What is with all the immigrant hate?

Miscellaneous General
1

Just don’t get it. Okay, I’ll admit it, I’m in Canada and maybe we don’t have the issues you do, though we do let in a lot more immigrants for our population size than the U.S. does. When I joined the libertarian movement back in the early 80s, there wasn’t a single libertarian I heard that supported anything other than a complete open door policy…free trade and free migration. Now, you get tons of anti-immigrant material off of Lew Rockwell’s site. And then there’s Ron Paul’s very anti-immigrant stand. Not only would he prevent them from coming in, he’d boot them out and remove citiizenship from their children who are born in the U.S. Of course he’d need a Constitutional amendment to do so, but does he just want to replace legislative laws with Constitutional meddling? Seems even worse to me.

But back on track. If the issue is that immigrants live off government programs, why not use that to help get rid of the programs? Or just deny such programs to non-citizens? That way, they have to make it on their own through hard work or go home. Moreover, I don’t think there is any objective evidence that immigrants are on balance taking more out of the economy than their putting in. And by all means, if they commit a real crime they should be booted out. But is there any evidence that they are more crime prone than a native born American?

There hasn’t been an immigrant into North America in my family for at least five generations. I wonder what the U.S. and Canada would have become had immigration ended around the time the last of my family arrived on North American shores? The “invasion” argument, imo, is just an excuse. There have been planty of waves of immigration in U.S. history. Irish, Italian, Jewish, Vietnamese, the list goes on. What’s up?

Immigration and Illegal Immigration
2

If you want my view, it’s that there’s paleoconservative influence. While I’m no lover of neoconservatives, I’m not fond of the paleos either (who, in some areas, may tend to be just as bad or even worse then the neos). If some left-libertarians are guilty of putting their cultural biases before liberty, so too are many right-libertarians guilty of putting their personal preferances (such as religiosity, traditionalism, nationalism, etc.) before liberty. The virus of nationalism and protectionism infests even libertarian circles sometimes. Libertarians are of course free to not favor the influx of certain groups as they please, but they cannot, as libertarians, favor political means towards addressing those concerns. I think part of the problem is that they are viewing it from a pragmatist perspective, influenced in part by exaggerated (and sometimes frankly downright false) claims about the effects of immigration on the culture and economy (I.E. increased crime, disease, multiculturalism, “lost jobs”, “welfare leeches” and so on).

3

I remember about five or six years ago when I first started coming to lewrockwell.com and saw subject headings about immigration and expecting to see good libertarian arguments in favour. When I actually read them, I thought I’d been bounced to some pro-union website, or maybe Ross Perot. Certainly not a “libertarian” site. Then I thought maybe it was some sort of satire. Sadly not.

The first anti-immigrant “libertarian” I ever encountered was about 1993 or so on Usenet. I tried to explain to him that his anti-immigration stance wasn’t very “libertarian”, then he started to rant about “dirty” Mexicans. It was pretty clear to me his motivation had less to do with how it fit with creating a libertarian society or even economic impact, but a strong dislike of Mexicans. He was going to twist libertarianism around to make it fit his xenophobic views. I never thought it would become mainstream among many libertarians, including Ron Paul. Isn’t this how the socialists hijacked the liberal movement, by slowly eroding it with anti-liberal ideas?

BTW, It looks like Canadian supporters are loosing enthusiasm for Ron Paul. Used to be endless postings now nearly nothing. I wondered how many Canadian supporters where aware of his immigration policy. There’s a thread in the Facebook “Canadians for Ron Paul” about Canadians moving to the States if Ron Paul where elected. They were all pumped up about living in a country driven by libertarian ideas, so I mentioned that they should look at the immigration policy before they pack their bags. The entire group seemed to die after that. Don’t know if it’s cause and effect or the Christmas season everyone is out shopping.

4

Legal Immigration vs. Illegal Immigration/Undocumented Immigrants
There needs to be a delineation between Legal Immigration and Illegal Immigration/Undocumented Immigrants. Legal Immigrants come her with intent and permission from the Federal Government to work in the US. I would conjecture that most libertarians/constitutionalist would be fine with Legal Immigration. They work hard, they pay taxes, and many are on a path to citizenship.

It is Illegal Immigration which causes a big debacle. The libertarian argument to Illegal Immigration is that the Federal Government provides incentives in the form of welfare, healthcare, foodstamps to illegal immigrants. Remove the incentives/subsidies, remove the problem of illegal immigration.

Constitutional Birth Right?
“Article 14 Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The question here is in the definitions of “subject to the jurisdiction of”. If an Illegal Immigrant comes to this country and has kids, do the kids get automatic citizenship? The initial answer at the writing of the amendment, according to Ron Paul, is NO. They are not under the jurisdicition of the US since they are illegal immigrants. The parents are illegal, hence the kids are illegal. However, over the past century or so, the definitions has shifted to mean anyone born in the US is a citizen. Ron Paul wants to clarify the original intent of the Article through a bill through Congress, and/or a Constitutional amendment.

5

"Legal Immigration vs. Illegal Immigration/Undocumented Immigrants
There needs to be a delineation between Legal Immigration and Illegal Immigration/Undocumented Immigrants. Legal Immigrants come her with intent and permission from the Federal Government to work in the US. I would conjecture that most libertarians/constitutionalist would be fine with Legal Immigration. They work hard, they pay taxes, and many are on a path to citizenship."

To divide legal from illegal immigration is to cave to a statist/collectivist concept, imo. It says our rights as individuals come from the state. If they’re not committing aggression, they should be free to act as free traders on a free market. Taking welfare benefits, especially if they’re not paying into them, would be an act of aggression. If they’re not, they should be left alone by the state. So, it shouldn’t be an issue of “legal” and “illegal” immigrant but stealing from the money of other people

“It is Illegal Immigration which causes a big debacle. The libertarian argument to Illegal Immigration is that the Federal Government provides incentives in the form of welfare, healthcare, foodstamps to illegal immigrants. Remove the incentives/subsidies, remove the problem of illegal immigration.”

Exactly. But why punish those who are not aggessing against the rights of others? Get rid of the real problem, gov’t benefits, and the problem is gone.

"Constitutional Birth Right?
“Article 14 Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The question here is in the definitions of “subject to the jurisdiction of”. If an Illegal Immigrant comes to this country and has kids, do the kids get automatic citizenship? The initial answer at the writing of the amendment, according to Ron Paul, is NO. They are not under the jurisdicition of the US since they are illegal immigrants."

But only because the state is decided to define them as such. To me, an immigrant is an immigrant. To a libertarian, there is no “illegal” unless its an act of aggression. An immigrant is someone who’s moved from one place to another, not an “illegal”. And is it any better to manipulate the Constitution than have a law that’s easly changed? I doubt he’ll have any sucess on this one…so why worry?

“The parents are illegal, hence the kids are illegal.”

I’d just call them folks.

“However, over the past century or so, the definitions has shifted to mean anyone born in the US is a citizen. Ron Paul wants to clarify the original intent of the Article through a bill through Congress, and/or a Constitutional amendment.”

I can’t imagine the framers of the Constitution ever intended it to be interpreted that way. People were coming in from all over at that time. Though they were also busy killing off natives at the same time, so who knows?

(sidenote, the posting software on this site is not…well…very good)

6

The legal/illegal distinction is entirely disingeuous. It’s no different then making a distinction between legal and illegal drug use, and saying “I’m not against the right of people to use drugs, I’m against people illegally doing drugs”. From what I can tell, an illegal immigrant is engaging in an act of civil disobedience no different then someone who wishes to smoke pot despite it being against the law. To my knowledge, libertarians are not supposed to support the law just because it so happens to be the law.

Opposing illegal immigration is to concede, by default, that you favor illegalizing immigration to some extent. It is to support the notion that you need special permission from the government, under the guise of regulations, in order to be allowed to live within the territory. There is no way around this. If you favor enforcing laws that restrict or illegalize immigration, you are anti-immigration to some degree. And in order to enforce such restrictions, you must support a government bereaucracy.

If you favor free association, you have no choice but to support me hiring illegal immigrants, allowing them into my home and selling them homes. Anything else will violate my property rights. Unless, of course, you wish to treat the entire territory as if it is the private property of the government, in which case you justify all sorts of aspects of statism. The “libertarian” case against immigration, legal or not, falls flat on its face according to the most basic elements of libertarian philosophy.

7

Not if I can’t freely disassociate from them by not paying for their education and medical bills and what not. There is a difference between the ideal world and the practical reality we have to deal with on a day by day basis, BP. Technically a doctrinaire Libertarian or Anarcho Capitalist is compromising the second he drives on a government road, but he has to live. On a practical level waves of immigrants that come across the borders undocumented, waves which include the respectable and hard working and the criminal alike, are a concern. I have a friend who is a CO in a state prison. He gets illegals daily for robbery, rape, murder, burglary, assault, etc., at a much higher rate than regular citizens. He has to get vaccinated for all types of diseases and take precautions against rare parasites. Rare in the developed world, not in the third world hell holes the illegals are coming from. He regularly gets illegals who are pedos, and end up in jail because where they come from you can nail a 12 year old without too much of a problem. This is not a good thing overall.

Right now all property is not private and so the ability to disassociate with some people is being denied to a lot of people who would otherwise exercise that right. As a practical matter the ability to monitor the border within reason and to know who is coming over the border, what diseases/medical problems they may have, their criminal records, etc., and some restrictions on that movement is not unreasonable. What’s more the government enables these people and subsidizes them, making them less likely to integrate and assimilate into the mainstream society and so instead they stay in the ghettos and ferment, and they will one day explode.

I’m all for opening the borders. After all entitlements are ended and enough property is private to make it generally hard to get here unless your potential neighbors want you here. And right now having any opinion on immigration is to sanction the state because one way or another you are giving tacit approval to either state controlled movement and restrictions there on, or state sponsored wealth redistribution and forced association/subsidization. It is not a question of principle but practical priorities. What do you deal with first? Personally I’d rather nix the welfare state before we allow another crowd of millions of potential leeches and criminals into the country. I’m well aware of the Mises quote about fire, but any fireman will tell you that you have to prioritize when fighting fires, and sometimes fire itself can be an ally in that fight.

And, to be blunt, seeing a crowd of people who can barely speak English parading down a US street chanting about how bad America is and waving foreign flags, well it pisses me off. And it makes me wonder about every other nation which seems to have pockets of unassimilated immigrants sucking off their respective welfare systems. It’s not working too well in Holland my relatives tell me. Not so well in France either they say. Their inner cities and ghettos make ours look like the play area at McDonalds. One has to question the intelligence of, on principle over practicality, allowing a significant portion of people who profess an intense hatred of your country into your country, often to do little more than suck off the government teet in a marginally more pleasant way than they could in their home country, and fester with hatred in an isolated ghetto only to explode into a rioting mob some time later to the naive shock of all the people who thought open borders were a wonderful idea, the height of principles.

A simple plan follows:

  • End all entitlements for noncitizens. Yes just noncitzens. It will be easier to get through than an end to entitlements in general.
  • End all bilingual education and other government enablement of nonassimilation, such as multilingual government forms. If you’re going to come here, learn the language or limit your options, plain and simple.
  • This one will hurt a bit, severely punish all employers who hire illegals. Yes it sucks. Yes it’s against principle. But it’s also the only practical way to go after over ten million people who can’t be rounded up into a paddy wagon, many of whom should not be here and are forcing others to cover their bills no matter how hard they work selling fruit on the freeway.
  • Lastly, streamline the legal process for coming here so it is generally easy to do so and so the only people who will try to do so illegally likely have an over riding reason for doing so.

Those are practical and achievable ends that can be subsumed into a larger plan for moving closer to a more libertarian society with respect to this issue. But this issue is not a simple matter. Especially when it’s your kid getting raped, you or someone you love getting mugged, you or someone you love getting killed, all by some illegal alien who has ten DWI convictions and a criminal record longer and deeper than the Grand Canyon. In the real word principle has to take a back seat to practical reality sometimes. In principle I should be able to walk through Central Park at 3 AM waving thousand dollar bills over my head while singing Whitesnake hits from the eighties, and I should not be harmed. I’m not going to try it any time soon. On practical grounds.

8

I wish I said that! BrianPolice is the Man![:D]

Ron Paul cured my apathy then killed my enthusiasm. I’ve done what I can for promoting him since 2003 when I opposed the war, given that I can’t vote for him or give to his campaign directly. And I still really want to see him win, I just can’t be a part of that given this ugly bit of xenophobia (which seems to have broad support within the U.S.). Oh well, back to having no faith in politicians and those that believe in them.

9

Until recently, I believed that views on immigration were firm: Illegal means illegal, no social assistance for illegal immigrants, send them home to do it right. My views were partly based on the belief that immigrants only provided cheap labor and gave no significant contribution to American society. This has changed since a recent trip to upstate New York. I met there a 28 year old female immigrant who illegally migrated to America with her mother and siblings 15 years ago. In 15 years, she has completed her high school diploma, her Bachelor’s degree in Mathmatics, and her Master’s degree in Higher Education. She currently teaches 2nd grade at a private school in the Capital Region. Not only that, while she was in college she began buying rental properties. She current has over 30 rental units, with five of her buildings being owned outright (no mortgage). She currently has plans to open a restaurant and lounge in the spring of 2009.

She began applying for citizenship at age 19. Due to the extensive paperwork process, she has yet to receive her citizenship. She believes that she is still about 6-9 months away from being done. Having said that, I will say that she speaks more to the reason for allowing immigration in America than most anyone. I would rather have her and those like her be given a bypass of the massive Federal bureaucracy lest they be rounded up with the rest and tossed back to their home country. The productivity of America is better when the work ethic of the best and brightest available talent is included.

10

Immigration to Canada is qualitatively much different than the U.S. Having no easy connection to poor third world countries, Canada also applies a highly elitist immigration policy that lets in only the most educated and cultured of foreigners. That makes immigration to Canada a civilizing trend.

Immigration in the United States, involving the least educated and least civilized of poor third worlders, is a menace to civilized society, which was already reeling from the forced integration of the civil rights act. With no right to appropriate and exclude others from their communities, Americans are appalled by failure of the government to expel illegal residents. The same thing is taking place in Europe with African immigrants.

11

Actually, with American’s tossing illegals out, many are heading to Canada. Windsor Ontario has apparantly been flooded with them. I’m not sure what their fate will be…we have a Conservative government that probably won’t welcome them with open arms. The immigrants I see where I live don’t seem to be all of the “upper crust”. You get in based on various categories, some which do involve investment and education. But lots come in as refugees and end up staying (though most end up getting the boot). I don’t like our immigration policy either, but no one here is running as an advocate of Freedom. BTW, for the first time in about thirty years, the flow out of Canada into the U.S. has been dropping while the flow from the U.S. into Canada is increasing. Our neighbors below us are from the States. Tons of houses have been bought up by Americans pushing our housing prices through the roof (we sold our house for $380k, that house would now cost us $600k to buy in a three year period). Guess I should be mad and demanding a tightening of our borders?

I’m really curious what would happen if the shoe were on the other foot?

12

xahrx - I’m not a pragmatist, I’m a hopeless idealist. The day I become a pragmatist is the day I start voting for a socialist party, and we got lots of those here.

13

Indeed, the good and the bad come across. You’ve experienced the good, are you ready to experience the bad? Has MS 13 decimated your neighborhood? Has an illegal with multiple DWIs run down your kids? Have you had work done on your home only to walk in and find uncollected bottles of urine on the floor, or seen such in your kid’s schools? Have you had an ‘immigration’ march through your neighborhood with people waving foreign flags and turning over cars and spitting on your property chanting phrases like, “Kill all white people!”? Have you had the honor of seeing people celebrating in the street after a few thousand American citizens were wiped out on 9/11? Happened here in NY, not too far from my coworker’s house. Do you want the equivalent of the French riots here in the US when these people, so dependent on the government, start pitching a fit at the slightest hint that you might not pay them as much as you used to for the dubious ‘benefits’ and hard work they bring to the US? The labor issue isn’t even really the problem. The problem is the government is essentially subsidizing the destruction of the very culture that made America great. They’re doing it enough with citizens an d welfare, we don’t need to import more.

And the underside of the issue is one many people don’t get to see every day. The stories I hear from the COs and the cops I know about what happened at ‘immigration’ marches and what kind of people are turning up daily in prisons, not to mention the precautions they have to take against rare diseases and parasites brought up here by illegals, turn my stomach. That hard working people who the United States should be proud to call their own come here illegally is not in doubt. But how do you allow them while not allowing the dregs and the criminals across? It is not by simply swinging the doors wide open and giving up on any attempt at monitoring the borders all the while ignoring the problems that entitlements are causing. If these people are coming here to work so hard and get more opportunity, why are they now fleeing to socialist Canada? It’s not for job opportunities, it’s for the liberal benefits the government gives. Housing, food, clothing, schooling, medical care, etc. A lot of these people do simply want to live on the dole for as long as possible, and they get pissed when denied what they think they have a ‘right’ to due to some imagined slight or historic injustice or just general hatred of anyone with a disimilar skin tone.

14

Windsor stressed by Mexican migrants#### Last Updated: Saturday, September 22, 2007 | 6:26 PM ET##### CBC News

The city of Windsor, Ont. is struggling to deal with a surge of Mexican migrants from the United States.

More than 200 Mexicans have arrived at the border city in the past three weeks, lured by assurances on websites that they can live and work in Canada without difficulty.

Carina Gonzalez is one of the Mexicans in Windsor, Ont., who were led to believe they could easily live and work here.
Carina Gonzalez is one of the Mexicans in Windsor, Ont., who were led to believe they could easily live and work here.220×294 10.5 KB
Carina Gonzalez is one of the Mexicans in Windsor, Ont., who were led to believe they could easily live and work here.
(CBC)

But the Mexicans, some of whom paid $400 for completed Canadian refugee forms, have no special rights in Canada.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada has posted a notice on its website, warning in Spanish and English that “you cannot purchase admission to any immigration or refugee program to gain refugee status. You do not need to purchase forms.”

The Mexicans said they had been forced to leave the U.S. because they were illegal immigrants there.

U.S. immigration authorities “were chasing Mexicans, sending them back home,” said Carina Gonzalez, who drove to Windsor from Florida, where she had lived for years. She paid $400 for the refugee form and headed north.

Continue Article

But there is no room in the city’s social-service agencies, spokeswomen for the YMCA and the Salvation Army said.

“Right now we are full and some of the latest additions are sleeping on mats in the gymnasium,” said Maj. Patricia Phinney of the Salvation Army.

Mayor seeks federal help

Mayor Eddie Francis is fed up. Many of the new arrivals have claimed social assistance, and the city has already spent more than $200,000 of its emergency shelter budget.

Francis has asked Ottawa to cover the bill, saying the emergency budget “wasn’t set up to fund long-term refugee claims. That’s something that falls squarely with federal jurisdiction.”

So far, Ottawa has refused, and with a six-month wait for a hearing by the Immigration and Refugee Board, the city could be paying for shelter for months.

The odds of being accepted as a refugee are not good. Fewer than 500 of nearly 3,500 Mexican applicants were successful in claiming refugee status in Canada last year.

Hence, no goodies from Socialist Canada.

15

My reference point for this argument is respect to libertarian/constitutionalist (minarchist) aka big tent libertarian, not from the view of an anarchro-capitalist. The assumption, from the minarchist point of view, is that government plays a small role in such restrictions. Ron Paul is obviously a minarchist flavor of libertarian.

16

I don’t believe it is hypocritical for a libertarian to drive on a public road. What is hypocritical is for a libertarian to advocate what amounts to a police state and a federal movement bereaucracy in the name of solving problems that they themselves admit are created by the welfare state, and in the name of exaggerated and sometimes completely false claims about the characters of a particular group of people and the effect they have on the culture and economy. What is hypocritical is to piously mouth ideas such as natural rights, and then act as if they only apply if someone has special permission from the government, filled out the proper paperwork and passed through the proper regulations. I guess people only have rights if they’re “legal”.

Yes, post-ponement logic. I’m familiar with it: “since we still have a welfare state, until it is done away with, we should support government intervention in the name of stopping the migration of people into the country”. In short, since intervention X exists, intervention Y is okay as a solution to the problems created by intervention X. This is interventionism, plain and simple. The only libertarian solution would be to get rid of intervention X, in this case, the welfare state. Anything else just leads to a cycle of interventionism and a distraction from the root cause of problems. In practise, you will end up with a welfare state + more police powers and a larger immigration bereaucracy. That’s just how these things work.

There is nothing remotely libertarian about police raids on employers. This is more of a paleoconservative position then anything else when it comes to labor. Furthermore, not a single illegal immigrant is forcing you to pay the bills. That’s what the government is doing. You misplace blame entirely. As for laguage, that’s a matter of personal preference. I could really care less what language someone speaks if they’re not harming me. As for the idea that immigrants come with express purpose of sucking off the government teet, this is utter nonsense. The primary incentive is employment. If the welfare state were removed, you would see just as many if not more people flocking here. That’s because they come here mostly because it’s simply a wealthier country then theirs.

Furthermore, the exact same complaints apply not only equally but moreso to “legal” citezens, who vote for welfare all the time and constitute the vast majority of recipients. Under this same logic, children who use the public schools should be kicked out of the country - afterall, they are “free riders”. Indeed, all complaints leveled against illegal immigrants apply to legal citezens in much larger numbers. Of course, anti-immigrationists have double standards of morality as soon as a group they don’t like enters the picture. To apply the same principles to “illegal” immigrants that they do to domestic “legal citezens” is too much to bear apparently.

Forced association? And forced disassociation is better? Why is the gun in the room being ignored? Who is it that is forcing association here? Who is it that is taking your money at gunpoint? Who is it that rules over you? Who is it that spends your money on these welfare escapades and wars? For the most part, not immigrants. The government, yes. It’s so easy to blame the victim, isn’t it? You have a problem with immigrants not paying taxes? I say more power to them! We need more people to stop paying taxes. Of course, the fact of the matter is that most of them do end up paying taxes anyways, so the nationalist’s complaints are mostly void.

“The border” is an imaginary line on a map that does not represent a legitimate property title. Crossing it is no different then crossing unowned land, since there is no discernable just owner of nations. It is not reasonable, from any rational property rights perspective, to enforce it as if it were private property. Not hiking up enforcement of such imaginary “borders” does not spell out the end of western civilization as we know it. Nor does it mean that you are necessarily “forced” to associate with people (I don’t like half the people around me as it is, but simply because they live on my street or in my neighborhood does not mean I’m forced to associate with them in any direct way - I somehow manage to never come into contact with any of them).

I never give principle a backseat to pragmatism. Never. Call me an “idealist” all you want. I’m sorry if your personal dislike for certain groups and irrational fears and exaggerated claims allows you to put liberty in the backseat. The nationalist paleocons are hijacking this movement. I stick by this claim.

17

I understand this. Of course, I’m not a minarchist or a constitutionalist, and I don’t support Ron Paul. I don’t believe the constitution has any legitimate authority, and I don’t think that the government should exist, nor do I think that, even granting that the government currently does exist, supporting immigration bereaucracy and paramilitary border patrols is a sensible or principled strategy for reducing political power. I think that even from a “practical” standpoint, this will just increase the state’s power, and we will still be left with a welfare state. On the other hand, I do not think that relaxing immigration controls and reducing border patrol will cause an increase in political power, or necessarily make the welfare state blow up by leaps and bounds. If anything, it would reduce political power while simply allowing more people to exist within the territory. Perhaps some of them will become welfare recipients. Others will not. Some will take jobs. Others will not. It most certainly would not spell out the end of the world as we know it.

Libertarians, minarchist or not, should be concentrating their efforts on eliminating current interventions. Not proposing new ones or expansions of already existing ones as a solution to currently existing ones. It seems pretty fundamental to me that libertarian strategy is a matter of simply taking whatever oppurtunity possible of reducing political means, even if we may not necessarily personally like all of the consequences. Not using political means to appease our personal preferences (such as cultural purity). I most certainly do not personally like many of the ways in which people use their liberty, but that is not going to stop me from supporting their liberty. I’m just going to have to tolerate the fact that people may use their liberty in ways that does not jibe with my personal preferences. Indeed, the consequences of liberty may not always look particularly pretty from a personal perspective. Big whoop. Learn to deal with it.

18

From my understanding, Ron Paul suggests revoking any federally funded subsidies towards illegal immigrants (let alone any federally funded subsidies). Combine this with having a sound economic policy, a la Austrian Economics, is Ron Paul solution to “illegal immigration”.

Out of curiosity, how do you suggest we, as a country, as states, as communities, and/or as individuals proceed/progress towards an libertarian/anarchro-capitalistic society? In ideal terms? And in realistic terms? Can it really happen?

IMHO, Ron Paul has spurred a movement and interest for many towards a libertarian/constitutionalist “government”, and has inspired others to seek libertarian/anarchro-capitalistic society. I think getting him in office would be the first step in turning away from a socialist regime towards a truly libertarian world.

BTW, I have started on new thread on this, perhaps we can continue the discussion over there?

19

Well, that was quite an impassioned response. Unfortunately it appears that you have personalized all of the negative immigration experiences into your own. I had that exact same view until I had the experience I discussed in my previous posting. To answer your questions: Yes, MS-13 is quite rampant in my area (Richmond-Hampton Roads, VA corridor); Yes, a illegal immigrant DUI (second offense) has killed members of my community; Yes, I’ve had rental property “tagged” by gang members as well as an investment property under renovation be riddled with bullets by gang members; Yes, we have had immigrant marches in this area although of the non-violent variety.

Regarding the French riots, I cannot say that I would support a violent uprising of any group of people when their cause is to continue a system of welfare and taxation. The issue of immigration and welfare are closely related. Who knows the added burden placed upon our already over-crowded welfare system due to the illegal immigrant population? We can only guess. I think the larger issue here is not so much immigration, but the blatant unwillingness of the federal government to fulfill its expressed powers all the while removing power from municipal and state government; dismantling the rights of states and disabling their ability to poroperly attend to the needs of its citizens. I believe that once that very fundamental issue is resolved, then all other sidebars will work themselves out.

20

“good fences make good neighbours”. even in the utopian anarchistic scenario of the american state ceasing to exist in a formal sense), it is not going to alter the fact that other nation-states have their own agendas. look at the number of wars caused by disputed border lines. i know the argument that an armed populace will fight to the last to defend its private property, and maybe that’s right, but i just wonder whether the lack of border enforcement might actually invite encroachment by a hostile nation-state.

i mean if america unilaterally decided not to enforce its mexican border, what’s to stop you wandering accidently into mexico, who may decide to prosecute you, for illegal entry.

here in australia, we spent the better part of a decade negotiating a sea-border treaty with indonesia, without which, no oil-drilling could have been possible for obvious sovereign risks. perhaps your theory would only work if all nation-states dissolved, but i don’t like your odds.