Occupied Aztlan

[Russ Howard]

Actually, he didn't say "Buenas Tardes". He said "Buenos Tardes". Enough said there, I think.

How much manpower do you think that would take? [to stop illegal immigration]

More than we currently have on it. So what? I've already said we should put the military on the border. The Euros can handle their own these days and we don't need to be heavily involved militarily in every conflict everywhere on the damned globe when our own country is being invaded.

So we're going to have billions of people coming? Hmm..the world's population is 6,239,074,458...

I stand by my statement. Officially OPEN THE BORDERS and you would have hundreds of millions and ultimately BILLIONS (i.e., more than one billion) coming here.

That is a reasonable assertion given...

a. People tend to want to better their lives, as a general rule.

(Note: Regardless of "race", ethnicity, etc., I have great respect for decent, hard working people who would want to come here for that reason, assuming they would do so legally. However, not in massive waves that would destroy the quality of life here and not without compensation to current citizens for the costs imposed).

b. The great bulk of the world's population would be significantly better off living here than where they currently live, and the majority would be far better off. Certainly well over a billion. I believe that's true "by inspection".

c. Back when we had anything approaching open borders, we had massive immigration.

d. The world's population is much larger than it was then.

e. Transportation / travel costs, times, and risks, are far, far less than they were then.

This assumes of course, countries would let them go... And that's a false assumption in many cases. However, I think enough would let them go to make my point.

So we would have at least over 1/3 of the world's population suddenly coming to the United States?

Not immediately, no. Also, "more than a billion" is 1/6. Anything over a billion makes my point quite well. Actually, hundreds of millions does too. Doubling the population would not be nice, and that would only take 300 million.

Contempt for what? Freedom? Traditional American values? White people? Wait. This is stuff that most domestic leftists have contempt for.

Try, "contempt for laws and rights of American citizens" (starting with OUR immigration laws and OUR right to enforce them), which is what I said and implied, nothing more. What leftists have contempt for and what you would like to imply I'm motivated by is irrelevant.

[ronin308]

I've already said we should put the military on the border.

Well I call for an immediate stop to illiteracy! But I have no idea how to do it...but I call for it! So ha!

That is a reasonable assertion given...

Hmm...the sounds like you are envisioning the Yellow Peril to end all Yellow Perils to me. I have no problem with people that come here that contribute to the economy and do not intrude on my life or property. If we didn't have all the socialist programs that we have, the weak would eventually succumb to nature. If there is a chance that people would come here to find little or no opportunity, they will not come. Immigration will stop (or at least slow down a great deal) when our economy has reached its carrying capacity. The market will take care (provided that the government doesn't foul things up). If we open the borders, yet provide no social programs, do you still think that "billions" will come to the US?

[longeyes]

In five years we will have our own little, or not so little, "Kosovo" inside our borders. And all of this will no longer be the stuff of civilized debate but rather of armed conflict. It doesn't have to be that way, but it sure as hell looks as if it's going to be.

[Russ Howard]

If we open the borders, yet provide no social programs, do you still think that "billions" will come to the US?

Yes. Do you think immigrants come here to go on welfare? The welfare immigrant stereotype?

Must I repeat myself? What makes people want to come here is not welfare and socialism, but freedom, jobs, quality of life, etc. And those things are highly correlated with our relative LACK of socialism.

Getting rid of welfare, etc., would improve the economy and make this an even more attractive place to live for folks who don't mind working hard to improve their lives. I think that describes most immigrants.

I have great respect for legal immigrants, but I'm against open borders and illegal immigration.

"Yellow Peril." Blah, blah, blah. You really want to impute racist motivation, don't you?

Immigration will stop (or at least slow down a great deal) when our economy has reached its carrying capacity.

Well, that sounds awfully nice.

That's bad enough, but unfortunately it's quite a bit more than just economic carrying capacity. It's something more like this: The representative prospective immigrant will make a decision based on a host of factors which add up to the marginal expected gain in the overall quality of life. Once that marginal expected gain hits zero, net immigration will cease. Think about what that marginal benefit hitting zero means to your average benefit.

[Solitar]

Russ, your following sentence describes innumerable natural processes of solution, diffusion, and equilibrium.

Literally billions would come, and they would keep coming until America's overall quality of life declined so far that there was no more advantage in coming.

Preventing such natural equilibriums while allowing some beneficial interchange takes effort. This results in the maintenance of better conditions within biological cell walls, physiological skins, or mechanical container walls. This applies to borders of, or membership in, human organizations such as families, communities, clubs, companies, states and nations. Beneficiaries of the better conditions must expend effort to maintain those conditions. Freeloading, if uncontrolled in both numbers and degree of unpaid use of the better conditions, will eventually dilute or drain the system until conditions inside are no better than outside. Those who advocate entirely open borders or no "membership dues" or criteria deny biological and social reality. Breakdown of cell walls or skin results in an equilibrium with the outside environment which, in turn, results in cessation of the better internal conditions.

Solutions:
1) Improve conditions in other nations to prevent an overwhelming movement of their people into our nation.
2) Control our borders and immigration with more stringent requirements for admission and naturalization, a.k.a. citizenship and the benefits thereof. Note that I did not say stop immigration or sealing the borders since neither is possible. But much better control is possible and necessary to prevent the breakdown noted above which would result in our quality of life being no better off than, for instance, that in Mexico.
3) Prevent the draining of our energies and resources by freeloaders.

I agree with Russ that this is a gun issue. With such increases in population (to a half billion in the US in our lifetimes) and a dimunition of our quality of life (security, etc.), we will have to increase our efforts at our individual , family and neighborhood borders.
We will have to defend our private space and property against those on the outside who want our property and who want to injure us. Lawyers and police may be part of that defense for some, unfortunately they arrive after the injury has occurred.

[Skorzeny]

Russ Howard:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How much manpower do you think that would take? [to stop illegal immigration]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More than we currently have on it. So what? I've already said we should put the military on the border.

You are just the king of understatements, aren't you? "More than we currently have on it"? I've got news for you - to seal our border completely would be impossible unless you envision turning the border states into complete armed camps and increasing the size of our military by several orders of magnitude, irrevocably altering the civil orientation of our society. If you think that having a militarized society will guarantee our freedom that you proclaim you are so fond of, you are sadly, sadly mistaken. This kind of fantasy, were it even possible, would make "the War on Drugs" look like child's play!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So we're going to have billions of people coming? Hmm..the world's population is 6,239,074,458...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I stand by my statement. Officially OPEN THE BORDERS and you would have hundreds of millions and ultimately BILLIONS (i.e., more than one billion) coming here.

I've got news for you. The borders are already open for all practical purposes. Where are the billions of people?

You can use ad hominem attacks like calling them "open border pollyanas," but your logic and factual information fail.

a. People tend to want to better their lives, as a general rule.

(Note: Regardless of "race", ethnicity, etc., I have great respect for decent, hard working people who would want to come here for that reason, assuming they would do so legally. However, not in massive waves that would destroy the quality of life here and not without compensation to current citizens for the costs imposed).

b. The great bulk of the world's population would be significantly better off living here than where they currently live, and the majority would be far better off. Certainly well over a billion. I believe that's true "by inspection".

c. Back when we had anything approaching open borders, we had massive immigration.

d. The world's population is much larger than it was then.

e. Transportation / travel costs, times, and risks, are far, far less than they were then.

This sounds suspiciously like the rantings of the nativists a century or two ago who thusly disparaged the comings of the "masses" of poor Irish, Italians and Poles - people who contributed to make this country what it is today, the greatest country on the planet. And many of these folks were "illegal aliens" or "undocumented" by today's parlance. If indeed you acknowledge (as you seem to) that today's immigrants are as hard-working as those of yester years, then we want such people here - they add to the dynamism of our society as immigrants have been doing for our country for over two hundred years - a part of the very force which makes our society so great over the relatively static societies that try to rely on existing pool of population.

Skorzeny

[Christopher II]

Must I repeat myself? What makes people want to come here is not welfare and socialism, but freedom, jobs, quality of life, etc. And those things are highly correlated with our relative LACK of socialism.

The idea that people in general want to live in a free society is a fantasy, although an attractive one. Most people want nothing to do with freedom, they want to be taken care of. This is as true here in the 'States as it is in other countries.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who really wants to live in a free society is welcome here. I'd rather have one hard-working, libertarian Latino (or whatever) neighbor than ten of our native nanny-statists.

Think of it this way. The number of freedom-loving individuals in the country increases, leading to a less socialistic society. This society becomes uncomfortable for statists, who then move elsewhere (open borders work both ways.) Eventually, people tend to emmigrate to the society that most closely matches their ideals. Works for me.

- Chris

[ronin308]

Russ Howard-

Yes. Do you think immigrants come here to go on welfare? The welfare immigrant stereotype?

It is proven fact that some immigrants do come here to use social services. My solution is to end social services, which would basically weed out the parasites. This would, in effect, reduce immigration to only the people who could contribute to our economy.

Must I repeat myself? What makes people want to come here is not welfare and socialism, but freedom, jobs, quality of life, etc. And those things are highly correlated with our relative LACK of socialism.

The United States probably has the highest quality of life available in the world today. We offer good jobs (when people are hiring). We have a respectable amount of freedom. Where are the "billions"?

Getting rid of welfare, etc., would improve the economy and make this an even more attractive place to live for folks who don't mind working hard to improve their lives. I think that describes most immigrants.

Exactly. Getting rid of welfare will help the economy and it will weed out the parasites. Only the hard working would immigrate here then. So what's the problem?

That's bad enough, but unfortunately it's quite a bit more than just economic carrying capacity. It's something more like this: The representative prospective immigrant will make a decision based on a host of factors which add up to the marginal expected gain in the overall quality of life. Once that marginal expected gain hits zero, net immigration will cease. Think about what that marginal benefit hitting zero means to your average benefit.

Overall quality of life is generally driven by the economy. Our "representative prospective immigrant" is making a decision. The job market is flooded and no one is hiring. There are no social services to fall back on. The "representative prospective immigrant" will not come if he cannot survive. The market will take care.

What you're saying is that if one place offers even one marginal benefit over another, that the person will move there. Vermont has great gun laws. It is beautiful. I hear the quality of life there is excellent. Why don't gunowners flock to Vermont by the tens of trillions?

[ronin308]

Solitar-

1) Improve conditions in other nations to prevent an overwhelming movement of their people into our nation.

And

3) Prevent the draining of our energies and resources by freeloaders.

Item #1 and item #3 are in DIRECT CONFLICT. Think about it.

[glock glockler]

No, they're not, Ronin.

Why is there a conflict by cutting off doles here and sending a team of advisors over to country X telling them that they could improve their situation by doing a, b, and c?

The CATO institute has a lot of material on why a certain country's policy will fail and what they can do to improve it. Why is the govt asking them to get on a plane to meet with that countries officials conflicting with getting rid of our social welfare BS?

gdhillard

I take it that you absolve yourself of any responsibility in voting for politicians that violate the Constitution because that's the job of the SCOTUS, not yours. Have you ever read the Constitution or the 10th Amendment to the Bill of Rights? If any duty is not specified in the Constitution, the Feds do not have it, plain and simple.

if I was really unhappy about some part of the program, I would probably start by talking with my representatives

I do, regularly, but unfortunately people like yourself vote to have your pet social programs at my expense, and your kind currently outnumber mine. I just want to know what moral right you think you have to use the govt to do your dirty work of forcing my funding of these programs.

[ronin308]

No, they're not, Ronin.

Why is there a conflict by cutting off doles here and sending a team of advisors over to country X telling them that they could improve their situation by doing a, b, and c?

The CATO institute has a lot of material on why a certain country's policy will fail and what they can do to improve it. Why is the govt asking them to get on a plane to meet with that countries officials conflicting with getting rid of our social welfare BS?

Alright. This is simple logic. Sending foreign aid to people to "Improve conditions in other nations to prevent an overwhelming movement of their people into our nation" is freeloading. The residents of said foreign country have done NOTHING to benefit us. Our nation sending our "energies and resources" to a bunch of freeloaders (in other countries) is in conflict with "Improve conditions in other nations to prevent an overwhelming movement of their people into our nation." We can't end freeloading by creating freeloaders in other countries.

And BTW- So your solution went from "CIA would infiltrate it's schools, news media, religous organizations, political parties, etc. Anywhere that seeds of political thought could be effectively planted would be a target. We would have top enconomists, propagandists, sociologists, political scientists, etc all working on developing the most effective means of turning the country around." To currently: "sending a team of advisors" I guess I must have missed the post where you toned down your solution.

[Solitar]

Ronin, you keep asking for "how" to implement some solutions.
1 - the foreign aid to subsidize welfare was not a serious suggestion on my part (facetious is not a good word); though some foreign aid to help other countries improve enough to take the pressure off us would help.
2 - as to the border...(here again I offer an idea that is not entirely feasible--though it was seriously considered for a route across southern Mexico)
Remember Project Plowshare?
How about a sea-level canal from the Gulf of California to El Paso and Brownsville?
Make it deep enough for even battleships and aircraft carriers.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A685109
http://www.alteich.com/tidbits/t050602.htm
http://www.americanheritage.com/it/2.../postfix.shtml

[glock glockler]

Ronin, there is a difference between being overt and being covert, different times and situations require different methods. I was just using that as an example to disprove your point.

As for my other points, either you just don't get it or enjoy washting my time.

Out
GG

[Zander]

Sending foreign aid to people to "Improve conditions in other nations to prevent an overwhelming movement of their people into our nation" is freeloading. -- Ronin

I agree with much of what you've said on this subject, but on this point you seem to be deliberately misunderstanding.

Think of it this way...teaching the foreigner to fish instead of giving him fish or taxpayer dollars to buy fish.

That solves two problems:

1. Drastically cuts our outlays;
2. Removes the inherent corruption of thieving "leaders".

[Solitar]

Given that immigrants generally don't know much about our Bill of Rights and our Right To Keep and Bear Arms (from handguns to battle rifles), then there is a risk to our RKBA because they could be persuaded to support gun banning legislation -- often legislation similar to what they had back in the old country -- which, in most places, bans gun ownership like we (used to) have in America.

[Christopher II]

Glockler -

You're missing the point that ronin is trying to make. You somehow expect an organization that is actively hostile to individual liberty (the U.S. Government) to promote individual liberty in other countries. That is silly.

If you are really interested in promoting liberty in other countries (which is a good idea, right behind promoting freedom in our own,) talk to the national Libertarian Party, the Cato Institute, or any one of the hundreds of pro-freedom private organizations.

Solitar -

Speaking of silly, we have 'Project Plowshare.' Please. It has the same problem that every other 'close-the-border' scheme ever thought up - it won't work. The civil engineering required to build a canal that large is mind-boggling. Putting the military on the border would probably be cheaper.

- Chris

[Russ]

Up until 11/01, I lived California. Before my move to KY, I lived in the Central Valley of California for 12 years. This is the largest agricultural area in the U.S. They employ alot of Mexican immigrants bothe legal and illegal.

When I was there, Vincente Fox made a campaign stop to woo Mexican voters. My guess is that most of the voters he wooed, voted in the US and Mexico. Fox won!

I'm convinced that ALGORE couldn't have won by the margin he did in CA without illegal votes.

This is a problem. I am a California native. I know what is happening and it freaks me out.

Life is not getting better in CA in the near future. Eventually, there will be the "rich" persons (who can afford a house) and the "poor" (everyone else). The everyone else catagory will be the majority in a few years if it's not already.

Gary in Vermont,

Please try to lure Mexican and South American immigrants to your State. I think this would help them to become loyal to the US and not mainly to their country's of origin. This is what immigration should be.

My ancestors came here in 1637. They became Americans. No longer Brittish and Scots. My Grandfather lost 2 brothers in the Civil War.

New immigrants need to become Americans (the US version). However, I'm pessimistic about the future and the peoples of the Latin American countries. They need to be assimilated or made to leave.

The US already lost alot of people preserving the Union. If the backers of Aztlan have their way, they will break away from the US. THIS IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. We lost over 600,000 in the last civil war and I know we won't let that happen again. It's a matter of principal.

[glock glockler]

Chris,

My main point was in response to Aaron's "give a solution or shut the hell up" rant. I don't expect the US govt to promote liberty right now, I think that it would only be possible after some major housecleaning has occured and we actually got some quality people in office. A congress of Ron Paul clones would probably do a decent job of it.

As far as the govt's purpose for doing such a thing, promoting liberty would only be a side benefit to securing good relationships and alliances with target countries and the obvious economic benefits that would come along more counties developing a 1st world standard of living. I don't expect them to do it because they like liberty.

I do like the CATO institute but I think the LP is a joke, maybe some other organizations might be worth more.

[ronin308]

Zander-

Think of it this way...teaching the foreigner to fish instead of giving him fish or taxpayer dollars to buy fish.

That is fine, but the US Government should not be the entity to teach anyone about freedom and economic values. This is because the government doesn't give a hoot about economic values or individual liberty.

[ronin308]

glock glockler- I think you have the right idea (promoting freedom and economic knowledge), but you're going about it in a completely wrong way. We have a government that distorts natural economic trends, that stomps on our individual liberty, that taxes/regulates us for nearly everything, etc. So how can you expect our government to fix up some other country? You say that we have to get our own house in order first...what exactly do you envision that to be? Low taxes? Individual liberty?

[Russ Howard]

"More than we currently have on it"? I've got news for you - to seal our border completely would be impossible unless you envision turning the border states into complete armed camps and increasing the size of our military by several orders of magnitude, irrevocably altering the civil orientation of our society. If you think that having a militarized society will guarantee our freedom that you proclaim you are so fond of, you are sadly, sadly mistaken. This kind of fantasy, were it even possible, would make "the War on Drugs" look like child's play!

Don't be ridiculous. You know very well that "open borders" is widely used as shorthand for essentially unlimited immigration, which we DO NOT HAVE.

If you insist on intentionally misrepresenting what I write in the most foolish ways, what's the point of discussing it? It's clearly a religion for the open border Pollyannas. It isn't for me.

THE BILLIONS ARE NOT COMING BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE "OPEN BORDERS", I.E., WE DO NOT HAVE ESSENTIALLY UNLIMITED IMMIGRATION.

Deal with what I actually write.

We do not have to "seal the borders" to stop the vast bulk of illegal immigration. Putting SOME of the military on the borders is only part of the solution, and it isn't even a necessary one. Consequently we don't have to increase the military by orders of magnitude, or at all as a matter of fact.

"Sealing the borders" is not the object of putting military forces on the border. The object is to dramatically reduce illegal entries, not make them impossible. I'm well aware of the principal of diminishing marginal returns. Marginal productivity must be equalized with respect to all means of production, and the product in this case is dramatically reducing illegal immigration.

Another part of the equation, a bigger part, with far higher marginal productivity than border patrol, is prosecuting, fining, jailing, and deporting illegals. You change the laws, you provide a grace period to clear out of the country, and after the grace period is up, you start the arrests. Most you deport, some you throw the book at as a deterrent. Income/wealth earned/saved while here illegally would be subject to forfeiture. If we are perceived to be serious about this, most illegals will leave before the grace period is up. Massive deterrent effect, very little resources required. We lack only the will to do this, not the power.

[ronin308]

"Sealing the borders" is not the object of putting military forces on the border. The object is to dramatically reduce illegal entries, not make them impossible. I'm well aware of the principal of diminishing marginal returns. Marginal productivity must be equalized with respect to all means of production, and the product in this case is dramatically reducing illegal immigration.

You want to put some military on the border as a deterrent. What makes you think that the immigrants wouldn't simply go around them? That's essentially what they do right now with the Border Patrol. This means that putting some military on the border has little or no marginal returns. I highly doubt that putting some military on the border will lead to "dramatically reducing illegal immigration".

Another part of the equation, a bigger part, with far higher marginal productivity than border patrol, is prosecuting, fining, jailing, and deporting illegals.

Doing that would have zero marginal productivity. The court system is already bogged down enough without having to put a truckload of illegal immigrants on trial for crossing the border. The only way to get around not bogging down the court system is make more courts...when is the last time your county made a new courthouse to keep up with demand? Illegal immigrants will not pay fines that are issued either. On top of that if we were to jail the illegals that would just take MORE TAX DOLLARS!

If we are perceived to be serious about this, most illegals will leave before the grace period is up.

There is really no practical way to issue "grace period" notices to most of the illegal immigrants in this country.

Massive deterrent effect, very little resources required.

Very little resources!? Put some military on the border, issue grace period notices to immigrants, deport immigrants, send them to court, arrest them (will require use of court + some jail time), jail them (requires going to court + use of jail), fine them (will most likely require going to court), have them forfeit assets (requires going to court), etc. and you think that this would need very little resources? Hmmm...I think you might be a Pollyanna Russ

[Russ Howard]

You want to put some military on the border as a deterrent.

Where did I say we were putting the military on the border as a deterrent? In what context did I mention the word "deterrent"? Respond to what I actually wrote.

There is really no practical way to issue "grace period" notices to most of the illegal immigrants in this country.

Where did I say that we would have to issue "grace period" notices to every illegal? This "inference" is mind-bogglingly absurd. Do we have to issue notices to every American citizen when we increase the penalty for a crime? You don't think that every last illegal alien will hear about a grace period in the media?

Do I really have to explain this, that should be so obvious to anyone with a little common sense? This is a waste of time.

[Solitar]

Ronin and Gary Hillard and others in predominantly American areas don't understand our sense of urgency because they are not facing the level of problems facing those on the borders or in communities where illegals live and work. By the time the degree of damage now facing these latter two areas reaches the upper Mid-West or New England, this nation will be toast--through civil war or through balkanization or through it sinking into a second-world socialist state.

[ahenry]

My main point was in response to Aaron's "give a solution or shut the hell up" rant. I don't expect the US govt to promote liberty right now, I think that it would only be possible after some major housecleaning has occured and we actually got some quality people in office. A congress of Ron Paul clones would probably do a decent job of it

Ah yes, my rant. So far I see a couple of “put the military all over the border” and one “dig a BFM” (Big Freaking Moat). Those are all awfully intelligent. So intelligent I feel dumb for not understanding how in the world they could actually work. I’m nervous as all get out already about our military and how they might be implemented as a law enforcement organization. How much more so, if we actually ask for it?! Seems a lot like cutting off you nose to spite your face to me. Of course there was your suggestion of spending millions of tax dollars (and I quote, “The CIA would infiltrate...”) for another gov’t program that has the sole purpose of overthrowing existing gov’t systems in order to set up our ideal form. No matter how superior capitalism and freedom are, one gov’t actively seeking to overthrow another treads awfully close to an act of war. Moreover, I don’t think I trust a gov’t (even one made up of Ron Pauls') to effectively educate a large population (and isn’t using gov’t resources for education and such, in another country slightly hypocritical?). And last but not least, according to our esteemed members like Russ Howard, and Longeyes (and others) we are facing a new “brown peril” that might have our whole nation at war within a very few years and you are suggesting that the solution is to slowly covert those pesky Canadians and then we can work on the “brown peril”? If I understand the problem as being presented by some here, we wont be around that long. Hell Mr. Longeyes and Bullet44 don’t think there will any water left to drink by then.


I’ll say it again, what do you think should be done?.

BTW GG, I love what you want to accomplish. I even tried to start a thread about it at one point (it got highjacked though). I disagree with your methods (or more correctly the timing and the best way of accomplishing this), but couldn’t agree more with your objective.