Friday, October 3, 2008

The Immigration Bubble Collapses, The Garrison State Thrives (Updated, October 4)

The Waterloo Raid: Manacled illegal immigrants muster at an Iowa stockyard in the custody of Homeland Security personnel. As our economy collapses, immigration both legal and illegal is slowing down. Any guess as to the use to which the Homeland Security State will put its immigration control assets once the immigrant flood dries up?

It will be years before we can accurately assess the collateral damage done by the housing bubble's collapse. One likely consequence of the bust will be a sudden reversal of fortunes for a few cynical people making a living as immigration control demagogues as the tide of illegal immigration from Mexico and Latin America subsides.
People earnestly concerned about "border security" will welcome this news. Those capitalizing on such sentiments will greet it with something other than unfettered enthusiasm.

report released yesterday by the Pew Hispanic Center validates a prediction made by some observers -- most notably economist Mark Thornton of the Mises Institute: Unauthorized immigration from south of the U.S. border would taper off with end of the Federal Reserve's engineered housing boom.

According to Pew, the size of the illegal immigrant population "appears to have declined since 2007"; further, between 2005 and 2008 "the inflow of immigrants who are undocumented fell below that of immigrants who are legal permanent residents. That reverses a trend that began a decade ago. The turnaround appears to have occurred in 2007."

Pew admits that it's difficult to compile definitive statistics, given that we're dealing with an underground economy. But if the trends described in the study are accurate, they follow the contours of the FED's engineered economic boom and its inevitable subsequent bust (which happened no later than August of last year).

Significantly, the apparent decline in illegal immigration comes as economic growth stalls and reverses in the United States, while remaining steady in Mexico and other Latin American countries.
Another tangible indication that there has been an abrupt decline in illegal immigration from Mexico can be seen in the volume of remittances -- money sent home by Mexican expatriates working in the U.S.

As the AP points out, "Mexicans living in the U.S. sent home 12 percent less money in August, the largest drop on record since the Bank of Mexico began tracking remittances 12 years ago.... The Bank of Mexico said remittances will likely continue to fall in the coming months because of the `difficult problems the U.S. economy faces."

In fact, remittances have declined by about 30% since 2005. And between 2005 and 2007, the number of Mexican illegal immigrants apprehended by the Border Patrol decreased more than 50%, which means that fewer people are trying to sneak across the border.

What this demonstrates is that Mexicans, like all human beings, are both rational economic actors and human beings with organic attachments to particular families, places, and fellowships. Most Mexicans would probably prefer to live and work in their home country, but prevailing economic circumstances made it irresistible to come north of the border -- with or without government permission -- in order to make a living. And with America's economy circling the bowl, Mexicans in greater numbers are choosing to stay home.

This same principle is at work in the small but growing phenomenon of Americans who are expatriating themselves -- even pursuing dual citizenship -- in search of economic opportunity. A few months ago the Palm Beach Post reported that the same slumping economy that is encouraging Mexicans to stay home has prompted Americans, in increasing numbers, to investigate the possibility of migrating to Europe.

An estimated 40 million Americans whose ancestors emigrated to the U.S. from a country that has been absorbed into the European Union would be eligible for dual citizenship, which would make them employable throughout the Continent.
"With an EU passport, I can live and work in 27 countries," explained Florida resident Suzanne Mulvehill. "With a U.S. passport, I can live and work in one."

There are an
estimated 8 million American "expats" living and working abroad, a population trend that spurred the recent creation of a congressional "Expat Caucus." A surprising number of American Expats have taken residence in Mexico. This is "surprising" on account of the difficulty involved in buying property in that country as a resident non-citizen, and because of the all-encompassing corruption of the Mexican Regime, which I despise nearly half as much as the one ruling us here.

Many American Expats in Mexico are retirees. At least some American retirees have taken up residence south of the border after trips to Mexico to take advantage of cheap but satisfactory dental and health care (which is cost-prohibitive under America's corporatist/fascist health system, an illustration of the collectivist nature of our supposedly "free market" economy). Others, ironically, moved to Mexico as
refugees from the housing bubble who bought property and homes in Mexico because they didn't want to deal with artificially inflated home values here. That's another trend that may level out with the end of the bubble, particularly after the dollar collapses after Washington bails out the Housing Bubble Profiteers.

Obviously, in terms of Americans emigrating to Mexico or the new European Soviet, we're discussing a very thin trickle, not a gusher. And just as obviously, most Americans would prefer to live and work
here -- just as most Mexicans would prefer to stay in their home country. In both cases, the urge to emigrate is driven by the economic consequences of government corruption and profligacy. And legal emigration of Americans to other countries isn't the same thing as illegal immigration from Mexico or other countries into this one.

But the fact that there is measurable, economically inspired emigration from the United States to any degree is a striking illustration of just how collectivist, and cankered with official corruption, our economy has become. The effects of the economic downturn are being exacerbated by many of the punitive measures passed for the supposed purpose of controlling illegal immigration.

The demagogue and the Brownshirt: Arizona state legislator Russell Pearce with his close political ally, GOP precinct committeeman and neo-Nazi J.T. Ready. Not to put too fine a point on the matter, these guys aren't your typical immigration "reformers."

One splendid example is the imbecilic "employer sanctions" law that went into effect in Arizona last January 1st. Written and sponsored by state legislator Russell Pearce, an immigration monomaniac with some exceptionally pungent political alliances, the Arizona law imposes draconian sanctions on employers who don't winnow illegal aliens from their work forces. Offending business owners suffer the suspension of their business licenses on the first offense, and suffer permanent revocation of their licenses on the second offense.

Pearce has been clenched to the bosom of some "constitutionalist" organizations who, when the subject is anything other than immigration control, denounce government control of business owners through licensing and onerous regulation. The Arizona legislator insists that his law is intended to punish those who "put profits ahead of patriotism." But its actual impact has been to amplify the effects of Arizona's post-Bubble economic slide by driving employers to transplant their operations in other states -- or even, in an irony so acute it could serve as a guillotine blade, to Mexico.

Pearce's buddy in his natural habitat: Ready (second from right) and his National Socialist allies demand the Reich of way (see also below right).

Barron's predicted as the Pearce-written employer sanctions law went into effect, the impact of the measure has been to curb illegal immigration by strangling the state's economy. This is a perfectly satisfactory arrangement for a government careerist like Pearce, who preaches "patriotic" sacrifice while living comfortably at taxpayer expense. But for people who own and operate businesses in the state that -- unlike government -- actually contribute to the public good, this transaction is hardly a bargain. Illegal immigration -- crossing a border to work without government permission -- has been a significant problem precisely because of government interference in productive society.

As the Mises Institute's Mark Thornton points out, the economic and social problems associated with immigration are actually a product of the welfare state and its subsidiary, officially sanctioned multiculturalism.

"The only national problem [as opposed to isolated regional problems] with immigration is government," writes Thornton. "Because immigrants are relatively poor they tend to pay less in taxes than their use of so-called government services like health care and education, and thus they increase the burden of taxation. We can therefore solve the immigration problem by simply eliminating government programs that provide [so-called] free services."

Earlier I referred to "demagogues" on the immigration issue. Such people can be easily identified as those who promote "limited" government in nearly every aspect of life except for "border control." For example: Such people can be heard denouncing our socialized health care and education system in one breath, and in the next be seen rending their garments and bewailing the fact that illegal immigrants "are ruining our schools, driving up our taxes, over-burdening our health care system, and ruining our economy."

Well, no: It is the government ruling us that is doing all of those horrible things through socialist intervention in the economy, with illegal immigrants (among many, many others) acting as clients of that system. And more recently, concern over the impact of illegal immigration has been exploited by that same government, in perfectly predictable fashion, to justify dangerous enhancement of its powers to regiment our lives and economy.

It is the government ruling us, along with its quasi-governmental appendage called the Federal Reserve System, that has wrecked our economy.
A retreating tide can leave behind some very unpleasant debris. As illegal immigration subsides, the lingering residue will include a large movement of people poisoned with the kind of petty collectivist nationalism peddled by the likes of Russell Pearce (and abetted in the past, I am ashamed to say, by Yours Truly).

But the most important remnant of this period will be the sprawling apparatus of enforcement, detention, and harassment created in the name of immigration control, which will be devoted to new and even more unpleasant uses as our economic collapse accelerates.

A brief, predictable, and necessary update

To a reader identified as "Jay" goes whatever prize should be awarded for offering the comment I expected to receive, in more or less exactly the way I expected it to be expressed:

"So anyone who holds a degree of personal animosity towards any in the hordes of illegals invading this country is akin to a socialist nazi, is that it? Seeing how you just wrote an article decrying the use of the `threadbare trope' of labeling someone as Hitler, I'm a bit surprised you'd stoop to this tactic yourself."

That's not my belief, obviously, as the following statement from the very first paragraph of this article makes unmistakably clear:

"People earnestly concerned about "border security" will welcome this news [i.e., that the illegal immigrant "hordes" are thinning out and choosing to stay home]. Those capitalizing on such sentiments will greet it with something other than unfettered enthusiasm."

Jay, assuming that you're earnest in your desire to secure the border, lift up your head and rejoice: The "siege" is dying down. Now instead of directing your "personal animosity" at people who come here to work without government permission, you can direct it full-heartedly at the government that is destroying what remains of our liberty and prosperity, which is where it should be directed in the first place.

In addition to those sincerely concerned about the impact of illegal immigration, I mentioned opportunists of various kinds. The distinction I drew is explicit and impossible for honest people to ignore. My view has been that the "crisis" of illegal immigration is largely a result of government interventions in the economy and culture, and the facts I cite above seem to validate that view.

I should point out as well that I did not "label" T.J. Ready a Nazi. He did that to himself, for his own reasons. Likewise, I didn't choose Russell Pearce's political allies and associations for him. Nor did I compel Pearce and his political allies to impose that asinine "employer sanctions" law on Arizona, a law that is rooted in fascist assumptions (regarding the value of government control over businesses without outright confiscation of the same).

Video Extra: Who will "Trash Out" the U.S. Economy?

One growth "industry" in post-Bubble America will involve management of abandoned homes, both those formally seized through foreclosure and those abandoned by people who have sent "jingle mail" to their mortgage lenders. The scenes from California's housing bust depicted in the video below is going to be replicated all across the country: Contractors dispatching teams of "trash-out" specialists to remove and dispose of discarded personal effects inside abandoned homes.

On sale now!

Dum spiro, pugno!


Anonymous said...


The video is a fascinating glimpse into the actual mechanics of what happens to foreclosed homes. The interviewed man (see 8:00) who is the only guy on his cul-de-sac still to own his house is a Ron Paul supporter - you can see the "Ron Paul REVOLution" bumper sticker on his fridge in the background. That has to have some meaning in the context of the video, but I'm at a loss as to what that is. Maybe that Paul supporters are the people who understand responsibility?

Anonymous said...

Would Chuck Baldwin fit the bill as an immigration demagogue? If so, who is their to vote for...The disreputble Bob Barr? McKinney? Nader? ....Do you have any PRACTICAL ADVICE for a potential voter....Aside...Dave Brownlow appears to be softening his stance on the border situation (much like yourself, though not as rapidly).......

liberranter said...

A very interesting video. As resident of the Grand Canyon State, I can attest that what's happening in our neighboring state with the housing collapse is also happening here on a smaller, albeit ever growing scale. I foresee this trend continuing due to the simple reason that the faceless transnational banks holding title to these increasingly worthless properties stubbornly refuse to accept offers for them that reflect ACTUAL MARKET VALUE (i.e, one dramatically below current asking price). They are desperately holding onto these white elephants under the delusion that someone, ANYONE will offer them something approaching their asking price in the vain hope of avoiding the catastrophic loss that is the natural consequence of their ovine stupidity. (See the following article by Gary North posted to on May 14 [], describing exactly such an example.) Sadly for them, the supply of people who've bought the Brooklyn Bridge and who are ready to invest in the next "can't fail" investment are too few and far between.

Then there is this thought: What happens when those foreign investors holding onto U.S. T'bills decide to cash in their increasingly worthless paper and are told by the Fed that there is no money for the payout? Does anyone suspect that maybe, just maybe, a whole lot of residential and commercial property now correctly labeled as "toxic assets" might be offered up as compensation?

As for the immigration issue, this model Red State of ours is home to the notorious Sheriff Joe "Tent City" Arpaio, who has made the rounding up of large numbers of random Hispanics, citizens or not, as suspected illegal aliens, all in clear violation of the Constitution and BoR, a point of personal pride. He is endorsed, of course, by huge numbers of the "good German" residents of Maricopa County (Phoenix) who have kept this fascist lawbreaker in office for the past decade-plus. 'Nuff said on that issue as a form of explanation for the status quo.

Anonymous said...

Well, the House just passed the Bailout Fleecing bill. What if they held an election, but no one showed up to vote? What a pleasant dream.
-J.P. Marx Morgan

Anonymous said...

William, it is good to see you hammering this nexus between socialism/immigration control/racial collectivism.

I am Mark Anderson, who did an interview with you, and I have discussed this very issue with you before. I could see how the entire immigration control movement had been peddling socialist ideas, while simultaneously scapegoating immigrants for problems that socialism itself is causing.

I made sure to steer clear from the immigration control fanatics who were trying to infiltrate the Ron Paul movement. I denounced Duncan Hunter for wanting to build a border fence.

I also wrote this commentary back in 2005:

Anonymous said...

The video 'extra' is certainly a sobering reminder of how lives are literally destroyed by the bubble that has been created by the Fed.

Great article, Will. Keep up the great work.

Anonymous said...

The house across the street from mine in Juarez, Mexico was raided for drugs. None were found, but the owners fled. The looters picked it clean in a week, including the fixtures and the front door. What amazed me about the trashing video was that the houses were still largely intact and what a horrible waste to throw everything away. What an amazing difference between here and there.

Anonymous said...

So anyone who holds a degree of personal animosity towards any in the hordes of illegals invading this country is akin to a socialist nazi, is that it? Seeing how you just wrote an article decrying the use of the "threadbare trope" of labeling someone as Hitler, I'm a bit surprised you'd stoop to this tactic yourself.

Anonymous said...

When you referred to J.T. Ready as a nazi, I put it down to uncharacteristic hyberbole. I should have known better. Our 'patriots' have wrapped themselves so tightly in flags that they don't even know what flags they're wrapping themselves in.

Anonymous said...

"Jay" don't be bashful big fella. You've posted on Will's Seinfeld Society blog, firing vitriolic salvos at our big brown friend. So what's holding you back, "T"? Don't tell me that you're not "Ready" to unload cuz I know you are. Let's hear it. Give us that good old fashioned racial collectivism.
-Ari Tovia Weissinger

Anonymous said...

"Jingle mail" (sending in the keys) is a classically Californian phenomenon. That's because California is a "single remedy" state -- the lender can foreclose on the house, or institute a personal action against the signer of the note -- but NOT BOTH. So if the lender forecloses, you can tear up the note, and forget about being sued for a deficiency judgment -- as would be the case in most of the U.S.

'Single remedy' sounds like a great piece of populist legislation. But it's clear that the non-recourse aspect of California mortgages amplified the housing Bubble, making the ensuing collapse much deeper. Even during the Bubble days of 2005, you could hear no-equity buyers saying "Well, if it doesn't go up, I'll just mail in the keys."

Plenty of evidence suggests that states where borrowers remain personally on the hook after foreclosure are suffering less than California. But is California likely to change its "single remedy" law, in the interest of a more stable housing market in the future?

Of course not. Like the central government, which just ante'd up three-quarter trillion to prop up the pyramid scheme, California's only intention is to erect a bigger, better Bubble. Start building your real estate empire now, folks. Nothing down ... tiny to trillions! Only in America!

Anonymous said...

Bwahaha "reich of way" that was a funnee. You can tell foreclosed homes here in the peoples republik of megatropolis by all the pipes being stripped out and someone will spraypaint on the side "pipes all gone". You can't even trust people you have known since grade school they will stick ya when your back is turned, people you have broke bread with. Maybe after this laughing stock banana republik wipes out we can start over and try to act with some decency and dignity this time. The messicans are not the problem just a symptom of it. Who can blame people that fell for some fairytales and come here wanting to improve their lives.

Anonymous said...


I want to thank you for being the only one on the right who has proved to dig up the truth on this issue, WITHOUT inserting the typical racism that is so often present.

Your courage to stand up to the maniacal John Birch Society with your article on how the Police State is using immigration as an excuse for militarization.

I am soon to be an ex-pat myself, as I am leaving my dear country for Mexico, for good.

My fiance arrived at LAX in February of last year with VISA in hand, only to be brutalized by the jackbooted thugs from ICE. She had studied in the U.S., has a legitimate social security card and had a visa. But some rectal-cranially inverted thug with a badge decided she wasn't "honest." She was in tears. They wouldn't listen to her and told he she was just another "stupid wetback!"

My girlfriend was detained, strip searched and even observed by a female "jill-boot" in the restroom!

Stripped of her visa and deported by your tax dollars, I have struggled for the past year to obtain a fiance visa. ICE will give me no answers, and attempts to connect with Idaho's senators have yielded nothing. I paid good money to Uncle Sam and I can't even get an answer. I'm sick of it and have decided I can do better south of the border. (Hey, they welcome me with open arms and with the peso gaining on the dollar, why not?)

Even though I am Anglo by birth, I program a Spanish language station in Rupert, Idaho. I do a daily talk show and can assure you that most immigrants want to be here legally. You can't imagine how many have fought the jackbooted thugs attempting to do go the legal route, many with marriage ties to American citizens. But after numerous attempts to clarify their situations, years of work and thousands of dollars in fees, they've given up and brought family members over the border via a coyote. After experiencing what I have, I can't say I don't blame them.

Thank you for exposing Russell Pearce, Joe Arpaio and their ilk for who they really are. There is one other name to add: Arizona Senator Karen Johnson, who is heavily involved with Pearce. You ought to probe the shady towing deal that Pearce and the Udall family attempted to consumate and made major headlines in the local papers.

Keep up the good work, and maybe someday I will make a right turn back to my political roots. I am just sick and tired of the Neo-Cons, Sean Hannity and the others.


Benjamin "El Chupacabras" Reed

Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

You can't have open borders and a welfare state at the same time (M. Friedman).

The next best thing (besides shedding the welfare state) we can do to discourage illegal aliens is outlaw abortion in all 50 states.

What do you think contributed to the economic vacuum that sucked 20 million illegal entry-level workers here? They are to replace our own aborted children!

William N. Grigg said...

Mark, you make a very cogent point. I've always thought it more than a little odd that at least one major branch of the immigration "reform" movement openly promotes "population control," including abortion and a crude, 1920s-era version of eugenics.

Anonymous said...

"instead of directing your "personal animosity" at people who come here to work without government permission, you can direct it full-heartedly at the government that is destroying what remains of our liberty and prosperity, which is where it should be directed in the first place."

I'm quite capable, unfortunately, at directing animosity in multiple directions, and believe me when I say that I have plenty reserved for our federal tyrants.

Nonetheless, not all illegal immigrants are coming here to do jobs that Americans otherwise want done. I don't want crack cocaine or heroin sold in my town. I don't want an increase in gangs, graffiti, theft, rapes, and drive-by shootings (never had one here until "hard working" gangsters graced our community). The reason I'm angry at my government for not keeping international thugs out of my country is the same reason I'm mad at the thugs in the first place; the issues are intertwined.

On the issue of "onerous" regulations-- like filling in a few lines on the E-Verify website (Orwellian, yes; onerous, hardly)-- it seems to me that you would be more productive directing your full-hearted animosity at truly onerous government regulations on businesses. But you've chosen to harp on this one, apparently, because you believe that citizens who want to limit the number of unknown foreigners swarming into their towns and who desire to prevent sections of their cities from turning into lawless third-world territories where English is a second language are simply closet racists, fascists, nazi sympathizers, etc...

You're normally better than this, Mr. Grigg.

Anonymous said...

Re: Your update, Will -- (sarcasm) Now, Will, you just get back into that pigeon hole. There ain't but a few categories allowed, and you have to pick one or the other. I can find lots of lefts and rights, but there ain't no "common sense" or "reality" ones! (end sarcasm)

William N. Grigg said...

Mr. Jay -- I first want to thank you for your generous, albeit highly qualified, comments about my other work. I don't expect that anyone will agree with me all of the time, of course. And the quality of my thinking won't improve if what I write is read by, and commented on, only by those who agree with me.

Filling out a few lines on an e-verify form is hardly the end of the imposition, either on businesses or would-be employees. And there are other elements of the story in Arizona -- such as the arrest and even deportation of people legally in this country, including US citizens, by overzealous LEOs working for the execrable Arpaio -- that contribute to the circumstances I describe.

Please read the Reason story to which I linked for more details on that subject.

Nowhere in my piece do I offer a brief on behalf of criminals, either foreign or domestic. As I've pointed out before, if we want to reduce the threat of Mexican narco-cartels, we should stop subsidizing them through the Narcotics Price Support Program, aka the "War on Drugs."

As for the other Mexican criminals who have seeded themselves into the immigrant population coming across the border, the good news remains the same: That "wave," as I point out, is receding. That is unqualified good news for the immigration control movement, Jay; you really should be rejoicing that the problem is shrinking.

Of the roughly 360 essays I've published here, I've addressed immigration perhaps four or five times. It's difficult to see how that constitutes "harping" on the issue.

My primary concern here is the same that's implicated in any other subject I write about -- the all-encompassing war by government on individual human freedom and dignity.

I'm also struck by the fact that someone like Ready, who is an undigested lump of racist bile, can be found comfortably bobbing in the Republican "mainstream" in Arizona, in large measure because Republicans in that state (as elsewhere) have succumbed to nationalist/collectivist fallacies. This guy can waddle to the front of a rally and grunt out a call for martial law in the name of immigration control, and local Republicans respond with a Pavlovian ovation.

No, as I have repeatedly and explicitly said, not everyone whose thinking about this issue is (from my perspective) seriously mistaken is a Nazi sympathizer or a racist. But when you find yourself joined at the hip with a Nazi, as Pearce did, you really should double-check your premises.

Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Will I must say that guilt-by-association is not a great barometer of things like this. I supported Ron Paul, but I noticed that many of my fellow Paul supporters were not starting from the same premises that I had.

It would have been wrong to lump me into their "group". We just supported the same man for different reasons.

And speaking of re-examining premises, I'd like to know what yours are on this issue (and I will do the same if you like)

Do you or do you not feel that controlling the entry and exit of foreigners into the country is a legitimate function of government?

BC said...

Will, the sadness I felt seeing that trash-out crew video is (no exaggeration) close to what I felt when I saw the towers go down...

Anonymous said...


William N. Grigg said...

Mark, to the extent that there's any legitimate role for the institution we call government, it is to protect individuals against the violation of their rights through force and fraud.

That would obviously include criminal acts committed by people who have come to this country without government authorization. And "fraud" would likewise include the involvement of non-citizens in civic functions such as voting. People who come here from abroad who commit acts of that sort (particularly criminal violations of the rights of other individuals) should be summarily expelled from the country.

I'm having a difficult time understanding where either force or fraud against individual rights takes place when someone comes here from abroad to work without government permission.

Turning the issue over in my head and examining it from every angle I can, I can't see how coming here to work "illegally" is an offense of greater moral or practical weight than refusing to wear a seat belt.

As I point out in the essay above, immigration of that kind tends to follow economic trends, waxing and waning as our economy does.

This does represent a change in my point of view on the issue.

Given the nature of politics it's easy to end up in some unexpected alliances. And you're emphatically right, Mark, in objecting that it's improper to lump people together simply on the basis of a shared position.

The "links and ties" approach (so-and-so is "linked" to someone "tied" to something or somebody unsavory) is always dishonest.

So is the "guilt by syllogism" tactic, as in: Person "A" opposed the Iraq War; person "B," a Commie Peace Puke/Nazi anti-Semite ALSO opposed the war; ergo, Person "A" is presumptively a Commie Peace Puke/Nazi anti-Semite. That kind of "reasoning" is pretty compelling evidence of bad faith.

Pearce has been given several opportunities (I even tried to create one myself) to put daylight between himself and Gruppenfuhrer Ready. He's not done so. They've been close, mutually respectful allies drawn together by 1) a shared fixation on immigration, and 2) a willingness to impose severe costs on individual liberties and the health of the economy in order to stop immigration from Mexico. That's what I take issue with here, and why I've come to think that the immigration issue was laden with so much potential trouble.

In one clip I link to, Ready bloviates about deploying the military domestically as an immigration enforcement agency. That view is surprisingly common on the Right.

ICE is setting up "border security" checkpoints hundreds of miles from either the northern or the southern border and conducting warrant-less, suspicion-less "Your papers, please" searches of automobiles. Immigration control, like narcotics control, is being used as a pretext to federalize (and militarize) local sheriff's departments.

We can't assume that all of this represents the benign intentions of a government simply trying to protect us from the immigrant horde -- which is thinning out, once again, because the government ruling us has wrecked our economy.

Anonymous said...


What methods would you support to eliminate illegal immigration? It's clear that you would want to eliminate what little is left of the welfare state for the common man, but what other methods are available? Ten years of hard labor?

On your point about some folks supporting abortion and restrictions on immigration, well, that's not a surprise as it is consistent with the idea that the US is becoming too crowded.

William N. Grigg said...

Mr. Northwoods, your point about welfare for the "common man" is poignant, coming as it does following such a potent demonstration of the fact that the wealthy and powerful are always at the front of the queue for official compassion.

My view, of course, is that there should be no redistributionist welfare for anyone, rich or poor, native or immigrant.

Regarding immigration, as with all other matters of public interest we have to define what the problem is, and then why it is a problem.

And we have to keep in mind the sole justification for government: Protect individual rights from force and fraud that would intrude on those rights.

That limited grant of legitimacy doesn't change when the subject is immigration, any more than it would where the subject is terrorism, or drugs, or anything else.

The way I see it, the problems associated with immigration reflect the fact that government, as always, is doing things it should not be doing.

It shouldn't maintain a welfare state, or subsidize multi-lingual education (or be involved in education to begin with). It shouldn't be entering into interventionist trade pacts like NAFTA that result in dislocations of Mexico's agricultural economy. It shouldn't be funding Mexico's drug war, thereby subsidizing that country's Narco-Criminals (both directly and indirectly) and exacerbating the violence that drives at least some people to flee.

We really need to rein in tje government ruling us -- get it to stop all the things it shouldn't be doing -- before we consider investing additional powers in it to "solve" this problem. And it's of abiding interest to me that the government may be "solving" the immigration problem by wrecking our economy. Hooray for us.

Anonymous said...

Immigration is no doubt a libertarian
sticking point which will generate
much debate.

No man can be an island; can a nation?

BTW: looks like the bailout is
failing. How much will they ask for next?

Doc Ellis 124 said...

Greetings Will,

The video in which you appeared would be so much better if I knew what you said. Is a transcript or summary available?

Doc Ellis 124

Anonymous said...

Dear Will,

Did you get the email I sent you last week with a couple of articles from the Financial Times, regarding the $54 trillion market in CDS derivatives, with the message: "What's coming? Who knows?"

Monday October 6th 2008 - the first of the several auctions of CDS swaps this month. The Dow Jones is down 780 points, the most ever in history, even more than Monday 15th September 2008. ("Bailout? What bailout? $700 billion? Oh, that....") Markets everywhere are plunging, some even more than the US. Looks like I am not alone in my worries.....

Did I hear someone say to me a while back, "Chicken Little"?

The Three Little Pigs can hear growling outside their door, but they are afraid to look and see what might be out there. Baby Bear says: "Someone ate my porridge!" Little Red Riding Hood says, "Oh Grandma, how big your teeth are!"

I heard some pompous pundit on TV when I was in the break room here at work today saying there is fear of a BIG bank failing soon - a REALLY big bank. My oh my. Mercy Percy. And to think the same big banks have been telling me - ME, who never missed a payment or defaulted on a debt in my entire life!! - that I was a "bad credit risk." HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Like German chocolate cake with whipped cream and a maraschino cherry on top, that is really rich.

Three cheers for greed. Adam Smith, Gordon Gekko, and the Republican Party told us greed was good for business. Aesop, 2,500 years ago, told us greed killed the goose that laid the golden eggs.

I'm with Aesop. Always have been. Always will be.

Maybe I'll even have a few Republicans in here with me when this is all over. Personally, I feel tike tossing them over the side to see how well they can walk on water. When they come to the door begging for food, I'll ask them who they voted for in 2000. I'll tell them to go ask him for food. (If they can find him in his "secure location.") Or, like Sarah Palin, they can go out and shoot a moose.

Or better yet, a fellow Republican. Especially if they can get one in elected office in their crosshairs.

I am having fun. It is SO satisfying to watch the sky falling.

Yours sincerely,
Lemuel Gulliver

Anonymous said...

PS: You opened with: "Any guess as to the use to which the Homeland Security State will put its immigration control assets once the immigrant flood dries up?"


Anyone trying to leave the country will be asked: "Did you pay all your taxes? Do you have any unpaid debts? Do you have any balances on your credit cards?"

If the answer to any of those is Yes, (and don't bother trying to lie, every detail of your life is in a dozen databases,) then you will be detained at a DHS facility as a credit default risk.

Forget lawyers and habeas corpus. Forget appeals and legal process. Forget even formal charges. You are a traitor to the debtor state, and not entitled to even know the charges on which you are being detained. You will, however, be entitled to work, for 15 cents an hour, to help pay off your debts and the interest on them. Once they are paid, you can leave.

(See? The overlords are not inhumane, after all.)

One more survival suggestion for your readers: Google Maps has extraordinarily detailed maps of the Canadian border. If you click on "Satellite" you will be able to zoom in and see every house, every track and trail and even the cows grazing in the fields. In several places, there are roads on either side of the border, not connecting, but separated by only 100 yards of woods. In Montana where you are, Will, there are mountain roads which cross over, but without a detailed map you would get hopelessly lost. Do this now while it is still available - select at least 3 options for crossing the border, so that if you do need to leave you can do so unofficially. Then print out those maps and overhead views and keep them in a file folder for future need.

Lemuel Gulliver.

Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

OK, now we are getting somewhere.

We have different premises on this issue. I absolutely believe that a Republic has both a right and a duty to control who is let into the country and to deport those who have not entered legally.

The basis for my premise is simple: self-government does not work for all peoples at all times, it requires a minimum amount of virtue in the population.

You may argue that those illegals will not be voters without breaking another law. I would reply that 1) their children would be, and there is little reason to believe they would inculcate their children with the attitudes, habits, values, and morals required to sustain self government, especially not in a time when most of our own population is not doing this to the degree necessary to fend off statism.

2) They don't HAVE to vote to turn my city into a third-world crime-ridden slum that makes weaker citizens so desperate for order that they vote away freedom for security. I have observed this happening, and it is in a way what your article is really about....though you may not have presented that aspect of it.

30,000 young foreigners moving into your country illegally represent a group of people far more likely to break other laws too. The locals will demand order be restored, as they have from coast to coast.

In other words, open borders may well be used by the neocons to flood our streets with criminals until the people cry out for statist intervention to save them!

Freedom is not for every people, the Founders all acknowledged this. It is for virtuous people only, and attempting to share the blessings of liberty with hordes of people who are not equipped to sustain it will not give them liberty too, it will only cost us ours.

The state must insure that only those with the virtue to conduct themselves in a manner conducive to sustaining liberty be permitted entrance into our nation.

William N. Grigg said...

Mark, I'm not unsympathetic to your position, which (in all candor) I used to embrace without qualification.

Here is what I consider to be its fatal flaw:

You point out that immigrants must be carefully vetted by the State in order to "insure that only those with the virtue to conduct themselves in a manner conducive to sustaining liberty be permitted entrance into our nation."

Why would any ruling elite seek to cultivate such a population, either native or foreign-born? And why should we believe that the state ruling us now could possibly accomplish this?

Of non-voting illegal immigrants you observe that "there is little reason to believe they would inculcate their children with the attitudes, habits, values, and morals required to sustain self government, especially not in a time when most of our own population is not doing this to the degree necessary to fend off statism."

My experience with non-voting illegal aliens and their children suggests that many of them are better at teaching cardinal virtues to their children -- thrift, sobriety, industry, independence, a proper hostility toward government, and even chastity -- than much of our native-born population. It's of some interest to me that several studies show that Mexican youth are corrupted by our culture, rather than contributing to its corruption (I'm making reference here to matters of sexual morality and discipline, primarily).

I'll have some other observations later. One parting thought: Your prescription assumes that we still have a republic to protect. I don't see any evidence to sustain that assumption, alas.

As our ruling elite, with the aid of good, pious Christian "conservatives" like Gary Bauer and John Boehner, completes our transformation into a plutocratic socialist mega-state, it's clear that the immigration problem has played a very modest role in our demise.

Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Will, come back!

I understand that you don't trust our current corporate state to run a just immigration policy. I don't either, and I am suspect of every "solution" they put forward, especially amnesty by any other name. But this is not the issue. The issue I have is that (if I understand your position) you believe that the state has no fundamental right to control who goes in and out of its borders. Any alien should be free to walk in and out until it is shown they have committed some other crime.

Even if the Republic is lost, and I hope it is not irredeemably gone, we can and should discuss what the legitimate role of government is. That is what I am doing here. I am discussing what form of state we should build on the ruins of what we have, not defending anything the current cabal is up to.

We once had a government by, of, and for the people for many years, and during much of that time we DID vet our immigrants and the system served us well. Doesn't the fact that it WAS done checkmate the argument that it CAN'T be done?

Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

I also wanted to address your point as to character of some illegal aliens being better than that of many US Citizens.

There are many cases where I have also observed that, but the question is WHO DECIDES whether or not someone can has the requisite amount of virtue? It must be the legitimate government of the admitting nation. To say that each alien gets to unilaterally decide that they have what it takes to sustain self-government is the surest way to be flooded with scoundrels.

I would say MOST illegal aliens from Mexico are otherwise law abiding citizens in most circumstances. A minority are through criminals. The point is, it is not their call to decide if they are law-abiding enough. Its our call.

It is our call because we have the right to self-defense- in this case defending a form of government in which (in the recent past) we expect officials to serve without corruption and assume that government exits to protect the rights of the people.

To say that noble government has faded only adds urgency to the diligent safeguarding of our border- for we cannot lost liberty back by letting in 50 million more people who shrug off corrupt socialism as the human norm.

I would close by reminding you that even though most illegal aliens may be otherwise law-abiding in most circumstances, so would the vast majority of our countrymen. If "good" illegals were 65% of the whole, and 5% of our countrymen were criminals then illegals would disproportionately contribute to the criminal class by a factor of seven (100-65/5).

Very few non-government types are criminals, therefore MOST illegals can be otherwise good folks while at the same time a disproportionate number of illegals are anti-social criminals.

A large "good" illegal worker class will also impede good government simply because blue-collar citizens who complain to loudly about government encroachment of freedom can be all the more painlessly replaced by an in-exhaustable supply of non-political peasants who can't vote in any case and who know how to grovel before their ruling-elite "betters".

Anonymous said...


Question: What can we possibly say to ease the burden of the poor, sad investment banker who just lost his job?

Answer: "I’ll have a burger with fries on rye bread and a side salad. Ranch dressing will do."

Lemuel Gulliver

Anonymous said...

> ...replaced by an in-exhaustable
> supply of non-political peasants who
> can't vote in any case and who know
> how to grovel before their
> ruling-elite "betters".

Aren't Americans world champions in groveling before their ruling-elite "betters"?

What else would explain the meek acceptance of the biggest armed robbery in history aka The Bailout of 2008?

At least these Mexicans are shooting back at the thugs harrassing them. Maybe we need more of them to help us to get rid of the real criminals in charge of this country.

Besides, "non-political" is a compliment.

Anonymous said...


Does it bother you that the biggest supporters of large-scale immigration are also the fans of the globalized New World Order?

It seems to me that it will be much harder to promote libertarian or paleo-conservative values in the dystopian megacities of the future that immigration will lead to.

Anonymous said...

Our Republic: So far, it's been sort of a bloodless coup, hasn't it? In fact, the masses don't even realize there's been a coup. The Propaganda Machine has been telling us America is a Democracy for so long now and most everybody believes it so now that we are thoroughly transformed into a Socialist set-up nobody will be the wiser.

Anonymous said...

Seeing this latest example of
Congressional legerdemain
(the Senate passing a bill with
originating tax law which is
illegal as pointed out by Ron Paul
in his latest post at
what is the purpose of our Supreme
Court, anyway? Simply to harrass
the people?

Everyone is raging about our
Congress and Executive (rightly so)
but why is nobody spitting on the
Supreme Court (as we should be?)

All 9 of them should be impeached
and imprisoned (or hanged, whichever
you prefer depending on your stance
on the death penalty.)

They are all traitors, every one.

Anonymous said...

I'm just waiting for JBS to some how claim credit for the slow down in immigration.


They are so good at pointing to some minor mention in an obscure sentence in some so called "reputable" publication as proof positive!

Anonymous said...

Does this mean Western Union will need a bailout? They were almost out of business before those "brownbellies" started sending money back to the mother country. I see you are pro freedom by letting these assbags post their republican puke comments. Message to ALL republicans: eat shit, die, FUCK OFF.

Anonymous said...

The Department of Homeland Security decided to invade occupy our city here in Waterloo, Iowa. I decided to put on my Ron Paul r3VOLution shirt and go take pictures.

Here are those pictures:


Anonymous said...

Strange how the media clowns can juggle the blatant lies with the truth and use the most absurd denials imaginable. It is a verifiable fact that the jews control the media. The list is printable and established. Meanwhile can anyone name just one Nazi who controls a major news broadcasting program, newspaper, mainstream magazine, add company, or film making company? Clearly, people get castigated by the jew media for being Nazis. Not the other way around.

Likewise, we have openly racist organizations like MeCHA and La Raza taunting Reconquista and the concept of Aztlan openly called for by elected Latino officials which is documented and founded in fact. Yet this is just conspiracy hype I suppose to the very same ones promoting it when they are called to the floor over it. But can we name just one Nazi organization receiving tens of millions of dollars funneled to it through government affiliated charities, non-profits, and academic sponsors?

Furthermore, we can walk down the alley of any major metropolitan city in the USA these days and see the utter devastation of non-white gangs, non-white graffiti, non-white littering, and a massive non-white crime wave which rivals the effects of nuclear weapons going off in our neighborhoods. Yet can we reasonably fear hordes of Nazis gang raping our lily-White daughters? Can we expect National Socialists to do drive-by shootings in our parks and schools over the color of some rival's bandanna? Do we need to bar up the windows of our homes and shops for fear of the Gestapo breaking in and stealing our valuables?

Indeed, the real conspiracy wackos and lunatics frequent the leftist fringe far more than any legitimacy of hate held against an American Nazi. The difference is that the jew, through its massive media propaganda apparatus, gives voice to the leftist and anti-American minority while vilifying the Nazis to an almost suffocating level to the mainstream working middle class segment of our society. However, when one realistically reviews the values of an American Nazi with that of most average Americans, coupled with a measure of integrity, one can not help but notice the innate parallel in core values.

American Nazis are in support of clean neighborhoods, wholesome entertainment, just law enforcement, fair political policies, and a return to the European rule of law values which made this once great nation the greatest nation on earth. The only difference between an American Nazi and a milk and toast conservative is: that we not only recognize who the real enemy of this nation truly is. We hit it squarely on its kosher nose!