The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Ron Paul ArchiveBlogview
How to Solve the Illegal Immigration Problem
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s recent speech on immigration really missed the point. I understand Trump’s frustration over the US government’s inability to control the US borders and keep out those who would come to this country illegally. Trump was right that the media ignore legitimate questions we have on our immigration policy and he is right that special interests have a great interest in maintaining the status quo.

However when it comes to really solving the immigration problem he gets it all wrong. And instead of making us more free and prosperous, his solutions will accelerate our downward slide toward authoritarianism.

First let’s consider his idea of building a big wall between the US and Mexico. It is said that all one needs to get over an eight foot fence is a nine foot ladder. Or perhaps a shovel. So walls are never very good at keeping people out. But they are very good at keeping people in. Just ask the East Germans. The communist government claimed in 1961 that it had to build a wall around the portion of Berlin it controlled to keep the population safe from the evil capitalist wreckers and saboteurs. It didn’t take long for the world to realize that the real threat to the East German leaders was that the people trapped in East Berlin would try to get out. We have all seen the horrific videos of East German civilians risking – and losing – their lives to escape that prison of razor wire and cinder block.

Is this really what we want for our own future?

What a wild conspiracy theory, some may claim. The wall would never be meant to keep us from leaving. Well ask the IRS. Under a tax enforcement provision passed in 2015, the US government claimed the right to cancel any American citizen’s passport if Washington claims it is owed money.

Trump also made E-Verify the center of his immigration speech. He said, “We will ensure that E-Verify is used to the fullest extent possible under existing law, and we will work with Congress to strengthen and expand its use across the country.”

While preventing those here illegally from being able to gain employment may appeal to many who would like to protect American jobs, E-Verify is the worst possible solution. It is a police state non-solution, as it would require the rest of us legal American citizens to carry a biometric national ID card connected to a government database to prove that the government allows us to work. A false positive would result in financial disaster for millions of American families, as one would be forced to fight a faceless government bureaucracy to correct the mistake. Want to put TSA in charge of deciding if you are eligible to work?

The battle against illegal immigration is a ploy to gain more control over our lives. We are supposed to be terrified of the hoards of Mexicans streaming into our country and thus grant the government new authority over the rest of us. But in fact a Pew study found that between 2009 and 2014 there was a net loss of 140,000 Mexican immigrants from the United States. Yes, this is a government “solution” in search of a real problem.

How to tackle the real immigration problem? Eliminate incentives for those who would come here to live off the rest of us, and make it easier and more rational for those who wish to come here legally to contribute to our economy. No walls, no government databases, no biometric national ID cards. But not a penny in welfare for immigrants. It’s really that simple.

(Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Donald Trump, Illegal Immigration 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. I’m a long time supporter of Ron Paul, but I believe he’s off base here. Illegal immigrants come to the US and work for slave wages, sometimes living ten or more in a small apartment. The US needs a wall because feckless politicians, paid off by the wealthy, want to keep wages down and will never enforce existing laws. Try to remember the Law of Diminishing Returns from Eco 101, excess labor drives down wages. Unless there’s a wall, we’ll get the same thing we got from Reagan in 1986. Amnesty and no enforcement.

    Read More
    • Agree: Jeff77450
    • Replies: @in the middle
    Rich:

    if you are willing to come over and do my house's yard work, you are welcome, until then, please keep your wall to your self. No one needs a wall, what we do need is to recognize that we do have a criminal and corrupt country south of the border, which to some extend is our own fault. Our huge demand for their drugs which causes violence and crime there and here, its our own making. Lets terminate such, and the problem is resolved. We need to work in our drug demand here in the USA, and then use our stern and forceful way to make Mexican corrupts, I mean government to clean up house, or otherwise we will Iraq their ass! Problem solved.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/rpaul/how-to-solve-the-illegal-immigration-problem/#comment-1556871
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Dr. Paul is right to say NO welfare for illegal immigrants. But that is not enough.

    Apparently, Paul still favors entitlements for the ‘citizens’ born to illegal immigrants. That means free public education for anchor babies. This is not only hugely expensive, but birthright education/citizenship undermines our schools since it invariably brings in bi-lingual education. Bi-lingual classrooms however damage the educational experience for the majority of students who speak only English.

    Further, since so many young US ‘citizens’ are born to illegal immigrant parents, the family ends up getting welfare through the backdoor. Birthright citizenship is a Trojan Horse.

    Paul’s aversion to IDs is similarly misguided. The entire enforcement mechanism in all laws requires some sort of identification; otherwise, people could assume different identities to evade capture or paying penalties. There’s simply no getting around the need for some form of national or state ID. Civilization requires it. Verifiable identification an essential bulwark against fraud and abuse.

    Sorry, but it’s time to Just Say NO to illegal immigration. Let’s build the wall proposed by Trump, end all welfare for illegal immigrants, initiate E-verify, and end the political anomaly of birthright citizenship.

    Since America is still being swamped by illegal immigrants, it’s time for decisive, non-violent action. American lives and families depend on it.

    Trump’s bold immigration plan is a belated step in the right direction.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    Paul’s aversion to IDs is similarly misguided. The entire enforcement mechanism in all laws requires some sort of identification; otherwise, people could assume different identities to evade capture or paying penalties.
     
    Exactly. In our current national condition and political culture, we are remorsely identified, and illegals are not. That sword must be sharpened on both edges, because it will hang over our heads regardless.

    No welfare, no residence, no employment for illegals. It's already the law -- enforce it.

    All we need to do is hang a few elected gubmint "representatives" to get the rest of them doing their jobs.
  3. …it would require the rest of us legal American citizens to carry a biometric national ID card connected to a government database to prove that the government allows us to work. A false positive would result in financial disaster for millions of American families…

    Stalin’s USSR also had work cards which could be revoked for nearly any excuse and it did result in financial disaster for the revokee.

    Read More
  4. @Rich
    I'm a long time supporter of Ron Paul, but I believe he's off base here. Illegal immigrants come to the US and work for slave wages, sometimes living ten or more in a small apartment. The US needs a wall because feckless politicians, paid off by the wealthy, want to keep wages down and will never enforce existing laws. Try to remember the Law of Diminishing Returns from Eco 101, excess labor drives down wages. Unless there's a wall, we'll get the same thing we got from Reagan in 1986. Amnesty and no enforcement.

    Rich:

    if you are willing to come over and do my house’s yard work, you are welcome, until then, please keep your wall to your self. No one needs a wall, what we do need is to recognize that we do have a criminal and corrupt country south of the border, which to some extend is our own fault. Our huge demand for their drugs which causes violence and crime there and here, its our own making. Lets terminate such, and the problem is resolved. We need to work in our drug demand here in the USA, and then use our stern and forceful way to make Mexican corrupts, I mean government to clean up house, or otherwise we will Iraq their ass! Problem solved.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    When I was a younger man, Americans owned and operated landscaping businesses, I worked for one when I was in high school. In fact, Americans worked in delis, restaurants and construction too. The reason illegal aliens are mowing your lawn is that you don't want to pay a living wage to have it done.
    , @Bragadocious
    Our huge demand for their drugs which causes violence and crime there and here, its our own making

    I'm so sick of this left-wing/Libertarian talking point. When it was RJ Reynolds targeting kids with Joe Camel, the tobacco companies were the most evil drug pushers in the history of the world and needed to be stopped -- immediately. When it's El Chapo and the Sinaloa Cartel, well...we really need to do something about our voracious drug appetites! We certainly can't expect savvy businessmen like the Mexican cartels to stop their enterprising activities, including the decapitation of rival gang members and cross-border raids into Arizona. After all we like their product!
  5. We aren’t going to deny health care to illegal aliens, and we’re not going to deny anything to their American born kids. So, Ron Paul really has no solution to illegal immigration. It’s the usual libertarian wet dream of eliminating the US welfare state for Americans and foreigners alike. There’s not much of a constituency for that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dc.sunsets

    We aren’t going to deny health care to illegal aliens, and we’re not going to deny anything to their American born kids.
     
    Exactly. Emilia shows up at the ER with her 5 year old daughter who has pneumonia. Who thinks she'll be turned away?

    That's WELFARE, Ron. WELFARE.

    I was never a Ron Paul cultist, but the older I get, the more I see how profoundly blindered is that man. He seems incapable of imagining that the collective social urges of humans render the dynamic system we call humanity, and that ideologically pure libertarianism is fully Utopian in every aspect thereby.
  6. Authortarianism is only bad if it’s leftist. If anything you could use a right-wing authortarian for a few decades right now, just to clean house.

    Read More
  7. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Quibble: hordes, not hoards

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    I see this error more and more often: have we really sunken this low?
  8. A libertarian society would have to be ringed with concertina wire and patrolled by men with Browning M-2′s to keep out all the people who could out-breed, out-thug, and out-vote the libertarians.

    The libertarians still don’t get this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    As a recovering libertarian anarchist, I concur. The central blindness of doctrinaire libertarians is their own embrace of a version of Blank Slate.

    Libertarians can't imagine that others really, truly aren't like them. They think everyone, if given the right "incentives" (which are aligned with what libertarians dream of as "human nature"), will engage in a society that resembles a bunch of Northern European & English aristocrats having a polite, but energetic debate about what toppings to order for the pizza.

    It never occurs to the truly libertarian mind that other people could be, at the population level, intrinsically different...for example, that other peoples could see the "fair play" openness and trust of Western society as nothing but a weakness to be mercilessly exploited.

    The openness and trust of societies of people whose ancestors lived within the Hajnal Line is unique. All the other peoples of the world do not share it, and the paradox is that while that High Trust society is part of what makes the West so productive, it is the rest of the world's peoples who are hell bent on leveraging that trust to hijack the West and kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
  9. Dr. Paul errs in his grasp of “illegal immigration.”

    When an employer pays someone from Guatemala or Somalia to do something in the USA, he or she is actually encouraging a trespass.

    Unless that “employee” never sets foot off that employer’s property, he or she engages in the use of the commons we call “the USA.”

    While the libertarian ideologue in me says, “there should be no such commons,” the reality is that there is a commons and no Utopian mechanism for eliminating it exists. It is frankly part of the human social experience, and always has been.

    We cannot escape the collective nature of Mankind. It is part of our genetic heritage. Given this, there remains no alternative to collective solutions (no matter how imperfect) to tragedies of the commons. I favor a spectrum of approaches, because no one solution is perfect or permanent. Every approach will predictably rum amok in time, but that’s an axiom of life, not a defect in the process.

    Trump is right. The problem of this tsunami of invasion is existential vis-a-vis what we call the USA. We can quibble about the details later, and argue about the 2% that’s left after 98% of it is shut down and reversed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    Excellent comments. Dr. Paul, whom I greatly admire, is just unable to grasp what has happened demographically. Immigration is cultural and political suicide for libertarians.
  10. @Dave Pinsen
    We aren't going to deny health care to illegal aliens, and we're not going to deny anything to their American born kids. So, Ron Paul really has no solution to illegal immigration. It's the usual libertarian wet dream of eliminating the US welfare state for Americans and foreigners alike. There's not much of a constituency for that.

    We aren’t going to deny health care to illegal aliens, and we’re not going to deny anything to their American born kids.

    Exactly. Emilia shows up at the ER with her 5 year old daughter who has pneumonia. Who thinks she’ll be turned away?

    That’s WELFARE, Ron. WELFARE.

    I was never a Ron Paul cultist, but the older I get, the more I see how profoundly blindered is that man. He seems incapable of imagining that the collective social urges of humans render the dynamic system we call humanity, and that ideologically pure libertarianism is fully Utopian in every aspect thereby.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim
    In Texas illegal aliens use ER care for routine medical problems. Not only is this costly for the taxpayers but it means that patients who really do need emergency care are less likely to get high quality care.
  11. @The Anti-Gnostic
    A libertarian society would have to be ringed with concertina wire and patrolled by men with Browning M-2's to keep out all the people who could out-breed, out-thug, and out-vote the libertarians.

    The libertarians still don't get this.

    As a recovering libertarian anarchist, I concur. The central blindness of doctrinaire libertarians is their own embrace of a version of Blank Slate.

    Libertarians can’t imagine that others really, truly aren’t like them. They think everyone, if given the right “incentives” (which are aligned with what libertarians dream of as “human nature”), will engage in a society that resembles a bunch of Northern European & English aristocrats having a polite, but energetic debate about what toppings to order for the pizza.

    It never occurs to the truly libertarian mind that other people could be, at the population level, intrinsically different…for example, that other peoples could see the “fair play” openness and trust of Western society as nothing but a weakness to be mercilessly exploited.

    The openness and trust of societies of people whose ancestors lived within the Hajnal Line is unique. All the other peoples of the world do not share it, and the paradox is that while that High Trust society is part of what makes the West so productive, it is the rest of the world’s peoples who are hell bent on leveraging that trust to hijack the West and kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

    Read More
    • Agree: Marcus, The Anti-Gnostic
    • Replies: @Jeff77450
    Very well said.
    , @Corvinus
    "It never occurs to the truly libertarian mind that other people could be, at the population level, intrinsically different…for example, that other peoples could see the “fair play” openness and trust of Western society as nothing but a weakness to be mercilessly exploited."

    The operative word here is "could be". You make the assumption that ethnic groups who are other than European are simply subhuman creatures who gleefully crash our gates and consume everything in sight like voracious wolves. One could use your logic that tribal groups who had welcomed their strange visitors--European explorers--with open arms were then ravaged beyond recognition because of their perceived character flaws of kindness and respect. Thus, under this context, remember who began this "invade the world, invite the world" quest.

    "The openness and trust of societies of people whose ancestors lived within the Hajnal Line is unique. All the other peoples of the world do not share it, and the paradox is that while that High Trust society is part of what makes the West so productive, it is the rest of the world’s peoples who are hell bent on leveraging that trust to hijack the West and kill the goose that lays the golden eggs."

    No one group has the monopoly on "high trust", nor is Western Civilization "trust" better or worse non-Western Civilization. How does one even measure that phenomenon?
  12. @in the middle
    Rich:

    if you are willing to come over and do my house's yard work, you are welcome, until then, please keep your wall to your self. No one needs a wall, what we do need is to recognize that we do have a criminal and corrupt country south of the border, which to some extend is our own fault. Our huge demand for their drugs which causes violence and crime there and here, its our own making. Lets terminate such, and the problem is resolved. We need to work in our drug demand here in the USA, and then use our stern and forceful way to make Mexican corrupts, I mean government to clean up house, or otherwise we will Iraq their ass! Problem solved.

    When I was a younger man, Americans owned and operated landscaping businesses, I worked for one when I was in high school. In fact, Americans worked in delis, restaurants and construction too. The reason illegal aliens are mowing your lawn is that you don’t want to pay a living wage to have it done.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jeff77450
    I'm a firm believer in wages being determined by market-forces of supply-and-demand (thus I'm opposed to a minimum-wage). There's no way that the typical minimum-wage job can pay a "living" wage and the owner be able to stay in business. As one person put it, minimum-wage jobs are for "party money" or while you're going to college.

    Construction used to pay a living-wage. My wife's ex-husband graduated from high school and started working in commercial construction in 1982 in Houston, Texas. (I think that he started at ~$13.00 an hour). His parents urged him to go to college. His response was that with the (good) money that he was making what would be the point in going to college? What he didn't realize was that at the same time that he was entering commercial construction so were illegal aliens. In the beginning he didn't resent them and in fact he tried to help them because he saw how they were being taken advantage of. Within six or seven years he had done a one-eighty and had come to despise the illegals because he saw how they were depressing wages.

    The federal government, to include members of both parties, seriously betrayed working-class Americans on this issue. How people like Ron Paul and Paul Ryan and the rest of the "amnesty" crowd can deny this is just beyond me.
    , @dc.sunsets
    I'll quibble: The "living wage" term is a red herring.

    During the last 50 years of monetary madness, under a full fiat regime money was produced in frankly unprecedented quantities. It was a phenomenal inflation.

    Why don't we see it that way? The vast increase in monetary wealth (mostly sitting in an Ocean of bonds and other long-term IOU's including pension promises) didn't flow into wages or goods/services.

    Why not?

    1. Manufacturing was packed up and shipped to 3rd world countries that engaged in a monster game of export mercantilism. The USA was saturated with low-cost junk from China, so goods prices (e.g., clothing, electronics) went low and stayed low.

    2. Both at the bottom (Mestizos) and top (H1-B visa) level of employment, the USA was flooded with willing workers from foreign countries. This massive glut of worker supply kept wages from rising, so that corporate profits as a share of GDP skyrocketed.

    3. As the vastly inflated dollar wealth sloshed around, one isolated asset market after another experienced booms and busts like never in 300 years of history. Stocks, commodities, gold & silver and then real estate all went up, down, up, down....but overall, they're vastly higher than 35 years ago when bond prices bottomed and interest rates topped. People (especially rich people) feel wealthier.

    So a "living wage" is leftist Newspeak for what should have occurred naturally, that wages would have risen and inflation would have been recognized two or three decades ago, back when things were still sort of fixable.

    Now, things are so far off track that the process of getting back to "normal" (or reverting to a mean of some sort) promises social, political and economic cataclysm as far as the eye can see.

    When I was a kid, a man could support a family of four (complete with a nice home in the suburbs) on what a barber made.

    What's the difference now?

    Friction. The political process has, like a parasite, fastened endless dead-weight costs on productivity, so that it takes almost two "barber jobs" to make it, one to earn a living and the other to pay for all the costs (mostly medical services now, plus huge taxes supporting a labyrinth of set-asides, payoffs, bribes and such) embedded in our system.
  13. @Anonymous
    Quibble: hordes, not hoards

    I see this error more and more often: have we really sunken this low?

    Read More
  14. @dc.sunsets
    Dr. Paul errs in his grasp of "illegal immigration."

    When an employer pays someone from Guatemala or Somalia to do something in the USA, he or she is actually encouraging a trespass.

    Unless that "employee" never sets foot off that employer's property, he or she engages in the use of the commons we call "the USA."

    While the libertarian ideologue in me says, "there should be no such commons," the reality is that there is a commons and no Utopian mechanism for eliminating it exists. It is frankly part of the human social experience, and always has been.

    We cannot escape the collective nature of Mankind. It is part of our genetic heritage. Given this, there remains no alternative to collective solutions (no matter how imperfect) to tragedies of the commons. I favor a spectrum of approaches, because no one solution is perfect or permanent. Every approach will predictably rum amok in time, but that's an axiom of life, not a defect in the process.

    Trump is right. The problem of this tsunami of invasion is existential vis-a-vis what we call the USA. We can quibble about the details later, and argue about the 2% that's left after 98% of it is shut down and reversed.

    Excellent comments. Dr. Paul, whom I greatly admire, is just unable to grasp what has happened demographically. Immigration is cultural and political suicide for libertarians.

    Read More
  15. None of the critics here are really engaging with the claim that worries about immigration are empirically unfounded. If there is net emigration to Mexico, what are the immigration skeptics up in arms about? It sounds like they’re just creating a new public scare as an excuse to expand the state further.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    If there is net emigration to Mexico, what are the immigration skeptics up in arms about?
     
    There isn't net emigration to Mexico. The gubmint is lying -- which appears to be the most important task of government these days -- deceiving the taxpaying citizens.

    Your choice of words betrays your sentiment. You said "emigration". If you were trying to say that illegal Mexican aliens in the USA are returning en masse to Mexico, you need to change that phrasing to add accuracy.
    , @dc.sunsets
    I have a hard time not using profanity here.

    Do you ever set foot in a store nowadays? Have you not noticed that a trip to a Walmart in the USA is not recognizably different from going to one in Cancun, QR (Mexico)?

    Net migration OUT? On what planet, or under the influence of WHAT HALLUCINOGEN?
    , @woodNfish

    None of the critics here are really engaging with the claim that worries about immigration are empirically unfounded.
     
    Yes they are, you just choose to ignore them. The claims that illegal immigration harm our economy, our welfare system, taxpayers, workers, especially in the lower skilled areas and now in the skilled trades such as construction. Our government is the enemy of freedom and prosperity. It actively harms its own citizens by allowing foreign workers to take jobs from citizens and it uses destructive regulation and taxation to drive jobs and manufacturing out of our country.

    It doesn't take an economist to understand this, but it does take the willful blindness of an ideologue to pretend it doesn't exist.
  16. @Mark Green
    Dr. Paul is right to say NO welfare for illegal immigrants. But that is not enough.

    Apparently, Paul still favors entitlements for the 'citizens' born to illegal immigrants. That means free public education for anchor babies. This is not only hugely expensive, but birthright education/citizenship undermines our schools since it invariably brings in bi-lingual education. Bi-lingual classrooms however damage the educational experience for the majority of students who speak only English.

    Further, since so many young US 'citizens' are born to illegal immigrant parents, the family ends up getting welfare through the backdoor. Birthright citizenship is a Trojan Horse.

    Paul's aversion to IDs is similarly misguided. The entire enforcement mechanism in all laws requires some sort of identification; otherwise, people could assume different identities to evade capture or paying penalties. There's simply no getting around the need for some form of national or state ID. Civilization requires it. Verifiable identification an essential bulwark against fraud and abuse.

    Sorry, but it's time to Just Say NO to illegal immigration. Let's build the wall proposed by Trump, end all welfare for illegal immigrants, initiate E-verify, and end the political anomaly of birthright citizenship.

    Since America is still being swamped by illegal immigrants, it's time for decisive, non-violent action. American lives and families depend on it.

    Trump's bold immigration plan is a belated step in the right direction.

    Paul’s aversion to IDs is similarly misguided. The entire enforcement mechanism in all laws requires some sort of identification; otherwise, people could assume different identities to evade capture or paying penalties.

    Exactly. In our current national condition and political culture, we are remorsely identified, and illegals are not. That sword must be sharpened on both edges, because it will hang over our heads regardless.

    No welfare, no residence, no employment for illegals. It’s already the law — enforce it.

    All we need to do is hang a few elected gubmint “representatives” to get the rest of them doing their jobs.

    Read More
  17. @jtgw
    None of the critics here are really engaging with the claim that worries about immigration are empirically unfounded. If there is net emigration to Mexico, what are the immigration skeptics up in arms about? It sounds like they're just creating a new public scare as an excuse to expand the state further.

    If there is net emigration to Mexico, what are the immigration skeptics up in arms about?

    There isn’t net emigration to Mexico. The gubmint is lying — which appears to be the most important task of government these days — deceiving the taxpaying citizens.

    Your choice of words betrays your sentiment. You said “emigration”. If you were trying to say that illegal Mexican aliens in the USA are returning en masse to Mexico, you need to change that phrasing to add accuracy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    I don't have time for bullshit semantics arguments. You know perfectly well what I meant: that more people are moving from the US to Mexico than vice versa. Now if that's not true, I'd like to see your sources. It honestly makes sense to me: the American economy is sluggish, so why would people move here? Mexico on the other hand seems to be developing more rapidly, so I'd expect people to move there for jobs, particularly if they are low-skilled and will work for lower wages.
  18. There is noting helpful for voters in this. Ron Paul is not on the ballot. If Trump is wrong about immigration should I therefore vote Hillary? Or should I vote for her stalking horse Gary Johnson. No thanks Ron. I’m sticking with Trump.

    Read More
  19. @dc.sunsets
    As a recovering libertarian anarchist, I concur. The central blindness of doctrinaire libertarians is their own embrace of a version of Blank Slate.

    Libertarians can't imagine that others really, truly aren't like them. They think everyone, if given the right "incentives" (which are aligned with what libertarians dream of as "human nature"), will engage in a society that resembles a bunch of Northern European & English aristocrats having a polite, but energetic debate about what toppings to order for the pizza.

    It never occurs to the truly libertarian mind that other people could be, at the population level, intrinsically different...for example, that other peoples could see the "fair play" openness and trust of Western society as nothing but a weakness to be mercilessly exploited.

    The openness and trust of societies of people whose ancestors lived within the Hajnal Line is unique. All the other peoples of the world do not share it, and the paradox is that while that High Trust society is part of what makes the West so productive, it is the rest of the world's peoples who are hell bent on leveraging that trust to hijack the West and kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

    Very well said.

    Read More
  20. @Rich
    When I was a younger man, Americans owned and operated landscaping businesses, I worked for one when I was in high school. In fact, Americans worked in delis, restaurants and construction too. The reason illegal aliens are mowing your lawn is that you don't want to pay a living wage to have it done.

    I’m a firm believer in wages being determined by market-forces of supply-and-demand (thus I’m opposed to a minimum-wage). There’s no way that the typical minimum-wage job can pay a “living” wage and the owner be able to stay in business. As one person put it, minimum-wage jobs are for “party money” or while you’re going to college.

    Construction used to pay a living-wage. My wife’s ex-husband graduated from high school and started working in commercial construction in 1982 in Houston, Texas. (I think that he started at ~$13.00 an hour). His parents urged him to go to college. His response was that with the (good) money that he was making what would be the point in going to college? What he didn’t realize was that at the same time that he was entering commercial construction so were illegal aliens. In the beginning he didn’t resent them and in fact he tried to help them because he saw how they were being taken advantage of. Within six or seven years he had done a one-eighty and had come to despise the illegals because he saw how they were depressing wages.

    The federal government, to include members of both parties, seriously betrayed working-class Americans on this issue. How people like Ron Paul and Paul Ryan and the rest of the “amnesty” crowd can deny this is just beyond me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dc.sunsets

    How people like Ron Paul and Paul Ryan and the rest of the “amnesty” crowd can deny this is just beyond me.
     
    Ditto. Supply and demand. Open the borders to the world, get the world's people here to compete for jobs here.

    How. Stupid. Do. People. Have. To. Be. Not. To. See. This?
  21. Opponents of the wall always fail to acknowledge or otherwise address certain facts. (1) We already have a wall in certain places. The Border Patrol probably has data and an opinion about its effectiveness. Let’s ask them. (2) A wall is just the first line of defense. Of course you have to have “defense in depth.” (3) Israel built a wall and it is, in fact, working. It has significantly reduced terrorist attacks.

    I disagree with Ron Paul re. E-Verify. E-Verify exists *now* and some employers are using it. I don’t have a biometric ID card—do you? I didn’t think so. My employer doesn’t require me to periodically prove my citizenship—does yours? I didn’t think so. Maybe E-Verify needs to be tweaked & improved, I don’t know–or maybe it’s fine just the way that it is and just needs to be made mandatory–but it can be made to work without creating some Orwellian nightmare scenario.

    Mr. Paul, you and Paul Ryan and Mark Zuckerberg and the rest of the “open borders” crowd will *never* be at risk of losing your job or having your wages depressed due to immigrants, legal or illegal. Most likely you will never be at serious risk of street-crime due to illegal aliens (or “refugees”)—unlike all the rest of us that don’t live in gated communities and who can’t afford private security. You’ll probably never have a “fender bender” with an illegal alien who doesn’t have insurance—but my cousin did.

    The blood of Kathryn Steinle and others like her is on the hands of *everyone* who have encouraged illegal immigration.

    Read More
  22. @Rich
    When I was a younger man, Americans owned and operated landscaping businesses, I worked for one when I was in high school. In fact, Americans worked in delis, restaurants and construction too. The reason illegal aliens are mowing your lawn is that you don't want to pay a living wage to have it done.

    I’ll quibble: The “living wage” term is a red herring.

    During the last 50 years of monetary madness, under a full fiat regime money was produced in frankly unprecedented quantities. It was a phenomenal inflation.

    Why don’t we see it that way? The vast increase in monetary wealth (mostly sitting in an Ocean of bonds and other long-term IOU’s including pension promises) didn’t flow into wages or goods/services.

    Why not?

    1. Manufacturing was packed up and shipped to 3rd world countries that engaged in a monster game of export mercantilism. The USA was saturated with low-cost junk from China, so goods prices (e.g., clothing, electronics) went low and stayed low.

    2. Both at the bottom (Mestizos) and top (H1-B visa) level of employment, the USA was flooded with willing workers from foreign countries. This massive glut of worker supply kept wages from rising, so that corporate profits as a share of GDP skyrocketed.

    3. As the vastly inflated dollar wealth sloshed around, one isolated asset market after another experienced booms and busts like never in 300 years of history. Stocks, commodities, gold & silver and then real estate all went up, down, up, down….but overall, they’re vastly higher than 35 years ago when bond prices bottomed and interest rates topped. People (especially rich people) feel wealthier.

    So a “living wage” is leftist Newspeak for what should have occurred naturally, that wages would have risen and inflation would have been recognized two or three decades ago, back when things were still sort of fixable.

    Now, things are so far off track that the process of getting back to “normal” (or reverting to a mean of some sort) promises social, political and economic cataclysm as far as the eye can see.

    When I was a kid, a man could support a family of four (complete with a nice home in the suburbs) on what a barber made.

    What’s the difference now?

    Friction. The political process has, like a parasite, fastened endless dead-weight costs on productivity, so that it takes almost two “barber jobs” to make it, one to earn a living and the other to pay for all the costs (mostly medical services now, plus huge taxes supporting a labyrinth of set-asides, payoffs, bribes and such) embedded in our system.

    Read More
    • Agree: John Jeremiah Smith
    • Replies: @Rich
    I'm using the term "living wage" to differentiate from the "slave wage" illegal aliens are able to survive on. Illegals are able to live on such a low wage because, at least in NY, they are given free food, free clothing, free medical care and, often, subsidized housing. But I'm in full agreement with all the points you've made.
    Perhaps a better term would be "legal wage?"
    , @Jeff77450
    Interesting and very well said; has given me "food for thought."
    , @Onlooker
    So damned right. The primary culprit is indeed Fed Reserve inflationary policy that has robbed the general population of a huge portion of the productivity gains of the last century. Combine that with all the other meddling of the govt and the leech-like Leviathon it has created (i.e. the admin state) and the out of control immigration (legal & illegal) and we have the result that we live with today.

    It makes my heart hurt to think of what could have been in the absence of all that. What a wonderful (though not utopian/perfect, no doubt) society we would have here in the U.S.! What a shame.

  23. @Jeff77450
    I'm a firm believer in wages being determined by market-forces of supply-and-demand (thus I'm opposed to a minimum-wage). There's no way that the typical minimum-wage job can pay a "living" wage and the owner be able to stay in business. As one person put it, minimum-wage jobs are for "party money" or while you're going to college.

    Construction used to pay a living-wage. My wife's ex-husband graduated from high school and started working in commercial construction in 1982 in Houston, Texas. (I think that he started at ~$13.00 an hour). His parents urged him to go to college. His response was that with the (good) money that he was making what would be the point in going to college? What he didn't realize was that at the same time that he was entering commercial construction so were illegal aliens. In the beginning he didn't resent them and in fact he tried to help them because he saw how they were being taken advantage of. Within six or seven years he had done a one-eighty and had come to despise the illegals because he saw how they were depressing wages.

    The federal government, to include members of both parties, seriously betrayed working-class Americans on this issue. How people like Ron Paul and Paul Ryan and the rest of the "amnesty" crowd can deny this is just beyond me.

    How people like Ron Paul and Paul Ryan and the rest of the “amnesty” crowd can deny this is just beyond me.

    Ditto. Supply and demand. Open the borders to the world, get the world’s people here to compete for jobs here.

    How. Stupid. Do. People. Have. To. Be. Not. To. See. This?

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    There isn't a fixed amount of work or a fixed number of jobs to go around. Immigrants also bring with them a demand for goods and services. Also, if they allow some companies to make more money by working for lower wages with the same rate of productivity, those companies can then invest more and create more wealth and jobs.
  24. @jtgw
    None of the critics here are really engaging with the claim that worries about immigration are empirically unfounded. If there is net emigration to Mexico, what are the immigration skeptics up in arms about? It sounds like they're just creating a new public scare as an excuse to expand the state further.

    I have a hard time not using profanity here.

    Do you ever set foot in a store nowadays? Have you not noticed that a trip to a Walmart in the USA is not recognizably different from going to one in Cancun, QR (Mexico)?

    Net migration OUT? On what planet, or under the influence of WHAT HALLUCINOGEN?

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    That's what the data say, apparently. Do you have contrary data or just anecdotes about your last trip to Walmart?
  25. @dc.sunsets

    How people like Ron Paul and Paul Ryan and the rest of the “amnesty” crowd can deny this is just beyond me.
     
    Ditto. Supply and demand. Open the borders to the world, get the world's people here to compete for jobs here.

    How. Stupid. Do. People. Have. To. Be. Not. To. See. This?

    There isn’t a fixed amount of work or a fixed number of jobs to go around. Immigrants also bring with them a demand for goods and services. Also, if they allow some companies to make more money by working for lower wages with the same rate of productivity, those companies can then invest more and create more wealth and jobs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    On paper your points might look good, in the real world, not so much. Illegal aliens are net users of social services, and because most are no-skilled or low skilled, will never earn enough to pay into the system. They receive Medicare, subsidized housing, free clothing and food stamps in NY State, how is this good for the American citizen? For the most part, they work off the books, also, so because they show no income, their kids will get free breakfast and lunch in school and then be eligible for free college if they graduate from high school, taking scholarships and grants from your kids. Are you really okay with that? Do you have no loyalty to your fellow citizens?
  26. @John Jeremiah Smith

    If there is net emigration to Mexico, what are the immigration skeptics up in arms about?
     
    There isn't net emigration to Mexico. The gubmint is lying -- which appears to be the most important task of government these days -- deceiving the taxpaying citizens.

    Your choice of words betrays your sentiment. You said "emigration". If you were trying to say that illegal Mexican aliens in the USA are returning en masse to Mexico, you need to change that phrasing to add accuracy.

    I don’t have time for bullshit semantics arguments. You know perfectly well what I meant: that more people are moving from the US to Mexico than vice versa. Now if that’s not true, I’d like to see your sources. It honestly makes sense to me: the American economy is sluggish, so why would people move here? Mexico on the other hand seems to be developing more rapidly, so I’d expect people to move there for jobs, particularly if they are low-skilled and will work for lower wages.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    I don’t have time for bullshit semantics arguments. You know perfectly well what I meant: that more people are moving from the US to Mexico than vice versa.
     
    You are entitled to whatever opinion you like. In my opinion, any set of recognized (and official) stats recorded -- such as those for people voluntarily and officially leaving the US for Mexico -- is going to be larger than any official stat for illegals entering the US, since there ARE NO accurate (and official) statistics for the real number of illegal aliens entering the US.

    Illegal aliens enter at will. No tally is kept. There is no border enforcement. The very notion that "more people are moving from the US to Mexico" is bullshit. There are at least 50 million illegal Mexicans living here -- the perpetually quoted "11 million" figure is a hoax and a joke.
  27. @dc.sunsets
    I have a hard time not using profanity here.

    Do you ever set foot in a store nowadays? Have you not noticed that a trip to a Walmart in the USA is not recognizably different from going to one in Cancun, QR (Mexico)?

    Net migration OUT? On what planet, or under the influence of WHAT HALLUCINOGEN?

    That’s what the data say, apparently. Do you have contrary data or just anecdotes about your last trip to Walmart?

    Read More
  28. @jtgw
    I don't have time for bullshit semantics arguments. You know perfectly well what I meant: that more people are moving from the US to Mexico than vice versa. Now if that's not true, I'd like to see your sources. It honestly makes sense to me: the American economy is sluggish, so why would people move here? Mexico on the other hand seems to be developing more rapidly, so I'd expect people to move there for jobs, particularly if they are low-skilled and will work for lower wages.

    I don’t have time for bullshit semantics arguments. You know perfectly well what I meant: that more people are moving from the US to Mexico than vice versa.

    You are entitled to whatever opinion you like. In my opinion, any set of recognized (and official) stats recorded — such as those for people voluntarily and officially leaving the US for Mexico — is going to be larger than any official stat for illegals entering the US, since there ARE NO accurate (and official) statistics for the real number of illegal aliens entering the US.

    Illegal aliens enter at will. No tally is kept. There is no border enforcement. The very notion that “more people are moving from the US to Mexico” is bullshit. There are at least 50 million illegal Mexicans living here — the perpetually quoted “11 million” figure is a hoax and a joke.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    I think you're right to be suspicious of the government. I also think that your objection concerning the number of incoming illegals makes sense: we may not be able to track them accurately at all. However, that cuts both ways: we may not be able to track those who return to Mexico having been here illegally. If the borders are as porous as you say, there's no reason why migration may not go under the radar in both directions.

    What raises alarm bells for me is the call to expand government power. Wouldn't the government be eager to finally set up a new national ID? People here object that we already have many different IDs and ways for the government to track us, but that doesn't mean we should add more. Remember that E-Verify will punish any employer who hires a native under the table, not just an illegal immigrant.

    Instead of trying to expand the police state, why not think of ways in which government currently exacerbates this problem and try to roll it back?

  29. The libertarian argument is “get rid of the welfare state” and they’ll stop coming. Ron Paul makes this argument, Larry Elder does, I imagine John Stossel does and so do most libertarians. It’s fine in theory, but we not dealing with theory here. The welfare state is not going away in the lifetime of anybody old enough to post comments here.

    What the libertarians also fail to realize is that for libertarianism to work you have to have a population with (a) above average intelligence, (b) an above average work ethic, (c) above average levels of societal trust among unrelated individuals, and (d) high future time orientation. And by the way, a common spoken language and relative ethnic homogeneity are probably necessary too. Libertarianism might have worked in the days of Grover Cleveland, but those days are long gone and they’re not coming back.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    Libertarians (who are basically just anti-war liberals now) are cheerfully oblivious of this http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/294109-gary-johnson-has-serious-problems-with-term-illegal
    , @jtgw
    If our society is so intelligent, why did we create so much welfare in the first place?

    Some of the reports I get from Mexico suggest that in many ways they are far more libertarian than we are at this point, e.g. in healthcare. You can buy services out of pocket there that you would not be able to afford in the US.
  30. Eliminate incentives for those who would come here to live off the rest of us, and make it easier and more rational for those who wish to come here legally to contribute to our economy. No walls, no government databases, no biometric national ID cards. But not a penny in welfare for immigrants. It’s really that simple.

    A partial solution at best, but better than nothing. It will work better if companies that employ illegals face heavy fines for each illegal discovered in their employment. Say $50k per wetback.

    And Paul is completely wrong when he says Trumps ideas won’t work. They will and Eisenhower proved it 62 years ago in Operation Wetback.

    Read More
  31. @Sgt. Joe Friday
    The libertarian argument is "get rid of the welfare state" and they'll stop coming. Ron Paul makes this argument, Larry Elder does, I imagine John Stossel does and so do most libertarians. It's fine in theory, but we not dealing with theory here. The welfare state is not going away in the lifetime of anybody old enough to post comments here.

    What the libertarians also fail to realize is that for libertarianism to work you have to have a population with (a) above average intelligence, (b) an above average work ethic, (c) above average levels of societal trust among unrelated individuals, and (d) high future time orientation. And by the way, a common spoken language and relative ethnic homogeneity are probably necessary too. Libertarianism might have worked in the days of Grover Cleveland, but those days are long gone and they're not coming back.

    Libertarians (who are basically just anti-war liberals now) are cheerfully oblivious of this http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/294109-gary-johnson-has-serious-problems-with-term-illegal

    Read More
  32. @John Jeremiah Smith

    I don’t have time for bullshit semantics arguments. You know perfectly well what I meant: that more people are moving from the US to Mexico than vice versa.
     
    You are entitled to whatever opinion you like. In my opinion, any set of recognized (and official) stats recorded -- such as those for people voluntarily and officially leaving the US for Mexico -- is going to be larger than any official stat for illegals entering the US, since there ARE NO accurate (and official) statistics for the real number of illegal aliens entering the US.

    Illegal aliens enter at will. No tally is kept. There is no border enforcement. The very notion that "more people are moving from the US to Mexico" is bullshit. There are at least 50 million illegal Mexicans living here -- the perpetually quoted "11 million" figure is a hoax and a joke.

    I think you’re right to be suspicious of the government. I also think that your objection concerning the number of incoming illegals makes sense: we may not be able to track them accurately at all. However, that cuts both ways: we may not be able to track those who return to Mexico having been here illegally. If the borders are as porous as you say, there’s no reason why migration may not go under the radar in both directions.

    What raises alarm bells for me is the call to expand government power. Wouldn’t the government be eager to finally set up a new national ID? People here object that we already have many different IDs and ways for the government to track us, but that doesn’t mean we should add more. Remember that E-Verify will punish any employer who hires a native under the table, not just an illegal immigrant.

    Instead of trying to expand the police state, why not think of ways in which government currently exacerbates this problem and try to roll it back?

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    Instead of trying to expand the police state, why not think of ways in which government currently exacerbates this problem and try to roll it back?
     
    The totalitarian state being developed cannot be rolled back. I'm just looking to keep the US as prosperous as possible, and the importation of millions of non-English-speaking menials is not the way to accomplish that. But, I have no illusions; the oligarchy will bring in aliens until their hurdle rates decrease. If they gave a shit about the Americans before them, who fought to keep this country prosperous and free, things might be different.
    , @Ron Unz

    What raises alarm bells for me is the call to expand government power. Wouldn’t the government be eager to finally set up a new national ID? People here object that we already have many different IDs and ways for the government to track us, but that doesn’t mean we should add more. Remember that E-Verify will punish any employer who hires a native under the table, not just an illegal immigrant.
     
    Well, I'm no expert about the E-Verify system and certainly not an ideological libertarian, but those sorts of proposals really do raise all sorts of serious doubts in my mind. Here's something I wrote on the subject over twenty years ago:

    A national ID database represents the slipperiest of all civil liberty slopes. A system employing tens of thousands of government clerks and administrators and costing tens of billions of dollars to build and operate would surely not remain limited to catching illegal nannies. Why not use it, at virtually no additional cost, to track convicted child molesters as well? Who would dare object? Why not then also track the movements of convicted murderers. And rapists. And drug dealers and felons in general. And fathers behind on their child support. And tax-evaders. And “political extremists.” Members of “religious cults.” Drug addicts. AIDS carriers. Gun owners. With each turn of the political cycle, left and right would add their favorite batch of social enemies to the surveillance list.

    Or consider employment issues. Since every private employer would have to obtain federal authorization before offering any individual a job, a database record of race, ethnicity and gender could be used as an extraordinarily direct means of enforcing future affirmative action regulations. Imagine business owners receiving computerized responses such as “employment permission denied; you already employ too many white males.”
     
    http://www.unz.com/article/big-brother-meet-big-sister/
  33. @Sgt. Joe Friday
    The libertarian argument is "get rid of the welfare state" and they'll stop coming. Ron Paul makes this argument, Larry Elder does, I imagine John Stossel does and so do most libertarians. It's fine in theory, but we not dealing with theory here. The welfare state is not going away in the lifetime of anybody old enough to post comments here.

    What the libertarians also fail to realize is that for libertarianism to work you have to have a population with (a) above average intelligence, (b) an above average work ethic, (c) above average levels of societal trust among unrelated individuals, and (d) high future time orientation. And by the way, a common spoken language and relative ethnic homogeneity are probably necessary too. Libertarianism might have worked in the days of Grover Cleveland, but those days are long gone and they're not coming back.

    If our society is so intelligent, why did we create so much welfare in the first place?

    Some of the reports I get from Mexico suggest that in many ways they are far more libertarian than we are at this point, e.g. in healthcare. You can buy services out of pocket there that you would not be able to afford in the US.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sgt. Joe Friday
    Good question. Lots of moving parts to the answer too, but I'm sure the 19th amendment plays no small part.

    And I am sure that Mexico, being more of a MYOB sort of place has certain aspects to daily life that would be more libertarian than ours. Their government is certainly an example of fiscal restraint and rectitude compared to ours, with a debt to GDP ratio of around 35%, while ours is getting close to 100%, if not higher.
  34. @jtgw
    If our society is so intelligent, why did we create so much welfare in the first place?

    Some of the reports I get from Mexico suggest that in many ways they are far more libertarian than we are at this point, e.g. in healthcare. You can buy services out of pocket there that you would not be able to afford in the US.

    Good question. Lots of moving parts to the answer too, but I’m sure the 19th amendment plays no small part.

    And I am sure that Mexico, being more of a MYOB sort of place has certain aspects to daily life that would be more libertarian than ours. Their government is certainly an example of fiscal restraint and rectitude compared to ours, with a debt to GDP ratio of around 35%, while ours is getting close to 100%, if not higher.

    Read More
  35. @jtgw
    I think you're right to be suspicious of the government. I also think that your objection concerning the number of incoming illegals makes sense: we may not be able to track them accurately at all. However, that cuts both ways: we may not be able to track those who return to Mexico having been here illegally. If the borders are as porous as you say, there's no reason why migration may not go under the radar in both directions.

    What raises alarm bells for me is the call to expand government power. Wouldn't the government be eager to finally set up a new national ID? People here object that we already have many different IDs and ways for the government to track us, but that doesn't mean we should add more. Remember that E-Verify will punish any employer who hires a native under the table, not just an illegal immigrant.

    Instead of trying to expand the police state, why not think of ways in which government currently exacerbates this problem and try to roll it back?

    Instead of trying to expand the police state, why not think of ways in which government currently exacerbates this problem and try to roll it back?

    The totalitarian state being developed cannot be rolled back. I’m just looking to keep the US as prosperous as possible, and the importation of millions of non-English-speaking menials is not the way to accomplish that. But, I have no illusions; the oligarchy will bring in aliens until their hurdle rates decrease. If they gave a shit about the Americans before them, who fought to keep this country prosperous and free, things might be different.

    Read More
  36. @jtgw
    I think you're right to be suspicious of the government. I also think that your objection concerning the number of incoming illegals makes sense: we may not be able to track them accurately at all. However, that cuts both ways: we may not be able to track those who return to Mexico having been here illegally. If the borders are as porous as you say, there's no reason why migration may not go under the radar in both directions.

    What raises alarm bells for me is the call to expand government power. Wouldn't the government be eager to finally set up a new national ID? People here object that we already have many different IDs and ways for the government to track us, but that doesn't mean we should add more. Remember that E-Verify will punish any employer who hires a native under the table, not just an illegal immigrant.

    Instead of trying to expand the police state, why not think of ways in which government currently exacerbates this problem and try to roll it back?

    What raises alarm bells for me is the call to expand government power. Wouldn’t the government be eager to finally set up a new national ID? People here object that we already have many different IDs and ways for the government to track us, but that doesn’t mean we should add more. Remember that E-Verify will punish any employer who hires a native under the table, not just an illegal immigrant.

    Well, I’m no expert about the E-Verify system and certainly not an ideological libertarian, but those sorts of proposals really do raise all sorts of serious doubts in my mind. Here’s something I wrote on the subject over twenty years ago:

    A national ID database represents the slipperiest of all civil liberty slopes. A system employing tens of thousands of government clerks and administrators and costing tens of billions of dollars to build and operate would surely not remain limited to catching illegal nannies. Why not use it, at virtually no additional cost, to track convicted child molesters as well? Who would dare object? Why not then also track the movements of convicted murderers. And rapists. And drug dealers and felons in general. And fathers behind on their child support. And tax-evaders. And “political extremists.” Members of “religious cults.” Drug addicts. AIDS carriers. Gun owners. With each turn of the political cycle, left and right would add their favorite batch of social enemies to the surveillance list.

    Or consider employment issues. Since every private employer would have to obtain federal authorization before offering any individual a job, a database record of race, ethnicity and gender could be used as an extraordinarily direct means of enforcing future affirmative action regulations. Imagine business owners receiving computerized responses such as “employment permission denied; you already employ too many white males.”

    http://www.unz.com/article/big-brother-meet-big-sister/

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    Thanks for the link!
    , @John Jeremiah Smith

    Well, I’m no expert about the E-Verify system and certainly not an ideological libertarian, but those sorts of proposals really do raise all sorts of serious doubts in my mind.
     
    It cannot be stopped; it is the nature of totalitarianism to demand and enforce the most invasive systems of citizen surveillance as men and machines can make possible.

    Don't fall prey to any belief that government actors have any motivations other than command and control. Plus, of course, spoils from taxation, corruption, and bribery. Not for a New York minute does any FBI agent, CIA agent, or any of the eager volunteers for "law enforcement" have the slightest concern for civil liberties and Constitutional rights. Sure, lip service as needed, but actions to demonstrate support of concept? Of course not. Has there been any decrease in application rates for Fed, state, and local "law enforcement" jobs? Of course not.

    Let them bring out e-Verify. It might help, for awhile, but the central problem is not identification and border protection -- it's the willingness of the gubmint, and all its many agents, actors, promoters, advocates and professional liars, to act in support of rights and privileges of honest and productive citizens.

    Do you see any evidence of that happening? If my experience is any indicator, the gubmint has worked diligently to disenfranchise and despoil America since, oh, about 1965.

    There's two cents for ya. ;-)
  37. @Ron Unz

    What raises alarm bells for me is the call to expand government power. Wouldn’t the government be eager to finally set up a new national ID? People here object that we already have many different IDs and ways for the government to track us, but that doesn’t mean we should add more. Remember that E-Verify will punish any employer who hires a native under the table, not just an illegal immigrant.
     
    Well, I'm no expert about the E-Verify system and certainly not an ideological libertarian, but those sorts of proposals really do raise all sorts of serious doubts in my mind. Here's something I wrote on the subject over twenty years ago:

    A national ID database represents the slipperiest of all civil liberty slopes. A system employing tens of thousands of government clerks and administrators and costing tens of billions of dollars to build and operate would surely not remain limited to catching illegal nannies. Why not use it, at virtually no additional cost, to track convicted child molesters as well? Who would dare object? Why not then also track the movements of convicted murderers. And rapists. And drug dealers and felons in general. And fathers behind on their child support. And tax-evaders. And “political extremists.” Members of “religious cults.” Drug addicts. AIDS carriers. Gun owners. With each turn of the political cycle, left and right would add their favorite batch of social enemies to the surveillance list.

    Or consider employment issues. Since every private employer would have to obtain federal authorization before offering any individual a job, a database record of race, ethnicity and gender could be used as an extraordinarily direct means of enforcing future affirmative action regulations. Imagine business owners receiving computerized responses such as “employment permission denied; you already employ too many white males.”
     
    http://www.unz.com/article/big-brother-meet-big-sister/

    Thanks for the link!

    Read More
  38. @dc.sunsets
    As a recovering libertarian anarchist, I concur. The central blindness of doctrinaire libertarians is their own embrace of a version of Blank Slate.

    Libertarians can't imagine that others really, truly aren't like them. They think everyone, if given the right "incentives" (which are aligned with what libertarians dream of as "human nature"), will engage in a society that resembles a bunch of Northern European & English aristocrats having a polite, but energetic debate about what toppings to order for the pizza.

    It never occurs to the truly libertarian mind that other people could be, at the population level, intrinsically different...for example, that other peoples could see the "fair play" openness and trust of Western society as nothing but a weakness to be mercilessly exploited.

    The openness and trust of societies of people whose ancestors lived within the Hajnal Line is unique. All the other peoples of the world do not share it, and the paradox is that while that High Trust society is part of what makes the West so productive, it is the rest of the world's peoples who are hell bent on leveraging that trust to hijack the West and kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

    “It never occurs to the truly libertarian mind that other people could be, at the population level, intrinsically different…for example, that other peoples could see the “fair play” openness and trust of Western society as nothing but a weakness to be mercilessly exploited.”

    The operative word here is “could be”. You make the assumption that ethnic groups who are other than European are simply subhuman creatures who gleefully crash our gates and consume everything in sight like voracious wolves. One could use your logic that tribal groups who had welcomed their strange visitors–European explorers–with open arms were then ravaged beyond recognition because of their perceived character flaws of kindness and respect. Thus, under this context, remember who began this “invade the world, invite the world” quest.

    “The openness and trust of societies of people whose ancestors lived within the Hajnal Line is unique. All the other peoples of the world do not share it, and the paradox is that while that High Trust society is part of what makes the West so productive, it is the rest of the world’s peoples who are hell bent on leveraging that trust to hijack the West and kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.”

    No one group has the monopoly on “high trust”, nor is Western Civilization “trust” better or worse non-Western Civilization. How does one even measure that phenomenon?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim
    The level of trust in different societies across the world does vary enormously. The quality of life created by different peoples also varies enormously. There is not a great desire across the world to emigrate to say Southern Sudan. There are good reasons for that.

    As for tribal groups who supposedly welcomed European explorers and then were ravaged, their fate should be a warning to us about the immigration of alien people. Possibly Australian Aborigines regret that they didn't have more effective immigration control policies.

    The people of Sentinel Island kill anyone who approaches their island. They are believed to have lived there for 60,000 years. Perhaps their long history of survival there has something to do with their practice of killing strangers.
  39. 1) We already have a national ID, it’s called your social security number. Let’s make it more secure.

    2) The ‘wall’, actually double or triple layer fencing, works. It has cut illegal crossings in the San Diego sector by 95%. You can look it up.

    3) White males (and females) are already discriminated against, with or without national ID.

    Read More
  40. @dc.sunsets
    I'll quibble: The "living wage" term is a red herring.

    During the last 50 years of monetary madness, under a full fiat regime money was produced in frankly unprecedented quantities. It was a phenomenal inflation.

    Why don't we see it that way? The vast increase in monetary wealth (mostly sitting in an Ocean of bonds and other long-term IOU's including pension promises) didn't flow into wages or goods/services.

    Why not?

    1. Manufacturing was packed up and shipped to 3rd world countries that engaged in a monster game of export mercantilism. The USA was saturated with low-cost junk from China, so goods prices (e.g., clothing, electronics) went low and stayed low.

    2. Both at the bottom (Mestizos) and top (H1-B visa) level of employment, the USA was flooded with willing workers from foreign countries. This massive glut of worker supply kept wages from rising, so that corporate profits as a share of GDP skyrocketed.

    3. As the vastly inflated dollar wealth sloshed around, one isolated asset market after another experienced booms and busts like never in 300 years of history. Stocks, commodities, gold & silver and then real estate all went up, down, up, down....but overall, they're vastly higher than 35 years ago when bond prices bottomed and interest rates topped. People (especially rich people) feel wealthier.

    So a "living wage" is leftist Newspeak for what should have occurred naturally, that wages would have risen and inflation would have been recognized two or three decades ago, back when things were still sort of fixable.

    Now, things are so far off track that the process of getting back to "normal" (or reverting to a mean of some sort) promises social, political and economic cataclysm as far as the eye can see.

    When I was a kid, a man could support a family of four (complete with a nice home in the suburbs) on what a barber made.

    What's the difference now?

    Friction. The political process has, like a parasite, fastened endless dead-weight costs on productivity, so that it takes almost two "barber jobs" to make it, one to earn a living and the other to pay for all the costs (mostly medical services now, plus huge taxes supporting a labyrinth of set-asides, payoffs, bribes and such) embedded in our system.

    I’m using the term “living wage” to differentiate from the “slave wage” illegal aliens are able to survive on. Illegals are able to live on such a low wage because, at least in NY, they are given free food, free clothing, free medical care and, often, subsidized housing. But I’m in full agreement with all the points you’ve made.
    Perhaps a better term would be “legal wage?”

    Read More
  41. @jtgw
    There isn't a fixed amount of work or a fixed number of jobs to go around. Immigrants also bring with them a demand for goods and services. Also, if they allow some companies to make more money by working for lower wages with the same rate of productivity, those companies can then invest more and create more wealth and jobs.

    On paper your points might look good, in the real world, not so much. Illegal aliens are net users of social services, and because most are no-skilled or low skilled, will never earn enough to pay into the system. They receive Medicare, subsidized housing, free clothing and food stamps in NY State, how is this good for the American citizen? For the most part, they work off the books, also, so because they show no income, their kids will get free breakfast and lunch in school and then be eligible for free college if they graduate from high school, taking scholarships and grants from your kids. Are you really okay with that? Do you have no loyalty to your fellow citizens?

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    I'm not OK with that, but I don't think the answer is to deprive businesses of cheap labor while leaving the rest of the welfare state intact. That only makes it harder for them to stay in business, at least not without passing the costs onto consumers, many of whom are also poor. Government intervention just messes things up.

    Think about all the issues you listed. Can't you see how our laws and regulations make legal labor prohibitively expensive? It's just like drug prohibition; there is a demand that cannot be quenched, so criminalization only drives it underground and creates even more social problems.
  42. @dc.sunsets

    We aren’t going to deny health care to illegal aliens, and we’re not going to deny anything to their American born kids.
     
    Exactly. Emilia shows up at the ER with her 5 year old daughter who has pneumonia. Who thinks she'll be turned away?

    That's WELFARE, Ron. WELFARE.

    I was never a Ron Paul cultist, but the older I get, the more I see how profoundly blindered is that man. He seems incapable of imagining that the collective social urges of humans render the dynamic system we call humanity, and that ideologically pure libertarianism is fully Utopian in every aspect thereby.

    In Texas illegal aliens use ER care for routine medical problems. Not only is this costly for the taxpayers but it means that patients who really do need emergency care are less likely to get high quality care.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter
    The Death Panel wants it that way. What better way to get rid of "useless eaters" than have them die in ERs while illegal aliens go before them?
  43. @Corvinus
    "It never occurs to the truly libertarian mind that other people could be, at the population level, intrinsically different…for example, that other peoples could see the “fair play” openness and trust of Western society as nothing but a weakness to be mercilessly exploited."

    The operative word here is "could be". You make the assumption that ethnic groups who are other than European are simply subhuman creatures who gleefully crash our gates and consume everything in sight like voracious wolves. One could use your logic that tribal groups who had welcomed their strange visitors--European explorers--with open arms were then ravaged beyond recognition because of their perceived character flaws of kindness and respect. Thus, under this context, remember who began this "invade the world, invite the world" quest.

    "The openness and trust of societies of people whose ancestors lived within the Hajnal Line is unique. All the other peoples of the world do not share it, and the paradox is that while that High Trust society is part of what makes the West so productive, it is the rest of the world’s peoples who are hell bent on leveraging that trust to hijack the West and kill the goose that lays the golden eggs."

    No one group has the monopoly on "high trust", nor is Western Civilization "trust" better or worse non-Western Civilization. How does one even measure that phenomenon?

    The level of trust in different societies across the world does vary enormously. The quality of life created by different peoples also varies enormously. There is not a great desire across the world to emigrate to say Southern Sudan. There are good reasons for that.

    As for tribal groups who supposedly welcomed European explorers and then were ravaged, their fate should be a warning to us about the immigration of alien people. Possibly Australian Aborigines regret that they didn’t have more effective immigration control policies.

    The people of Sentinel Island kill anyone who approaches their island. They are believed to have lived there for 60,000 years. Perhaps their long history of survival there has something to do with their practice of killing strangers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    Plenty of explorers were killed (and in the case of some, like Verazzano, eaten) by natives. Corvinus is interested in the peddling of white guilt, not actual history.
  44. @Jim
    The level of trust in different societies across the world does vary enormously. The quality of life created by different peoples also varies enormously. There is not a great desire across the world to emigrate to say Southern Sudan. There are good reasons for that.

    As for tribal groups who supposedly welcomed European explorers and then were ravaged, their fate should be a warning to us about the immigration of alien people. Possibly Australian Aborigines regret that they didn't have more effective immigration control policies.

    The people of Sentinel Island kill anyone who approaches their island. They are believed to have lived there for 60,000 years. Perhaps their long history of survival there has something to do with their practice of killing strangers.

    Plenty of explorers were killed (and in the case of some, like Verazzano, eaten) by natives. Corvinus is interested in the peddling of white guilt, not actual history.

    Read More
  45. @Rich
    On paper your points might look good, in the real world, not so much. Illegal aliens are net users of social services, and because most are no-skilled or low skilled, will never earn enough to pay into the system. They receive Medicare, subsidized housing, free clothing and food stamps in NY State, how is this good for the American citizen? For the most part, they work off the books, also, so because they show no income, their kids will get free breakfast and lunch in school and then be eligible for free college if they graduate from high school, taking scholarships and grants from your kids. Are you really okay with that? Do you have no loyalty to your fellow citizens?

    I’m not OK with that, but I don’t think the answer is to deprive businesses of cheap labor while leaving the rest of the welfare state intact. That only makes it harder for them to stay in business, at least not without passing the costs onto consumers, many of whom are also poor. Government intervention just messes things up.

    Think about all the issues you listed. Can’t you see how our laws and regulations make legal labor prohibitively expensive? It’s just like drug prohibition; there is a demand that cannot be quenched, so criminalization only drives it underground and creates even more social problems.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    I read Atlas Shrugged, too, I still don't agree with your premise. Wages are not prohibitively expensive, the cost of a new house, or kitchen or ham sandwich hasn't gone down or even remained where it was ten years ago, all have increased. Owners of these businesses are taking advantage of the lower wages they pay, in violation of American law, to make more profits for themselves. Millions of illegal aliens clogging up our social welfare system and working for slave wages will simply depress the wages of American citizens. This will eventually lead to the US becoming a second world nation with a very small middle class. You may favor that, I strongly disagree with you.
  46. The battle against illegal immigration is a ploy to gain more control over our lives. We are supposed to be terrified of the hoards of Mexicans streaming into our country and thus grant the government new authority over the rest of us. But in fact a Pew study found that between 2009 and 2014 there was a net loss of 140,000 Mexican immigrants from the United States. Yes, this is a government “solution” in search of a real problem.

    Right, Mexicans are just brown skinned libertarians, so what’s the big deal? Since estimates of illegals in this country range from upwards to 30 million I’d say it’s a genuine problem and not a manufactured one as Ron Paul is insinuating.

    Read More
  47. @dc.sunsets
    I'll quibble: The "living wage" term is a red herring.

    During the last 50 years of monetary madness, under a full fiat regime money was produced in frankly unprecedented quantities. It was a phenomenal inflation.

    Why don't we see it that way? The vast increase in monetary wealth (mostly sitting in an Ocean of bonds and other long-term IOU's including pension promises) didn't flow into wages or goods/services.

    Why not?

    1. Manufacturing was packed up and shipped to 3rd world countries that engaged in a monster game of export mercantilism. The USA was saturated with low-cost junk from China, so goods prices (e.g., clothing, electronics) went low and stayed low.

    2. Both at the bottom (Mestizos) and top (H1-B visa) level of employment, the USA was flooded with willing workers from foreign countries. This massive glut of worker supply kept wages from rising, so that corporate profits as a share of GDP skyrocketed.

    3. As the vastly inflated dollar wealth sloshed around, one isolated asset market after another experienced booms and busts like never in 300 years of history. Stocks, commodities, gold & silver and then real estate all went up, down, up, down....but overall, they're vastly higher than 35 years ago when bond prices bottomed and interest rates topped. People (especially rich people) feel wealthier.

    So a "living wage" is leftist Newspeak for what should have occurred naturally, that wages would have risen and inflation would have been recognized two or three decades ago, back when things were still sort of fixable.

    Now, things are so far off track that the process of getting back to "normal" (or reverting to a mean of some sort) promises social, political and economic cataclysm as far as the eye can see.

    When I was a kid, a man could support a family of four (complete with a nice home in the suburbs) on what a barber made.

    What's the difference now?

    Friction. The political process has, like a parasite, fastened endless dead-weight costs on productivity, so that it takes almost two "barber jobs" to make it, one to earn a living and the other to pay for all the costs (mostly medical services now, plus huge taxes supporting a labyrinth of set-asides, payoffs, bribes and such) embedded in our system.

    Interesting and very well said; has given me “food for thought.”

    Read More
  48. @Ron Unz

    What raises alarm bells for me is the call to expand government power. Wouldn’t the government be eager to finally set up a new national ID? People here object that we already have many different IDs and ways for the government to track us, but that doesn’t mean we should add more. Remember that E-Verify will punish any employer who hires a native under the table, not just an illegal immigrant.
     
    Well, I'm no expert about the E-Verify system and certainly not an ideological libertarian, but those sorts of proposals really do raise all sorts of serious doubts in my mind. Here's something I wrote on the subject over twenty years ago:

    A national ID database represents the slipperiest of all civil liberty slopes. A system employing tens of thousands of government clerks and administrators and costing tens of billions of dollars to build and operate would surely not remain limited to catching illegal nannies. Why not use it, at virtually no additional cost, to track convicted child molesters as well? Who would dare object? Why not then also track the movements of convicted murderers. And rapists. And drug dealers and felons in general. And fathers behind on their child support. And tax-evaders. And “political extremists.” Members of “religious cults.” Drug addicts. AIDS carriers. Gun owners. With each turn of the political cycle, left and right would add their favorite batch of social enemies to the surveillance list.

    Or consider employment issues. Since every private employer would have to obtain federal authorization before offering any individual a job, a database record of race, ethnicity and gender could be used as an extraordinarily direct means of enforcing future affirmative action regulations. Imagine business owners receiving computerized responses such as “employment permission denied; you already employ too many white males.”
     
    http://www.unz.com/article/big-brother-meet-big-sister/

    Well, I’m no expert about the E-Verify system and certainly not an ideological libertarian, but those sorts of proposals really do raise all sorts of serious doubts in my mind.

    It cannot be stopped; it is the nature of totalitarianism to demand and enforce the most invasive systems of citizen surveillance as men and machines can make possible.

    Don’t fall prey to any belief that government actors have any motivations other than command and control. Plus, of course, spoils from taxation, corruption, and bribery. Not for a New York minute does any FBI agent, CIA agent, or any of the eager volunteers for “law enforcement” have the slightest concern for civil liberties and Constitutional rights. Sure, lip service as needed, but actions to demonstrate support of concept? Of course not. Has there been any decrease in application rates for Fed, state, and local “law enforcement” jobs? Of course not.

    Let them bring out e-Verify. It might help, for awhile, but the central problem is not identification and border protection — it’s the willingness of the gubmint, and all its many agents, actors, promoters, advocates and professional liars, to act in support of rights and privileges of honest and productive citizens.

    Do you see any evidence of that happening? If my experience is any indicator, the gubmint has worked diligently to disenfranchise and despoil America since, oh, about 1965.

    There’s two cents for ya. ;-)

    Read More
  49. @Jason Liu
    Authortarianism is only bad if it's leftist. If anything you could use a right-wing authortarian for a few decades right now, just to clean house.

    I hope you are being facetious.

    Read More
  50. @jtgw
    None of the critics here are really engaging with the claim that worries about immigration are empirically unfounded. If there is net emigration to Mexico, what are the immigration skeptics up in arms about? It sounds like they're just creating a new public scare as an excuse to expand the state further.

    None of the critics here are really engaging with the claim that worries about immigration are empirically unfounded.

    Yes they are, you just choose to ignore them. The claims that illegal immigration harm our economy, our welfare system, taxpayers, workers, especially in the lower skilled areas and now in the skilled trades such as construction. Our government is the enemy of freedom and prosperity. It actively harms its own citizens by allowing foreign workers to take jobs from citizens and it uses destructive regulation and taxation to drive jobs and manufacturing out of our country.

    It doesn’t take an economist to understand this, but it does take the willful blindness of an ideologue to pretend it doesn’t exist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    It's clear that by "citizens" you only mean citizens who earn wages. What about citizens who make their money from running businesses? Why should they be forced to pay higher wages than necessary, which can harm their ability to stay in business, which in turn ultimately just hurts the consumers they serve? A lot of small farmers get hurt when there are crackdowns on illegal farm laborers. Do they not count? Don't pretend that your class warfare is just an expression of national solidarity.

    In any case, if you knew economics you would understand how there is not a fixed amount of work. A short-term influx of labor can drive down wages, but by providing businesses with more capital those businesses can then expand and provide more jobs. Throughout the high immigration period of the turn of the 20th century, real wages were rising and productivity was skyrocketing.
  51. @woodNfish

    None of the critics here are really engaging with the claim that worries about immigration are empirically unfounded.
     
    Yes they are, you just choose to ignore them. The claims that illegal immigration harm our economy, our welfare system, taxpayers, workers, especially in the lower skilled areas and now in the skilled trades such as construction. Our government is the enemy of freedom and prosperity. It actively harms its own citizens by allowing foreign workers to take jobs from citizens and it uses destructive regulation and taxation to drive jobs and manufacturing out of our country.

    It doesn't take an economist to understand this, but it does take the willful blindness of an ideologue to pretend it doesn't exist.

    It’s clear that by “citizens” you only mean citizens who earn wages. What about citizens who make their money from running businesses? Why should they be forced to pay higher wages than necessary, which can harm their ability to stay in business, which in turn ultimately just hurts the consumers they serve? A lot of small farmers get hurt when there are crackdowns on illegal farm laborers. Do they not count? Don’t pretend that your class warfare is just an expression of national solidarity.

    In any case, if you knew economics you would understand how there is not a fixed amount of work. A short-term influx of labor can drive down wages, but by providing businesses with more capital those businesses can then expand and provide more jobs. Throughout the high immigration period of the turn of the 20th century, real wages were rising and productivity was skyrocketing.

    Read More
  52. Apparently it isn’t clear enough because I mean citizens – legal citizens. Businesses aren’t “forced to pay higher wages than necessary”, they have to pay the prevailing wage. If that is higher than what they are now paying then they have to adapt. That is what business does. Maybe it means less gross profit, maybe they decide to raise prices on their products or services. Maybe they cut back on another expense to absorb the cost. Maybe they decide it is cheaper to go out of business.

    A lot of small farmers get hurt when there are crackdowns on illegal farm laborers.

    Why, because they make less profit and it hurts their greedy little minds having to pay a higher wage? Too bad. That’s business. Here in the Northeast, the government fixes prices on milk so small family dairy farms can stay in business by screwing their customers with higher than market prices. If those dairy farms can’t stay in the dairy business without price controls they have no business being in business.

    Throughout the high immigration period of the turn of the 20th century, real wages were rising and productivity was skyrocketing.

    And then the globalist traitors found another way to line their pockets with even more money by selling off our manufacturing to foreign competitors and today we are having trouble competing and there are fewer and fewer good paying jobs and our own government helped this happen and is busy making it worse for its own citizens. So now today, it takes both the husband and the wife to earn enough to live a middle class lifestyle and women no longer want and families cannot afford large numbers of children because of globalism and illegals immigrants and traitors selling off our productivity for a few pieces of silver, and whites will soon be a minority in the country they founded and created so race traitors can line their pockets.

    Globalism = white genocide.

    Read More
  53. The communist government claimed in 1961 that it had to build a wall around the portion of Berlin it controlled to keep the population safe from the evil capitalist wreckers and saboteurs. It didn’t take long for the world to realize that the real threat to the East German leaders was that the people trapped in East Berlin would try to get out. We have all seen the horrific videos of East German civilians risking – and losing – their lives to escape that prison of razor wire and cinder block.

    Is this really what we want for our own future?

    Ron Paul spend decades on Capital Hill. He knows that lot better than most. He’s fought against the contrived wars and against the Fed. He understands the nature of the Fiend.

    The US government has one ally for whom it can never, ever do enough. It’s called a ‘wag the dog’ relationship for good reason, as if the US was literally their bitch, to be ordered around like a simpering dog. When the president of that country doesn’t like something the US president does, he comes to the home and house of the US president and chides and humiliates him in front of a slavishly sycophantic US congress, who treat the leader of that foreign nation as if he were their feared emperor. With the ‘emperor’s minions pouring over videos of the assembled courtiers for any sign of insufficient obeisance.

    The reason this country and its leader are treated with such slavish groveling by our US congressmen and every other organ of our state, is because this “shitty little country” is a country that belongs to a tribe of people whose assorted minions or tribal cohorts control everything of consequence at the highest levels of the US (and England and France and Germany and many other Western nations as well). Including its media, it big banks, the Federal Reserve Bank, Wall Street, the universities, the courts, the intelligence and spy acronyms, CIA, FBI, NSA, ATF, the phone and cable companies, and so on. All this requires the acquiescence of assorted goys all around, but when push comes to shove, the US support for things like Israel, (no matter how heinous their actions) is always absolute. Same with support for the big banks, no matter how criminal or fraudulent, when push comes to shove, the big banks are bowed down to. And when questioned about all of this, the response from our congress or media is uniformly slavish, “the emperors clothes are resplendent!”

    Now, why do I belabor all of this that you all already know? Because I want to point out that if there’s virtually zero sunlight between the governments of Israel and the US. Then please consider how it is that the government of Israel, (the Tweedledee to our Tweeldedumb) treats its gentile second-class citizens.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/31/gaza-borders_n_5630811.html

    Now, also please consider a theory of mine (I know, I know) but please humor me. I suspect that the main reason the Berlin Wall came down was because it just wasn’t needed anymore. The Bolsheviks had crossed long ago, and were now as much in control of the West as they ever were in control of Russia and the East.

    Also please consider the fate of the Kulaks of the Ukraine during the early 1930s, who until Kaganovich arrived with his NKVD Bolshevik henchmen, were perfectly happy and healthy and thriving and prospering farmers. Minding their own business, they weren’t hurting anyone, indeed, they were feeding millions, as they were the most successful farmers in the entire region. And it was because of this, because they were hardy and successful and noticeably more able and capable than some of the other resentful tribes, that they were systemically starved to death by the millions.

    Now, it could be that all of that was a completely different time, and that all those tribal proclivities and hostilities are all a thing of the distant and forgotten past. And that now, if the tribal descendants of those Soviet murderers are in control of the US, why it’s silly to think they harbor any animosities against gentiles at all! Nonsense!

    All those people like Ted Nugent saying ‘the Jews are coming for our guns’, is just anti-Semitic ranting and frothing. And we can all be assured that Senator Chucky Schumer and Diane Feinstein and Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Bill Maher and William Kristol and Noel Ignatiev and all the rest of the anti-gun creeps are only interested in protecting children, and that they love us fellow American Christian Gentiles more than they love Israel, and that they’d never, ever want to see us treated like Palestinians! Why that’s crazy!

    But yet, I wonder..

    and when I consider Dr. Paul’s warning to us, regarding this wall, and all the surveillance, and the lists and increasing police state brutality and unaccountability, and all the rest…

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-trains-us-law-enforcement-in-counter-terrorism/

    just Google or Bing something like this

    ‘Israel trains US law-enforcement’

    (you’ll get millions of hits)

    they read our emails and listen to our phone calls. They control our media and fecal government in absolute terms. They dominate the courts and train our police and fecal agents.

    so all I’m saying is that when someone like Dr. Paul warns us that they might be using all of this to turn us all into Palestinians, (even if it only is ‘Palestinian lite’) then I sort of listen..

    just sayin’

    Read More
  54. @in the middle
    Rich:

    if you are willing to come over and do my house's yard work, you are welcome, until then, please keep your wall to your self. No one needs a wall, what we do need is to recognize that we do have a criminal and corrupt country south of the border, which to some extend is our own fault. Our huge demand for their drugs which causes violence and crime there and here, its our own making. Lets terminate such, and the problem is resolved. We need to work in our drug demand here in the USA, and then use our stern and forceful way to make Mexican corrupts, I mean government to clean up house, or otherwise we will Iraq their ass! Problem solved.

    Our huge demand for their drugs which causes violence and crime there and here, its our own making

    I’m so sick of this left-wing/Libertarian talking point. When it was RJ Reynolds targeting kids with Joe Camel, the tobacco companies were the most evil drug pushers in the history of the world and needed to be stopped — immediately. When it’s El Chapo and the Sinaloa Cartel, well…we really need to do something about our voracious drug appetites! We certainly can’t expect savvy businessmen like the Mexican cartels to stop their enterprising activities, including the decapitation of rival gang members and cross-border raids into Arizona. After all we like their product!

    Read More
  55. @jtgw
    I'm not OK with that, but I don't think the answer is to deprive businesses of cheap labor while leaving the rest of the welfare state intact. That only makes it harder for them to stay in business, at least not without passing the costs onto consumers, many of whom are also poor. Government intervention just messes things up.

    Think about all the issues you listed. Can't you see how our laws and regulations make legal labor prohibitively expensive? It's just like drug prohibition; there is a demand that cannot be quenched, so criminalization only drives it underground and creates even more social problems.

    I read Atlas Shrugged, too, I still don’t agree with your premise. Wages are not prohibitively expensive, the cost of a new house, or kitchen or ham sandwich hasn’t gone down or even remained where it was ten years ago, all have increased. Owners of these businesses are taking advantage of the lower wages they pay, in violation of American law, to make more profits for themselves. Millions of illegal aliens clogging up our social welfare system and working for slave wages will simply depress the wages of American citizens. This will eventually lead to the US becoming a second world nation with a very small middle class. You may favor that, I strongly disagree with you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    You have to ask yourself what's different about today compared with a century ago. As I said, there was a lot of immigration a century ago, but wages were rising and prices were falling. The answer is that back then, taxes were much lower, welfare hardly existed, there was only a tiny fraction of the current number of regulations, and we had a gold standard and no central bank (up till 1913).
  56. @Rich
    I read Atlas Shrugged, too, I still don't agree with your premise. Wages are not prohibitively expensive, the cost of a new house, or kitchen or ham sandwich hasn't gone down or even remained where it was ten years ago, all have increased. Owners of these businesses are taking advantage of the lower wages they pay, in violation of American law, to make more profits for themselves. Millions of illegal aliens clogging up our social welfare system and working for slave wages will simply depress the wages of American citizens. This will eventually lead to the US becoming a second world nation with a very small middle class. You may favor that, I strongly disagree with you.

    You have to ask yourself what’s different about today compared with a century ago. As I said, there was a lot of immigration a century ago, but wages were rising and prices were falling. The answer is that back then, taxes were much lower, welfare hardly existed, there was only a tiny fraction of the current number of regulations, and we had a gold standard and no central bank (up till 1913).

    Read More
  57. I have no problem with lower taxes, with less welfare or less regulation. I’m not completely sold on the gold standard, though, and I’ve heard some very good arguments both for and against central banks. All that being said, illegal immigration must be stopped if Americans don’t want their living standards to drop precipitously and the only way it will ever be stopped, apparently, is with a wall and E-verify. I’ve seen no other options that seem workable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    Illegal immigration is problematic, just as terrorism is problematic. But to me the solution to terrorism is to put a stop to interventionism and nation-building, not to expand the surveillance state and curtail civil liberties. It goes similarly for illegal immigration; we should fight it by dealing with the problems that give rise to illegal immigration and make it so costly for us, i.e. burdensome taxes and regulations that make legal labor prohibitive. I agree that we can't have unlimited immigration while we have a welfare state and no way to wall off welfare completely from immigrants and their dependents, but as long as we have an economy and a welfare state, we are providing the incentives for illegal immigration to fill that niche.

    The gold standard keeps governments honest; that's how I look at it. You can have your welfare state, but when the dollar is tied to gold you really have to put up the money for it; you can't just keep putting it on your tab and expect the next generation to pay for it.

  58. @Rich
    I have no problem with lower taxes, with less welfare or less regulation. I'm not completely sold on the gold standard, though, and I've heard some very good arguments both for and against central banks. All that being said, illegal immigration must be stopped if Americans don't want their living standards to drop precipitously and the only way it will ever be stopped, apparently, is with a wall and E-verify. I've seen no other options that seem workable.

    Illegal immigration is problematic, just as terrorism is problematic. But to me the solution to terrorism is to put a stop to interventionism and nation-building, not to expand the surveillance state and curtail civil liberties. It goes similarly for illegal immigration; we should fight it by dealing with the problems that give rise to illegal immigration and make it so costly for us, i.e. burdensome taxes and regulations that make legal labor prohibitive. I agree that we can’t have unlimited immigration while we have a welfare state and no way to wall off welfare completely from immigrants and their dependents, but as long as we have an economy and a welfare state, we are providing the incentives for illegal immigration to fill that niche.

    The gold standard keeps governments honest; that’s how I look at it. You can have your welfare state, but when the dollar is tied to gold you really have to put up the money for it; you can’t just keep putting it on your tab and expect the next generation to pay for it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    I don't disagree with your anti-welfare stance, I just don't believe it's politically feasible in the US today where close to 50% of the population receives some kind of welfare benefit. This being the case, allowing millions of barely literate illegal aliens onto the American dole is insanity. The only way to prevent this, is to prevent their entry into the country and if they manage to sneak over the border, E-Verify is the only feasible system to prevent law breaking employers from hiring them. With the technology available today, it would be a simple matter to end illegal immigration. Building a wall helps to prevent feckless politicians in the future from turning a blind eye in order to get their payoff from wealthy constituents who want to pay slave wages to illegal aliens. It seems like common sense to me, where am I wrong?
    As far as the gold standard argument goes. there are two sides to it and both, at least to me, make very good arguments. I'm not sold on gold although I understand the wariness people have with trusting faceless bureaucrats in NYC with monetary control. If you look at what the French tried to do in 1971, it seems understandable that the US had to leave the gold standard.
  59. Burdensome national ID and right to work laws?? Does Rand Paul spend his spare time putting squeezed toothpaste back into the tube?

    Read More
  60. @Jim
    In Texas illegal aliens use ER care for routine medical problems. Not only is this costly for the taxpayers but it means that patients who really do need emergency care are less likely to get high quality care.

    The Death Panel wants it that way. What better way to get rid of “useless eaters” than have them die in ERs while illegal aliens go before them?

    Read More
  61. @jtgw
    Illegal immigration is problematic, just as terrorism is problematic. But to me the solution to terrorism is to put a stop to interventionism and nation-building, not to expand the surveillance state and curtail civil liberties. It goes similarly for illegal immigration; we should fight it by dealing with the problems that give rise to illegal immigration and make it so costly for us, i.e. burdensome taxes and regulations that make legal labor prohibitive. I agree that we can't have unlimited immigration while we have a welfare state and no way to wall off welfare completely from immigrants and their dependents, but as long as we have an economy and a welfare state, we are providing the incentives for illegal immigration to fill that niche.

    The gold standard keeps governments honest; that's how I look at it. You can have your welfare state, but when the dollar is tied to gold you really have to put up the money for it; you can't just keep putting it on your tab and expect the next generation to pay for it.

    I don’t disagree with your anti-welfare stance, I just don’t believe it’s politically feasible in the US today where close to 50% of the population receives some kind of welfare benefit. This being the case, allowing millions of barely literate illegal aliens onto the American dole is insanity. The only way to prevent this, is to prevent their entry into the country and if they manage to sneak over the border, E-Verify is the only feasible system to prevent law breaking employers from hiring them. With the technology available today, it would be a simple matter to end illegal immigration. Building a wall helps to prevent feckless politicians in the future from turning a blind eye in order to get their payoff from wealthy constituents who want to pay slave wages to illegal aliens. It seems like common sense to me, where am I wrong?
    As far as the gold standard argument goes. there are two sides to it and both, at least to me, make very good arguments. I’m not sold on gold although I understand the wariness people have with trusting faceless bureaucrats in NYC with monetary control. If you look at what the French tried to do in 1971, it seems understandable that the US had to leave the gold standard.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    I think the government makes it very hard to deal with illegal immigration in a way that enhances liberty. For example, it is already much easier to persecute those who employ illegal workers than it is to prevent illegal aliens from obtaining public benefits. So those illegals who at least in some way contribute to the economy are persecuted, but those who leech off the taxpayer are rewarded. All I can do is promote what I think is a program that takes apart the welfare state, which is the real source of all these ills.

    I recommend this article that clarifies the difference between libertarian and conservative attitudes, which is also relevant to our differing approaches to the immigration problem.

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/09/norman-horn/problem-american-conservatism/
  62. @Rich
    I don't disagree with your anti-welfare stance, I just don't believe it's politically feasible in the US today where close to 50% of the population receives some kind of welfare benefit. This being the case, allowing millions of barely literate illegal aliens onto the American dole is insanity. The only way to prevent this, is to prevent their entry into the country and if they manage to sneak over the border, E-Verify is the only feasible system to prevent law breaking employers from hiring them. With the technology available today, it would be a simple matter to end illegal immigration. Building a wall helps to prevent feckless politicians in the future from turning a blind eye in order to get their payoff from wealthy constituents who want to pay slave wages to illegal aliens. It seems like common sense to me, where am I wrong?
    As far as the gold standard argument goes. there are two sides to it and both, at least to me, make very good arguments. I'm not sold on gold although I understand the wariness people have with trusting faceless bureaucrats in NYC with monetary control. If you look at what the French tried to do in 1971, it seems understandable that the US had to leave the gold standard.

    I think the government makes it very hard to deal with illegal immigration in a way that enhances liberty. For example, it is already much easier to persecute those who employ illegal workers than it is to prevent illegal aliens from obtaining public benefits. So those illegals who at least in some way contribute to the economy are persecuted, but those who leech off the taxpayer are rewarded. All I can do is promote what I think is a program that takes apart the welfare state, which is the real source of all these ills.

    I recommend this article that clarifies the difference between libertarian and conservative attitudes, which is also relevant to our differing approaches to the immigration problem.

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/09/norman-horn/problem-american-conservatism/

    Read More
  63. I think the government makes it very hard to deal with illegal immigration in a way that enhances liberty.

    And the reason to “deal with” illegal aliens in terms of providing or enhancing “liberty” would be what, exactly? Are you saying we should provide liberty to illegal aliens? How about they provide themselves with liberty in their own countries? Too revolutionary a concept for you, neocon?

    For example, it is already much easier to persecute those who employ illegal workers than it is to prevent illegal aliens from obtaining public benefits.

    Gasp!!! Those pore l’il employers of illegal aliens!! Getting the old “up the foo-foo” treatment, are they? How cruel, inhuman and unjust it would be to enforce laws against the employment of illegals, huh? Dem pore l’ill employers would have to take a cut in profits!! Damn!! How crool to the rich can you neocons be?

    Sorry, neocon. Get the illegals out. Fine and imprison their employers. Enforce the law.

    You should stop bullshitting and start trying to change the immigration laws you don’t like. Should be easy because all the rich people would support you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    You know there are more choices than alt right and neocon? I'm a libertarian. Look it up.
  64. @John Jeremiah Smith

    I think the government makes it very hard to deal with illegal immigration in a way that enhances liberty.
     
    And the reason to "deal with" illegal aliens in terms of providing or enhancing "liberty" would be what, exactly? Are you saying we should provide liberty to illegal aliens? How about they provide themselves with liberty in their own countries? Too revolutionary a concept for you, neocon?

    For example, it is already much easier to persecute those who employ illegal workers than it is to prevent illegal aliens from obtaining public benefits.
     
    Gasp!!! Those pore l'il employers of illegal aliens!! Getting the old "up the foo-foo" treatment, are they? How cruel, inhuman and unjust it would be to enforce laws against the employment of illegals, huh? Dem pore l'ill employers would have to take a cut in profits!! Damn!! How crool to the rich can you neocons be?

    Sorry, neocon. Get the illegals out. Fine and imprison their employers. Enforce the law.

    You should stop bullshitting and start trying to change the immigration laws you don't like. Should be easy because all the rich people would support you.

    You know there are more choices than alt right and neocon? I’m a libertarian. Look it up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    You know there are more choices than alt right and neocon? I’m a libertarian. Look it up.
     
    There are? Fancy that.

    "Libertarian" is a label to avoid, these days. The political party is a pack of maroons. For that matter, even the classic Millsian libertarian semi-"ethical" philosophy is sorely lacking.
  65. @jtgw
    You know there are more choices than alt right and neocon? I'm a libertarian. Look it up.

    You know there are more choices than alt right and neocon? I’m a libertarian. Look it up.

    There are? Fancy that.

    “Libertarian” is a label to avoid, these days. The political party is a pack of maroons. For that matter, even the classic Millsian libertarian semi-”ethical” philosophy is sorely lacking.

    Read More
  66. @dc.sunsets
    I'll quibble: The "living wage" term is a red herring.

    During the last 50 years of monetary madness, under a full fiat regime money was produced in frankly unprecedented quantities. It was a phenomenal inflation.

    Why don't we see it that way? The vast increase in monetary wealth (mostly sitting in an Ocean of bonds and other long-term IOU's including pension promises) didn't flow into wages or goods/services.

    Why not?

    1. Manufacturing was packed up and shipped to 3rd world countries that engaged in a monster game of export mercantilism. The USA was saturated with low-cost junk from China, so goods prices (e.g., clothing, electronics) went low and stayed low.

    2. Both at the bottom (Mestizos) and top (H1-B visa) level of employment, the USA was flooded with willing workers from foreign countries. This massive glut of worker supply kept wages from rising, so that corporate profits as a share of GDP skyrocketed.

    3. As the vastly inflated dollar wealth sloshed around, one isolated asset market after another experienced booms and busts like never in 300 years of history. Stocks, commodities, gold & silver and then real estate all went up, down, up, down....but overall, they're vastly higher than 35 years ago when bond prices bottomed and interest rates topped. People (especially rich people) feel wealthier.

    So a "living wage" is leftist Newspeak for what should have occurred naturally, that wages would have risen and inflation would have been recognized two or three decades ago, back when things were still sort of fixable.

    Now, things are so far off track that the process of getting back to "normal" (or reverting to a mean of some sort) promises social, political and economic cataclysm as far as the eye can see.

    When I was a kid, a man could support a family of four (complete with a nice home in the suburbs) on what a barber made.

    What's the difference now?

    Friction. The political process has, like a parasite, fastened endless dead-weight costs on productivity, so that it takes almost two "barber jobs" to make it, one to earn a living and the other to pay for all the costs (mostly medical services now, plus huge taxes supporting a labyrinth of set-asides, payoffs, bribes and such) embedded in our system.

    So damned right. The primary culprit is indeed Fed Reserve inflationary policy that has robbed the general population of a huge portion of the productivity gains of the last century. Combine that with all the other meddling of the govt and the leech-like Leviathon it has created (i.e. the admin state) and the out of control immigration (legal & illegal) and we have the result that we live with today.

    It makes my heart hurt to think of what could have been in the absence of all that. What a wonderful (though not utopian/perfect, no doubt) society we would have here in the U.S.! What a shame.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ron Paul Comments via RSS