perception of Jewish Ghettos in the eyes of "Aryan Germans" some 60-70 years ago. Criminality is often proportional to the degree of irrational intervention that the government has enforced upon the society. "Degeneracy"? Well, isn't that the precise racial undertone of the word "ghetto"? I'd be very surprised to find any "Aryan German" in the 30's and 40's believing in superior intelligence among Jews living in ghettos because they were discriminated against. It would be as proposterous to them as suggesting that because Hispanic gang and Black gang members have a high mortality rate and that successful gang members tend to get laid with more women and produce more offsprings, over time they may produce a super race of super intelligent human beings from the gang warfare :-) As superficially logical as it may sound, I'm not entirely sure any of us would believe that any more than "Aryan Germans" would believe that Jews were more intelligent because their genetic pool was culled every few generations. To them, Jewish ghettos meant high criminality and degeneracy.
edward_1313:So while it may sound sort of absurd, not giving everything to a certain race may actually be more beneficial for them.
That's assuming there is a concept called "them." I don't think anyone getting culled from the gene pool would be benefitting from the culling. Nor is it clear that the members who survive the culling actually benefit at all. Suppose, you are in the top 10% in terms of intelligence among (assuming you are) white; how does the death of the other 90% benefit you in any way or shape? The "benefit" only accrues when one is standing as an outside observer and dealing with numbers in terms of "them." The "them" doesn't exist for "them." :-) It's rather silly to live a life in terms of a beauty contest among racial averages.
edward_1313:What Byzantine has said isn't really racist it's more so on the lines of --typcially lower class peoples are less intelligent, less independent, and more apt to make use of government benefits (is this really that off?).
Then say so: less successful people tend to be less intelligent, less independent and more apt to qualify for government benefits in a society that offers government benefits to the poor . . . with the caveat of course that the more intelligent would be more apt to make use of government benefits (after all, it's the intelligent who controls the government for their own benefit, right?). In any case, it's not race-dependent, or immigration-status dependent. In fact, if immigrants are kept out of legal job market, the non-immigrant lazy would be deriving benefit from a government policy at the expense of employers.
edward_1313:Your comments or reflection on others comments are far more evidently racist and bigoted.
Really?? How so? I never attached individual merit or demerit to race (aside from sacasm), whereas you and Byzantine have been equating race with the quality of individuals numerous times.
JimS: Well, isn't that the precise racial undertone of the word "ghetto"? I'd be very surprised to find any "Aryan German" in the 30's and 40's believing in superior intelligence among Jews living in ghettos because they were discriminated against. It would be as proposterous to them as suggesting that because Hispanic gang and Black gang members have a high mortality rate and that successful gang members tend to get laid with more women and produce more offsprings, over time they may produce a super race of super intelligent human beings from the gang warfare :-) As superficially logical as it may sound, I'm not entirely sure any of us would believe that any more than "Aryan Germans" would believe that Jews were more intelligent because their genetic pool was culled every few generations. To them, Jewish ghettos meant high criminality and degeneracy.
Well, isn't that the precise racial undertone of the word "ghetto"? I'd be very surprised to find any "Aryan German" in the 30's and 40's believing in superior intelligence among Jews living in ghettos because they were discriminated against. It would be as proposterous to them as suggesting that because Hispanic gang and Black gang members have a high mortality rate and that successful gang members tend to get laid with more women and produce more offsprings, over time they may produce a super race of super intelligent human beings from the gang warfare :-) As superficially logical as it may sound, I'm not entirely sure any of us would believe that any more than "Aryan Germans" would believe that Jews were more intelligent because their genetic pool was culled every few generations. To them, Jewish ghettos meant high criminality and degeneracy.
If you really see a parrellel between the segregation of the Jews by the *** and the existence of American ghettos in the present day than this argument can indeed go no further. You're ignorance is grotesque.
JimS: with the caveat of course that the more intelligent would be more apt to make use of government benefits (after all, it's the intelligent who controls the government for their own benefit, right?). In any case, it's not race-dependent, or immigration-status dependent.
with the caveat of course that the more intelligent would be more apt to make use of government benefits (after all, it's the intelligent who controls the government for their own benefit, right?). In any case, it's not race-dependent, or immigration-status dependent.
This is just a bizarre statement. The intelligent control the government? I suppose if you equate political deftness to intelligence. As you know, the state earns its legitimacy from those who it governs. It's power depends on its ability to elicit and promote certain ideas. Handouts is good way of doing so and it is typically done by targeting certain races or classes, especially lower classes since they're more apt to approve of redistributional policies.
Just to see where you stand:
1. Would you agree that the overwhelming majority of immigrants who illegally make their way to the US typcially come from a very poor situation, even in the context of their own country?
2. Would agree that if such is the case, they'll be far more apt to make use of government benefits?
3. Would you agree that given our welfare state, the ability of such peoples to escape from this immediate use of the welfare state and integrate into society is terribly unlikely and irrational in their own context?
4. Would you agree that as a result of these immigrants being so dependent on the state they would vote in favor of the state?
5. Would you agree that 15-20 million immigrants who have already come over illegally only represent a fraction of the number that would come over were it legal?
6. Would you agree that this would change everything dramatically?
Byzantine:Again, the practical reality is that the welfare-warfare state uses immigration to expand its constituency and its tax base. That's why neo-conservatives and social democrats all favor it.
I hate buzz words. Buzz words like "welfare-warfare state" are adolescent and amateur. Please stop using them.
In any case, I couldn't care less about why the state wants immigrants. I don't pay for their programs and I don't obey their commands; you do, that's your problem.
Byzantine:I think most anarchists at least subconsciously favor government immigration because in an actual anarcho-capitalist society, they know that vagrants and unassimilable ethnic minorities would face the consequences of their pathological conduct.
Government immigration? Since when are "governments immigrating?"
Unassimilable? To what? Your definition of the best civilization, the best language, the best colour? What? You people are a disgrace; stop calling yourselves libertarians if you grant the state authority to violently oppress human beings.
----------------
Jim, forget talking to these people; you won't break through to them. They're the residuals of the disgusting nationalism libertarians try to fight day in and day out. This has become unfruitful, so why not do something more beneficial to eradicating humanity of this type of scum?
edward_1313:If you really see a parrellel between the segregation of the Jews by the *** and the existence of American ghettos in the present day than this argument can indeed go no further. You're ignorance is grotesque.
Really? Do you know that Jewish Ghettos existed in Europe long before the rise of the Nazi's, by, oh, a few centuries? Ghettos are the products of political pressure, today, during the reign of the Third Reich, and for centuries before the Nazi regime. I prefer to refrain from commenting on the grotesqueness of your ignorance.
edward_1313:This is just a bizarre statement. The intelligent control the government? I suppose if you equate political deftness to intelligence.
Government is nothing more than a human invention to control and exploit other human beings.
edward_1313:It's power depends on its ability to elicit and promote certain ideas. Handouts is good way of doing so and it is typically done by targeting certain races or classes, especially lower classes since they're more apt to approve of redistributional policies.
Such as advancing an agenda of racial superiority, redistributing wealth to the poor whites in the form of "job protection" . . . you know, "only Germans can hold certain jobs; Germany for Germans."
edward_1313:1. Would you agree that the overwhelming majority of immigrants who illegally make their way to the US typcially come from a very poor situation, even in the context of their own country?
Not at all. There is often a huge fee to be paid to the smugglers, often equivalent to more than a year's wage in their home countries. Would you consider someone with $50k cash savings (a year's income in the US) very poor in the US?
edward_1313:2. Would agree that if such is the case, they'll be far more apt to make use of government benefits?
Such is not the case. On top of that, most countries where they come from have government benefits, such as free medicine and free education; by skipping out their home countries, they have proven a track record of not pursueing government benefits.
edward_1313:3. Would you agree that given our welfare state, the ability of such peoples to escape from this immediate use of the welfare state and integrate into society is terribly unlikely and irrational in their own context?
Perhaps you missed the point that they already made the "irrational" choice of skipping the welfare state in their own countries in pursuit of opportunity? Did you notice that, the overwhelming majority of immigrants, legal or illegal, are not elderly ready to retire (and receive benefits) but young people ready to work?
edward_1313: 4. Would you agree that as a result of these immigrants being so dependent on the state they would vote in favor of the state?
They are not dependent on the state. They are not even legal under the laws of the state. Many of them try to avoid interaction with the representatives of the state, such as police, altogether. If they do get the vote, the only way they'd vote for statists would be if statists are the only ones protecting them from eminent danger from violent racists. Their track record of smuggling (themselves) goes to show that they are not real respectors of the state. Let's not forget, this country is founded by tax protestors and smugglers (of tea) . . . how did it ever become a nation of sheeples that believe "the law is the law therefore it must be enforced"??? That's why I have been saying that conservatives are committing political suicide if they embrace racialistic politics. We lovers of liberty and small government should be making common cause with immigrants, legal and illegal, because their very track record of not being bound to the state like chattels prove that they are more likely individualists.
edward_1313:5. Would you agree that 15-20 million immigrants who have already come over illegally only represent a fraction of the number that would come over were it legal?
Perhaps, if we have a reasonable level of job growth rate.
edward_1313:6. Would you agree that this would change everything dramatically?
Perhaps the new comers will work and enable the baby boomers to retire, instead of having the entire obligation falling on the shoulders of a smaller demographic of working age population to support the humongous retiring generation. The $50 trillion obligation that has accrued in the last 70 years, according to the GAO head, has to be repaid somehow. Unless you are looking forward to Japanese-style decades-long depresion due to aging demographics, we have to import young people to work for our economy somehow; why not let the free market system work on its own to solve this problem.
Niccolò: Jim, forget talking to these people; you won't break through to them. They're the residuals of the disgusting nationalism libertarians try to fight day in and day out. This has become unfruitful, so why not do something more beneficial to eradicating humanity of this type of scum?
You're really going to start a movement with sort of talk Niccolo! Flocks of libertarians will surround you as call them scum!!!! I apologize for my incredible ignorance. I don't really see why you've argued about this topic to begin with if you're so above it. For us morons who haven't decided to ignore the law and do as we please could you at least maintain a certain level of civility? You're lunacy will scare all away who would want to methodically and rationally come up with ways of combating the state (and I don't mean politically). I find a certain amount of pleasure arguing over this topic because, at least in my view, it's not as clear cut as other areas. I know you transcend such petty arguments but for those who have not ascended to your level could you atleast humor us?
I apologize but I simply don't equate free immigration with precisely that, free immigration. I believe if non-citizens are to cross over and make use of expropriated property because the state allows it, individuals are no more free then when the state makes it illegal for non-citizens to make use of such property. I know this supposes a certain level of power possessed by the state. But that's not synonomous to saying its virtuous or legitimate!
I know you consider me a prisoner of myself, but I consider it unwise to ignore the law without discretion or prudence. A cavalier may be fierce but he will not end up doing much if he is overly brash. I'm but one person; the majority over whelms me. I think things can be done but i think it will take time and careful preparation, NOT anger and disgust. Contrary to what you think, I think we're far closer to being allies then enemies. We both believe in freedom. Perhaps on some things you believe I am mistaken and that I dwell on topics which error in the first place by acknowledging the state.
I apologize if this offends you. I know immigration is simple for you. If I had it my way it would be simple too, abolish the state altogether. There would be no borders and people would go as they please and exclude as they please. I believe it becomes more complicated given the state exists and even more complicated as more property is expropriated. I am simply arguing from the point of view that the state does have power and that it won't go away terribly soon. Given that context I have laid down my argument. I agree, to give no power to the state in the first place would leave no room for such an argument. But it seems to me that the state has power because so many believe it has power. It does not matter whether I believe it to not be legitimate, too many already do, and it maintains its power from their mistaken belief in its legitimacy. So once again, a bit of civility please? Are libertarians who disagree with unhindered immigration really the enemy?
JimS:Not at all. There is often a huge fee to be paid to the smugglers, often equivalent to more than a year's wage in their home countries. Would you consider someone with $50k cash savings (a year's income in the US) very poor in the US?
Alright, this is indeed going no where. I would fervently disagree with the proposition that even a decent percentage of illegal immigrants are paying the equivalent of $50k to come over. Did you hear a couple of stories about it? If you have, well, yippeeee! Do you have statistics on this somewhere? No. That sort of statement is absurd.
JimS: Such is not the case. On top of that, most countries where they come from have government benefits, such as free medicine and free education; by skipping out their home countries, they have proven a track record of not pursueing government benefits.!
Such is not the case. On top of that, most countries where they come from have government benefits, such as free medicine and free education; by skipping out their home countries, they have proven a track record of not pursueing government benefits.!
Riiiiiight. Mexico, Cuba, they've got great public schools, medical facilities, everything. You're probably gotten your info from Michael Moore's "Sicko" right? Cuba's got some fine health facilites! The reality is, their services are broken beyond repair. If you really think there's no difference between the public benefits in the US and Mexico, what I am to say?!
I've always had respect for the argument that "free" immigration should be allowed because the person arguig for it thought it gave individuals more freedom. But to also argue that it's more practically advantageous, to me, shows a lack of insight.
edward_1313:Are libertarians who disagree with unhindered immigration really the enemy?
Are libertarians who disagree with unhindered immigration really the enemy?
No, but only because it's a contradiction in ideology.
EDIT: Also, I've made my living, my life, my soul out of my refusal to compromise. I don't need to talk people over to my side, I don't need to be polite, because when the time comes to actually do something - when someone needs a lion in their corner, they don't look to the one willing to kneel down and suck the **** of the state; they look for someone who won't compromise their position.
So go ahead and play your political games. Look towards the state and obey with the same smile on your face as the wife who's forced into a choke hold during intercourse - it's gotten you this far! - I, however, will take a different path.
Niccolò:EDIT: Also, I've made my living, my life, my soul out of my refusal to compromise. I don't need to talk people over to my side, I don't need to be polite, because when the time comes to actually do something - when someone needs a lion in their corner, they don't look to the one willing to kneel down and suck the **** of the state; they look for someone who won't compromise their position.
Being civil and compromising are two utterly different things. I never suggested that you compromise your beliefs. I was merely suggesting that you be a bit more civil in expressing those beliefs. Many will will turn away from the idea of freedom if its most fervent adherents are believed to be madmen. It should be the goal of all who believe in freedom to make others aware of its greatness. When trying to attract others caught at the crossroads do you think it favorable for the cause of freedom to spit in their face and call them fools? Do you not think this will turn them towards the other way? I find it hard to believe that your firmly held beliefs have evolved merely as a result of your own selfishness. Those who believe in freedom believe in it because it will enhance that thing inside men which make them truly human. It will bring out everything that is good within them. Is this not your goal?
Niccolò:So go ahead and play your political games. Look towards the state and obey with the same smile on your face as the wife who's forced into a choke hold during intercourse - it's gotten you this far! - I, however, will take a different path.
Wow. That'll help the cause. Draw lots of followers. Oh but wait, you're not concerned with any of that. It's Niccolo against the world!
edward_1313:Alright, this is indeed going no where. I would fervently disagree with the proposition that even a decent percentage of illegal immigrants are paying the equivalent of $50k to come over.
Please re-read my original post. You claimed that the immigrants were the poorest of the poor in their own countries (then apply your poor=stupid rule). They are certainly not the poorest of the poor (or even plain poor) in their own country. I said, the fees charged by the smugglers often amount to more than one year's income in their own countries. If the annual income in Mexico is $5000, a person who has that much money in cash savings in Mexico would have the similar relative social standing as those having $50k (equivalent to one year income) cash savings in the US.
edward_1313: Riiiiiight. Mexico, Cuba, they've got great public schools, medical facilities, everything. You're probably gotten your info from Michael Moore's "Sicko" right? Cuba's got some fine health facilites! The reality is, their services are broken beyond repair. If you really think there's no difference between the public benefits in the US and Mexico, what I am to say?!
So in other words, you think "free" public school and public medical facilities are great success stories here, because they are run by a superior race of ubermensch? Perhaps you are not well versed in libertarianism, "free mediine and free education" means broken medicine and broken education. Which particular government runs it makes hardly any difference. The high illiteracy rate among high school graduates in the US bears that out in spades. Now, that's the average result of mostly English-speaking classrooms. What are the chances that classrooms run in different dialects of Spanish would produce far superior results to what the immigrant parents can get for their kids in their home countries (also "free")? Would that difference be worth more than one year's income (think $50k in our context, that's how much $5k is worth to a Mexican), or risking dying of exposure in the desert?
edward_1313:I've always had respect for the argument that "free" immigration should be allowed because the person arguig for it thought it gave individuals more freedom. But to also argue that it's more practically advantageous, to me, shows a lack of insight.
That's because you lack the insight that should have come with a libertarian instinct. Perhaps contaminated by years of public education, you are at the core still a believer that the government can intervene in the market place and make it better. Collectivism dressed up as racial superiority ropes in a few dopes every generation.
edward_1313:I believe if non-citizens are to cross over and make use of expropriated property because the state allows it, individuals are no more free then when the state makes it illegal for non-citizens to make use of such property.
This line of logic shows the classic folly that Mises illustrated: when one government intervention proves a failure, the statist instinct is not to rescind the first intervention but to come up with new interventions to "correct" the undesirable result of the first one, producing new failures in the process.
What you are saying on the topic is akin to argue that becauses businesses here are burdened by laws that allow unions to expropriate capital, all imports of goods should be banned because imports would take advantage of such expropriation (organized labor union members buying import goods with their loot) and put domestic capitalists at disadvantage all at the same time. What you end up with is national socialism, just like your advocacy banning immigration because there is socialism here. Nationalism is no cure for socialist ills. A new set of government intervention doesn't correct the errors of the previous interventions; new interventions can only exacerbate the economic and social condition.