Treat the Cause, Not the Symptom: Welfare State Is Draw for Illegals
What difference does fencing out “freeloaders” make to me if my own countrymen scoff at the very idea of paying to educate their own children, or budgeting for their own medical expenses? Were the educational and medical sectors privately run, we would not attract or encourage freeloaders, and non-citizens who used these facilities would be paying customers. Who could complain about that?
Finally, take law and order. One does not need large numbers of immigrants around to suffer the dangerous consequences of another foolish government policy: the war on drugs. As recently as 2005, the National Survey on Drug Use and Health showed that the war on drugs has done nothing to reduce the frequency of drug use in America. It does succeed in many other respects, though. It fills our prisons (mostly with violators of possession laws), creates dangerous black markets for drugs that could be sold openly, and it already preoccupies and corrupts law enforcement. Exactly the same phenomena were observed nearly a century ago in Prohibition-era Chicago.
SB 1070 is wrong because it targets illegal immigration when the real problem is the existence of the welfare state. Immigrants did not start socialized education. Immigrants did not force law-abiding emergency care personnel to accept non-paying customers. Immigrants did not make it illegal for some of us to ingest chemicals that others disapprove of. Americans, forgetting that their government was established to protect the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, passed (and support) these laws. Americans chose to plunder each other’s pockets and run each other’s lives.
America has long benefited from freedom and immigration. She should re-embrace the former, not discourage the latter. Hard-working immigrants will appreciate this, while the lazy and shiftless will stay home.
Thank you, Gus, for bringing some common sense into this often emotional-driven debate.
Immigrants who come to the US seeking to better their lives are not the problem. This country became great precisely because it welcomed honest immigrants willing to work hard in order to make better lives for themselves. And in doing so, they helped make the US the greatest, most prosperous country on earth, thus benefitting us all. Hence, we should not be stopping this influx of human ambition and ability but encouraging it.
If we are concerned about free riders, we should eliminate the welfare state. Thank you for identifying this as the real source of our problems.
For more along this line, I recommend the article “Immigration and Individual Rights” by Craig Biddle from the Spring 2008 issue of The Objective Standard:
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-spring/immigration-individual-rights.asp
And therein lay the very fallacy of your argument. Those who come illegally into this country are not “honest” immigrants. Likewise the steal the place of an honest immigrant we would have let into this country. These illegal aliens are of bad character, they are line jumpers.
In my State when we had a land run .. they shot line jumpers.
As too the larger point being made. First let me say I might be amenable to helping my people. Which is to say we need take away the welfare component from the illegal alien equation. Illegals, and their children should be totally cut off from all social services. Trying to link the whole welfare debate to this is a very weak strawman, and as strawmen go is equally irrelevant to the issue of eliminating the illegal alien invasion.
Another point is yes, we were a nation of immigrants. That too is a strawman, if you go back far enough even the Indians were immigrants. Conditions change, we are a mature nation now, no longer do we have vast tracts of land needing to be settled. Also I note we still allow generous legal immigration. Immigration on our terms, not some third worlders idea of a bum rush.
Yes, by all means lets take away the welfare component from enticing the illegal alien invasion. Lets require proof of citizenship or legal status for all social services and also for a job. Then lets take a biometric measurement of every illegal alien as we catch them and deport them. If they come back a felony and five years on a county pea farm under Joe Arapio style conditions.
We should charge all costs of enforcement to the country of origin. There are many ways to accomplish this. From a heavy fee when funds are wired into said country to other fees applied when anyone flies from that country into ours.
Finally I am somewhat amused by the Authors use of paying for others children to attend school when he has none himself and calling it welfare. I find it ironic that it is someone else’s kids who will be paying his SS and Mediscam. No doubt Gus will turn down those bennie’s as he will not want to be a hypocrite be accepting welfare after penning this screed.
For most of this country’s history, the only thing you needed to do to immigrate to this country, was cross the border.
Wrong.
For most of our history immigrants came in a legal manner, were processed .. both at embarkation and arrival, were screened for many diseases and criminal proclivities, with many being refused as unacceptable refuse from teaming shores.
The key here is LEGAL immigrants. Capish bobo?
Likewise we are a mature country.. times and circumstance change .
Fantom you’re being dishonest.
You left out how the law has changed since then. Immigration laws changed to be based on national origin quotas. So it’s not just screening out for criminals and disease, there’s a cap on how many people from any particular country can immigrate here, based on the percentage of current residents and citizens from that national origin. These laws were passed based on the pseudoscience of eugenics.
So stop acting like immigration laws have any rationality to them today. They don’t. There is only three reasons to prevent someone from coming here, if they are a suspected terrorist, a suspected criminal, or have a communicable disease. But today the restrictions are completely arbitrary. So for most of our history, it was near impossible to actually be an illegal immigrant unless you satisfied one of the criteria you listed (criminal activity and disease).
It was one thing when the US had vast tracks of lands to be settled AND we did not have “free” social services. Everyone who came to America had to make it on their own as there was no free ride.
That is the big difference. Because we are so afraid of offending one group or another, we’ve allowed our laws to be trampled and even allow “illegals” to protest demanding “rights”!
If you are illegal, you shouldn’t be here! My parents did all the paperwork and waited for to enter the US legally. So can everyone else.
We all learned to speak English, bothmy sister and I finished college, my parents never took 1 dime of aid. They worked and we worked to be tax paying, honest, hard working Americans and I even served in the Army for 5 yrs.
So, while I agree with Gus that the welfare system is part of the draw that draws the illegals to the US, we cannot absolve the illegals of responsibility for breaking our laws to take part in our benefits meant for US Citizens.
I agree fully with getting rid of the anchor baby law. This is a clear exploitation of the child to enter illegally and stay legally. That’s like having more kids to get a bigger welfare check.
As early as 1824, New York State was passing laws to deal with the problem of paupers being dumped on them by ship captains. See New York v. Miln (1837).
There’s no question that the welfare state, at least the stupid form of it that has become dominant, plays a big part in the problem we are having. But controls on immigration go back a long ways.
that does not go to establish that immigration controls are right.
As with gun control, immigration laws were born in racist motives, and run counter to Constitutional intent (despite Malkin’s equivocations, the Founders were fine with open immigration; they simply knew the difference between open immigration (a species of liberty, freedom of travel, assocation etc.) and open citizenship (a government-granted legal status conferring certain privileges).
Note: yes, I am aware of the Fourteenth. That Amendment was written in a later context, when certain European collectivist political principles were seeping over here, among them the pernicious notion that rights are contingent upon citizenship.
They are not.
I am not convinced that illegal entry means the worker is dishonest.
There is a lot of corruption in the legal immigration process. There is a lot of corruption in Mexico. Mexicans take it for granted that they have to pay bribes to various officials to get anything done. When a poor Mexican (or other poor SA) applies for a legal work visa to the US, it is postponed indefinitely due to ridiculously low quotas (inspired by labor protectionism). When this same person applies anything from a Mexican official, it is postponed indefinitely – until a suitable bribe is paid. It is natural therefore, to look for who needs to be paid off to get into the US to work. Enter the Coyote.
Stuart: Forgive me but your comment made no sense. I’ll just ask for clarification on what “illegal” means vis a vis as it pertains to dishonest? Are you saying that they are mutually exclusive?
Your question is a red herring. A victim has no moral obligation to be honest to their oppressor, nor do you have a moral obligation to follow an immoral law. Otherwise would you seriously suggest an honest Nazi following the laws for Jewish extermination is to be taken as some kind of virtue? If you are forced to give a bribe, you are the victim, and the government official offering this forced choice is the criminal.
I would suspect that the bribes paid to a Mexican official or an American one.. bureaucrats you know… all the same, are not the cause of coyotes and the tens of millions of illegal aliens. As an aside , if you pay a big enough bribe.. say a cool mil to the DNC, a top ten FBI most wanted can get a Presidential pardon.. as long as a Democrat is President. http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/10/11/2009-10-11_pardoned_by_bill_clinton_marc_rich_plans_on_never_returning_to_the_us.html Certainly I doubt it is your position that we allow amnesty for every FBI wanted who cannot pay the vig?
As for quotas,[Scarface persona] Now you talking baby, keep it up[/Scarface persona]. You say it is due to ridiculously low quotas, well there is an answer to that. You petition your government to allow more legal immigration, and in a lawful manner we as a country decide what is a proper quota of legal immigration.
Now, I am fairly sure we as a nation have set these immigration laws.. and quotas. It is not for some poor poor poor(did I say POOR ) third worlder to take it upon his/her/it self to decide .. for us, otherwise. That is breaking our law, not honest. Or, in a word dishonest.
That is breaking our law, not honest. Or, in a word dishonest.
In other words, law determines morality.
So slavery was moral when it was legal, then, and the Underground Railroad was “dishonest”. Uh-huh.
What? Did someone say that slavery was wrong, and therefore so was the law?
If that’s right, it would mean that morality precedes law, doesn’t it? That a law can be morally *wrong*, and so therefore it does not follow that if something is illegal, that it must therefore be immoral (or dishonest)?
Well, if so, don’t tell Fantom in case his head explodes.
Talk about a strawman! Gus is forced to pay into Social Security and Medicare, but is then supposed to refuse it? How about we do away with both government schools, so that he doesn’t pay for others’ children, and do away with SS and Medicare, so those children don’t pay for him? The whole point of his article is that the illegal immigration problem will never be resolved, as long as conservatives cling to the welfare state.
Certainly I agree with limiting government, cutting taxes and welfare, however… conflating welfare with the illegal alien invasion is truly an egregious perversion of logic.
Heh, did not read your last sentence.. my bad.
Conservatives clinging to the welfare state.. lol … dysgenics is all I can figure caused that comment to slip from your fingers.
Heh, heh…dysgenics. Are you standing behind that ad hominem as an argument? You must be a plant, trying to generate traffic for this web site.
Conservatives are ALWAYS saying they want to preserve Social Security and Medicare, programs they previously railed against as part of the welfare state.
Fantom, your solution involving biometric measurement and forced labor are a little disconcerting. I would be careful about solutions involving databases, biometric measurements and labor camps. History has shown how this works out. You might also want to take into consideration that those same mechanism that you wish to impose on the illegal immigrants will, at some point, be turned on the legal citizens. It is the nature of power and government.
I believe you make the author’s point by pointing out the irony that someone else’s kids will be paying for his social welfare programs. From the author’s perspective, the welfare state is the root cause of the immigration problem. Your rendition of the author’s future (having his entitlements paid for by theft from others) demonstrates the absurdity of the system. Secondly, your example is a very poor one. Americans are taxed throughout their lives for Social Security. He put into the system with the expectation he would receive something in return later in life. What return is he gaining for educating the children of others? Another tax slave? Of what benefit is that to the author, who advocates freedom and volitional commerce?
I see your point, but only from the perspective that you have fundamentally strayed from the intent of the author, who says: the welfare state is a major cause of the immigration problem. End socialism in America, and suddenly only those who can contribute will be crossing the borders. We want those people here.
“Those who come illegally into this country are not “honest” immigrants.”
Depends on the immigrant. Lots of illegals just come here to work and find a better life for their kids. Some of them are criminals and drug smugglers, but far from all.
It is so completely depressing that we still have to hammer on the adjective: the opposition is not to immigration. The opposition is to illegal immigration. We used to be a nation of laws and the citizenry did not have to man the barricades themselves to enforce laws. Now the feds are not enforcing the laws about immigration/border security, so the state(s) have to rise the occasion and protect themselves. Please, please, please, please–everyone go to your library (the group I’m talking to apparently don’t have any dictionaries in their homes) and look up the word “illegal.” Please.
Yep.. what part of illegal do they not understand? DUH… braindead numbnuts.
Conservatives are absolutely on the wrong side of this issue.
You cannot be pro-freedom for Americans — but anti-freedom for everyone else.
You cannot argue that Americans possess the right of free association and the right to travel freely throughout the United States — but declare that everyone else can only associate with and travel where the government gives them permission to.
You cannot assert that “All men are created equal and are endowed with the unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” — except those men born south of the Rio Grande.
Conservative’s whole approach to the immigration issue promulgates the notion that our rights are gifts from our government, gifts which government may rightly refrain from giving to non-Americans. This notion means that our “rights” are not rights at all, but privileges granted by government to those of us lucky enough to be born here.
Such a notion is disastrous to both the cause of freedom and any attempt to advocate “limited government“. If government can dictate who has these “rights” and who does not, then its power is effectively unlimited.
The concern about immigrants coming here for the welfare benefits is valid, but the solution is to eliminate the welfare state, not stop the immigrants. When you use the welfare state as an argument for restricting immigration, you are implicitly agreeing that the welfare state, provided it is restricted to Americans, is valid and proper. Why would you ever wish to make such a concession?
End the welfare state. Open the borders by building as many “Ellis Island” type facilities as necessary to make sure those coming here don’t have infectious diseases or are known criminals or terrorists. Then — as they did before the creation of the welfare state — the most productive people of the world, who want to escape the hell-holes in which they may currently live, will once again flock to America and help power our economic growth.
That is the proper pro-freedom, pro-limited-government position for those that wish to champion those values.
Why do you keep phrasing this as anti-immigration? It’s not. It’s an objection to illegal immigration, and to immigration that allows employers to socialize the costs, while individualizing the benefits.
Telling Americans that they have to abolish the welfare state is a complete non-starter. It’s not going to happen.
It is so completely depressing that we still have to hammer on the adjective: the opposition is not to immigration.
That’s because some of us see through the dodge that this often is.
Opposition to “illegal” immigration is a position on rule-of-law, not on immigration itself. And there’s nothing wrong, per se, with demanding that laws be respected.
But unfortunately, most of the time this is a feint for conservatives to avoid facing up to the basic problem with their position: they evade the logical implications of immigration laws, which discriminate on the basis of nationality (not necessarily race). The implication here is that individual rights are contingent upon citizenship, a State-granted legal status, rather than being natural rights belonging to all humans.
They are not.
Hell, you’d think that these conservatives would at least have wondered what God might have to say about their unilateral abrogation of the right He purportedly gave to all of us.
Eliminating the welfare state enjoys no support outside libertarian circles. There is support for making the welfare state more rational, less destructive in its effects. The idea of abolishing the welfare state is a non-starter, anywhere but at a Libertarian Party convention.
Yeah, that’s exactly the reason why drug smugglers are crossing the border. That Welfare system is all they care about. The drug smuggling is just a side job they enjoy.
I agree, the Welfare State only creates more of a problem, but eliminating it will not stop the influx. They will still run drugs and come for the work. There are three root causes, Welfare is only 1/3rd of the story.
I’m guessing you dind’t read the same article I did. The author never said or implied that drug runners come here for welfare benefits. He quite clearly said that these were two seperate aspects of the larger problem.
People coming to work is a problem in several ways.
1. Due to the fact that they are illegal it artificially keeps wages low.
2. They steal jobs from legal residents that would do those jobs if the pay was set by an honest labor market.
3. It forces the tax payers to pick up costs such as Workman’s Compensation for illegals because in almost 1005 of the cases people hiring illegals do not pay for Workman’s Comp.
4. It foster an environment of illegal activity and a market for false documents, driving without insurance and other activities that produce income without the tax burden that honest people are forced to pay.
It is not our job or responsibility to support foreigners from anywhere. If there are here illegally they need to go the hell home.
Steal isn’t the right word. The problem is real, however. Enlarged labor supply drives down wages, so that citizens and legal residents, especially at the low end of the wage scale, are more likely to be either unemployed or paid more poorly. If we shut out illegal aliens, we might see $1-$2 per hour higher wages in some jobs. That doesn’t sound like much to you or me, but to a lot of workers, that’s $170-$350 per month more in their pocket. That’s the difference between needing food stamps to feed your family, and not needing food stamps. That’s the difference between being able to pay for car insurance–or not doing so. For a few, it will be the difference between needing government help to get health insurance–or being able to pay for it themselves.
Illegal immigration, by driving down wages, is actually INCREASING the demand for the welfare state.
In the first place, you make the classic mistake of evaluating economic changes based soley on the effects you can see — while ignoring the ones you don’t see.
Yes, forcing wages up will be of economic value to the workers who get the higher wages — but it will be a corresponding economic penalty to everyone who purchases whatever product this worker makes, for the price of that product will be raised as a result of the higher wages. Individuals who purchase this product will thus have less to spend on other products, which means that demand for other products will go down, which may well cause both employment and wages in those industries to go down.
What’s more, the higher wage structure will make the firms forced to use only domestic labor less competitive — with the result that they may lose market share and be forced to lay people off.
So what appears to be a gain is, in reality, only a shuffling of money from one pocket to another — to create benefits for some by bringing harm to others — which, of course, is the whole point of the welfare state.
So restricting immigration does not “reduce the demand for the welfare state” — it merely moves that demand around from one group to others spread throughout the economy.
But more important than the economic argument is the moral argument: inherent in the right to liberty is the right to compete in the labor market. And since individual rights are universal, foreigners have the same right to compete in our labor market as does anyone else.
There is no “right” to be free from competition — there is no “right” to initiate the use of physical force (or threat thereof) to compel employers to hire one type of employee to the exclusion of others.
Beautiful theory. Liberia went down the doctrinaire path on economics after it formed–and never developed an industrial base as a result. American industrial might was at least in part because of the conscious decision to protect American manufacturing. It is very easy to go from a mild encouragement to the sort of protectionism that protect unionized workers, but that doesn’t mean that the concept is wrong. You should read a bit more about the struggles over the American System, Henry Clay, and the early Republic.
Your argument sounds valid but it has some holes. Yes we would pay more for products if wages were increased but we would also not be saddled with the cost of supporting the illegals on our welfare roles. Our tax dollars would go farther so they could be lowered if the politicians would do that. Then the higher cost of food or products would be off set by lower taxes. Politicians are the root of all our problems, the illegal aliens are just a by product of what they have done to us.
Melvin, think how much taxes could be lowered if we rolled back the welfare state.
The welfare state will be our downfall — it is economically unsustainable, even if illegal immigration into the U.S. is stopped completely. Yet conservatives want to ignore a problem that promises to bankrupt us and instead focus on a problem that, at most, accelerates the bankrupting slightly. Why is that?
Poll after poll shows that conservatives in this county outnumber liberals about 2 to 1. Why, then, do liberals suceed in an endless expansion of the welfare state? The answer is that conservatives let them get away with it.
The problem with your “response”, Clayton, is that it is not a response at all. You simply ignore my points and throw out more unsupported claims — this time it’s the claim that some amount of protectionist legislation is necessary for industrial development.
You have not provided any evidence, facts or reasons to substantiate this claim — and urging me to read more about early American history proves nothing.
What a load. Nothing but
Feel-Good argumentation.
You don’t treat someone with a gun shot wound with “you should go out and exercise more, and watch your diet!” advice.
Also, one (welfare) is not necessarily mutually exclusive of the other (illegal immigration).
Are you saying that you don’t mind paying for freeloaders, so long as they are in the country legally?
*I* am saying that I might not mind maybe paying *something* ( although not as now) to aid and support my FELLOW CITIZENS who fall into difficulty. Fellow citizens have a tie with me, and I with them, and from our common interest I am willing to offer some of my labor to support our common infrastructure. (Roads, libraries, bridges, and yes even schools.)
BUT!!! My willingness to share a burden with my fellow AMERICANS – and perhaps even to take a greater portion of our *common* burden out of patriotic feeling (welfare, hospital services for the poor) does not and CAN not extend to those with whom I have NO ties of community and NO mutual loyalty via a common nationality.
I am even LESS willing to be plundered to support CRIMINALS who are here in violation of the very laws they use to steal by stealth and lies, as those people rob not only MY pocket but also ( by taking resources and jobs) those fellow citizens who have called on my pity.
Support for the ILLEGAL is as if I offered my hungry neighbor a sandwich, and it was grabbed from his hand. Then, when I complained, the thief said “but you were giving it away anyway”. YES – I am somewhat willing to share – but only with those I share a community with.
Ok, so you don’t mind freeloaders, so long as they look like you.
Well that was a about a bigoted statement as I have read in a while.
It isn’t about whether “they look like you.” It’s about whether you are a citizen of the United States, or a legal resident. I don’t know anyone who objects to immigrants based on their race. We do object to an unlimited immigration, and that would be true if they were white Europeans, and we especially object to people that are entering the U.S. unlawfully.
I have a friend who is having to leave the country. He came here to work on an H-1B visa., in a very skilled job His job evaporated, and could not find another job on an H-1B visa anywhere in the U.S. He has to return to Britain, to his great regret. He isn’t happy, but he has this weird notion that you obey laws.
Since when does “LEGAL immigrant” or “American citizen” mean “someone who looks like you”?
You get today’s award for the longest flying leap of illogic, one which smells of red herring, I do believe, with a side of straw.
It isn’t about whether “they look like you.” It’s about whether you are a citizen of the United States, or a legal resident.
This is correct. Immigration law does not discriminate on the basis of race (though it certainly began from that motive); it discriminates on the basis of nationality and citizenship. That’s much better (/sarcasm)
Apparently conservatives no longer believe in inalienable rights anymore, apparently… now they come from the State via “citizenship”, they tell us.
You’re exactly right, Gus.
Chris, if you read the full article, you’d see that he addresses the black market for illegal drugs. They simply shouldn’t be illegal. If we had no welfare state and no drug prohibition, then there would be no smugglers. They would simply be businessmen. Right now, they’re gangsters, just like many alcohol smugglers were during Prohibition. But alcohol makers aren’t gangsters now.
Finally, you say that one of three causes of immigration is that they come for the work, and by the tone of your comment, it seems that you think this is a problem. How could it possibly be a problem? If we drop the welfare state, that means dropping taxes, which means explosive business growth and a serious need for labor. There is no fixed number of jobs that should be apportioned to only legal residents. There should simply be a free labor market. If all the things I and Gus suggest came to pass, unemployment would *go down*.
There is not need to “stop the influx” of immigrants. We should open the borders and hope even more come.
C: “There is not need to “stop the influx” of immigrants. We should open the borders and hope even more come.”
You really need to get a life. Tool.
Why do you consider immigrants, de-facto, bad?
You are aware that there were times in this countries history when immigration rates were many times greater than todays, without significant problems.
Without significant problems? No. The vast influx of immigrants in the period 1870-1920 drove down wages in places like New York City to levels that created enormous misery–and an increased welfare state. Employers consciously played the race card to pit one immigrant group against another as part of driving down wages–and this provoked considerable ethnic hatred. (Not that it needs much encouragement.)
Large scale immigration drove the development of the second Ku Klux Klan, and at least in part, the large immigrant populations of our big cities provoked passage of Prohibition.
No problems? I wish you would read some history.
Do you have any evidence to back up these claims and assertions?
Oddly enough, Mr. Smith’s comment won’t let me reply to it. But in brief, Mr. Smith clearly doesn’t actually know very much history (as distinguished from Objectivist fantasy) or we would recognize that what I said is completely and squarely in the mainstream of historical knowledge. All of it. The role of anti-immigrant feeling in driving the growth of the second KKK. The concern about immigrant culture and alcohol in urban settings driving the passage of national Prohibition.
I teach history at the college level. Mr. Smith doesn’t apparently know enough about American history to recognize that what I said is generally accepted across the political spectrum as factual.
Clayton, that’s our fault, not Smith’s. We stop the reply depth to keep the column from getting too narrow.
I repeat my question: Do you have any evidence to back up these claims? Throwing out an additional claim — by asserting the previous claims to be “squarely in the mainstream of historical knowledge” — is not evidence. It is merely another claim that you have not supported.
Welfare state or not, US jobs generally pay better than Mexican jobs, and this is especially true with a country which is grossly oversupplied with low skill laborers, like Mexico. So the notion that elimination of all but the most modest notions of state support for the poor and or invalid will end illegal immigration is true only on the margin. If you have any actual knowledge of Mexico (speak the language, follow their current events, or heaven forbid, actually have been there) it would be plain to you why Mexicans prefer America, and I’m not just talking about the great welfare benefits we have. That said, it’s clearly NOT in our best interest to import more low skilled laborers who have a bad attitude toward American culture and a tendency toward irredentism.
I agree that we should dump the Great Society, which was always about LBJ’s scheme to buy votes from lower-class blacks to replace the lower-class white votes the Democrats lost after the passage of the Civil Rights Act anyway. That the welfare state has negative effects on families is obvious, and the only question that I have is were those effects understood to be a feature, or merely a pleasant coincidence. Don’t let’s misunderstand the issue on immigration, we don’t need illegals, and neither do we need more “honest immigrants willing to work hard.” At 300 million people, the US is full up. Send the H1B visa holders home and hire Americans while we’re at it.
Oh, and get ready for Mexico to explode when 10 million+ workers return home without work and the remittances stop coming. We’ll need troops on our southern border in any event. Might as well start now.
I am really, really tired of reading so much nonsense about “non-violent’ drug offenders in prison. I’m a former prosecutor, and from all my years in that position, I can recall perhaps two individuals who ever served a day in prison for mere possession of any drug. In all other instances, people who were sentenced to prison on drug charges were felons of other species who plea-bargained themselves into a plea on drug charges, in return for dismissal of charges like burglary, robbery or grand theft. And the term “non-violent” that you see in sentencing does not actually mean that the offense or the offender is not violent. It refers to a feature of the model penal code enacted in many states, by which an offense receives enhanced punishment when a special “violent-nature” allegation is made in the charge and found by the jury. When someone pleads guilty to a “non-violent” offense, it generally means that the special allegation has been dismissed, or that the prosecution is agreeing not to file it. That’s how you end up with people pleading to “aggravated assault non-violent.”
I do agree we need to re-think our policies on drug criminalization. But those who pursue that goal really need to know that they’re not telling the truth or honestly advancing their cause when they make these ridiculous claims about prisons filled with non-violent offenders.
This is one of the reasons that I have lost patience with libertarians arguing for decriminalization–this constant claim that large numbers of people are sitting in prison because of drug possession. There are some in that category, but usually after repeated attempts using probation to get them to stop.
The proper argument for decriminalization has nothing to do with the number of people sitting in prison.
The proper argument is simply that my life belongs to me — and what I choose to put into my body, provided I don’t do physical harm to anyone else or their property — is no one’s business but mine.
A great theory for a society that shares libertarian views. Let me know when you get 10% of the population to agree with you.
The truth of a statement is not a function of how many people believe it.
this constant claim that large numbers of people are sitting in prison because of drug possession.
This is a careful misstatement of the libertarian position, which is that the drug LAWS in toto are the problem. That means that everyone in jail for drug offenses should be tallied, not those in for mere possession.
Drug prohibition does for the Columbian cartels what the original Prohibition did for Al Capone: it took a powerful economic engine (the drug trade) and excluded it from the legal sphere to place it in the hands of criminals.
So, it should be no surprise that (a) criminal behaviour and drugs go together, and (b) the huge profits from the drug market help to finance the large-scale expansion of criminal activities elsewhere, up to and including the point of actual insurrection against governments (speaking of Mexico).
They come for jobs, not for social services. And let’s stop dumping all the invective on illegal border crossers. Without a demand, there wouldn’t be a supply(that goes for the drug trade too). There’s a big HELP WANTED sign hanging on our border.
Most of the blame belongs to the American employers.
And yet 26% of people costing the taxpayers money as inmates in border state prisons and jails are supposed to be illegal immigrants.
So from jails, to emergency rooms, to public schools, they do seem to be costing the taxpayer whether they mean to do so or not.
The welfare state and socialism make free immigration costly rather than beneficial, just as they promote racism, nationalism and war between nations.
Do you and C@4 perform off broadway? A comedy act or something?
Smugness and snarkiness so often allows middlebrow mediocrities to delude themselves into believing they have a point or any intelligence.
It’s the modern jaundiced version of ignorance being bliss.
Very good article. The most reasonable (i.e., non-racist, non-nationalist, non-economically illiterate) anti-immigration position is similar to advocacy of all kinds of government intrusions into public health — anti-tobacco laws, banning transfats, nutritional menu/package labeling requirements — on the basis of the fact that taxpayers, via government healthcare, are forced to pay for everyone else’s bad health choices. Well, the problem is government healthcare. Don’t make bad laws worse by using them to justify more bad laws.
While I totally agree with the ethics and political philosophy of this piece, the fact is that we do live in a welfare state that the Obama regime wishes to expand it into a more totalitarian nanny state. In part by increasing the number of uneducated, unemployed and dependent people in the US and making them into insta-citizens and then Obama cannon fodder.
Would you have favored free immigration for KGB officers into the US, especially if they announced plans to register to vote and organize a Stalinist party as soon as they could?
So the difference between granting illegal aliens amnesty and then citizenship and granting the same to former KGB officers is that (1) most of the illegal aliens have committed no rights violations yet, though Obama intends to organize them politically to support those violations by the state in the future, and (2) illegal aliens are not committed to an ideology of statism when they enter the country, though the current regime intends to proselytize them with its version of Marxism so that they will support the imposition on Americans of the failed policies they are fleeing in Mexico etc.
I’d like to (respectfully) make a couple of points:
“I have no children at all, and yet I have been taxed to finance the educations of other people’s children for decades.”
Actually you’re getting a good deal. Children have always been social security for their parents. When they reach adulthood, they support the previous generation not only through taxes but by growing food seniors eat, producing goods seniors need, staffing retirement centers, providing medical care and so forth. As I also have no children, when we grow old we will depend on other peoples’ children to care for us.
It takes an incredible amount of investment in money, time, patience and maturity to raise a child. Because we chose eternal adolescence by not having children (don’t even try to deny it) we will be a burden not only on other people’s children, but their parents as well because we dilute the value of their “investments”.
Secondly, emotional arguments aside, the whole illegal immigration problem boils down to this: A couple hundred (probably fewer people than the congregation of your local church) Democrats want to be re-elected. The best way to accomplish this is by giving a few million citizens of another country citizenship to ours, legal access to our workplace, and the right to vote in our elections. The downside of this would be keeping another couple of generations of American blacks in poverty by pricing them out of the workplace. Now what is more important to us as a society? The jobs of a couple hundred Democrat politicians or the jobs of a couple generations of American blacks? And just who are the racists?
You make it sound as if children are the slaves of their elders.
Pretty much. Indentured servants at the very least. And with the debt obama/democrats are racking up… very indentured servants. Ok you nailed it.. obama slaves.
Children have a duty to care for their parents in their old age, every bit as much as parents have a duty to support and raise their children until they are grown. That is a natural bond, and it is one that only the scum of the earth violate. One who neglects his own flesh and blood should be shunned from polite company.
When they reach adulthood, they support the previous generation not only through taxes but by growing food seniors eat, producing goods seniors need, staffing retirement centers, providing medical care and so forth
None of which will provided to you for free.
Great article Gus,
Its always nice to see someone on the right who has not forgotten the primary, and only moral purpose of government..”to protect individual rights”. The Welfare State is the problem. I have heard many friends defend this law for the sake of preserving the welfare state for indigenous American taxpayers. This is like placing ones principles between Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes and having a three way conversation. Founding principles get lost real quick.
Great article, Gus. However it seems that most of the commenters didn’t actually read it and site several welfare state examples of why illegals should be “kicked out”. On the subject of “they steal jobs from Americans!”, those who use this argument can’t accept the fact that illegals offer a better value for their labor (voluntarily)than the American they “steal” it from. Only allowing Americans (or “documented” workers)to be employed in America is just as evil as mandating businesses hire only union workers. It monopolizes the workforce through government coercion. End the welfare state and drug prohibition and leave markets and people free.
Have you and the other poseurs here fallen into the rabbit’s hole? What part of illegal do you NOT understand.
“…those who use this argument can’t accept the fact that illegals offer a better value for their labor (voluntarily)than the American they “steal” it from.”
Using this logic, then, CA should not be having any economic problems associated with their illegal problem, eh? Texas, and AZ too. They should be prospering because of their illegal workers. The illegals should not be causing hospitals to close, school over crowding, prison over crowding, etc. You make it seem like illegals are NOT the problem but us stupid Americans.
“Only allowing Americans (or “documented” workers)to be employed in America is just as evil as mandating businesses hire only union workers.”
Nice try at the libertarian shtick. But that dog won’t hunt. So we should just allow anyone to come here and work, right? Does sovereignty mean anything to you?
blotto asked:
Does sovereignty mean anything to you?
Yes. The sovereignty of the individual human being, each and every one of which is born possessing the equal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — this sovereignty means so much that government’s only proper purpose is to protect the rights that define that sovereignty.
But sovereignty is not a function of where one is born. It is a function of man’s nature as a rational being who requires freedom to function and remain alive. And man’s nature is the same everywhere — the rights of men are the same no matter where on the planet they may happened to have been born.
But when conservatives deny this — when conservatives declare that only Americans have a right to exist in freedom and that our government may properly sentence millions of other humans to live out their lives under crushing tyranny — they concede a premise crucial to the enemies of freedom: the premise that government may violate the rights of some individuals to protect and/or better the financial condition of other individuals.
Thus, the conservative position on immigration is actually their white flag of surrender to the welfare state — it’s the sickening spectacle of alleged champions of freedom condemning millions of others to servitude rather than sticking their necks out to fight for the right to their own lives and the fruits of their own labor.
Wrong. A government is a written agreement by people who have come together on a specific piece of land. Said agreement is the sovereign law of that land, otherwise known as a country. That non-members want to enter the country does NOT negate the country’s right to govern itself–including deciding when and how to allow non-members entry.
How exactly are illegals’ rights violated when they come here illegally? If you come home from work tomorrow and see me in your house, do I have the RIGHT to stay–even if I’ve done your laundry and scrubbed your floors? No. You can’t violate a right that a person does not possess.
What about the rights of all the INDIVIDUAL members of the US who have created and worked and fought for and organized and paid for this country’s existence? Where in our law does it require citizens to subordinate their rights to whoever wants to come here?
All humans have rights, yes. There is no doubt. However, those rights don’t include encroaching on the rights of others. To come here illegally encroaches on the rights of the citizens who have created and maintain this country.
Taxpayer, you have essentially the same improper view of property rights as RKV, so I am simply going to repeat here the answer I gave him.
RKV wrote:
Sandi, the United States of America is the property of its citizens.
Nonsense. The citizens of the United States do not have some sort of collective ownership of the country that entitles them, by vote, to dictate what every individual property owner must or must not do with their property.
“Property” is the right to exclusive use and disposal of something. If you own the land on which your house is built, you have the exclusive right to decide, among other things, who may or may not come onto your property.
But it is utter nonsense to claim that the citizens have a right to impose, by vote, constraints on who may or may not come onto everyone’s property. If they had such a right, it would mean they could vote not to let the owner come onto his own property. It would mean that they own the property — not the property owner.
Thus, the notion that there is some sort of collective property right that entitles people to vote for limits on the number of people that may come here from any given country in a year is actually a denial of property rights — and is thus fundamentally a contradiction in terms.
The system in which all property is collectively owned is called communism — is that what you advocate for America? Is that the form of social system you think is consistent with freedom and limited government?
Perfectly said, and thanks for saying it. It is wonderful to see someone describe the issue so clearly.
Gus van Horn has it right! I appreciate that most of the people of Arizona are not racist and do not hate Hispanics but the net effect of their law is to impose an unjustifiable burden on anybody who will seem suspicious to the police. The problem, as Gus points out, is the number of freebies our government provides (as well as the drug laws), not illegal immigration as such. The freebies create unnecessary but justifiable resentment. We should work to phase out these items so that no one pays for other people’s education or other service unwillingly. Residency (though not citizenship) should be an option available to all who want it, barring obvious infectious disease, or other danger to the public such as terrorism.
Great idea! Let me know when you get 10% of the American public to agree that we need to abolish the welfare state, public education, etc. I won’t be holding my breath.
Your surrender is noted, Mr. Cramer.
Now get out of the way.
So how are you and the other 5% of true believers going to abolish the welfare state? Dictatorship of the Objectivists?
People posses volition. As long as we still have (mostly) free speech, reason and persuasion have a chance — no matter how badly you wish they did not.
Gus van Horn has it right! I appreciate that most of the people of Arizona are not racist and do not hate Hispanics but the net effect of their law is to impose an unjustifiable burden on anybody who will seem suspicious to the police. The problem, as Gus points out, is the number of freebies our government provides as well drug laws that generate crime, as well as laws that require the provision of services without pay, not illegal immigration as such. The freebies and laws create unnecessary but justifiable resentment. We should work to phase out these items so that no one pays for other people’s education or other service unwillingly and so that our freedoms are no longer restricted. Residency (though not citizenship, which should be a much longer process) should be an option available to all newcomers who want it, barring obvious infectious disease, or other danger to the public such as terrorism.
Excellent article, Gus! Unfortunately there are so many concrete-bound mentalities around (as exhibited by the majority of the above responses) that it will be difficult to change things. Assuming that all illegal immigrants are “dishonest” and stating that we don’t need immigrant labor are two prime examples. It’s not entirely their fault, however; they’ve been taught that drivel for decades in our government school system.
Many people will never understand; the simple fact is immigration = good and Welfare State = bad, precisely for the reasons you stated. Thank you, Gus, for being a voice of reason standing out in a chorus of irrationality!
Sandi, the United States of America is the property of its citizens. The owners of property get to decide who comes and goes on their property. The 70% majority of Americans think that we should evict those who tresspass on our property. Any other arguments are secondary. We own it, Mexicans (and others) don’t. And it’s a (big L) Libertarian fantasy to believe that we can or will do away with welfare. Reduce it maybe (hopefully?), but even in the early republic we had poor farms for the indigent. To borrow a quote “The poor will be with you always.” We have no moral obligation to the world’s poor, particularly at the expense of our own. And at least in the short, it IS a zero sum game.
True, we cannot do away with welfare, but it has no business coming from the government. Christ’s Church has that job, and the government is a usurper.
RKV wrote:
Sandi, the United States of America is the property of its citizens.
Nonsense. The citizens of the United States do not have some sort of collective ownership of the country that entitles them, by vote, to dictate what every individual property owner must or must not do with their property.
“Property” is the right to exclusive use and disposal of something. If you own the land on which your house is built, you have the exclusive right to decide, among other things, who may or may not come onto your property.
But it is utter nonsense to claim that the citizens have a right to impose, by vote, constraints on who may or may not come onto everyone’s property. If they had such a right, it would mean they could vote not to let the owner come onto his own property. It would mean that they own the property — not the property owner.
Thus, your alleged collective property “right” is actually a denial of property rights — and is thus fundamentally a contradiction in terms.
The system in which all property is collectively owned is called communism — is that what you advocate for America? Is that the form of social system you think is consistent with freedom and limited government?
Milton Friedman said it best: illegal immigration is not so much of a problem, but illegal immigration with a generous welfare state is.
It seems to me that you are missing the point, and that is it’s all about control. The feds in their all encompassing, infinite wisdom enacted legislation to force states and individuals to support the government’s socialist ideas(control of the masses). Illegals have just taken advantage of the freebies. Our government recently did this again with obamacare and will further strangle us with cap and trade – where some will get very rich while the majority will suffer. Additional examples include NAFTA and CAFTA.
Wake up folks. Always follow the money, especially where it stops.
Gus, with respect to education, social services and drug dealing, you make a good case.
But, as several commenters point out, you did not address the matter of illegals taking jobs away from American workers. I would consider job protection legislation (minimum wage, unemployment benefits, legalization of unions, etc.) an integral part of the welfare state, so I would think it warranted inclusion in the article with some justification for repealing that as well.
In our present welfare state, consumers pay substantially higher labor costs than necessary. In a truly free society, employers would be able to hire anyone they wanted at a wage negotiated with each individual based on their value to the operation. That would keep the cost of the products at the lowest possible level for consumers. If a business can produce the same quality product by hiring non-union or even “undocumented” workers, and is allowed to do so, we as consumers would benefit.
There is no excuse for American workers to be as unskilled as they appear to be. Jobs are not an entitlement. If you don’t want to compete for jobs with the unskilled, get yourself skilled.
Illegals aren’t ‘taking’ or ‘stealing’ jobs from Americans. Americans are GIVING them the jobs.
America is very underpopulated, and the lack of production and fulfilling jobs is the fault of collectivist social policies, including inflation-inducing quality-destroying government welfare programs, abysmal non-conceptual education (resulting from the government’s virtual monopoly over education), and mind-stunting economic controls. To prosper, we need purposeful, honest people who value personal responsibility and the virtue of productiveness, and we’ll only get those kinds of people when each individual is treated as an end in himself and has to produce and trade for values, not sacrifice and force others to give him things he needs.
Here’s Objectivist philosopher Harry Binswanger on America’s underpopulation, from his article “Open Immigration”:
“America is a vastly underpopulated country. Our population density is less than one-third of France’s.
Take an extreme example. Suppose a tidal wave of immigrants came here. Suppose that half of the people on the planet moved here. That would mean an unthinkable eleven-fold increase in our population–from 300 million to 3.3 billion people. The result? America would be a bit less “densely” populated than England (360 people/sq. km. vs. 384 people/sq. km.). In fact, it would make us less densely populated than the state of New Jersey (453 per sq. km.). And these calculations exclude Alaska and Hawaii, and count only land area.
Contrary to widespread beliefs, high population density is a value not a disvalue. High population density intensifies the division of labor, which makes possible a wider variety of jobs and specialized consumer products. For instance, in Manhattan, there is a “doll hospital”–a store specializing in the repair of children’s dolls. Such a specialized, niche business requires a high population density in order to have a market. Try finding a doll hospital in Poughkeepsie. In Manhattan, one can find a job as a Pilates Method teacher or as a “Secret Shopper” (two jobs actually listed on Craig’s List). Not in Paducah.
People want to live near other people, in cities. One-seventh of England’s population lives in London. If population density is a bad thing, why are Manhattan real-estate prices so high?”
http://www.hblist.com/immigr.htm
Copyright © 2006 TOF Publications, Inc. http://www.hblist.com/immigr.htm Permission hereby granted to republish, in whole or in part, provided no changes are made in the wording of material used, Harry Binswanger’s authorship is stated, and this notice is carried.
It’s great that PJM prints articles like this: more people need to learn just how crazy Randroids are.
What Gus Van Horn forgets is that 99.99% of Americans don’t agree with him, with the vast majority supporting a mixed economy. What he also forgets is that there’s a Dem Party and a far-left in the U.S., and they disagree. And, all those people he wants to come here will fall into their clutches and vote for more spending. What Gus Van Horn childishly supports would give even more power to the Dems and the far-left.
But, it would actually be even worse: it would give vast amounts of power inside the U.S. (or parts of the then-former U.S.) to foreign governments. Those strong, cohesive foreign governments would send us millions of people in order to form a power base inside the U.S. and might establish joint dominion over our territory or be able to simply take territory from the U.S.
When you actually think it through, libertarians really aren’t that patriotic at all, as long as you’re talking about patriotic to the U.S.
Did it take drugs to get you this paranoid? Or were you able to achieve it all on your own?
Paranoid? How do you think the U.S. ended up with Texas and California? Mexico foolishly encouraged immigration to populate these regions. Large numbers of Americans moved in, became Mexican citizens, and pretended to become Catholics (required at the time for land ownership). And guess what? In both states, the dominant population was soon American-Mexicans, whose primary loyalty was to the U.S. and our values.
This is how we took away the Southwest from Mexico. You think it can’t happen in reverse?
This is how we took away the Southwest from Mexico. You think it can’t happen in reverse?
This is how the primarily capitalist, economic powerhouse United States was able to add to its free territory by taking it from mostly socialist, economically weak Mexico. Can it happen in reverse? No.
Mexico wasn’t “mostly socialist” back then. And today, the U.S. is fast on its way to being partly socialist because of the Democrats. Yes, it can happen the other way.
Cramer said:
Yes, it can happen the other way.
Why? Because you say so.
I, at least, provided some support for my contention that it cannot happen in reverse by noting that the U.S. is vastly more powerful, both economically and militarily than Mexico.
You give us nothing except a counter-assertion.
You said it, Larry. There is no limit to the amount of jobs available. As workers come to bid down the price of labor, the cost of production lowers, and so do prices. As people pay lower prices, they have more money to reinvest in their own enterprises – often leading to more available jobs.
The above formula may not play out perfectly in every case, but it is generally true. To assume that the labor market consists of a fixed number jobs is to entertain Marxist nonsense. Besides, employers have rights too! They should be free to hire foreigners if Americans overvalue their own labor.
Thank you, Mr. Van Horn! I hope to see more of you on PJTV in the future.
This is silly. Conflating immigration and illegal immigration is a progressive ploy, and that’s exactly what this article does.
Foreigners immigrate – have always immigrated – to the USA for a variety of reasons. Typically, the least of these has been to take advantage of a welfare state – other nations are far more advanced in that regard (see also: EU, Canada).
Those who illegally immigrate do so for one of two reasons: either they simply don’t want to be bothered with the hassle of going through the process of becoming a legal guest worker or U.S. citizen, or they intend to live outside our laws. That is not a “symptom”, that is a willful, illegal act, and makes one a criminal.
The job of the police is to apprehend criminals. In that regard, this law is perfectly valid and should be implemented in all 50 States post haste.
We simply cannot allow the entire 3rd world to emigrate to the USA. It’s as simple as that. I’ve said before on these pages that the Tea Party and the Democrats share an interest in curbing immigration – illegal or otherwise.
there are just too many people here – and if we offer even Social security to newcomers – the system will explode.
Neocons LOVE immigration for US but not for their client state ISrael. That bit of hypocrisy makes me very very angry at the 2% who thump for human rights… just not in Palestine.
It’s the neocons who support immigration????
Social Security is in the process of imploding right now, with or without immigrants.
Isreal is a client state? Do you have any idea what the word means?
Do you really believe that nations should allow immigration of people who have dedicated their lives to destroying that state?
Great article Gus. You make a point rarely made in this debate – that it is the welfare state, not immigration that is the problem. If people had to stand on their own two feet, they would come to America only seeking opportunity and voluntary trade – not handouts (as a majority do already).
The “stealing jobs” argument is absurd. No one has a “right” to a job based on their birthplace. They only have the right to offer their services to someone who can choose to employ them at a certain wage. If you don’t like competition, then lower your price (for your labor).
If anyone has been following the news as of late, it has become apparent throughout the world and within America too, just what happens when a government can no longer afford to provide entitlements. The debt ridden nations of the world, like Greece, have come to understand that they must cut numerous social programs in an effort to remain solvent. In response to severe, but necessary cuts made by the Greek Government, riotous violence has erupted among union workers in protest. The move by the Greek Government was its definitive effort to save itself from total economic collapse; a fact that simply evades the violent protestors. Apparently, violence and riot is the rejoinder, entitlement dependency groups choose, when the quantity of free stuff must be reduced or when it is completely taken away.
Here in the US, entitlements provided through welfare, food stamps, AFDC, summer food benefits, weatherization assistance, clothing allowances, energy assistance, and any number of other programs but more particularly, the entitlements anticipated and expected by those migrating here illegally, will certainly hasten the bankruptcy of our nation, too. However, that fact is ignored and consequently does not prohibit violent protests from erupting in the most affected regions; as is now occurring in the Southwestern, United States.
The States of Arizona, California, Texas and others in the southwest have had to absorb exorbitant costs associated with an increase in crime and the costs for processing and/or incarcerating those who are here illegally. These States have also had to absorb costs for providing much needed medical services to those having crossed the border. Providing medical services to illegal immigrants, when the majority of them hold a “no-pay” status, has forced the closure of a number of medical facilities and emergency rooms in these states. When these hospitals are forced to close their doors, services are cut to the entire community.
In response to these circumstances, the State of Arizona has passed legislation to help contend with those persons whom are here illegally yet, draw upon government and private services. This action, by the State of Arizona, was necessitated upon the result of years of inaction from the US government, who has thus far, failed to even acknowledge the severity of the circumstances or the impacts to the individual states. The passage of Arizona’s legislation makes it clear that it believes the security and sovereignty of the individual state, as well as the safety of its citizens, is being threatened. It therefore, became paramount for the locally elected officials to take action.
As hard as Arizona has tried to manage the situation and for as long as the people of Arizona have had to tolerate the condition, the Federal government has simply ignored the problem and has only allowed it to intensify. Incredulously, the Federal Government has now begun to chastise, bully and threaten the state for its actions to remedy what is foremost, a Federal issue.
Although Arizona’s actions are justifiable, violent protest and rioting has begun by those seeking a continuance of free movement across the border, into the US. Riotous violence is apparently the response that must be anticipated not only from those relying upon and dependent upon the government for their support, but now, violence must also be anticipated by those who are not even legally entitled to the services.
What happens, when a government can no longer afford to provide the numerous and costly entitlements, and therefore, must begin to cut these programs? Evidently, it must simultaneously prepare for the certain violence and civil disruption that will take place, as it acts to avert economic collapse. So, should we make another 40 – 50 million people dependent upon a government funded and managed program in the form of healthcare, while we simultaneously carry Public Debt of $12.9 Trillion and operate at a Two-Trillion dollar budget deficit? Should we also be considering the granting of amnesty to 12–14 million illegal immigrants, when it is foreseeable they will be added to the healthcare roles?
I only ask this because, we must steel ourselves in preparation for the inevitable and horrific violence that will erupt not just in Arizona but, throughout the US, should it ever become necessary to repeal the healthcare legislation. People who are not even entitled to receive government services are rioting because they believe they deserve them. It is unimaginable what would happen if American citizens, who are truly entitled, are made to be totally dependent upon government for such a crucial service as health care will do, if it later, must be taken away.
Nice article. To add to the discussion of jobs / employment, we should note that in any voluntary trade, both parties benefit because they both receive something they value more than what they’re giving up. It’s no different for labor. A worker who provides his labor at a lower cost than might be prevailing at the time, provides a net benefit both to himself and to his employer, but also to society at large. Typically the latter is seen as a reduction in the price of goods from which all consumers benefit.
(We might also note that capitalism inherently involves competition, so there’s no reason to single out immigrants for engaging in it.)
The true irony of this entire issue is that Mexico is NOT a poor nation. In point of fact, Mexico is the 6th largest oil-producing nation, and the 13th largest exporter of oil in the world. ( http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/country_energy_data.cfm?fips=MX )
And yet the argument always seems to include just how damned poor and deserving these illegals are. They’re neither.
The fact that Mexico, the country has money, is not proof that all Mexicans are well off.
Have you ever been to Mexico?
@Jonathan Hemlock:
While I concede that the sudden cessation of the welfare dole could invoke a riotous response, I think it is important not to write-off the legitimate concerns of immigration advocates. The amount of money and time it takes an immigrant to enter this country as a resident (not even as a citizen) is downright punitive.
I agree that people who enter the country should go through the proper screening processes, but I am also aware that the proper screening processes have been unavailable for decades. America must increase it’s inbound immigrant processing capacity so that law enforcement can focus on the real problem – those with communicable diseases, people with criminal records and those with a history or proclivity towards violent opposition to the US.
No, the real problem is immigration for entitlements that are unobtainable at home. The costs to immigrate are irrelevant when nearly 14 million immigrants disregard the cost only to live and work here anyway.
Mr. Van Horn- you hit the nail on the head.From the public schools right through to government social services, I had never looked at the welfare state in that light before. I can tell you from personal experience that you are right.
I know of one family who came here and immediately applied for and received government help-and they had friends and relatives here who had found jobs for them and offered to pay their rent for a couple of months. So they were abusing these generous people twice- taking their charity and also taking their tax dollars. One man we knew moved here from Spain in his seventies and collected Social Security! He had never worked here a day in his life!
Did you know there is a HUGE black market in trading food stamps and other government goodies? And the illegals are involved. It’s like an alternate currency. Our tax money is NOT going to feed hungry people. This is the first country in the history of mankind to have “poor” people who are fat. Our tax dollars are being funneled in to an underground economy. One in which no one pays taxes on anything.
So we have people who depend on the government for everything; housing, education, food, but pay no taxes at all. They have absolutely no duties or obligations as citizens. They only act of citizenship they do is to go to the voting booth to acquire for themselves more stuff from their fellow citizens. And the rest of us pay our own way on everything,and we shoulder this enormous welfare burden without a word of thanks or appreciation from any one. Indeed, we are insulted by the media and shunned by our own representatives.
We must dismantle the welfare state because it attacks the builders of our communities and supports the cheats and wastrels. It also creates unnecessary conflict and disunity between American citizens. And now, it seems, it is creating conflict between American citizens and illegal immigrants.
Note: I am assuming that the void would be filled by private charity which is a much more wholesome and unifying and efficient way for citizens to relate to one another.
#29, Mark:
Why, yes I have numerous times, including being stationed on the Mexican border. That wasn’t my point – which was, for all of the continual self-justification, there is no plausible reason for Mexicans to have to come here, when they have their own relatively rich nation.
Should they take on/take out the tiny number of Mexicans who own virtually everything? Assuredly. That they haven’t is a shame. Regardless, they still lack any reasonable justification for “having to come here.”
Oops, I mean “THE only act of citizenship…”
I agree with the author in all respects, except one: the title of the article.
It seems to me that the welfare state is not the main draw for illegal immigrants. The draw is, in fact, jobs; people are coming to the US primarily to work, not to leech. Access to the welfare state is secondary, and in some cases it’s even forced — for example, if someone can’t afford to see a doctor, they don’t have the choice to receive care from less expensive health-care provider (such as a nurse), so they go to the Emergency Room.
OK, I’ll roll some grenades into the fray. Some of these were not mentioned in the article but are fun nonetheless:
Equal application of the law means everybody. Exceptions based on race, creed, color, nationality, economic condition, or native language are examples of discrimination, not “fairness” or “compassion”.
If you don’t like a law, there are procedures in place to change it. Meanwhile, compliance is not optional. If you succeed in making compliance with laws optional, you won’t like my options of which laws to ignore. I promise.
Hiring illegals is (surprise!) illegal. Fine the employers. Heavily. Use the money to provide some comforts for deportees, and better equipment for the fine folks in the Border Patrol.
Illegal immigrants are indeed entering the US in search of a better life for themselves and their families. However, sympathy for their motives does not imply consent to assume financial responsibility for them. If anyone here feels differently, feel free to give them all of YOUR money. Keep your sticky fingers out of everyone else’s pocket. And yes, that also applies to your sympathies for Citizens and legal residents for whatever reason. When I feel charitable, I will decide to whom I give my charity.
As for the search for a better life: There are hundreds of millions of “disadvantaged” people in the world. Special exceptions for poor Mexicans constitutes discrimination against poor Egyptians, Bosnians, Indians, Chinese, Philippinos, Koreans, Turks, Russians, Tatars, . . . you get the picture. Racists.
Our incredibly self impressed “president” calls the Arizona law “misguided”. The Executive branch is the top Law Enforcement authority in the nation. The legislature enacted immigration laws generations ago. Failure to enforce the laws enacted by the legislature constitutes incompetence. “Misguided” is a term better applied to incompetents than to state governments attempting to protect their own citizens. Competently. The Whine really should avoid mirrors.
“Mexican” is a nationality. “Hispanic” is a linguistic group. Calling either a “Race” is, in a word, stupid.
The Arizona law specifically limits actions to verify legal presence in the U.S. to cases where “Reasonable Cause” exists. Law enforcement is limited by the exact same standard when enforcing every criminal statute in the country. If illegal immigrants are “oppressed” by this standard, so are bank robbers, child molesters and mad bombers.
The ONLY operative term is ” Anti ILLEGAL immigration”. Got that? The emphasis, indicated by CAPS, is I-L-L-E-G-A-L. NOBODY is “anti-immigrant”. Well, maybe there are three people in the US stupid enough to be anti-immigrant, but they are probably “progressives” that don’t want any more of those wascally Euro Imperialists under their beds.
There is no such thing as “racial profiling”. Arresting or investigating someone on the basis of race is simple discrimination. There are laws against that. A “Profile” by definition consists of a number of attributes. In a Criminal Profile, attributes common to known perpetrators of a given crime. “Racial profiling” is an imaginary term meant to make money for Al Sharpton and to provide a propaganda tool for the parasite Left.
Now, SURELY I’ve annoyed someone?
“Now, SURELY I’ve annoyed someone?”
Yes, but only the ones without any common sense or understanding of the issues at stake.
To put this in perspective,
More “immigrants” have come into this country through the San Rafael Valley (AZ) than through Ellis Island.
I was a Border Patrol Agent in Sonoita, AZ. I left when I was ordered to man a checkpoint on an E/W road, 200 yards away from a N/S road, literally watching loads of illegals drive up to I-10, (safety), and ordered to man the stupid checkpoint instead of pulling over the load vehicle.
I have seized, in a lawful stop over 400 lbs of marijuana being smuggled into the US by US citizens. I spoke with the US Attorney’s Office, articulated 7 reasons of suspicion for the stop, and was ordered to release the smugglers. (And I have the pictures to prove it)
Federal law enforcement is a joke, unless you are not paying your taxes. I commend AZ for doing what is right to protect its citizens because of federal malfeasance.
For those that don’t think the State has the authority to enforce federal law. Consider bank robbery, falls under FBI purview, yet rarely is the FBI involved. How about Wire Fraud, Identity Theft? These are all federal laws that the states have actively pursued rather than waiting on Feds.
What disturbs me most the past week is not Arizona’s law but that Obama has said that the Interior Dept has SWAT Teams and that they are going to board oil rigs. The Interior Dept? Seriously? I didn’t even know that had police, but they have SWAT Teams??
Now I am a deputy Sheriff. Carry a copy of the Constitution in my visor.
So the problem is the welfare state? Well, realistically we all know it is not going away tomorrow. So in the meantime we should just let millions of illegals into the country while we work toward getting rid of welfare programs? We will have another 20 million here by the time that ever happens. Anyone here illegally needs to get out, I have no sympathy for law breakers.
I would like to ask those who are just fine with illegal immigration just one simple question: Have you ever helped someone come here LEGALLY?
Now I’m not using the stupid, tired, and lame argument that if you don’t do it then you have no say in the matter. What I AM saying, is that getting here legally is no mean feat.
My wife is an Australian, deffinetly not an enemy nation nor one that even leans against us really. (We’re just dumb yanks after all.
) It took months, mountains of paperwork (okay a bit of an exaggeration but when I saw the file they had for her on our interview. OMG! That thing had to weight 5 lbs!), and thousands of dollars to get her here legally. She still has to report to immigration and this year we’re re-upping her Green card.
So for those of you who are just fine with illegals you have no problems with making my family jump through all these hoops? I’m not saying the illegals have it easy (though not all of them are the epic journeys that are often touted. My coworker came in the back of his parent’s car when he was young.) but how does rewarding the purposeful ignoring of process help? Doesn’t it make those of us who have gone/are going through the process all chumps?
Also I have to wonder, if the face of illegal immigration were the Chinese instead of the Mexicans would this be as big an issue? Seriously! In Australia they have illegal imigration as well, but it’s mostly from southeast asia. Does a different face, especially by one of the less “favored” of the minority races change the storyline? (BTW my last name is only 3 letters long and rhymes with Lee. Guess what “race” I am. :p)
My wife is from Iran and it took her 20 years to get her citizenship. The paperwork is a mess and there definitely needs some kind of reform.
You didn’t annoy me CFM, well said! I have a couple more grenades to roll however.
MARK THE GREAT. No, Mark, not that “look like me” but that act like me, although there isn’t a damn thing wrong with “looking like me” in the least either.
I don’t pollute my neighbors with noise, or their air or create eyesores. Many years ago a group of Samoans got into a tussle with the police because they were beating drums, roasting pigs and going at this from early Friday afternoon until late in the night when it finally turned into a minor riot with police who were trying to break up their “religious ceremony.” BS!
There was guy also in LA who hauled every piece of metal garbage imaginable, welded it all together as art and completely filled his front yard. It looked exactly like the junk yard it was before the welding. Not interested!
I lived in an apartment complex many years ago that all of a sudden started filling up with people who began engine over haul jobs on their pick-ups but never finished. I moved, more difficult to do if I had owned a house.
And, yes, I have been to Mexico, and, yes, I have seen the poverty. Oil money or no, one of the reasons so much wealth resides next to so much poverty is that they send their potential problem people up here. By the way there was an article, very well written, just a short time ago, that Mexico’s drug cartel problem resides in the north of the northern most states, Mexico fights but not too hard because a lot of money flows back into Mexico that looks to become “legitimatized.” Still have it, love to post it, if allowed.
In fact some study a while back found that illegals in fact had jobs back home but preferred coming here.
C. August—open borders and hope even more come. I’m for all the legal, educated people we can get our hands on, not illegal, anti education types. Please bring up the “schools failing them” I’ve got a couple of grenades there too.
Gus, how disingenuous to suggest that we would not administer emergency aid. Do you really want to see the doors around hospitals with the dead and dying or having babies on the sidewalk? What an inhuman suggestion. On the other hand there was an article in the LA Times a while back about six hospitals in the LA area that had to close (and other parts of the country too) because they couldn’t fund what they were required to provide in the way of services… to illegal… aliens.
Sandi Trixx—what if we got a few million works from XXX country who would work for ten cents a day, what do you think the illegal Mexicans would say to that? What would you say? This stratum of people do not do well in school, their graduation rate is abysmal, how many tens of millions for how many decades do you think they are going to set around with all the good things of the culture passing them by before they say they are being cheated? This is the 21st century we need educated people, that want to come here legally, earn their right to the good things we provide.
Jason Goldsmith—most of the land not lived in is desert or mountains, or national parks try subtracting those areas. Water is the main problem not land. The Colorado river seems to be nearing the maximum number of people it can support. Are you suggesting that we bring in people who don’t drink or pee? Further, at what point with people coming from a peasant society, how many tens of millions, before we would find our selves living not in American as we BUILT IT but as another peasant society like so many others? Just wondering.
Go inflict that on someone else’s country not this one.
Got my catchers mask and glove on… let me see what you’ve got!! LOL
Well, peter38a, it doesn’t take much to answer your comment — because there is little in it in the way of valid arguments.
1) Anecdotal stories of foreigners that failed to keep up their property or disturbed the peace is proof of nothing.
2) You claimed: Gus, how disingenuous to suggest that we would not administer emergency aid. Do you really want to see the doors around hospitals with the dead and dying or having babies on the sidewalk?
Prior to 1986, we didn’t see “dead and dying” around hospitals — just as prior to the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, the indigent did not go without healthcare.
Doctors have always been willing to engage in charity — though they won’t with people whose problems are obviously self-inflicted, like alcoholics, drug abusers and people who just plain won’t work.
Hospitals and doctors should be free to see and treat who they wish — they are not serfs to the poor or the “needy”. There has never been a shortage of voluntary charity for those deserving of help. But the left hates voluntary charity — because they hate that nasty word, “deserving” — they hate it for the same reason they hate the word “earned”.
3) You also asserted: This is the 21st century we need educated people, that want to come here legally, earn their right to the good things we provide.
What gives you the right to dictate what sort of people all 200 odd million of us adult Americans may or may not associate with?
And what we “need” is not an excuse to violate the rights of those wishing to come here. When you cite “need” as a reason to violate rights, you are conceding the left’s very case for the welfare state, for it is based on precisely that premise.
4) And you asked: Further, at what point with people coming from a peasant society, how many tens of millions, before we would find our selves living not in American as we BUILT IT but as another peasant society like so many others? Just wondering.
“Peasant societies” exist not because some people are “peasants”, but because they have governments that do not respect individual rights.
150 years ago, the overwhelming majority of the people in this country had a standard of living that was “peasant” by today’s standards — and over these last 150 years we’ve allowed the immigration of tens of millions more “peasants” — yet we did not descend into a “peasant society”. Instead, we’ve had fantastic economic growth, despite the presence of all these “peasants”
The explanation is in a single word: capitalism.
You’ve offered no argument to justify the notion that only Americans have a right to live in freedom and that it is proper and moral for our government to sentence millions of non-Americans to live out their lives under crushing tyranny or in sewers of corruption.
You have, however, sadly demonstrated how and why conservatives wind up being enemies of the very freedom and limited government they claim to champion.
Gus van Horn (not his real name) is an Objectivist (a follower of Ayn Rand) and a libertarian, as are some of the other people commenting (or mentioned) such as Craig Biddle, Harry Binswanger, Ahmit Ghate, Paul Hsieh, etc.
The Biddle article calls for open immigration:
____
1.Repeal all laws restricting immigration; do away with all quotas, visas, green-cards, and the like; make open immigration the law of the land.
They’re Objectivists?!?!? And they were doing such a great job of keeping that a secret … Nice detective work, Neil. And what is it that you’re hoping I will conclude from this shocking revelation?
If Israel adopted Biddle’s policy of “open immigration” it would cease to exists as the country it was within a decade or so. I’ve occasionally asked Objectivists if Israel should adopt a policy of “open immigration” and generally been told that it shouldn’t.
But getting back to the point of the article, it is certainly true that the welfare state is a problem, but: (1) getting rid of the welfare state isn’t going to happen anytime soon; and (2) those who would come to our country (particularly to the southern border) are people likely to support the welfare state.
Leonard Peikoff (who claims to be Ayn Rand’s “intellectual heir”) has said that Moslem immigration to the US should be limited.
Objectivists are not a monolith on this issue. There are disagreements and nuanced positions. To that end, I would address your points as follows. Yes, national defense is imperative and must factor into immigration policy. As such, there must be an immigration infrastructure to check the people coming in. It is right for a nation to keep out the citizens of an enemy nation and terrorists as well as criminals and people with contagious diseases. This isn’t a contradiction to the idea of open immigration. You will find little daylight on this issue among Objectivists.
Now, as to the major issue of the welfare state: Yes, we can get rid of it in the next few years. Why not? One of the Tea Party founders just put out a major op-ed insisting on the abolition of SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. There is no reason other statist measures which make the American worker uncompetitive, such as Workmen’s Comp, state unemployment insurance, and minimum wage laws, cannot be taken out as well. There is a nascent movement to privatize education. Things are different now. This isn’t your father’s political environment. The statists are in serious trouble.
What should we do in the meantime? There is disagreement on this issue brought about by the existence of statism, not by flaws in Objectivism. My opinion is that since open borders are incompatible with the welfare state, there must be enforcement of restrictions. I see the opposite view as impractical because it is self-sacrificial. Nevertheless, regardless of one’s position on this question, the bottom line is that the political right needs to get off its duff and start abolishing the welfare state.
As for the southern border, there is more going on than the usual economic or cultural complaints or even criminal justice issues, but I don’t want to get into it here. I do support Arizona’s law.
Biddle’s idea of open immigration does not include national enemies, which you already know if you read it. Given what the Koran has to say about Jews, I doubt Biddle’s idea of open immigration would require Israel to admit Moslems.
This is the Craig Biddle article.
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-spring/immigration-individual-rights.asp
It is published by The Objective Standard, all of whose writers are (or appear to be) associated with the Ayn Rand Institute. It’s as close to an official position as you can get. (Although I’m not sure Ayn Rand ever set forth an Objectivist position on immigration).
I emailed Biddle and asked him if he believes Israel should adopt the position on immigration he sets forth in the article: If millions of Moslems show up at designated checkpoints at Israel, don’t have diseases, don’t have criminal records, and don’t advocate Israel’s destruction, is it immoral to keep them out? I alerted him to the discussion and asked if I could post his response.
There is no such thing as an “official” Objectivist position on anything except the ones Ayn Rand took. Even Leonard Peikoff doesn’t claim to speak for her. She was pro-immigration, but who isn’t.
Today, May l, you will see many blacks and hispanics marching and rallying for “immigration reform”. But don’t be deceived. Here in New York the list of marchers includes public sector unions. Not only that. They are raising the slogan of “jobs for all”. The protesting blacks are employed in government jobs. Most blacks in New York are opposed to unfettered immigration. The unemployment level among blacks rivals that of the great depression. Same with hispanics. The Rev. Sharpton doesn’t protest in NYC and his National Action Network is not listed among the organizations supporting the rally. I don’t see other black organizations either. So what does Sharpton do? He goes out to Arizona to raise the non-existent issue of “Civil Liberties. Conveniently he is not here to support the march and rally that his “constituency” opposes. The supporting organizations are such as the SEIU (three separate unions), D.C. 37 (the social workers union). They support the administration and that’s all. And what is this business of “Jobs for All”. More likely they mean “Welfare for All”.
Although, I agree with much of what this article states and I am a big believer in legal immigration, my views used to be very similar to Gus’ views. This article does not address that many illegals do not think they are breaking the law.
Several years ago, Fox News – the local station in Houston – showed where in California, some schools were raising the Mexican flag over their school. As they interviewed some of the supporters, many claimed that the Western half of the US was stolen from Mexico and really belongs to Mexico. I couldn’t believe that anyone thought that way. The news snipet went on to say that the Mexican government encourages its people to travel to the US, so they do not have to support them and most will send money back to support their families and fuel the Mexican economy.
I do support the Arizina law, although I would have written it differently. If the federal government will not enforce the laws and boundaries, then the states are within their rights to make state laws the same as the national laws and enforce it themselves. I get tired of hearing how coyotes are smuggling people in over crowded vehicles where people are dying just so they can have a chance for a better life. (Remember the 18 wheeler in Victoria, TX several years ago). I understand that this is the individual’s choice, but I do not think the people are well prepared.
Also in addition to the fact that the US welfare states encourages illegal immigration, it doeas not address the corruption and failures of the Mexican government. If enough illegals come over here and upset enoughpeople, they are going to demand that our government intervene in the Mexican governmental affairs (more so than now). I would rather that we enfore our boundaries (good fences make good neighbors) now and not let this escalate into a larger crises or conflict.
Wendy,
Leonard Peikoff claims (without having presented any evidence that I’m aware of) that he is Ayn Rand’s “intellectual heir.” He does profess to speak for her, as he did at the time of the Kelley excommunication:
_____
Now I wish to make a request to any unadmitted anti-Objectivists reading this piece, a request that I make as Ayn Rand’s intellectual and legal heir. If you reject the concept of “objectivity” and the necessity of moral judgment, if you sunder fact and value, mind and body, concepts and percepts, if you agree with the Branden or Kelley viewpoint or anything resembling it—please drop out of our movement: drop Ayn Rand, leave Objectivism alone. We do not want you and Ayn Rand would not have wanted you—just as you, in fact, do not want us or her. As a matter of dignity and honor, tell yourself and the world the exact truth: that you agree with certain ideas of Ayn Rand, but reject Objectivism.
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_fv
____
-Neil Parille
Cute. Bring over a quote that rejects people who are clearly anti-Objectivist to justify the claim that every Objectivist must agree on the exact way to get to freedom or they are not Objectivists. Nice work, Neil.
Columns like this are important because they prompt intelligent people to think about the nature of the problem, to reject their statist premises concerning the welfare state and immigration, and to reject the idea given to us by the left that we HAAAVE to accept the welfare state because it is inevitable and indestructible.
The welfare state is morally wrong, and it should be abolished. If the right does not follow this logic, if it tries to plant its flag at the status quo, it will wither intellectually and therefore die politically.
Leonard Peikoff claims (without having presented any evidence that I’m aware of) that he is Ayn Rand’s “intellectual heir.”
And of course, all Objectivists are interchangeable. Just like collectivists think.
Parille, being unable to handle the ideas involved, is trying to make the discussion about the people instead. Just like Leftists do.
So what were the differences between conservatism and Leftism supposed to be, again?
Thanks, Mr. Van Horn, for a well-reasoned essay. I’ve been arguing for years that the solution to the immigration problem is to dismantle the welfare state and radically rewrite immigration law so that it favors the able, the ambitious, and the liberty-loving, and not the parasites and professional freeloaders. It is a reflection on the racism of the authors of the current law that it is biased towards what they conceive as the dross of the earth; it favors an invasion of this country by looters. Well done, Mr. Van Horn. Your article ought to be sent to every senator and congressman in Washington who has a say in the immigration issue, although that may be whistling in the wind. Also, I’ve never understood how many Objectivists could argue for open immigration and never reconcile that idea, worthy as it is, with the existence of the welfare state, which violates the rights of all native-born Americans and naturalized ones, while “illegals” run up deficits in the billions of dollars by feeding on various federal and state welfare “entitlements.”
Great article, Mr. Van Horn. Thank you for bringing a voice of reason to bear upon this issue. The conservative posters are revealing their underlying pragmatism and surrender to the welfare statist position: they argue that an overwhelming percentage of Americans support the welfare state, so therefore it’s pointless to advocate its abolishment. Too “unpopular.” Too difficult as a result. When you grant the Left the moral high ground on the welfare state, you cut the legs out from under every argument you make. Is it any wonder why the Republicans have failed utterly at being the party of freedom and limited government?
The welfare state may not be the primary draw for all those who cross the border illegally, but it is for many, and it does create the environment that attracts moochers, looters and other parasites. The welfare state and illegal immigration are inextricably linked issues. Scale back and eliminate the welfare state, and it becomes much safer to remove restrictions on immigration. Why would a freeloading parasite come to America if they would not get welfare state entitlements upon arrival? They would not. The people that would want to come to America would be the ones that fundamentally share American values. They would want life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by their own effort.
I’m not sure who is giving the left the “moral high ground.” The point is that for the foreseable future we are stuck with the welfare state. Hence to support open immigration as Objectivists do will only entrench the welfare state. Is that so hard to understand?
As I’ve pointed out, the Objectivist position means the mass influx of Moslems into the US and the conversion of Israel into a Moslem nature. Call me a pragmatist but that’s taking a good principle (private property and freedom of association) too far.
Opening immigration to everyone who wants to come to America and build a life for themselves, does not mean letting absolutely everyone in. It does not mean that there cannot be screening for infectious disease and ties to criminal organizations (terrorist groups would certainly count here). It certainly does not mean giving welfare benefits to everyone who shows up penniless. Both the welfare state and current immigration controls would need to be dismantled gradually. But the welfare state would need to be taken down first.
I meant, “Moslem nation.”
The author’s point is well taken. The failure to logically consider cause and effect in this country is a key reason that our problems keep getting compounded by piling legislation on top of legislation while treating only the symptoms.
I’d like to further address Fantom’s point about education, Social Security, and Medicare, with an analogy. He writes early on:
“I am somewhat amused by the Authors use of paying for others children to attend school when he has none himself and calling it welfare. I find it ironic that it is someone else’s kids who will be paying his SS and Mediscam. No doubt Gus will turn down those bennie’s as he will not want to be a hypocrite be accepting welfare after penning this screed.” (April 30, 2010 – 5:13 am)
Suppose I am assaulted on the street by a thug, and subsequently turned over my wallet at gunpoint. Should I then be barred from testifying against the thug in court? Wouldn’t someone like Fantom consider my testimony then to be hypocritical? If not, why not? After all, did I not participate in the crime? But the thug had a gun, right? Well, so does the government and, in effect, does anyone who supports those programs. If I scheme to evade those taxes, I get arrested, fined, and jailed. That government programs are camouflaged behind the legal curtain of law does not change their essential nature.
My wife and I have paid in $414,396 in combined SS @ Medicare taxes, including the employer’s “share” (which is actually paid by the employee), as of December 2008. This is according to our official government statements. Add in a reasonable rate of return over the past four-plus decades and you’re probably looking at a potential nest egg of close to a million bucks. That’s what the government is holding of our money. Yet, Fantom argues that we must either forgo any “bennie” return on our own money or shut our traps!
Participating in a government program I am forced to pay for while simultaneously arguing for repeal is neither wrong nor hypocritical. Declaring that by collecting promised benefits from a program I disagree with morally negates my free speech rights is no different from denying my right to testify against a street thug who robs me at gunpoint.
Fantom has exposed a little-appreciated, hidden danger of welfare state dependency – the covert power to silence the opposition and render the First Amendment irrelevant.
Well said.
This insanity will continue until American citizens summon the courage to boycott the 16th Amendment and tell the govt class that enough is enough. Until then, it’s das vadenia, comrade…..
Quoting Forgotten Man:
“People coming to work is a problem in several ways.
1. Due to the fact that they are illegal it artificially keeps wages low.
2. They steal jobs from legal residents that would do those jobs if the pay was set by an honest labor market.
3. It forces the tax payers to pick up costs such as Workman’s Compensation for illegals because in almost 1005 of the cases people hiring illegals do not pay for Workman’s Comp.
4. It foster an environment of illegal activity and a market for false documents, driving without insurance and other activities that produce income without the tax burden that honest people are forced to pay.
It is not our job or responsibility to support foreigners from anywhere. If there are here illegally they need to go the hell home.”
This argument is little different than the labor unionists opposing all immigration on the grounds that “They steal jobs from Americans.” This type of argument does concede the moral high ground to the Left. By not opposing the existence of the welfare state, the implication is that the welfare state has to exist, that it is pointless to oppose it. This appeasement of the Left is at the root of every element of Republican welfare statism. It is what makes us refer to them as Republicrats or me-too Republicans. It is the core reason why the government always grows in size whether the statists in charge call themselves Democrats or Republicans.
Further, this type of argument also concedes to the Left’s position that the government’s place is to tell businesses who they can hire and who they cannot. It puts government in the position of picking winners and losers in the market for labor, and in the position of dictating what a proper wage is. Success in business then becomes a game of which group can successfully influence government to crate policy in its favor. Pressure group warfare, as we have now, is the inevitable result of all such government intervention.
I have actually been saying this for years. I don’t think anyone…or very few…would even care about the flood of people from other countries if it weren’t for the welfare state. Add that the flood would drop to a trickle without the draw of the welfare state.
When the Irish came to this country all sorts of hostility could be found for them. Irish Need Not Apply.
But the difference was, they worked or they starved. Or their family and/or community took care of them…which was it’s own pressure to get to work. It made for good Americans.
Now, the influx of foreigners puts this massive weight on government services. And we all pay the cost.
To paraphrase the tagline of a restaurant chain, “Come for the job, stay for the perks.”
It all comes down to our lack of confidence in Washington. The 1996 Welfare Reform Act was supposed to address this problem. Surprise! It didn’t.
We are way past tweaking the social services eligibility. ONE THIRD of all foreign-born are in the United States illegally. Let that sink in a bit.
Border security is important. Interior enforcement even more so. Deportation of two to three million will be required to send the message. Worksite raids (coupled with prosecution of the employers) and swift deportation of even minor criminals will be required.
But Washington doesn’t have the stomach for it. They are listening to advocacy groups, unions and business.
We need a multi-faceted approach.
As the comments here and at other immigration articles have shown, there can no longer be any doubt that conservatives have completely abandoned the principles articulated in our Declaration of Independence.
So the world will know exactly what conservatives now stand for, I offer:
The Conservative’s Version of the Declaration of Independence
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to evade the disastrous problems created when they betrayed their founding principles to erect an unsustainable regulatory/welfare state — and commit a second betrayal wherein they ignore their neighbor’s rights and instead pretend their problems stem from these neighbors — a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they cook up some excuses for their betrayals.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created Unequal, that those lucky enough to be born in the United States are superior beings endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and unlimited welfare financed by confiscating the earnings of the most productive — that those unlucky enough to be born outside the United States are inferior beings endowed by their Creator not with unalienable rights, but instead with an unalienable duty — the duty to stay out of the U.S. until the superior beings grant permission to enter — the duty to rot in hell-holes of corruption and despotism for whatever indefinite period of time the superior beings arbitrarily decide to impose.
That to secure these rights of the native-born while insuring the right-less foreigners stay put in their hell-holes of corruption and despotism, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers to keep out the foreigners from the consent of the natives. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends and admits too many foreigners, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to keep the foreigners in their place and evade any necessity of challenging the welfare state or discuss the looming financial disaster it represents.
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Border Patrol, we mutually pledge to each other our Votes against immigration, our Contributions to candidates against immigration, and our sacred pledge to never challenge the welfare state.
Clever, but it really doesn’t address the question.
We now give out 1.1 million green cards a year and have an equal number who are here illegally.
Are you suggesting open borders? Shall we let LULAC set the quotas?
May I suggest that you review the work of the 1994 Immigration Commission, headed by Barbara Jordan.
They address the impact of illegal aliens on our own citizens, particularly the most vulnerable.
They address the need for enforcement.
They clearly state that illegal immigration is unacceptable.
They aver the right of our nation to control its own immigration policy.
Sorry, I’m not ready to go post-American and become simply a “citizen of the world.”
Very nice article and I hope to see more like it. It is too bad the right has completely lost its way by fully embracing the new deal welfare state, seeking only to modify it in ways that is ‘practical’, ie. easy. Not very inspiring.
I just wanted to address the argument, illustrated by the following,
“Why do you keep phrasing this as anti-immigration? It’s not. It’s an objection to illegal immigration…”
I understand that argument; however, I believe the distinction between immigrant and illegal immigrant is irrelevant. Let me explain.
An analogy might be useful. If the government were to make harshly criticizing the president illegal, I would then be a criminal for harshly criticizing Obama. Proponents of the law could then use this same argument, “We are not against criticism, just your illegal criticism.” Likewise, I could be dismissed as a criminal engaging in illegal behavior. I would be, but so what? The larger issue is that the law, per se, is improper and it would be wrong to hold me morally responsible for breaking such a law. This point has been illustrated previously (eg. the underground railway and slavery.)
This is analogous to much of our current immigration law (and I’m referring to quotas, generally) which is improper and results in putting the label ‘criminal’ on people who have broke the law, but haven’t done anything wrong. (Remember: The law doesn’t determine what is right and wrong, morality does that. to see this for yourself, take a second and you can imagine tons of laws that one could enact, thereby making criminals out of right behaviours.)
This article makes the case that our real problems (filling our jails, draining our wallets and taxing our health services), is not a problem of immigration, illegal or legal, but the welfare state and government enforced prohibitions.
I can tell that you do not live in an area that has a lot of drug addicts and alcoholics. If you did you would never push for the legalization of more drugs. Society has enough problems because of substance abuse without legalization creating addicts out of people who would never use if the drug was not legal.
The way to solve that problem is to abolish the welfare state and decontrol the economy so that people can get jobs. People will then be responsible for every penny they make and will no longer be able to get money from the government to buy drugs. Their calculations will change fast.
I do think that if we suddenly legalize all drugs without decontrolling the economy and rolling up the welfare system, there would be pandemonium. But these things can be done step-wise and they can be done quickly.
Why are Dems pushing for open borders and amnesty of illegals? The same reasons Dems advocate big Govt and entitlement programs….a captured voting block that is dependent on the Fed gov’t for sustenance. To what end? To keep themselves in power for their own personal financial gains. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with the actual welfare of these people nor with the American people for that matter.
Right, but to quote J. Keneth Galbraith “There is a widespread notion that one of the most primitive of modern ideological choices is whether a government shall be Keynesian or not . . . no present or future administration really has the non-Keynesian choice.” Regardless of which political party is in office, the nature of this political economic system, once it was implemented, became self-perpetuating. It moves the country toward a self-socializing form of government regardless of the desires of the People of this country and even our elected representatives. The revolution in economy thought during the 30′s was far more than economic in nature; it was also completely revolutionary in the political and social arenas as well.
There should be no doubt as to the direction the Keynesian, Neo-Keynesian and Post-Keynesian ideologies are taking this country. As Paul A. Samuelson stated: “[Fascist Regimes] have often passed socialistic measures. This is not a paradox at all, for fascism was (or is) a form of socialism similar to British socialism, or to the managed-currency, welfare state proposed by American Keynesians.” Keynesian lunacy has run rampant in our country and still, to this very day, influences our government in ways that few understand. According to these ideologues, government spending, obviously of any type, stimulates private employment and economic stability, yet it is all financed through taxing or inflationary monetary policy which drains and strains the entire “private sector” within the mixed economy. As we have seen, this government, along with its partner in managed finance: the Federal Reserve Bank, has effectively manufactured the monetary system needed to achieve the socialization of this country, without the use of a fiat monetary system none of this would be possible.
From http://1776solution.blogspot.com/2009/02/destructive-keynesian-continuum.html
You will never get rid of bona fide emergency medical services for people unable to pay. There are a lot more than just libs who will never allow that to happen.
Okay, so focus on the other areas, such as welfare, Medicaid, food stamps, etc and get rid of the anchor baby law.
Getting rid of the anchor baby law by itself would have a positive impact. Tightening up on the other areas and it would be even more of a positive impact.
Seems to me the real problem is that by accepting unlimited immigration we are enabling the Mexican government to continue refusing to reform its economy and thereby create domestic jobs so that people who don’t really want to become Americans won’t feel they need to come here at all. Instead you have this internally contradictory PC notion that Mexico is great, the U.S. is evil, and we must stop being mean to the poor Mexicans, who are flocking to this evil country because wonderful Mexico is mistreating them so. Of course, the U.S. is currently engaged in throwing the job-creating type of economic system out the window, so there is little left for Mexico to emulate.
Mr. Van Horn should be commended for his truly objective approach to the problems of immigration and the causes behind them. Conservatives would be well advised to learn from this approach.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful to have open borders, attracting only immigrants who may be “tired” and “poor,” but who are ambitious, willing to make their own way, and infuse new vigor into our culture?
This IS possible, but only if we heed Mr. Van Horn’s observations and advice.
I hope that every American, regardless of where he lives, will stop and examine his conscience about this and other related incidents. This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened. All of us ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children to be treated, but this is not the case.
I know the proponents of this law say that the majority approves of this law, but the majority is not always right. Would women or non-whites have the vote if we listen to the majority of the day, would the non-whites have equal rights (and equal access to churches, restaurants, hotels, retail stores, schools, colleges and yes water fountains) if we listen to the majority of the day? We all know the answer, a resounding, NO!
Today we are committed to a worldwide struggle to promote and protect the rights of all who wish to be free. In a time of domestic crisis men of good will and generosity should be able to unite regardless of party or politics and do what is right, not what is just popular with the majority. Some men comprehend discrimination by never have experiencing it in their lives, but the majority will only understand after it happens to them.
“All Men are created equal”! The founders had it right, when attempting to form a perfect union and they also knew that they were not there yet but knew we one day would get there. Lincoln moved us forward as did JFK and LBJ. This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.
It is my contention that this AZ law is not constitutional and will fail when challenged (unless they add more amendments), pretty funny for this so called perfect law.
I have been looking around pajamasmedia.com and really am impressed by the good content here. I work the nightshift at my job and it really gets boring. I’ve been coming here for the past couple nights and reading. I simply wanted to let you know that I’ve been enjoying what I have seen and I look ahead to reading more.
This whole Wikileaks fiasco is pretty crazy. You should check out http://voteonwikileaks.com. It’s a recently launched website that seems to be going viral. They got something like 50,000 visitors in the first 24 hours of launch. It’s sort of like a crowdsourced collection of arguments against and for Wikileaks. As a blog owner, you’d probably find some of the opinions there a good read.
Buy cheap Monster Beats Studio online at http://www.beatdrdrebuy.com,We are the best online shop of Monster Beats Pro,excellent design and terrific quality.Top rated customer service With Fast & Free Shipping.
Nice post ! I will save it in my favorites. thx
comment