Illegal Immigration – a Primer

You can speculate over the notion that so many legislators over the decades proposed and passed immigration laws that they never intended to see enforced.  You can speculate over the intentions of said legislators, whether or not they’re evil or just retarded, or some combination of both, or whether they should be tarred and feathered or simply stripped of their citizenship and deported to Cuba.  There are some things regarding illegal immigration however, that I believe are not arguable (though I know well that most readers will argue passionately all the same.  You shouldn’t bother on my behalf, as I’ve heard it all before, more times than I can count).

One assertion at a time;

“They’re takin’ our jobs, Man.”  Uh,.. no.  First, you don’t own your job.  Your employer, and to some extent your employer’s customers, own your job.  Illegals are coming here, some of them, to work for below minimum wage.  They wouldn’t do it if they didn’t consider it an improvement over their previous situation.  American citizens also work for below minimum wage, under the table so to speak.  Immigration status is not the issue in this case.  Minimum wage and income deduction laws are the issue.  Government has no business getting between a worker and a prospective employer.  Peaceable, voluntary exchange is not a crime, since no one’s rights are being violated.  Repeal minimum wage laws and the sixteenth amendment, eliminate 95% of the IRS, and that government-manufactured problem goes away overnight.  Instate a fixed 5 to 8% national sales tax and all the legitimate functions of government will be more than paid for, given the massive increase in GDP that will soon follow, plus we’ll save billions of dollars, and countless productivity hours, on tax preparation.

“They’re using up government services, breaking the bank of local governments, Man…”  That’s a case of socialist services being used as a magnet to attract freeloaders and deadbeats (more socialists).  American citizens take advantage of the same goodies– more slowly perhaps, but with the same results eventually.  Immigration status is not the issue in this case.  The socialist goodie spigot racket is the issue.  If people are not being attracted by the socialists’ confiscated goodies, they’ll only come here for the right reasons, and in that case the more immigration the better.  More people equals more productivity, not less resources.  Turn off the spigot completely, remove the pump, dig up the plumbing, dynamite the well, and that problem goes away literally overnight.

“They’re comin’ here to sell drugs, Man, and that results in violence, Dude…”  (sigh) Did we learn absolutely nothing from alcohol Prohibition?  Seriously?  Prohibition’s primary legacy is the empowerment and enrichment of international organized crime.  Its secondary legacy is the encroachment and entrenchment of official government corruption.  Together, those two inevitable results are vastly worse than the actual drugs’ effects on society.  Government has no business telling any emancipated adult what they may or may not put into their bodies on their own property.  No rights violation, no crime.  That’s the proper test.  Eliminate all vice laws and that whole set of problems goes away almost overnight, plus we save billions and billions on drug enforcement and the corrupt sons-a-bitches in government will have to resort to more conventional crime.

Immigration is tedious and takes a long time, so it’s much easier to jump the border.  Simplify the process, which will be easy after the above steps are taken, and that problem goes away overnight.

Take those simple steps, and we can all get on with howling over some other man-made/government-created problems we’re unwilling to face honestly or with courage, or compassion, or tolerance.

Is all that too “extreme” for you?  Can’t handle the nation’s founding principles?  OK then, this manufactured problem will persist and grow and become far more expensive, which is of course the intention, and it is just one of countless examples of how, as I put it some fifteen years ago; every little bit of socialism requires just a little bit more.  Just a little.  Hope you like crap.


9 thoughts on “Illegal Immigration – a Primer

  1. I absolutely agree with you in principle.

    If we lived in a perfect world where there were no free lunches and the government stayed in their proper role, illegal immigration wouldn’t be a big deal.

    Unfortunately for your argument, we don’t live in that perfect world.

    I will be perfectly happy to throw open the borders and allow anyone and everyone to immigrate just like we did for over a hundred years…as long as the legislation doing so eliminates the problems you mention that makes immigration so tantalizing for those who simply want to take advantage of our charitable spirit.

    As long as we live in a welfare state…especially one where people who’ve never worked a day in their lives have a higher standard of living than middle-income people in most of the world…then we MUST control the borders and we MUST control and limit immigration.

    I’d love to live in utopia too. Unfortunately, we have to set policy based on reality, not fantasy.

  2. We have exactly the same problem over here in the UK.

    How you have the patience to keep on politely explaining it is beyond me. I got fed up after 10 years. Although last week I did explain it to one of our PPCs up for election. Came as a bit of a shock for him on his anti-immigration rant.

  3. Hmm, Lyle is pro-drugs and pro-prostitution. One might suspect unprincipled argument.

    But to the extent you believe what you say, do you consider public schools to be socialist and unconstitutional? Rural electrification? Where do you think the line should be drawn? And in case you were planning to go down the libertarian road, the lip service that ‘I don’t mind if my state government to be totalitarian, as long as it isn’t formally the federal government being totalitarian’ is nonsense.

    Do you lock your house when you leave? Wanting to protect your property is ok, but you shouldn’t begrudge other folks the right to protect their property (the government services they’ve paid for).

  4. Sailorcurt; The “perfect world” and “fantasy” are terms you’re using for “constitutional government as envisioned by the founders”. If that is now to be referred to as “fantasy” then we are truly sunk.

    dusty; My argument is not “pro-drugs” or “pro-prostitution”. It’s pro-liberty, and therefore entirely and consistently principled. Different people have different principles. My principles happen to center around liberty– something many Americans find repulsive, hence the problems outlined in the OP.

    I have nothing against people defending their own property. I’m not sure how you came up with that. I have been consistent in my advocacy of property rights, to such a degree that people are protesting. I’ve given an historically proven path to correcting the problem (ending Prohibition). What more can I do in the advocacy of property rights than that? Run for office I suppose.

    Public utility grid? Show me in the constitution where the government is authorized to exercise a monopoly in the energy industry, or to be involved in any capacity other than as protector of property rights. Demonstrate to me how massive, monolithic, public generation systems administered by government bureaucrats are superior to the more diverse, competitive and customer-centric systems that would exist in a free market, also considering that everything the government “provides” it wants to ration.

    Public education is one of those things that states have in their state constitutions, but doesn’t exist in the fed constitution. I have repeatedly stated that I believe the free market would do a superior job, and furthermore (and this is the more important point) that education should be alongside religion in the first amendment; “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of education, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” and for exactly the same reasons that religion is in there. At the time of the founding, religion was considered (and probably was) the more important societal influence, historically used alongside governments to wield power and shape society (the king, the queen and the bishop, along with the knights and rooks, are the more powerful pieces on the chessboard). Now it is the education system that’s being used to shape society. Given the latter, I’ll say it is more crucial today that education be in the first amendment, rather than religion, though I’d sooner they both be in there. I guess we should now amend the game of chess to include a minister of education, alongside the king on the board. That piece would be more powerful than the bishop if we were to update the game. We might have to add another entire row, including a minister of energy, another of transportation, one of agriculture, communication, and so on, but that minister of education would be right next to the king.

    Chris from AK; I used hundreds of words to say what Freedman said in ten. Thank you. That is entirely the point. Seems most people, even the “radical conservatives” prefer the former to the latter.

  5. Oops– I meant most people prefer the latter to the former (they’d rather have the welfare state). Alright then; start building walls around the country, and we’ll have ourselves a Medieval system.

  6. I wished I had your confidence that ending the prohibition on drugs solved issues involving organized crime, corrupt government, and general lawbreaking among the citizenry; I think, as a whole, we are a different people than our grandparents were, too many people lack the same kind of common sense they had, too many people look for excuses, they want to be victims of their own circumstances and they look to government to rescue them, and our grandparents never had to deal with the subversive and insidious nature of socialism as promulgated by Gramsci.

    So, what could we do?

    You hit the subject of principles right on the nail head, so let’s hit that nail again with commonly agreed values, driving home the idea that morals and good ethics matter in shaping people of good character. I found W. Cleon Skousen’s, “The Five Thousand Year Leap” extremely useful in clarifying principles, the “Founding Fathers” were on to something, they understood eternal “truths” and considered human nature when they argued over the words and ideas used in the “Constitution” unlike socialist using human nature to undermine and abrogate the “Constitution”.

    It is my hope, that as more Americans come to understand they need more than an upright posture to restore the dignity and integrity of this country; maybe, just maybe, America will come to know that character matters.-That’s all I’m asking.

    I came across this quote today.

    > Time sets the stage; fate writes the script; but only
    > we may choose our character.”
    > — Liam Thomas Ryder
    p.s. The war on drugs is a failure.

  7. Sailorcurt; The “perfect world” and “fantasy” are terms you’re using for “constitutional government as envisioned by the founders”. If that is now to be referred to as “fantasy” then we are truly sunk.

    Surely you jest.

    You’re just now figuring out that “we’re sunk?”

    Or is it your contention that it is in any way feasible to eliminate the welfare state in this country? See, the problem is that over 50% of the population is on the government dole in some way shape or form. We are beyond the tipping point. If we were going to reverse this trend, we should have been doing it 30 or 40 years ago. We waited too long to wake up and smell the coffee and we are past the point of no return.

    At this point, the only true alternative left is to battle against EXPANSION of the welfare state. Hmmmm… Not even that seems to be working out so well lately.

    Here’s my deal to you: As soon as a credible effort is mounted to eliminate the welfare state, I’ll reverse my position on illegal immigration. Until that time, you’re peeing into the wind.

    And I think you missed the point of the quote by Milton Friedman. Friedman’s quote comes from an interview he was giving back in ’99 and was in response to a question as to whether the borders should be opened to all immigrants.

    His entire answer: “Unfortunately no. You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state.”

    In other words, his quote is in support of my position…not yours.

    I personally believe we should both have a government that operates within the constraints of the Constitution, and a (relatively) free immigration policy. However as long as the former is not true, neither can be the latter.

    The chances of the former ever becoming true again are practically nil. Therefore, since the former is not true and I have no hope of it becoming so, I cannot support the latter.

  8. Lyle,

    We still have organized crime in Los Angeles. It varies area to area but there is Chinese organized crime and Russian and Armenian and others.

    I live where the Russians/Armenians operate. They do a lot of white collar crime: Identity theft, computer fraud, other types of fraud, etc.

    I found this article you should read:

    Here’s a blurb out of it:
    Instead of cozying up to Hollywood types, Russian mobsters get close to politicians and successful businessmen, Hastings said. The new rackets are complicated fraud scams that target credit cards, ATM machines, and the fountains of government money intended for health care, welfare and a variety of other social needs.

    As more and more money pours out of Washington, experts believe crime groups formed in Soviet prisons under Stalin are ready to put on a full-court press.

    There’s little doubt the Russian mob will use all the tricks at its disposal, according to Gerald Caiden, a USC professor of public policy, who is an expert in organized crime.

    “These guys know how to diddle the system,” Caiden said. “They’ll figure out a way to get swing loans from (the government) using fake addresses and any other means they can.”

    Caiden believes Russian scam artists are primarily responsible for the collapse of our Social Security system.

    People are so freakin’ worried about the little brown guy who speaks Spanish, yet they have all these legal immigrant mobsters…

    I find most of America to be incredibly naive. The law Arizona passed will make them feel good for awhile but it will do absolutely nothing to get rid of crime.

Comments are closed.