Invasion USA

aristotle-quote-tyranrts-prefer-alients-immigrants.jpeg
 
Wow, that's a level of cultural enrichment I never considered.

Having to worry about convicted sex criminals randomly throwing battery acid in my kid's face.

Normally I would want to throw this guy out of my country, but then who would cook my street pitas and falafel?

https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1753169130188906777

 
Last edited:
This is interesting that NYC is saying they'll hand out prepaid debit cards to the illegals because that's what the UN does. I'd bet the the money for the cards in NYC is coming from the UN and NYC is also being paid off.

UN Budgets Millions for U.S.-Bound Migrants in 2024
Public docs show cash handouts to help feed, transport, and house people headed for the U.S. border

But now the UN’s 2024 update to the “Regional Refugee and Migrant Response Plan” (RMRP for short), a planning and budget document for handing out nearly $1.6 billion in 17 Latin America countries, can cast a broad confirming light on the cash giveaways and much more aid for 2024 ahead — with the helping hands of 248 named non-governmental organizations. Despite the RMRP plan title naming Venezuelans as recipients of this aid operation, the document’s fine print (footnote on p. 14 and paragraph on p. 43, for instance) says the largesse goes to “all nationalities” and “multiple other nationalities”.

The documents clear up any mystery about what the UN and NGOs are doing on the migrant trails and leave no room for supposedly debunking “fact checks”.

In a nutshell, the UN and its advocacy partners are planning to spread $372 million in “Cash and Voucher Assistance (CVA)”, and “Multipurpose Cash Assistance (MCA)” to some 624,000 immigrants in-transit to the United States during 2024. That money is most often handed out, other UN documents show, as pre-paid, rechargeable debit cards, but also hard “cash in envelopes”, bank transfers, and mobile transfers the U.S. border-bound travelers can use for whatever they want.

The $372 million in planned cash giveaways to the 624,000 immigrants moving north and illegally crossing national borders “represents a significantly greater share of the financial requirements” for 2024, the RMRP says, but it is still only one part of much broader UN hemisphere-wide vision that aims to spend $1.59 billion assisting about three million people in 17 countries who emigrated from their home nations. Most will be “in-destination” recipients already supposedly settled in third countries, albeit in declining numbers, but a rising share of cash will go to the spiking numbers of “in-transit” immigrants launching journeys from those accommodating countries north to the United States.

Some 57 international organizations would manage the handouts of $273 million, while 132 “national NGOs” and “civil service organizations” would handle $70 million in aid. Fifteen UN agencies would get the lion’s share at $1.2 billion.

The NGOs actively participated in crafting the RMRP 2024 Update, which amends a 2023-2024 plan released back in 2022 that at the time foresaw a decline in illegal immigration after 2023. It increased, instead.

“Country-level projections of in-transit movements for populations moving north through Central America and Mexico have been revised sharply upwards,” p. 44 explains in updating the 2024 RMRP update.

The reasons given include factors like “xenophobia” leading resettled migrants to leave for the United States. It does, finally, tag the real culprit: U.S. policies that created “newly established opportunities for regular pathways to move to the United States of America” for those who could make their way to northern Mexico.

https://cis.org/Bensman/UN-Budgets-Millions-USBound-Migrants-2024
 
Market Borders, not Open Borders
by Jeff Deist
Mises.org


The attack on a Christmas market in Berlin earlier this week, apparently carried out by a Pakistani immigrant*, is just the latest in a series of violent and disturbing terrorist incidents in Germany. The event raises uncomfortable questions about immigration, culture clashes, Islam, and identity: what does it mean to be German, rather than someone who merely lives in Germany? It also raises pragmatic questions about how to provide physical security in public spaces, given such dramatic failures by the German government.

Libertarians can duck these questions, or dismiss them. We can sniff about how everyone is an individual, how Islam is not to blame, or how Pakistanis are not any more prone to murderous violence than Germans. We can argue for a holistic approach to welfare statism, foreign policy, and human migration. None of these arguments will help Germans deal with horrific criminality here and now, however. Rather than virtue-signaling to deeply illiberal and hostile audiences in government, media, and academia, we should make populist arguments for radical privatization of property and security. Imagine the actions a private shopping mall, theme park, or stadium would take immediately in response to a terrorist incident on their private property!

We also should argue for localized decision-making regarding immigration, as with every political matter. Germans, like everyone else, want and deserve true self-determination. The smaller the political unit, the closer we come to Mises's concept of granting this power to every individual. Mass state-sponsored immigration from Islamic countries is being imposed on Germans, as a political project created by the EU and the German government. It is not the result of market demand. We are not witnessing some kind of heroic movement of labor toward welcoming employers and family relatives, but rather a coordinated and staged relocation of people who mostly are not true refugees. Libertarians are right to criticize this political project, while supporting average Germans who simply want to enjoy their cities rather than "learning to live with terrorism" as part of everyday life.

If not, we risk irrelevance or worse: the conjoining (in the public's mind) of libertarianism with all of the useless "public policy" ideas issuing from Brussels, Washington, and Berlin. The common criticism of libertarianism is that it sounds great in theory, but fails to offer concrete solutions to real-world problems. This criticism is wrong. Libertarianism offers the most pragmatic, proportional, and efficacious solutions imaginable: marketplace solutions. It is modern governments, with their political intrigue, sclerotic monopolies, inefficient bureaucracies, and perverse incentives, that cannot competently address tough problems like border control and terrorism. It is precisely because these problems are so complex and intractable that they should be sorted by the market.

The thorny issue of immigration, rife with very real externalities and distorted by "public property," calls for market order. There is a market for immigration, just as there is a market for security. Open borders advocates ignore the in-group preferences of the marketplace, just as they ignore the tremendous externalities caused by sudden influxes of migrants. The real question is not whether borders are open or restricted, but rather who decides? When someone asks for the libertarian position on immigration, my response is that libertarians want as much or as little immigration as the market demands.

Immigration and borders have been debated at length, and vociferously, by libertarians. Probably no better examples exist than several exchanges by open borders advocate Walter Block and restricted immigration advocate Hans Hermann Hoppe. There is little to say about the subject that is novel or more insightful than what Block and Hoppe already have provided. That said, certain points bear repeating or elaboration:


- Borders satisfy innately human desires for order and separation. Borders arise and exist naturally, without being created or enforced by political entities (although they were generally less rigidly defined and more porous prior to the era of modern governments).

- Nation is not state, as Murray Rothbard reminded us. Nations can and do emerge naturally, while states tend to be late-arriving artifices that do injury to earlier, more natural borders.

- In-group preferences are strong. Provided groups coexist without coercion or violence, libertarianism has nothing particular to say about such preferences.

- Humans are not all good and well-intentioned, nor are they fungible. People with money, intelligence, or in-demand skills are better immigrants than people without these attributes. Poor and criminal immigrants impose huge costs. Any worldview that denies this, or downplays this, fails to comport with reality. Libertarianism, rooted in natural law, should by definition accord better with reality than worldviews requiring positive law. Why do we lose sight of this?

- Humans naturally want to live in safe areas, i.e., in "good neighborhoods" on a macro scale. And they want to know their neighbors are not a threat. In other words, there is a market for security beyond one's own property — not everyone can own and control vast areas of property like Ted Turner. This is why gated communities exist. Simply stating that "nobody has a right to control any property they don't own" does not address reality.

- Almost all instances of rapid mass migration do not occur as natural marketplace phenomena. Instead, they usually occur due to wars, famine, and other state-created disasters. So it does not follow that resistance to mass migration is anti-market.

- Every human has a natural right to control his body and movement. No human should be falsely imprisoned, enslaved, or held in a place against his will. But the right to leave a physical place is different than the right to enter one. Entry should be denied or permitted by the rightful owner of the property in question. But when vast areas of land are controlled (and/or ostensibly owned) by government, the question becomes much more complex — and the only way to make it less complex is to privatize such land. Unless and until this happens, it is facile for libertarians simply to insist that everyone has a right to go wherever they wish.

- The concept of open borders is mostly a big-government construct. Without state-provided incentives (food, housing, clothing, schooling, mobile phones, etc.), and frequent NGO funding for actual travel, immigration naturally would be far more restricted.

- As stated in an earlier article, a libertarian society has no commons or public space. There are property lines, not borders. When it comes to real property and physical movement across such real property, there are owners, guests, licensees, business invitees, and trespassers.

- Libertarianism, to borrow a phrase from Judge Napolitano, is not a suicide pact. It does not require us to ignore history, tradition, culture, family, and self-preservation. It does not require us to live as deracinated, hyper-individualized actors who identify with nothing larger than ourselves and have no sense of home.​


Immigration is a complex and antagonistic issue. But facile slogans won't help libertarians have a bigger voice in the debate.

https://mises.org/wire/market-borders-not-open-borders
Click to expand...
 
Humans are not all good and well-intentioned, nor are they fungible. People with money, intelligence, or in-demand skills are better immigrants than people without these attributes. Poor and criminal immigrants impose huge costs. Any worldview that denies this, or downplays this, fails to comport with reality. Libertarianism, rooted in natural law, should by definition accord better with reality than worldviews requiring positive law. Why do we lose sight of this?
Click to expand...

Repeal the Hart-Cellar Act.

Restrict immigration to a limited number of people from Western Europe and East Asia.
 
PAF said:
Market Borders, not Open Borders
by Jeff Deist
Mises.org
Click to expand...

But when vast areas of land are controlled (and/or ostensibly owned) by government, the question becomes much more complex — and the only way to make it less complex is to privatize such land.

Why are those the only choices? Prior to Europeans conquering this continent, wasn't it more a matter if you were living there it was yours and if nobody was living there then nobody owned it? Why does everything have to be owned? I once saw a suggestion, here, that the oceans should be divided into sections are privately owned. That's just so absurd and insane that I can't believe anyone would seriously suggest such a thing but this idea of everything having to be somebody's property is where that stupidity comes from.

When he speaks of Germany and how the market should dictate immigration - which he later contradicts, btw - that's bullshit. I don't care how much the market is in need of laborers, if they don't share your culture and values, they should not gain entry, period.
 
susano said:
Why are those the only choices? Prior to Europeans conquering this continent, wasn't it more a matter if you were living there it was yours and if nobody was living there then nobody owned it? Why does everything have to be owned?
Click to expand...

Not in the slightest. The Indian tribes and clans fought constantly for "ownership" of the land, hunting rights, acreage for crops and so on.

IIRC this is supposed to be an accurate portrayal of the "powwow" between Custer and Sitting Bull.

Custer was not wrong in his assessment.



I once saw a suggestion, here, that the oceans should be divided into sections are privately owned. That's just so absurd and insane that I can't believe anyone would seriously suggest such a thing but this idea of everything having to be somebody's property is where that stupidity comes from.
Click to expand...

It's already in place, after a fashion. Massive fish farms off Greenland, Iceland, Labrador and Norway are already functioning enterprises where the ocean is, if not bought outright, it is leased. Sub sea minerals are already leased and bought.

I agree with ownership.

Ownership means somebody has skin in the game, they have an incentive to make sure the property is not damaged, destroyed, befouled, pirated or squatted upon.

Government "ownership" means none of that, and when government places squatters on those properties, they almost always get destroyed.

But I don't put the man in the OP in that category.

It appears he did have skin in the game and he was paying his freight.

Until foreign invaders, with the help of local cops following orders, kicked him out.
 
susano said:
But when vast areas of land are controlled (and/or ostensibly owned) by government, the question becomes much more complex — and the only way to make it less complex is to privatize such land.
Click to expand...

Governments, as it is implied, should never be in the business of owning land.


Why are those the only choices? Prior to Europeans conquering this continent, wasn't it more a matter if you were living there it was yours and if nobody was living there then nobody owned it?
Click to expand...

That is where homesteading comes in. If you homestead the land, or live there, or make use of the land, it is yours to do as you like; nobody should have a right to tell you what to do with it, unless what you do causes damage to another person, place or thing. Once the land is abandoned, it should be made available for others to homestead. Here is an example:

I purchased acreage some years back. As I started building my home, I noticed a barbed-wire fence approximately 60 feet away from the property line. I thought that the previous owner had installed it, but to my surprise it was the neighbor in the back who owned a horse ranch. When I instructed the neighbor to please remove the barbed-wire fence, he stated to me that in one more year the property would become his, because the previous owner never bothered to take the wire down. Long story short, after several heated arguments and trips to the town office, I physically removed the barbed-wire fence myself, rolled it up neatly, placed the rolls on his property and took over what was rightfully mine. Lawfully, he had no recourse because I removed it within the allotted time, and I was able to make use of the property that I had purchased. Unless there is something out-of-the-ordinary-whacky-whack going on, Property Rights and Contract Rights are the only lawful way to solve any/all disputes.


Why does everything have to be owned? I once saw a suggestion, here, that the oceans should be divided into sections are privately owned. That's just so absurd and insane that I can't believe anyone would seriously suggest such a thing but this idea of everything having to be somebody's property is where that stupidity comes from.

When he speaks of Germany and how the market should dictate immigration - which he later contradicts, btw - that's bull$#@!. I don't care how much the market is in need of laborers, if they don't share your culture and values, they should not gain entry, period.
Click to expand...

It is up to the company owner to negotiate under contract (verbally and/or written) with workers, and vice versa. Whether you like it or not, it is not the business of anybody else what two consenting individuals do. If it were [which it is not], then I would have every right as an outsider to enter into your garage and dictate to you who you should/should not hire, and at what wage, while you make pretty waxed candle figurines to sell to your neighbors ;-)


[MENTION=1515]susano[/MENTION] , with all due respect, and I've noted it before, I am not much of a conversationalist online, one because my long-windedness would fill volumes, and two because I would be adding nothing more than what is already available.

Perhaps [MENTION=28167]Occam's Banana[/MENTION] (also [MENTION=5460]CCTelander[/MENTION] and [MENTION=12430]acptulsa[/MENTION]) can chime in and point you in the right direction, or explain it better than I could :-)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
How Zionist Influence in New York Gave Rise to Zohran Mamdani
Replies
13
Views
78
Snowball
Snowball
jmdrake
Trump invites Zorhan Mamdani to the White House
2 3
Replies
43
Views
347
Anti Globalist
Anti Globalist
jmdrake
NY Mayor Eric Adams pledges to work with Trump on public safety, infrastructure
Replies
0
Views
361
jmdrake
jmdrake
unknown
TX: Abbott threatens San Marcos over resolution condemning Izrael.
Replies
14
Views
99
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
Anti Federalist
NYC's immigration woes
3 4 5
Replies
82
Views
7K
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Back
Top