the natural right to migrate ---- no such right exists ... we have immigration laws that should be upheld those who support illegals are also criminals without borders and citizenships you don't have a nation
On Jun 2, 8:54 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > Would certainly like to see the *proof* ... BOTH that Munaini wants the US to > be a charity organization AND that elusive Constitutional citation providing > the Feds with the authority to violate the natural right to migrate. > In your zeal to apologize, you apparently missed the point. > Regard$, > --MJ > The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to control > immigration. Nor does it say anything about illegal aliens. ... Sadly, > lawmakers have repeatedly interpreted this silence as license for > ill-conceived legislation. Congress began barring entry to the nation in 1875 > with prostitutes and convicts. Soon, all sorts of people fell short of > congressional glory: ex-convicts in 1882, along with Chinese citizens, > lunatics, and idiots. Paupers, polygamists, and people suffering from > infectious diseases or insanity made the list in 1891, while the illiterate > were banned in 1917. -- Becky AkersAt 09:38 AM 5/31/2011, you wrote:Stefano > R. Mugnaini is just another xian who wants the the USA to be a > charity organization. We're not. > Illegal immigration is a crime and those who support them are also > criminals. > On May 31, 7:53 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > Is Immigration Really the Problem?Tuesday, May 31, 2011 > > byStefano R. Mugnaini > > I am constantly awestruck by the prodigious destructive capacity of my > > children. My three-year-old daughter can break things that I can't even > > take apart; seemingly sturdy objects quail before her wrath. One of my > > greatest fears is that, as an adult, she will channel this knack for > > destruction into its most logical outcome: a career in public "service." > > One of my favorite rhetorical games to play with proponents of bigger and > > better government is to challenge them to name an area where government > > action proves superior to private action. Most answers, if any are > > tendered, relate to military spending, criminal justice, or infrastructure > > construction and maintenance -- sectors that are hardly models of temporal > > or pecuniary efficiency. Of course, to even have this discussion, it is > > necessary to ignore the mounds of shattered glass that pile up as > > government bricks breakwindow after windowto create projects for the public > > good. Is it any wonder that the urban centers that have been the > > beneficiaries of the most sincere intervention by our magnanimous central > > planners most closely resemble the aftermaths of natural disasters or the > > ravages of war? > > When we draw Hayek's famous concept of the "fatal conceit" of central > > planners out to its logical conclusion, we must conclude that all > > legislative activity, whether explicitly economic or not, is burdened with > > the threat of producing dramatic, unintended, and undesirable consequences. > > In his magnificent work,Our Enemy, the State, Albert Jay Nock described a > > delicate balance between "State" and "social" power.Thus the State "turns > > every contingency into a resource" for accumulating power in itself, always > > at the expense of social power; and with this it develops a habit of > > acquiescence in the people. New generations appear, each temperamentally > > adjusted … to new increments of State power, and they tend to take the > > process of continuous accumulation as quite in order. (p. 10)The > > consequences of this shifting of power often create new crises, which call > > for new legislative solutions and new opportunities for the growth of state > > power. Fair-minded individuals may differ on what is necessary to limit the > > inherent danger of government abuses; proposals run the gamut from strict > > constitutionalism to anarchy, but only the strongly deluded fail to > > recognize the risks that exist when one individual or group is given > > coercive power over the actions of another. > > A prime example of this phenomenon is on display with every bit of news > > about our southern border. Among many other factors, the "War on Drugs" and > > the welfare state have added to a plethora of enticements that encourage -- > > even incentivize -- an influx of immigrants seeking a better life than can > > be had south of the border. Regardless of the reader's conclusions about > > immigration policy, it is clear that government policy has had the general > > effect of exacerbating the difficulties inherent in this situation. > > It has beenwell explainedhow the "War on Drugs" artificially limits supply > > and increases risk, thereby increasing prices and profit margins. This, > > obviously, creates a financial incentive for individuals to become drug > > mules and risk the hazardous journey across the border with illicit > > substances. Surely this effect is an unintended one, but government > > intervention in this realm creates and augments the very market it is aimed > > at quelling. State action may paint a market black, but cannot drive it out > > of existence. > > But what about the "War on Immigration"? All that is needed, we are told, > > is the development of a comprehensive immigration-reform policy. Then the > > Rio Grande will flow with milk and honey and the deserts will bloom with > > high-paying jobs. A recent trend has been for states and municipalities, > > frustrated with federal inaction, to attempt to take matters into their own > > hands. > > In my area, the approach that has gained traction is to crack down on those > > who rent homes and provide jobs to undocumented individuals. Arecent > > lawpassed by the Summerville town council mirrors legislation that has been > > put into place throughout the country. This law makes it illegal to rent > > out an apartment or house without first verifying the immigration status of > > potential tenants. This is further proof that governments have a tendency > > to complicate and intensify the problems that they set out to solve. To > > explain this point, it is first necessary to consider the most > > commoncomplaintsabout illegal immigrants:They take low-paying jobs.They > > receive social services (such as reduced-cost housing, WIC, and other > > welfare benefits) that far outstrip their contributions to the local and > > national economy.They commit crimes and turn to illicit means to provide > > for themselves. > > The veracity of these charges has been explored ad nauseam, and at least > > partially refuted, but that is not the goal of this essay. For our > > purposes, presume these claims to be legitimate, universally proven > > allegations. Assuming that illegal immigrants are absolutely guilty of all > > the above charges, attempt to answer this question: How will legislation > > that denies jobs and housing to individuals already in our communities > > lighten the burden they place on society? > > Is this not the fatal conceit magnified? Will they not become more > > dependent on social services and more likely to resort to crime to attain > > their daily bread and shelter from the elements? What other choice is > > there? This approach is similar to laws that prohibit homelessness. If we > > can eradicate an undesirable thing simply by legislation, why not prohibit > > joblessness, too? Or poor eyesight? Or stupidity? > > Presumably, the goal is to send the message that illegal immigrants need to > > move on down the road. But what happens when the next town, and then the > > next, enacts similar laws? Eventually, there is no escaping the > > consequences of such laws; the cure creates the disease, just asminimum > > wage laws create unemployment. > > Perhaps a better approach is to simply free the market, including the labor > > market, and dismantle the welfare state. If we were all responsible for our > > own healthcare, education, and sustenance, then none but the most strident > > racist would possibly lose sleep over the legal status of their employee or > > neighbor. If we find the wisdom and boldness to exchange the wars on drugs, > > poverty, and immigration for a war on legislation, then maybe we will find > > greater freedom and prosperity for all. > > Stefano R. Mugnaini is the minister of theEssex Village Church of Christin > > Charleston, South Carolina, and a graduate student working toward a master > > of divinity, expecting to graduate this > > year.http://mises.org/daily/5324/Is-Immigration-Really-the-Problem > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
