What is with all the immigrant hate?

Miscellaneous General
141

B

eing able to send money overseas at all means that they are consuming less than they are giving to the society here, even at their depressed wage levels.

Medical cost is a red erring; most illegals are at prime age, or what insurance companies would call best customers. The long desert walk tends to weed out the weaklings :slight_smile: On any given day, far more immigrants, legal and illegal, probably work in our hospitals than there are patiants in the same place. Along with car insurance, if there is a rational policy that does not outlawing their buying insurance (how can one buy car insurance without SS# or driver’s license, for example), the problem would largely solve itself. Instead, now we have to spend more tax money (car chases after accients) because we previously wasted money on irrational enforcement policies.

The argument about depressing wages doesn’t make much sense. Someone is getting their service for less than otherwise would be. If depressing wages were a logic argument, shouldn’t we outlaw new births and most certainly outlaw volunteerism?

as to your first point: instead of spending their money in the country where it was earned it is sent out to other countries. i believe you get the point but want to turn it around and use it against me. nice try but it doesn’t make sense. they are taking more out than they are returning. if they spent earned money here it would be a wash.

as to your second point: medical costs is not a red herring due to the fact that someone has to pick up the medical costs that are not paid by these illegals. if you have a job that provides health insurance the cost of that insurance is greater than it should be due to the unpaid bills. those bills do not go away just because they are not paid. additionally, you need to go down and hang around your local ER on any given evening. you may get an education. the same goes for the car insurance. your car gets banged up and the other driver leaves the scene the damage doesn’t disappear. the insurance companies are in that game to make a profit. they will not just fix your fender gratis.

as to your third point: your argument is ridicules and deserves no rebutal.

142

xahrx, i’m afraid, won that round. it would seem that your idealism has deposited you squarely in a fantasy world. it is obvious you are unaware of how much and where your tax dollars are going. you also obviously have never found an illegal standing in your garage helping himself to your tools or observed the neighbor’s car sporting three different license plates at weekly intervals. your arguments are those ‘looks good on paper’ kind. while i agree that the government is the one that is robbing us and giving it to those that have little incentive, i believe that we should be pressing for real change within the government to correct this problem. until we tatbo (throw all the bast–ds out) and start with people that have our interests at heart nothing will be accomplished. we can blog all day and night in futility.

143

What I mean when I say that immigration restriction must inevitably violate the property rights of individual owners, Inquisitor, is this. Suppose I, a legal citezen, invite an illegal immigrant into my home. Suppose I sell one a home or rent one out to them. Suppose I hire one. In order to enforce the immigration laws, you must essentially, in effect, restrict trade and force disassociation. You must forcibly kick them out of voluntarily aquired homes, from willing sellers and renters. You must forcibly end their voluntarily aquired jobs, from willing employers. Thus, these immigration laws cannot be enforced without eggregious violations of individual property rights; the property rights of citezens. If any citezen wishes to voluntarily associate with an illegal immigrant in any way, you must forcibly end those associations. If you wish to allow the government to control access to the entire territory, you must implictly control access to individual plots of property within it. Conclusion: immigration restrictionism violates private property rights.

if that illegal had not violated the law you wouldn’t be able to invite him in, now would you? noncitizens can own property here. to visit it, however, one must go through certain channels that are there to protect me and you. a certain number of these people have skirted these channels and are dangerous to our health and welfare. if you would like to associate with them you are free to go to their countries and do so. they should not be free, though, to just wander into this country unnoticed and without going through the procedures set down.

144

I’m really tired of the smears of “idealism”. It is the exact same attitude that is expressed towards libertarians by liberals and conservatives. If anything is a sign that one is living in a fantasy world, it is the notion that we can restrict immigration (expand immigration restriction, even) without violating our own core principles and expanding state interventions in all kinds of ways (more taxes spent, more strict police powers, paramilitary presence, eminent domain, national I.D. cards, beureacratic management, etc.), and end up reducing the welfare state as a consequence. What I find truly detached is the idea that a black market in immigration can be controlled by expanding and attempting to enforce prohibition on it. If we really want to address this is utilitarian, pragmatic terms, I have a question: why doesn’t prohibition theory apply to immigration and immigrant labor?

145

Yes, that “illegal” (I.E. human being) broke an unjust law in order to get into the territory, in the same way that slaves who tried to run away from their masters broke an unjust law in order to attempt to free themselves, and in the same way that some hippie who smoked a joint broke an unjust law in order to damage his body for a little bit of temporary euphoria. Just because something happens to be the law does not mean that it is just by any stretch of the libertarian imagination. Civil disobedience, my friend. Civil disobedience. Is it risky? Hell yes! I kind of have to admire them for their courage in their risk-taking. Is it in violation of anyone else’s rights? No, not unless we distort the meaning of rights beyond recognition as to imply that one has a “right” to dictate that other people not enter land that is not actually one’s own legitimate private property. Not unless there is such thing as a “right” to make discrimination/exclusion mandatory on either other people’s property or unowned land.

The “procedures” are arbitrary and constitute red tape. People illegally come here, in part, precisely because the “procedures” are ridiculous and draconian, making them end up on waiting lists for years while they’re trying to escape bad conditions. I don’t see any rational reason why someone should have to go through a ridiculous bereaucratic process, loaded with regulations, in order to simply enter the territory and aquire a home from a willing seller. These “procedures” have nothing to do with liberty so far as I can tell. I don’t really care if such “procedures” are there in the name of “public safety”. I had thought that libertarians are generally quite skeptical of attempts by the government to create “public safety” through regulations. Why should someone need special permission from the government to enter the territory? It seems to me that your arguement amounts to the idea that it is necessary to pass through the proper regulations (excuse me, unecessary and mostly pointless legal hoops and barriers) in order to enter the territory. I certainly don’t feel “protected” by such a government bereaucracy.

There are so many good libertarian arguements against immigration restriction and the claims of those who support it, both ethical and practical, that I find myself wondering why this is even an issue up for debate. But unfortunately it is.

146

Selling homes to immigrants constitutes voluntary immigration as there is a demonstrable will for the immigrant to reside there indefinately.

147

I couldn’t care less how you view it. As I’ve said in other threads, the government is social herpes. We’ve got it and we’re not getting rid of it. So what you’re asking is essentially, “How do you preach health when you have an incurable but nonfatal disease?” Easy, you do the best with what you have, you compromise where necessary. No where have I seen Ron Paul present himself as anything but an old right adherent, all of whom accepted the existence of government as a more or less necessary evil that should be minimized. I have no desire to offer criticisms of people solely because they deviate from perfection of principle in practice. The entire planet is unworthy by those standards.

148

And what you’re missing is that the state is itself derrived from human nature. People want to steal, people want to push their neighbors around, and to do so with impunity, people want unearned income, people want favorable treatment and ‘legal’ advantages, etc. I do not propose to break the monopoly. The state is essentially the dominant mafia, and they don’t tolerate competition, period.

To say that is arguable is to put it modestly.

149

Unfortunately there’s a difference between denying access to people and trying to weed out criminals and welfare leeches before you let people have access.

150

I beg to differ. Ask anyone with a ranch on the southern border who routinely loses animals to holes in their fences that they have to routinely pay to repair. If they electrify, they get sued. I remember one guy who, having had enough, put out ladders for the illegals. There is plenty of private property getting messed with, and real property too, not just confiscated money that’s getting forcibly redistributed to the illegals.

151

However intervention Y is already in effect, just not enforced, and for the very reason that it would be detrimental to the state to do so. Which, for now, makes intervention Y my friend.

152

Nor do mischaracterizations of arguments, but you seem to be jumping on that bandwagon without much pause.

153

Ah, but living in the US borders, what principled anarchist would, after awakening and finding his whole family slaughtered, use the STATE police to catch and punish the murderer? I mean, intervention X doesn’t justify intervention Y. Think of all the people who would be forced to pay for food and board for the murderer were he caught, those who would be impressed into jury duty for the trial, the lack of restitution made to you the victim as indeed you would be one of the people paying to keep the murderer in food and clothing, the redistribution of wealth to pay the salaries for all the state employees involved, etc.

Surely a principled anarchist would never go to the police in such an instance and do something so horrible as perpetuate the existence and power of the state, and certainly would not make use of such services and laws while in existence while still doing his best to change them into a form he found more in line with his principles, if not perfectly so. Such an instance would be unthinkable. Better to develop an alternative law enforcement agency and see how it fares in competition with the state.

154

Is there a reason why when a corporation goes to the government and begs, it is seen as at least complicit in any wealth transfer that is granted, but when a Mexican does the same thing they are champions of liberty? Does not the corporation too make valuable productive additions to society as any individual worker does, legal or illegal?

155

Fully one third of the people in the prison here are illegals. They are a miniscule but fast growing portion of the population, not yet over 5% here. Yet 33% of the prison population in for various misdemeanors and felonies, from DUI to rape and murder. The neighborhoods they have congregated in have seen crime indexes skyrocket, and in areas that by and large are well below national averages. Schooling quality drop through the floor.

Locally near my mother’s house someone tried to open a slum a couple years ago, no other way of putting it. Well over 20 people staying in a one family home. Matresses were spread through the backyard, the front door was taken off its hinges and simply left on the lawn. Kids got harrassed, bikes and cars stolen, homes robbed. The people in the neighborhood got together and demanded the existing zoning ordinances be enforced and the slum closed. Things went back to normal real quick.

A departure from perfection of libertarian principle to be sure. I guess the principled solution would have been for everyone to band together and buy the house, then try to evict the people, deal with the lawsuits and whatnot that followed, etc. Or perhaps everyone could have built fences around their property and put bars on their windows, bought chains for their kids bikes and alarms for their cars and houses if they didn’t have them already, etc. Or maybe they could have paid the people in question to not act like such complete scumbags. But for some reason I can’t bring myself to judge the neighborhood too harshly for their unprincipled action of actually using existing laws to ensure their kids could, as they could before, play stick ball in the street and leave their bikes on their lawns with reasonable reassurance that they wouldn’t be stolen.

I think you and I are in agreement, people who are idealistically and on principle opposed to any immigration controls by and large aren’t subjected daily to the real, material, immediate problems large floods of illegals are causing. As has been said, well to do Mexicans with pristine records and careers aren’t hiking across the border. Especially seeing how things are set up in Mexico currently, we are getting the dregs. The lower class that is being crushed. And were there not currently entitlements open to them and little to no means for screening criminals out, I’d welcome them. But until the immigration process is made easier (interesting thing for a ‘nationalist’ to ask for…) and until entitlements are ended, using existing laws to protect ourselves from an escalation of problems and money loss makes sense.

The high school I went to as a kid, which was routinely awarded and turned out some honestly smart and productive kids, is now overrun with latino gangs. There’s loads of graffiti on the walls, litter all over the grounds, smashed car windows all over, and roving bands of punks eyeing every person of differring skin complexion who drives through the area. Bottles of piss are to be found next to buildings, piles of clothing, houses in the area were seeing property values drop long before the crash, slums are popping up, etc. And I don’t think it’s nationalist or racist or even unreasonable to note that it’s not waves of illegal immigrants from Norway that seem to be the problem, and that current laws on the books should be enforced to curtail immediate problems while the roots are also dealt with, which is a much longer term goal.

156

A thief may send money overseas, he is not giving more to society than he is taking.

I know several nurses and a doctor who would disagree. The illegals here use the ER for every conceivable problem. They aren’t showing up for broken legs or heart attacks. They are flooding the ER with the sniffles, stomach aches, splinters, ear infections, tooth aches, the squirts, etc., because they have no health insurance and no primary physician, there’s a longer wait at the free clinic, and they know the ER won’t and often can’t turn them away.

157

Stupid is as stupid does I guess.

158

then you haven’t been to japan, probably the most closed and xenophobic nation on earth. sure, there is the odd expatriate, but absolutely no tolerance for mass immigration as we in the western world know it. they invest and trade internationally, just don’t mix it with the rest of humanity. and they’re no slouches, economy wise. goods/services travelling borders freely can deliver the wealth that comparative advantage unlocks. people don’t have to be part of that mix, and the japanese had very rigid views on race, ethnicity and society.

on the other hand, take botswana, they’ve got a real problem with managing the enormous efflux of refugees coming from zimbabwe. the botswana are not happy with the situation, in spite of your sanguine attitude to illegal immigration. same capital make-up, just a couple of million extra mouths to feed. many of the refugees are forced to continue on to south africa, whose bigger capital base is more accomodative of large arrivals. but there’s a limit.

maybe you could illustrate one wealthy country in today’s world where open borders are successfully operating. because i can think of plenty where leaky borders are creating extreme distrust on the part of the host nation (and not the elites, the ordinary joe). only when there is enormous capital accumulation can mass immigration not drag down living standards (think hong kong since ww2, absorbed large numbers of refugees from prc, but increased living standards nonetheless). recipe: light regulatory regime, low tax, and high respect for property rights. (even so, the hk wasn’t open borders, coastguard, immigration etc. )

159

It is funny you should mention that. I have had two first cousins killed that I was very close too. The people who killed one of them are now also among the deceased, the people that killed the other one made Detective. I personally have never called the police, don’t like em, don’t interact with them voluntarily for anything. As far as I am concerned they are nothing but parasites with guns and no balls, paid to inflict fear in the populace.

The neighborhood I live in is the hood. Last week someone was killed in front of my house, a few weeks ago the police got into a high speed chase through the neighborhood with someone they SUSPECTED had drugs on them, and ended up with the fence getting rammed into and knocked down. My neighborhood resembles the UN, very few people speak english and those that do speak it with heave accents. Veitnamese, Mexican, African, Polish, Russian, all immigrants, don’t know who is here “legally” or “illegally”. Don’t care either. I have good relationships with them all. The women are hot, LOL. There is mutal respect, it is a great thing too. I don’t worry about one of them being the boogeyman, so I don’t need the government to check under my bed before I can go to sleep at night. If a conflict arises, we deal with it like neighbors.

So, I am not too worried about my family being slaughtered and what position I would be put in should it happen. The chances are slim to none. Plus, my family wouldn’t go out without a fight.

160

How does that have anything to do with my post? I don’t remember calling anyone that takes from the government being the champion of liberty.

The whole problem, what you at least seem to be missing, is that just because the government exists is no reason for us to use it to our advantage. That is no different than any of the other collectivists. EVERYONE can justify using the government to advance their personal agendas. They all have sound logical reasons why the government should provide all the things they think it should provide and do all the things they think it should do, from domestic wiretapping to national health care. Anyone that argues for the government to intercede on their behalf against the liberty of another person is in the same boat and the don’t have a leg to stand on when they complain about someone else seeking the government to their bidding. Its all the same.