Tim in vermont – “Makes you just have a warm fuzzy to see the anti Arizona immigration law demonstrators give gang signs.”
108 Replies to “How Do You Say “Deport Me” In Sign Language?”
I don’t know if anyone can answer this, but does the state of Arizona have the right to build a fence on its own along its border with Mexico?
For a Country to be afraid (like the US federal government) to enforce its laws, just because there are a large amounts of law breakers, encourages more to break these laws and encourages otherwise legal immigrants to break the law and avoid the costs and time of immigrating legally.
And illegals do not pay taxes but do use services that taxpayers pay for. They also sent large amounts of their non-taxed dollars to their home country.
Tourist dollars are the favoured spending dollars for a country, as the money comes in and stays in were it is spent. Illegals do the opposite and worst as they are also a drain on services like schools, hospitals etc.
Gord, yes they do. There’s a federal buffer zone of so many feet, probably less than 100ft next to the border. After that is private land and state land. States Rights makes the State of Arizona free to build whatever damn thing they feel like paying for.
But that’s the rub. State of Arizona does not want to spend several billion dollars building and maintaining a giant fence, plus men to guard it.
That’s (supposedly) not their job. Securing the border is a Federal duty, one that they have been deliberately derelict in since the Clinton administration, merely derelict since Jimmah Carter.
The entire US immigration and border control bureaucracy is completely broken. The laws which govern it are insane. They should fire every last sorry son of a b1tch who works in that bollocks, burn it down and start over.
In the mean time, it looks like the states of Arizona, Texas and New Mexico are going to step up to the plate. California remains a supine, bankrupt wreck thanks to coke-sniffing latte liberals running the place.
Cytotoxic, I’m afraid you’re wrong. Look what we have here in Canada. I had a relative who lived in San Diego. If there was a hit-and-run, the chances were that it was an illegal immigrant. He drove off because he didn’t want the authorities to send him back.
And if you think you are doing illegal immigrants a favour, think again. The reason why bleeding hearts want them to stay is because the labour is cheap. If the illegal immigrant became a legal resident or citizen, one would have to pay him a proper wage. Why shoot the conductor of the slave trade?
Watched a bit of this on the idiot box last night, and was astounded when the lib on the panel claimed ‘we’re really only hurting the established illegal community’. huh?
How can an established illegal community within an American state/city be given rights over the residents who are now open targets from a more violent kind of illegal now crossing the borders.
The ‘established illegal community’ are also targets of the newest illegals and that’s more taxing on the social services needed to police and clean up afterwards.
What a mess, the Feds have the responsibility to protect the borders, always wondered why Bush was not stronger on this.
Now the ONE has declared his disdain at AZ for defending themselves – as per usual. Can’t be having Americans protecting or defending themselves during his regime.
Surprised he didn’t just openly call them all stupid already.
In defense of Cyotoxic – Devil’s Advocate and all that – he sees himself as the only thoroughgoing Libertarian Objectivist on this blog; not a lefty.
Cyto, has it occurred to you, the unemployment rate being what it is, that a lot of Americans are denied work at legal minimum wage because it’s cheaper to hire illegal immigrants (whose expenses are lower since they don’t pay taxes, after all).
Unless you simply don’t believe that Nation States should exist at all on this planet, you would have to concede that a Country has the right to control ingress over its border. America cannot absorb the destitute population of Central America, let alone the rest of the poor people in this screwed-up world, and it has no interest in doing so. Quite the reverse.
You said that anti-drug laws cause crime. This is mostly true in the sense that anti-murder laws “cause” crime too. The gangs running drugs over the border from Mexico are comprised of very, very scary people who bear little resemblance to your friendly neighborhood pot-dealer. They would no more stop being gangsters, if cocaine were legalized tomorrow, than the Gambino family went legit after prohibition ended.
Remember that those who don’t stand in line bypass all the quarantine and medical background checks.
TB and a plethora of other diseases are making a big comeback in North America, due to illegal entry.
Black Mamba: In defense of Cyotoxic – Devil’s Advocate and all that – he sees himself as the only thoroughgoing Libertarian Objectivist on this blog; not a lefty.
A very, very dim Libertarian Objectivist who is so deeply confused that he doesn’t realize that by arguing for open borders (“my right to employ an immigrant and their right to work for me”), he’s demanding public subsidies for employers who think they’re just too special to have to adjust to the laws of supply and demand in the labor market. “‘Free markets’ for thee but not for me!” Love those “libertarians” in favor of extorting taxpayers for the benefit of corrupt businesses. (Hey, cyto, you need to meditate a little more deeply on St. Friedman’s holy words that “you can’t have open borders and a welfare state”.)
But since cyto thinks that unskilled, illiterate net tax-drains are going to “repay the debt”, I doubt he’s even minimally informed about the real-world consequences of uncontrolled immigration. I find his demand that he has some “right to hire” any willing worker he pleases pretty funny though, because I’d bet his experience with hiring employees is limited to desriptions in the Ayn Rand novels he’s reading in his dorm room.
Cytotoxic is having us on. Nobody’s as stupid as he’s letting on. He’s on liberal blogs saying that Arizona should build a catapult to fling illegals back over the Rio Grande into Mexico. He either likes playing the devils advocate or he’s just some lonely guy in his parents basement looking for attention.
Come on Cyto, take that first step toward a normal life, shut down your computer, pull up your pants and turn the lights back on. Go outside and throw a football around or swack some golf balls. It’s a beautiful world out there. Oh, and see how long you can go without thinking about Bush.
Since Black Mamba is apparently the only person here with a brain, I will address her concerns: the anti-immigration argument has several logical fallacies, the first being that every American is entitled to a job. No. To be free citizens, we must have the right to hire whomever we please. Singapore allows anybody and everybody in and they are doing great. Also, not only can America absorb everybody in the Americas, it has to. They need that labor to soak up all the money the Fed Reserve has been printing, and even that won’t be enough. And also, anti-drug laws make crime in the same way prohibition does. When drugs are legalized, the shady people will probably move on to stealing and such, but there would be people doing that anyway. Also, legal immigration into America is all but impossible, as Reason explains. http://reason.com/assets/db/07cf533ddb1d06350cf1ddb5942ef5ad.jpg
Since so many of you are so dense, I’m going to make this request again: provide evidence-not anecdotal BS-that crime is even positively correlated to immigration. Right now, all respectable evidence shows that there is either no correlation or even a negative one. http://reason.com/archives/2010/02/22/immigration-and-crime
Having single-handedly whooped you all, my day is complete. Suck on my evidence fools.
“Unless you simply don’t believe that Nation States should exist at all on this planet”
Well, that is what he believes. The best idea for him is that he go to whatever planet lives like he suggests, because I don’t think that “objectivism” is evolutionarily adaptive. Further, what is adaptive doesn’t always work out to an internally consistent philosophy within the reach of human understanding.
Nation States should still exist, and they should have open borders. See, logic is not hard.
cytotoxic – nothing that you write has any evidence for it and no logic. You just state your opinions; no evidence; no reasoning. And your opinions are illogical.
You state:
“Nation States should still exist, and they should have open borders. See, logic is not hard.”
What is logical about your statement? It is made up of two premises (nation states should exist; they should have open borders). But it’s invalid logic. The error, and I’ll bet you don’t know, is the ‘fallacy of existential import’..and also, the fallacy of excluded middle. In simple terms, there’s absolutely no logical relation between your two sentences. And, there’s no validity to either sentence in its own nature.
Why should nation-states exist? Who says so?
And a nation-state without borders, ie., open borders, isn’t a nation-state. It’s just open land.
And your statement “when the government arbitrarily blocks immigration, my right to employ an immigrant and their right to work for me are violated”. This is, as I said, vapid nonsense. There is no such thing as a ‘right to employ’ or a ‘right to work’. There is a CHOICE to do both.
Then you wrote that ‘we should have the right to hire whom we please”. No,there’s no justification for your opinion. Hiring someone who is here illegally is not a right but a crime. Why? Because that person pays no taxes.
Oh, cytotoxic, you haven’t answered our questions. Why not?
First – explain why you approve of people using public services such as education, hospitals, roads and transportation without contributing to their existence.
Second – explain why you approve of Mexico fobbing off its poorest class on to the US taxpayer. Please explain why you approve of Mexico not providing an economic infrastructure for these people IN MEXICO.
You state that ‘American can absorb everybody’. Really? Provide proof. Explain how providing services for people who don’t pay for them benefits the US, and how our current massive deficits and debt shows that we ‘can absorb everybody’. Explain how the current unemployment index shows that ‘we can absorb everybody’. Explain how our reducing medical services shows that ‘we can absorb everybody’. Provide some evidence, cytotoxic…not just your endless empty unsubstantiated opinions.
You now say that when drugs are legalized, the criminals will continue..to be criminals. Therefore, please explain to us why you support the legalization of drugs.
You state that there is no correlation between immigration and crime. I presume you mean illegal immigration which is a crime in its own nature. But that’s not the point. The point is justifying illegal immigration. So far, cytotoxic, you’ve utterly failed to justify it, either empirically or logically.
Gosh, you seem to be filled with unsubstantiated and illogical opinions..and you also seem satisfied with them. That tells us that you have pretty low intellectual standards.
I have provided you with ample evidence in the links. Now if you’re done wiping the spittle of your screen, I will try to explain this, without too many syllables to confuse you.
Morally: the government exists to protect our rights. That is all. Not to entitle ‘the natives’ to jobs or indulge your xenophobic tendencies. Hence, employers have the right to employ whoever they want, and immigrants have the right to work for them. The government is violating that right with any and all restrictions on immigration.
I do not approve of public services, period. If you do not approve of them either, then follow my lead and criticize them, not people coming here to better their lives by working. Paying taxes is BS talk for ‘the government should own you’. I’m glad for anyone who takes from the US government and gives nothing-including votes-back. They are doing at least as much good as the Tea Parties by providing disincentive to politicians to expand the state. America has and will continue to absorb far more people than has been previously imagined. Back in the early 20th century people freaked out about all the immigrants coming in screaming about how we can’t absorb them all, and America did anyway. The anti-immigration fantasies of higher crime and rampant unemployment have never materialized, at least due to immigration (versus a housing bubble). Too bad people like me have to clean up your mess of excess police power (“papers, please”) and higher debt per capita.
cyto-doofus said: “Morally: the government exists to protect our rights.”
Government exists for three reasons. First to enforce contracts. Second, to ensure the defense of the nation from foreign threats. Third to keep order within the country.
That’s it. That’s all they are supposed to do. Did you notice that “protect our rights” wasn’t in there?
no, cytotoxic, again, you just write opinions. No evidence.
‘Morally, the govt exists to protect our rights’. This is an empty statement because you have to define ‘rights’. Got that?
There are very few ‘rights’ – The US Declaration refers to only three ‘unalienable rights..life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; the US Bill of Rights refers to freedom of speech, life and liberty within the law. The Canadian Bill of Rights has four ‘fundamental’ rights: freedom of conscience and religion; freedom of speech, belief, freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. That’s it.
The rest of life operates by CHOICE not rights, by ‘privileges’ not rights, and requires hard work and no expectations of success.
All behaviours including these rights must function within the laws of the land.
The government does not exist simply to protect these basic rights but to operate as a representative service of the people to provide common laws, a common economic and fiscal infrastructure, a common defence, a common communication and transportation infrastructure.
The fact that you do not approve of public services means that you reject roads, waste treatment plants, mail service, a common currency, a defence service, etc. Could you explain what you would suggest for a nation-state without these services?
Since, presumably, you reject public services, I presume that means that for you, all medical services and hospitals must be private. Same with schools. Could you explain how the illegal immigrants, who use US hospitals and schools without paying for them…fit into your approval of ‘rejection of public services’?
Since you approve of these illegal immigrants who pay no taxes, then could you explain how they should pay for their use of schools and hospitals?
You reject taxes. Could you explain how a nation can fund its road construction, its public waste treatment plants, its water supplies, its defense, etc without the citizens contributing to this common expense.
You still refuse to confront reality. You can repeat your opinions until you are hoarse, but, you still haven’t explained how America can ‘absorb’ more people when unemployment is in the double digits. Could you explain this contradiction?
Could you explain how people who pay no taxes but use all the public services are ‘good for America’?
And you’ve still failed to answer questions. Why do you approve of Mexico fobbing off its lowest class to the US taxpayer?
Why do you support legalization of drugs.
Why do you support people using public services without paying for them? Just saying you disapprove of public services isn’t an answer. Why not? Because these services exist and people use them. So, answer the questions.
It’s incredible reading your posts; you simply opine – but with absolutely no evidence, no data, no logic and filled with self-admiration.
Crytobox
“”””Nation States should still exist, and they should have open borders. See, logic is not hard.”””
if you find logic so simple, why don’t you try using it
we don’t need “open” borders, just like we don’t need houses without walls and doors
governments are servents of the people and so should serve the wishes of the people
and as to america absorbing all of the americans, that’s utter nonsense. People need to be motivated, and allowing illegals (absorbing) is very demotivating, so these people will contribute at the lowest level, and remain there. By shutting the borders they will either educate/skill themselves into success, or die broke
and as to your political leaning, LIBERALTARIAN should cover it
oh, and cytotoxic, you haven’t provided links to any of your comments.
Nothing to support your assertions about ‘rights’; about ‘right to hire’; about ‘the right of people to enter America’; about the ‘right to work’..and so on.
Furthermore, we are talking about illegal immigration, so don’t start merging the illegal with the legal. No-one here is talking about denying a legal immigrant the opportunity to look for and find a job. Stick to the issue.
Again, how about answering some questions.
Did someone say that immigrants work hard and have to learn English? Well, granted some of them work 2 or 3 jobs, to try and play catch-up, but few of them learn English in any practical way, and if they do you can’t understand the accent of same.
Try traveling by bus or SkyTrain in Vancouver – nobody speaks English, they speak Chinese, Korean, Filipino and Hispanic, but never English I was the only white guy on one specific bus on Kingsway in Burnaby, the driver pulled up to a stop and an oriental woman asked the driver how to get to Metrotown Mall. He tried explaining it was 2 blocks east, but she couldn’t understand. I finally asked the driver why he cared as the whole bus was full of Orientals and not one of them bothered to get up and explain to the woman. The driver finally agreed with me and closed the door and moved on.
I feel my late husband, “Sober 2nd Thought”, egging me on to comment on Cytotoxic’s hilarious last post.
I don’t think he’s a lefty. I think he is, frankly, the result of being dropped on his head too many times as a baby. In each successive post, he sounds more and more insane.
He disapproves of public services, so he must not use public transit, or drive a car. (Pity him in the winter.) The government only exists to protect our rights (which he has a really skewed idea about), and our paying taxes only indebts us to the government(?), “the government should own you”…
Hoo boy. I am so glad I ignored those kids with pamphlets when I went to university. Although, had I read those pamphlets, maybe I would know which crazy ideology the toxic cell is spouting…
I feel my late husband, “Sober 2nd Thought”, egging me on to comment on Cytotoxic’s hilarious last post.
I don’t think he’s a lefty. I think he is, frankly, the result of being dropped on his head too many times as a baby. In each successive post, he sounds more and more insane.
He disapproves of public services, so he must not use public transit, or drive a car. (Pity him in the winter.) The government only exists to protect our rights (which he has a really skewed idea about), and our paying taxes only indebts us to the government(?), “the government should own you”…
Hoo boy. I am so glad I ignored those kids with pamphlets when I went to university. Although, had I read those pamphlets, maybe I would know which crazy ideology the toxic cell is spouting…
Oops. Sorry. New to this posting stuff.
It is very easy to support unregulated entry to some one elses country. Until one is directly affected by any sort of large scale immigration, it is a matter of semantics.
What we are seeing in some parts of the United States is simply anarchy.
@Phantom: enforcing contract rights=protecting my rights. It’s funny how you tried to make a counterargument by agreeing with me, so I accept your surrender.
To be clear, the government’s role is to minimize the initiation of force against its people. That is all. There is nothing about immigration that violates anyones’ rights. The simple way to end illegal immigration is to make all immigration legal.
Basically this whole post has been as such:
XENOPHOBES: But they took our jerbs! Crime!
Me: Evidence? Rational?
XENOPHOBES: Liberal! Bad! They took our jerbs!
Me: Freedom.
XENOPHOBES: Stop making me think.
“Me: Freedom.”
Freedom dies in a multi-ethnic nation.
“Free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities. Among a people without fellow-feeling, especially if they read and speak different languages, the united public opinion, necessary to the working of representative government, cannot exist. The influences which form opinions and decide political acts are different in the different sections of the country. An altogether different set of leaders have the confidence of one part of the country and of another. The same books, newspapers, pamphlets, speeches, do not reach them. One section does not know what opinions, or what instigations, are circulating in another. The same incidents, the same acts, the same system of government, affect them in different ways; and each fears more injury to itself from the other nationalities than from the common arbiter, the state. Their mutual antipathies are generally much stronger than jealousy of the government. That any one of them feels aggrieved by the policy of the common ruler is sufficient to determine another to support that policy. Even if all are aggrieved, none feel that they can rely on the others for fidelity in a joint resistance; the strength of none is sufficient to resist alone, and each may reasonably think that it consults its own advantage most by bidding for the favour of the government against the rest. ” http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/mill/john_stuart/m645r/chapter16.html
The Objectivist argument for unfettered immigration:
“To make this issue clear, put yourself in the place of an employer who has just interviewed two job applicants. The first is hard-working, talented, and ambitious. He has gone through enormous effort to obtain an education and to acquire the skills necessary for this job. He received excellent grades in school and high praise from his previous employers. More important, he has shown the courage to leave his home, to travel thousands of miles, to learn a new language and an unfamiliar culture–all to pursue his chosen career and to work for a better life.
The second applicant has no particular skills for the job you are offering; he expects you to train him. He never performed well in school. When his previous employer, in a different field, closed down, he did not try to acquire new talents or to move elsewhere to seek work. He expects new skills and a new job to be provided to him, with no need for any initiative on his part.
Which applicant would you hire? Clearly, the first one, because he will be more productive for you. Hiring him would be an act of justice: It would reward the one who has worked harder to improve himself.”
What if the case is reversed. The native is hard-working, talented, and ambitious. Highly educated, intelligent with high grades in school.
The immigrant is the one lacking in skills, of a low IQ and generally not accomplished, but the employer hires him because he will work for half the wage.
Is it still an act of justice? Does it reward the one who has worked harder to improve himself?
“Nation States should still exist, and they should have open borders. See, logic is not hard.”
Why don’t you look up the words “nation state,” for one.
After you do that, you tell me how they are going to survive “open borders.” Feel free to use logic in this exercise.
Thirdly then, tell me how your objectivism works if it is not subscribed to by the entire population of the planet.
cytotoxic – it’s quite incredible. I have rarely read posts as illogical and ignorant as yours.
You self-define reality; you live in a completely fictional subjectivist world and seem totally unaware that what you say has no evidence, no logic, and is internally contradictory.
Don’t you realize that: If all immigration is legal, then the nation-state doesn’t exist!
Your support for open borders is akin to claiming that to get rid of crime, then, make all actions legal…and you’ve actually said this about drugs!
If you reject public services, then, do you reject bus/train transportation? And cars that use public roads?
Now you are declaring that the govt’s role is to ‘minimize the initiation of force against its people’. What force? Carried out by whom? Do you mean carried out by an illegal immigrant who takes down your fences, steals your livestock and gets your job because he works below minimum wage?
Your previous post was that govts exist ‘to protect our rights’. What rights?
And as usual, you provide no evidence. No logic. Nothing..other than your illogical and contradictory opinions. When asked for clarification and to stand up for your opinions..we get silence. Heh.
cyto- you must be about ten years old. If that.
immigration, both legal and illegal is at the very least, a tax on the working poor. At the most, over time, massive immigration is ethnic cleansing of the native population.
We need an immigration moratorium now and to get rid of those that have betrayed our country by pocketing the profits from immigration and passed all social costs onto the communities.
Here is my new video on immigration
What America looks like after Racist Arizona Immigration law passes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbPI7sU2bxY
It is a gross error to conclude that the Arizona Law (Guaranty Clause) has anything to do with ethnicity or race. That’s a red herring that the left is using to divert from the real issue, which is – illegal immigration.
Immigration is the responsibility of the federal govt and the fed. govt has not been carrying out this responsibility, thus allowing hundreds of thousands of illegal entrants. These entrants are NOT immigrating to the US, i.e., applying for permanent resident or citizenship status.
They are coming from Mexico and Central America to live within an illegal economic level.
That is, they will work for below-legal wages because these wages have no taxes, pensions, medical care, etc taken from them. As a result the net wages are actually higher than the legal minimum wage!
Then, they will make use without paying, of the public services: health care, education, roads, transit, communication services.
This cost-savings to the illegals enables them to obtain a surplus of money – and they send billions, yes billions, back to Mexico etc to support their extended families. Mexico is thus relieved of any responsibility for developing an economic and educational infrastructure for these people. The US taxpayer is doing it!
Obama’s tactic, and remember, Obama’s tactics are always about Himself, is to declare that yes, the feds aren’t doing what they should be doing. BUT, he means -not to enforce immigration law and prevent the borders being an open conduit to these people…but to give amnesty to any and all who come across!
Arizona, faced with these half-million illegal entrants and the enormous cost of supporting them, as well as the violence that results as they meet up with landowners and officials who try to prevent their crossing – and the cartels who establish drug running across these open borders – is trying to enforce the law. Because the federal govt is not securing its borders and is not carrying out its immigration duties.
This has zilch to do with ethnicity. The illegals are afraid of being deported; that’s why they are trying to divert the issue to ‘racial profiling’.
The question is – why don’t they immigrate legally? No skills, no education? Fine – then it’s the right of the US to deny entrance. Why? Because such entrants will end up on welfare and state support. Why should the US worker pay for them?
Delmar Jackson (DJ) – there’s no point in discussing your posts with you because your view is not an argument but a closed point-of-view.
It isn’t really based on any argument; you just cherry pick selections that support your point of view. I happen to disagree with you. That’s where the discussion ends because facts or logic will not make you change your point of view.
Posted by: Cytotoxic>
“Singapore allows anybody and everybody in and they are doing great”
Now there’s a load of garbage. Singapore has a ton of issues with legal and illegal migrant workers and is very strict on illegal immigration (have lived & worked in Singapore for 10 years as a foriegn national).
The fact that you can throw blind & false statements at a wall and hope they just stick is testament to your credibility. http://www.unesco.org/most/apmrnw13.htm http://www.littlespeck.com/content/people/CTrendsPeople-060827.htm
ET: you are still just whining. I provided great links to follow and I’m not doing it again. You still cling to the conceit that the job you have is “your right”. WRONG. It is your employers right to give that job to whomever he/she wants to. How would legalizing immigration end the nation state? It’s still there, enforcing laws, and anybody can come in. Singapore lets everybody in and they’re still a (city)nation state. If they break any laws, off they go to jail. If you’re really so upset by this taxation issue, then push for replacing income tax with consumption tax like I do. Then there’s no avoiding it.
@DJ: Thank you for at least having the volition to research some. To answer your question, it is still totally in the rights of the employer to hire whoever, but it would seem pretty odd to pick the inferior employee in either case. Also, there is no reason a nationstate can’t be free with multiple ethnicities from immigration. JSM’s scenario is prevented by assimilation, which works as long as the economy does (see NOT France). That scenario would be more relevant to where a nation is arbitrarily composed of different peoples, like the Ukraine (Stalin did that on purpose).
The AZ law is all about racial profiling. A cop can walk up to anyone Hispanic looking and say ‘papers please’. If they don’t have ID, arrested. And possibly to jail.
The moral basis of my argument is simple: government should only render illegal what constitutes initiation of force, like stealing fences and livestock, not things like working harder for less money (min wage should not even exist) and coming to America. It shouldn’t fund trasnit, and I don’t like the existence of public transit, but as long as I’m paying for it I’m using it.
Posted by: Cytotoxic>
“Singapore lets everybody in and they’re still a (city)nation state. If they break any laws, off they go to jail”.
There you go again. That statement is false.
“ If they break any laws they go to jail” – exactly the point of someone entering the country illegally. They have already broken laws, and should go to jail.
You really do seem to miss the whole concept of what legal immigration is all about for the economic, environmental, social, and overall health of a nation and its infrastructure. I suppose that’s why they don’t allow you to make those decisions for real.
Cuto – “If you’re really so upset by this taxation issue, then push for replacing income tax with consumption tax like I do. Then there’s no avoiding it.”
Sometime I explain to you about Black Market.
(Cyto)…
I’m a bit ashamed for not coming — somewhat — to Cytotoxic’s defense, being a libertarian myself but lately morphing into an anarcho-capitalist, or, more sweetly, private market anarchist.
FOR, I’ve come to the conclusion at 61 that the free market does EVERYTHING better than the state and WOULD do ALL forms of protection better too!
But I’ve been extremely busy (I basically interface with the state from about Mar 15 to April 30!).
At a certain, theoretical level, Cytotoxic is right, and some of his arguments are quite standard in the libertarian world (see many, many piece in FEE’s The Freeman, anything by Murray Rothbard, his student, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Albert Jay Nock (Our Enemy the State), Molinari (who first wrote about the private production of protection), etc. Altho’, interestingly, Hoppe argues against open immigration calling it, our end, forced integration.
BUT … as a pragmatist, I also believe that you can’t have wide-open immigration (an ideal!) AND simultaneously a welfare state.
Were the welfare state abolished, immigration wouldn’t be an issue, period.
I firmly believe that ALL the problems in Arizona are the unintended consequences of state tyranny.
cyto doesn’t answer any questions, and keeps on with his ignorant and illogical assertions. He provides no links.
He says that I claim that having a job is a right. No; I never said that; it’s a choice; the fundamental rights are few and don’t apply to employment.
No, the employer can’t hire an illegal; it’s illegal.
No, I didn’t say that ‘legalizing immigration would end the nation-state’ (sheesh, can’t the child even read???). I said that having NO immigration rules would end the nation-state.
Cyto – you still haven’t even ONE of my questions. What about Mexico and its poor? Do you agree with its agenda of fobbing off its lowest class to the US?
No, replacing income tax with VAT isn’t the whole answer. It’s not enough.
No, the Arizona law has zilch, nothing, nadda, to do with ‘racial profiling’. After all, what would be the FUNCTION of this? Why should they go after ‘ethnics’ of one type? Explain the function, Cyto.
They are after ONE type of person only: illegal immigrant. The fact that this person is 99% Mexican/Central American is a fact and has zilch to do with ‘racial profiling’. Get real. THINK.
Singapore? Illegal immigration is illegal.
Incredible – I haven’t seen anyone as illogical and non-factual as Cyto..in a long time.
“Were the welfare state abolished, immigration wouldn’t be an issue, period”
until those immigrants vote themselves a welfare state.
Posted by: Me No Dhimmi>
My argument with Cyto, was that he was holding up Singapore as some idealistic immigrant society, while complaining that Arizona is becoming a police state for regulating illegal immigration.
First off Singapore does so have an illegal immigration problem and tries to monitor and police it closely.
Secondly, Singapore is a police state by every definition. Certainly it would never have achieved its fast first world status by not being as restrictive and totalitarian as it is, in its “easy going way”, but it is restrictive and as un-libertarian as any highly socialist nation.
Hence it is called a “fine” city, mocking the over the top fines and possible jail sentences for relatively mundane infractions. It’s only a small amount of drug possession to draw a death sentence in Singapore, which takes around 3 months from arrest to the hangman’s noose. That sort of idealistic society seems to escape the Liberal left, but of course it’s an Asian nation so all is forgiven.
Like many do say living in Singapore it is a nice city. There is very little crime, because who dares, it’s camera’s, police uniformed and undercover everywhere. The population has also been trained to spy and report on each other (much of that is race based antagonism). On the other hand it’s like living in a hamster cage, running on a wheel of work, laws and tax but never getting or going anywhere.
So in a nutshell Cyto is beaking off like an expert on immigration and a whole host of things he/ she knows nothing about, and others are calling him/ her on it.
Me No Dhimmi said: “Were the welfare state abolished, immigration wouldn’t be an issue, period.”
Yes. That’s my point. Put down sugar, ants come.
Pity psycho-toxic seems unable to grasp this basic rule of the universe, and insists it all boils down to racism.
Its not about race, Mexicans are CAUCASIANS for F- sake. Its about theft of public services by people who don’t pay in to the system, which incidentally is “initiation of force” in toxicity-boy’s own (wrong) definition.
Still, its been fun watching toxic froth.
ET: you acknowledge that almost all illegals are hispanic and then claim racial profiling won’t be used because it has no function? Put two and two together. And I never said ‘VAT’, I said consumption (sales) tax. I also never said Singapore was idealistic, I just pointed out that it has made massive economic leaps and its open immigration policy has been a huge part of that. Has a nation with a closed borders policy ever risen to greatness? I think not. Your earlier links were interesting because they only backed up my position: minor irrational public grumbling is being overruled by the need to replace an aging population and low birthrate, a problem also present in Canada and the US.
Your argument is without moral basis: you’re simply repeating that illegals are bad because they’re illegal without giving a rational for their illegal status, implicitly accepting the government as the wise arbiter of all that is just. I posit that the US should change its immigration law and let people in and apply its rational laws (min gov) to them as they would everyone else.
@MDD: well better late than never. I must disagree with St. Friedman though. We can’t keep waiting for the welfare state to disappear. We need these people to come over here and work! That debt per capita quotient is not getting smaller.
@Phantom: Wrong again. It was initiation of force for gov to take the money from the citizens to build those services. Two socialisms don’t make a right.
dear toxicityboy, since when is it ok to sponge off other people, give back -nothing-, and then scream RACIST when you get called on it?
On my planet, we usually call that stealing. Its considered a bad thing.
Cytotoxic, except the kind of immigration we’re talking about here won’t reduce the debt/GDP ratio. In fact, it’ll INCREASE it. See Fraser Institute, which has done a study on this: modern immigration to Canada is now net-negative revenue-wise. I suspect this is the case everywhere in the west, with the change in thinking away from self interest toward white-guilt post-colonialist global welfare. A too-large percentage of our newcomers are skill-free and when here are re-uniting their, often quite extensive, families. And, as others have pointed out, they’re free-riding.
True, up to the very early 20th century we had virtually free movement of peoples without passports. But without the welfare state and with the high cost of travel, immigrants tended to be very entrepreneurial and/or rich, and highly motivated to be net contributors instead of tax-eaters.
Cytotoxic makes another point that many libertarian writers of my acquaintance make: we can’t wait for the collapse of the welfare state — let’s hurry it along, open the floodgates and thru a kind of libertarian Cloward-Piven strategy, collapse the welfare state.
I myself haven’t descended to that level of libertarian madness … YET.
For the record, I’m completely in favour of Arizona’s unilateral action. In fact, I have a hunch that the US is in the early stages of a long, low-grade civil war. I expect to see secession movements developing in the near future. I will be cheering!
Posted by: Cytotoxic>
“Has a nation with a closed borders policy ever risen to greatness?”
Japan comes to mind.
No racism there of course.
I still find it amusing that you cannot make the leap from distinguishing Legal verses Illegal immigration.
You also don’t seem to understand that your first comment on this thread stated
“….How do you say “police state” in sign language? Because that’s what Arizona is now.”
Then you went on to defend your opinion by using Singapore (a true police state) as the correct alternative to closed border policies (for illegal immigration).
Maybe do some research of the region and learn a little about the race wars that Singapore fought daily in its streets during the sixty’s. The fact that HDB government housing forces the different races in Singapore to coexist in measured volumes dictated by the government. That doesn’t sound at all the way most Americans would like to live (yes you can move into this apartment block because there are only 2 white families and we could use one more).
You arguments are not founded on any kind or real life logic, or facts beyond Liberal propaganda. Instead you freely blast everyone who is against illegal immigration as racist, without once pulling your head out of your ass long enough to analyze, much less understand, that there are very serious and realistic non racial issues with illegal immigration.
cyto- an illegal immigrant is illegal. You seem unable to understand that. Can you understand, for example, that stealing is an illegal act? Well, entering a country without that country accepting you..is an illegal act. That’s the rational action; of accepting that there is a law dealing with entry to a nation-state.
ALL nation-states have ‘closed’ borders; i.e., to work or live or retire or visit in that country, you must be first accepted by the laws of that country. Some nations only allow ‘aliens’ to visit on visas; some only allow visas for 6 months, others for a few years. But there is no such thing as a nation-state without borders. You haven’t provided even one example – and Singapore is not an example.
Because someone is hispanic doesn’t mean, if they are stopped, that this is due to racial profiling. The FACTS are that 99.9% of the illegals are Hispanic. Therefore, if they are stopped by the police, it isn’t that the police are interested in their ethnicity but in their legal or illegal status.
Do you know how this could be stopped? By the hispanics. They should stop entering the US illegally. Simple – isn’t it? And gosh, it has nothing to do with ‘racism’.
What a stupid red herring fallacious argument you make – If they are stopped, it’s a racist act. No it isn’t. They set up the situation by entering illegally. The fact that they are hispanic isn’t the point.
Please explain why the US should let any and all people in – even those with no skills, no education, unable/unwilling to work..but who want the ‘free’ public services such as the schools, medical care, roads, clean water, hydro etc. Please explain the morality and economic viability of this.
Aging population? Who’s talking about that? Are you serious that you consider the uneducated, illiterate, unskilled aliens of any use to replace the aging population?
Again – you haven’t answered my questions.
How and why should the US pay for these illegals who refuse to contribute to their own welfare and pay for their use of public services.
And don’t try the ‘we shouldn’t have public services’. We do. So, why should the legal taxpayer have to support those who pay zilch for these services?
And why do you support Mexico offloading its poorest class on to the taxpayers of the US? Tell me the morality of that.
So far, Cyto..all you do is repeat your subjective opinions. No data, no logic..nothing other than what you feel OUGHT to be done, while you blithly totally ignore what current reality IS. Ever heard of the distinction between ‘is’ and ‘ought’? That’s another logical form of which you know nothing.
Cyto says that Singapore lets everyone in and they are ‘doing great’. Yeah sure.
Singapore will jail you and cane you if you overstay your visa; Singapore will fine and cane you if you are caught chewing gum on their transit systems (yes, that’s right). Or if you leer at a woman.
Fingerprints may be scanned at exit/entrance points; passports have to be recent. Their borders are not open.
Cyto likes totalitarian authoritarian states.
cyto’s a typical liberal whackjob who read Anne Rand one time and thought he understood it.
goof.
I don’t know if anyone can answer this, but does the state of Arizona have the right to build a fence on its own along its border with Mexico?
For a Country to be afraid (like the US federal government) to enforce its laws, just because there are a large amounts of law breakers, encourages more to break these laws and encourages otherwise legal immigrants to break the law and avoid the costs and time of immigrating legally.
And illegals do not pay taxes but do use services that taxpayers pay for. They also sent large amounts of their non-taxed dollars to their home country.
Tourist dollars are the favoured spending dollars for a country, as the money comes in and stays in were it is spent. Illegals do the opposite and worst as they are also a drain on services like schools, hospitals etc.
Gord, yes they do. There’s a federal buffer zone of so many feet, probably less than 100ft next to the border. After that is private land and state land. States Rights makes the State of Arizona free to build whatever damn thing they feel like paying for.
But that’s the rub. State of Arizona does not want to spend several billion dollars building and maintaining a giant fence, plus men to guard it.
That’s (supposedly) not their job. Securing the border is a Federal duty, one that they have been deliberately derelict in since the Clinton administration, merely derelict since Jimmah Carter.
The entire US immigration and border control bureaucracy is completely broken. The laws which govern it are insane. They should fire every last sorry son of a b1tch who works in that bollocks, burn it down and start over.
In the mean time, it looks like the states of Arizona, Texas and New Mexico are going to step up to the plate. California remains a supine, bankrupt wreck thanks to coke-sniffing latte liberals running the place.
Cytotoxic, I’m afraid you’re wrong. Look what we have here in Canada. I had a relative who lived in San Diego. If there was a hit-and-run, the chances were that it was an illegal immigrant. He drove off because he didn’t want the authorities to send him back.
And if you think you are doing illegal immigrants a favour, think again. The reason why bleeding hearts want them to stay is because the labour is cheap. If the illegal immigrant became a legal resident or citizen, one would have to pay him a proper wage. Why shoot the conductor of the slave trade?
Watched a bit of this on the idiot box last night, and was astounded when the lib on the panel claimed ‘we’re really only hurting the established illegal community’. huh?
How can an established illegal community within an American state/city be given rights over the residents who are now open targets from a more violent kind of illegal now crossing the borders.
The ‘established illegal community’ are also targets of the newest illegals and that’s more taxing on the social services needed to police and clean up afterwards.
What a mess, the Feds have the responsibility to protect the borders, always wondered why Bush was not stronger on this.
Now the ONE has declared his disdain at AZ for defending themselves – as per usual. Can’t be having Americans protecting or defending themselves during his regime.
Surprised he didn’t just openly call them all stupid already.
In defense of Cyotoxic – Devil’s Advocate and all that – he sees himself as the only thoroughgoing Libertarian Objectivist on this blog; not a lefty.
Cyto, has it occurred to you, the unemployment rate being what it is, that a lot of Americans are denied work at legal minimum wage because it’s cheaper to hire illegal immigrants (whose expenses are lower since they don’t pay taxes, after all).
Unless you simply don’t believe that Nation States should exist at all on this planet, you would have to concede that a Country has the right to control ingress over its border. America cannot absorb the destitute population of Central America, let alone the rest of the poor people in this screwed-up world, and it has no interest in doing so. Quite the reverse.
You said that anti-drug laws cause crime. This is mostly true in the sense that anti-murder laws “cause” crime too. The gangs running drugs over the border from Mexico are comprised of very, very scary people who bear little resemblance to your friendly neighborhood pot-dealer. They would no more stop being gangsters, if cocaine were legalized tomorrow, than the Gambino family went legit after prohibition ended.
Remember that those who don’t stand in line bypass all the quarantine and medical background checks.
TB and a plethora of other diseases are making a big comeback in North America, due to illegal entry.
Black Mamba: In defense of Cyotoxic – Devil’s Advocate and all that – he sees himself as the only thoroughgoing Libertarian Objectivist on this blog; not a lefty.
A very, very dim Libertarian Objectivist who is so deeply confused that he doesn’t realize that by arguing for open borders (“my right to employ an immigrant and their right to work for me”), he’s demanding public subsidies for employers who think they’re just too special to have to adjust to the laws of supply and demand in the labor market. “‘Free markets’ for thee but not for me!” Love those “libertarians” in favor of extorting taxpayers for the benefit of corrupt businesses. (Hey, cyto, you need to meditate a little more deeply on St. Friedman’s holy words that “you can’t have open borders and a welfare state”.)
But since cyto thinks that unskilled, illiterate net tax-drains are going to “repay the debt”, I doubt he’s even minimally informed about the real-world consequences of uncontrolled immigration. I find his demand that he has some “right to hire” any willing worker he pleases pretty funny though, because I’d bet his experience with hiring employees is limited to desriptions in the Ayn Rand novels he’s reading in his dorm room.
Cytotoxic is having us on. Nobody’s as stupid as he’s letting on. He’s on liberal blogs saying that Arizona should build a catapult to fling illegals back over the Rio Grande into Mexico. He either likes playing the devils advocate or he’s just some lonely guy in his parents basement looking for attention.
Come on Cyto, take that first step toward a normal life, shut down your computer, pull up your pants and turn the lights back on. Go outside and throw a football around or swack some golf balls. It’s a beautiful world out there. Oh, and see how long you can go without thinking about Bush.
Since Black Mamba is apparently the only person here with a brain, I will address her concerns: the anti-immigration argument has several logical fallacies, the first being that every American is entitled to a job. No. To be free citizens, we must have the right to hire whomever we please. Singapore allows anybody and everybody in and they are doing great. Also, not only can America absorb everybody in the Americas, it has to. They need that labor to soak up all the money the Fed Reserve has been printing, and even that won’t be enough. And also, anti-drug laws make crime in the same way prohibition does. When drugs are legalized, the shady people will probably move on to stealing and such, but there would be people doing that anyway. Also, legal immigration into America is all but impossible, as Reason explains. http://reason.com/assets/db/07cf533ddb1d06350cf1ddb5942ef5ad.jpg
Since so many of you are so dense, I’m going to make this request again: provide evidence-not anecdotal BS-that crime is even positively correlated to immigration. Right now, all respectable evidence shows that there is either no correlation or even a negative one. http://reason.com/archives/2010/02/22/immigration-and-crime
Having single-handedly whooped you all, my day is complete. Suck on my evidence fools.
“Unless you simply don’t believe that Nation States should exist at all on this planet”
Well, that is what he believes. The best idea for him is that he go to whatever planet lives like he suggests, because I don’t think that “objectivism” is evolutionarily adaptive. Further, what is adaptive doesn’t always work out to an internally consistent philosophy within the reach of human understanding.
Nation States should still exist, and they should have open borders. See, logic is not hard.
cytotoxic – nothing that you write has any evidence for it and no logic. You just state your opinions; no evidence; no reasoning. And your opinions are illogical.
You state:
“Nation States should still exist, and they should have open borders. See, logic is not hard.”
What is logical about your statement? It is made up of two premises (nation states should exist; they should have open borders). But it’s invalid logic. The error, and I’ll bet you don’t know, is the ‘fallacy of existential import’..and also, the fallacy of excluded middle. In simple terms, there’s absolutely no logical relation between your two sentences. And, there’s no validity to either sentence in its own nature.
Why should nation-states exist? Who says so?
And a nation-state without borders, ie., open borders, isn’t a nation-state. It’s just open land.
And your statement “when the government arbitrarily blocks immigration, my right to employ an immigrant and their right to work for me are violated”. This is, as I said, vapid nonsense. There is no such thing as a ‘right to employ’ or a ‘right to work’. There is a CHOICE to do both.
Then you wrote that ‘we should have the right to hire whom we please”. No,there’s no justification for your opinion. Hiring someone who is here illegally is not a right but a crime. Why? Because that person pays no taxes.
Oh, cytotoxic, you haven’t answered our questions. Why not?
First – explain why you approve of people using public services such as education, hospitals, roads and transportation without contributing to their existence.
Second – explain why you approve of Mexico fobbing off its poorest class on to the US taxpayer. Please explain why you approve of Mexico not providing an economic infrastructure for these people IN MEXICO.
You state that ‘American can absorb everybody’. Really? Provide proof. Explain how providing services for people who don’t pay for them benefits the US, and how our current massive deficits and debt shows that we ‘can absorb everybody’. Explain how the current unemployment index shows that ‘we can absorb everybody’. Explain how our reducing medical services shows that ‘we can absorb everybody’. Provide some evidence, cytotoxic…not just your endless empty unsubstantiated opinions.
You now say that when drugs are legalized, the criminals will continue..to be criminals. Therefore, please explain to us why you support the legalization of drugs.
You state that there is no correlation between immigration and crime. I presume you mean illegal immigration which is a crime in its own nature. But that’s not the point. The point is justifying illegal immigration. So far, cytotoxic, you’ve utterly failed to justify it, either empirically or logically.
Gosh, you seem to be filled with unsubstantiated and illogical opinions..and you also seem satisfied with them. That tells us that you have pretty low intellectual standards.
I have provided you with ample evidence in the links. Now if you’re done wiping the spittle of your screen, I will try to explain this, without too many syllables to confuse you.
Morally: the government exists to protect our rights. That is all. Not to entitle ‘the natives’ to jobs or indulge your xenophobic tendencies. Hence, employers have the right to employ whoever they want, and immigrants have the right to work for them. The government is violating that right with any and all restrictions on immigration.
I do not approve of public services, period. If you do not approve of them either, then follow my lead and criticize them, not people coming here to better their lives by working. Paying taxes is BS talk for ‘the government should own you’. I’m glad for anyone who takes from the US government and gives nothing-including votes-back. They are doing at least as much good as the Tea Parties by providing disincentive to politicians to expand the state. America has and will continue to absorb far more people than has been previously imagined. Back in the early 20th century people freaked out about all the immigrants coming in screaming about how we can’t absorb them all, and America did anyway. The anti-immigration fantasies of higher crime and rampant unemployment have never materialized, at least due to immigration (versus a housing bubble). Too bad people like me have to clean up your mess of excess police power (“papers, please”) and higher debt per capita.
cyto-doofus said: “Morally: the government exists to protect our rights.”
Government exists for three reasons. First to enforce contracts. Second, to ensure the defense of the nation from foreign threats. Third to keep order within the country.
That’s it. That’s all they are supposed to do. Did you notice that “protect our rights” wasn’t in there?
no, cytotoxic, again, you just write opinions. No evidence.
‘Morally, the govt exists to protect our rights’. This is an empty statement because you have to define ‘rights’. Got that?
There are very few ‘rights’ – The US Declaration refers to only three ‘unalienable rights..life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; the US Bill of Rights refers to freedom of speech, life and liberty within the law. The Canadian Bill of Rights has four ‘fundamental’ rights: freedom of conscience and religion; freedom of speech, belief, freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. That’s it.
The rest of life operates by CHOICE not rights, by ‘privileges’ not rights, and requires hard work and no expectations of success.
All behaviours including these rights must function within the laws of the land.
The government does not exist simply to protect these basic rights but to operate as a representative service of the people to provide common laws, a common economic and fiscal infrastructure, a common defence, a common communication and transportation infrastructure.
The fact that you do not approve of public services means that you reject roads, waste treatment plants, mail service, a common currency, a defence service, etc. Could you explain what you would suggest for a nation-state without these services?
Since, presumably, you reject public services, I presume that means that for you, all medical services and hospitals must be private. Same with schools. Could you explain how the illegal immigrants, who use US hospitals and schools without paying for them…fit into your approval of ‘rejection of public services’?
Since you approve of these illegal immigrants who pay no taxes, then could you explain how they should pay for their use of schools and hospitals?
You reject taxes. Could you explain how a nation can fund its road construction, its public waste treatment plants, its water supplies, its defense, etc without the citizens contributing to this common expense.
You still refuse to confront reality. You can repeat your opinions until you are hoarse, but, you still haven’t explained how America can ‘absorb’ more people when unemployment is in the double digits. Could you explain this contradiction?
Could you explain how people who pay no taxes but use all the public services are ‘good for America’?
And you’ve still failed to answer questions. Why do you approve of Mexico fobbing off its lowest class to the US taxpayer?
Why do you support legalization of drugs.
Why do you support people using public services without paying for them? Just saying you disapprove of public services isn’t an answer. Why not? Because these services exist and people use them. So, answer the questions.
It’s incredible reading your posts; you simply opine – but with absolutely no evidence, no data, no logic and filled with self-admiration.
Crytobox
“”””Nation States should still exist, and they should have open borders. See, logic is not hard.”””
if you find logic so simple, why don’t you try using it
we don’t need “open” borders, just like we don’t need houses without walls and doors
governments are servents of the people and so should serve the wishes of the people
and as to america absorbing all of the americans, that’s utter nonsense. People need to be motivated, and allowing illegals (absorbing) is very demotivating, so these people will contribute at the lowest level, and remain there. By shutting the borders they will either educate/skill themselves into success, or die broke
and as to your political leaning, LIBERALTARIAN should cover it
oh, and cytotoxic, you haven’t provided links to any of your comments.
Nothing to support your assertions about ‘rights’; about ‘right to hire’; about ‘the right of people to enter America’; about the ‘right to work’..and so on.
Furthermore, we are talking about illegal immigration, so don’t start merging the illegal with the legal. No-one here is talking about denying a legal immigrant the opportunity to look for and find a job. Stick to the issue.
Again, how about answering some questions.
Did someone say that immigrants work hard and have to learn English? Well, granted some of them work 2 or 3 jobs, to try and play catch-up, but few of them learn English in any practical way, and if they do you can’t understand the accent of same.
Try traveling by bus or SkyTrain in Vancouver – nobody speaks English, they speak Chinese, Korean, Filipino and Hispanic, but never English I was the only white guy on one specific bus on Kingsway in Burnaby, the driver pulled up to a stop and an oriental woman asked the driver how to get to Metrotown Mall. He tried explaining it was 2 blocks east, but she couldn’t understand. I finally asked the driver why he cared as the whole bus was full of Orientals and not one of them bothered to get up and explain to the woman. The driver finally agreed with me and closed the door and moved on.
I feel my late husband, “Sober 2nd Thought”, egging me on to comment on Cytotoxic’s hilarious last post.
I don’t think he’s a lefty. I think he is, frankly, the result of being dropped on his head too many times as a baby. In each successive post, he sounds more and more insane.
He disapproves of public services, so he must not use public transit, or drive a car. (Pity him in the winter.) The government only exists to protect our rights (which he has a really skewed idea about), and our paying taxes only indebts us to the government(?), “the government should own you”…
Hoo boy. I am so glad I ignored those kids with pamphlets when I went to university. Although, had I read those pamphlets, maybe I would know which crazy ideology the toxic cell is spouting…
I feel my late husband, “Sober 2nd Thought”, egging me on to comment on Cytotoxic’s hilarious last post.
I don’t think he’s a lefty. I think he is, frankly, the result of being dropped on his head too many times as a baby. In each successive post, he sounds more and more insane.
He disapproves of public services, so he must not use public transit, or drive a car. (Pity him in the winter.) The government only exists to protect our rights (which he has a really skewed idea about), and our paying taxes only indebts us to the government(?), “the government should own you”…
Hoo boy. I am so glad I ignored those kids with pamphlets when I went to university. Although, had I read those pamphlets, maybe I would know which crazy ideology the toxic cell is spouting…
Oops. Sorry. New to this posting stuff.
It is very easy to support unregulated entry to some one elses country. Until one is directly affected by any sort of large scale immigration, it is a matter of semantics.
What we are seeing in some parts of the United States is simply anarchy.
@Phantom: enforcing contract rights=protecting my rights. It’s funny how you tried to make a counterargument by agreeing with me, so I accept your surrender.
To be clear, the government’s role is to minimize the initiation of force against its people. That is all. There is nothing about immigration that violates anyones’ rights. The simple way to end illegal immigration is to make all immigration legal.
Basically this whole post has been as such:
XENOPHOBES: But they took our jerbs! Crime!
Me: Evidence? Rational?
XENOPHOBES: Liberal! Bad! They took our jerbs!
Me: Freedom.
XENOPHOBES: Stop making me think.
“Me: Freedom.”
Freedom dies in a multi-ethnic nation.
“Free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities. Among a people without fellow-feeling, especially if they read and speak different languages, the united public opinion, necessary to the working of representative government, cannot exist. The influences which form opinions and decide political acts are different in the different sections of the country. An altogether different set of leaders have the confidence of one part of the country and of another. The same books, newspapers, pamphlets, speeches, do not reach them. One section does not know what opinions, or what instigations, are circulating in another. The same incidents, the same acts, the same system of government, affect them in different ways; and each fears more injury to itself from the other nationalities than from the common arbiter, the state. Their mutual antipathies are generally much stronger than jealousy of the government. That any one of them feels aggrieved by the policy of the common ruler is sufficient to determine another to support that policy. Even if all are aggrieved, none feel that they can rely on the others for fidelity in a joint resistance; the strength of none is sufficient to resist alone, and each may reasonably think that it consults its own advantage most by bidding for the favour of the government against the rest. ”
http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/mill/john_stuart/m645r/chapter16.html
The Objectivist argument for unfettered immigration:
“To make this issue clear, put yourself in the place of an employer who has just interviewed two job applicants. The first is hard-working, talented, and ambitious. He has gone through enormous effort to obtain an education and to acquire the skills necessary for this job. He received excellent grades in school and high praise from his previous employers. More important, he has shown the courage to leave his home, to travel thousands of miles, to learn a new language and an unfamiliar culture–all to pursue his chosen career and to work for a better life.
The second applicant has no particular skills for the job you are offering; he expects you to train him. He never performed well in school. When his previous employer, in a different field, closed down, he did not try to acquire new talents or to move elsewhere to seek work. He expects new skills and a new job to be provided to him, with no need for any initiative on his part.
Which applicant would you hire? Clearly, the first one, because he will be more productive for you. Hiring him would be an act of justice: It would reward the one who has worked harder to improve himself.”
What if the case is reversed. The native is hard-working, talented, and ambitious. Highly educated, intelligent with high grades in school.
The immigrant is the one lacking in skills, of a low IQ and generally not accomplished, but the employer hires him because he will work for half the wage.
Is it still an act of justice? Does it reward the one who has worked harder to improve himself?
“Nation States should still exist, and they should have open borders. See, logic is not hard.”
Why don’t you look up the words “nation state,” for one.
After you do that, you tell me how they are going to survive “open borders.” Feel free to use logic in this exercise.
Thirdly then, tell me how your objectivism works if it is not subscribed to by the entire population of the planet.
cytotoxic – it’s quite incredible. I have rarely read posts as illogical and ignorant as yours.
You self-define reality; you live in a completely fictional subjectivist world and seem totally unaware that what you say has no evidence, no logic, and is internally contradictory.
Don’t you realize that: If all immigration is legal, then the nation-state doesn’t exist!
Your support for open borders is akin to claiming that to get rid of crime, then, make all actions legal…and you’ve actually said this about drugs!
If you reject public services, then, do you reject bus/train transportation? And cars that use public roads?
Now you are declaring that the govt’s role is to ‘minimize the initiation of force against its people’. What force? Carried out by whom? Do you mean carried out by an illegal immigrant who takes down your fences, steals your livestock and gets your job because he works below minimum wage?
Your previous post was that govts exist ‘to protect our rights’. What rights?
And as usual, you provide no evidence. No logic. Nothing..other than your illogical and contradictory opinions. When asked for clarification and to stand up for your opinions..we get silence. Heh.
cyto- you must be about ten years old. If that.
Here is my new video on immigration
What America looks like after Racist Arizona Immigration law passes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbPI7sU2bxY
immigration, both legal and illegal is at the very least, a tax on the working poor. At the most, over time, massive immigration is ethnic cleansing of the native population.
We need an immigration moratorium now and to get rid of those that have betrayed our country by pocketing the profits from immigration and passed all social costs onto the communities.
Here is my new video on immigration
What America looks like after Racist Arizona Immigration law passes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbPI7sU2bxY
It is a gross error to conclude that the Arizona Law (Guaranty Clause) has anything to do with ethnicity or race. That’s a red herring that the left is using to divert from the real issue, which is – illegal immigration.
Immigration is the responsibility of the federal govt and the fed. govt has not been carrying out this responsibility, thus allowing hundreds of thousands of illegal entrants. These entrants are NOT immigrating to the US, i.e., applying for permanent resident or citizenship status.
They are coming from Mexico and Central America to live within an illegal economic level.
That is, they will work for below-legal wages because these wages have no taxes, pensions, medical care, etc taken from them. As a result the net wages are actually higher than the legal minimum wage!
Then, they will make use without paying, of the public services: health care, education, roads, transit, communication services.
This cost-savings to the illegals enables them to obtain a surplus of money – and they send billions, yes billions, back to Mexico etc to support their extended families. Mexico is thus relieved of any responsibility for developing an economic and educational infrastructure for these people. The US taxpayer is doing it!
Obama’s tactic, and remember, Obama’s tactics are always about Himself, is to declare that yes, the feds aren’t doing what they should be doing. BUT, he means -not to enforce immigration law and prevent the borders being an open conduit to these people…but to give amnesty to any and all who come across!
Arizona, faced with these half-million illegal entrants and the enormous cost of supporting them, as well as the violence that results as they meet up with landowners and officials who try to prevent their crossing – and the cartels who establish drug running across these open borders – is trying to enforce the law. Because the federal govt is not securing its borders and is not carrying out its immigration duties.
This has zilch to do with ethnicity. The illegals are afraid of being deported; that’s why they are trying to divert the issue to ‘racial profiling’.
The question is – why don’t they immigrate legally? No skills, no education? Fine – then it’s the right of the US to deny entrance. Why? Because such entrants will end up on welfare and state support. Why should the US worker pay for them?
Delmar Jackson (DJ) – there’s no point in discussing your posts with you because your view is not an argument but a closed point-of-view.
It isn’t really based on any argument; you just cherry pick selections that support your point of view. I happen to disagree with you. That’s where the discussion ends because facts or logic will not make you change your point of view.
Posted by: Cytotoxic>
“Singapore allows anybody and everybody in and they are doing great”
Now there’s a load of garbage. Singapore has a ton of issues with legal and illegal migrant workers and is very strict on illegal immigration (have lived & worked in Singapore for 10 years as a foriegn national).
The fact that you can throw blind & false statements at a wall and hope they just stick is testament to your credibility.
http://www.unesco.org/most/apmrnw13.htm
http://www.littlespeck.com/content/people/CTrendsPeople-060827.htm
ET: you are still just whining. I provided great links to follow and I’m not doing it again. You still cling to the conceit that the job you have is “your right”. WRONG. It is your employers right to give that job to whomever he/she wants to. How would legalizing immigration end the nation state? It’s still there, enforcing laws, and anybody can come in. Singapore lets everybody in and they’re still a (city)nation state. If they break any laws, off they go to jail. If you’re really so upset by this taxation issue, then push for replacing income tax with consumption tax like I do. Then there’s no avoiding it.
@DJ: Thank you for at least having the volition to research some. To answer your question, it is still totally in the rights of the employer to hire whoever, but it would seem pretty odd to pick the inferior employee in either case. Also, there is no reason a nationstate can’t be free with multiple ethnicities from immigration. JSM’s scenario is prevented by assimilation, which works as long as the economy does (see NOT France). That scenario would be more relevant to where a nation is arbitrarily composed of different peoples, like the Ukraine (Stalin did that on purpose).
The AZ law is all about racial profiling. A cop can walk up to anyone Hispanic looking and say ‘papers please’. If they don’t have ID, arrested. And possibly to jail.
The moral basis of my argument is simple: government should only render illegal what constitutes initiation of force, like stealing fences and livestock, not things like working harder for less money (min wage should not even exist) and coming to America. It shouldn’t fund trasnit, and I don’t like the existence of public transit, but as long as I’m paying for it I’m using it.
Posted by: Cytotoxic>
“Singapore lets everybody in and they’re still a (city)nation state. If they break any laws, off they go to jail”.
There you go again. That statement is false.
“ If they break any laws they go to jail” – exactly the point of someone entering the country illegally. They have already broken laws, and should go to jail.
You really do seem to miss the whole concept of what legal immigration is all about for the economic, environmental, social, and overall health of a nation and its infrastructure. I suppose that’s why they don’t allow you to make those decisions for real.
Cuto – “If you’re really so upset by this taxation issue, then push for replacing income tax with consumption tax like I do. Then there’s no avoiding it.”
Sometime I explain to you about Black Market.
(Cyto)…
I’m a bit ashamed for not coming — somewhat — to Cytotoxic’s defense, being a libertarian myself but lately morphing into an anarcho-capitalist, or, more sweetly, private market anarchist.
FOR, I’ve come to the conclusion at 61 that the free market does EVERYTHING better than the state and WOULD do ALL forms of protection better too!
But I’ve been extremely busy (I basically interface with the state from about Mar 15 to April 30!).
At a certain, theoretical level, Cytotoxic is right, and some of his arguments are quite standard in the libertarian world (see many, many piece in FEE’s The Freeman, anything by Murray Rothbard, his student, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Albert Jay Nock (Our Enemy the State), Molinari (who first wrote about the private production of protection), etc. Altho’, interestingly, Hoppe argues against open immigration calling it, our end, forced integration.
BUT … as a pragmatist, I also believe that you can’t have wide-open immigration (an ideal!) AND simultaneously a welfare state.
Were the welfare state abolished, immigration wouldn’t be an issue, period.
I firmly believe that ALL the problems in Arizona are the unintended consequences of state tyranny.
cyto doesn’t answer any questions, and keeps on with his ignorant and illogical assertions. He provides no links.
He says that I claim that having a job is a right. No; I never said that; it’s a choice; the fundamental rights are few and don’t apply to employment.
No, the employer can’t hire an illegal; it’s illegal.
No, I didn’t say that ‘legalizing immigration would end the nation-state’ (sheesh, can’t the child even read???). I said that having NO immigration rules would end the nation-state.
Cyto – you still haven’t even ONE of my questions. What about Mexico and its poor? Do you agree with its agenda of fobbing off its lowest class to the US?
No, replacing income tax with VAT isn’t the whole answer. It’s not enough.
No, the Arizona law has zilch, nothing, nadda, to do with ‘racial profiling’. After all, what would be the FUNCTION of this? Why should they go after ‘ethnics’ of one type? Explain the function, Cyto.
They are after ONE type of person only: illegal immigrant. The fact that this person is 99% Mexican/Central American is a fact and has zilch to do with ‘racial profiling’. Get real. THINK.
Singapore? Illegal immigration is illegal.
Incredible – I haven’t seen anyone as illogical and non-factual as Cyto..in a long time.
“Were the welfare state abolished, immigration wouldn’t be an issue, period”
until those immigrants vote themselves a welfare state.
Posted by: Me No Dhimmi>
My argument with Cyto, was that he was holding up Singapore as some idealistic immigrant society, while complaining that Arizona is becoming a police state for regulating illegal immigration.
First off Singapore does so have an illegal immigration problem and tries to monitor and police it closely.
Secondly, Singapore is a police state by every definition. Certainly it would never have achieved its fast first world status by not being as restrictive and totalitarian as it is, in its “easy going way”, but it is restrictive and as un-libertarian as any highly socialist nation.
Hence it is called a “fine” city, mocking the over the top fines and possible jail sentences for relatively mundane infractions. It’s only a small amount of drug possession to draw a death sentence in Singapore, which takes around 3 months from arrest to the hangman’s noose. That sort of idealistic society seems to escape the Liberal left, but of course it’s an Asian nation so all is forgiven.
Like many do say living in Singapore it is a nice city. There is very little crime, because who dares, it’s camera’s, police uniformed and undercover everywhere. The population has also been trained to spy and report on each other (much of that is race based antagonism). On the other hand it’s like living in a hamster cage, running on a wheel of work, laws and tax but never getting or going anywhere.
So in a nutshell Cyto is beaking off like an expert on immigration and a whole host of things he/ she knows nothing about, and others are calling him/ her on it.
Me No Dhimmi said: “Were the welfare state abolished, immigration wouldn’t be an issue, period.”
Yes. That’s my point. Put down sugar, ants come.
Pity psycho-toxic seems unable to grasp this basic rule of the universe, and insists it all boils down to racism.
Its not about race, Mexicans are CAUCASIANS for F- sake. Its about theft of public services by people who don’t pay in to the system, which incidentally is “initiation of force” in toxicity-boy’s own (wrong) definition.
Still, its been fun watching toxic froth.
ET: you acknowledge that almost all illegals are hispanic and then claim racial profiling won’t be used because it has no function? Put two and two together. And I never said ‘VAT’, I said consumption (sales) tax. I also never said Singapore was idealistic, I just pointed out that it has made massive economic leaps and its open immigration policy has been a huge part of that. Has a nation with a closed borders policy ever risen to greatness? I think not. Your earlier links were interesting because they only backed up my position: minor irrational public grumbling is being overruled by the need to replace an aging population and low birthrate, a problem also present in Canada and the US.
Your argument is without moral basis: you’re simply repeating that illegals are bad because they’re illegal without giving a rational for their illegal status, implicitly accepting the government as the wise arbiter of all that is just. I posit that the US should change its immigration law and let people in and apply its rational laws (min gov) to them as they would everyone else.
@MDD: well better late than never. I must disagree with St. Friedman though. We can’t keep waiting for the welfare state to disappear. We need these people to come over here and work! That debt per capita quotient is not getting smaller.
@Phantom: Wrong again. It was initiation of force for gov to take the money from the citizens to build those services. Two socialisms don’t make a right.
dear toxicityboy, since when is it ok to sponge off other people, give back -nothing-, and then scream RACIST when you get called on it?
On my planet, we usually call that stealing. Its considered a bad thing.
Cytotoxic, except the kind of immigration we’re talking about here won’t reduce the debt/GDP ratio. In fact, it’ll INCREASE it. See Fraser Institute, which has done a study on this: modern immigration to Canada is now net-negative revenue-wise. I suspect this is the case everywhere in the west, with the change in thinking away from self interest toward white-guilt post-colonialist global welfare. A too-large percentage of our newcomers are skill-free and when here are re-uniting their, often quite extensive, families. And, as others have pointed out, they’re free-riding.
True, up to the very early 20th century we had virtually free movement of peoples without passports. But without the welfare state and with the high cost of travel, immigrants tended to be very entrepreneurial and/or rich, and highly motivated to be net contributors instead of tax-eaters.
Cytotoxic makes another point that many libertarian writers of my acquaintance make: we can’t wait for the collapse of the welfare state — let’s hurry it along, open the floodgates and thru a kind of libertarian Cloward-Piven strategy, collapse the welfare state.
I myself haven’t descended to that level of libertarian madness … YET.
For the record, I’m completely in favour of Arizona’s unilateral action. In fact, I have a hunch that the US is in the early stages of a long, low-grade civil war. I expect to see secession movements developing in the near future. I will be cheering!
Posted by: Cytotoxic>
“Has a nation with a closed borders policy ever risen to greatness?”
Japan comes to mind.
No racism there of course.
I still find it amusing that you cannot make the leap from distinguishing Legal verses Illegal immigration.
You also don’t seem to understand that your first comment on this thread stated
“….How do you say “police state” in sign language? Because that’s what Arizona is now.”
Then you went on to defend your opinion by using Singapore (a true police state) as the correct alternative to closed border policies (for illegal immigration).
Maybe do some research of the region and learn a little about the race wars that Singapore fought daily in its streets during the sixty’s. The fact that HDB government housing forces the different races in Singapore to coexist in measured volumes dictated by the government. That doesn’t sound at all the way most Americans would like to live (yes you can move into this apartment block because there are only 2 white families and we could use one more).
You arguments are not founded on any kind or real life logic, or facts beyond Liberal propaganda. Instead you freely blast everyone who is against illegal immigration as racist, without once pulling your head out of your ass long enough to analyze, much less understand, that there are very serious and realistic non racial issues with illegal immigration.
cyto- an illegal immigrant is illegal. You seem unable to understand that. Can you understand, for example, that stealing is an illegal act? Well, entering a country without that country accepting you..is an illegal act. That’s the rational action; of accepting that there is a law dealing with entry to a nation-state.
ALL nation-states have ‘closed’ borders; i.e., to work or live or retire or visit in that country, you must be first accepted by the laws of that country. Some nations only allow ‘aliens’ to visit on visas; some only allow visas for 6 months, others for a few years. But there is no such thing as a nation-state without borders. You haven’t provided even one example – and Singapore is not an example.
Because someone is hispanic doesn’t mean, if they are stopped, that this is due to racial profiling. The FACTS are that 99.9% of the illegals are Hispanic. Therefore, if they are stopped by the police, it isn’t that the police are interested in their ethnicity but in their legal or illegal status.
Do you know how this could be stopped? By the hispanics. They should stop entering the US illegally. Simple – isn’t it? And gosh, it has nothing to do with ‘racism’.
What a stupid red herring fallacious argument you make – If they are stopped, it’s a racist act. No it isn’t. They set up the situation by entering illegally. The fact that they are hispanic isn’t the point.
Please explain why the US should let any and all people in – even those with no skills, no education, unable/unwilling to work..but who want the ‘free’ public services such as the schools, medical care, roads, clean water, hydro etc. Please explain the morality and economic viability of this.
Aging population? Who’s talking about that? Are you serious that you consider the uneducated, illiterate, unskilled aliens of any use to replace the aging population?
Again – you haven’t answered my questions.
How and why should the US pay for these illegals who refuse to contribute to their own welfare and pay for their use of public services.
And don’t try the ‘we shouldn’t have public services’. We do. So, why should the legal taxpayer have to support those who pay zilch for these services?
And why do you support Mexico offloading its poorest class on to the taxpayers of the US? Tell me the morality of that.
So far, Cyto..all you do is repeat your subjective opinions. No data, no logic..nothing other than what you feel OUGHT to be done, while you blithly totally ignore what current reality IS. Ever heard of the distinction between ‘is’ and ‘ought’? That’s another logical form of which you know nothing.
Cyto says that Singapore lets everyone in and they are ‘doing great’. Yeah sure.
Singapore will jail you and cane you if you overstay your visa; Singapore will fine and cane you if you are caught chewing gum on their transit systems (yes, that’s right). Or if you leer at a woman.
Fingerprints may be scanned at exit/entrance points; passports have to be recent. Their borders are not open.
Cyto likes totalitarian authoritarian states.
cyto’s a typical liberal whackjob who read Anne Rand one time and thought he understood it.
goof.