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

[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 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.

[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.



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/fo...tion-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/art...icle_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/fo...tion-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...inds.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/...r-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.