Direct Action for Open Borders

[Caleb]

You walked into that one, Jane

Well I for one don't think following a law is necessarily violence.

Neither does Monier.

[Caleb]

If we completely open the borders, then those people would be coming into a non-free society. 

No, if we completely open the borders, they will be coming from one tyrannical system to another. Who are you to tell them which system is worse for them?

Maybe I might one day decide that the US is far too tyrannical for me, and I need to go to less tyrannical Mexico. Should they bar me from entry on the grounds that they haven't yet perfected their freedom yet, and that I should hold off moving until they are completely free?  That doesn't even make sense.

[Caleb]

But to denigrate people who disagree with you, who are also coming at it from a principled position (anti-world government, pro-sovereignty), but just reaching different conclusions, does the debate a disservice. 

I'm not trying to to denigrate anyone. I'm just showing the logical conclusions of their argument. If you are going to try to stop immigrants from coming here, that usually involves one of two things:

1)  Kidnapping them and forcibly separating them from their friends and family by putting them on the other side of the line again, and then threatening them with prison time if they come back.

2)  or else using violence against a hardworking businessman for failing to serve as an agent of the government. That's usually the route that most people want to go:  They want to expect business people to serve as collection agents for the government's revenue service, as well as serving as enforcers of immigrant policy. In other words, when the businessman rejects fascism, he is labeled a criminal.

Pick your poison. How do you want to stop the immigration "problem"? Because asking them nicely not to come over the imaginary line isn't going to work.

[FTL_Ian]

 

[KBCraig]

Maybe I might one day decide that the US is far too tyrannical for me, and I need to go to less tyrannical Mexico. Should they bar me from entry on the grounds that they haven't yet perfected their freedom yet, and that I should hold off moving until they are completely free?  That doesn't even make sense.

I side with freedom of movement, but just as a point of reference, you really should compare Mexico's immigration policies with the U.S. policies. And then compare the realities, which are even more stark.

Mexico calling our immigration system and prisons "barbaric" is as laughable as Japan calling us "racist".

Kevin

[forsytjr]

I wasn't advocating 1 or 2.  I was advocating removing the incentives - reducing socialism, and better enforcement of border security.  And you must understand that that enforcement of our borders has been lax because the executive branch was gearing up for the NAU.  Why enforce the borders when you are getting ready to bring them down anyway? 

Now part of our disagreement is a fundamental disagreement on philosophy.  You are an anarchist, and I am not.  I think we would both agree that in our homes, and on our property, we are sovereign, and people can't come into our homes without our permissions.  Now for you, that is it, and there is nothing above that. If we were 100% private property and free markets, then an open immigration policy could work quite well.  But I have serious reservations about anarchy, as I believe it would create a power vacuum, and someone is going to step in and fill it.  However, I am keeping an open mind about this, and plan on reading some books that discuss the anarchist philosophy, and how it could work in practice.

But for people who believe government does have some limited role to protect life, liberty, and property of its citizens, it seems reasonable that people coming in need to ask permission to come in.  I know that seems unreasonable to you since you see nothing above the individual level, and this point has already been made. 

Sincerely, thanks for all the discussion on this topic - I need to get back to work, so I doubt I'll add much more.  As long as people are aware of the push for world government, and understand that it needs to be opposed, then that's as much as I can ask for.  I'm in principle in favor of open borders, but I do, sincerely, question the best method to get there, and what order to take freeing our country in.  And I'm not sure my end goal would be the same (anarchy vs. minarchy).  But I think discussion of all these things helps us all figure things out. 

[CNHT]

I have a wife and kids that I have a responsibility for, so I am unwilling to go to prison over that.
I understand you are coming at this from a principled position, and appreciate that.  But to denigrate people who disagree with you, who are also coming at it from a principled position (anti-world government, pro-sovereignty), but just reaching different conclusions, does the debate a disservice. 

Well I agree wtih BW who said it's a catch-22 in which case I'll opt for orderly immigration as we've always had and a few laws that guarantee American sovereignty against the UN controlled one-world 'shires' that have merged with Canada and Mexico, and that our hospitals don't go bankrupt.

[CNHT]

I side with freedom of movement, but just as a point of reference, you really should compare Mexico's immigration policies with the U.S. policies. And then compare the realities, which are even more stark.

Mexico calling our immigration system and prisons "barbaric" is as laughable as Japan calling us "racist".

Kevin

I say we all chip in and send Caleb to Mexico for a while and see how he likes it when they throw him in jail with no trial for 25 years for smoking pot, beat him to a pulp for fun, or what have you...then maybe we'll think about letting him back in to the 'less free' USA.

I can't tolerate America-haters...

[Caleb]

I say we all chip in and send Caleb to Mexico for a while

That's not a bad idea! 

and see how he likes it when they throw him in jail with no trial for 25 years for smoking pot,

two things:  one, I don't smoke pot. two, if I did, Mexico recently decriminalized pot, so I wouldn't have to worry about that.

beat him to a pulp for fun, or what have you...then maybe we'll think about letting him back in to the 'less free' USA.

Mexico doesn't have troops in over 130 countries. Mexico doesn't bomb anyone. Mexico doesn't torture anyone. Mexico doesn't have a foreign intelligence service whose goal is to establish dictatorships in other countries. Mexico is a victim of, not a cause of, predatory IMF and world bank practices. (You ought to know about the IMF and the World Bank, they're part of the global agenda that you hate.)

For all its problems, Mexico isn't a menace to the rest of the world like the US is.

I can't tolerate America-haters...

Didn't you hear?  America is dead. It died back in 1865. What we have now is a fascist Yankee Empire, determined to impose the global agenda on the rest of the world. W Bush? Globalist. Clinton? Globalist. HW Bush? Globalist. Reagan? Pawn of the globalists. Carter? Globalist.  For someone who hates the globalists so much, you sure are awful positive about the biggest advocate of their globalist agenda (the US government)

[forsytjr]

I say we all chip in and send Caleb to Mexico for a while and see how he likes it when they throw him in jail with no trial for 25 years for smoking pot, beat him to a pulp for fun, or what have you...then maybe we'll think about letting him back in to the 'less free' USA.

Jeesh, I was trying to make some peace here. I'd better duck out of this forum before I get caught in the crossfire.

[Brock]

The discussion is great, and is certainly not the only one happening today on just this topic.

http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=14279.0

Eliminating socialism and securing borders are not compatible goals.  At best, you replace socialism with authoritarianism.

Its counterintuitive, but by opening borders (and ports) and inviting people of all stripes to come in and play, you actually destroy the socialist/fascist state.  The key is that wealth and, in some cases, people are able to simultaneously flow out.  Wealth will seek a safe haven, leaving nothing for the looters to loot.  With no loot, the looters go away (or don't come in the first place).

Securing the borders and ports, however, requires resources.  As the government seeks to appropriate those resources, wealthy individuals and businesses export their wealth, leaving only "common man" to pay for the security with both his wealth and labor.  After a prolonged period of vampirism, a large section of "common man" is left exsanguinated by his trusted government, and the government still fails.

Either way, the state fails.  As the oldest? state in the modern world, the US's time is limited.  The only remaining questions are how many people have to suffer before we throw out the baby, and how much pain you are willing to endure and inflict before we do?

[CNHT]

Mexico doesn't have troops in over 130 countries. Mexico doesn't bomb anyone. Mexico doesn't torture anyone. Mexico doesn't have a foreign intelligence service whose goal is to establish dictatorships in other countries. Mexico is a victim of, not a cause of, predatory IMF and world bank practices. (You ought to know about the IMF and the World Bank, they're part of the global agenda that you hate.)

For all its problems, Mexico isn't a menace to the rest of the world like the US is.

They don't have to be sending troops to other countries to abuse people, they concentrate on being a menace to their own citizens and starve them and abuse them regularly. Otherwise, why would they all want to come here?

Didn't you hear?  America is dead.

It is only half dead -- there are still half of us that are not sitting on our high horses saying they can't do anything because everything is not perfect so let's just do nothing.

[CNHT]

Wow!  I can't believe how many people are willing to commit violence against someone else for crossing an imaginary line. 

Since when did you turn into a drama queen?

[CNHT]

Eliminating socialism and securing borders are not compatible goals.  At best, you replace socialism with authoritarianism.

OMG! Do you hold a grudge against your parents for something they did to you when you were growing up? Laws are 'authoritarian' to some degree. Any society of more than one person is going to have laws. Period. Grow up and get over it!  I have never seen such verbal gyrations to excuse lawlessness!

[forsytjr]

For an objective assessment of economic freedom of USA vs. Mexico (the corruption index of Mexico is quite impressive):
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=Mexico
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=Unitedstates
http://freetheworld.com
Unfortunately, our past relative economic freedom has given us enough power to create an Empire, which I certainly concede.