Are we paying to bring all these people from south of the border ?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/02/becky-akers/illegal-immigrants/

What Will Jesus Do?
By Becky Akers
February 10, 2012

Like all wars, the one the Feds wage on our freedom of movement groans with ruined lives, human agony, and casualties.

Many of those horrors are on display at the airports, as the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) sexually assaults, irradiates, harasses, and steals from passengers. And though most of the witnesses to these atrocities used to claim that the agency only needed more money and power to transform its inept brutes and sociopaths into efficient Warriors on Terror, increasing numbers now admit such change is impossible. Thanks to the TSA's depredations, they understand that the Warriors threaten us far more than any free-lance bad guys ever could.

Let's hope such realization dawns in another theater of the War on Movement, the one at the borders. There the comrades-in-arms of the TSA's brutes and sociopaths sexually assault, irradiate, harass, and steal from American citizens — and the occasional "illegal" immigrant. Somehow, their persecution of the latter justifies their abuse of the former for far too many taxpayers.

Among the persecuted is 35-year-old Jesus Navarro. He's one of those bold folks all of freedom's friends should admire, a guy who refused to obey an unconstitutional law prohibiting people from stepping over an imaginary line on the ground.

Alas, surprising numbers of Constitutionalists who cry "Foul!" at imperialism, the PATRIOT Act, the NDAA of 2012 and other violations actually urge the Feds to eviscerate the highest law of the land when it comes to immigration. Nothing in the Constitution empowers the central government to patrol the country's borders — and let those who dispute that cite the article and clause supporting their position. If they can, they're one up on the Supreme Court of the 1870's and 1880's: when its clowns invented an "interest" for the Feds in immigration, they appealed to every authority but the Constitution.

Over the next decades, the Injustices frequently discovered refinements for this new "interest," further categories of "men, endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" whose right to movement was alienable, after all. Just as today's undesirables are "bad" for the country, they were then, too. Eugenics had begun poisoning America, and testimony from its enthusiasts helped persuade congresscriminals to pass the Immigration Acts of 1921 and 1924. These laws established the arbitrary and utterly cruel "quotas" that barred lesser peoples from polluting our sacred soil.

Indeed, no less a fan of racial purity than Adolph Hitler praised Americans' sagacity; after a century of open borders, we had finally come to our senses: "There is today one state in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception are noticeable," the future Führer fulminated in Mein Kampf. "Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but the American Union, in which an effort is made to consult reason at least partially. By refusing immigration on principle to elements in poor health, by simply excluding certain races from naturalization, it professes in slow beginnings a view which is peculiar to the [nationalistic] concept."

Such unutterable evil didn't deter Mr. Navarro. After taking that one small step for a man and giant leap for mankind, he continued spitting in Leviathan's eye: for the last 14 years, Mr. Navarro's lived in Oakland, CA, without the papers Our Rulers require. Bravo, Mr. Navarro!

Contrary to the stereotype of "illegals," our hero worked at Pacific Steel. (There is no pleasing some people: the very curmudgeons who decry "illegals'" alleged exploitation of welfare condemn Mr. Navarro for "stealing" a job.) So when his kidneys failed, the company's insurance paid for his dialysis. And now, when that no longer suffices, it will pay for a transplant. Otherwise, he'll die.

Mr. Navarro even boasts a donor: his wife. So we might expect a happy ending to this story as a dying husband and father receives the life-saving surgery he needs at no cost whatever to "real" Americans.

Count on the Feds to smash this fairy-tale. Their unconstitutional, unconscionable laws against freedom of movement have convinced the hospital not to treat Mr. Navarro. "Administrators at UC San Francisco Medical Center are refusing to transplant a kidney from Navarro’s wife, saying there is no guarantee he will receive adequate follow-up care, given his uncertain status." That's because Mr. Navarro "was caught up in an immigration audit and lost his foundry job this month." Leviathan could deport him at any moment; ergo, the Center hides behind the excuse of "[in]adequate follow-up care."

Right. And the Center just happens to be affiliated with a public university. So the State, not the Hippocratic Oath or humanity, calls the shots here. Imagine how much more merciless American medicine will grow when the government manages all of it under Obamacare. Disputing your taxes with the IRS? Fighting a traffic-ticket in court? Critical of the president, Congress, the TSA, the Post Office, the EPA, etc, ad nauseam, in online fora? No treatment for you, amigo, sorry.

Like many native-born Americans, Mr. Navarro has a family that deeply loves him. "'I started crying and crying and crying [when the hospital declined to operate],' said his wife, who asked that her name be withheld because she is also in the country illegally." Meanwhile, "her husband chase[d] their 3-year-old daughter" as "ethicists" lament the doctors' dilemma.

"'It puts the doctors in a very awkward and torn position,' [University of Pennsylvania bioethics professor Arthur Caplan] said. u2018You come into this trying to do good and find yourself stuck in the middle of a fight about immigration.'" Yep, this is what passes for critical and, worse, "moral" reasoning in the Amerikan Empire.

However pitiable, Mr. Navarro is merely one of the War on Movement's millions of victims. These men, women, and children suffer just as needlessly and grotesquely, even if the local newspaper doesn't report their heartrending cases. Perhaps that's why the Founders never empowered heartless bureaucrats and politicians to control anyone's travels into or out of the country. Yet most Americans cheer the State's tormenting of immigrants — even when one with his own donor and private insurance will die.

Their animus baffles. From what I can discern, most of those who hate Mexicans — and let's be honest: no one's upset about the Canadians sneaking across the northern border — do so because they assume these penniless migrants are sucking down welfare. Food stamps, residence in the slums the government runs, kids indoctrinated for "free" in "our" schools, are a few of the very questionable benefits "illegals" supposedly hog.

But this is an argument against socialism and Leviathan's welfare, not freedom of movement. I suspect it's also a red herring. And here's why: suppose we barred "illegals" from chaining themselves with Leviathan's golden manacles. Does that eliminate the objection, or should the Feds still police the borders?

Actually, Congress passed exactly that law in 1996, with its "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act." This legislation tightened already existing restrictions on all immigrants, not just ones lacking a bureaucrat's permission, that inhibit their sponging off their neighbors. Currently, just about the only welfare still available to "illegals" is treatment in hospitals' emergency rooms (courtesy of federal law) and so-called public education for their kids (though states increasingly discourage that). Would that we could similarly wean natives from their dependence on government! Yet the hostility against people who come here to work — usually at jobs so difficult and poorly paid that natives won't take them — only seems to rise.

We could cite numerous statistics proving that "illegals" boost the economy and even Social Security, that they are a net benefit instead of a drain on the country, or, for those in Mr. Navarro's painful plight, that more of them donate organs than receive them.

But we who love liberty never echo the eugenicists and justify a man's exercise of his freedom based on how valuable he is to society; gracious, were that our criteria, we'd immediately deport all politicians and bureaucrats! Liberty is the highest end, in and of itself; we need not earn it, regardless of where we were born, what language we speak, or what culture we embrace: the simple fact of our humanity entitles every one of us to it.

Even Jesus Navarro.

February 10, 2012
 
Well I for one am tired of trying to convince people. To the open borders people be careful what you wish for...because it's here. Keep slicing the pie.

Gentlemen far more erudite that you or I have already settled the matter. Specifically, Mr Madison:

It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable? Not merely to swell the catalogue of people.
 
Yes plus paying to feed them, house them and help them find their relatives but most people here think that's just fine and if you disagree you are not for liberty.

lol... You know that aint true Carlybee. I sympathize with you on the effects that government policy is having on you, but treating them with more government policy isn't the right answer (I see the correlation, KC, bunkloco, and anti-fed :)). If we agree its effects of government policy causing the problems, then lets fight to restrict the government rather than fighting to restrict the people.
 
lol... You know that aint true Carlybee. I sympathize with you on the effects that government policy is having on you, but treating them with more government policy isn't the right answer (I see the correlation, KC, bunkloco, and anti-fed :)). If we agree its effects of government policy causing the problems, then lets fight to restrict the government rather than fighting to restrict the people.

Exactly my position- and +rep.
 
lol... You know that aint true Carlybee. I sympathize with you on the effects that government policy is having on you, but treating them with more government policy isn't the right answer (I see the correlation, KC, bunkloco, and anti-fed :)). If we agree its effects of government policy causing the problems, then lets fight to restrict the government rather than fighting to restrict the people.

Solution? (It's a serious question.)
 
Facebook and JPM schmoozing with La Raza? And they give RP hell over Don Black? Really?

http://www.nclr.org/index.php/about...citing_lineup_for_its_2014_annual_conference/

This year’s Conference features a list of impressive speakers, including Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti; Senator Elizabeth Warren (D–MA); Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of JPMorgan Chase & Co. Jamie Dimon; Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg; California Attorney General Kamala Harris; actress and philanthropist Eva Longoria; and many more to come. Los Angeles Archbishop José H. Gomez is confirmed to give the invocation on Saturday, July 19 at the NCLR Conference luncheon.
 
Last edited:
Of course that comes from an anti-immigration site.
One article criticizes border security while indicating that border apprehensions are down by 80% from their peak (a point they gloss over).



Reality:
PH-unauthorized-immigrants-1-02.png

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...day-is-illegal-immigration-on-the-rise-again/



MMmm. Treats. Makes me hungry!

Keep in mind that about half of all illegal immigrants also entered the country legally. A completely sealed border (which is impossible) would at best keep half away.

Yours comes from pro immigration site. Common sense should prevail but utopian minded folks dream.
 
lol... You know that aint true Carlybee. I sympathize with you on the effects that government policy is having on you, but treating them with more government policy isn't the right answer (I see the correlation, KC, bunkloco, and anti-fed :)). If we agree its effects of government policy causing the problems, then lets fight to restrict the government rather than fighting to restrict the people.


I didn't ask for more government policy but to adhere to existing law. How's that restricting government working out for you anyway? I've been seeing the SOS on this site since 2007. Nobody has restricted anything and if anything we are worse off in terms of freedom. We as taxpaying LEGAL citizens are spied on, searched, expected to show "papers" for every daily transaction, yet we are not supposed to question letting anybody and everybody come here and then we are supposed to be happy to pay for them to do so. Well...nothing says liberty more than being forced to have uninvited guests over for dinner, foot the tab, have them spend the night and then pay for their children to boot. So when you get that whole restricting government thing sorted out...let me know. Preferably before another 70,000 come over this year and before another 12 billion is spent here and before another 100,000 gang members spring up just in my state alone and before no telling how many more cases of TB come over...mmmmkay? Just wait until West Africa's ebola epidemic goes on the move. You DO know it's not just latinos sneaking over the border right? Everybody in the world knows if you need to get into the US just come to the southern border. Some of you are a progressive's wet dream.
 
Last edited:
I didn't ask for more government policy but to adhere to existing law. How's that restricting government working out for you anyway? I've been seeing the SOS on this site since 2007. Nobody has restricted anything and if anything we are worse off in terms of freedom. We as taxpaying LEGAL citizens are spied on, searched, expected to show "papers" for every daily transaction, yet we are not supposed to question letting anybody and everybody come here and then we are supposed to be happy to pay for them to do so. Well...nothing says liberty more than being forced to have uninvited guests over for dinner, foot the tab, have them spend the night and then pay for their children to boot. So when you get that whole restricting government thing sorted out...let me know. Preferably before another 70,000 come over this year and before another 12 billion is spent here and before another 100,000 gang members spring up just in my state alone and before no telling how many more cases of TB come over...mmmmkay? Just wait until West Africa's ebola epidemic goes on the move. You DO know it's not just latinos sneaking over the border right? Everybody in the world knows if you need to get into the US just come to the southern border. Some of you are a progressive's wet dream.

Open the borders yet we can't get one single solitary federal department closed?

http://www.justice.gov/crt/508/report2/agencies.php

We can't even get a small agency abolished.
 
Last edited:
Open the borders yet we can't get one single solitary federal department closed?

http://www.justice.gov/crt/508/report2/agencies.php

We can't even get a small agency abolished.


You cannot have an open border and provide entitlements. Forcing taxpayers to pay for the care and upkeep of immigrants violate personal property rights. People who think these immigrants do not apply for and get every single freebie they can the minute they get here is living in a land of unicorns and flying babies with gossamer wings. Not to mention the criminals who steal, assault, murder, rape...if that is not a violation of personal property I don't know what is.
 
Solution? (It's a serious question.)

The ultimate solution is for the government to get out of the way and leave risk and self responsibility as the source of natural selection as to whom immigrates. It was offered in a different thread, and I think it is a natural progression, that welfare to immigrants- legalized or not- be the first to go on our road to eliminating the welfare state. And this includes ending the war on drugs.
 
Last edited:
I didn't ask for more government policy but to adhere to existing law. How's that restricting government working out for you anyway? I've been seeing the SOS on this site since 2007. Nobody has restricted anything and if anything we are worse off in terms of freedom. We as taxpaying LEGAL citizens are spied on, searched, expected to show "papers" for every daily transaction, yet we are not supposed to question letting anybody and everybody come here and then we are supposed to be happy to pay for them to do so. Well...nothing says liberty more than being forced to have uninvited guests over for dinner, foot the tab, have them spend the night and then pay for their children to boot. So when you get that whole restricting government thing sorted out...let me know. Preferably before another 70,000 come over this year and before another 12 billion is spent here and before another 100,000 gang members spring up just in my state alone and before no telling how many more cases of TB come over...mmmmkay? Just wait until West Africa's ebola epidemic goes on the move. You DO know it's not just latinos sneaking over the border right? Everybody in the world knows if you need to get into the US just come to the southern border. Some of you are a progressive's wet dream.

Enforcing a law more stringently than it currently is is "more government policy" enough to me. We could also solve the problem of the drug cartels and gangster immigrants if we arrested all the drug using Americans. And if we followed drug policy more stringently that's what it'd be.

Restricting the government is going so bad that I'm hopeful. Unfortunately it seems like a person generally needs to be negatively effected themselves by the government to understand the need to restrict the government. So luckily the government is in high gear selling our message.

To be honest I'm much more worried about the poor souls who've lost their freedom for the possession of drugs, or of individuals who seek a better life but have government policy inhibiting it, than of 70,000 immigrants. I'm worried about fixing the problems not enforcing laws meant to mask it.

Please keep the ebola away from Wisconsin.
 
Enforcing a law more stringently than it currently is is "more government policy" enough to me. We could also solve the problem of the drug cartels and gangster immigrants if we arrested all the drug using Americans. And if we followed drug policy more stringently that's what it'd be.

Restricting the government is going so bad that I'm hopeful. Unfortunately it seems like a person generally needs to be negatively effected themselves by the government to understand the need to restrict the government. So luckily the government is in high gear selling our message.

To be honest I'm much more worried about the poor souls who've lost their freedom for the possession of drugs, or of individuals who seek a better life but have government policy inhibiting it, than of 70,000 immigrants. I'm worried about fixing the problems not enforcing laws meant to mask it.

Please keep the ebola away from Wisconsin.

And what do you call it when it is not only not being enforced but you have a president who uses executive privilege to orchestrate this exodus of children from their home countries over the border for political brownie points? So he can tick off his own brand of immigration reform outside of Congress in order to fulfill the legacy he wishes to leave? How is not enforcing the law restricting the government in any way? Of course it doesn't mean Jack squat to someone living 2000 miles away. If you aren't affected by it and your state is not paying for it and your only answer is an ideological solution that will never materialize then you are not engaged in the problem or an effective solution.

Not to mention that by allowing, encouraging and funding this, it is interventionism. You can't call for no foreign intervention out of one side of your mouth while ignoring that countries south of the border are indeed foreign, and while we may not be invading them, we allow them to invade us at the very least in an economic sense. By not securing the border, by expecting taxpayers to support them once they get here, we are compromising our own sovereignty and indeed engaging in foreign intervention. By taking the stance that these poor people need to be saved from their own harsh and impoverished conditions, it is no different than trying to spread democracy overseas.
 
Last edited:
They don't...eVerify is voluntary. They do have to fill out an I9 form when someone is hired which requires certain forms of identification and that is a labor law so good luck getting rid of the Dept. Of Labor. All these things sound good in theory but would not work unless you get rid of the government in total. Oh and please tell me about this free country thing. My concern is with the outpouring of state funds to feed, cloth and house people who have no stake whatsoever in taking personal responsibility for themselves. It's bad enough legal citizens do it. Again why do we have to pay out 12 billion dollars a year in Texas and only recoup 1.7 billion for illegal aliens? That's a loss and cost to taxpayers of over 10 billion dollars A YEAR. Does your state pay out 10 billion dollars a year?

I agree with you. I don't think illegals should receive any form of welfare. My issue is with laws that harass employers.
 
I agree with you. I don't think illegals should receive any form of welfare. My issue is with laws that harass employers.


By the same token, is it fair that a carpenter loses his job to an illegal who will work for much less? They don't just come here and take the crappy jobs that nobody wants, they take skilled labor jobs too and I am not talking about overpaid union jobs. To look at the entitlement problem among our own citizens one has to look at unemployment. Are people too lazy to work or are they priced out of their own industry? It's a conundrum.
 
By the same token, is it fair that a carpenter loses his job to an illegal who will work for much less? They don't just come here and take the crappy jobs that nobody wants, they take skilled labor jobs too and I am not talking about overpaid union jobs. To look at the entitlement problem among our own citizens one has to look at unemployment. Are people too lazy to work or are they priced out of their own industry? It's a conundrum.
You are ignoring the consumer.

It isn't fair that business is taxed and regulated to the point of becoming an endangered species. That people must compete for by and large worthless jobs, for depreciating dollars, and are prevented from bettering themselves in any meaningful way. Where free trade is stifled for all sorts of protectionist, foolish, shortsighted policies.

What of the people who could not afford the labor else wise? (and why is a majority coming together at some point in time sufficient to dictate who they can hire to do what) What about the money they've saved on a particular service being used elsewhere? What about producers and laborers finding creative ways to remain competitive? Why, nothing about them. The government will help fix a price and everyone will be visibly better off for it (after all, who cares to look at the larger picture). The same could be said of the reasoning behind the minimum wage, licensing schemes, and any other protectionist restrictions to the market.
 
By the same token, is it fair that a carpenter loses his job to an illegal who will work for much less? They don't just come here and take the crappy jobs that nobody wants, they take skilled labor jobs too and I am not talking about overpaid union jobs. To look at the entitlement problem among our own citizens one has to look at unemployment. Are people too lazy to work or are they priced out of their own industry? It's a conundrum.

Illegal labor is not on par with the trade schools. You get what you pay for in some instances.
 
You cannot have an open border and provide entitlements. Forcing taxpayers to pay for the care and upkeep of immigrants violate personal property rights. People who think these immigrants do not apply for and get every single freebie they can the minute they get here is living in a land of unicorns and flying babies with gossamer wings. Not to mention the criminals who steal, assault, murder, rape...if that is not a violation of personal property I don't know what is.

Where's your evidence?

What I've seen is that most immigrants, documented or otherwise, tend to shy away from involving themselves in govt programs: they see it not as a handout, but as another way to risk being investigated by ICE.

The only "handout" that I would see being used prolifically would be the public schools, where its easy to enroll and if you don't enroll your kids, you'll only be drawing more attention.

Also, the crime rate among undocumented immigrants is lower than any other demographic. Again - THEY DON'T WANT TO GET CAUGHT.
 
Last edited:
By the same token, is it fair that a carpenter loses his job to an illegal who will work for much less? They don't just come here and take the crappy jobs that nobody wants, they take skilled labor jobs too and I am not talking about overpaid union jobs. To look at the entitlement problem among our own citizens one has to look at unemployment. Are people too lazy to work or are they priced out of their own industry? It's a conundrum.

I said this on another thread-

I lived in a high-end ski town; the service jobs were all Latinos because NO ONE would take them. They paid well over min.wage and were good jobs, however, the community was much too good to take a job in house-keeping, maintenance or construction. One home-healthcare lady could not get anyone to fill good-paying jobs taking care of the elderly at home. After months, she did finally find a couple of Latino ladies who did the job and did it well.

So "fair"? I first want someone who will take the job- secondly, I want someone who can do the job. If a Latino immigrant is a better carpenter than the one I've got, who do you think I should hire? No one is going to hire someone just because they're cheap. They have to be able to do the job or the boss-man will lose his customers.

The very best workers in the service industry, that I have encountered, are Mexicans- no brag, just fact.
 
Back
Top