The hate isn't coming from me. The below text is from an email that was forwarded to me and is apparently making the rounds. I provide it only as a matter of record:
Folks,My personal view on the immigration issue is different from that of most pro-open border and anti-open border people. I look at the "immigration" issue from a private property perspective. If someone wants to put a foreigner up on his property for whatever reason, cash payment, charitable efforts, new wife, etc., I have no problem with that. Same thing if an employer wants to hire a foreigner, it is fine with me. Where I draw the line is with those crossing the border who are provided with government services or government payments of any kind.
It's time to primary Rand Paul, who has become an open-borders neocon. In fact, just yesterday Rand was shilling for Michael Bloomberg’s Partnership for a New American Economy & Grover Norquist in supporting the Third World invasion of the USA.
I used to like Rand. I gave money to Rand's campaign. But now I absolutely hate Rand. Rand needs to be voted out of office ASAP.
We all need to join together and get rid of him. Please help.
Some great tweets on Twitter this morning attacking open-borders idiot Rand Paul:
https://twitter.com/redtorytoday/status/477067452925239297
https://twitter.com/genophilia/status/477068949247373313
https://twitter.com/HBDBibliography/status/477086672035655680
Thus, I am not open-border in the sense that it means such things as government education, healthcare, emergency care, welfare benefits etc. for those who come to the US. I am fine with immigrants who have a place to stay via the open arms of someone who has property here. I further do not believe the children born of such immigrants, even if they are born in the US, should have the right to any government payments or services either. None of them should have the right to vote either. The idea is to shrink government and increase private, voluntary transactions and a good place to start is with those who want to enter the country under these terms.
BTW, Don't expect Rand to advance a view anywhere close to mine. Detailed, principled stands are not Rand's specialty. Don't hate him, but don't think of him as a libertarian.
Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher of EconomicPolicyJournal.com and author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank.
The joys of voting summed up in 3 short sentences: "I used to like Rand. I gave money to Rand's campaign. But now I absolutely hate Rand." Let us replace him with another lover to break our hearts.
ReplyDeleteNo kidding. Voters (especially Republicans) exhibit all the same behaviors as a girl who continually dates men who beat and abuse her. Time to wake up!
DeleteIt truly baffles me how anyone over the age of 30 still believes that politicians are the answer to the worlds problems.
Delete"Ok ok, mr x didn't do what he said he would, nor did mr z before him... But boy oh boy I am excited for mr z. This guy knows what to do, he really gets it!"
You hit the nail on the head Mr. Wenzel. In addition, a lot of the immigration coming from south of the US border is fueled by violence caused by the US drug laws, and displaced farmers and farm laborers caused by US farm subsidies undercutting the price of corn and other crops grown by Mexican farmers.
ReplyDeleteThe more I learn about the US government (and state and local govts to a somewhat lesser degree), the more I realize it causes almost all problems facing people in this country, and a lot of people around the world too.
"The more I learn about the US government (and state and local govts to a somewhat lesser degree), the more I realize it causes almost all problems facing people in this country, and a lot of people around the world too."
DeleteBingo. I learned this years ago. I wish more people would use that thing between their ears and start thinking for themselves. If they did they'd agree.
Amen.
ReplyDeleteLOL, bring on the kookery. Rand is untouchable in Kentucky. God forsake Rand talk with the black people!
ReplyDeleteThe Wenzel view is intensely unpragmatic . It is easier to hold a purely libertarian position on an issue like rent control, the minimum wage, et cetera. Minimum wage and rent control may be detrimental, but they are easily reversible. Mass immigration without assimilation of people of different ethnicity, culture, and religion is irreversible and will only lead to violent conflict and perhaps civil war.
ReplyDeleteHoppe has the better viewpoint on this issue in my opinion:
"What should one hope for and advocate as the relatively correct immigration policy, however, as long as the democratic central state is still in place and successfully arrogates the power to determine a uniform national immigration policy? The best one may hope for, even if it goes against the "nature" of a democracy and thus is not very likely to happen, is that the democratic rulers act as if they were the personal owners of the country and as if they had to decide who to include and who to exclude from their own personal property (into their very own houses). This means following a policy of utmost discrimination: of strict discrimination in favor of the human qualities of skill, character, and cultural compatibility.
More specifically, it means distinguishing strictly between "citizens" (naturalized immigrants) and "resident aliens" and excluding the latter from all welfare entitlements. It means requiring as necessary, for resident alien status as well as for citizenship, the personal sponsorship by a resident citizen and his assumption of liability for all property damage caused by the immigrant. It implies requiring an existing employment contract with a resident citizen; moreover, for both categories but especially that of citizenship, it implies that all immigrants must demonstrate through tests not only (English) language proficiency, but all-around superior (above-average) intellectual performance and character structure as well as a compatible system of values – with the predictable result of a systematic pro-European immigration bias."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/hans-hermann-hoppe/on-free-immigration-and-forced-integration/
My personal view on the immigration issue is different from that of most pro-open border and anti-open border people. I look at the "immigration" issue from a private property perspective.
ReplyDeleteNo, that's simply not restrictive enough. That's why Ron Paul is a closed-borders guy (well, depending on which side of his mouth he's talking out of).
About the only thing western countries need looser borders for is naturalising foreign spouses.
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/11_1/11_1_1.pdf
ReplyDeleteMurray Rothbard opposing mass immigration and why
Hoppe is brilliant on some issues but simply bigoted on immigration. If one concedes that the state is the ultimate owner of a territory, we may as well accept we are all slaves on the plantation and must accept the master's polices, like them or not. The root of the problem is tax-payer/government funded benefits, period. Eliminate those for everybody and most of the rancor goes away. Wenzel is on the right track with his comments. More could be said but hey this is just a blog comment and I need to get back to work.
ReplyDeleteBigot? cathy whine o witz, is that you?
DeleteWas Rothbard bigoted when he noticed that Russians were being encouraged to flood to small formerly soviet controlled nations after the fall of communism? Rothbard's point is that in an ancap society, immigration would very much be a closed event where only those invited on private property would be allowed - no one else. Or what about when he noticed that a flood of immigrants who vote can change the culture and values of the people for the negative? Sort of like how by a 7 to 1 ratio, illegals want guns banned, more welfare, and higher taxes? How exactly are you going to get to a more libertarian style of govt when you allow millions of new voters who are going to vote against all libertarian ideas and simply want more welfare?
Your answer is to just say to ban welfare - but the open borders lobby has created millions and millions of new voters supporting welfare and it will only get worse with amnesty and more immigration. So your idea of free borders negates your solution - what is your answer besides restricting immigration?
What mass borders advocates like Obama and Bloomberg and zuckerberg want is cheap labor for big business and more votes for the welfare state - which is why so many evil people are behind this latest immigration amnesty push.
Rothbard saw this, and so does Hoppe.