"My Son is Dead Because the Concept of Borders Is Dead"

[William Tell]

EXCLUSIVE: My Son is Dead Because the Concept of Borders Is Deadhttp://media.breitbart.com/media/2015/02/IMG_3250-640x435.jpeg

HOUSTON, Texas – A grieving Texas father told Breitbart Texas, “my son is dead because the concept of borders is dead.” Spencer Golvach was senselessly murdered by an illegal alien who had been deported a number of times after being convicted of committing crimes, including as law enforcement officers now tell us, crimes of violence. Golvach was shot in the head on January 31st while sitting in his car waiting for a stoplight to change. Golvach’s father said he wants the “boomerang” of deportation and illegal reentry into the country to be stopped.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5e9QnpONso

Victor Manuel Reyes was a violent man who on the night of Golvach’s execution, went on a killing spree through the streets in Harris County. He killed two men, including 28-year-old Juan Garcia. Then he shot at another couple before he was shot to death by a Harris County deputy.

Mr. Golvach recounted the tragic events of his son’s death. “My son, Spencer, pulled up to a stoplight … A Victor Manuel Reyes, an illegal alien, pulls up next to him, pulls his gun out, rolled his window down and blew my son’s brains out.”

Golvach said he “understands that not all of those who enter here illegally are bad, but the current system does not allow us to check. This leaves Americans vulnerable, as we see with my son.”

The grief-stricken father told Breitbart Texas “this has to do with foreign intruders into our country. We are not … filtering out …we simply do not know who is coming in.” Mr. Golvach distinguished the criminal illegal alien from migrant workers. He said there needs to be laws that deter illegal aliens from reentering who have been deported after criminal convictions.

In his exclusive video interview with Breitbart Texas, Golvach’s question to politicians who talk tough about illegal immigration is -“what filter do we have, what mechanism can we have to filter out the good from the bad, and how does that work with this ‘do drop-in, come one, come all, it does not matter who you are,’ border policy that we have?”


http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/02/23/exclusive-my-son-is-dead-because-the-concept-of-borders-is-dead

[fisharmor]

Standing on your dead son's casket to make a political point.
Real classy, guy.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Diversity enriches yet another life.

[AuH20]

If the government didn't take our right to self-defense away, we wouldn't be so dependent on border security and immigration control.

[TheTexan]

Ya, all them illegal immegrants can get out... they shod go through the process legally, like we Americans did

[Danke]

Standing on your dead son's casket to make a political point.
Real classy, guy.

Isn't it all political?

Say my son is murdered at school and he didn't have the right to carry there. And I lobby for unrestricted carry, etc.

[AuH20]

Diversity enriches yet another life.

Third world pieces of garbage get to act with impunity in this country. And you aren't allowed to touch them. I don't think this is even about the average immigrant who probably minds their own business and goes about their daily activities without harming anyone.

[William Tell]

Diversity enriches yet another life.

Won't it be great once the NAU is finalized! Its gonna be ponies and candy rainbows for everyone!

[Zippyjuan]

Ya, all them illegal immegrants can get out... they shod go through the process legally, like we Americans did

How are you going to separate them and send them home? Have police stop and ID everybody on the streets and at work until all ten million are gone? Gonna need a lot bigger police force! Checkpoints every few miles? Maybe some sort of National ID cards too to tell "us" from "them". How much freedom are we willing to give up to solve the problem? Papers please!

[AuH20]

How are you going to separate them and send them home? Have police stop and ID everybody on the streets and at work until all ten million are gone? Gonna need a lot bigger police force! Checkpoints every few miles? Maybe some sort of National ID cards too to tell "us" from "them". How much freedom are we willing to give up to solve the problem? Papers please!

You don't have to deport them all. No need to you. The ones who are arrested multiple times get the boot. This isn't rocket science.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Standing on your dead son's casket to make a political point.
Real classy, guy.
It is an indisputable fact that if we were controlling our borders effectively and deporting the hordes of illegal invaders, this kid would be alive. I'd be pretty pissed too if I lost someone close to me because some deranged third worlder hopped a border and decided to go cracker hunting.

What's three dead people when weighed against "teh riet uv travul!!111!!!" though? How many cultures have to be destroyed, how many have to die on the altar of open borders before libertarians get tired of being useful idiots for globalists?

[TheTexan]

How are you going to separate them and send them home? Have police stop and ID everybody on the streets and at work until all ten million are gone? Gonna need a lot bigger police force! Checkpoints every few miles? Maybe some sort of National ID cards too to tell "us" from "them". How much freedom are we willing to give up to solve the problem? Papers please!

You can tell by lookin at em, or just by talkin to em cus they dont know simpel english.. it aint rocket sciense

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

How are you going to separate them and send them home? Have police stop and ID everybody on the streets and at work until all ten million are gone? Gonna need a lot bigger police force! Checkpoints every few miles? Maybe some sort of National ID cards too to tell "us" from "them". How much freedom are we willing to give up to solve the problem? Papers please!
Do what Eisenhower did on a larger scale. The immigration and border problems could be solved quite rapidly if the government was willing to do what's been proven to work. The lack of border control and deportations isn't because it can't be done, it's because the globalists don't want it done. It's an issue of political will, not logistics.

[Danke]

How are you going to separate them and send them home? Have police stop and ID everybody on the streets and at work until all ten million are gone? Gonna need a lot bigger police force! Checkpoints every few miles? Maybe some sort of National ID cards too to tell "us" from "them". How much freedom are we willing to give up to solve the problem? Papers please!

A repeat offender and a felon. Hello?!?!

[AuH20]

It is an indisputable fact that if we were controlling our borders effectively and deporting the hordes of illegal invaders, this kid would be alive. I'd be pretty pissed too if I lost someone close to me because some deranged third worlder hopped a border and decided to go cracker hunting.

What's three dead people when weighed against "teh riet uv travul!!111!!!" though? How many cultures have to be destroyed, how many have to die on the altar of open borders before libertarians get tired of being useful idiots for globalists?

Your right to travel expires when you assault me. I think that's the paramount issue. They have disarmed the American people to such a degree that they are dependent on corrupt organizations to ascertain who is a threat and who isn't. Yet another person dies needlessly for a political agenda.

[AuH20]

Do what Eisenhower did on a larger scale. The immigration and border problems could be solved quite rapidly if the government was willing to do what's been proven to work. The lack of border control and deportations isn't because it can't be done, it's because the globalists don't want it done. It's an issue of political will, not logistics.

Forget about Eisenhower. Just filter out the repeat offenders of violent crimes. No questions asked.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

A repeat offender and a felon. Hello?!?!
Nah, it's worth keeping animals like this in the country. American prisons are far too underpopulated for my liking. Also diversity qua diversity is an inherent good, so this guy's continued residence in the US makes our society better!

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Forget about Eisenhower. Just filter out the repeat offenders of violent crimes. No questions asked.
I completely agree with that, but he was specifically asking about the ten million. We can get rid of them, it's complete nonsense to say we can't.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Your right to travel expires when you assault me. I think that's the paramount issue. They have disarmed the American people to such a degree that they are dependent on corrupt organizations to ascertain who is a threat and who isn't. Yet another person dies needlessly for a political agenda.
I don't generally argue from "rights", but a "right to travel" has always struck me as absurd. It's a positive right, not a negative. Moreover, in a democracy having a "right of travel" means illegals are able to force themselves (or at least their children) into a political union with the native population.

Immigration and cultural issues are two of the biggest blindspots libertarians have.

[AuH20]

I don't generally argue from "rights", but a "right to travel" has always struck me as absurd. It's a positive right, not a negative. Moreover, in a democracy having a "right of travel" means illegals are able to force themselves (or at least their children) into a political union with the native population.

Immigration and cultural issues are two of the biggest blindspots libertarians have.

Right to travel is dependent on the wishes of the property owners. If a plurality of property owners in a given territory object, then you know the answer.

[Danke]

I don't generally argue from "rights", but a "right to travel" has always struck me as absurd. It's a positive right, not a negative. Moreover, in a democracy having a "right of travel" means illegals are able to force themselves (or at least their children) into a political union with the native population.

Immigration and cultural issues are two of the biggest blindspots libertarians have.


Once you are inside our borders you should absolutely have the right to travel freely.

But anyone or town etc. should have the right to be armed. If a stranger shows up, keep an eye on him.

[P3ter_Griffin]

How are you going to separate them and send them home? Have police stop and ID everybody on the streets and at work until all ten million are gone? Gonna need a lot bigger police force! Checkpoints every few miles? Maybe some sort of National ID cards too to tell "us" from "them". How much freedom are we willing to give up to solve the problem? Papers please!

good to see that, when it furthers your purpose, you still remember what freedom is. Way to skip the hook and go straight for the bobber though.

[P3ter_Griffin]

Shit happens. It sucks but what are you going to do, lock everyone in cages?

[phill4paul]

I thought this would be a thread about someone from Syria. Or Libya. Or Iraq. Or............

Yes, the concept of borders died awhile ago.

[Pericles]

Shit happens. It sucks but what are you going to do, lock everyone in cages?

Control the border. using some numbers in Texas as an example. The state of Texas (taxpayers) pays between $8000 and $10000 per year for each student in public schools. Thus each student has $120,000 "invested" in him in liberal terms. Suppose the kid is an illegal, which is going to limit his job prospects, and just to be generous, works for $50 a day, for 50 years - an income of $600,000 in a work lifetime. Suppose the entire income is spent on sales taxable items, (best case) at a 9% tax rate, the return is $54,000 to the taxpayer. Of course this was the best case. Use oif medical or other things such as EBT cards makes the loss even more severe.

There are citizens, who make less than $24,000 per year, so it is no wonder that the country is going to crater.

The labor supply needs to be restricted to increase wages, or higher wage jobs need to be created. Neither tends to happen with an over supply of labor.

[fisharmor]

I don't generally argue from "rights", but a "right to travel" has always struck me as absurd. It's a positive right, not a negative. Moreover, in a democracy having a "right of travel" means illegals are able to force themselves (or at least their children) into a political union with the native population.

Immigration and cultural issues are two of the biggest blindspots libertarians have.

I can tell you never argue from rights because you have no idea what a right is.

The only reason - literally, the only reason - to control who is and is not allowed to be in a particular area is literally to create groups of people whose inherent rights you do not intend to respect.

[brushfire]

Quit incentivizing illegal immigration and it will stop. Many of the issues we have today stem from allowing government to incentivize undesirable behavior.

Unfortunately, the 1/2 of the government that doesnt believe in employee exploitation does believe in political exploitation.

The welfare state simply cannot coexist with open boarders.

[pcosmar]

Shit happens. It sucks but what are you going to do, lock everyone in cages?

If we were to stop locking up our population for NON crimes.. there would be space for those few that really need to be caged.

If the US population was armed and trained (well regulated) in the use of arms. There would be NO repeat offenders. they would be caged or eliminated.

Prisons for Profits do not work for anything but lining the pockets of those involved. They increase crime. (it is profitable)
Prison should be expensive and local.. and used only when necessary.

[fr33]

The concept of borders is dead? I've got news for you. The US goes way too far in enforcing borders. Surely you've seen the ridiculous check points for citizenship many many miles away from the border.

I wish the concept of borders was dead.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

I can tell you never argue from rights because you have no idea what a right is.

The only reason - literally, the only reason - to control who is and is not allowed to be in a particular area is literally to create groups of people whose inherent rights you do not intend to respect.
I know there's all sorts of modern-mysticism around it, but in reality, a "right" is something an individual or group of individuals can do without being interfered with. "Inherent rights" do not exist.

Your claim is just absurd. The reason you control who can and can't enter an area is to make sure you aren't forced into a social and political union with every schmuck who decides to wander in to said geographic area. If you think that's a good idea, do you advocate that property owners let anyone on their property, regardless of who it is? Are property owners who don't want to let everyone on their property trying to "create groups of people whose inherent rights [they] do not intend to respect"?

Or is it only the state that can't be discriminatory? I know that many libertarians take this view, but if the state exists (which I would prefer it didn't, but we live in the world that is, not the one we want) it should absolutely discriminate who does and doesn't get let in. In a democracy, who the state lets in has a direct effect on the government. Are you saying that flooding a democracy with third worlders with loyalty to a different country will have a negligable effect on said democracy? Fundamentally, that's what open border advocates have to argue in order to hold their absurd counter-factual positions.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Right to travel is dependent on the wishes of the property owners. If a plurality of property owners in a given territory object, then you know the answer.
Sure, but if it's something that can be granted and - by extension - taken away by property owners, it's hardly an "inalienable right", is it?

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

The concept of borders is dead? I've got news for you. The US goes way too far in enforcing borders. Surely you've seen the ridiculous check points for citizenship many many miles away from the border.

I wish the concept of borders was dead.
The state may do all sorts of awful shit in the name of border control (among numerous other things), but that does not therefore mean that the border is being effectively policed. Whether or not the border is being controlled efficiently and effectively is an empirical claim, and by all measures you can name, there is no border control to speak of.

Libertarians need to get out of their philosophical and economic ivory towers, and start looking at what open immigration and a totally unsecured border does to democracies. Open borders are one of the many things being pushed for by globalist elites, and they've recently realized that libertarians can be pawns in this particular issue. If you want to see the last scraps of negative liberty further, continue to advocate for open border internationalism like a good globalist, but don't do it in the name of anyone who actually gives a damn about maintaining liberty.

[TheTexan]

The state may do all sorts of awful shit in the name of border control (among numerous other things), but that does not therefore mean that the border is being effectively policed. Whether or not the border is being controlled efficiently and effectively is an empirical claim, and by all measures you can name, there is no border control to speak of.

Libertarians need to get out of their philosophical and economic ivory towers, and start looking at what open immigration and a totally unsecured border does to democracies. Open borders are one of the many things being pushed for by globalist elites, and they've recently realized that libertarians can be pawns in this particular issue. If you want to see the last scraps of negative liberty further, continue to advocate for open border internationalism like a good globalist, but don't do it in the name of anyone who actually gives a damn about maintaining liberty.

What we should really do is build a 30ft wall and then place a shitload of land mines on the other side of the wall, and also dig explosives into the ground in case they tunnel. And extend the wall into the ocean so that we control our oceanic borders as well. And have AA missiles to automatically strike unidentified aircraft crossing our borders.

This way noone crosses without strict approval from our government.

[presence]

Say my son is murdered at school and he didn't have the right to carry there.


Not being permitted to carry never means you don't have the right and duty to anyway.

[AuH20]

Sure, but if it's something that can be granted and - by extension - taken away by property owners, it's hardly an "inalienable right", is it?

No, of course not. Even Mises and Rothbard arrived at the same non-race based conclusion:

Murray Rothbard

"However, on rethinking immigration on the basis of the anarcho-capitalist model, it became clear to me that a totally privatized country would not have “open borders” at all. If every piece of land in a country were owned by some person, group or corporation, this would mean that no immigrant could enter unless invited to enter and allowed to rent or purchase property. A totally privatized country would be as closed as the particular inhabitants and property owners desire. It seems clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the U.S. really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors .


Ludwig von Mises.

“These considerations are not a plea for opening America and the British Dominions to German, Italian, and Japanese immigrants. Under present conditions America and Australia would simply commit suicide by admitting Nazis, Fascists, and Japanese. They could as well directly surrender to the Führer and to the Mikado. Immigrants from the totalitarian countries are today the vanguard of their armies, a fifth column whose invasion would render all measures of defense useless. America and Australia can preserve their freedom, their civilizations, and their economic institutions only by rigidly barring access to the subjects of the dictators. But these conditions are the outcome of statism. In the liberal past the immigrants came not as pacemakers of conquest but as loyal citizens of their new country.”

[paleocon1]

You don't have to deport them all. No need to you. The ones who are arrested multiple times get the boot. This isn't rocket science.

ALL who come here outside USA Law are criminals and need to be deported along with their anchor babies.

[staerker]

ALL who come here outside USA Law are criminals and need to be deported along with their anchor babies.

You still look to "USA Law" for moral direction? Completely laughable.

[AuH20]

ALL who come here outside USA Law are criminals and need to be deported along with their anchor babies.

Are you also willing to arrest & penalize the board of directors of some major corporations? This isn't as simple as kicking them out. The problem is far more entrenched.

[Cabal]

I know there's all sorts of modern-mysticism around it, but in reality, a "right" is something an individual or group of individuals can do without being interfered with. "Inherent rights" do not exist.

Rights are moral claims. Rights indicate that which ought not be interfered with, not that it is impossible to interfere, only that is impossible to rightfully interfere.


Your claim is just absurd. The reason you control who can and can't enter an area is to make sure you aren't forced into a social and political union with every schmuck who decides to wander in to said geographic area. If you think that's a good idea, do you advocate that property owners let anyone on their property, regardless of who it is? Are property owners who don't want to let everyone on their property trying to "create groups of people whose inherent rights [they] do not intend to respect"?

Controlling entry to your property is fine, so long as you're only talking about your own property. But this isn't the issue when it comes to the subject of immigration. The subject of immigration, rather, involves an illegitimate claim to land boundaries by a State, restricting free travel, and forcing certain standards onto other property owners. Property owners should be able to let anyone they want onto their own property, or alternatively restrict whoever they want from entering their property. But when you begin regarding State land boundaries as if they were legitimate, and when you begin to impose your standards onto others by way of force, and when you promote restricting free travel, you're no longer advocating a position concerned with liberty.

[Brett85]

We need to bring our troops home from overseas and use them to secure our borders now, both our southern and northern borders. If groups like ISIS are truly a threat to U.S national security, the first thing we should do is secure our borders. The people who want to spend trillions fighting them with ground troops all over the world are the same people who desire to keep our borders open here at home.

[Zippyjuan]

The state may do all sorts of awful shit in the name of border control (among numerous other things), but that does not therefore mean that the border is being effectively policed. Whether or not the border is being controlled efficiently and effectively is an empirical claim, and by all measures you can name, there is no border control to speak of.

Libertarians need to get out of their philosophical and economic ivory towers, and start looking at what open immigration and a totally unsecured border does to democracies. Open borders are one of the many things being pushed for by globalist elites, and they've recently realized that libertarians can be pawns in this particular issue. If you want to see the last scraps of negative liberty further, continue to advocate for open border internationalism like a good globalist, but don't do it in the name of anyone who actually gives a damn about maintaining liberty.

The border isn't unsecured. We are actually spending more than twice to secure it than we did when Obama took office. Another thing to consider is that about half of those here illegally didn't sneak across the border. They came here legally- on tourist visas, work visas, student visas, and stayed after they expired. A 100% secure border (which is a myth anyways- you can never have one no matter how much money you want to spend) is impossible.

I would also like to add that the influx of illegal aliens stopped about 2007. There are actually fewer illegal aliens in the country today then there were back then.

[kcchiefs6465]

It is an indisputable fact that if we were controlling our borders effectively and deporting the hordes of illegal invaders, this kid would be alive. I'd be pretty pissed too if I lost someone close to me because some deranged third worlder hopped a border and decided to go cracker hunting.

What's three dead people when weighed against "teh riet uv travul!!111!!!" though? How many cultures have to be destroyed, how many have to die on the altar of open borders before libertarians get tired of being useful idiots for globalists?
Lol.

[kcchiefs6465]

We need to bring our troops home from overseas and use them to secure our borders now, both our southern and northern borders. If groups like ISIS are truly a threat to U.S national security, the first thing we should do is secure our borders. The people who want to spend trillions fighting them with ground troops all over the world are the same people who desire to keep our borders open here at home.
This here is why we cannot have nice things.

You are a conservative, yes? What is conservative about an open ended, impossible, freedom limiting, welfare plan? You see I find myself in agreement a lot when conservatives say things like, "Well, illegal immigrants shouldn't be allowed to vote or collect welfare." Well, no one should, so that's pretty cut and dry. But it seems that right after arguing that correct, moral, logical, and reasonable position they then start with the avocation of a welfare program to build a wall, for instance. Or an even bigger welfare program to pay tens of thousands of soldiers to be stationed along the border. Now it might be wise to actually notice the wordage being used. These would be soldiers, stationed, along the border. Now perhaps you are unaware of what many of these soldier's daily tasks are, say, in Iraq or Afghanistan, or perhaps irony knows no bounds. In any case, you are speaking of bringing soldiers, stationing them in the towns where people try to live, and within the confines of a Constitution free zone.

I think we've discussed this before but what on earth would make that appear to be a good idea?

[alucard13mm]

There is nothing wrong with having borders and making sure it is secure.. It is like putting up fencing around your house and having a big dog on the premises.

Okay, okay. MAYBE people can come and go as they want.. however, when they start asking for citizenship and what not, then we have a problem.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

There is nothing wrong with having borders and making sure it is secure.. It is like putting up fencing around your house and having a big dog on the premises.

No, it's not the same. When you put up fencing, it's on YOUR property. I'm pretty sure you're not going to put a fence around your entire block and then force your neighbors to pay for the cost.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

The border isn't unsecured. We are actually spending more than twice to secure it than we did when Obama took office. Another thing to consider is that about half of those here illegally didn't sneak across the border. They came here legally- on tourist visas, work visas, student visas, and stayed after they expired. A 100% secure border (which is a myth anyways- you can never have one no matter how much money you want to spend) is impossible.

I would also like to add that the influx of illegal aliens stopped about 2007. There are actually fewer illegal aliens in the country today then there were back then.
The influx stopped in 2007? Where is the evidence for this? I'm sure the influx has slowed down for a variety of reasons, but stopped? That burden of proof is on you. The fact that more is being spent on "securing the border" doesn't mean that things are actually being done effectively. I know you're this sites resident proglodyte, but surely even you must know that government spending=/=effective policy. If the state were dealing with illegal immigration effectively, they'd be reintroducing the policies that worked so effectively under Eisenhower in the 1950s and early 60s.

The one thing you're right about is the whole worker visa thing; much illegal immigration does indeed come from lax policing of work visas, which is why the Cathedral-conservatives are so backward on immigration. The usual GOP PC line that "I don't care about immigration as long as it's legal. The entire population of Mexico could come here legally and I wouldn't care" is utter nonsense. There are massive problems throughout the immigration system, both legal and illegal.

[Southron]

We sure believe in the borders of Ukraine but apparently not Texas.

[fr33]

Libertarians need to get out of their philosophical and economic ivory towers, and start looking at what open immigration and a totally unsecured border does to democracies. Open borders are one of the many things being pushed for by globalist elites, and they've recently realized that libertarians can be pawns in this particular issue. If you want to see the last scraps of negative liberty further, continue to advocate for open border internationalism like a good globalist, but don't do it in the name of anyone who actually gives a damn about maintaining liberty.

I'm not in an ivory tower. Far from it. It's not philosophical or theoretical. I'm wading through cow shit and I want to hire illegal immigrants to do some of it for me. I could care less about maintaining a democracy. This democracy has made sure that it's citizens feel that they are above doing my job. They want to sit on their ass and have someone else produce their food.

[Origanalist]

Standing on your dead son's casket to make a political point.
Real classy, guy.

Or he could just be a grieving father who doesn't understand why his kid had to die.

[Southron]

Or he could just be a grieving father who doesn't understand why his kid had to die.

His kid had to die for the cheap labor and political power unfettered immigration brings.

[William Tell]

Standing on your dead son's casket to make a political point.
Real classy, guy.

Why do I think you wouldn't have a problem with a father using his son's death to make a political point, if his point was something you agreed with, say anti war?
Would you have a problem with the father of a victim of police abuse speaking out against police?

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

I'm not in an ivory tower. Far from it. It's not philosophical or theoretical. I'm wading through cow shit and I want to hire illegal immigrants to do some of it for me. I could care less about maintaining a democracy. This democracy has made sure that it's citizens feel that they are above doing my job. They want to sit on their ass and have someone else produce their food.
I don't care about "maintaining a democracy"; I vastly prefer monarchy (among others), and democracy is one of the worst political systems there is. What I'm talking about is the deleterious effects that open borders, anchor babies and a flood of third worlders with alien cultures have on democracies. Indeed, such things would have negative effects on any society, but not as much as a democracy where "political freedom" is fetishized over personal and economic liberty.

Moreover, aliens (legal or illegal) are not the statistical majority of any workforce. The statistics I saw a few years ago, said at the most, they constituted less than a quarter of certain industries' The idea that Americans are "too lazy" to do certain jobs is just nonsense, not backed by any empirical reality.

[P3ter_Griffin]

The influx stopped in 2007? Where is the evidence for this? I'm sure the influx has slowed down for a variety of reasons, but stopped? That burden of proof is on you. The fact that more is being spent on "securing the border" doesn't mean that things are actually being done effectively. I know you're this sites resident proglodyte, but surely even you must know that government spending=/=effective policy. If the state were dealing with illegal immigration effectively, they'd be reintroducing the policies that worked so effectively under Eisenhower in the 1950s and early 60s.

The one thing you're right about is the whole worker visa thing; much illegal immigration does indeed come from lax policing of work visas, which is why the Cathedral-conservatives are so backward on immigration. The usual GOP PC line that "I don't care about immigration as long as it's legal. The entire population of Mexico could come here legally and I wouldn't care" is utter nonsense. There are massive problems throughout the immigration system, both legal and illegal.

The burden of proof is on the individual stating that we don't need the government policies you advocate for? So paleolibertarians are lazy democrats or what?

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

The burden of proof is on the individual stating that we don't need the government policies you advocate for? So paleolibertarians are lazy democrats or what?
WTF are you talking about? The burden of proof of any claim is on the person making that claim. He claimed that the influx of illegal immigrants has stopped. I seriously doubt that the situation in Mexico has improved or the situation in the US has deteriorated to the point where there is no net illegal immigration. That burden is on him. I don't know how what I said could be interpreted any other way.

As for any burden that may rest on me, it's very clear what an influx of third worlders from Central and South America will have on the US. Look at whether Latinos in the US want more or less government (hint: they want more), look at their voting records, look at what their lobbies want and look at what groups like La Raza agitate for. That's to say nothing of border eradication serving the globalist agenda. Why are open-border libertarians so ok with serving the ravenous desires of global elites?

The quip about "lazy democrats" is just ridiculous. Yeah, democrats are such anti-globalist, anti-immigration activists :rolleyes: All people who oppose the state want the government to take care of certain things while it still exists. I'm no exception and neither is any ancap on this forum.

[kcchiefs6465]

I don't care about "maintaining a democracy"; I vastly prefer monarchy (among others), and democracy is one of the worst political systems there is. What I'm talking about is the deleterious effects that open borders, anchor babies and a flood of third worlders with alien cultures have on democracies. Indeed, such things would have negative effects on any society, but not as much as a democracy where "political freedom" is fetishized over personal and economic liberty.

Moreover, aliens (legal or illegal) are not the statistical majority of any workforce. The statistics I saw a few years ago, said at the most, they constituted less than a quarter of certain industries' The idea that Americans are "too lazy" to do certain jobs is just nonsense, not backed by any empirical reality.
I'm curious, did your statistics look into turnover?

I would imagine that after hiring, firing, and having quite a few simply not show back up for even something as simple as a drug screening, that some saw greener pastures.

Right or wrong, contracts are contracts. And one super-duper, implied, 'contract' does not, or ought not, trump personal freedom.

[P3ter_Griffin]

Control the border. using some numbers in Texas as an example. The state of Texas (taxpayers) pays between $8000 and $10000 per year for each student in public schools. Thus each student has $120,000 "invested" in him in liberal terms. Suppose the kid is an illegal, which is going to limit his job prospects, and just to be generous, works for $50 a day, for 50 years - an income of $600,000 in a work lifetime. Suppose the entire income is spent on sales taxable items, (best case) at a 9% tax rate, the return is $54,000 to the taxpayer. Of course this was the best case. Use oif medical or other things such as EBT cards makes the loss even more severe.

There are citizens, who make less than $24,000 per year, so it is no wonder that the country is going to crater.

The labor supply needs to be restricted to increase wages, or higher wage jobs need to be created. Neither tends to happen with an over supply of labor.

That is some sick stuff. The reason for freedom is freedom, not some desired result.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

I'm curious, did your statistics look into turnover?

I would imagine that after hiring, firing, and having quite a few simply not show back up for even something as simple as a drug screening, that some saw greener pastures.

Right or wrong, contracts are contracts. And one super-duper, implied, 'contract' does not, or ought not, trump personal freedom.
They're not "my statistics". It's been a while since I looked at them in-depth, so I'll have to get back to you on that. As I recall, turnover was a part of it, but I might be wrong.

That's the thing though; if the influx of illegals only affected property owners who had contracts with them as workers, I would have much less of a problem with it. The problem is that those private contracts between boss and illegal worker force everyone else into a political union with said illegals. The root problem is how awful democracy is, but the immediately fixable problem is immigration policy.

[kcchiefs6465]

WTF are you talking about? The burden of proof of any claim is on the person making that claim. He claimed that the influx of illegal immigrants has stopped. I seriously doubt that the situation in Mexico has improved or the situation in the US has deteriorated to the point where there is no net illegal immigration. That burden is on him. I don't know how what I said could be interpreted any other way.

As for any burden that may rest on me, it's very clear what an influx of third worlders from Central and South America will have on the US. Look at whether Latinos in the US want more or less government (hint: they want more), look at their voting records, look at what their lobbies want and look at what groups like La Raza agitate for. That's to say nothing of border eradication serving the globalist agenda. Why are open-border libertarians so ok with serving the ravenous desires of global elites?

The quip about "lazy democrats" is just ridiculous. Yeah, democrats are such anti-globalist, anti-immigration activists :rolleyes: All people who oppose the state want the government to take care of certain things while it still exists. I'm no exception and neither is any ancap on this forum.
I don't, and the quicker the better.

From above:

Why are open-border libertarians so ok with serving the ravenous desires of global elites?
As if the global elites, you know, the major shareholders and/or often even the people in charge of these various corporations aren't already doing what they're doing.

Which corporation do you think will build that wall? Which corporation do you think will supply the guards?

ETA: And furthermore, who owns/controls said corporations?

[kcchiefs6465]

They're not "my statistics". It's been a while since I looked at them in-depth, so I'll have to get back to you on that. As I recall, turnover was a part of it, but I might be wrong.
Please do.



That's the thing though; if the influx of illegals only affected property owners who had contracts with them as workers, I would have much less of a problem with it.
What would be the problem at all, then?



The problem is that those private contracts between boss and illegal worker force everyone else into a political union with said illegals. The root problem is how awful democracy is, but the immediately fixable problem is immigration policy.
What do you mean by "political union"?

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

I don't, and the quicker the better.
Really? You mean you don't want property protected or contracts enforced by law? Good to know.

I know that ideally non-state actors would take care of that, but we live in reality, and in reality the state is a metastasizing cancer feeding off the last scraps of a robust market system. Open borders is one of the (many) reasons for this.



As if the global elites, you know, the major shareholders and/or often even the people in charge of these various corporations aren't already doing what they're doing.
Of course they are, but libertarians should stop nodding along and being okay with it, all the while still pretending to be their opposition. In this area at least, you aren't.

Any movement that is not properly right wing will inevitably become leftist. Libertarians nodding along and giving cover to the open-border globalists is a very good example of that very process at work.


Which corporation do you think will build that wall? Which corporation do you think will supply the guards?
Do you mean in a theoretical ancap society or in this one?

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

What would be the problem at all, then?
The effect that a mass influx of third worlders would have on the culture and the average IQ of the population.



What do you mean by "political union"?
Exactly what it says. Politicians look at illegals and see millions of potential votes if they can just legalize them. Why do you think the immigration debate has such little difference in the various positions being held? No matter who it is in the conversation, every mainstream political player has embraced the narrative that "we can't send the ten million back" which is a complete lie. There is no truly right wing position being espoused by anyone in the upper echelons of politics. Where are the politicians saying we should use Eisenhower's very effective methods to get rid of the illegal hordes? Where are the statesman wanting to create incentives to hire the native population or disincentives to hire illegals? There aren't any, not with any actual political pull at least.

[P3ter_Griffin]

WTF are you talking about? The burden of proof of any claim is on the person making that claim. He claimed that the influx of illegal immigrants has stopped. I seriously doubt that the situation in Mexico has improved or the situation in the US has deteriorated to the point where there is no net illegal immigration. That burden is on him. I don't know how what I said could be interpreted any other way.

As for any burden that may rest on me, it's very clear what an influx of third worlders from Central and South America will have on the US. Look at whether Latinos in the US want more or less government (hint: they want more), look at their voting records, look at what their lobbies want and look at what groups like La Raza agitate for. That's to say nothing of border eradication serving the globalist agenda. Why are open-border libertarians so ok with serving the ravenous desires of global elites?

The quip about "lazy democrats" is just ridiculous. Yeah, democrats are such anti-globalist, anti-immigration activists :rolleyes: All people who oppose the state want the government to take care of certain things while it still exists. I'm no exception and neither is any ancap on this forum.

First, the one saying 'the government must do this!!!!11!', is the one making the initial claim. I say 'we need to profile muslims' you say 'no we don't' and I say 'prove it'.

I cannot stand beside someone who says our government must clean up the mess it has made in the middle east by warring with the terrorist group of the day and likewise I cannot stand beside someone who says our government must clean up the mess it has made with the border by policing it. These are both steps away from liberty when there are obvious pro-liberty positions that spearhead the same issues. As the Hoppeians seem to realize, the government is most likely not going anywhere anytime soon, so what this 'scenario' really amounts to is the Liberty group working with the Hoppeians to advance government control over the borders. What Liberty is gained by this cooperation?

And 'certain things'. That is a good way to minimize what you advocate for. Some people maybe it is food stamps, some people maybe workplace regulations, very few are advocating for such an increase in government control.

[LibertyEagle]

It is an indisputable fact that if we were controlling our borders effectively and deporting the hordes of illegal invaders, this kid would be alive. I'd be pretty pissed too if I lost someone close to me because some deranged third worlder hopped a border and decided to go cracker hunting.

What's three dead people when weighed against "teh riet uv travul!!111!!!" though? How many cultures have to be destroyed, how many have to die on the altar of open borders before libertarians get tired of being useful idiots for globalists?

Thank God. Someone with a brain is still on this site.

[kcchiefs6465]

Really? You mean you don't want property protected or contracts enforced by law? Good to know.

I know that ideally non-state actors would take care of that, but we live in reality, and in reality the state is a metastasizing cancer feeding off the last scraps of a robust market system. Open borders is one of the (many) reasons for this.

Of course they are, but libertarians should stop nodding along and being okay with it, all the while still pretending to be their opposition. In this area at least, you aren't.

Any movement that is not properly right wing will inevitably become leftist. Libertarians nodding along and giving cover to the open-border globalists is a very good example of that very process at work.

Do you mean in a theoretical ancap society or in this one?
If we are to hurl claims like "leftist" I suppose I have a couple of my own. I would consider anyone calling for the impeding of people's rights (more often than not, simply on the basis of superficial attributes), who advocates for the welfare program in question, and who subscribes, quite obviously, to a philosophy of collectivism, a progressive. At the very least, a student of progressivism.

YOU are the helping hand of tyranny. What you advocate for not only is counterproductive economically, it is precedent for other policy. Policy which you may not even agree with.

You are speaking of the robbing of all to pay for agents along the border. Let me repeat that. You are advocating the theft from all to establish and maintain a welfare program the price of which probably trumping SNAP. I really am at a loss for words as to how so many miss this fact. The point would be no different than if one who advocated the government provide abortions turned around and insultingly called another a progressive.

I guess my question is: Where do you get the nerve?

And when you say "contracts enforced" I imagine you are not referring to actual contracts. You know, like Bob the Builder hiring a migrant worker to help him finish a project. No, you are referring to some unicorn of injustice. Where is this contract that you are specifically referencing? Far as I can see, said contract is obligatory of no one (that really pisses the Wilsonians off).

[jmdrake]

Here's a simple solution. We give hundreds of millions of aid to Mexico each year. Pass a law capping that aid at a certain amount. (600 million for example). Then each time an illegal alien is arrested for a felony, charge the amount it costs to process, house, feed and deport him back to Mexico against that amount. If it costs the U.S. 100 million to process felons then Mexico only gets 500 million that year, regardless of what else is happening. Also figure out how much it cost for illegal immigrants who receive welfare or who attend public schools or use any other U.S. taxpayer funded resources. Over time, as the state to state welfare dwindles to zero, the Mexican government will start cracking down on people attempting to leave Mexico illegally. And if that sounds too heartless, just stick with financial penalties against foreign aid to Mexico for the criminals. Oh, and I can't take credit for this idea. My ex wife (democrat) came up with it.

And this is where I got the 600 million dollar number from.

http://consultantsmind.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/foreign-aid-to-mexico.png?w=584

[jmdrake]

The influx stopped in 2007? Where is the evidence for this? I'm sure the influx has slowed down for a variety of reasons, but stopped? That burden of proof is on you.

According to Pew research.

http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2014/11/mexican-unauthorized.png

Now excuse me. I have to go put a gallon of hand sanitizer on. You forced me to back up Zippy.

The reason for the decline should be obvious. That's when the housing crisis kicked into high gear. A huge percentage of illegal immigrants who come to the U.S. are construction workers.

[erowe1]

It looks like the concept of borders is part of what killed his son. It's because of the concept of borders that this violent criminal was merely deported rather than being punished the way he would have been if he were a legal resident.

[erowe1]

How many cultures have to be destroyed, how many have to die on the altar of open borders before libertarians get tired of being useful idiots for globalists?

Explain this, please. How does immigration destroy cultures?

[AuH20]

Explain this, please. How does immigration destroy cultures?

Ask the Native Americans

[erowe1]

Ask the Native Americans

If anybody here actually believes that immigration destroys cultures, I'd like to see them try to explain how specifically.

Is the idea that if people get exposed to another culture, and by their own free choice adopt aspects of it, thus leaving behind the culture they used to exhibit prior to that, then that culture is destroyed? And so, in order to protect this abstraction of a culture that has no rights of its own, we have to inhibit people from the opportunity to choose to change?

[AuH20]

If anybody here actually believes that immigration destroys cultures, I'd like to see them try to explain how specifically.

Is the idea that if people get exposed to another culture, and by their own free choice adopt aspects of it, thus leaving behind the culture they used to exhibit prior to that, then that culture is destroyed? And so, in order to protect this abstraction of a culture that has no rights of its own, we have to inhibit people from the opportunity to choose to change?

Not in the case of forced integration and governmental supervision. There is nothing organic about the current push what we are currently dealing with. This is Fifth Column, Edward Bernays type brainwashing.

[LibertyEagle]

If anybody here actually believes that immigration destroys cultures, I'd like to see them try to explain how specifically.

Is the idea that if people get exposed to another culture, and by their own free choice adopt aspects of it, thus leaving behind the culture they used to exhibit prior to that, then that culture is destroyed? And so, in order to protect this abstraction of a culture that has no rights of its own, we have to inhibit people from the opportunity to choose to change?



What was likely to happen, according to Jefferson, was that immigrants would come to America from countries that would have given them no experience living in a free society. They would bring with them the ideas and principles of the governments they left behind –ideas and principles that were often at odds with American liberty.


http://humanevents.com/2007/07/20/founding-fathers-were-immigration-skeptics/

[AuH20]

For example., 'Hispanic' isn't even a genuine term grounded in reality. It's a political tool of intimidation.

http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc1101/article_910.shtml


the word “Hispanic” is devoid of meaning and legitimacy. It does not denote a racial, ethnic, linguistic, or cultural group. It is an artificial term created to maximize political power for extremist elements within the Spanish-speaking minority.

This law, which was endorsed by several “Hispanic” organizations including the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and La Raza, contained two significant elements: (1) the subject: “Americans of Spanish origin or descent,” and (2) the legal status: “American citizens.” Both qualifiers were soon dropped in an effort to maximize political influence by maximizing numeric size.

In 1977, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) adopted the shorter title of “Hispanic”… Since then, “Hispanic” is defined as “A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.” The new definition sought to further inflate the numerical size of the “Hispanic” community.

[TheTexan]

What was likely to happen, according to Jefferson, was that immigrants would come to America from countries that would have given them no experience living in a free society. They would bring with them the ideas and principles of the governments they left behind –ideas and principles that were often at odds with American liberty.

Yup. Immigrants just dont know how to handle all the freedom here, in America

[AuH20]

Yup. Immigrants just dont know how to handle all the freedom here, in America

I think that's irrelevant to the discussion. Experiences and environment typically shape cultural ideals.

[erowe1]

Not in the case of forced integration and governmental supervision. There is nothing organic about the current push what we are currently dealing with. This is Fifth Column, Edward Bernays type brainwashing.

Explain this, please.

Are you being forced to eat Mexican food that you don't want to eat or something?

[erowe1]

http://humanevents.com/2007/07/20/founding-fathers-were-immigration-skeptics/

So what? Are you going to be forced to change your beliefs because someone else who believes something different is allowed to get closer in proximity to you than you want them to?

[erowe1]

I think that's irrelevant to the discussion. Experiences and environment typically shape cultural ideals.

Again with this "culture" stuff.

How about you observe the culture you want, and let me do the same?

[AuH20]

Again with this "culture" stuff.

How about you observe the culture you want, and let me do the same?

Until they collectively utilize the government (offering them a consensus) to take my rights (case in point the 2nd amendment) away. Then it becomes personal. You are creating this fiction that our new wave of immigrants don't wield any political power through their cultural associations when it's completely the opposite.

[pcosmar]

Until they collectively utilize the government (offering them a consensus) to take my rights (case in point the 2nd amendment) away.
1934..

was this an issue in 1934? That is when the second amendment was attacked without so much as a whimper from the general population of Americans.
And again in 1968.. and several times since.. and it had nothing to do with "illegal aliens" or the 'Culture".

It had to do with socialism. (and authoritarianism). which has been the operating principle since the 1900s.

As much as I would like to see the Constitution restored.. the fact remains that no one alive today has ever lived in anything but a socialist culture. (except for those that still maintain a tribal culture)
It sucks.. but that is reality.

[erowe1]

Until they collectively utilize the government (offering them a consensus) to take my rights (case in point the 2nd amendment) away. Then it becomes personal. You are creating this fiction that our new wave of immigrants don't wield any political power through their cultural associations when it's completely the opposite.

What specific freedoms are we supposed to give up so you can tinker with voting demographics?

[William Tell]

Again with this "culture" stuff.

How about you observe the culture you want, and let me do the same?

Open borders has increased the welfare culture.

[AuH20]

1934..

was this an issue in 1934? That is when the second amendment was attacked without so much as a whimper from the general population of Americans.
And again in 1968.. and several times since.. and it had nothing to do with "illegal aliens" or the 'Culture".

It had to do with socialism.. which has been the operating principle since the 1900s.

As much as I would like to see the Constitution restored.. the fact remains that no one alive today has ever lived in anything but a socialist culture. (except for those that still maintain a tribal culture)
It sucks.. but that is reality.

All spot-on points. We live in Marx's paradise if you really want to cut through the propaganda.

But who are the modern footsoldiers for the socialist movement in contemporary America, despite the failings of the domestic population? Who historically is more receptive to the lies of the TPTB? Wouldn't it be those on the lower socioeconomic strata? In a perfect world, where Hispanic identification and mobilization wasn't be used to eliminate the last vestiges of Constitutional integrity, I wouldn't really care what was going on. But it obviously is, so I'm going to speak up and confront it.

[erowe1]

Open borders has increased the welfare culture.

More of this culture engineering garbage. If you don't want to adopt whatever it is you mean by "the welfare culture," then don't.

What exactly do you mean by the phrase, "open borders"?

Were the borders closed before whatever cultural change you are talking about?

[AuH20]

What specific freedoms are we supposed to give up so you can tinker with voting demographics?

None. But should we pay for corporations to lure foreign help over here and then foist them upon the already stressed social safety net? Should we allow our tax dollars to be circulated to certain ethnic based lobbying groups that explicitly view the Bill of Rights as a charter of negative liberties? There is no nothing organic about this migration because if it was truly organic, we wouldn't be beset with so many problems.

[pcosmar]

But who are the modern footsoldiers for the socialist movement in contemporary America, despite the failings of the domestic population?
Every person collecting SSI. Or paying SSI.

Or anyone with Health Care insurance (socialized health care). or anyone working in several BUREAUCRACIES.
I could go on and on listing,, but,,
all the voters that elect such,, for the last 100 years.

[erowe1]

None. But should we pay for corporations to lure foreign help over here and then foist them upon the already stressed social safety net? Should we allow our tax dollars to be circulated to certain ethnic based lobbying groups that explicitly view the Bill of Rights as a charter of negative liberties? There is no nothing organic about this migration because if it was truly organic, we wouldn't be beset with so many problems.

No. And there's where the ire should be directed. Not "open borders."

[AuH20]

Every person collecting SSI. Or paying SSI.

Or anyone with Health Care insurance (socialized health care). or anyone working in several BUREAUCRACIES.
I could go on and on listing,, but,,
all the voters that elect such,, for the last 100 years.

We have an internal problem of an untold scale. All very true. But if you examine the polling data of the so-called Hispanic population, it's socialist tendencies far overshadow those of the native born population. See below..

On climate change:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/10/us/politics/climate-change-is-of-growing-personal-concern-to-us-hispanics-poll-finds.html?_r=0


Among Hispanic respondents to the poll, 54 percent rated global warming as extremely or very important to them personally, compared with 37 percent of whites. Sixty-seven percent of Hispanics said they would be hurt personally to a significant degree if nothing was done to reduce global warming, compared with half of whites.

And 63 percent of Hispanics said the federal government should act broadly to address global warming, compared with 49 percent of whites.

A greater percentage of Hispanics than whites identify as Democrats, and Democrats are more likely than Republicans and independents to say that the government should fight climate change. In the poll, 48 percent of Hispanics identified as Democrats, 31 percent as independents and 15 percent as Republicans. Among whites, 23 percent identified as Democrats, 41 percent as independents and 27 percent as Republicans.

Over all, the findings of the poll run contrary to a longstanding view in politics that the environment is largely a concern of affluent, white liberals.

On gun control:

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2014/10/16/hispanics-and-latinos-favor-gun-control/

17 points higher than Boobus!!!!


On gun control, 62 percent of Hispanics polled by Pew say they support controlling gun ownership, versus 45 percent for the nation.

In closing, we're (the tax slaves) basically paying for the government (through corporation proxy and welfare subsidization) to import illegal immigrants into our country and further undermine the remnants of our constitutional republic. The illegal aliens certainly didn't start the downfall of America but if the elites have their way, these useful idiots will rapidly finish the sordid chapter that started over 100 years ago.

[nobody's_hero]

If anybody here actually believes that immigration destroys cultures, I'd like to see them try to explain how specifically.

Is the idea that if people get exposed to another culture, and by their own free choice adopt aspects of it, thus leaving behind the culture they used to exhibit prior to that, then that culture is destroyed? And so, in order to protect this abstraction of a culture that has no rights of its own, we have to inhibit people from the opportunity to choose to change?

Except the native Americans didn't actually CHOOSE to adopt any aspects of the new culture. Read up on some of the programs designed to force young native Americans to assimilate into the whites.

The Trail of Tears was just a casual stroll, completely voluntary right? —And this is probably what a lot of people like PaleoLibertarian have a problem with, is that for being blinded by their convictions on unrestrained immigration, libertarians are no more able to see the consequences of their philosophy when put into practice than the people calling for a wall and more government control of the borders.

[erowe1]

Except the native Americans didn't actually CHOOSE to adopt any aspects of the new culture. Read up on some of the programs designed to force young native Americans to assimilate into the whites.

The Trail of Tears was just a casual stroll, completely voluntary right?

Does that honestly sound anything like what anybody means by open borders?

It sounds to me like the people most adamant about controlling our culture are the ones advocating force to keep us from being allowed to be around foreigners.

[nobody's_hero]

Does that honestly sound anything like what anybody means by open borders?

It sounds to me like the people most adamant about controlling our culture are the ones advocating force to keep us from being allowed to be around foreigners.

Of course no one means it. But that is the consequence.

For example: I can advocate for economic prosperity, but that may mean totally different outcomes to different people. An-caps would agree with promoting economic prosperity by opening up the free market. Statist liberals would agree with economic prosperity by redistributing wealth through government programs.

The meaning and the consequence are two different things. You can mean well, and yet do irreparable damage as a consequence.

The native Americans may not have meant to ruin their civilization by trading with the initially unimposing white man, but that was the consequence. Whether practical or not, the native Americans would have fared much better had they simply ambushed and killed the Europeans as they landed on the shores. Not saying we should do that, but you can't simply ignore the impact that immigration has on a native culture. I mean, haven't you at least played any Sid Meier's games?

[pcosmar]

Does that honestly sound anything like what anybody means by open borders?

It sounds to me like the people most adamant about controlling our culture are the ones advocating force to keep us from being allowed to be around foreigners.

Nothing new.

http://media.liveauctiongroup.net/i/5722/8625713_1.jpg?v=8CBFC82D4A221F0
http://disperser.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/color_sep2010_2_14728.jpg?w=640
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51q7YJMiqnL.jpg

[erowe1]

Of course no one means it. But that is the consequence.

I see the exact opposite.

What you describe is the consequence of precisely the kinds of regulations that closed borders entail.

[Brett85]

You are a conservative, yes?

Only compared to people here. I'm known as a radical libertarian where I live. But many libertarians are in favor of border security. It's a Constitutional function of government and part of national defense.

[AuH20]

Only compared to people here. I'm known as a radical libertarian where I live. But many libertarians are in favor of border security. It's a Constitutional function of government and part of national defense.

In theory, an caps would probably be in favor of some sort of 'border security' for their territory, though they would loathe to use such a term.

[erowe1]

But many libertarians are in favor of border security.

Border security entailing what? People protecting their own private property?

[jmdrake]

It looks like the concept of borders is part of what killed his son. It's because of the concept of borders that this violent criminal was merely deported rather than being punished the way he would have been if he were a legal resident.

The OP did not say the murderer was never punished. It just says he was a repeat offender who was deported. Most offenders eventually get released from prison at some point. If the released offender is an illegal immigrant, what do you suggest be done with him other than deportation? And again, there is an easy way to improve the situation. Hold Mexico and other countries financially responsible for the care of their citizens who commit crimes while here illegally by reducing their foreign aid. Then sit back and watch Mexico beef up border security.

[Brett85]

Border security entailing what? People protecting their own private property?

The government protecting people's private property from an invasion at the Southern Border. Every day you hear of instances of illegal immigrants trampling over people's private property, destroying their property, and sometimes killing them.

[erowe1]

The government protecting people's private property from an invasion at the Southern Border.

If all you're talking about is protecting private property, it won't have any affect at all on illegal immigration.

[Zippyjuan]

The influx stopped in 2007? Where is the evidence for this? I'm sure the influx has slowed down for a variety of reasons, but stopped? That burden of proof is on you. The fact that more is being spent on "securing the border" doesn't mean that things are actually being done effectively. I know you're this sites resident proglodyte, but surely even you must know that government spending=/=effective policy. If the state were dealing with illegal immigration effectively, they'd be reintroducing the policies that worked so effectively under Eisenhower in the 1950s and early 60s.

The one thing you're right about is the whole worker visa thing; much illegal immigration does indeed come from lax policing of work visas, which is why the Cathedral-conservatives are so backward on immigration. The usual GOP PC line that "I don't care about immigration as long as it's legal. The entire population of Mexico could come here legally and I wouldn't care" is utter nonsense. There are massive problems throughout the immigration system, both legal and illegal.

The Eisenhower Plan involved increasing men at the border and raiding businesses to check for immigrants. Should we again start raiding businesses and checking ID's?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0706/p09s01-coop.html




Then on June 17, 1954, what was called "Operation Wetback" began. Because political resistance was lower in California and Arizona, the roundup of aliens began there. Some 750 agents swept northward through agricultural areas with a goal of 1,000 apprehensions a day. By the end of July, over 50,000 aliens were caught in the two states. Another 488,000, fearing arrest, had fled the country.

By mid-July, the crackdown extended northward into Utah, Nevada, and Idaho, and eastward to Texas.


but surely even you must know that government spending=/=effective policy.

But we should spend even more money anyways?

[Ender]

The OP did not say the murderer was never punished. It just says he was a repeat offender who was deported. Most offenders eventually get released from prison at some point. If the released offender is an illegal immigrant, what do you suggest be done with him other than deportation? And again, there is an easy way to improve the situation. Hold Mexico and other countries financially responsible for the care of their citizens who commit crimes while here illegally by reducing their foreign aid. Then sit back and watch Mexico beef up border security.

I would also bet that the son's death had more to do with the WoD than on open borders.

[The Gold Standard]

In theory, an caps would probably be in favor of some sort of 'border security' for their territory, though they would loathe to use such a term.

This is true. The key words being "their territory". If property owners on the border were allowed to do something like that now, I'm sure many would. That is a far cry from stationing U.S. troops on private and public/unowned land along the border.

[erowe1]

The Eisenhower Plan involved increasing men at the border and raiding businesses to check for immigrants. Should we again start raiding businesses and checking ID's?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0706/p09s01-coop.html




....Some 750 agents swept northward through agricultural areas with a goal of 1,000 apprehensions a day. By the end of July, over 50,000 aliens were caught in the two states....

But we should spend even more money anyways?

Are the borders really so much more open now than they were then? So far Obama has deported over 2 million people and used pretty tyrannical means to do so.

http://reason.com/archives/2015/02/25/obama-is-no-bff-of-latino-immigrants-or

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

First, the one saying 'the government must do this!!!!11!', is the one making the initial claim. I say 'we need to profile muslims' you say 'no we don't' and I say 'prove it'.

I cannot stand beside someone who says our government must clean up the mess it has made in the middle east by warring with the terrorist group of the day and likewise I cannot stand beside someone who says our government must clean up the mess it has made with the border by policing it. These are both steps away from liberty when there are obvious pro-liberty positions that spearhead the same issues. As the Hoppeians seem to realize, the government is most likely not going anywhere anytime soon, so what this 'scenario' really amounts to is the Liberty group working with the Hoppeians to advance government control over the borders. What Liberty is gained by this cooperation?

And 'certain things'. That is a good way to minimize what you advocate for. Some people maybe it is food stamps, some people maybe workplace regulations, very few are advocating for such an increase in government control.
I'm saying "borders should be controlled", I'm not necessarily saying the state should do the controlling. My ideal society is one where privately owned cities compete for citizens. In that case, the government wouldn't be necessary to control borders as it would be done privately, and I would have no problem with that. I'm not saying the government must do anything, I'm saying that in the current situation, either the government controls the border or the border isn't controlled. Between those two, the government doing it is better than no one doing it. If there was a realistic, workable way to get border control into private hands, I'd advocate for that, but I don't see it right now.

Liberty is something that exists within certain kinds of civilizations, and being discriminating when it comes to letting hordes of low-IQ third worlders is one of the prerequisites.

[erowe1]

The OP did not say the murderer was never punished. It just says he was a repeat offender who was deported. Most offenders eventually get released from prison at some point. If the released offender is an illegal immigrant, what do you suggest be done with him other than deportation? And again, there is an easy way to improve the situation. Hold Mexico and other countries financially responsible for the care of their citizens who commit crimes while here illegally by reducing their foreign aid. Then sit back and watch Mexico beef up border security.

Good point.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

If we are to hurl claims like "leftist" I suppose I have a couple of my own. I would consider anyone calling for the impeding of people's rights (more often than not, simply on the basis of superficial attributes), who advocates for the welfare program in question, and who subscribes, quite obviously, to a philosophy of collectivism, a progressive. At the very least, a student of progressivism.
I am a reactionary, a pro-monarchist an opponent of universal sufferage and an anti-egalitarian and as such an enemy of anything and everything remotely called "progressivism". People who disagree with you on immigration are not "progressives", in fact, progs are far more likely to agree with your position. Is Hans-Herman Hoppe a "progressive"? Apparently so, in your world.


YOU are the helping hand of tyranny. What you advocate for not only is counterproductive economically, it is precedent for other policy. Policy which you may not even agree with.

You are speaking of the robbing of all to pay for agents along the border. Let me repeat that. You are advocating the theft from all to establish and maintain a welfare program the price of which probably trumping SNAP. I really am at a loss for words as to how so many miss this fact. The point would be no different than if one who advocated the government provide abortions turned around and insultingly called another a progressive.

I guess my question is: Where do you get the nerve?
If liberty is to mean anything, it needs long term sustainability. Allowing an unrestricted border in the name of "liberty", thereby letting in a population that will degrade any remaining liberty that exists is the height of foolishness. Libertarian ends are far more important than immediately apparent libertarian means.

I am advocating that the border be policed. If there was a private way to do it that would be remotely possible to enact, I'd be all for it. I am not saying that the government control of the border is the best solution, just that it's better than doing nothing when you have an invasion of low-IQ third worlders at your Southern border. This is especially true when modern American society bends over backwards to accommodate Spanish speakers


And when you say "contracts enforced" I imagine you are not referring to actual contracts. You know, like Bob the Builder hiring a migrant worker to help him finish a project. No, you are referring to some unicorn of injustice. Where is this contract that you are specifically referencing? Far as I can see, said contract is obligatory of no one (that really pisses the Wilsonians off).
This statement is totally incoherent. I said that all ancaps want government to do some things while it's here, you said you didn't. I then ask if you want the state to enforce contracts and protect property; that is a separate question from anything having to do with immigration.

[Cabal]

I'm known as a radical libertarian where I live.



http://myreactiongifs.com/gifs/nicolascageconfusedemotions.gif

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

According to Pew research.



Now excuse me. I have to go put a gallon of hand sanitizer on. You forced me to back up Zippy.

The reason for the decline should be obvious. That's when the housing crisis kicked into high gear. A huge percentage of illegal immigrants who come to the U.S. are construction workers.
That doesn't surprise me, given the state of the American economy, but I still don't think one can say the influx has stopped. Lets see what happens when the US economy gets on another bubble and is "good" again. At most, this shows a pause and decline due to economic crisis. Lets see what happens when the cycle starts up anew. Regardless, even the decline during crisis shows a far greater number than 15 years ago, and that statistic doesn't take into account the mass breeding of the immigrant population or their anchor babies.

I do like your idea about foreign aid, but good luck getting any politician to advocate it. It also wouldn't take care of the millions of illegals already here.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

The Eisenhower Plan involved increasing men at the border and raiding businesses to check for immigrants. Should we again start raiding businesses and checking ID's?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0706/p09s01-coop.html





But we should spend even more money anyways?
No, we should spend money more efficiently doing things that actually worked. Operation Wetback wasn't all that costly; we enact something like that on a larger scale, and in just a few years the situation is largely reversed. The Eisenhower immigration plans weren't stopped because of cost or ineffectiveness, they were reversed because open border liberals hated the idea

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Are the borders really so much more open now than they were then? So far Obama has deported over 2 million people and used pretty tyrannical means to do so.

http://reason.com/archives/2015/02/25/obama-is-no-bff-of-latino-immigrants-or
Perhaps not, but the situation in Mexico is far more dire, largely because of the international drug war. That's another thing that needs to be stopped if we want to put a tourniquet on the flow of illegals (among other reasons, of course).

[euphemia]

I think part of the issue needs to be a defense of my 4th amendment freedom.

That much is the government's responsibility. If we weren't so busy running around the world trying to meddle in other nations' affairs, maybe we could defend our own borders and the people who are here legally.

[pcosmar]

Operation Wetback wasn't all that costly; we enact something like that on a larger scale, and in just a few years the situation is largely reversed.

Maybe some Jose Crow laws too while we are at it. :rolleyes:

[Brett85]

http://myreactiongifs.com/gifs/nicolascageconfusedemotions.gif

Well, it's true. Republican voters where I live basically think that you should be sent to an insane asylum if you support a policy like ending the war on drugs.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

If anybody here actually believes that immigration destroys cultures, I'd like to see them try to explain how specifically.

Is the idea that if people get exposed to another culture, and by their own free choice adopt aspects of it, thus leaving behind the culture they used to exhibit prior to that, then that culture is destroyed? And so, in order to protect this abstraction of a culture that has no rights of its own, we have to inhibit people from the opportunity to choose to change?
Immigration doesn't destroy culture in and of itself; though the IQ shredding inherent in open immigration is very dangerous. Open immigration along with multiculturalism is what destroys culture. The way it used to be is that immigrants could bring their cuisines, their ceremonies etc. to the US, but had to adapt to the macro-culture within a generation or so, or be totally shunned by larger society. Now we have a multi-cult society, and the host country bends over backwards to accommodate the most backwards aspects of alien culture. I live in So. Cal (most of the time) and I've seen this place get slowly transform into something that looks more and more like the barrios of Mexico. That is cultural decline, any way you slice it.

There has to be a monoculture on the macro-scale that is respected if a multi-ethnic society is to be remotely successful. This goes back to ancient Rome. Rome would invade an area, destroy their tribal ways of governance, demand that they adopt Roman macro-culture, but allow them to keep their traditions in order to make the transition easier and actually desirable for the populace. Obviously this isn't a perfect analogy since one example is conquest and the other is immigration, but the principle has many parallels. Similarly, when America took California and the Republic of Texas freed itself from Mexico, both undid the Mexican version of "governance" and put in place a Western version, all for the better of those places.

What we see now is a reversal of that trend, where a low-IQ third world population is invading a first world country (a democracy no less) and instead of being forced through social pressure and institutions to adapt to their new nation, they're being catered to and allowed to change the nation to suit them. Any student of history should be aware of what a grim future this spells, but the leftist influence on libertarianism has turned the movement into a bunch of egalitarian utopians who think the market can work out culture clash and the problems of multiracialism. It can't, I wish it could.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Well, it's true. Republican voters where I live basically think that you should be sent to an insane asylum if you support a policy like ending the war on drugs.
Anyone who doesn't oppose every single action of government, regardless of the consequences isn't a libertarian, apparently. Liberty isn't the result of certain civilizations that meet perquisites necessary to create and (more importantly) maintain personal and economic freedom, it's a black and white pronouncement against any government action, even if the lack of action will lead to less freedom in the future.

"Will continued open immigration lead to an increased welfare state, the shredding of the native IQ and the destruction of the host country's culture?"
"Doesn't matter! Having the government do something decreases muh freedumz, damn the consequences!111!!"

So many libertarians use "freedom" and "liberty" the same way a progressive uses "equality". Not as a reasoned, philsophical and economic concept, but as a childish, absolutist demand, wholly separate from actual reality, and a screed to use against people who are "anti-freedom" the same way proglodytes call their opponents "racist" and "against equality".

[Zippyjuan]

Perhaps not, but the situation in Mexico is far more dire, largely because of the international drug war. That's another thing that needs to be stopped if we want to put a tourniquet on the flow of illegals (among other reasons, of course).

Actually one factor is that Mexico has improved economically. It is getting easier to find jobs down there so there is less reason to go to the US. Demographics have changed too. And most of the immigrants these days are not from Mexico but Asia.

[kcchiefs6465]

I am a reactionary, a pro-monarchist an opponent of universal sufferage and an anti-egalitarian and as such an enemy of anything and everything remotely called "progressivism". People who disagree with you on immigration are not "progressives", in fact, progs are far more likely to agree with your position. Is Hans-Herman Hoppe a "progressive"? Apparently so, in your world.

And I'm about as far away from being a 'leftist' as possible. Funny, that.



If liberty is to mean anything, it needs long term sustainability. Allowing an unrestricted border in the name of "liberty", thereby letting in a population that will degrade any remaining liberty that exists is the height of foolishness. Libertarian ends are far more important than immediately apparent libertarian means.
Meh. If their little social experiment fails, I'll try not to laugh too openly about it. The population that was, and is, degrading liberty are people. Simply that, just people. The moms want their child's education paid for, you want a border security force, George Bush Sr. wants drilling rights in the Golan Heights. How amazing that a system built upon collectivism and legal positivism, i.e, the bastardization of law, would collapse under its own weight. But I am to blame the Mexican for this? No, instead I'll put the blame where it belongs. That is, on every single person who advocates for the continuance of this collectivist commune. There might be things that I think would be nice if someone offered to do them. I don't much care to use so called representatives to rob further every one living within the confines of this particular surveyed rock.



I am advocating that the border be policed.
Indeed you are! But is that the height of your advocacy? What would you think about Bob the Builder stopping by a local Home Depot and contracting a day's work with an illegal immigrant? Would you also advocate that such an assured system of freedom would need undercover officers posing as migrants? Perhaps a database of who was born where? Maybe even a license granting one the ability to work within these parts?

You speak about the degradation of the remaining freedoms we have as if irony could possibly be more blatant.

It is not the migrant I am concerned about (though certainly quite a few would use government to their advantage). It is people just like you. And I do mean that with all due respect.



If there was a private way to do it that would be remotely possible to enact, I'd be all for it.
You mean that because you cannot finance such activities yourself, nor are you granted special privileges from the state to harass, detain, assault, or murder people, that everyone must be forced to pay for it.

Well I'll be. Certainly that is the way people feel about a lot of things. From roads, to security, to defense, to healthcare.

"If there was a private way for everyone to have healthcare coverage, you know, I'd be all for that. But since there's not, or it's pretty hard to attain if there is a way... let's vote, arbitrarily decide a figure of cost, and rob the people appropriately."

Do you see the inconsistency?


I am not saying that the government control of the border is the best solution, just that it's better than doing nothing when you have an invasion of low-IQ third worlders at your Southern border. This is especially true when modern American society bends over backwards to accommodate Spanish speakers
Okay. First, one's IQ means little. Savants can be helpless to accomplish day to day tasks and as well, the illiterate could be exceptional at crafting and making things (or whatever the variations that may and do occur when billions of people are being collectively talked about).

As to the accommodation of Spanish speakers, the government should not be involved.

But it turns out a lot is, you know, simply businesses catering to their clientele. If I had a business in East Los Angeles, you could pretty safely bet that there would be bilingual signs, bilingual help, etc. Makes sense, right?



This statement is totally incoherent. I said that all ancaps want government to do some things while it's here, you said you didn't. I then ask if you want the state to enforce contracts and protect property; that is a separate question from anything having to do with immigration.
I apologize for the confusion.

What authorizes you, or Congress, to come together and take the property of other people? Well ostensibly that would be the Constitution--the contract that never was. Since it was never signed, nor agreed to, and has hardly been read or understood by the blindingly many, people often rely on a concept called the "social contract theory." I find it rather amazing that people wishing to enforce contracts would one, deny Person 'A' from making a contract with Person 'B' depending on where the two were born, and two, that said people hold up perhaps the most illegitimate contract ever bestowed upon a population as the authorization to violate contracts! And in the name of protecting contracts, no less! What a backwards ass society. And you are concerned of migrants!? I don't think they could dream up horseshit as deep as that. I mean, come on.

[kcchiefs6465]

I think part of the issue needs to be a defense of my 4th amendment freedom.

That much is the government's responsibility. If we weren't so busy running around the world trying to meddle in other nations' affairs, maybe we could defend our own borders and the people who are here legally.
What do you mean?

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

And I'm about as far away from being a 'leftist' as possible. Funny, that.
Not if you think that a massive flood of third world immigrants will have negligible or even a positive effect on the populace. That's a key of progressive egalitarianism: the population doesn't matter, the society will continue as it is regardless of who the demographics are. Nonsense. Answer the question: is Hans-Hermann Hoppe a progressive or a "student of progressivism"? Am I, as an anti-dmocratic reactionary a "progressive"? As we'll see, you have far more in common with a proglodyte's view of the world than I



Meh. If their little social experiment fails, I'll try not to laugh too openly about it. The population that was, and is, degrading liberty are people. Simply that, just people. The moms want their child's education paid for, you want a border security force, George Bush Sr. wants drilling rights in the Golan Heights. How amazing that a system built upon collectivism and legal positivism, i.e, the bastardization of law, would collapse under its own weight. But I am to blame the Mexican for this? No, instead I'll put the blame where it belongs. That is, on every single person who advocates for the continuance of this collectivist commune. There might be things that I think would be nice if someone offered to do them. I don't much care to use so called representatives to rob further every one living within the confines of this particular surveyed rock.
There is more than enough blame to go around: the politicians, the populace who legitimize political action, the lobbyists whose industries profit from state-action. A low-IQ horde of invading foreigners are yet another group that deserves to shoulder part of the blame, and they're one of the easiest groups to deal with, if we were just willing to do what needed doing.



Indeed you are! But is that the height of your advocacy? What would you think about Bob the Builder stopping by a local Home Depot and contracting a day's work with an illegal immigrant? Would you also advocate that such an assured system of freedom would need undercover officers posing as migrants? Perhaps a database of who was born where? Maybe even a license granting one the ability to work within these parts?

You speak about the degradation of the remaining freedoms we have as if irony could possibly be more blatant.

It is not the migrant I am concerned about (though certainly quite a few would use government to their advantage). It is people just like you. And I do mean that with all due respect.
I don't think we would need to do anything more than what Eisenhower did in the 1950s, as I've said repeatedly. That worked quite successfully with the technology of the mid-20th century, there's no reason it couldn't work today. It would probably be far easier now than sixty years ago.



You mean that because you cannot finance such activities yourself, nor are you granted special privileges from the state to harass, detain, assault, or murder people, that everyone must be forced to pay for it.

Well I'll be. Certainly that is the way people feel about a lot of things. From roads, to security, to defense, to healthcare.

"If there was a private way for everyone to have healthcare coverage, you know, I'd be all for that. But since there's not, or it's pretty hard to attain if there is a way... let's vote, arbitrarily decide a figure of cost, and rob the people appropriately."
Wrong. You don't seem to know much about the progressive mindset. People who want Single Payer Healthcare think that it is immoral to let the "profit motive" and the market keep people healthy. Explain a private way to provide healthcare to a socialist and they will still oppose it, because they think the market is too chaotic to adequately provide healthcare to people. I have a perfectly sound way to privately control borders: the Heathian anarchism I advocate where privately owned cities control their borders. I would happily move toward that system, but the US government isn't going to abolish itself and sell off its cities to corporations anytime soon. As such, as long as the state exists I want it to meet the criteria that every civilization needs to meet to have even a modicum of liberty. Secure borders is on that list of criteria.


Do you see the inconsistency?
The only inconsistency that exists is in the mind of reckless libertarians like yourself who think the government doing anything is bad, regardless of the effects of its inaction. If liberty is to mean anything, it must be grounded in philosophy, economics and history. The kind of liberty you're advocating isn't based in any of that (especially not history), it's just a childish screed against anything done by the state, damn the consequences.



Okay. First, one's IQ means little.
Complete and utter nonsense. Anyone who says that has never actually looked into the issue of what IQ predicts in terms of success and income.


Savants can be helpless to accomplish day to day tasks and as well, the illiterate could be exceptional at crafting and making things (or whatever the variations that may and do occur when billions of people are being collectively talked about).

As to the accommodation of Spanish speakers, the government should not be involved.
There are individual variations (as with all things), but IQ is a very good predictor of success in capitalist economies, and is a better predictor of future than education level. Individuals with a low IQ may be useful, individuals with a high IQ may be useless, but the effects of IQ shredding a population is quite clear. What you're spouting is the normal progressive hogwash about IQ being a meaningless metric (and you have the gall to call me a progressive).


As to the accommodation of Spanish speakers, the government should not be involved.

But it turns out a lot is, you know, simply businesses catering to their clientele. If I had a business in East Los Angeles, you could pretty safely bet that there would be bilingual signs, bilingual help, etc. Makes sense, right?
The government is absolutely involved, if you don't believe me, come visit the public schools in California and the Southwest. There is no more social pressure to learn English if you're a Spanish speaking immigrant, and that is going to lead to the increasing Balkanization the Southwest. I'm seeing the beginning of it right before my eyes, and it's not a good thing. I know private business is a part of it, which is one of the many reasons I oppose consumerism as the main cultural force within the US.



I apologize for the confusion.

What authorizes you, or Congress, to come together and take the property of other people? Well ostensibly that would be the Constitution--the contract that never was. Since it was never signed, nor agreed to, and has hardly been read or understood by the blindingly many, people often rely on a concept called the "social contract theory." I find it rather amazing that people wishing to enforce contracts would one, deny Person 'A' from making a contract with Person 'B' depending on where the two were born, and two, that said people hold up perhaps the most illegitimate contract ever bestowed upon a population as the authorization to violate contracts! And in the name of protecting contracts, no less! What a backwards ass society. And you are concerned of migrants!? I don't think they could dream up horseshit as deep as that. I mean, come on.
I don't care about "authorization" or "legitimacy" or anything of the kind. I am a utilitarian; I care about a sustainable civilization built on liberty, and a society that lets hordes of low-IQ,genetically distinct invaders who don't speak the language into its border will totally lack sustainability or liberty.

Nor do I believe in the social contract. To me, the best argument for the government is the theory of "organic government", but I think the state is a largely lumbering, inefficient overly-costly apparatus that can more efficiently be replaced by market actors, hence I oppose its existence. However I only advocate its complete abolition under certain circumstances that the society must meet. We are a far, far cry away from meeting those circumstances, so in the meantime I'm okay with the state doing things if it will increase liberty in the long run. Libertarian ends over immediately libertarian means. Immigration control wouldn't need to increase the size or scope of the state, or even increase spending if the "defense" budget was cut (which it should be in any case).

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Actually one factor is that Mexico has improved economically. It is getting easier to find jobs down there so there is less reason to go to the US. Demographics have changed too. And most of the immigrants these days are not from Mexico but Asia.
I'm glad to hear Mexico is improving; it won't be hailed as a "cruel" act to send the illegals back, then.

[kcchiefs6465]

Not if you think that a massive flood of third world immigrants will have negligible or even a positive effect on the populace.
"Massive flood," huh? Are you familiar with the works of Bastiat? It's fascinating to me that even with how much things change as time goes on, some things remain the same.

As to your point, 'cheap labor' is a positive for the populace. Now that will throw many a protectionist into a fit but it is the truth of the matter. The issue would be the debasement of the currency, the protectionist policies with regards to tariffs, sanctions, embargoes etc. and the fact that the market for labor has been completely bastardized to such a point that an equilibrium being established is seen as quite the feat not soon able to be accomplished.

But to be clear, your efforts would further bastardize the market, especially with regards to labor.

Aside from even that, cultural integration is not a bad thing. Society benefits (as if I should even give a fuck, but that's neither here nor there) from the mixing of ideas, etc. It is up to people, individually, to accept or reject the ideas of a particular culture. As if modern American culture is some grand display to be emulated.



That's a key of progressive egalitarianism: the population doesn't matter, the society will continue as it is regardless of who the demographics are. Nonsense.
The collective doesn't matter. The sooner you, and they, realize this the better.


Answer the question: is Hans-Hermann Hoppe a progressive or a "student of progressivism"? Am I, as an anti-dmocratic reactionary a "progressive"? As we'll see, you have far more in common with a proglodyte's view of the world than I
No, he is not. You're not the first person to throw Hans-Hermann Hoppe in my face, by the way.

My calling you a 'student of progressivism' could have been worded differently.

You are student of collectivism, progressives the same. Birds of a feather and what not.



There is more than enough blame to go around: the politicians, the populace who legitimize political action, the lobbyists whose industries profit from state-action. A low-IQ horde of invading foreigners are yet another group that deserves to shoulder part of the blame, and they're one of the easiest groups to deal with, if we were just willing to do what needed doing.
I would say the majority of the blame lies with short-sighted, busy bodies.



I don't think we would need to do anything more than what Eisenhower did in the 1950s, as I've said repeatedly. That worked quite successfully with the technology of the mid-20th century, there's no reason it couldn't work today. It would probably be far easier now than sixty years ago.

You know, frankly I am not as versed on "Operation Wetback" as I perhaps should be. I've said it before and I'll repeat it again, immigration is probably about the tenth or twentieth thing down on a list of issues that particularly concern me. It is a divisive issue and absent here, where the honing of ideas and concepts is particularly able to happen, I don't even really talk about it.



Wrong. You don't seem to know much about the progressive mindset. People who want Single Payer Healthcare think that it is immoral to let the "profit motive" and the market keep people healthy. Explain a private way to provide healthcare to a socialist and they will still oppose it, because they think the market is too chaotic to adequately provide healthcare to people.
True enough. I was simply illustrating that your same mentality could be applied to any issue.



I have a perfectly sound way to privately control borders: the Heathian anarchism I advocate where privately owned cities control their borders. I would happily move toward that system, but the US government isn't going to abolish itself and sell off its cities to corporations anytime soon. As such, as long as the state exists I want it to meet the criteria that every civilization needs to meet to have even a modicum of liberty. Secure borders is on that list of criteria.
Corporations would not exist in a free society. People coming together, abdicating legal responsibility for the actions of the group, well, let's just say it sounds familiar.

The US government is going to continue doing what it's doing because of people like you.

I shit you not, every single time it's, "Well yeah, of course the Federal Reserve should be abolished. But there's a lot of people that need healthcare." Or, "Well yeah, of course 'we' shouldn't be destroying peasant villages overseas. But we certainly need a million soldiers on standby."

The only thing that changes are the key words.



The only inconsistency that exists is in the mind of reckless libertarians like yourself who think the government doing anything is bad, regardless of the effects of its inaction.
To be more accurate, I think that robbery is bad. Regardless of the utilitarian arguments to the contrary.

And again, while you wish for the government to rob 'A,' 'B,' or 'C,' to do, 'X,' 'Y,' or 'Z,' other people feel the same. Their goals may be different but the means are the same. So forgive me for the grouping of you all together as your political motives are different, many times.


If liberty is to mean anything, it must be grounded in philosophy, economics and history. The kind of liberty you're advocating isn't based in any of that (especially not history), it's just a childish screed against anything done by the state, damn the consequences.
Rather it is, "Thou shalt not steal.... damn the consequences." Your philosophy is, "Thou shalt not steal.... unless it is for the things I consider really, really, important."

There's a lot of people who agree with your premise.


Complete and utter nonsense. Anyone who says that has never actually looked into the issue of what IQ predicts in terms of success and income.
What is success?



There are individual variations (as with all things), but IQ is a very good predictor of success in capitalist economies, and is a better predictor of future than education level. Individuals with a low IQ may be useful, individuals with a high IQ may be useless, but the effects of IQ shredding a population is quite clear. What you're spouting is the normal progressive hogwash about IQ being a meaningless metric (and you have the gall to call me a progressive).
Do you feel that Hispanics are predisposed to having lower IQs?



The government is absolutely involved, if you don't believe me, come visit the public schools in California and the Southwest. There is no more social pressure to learn English if you're a Spanish speaking immigrant, and that is going to lead to the increasing Balkanization the Southwest. I'm seeing the beginning of it right before my eyes, and it's not a good thing.
I believe I stated something to the effect of, "The government should not be involved." This simple statement would preclude me not believing you.



I know private business is a part of it, which is one of the many reasons I oppose consumerism as the main cultural force within the US.
Businesses catering to those who frequent is not some sort of negative consequence of the free market. It is the predictable and healthy course of the free market.



I don't care about "authorization" or "legitimacy" or anything of the kind. I am a utilitarian;
I know you don't. If you had 51 % of the population, or were king, you'd be as big a tyrant as any. Goddamned Rousseaus.



I care about a sustainable civilization built on liberty, and a society that lets hordes of low-IQ,genetically distinct invaders who don't speak the language into its border will totally lack sustainability or liberty.
"A sustainable civilization built on liberty"... that's rich. You would help to destroy liberty in order to sustain liberty. You ever listen to the introduction of Tom Woods Jr.'s podcast?



Nor do I believe in the social contract. To me, the best argument for the government is the theory of "organic government", but I think the state is a largely lumbering, inefficient overly-costly apparatus that can more efficiently be replaced by market actors, hence I oppose its existence. However I only advocate its complete abolition under certain circumstances that the society must meet. We are a far, far cry away from meeting those circumstances, so in the meantime I'm okay with the state doing things if it will increase liberty in the long run. Libertarian ends over immediately libertarian means. Immigration control wouldn't need to increase the size or scope of the state, or even increase spending if the "defense" budget was cut (which it should be in any case).
There's always a "however......"

Yes, immigration control would need to increase the size and scope of the state. Certainly it wouldn't be able to do away with the Constitution Free Zone.

You can say this or that about the harm caused by Hispanics, but those drones will be flying over the country for good. And because of people like you, I'd add, you freedom protecting, patriot.

[kcchiefs6465]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0lwusMxiHc

"It'll work this time."

[AuH20]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0lwusMxiHc

"It'll work this time."

A fence only works with a multispectrum approach to illegal immigration. It's a physical barrier, no more, no less. And we don't have the will for a multi-spectrum approach since we have been feminized and brainwashed.

[kcchiefs6465]

A fence only works with a multispectrum approach to illegal immigration. It's a physical barrier, no more, no less. And we don't have the will for a multi-spectrum approach since we have been feminized and brainwashed.
'We' don't have the money to build a fence, either.

Nor to hire 3,000 more ICE agents.

What do you figure the retirement package for a single one costs?

[Zippyjuan]

Given that most new immigrants these days (legal and illegal) are from Asia and not Mexico- should we build a wall between the US and Asia (Mexicans have actually been leaving)? How much would that cost?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/08/politics/asian-american-immigration/

I don't have any links right now but tighter border security actually encouraged more Mexicans to stay in the US illegally. When it was easier to cross, they would come and work for a while, get money, and go back home to perhaps return to the US later on again. But as it became harder to cross, they instead came and stayed. Then, rather than going back to visit their families, they tried to bring their families to the US with them or to get them to come join them later meaning more Mexicans coming to the US.

Unintended consequences.

[AuH20]

'We' don't have the money to build a fence, either.

Nor to hire 3,000 more ICE agents.

What do you figure the retirement package for a single one costs?

We also don't have the funds to give out welfare to the naturalized sons and daughters of illegal aliens. And that applies to Earned Income Tax Credits and Social Security benefits either. If you're going to pick a poison, it's probably wiser to bite the bullet on costs that control the rate of dependents (and most importantly LOCAL and FEDERAL living costs for our new friends) entering the country. A relative analogy would be owning a bucket riddled with holes that you transport water with. It would probably be in the farmer's best interest to repair the holes first, so less water (the billions sent home to foreign locales) is lost over the course of trip. A more secure border and an unrestrained ICE (combined with other measures) would probably save money for this country in the long run.

[kcchiefs6465]

We also don't have the funds to give out welfare to the naturalized sons and daughters of illegal aliens. And that applies to Earned Income Tax Credits and Social Security benefits either. If you're going to pick a poison, it's probably wiser to bite the bullet on costs that control the rate of dependents (and most importantly LOCAL and FEDERAL living costs for our new friends) entering the country. A relative analogy would be owning a bucket riddled with holes that you transport water with. It would probably be in the farmer's best interest to repair the holes first, so less water (the billions sent home to foreign locales) is lost over the course of trip. A more secure border and an unrestrained ICE (combined with other measures) would probably save money for this country in the long run.
In the long run this country will be bankrupt and primarily because of its own citizens.

I'd rather not be stopped by jackboots within that course. Whether that means immigrants speed up the inevitable or not.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

"Massive flood," huh? Are you familiar with the works of Bastiat? It's fascinating to me that even with how much things change as time goes on, some things remain the same.

As to your point, 'cheap labor' is a positive for the populace. Now that will throw many a protectionist into a fit but it is the truth of the matter. The issue would be the debasement of the currency, the protectionist policies with regards to tariffs, sanctions, embargoes etc. and the fact that the market for labor has been completely bastardized to such a point that an equilibrium being established is seen as quite the feat not soon able to be accomplished.

But to be clear, your efforts would further bastardize the market, especially with regards to labor.

Aside from even that, cultural integration is not a bad thing. Society benefits (as if I should even give a fuck, but that's neither here nor there) from the mixing of ideas, etc. It is up to people, individually, to accept or reject the ideas of a particular culture. As if modern American culture is some grand display to be emulated.

Yeah, I'm very familiar with Bastiat. I don't view economic analysis as the be-all-end-all of political economy. Cultural decline is a far bigger problem than slightly higher prices. I'm not sure why you quoted "cheap labor", since I never actually said anything about that. You should care about culture, and you're not going to see "cultural integration", you're going to see Balkanization and division. Modern American culture sucks. It's a vile stew of consumerism, hedonism and instant gratification. There is some sense in which Hispanic culture could improve white-America (traditionalism, monogamous marriage, big families etc), but being in the epicenter of the Hispanization of America, that's not the culture that's being exported.



The collective doesn't matter. The sooner you, and they, realize this the better.
You don't seem to at all grasp my ideological evolution. I used to spout the same thing; the individual is all that matters, race doesn't exist and all sorts of other nonsense. Then I started researching group genetics, phenotypic difference and the history of "diversity", "civil rights" and integration. I was wrong; you are wrong, the sooner you realize this the better.


No, he is not. You're not the first person to throw Hans-Hermann Hoppe in my face, by the way.

My calling you a 'student of progressivism' could have been worded differently.

You are student of collectivism, progressives the same. Birds of a feather and what not


I would say the majority of the blame lies with short-sighted, busy bodies. .
I'm not throwing anyone in your face, I'm just saying it's foolish to call him or me a "progressive". You are an individualist to the point where your individualism takes primacy over reality, quiite like what a Marxist does. Without community, the individual parishes, without individual freedom the community becomes a tyranny. The right wing (as I identify with it) attempts to create a balance between the freedom of the individual and the self-determination of the community, which is necessary for any sustainable civilization.



You know, frankly I am not as versed on "Operation Wetback" as I perhaps should be. I've said it before and I'll repeat it again, immigration is probably about the tenth or twentieth thing down on a list of issues that particularly concern me. It is a divisive issue and absent here, where the honing of ideas and concepts is particularly able to happen, I don't even really talk about it.
Clearly. There are more important issues than immigration, but the immigrant problem is probably the most easily solved of any major issue, and has major popular support. The same can't be said of pretty much any other major political problem.





Corporations would not exist in a free society. People coming together, abdicating legal responsibility for the actions of the group, well, let's just say it sounds familiar.
Corporations as we know them wouldn't exist, I agree with that. There would still be entities known as corporations and there's nothing in a free market that would mean CEOs or a board of directors wouldn't exist. That model may be out-competed by other models, or it could be more dominant than today, it's impossible to truly prognosticate in an unfettered total market.


The US government is going to continue doing what it's doing because of people like you.
Yeah, anti-globalist, reactionary, traditionalist, pan-secessionists are the reason the state is able to do what it does, not globalist, egalitarian progressives :rolleyes:


I shit you not, every single time it's, "Well yeah, of course the Federal Reserve should be abolished. But there's a lot of people that need healthcare." Or, "Well yeah, of course 'we' shouldn't be destroying peasant villages overseas. But we certainly need a million soldiers on standby."

The only thing that changes are the key words.
One can be a critic of the Fed while still supporting some kind of welfare, one can support a military without supporting foreign policy.I am not a univeralist; I'm perfectly happy to let anyone live however they want, provided they're willing to let me do the same. You want to let hordes of IQ deficient invaders into your version of ancapistan? Have at it, I want no part of it. The funny thing is, I am an anarcho-capitalist, but by your standard anyone and everyone who doesn't want your kind of society and advocate for your exact prescriptions are "part of the problem." That would include the aforementioned Hans-Herman Hoppe and Murray Rothbard at one point in his life. And people call me divisive...


To be more accurate, I think that robbery is bad. Regardless of the utilitarian arguments to the contrary.

And again, while you wish for the government to rob 'A,' 'B,' or 'C,' to do, 'X,' 'Y,' or 'Z,' other people feel the same. Their goals may be different but the means are the same. So forgive me for the grouping of you all together as your political motives are different, many times.
And ancoms and mutualists think that capitalism is robbery; that's a debate that has no end, and ultimately, no point.

Grouping Marxists, democrats, paleocons, neocons, progressives and minarchists into the same amorphous glob because they aren't all ancaps is the very reason why radical libertarians are so often dismissed for not being serious thinkers; and in this case for good reason.

You're the type to group the DPRK and the UK into the same group, when to anyone with any kind of knowledge there is clearly no comparison. I advocate immigration control by the government pragmatically, not ideally. I don't advocate any state action as an ideal, but as a compromise because we live in the world that exists, not the one we want.

Western society, though highly flawed, is the greatest civilization man has ever known. I want to see that continue, not watch it burn because radical relativists like yourself think it has no value simply because it doesn't fit into your very specific societal prescriptions.



Rather it is, "Thou shalt not steal.... damn the consequences." Your philosophy is, "Thou shalt not steal.... unless it is for the things I consider really, really, important."
Anarcho-communist: "Your philosophy is 'though shalt not steal... unless it's in service of your capitalist masters."
Anarcho-primitivist: "Your philosophy is 'though shalt not kill'... unless it's in service of your brutal civilization.

Every last one of us - to a man - advocates someone another considers immoral for utility's sake; some of us just admit that and don't run around pretending we're on the side of some objective ethic.


There's a lot of people who agree with your premise.
There are many who agree with immigration control, but among libertarians I am a reactionary and among the neoreaction I am an anarchist. I am a radical among radicals, one percent of one percent when it comes to politics, economy and history. I may be somewhat more "mainstream" on this issue, but I am far more extreme and idiosyncratic compared to the overall society. You are far more close to the mainstream of the political lexicon than I.



What is success?
Production. Wealth. It's certainly true that success is a thing defined by each individual and there is no "real" definition, but by any objective, macro-metric, IQ makes very good predictions. The idea that it's meaningless is a canard pushed by leftists who don't like the implications.



Do you feel that Hispanics are predisposed to having lower IQs?
The evidence shows that IQ is a highly heritable and thereby racial phenotypic trait, yes. I didn't always believe this, I didn't like it when I first learned this was true, but I am not comfortable with dismissing objective data in favor of my predisposed notions. That way lies ruin.



I believe I stated something to the effect of, "The government should not be involved." This simple statement would preclude me not believing you.
Whether or not the government should be involved is irrelevant. It is involved, and shows no signs of slowing down. In the name of diversity, the government is creating a generation of anchor babies who are barely literate all throughout the Southwest. If you don't think that's going to lead to major problems down the road, you're in for a major surprise.



Businesses catering to those who frequent is not some sort of negative consequence of the free market. It is the predictable and healthy course of the free market.
The free market caters to the culture of the society it exists within. This is one of the places I break with mainstream libertarianism; libertarians think that whatever the free market does should be supported simply because the free market is doing it, hence so-called "thin libertarianism". I on the other hand, take a strong stand in regards to culture, because cultural bulwarks are what maintains liberty and keeps the market free. The rotted husk of America's free market is catering to cultural forces that will destroy what's left of it, and the majority of the liberty movement is cheering it on, because of historical and cultural illiteracy.



I know you don't. If you had 51 % of the population, or were king, you'd be as big a tyrant as any. Goddamned Rousseaus.
So because I'm not a "natural lawyer" libertarian, I'd be a tyrant. All people who disagree with your philosophical views are tyrannical. Yeah, those tyrants Benjamin Tucker, Milton Friedman, David Friedman and the like :rolleyes:

At first you were making arguments in good faith I could respect, now you're just ad-homming and sounding stupid


"A sustainable civilization built on liberty"... that's rich. You would help to destroy liberty in order to sustain liberty. You ever listen to the introduction of Tom Woods Jr.'s podcast?


There's always a "however......"

Yeah, I've listened to lots of Tom Woods. I'm willing to bet I've read a lot more about libertarian theory than you, since you seem to think Hoppe is a collectivist statist of some sort...

In order to maintain liberty, there are indeed times when immediately libertarian means lead to illibertarian ends. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of history knows this. Liberty exists within certain context civilizations meet. Borders are part of that. You're the type of person who would've opposed the 1816 tarrif, and ended up at war with Britain once again. You would've let Communists flood Washington in the name of "political freedom".

To people like you liberty will never be, because it's not a grounded in political philosophy that comports to reality; it's just a pie-in-the-sky fantasy that makes you feel morally superior to people who disagree. I care about liberty as an actual, tangible thing that can be sustained, you care about it as some sort of identity that makes you feel good to embrace, like leftists and "equality". I'm the one who really cares about liberty, because I want tit to be be the sustainable and realistic social order in the near future.


Yes, immigration control would need to increase the size and scope of the state. Certainly it wouldn't be able to do away with the Constitution Free Zone.
If the military budget gets cut (which it should, regardless of what's done about immigration), there wouldn't need to be a single extra dime spent, and net spending would likely be far lower. It would also be possible to cut back on the welfare state with less immigration. Every period of mass migration to the US has been followed with a long pause of no net-immigration, with the exception of this one for about the past few decades. It's not the sole reason, but it isa reason for bigger government..


You can say this or that about the harm caused by Hispanics, but those drones will be flying over the country for good. And because of people like you, I'd add, you freedom protecting, patriot.
Yeah, it's because of people like me. Radical right wing reactionaries are the cause of bigger government people! You heard it here first! It's not the open border globalists! It's not the warmongering neocons! It's not the progressives who see government as the solution to everything! No no! It's heathian anarchists! It's the neoreaction! Yeah, we have no candidates and no political power whatsoever but we're the ones responsible. Obviously :rolleyes:

One thing that's always astounded me about the left is how they say everything is the fault of the right,. This is despite the fact that every single fucking mainstream narrative in the country comes from the left, and today's "ultra-conservatives" are far more liberal than FDR ever was.

I see now this isn't just a problem with leftists, though; it's alive and well in the liberty movement. People who agree with me on immigration have operationally had no political power for almost thirty years. You don't want a border? Well, functionally the US barely has one. The EU has even less immigration controls. You want the "right of travel? Europe has it in spades. What has that done for liberty in the EU? You may disagree that it's degraded liberty, but it sure as hell hasn't increased it. Anti-border people like you have won; the West barely has any borders left. Canada is one of the few countries left that actually polices who they let in (and what a disaster that place is on account of it, right?)

Despite all that, it's people like me how are the problem. Nothing along the lines of what I want has been enacted for over half a century, yet I'm still the problem.

You're every bit as ideological and truth-hating as a Marxist.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Given that most new immigrants these days (legal and illegal) are from Asia and not Mexico- should we build a wall between the US and Asia (Mexicans have actually been leaving)? How much would that cost?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/08/politics/asian-american-immigration/

I don't have any links right now but tighter border security actually encouraged more Mexicans to stay in the US illegally. When it was easier to cross, they would come and work for a while, get money, and go back home to perhaps return to the US later on again. But as it became harder to cross, they instead came and stayed. Then, rather than going back to visit their families, they tried to bring their families to the US with them or to get them to come join them later meaning more Mexicans coming to the US.

Unintended consequences.
The problem is cultural change cause by immigration. In So. Cal there is a clear and obvious trend of Hispanification of the culture that was not anywhere near as prevalent just say, fifteen years ago. Whether you think that's a good or bad thing, at this point it's undeniable. I've seen it happen before my eyes.

Groups like La Raza say it's great and that Hispanics are going to take back California and Texas. It's just not something that can be denied at this point. There are cultural Asian enclaves that have existed for a long time - the carious Chinatown, Japantowns etc - but there is no widespread Asianification of any area to any significant degree.

People keep talking about building a wall. Maybe I missed it, but who exactly in this thread said there should be any wall built anywhere? I know I sure didn't say that. I've said repeatedly that we don't need to do anything that hasn't been done previously in US law, we just need to look at what works and do that. I think a wall is costly and unnecessary, and a strawman argument from pro-immigrant progs. Since when are proglodytes like yourself against wasteful spending in the first place?

If you're right about Hispanic immigrants staying because of tighter border controls, all the more reason to do what we know works to get rid of them.

As for Asian immigrants, it depends on what part of Asia. Some Asian countries have high IQ populations , who come here and contribute to the economy. Some don't The ones that do should be allowed to stay, the ones that don't should be sent back. Simple.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I know you're this sites resident proglodyte, but surely even you must know that government spending=/=effective policy.

You're having an academic debate with a person whose purpose here is to discourage new membership, and hence, shut down the site.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I would also bet that the son's death had more to do with the WoD than on open borders.

I was also thinking that. Other stories I read talk about the murder randomly pulling up to Golvach and shooting him. I would bet there is more to it. These so-called senseless killings are usually not that random at all.

If the murderer was into drugs, then was it drug related? If so, then you have to take this back even further. If you're going to stretch it, then also say the culprit is making drugs illegal. Perhaps if drugs were legal, then this guy is still alive. If drugs are legal, then this murderer is not even in this career. If it's going to be traced back, then trace it all the way back. Illegalities breed these kinds of disputes.

[kcchiefs6465]

Yeah, I'm very familiar with Bastiat. I don't view economic analysis as the be-all-end-all of political economy. Cultural decline is a far bigger problem than slightly higher prices. I'm not sure why you quoted "cheap labor", since I never actually said anything about that. You should care about culture, and you're not going to see "cultural integration", you're going to see Balkanization and division. Modern American culture sucks. It's a vile stew of consumerism, hedonism and instant gratification. There is some sense in which Hispanic culture could improve white-America (traditionalism, monogamous marriage, big families etc), but being in the epicenter of the Hispanization of America, that's not the culture that's being exported.

[SNIPPED FOR SPACE]

Well, thank you for your thought out responses. We are clearly at an impasse, now, though. While I'd disagree with a few of your points there's no real gain to be had by rehashing the same arguments, etc.

In any case, since you've made your position a lot more clear I suppose I will simply do the same.

They will poison this earth within a hundred years absent technological improvements beyond what I think human ingenuity is able to attain in such a period. It will be a century of perpetual war, the diminishing of freedom, and eventually nuclear, or otherwise, annihilation. If this country thinks its drone policy has not set a precedent, as well as its attacks have not angered at least a generation it is sadly mistaken. Now of course this isn't written in stone but I am no utopian or fantasizing pacifist. The people aren't going to change. Whether that is because of genetics or certain psychological occurrences that happen with regards to a group, I don't specifically know. It has also been ordained and while I am not particularly religious, I am particularly surprised that with all of the evil man has perpetuated, this planet has not been thrown off its axis.

So you see, I could not care less about the collective. I could not care less if the moral system I propose caused civilization in totality to be put in the hamper. I believe strongly that with a moral system, the most society can achieve will be achieved but I am not caught up on, "But if you do this, before you do this, then that might occur." Well sure, it might. But then, so what? For instance with regards to immigration, the argument of welfare increasing holds little bearing on the fact that people ought to be able to contract with who they please. Whether the two people are neighbors or live at the opposite ends of the world. I don't particularly think this republic can revert back to even the relative freedom of its conception. The people are too far gone and the state holds a practical monopoly over education. We could also be limited by personality types, etc. Surely I see the world differently than quite the few and it is interesting to consider that most here fall into the INTJ or INTP spectrum (as flawed a test as that may be, it does show that generally speaking we all see things the same way and perhaps a different way than most).

To reiterate, as I know that it may come across that I simply am content to watch the world burn, freedom would advance civilization, not retard it. The free market is the most efficient economy able to be produced. Though again, I could not care less if it was efficient or a painstaking burden. It is moral.

As well, while you perhaps don't argue that an influx of immigrants lowers wages and affects the countrymen, who should be protected with artificially high wages through regulation and laws, many do. I don't care if an influx of immigrants lowers wages in certain sectors. Whatsoever. Their emotional (and often fallacious) arguments mean nothing to me.

I apologize for the ad hominem. I misread an earlier post of your's, took it as you calling me a leftist, took offense at that and responded in kind, which led to you then responding in kind. I apologize and I was out of line.

Best of luck.