Changed My Long Held Position on a Border Fence

[AGRP]

wow. Ive held the position that we need to have one for many years and I think it's one of my last stances (if not the last) that many Liberty people challenged me on. Once again, I surprised myself and changed a belief I thought I would always hold. What changed my view and what can you use to sway others?

Just think about the police state and militarism around the world. To imagine them coming here to militarize the border is a very scary thought. They could hold us here like a prison and turn North America into the Ivory Coast at any time if they deem us a "threat to national security." I would much rather put a fence around my own home and protect myself than to deal with that. The philosophy of a militarized/police state border fence mimics just about everything else we preach against.

[RCA]

That, as well as there's no such thing as a "border".

[Rothbardian Girl]

Congratulations and welcome to the good side, sir. Now watch as this erupts into a fiery confrontation and winds up getting moved to Hot Topics or Philosophy. ;)

But yeah, I think since we'd have to have the troops stationed there almost indefinitely (since you know with heavily militarized borders, there won't be any serious efforts to rid the country of the welfare state), it would wind up costing more than our overseas escapades.

The best tactic is localized community enforcement in my honest opinion.

[AJ187]

Well good, Logistics would be almost impossible and all it would take to circumvent it would be some properly placed C4.

[AGRP]

Congratulations and welcome to the good side, sir. Now watch as this erupts into a fiery confrontation and winds up getting moved to Hot Topics or Philosophy. ;)

But yeah, I think since we'd have to have the troops stationed there almost indefinitely (since you know with heavily militarized borders, there won't be any serious efforts to rid the country of the welfare state), it would wind up costing more than our overseas escapades.

The best tactic is localized community enforcement in my honest opinion.

Im still a bit uneasy about admitting and accepting it, but what I do know is that the military-industrial complex could easily be transferred to our borders on top of our ever growing police state. Id rather see the cement industry explode because people built their private walls.

[Rothbardian Girl]

Im still a bit uneasy about admitting and accepting it, but what I do know is that the military-industrial complex could easily be transferred to our borders on top of our ever growing police state. Id rather see the cement industry explode because people built their private walls.

I definitely know what you mean. Some libertarian concepts scare me a little, too (how do we know there won't be "false flag" attacks if we were to transition to a more non-interventionist foreign policy? Will private charity really be able to take care of most downtrodden people?, etc.). I think we just have to remember that what we have now isn't desirable in any way, shape or form. We can't keep doing the same thing and expecting it to work, or go for half-hearted "reform" and hope that sticks.

But you make excellent points in your two posts on this thread. The police state is a serious, and growing, problem in this country and we don't want to encourage it to grow even further.

[LibertyEagle]

That, as well as there's no such thing as a "border".

:rolleyes:

[The Free Hornet]

What changed my view and what can you use to sway others?

Do you want to subsidize Mexico's ladder building industry?
Do you want to subsidize Mexico's wire cutter makers?
Do you want to subsidize Mexico's light aviation companies?
Do you want to subsidize Mexico's submarine-making abilitiy?
Do you want to subsidize Mexico's tunnel diggers?
Do you want to subsidize Mexico's fledging catapult erectors association?

[emazur]

Look at 2:20 in this Stossel video to view how people get around the fences:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WA-ZJFmpZ0

With the welfare state we have, I am sympathetic to people who want to keep illegals out (terrorists too), but building a fence seems to be about as effective as prohibition of alcohol

[fisharmor]

That, as well as there's no such thing as a "border".

Didn't you hear? The 10th Amendment was repealed. The federal government has all sorts of power to define borders, define citizenship, control ingress and egress from the country, and kick people out.

[Krugerrand]

Even without a fence we saw what border patrols were doing to our own members who wanted to stand up for their liberty:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?261738-Today-I-put-my-life-on-the-line-for-liberty...

It just isn't a good thing to turn over freedom so that the government can protect you from the boogie man.

[TruckinMike]

All we need is an all volunteer Minutemen corp made up of retired folks with an annual on duty rotation. Vacation on the border. Good fun, excitement and more.:)

TMike

[AGRP]

Do you want to subsidize Mexico's ladder building industry?
Do you want to subsidize Mexico's wire cutter makers?
Do you want to subsidize Mexico's light aviation companies?
Do you want to subsidize Mexico's submarine-making abilitiy?
Do you want to subsidize Mexico's tunnel diggers?
Do you want to subsidize Mexico's fledging catapult erectors association?

None of those monetary and tactical points ever changed my opinion.

If someone realizes there is a police state and military industrial complex (most liberty people do), inform them that having "protection" on our border will create the very same malignant cancer and that cancer will be a lot closer to home which can and will be used against them. For some reason I never thought of it that way, nor did anyone ever present it that way to me. Oddly enough I presented it to myself when I started to really think about things.

[spladle]

Two resources that I found extremely influential:

http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.25.3.83

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYk00Ufiqb4

[Brett85]

I still support the fence as well as putting our military along the border. I'll support any policy that the globalists and internationalists oppose.

[Brett85]

Didn't you hear? The 10th Amendment was repealed. The federal government has all sorts of power to define borders, define citizenship, control ingress and egress from the country, and kick people out.

The Constitution authorizes national defense, which includes border security.
The Constitution gives the federal government the power to "repel invasions." We have an invasion on the southern border.
The Constitution gives the federal government the power over "naturalization," which is just another word for immigration.

[spladle]

I still support the fence as well as putting our military along the border. I'll support any policy that the globalists and internationalists oppose.


Don't be silly. Globalists and internationalists (such as myself) are in favor of preventing the torture, rape, and murder of American civilians inside our borders. A blind reactionary stance such as the one you've put forth here requires you to come out in support of the torture, rape, and murder of Americans civilians (such as yourself). If such a view is repugnant to you (as it should be), then you must withdraw this comment.

[Brett85]

Don't be silly. Globalists and internationalists (such as myself) are in favor of preventing the torture, rape, and murder of American civilians inside our borders. A blind reactionary stance such as the one you've put forth here requires you to come out in support of the torture, rape, and murder of Americans civilians (such as yourself). If such a view is repugnant to you (as it should be), then you must withdraw this comment.

That's the most ridiculous thing I'ver ever heard of. But I actually got my quote from Alex Jones, who is supposedly the "libertarian hero" on these forums.

[spladle]

That's the most ridiculous thing I'ver ever heard of. But I actually got my quote from Alex Jones, who is supposedly the "libertarian hero" on these forums.

I won't pretend like I spend a ton of time on these forums or ever listen to Alex Jones. If he said that then he shouldn't have, for the very reasons I just elucidated. And you ought not repeat it. The argument for this position seems to me fairly straightforward. Perhaps you are justified in your support for a border fence, but the reason presented for doing so is a downright terrible one, and if you have no other then the position ought to be discarded.

[spladle]

Fun study: Why Doesn’t the United States Have a European-Style Welfare State? (http://dev.wcfia.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/423__0332-Alesina11.pdf)

The upshot, per Bryan Caplan: Diversity undermines solidarity. People don't mind paying high taxes to support people "like them." But free money for "the other" leads to resentment and political pushback. If you're a social democrat, this implies a tragic trade-off between social justice for natives and social justice for potential immigrants. But if you're a [Traditional Conservative], the opposite is true. The welfare state doesn't make open borders impossible. It's open borders that makes the eventual abolition of the welfare state imaginable.

[Brett85]

I won't pretend like I spend a ton of time on these forums or ever listen to Alex Jones. If he said that then he shouldn't have, for the very reasons I just elucidated. And you ought not repeat it. The argument for this position seems to me fairly straightforward. Perhaps you are justified in your support for a border fence, but the reason presented for doing so is a downright terrible one, and if you have no other then the position ought to be discarded.

Then how about:

1) I support American sovereignty.
2) I support a strong national defense, which starts with securing our borders.
3) I support keeping people out of the country who will get free welfare services and make spending increase.
4) I support preserving the lives and liberties of ranchers along the border who are getting killed by illegal immigrants.
5) I support preserving our language and culture.

[Brett85]

Even though Dr. Paul opposes the fence as a way to secure the border, his website still states that border security is a big priority for him.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/national-defense/

"That’s why, as Commander-in-Chief, Dr. Paul will lead the fight to:

* Make securing our borders the top national security priority."

[spladle]

Then how about:

1) I support American sovereignty.
2) I support a strong national defense, which starts with securing our borders.
3) I support keeping people out of the country who will get free welfare services and make spending increase.
4) I support preserving the lives and liberties of ranchers along the border who are getting killed by illegal immigrants.
5) I support preserving our language and culture.

I like these points a lot better. In fact, I think it's fair to say that I agree with all of them. I'd like to call your attention to #3, however. If you'll read the last study I posted, or at least its summary/conclusions, you'll find that when people come into the country, get free welfare services, and make spending increase, they diminish support for the welfare state within the country they receive the services from. In other words, illegal immigrants inflame racist and xenophobic passions among Americans, which causes them to oppose the welfare state when they otherwise might have supported it. Since I view the biggest problem with immigration (illegal or otherwise) as stemming from the existence of the welfare state, this strikes me as an incredibly elegant solution.

[William R]

That, as well as there's no such thing as a "border".

Well then Ron Paul doesn't agree with you. Because he's said over and over that he believes in borders and the nation state.

[AGRP]

Well then Ron Paul doesn't agree with you. Because he's said over and over that he believes in borders and the nation state.

I still believe in borders and a nation. I just believe the border should be dealt with private property rights. If Im not mistaken, those who own land along the border cannot protect their land. They could take care of the mess, but theyre not allowed to.

[spladle]

I still believe in borders and a nation. I just believe the border should be dealt with private property rights. If Im not mistaken, those who own land along the border cannot protect their land. They could take care of the mess, but theyre not allowed to.

There's an excellent analogy to be made here about Israel that I find very useful when speaking with neoconservatives.

[fisharmor]

The Constitution authorizes national defense, which includes border security.
The Constitution gives the federal government the power to "repel invasions." We have an invasion on the southern border.
The Constitution gives the federal government the power over "naturalization," which is just another word for immigration.

The constitution allows the federal government to ban light bulbs.
The constitution gives the federal government the power to confiscate firearms.
The constitution gives the federal government the power to force us to participate in its retirement plan.

It's all the same underhanded sophistry.

[AGRP]

There's an excellent analogy to be made here about Israel that I find very useful when speaking with neoconservatives.

Israel understands the power of private property rights very well considering they use them to establish territory!

(I believe they're private homes)

[Brett85]

The constitution allows the federal government to ban light bulbs.
The constitution gives the federal government the power to confiscate firearms.
The constitution gives the federal government the power to force us to participate in its retirement plan.

It's all the same underhanded sophistry.

You don't have any point at all. The things I mentioned are all specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The things that you mentioned aren't in the Constitution. Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution clearly authorizes national defense and gives the government authority over naturalization. Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to repel invasions. Those are powers that are explictly stated in the Constitution.

[jmdrake]

Didn't you hear? The 10th Amendment was repealed. The federal government has all sorts of power to define borders, define citizenship, control ingress and egress from the country, and kick people out.

You know? I think most "closed border" types would be perfectly fine with going along with the states having the right under the 10th amendment to "define borders, define citizenship, control ingress and egress from the country and kick people out".

[spladle]

Israel understands the power of private property rights very well considering they use them to establish territory!

(I believe they're private homes)

The point I meant to make is that Israel is not allowed to defend its own borders. American intervention actively makes Israel less safe and more vulnerable to Palestinian terror attacks and/or Iranian threats. If allowed to act in its own perceived best interests, Israel would bomb Iran to hell and back before allowing it to obtain nuclear weapons, thereby entirely obviating the need for America to play an active role.

[Vessol]

Well good, Logistics would be almost impossible and all it would take to circumvent it would be some properly placed C4.

Or a damn shovel. I remember somewhere they timed some actual immigrants on how long it took them to get through a proper border fence, took maybe 9 minutes.

[AGRP]

The point I meant to make is that Israel is not allowed to defend its own borders. American intervention actively makes Israel less safe and more vulnerable to Palestinian terror attacks and/or Iranian threats. If allowed to act in its own perceived best interests, Israel would bomb Iran to hell and back before allowing it to obtain nuclear weapons, thereby entirely obviating the need for America to play an active role.

Very true.

They also use homesteads to secure land which tells us what works: Around the clock protection and they work for free!

[fisharmor]

You don't have any point at all. The things I mentioned are all specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The things that you mentioned aren't in the Constitution. Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution clearly authorizes national defense and gives the government authority over naturalization. Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to repel invasions. Those are powers that are explictly stated in the Constitution.

Yes, I absolutely have a point.
The constitution gives congress the power to regulate commerce.
Light bulb sales are the very definition of commerce.
Immigration is not an invasion, not without torturing the words into what you want them to say.
Therefore, the light bulb ban is more constitutional than kicking out "illegal" immigrants.

Naturalization (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/naturalization) also clearly refers to making aliens citizens. It says nothing about kicking them out. Nor does the constitution.

I can read and comprehend the meaning of words. I actually do know I don't have a point trying to discuss it with people who can't.
Enjoy your police state.

[EndSlavery]

A few weeks ago I asked my statist mother: "Why not let all those starving people in Somalia come here?"

Of course, I was presented with statist repeating and blabbering in the face of the concept of eliminating borders. Borders are not consistent with individual liberty.

[AuH20]

A few weeks ago I asked my statist mother: "Why not let all those starving people in Somalia come here?"

Of course, I was presented with statist repeating and blabbering in the face of the concept of eliminating borders. Borders are not consistent with individual liberty.

Neither is social engineering. That's not compatible with individual liberty.

[Brett85]

Yes, I absolutely have a point.
The constitution gives congress the power to regulate commerce.
Light bulb sales are the very definition of commerce.
Immigration is not an invasion, not without torturing the words into what you want them to say.
Therefore, the light bulb ban is more constitutional than kicking out "illegal" immigrants.

Naturalization (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/naturalization) also clearly refers to making aliens citizens. It says nothing about kicking them out. Nor does the constitution.

I can read and comprehend the meaning of words. I actually do know I don't have a point trying to discuss it with people who can't.
Enjoy your police state.

And what exactly do believe the term "national defense" allows the federal government to do? If that term doesn't even allow us to secure our own borders, then it has no meaning at all. We wouldn't have any kind of a defense if we didn't have borders. We wouldn't even have a country. By the way, both Ron and Rand support a "police state" if you go by your ridiculous definition of the word. They both believe that the federal government should secure the borders.

[Xenophage]

I definitely know what you mean. Some libertarian concepts scare me a little, too (how do we know there won't be "false flag" attacks if we were to transition to a more non-interventionist foreign policy? Will private charity really be able to take care of most downtrodden people?, etc.). I think we just have to remember that what we have now isn't desirable in any way, shape or form. We can't keep doing the same thing and expecting it to work, or go for half-hearted "reform" and hope that sticks.

But you make excellent points in your two posts on this thread. The police state is a serious, and growing, problem in this country and we don't want to encourage it to grow even further.

Moreover, you need to understand the *moral* position of a libertarian. If you agree with the morality, that the initiation of coercive force is immoral, you'll realize that *even if* statism worked, it would still be wrong. Thankfully, this conundrum and difficult choice will never have to be pondered seriously, because statism always fails.

The more fundamental idea is that morality and reality should never be at odds. We're realists, us libertarians.

[fisharmor]

And what exactly do believe the term "national defense" allows the federal government to do? If that term doesn't even allow us to secure our own borders, then it has no meaning at all. We wouldn't have any kind of a defense if we didn't have borders. We wouldn't even have a country. By the way, both Ron and Rand support a "police state" if you go by your ridiculous definition of the word. They both believe that the federal government should secure the borders.

You know what, you've convinced me.
National defense absolutely does include our fruit trees, dirty dishes, and the utter holocaust of the cut grass.
We must bend the words of the constitution for their sake!!! Otherwise, the wrong people might lay hands on the product of California orange groves.
And please, won't somebody think of the grass! They just waltz over here and cut it down!!!

[fisharmor]

And by the way, TC, Ron and Rand aren't the boss of me, and I believe they are wrong on this issue, and, like you, are leaving the barn door open to everyone else interpreting the constitution however the hell they want.

[jmdrake]

Don't be silly. Globalists and internationalists (such as myself) are in favor of preventing the torture, rape, and murder of American civilians inside our borders. A blind reactionary stance such as the one you've put forth here requires you to come out in support of the torture, rape, and murder of Americans civilians (such as yourself). If such a view is repugnant to you (as it should be), then you must withdraw this comment.

Yes. Globalists institutions like the U.N. are so great at preventing rape and murder...except for when it's U.N. soldiers doing it.

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=UN+soldiers+rape

There certainly are drawbacks to the border fence as Ron Paul accurately pointed out. But globalism is not the answer to our problems.

[jmdrake]

Yes, I absolutely have a point.
The constitution gives congress the power to regulate commerce.
Light bulb sales are the very definition of commerce.
Immigration is not an invasion, not without torturing the words into what you want them to say.
Therefore, the light bulb ban is more constitutional than kicking out "illegal" immigrants.


Actually they congress only has a right to regulate interstate commerce. If you built a lightbulb factory in Texas and sold lightbulbs to Texans congress really has not right to regulate that. And technically congress doesn't have the right to regulate your sale of lightbulbs to other states either. Originally regulating interstate commerce simply meant the instrumentalities of commerce. In other words the interstate commerce clause was designed to prevent one state from keeping another state's goods out by saying "You have to pay a tariff to bring that wheat across the border." It was Franklin Delanor Roosevelt who turned the interstate commerce clause on its head by bullying the Supreme Court.

[fisharmor]

Actually they congress only has a right to regulate interstate commerce. If you built a lightbulb factory in Texas and sold lightbulbs to Texans congress really has not right to regulate that. And technically congress doesn't have the right to regulate your sale of lightbulbs to other states either. Originally regulating interstate commerce simply meant the instrumentalities of commerce. In other words the interstate commerce clause was designed to prevent one state from keeping another state's goods out by saying "You have to pay a tariff to bring that wheat across the border." It was Franklin Delanor Roosevelt who turned the interstate commerce clause on its head by bullying the Supreme Court.

I know that... my point is that if we're twisting the words around, we need to sleep in the bed we made when people come and smack us with "general welfare", or redefine the word "among".
Like you, I think it's apparent that the constitution is defining the limits on federal power.
When we read things into the text that aren't there on the surface, we're turning it on its head and using it to expand federal power.
It makes no difference to me whether that expansion involves banning light bulbs or kicking people out.
Both are wrong.

[spladle]

Yes. Globalists institutions like the U.N. are so great at preventing rape and murder...except for when it's U.N. soldiers doing it.

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=UN+soldiers+rape

There certainly are drawbacks to the border fence as Ron Paul accurately pointed out. But globalism is not the answer to our problems.

I confess that I fail to see how this is relevant to what I said. Opposition to globalism ought not imply opposition to positions supported by globalists (such as myself) solely because they are supported by globalists. This is true regardless of what you replace "globalism" with. Try it.

Opposition to [X] ought not imply opposition to positions supported by [X]ists solely because they are supported by [X]ists.

Very simple and obvious imo.

Also, this is kind of tangential but globalism and the UN are different things. It is possible to support one and not the other (as I do). Consider the following analogy - we each support Ron Paul, who is a Republican, therefore we each support the Republican Party and those actions associated with it. See the disconnect?

Globalism is "the attitude or policy of placing the interests of the entire world above those of individual nations."

[AGRP]

Look at 2:20 in this Stossel video to view how people get around the fences:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WA-ZJFmpZ0

With the welfare state we have, I am sympathetic to people who want to keep illegals out (terrorists too), but building a fence seems to be about as effective as prohibition of alcohol

All of those arguments never swayed me and I remember watching that exact video when I held my pro-fence/militarized fence position. I always thought that it doesn't matter because we need to "protect our nation and people." I actually held contempt for the video, stossel, reason, and drew because I thought they were somehow working for contractors or the state because they wanted the labor (which could still be true).

But, I never thought nor did anyone inform me what that supposed protection would bring if I got my way: It would bring the military industrial complex and a police state to our front and back door. What liberties we have left would be gone in no time. Hell, the BP has already extended their "papers please" operations several hundred miles beyond the border.

[AFPVet]

All we need is an all volunteer Minutemen corp made up of retired folks with an annual on duty rotation. Vacation on the border. Good fun, excitement and more.:)

TMike

Something like this has been occurring for awhile now. Of course, we don't actually hear about what is going on down there....

[affa]

I am perfectly okay with people coming here from anywhere. We used to be proud of that fact. In fact, it used to define us as a nation.

It's sad to me that now all of that has been turned on it's head, and what was once a source of pride has become a source of hate.

Oddly, there's also been a long history of hating the newest immigrant. My mick heritage knows all about that. Heck, we wouldn't have nearly enough derogatory terms if we didn't allow immigration. But hey, we'd all be more American right?

And I realize there is some level of distinction between legal and illegal immigration, but to be honest, I just don't see it. The only alternative to allowing people to cross the Mexico and Canadian borders are... well, walls. And armed guards. And laser beams. And endless expenditure. And I'm not okay with that, whatsoever. So to me, it's pretty much a given that people will cross the border (even with a wall, it just turns more corrupt). So, given that point, it's all about how we integrate them. Do we create a forced underclass of non-citizens? Do we give them a path to citizenship? Kick them out? The only one there that has any appeal to me whatsoever is giving them a path. That seems the most honorable, and decent option.

If they commit crimes, well, we already have laws in place for that.

Regardless, it's not an invasion unless, as another poster posted, you twist words and meanings to your liking. These are individuals, not a nation state.

A better solution? End the freakin' drug war. That will reduce crime, and really hurt the drug cartels.

But a border fence? Yea. Let me out, first. It's amazing how many people want to live in a nice little police state with their dog, 3.5 kids, and a white picket fence with uniformed officers patrolling it.

But hey... if we do build one, at least in 50 or 100 years the world will celebrate when it comes down.