Paleoconservatives at VDare.com Critique Rand's "Change of Heart" on Immigration

[fr33]

dupe post

 

[Carson]

The people at VDare always seemed in favor of upholding law and order from what I remember. You now...good people.

It looks different now. I suppose that may be freaking some of you out.

http://www.vdare.com/about

 

[fr33]

The people at VDare always seemed in favor of upholding law and order from what I remember. You now...good people.

It looks different now. I suppose that may be freaking some of you out.

http://www.vdare.com/about

Shortened version: America is the best because we live here now.

 

[spladle]

The people at VDare always seemed in favor of upholding law and order from what I remember. You now...good people.

It looks different now. I suppose that may be freaking some of you out.

http://www.vdare.com/about

Do you support the drug war?

 

[William R]

I bet it wouldn't if it included what those current laws are.

Likewise if it included any specification of the kinds of things that would be necessary in order to enforce them.

Time after time when pollsters ask people this

1. Should we grant amnesty to illegals

2. Or should we enforce current laws

75+ percent say enforce current laws.

 

[spladle]

Time after time when pollsters ask people this

1. Should we grant amnesty to illegals

2. Or should we enforce current laws

75+ percent say enforce current laws.

I bet it wouldn't if it included what those current laws are.

Likewise if it included any specification of the kinds of things that would be necessary in order to enforce them.

 

[itshappening]

Single issue voters in regards to immigration are indeed racists. If that's your issue that causes you to reject a representative, you are a racist and probably ignorant of US history. My ancestors filled out documents but did not participate in any waiting list like they have today. People from other countries at the time migrated like the "illegals" of today and no repercussion happened to them. My ancestors also spoke their native language for 2 generations and clung to communities of their own kind. Fuck any englishmen that have a problem with that. They fled Germany because they saw what was coming.

If you're going to be a "conservative" at least study the fucking history of the society you are trying to conserve. As it is you're just a xenophobic bigot.

This.

 

[RobertMorrowAustin]

I helped to kill amnesty in 2007 because it was a stupid bill. In 2013 I am much less of a hawk on amnesty for illegal aliens. As Rand Paul says there are 12 million of them here and they are not going anywhere.

 

[RonPaulMall]

Single issue voters in regards to immigration are indeed racists. If that's your issue that causes you to reject a representative, you are a racist and probably ignorant of US history. My ancestors filled out documents but did not participate in any waiting list like they have today. People from other countries at the time migrated like the "illegals" of today and no repercussion happened to them. My ancestors also spoke their native language for 2 generations and clung to communities of their own kind. Fuck any englishmen that have a problem with that. They fled Germany because they saw what was coming.

Interesting that your ancestors fled to America and not Mexico, no? The United States is the country that it is precisely because it got the bulk of its immigrants from Northern Europe. The people you slander as "ignorant" are in fact far more aware of American immigration history than you. They oppose what is going on today not because it is similar to what happened in the past but because it is so different. And please, enough with the "racist" card. Recognizing that Switzerland or New Zealand are better places to live and raise a family than Mexico or Haiti does not make one "racist".

 

[fr33]

Interesting that your ancestors fled to America and not Mexico, no? The United States is the country that it is precisely because it got the bulk of its immigrants from Northern Europe. The people you slander as "ignorant" are in fact far more aware of American immigration history than you. They oppose what is going on today not because it is similar to what happened in the past but because it is so different. And please, enough with the "racist" card. Recognizing that Switzerland or New Zealand are better places to live and raise a family than Mexico or Haiti does not make one "racist".

No there is no difference. "Illegal immigrants" is a new concept. When my ancestors immigrated here Mexicans were immigrating here without filling out any paperwork. They were not illegal. Europeans like my ancestors were enablers to the harsh immigration laws we now have. They didn't have to do it.

 

[RonPaulMall]

No there is no difference. "Illegal immigrants" is a new concept. When my ancestors immigrated here Mexicans were immigrating here without filling out any paperwork. They were not illegal. Europeans like my ancestors were enablers to the harsh immigration laws we now have. They didn't have to do it.

You ignored my point entirely. We are talking about immigration, not labels. Do you consider Haiti and New Zealand equally appealing places to live and start a family, yes or no? Would you be just as happy sending your children walk the streets of Bern as you would Juarez? What the people at Vdare are objecting too is not the technical legal status of immigrants, but the immigration policy in general, which favors Third World immigrants over everybody else. The people at Vdare are suggesting the radical proposition that a country of made up of honest, hard working, middle class folk of similar culture, IQ, and values is preferable to the Rio de Janerio/Johannesburg model of gated communities surrounded by third world hell.

 

[jclay2]

Can't we just end the welfare state? Surely many would go back if they couldn't get world class free medical care, education, food stamps, and housing?

 

[fr33]

You ignored my point entirely.

No I just assumed you were more intelligent than you are.

We are talking about immigration, not labels. Do you consider Haiti and New Zealand equally appealing places to live and start a family, yes or no?

Today? Yes. There is no country to flee to anymore. We are stuck in this fascist police state.

Would you be just as happy sending your children walk the streets of Bern as you would Juarez?

In both cases it depends on how much I money have. In Juarez I could find work but in Bern I cannot.

What the people at Vdare are objecting too is not the technical legal status of immigrants, but the immigration policy in general, which favors Third World immigrants over everybody else.

Geography favors third world immigrants. Ever since the US was founded and until it collapses this will always be true. You central planners love to organize who is acceptable while us freedom lovers say let people travel unmolested.

The people at Vdare are suggesting the radical proposition that a country of made up of honest, hard working, middle class folk of similar culture, IQ, and values is preferable to the Rio de Janerio/Johannesburg model of gated communities surrounded by third world hell.

Again with the central planning bs. You're not wrong by comparing the US to Johannesburg. Paint an imaginary line to keep those pesky brown folks out and call it freedom.

 

[yinzer38]

The people at Vdare are suggesting the radical proposition that a country of made up of honest, hard working, middle class folk of similar culture, IQ, and values is preferable

I can agree with the honest and hardworking part, but as to the rest, see Ronald Reagan's 1964 "A Time for Choosing" speech:

"Not too long ago two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don't know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are! I had someplace to escape to." In that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth. And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except to sovereign people, is still the newest and most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election. Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves."

I was wondering what the people at VDARE would think about immigrant groups who are stereotyped as hardworking "perpetual foreigners" like Indians or the Chinese until I found this article:
http://www.vdare.com/articles/mentioning-the-unmentionable-about-the-chinese-model-minority

DON'T read that article (especially if you're Chinese!) if you want to go to bed happy...

 

[RonPaulMall]

Can't we just end the welfare state? Surely many would go back if they couldn't get world class free medical care, education, food stamps, and housing?

On this point I think all of us agree. End the welfare state, privatize all land, and restore the right to free association. In a truly free country, there wouldn't be an immigration problem. The problems arise when you combine open immigration with a oppressive, centralized welfare state. Then you get what we have now, which Hans-Hermann Hoppe correctly described as forced integration. Basically, our Federal overlords are trying to turn us in to Mexico because that although it makes life infinitely worse for all of us, it makes life much easier for them.

 

[fr33]

It's more difficult than it's ever been to cross borders today, yet conservatives continue to claim they are conserving something; while they are actually increasing tyranny.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

On this point I think all of us agree. End the welfare state, privatize all land, and restore the right to free association. In a truly free country, there wouldn't be an immigration problem. The problems arise when you combine open immigration with a oppressive, centralized welfare state. Then you get what we have now, which Hans-Hermann Hoppe correctly described as forced integration. Basically, our Federal overlords are trying to turn us in to Mexico because that although it makes life infinitely worse for all of us, it makes life much easier for them.

I'm a non-consequentialist, so I don't care what the 'outcome' is. The fact is restricting property rights (e.g. immigration), is tyrannous and is a breach of liberty regardless of whatever way you try and justify it. Your entire argument is that the Government should have power to tell everyone who they can have on their property, who they can hire, who they can _____, etc. because they might vote to make the situation even worse, or even worse yet, the assumption that immigration = voting. The problem is this idea that voting is a right, when it is a privilege, a hideous privilege at that. Let property owners decide who they want on their property, not the damn Government, and for gods sake I could care less if these people get a 'vote'. Stop conflating the two fucking issues jeeze.

 

[spladle]

 

[abacabb]

You ignored my point entirely. We are talking about immigration, not labels. Do you consider Haiti and New Zealand equally appealing places to live and start a family, yes or no? Would you be just as happy sending your children walk the streets of Bern as you would Juarez? What the people at Vdare are objecting too is not the technical legal status of immigrants, but the immigration policy in general, which favors Third World immigrants over everybody else. The people at Vdare are suggesting the radical proposition that a country of made up of honest, hard working, middle class folk of similar culture, IQ, and values is preferable to the Rio de Janerio/Johannesburg model of gated communities surrounded by third world hell.

A smart immigration program would focus on bringing in talented people. We have plenty of unemployed Americans that can do menial labor.

 

[RonPaulMall]

I'm a non-consequentialist, so I don't care what the 'outcome' is. The fact is restricting property rights (e.g. immigration), is tyrannous and is a breach of liberty regardless of whatever way you try and justify it. Your entire argument is that the Government should have power to tell everyone who they can have on their property, who they can hire, who they can _____, etc. because they might vote to make the situation even worse, or even worse yet, the assumption that immigration = voting. The problem is this idea that voting is a right, when it is a privilege, a hideous privilege at that. Let property owners decide who they want on their property, not the damn Government, and for gods sake I could care less if these people get a 'vote'. Stop conflating the two fucking issues jeeze.

Actually, my entire argument was end the welfare state, abolish public property, and restore the right to free association. My objection to Rand's position is that it is utterly insane for a Conservative who doesn't believe in all that. Rand is not an anarcho-capitalist. He believes in the nation state. He believes in Democracy. He believes in the welfare state to some degree. And he believes in borders. So why is he jumping all over this plan that encourages third world immigration? Why not propose a plan that accepts all European immigrants first, then moves on to Asians, and then, and only then, start accepting Third World folks if there is still room. Why favor a plan that puts a priority and gives advantages to the absolute worst sort of immigrant we can find?

You are a non-consequentionalist. Fine. Rand isn't. And Mexican peasants immigrating en mass have some pretty negative consequences for the average American. They drive down wages and make the unemployment situation (which is already at an all time high) even worse. They are far more likely to need public assistance. They also force responsible parents to move in to more expensive neighborhoods just to get away from them or to shell out the cash for private schools on top of the money they are already paying for the government run schools. And of course they vote in a way which increases the clout and power of the worst sorts of politician. I get your position from an anarcho-capitalist perspective (but note the respective anarcho-capitalist Hans-Hermann Hoppe takes the opposite position). But how do you defend Rand's position given the assumptions inherit in Rand's ideology. Why would a Constitutional minarchist buy in to this?