Libertarians and Immigration Laws that would have
to be repealed for unrestricted immigration to be safe, or,
How immigration can increase the role of government
in your life."
By James Fulford
Libertarians like immigration because they see it
as increasing freedom (it doesn't, necessarily), and because the means of
stopping illegal immigration tend to increase the power of the state.
Many become frenzied with enthusiasm for
immigration, and that's why Peter Brimelow has been known to refer to us as
"low-IQ libertarian loonies." (That's "high-IQ libertarian loonies" to you,
Peter, thank you very much.)
But libertarians forget that as it stands now,
immigration is just another government program, importing tax liabilities in the
form of welfare cases, business liabilities in the form of affirmative action
problems, and criminals against whom you’re not allowed to defend yourself, and
last but not least, importing political liabilities, in the form of voters who
don’t believe in freedom.
Here are some of things that should be dealt with
before tearing down the fences:
1. Gun Control.
If you're going to import criminals, you should
have the means to defend yourselves inside the boundaries of your own country.
And it would be stupid to disarm the populace during an invasion. America’s
southern border includes a lot of formerly Mexican territory that the Mexicans
would like back. (I think of this every time someone says, “I wish I could
magically make all the guns in the United States just vanish.” If this
magic trick didn’t include all the guns in Mexico, it would also succeed in
making Texas, New Mexico, and Nevada disappear.)
2. Anti-Discrimination Laws.
If I’m not allowed to decide who I’m allowed to
hire or do business with, immigrants are going to cause problems.
Libertarians are mostly anti-racist in principle.
But before we’re anti-racist we’re anti-slavery and pro-freedom, which is why in
1963 Frank Meyer denounced the Jim Crow laws and the Civil Rights Act in the
same National Review column. (Frank S. Meyer, The Negro Revolution, NR June 18,
1963)
3. The Tax/Welfare System
Every productive person is taxed to support
non-productive people. If we import more non-producers, then taxes go up.
For Libertarians this does mean the separation of
school and state, and an end to free emergency rooms, if by “free emergency
rooms” you mean the law that says that no one can be turned away from an
emergency room.
As for the idea of letting people immigrate with
the present welfare system in place, but barring immigrants from participating
in it, that law already exists.
Any immigrant becoming a “public charge” within his
first five years of residence can be deported, but the Government won’t enforce
this. They deported a total of 42 people for this in the period of 1961-1982.
Of course, welfare bureaucracies would be better if
they would enforce or even obey the law, but only in the sense that cats would
be more practical and useful if they could be taught to bark.
The Taxation and Welfare system is part of the
principle described by the first Republican President:
It is the same principle in whatever shape it
develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, "You work and toil and earn
bread, and I’ll eat it." No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the
mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by
the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving
another race, it is the same tyrannical principle. --- Abraham Lincoln.
Seventh and Last Debate with Stephen A. Douglas, October 15, 1858
4. Democracy
“What! You want to repeal Democracy?” I hear you
saying.
Calm down. It’s not the demos that’s the problem.
It’s the cracy.
“The Tyranny of Democracy” as L. Neil Smith calls
it. As long as the majority rules, and rule means draft, tax, and jail, I am not
enthusiastic about sudden changes in the majority.
Some claim that majoritarianism, despite its
faults, is an alternative preferable to physical conflict. They’re wrong:
majoritarianism is physical conflict. Elections are a process of counting fists,
rather than noses, and saying, “We outnumber you—we could beat you up and kill
you—you might as well give in and save everyone a lot of trouble.
Majoritarianism, to put it straightforwardly,
possesses the full measure of nobility manifested by any other form of
extortion.
-- L. Neil Smith, 1989 Mork and Mindy are arguing
about something to do with the house (which Mindy owns) and Mork calls for a
vote. It splits 50-50 because there are only two people voting. So the next
evening he brings home a homeless man and calls for a revote.
The Democrats are trying the same thing.
Libertarians should be concerned about the
possibility of block voting by foreigners, or dissident elements in society, as
in Northern Ireland, which may have reached the magic number of 51% Catholic
population. This would allow victory in a referendum on turning Northern Ireland
over to the Republic of Ireland. Once that happens, Protestants will go
instantly from being a 49% minority to being a 3/35ths minority. (Unless they
separate again.)
A similar referendum might turn much of the
Southwest over to Mexico, if the Federal Government didn’t go to war to prevent
it, as happened in 1861.
5. Affirmative Action (Especially for Foreigners)
Giving affirmative action preferences to the
American descendants of freed slaves might have some historic validity, but the
Beninese immigrant from Africa is the descendant of slave merchants, and the
Sudanese immigrant may be a slave owner himself.
And when your workforce is required by law to “look
like America,” you should be concerned about changes in America.
6. The Criminal Justice system as it now stands
The criminal justice system is broken, and it won’t
either punish criminals who have committed genuine crimes, or let go the average
citizen who has done little or nothing.
It will more or less viciously pursue anyone who
has defended himself against a criminal, and strips citizens of the means of
self-defense. (Mentioned in point 1, it’s the King Charles’ head of
libertarians, and if King Charles the Martyr had had a .45...)
7. Tort Law
Danger / Peligro/ Achtung/ Avis/
Did I forget anything ? Oops! That’s $10,000,000
dollars I owe you.
If people are allowed to first injure themselves,
then impoverish the nearest business with “deep pockets,” then perhaps we
shouldn’t encourage people who don’t speak English or understand machinery to
come here.
8. Drug Laws
Crime is the ‘dirty work’ that some post-1965
immigrant groups are positively anxious to do—more violently, particularly in
the burgeoning drug business, than the Mafia ever was.
--- Alien Nation, p. 185
Alcohol Prohibition produced Capone and the Mafia.
The war on (some) drugs is doing the same thing, in six or seven new languages.
Do we really want to learn the Russian for “consigliere” and “caporegime?”
As long as these stupid, pointless laws are on the
books, criminal immigrants will have access to huge amounts of money with which
to corrupt the police and politics. Legalize drugs, and Americans will be buying
them for a dollar at 7-Eleven or McDonald’s.
9. Cultural Imperialism
Instead of trying to make the U.S. hold all the
people in the world, why not try raising the standard of living elsewhere?
Not by foreign aid, and not by bombing. (Bombing
actually did more to help the post-war industrialization of West Germany than
the Marshall Plan. German factories had to put in all new machinery because the
old stuff had been bombed flat.)
But Americans, as individuals, and as businessmen,
could help liberate foreign countries. America is the richest country in the
world, and individual Americans could bribe governments to allow free
enterprise. Does it surprise you that this is illegal under US law? The U.S.
should get out of the business of trying to enforce other countries’ laws.
10. Environmentalist Wacko Laws (Cue Chainsaw
Theme)
Nuclear power is safer than any other form of power
going, but that’s not important now.
Rush Limbaugh reported on Dec. 7, 2000, that the
population of California has about doubled in the last ten or fifteen years, but
no power plants of any kind have been built in that period. (Limbaugh seems to
think that these people have moved there from colder parts of the U.S.)
See “Games Antinukes Play” by Rael Jean Isaac,
American Spectator, November 1985:
For the impact of intervenors has not been solely
on nuclear plants. Utilities are reluctant to invest in building any new
capacity: While it has been eight years since the last nuclear plant was
ordered, in the last three years only one coal plant has been ordered. Yet
demand for electricity has been growing steadily, and merely replacing existing
aging plants means new capital investment essential. Essential or not, Frederick
Mielke, chairman of the board of Pacific Gas and Electric, Remarked in February
1985: “No prudent investor would risk the capital needed to build coal or
nuclear plants in California.” By their actions, it is clear that utility
executives around the country share his sentiments.
More recently, see Phony Deregulation By Adrian T.
Moore in Reason, November 2000:
Many pundits complain that no new capacity has come
online since restructuring, but they don’t bother to ask why. First, the
restructuring law forced California’s utilities to get out of power generation
and sell their power plants—so they aren’t investing in new ones. Several groups
have applied to build new generation plants, some of them immediately after the
law was passed. But even after four years, those new plants aren’t likely to
come online until next year because of the glacier-slow approval process.
The "carrying capacity" of the North American
environment can be raised (by building more homes, and more power plants, and
liberating more land), but that's illegal. Perhaps California should stop
doubling its population every ten years until it catches up.
Enough points. Paul Craig Roberts has written
powerfully about the dangers an overbearing American government poses to
Americans. So has Jim Bovard. Even The Weekly Standard has started to take
notice.
Even at its most dangerous, however, the American
government is one of the better governments in the world. Ask a Mexican or a
Guatemalan. Hell, ask an Englishman!
Libertarians who think that unrestricted
immigration is an unmixed good should remind themselves that included in the
baggage many immigrants bring with them is a tradition of statism, and that for
every one who thinks like Tibor Machan there are a dozen who think like John
Kenneth Galbraith or George Soros.
Perhaps we should ask ourselves if unrestricted
immigration to a democratic country is likely to increase human freedom, or
decrease it.
Forget the Statue of Liberty for a moment; and look
at the New York City Council. Is that the kind of government you want?
June 6, 2001
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.printcharger.com/emailStripper.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the Islamic view on-
a. Dating and Premarital sex:
Islam does not approve of intimate mixing of the sexes, and forbids premarital or extramarital sex. Islam encourages marriage as a shield to such temptations and as a means of having mutual love, mercy and peace. b. Abortion:
Islam considers abortion as murder and does not permit it except to save the mother's life (Quran 17:23-31, 6:15 1). c. Homosexuality and AIDS:
Islam categorically opposes homosexuality and considers it a sin. However, Muslim physicians are advised to care for AIDS patients with compassion just as they would for other patients. d. Euthanasia and Suicide:
Islam is opposed to both suicide and euthanasia. Muslims do not believe in heroic measures to prolong the misery in a terminally ill patient. e. Organ transplantation:
Islam stresses upon saving lives (Quran 5:32); thus, transplantation in general would be considered permissible provided a donor consent is available. The sale of the organ is not allowed. Archibald Bard
ICQ 83834746 TO KEEP THE PEACE, KEEP YOUR PIECE! |
- Re: [CTRL] Libertarians and Immigration Archibald Bard