The vast majority of Founding Fathers abhorred racism. I don’t know if you just assumed that they were racist, but that’s completely untrue.
Unless you are using a pet definition of racism then I think you are on shaky grounds. A large number of them including Jefferson, Madison, and Rutledge slave owners. Even anti-slavery advocates like Ben Franklin were racist (he didn’t care for Germans). The idea that they abhorred racism is nonsensical, racism was more of a norm than a hot-button issue like it is today.
The colonization of America was done by the British imperialists. Since the colonies were then part of the British Empire, and in turn the ‘home’ of the Founding Fathers, through no choice of their own, it had nothing to do with the choices of their fathers. The colonization of American was an expansion, not an escape. So many of their fathers wanted to expand, but not escape their government. The Revolutionary War then freed them from the government. Since the British had already colonized America, the Founding Fathers never ran into another country for freedom. They just fought back and claimed back the land from the government.
Thats just false. While imperialism was a factor in the establishment of colonies, it definitely wasn’t the entirety. Much of the U.S. was actually colonized by poor and oppressed immigrants from Great Britian. such as the Scots, Ulster-Scots, Irish, as well as those seeking freedom from religious persecution (persecution by the English!), like the Puritans and the Quakers.
Neither of us can say what an illegal immigrant knows before attempting to cross the border, much less what the majority of them know. Certainly, some of them are unaware of just how risky it is (though, considering many end up crossing the border several times, quite a few do know what the process entails). I object to your suggestion that these people just need some additional motivation - the implication being that illegally entering the United States in search of long hours of manual labor in return for low pay and constant fear of exposure is somehow the easy way out.
Your original point was that capping immigration will motivate people to work harder under their native government. But as people choose to risk coming to the US instead of struggling in their own country, you’re simply using the power of the US government to worsen their lives. The costs of trying to make it in America are lower in their mind than the costs of making it in Mexico or wherever else.* In Bastiat’s words, you’re creating obstacles for them to overcome. You should praise high taxes, for that encourages greater production by the taxpayer! Praise a tariff so that those who might otherwise produce something less laborious are enduced to produce something more laborious!
*The inverse, of course, is that they believe working in America will provide a greater net benefit than working in their home country. If they are correct, then they benefit - and so do the rest of us. The improvement in their lives means, generally, improvement in everyone else’s life.
I don’t mean to sound flippant or hostile, but no, it is not a matter of opinion or our different feelings toward patriotism. You did not only argue against illegal immigration for the glory of the United States: you presented economic and moral arguments. Coyotes raping women have nothing to do with patriotism or citizenship. I offered a solution to this problem, and you are not addressing it. Love of country has nothing to do with the demand for unskilled labor or the fact that we all can be accused of free riding on government services. And though you can certainly fall back on patriotic sentiments, it is not all that fair to assert that we have much freedom while simultaneously defending the state’s right to regulate who we may or may not hire.
And yeah, I’m one of the local anarchists. I don’t place much importance on citizenship or patriotism.
re: racism and the founding fathers - Using a contemporary definition of racism, I think most every revolutionary can be considered racist. That’s just how it was back then. Conventional wisdom was that blacks were inferior, some peoples were naturally inclined to drunkenness and debauchery, etc.
I’d also have to back up Angurse on the point about the American colonies. They became attractive to the world precisely because they were not merely an expansion of Britain; it was a new world with little signs of an aristocracy and unheard of political equality. It was not settled by a bunch of rich families that consolidated power, but a diverse group of modest people. Those who established towns pledged allegiance to the Crown, sure, but were mostly sovereign, and that was much of the appeal.
I believe the government needs to do everything to give each citizen more freedom and more opportunity. However, when it comes to foreigners who wish to become citizens of the United States, I think the government has a responsibility to make it difficult for them to do so. That’s the difference I’m talking about. Our government needs to treat citizens and illegal immigrants basically as opposites. And that’s what I’m talking about when I mention patriotism. I believe that United States citizens should come first before all outsiders when it comes to the government.
Also, I hadn’t noticed Angurse’s comment until you mentioned it. I must have missed it for some reason. But it still goes along with my point that the settlers in America still claimed allegiance to their British government. However, once they had settled in their home, they fought for their freedom. The Native Americans had every right in the world to fight against the people who were coming into their land, and we retain the same right against illegal immigrants.
OK, and why? How does it benefit you? How is it anything but oppression for them?
I can see that in regards to warfare or a hostage situation, but I don’t see how it applies here. Whatever economic damage you believe an illegal immigrant inflicts upon us can be proven to be imaginary through proper study. It is not as if the government stands before a citizen and an illegal immigrant, and must decide who will get the hallowed job picking strawberries for ten hours. As I’ve said, when it comes to low paying work, the government literally prevents citizens from competing with illegal immigrants.
By the way, how do you feel about the Israeli flotilla attack? An American citizen was killed by the Israeli military, and yet the federal government has done nothing in response.
I’m hoping to have a little essay regarding this claim ready by Sunday. Simply put, I think that’s overblown.
This still has everything to do with the welfare system put in place. It is nearly impossibly for an illegal immigrant to not take advantage of taxpayer funds. And while that’s not their fault, it’s how society works right now. We literally have schools that are filled with all illegal immigrants. Some of them may pay a little bit in taxes, but it’s insignificant in comparison to how much it costs us to place them in those schools and allow them to use our hospitals. It needs to be difficult for people to get into the United States legally in order for them to appreciate everything we’re, in essence, giving to them when they arrive. And they do take jobs for American citizens would normally take if available. That does have to do with the minimum wage, but every time a state cracks down on companies hiring illegal immigrants, suddenly tons of jobs become available for United States citizens.
That happened in international waters where the citizen was with a group of people from many different countries. And I’m sure you’ve heard the audio from flotilla. Not so peaceful sounding. Israel wasn’t targeting an American citizen. They were targeting people they thought to be a threat to their own national security. If it had come to a hostage situation, as you mentioned, the federal government would have stepped in.
If you’re talking about writing an essay on it, I’d actually be appreciative to read it. Maybe we’ve been taught different things on the subject, which I wouldn’t be surprised about one bit. I want to touch up a bit more on the American colonization and Revolutionary War too. Do you have any recommendations of books that teach these subjects well? I was recommended the Oxford History of the United States volume, so I’ll have to read that one day too.
You might think a state is to blame for war, but you cannot seriously refer to our soldiers as “the state’s killing machines”. Never has a soldier ever gone to battle with the visions and hopes of enlarging the government. Every soldier will tell you he or she goes to war to protect their fellow citizens due to un-ending patriotism.
“Never has a soldier ever gone to battle with the visions and hopes of enlarging the government”
How do you know this? You’ve been in the mind of every soldier that’s ever fought in a war?
“Every soldier will tell you he or she goes to war to protect their fellow citizens due to un-ending patriotism.”
So you speak for every soldier now? Exacly how many wars have you fought and how many soldiers have you battled along side with, to fight for our “freedom”?
You must be kidding. Do I somehow have to be fighting along side a soldier to talk to him? Ask any soldier who’s coming back from Iraq or Afghanistan why they went to war. They’ll tell you they did it because they love their country.
I know tons of soldiers who do it for the benefits and pay, while not giving a damn about “our” country. Quit trying to speak for every single US soldier. That’s collectivist type of thinking. Just because you know a couple of soldiers who love the US, doesn’t mean EVERY soldier does.
Firsty, “our” soldies? I never condoned any senseless murder. You think like a collectivist. Not surprising considering your conservative anti-freedom views on immigration.
Never has a soldier ever gone to battle with the visions and hopes of enlarging the government. Every soldier will tell you he or she goes to war to protect their fellow citizens due to un-ending patriotism.
I do not care what lofty ideals soldiers had when they decided to sign up to kill people. The fact is that they kill people. If patriotism means murdering foreigners then I am unpatriotic to the core. War doesn’t protect anyone, it merely ensures the growth of a totalitarian government at home and the systematic burning of innocents aboard. The military is an intrinsically immoral institution that must be abolished.
“When men hire themselves out to shoot other men to order, asking nothing about the justice of their cause, I don’t care if they are shot themselves.” —Herbert Spencer
Although a central bank in itself is a means of redistributing scarce resources towards government purposes by means of inflation and credit expansion, there are limits on central banking power to do these things. Those limits are the existence of foreign central banks, which also inflate their money supply, and either stands the risk of inflating too much and seeing a massive outflow of monetary reserves abroad. So two groups competing for inflation restrict their own inflation. The only place a central bank can not conduct inflation to redistribute resources towards itself is foreign nations, where it does not have the same monopoly.
Similarly, there is the lavish western welfare state. For political gains of democracy, where votes carry more weight than property, we see another redistribution of resources where those who vote most can push their interests faster by voting on other people’s property. While capital and production are necessary for long-term growth, the political process is there to ensure that their short-term gains are served by siphoning away the gains of capital and production for their own purposes as far as possible. Often, this can lead to an uneconomic exhaustion of scarce resources like capital, as was the case with Greece and Indonesia. (However, most western democracies just manage to keep enough capital and factors of long-term production allocated in private property so that it produces enough for sustaining their state’s political needs.)
But when immigrants start coming in, legal or illegal, they suddenly put a pressure on public finances. The state’s increased liability to more people strains its ability to continue those activities. Normally, they could tax people through Medicare and meet Medicare obligations slowly as and when they arise. But when Medicare obligations suddenly get pushed up so high when 12 million Mexicans have access to hospitals, the state can panic. So it comes a situation where a sudden increase in people to whom the state becomes liable curbs the increase in the welfare state. Thus, immigration is a check on the ability of public sector ventures to continue. It limits their scope of raising the size of welfare state, which is much easier under a small population.
Of course, this does result in immigration controls (much the way central banking and international trade result in currency controls), but of what kind? When immigration controls prevent high-level professionals from migrating, it hurts sectors like financial markets, consultancy, and high-tech engineering, where foreign help is very much needed. Taxation revenues from those sectors would not grow as fast. While a large border fence with armed men could be erected, would the cost be worth the benefit and not dilute other demands of the state under the political process? If it would not, then the existence of illegal immigration would still be there. And the results would stay.
First of all, talking about war and the actions of soldiers is not the point of this thread, some of you are going off topic.
Now back to the real issue. Brian has put forth an argument that America should be taking care of it own citizens and should prevent immigrant coming over that the STATE decides to bring over. So if our government is founded by We the People, then why can’t each individual decide who should be allowed in the country. Also the immigration laws in the US are rather arbitrary things. If I were an illegal immigrant who is 9 months pregnant when crossing the border and I have a child once I get to the US, then my child is a citizen and I would not be.If I am caught, my child would be able to stay and I would be deported. Takikng that child away from his/her mother is not protecting or looking to the interest of this US citizen. Furhtermore, if I take my child back to my home country then my child would be an illegal there and the very fact that is happening would be considered a type of kidnapping as I as the parent would be forcing a US citizen to move to a country that is not their own.
Also, If I were to marry a citizen then I could become a citizen myself, yet if I decide to work then I am an outcast. Either way, I may be using the welfare system of the state and yet one way I get to stay and the other I’m forced to live in the shadows. Furthermore, opponents only mention the cost but never the benefit of employing immigrants. If the cost on the welfare system is to be mentioned, then so should the benefit of them working employing more capital than can be done if an employer were to hire only Americans at higher wages. Furthermore, if it were legal for them to come over and work under the suppossition that they can not use the welfare system and ID were required and some other proof of citizenship were required, then it would be a non-issue.
Next is the issue of culture. It is suppossed by those who argue in favor of illegals that we should protect our distinct American culture. OBTW what is American culture and values. America is made up of several groups, both legal and illegal, who have different beliefs, moral codes, traditions and (most importantly IMO) culinary tastes (I am so glad that immigrants brought their food over, what would we have missed out on otherwise). Yet you believe that there is something that needs to be protected, but if a culture is so great why does it need protecting. If I, an American citizen, decide that I want to be a part of a counter culture in American society then shouldn’t I be oppressed for trying to “change the culture”, not if you believe in freedom espoused in the 1rst Ammendment. Like choosing food at the grocery store or clothes (all part of culture btw) then I should be able to be what I want to be if I don’t hurt anyone in the process (I mean physically).
Lastly is the issue of national defense which was mentioned earlier. Yes I do believe that in times of war (this only refers to illegal immigration… Focus people) then it may be useful to close the borders off until things settle. However, it is interesting to mention that Germans and Italians (my grand parent being Italian fought on the side of the US during WW2) we employed by the US army during the war, yet Japanese (some who also fought) were thrown into concentration camps. Doesn’t this seem a little odd.
I would like to say more but I have to go and do things. Pleasure debating. (oh and if there are any grammatical errors of funny sentance structure I apologize in advance but I didn’t get a chance to properly read it over).
I apologize for taking so long to respond i went to bed. My point is very simple. If you believe in property rights how can you support the State telling a property owner who he can hire/not hire or associate/not associate with? That is my only question. Because the issue of immigration really is a property rights issue.
Unfortunately for the mother, she knew that she was coming over here. She also knew that she was pregnant, so she makes a fully-aware decision that she’s most likely going to end up abandoning her child if she gets caught. Arizona is working on an amendment to change birth-right citizen for illlegal immigrants too, so that will take care of it.
Again, this is a fundamental difference of opinion. Considering I pay for public schools and hospitals and everything like that, I don’t want illegal immigrants on that property, which, since it also belongs to everyone else who pays for it, creates problems. To me, it isn’t a property rights issue. It is a citizenship issue. Most people on here don’t care as much about citizenship as I do. My ancestors took a long time coming here legally, fought in WWII for us, and worked hard without welfare so that their future family members could prosper. There’s absolutely no excuse for illegal immigrants not doing the same.
You keep blaming the recipients of welfare, when you need to be blaming the government for stealing your money in the first place! But you don’t seem to have a problem with that. Your whole argument comes down to might makes right. You seem to think just because your ancestors fought for your “freedom” and won the war, that makes the state legitimate. If I go to your property to take your house and if I win the fight, does that I mean I now legitimately own your property?