Population and Resource Control
I've been kicked by the wind,
robbed by the sleet
Had my head stoved in,
but I'm still on my feet and I'm still... willin'
--Willin', Little Feat
All the Federales say
They could have had him any day
They only let him slip away
Out of kindness I suppose
--Pancho and Lefty,
Townes Van Zandt
And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying,
Command the people of Israel, and say to them,
When you come into the land of Canaan;
this is the land that shall fall to you for an inheritance,
the land of Canaan with its borders
--Numbers 34:1-2
______________
Border control and PRC never worked in our useless OCONUS adventures, but they could be applied successfully and judiciously here in The Homeland vis-a-vis our concerns with illegal immigration. The question is, how sincere and consistent are our views on protecting the U.S. borders?
PRC and IDAD need not be solely a military application but can work with civilians when used in a controlled and sensitive manner. PRC implies that everyone who is legally here in the U.S. carry biometeric and/or legal state or Federal identification, preferably State, abiding by INS guidelines.
No i.d. means no services or bank accounts, no vehicle purchases, no money orders or out-of-country wire fund transfers. Nobody works without a Social Security number and/or work documents. If you work, you pay taxes and Social Security. This the basis of PRC. The government has the right and responsibility to control the borders and the population within those borders.
Border control fails without PRC. This is the disconnect in our Federal policy. We impose these programs in meaningless wars, but fail to apply them at home. If it works in Iraq and Afghanistan (as the Department of Defense tells us), then it has to work here, also. If it works in Baghdad, then why not in Tucson, Arizona?
If the U.S. were serious about its immigration problem, it would apply these policies; the problem will not disappear without action, and whatever action is taken, both the Right and the Left will complain.
Contrary to political rhetoric, there are no easy choices. We either guard the borders and control our territory, or we should forget the charade of half-measures and throw open the borders.
Yes, most of us are of immigrant stock; yes, much of our territory is ill-gotten. But there is legal immigration, and then there is illegal. When do we stop atonement, and when do we own our country, making the difficult choices with surety?
Whatever route we take, there is no rational middle ground.
Labels: border patrol, IDAD, immigration, population and resource control, PRC
posted by rangeragainstwar at 7:40 AM
31 Comments:
My only question is this:
What is the problem with illegal immigration?
The only thing I can get out of most people is that illegals get on welfare and don't pay taxes, but I'm not sure that's true.
And if it is true, and the problem is our welfare system can't handle the additional load, that seems an excellent argument to eliminate the welfare state.
You are, of course, correct that there are no easy answers but at the same time, it's important to make sure that we have an accurate problem statement based on facts, not random rhetoric from career politicians. But... welcome to America, lol. Guess which one you are gonna get?
Grant,
I reckon the problem with illegal immigration is that it's illegal.
Either we enforce our laws or we don't.
There are a lot of problems with at least 22 million people floating around without documentation.I think of all the US citizens with out jobs when thinking of the numbers of illegals filling jobs in America.
It's too easy to say that they are doing jobs that we won't do. There is too much desperation in the air these days , and a lot of Americans will do any thing legal to make a living, even if it's marginal.
Do illegals live outside the law?
Are they exploited? Is this how we want to gain new citizens?
Since you are a regular reader you must know that I always espouse taking care of Americans before worrying about others. This may not be PC, but it's what it is.
I enjoy your comments, and appreciate you staying with us.
jim
I think our philosophies diverge in that I don't recognize collective entities of people. To me, everyone is an individual, and they all have the same God-given rights as me. Government, even in the best of circumstances, is a necessary evil, and most of the time it rapidly asserts itself into an unnecessary one, simply standing in the way of voluntary exchanges between free men.
Labor is a good like anything else, it can be bought and sold, and the same economic laws that apply to grapes apply to labor. They are here for a reason, and that reason is economic opportunity. I'd rather live in a country with strong growth (good luck on that, we are making all the wrong moves for that to happen) and an immigration "problem" than a zero-growth, economically stagnated place with all white folks.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, but I'm not sure that committing even more men and material into what will ultimately be an unsuccessful attempt at sealing the border and/or punishing the economic activities that provide jobs for them is a good use of taxpayer dollars. I do see the general principle regarding the rule of law that you are focused on, but rule of law in America was replaced with arbitrary decisions based on political expediency some time ago.
Hi Jim,
Not to gang up on you or anything, but I'm with Grant on this one. (Grant and I have some blog-commenting history on this subject, and we're always in the minority.) Throw open the borders. If this is supposed to be a free country, then let freedom ring loud and clear.
Dave
if there is any cracking down to be done, how's about we crack the fuck down on the agribusiness assholes, the shady contractors, the janitorial services, the restaurant chains, the meat packing houses, and all the other folks who stand to profit from folks being of illegal status and therefore unable to safely complain about the shitty treatment, illegally low wages (which have managed to drive down the construction wages to a point where only illegals will take those jobs) and other items in the endless list of abuses the "illegals" are forced to endure?
how 'bout that huh? oh, wait, i fucking forgot, all those criminal cocksuckers make campaign contributions and shit.
silly, silly me.
I'm 100% with MB on this. Any solution that does not also include going after those who are employing illegal workers (and thus, not employing legal workers) is a failed solution.
And he's right, I seriously doubt we're going to go after that part of the problem because these folks are much more feared than those illegal immigrants who cannot vote.
In the meantime, I'm not so hot on giving up even more of my remaining, precious civil liberties to the state/fed/local police forces in a losing hunt against a weaker class of people. That kind of country is not the one I signed up to defend. That kind of country looks a lot like the ones our government is constantly harassing.
SP
If someone makes an offer to pick strawberries, and someone accepts that offer, it's between those two parties. Any action that seeks to rectify a "problem" caused by the *voluntary exchange of two free people* through the use of force is unjustified, and therefore immoral, regardless of how it makes you feel.
Speaking of feelings, I like my strawberries to cost like fifty cents instead of 7.95. Please don't screw with that.
"going after those who are employing illegal workers (and thus, not employing legal workers)"
Logical fallacy, false dichotomy. It's not at all certain that if Business A could not hire illegals, they would simply hire legals. Some would hire fewer legals than illegals, some would hire the same number, and then some would fold. All of those things result in reduced economic activity, which is a bad thing.
If anyone is up for some good economic reading, I suggest The Mises Institute, www.mises.org, they have a wealth of information about economics, and not the Keynesian-Obama-Krugman bullshit.
Grant,
I mention Tucson, but my remarks are not aimed at Mexicans , as a group.
I'm talking all illegals.
In case you haven't noticed , this is no longer a white bread nation. Mr. Salt no longer rules Mr.Pepper.
Take a look around.
If you are so addicted to cheap strawberries then you have a problem. This can't be linked to illegal immigration, but rather Nafta. IMHO.
SP,
I've written a art. on ID in modern America, to be pubbed soon.In short-wait til you have to become ID compliant as i just did.
In addition , think about freedom when you fill out your next 4473 ATF form to buy a firearm.
Are all you folks indicating that i as a citizen be harrassed more than illegals??WTF?
MB,
My grandfathers were economic slaves to the coal barons and Frick steel, and i grew up in a company house w/o hot water or any heat but a small coal stove.We had an outdoor toilet. The house was a company house and we shopped in the company store.My knowledge of immigrants getting screwed is up close and personal.
Here in Tallahassee we have INS raids on Mexican restaurants, but not on the Chinese and other ethnic establishments.??
I'm in total sympathy with immigrants, since all my grand folks came here in 1917 to escape the war in Europe. But the point is that they jumped thru the hoops and had medical screening, sponsors and jobs when they hit the ground.They did the legal route.
My point is, as always, either we are or we aren't. We can't have it both ways.OK , open the borders, but don't bitch about gang violence in LA and every other major city.
Don't bitch about murder or terrorism.Don't bitch about organised crime and the eastern european crime syndicates now on our shores.
I live in a county and city that is 65% non anglo, and i have no major bitches re the South of the border mix in our society, but i do have some serious reservations about some folks that have been here for 8 generations.
jim
Grant,
I appreciate your views on "all men are created equal." I was raised to be colorblind, as well, which is a good thing; as MLK said, the content of one's character is the yardstick.
That said, we certainly do not live in a "white" country (whites have become the new minority), and if you throw open the borders, are you an Anarchist? A World Federalist?
We are not yet in Bono/Lennon's One World scenario, I'm afraid. This article does not single out Mexicans, who by and large have a tremendous work ethic.
If you throw open the borders, you do so for everyone -- billions and billions of Chines, Indians, gypsies, would-be al-Qaeda members ... the lot.
And you government and the infrastructure it supports (such as it is), crumbles.
Is that what you're after?
And Grant, this is false logic:
"The only thing I can get out of most people is that illegals get on welfare and don't pay taxes, but I'm not sure that's true.
"And if it is true, and the problem is our welfare system can't handle the additional load, that seems an excellent argument to eliminate the welfare state."
"Welfare state" is a nice pejorative, but every civilized nation has provisions in place to assist its neediest members. That is as it should be.
ITS neediest members ...
not Afghanistan's, Sri Lanka's, etc. You get the drift.
bravo jim, bravo lisa.
i knew you had your roots in folks who worked very hard for little reward jim.
i never got a sense of the pervasive racism from you that is the first thing i notice about a lot of folks who rail about "illegals."
i agree with you, and with the folks in arizona that things are close to being completely out of control.
where i often disagree with folks is that i see a very complex problem that will defy all simplistic solutions.
then the question arises, where to start? to quote frost, good fences make good neighbors. thing is, and you can ask the chinese, the romans, the citizens of the walled cities in europe, and many others who will tell you; fences/walls work, right up until the moment they don't.
on the border we have been saying "50 foot fence, 51 foot ladder" almost since chertof began construction (so far, 3 contractors for fence building have been indicted for using undocumented workers in its construction). the first and most important thing that fence accomplished down here is that now, instead of grabbing a backpack and making a run for it, people wanting to cross are forced into the hands of professional smugglers. often, the price of a guided crossing is to carry drugs and other contraband for the smugglers. the second is that these smugglers, many of whom are violent and ruthless criminals, have been enriched. the harder the crossing, the higher the price.
the cartels on the border have grown rich enough, and well armed enough (with guns they smuggle from the u.s. crossing work both ways) that they are challenging and disrupting the power and presence of the mexican government.
it's easy to surmise why the chinese restaurants are not targets while mexican restaurants are, we owe shitloads of money to the chinese and simply can't afford to piss them off.
i agree that we need to make real and drastic changes in the situation. i also have seen, with my own eyes, that the measures taken thus far not only have not helped the situation, they have made things worse.
like counterinsurgency work, like planning special ops, the first and most important thing that needs to be done is asking the correct questions.
many times we would start by pinning the point on a map where our objective was. then, we would slowly work our way back to the jump off mark. maybe that's the technique we need here.
think about where we want to be as a society and nation, then work backwards to where we are.
then, from there, proceed.
Again, we simply have a philosophical difference. While I'm sure our intentions are the same, among them reducing poverty, protecting liberty, promoting economic growth, and the like, it's clear that in some ways our views diverge significantly. I am prepared to discuss how almost all of our national policies are focused counter to those goals, but that would be better left to future discussions.
To summarize my views:
Government, by definition, rests on the use of force. It's a "you do what we say or X bad thing will happen to you, because we have the guns". The problems with this is are both moral and practical.
Morally, a sufficiently large group of people getting together, electing representatives, discussing the situation, and voting to steal my wallet is not fundamentally different than the highwayman doing the same thing to me. I prefer the highwayman because I can protect myself to some extent from him, and he doesn't have the gall to demand I respect him for his theft.
I reject immoral activities (such as theft) regardless of the rationale, and am not a "the ends justify the means" type of guy.
Practically, controlling other people is a losing proposition. A government sufficiently powerful to enforce all the rules one might want is powerful (and arbitrary) enough to destroy you the very next day. Even without the law of unintended consequences working against you, it is impossible to craft a society through the use of force. Instead, society progresses despite the presence of government, not because of it.
The specifics of this philosophy would again probably be left to another discussion, but a few key points are worth stressing. We should always strive to get to the root cause of an issue instead of letting smoke and mirrors cloud it as the media and politicians want, and the bottom line is that it's never OK to infringe on someone's rights, for both moral and practical reasons.
This ties to immigration because all free men own their bodies and their labor, and the "illegals" circumventing arbitrary and economically damaging minimum wage laws have every moral right to do so. Additionally, both parties in the exchange benefit (illegals get a higher wage than they would in Mexico, employers get to reduce labor costs and make unprofitable economic activity profitable) and at the same time, society as a whole benefits (because food, something most of humankind never had enough of, is cheap and plentiful). Cracking down on this arrangement would cost money, would require labor employed by the border patrol that could be better spent in other areas (thus representing a deadweight loss to all of society), in addition to being an infringement on the basic human right of doing what you please as long as you don't harm anyone else. Practically, because many are more swayed by practical arguments, if you are a person of limited means, then fresh fruit costing less is vitally important to your health and the health of your children. My love of strawberries notwithstanding, there are real and concrete benefits to more affordable food that cannot be denied.
Like I said, though - Agree to disagree. You should definitely have no worries that any of my crazy ideas will ever hold any sway with anyone important enough to change anything. Classical liberal concepts are, at this point, lost to history.
Unfortunately, I believe.
Grant,
I must take exception with your self-characterization as a purveyor of "Classical liberal concepts". Liberalism allows for and implies that a nation secure its borders. That's part of what liberal governments do.
You are describing something akin to anarchy. It is nice to think about not "infring[ing]on the basic human right of doing what you please as long as you don't harm anyone else", but not every immigrant is so well-intentioned (nor is every citizen), and the very activity of benefiting from my government's services while you send your money back home is not quite "not harming" anyone, and this is in the best of scenarios.
You say,
"all free men own their bodies and their labor, and the "illegals" circumventing arbitrary and economically damaging minimum wage laws have every moral right to do so."
This is very idealistic, but I'm sure no country in the world buys into my right tote my body over their borders because I declare for my moral rights.
There are no "moral rights", Grant. You have only the rights accorded to you by your government.
All the rest is theological bunkum.
MB,
You are right: We could approach this like a good military opn --
1st: What is our objective?
Once we all get on board with that, the means to implement shouldn't be that confounding. There is ambivalence due to greed -- the downfall of many a human endeavor.
For what it's worth, I think that this problem may be almost insoluble.
I agree with jim on this; one of the most fundamental tasks of a soverign nation is control of its borders; who and what comes in, who and what goes out. There's a pantsload of issues associated with this; tariffs, intelligence, labor and benefits, the very human composition of the nation. But the basic rule of thumb almost has to be that a nation that can't control its physical borders is not a "nation" in the Westphalian sense. It is, at best, a tribe of squatters whose title to the ground it sits on is highly disputable. There is a good reason that the European states took significant interest in the titles of their overlords when they became states in the modern sense. You were "King of France" - in that "France" was a place with defined borders - not "King of the French".
To simply open the borders without accepting the huge, complex and multivariate changes to the U.S. government, economy, and society is to be like one of those libertarian candidates that manages to suggest that we can all stop paying taxes without explaining how the roads are gonna get fixed.
That said, I see the U.S. and the hemispheric south as being in a historically and socially unique position. I can't think of two regions with such disparate economic power and social arrangements sharing such a long, virtually indefensible border since the fall of Rome, or perhaps ancient China. And the examples of those states aren't hopeful; both had to fortify their long land borders against the relatively-impoverished hordes "outside". The alternative would have been a gradual influx of these "barbarian" tribes and the resultant social upheaval. But the result of fortification was the formation of organized assaults on the rich lands within and, eventually, conquest.
IMO the only hope is for increasing wealth, economic equality, and social stability in Mexico and Central America, and given the current situation I'm not investing in Honduran securities in advance of that happening.
I do agree that we can do two things to help:
1. Put the ass-hammer on the employers which will help stop the "pull" effect from this end. But it will ALSO have the effect Grant says it will; it will raise prices on nearly every service and labor-intensive good, because frankly, Grant, you can't live like an "American" on what those jobs will pay.
2. Legalize a shithouse load of drugs. This will help a) increase revenue from the taxation of same, and, b) help cut the funding from under the narcos.
I don't honestly yhing this will help much. But it will help some. I just think that this is another "WASF" long-term problem.
BTW, I said pretty much the same thing back in '07, here, http://firedirectioncenter.blogspot.com/2007/06/el-norte-y-el-sur.html and here; http://firedirectioncenter.blogspot.com/2007/06/by-north-gate-immigration-nopo-ii.html
"But the point is that they jumped thru the hoops and had medical screening, sponsors and jobs when they hit the ground.They did the legal route."
But the thing is, jim, that they lived in a time when we were - for good or ill - way more willing to accept people living in miserable conditions than we are today. And the jobs that they had are gone. And they didn't have a choice - they had to come on boats which were perfect for controlling the movement of people. If we had shared a land border with 19th or early 20th Century Italy, Hungary, Germany, or Russia we might not feel so nostalgic about our immigrant parents today...
Like I say, I'm just a little ray of sunshine on this, but I don't see any way for it to end well.
"There are no "moral rights", Grant. You have only the rights accorded to you by your government."
Oh, my.
It would be best to take some time and carry that out to its logical conclusion. Quite a frightening prospect indeed, and one that the Founding Fathers specifically railed against.
Grant,
We really don't (though it's pretty to think so.) I guess that makes me pretty hardcore in the face of St. Thomas Aquinas and Jefferson. But ask those in Waco or Ruby Ridge about theirs.
Humans have no absolute rights, moral or otherwise (most certainly don't deserve them.)
A friend just challenged me on my acceptance of the Declaration -- below is a bit of that discussion. (Please understand: I think the sentiments are sublime; but there is more than a bit of hypocrisy in there.)
"I dig it very much -- it's a lovely bit of piffle. But government is tyranny (albeit, a necessary one.)
Deconstruct just a bit with me:
[1] When were all men (or women) treated as equals? Still aren't [hypocritical]
[2] Who were these men to divine what the Creator wished for us? They were predominantly Deists who claimed freedom from dogma [hypocritical]
[3] "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted" -- Right-on: You don't get nothin' we don't give you (or secure for you, Q.E.D.)
"all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,,,"
Grant, Lisa: How about looking at it this way?
There are "moral imperatives" and moral duties" among people; that is, the acts that our own self-respect and our respect for others compel us to take.
And then there are civic duties as codified in law.
Often these moral duties and imperatives are codified in public law. But not always.
We are free as moral beings to take actions based on our moral convictions. But our public acts are governed by public laws. When the two collide, the public law - because of the government's monopoly on force - will prevail.
And Grant, the entire principle of democracy relies on the notion that the People, in a body or in the person of their elected representatives, CAN "steal you wallet" if it means paying for things that we all need, be it roads, aircraft carriers, vaccines, nuclear power plants, or contraceptives for welfare mothers.
There is legitimate scope for arguing about where this taking needs to come from, how much is taken, and what it gets spent on. But to question the entire idea of "public weal" is to wish to be back in Tom Hobbes' State of Nature. Nasty, brutish, etc., remember?
FDC,
Thank you for bringing your erudition to bear.
I would never deny the "public weal", but merely wished to emphasize that the only "rights" we have are those accorded to us by our particular state. They may be revoked, depending on the beneficence of that state, either judiciously or extra-.
Grant expresses a pleasant thought when he speaks of "moral rights", but there are none; only those we (in aggregate or singularly) decide to ascribe to ourselves and/or others. Certainly, these are not universals, as one only need spin the globe.
I'm not Hobbesian, but neither Rousseauean -- I have no illusions about the potentials of my fellow men (though some I have great affection for); the proof is in the pudding.
p.s. -- I personally believe in moral imperatives and responsibilities, as I believe I am not the center of the universe. However, not everything thinks that way (and that is their right.) Even those who give lip-service to believing in a higher source do not often implement that belief well.
Freedom of thought is the highest truth, and this cannot be legislated. The truth is, we believe what we want, partake in the moral/amoral ideologies we wish.
Certainly government is not the guarantor of my "moral rights". And certainly there are no "God-given rights", as you mention. That is just a quaint notion.
Chief,
Fuck it, i'm catching a slow boat to Danzig and from there train to Brataslava.
:)
jim
Chief,
How can it end well when it didn't start well??
jim
Grant,
We are generally on track, except -let them be free in their own country UNLESS they legally enter mine.
I earned my rights of citizenship-let them do the same.
I worry about my perimeter- that's my duty.
jim
MB,
You are describing the backward planning steps that we seldom see used in the civilian world. That's probably b/c our missions were distinct and usually clearly defined.Also , as an old man i must add -insane.
So being clearly defined it can still be insane.
Let me expand my discussion. My grandfathers died young. It's b/c they worked hard, drank hard and had poor health care in a dangerous, unhealthy atmosphere.The gov't sponsored and supported policies that screwed miners.Look how Truman treated them during the Korean war.
Now to my parents- they worked hard all their lives .Now they are old and infirm and their monthly health care is basically what they made in a half a year of work.
Their savings etc are depleted and what's to be done? They can't get Medicaid b/c they own property, or this is my impression.
I only say this b/c we as a nation should take care of our own, whether they be Apache or 1st generation legal immigrants.
My father can't get VA care even though he fought 3 campaigns in the North Atlantic in 44/45. He gets squat from DVA, and he didn't even get his Federal Black lung compensation, for some inexplicable reason.
This is basically the issue for me. Just like the PWOT/COIN, we just can't do it all, even if it's warm and fuzzy.
Right now i'm more concerned with my parents end game than i am for providing free emergency room care to somebody picking strawberries somewhere north of Sonoma.
Every life is valuable, but not to me. Some are more valuable than others, and that was the creed that we lived by- so why stop now.
As i've said b/f- every body is the same in the cross hairs of a sniper rifle.
It's hard to be righteous after doing/seeing the things that we did. If this is emotional numbness then so be it.
Yes, fences never work- do we ence in or out?
jim
MB,
Yesterday Rahm E was on the PTV news and he said that Arizona and the states can't have their own policies.
He said this is a duty of the Federal govt.
If this is true then why does each state have distinct and separate gun laws.
How are the two reconciled.?
jim
Grant,
I can't help but think that cheap strawberries may have contributed to California's present financial crisis. Or was it electing an immigrant Governor?
One must wonder why the FF's saw fit to keep an immigrant out of the Presidency.
Lisa: I note that Tom Jefferson wrote that we had the right to "pursue" happiness - not to find it and that it was not the government's business to ensure it.
That's why I use the term "duties" and "imperatives" rather than "rights". The term "rights" is a pretty loaded one; what "right to life" does a man drowning in the ocean have? Will the water listen to his demands?
Likewise, if you believe that the founding documents promise a "right" to life, how do you rationalize opposing abortion but not the death penalty?
So ISTM that you are accurate in rejecting the term "right" in "moral right". Our "rights" are no more and no less than those secured by our public laws. Anything else is a nice-to-have but unenforceable luxury.
FDC,
That was precisely my thinking. (Thank you for not taking the simplistic route and thinking me some Mansonite amoralist!) Of course as humans we should aspire to be our best selves, and hopefully be guided by the higher imperative to love. But, as you say ...
"Likewise, if you believe that the founding documents promise a "right" to life, how do you rationalize opposing abortion but not the death penalty?
And, I would add, how to justify killing in war -- certainly discretionary ones. Yet, the Pro-Lifers are often the War Hawks, too. There would seem a contradiction here.
I stick by my guns: Far as government goes, we have no moral rights (though our legal ones are enumerated for us.) Really, teleologically, what "God-given" rights does one have (beyond one's life) if The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away?
There is no celestial court ...
Jim says,
"How can it end well when it didn't start well??"
All's well that ends well ... the ends justify the means ...
There's always a flipside. You're fond of saying, "You are or you aren't". But then, "Can't it be both?"
Big Daddy smells mendacity in the air ...
Post a Comment
<< Home