Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Illegal Immigration, Past and Present: An Exercise in Thinking Out Loud
















A Border Patrol Agent detains 12 Mexican nationals apprehended near Sells, Arizona. Smuggled into the U.S. by a Coyote, the Mexicans shared a single canteen.


"Wherever there's a prohibition, there's a bootlegger" -- James Burnham, "Burnham's Laws," No. 5.

Indifferent to borders, the invaders swarmed over a rich and cherished land. Many of them were hungry and desperate, and the lure of economic opportunity was irresistible. Others were comfortable, and driven by vulgar greed. But every one of them crossed the border in defiance of laws and solemn agreements. From the perspective of those whose land they now occupied, each of them became a criminal the moment his foot touched their soil.

Because the invaders were covertly supported by their government -- including supposedly rogue elements of the military -- the first tentative trickle of illegal immigrants quickly grew into a deluge.

Protests over the invasion were met with solemn and dishonest assurances that the border would be enforced. But the government issuing those assurances was playing for time, waiting for the invaders to establish a foothold. It had gone so far as to create a highway -- the "Robber's Road" -- to facilitate the invasion. Elements of the government likewise secretly provided the squatters with food, water, and other necessities.

Some of the land's long-time residents, convinced that their nation was being quietly dispossessed, protested to their government. When that proved unavailing, they began to harass the illegal immigrants directly, sometimes to the point of bloodshed.

Once the squatters had firmly established themselves, all pretense was dispelled. A summit meeting was held; territorial demands were made to, and rejected by, the nation whose territory was under assault. Failing to secure the territory after which it lusted on terms it considered appropriate, the aggressor government prepared for war. And once "this machinery of government began moving, it became an inexorable force, mindless and uncontrollable," wrote Dee Brown in his classic study of the dispossession of the Plains Indians.



















The Familiar Ritual of Dispossession: William T. Sherman presides over the signing of the Ft. Laramie Treaty.



The history of Washington's war on the Indians is a narrative of cupidity and corruption, aggression and avarice, deceit and dishonor. In examining the case of Washington's seizure of the Black Hills, however, I am struck by the cynical use of illegal immigration as an instrument of territorial conquest.


General George Armstrong Custer, who has a prominent place on my list of people I would kill if they weren't already dead,* was sort of a Coyote-in-Chief for the white settlers who flowed into the Black Hills. Despite the 1868 Ft. Laramie Treaty that solemnly promised the lands to the Sioux in perpetuity, Custer led what Evan S. Connell called "a creaking, jingling, clanking train of canvas-topped wagons and malodorous cavalrymen" into Sioux territory in search of gold.



Well-known as a mass murderer, he was also one of history's most consequential advocates of illegal immigration.

Of the Black Hills, the Laramie Treaty specified that "no persons except those designated herein ... shall ever be permitted to pass over, settle upon, or reside in the territory...." Ah, contended advocates of white settlement, that was before our gold was discovered on their lands, and this changes everything. Decrying the treaty as an "abominable compact," the Yankton (South Dakota) Press and Dakotanian complained: "What shall be done with these Indian dogs in our manger? They will not dig gold or let others do it."

In such frustrating circumstances, if you're the government, or interests wedded to it, the answer is obvious: You steal the land.

It was Custer who established the "Robber's Road." It was Custer who was ultimately tasked by the execrable Philip Sheridan to carry out "total war" against the Sioux when they refused to ratify the results of white illegal immigration by repudiating their rights under the Laramie Treaty in exchange for a mere fraction of what the land was worth.

Reading some contemporaneous newspaper editorials unearthed by Connell, I'm struck by how they resemble some of the themes embraced by the Mexican "reconquista" movement. Take, for example, this specimen from the Bismarck Tribune, which was published as Custer "reconnoitered" the Black Hills:

"This is God's country. He peopled it with red men, and planted it with wild grasses, and permitted the white man to gain a foothold; and as the wild grasses disappear when the white clover gains a footing, so the Indian disappears before the advances of the white man. Humanitarians may weep [for the Indian], and tell the wrongs he has suffered, but he is passing away. Their prayers, their entreaties, can not change the law of nature; can not arrest the causes which are carrying them on to their ultimate destiny -- extinction. The American people need the country the Indians now occupy; many of our people are out of employment; the masses need some new excitement. The war is over, and the era of railroad building has been brought to a termination ... and depression prevails on every hand. An Indian war would do no harm, for it must come, sooner or later...."

Isn't this more or less the same game being played by the Mexican government -- using illegal immigration as an economic "safety valve" by exporting surplus workers? The chief difference here, and it's not one that reflects well on the US Government of the time, is that the 19th century version of demographic warfare was actually intended to cultivate bloodshed.

When the Sioux tried to "crack down" on illegal immigrants, its actions were portrayed in the press as a terrorist campaign. As Connell writes, it had been widely anticipated that the "stampede of whites through Dakota Territory would bring war," and as the editorial quoted above indicates, most Yankees thought this would be a good thing. And obviously, the U.S. Government was capable of doing far deadlier damage to the Plains Indians than anything the Mexican Government could do to us. Yes, the Feds lost at the Little Bighorn, but this proved to be merely a setback on the road to Wounded Knee.

Amid the apocalyptic rhetoric generated by the immigration "crisis" (I write as someone who has made his own contribution), I find myself musing that perhaps the only people in this country who really have standing to complain about the problem are descendants of the Plains Indians.

This doesn't mean I think our nation should dissolve itself as an act of penance for the sins of our forebears. But I do believe we could profit from re-examining some of the premises and assumptions behind the immigration issue, the first being that Americans living today are uniquely besieged innocents facing an unprecedented invasion.

There are Americans living along the border whose lands and homes are under siege from Coyotes and drug smugglers. The question I pose is: Should we perceive such crimes as the unique product of illegal immigration, or as an illustration of the universal truth of Burnham's Fifth Law (see above)?

The logic of Burnham's observation is that wherever prohibitionist policies are enforced, criminal behavior -- including occasional violence to persons and property -- will result. If this is true of immigration from Mexico, then the way to reduce the violence would be to end the relevant prohibition. One way to end the siege of ranch properties along the southern border would be to announce that we would accept all of the immigrants Mexico is willing to send our way. This would put the Coyotes out of business immediately.

Would this be a good idea? I don't know, but it might not be any worse than what we're doing right now, which creates a thriving immigration black market while doing little to prevent illegal immigration. In this respect the prohibition on non-government-sanctioned immigration from Mexico makes exactly as much sense as prohibitionist policies toward alcohol, narcotics, and opioids. Which is to say, none at all.

As in so much else, the key to solving the immigration problem is to define the problem correctly, while bearing in mind another of Burnham's Laws: Where there is no solution, there is no problem.

Among the problems commonly attributed to illegal immigration are the dilution of our public culture through multilingualism, the expansion of the prison population, and the huge costs of welfare subsidies for illegal immigrants.

The question of a common language may be the easiest to deal with: There is no reason why governments cannot be compelled to conduct official business in English, and every reason to insist that they should. Government has no business dictating the language in which we conduct our private affairs. Most immigrants, absent government intervention to prevent assimilation, will learn English out of social and economic necessity.

















A "Reconquista" Protest:
Radicalized Mexican activists are theatrical, obnoxious, and sometimes violent -- but are they typical?


Recent studies of incarceration rates for immigrants and native Americans demonstrate that immigrants are not the source of a significant spike in crime; in fact, the findings suggest that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than are native-born citizens. Granted, there are plenty of criminal syndicates -- some of them shockingly violent -- that draw from the immigrant population. The question, once again, is if enhancing the current prohibitionist approach is the most intelligent way of dealing with the specific problem of crimes committed by immigrants. And, once again, given the existing track record, I'm inclined to think it's about time to try something else, such as focusing law enforcement efforts solely and exclusively on prosecuting those who commit crimes against persons and property.

Where welfare subsidies for illegal immigrants are concerned, I earnestly believe that the focus is excessively narrow and entirely misdirected: Why make the immigrants the issue, as opposed to the welfare programs themselves? As Sheldon Richman points out, one would expect conservatives to cite immigrant welfare services in order "to convince the American people to dump the welfare state [by showing them] it is financially unsustainable." Rather than doing so, most conservatives profess anguished outrage that outsiders are an impermissible burden on our system of institutionalized plunder.

What is even worse, and more perplexing, than this unwonted conservative desire to preserve the sanctity of the welfare state is the way that many of them want to expand the role of the State in what remains of the private economy in the name of immigration control.

Consider the "No Gravy Train For Illegals" model legislation being promoted by some organizations as a way to address the "crisis." The proposal is built around two sets of recommendations, the first dealing with the public sector, the other with the private economy. Under the model, each state, county, and municipality would be urged "to pass a law that makes it illegal to provide anything whatsoever to an illegal alien":


From the government sector:

  • It shall be illegal, by STATE LAW, to provide anything at all to illegal aliens including, but not limited to: welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, driver's license, business license, government housing, tax supported education, or any other assistance.
  • There will be no state tax deductions for payments to illegal aliens.
  • All government transactions will be done in English only (i.e. voter registration, employment applications, permits, etc).

From the private sector:

  • It shall be illegal, by STATE LAW, to do anything at all for an illegal alien including, but not limited to: rent housing, sell real estate, sell vehicles or mobile homes, make loans, sell insurance, provide employment, provide indigent care, cash checks, enroll students, or provide transportation other than back to their country of origin.

The recommendations concerning government policy are sound. The ones dealing with the private sector are abhorrent -- and, frankly, totalitarian: They would effectively deputize every merchant and businessman as an informant and enforcer, or turn him into a criminal for providing a legal product or service to a customer of whom the government disapproves. It would be the duty of the businessman (or health care professional) to demand identity papers.

Laws of this kind have been passed in Oklahoma and Georgia, and are being considered elsewhere. An individual I respect who works as a spokesman for the organization that once employed me writes that "prosecuting either the American citizen or the illegal alien [under such a law] would deter the transaction, but prosecuting both the American citizen and the illegal alien would be best. Illegal aliens would find that they have nothing that they could do here: except to go home and get back in line with those seeking to legally immigrate."

Two problems with that assessment leap immediately to mind. The first of which is that my friend is assuming that quasi-totalitarian laws of this sort would eventually be enacted nation-wide; otherwise immigrants would simply migrate to states where such laws don't exist. The other problem is that this approach would actually expand the size and expense of the welfare state, since it would leave the existing structure intact while using access to it as an incentive for additional legal immigration.

By following this approach, we would end up with a larger, more expensive, and dramatically more intrusive version of the corrupt Leviathan State that presently rules us. Perhaps the government would succeed in keeping at least some brown-skinned, Spanish-speaking people out of the country, and for some people that seems to be a suitable trade-off.

In the current issue of The American Spectator, Tom Bethell -- a naturalized U.S. citizen and an authentic conservative -- suggests a radically different approach to immigration.

"Let those who want to work come," writes Bethell. "Pay them their wages, give them raises where necessary. Let them send money back home to Mexico, El Salvador, and the rest. But let's also discourage [better yet, abolish outright -- W.N.G.] government handouts, and keep them out of the embrace of union organizers. Let's also make sure that they don't vote."

The last recommendation is critical: The franchise is a red-letter distinction between citizen and non-citizen. And voting in a republic is a defensive exercise intended to keep the state at bay, rather than the ritual of participatory plunder it has become under our regime.

The desire to cultivate new client-constituencies is one reason both branches of the Establishment Party favor a larger immigrant population. It is also the reason why nothing will be done to limit immigration as long as we live under the current political system -- an authoritarian corporatist state supported by a degenerate mass democracy.

There is another possible outcome, however, one that is becoming increasingly likely. Should America finish its descent into an undisguised garrison state -- a process that is aided considerably by the immigration restriction movement -- our problems with both immigration and emigration will evaporate. All of us will live in a vast gulag as blighted as any Indian reservation -- which is where Washington deposited the Indians while it re-settled their lands with illegal immigrants.

A quick note --

As the title of this essay indicates, my opinions about immigration is in flux, and the foregoing represents an honest effort to think through the issue and some of its permutations. While I'm always interested to hear other points of view, in this instance I'm particularly eager to read what you think.
_____________________
*I'm only kidding, sort of.

Be sure to visit The Right Source and the Liberty Minute archive.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

The key is individual rights. By crossing the line (I contend imaginary) between the US and Mexico, whose rights have been violated?

If rights have been violated, such as is the case when people trespass on private property, then it is correct to take action.

If the immigrants do not cross private property, and do not otherwise violate individual rights to life, liberty and property, then no crime has been committed. As long as this condition remains, the immigrant should be free to pursue his or her own version of the pursuit of happiness.

As Tom Knapp points out 'If the US had a reasonable immigration policy -- i.e. "show up at a designated entry station and if you're not a known criminal or terrorist, we'll point you to the taxicabs lined up on the American side and send you on your way" -- they wouldn't be crawling through the windows and knocking holes in the walls.'

I doubt the "Reconquista" movement represents even a tiny percentage of the Mexican (or Mexican-American) population. I strongly suspect they are even less representative of "illegal" Mexican immigrants. The "illegals" go the the US to work. They want to make a living, not take back Texas.

While I have no evidence (either way) for this assertion, I am willing to bet that the "movement" is made up mostly of "intellectuals", probably second or third generation US citizens, and is basically the same as university Marxism and know-nothing environmentalism.

PS: I hope the fact that you have not posted anything about Korrin's medical problems means that she is back home and doing well.

Anonymous said...

The late Harry Browne campaigned for the presidency on an "End every penny of welfare, open the borders" platform. Sounds good to me.

Taylor Conant said...

Will,

Great post, and "mad props" to you for having the self-confidence to admit you don't have an answer or definite opinion on every topic. We humans are fallible, are we not? You've got a lot of readers who value your opinion and it's nice to see you haven't ascended the mountain (Olympus) and find sitting with the gods too comfortable to have doubts like we normal folk. :)

I read your post with enthusiasm and would like to offer some things for your consideration on the topic. I have a personal opinion about this topic based on the principles of natural rights and natural justice, which I value highly. I know you value these things as well, so I'd recommend appealing to them while considering the following:

1. As Jorge mentioned in the first comment, immigration must be considered from a position of individual rights. In the case of immigrants, criminal or otherwise, violating the sanctity of private property, the owner would be correct to use any force necessary to repel the invaders if they do not leave his property voluntarily. Additionally, enforcing his property rights should be a cost he alone bears, or he along with other people who volunteer to bear the cost of guarding his property. However, one can not rightfully defend one's rightfully acquired private property by enlisting the aid of police or immigrations officials whose salaries come from tax money, a gross violation of private property rights to begin with.

When it comes to public property, however, there can be no just cause for using force against anyone crossing the imaginary boundaries of "the United States," federal, state, county or local. To say that public officials would be correct in using force against "trespassers" of this nature would be conceding the legitimacy of whichever government involved is making a claim to the territory. The question to ask in such a situation is, Why? Why is this government's authority and claim to sovereignty legitimate?

In other words, where did this collective derive its sovereign rights? Maybe there was a social contract... but who signed it? Pull out your copy of Spooner and page through again, see if you can square these concepts.

2. Along these lines I think is a related point that has to do with ethnic or ancestral "homelands" and the idea that certain land "belongs" to a person or group of people simply due to birthright. But such a claim doesn't make sense unless the property was acquired rightfully by the individual's or group of individuals' ancestors and bequeathed to the successor individual or individuals.

For instance, with the Indians, while it was undoubtedly atrocious the way they were dispossessed and massacred, it still doesn't quite seem correct to call any non-Indian settlement of this country a wave of "illegal immigration." Many Indians were nomadic, not "mixing their labor with the land" but sustaining themselves off of a particular area for as long as they could before moving on to exploit another area. Furthermore, many other Indians didn't have Western concepts of land or private ownership, so just as it would've proved difficult to rightfully purchase their land from them in a voluntary exchange, it was hard to consider them as being dispossessed in various circumstances as well.

While it's certainly possible, it seems highly unlikely that the animosity and bloodshed shown between the native Indian population and new white settlers would have been as great as it was had the settlers not been operating under, or assisted by, a violent and ruthless mask of official, sancrosanct government decree.

3. A few things to consider on the issue of voting: a.) your post presupposes the validity of voting as a method of allocating resources and privileges. Is voting about how to spend other peoples stolen wealth right? b.) It seems to me that from a "pragmatic" stand point, either EVERYONE should have the "right" to vote (ie, have a say in how to divvy up stolen property) or NO ONE should. History is filled with numerous examples of the social instability that comes with large groups of disenfranchised people within a society who are nonetheless expected to follow any decrees handed down to them by the enfranchised members of society. Of course, I prefer that NO ONE have the right to vote on anything because I think that only individuals can properly judge how to allocate their own resources and property, and a complete stranger has no rightful claim to telling me or anyone else what to do with our stuff.


I think you nailed it with your second to last paragraph-- regardless of what you think of the rightness or wrongness of immigration restriction, it's clear that increased immigration restriction will inevitably contribute to a further loss of personal liberty and put us only that much closer to a gulag archipelago, and on those consequentialist/utilitarian grounds alone, the position to take on this issue seems clear: end immigration restriction.

I still prefer looking at things from a natural rights perspective, however, because I believe it's the only perspective that truly matters. Once you give way on the principles of natural rights you essentially have no argument besides "I'm going to point a gun at your head now and we're going to do it my way." In other words, I'd rather not be the moralistic hypocrite.

I hope you'll follow this post up eventually, or at least jump into this comments thread as it grows to let us all know how your personal thoughts are developing.

And I share Jorge's sentiments-- we hope that the lack of a mention of Korrin means things are returning to normal at the Grigg home. Perhaps we were supposed to get the hint when you mentioned seeing a movie in your previous post, referencing the contemporary "Superbad" as showing at the same theater?

zach said...

Tom Bethell makes a lot of sense to me. Unfortunately, the "client constituency" mentality will not go away; so, nothing will change.

zach said...

The voting criterion is key. The laws on what can be voted on need to be changed. Or, give them the vote, but make it useless for them (and for everyone else for that matter) by making wealth transfers by the federal government illegal with no provision for it in any circumstance. Things would work out well for a while methinks.

Anonymous said...

Ludwig von Mises said something to the effect that, if the general principles of private property are held in any area, that it would be peaceful. If we could convert the United States from the fascist state it's in now into a free market, private property society, then immigration of any kind would be inconsequential. The people bitching about not being able to get over here wouldn't have an excuse to bitch, and so forth.

Further, no invasion is possible in a country where everyone is able to arm himself to the extent of the military. If Indians had had guns, they wouldn't be on reservations right now. Likewise, if decent military weapons were legalized here, there would be no serious threat of an invading force, of any kind, being able to take the country.

THAT SAID:

The predicament we find ourselves in right now demands that we not further tax the system with more possible dependents. Immigration should stop until this country is stabilized - end welfare, etc. That must be the first step simply because it is the only reasonable step right now unless we want hordes of welfare dependent thugs pissed off about the fact that they stopped getting their check every month.

Right now, you're forced to pay for people. Let's stop people from being able to take your money: if that means less immigration, so be it. In reality, the real answer is to not have welfare at all.


On a side note: Anyone see Sam Antonio on CNN a few weeks ago, talking about this subject?

Anonymous said...

Two problems with that assessment leap immediately to mind. ... quasi-totalitarian laws of this sort would eventually be enacted nation-wide... The other problem is that this approach would actually expand the size and expense of the welfare state...

There is a third problem, Will --
especially for those of us who try to heed the Biblical warning to "Come out of her, My people...be not partakers of her plagues":

These explicitly fascist proscriptions on what used to be private property, and the private Right to contract, are an abomination to a free republic.

Some of us have come to the conclusion that the only response to an increasingly totalitarian regime is to "withdraw consent", as Jefferson noted in the Declaration.

Abominations of 'law' such as these -- which are clearly abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object...a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism -- destroy what is left of that right to private contract, by reducing it to a 'loophole'.

As you have noted, Will, this battle isn't about prohibiting "illegal aliens", it's about prohibiting free people from saying NO to tyranny in the only lawful non-violent way remaining.

While there is evidently no such thing as a "US Citizen" in the Law, attempts to treat everyone who chooses NOT to take that Mark have a single obvious goal.

And it's not a nation of Law, serving our true King.

dixiedog said...

"Wherever there's a prohibition, there's a bootlegger" -- James Burnham, "Burnham's Laws," No. 5.

The question I pose is: Should we perceive such crimes as the unique product of illegal immigration, or as an illustration of the universal truth of Burnham's Fifth Law (see above)?

While I certainly sympathize with your mind being "in flux" over various, albeit critical (IMO), matters, such as illegal immigration, this cronic "open-mindedness" among many of us, perhaps most of us, today in America about critical matters, not mundane, means I do disagree vehemently with this statement of yours:

This doesn't mean I think our nation should dissolve itself as an act of penance for the sins of our forebears.

I believe we ALL, to varying degrees, are so flummoxed on so many critical matters - not just immigration or the welfare state but a slew of other critical matters, affecting the entire societal structure and cohesion that perhaps it'd be best if it did dissolve.

As your mind is in flux over the matter of illegal immigration, I can likewise say for a certainty these days that my mind is certainly in flux over whether the Founders were mistaken with founding this quintessential farrago we call the "United States." What the heck is "united" about them? Down with it, already.

Seriously, when it requires literally pages of wily prose to explain one's position on any critical issue and afterwards their mind still remain "in flux" on that matter, that's NOT a good sign :(. Why don't we as humans simply go retrograde? Simply dissolve the nation-state entirely and reduce ourselves to the smallest possible human social unit: the family (or clan, perhaps)?

I keep hearing/reading people cry out for freedom and liberty, but those are meaningless without some context. What KIND of "freedom" are people crying out for?

The logic of Burnham's observation is that wherever prohibitionist policies are enforced, criminal behavior -- including occasional violence to persons and property -- will result. If this is true of immigration from Mexico, then the way to reduce the violence would be to end the relevant prohibition. One way to end the siege of ranch properties along the southern border would be to announce that we would accept all of the immigrants Mexico is willing to send our way. This would put the Coyotes out of business immediately.

Who cares about the Coyotes? I'm more concerned with this issue because of the long-term cultural implications. Yes, ending the welfare system for ALL would certainly put a huge dent in the illegal alien problem to be sure, but let's not forget that true welfare, as opposed to the ear-wilting, tired definition applied to the po' living in projects, is well ingrained throughout the culture today up and down the socio-economic stratum. Many folk, in varying degrees of appetite only, from the ghetto/barrio set to the Palm Beach set are sucking from the taxpayer teet.

Are you advocating the idea that since some people are wont to disobey ANY prohibition (I'm not addressing here whether said prohibition is sensible, righteous, or constitutional. That's another matter entirely), that said prohibition (LAW) should simply be abolished? Do I understand you correctly here? Correct me if I'm wrong, Will, but I gathered from your above statements I quoted that you are in essence sayin' that people basically cannot self-govern and have no self-control. Do you not ever question or examine instead why criminal behavior will result when a prohibition is in effect? After all, children will surely disobey a prohibition by parents, but I've not heard anyone say that parents should dispense with all prohibitions just because disobedience will result.

By the way, if that's the case, I agree that people by and large are without self-restraint and self-control today, for whatever reason, in many areas of life. Nevertheless, it's a telltale recipe for government expansion to supply those restraints and controls in those areas. I'm not talking about right or wrong here, because the instituted external (government) restraints could be right, wrong, or neither, but that's irrevelant to the point here.

Keep in mind Will, as you peruse the cultural landscape daily, that the ONLY restraint keeping many otherwise rudderless people these days from committing violent acts (or any other act for that matter) against persons and/or property is EXTERNAL prohibitions, not self-imposed restraints or prohibitions.

Kevin Craig said...

Immigration laws violate the principles of Christianity and capitalism. I discuss the principles of Christianity here, and George Reisman discusses capitalism in his wonderful treatise, Capitalism, excerpts of which are at the link above.

Anonymous said...

Great stuff, Will.

liberranter said...

... an authoritarian corporatist state supported by a degenerate mass democracy.

There must be a term that describes precisely such a system. "Oligarchy" and "plutocracy" certainly don't fit and "dictatorship of the proletariat" is accurate only where the final half of the system description is concerned. I'm at at a loss. Any suggestions? If the term I'm looking for is already in the political science lexicon, please enlighten me.

Taylor Conant said...

liberranter,

Try "fascism."

liberranter said...

TAYLOR said...

liberranter,

Try "fascism."


Thanks, Taylor. How on earth did I manage to miss that one?

I searched the M-W Online Dictionary for an "academic" definition of the term, yet M-W provides a grossly inadequate and misleading definition:

http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

"Pronunciation:
\ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi-\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
Date:
1921

1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control"

The M-W definition quoted above seems much more like the generic definition of totalitarianism, as "fascism" relies heavily on leveraging the interests of the corporate/industrial class to bolster the machinery of the totalitarian state rather than relying on the muscle of agents of the State acting on their own.

Septeus7 said...

I usually agree with most of your posts but this one is leaving the sound ideas of minarchism and going into fantastic idealism of globalist anarchism.

Quote: "The logic of Burnham's observation is that wherever prohibitionist policies are enforced, criminal behavior -- including occasional violence to persons and property -- will result."

But this is a false correlation equals causation statement. The cause of the violation of persons and property is not caused by a certain law but the criminal nature of people who are more than happy to violate the "rights" of others to get what they want.

Quote: "If this is true of immigration from Mexico, then the way to reduce the violence would be to end the relevant prohibition."

And this is false because the violence is inherent to the corrupt culture of Mexico.

Quote: "One way to end the siege of ranch properties along the southern border would be to announce that we would accept all of the immigrants Mexico is willing to send our way."

Of course this would act as psychological reinforcement for every other criminal, smugger, and terrorist telling them that if you just continue your criminal activities America will just cave in and essentially let the criminal elements decide what should be our policy toward them. This of course is not unlike what Mexico and other third world countries are today.

Quote "Recent studies of incarceration rates for immigrants and native Americans demonstrate that immigrants are not the source of a significant spike in crime; in fact, the findings suggest that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than are native-born citizens."

But such studies include the anchor babies and child born here of legal residents as part of the "native-born" population and thus their higher than-average crime rate is counted as part of the "native" crime rate. The only real measure of the effects of illegal aliens on the crime rate is to measure the changing demographics in the crime rate.

Quote: "Why make the immigrants the issue, as opposed to the welfare programs themselves?"

Because the excess poor immigrants are what are straining the system and people fear real instability in a system more than a theoretically flawed system itself.

Quote: "As Sheldon Richman points out, one would expect conservatives to cite immigrant welfare services in order "to convince the American people to dump the welfare state [by showing them] it is financially unsustainable."

Which is a highly theoretical case and will lose in public debate because it can't be fit into a sound bite whereas one can say "immigrants are sucking us dry" with five words.

Quote: "The first of which is that my friend is assuming that quasi-totalitarian laws of this sort would eventually be enacted nation-wide; otherwise immigrants would simply migrate to states where such laws don't exist."

Which is false because local communities would immediately pass laws against the invaders as several towns have already attempted to this but the federal government stopped them from having local enforcement. State and local enforcement would work but the federal government doesn't want accountable local governments to interfere with their plans for globalization.

Quote: "The other problem is that this approach would actually expand the size and expense of the welfare state, since it would leave the existing structure intact while using access to it as an incentive for additional legal immigration."

The enforcement of criminal statutes against criminal invaders would reduce the welfare state not increase it. Allowing unlimited third worlders from socialist and totalitarian countries into the country is the surest have complete socialist totalitarianism in our country ASAP which why the Feds keep pushing "Immigration Reform."

The argument for enforcement is very simple and irrefutable for those who love liberty. If the American People are the sovereigns then the land within the borders of the United States belongs to them and not anyone else. Therefore it is the absolute right of the American people have their elected officials enforce whatever immigration laws they have enacted through their representative government. And if the American people do not have this right then they are not sovereign and are therefore NOT FREE.

Quote from jorge: "By crossing the line (I contend imaginary) between the US and Mexico, whose rights have been violated?"

The right of people to rule by law as sovereigns of their own country.

Now you might argue that I am making a collectivist argument about the American People being sovereigns over the land within the national borders but I contend that there is nothing more collectivist than to deny national borders.

If the only land that can have it borders defended is on privately owned land then all land belonging to the state is defunct in a national sense and therefore belongs to everyone in the global sense and because such land belongs "the world" it therefore what ever laws that are made must apply all the people in the world and every government of every people have the right to over-rule /rule-over any other government and any other people i.e. total collectivist world government.

So once against the libertarian emphasis on "individual rights" instead of the real obligations of the individual leads to collectivist rule instead in individual freedom.

Read Thomas Fleming's "The Morality of Everyday Life" for a further discussion of rights, obligations, and freedoms.

The Sioux lost their liberty and political independence because the American Colonists refused to respect Sioux laws, Sioux traditions, and Sioux national property and the American people will lose their liberty and political independence because the Mexican invaders refuse to respect our laws, our traditions, our national property, and our federal government refuses to respect their obligations to the American people and deal with these criminal trespassers.

Anonymous said...

Seems to me, and my Cherokee ancestors, that this is simply a case of what goes around comes around. If one does not wish to reap the whirlwind, then don't sow the wind.

Anonymous said...

Hello Mr. Grigg! Love reading your observations. On the immigration issue, I too was in a flux as well. However, Jacob Hornberger made a point to me, that was made to him by Sheldon Richman. The point is simply this. "Why is it the public sector complains about too many customers?"
Also, if indeed, we lived in a true free society, this wouldn't be a problem. Most, if not all property, would be in private hands.
In order for immigrants to come here, they would have to have permission to use or enter their property. Since the government "owns" the border, they haven't really showed the incentive to enforce their own property rights.