I like Michael Savage, even though he is a conservative. He often takes the correct approach on economics, but his stance on immigration is stupid. I have no problem with immigration, legal or illegal, whatsoever. Because if they become part of our economy then it can only mean that the economy on the whole is prospering. Sure some people might lose jobs but that is a bad way to look at it, a lot of people lost jobs when the trains were invented. People will always lose jobs when there is economic progress. Immigration leads to economic progress on the whole economic level. But I think the main problem is actually legal immigration. Because legals can now recieve certain benefits from the government which means the people must spend their tax money on the legals. Illegals do not do so. Thus, it is actually more preferrable to have illegal immigration to legal immigration. Of course, the ideal circumstance would be to cut back on welfare programs so this problem does not happen.
I want to start off by saying that I really like Michael Savage too.
I’m from Arizona, and illegal immigration is a very big problem here. Aside from the Mexican drug cartels and everything, which would make for another entire conversation, illegals do still get the benefits of the welfare system. They get free treatment at all of our hospitals, and most of them even get in-state tuition to our colleges. Some even get federal grants/scholarships. I’ve lived in Arizona for nearly my entire life, but my parents moved right before I entered college, and they said I couldn’t receive in-state tuition anymore while many illegals are still getting it. They blocked it from happening, but it still happens a lot because they can use fake identification and a record of local residency.
I believe people would be much, much more forgiving of illegal immigration if we didn’t have so many welfare programs for people to feed off.
Michael Savage? Eww.
If there were no immigration laws, then there would be no such thing as illegal immigration–all immigration would be legal. If this was in fact the case, would you still consider immigration a problem?
In other words, is your beef with:
-
Immigration qua immigration or
-
With the fact that “illegal immigrants” are violating such and such statute of federal law?
If number 2 is the case, then eliminating all immigraiton laws would satiate you. If this is not so, then number 1 must be the case and I would want to ask why immigration is a problem.
If that’s the case, then every anti-illegal-immigrant person in the country should be backing the abolition of welfare, social security, medicare, medicaid, public schooling, and other benefits that immigrants can come over here and take advantage of. I don’t see this happening.
My problem with immigration stems from the welfare system. I’ve known that for a long time. The conflict for me comes due to the fact that we live in a welfare state and many illegal immigrants support it because they don’t have to work as hard to get what they want.
If they stripped down every welfare program, I’d have much fewer problems with illegal immigrants, although I’d still have some. Many of the illegal immigrants coming from Mexico to Arizona don’t have any patriotism for the United States. They aren’t so much worried about freedom as much as they are in claiming United States territory as Mexico’s. There are countless Mexican flags flying over American flags in our state, and I hate that.
I’ve always noticed that the ‘best’ (for lack of a better word) immigrants, legal or not, were born or lived in the Soviet Union. They understand that nothing good can come from big government. Many of them are coming here for freedom and not for a government handout.
The Founding Fathers were very skeptical of immigration in the first place because they didn’t think a lot of them would assimilate into American culture. That’s why I like Michael Savage. While I don’t mind immigrants coming to the United States, our “borders, language, and culture” (as Michael Savage puts it) are extremely important parts of who we are.
It sounds like your beef is not with the welfare system, but with Mexican culture. You actually believe they don’t care about freedom? You think the majority of them really risk their life crossing the border just for some petty government handout? You sound like a spoiled American who think they have a say over territory that is not theirs. If you don’t want Mexicans on your property that’s fine with me, but don’t try stop me from asscociating with who I want to.
Aquila I think you should give Brian a link to the immigration thread you started on Hannity’s forum. I think he could a learn a lot from it.
There’s no need to put words in my mouth. That’s not what I said at all, and your entire paragraph seemed to be trying to make me out as some kind of racist. Whether or not illegal immigrants come here for government handouts, they do use them. Hospitals, schools, and everything don’t seem like government handouts, but they are funded by taxation nonetheless.
I don’t even know how to respond to that because it doesn’t make any sense. So I’m a spoiled American and I don’t want Mexicans on my property? You must have just been waiting to shout that out to someone. It has nothing to do with what I posted. I’m assuming that you have never been to Arizona. If you had, you’d see that our state has welcomed Mexican culture with a friendly smile and I have no problem with that.
We’re trying to discuss illegal immigration and its role in the economy. It does no one any good for you to pop in and make xenophobic accusations to spark some kind of inflammatory response, and we don’t appreciate it.
I apoligize if I was a little harsh, I just get frustrated with all the poor arguments against immigration. All they come down to is someone’s “pride” over a bunch of imaginary lines aka their country. You do realize Native Americans were here first right? You do realize several US states use to belong to Mexico?
[Here](http:// http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?s=82bd36272ebc3a42856fe320b9a42f3a&t=1979401&page=8) is the link to the Hannity forums. Aquila and others did a fine job debating several conservatives on the issue of illegal immigration. Btw I’m sorry we got off on the right foot. I will admit I did respond out of frustration. You seem like a pretty open minded person, so I hope you will be able to see the fallacies of your argument.
“I apoligize if I was a little harsh, I just get frustrated with all the poor arguments against immigration. All they come down to is someone’s “pride” over a bunch of imaginary lines aka their country. You do realize Native Americans were here first right? You do realize several US states use to belong to Mexico?”
A joke?
I too think that Economics should be a major focus today. Especially with the way that the world economy is going. I hope that it will all turn around soon.
I’ll say it again: the immigration issue just highlights the fundamental untenability with our constitutional republic.
1.) Federal Government violates Constitution to provide welfare handouts
2.) Arizona violates Constitution to protect itself from the consequences of (1)
3.) The Constitution = toilet paper
I’ll take Brian at his word that he is not xenophobic or racist. I think that racists are groups like Aryan Nation and Black Panthers that openly refuse to associate with people of different skin colors or declare their race to be “superior.” I am not a fan of throwing the charge of racism around. More often than not, it’s just a tactic used to silence important conversation over legitimate issues.
Now, on to welfare. The immigrant welfare bum does indeed pose a grave problem—for the welfare state! Putting up barriers to immigration in response to a flood of immigrants is an economically detrimental response to what is fundamentally a problem of incentives. The argument that immigrants are immigrating in order to take advantage of welfare does not attack the concept of free immigration. On the contrary, it is a direct assault upon the sustainability and morality of the welfare state.
Having identified this particular problem as clearly residing with welfare (not immigration), the solution clear: end all subsidies—here defined as government grants of funds or privilege—to immigrants. If you subsidize something, you will get more of it. Ending all subsidies to immigrants will remove the incentives for the lazy and incompetent—that is, for the welfare bums—to immigrate. Ideally, subsidies would be abolished for everyone, native and foreigner alike, but unfortunately it is politically unfeasible to stop funding programs that natural-born citizens have been paying into their whole lives (and thus justly feel entitled to). The least we can do is prevent those who have not cashed in from cashing out. Eliminating welfare, free government schooling, free medical care, etc. for the illegal immigrant population would eliminate all incentives for welfare-bums to come to the United States.
Also, no more voting! People complain that the immigrants, given amnesty, will vote for the candidate promising greater welfare entitlements extracted from taxpayers.
That may be true, but it brings up a much larger question: why should ANY group be able to use the ballot box to gain benefits forcibly extracted from another group, just by virtue of the fact that the former group is large in number??? It’s fine that “legal” US citizens can use the ballot box to pillage their neighbors?? It only becomes a problem when it’s “illegal” immigrants doing so? Some people are really barking up the wrong tree.
Aquilla,
I enjoy your knowledge and well reasoned posts. And if you really are as old as your profile says – I’m impressed..
did the native population, i.e “Indians” have a right to defend “their” land and culture from the invading euro trash??
If yes, do not the current natives have the same right?
Also do you believe, as do modern multiculturalists, that all cultures are equal and no measurement of good, better best can be made??
I do understand your argument and would agree if both the US and countries where poor immigrants come from were free.
Free immigration should not be a problem. Immigration is only a problem because of the state’s decisions. Like the drug war, foreign policy, welfare. Personally, I should be free to hire anyone I want. If I want to hire someone who is willing to work for a lot less, I should be able to. I should also be able to hire someone who speaks english if I can’t speak another language. Or maybe wish to hire someone who doesn’t know a foreign language so I can understand what they are saying all the time.
Personally, I am envious that they can get jobs, get scholarships, get taxpayer money, a drivers license in some states, all without paying taxes.
@Wibee, why does receiving those things and not paying taxes matter? Most who receive welfare don’t pay out in taxes an equal amount. They’ve had wealth redistributed to them from more productive members of society. I have as much a problem with illegal immigrants receiving state welfare benefits as I do with citizens receiving state welfare benefits. Both groups are living at the expense of others.
Actually, I take that back, I have a bigger problem with citizens receiving state welfare benefits because they have the privilege of voting for them, whereas illegal immigrants don’t.
Two solutions:
-
Tax people at a higher rate if they work for the government. But then again, the government might just raise their pay if that were to happen, so there’d have to be work on that solution.
-
Someone mentioned an idea about giving people two votes each. One for their own choosing and one that they can sell in the free market. That way, if they’re going to vote for money, at least it would give them the opportunity to vote for direct money instead of welfare programs. Then whoever buys the vote can use it to vote for a pro-free market politician.
irst of all, thank you for the kind words. Yes, I may be 17 in ordinary years, but in homeschool years I’m closer to 30.
Regarding your point on Indian culture, I think you were wise to put “their” in quotes because, of course, not all Indians had or have the same culture. This issue goes beyond politics into my personal beliefs and preferences, but as an individualist, I believe the concept of “culture” to be rather stupid.
One’s culture tends to consist of one’s aesthetic preferences, one’s language, one’s religion (or lack thereof) and so forth. This is overwhelmingly assigned at birth. There aren’t too many American Hindus or Asian-Indian Southern Baptists. Likewise, whether girls will wear long dresses, mini-skirts, or burkas depends largely on where they are born.
I think this is a damn shame. People should pick their own culture, not have it thrust upon them by “society” (or even their parents).
This translates into immigration policy because if culture is a choice, then each individual has his own, personal “culture” and no one has the right to thrust his or her culture on everyone else. Immigration control as a means of preserving “culture” implies that there is some sort of official state “culture.” Why not let each individual choose his or her own culture free of interference from the state? If I like “Mexican” culture, then I might hang out with Mexicans, attend mass on Sundays, talk really fast, and eat a lot of tortillas. You don’t have to like or approve of these practices, and that’s fine. I’m not asking that you embrace my aesthetic preferences, only that you tolerate them.
That said, I can see how you might consider free immigration to be more like forced integration in modern society. Hans Hoppe makes the same case here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/hermann-hoppe1.html
No. My culture is the best and all other cultures are inferior. My standard? My subjective preferences and value scale, of course.