STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
Government Prescribed Immigration Debate
By Joe Jarvis - March 03, 2017

Is immigration really a terrifying threat to our safety? Or perhaps it is yet another source of fear the power elites use to maintain control.

There are two paradigms of thought which are both based on premises the government hands down.

One seems independent enough; that borders are statist, and therefore bad. The government has no business restricting freedom of movement (which is true), so they should stop oppressing foreigners and let them in, whatever the consequences.

The other opinion is that while open borders would be great, even ideal, the current state is such that we must restrict access… using the state. If we want to be safe, and not have immigrants leaching off the system, we have got to keep them out!

And the latter is generally the fear that Trump promotes, including in Tuesday’s speech to Congress. The idea is that illegal immigrants are flooding across the border, on a murdering rampage. If we don’t stop them from coming in, and kick out those already here, the system might collapse under their weight, and your family might be murdered.

Yet according to the PEW Research Center, illegal immigration has largely stabilized, and some studies suggest illegal immigrants are statistically less likely to commit crimes than native born citizens.

On the other hand, in America, our behavior is restricted by government. If we could really do as we please on private property, then we could take actions to reduce our risk if it turned out immigrants do introduce new dangers.

But in America, it is considered discrimination to refuse service. And it is increasingly, it is the citizen’s job to do police work in preventing crimes, lest we wind up in the government cross-hairs for “harboring” criminals.

This fear leads to more power for the U.S. policing agencies, and more money that the government gets to spend on your behalf. And by now who hasn’t seen the mass of videos from random rights-violating “immigration” checkpoints within U.S. borders?

The government doesn’t care which of their prefabricated opinions you hold, because each one gives them more power.

Government is too Incompetent to Process Immigrants

So about the idea that the government is too incompetent to take in immigrants, and it would burden the system.

Remind me who will be keeping them out?

Oh that’s right, government.

And what has government prohibition of peaceful action always led to? Corruption, and selective enforcement.

The drugs, criminals, and terrorists are still going to get through, it will just be the ones that government chooses.

Especially since the Department of Homeland Security is loosening hiring standards for Border Patrol in an effort to find 6,000 extra agents that President Trump has authorized. I guess we are going quantity over quality.

If government is too incompetent and corrupt to let the right immigrants in, it is definitely too dysfunctional and sketchy to keep the right immigrants out.

If the argument for keeping them out is to not further burden the welfare/ entitlement state, I am afraid we are well beyond that. And expanding government agencies burdens the system as well.

You’re an Immigrant

Have you heard this one: “You don’t like immigrants? Well guess what, your ancestors are immigrants, maybe the Native Americans shouldn’t have let them in?!”

The proper response: “Uh, yeah, the Native Americans shouldn’t have let them in! Look how it turned out for them!”

Of all the comebacks to wanting to ban immigrants, this one is the most perplexing. Why would you use an example that ended in utter disaster for the native population when supporting immigration?

In fact, had the Native Americans had the ability to erect a yuuge beautiful wall between them and the Europeans, maybe they would have fared a little better.

In John M. Barry’s book Roger Williams and the Creation of the American Soul, Roger Williams is quoted about a tribal meeting he attended, where the Narragansetts and Pequot discussed joining together for war against the English.

The Natives feared the immigrants–the English–would “overspread their country, and would deprive them thereof in time, if they were suffered to grow and increase… the English were minded to destroy all Indians.”

And that prediction basically came true.

So if you support an open borders policy, maybe steer clear of the Native American metaphor.

Private Property Solves Everything

When private property comes into play, it is very clear who make the rules: the property owner. If you want to build a twenty foot electrified wall around your estate, you should be able to do that.

Many Americans have nothing in common except public land the government presides over, and pretends belongs to all of us. It doesn’t, they just want us to pay for it, and pay for their “stewardship” of the nation.

So the government created this involuntary group of citizens who now all need to decide on common policy. This causes fear, anger, and frustration.

If voluntary groups were to form the bedrock of society, there would be a million different immigration policies. We would see which ones worked and which ones caused disaster. We could experiment with governing principles, and implement the best.

So is the issue immigration, or is the issue free association and private property?

We have to peel away the layers before we understand these issues were all created by government forcing us into a group. The issue of immigration is only an issue because the government never gains consent of those it forces to do things.

Best Solution

This is one of those issues where the best solution is internal, in our minds. Clear your mind of the state. Let go of the fear and anger that they attempt to inject into us. If you cannot control something, let it go.

But don’t construe this to think I am suggesting we are powerless. I just think the solutions are not going to happen on the southern federal border.

The government wants you to look over there, and the solution is much closer to home.

Why bother fighting over it? Both ways are wrong, because the current structure of society is wrong. The entire premise is wrong.

Do you think any power elite really cares if Mexicans get in or not?

Why not focus efforts locally? Decentralize the power structure, and strengthen property rights.

Pit the states against the federal government. Live in the cities, states, and countries which best fit your ideas of immigration, which may be entirely different than the two options the feds give you to ponder over.

This is a power tactic, to limit the available options so that whatever you choose, it works for the oppressor.

The premises should never have been accepted. Reject the government premises on the immigration issue, and the cloud surrounding the debate begins to dissolve.

Do you agree? Comment with where you fall on the issue.

Tagged with: , , , ,
Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • Praetor

    Well, I have lived and been to many countries. Immigration is not a problem. War is the problem. The criminally insane deep state psychopaths makes immigration nearly impossible. Immigration unfortunately is just another weapon of the NWO. The immigration we have today at the (present), cannot be considered legitimate, its a manipulation an evil use of human beings.

    My view is the refuges (immigrants), they are being ‘evicted’ removed from their place birth, force-ably ejected from their ancestral homeland. Immigration should be halted worldwide till the NWO is defeated. That means beating the NWO death cult and stopping their wars. Bring back civilization to civilization.!!!

    • sukkTHEfacc

      i would steer away from making “rufugee” and “immigrant” synonymous.

      • Praetor

        That’s my point! Forced immigration, refuges. In today’s world they are synonymous. Masses of people are being evicted from their places of their birth. They are being forced to immigrate. People will seek refuge from some upheaval, war, earthquake, flood and so on, but return to rebuild. What is happening now is nefarious and evil.!!!!

        • Marten

          Well said

  • Bruce C.

    I like the analysis.

    However, ‘clearing one’s mind of the state’ is the problem. The state is what enables so much illegal immigration, along with – maybe more importantly – legal immigration of the “wrong kind” of immigrants.

    Here’s an example of what I mean: For every “good hard, worker” there are three or four relatives who entered via the “good worker” who are “free loaders” who don’t work (e.g., single moms) and the elderly and receive free medical care and education for their kids.

    Basically, the US is a laughing stock. And it’s all about globalists/marxists/communists acting to take down the US and the ideals of the Declaration.

    Even spoiled brat Americans wouldn’t even consider any other country in this world accepting “immigrants” like we do, including themselves. No one his/her right mind would RISK over-staying their visas. This crap about America being “a country of immigrants” has been misinterpreted. It WAS a country of immigrants but of LIKE-MINDED PEOPLE. This idea that any cockamamie belief system is a-ok is crap. If you don’t subscribe to the ideals of the Declaration and Constitution then you ain’t welcome. Period.

    • sukkTHEfacc

      as a naturally-born free person, you cannot be humanely banned from existing in a place just because the government doesn’t like the thoughts in your head. Please understand that just because someone might not respect the Constitution, it doesn’t mean they still aren’t bound by it. The Constitution of course does not have an amendment saying that one has to like it or respect it…in fact forcing people to like the Constitution is indeed against the Constitution. But again, that in no way means it’s not the natural law of the land.

      • Bruce C.

        It’s not the government that doesn’t like the thoughts, it’s people like me who don’t want the country over run by people who don’t subscribe. The government, however, mostly does because the Constitution and Dec. principles are what constrains the growth and power of government. If there are enough people who don’t like the Constitution then they (i.e., both the “immigrants” and the government) will not be bound by it because it won’t be enforced.

        • RED

          Agreed! Good points!

          Totally uncontrolled immigration is a “Culture Killer”; it leads to incremental corruption of the established “value systems” that create and sustain freedom & liberty. We do not need more “Balkanization” of this country.

          Maybe one day in that warm fuzzy future when all people share the same or similar values, borders won’t matter at all. But we are most certainly not at that stage yet. (And by sharing the same values I do not mean promulgation of the tyranny of one world global order). For the present, there will always be arrogant groups who will “hate” or dislike you for your success, freedom and liberty, and they will try to destroy your way of life and culture.

          Controlled introduction of “compatible” values and cultures can enrich a nation. Uncontrolled introduction of cultures where there is no “common ground” can be highly destructive.

  • Mstrjack

    It is interesting that humans can be criminals simply for being somewhere on Earth where others believe they don’t belong. It is a crime to be an “illegal” immigrant.

    Sure, if someone is trespassing on private land, then they are illegally infringing on the rights of the landowner, and I agree with that law because private homeownership creates security.

    But can anyone really trespass on non-privately owned land? Bureau of Land Management (BLM) believes that even cattle can trespass on government land, but that makes no sense. Cattle are illegal simply because they are somewhere the government does not want them? Yes, in today’s world cattle can trespass on government land just like humans. It is rather silly really. National and State borders are artificial constructs that we all are taught in government schools create authority that must be obeyed. Immigration laws are artifical constructs as well. If one does not obey the law then they must be punished. Some laws are simply unnecessary.

    The article makes a good point. Since the “State” determines who is illegal and who isn’t illegal, then the cost to “enforce” the law is borne by everyone. If “illegals” are allowed to stay, then they take our jobs which costs us all; or build a wall and keep immigrants out is a full time job for state contractors and workers.

    Which is cheaper? Which is more humane?

  • This is a power tactic, to limit the available options so that whatever you choose, it works for the oppressor.

    I do agree! I even wrote about it 11 years ago–and the article is still timely and addresses the same issues that we face today!

    tinyurl(DOT)com/Ask-Right-Question
    http://tinyurl.com/Ask-Right-Question

    [2006-05-14] “Ask the Right Question”  and  Praise for “Mr. Wilson’s extremely interesting essay” from L. Neil Smith
    If the wrong questions are being asked, then the answers don’t really matter, do they?

  • Peter Verhoeff

    Your ideal of open borders would be great if all countries enjoyed a similar standard of living and similar levels of safety. They do not. You do not have to travel far into Mexico, for example, to see the level of poverty and crime. So, as long as that disparity exists we will have many more potential immigrants than emigrants. You might be unsympathetic towards having a government, but we do have one, as does every other country in the world. And the primary job of a government is to maintain order, so that people can get on with their lives. Our government does not ban immigration. It wants to have control over who is allowed in and who is not. I think it only fair to have control over the inflow by disallowing entry to criminals and those who would be a burden on the public welfare system. We, as citizens share that interest, if you give it some thought.

  • autonomous

    For practical purposes, it is useless to talk about sane policies while we submit to an insane government. Any government will do whatever government agents decide to do. The founders of the American government sought to design a government that would be restrained in what it could do. But the nature of government is to expand to the limits of the toleration of its citizens for tyranny. America’s government started out with the toleration of, primarily English peoples to tyranny, which was considerate. Not as much as the German and Italian immigrants, nor of the French and Russians, but still quite tolerant of oppression. The issues of taxation without representation, the presence of (and the inevitable transgressions) foreign troupes on the land were magnified by instigators, but how is taxation with representation any less burdensome? And how are local troupes less prone to abuse than those of foreigners? Were the trepidations of Washington’s’ troupes in squelching the whiskey rebellion less trepidatious than English or Prussian soldiers? They still killed or imprisoned Americans for protesting grotesque taxation. And from what seems, in comparison, to have been tolerable governing of the 1790s congress and president, look what has year-by-year developed. Replacing one government with another merely reduces tyranny (or not, as in France, and later in Russia and China) for a brief interval. Those who fail (or refuse to) to see the insidious nature of government, are destined to continue to be enslaved.

  • ALWAYS we ignore the “Elephant in the room”.
    No country’s people in their right mind want non-selective immigration.
    Where we see insane support for “free entry” it is basically by the mentally defective and now – armies of paid 5th columnists.
    In fact, no people anywhere of sound social mind want ANY immigration. We can’t afford it. The party is over.
    I today, cannot imagine a “useful”/”valuable” person of any kind being added to the vast oversupply of human bodies in a computer-chipped world. (Much less their old/infirm relatives).
    The only few countries in this world today with a good, civilised lifestyle and future of any kind are those of tiny populations.

    If the “extreme Left” feel so guilty about being white (only white countries have a chance socially now) then they need to donate their spare time, money and birthcontrol information to those strife-torn countries to help them STAY HOME and fix their own problems.

    • Harry Skip Robinson

      People have free wills and thus will migrate, whether you like it or not. Thinking that you can stop the human spirit is a bit naive. Many dead Haitians have washed ashore in Palm Beach and Broward County Florida as have many Cubans over the years, in an attempt to leave unlivable or despicable places. The more fascist we become the more despicable we will become. It’s How Atrocities Happen. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups#!topic/HarrietRobbins/TdY6cgWMmY4

      You also appear to not understand why we have vast unemployment around the world. With over 110 different taxes and a annual budget of $3.9 trillion how can you be a productive nation unless you count the construction of jet fighters and bombers as part of GDP.

      Government is an expense and we have drastically increased expenses over the last 50 years and we wonder why we have no real productivity and the jobs it’s creates. It pretty simple economics but you have to actually read and learn economics and not the crap put out by the lamestream media. You can also listen to your wife, she has intuition and reads trash novels, a/k/a romance novel and self help books. She has all the answers, trust me.

    • I AM impressed! That entire post consists of nothing but ad hominem from start to finish.

  • misterkel

    Fetishizing private property – great answer. And if some twisted trillionaires want to legalize various forms of theft (see – you do not own your bank deposits), then that property goes to them. They have rights to it, because you know, private property rights.
    Or if they buy up all the water in third world countries (Bushes), then people without money can die of thirst, because, you know – private property trumps human life.
    Sorry – this libertarian idealism lacks a lot of human qualities. I’m all for civil liberties, but the ownership fetish subordinates human life below property – if not explicitly, then implicitly.

    • Harry Skip Robinson

      Those are possibly the worst arguments against private property rights, I have ever read and your statements “Sorry – this libertarian idealism lacks a lot of human qualities. I’m all for civil liberties, but the ownership fetish subordinates human life below property – if not explicitly, then implicitly.” are totally nonsense. No wonder you believe in the various social programs governments offer. I can only imagine what government agency you work for.

      • lulu

        Well then state your rebuttal. You did not say why misterkel is wrong, only that the comment is. As well, many support his/her premise and are not government employees so your response appears emotional rather than reasoned.

        • Harry Skip Robinson

          I didn’t write it because everyone should already know the reason I wrote what I did.

          He wrote: “And if some twisted trillionaires want to legalize various forms of theft (see – you do not own your bank deposits), then that property goes to them. They have rights to it, because you know, private property rights.”

          The foundation of individual rights is predicated on the ethical foundation of natural law. The property must be “justly” acquired. Taking somebody else’s property is theft and why libertarians believe taxation is legalized theft. Therefore a twisted trillionaire has no just “right” to take somebodies money from their bank account. If such an action occurs it is because government has allowed this by not protecting our rights. Your “rights” require the respect of other people’s rights or you end of with a society we have today where government has enacted over 110 different taxes and regulatory fees and takes just about everything the can get away with from the majority. We now have some 100,000,000 people living at or near the poverty line. The Federal Government budget alone has grown from $314 billion in 1950 to $3.9 trillion today. Even adjusted for inflation which government also primarily causes, that’s a huge increase and expense on society. No wonder the middle class is disappearing.

          • lulu

            Well it seems everyone does not know or even believe the same things you present here. The issue seems to rest with control and greed and limitations on private ownership in order to assure there is enough for all. This is a values and administrative issue and is of grave concern everywhere today. It extends into many domains including property. It is not a simple issue and I would suggest your belief that everyone should know why you wrote what you did suggests you think you are speaking to a closed group which in effect means preaching to the converted.

          • Harry Skip Robinson

            Even though you may disagree with me, you should at least understand the founding fathers intent of the Constitution, and why they thought it was so important to have a bill of rights. Not knowing the basis of an Inalienable right is in my opinion unconscionable for some who claims to have valid opinions on the issues.

            How can you even argue if I am right or wrong if you don’t understand the necessary elements of the debate.

            I probably know your sides arguments better than you do.

            That is why I write and post comments on such blogs as this. We have 100,000,000 people living at or near the poverty line, so the system you support isn’t working very well. You and the other dreamers have not been able to manage $3.9 trillion annual budget.

            It surely is not the libertarian ideology of greater liberty and the protection of individual rights that is causing such poor results. Just the opposite, as people like you think and try to micromanage a macro economy to make sure there is “enough of all”, the wealthy are getting wealthier and the poorer and middle class poorer. If you think it is the libertarian perspective that is being enacted, you need to look at Ron Paul’s record on sponsored bills to enactments, 3 for over 600. The Demopublicans don’t want equality and justice, they want to benefit themselves at everyones elses expense and you are drinking the the koolaide. They are both selfish and corrupt.

          • Harry Skip Robinson

            #misterkel and lulu. What I would like to ask you two to do, is to answer three questions based on the premise that all social policies have negative side effects and we will call these side effects “contraindications”, just as it is used for showing the side effects, on the labeling of synthetically produced drugs. I will assist you by providing one of the answers for you:

            Question: Name three contraindications of public education.

            1. We take away the homes of poor people, to pay for public education. This is done by tax deed sales of the liens placed on poor people’s homes when their property taxes are not paid. As you know property taxes are the primary source of education at the County level for Public Education. So in essence we are taking people shelter away from them, to pay for the education of poor people’s children. We have socially placed education, as a superior need over shelter. Have you ever considered why we have so many homeless people today?

          • lulu

            Yes, I have considered it quite a bit. There are many reasons with one being that wealth has concentrated giving certain individuals control over excessive amounts that is not circulated except in paltry amounts and is used according to whim rather than reason.
            Your point misses the point because with the few operating funds humanity has, that societies must pit education against shelter is self defeating.

          • Harry Skip Robinson

            1. The concentration of wealth has occurred from the massive redistribution of wealth schemes that funnels the majorities money into the wealthy’s pockets. Governments have operated like this since the Ottoman Empire. As our government has gotten larger over the last 65 years, the majority and essentially the lower 1/3 has gotten poorer.

            Your were taught that it is free enterprise that does this and that is not the case. This is probably the greatest misunderstanding within socio-economics. The greater the level of competition the greater the level of monetary distribution. It is when government intervenes into the marketplace that generally causes problems, as they try to benefit special interests at the majorities expense. You can go all the way back to the railroad expansion starting in the early 1820s and see how the Republicans subsidized certain railroads to the detriment of others and more importantly to both consumers and taxpayers. It was actually one of a number of triggers of the civil war. The Republican controlled Congress started doubling and even quadrupling export tariffs on southern farm goods of course causing prices to plummet.

            So you may ask, why did they not teach us stuff like this in highschool and college. Quite simply, they don’t want you to understand the full story on why the south seceded. Remember the winners write the history but eventually the truth does come out. The book “Lincoln Unmasked” by professor and economist Thomas DiLorenzo is a fascinating look at the economic and political history of that era. He even writes extensively about those that have tried to cover up the truth and those who have tried to get it out and the debates between the two sides, which interestingly enough is still going on today. The thing is, you can’t cover up the laws that were enacted during that period so you can see those for yourself. You just have to make sure what effects the laws enacted had on the economics of that era. The more you understand socio-economics they more you will understand what happened and why. It has taken me many years to gain the knowledge that I have. I started in my early twenties after being drafted near the end of the Viet Nam war in 1972 and I’m 64 now. I have read many many books on economics and I am not supported by any group. I think corporate American like many are actually quite slimy and untrustworthy. Were you and I most likely disagree, is how to solve the problem. You think government can do it, I don’t. Those in government are no less influenced by money than anyone in the private sector. The question is why do I believe they way I do after studying iit so long.

            I am not embarrassed to say that I’m in the lower 1/3 of society and I have to go drive Lyft and Uber now to subsidise my income. I am one of those people who has not been willing to compromise my ethics and it has not always been easy for me to survive. But I do tell the truth and I can back it up.

          • lulu

            Sorry, I was not taught that free enterprise did Anything. I also do not believe government is the solution. You keep making incorrect assumptions by not paying attention to what is being said.

          • Harry Skip Robinson

            How is an automobile built? by bureaucrats?

  • William

    Tell it to the British, the French, the Germans and the Swedes, Joe. How much are the Saudis paying you? Next step sharia law. Take a hike Joe.

  • TimeToWakeUPAmerica

    I would comment, and DID comment, but the Daily Bell apparently doesn’t believe in anything but censorship. Where’s my comment? Dude, Where’s My CIVILIZATION?

    • TimeToWakeUPAmerica

      Here’s my comment, that somehow got deleted by the Daily Bell.

      Government Report: Islamists Building ‘Parallel Society’ in Sweden Aided By PC Culture of Silence http://sgtreport.com/2017/03/government-report-islamists-building-parallel-society-in-sweden-aided-by-pc-culture-of-silence/

      Read the comments. Click on the links. Read, view, listen to ALL content.

      • Harry Skip Robinson

        I have never seen the Daily Bell delete or block any bodies comments before and I have been a subscribers for many years.

        As far as the article you provide, I don’t feel it is anything but a government meme. You cannot trust government to properly diagnose the problem and even more importantly to apply a correct remedy. People generally promote their religions to bring more money into their own pockets. The more followers the more money they can skim off the top. I don’t think you need to worry about the Swedish government being overthrown by militant islamists. The government wants you to believe this so that the Citizens will give the government more money to fight the bad people. Governments are just like religious organization, in that, instead of tithing it’s taxation. Until the world looks at taxation for what it truly is, we are going to be stuck with government reports like the one you provide. Despite their denials, all religions try to manipulate government policy. It’s one of the reasons why so many people fear the Republican agenda.

loading