Sin Fronteras

We are often told that immigration is a complex policy issue, with a lot of competing interests to sort out, finicky bureaucratic details to adjust, and a desperate need for civility and compromise. We’re told that it’s complicated because we need to balance complicated economic and humanitarian needs, on the one hand, with the varying interests of U.S. workers, the social welfare system, the education system, our culture and heritage, law and order, and national security. Hand-wringers, both liberal and conservative, like this line, because it allows them to portray themselves as sensible middle-of-the-roaders without actually committing themselves to any serious challenge to the immigration system as it currently stands. Taking a principled stand on immigration policy will likely get you involved in emotional fights; fiddling with the system to tweak it here and there, but leaving it essentially as it stands, allows you to dismiss opponents as unrealistic zealots and try to move on to something that you feel more comfortable talking about, like Social Security or the upcoming Presidential election.

But immigration is not a complex policy issue. It is a simple moral issue: peaceful people should never be physically attacked just for trying to move from one place to another. Innocent people should not be at the mercy of the State just because they have moved into a home where they are welcome and gotten a job with a willing employer, in a desire to make a better life for themselves.

Nativist bullies often like to pretend to be friends of labor; so they whine about the effects that immigrant workers have on wages, forgetting, or deliberately ignoring, the fact that the immigrant workers’ wages go up when they come to the U.S. — that is, after all, why they do it — and therefore their proposal boils down to using government violence to prop up one set of workers’ wages, by physically forcing another, poorer set of workers out of the country. That’s outrageously immoral.

Nativists who complain endlessly about the alleged burden that undocumented immigrants place on the welfare state or the educational system wilfully disregard the fact that undocumented immigrants pay most state and local taxes (as well as federal taxes, if they’re working with forged documents), while having no access to most federal benefits and many state benefits. When confronted with the fact that, even in those cases where undocumented immigrants are net tax recipients, they are no different from any suburban brat, elderly pensioner, or subsidized plantation-owner in the ever-expanding welfare state, they will routinely state that, since the welfare system is unlikely to be abolished in the near term, they prefer to get the government to attack immigrants, because undocumented immigrants are more politically vulnerable than native-born welfare recipients, or the welfare system as such. Targeting the weakest people, even though they are not to blame for the existence of the political system at the root of your complaint, because it’s easier to take it out on them than it is to challenge that system, is grossly immoral.

When challenged, nativists are often unwilling to cop to the fact that they are, in fact, proposing for force to be used towards these ends — as if deportation consisted of a nice crossing guard escorting you home, rather than forcible exile from your current home at the hands of armed men who will restrain, beat, or shoot you if you don’t comply with their orders. A while ago, when I dared to explain to a commenter at Vox Populi that his proposal of ending massive unskilled immigration necessarily entailed being willing to forcibly restrain, beat, shoot, confine, and exile from their current homes those unskilled immigrants who did not volunteer to leave at your command, my interlocutor was outraged that I’d go around telling me I’m willing to do hitler like things and that even deportation does not mean forcibly restrain, beat, shoot,. [sic] If you think the US government would do that, and if you think white americans would countenance that, you are deluded. Well, what do the mass deportation and mass interdiction plans mean, then? A polite request that the immigrant can ignore and remain in the country unmolested? If so, I have no real quarrel with it, but it’s not a deportation policy. If you do intend to back it up, then forcible exile is indeed what you intend to do, and forcible restraint and confinement, with beating or shooting as necessary to make it happen, are the necessary means. If you’re not actually willing to cop to that, you’re not actually willing to enforce an immigration policy. If you’re willing for it to be done, but prefer to cover the fact over with bullshit euphemisms, then you are no less immoral; you’re just insisting on immorality with a P.R. campaign to cover it up and spin it beyond recognition.

Meanwhile, the efforts that professional-class Sensible Liberals make to intervene in the debate rarely amount to anything more than minor fiddling. While they rightly condemn the violent racism of the most bellicose nativist factions, their concrete proposals would almost never make any large-scale or systematic changes to the existing system of international apartheid and internal anti-immigrant surveillance. At most they would like to carve out a few new exceptions — perhaps for the same-sex partners of gay immigrants — or lift a few caps here and there — perhaps allowing a handful more political refugees per year. Mostly what passes for pro-immigrant rhetoric from liberals and Progressives is calling for increases to the funding or scope of government welfare and social work agencies, perhaps with some bilingual application forms. As worthwhile as it would be to liberalize immigration policy wherever and to whatever extent it can be liberalized, it must never be forgotten that all these proposals invariably leave La Migra, the border cops, the immigration courts, the detention centers, the Ihre Papiere, bitte treatment for new employees, and all the rest of the sprawling system of government command and control still in place. Millions of peaceful, productive people will still be stopped, screened, harassed, restrained, confined, or exiled by the government based solely on their nationality. Millions of undocumented workers will continue to live with the looming threat of losing their livelihoods, their homes, and even their families to a forced deportation. Millions of refugees will continue to languish, to starve, and to die in concentration camp hellholes because the wealthy nations of the world continue to stop them, at bayonet-point, from moving on to a new home and a new life.

Meanwhile, any extended debate or controversy over immigration policy is usually waved off by Sensible Liberals as unimportant, or as a distraction from issues that white liberals are more comfortable talking about. In the few cases where they do say a few words about the need for a substantially new approach to immigration, their proposed moderate reforms end up dressing up crude nativism in reformist language. While calling for a mild liberalization of immigration policy, they scrupulously avoid the unforgivable sin of supporting an extremist or unrealistic idea by reiterating and reinforcing echt-Nativist nonsense about assimilation or American jobs. Occasionally this is followed up by suggestions for creating new programs, or escalating existing programs, that are actively harmful to the lives and livelihoods of undocumented workers, such as so-called demand-side policies to penalize Americans who offer work, loans, homes, or other goods and services to undocumented immigrants. The idea is to forcibly drive down the demand for immigrant labor, which means forcing willing immigrant workers into unemployment, and whitewashing this anti-worker legislation with pseudo-populist rhetoric about greedy corporations—sometimes on the implicit claim that American workers are more deserving than other workers, simply on the basis of their nationality, and sometimes on the even more outrageous claim that forced pauperism is for the immigrants’ own good.

Perhaps the only consolation is that Sensible Liberals’ attempts to intervene in the debate and shift the rhetoric towards moderation have been so completely ineffectual. This controversy, like the debate over slavery, like the debate over abortion, and like all other controversies over simple moral issues, is and should be a debate between extremists, not a case for middle-of-the-roader rhetoric or halfway-house solutions. It is immoral for the government to stop, harass, restrain, confine, and exile peaceful people from their current homes, solely on the basis of their nationality. It is criminal that even one refugee cannot immediately escape from danger, or must live even one day longer penned up in a refugee concentration camp, simply because governments in the U.S. and Western Europe continue to enforce the SS St. Louis immigration policy. It is inexcusable that even one undocumented worker should have to live in fear of emergency workers, neighbors, or her boss, simply because she failed to get a signed permission slip from the federal government before she set out to make a living.

And it is ridiculous that these facts continue to be obscured by nativist bullying, by national security mysticism, or by pseudo-reformist wonkery-wankery. Goodbye to all that. The demand for open borders and immediate amnesty is simplistic, naïve, starry-eyed, unrealistic, extremist, uncompromising, radical, and also obviously correct. It is your job, reader, to live up to the best part of yourself and make that demand loudly, courageously, without compromise and without apology. Mumbling dismissal and pseudo-reformist compromise mean not prudence, but complicity.

Smash international apartheid, now and forever.

29 replies to Sin Fronteras Use a feed to Follow replies to this article · TrackBack URI

  1. Venus Cassandra

    Bravo! Charles. I was just thinking about the “they take lots of low key or unpleasant jobs” argument for undcoumented workers recently. My question about it was “so, are these jobs below the status of Americans who were born here?”

    Anyhow, I completely agree that the right of free migration is the basis for defending independent migrants ( to borrow Sheldon Richman’s term).

  2. Discussed at www.paxx.tv

    paxx:blog » Blog Archive » Gegen Grenzen 2:

    […] passend zu unserer Diskussion findet sich bei Rad Geek eine Erörterung der aktuellen amerikanischen Einwanderungspolitik. Besonders treffend m.E. […]

  3. Discussed at www.unpartisan.com

    Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator:

    Thompson Reveals Social Security Plans…

    Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson yesterday proposed slowing the growth of Social Sec…

  4. Bunty

    It really rather astounds me that people can accept the idea so easily, that someone can become ‘illegal’ merely due to their geographic location. That a person can be intrinsically ‘illegal’.

    Yet the same people would consider a system that forbids emigration (such as that of North Korea or that the Soviet bloc and the Middle Kingdom used to have) to be a thoroughly barbaric and authoritarian discipline.

    But in the end, it’s the self same thing.

    Need a new French Resistance, to secret away and assist ‘refugees’ from our own occupying states.

    http://www.noborder.org/

  5. Sergio Méndez

    Charles:

    Excelent post (as usual). And now being a legal imigrant in Spain (who has suffered the humilliating and long process to get a VISA) just cause I happen to be a colombian, I can understand from direct experience all your points. Couldn´t agree more.

  6. Discussed at radgeek.com

    Rad Geek People’s Daily 2007-11-13 – The Border Wall:

    […] not exist at all, and the men and women who decide to join it are, whether they realize it or not, violently inflicting injustices on innocent people every day, as an essential part of their job duties. Cruz seems to me like a basically decent man with an […]

  7. Ma-cia-no

    This has got to be the most insane thing I ever read on immigration. Ever. “Smash international apartheid”?! My dear god, how far devorced from reality are you?

    I consider myself a libertarian, but I could never agree to admit third world peoples en masse to Western countries. Why would I? They’ve got their own countries, get something done over there.

    If not, you’re simply importing poverty, alien cultures, backward principles, ethnic strive and therefore help big government grow further. Not a very good strategy for libertarianism in my opinion.

    So, if people want to live here, they should be invited, (not the other way around) or be able to support themselves by buying a house or something. Immigrants with some good educational backgrounds, scientists, artists and ambitious entrepreneurs are (ofcourse) also welcome. But why would you want to import a new underclass? I doesn’t make sense.

    Grow some brains and have some solidarity with the next generations. You want your children to grow up in multicultural hellholes or the West? (Just a reminder, the culture which gave you freedom and wealth. No other culture ever gave anyone anything close to our freedoms and wealth).

    Julian Simon’s work is phenomenal, but his work on immigration needs some real critical rethinking.

  8. Rad Geek

    I could never agree to admit third world peoples en masse to Western countries.

    Nobody is asking you to, dude.

    You are free to admit or to turn away any immigrant that you like, for any reason that you like — on your own property. If anyone denies your right to turn out trespassers on your land, I’ll be the first to get your back. But what I object to is the notion that you have the same proprietary interest in the collective whole of what you call the Western countries (did Mexico move to the east of the U.S. while I wasn’t looking?). In reality, you have no business at all commandeering other people’s property for the use of your ethno-demographic power trip. And you have no business going around the country, barging onto other people’s property where you’re not invited, and rounding up, restraining, confining, dispossessing and exiling workers who have never committed any crime against your person or your property, solely on the basis of their nationality. That is plainly and obviously immoral, whatever demographic results you may think that you can get out of it.

    So, if people want to live here, they should be invited, (not the other way around) or be able to support themselves by buying a house or something.

    There is already a law to handle people who live on land that they don’t own and where they have not been invited. It’s called trespassing, and it has nothing in particular to do with immigration policy. If you support any kind of restrictive immigration policy, then what you propose doing is sending around an armed gang to round up, restrain, confine, dispossess, and exile individual people who have been invited to live where they are living (by their landlord), who have been invited to work where they are working (by their boss), who have been invited to hang out where they are hanging out (by the owners of the establishment), and who are doing absolutely nothing at all to mess with your equal liberty to do the same.

    Furthermore, you propose to create and sustain an extensive government apparat of border cops, border checkpoints, border walls, identification papers, work papers, citizenship papers, police raids, detention camps, internal surveillance, immigration courts, immigration bureaucrats, and internal surveillance, all of whom must participate in stopping, screening, searching, poking, prodding, harassing, recording, and stamping every one of us, because there is no way to separate out immigrants from non-immigrants without creating and enforcing a government system of documentation, and there is no way of finding the undocumented immigrants without treating everybody like presumptive criminals and giving them the Ihre Papiere, bitte treatment. All of it, mind you, paid for with money that was taken by force, through taxation, and much of it forced on third parties (e.g. employers, who are required to do the government’s surveillance work on all their new employees) who do not have any real interest in participating.

    If you believe in that kind of crap, then you may be many things, but you are certainly not a libertarian, and the sooner you quit calling yourself one, the better it will be for everybody.

    You want your children to grow up in multicultural hellholes or the West?

    Oh, God forbid we should end up in some multicultural hellhole. We might end up like Switzerland!

    As for Julian Simon’s work on immigration, I’m not especially familiar with it, beyond some summary overviews. But nothing in particular turns on it, as far as I can see. My point does not primarily have to do with what the practical demographic results of open borders would be. My point has to do with the obvious and gross immorality of violently commandeering individual people’s lives, livelihoods, and property in order to try to force your preferred demographic results on the rest of the country. That point would remain whether or not you would like the changes that might come to the ol’ neighborhood.

    Coerced collectivism and government social engineering do not trump the rights and dignity of individual people any more here than they do anywhere else.

  9. Ma-cia-no

    I am aware that Western peoples are first and foremost themselves responsible for their demographic decline. I don’t blame immigrants for being who or what they are. In my book, they act naturally, all they seem to be doing is raising families and improving their positions. Hell, my ex-wife’s Chinese!

    You’re clearly intelligent, so it’s not that you don’t get what I’m talking about. You honestly believe it doesn’t matter what the demography of your country is? You even say, demography can’t be influenced —- well, ending mass immigration would help.

    Go to Brazil or South-Africa, you’ll soon learn what it’s like to be a minority. If you want to turn the US into that, well.. Good luck with that one. (Switzerland is not multicultural, it’s as monocultural as it gets. Suburbia as a country, have you been there?)

    Explain the “immorality” of borders to your children. They will probably end up many things, except for “libertarian”. The sooner you realise that, the better it will be for everyone.

    PS I used to think free migration and open borders were good thing. At the time, I was young and idealistic. Now, I know how damaging mass immigration is for culture and freedoms.

    Even if open border third world immigration was an economic booster, than it would still hurt immaterial wealth enormously.

  10. Rad Geek

    You honestly believe it doesn’t matter what the demography of your country is?

    I have my own opinions about cultural exchange and pluralistic societies. But those views aren’t really much at issue here. If you have a problem with the demographics in your own country, you have every right to try to change that through any nonviolent means — persuasion, boycotts, vigorous procreation with a willing partner, or whatever. What you have no right to do is to try to solve demographic or cultural problems through the use of government violence and social engineering. Ever. For any reason. Period.

    As for Switzerland, I have been there, as a matter of fact, and I deny that your characterization of it is accurate. Switzerland is hardly monocultural; it sits right in the middle of four different nationalities, and due to the Swiss’s record of toleration, there has always been a significant immigrant population. But Switzerland has remained peaceful and prosperous for centuries, not because of some kind of mythical homogeneity, but rather because any potential conflicts have largely been defused by Switzerland’s radical political decentralization.

    But whether I am right or whether I am wrong, very little turns on what one makes of Switzerland. Whatever the long-term prospects for societies with large populations of immigrants or lots of cultural heterogeneity, there can be no justice in trying to fix your social problems with government violence against peaceful people.

  11. Lisa Casanova

    You’re simply importing poverty, alien cultures, backward principles, ethnic strive…

    Because…what? Those are features of all those non western societies? Thank goodness we have no social problems here in America! No poverty, no people with misguided principles, no strife, and certainly no racism! Sorry, but just because you’re xenophobic and happened to grow up here doesn’t mean that the U.S. is your personal gated community. Geez.

  12. Ma-cia-no

    @Radgeek

    In that sense, I can relate. I’m against the use of violence. Above all, the demographic problem is a specific Western problem. I don’t blame muslims or Mexicans for having families. (Rather the opposite, I think it’s a good thing they value family life.)

    Switzerland is as white and Western a country as they come. Even the immigrants are mostly from European countries. Above all, the Swiss do not take in all that come along, passports and citizenships are not merely insignificant papers and statuses over there.

    @Lisa Casanova

    Just ask a Chinese, Japanese, Nigerian, Mexican, Russian, Israeli, Turk or a Jordanian if they would allow third world mass-immigration to their countries. I don’t think so, hell I even know so. Just check Pew global attitudes. http://tinyurl.com/2lxqrp

    I never lived in a gated community —- wish I had though. It seems quite nice looking at the OC or 90210, I rather would have lived there than anywhere else —-, you’re probably projecting your own life.

    I just love the way you immediately throw in the ‘xenofobic’ charge, it doesn’t work with me. The use of the ‘racist’ remark has become almost synonymous for every person not PC-brainwashed —- you always end arguments like this? Smart girl..

    I never claimed the US should be some ethnostate like China, but you can’t seem to see the difference between admitting mass third world immigration and sensible immigration control to maintain our (Western) level of civilization.

    You rather live in the privileged American gated communities, which ooze sophistication, family life and civilized manners? Or do you prefer the French suburbs? —- or southern California for that matter.

  13. Sergio Méndez

    Ma=Cia

    You rather live in the privileged American gated communities, which ooze sophistication, family life and civilized manners? Or do you prefer the French suburbs? —- or southern California for that matter.

    You seem to believe that the problem in places like French suburbs is caused by the immigrants, and not the xenophobia of many ordinary french citizens or the fact that the french state treats many of the people living in those suburbs, many of them french citizens by right, as second class citizens. In other words, you are a racist and a bigot. Just cause you dont realize it or cause you think it is a slur trown at your for having a different opinionj, doesnt mean that you or anybody cant be called that way when the situation demands it.

  14. Ma-cia-no

    @Sergio Mendéz

    I really love guys like you. No content, you just go right for the kill.

    You think that all problems stem from the environment, well they do not, i.e. Chinese, Eastern Europeans or Indians do very well in France or the UK. The problem lies in the immigrant culture, it’s as simple as that.

    The French society has become skeptic to immigration, because of immigrant behaviour —- not the other way around, they weren’t skeptic to begin with.

    Just try to live in some of these suburbs, before you judge a whole country. (Note: non-Western immigration to France already occurred around 1910 or so, way before other Western countries opened up. Yeah, real, real racist..)

    The french society you like to judge brought many things to humanity, much more than you probably know of. Then again, that wasn’t your point anyway. You just wanted to show your own moral antiracist superiority.

    If my honest opinion or my sincere feelings are deemed ‘bigot’ or ‘racist’, well to hell with people like you. I don’t give a crap. (Btw, can’t you read? I just said I didn’t care what you call me.)

    If you’re right, you should refute the content. I didn’t see you that, which I can understand. You probably don’t have any arguments whatsoever in favour of mass third world immigration, except for the moral highground.

  15. Laura J.

    … is “the moral highground” a bad place to stand?

  16. Ma-cia-no

    If morals are perverted, yes.

    People have a moral obligation to leave a better country behind for their offspring, than they were given. I don’t think a country, or any country for that matter, benefits, enriches or gets better in any sense, by admitting tens of millions of people —- even if they were first world from France, UK or Japan.

    Upward mobility has stagnated throughout the West, especially among immigrant populations. Why? I really don’t know, as I wrote above, I used to be in favour of free immigration, but now no more.

    First world nations are net importing underclasses of foreign peoples. Do you think that’s moral, to leave your offspring an ethnically more divided country than you were given? Let’s say the chance of a future problem would be 5%-15%, fairly small. Would you take that chance with your country? Japan, Russia and China wouldn’t do that.

    You know, I hope you guys (and girls) are right. I really hope you are right about this one. Your vision of humanity seems to be a positive upbeat one, a vision of progress and ever more civilization. I myself am not so sure, ethnic strive has been a constant throughout human history, especially when economies slow down or youth bulges and population densities occur.

    Even homogeneous populations like China and Russia can be broken up by ideologies that break societies up in rivalling classes. What do you think multiculturalism and mass immigration will do for the West? Diversity is no strength, it’s a curse.

    So, that’s why I think the antiracist moral highground is false and superficial. It’s an empty, feebleminded, even selfish pose. The moral highground should be to leave a better country than you were given. If that makes me a freak in your books, so be it.

  17. Sergio Mendez

    I don’t think a country, or any country for that matter, benefits, enriches or gets better in any sense, by admitting tens of millions of people —- even if they were first world from France, UK or Japan.

    You don´t think…but how do you know, cause I think it is the contrary. Many south american third world countries have become richer by first world countries emigration (Argentina being an excelent example of that in th XX century). An many first world countries have become richer by first and second world country emigrants (labor, new consumers, culturaly etc), being an example of that the United States. In fact the US, having still a lot of loopholes in imigration policy, is far better and fare ahead in that respect than European nations, where xenophobia is the rule.

    *Upward mobility has stagnated throughout the West, especially among immigrant populations. *

    I don´t know if that is the case. But if it is, you have to ask you WHY. You seem to assume is the fault of imigrants. I suspect it has more to do with the fact that imigrants are persecuted and reduced to a status of second class human beings by…restrictive imigration laws.

    Do you think that’s moral, to leave your offspring an ethnically more divided country than you were given?

    You see why I call you a bigot. You think that a pluralistic society is evil per se. Where I come from we have a saying “el que se las imagina las hace” (the ones who imagines it does it). You are affraid of a pluralistic sociwety cause from your POV it is normal and acceptable that in a society there is a rulling ethnic dominant group that submits all others. Being so, is naturall you think that is the way others will act if they become dominant. So, you think, after all, that in a pluralistic society different ethnic groups will be competing to become THE DOMINANT group. I am sorry to inform you that not all share that machiavelic logic.

  18. Ma-cia-no

    “European nations, where xenophobia is the rule.”

    Isn’t this racist? Big no-no! Whatever it is, it’s nonsense. European countries have admitted millions of poor people from all over the world. You clearly haven’t been there.

    As a libertarian —- considering I am one in your books —-, I believe that every individual is and should be free to develop themselves. Immigrants are more free in Western countries than anywhere else, so if they fail, it’s their own fault. Clear and simple.

    Group identity is a fact of life, my friend and you know it. Only ideological Marxists and PC brainwashed college grads could disagree. They don’t call the Republicans the white man’s party for nothing, just as the Democrates bow to every other special interest group. I hate that stuff too, but don’t act as if it isn’t true.

    It’s kind of funny though, libertarians are usually non-PC and more open and tolerant to other opinions than their own or popular ones. Not all, so I see.

    PS As a non-Anglophone speaker, I thought it was “Machiavellian”, instead of “Macchiavelic”

    Anyway, last comment. I brought forth all my points. None of them were really debunked, so..

  19. Sergio Méndez

    Ma Cia

    Isn’t this racist? Big no-no! Whatever it is, it’s nonsense. European countries have admitted millions of poor people from all over the world. You clearly haven’t been there.

    You don´t seem to gasp well the idea. Just cause european countries have admited millions of imigrants, that hardly means there is not a xenophobic sentiment in many of the european states toward those people. And I know that not only cause I´ve been here many times (aside the fact that I live right now in an european country), but because I read the news, the press, and I ´ve being following european politics from years and seen the rise of many extreme right wing parties with a xenophobic plataform, starting with France and the National Front from mr Lepin.

    As a libertarian —- considering I am one in your books —-, I believe that every individual is and should be free to develop themselves. Immigrants are more free in Western countries than anywhere else, so if they fail, it’s their own fault. Clear and simple.

    Well, as Radgeek pointed, you are not a libertarian since you favor the sole existence of imigration restrictions by nation states. But then, your reasonment is not libertarian at all, anyways. It is as simple as immigrants (specially illegal ones) don´t have the same rights and the same status than natives, even if they get better chances than in many of their original countries to improve their situation, that I can say that they are not free as the natives they have to live with, and thus not as sucessfull.

    Group identity is a fact of life, my friend and you know it. Only ideological Marxists and PC brainwashed college grads could disagree. They don’t call the Republicans the white man’s party for nothing, just as the Democrates bow to every other special interest group. I hate that stuff too, but don’t act as if it isn’t true.

    Group identity is not in discusion here (by the way, only a personn with a deep ignorance of marxist theory could claim marxists deny the existence of group identity when probably their main concept of analisis is the idea of “class” and when one of their main concerns is to obtain “class consciousness” for workers). The point is that group identity as an excuse to discriminate and fear other people is not moral nor a natural thing to happen, as you pretend it is.

  20. Rad Geek

    Ma-cia-no:

    Switzerland is as white and Western a country as they come.

    This is moving the goalposts. I was talking about cultures, not skin colors or geographic locations. If you think that white or Western are cultures, or that there aren’t noticeable and important differences between the cultures of French-speaking, southern German-speaking, Italian-speaking, and Romansch-speaking peoples, then you probably need to think harder about European history.

    People have a moral obligation to leave a better country behind for their offspring, than they were given.

    People have a moral obligation not to beat, jail, or exile peaceful individuals who have done nothing to aggress against anyone else’s person or property. Until you can get over that hump, any effort to discuss demographic or socioeconomic projects is a fairly futile exercise.

    As for countries, unless you are a member of a royal family, you certainly were not given any countries, and you will not be giving any countries to any of your offspring. And if you are a member of a royal family, your title to that claim is pretty dubious.

· December 2007 ·

  1. Discussed at radgeek.com

    Rad Geek People’s Daily 2007-12-04 – We put the “Arch” in “Anarchy” #2:

    […] On Ron Paul’s support for an even more aggressive police state to enforce international apartheid: […]

  2. Discussed at radgeek.com

    Rad Geek People’s Daily 2007-12-11 – Dropping the plumb line:

    […] Ron Paul’s support for a federal police state to enforce international apartheid, Gordon […]

  3. Discussed at radgeek.com

    Rad Geek People’s Daily 2007-12-17 – International apartheid in Roswell:

    […] presumptuous government official’s demand for Ihre Papiere, bitte. Those who stand up for this despicable system of coercion and control — some of whom embrace it whole-heartedly out of unapologetic race hatred or inquisitorial […]

— 2008 —

  1. Discussed at radgeek.com

    Rad Geek People’s Daily 2008-01-26 – In which I fail to be reassured:

    […] has a tyrannical immigration law in place (and, just to be clear, when I say tyrannical, I mean any immigration law at all), then there are two ways you could go about trying to get rid the tyranny. You could start with […]

  2. Discussed at radgeek.com

    Rad Geek People’s Daily 2008-01-27 – Someone must have slandered Thomas W….:

    […] laws is that the system of international apartheid is based on morally despicable premises, and necessarily involves massive State violence against peaceful people. Immigration laws involve the State in discrimination against, and violation of the basic human […]

— 2009 —

  1. Discussed at radgeek.com

    Rad Geek People’s Daily 2009-06-19 – Libertarians Against Property Rights and Freedom of Association, Unabridged Edition:

    […] fear of boogey-words, or waste time defining down your goals to suit the status quo. (On which, see GT 2007-11-12 Sin Fronteras.) I don’t know all the details of what Reform Immigration for America stands for, but, in any […]

— 2012 —

  1. Discussed at bleedingheartlibertarians.com

    The Distinctiveness of Left-Libertarianism | Bleeding Heart Libertarians:

    […] the marriage business. And, while joining other leftists in opposing xenophobia, they stress that all borders should be razed to enable untrammeled […]

— 2013 —

  1. Discussed at postmoderndionysus.wordpress.com

    An Introduction to Left-Libertarianism | Dionysian GENERATOR:

    […] the marriage business. And, while joining other leftists in opposing xenophobia, they stress that all borders should be razed to enable untrammeled […]

Post a reply

By:
Your e-mail address will not be published.
You can register for an account and sign in to verify your identity and avoid spam traps.
Reply

Use Markdown syntax for formatting. *emphasis* = emphasis, **strong** = strong, [link](http://xyz.com) = link,
> block quote to quote blocks of text.

This form is for public comments. Consult About: Comments for policies and copyright details.