Dispelling 8 Lies Of Conservative Statist Migrant Control

14th Amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Oh, I see now it makes sense. When it says "All persons" it does not mean that. It means something it does not say. It actually means what whatever you are now claiming it should mean as opposed to what it says.

It's not authoritative it's a piece of paper that we should have ripped up when those that signed the contract died.It is not valid. Have you read anything on this site? This only points out the hypocrisy of your constitutions and claims. All you Democrats and Republicans are the same. Same arguments to support your tyranny over the people. Anything but liberty. Here I'll make the next post just for you.

Do you realize you are using "Law" as a defense on an Anarchist Website?

Your head is in the sand. You won’t find many libertarians among illegal immigrants.

“Undocumented Migrants Pay more in Taxes” – dream on.

“Most undocumented migrants are in lower income brackets. If they were to file their taxes they are of the demographics who would receive more of a refund than they actually put into taxes. (due to family credits and lower income tax credit) Often this can be literally thousands of dollars a year in excess of what was paid out.” Yes, that’s what mooching is and it’s legal.

Illegals are great – if you live in Texas and need yard work done. Cato loves cheap labor.

Illegal immigration is good for liberal politicians. No libertarians among them either.

NICE

Nice!

Not as crisp and polished as it might be, but I’m glad somebody’s tackling this head-on. You said many good, true things here. Thanks.

Why is it when Americans talk about moving abroad to places like Europe or north to Canada we assume we have the right and freedom to do so, but when many of those same individuals hear of people moving north to our country we claim they have no right?

Why do you assume that anybody can move to any where they wish? Try migrating to Australia. You will get a rude awakening if your aren’t fairly wealthy or have skills they want. A basic understanding of national sovereignty is the right to control immigration.
The true state of affairs is also revealed by the heavily armed southern border of Mexico.

Statist Claim: I recently received an article comparing the current wave of migration to the European colonization of America claiming that we would be treated like the Native Americans by the current migrants.

It is much closer to the experience of the Romans. A rich statist welfare pampered class of people – overrun by a culture of hungry refugees from a corrupt foreign culture, which nonetheless holds their ultimate allegiance through cultural and racial solidarity.

Statist Claim: Some are claiming that the health care bill and also welfare are reasons for migrant control.

Excessive amounts of poor immigrants are why it is such a poor idea to create that socialist situation. Ultimately it is another attack on the dollar, as the government monetizes the resulting debt.

Statist Claim: They have committed a crime by coming into the country “illegally.”

Yes, the only punishment for which is deportation. Would you expect any less from Canada or Australia, etc?

Statist Claim: We were born here so we have rights but other people do not. The state defends our rights others are not privileged to these rights.

All people are born with inalienable rights. The United States of America have taken on the task of enforcing those rights for it’s own citizens, and temporarily for those on our soil. This is one of the reasons that it is invalid to invade and occupy Iraq and Afghanistan. We have neither the right OR the obligation to create a “democracy” there. That is for them to do if they choose. We can ONLY control what we control – and one of the crucial ways we control that is through immigration limits which will allow immigrants to assimilate, rather than creating subcultures in certain areas of the country.

Statist Claim: This is an English speaking language we should force others to speak English.

If we had actually limited immigration properly, English would have become so important for the immigrant to flourish, they would have picked it up within months. As it is they can submerge into existing subcultures, and only deal with the annoyance that we “racists” want them to learn the language of the country they have adopted.

Statist Claim: Mexicans are bad for the economy and they take our jobs

Most Mexicans are hungry and willing to work hard for low wages. The reason they are here is the nafta trade deals that have destabilized their country – and our PERCEIVED wealth created by the federal Reserve out of thin air.
They are in a situation created through no fault of their own. Yet they ultimately belong in the country that has their allegiance. The reason their parents had so many children stems from the need for more farm hands in Mexico. This has changed, but the new answer is to send them to America to send home the milk money to the family.
At some point we are hoping you can begin to see the pro-American side to all this?

Statist Claim: The migrant is “mooching” and not paying their fair share of taxes.

Just by being low income they pay no federal taxes and little if any state taxes. If everyone was poor like that, we would be even less able to afford the services we have now. “Mooching” implies intent, but the fact is that they add to the overall tax burden.

The days are gone when we can afford to assimilate waves of immigrants. Our goal should be individual liberty for all Americans. We can do this with an eye to a balanced racial assimilation from throughout the world. It is an indication that our culture is in danger of capsizing when our country is so balkanized into separate ethnic camps with a different language and a limited overlapping culture.

“Why is it when Americans talk about moving abroad to places like Europe or north to Canada we assume we have the right and freedom to do so”Probably because they are making idle statements. Americans who actually plan to move to other countries generally begin by finding out what they have to do to move there legally, and then comply with local laws.I know that to move to Canada, you have to prove that you will contribute enough to the economy that you are considered a good economic risk. Mexico takes a very harsh stand on people who illegally enter their country – even if they are poor people simply trying to enjoy the better economic opportunities that Mexico offers.1) Danger to society“Migrants come to partake in an existing society. Colonization brings their culture and society to the other”Seems to contradict the author’s complaint that “They want to force the migrant to learn a language”. If you want to partake in an existing society, it is critical that you are able to communicate with members of that society. If you are expecting the existing society to change to fit the customs, language, and social mores of the society you are coming from, it would seem to be colonization or subjugation. Historically, you get one of two outcomes when two different cultures come together – either the newcomers adopt the existing culture (often adding small elements of their own culture to the existing cultural “mix”), or the newcomers replace the existing culture with their own (sometimes preserving small elements of the previous culture).2) Health Care “There is also a good deal of misunderstanding in those arguments. Benefits by law are not available to undocumented migrants in most states”There is a great deal of misunderstanding, especially by some one who thinks that “most states” – “every state”. There is also clearly a misunderstanding of the fact that emergency rooms provide medical treatment regardless of ability to pay, and don’t check your residence status. High emergency room costs are often cited as one of the reasons that healthcare in America is so expensive.3) Law“we can use the concept of law as an argument to defend really any law.” It seems that the author is more of an Anarchist than a Libertarian, since he doesn’t believe in the value of law, or of the right of nations to exist. “The conservatives claims to be against statism and then turns around and uses statism as the defense of their actions.”The author appears to be using two different definitions of “statism” here. One definition of “statism” is that the state has all authority and controls the economy and virtually all elements of people’s lives. Conservatives and Libertarians tend to reject this. The author’s definition is that “statism” is the belief that nation states should exist, and have any right to control their borders. Conservatives and even most Libertarians tend to support this. These are very different things, but the author ignores what people mean, and uses his own definition to create a straw-man argument to make his opponents look hypocritical.4) Birthplace“Not only that, but it also implies that rights are not natural but one is born with more or less rights depending on where they are born”Whether or not we like it, it is a fact that different nations recognize different rights for people. Not all rights are “natural” – in fact the only “right” that nature provides us is the right to struggle/fight or die (and sometimes to struggle/fight and die anyway). The natural world does not automatically provide us with food, shelter, medicine, or anything else. The United States Constitution recognizes that there are rights that governments have no business taking away from people (inalienable rights). It never claims the authority to impose those views on other governments or societies.As to “anchor babies”, if our hospitals didn’t provide treatment for illegal aliens – as the author claims – then there would be no official recognition of any birth by an illegal alien in an American hospital or clinic. No official record of birth means no “anchor baby”. 5) Language“They want to force the migrant to learn a language”Again, this seems to contradict the author’s statement that “Migrants come to partake in an existing society. Colonization brings their culture and society to the other”Immigrants who learn the common language and social mores of their host society are more likely to be successful members of the host society. Those that choose not to do so create barriers to their integration in the society.America is a land of immigrants – every person in America has ancestors who immigrated here from somewhere else at some point in history. Those immigrants who have successfully integrated into the society have contributed greatly to it. Those who have not have either suffered a second-class existence, or were able to grow in numbers to the point where they displaced the previous society and imposed their own in its place.6) Jobs / Economy“To deny these people the chance to function in that market will just hinder the free market like any other restriction on the market”The author ignores the fact that illegals provide a labor market that doesn’t follow the same rules and restrictions as the regular labor market. While unrestricted free markets may be a dream, most people – even many Conservatives and Libertarians – believe in some restrictions and regulations on the marketplace, to ensure quality, safety, and fairness.7) Taxes“Most undocumented migrants are in lower income brackets.”The author neglects to explain why people would choose to illegally enter the United States simply in order to be poor. When illegal immigrants are driving around in $30k or $40k SUVs and trucks, one has to wonder how they can possibly not be making any money.Some illegals work in fairly high paying fields. Others make a lot of money through criminal activity, either independently, or through gang affiliations. There is also the discrepancy between government spending on illegal and legal residents. As an example: high proportion of illegals do not speak English. This means that the public schools provide extensive services to them – with no checking of their immigration status. English Language Learners – students whose families don’t speak English at home – have three to six times as much money spent on them as English speaking students. This places a severe strain on education budgets.Another example is in law enforcement, court, and incarceration costs. These are higher for non-English speakers.8) “Right”“It is terrible what we are doing to people just like you and I” Maybe the author should speak for himself when he says that lawbreakers are “just like you and I”. I am not in the country illegally. When I have traveled to, and lived in, other countries, I have always followed the laws – both of the United States, and the other nation. Were I to illegally enter another country, I would expect to be arrested and jailed/deported – as a minimum. In some cases, I might have worse happen to me.Regarding illegals from Mexico – “often the Mexican government is taking advantage of them ““often people who would be able to enter legally can not because they could not bribe the right Mexican authority”Sounds like the Mexican people need to fix their own government. Or is the author actually suggesting that the United States invade Mexico and fix their screwed up and corrupt government in order to fix the problem for the Mexican people (as well as protect their “natural” rights)?

I would like to point out that this is the REAL article. Not the big welfare "rubbish" of the original article. Embracing illegal immigrants while calling them migrant workers and accusing us of being statist is so absurd, I cannot believe this "article" is getting any attention. Just a manipulation of language, written by a progressive who is well trained in the art of language distortion.

Yeah, I can see you're another student of non-history, until you read and understand the hows & whys the Constitution was written, you have no authority to debate.And you have the ability to opt out anytime you wish, it's called a freedom to leave at your pleasure.Although I doubt you will have much luck finding anyplace that doesn't have laws, be it by man or nature, you will follow them or suffer the consequences.

Your acid words convey the truth. The constitution was the 18th century PATRIOT act, it hijacked the country and placed it in the road to ruin we see now. The actual founding document that the rebels fought and died for was the articles of confederation, the constitutional convention was basically a successful counter-coup staged by the federalists on behalf of the mercantilist landed gentry. This is something conservatives ignore unless you confront them with it in real life. In person they have to admit that it is the truth or admit that they lack the requisite information of pre-constitutional America. If they do have any knowledge of the original articles, it is usually limited to Hamiltonian slogans like; "it didn't work" or "it needed to be replaced". Damned if they can tell you how or why it didn't work.Naturally this is all beside the point, because the same argument of Lysander Spooner applies both to the constitution and the articles. The paper has no authority on later generations, those who where not there to be a part of the contract.

I feign no knowledge of your political persuasion. If you believe my mention of conservatives is a slight against you, you might need to reevaluate your understanding of the English language. I cannot be held responsible for hallucinatory projections and leaps of logic that are solely yours and yours alone.Your thoughts on the constitution have no bearing on our conversation until you state them. I have only and will ONLY continue to respond to things you have stated here as a commented response to this article. It keeps it simple if I do not have to attempt to read your mind, I have enough trouble reading your run on sentences and improperly formatted paragraphs. As for facts and opinion, you do not have the authority to dismiss fact as merely being opinion, which is exactly what I had stated earlier. We can and have read the history, and you are the one distorting it and making outlandish claims. You have done this throughout the entire comments section here, which you dishonestly claim I have not read.Now I have to respond to your most asinine paragraph regarding your beliefs and how I as an individual should feel based on your beliefs about the constitution. This historically revisionist rhetoric is no different than any number of false claims as to how history would have played out had x replaced y at z. It takes a serious stretch of the imagination to assume that the worst problems of the federal government would never have happened had the constitution been followed. Not only is there no historical precedence to make an educated guess, but I assume as well that you also lack a time machine to verify your bold assertions.It has become exceedingly clear that your perception of reality is not quite whole, as elucidated by your final non-sequitur. If the constitution was a document of negative rights – as you claim – it would not need to replace the articles of confederation which most certainly (according to Hamilton) hamstrung the federal government. That much is obvious if you look at the history of how and why the document was crafted in the first place, which by the way is INCREDIBLY important when attempting to understand a historical document. You cannot simply take something out of context and expect it to have a stand alone meaning, unless you are engaged in the intellectually dishonest debate tactic of sloganeering.Just because you simply wish to ignore the facts and call them opinions doesn't make it so.

So I'm a 'student of non-history' because I'm talking about things you don't like to hear? Read something other than an 8th grade textbook on the founding fathers, the constitution, the motives behind revolution.Contrary to popular history books, the revolution was the brainchild of the topmost wealthy merchants, bankers, etc of the colonies who were tired of not being in the 'inner circle' with the Crown that the very few people who were even richer then them enjoyed. They wanted access to the millions of acre's of land that were concentrated with that very top elite (whom history labels 'monarchists'), so they stirred up populist sentiment against the crown among the poorest classes, in order to foment a revolution that would benefit them. The poor that were driven to fight in the war were used mercilessly, even though there was very little that benefited them about it (even after the war, very few of the class that actually did the fighting and dying were granted land – most weren't even paid). Once it was all said and done, the constitution was created with great fanfare, setting up a government that was supposedly there to give every citizen control of their own destiny. Only problem was that it excluded half the population (women), didn't allow for anyone who was non-white, and generally maintained the status quo that had already existed under the Crown.Only now, the same taxes that were decried as being unjust were going to the 'founding fathers' rather than the Crown. Jesus man, open your eyes. Read about the Whiskey rebellion, and the reasons for it. Read the private letters of those framing the constitution, out and out admitting that they were purposely crafting something that would placate the masses. Read about how, once the revolution was stirred up and the people really started realizing it was the wealthy who were their enemies, the same people who had started the revolution started panicking, worried that the status quo might change to much.Read ANYTHING beyond popular history.

Damn, every time I hear about the Whiskey Rebellion I have to mention one of my favorite novels. The Probability Broach by L Neil Smith. If you are an anarchist and want to read some good fiction, try it out. In the book, the protagonist is blown sideways through time into an alternate earth in which the major turning point was a successful Whiskey Rebellion beat the feds and then turned and marched on the capitol, where they put Washington against the wall for the traitor he was.One has to turn to fiction to find a revolution that was not hijacked by the statists; be they aristocrats, mercantilists or the nomenklatura.

The problem with an anarchist is that they are as bowling alley pins that are set up to be knocked down by the bowling ball of olicharchy. Their "usefulness" ends when they overthrow the government they hate, even when that government rightfully belongs to the people as does the American Constitutional Republic. The people created it through their elected delegates and still the anartchists are not happy with that arrangement. Why?They seek a utopian world that can never come about since they also reject the concept of internal government- that self imposed restraint that only an advanced civilized people can understand. Those internal restraints, if practiced by individauls, would require very little external government. But anarchists are too busy philosophizing about no need for borders of any kind that they forget that "borders" are an internal concept called sovereignty. And with sovereignty comes the concept of private property. Do anarchists have fences around their house to keep others out I wonder?No one has the right to your property and no one can take it away unless you use your property in a manner that denies others their right to property. This concept of property entails your dreams, hopes, talents, personality as well as your physical self. however, no one person is stong enough to defend his person from those who don't accept his theory of sovereignty and property, so laws are worked out to use the force of law be to defend individuals' God-given rights or the "natural rights " of man as the Founders wrote in the Declaration of Independence.Since most anachists can't accept the entire concept that man's rights are born with him and those "rights" are a gift from the "Creator" as Jefferson said, we must be patient with them since even patience is a gift from the "Creator" and one of those "internal" governmental controls associated with the characteristic of a civilized society. We once called those internal restraints the Golden Rule.

The problem with an anarchist is that they are as bowling alley pins that are set up to be knocked down by the bowling ball of olicharchy.

Their “usefulness” ends when they overthrow the government they hate, even when that government rightfully belongs to the people as does the American Constitutional Republic. The people created it through their elected delegates and still the anartchists are not happy with that arrangement. Why?

They seek a utopian world that can never come about since they also reject the concept of internal government- that self imposed restraint that only an advanced civilized people can understand. Those internal restraints, if practiced by individauls, would require very little external government. But anarchists are too busy philosophizing about no need for borders of any kind that they forget that “borders” are an internal concept called sovereignty. And with sovereignty comes the concept of private property. Do anarchists have fences around their house to keep others out I wonder?

No one has the right to your property and no one can take it away unless you use your property in a manner that denies others their right to property. This concept of property entails your dreams, hopes, talents, personality as well as your physical self. however, no one person is stong enough to defend his person from those who don’t accept his theory of sovereignty and property, so laws are worked out to use the force of law be to defend individuals’ God-given rights or the “natural rights ” of man as the Founders wrote in the Declaration of Independence.

Since most anachists can’t accept the entire concept that man’s rights are born with him and those “rights” are a gift from the “Creator” as Jefferson said, we must be patient with them since even patience is a gift from the “Creator” and one of those “internal” governmental controls associated with the characteristic of a civilized society. We once called those internal restraints the Golden Rule.