Immigrants Aren’t The Problem…

5
820
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Bashing immigrants is easy. They’re an easy target and – as is usual with easy targets – they’re the wrong target.

Better to bash Uncle – the federal government.

Because it’s the goateed old goat who’s causing problems.

Rather, creating problems.because Uncle

The problem at the root of the “immigration crisis” isn’t the immigrants, per se. It’s government’s use of them as foils to divide and conquer. To keep us all squabbling amongst ourselves rather than focusing on the source of our collective misery.

Uncle.

A free market/Libertarian question that ought to be asked is: Why is the government involved in this at all? By what right does the government tell employers whom they may hire? At what rate? Demand “papers” be presented in order to be allowed to do an honest day’s work?

Remember what Seinfeld used to say?

Who are these people?   

We’ve allowed Uncle to become the arbiter and micromanager of our lives. To lord it over us as if he owned us. To own something is to be in control of it. Does this not accurately describe our status in relation to the government?

Wasn’t Uncle supposed to be our servant instead? To make sure we refrained from harming one another – but otherwise, to leave us in peace to (cue that old-fashioned saying) pursue happiness?

What happened?

First, Uncle gulled us – citizens and immigrants alike – with the promise of “free” things. In fact, Uncle only distributed the things he took from some of us to give to others among us. This costs Uncle nothing – but costs us a great deal.

And not just in terms of money.

How much is our liberty worth?

Citizens are forced to document their earnings so Uncle can seize whatever portion of them he decides we “owe.” Immigrants are forced to document themselves – in order that Uncle may dole out what decides they are “entitled” to.

Come to think of it, citizens also have to document themselves.

Once again, Uncle wins – power and control.

We are owned.

That’s the real game here – and always has been.

It is interesting – revelatory – to note that some of the greatest opponents of leaving citizens and immigrants free to transact business as they see fit and to be Americans are the same enormously wealthy elites who seem to view the country as their own private fief, its population to be controlled by them.

For example, Cordelia Scaife May.

She was a Mellon – as in Carnegie Mellon – and one of the richest women in the country. Her foundations – Laurel and Colcom – have disbursed  tens of millions to various causes, including the Federation for Immigration Reform (FAIR). Which isn’t so much interested in reforming immigration as in ending it.

FAIR was founded in 1979 by John Tanton, who was previously involved with the radical environmentalist (and arguably, anti-people) group Zero Population Growth and the better-known Sierra Club – which also view humanity as a pox on nature. FAIR’s idea of “reform” is a moratorium on immigration, except for refugees and the spouses/minor children of people who are already U.S. Citizens.    

Reportedly, FAIR gets half its annual budget from Colcolm.

May – who died in 2005 – “had a few cherished passions… and keeping immigrants out (of the country) was one of them,” according to a July 25, 2013 article in The LA Times. May was tight with the infamous Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood – a group that advocated not just eugenics but specifically targeted the black race for “population reduction.” In a 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence J. Gamble of the Birth Control Federation of America, Sanger wrote: “We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten that idea out if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” She and Gamble were planning to enlist black “front men” to “sell” abortion and birth control to the black masses.

May also reportedly gave money to the racist Council of Conservative Citizens, a group that once publicly described black people as “a retrograde species of humanity.”

Apparently, people from Central and South America fall into this category as well.

These people are smeared as “taking” jobs from American citizens. But who is holding a gun to anyone’s head? Americans are free to take any job they like.

The right question to ask is : Why should anyone be denied the right to seek any job they like? How is it “unfair” for Smith to accept the job that “Jones” doesn’t want? To compete with “Smith”? Does “Jones” have a right to the job? That is, to force a prospective employer to hire him rather than “Smith”? If conservatives answer in the affirmative to that question, they have a lot in common with the political left.

Which – through outfits like NumbersUSA, another radical environmental group that seeks to reduce immigration to pre-1965 levels – is likewise peddling an anti-human/control freak agenda disguised as immigration “reform.”

NumbersUSA was founded by Rock Beck – who (surprise, surprise) previously worked for John Tanton of Zero Population Growth,

Maybe it’s time for a premise check.

Now, some will argue that  immigrants are straining government services. What they really mean is government entitlements. But – if so – isn’t the real problem the entitlements, not the immigrants? Wouldn’t a conservative (and free market) argument be – reform the welfare state and then immigration “crisis” will take care of itself?   

Share Button

5 COMMENTS

  1. There was a time (before World War 1) when there was no need for passports or other “papers” to travel. Borders weren’t as much of a problem except if your king didn’t like the other king. My ancestors were German and French, and I’m sure they had no qualms about crossing the border when looking for a wife (have you had German food? I’d be looking for a French girl too). The treaty of Versailles ended that, setting up the system we’re stuck with today.

    Another problem is the complicated system of certifications and business licensing. Most people don’t know this, but just about every profession has some sort of state or national level license process. We’re all familiar with the lawyer’s requirement to pass “the Bar” but there are similar requirements for engineers, doctors, stock brokers and even real estate salespeople. These do more to keep people out of a field than prevent fraud, yet we’re all led to believe this system is superior to a free market. We end up with the worst of both: a highly regulated market that limits competition, but no responsibility by the state when the licensed professional screws up.

  2. First, see Stephen Molyneux on YouTube, and/or freedomainradio.com – he is as much of an anarchist as you but he is against immigration, at least from incompatible cultures.

    You say we need to dismantle the welfare state first.

    How is retaining tens of millions of illegal welfare state beneficiaries and socialists, and promoting having tens of millions more of these come in NOW going to accelerate the death of Uncle when they love uncle, are here to benefit from uncle, and will keep the corpse of Uncle alive as long as possible in order to have his minions extract wealth from the productive and give it to them?

    How many pro-libertarian broadcasts are there in low-grade level Spanish, and would it convince these immigrants anyway?

    That doesn’t even address the Caliphate (“Death to the Infidel!”) like San Bernadino.

    There’s one advantage to being an illegal immigrant – you can ignore not having insurance and most cops won’t bother with the hassle of arresting you to hand you over to ICE who won’t accept you. You don’t even need ID for a driver’s license.

  3. This might make sense on a global playing field that were level. Accusations of “racism” aside, that fact is that virtually NO country allows totally unregulated immigration. Have you seen pics of some of the massive walls Mexico has built along it’s southern border?

    To “force” the USA (and gosh, that’s not a very libertarian concept, is it?) to be the dumping ground for populations whose countries of origin refuse to incorporate them is a Bad Idea.

    True, injections of fresh blood into a country can be a good thing. Up to about 40 years ago, people who immigrated were the ones with the most initiative, and desire for self improvement. Now however, some populations are being virtually deported en masse. Conditions are so bad in some of those countries that it is really easier to go than to stay. America isn’t only getting the “best and brightest,” but also the Exact Opposite. And millions of those in between who are more of a burden than a benefit to our country’s well being.

    Until other nations loosen up their policies so there can be more of a global free enterprise migration system, please don’t misuse libertarian ideals to force America to take everyone.

    • MP, I agree with you. Immigration is a complex problem, one not likely to be solved anytime soon. If we had no govt.’s and hence no borders, people could peacefully come and go anywhere they could find work that didn’t violate the NAP. I don’t see it happening soon, don’t want to pay for it in any way either.

LEAVE A REPLY