IMMIGRATS ARE NOT THE ENEMY - GOVERNMENT IS!

by Non-Conformer

Re: "Why Libertarians are a Joke" by Joe McCarthy

There are better ways to slow immigration and protect the U.S. from
terrorists than to barricade ourselves in.

First of all, it is simply not possible to surround the entire
country with armed troops to stop immigrants. Even if you could station a
soldier every 20 feet along the border, plus an entire regiment at every
airport and ship port, it still wouldn't be enough. But it would surely
bankrupt us all!

The reason why so many want to come to the U.S. is because their
homeland economies are the pits. To reduce the incentive to come here, we
need to help poor nations improve their economies, by encouraging free
trade, helping the establishment of private property rights, and working
diplomatically to reform their corrupt, oppressive governments.

The argument that immigrants strain our social services and
infrastructure simply reinforces the idea that tax-supported, bureaucrat-run
services should be abolished, or turned over to the free market. Not only
do these programs weaken our OWN economy, but they raise sticky issues like: just who is "qualified" to receive them anyway? But it's a moot argument
anyway, because most immigrants don't come to the US to get tax-supported
freebies; they come here to WORK.

Blaming terrorism on immigrants won't work, either. The threat of
terrorism is a result of the U.S. government's arrogant, imperialist foreign
policy. Furthermore, it is false to assume that all ILLEGAL aliens are
potential terrorists, and all LEGAL immigrants are law-abiding.

The notion that only white protestant born-in-the-USA males will
embrace liberty simply does not hold up. Consider Walter Williams (black)
or Ayn Rand (born in communist Russia) or Russell Means (native American
Indian), all devout liberty-lovers. Liberty has appeal to EVERYONE,
regardless of race, gender, age, socio-economic status, creed, or sexual
orientation. In fact, the argument could be made that immigrants, by nature
of having made the enormous personal sacrifices to leave their homeland and
somehow make it into the US so that they can work for an honest living, are
far MORE likely to embrace the ideals of liberty than others.

Finally, let us remember that all US citizens, except native American
Indians, are descendants of immigrants, and our ancestors never asked
permission from the Indians to immigrate. Thus, immigration laws are
hypocritical.


[Ed. Note: This was submitted as article, but I won't run it because it's libertarian boilerplate other sites can supply, not VNN. I would like to see some responses to this guy here - but keep them civil, this is the Opp Forum, and keep the flame low, the arguments tight.]

IMMIGRATS ARE NOT THE ENEMY - GOVERNMENT IS!

by Non-Conformer

Re: "Why Libertarians are a Joke" by Joe McCarthy

There are better ways to slow immigration and protect the U.S. from
terrorists than to barricade ourselves in.

First of all, it is simply not possible to surround the entire
country with armed troops to stop immigrants. Even if you could station a
soldier every 20 feet along the border, plus an entire regiment at every
airport and ship port, it still wouldn't be enough. But it would surely
bankrupt us all!

The reason why so many want to come to the U.S. is because their
homeland economies are the pits. To reduce the incentive to come here, we
need to help poor nations improve their economies, by encouraging free
trade, helping the establishment of private property rights, and working
diplomatically to reform their corrupt, oppressive governments.

The argument that immigrants strain our social services and
infrastructure simply reinforces the idea that tax-supported, bureaucrat-run
services should be abolished, or turned over to the free market. Not only
do these programs weaken our OWN economy, but they raise sticky issues like: just who is "qualified" to receive them anyway? But it's a moot argument
anyway, because most immigrants don't come to the US to get tax-supported
freebies; they come here to WORK.

Blaming terrorism on immigrants won't work, either. The threat of
terrorism is a result of the U.S. government's arrogant, imperialist foreign
policy. Furthermore, it is false to assume that all ILLEGAL aliens are
potential terrorists, and all LEGAL immigrants are law-abiding.

The notion that only white protestant born-in-the-USA males will
embrace liberty simply does not hold up. Consider Walter Williams (black)
or Ayn Rand (born in communist Russia) or Russell Means (native American
Indian), all devout liberty-lovers. Liberty has appeal to EVERYONE,
regardless of race, gender, age, socio-economic status, creed, or sexual
orientation. In fact, the argument could be made that immigrants, by nature
of having made the enormous personal sacrifices to leave their homeland and
somehow make it into the US so that they can work for an honest living, are
far MORE likely to embrace the ideals of liberty than others.

Finally, let us remember that all US citizens, except native American
Indians, are descendants of immigrants, and our ancestors never asked
permission from the Indians to immigrate. Thus, immigration laws are
hypocritical.


[Ed. Note: This was submitted as article, but I won't run it because it's libertarian boilerplate other sites can supply, not VNN. I would like to see some responses to this guy here - but keep them civil, this is the Opp Forum, and keep the flame low, the arguments tight.]

First I want to thank Alex for posting this. Non Conformer is a friend of mine, and we've argued over this issue many times in chat rooms. I think he's a nice guy, even if looney on this issue.

Just two brief points:

1) I was unaware that Russell Means, the AIM terrorist and rabid Columbus hater, is a 'liberty loving' type. He, like fellow blanket ass Ward Churchill, is nothing more than an anti-White whiner and grievance peddler. Sort of the Indian answer to Jesse Jackson. Perhaps Non would care to invite him into the LP. Why not? The LP welcomed Irv Rubin with open arms.

2) The idea of ending welfare is a great idea, and I understand that like any party platform the LP position on immigration is to be considered as part of an ideal of a whole where the program in its entirety is implemented. But the ideal is rarely made into actual policy, and the LP is especially utopian in its aspirations in thinking that both third world immigration and abolishing welfare can be simultaneously instituted. Abolish welfare? Great. But how do we practically do that when millions of poor immigrants rush in? No, the way to create an atmosphere for liberty oriented policy is to have liberty loving people. It is ridiculous to say that immigrants as a whole, or blacks as a whole, will support these ideas. Citing an anecdote like Walter Williams only reveals the inadequacy of such an argument.

JoeMcCarthy.

1) I was unaware that Russell Means, the AIM terrorist and rabid Columbus hater, is a 'liberty loving' type. He, like fellow blanket ass Ward Churchill, is nothing more than an anti-White whiner and grievance peddler. Sort of the Indian answer to Jesse Jackson. Perhaps Non would care to invite him into the LP. Why not? The LP welcomed Irv Rubin with open arms.

yeah, that was a new one on me, regarding Means. as for Rubin, libties are pure hothouse. their ideas make as much sense as mixing bears at the zoo. polar bear, black, grizzly, brown -- they're all bears, one environment and set of food will serve them all. it's pure abstraction, and can't withstand any kind of reality wind. at some level they know this, which is why they get so emotional when you try to get them to pay attention to real people. they prefer the neat, tidy fungible units inside their cranium. like a peter-pan grownup's version of a girl holding a tea party for her imaginary friends.


2) The idea of ending welfare is a great idea, and I understand that like any party platform the LP position on immigration is to be considered as part of an ideal of a whole where the program in its entirety is implemented. But the ideal is rarely made into actual policy, and the LP is especially utopian in its aspirations in thinking that both third world immigration and abolishing welfare can be simultaneously instituted. Abolish welfare? Great. But how do we practically do that when millions of poor immigrants rush in? No, the way to create an atmosphere for liberty oriented policy is to have liberty loving people. It is ridiculous to say that immigrants as a whole, or blacks as a whole, will support these ideas. Citing an anecdote like Walter Williams only reveals the inadequacy of such an argument.

JoeMcCarthy.

yep. they've bound themselves against the only appeal that might lead in the direction they desire. ideologically committed to the false proposition that one man is another, they, in effect, poke their eyes out to group differences, and ideologically forswear appeals to race. if freedom is a byproduct of certain White societies, and if socialism is the inevitable corollary of black/brown presence beyond a sprinkling, then they've committed political suicide. libertarianism is a neat, plausible system that's always going to attract young people, but like any kind of liberalism, it cannot survive contact with the real world. it's for indoors types of a certain bent.

oy vey where are the randroids to come and use reason on us to show us how wrong we are? "opposition forum" at VNN: none.