>

Wednesday, October 31, 2018

Trump Says Will Send 10,000 to 15,000 More Military to the Border


This is immigration hate on steroids. This is stirring up the masses the way Hayek warned they can be stirred up. (See chapter 10, "Why the Worst Get" on Top in The Road to Serfdom.)

Today, President Trump pledged to send even more troops to the border with Mexico.

“We’ll do up to anywhere between 10,000 and 15,000 military personnel, on top of Border Patrol, ICE and everybody else at the border. Nobody’s coming in,” Trump said.

How are anti-immigration libertarians going to justify this?

If immigrants are coming here to work, I have no problem with them. They will work only at places that want to hire them and live only at places where people want to rent to them.

How does Trump justify spending tax dollars to stop this via the U.S. military?

In addition to the direct government expense, there is the further fact that it will lower the general standard of living in the U.S. by limiting the number of workers available for low-skill jobs. (Discussed in this video:The Problem with Stephen Miller)

-RW 

24 comments:

  1. Nobody’s coming in,” Trump said.


    VERY GOOD, finally trump keeps his campaign promises. This is precisely what his base elected him to do.


    "How are anti-immigration libertarians going to justify this?"

    First of all dont mischaracterize people who believe in borders as "anti immigration."

    As i posted here before, for someone to believe that "borders should not exist!" Is actually an extremely bizarre idea which has never existed on earth.

    The world does not, should not, & will never work that way. As a (north) Anerican who has a passport & actually uses it very frequently, this is not "theory," it's fact. No nation on earth, repeat none, has "open borders. I've been to 32 countries & love other lands, history, food, language & culture.

    Erasing borders is something that filthy conmies strive to do, to destroy the US. Ron Paul was not ever in favor, at least publicly, of erasing borders.

    Any paleocon with a 2nd grade education can explain it to you.

    Here is a great homily by a Latin Mass priest who sums it all up. "Heaven has walls." https://youtu.be/6VKUKwxXz4c

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re: Humanum Genus,

      ── First of all dont mischaracterize people who believe in borders as "anti immigration." ──

      Robert didn't do such thing. You're being overly creative with words, or to be more succinct: you're making stuff up.

      ── Erasing borders is something that filthy conmies strive to do ──

      That's not even historically accurate. Commies have imposed borders in every place under their control, to keep people IN, by force, which is not much different than the collectivist xenophobes who want to keep people OUT, despite the fact others do want to engage with immigrants in a voluntary and peaceful fashion.

      ── No nation on earth, repeat none, has "open borders." ──

      Your interpretation of "open borders" does not correspond to what us free-marketers call open borders, which simply mean: open to trade, to the free-flow of goods, services, capital and yes, labor. That doesn't entail that no political borders should exist. My personal view, which is based on a consistent and honest view of non-aggression, is that the existence of the State, which will never be legitimate, entails political borders, as each state seeks to compete with other states for the undue and violent control of the peaceful individuals who happen to live within these imaginary boundaries, thus: borders are also illegitimate as they are clear instruments of subjugation. Again, that's based on a consistent and principled reasoning based on non-aggression and voluntaryst principles.

      Delete
  2. Only 10,000 to 15,000? That's disappointing. He should send a lot more than that. We have plenty of troops all over the world we could bring home to guard the border, so they could actually do something useful for a change. Like defend our private property rights from these invaders.

    I don't have a problem with people coming here to work, either, but you know as well as anyone else that the vast majority will end up on welfare/section 8 housing/EBT/tax payer funded health care and every other available government handout. Any guess who foots that bill?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re: Chubba Dog,
      ── but you know as well as anyone else that the vast majority will end up on welfare/section 8 housing/EBT/tax payer funded health care ──

      That's a lie which has been pushed by an anti-immigrant outfit known for playing fast and loose with statistics by lumping together immigrants with American citizens, biasing the numbers. Anti-immigrant zealots don't care that immigrants are not eligible for benefits; they don't care that Section 8 or EBT cards are not provided to people who don't have a valid Social Security number. almost all welfare and welfare fraud is perpetrated by American citizens, not immigrants.

      Delete
    2. First off, I don't want anyone getting welfare, Americans included. Now, you are wrong, Torres, and you are being dishonest. Illegals get government benefits, through anchor babies, identity theft, and various other frauds. It is a well known fact. Census Bureau stats back this up - but hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

      Delete
    3. Re: Chubba Dog,

      ── First off, I don't want anyone getting welfare, Americans included.──

      Good. Then your beef is with the Welfare state, not with immigrants.

      ── and you are being dishonest. Illegals get government benefits, ──

      That's a lie. Whoever told you that lie is being dishonest, not me.

      ── through anchor babies, identity theft, ──

      Oh, please. That's absurd. Undocumented immigrants, if they get a false SS number, is so that they can fill the paperwork to WORK, not to get these benefits. They become a bigger target for deportation if they use their SSN in such a risky manner. They are more circumspect than you give them credit for, precisely because of the higher level of risk. As for the "anchor baby" canard, that's been the usual anti-immigrant bromide, but it is given more worth than it deserves.

      ── It is a well known fact. Census Bureau stats back this up ──

      Those two statements are downright lies.

      Delete
    4. Torres, you are a pathological liar. Everything I have said is based on facts. But, I'm seeing the bigger picture now. It's based on other factors with you. If these were whites invading the U.S., you would be calling for the military to stop it. But, they're not white, so according to you, bring it on.

      Delete
  3. --- How does Trump justify spending tax dollars to stop this via the U.S. military? ---

    Well, there's the claim that the caravan is harboring people who are bringing in smallpox into this country. At least that's what a Trumpista said on Fox "News" a day ago or so...

    ReplyDelete
  4. There are thousands heading towards the southern border flying the flags of foreign nations. Not exactly what is expected of humble people just looking for work. It's a symbolism that sends a very different message.

    Also so very much is socialized in the USA the costs to taxpayers is not limited to welfare and other direct incentives. That's why so many other nations won't allow people in unless they can show a minimum investment, wealth, and/or the ability to earn above a certain level. It is made sure that the people they let in are not going to be a net burden.

    As to troops on the borders, isn't that their job? It sounds strange because they haven't been doing it for so long. Instead being off fighting wars far far away. Being on the borders is where they are supposed to be.





    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re: Jimmy Joe Meeker,

      ── As to troops on the borders, isn't that their job? ──

      Not according to Posse Comitatus. Border law enforcement is still law enforcement whether xenophobes like it or not. Having army troops on the border without a valid cause (like a declaration of war, for instance, or an attack by a foreign army) is not only a waste of resources, it is illegal.

      ── Instead being off fighting wars far far away. ──

      It's not an either-or thing, J. In the first place, the Constitution doesn't support the existence of a standing, professional army. In the second, armed protection entails an actual invasion from an army commanded by a foreign state, not a caravan of migrants who would only arrive seeking asylum. You can try and justify this dog-and-pony show all you want, but there is no reasonable argument that lends support to sending what amounts to a full army division, for what?

      ── Also so very much is socialized in the USA the costs to taxpayers is not limited to welfare and other direct incentives. ──

      So what? That argument could be used (with an ever higher level of congruency with the principle behind it) to argue against allowing people having CHILDREN. Why, we can't have that! They might receive "socialized benefits!". Let's sterilize them rabbits!

      It's not a serious argument. It's a *popular* argument, of course, but that doesn't make it reasonable,. since it is nothing more than an iteration of the Precautionary Principle which is 'The Fave' of authoritarians on the left and right. I call it the "This is why we can't have nice things" logical fallacy.

      ── That's why so many other nations won't allow people in unless they can show a minimum investment, wealth, and/or the ability to earn above a certain level. ──

      Those countries aren't as rich nor prosperous as America. That should tell you something. Besides, why would you care if the person has "wealth" or a "minimum investment"? Provided other Americans vouch for them, why would it matter to YOU?

      One thing YOU should be advocating for and which would actually make the presumed dependency on welfare much lower is getting rid of E-Verify, which is an onerous and wasteful requirement that intrudes in the peaceful and voluntary relationship between employer and employee. E-Verify is one of those Big Brother schemes that xenophobes love to love, though, which tells me that they're not actually serious about the "dem immigruntz takum er welfare!" canard. It's all about envy and jealousy, nothing more sophisticated or intellectual than that.

      Delete
    2. "Not according to Posse Comitatus"
      These are people showing up in mass flying flags of their home countries with a trip likely financed by those who want to meddle in US politics. The purpose can easily be interpreted as one to change the USA into something else. Also there is the magnitude of it. When thousands of people show up in a coordinated effort at election time that isn't mere law enforcement. If it was economic they should shown up months ago when all the low skilled seasonal jobs were being filled. Also refugees are supposed to stop at the first nation of safety.

      "the Constitution doesn't support...a standing, professional army"
      Irrelevant since there is one and it isn't going away any time soon. You might as well say the constitution doesn't support a income tax on domestically earned wages, it's just as true, but just as irrelevant.

      "an actual invasion from an army commanded by a foreign state"
      They are arriving in mass proudly flying the flags of foreign nations with a political motive. The implication of your argument is that the invasion of the USA is a mere technicality away.

      "You can try and justify this dog-and-pony show"
      I am not trying to justify anything. You are. This is you again arguing like a leftist accusing others of what you're doing. You want to justify taking in limitless numbers of people without first cutting off the socialized burden they would place on taxpayers.

      "So what?"
      I don't want to be poorer, that's "so what?". You argue for what will result in my wealth, my property, my earnings, taken from me by the state to provide services and more for the people you wish to allow into the USA.

      "Let's sterilize them"
      That fits in with leftist progressives. That's where eugenics lies.

      I argue for elimination of the welfare state and the expensive Prussian model government schools that condition children into statists and getting the government out of our lives. Having more low and unskilled people enter the country while preserving governments intrusion into our lives does not move us away from a welfare state and statism in general, it grows and strengthens both. The only issue here is why you want to do things in a manner that grows the state.

      "logical fallacy."
      It's a fallacy to leftists who live far far away from the costs and negative effects of their agendas.

      "Those countries aren't as rich nor prosperous as America."
      Your usual dishonesty through slicing thin Torres. They aren't as prosperous because they are -socialized- countries to one extent or another. You argue to do nothing about the socialized aspects of the USA before allowing in anyone who wants to come in and thus increase the burden on those who pay for it. What you argue for is to make me and every other productive american poorer. To what end Torres?

      "why would it matter to YOU?"

      Because lefists have the government steal from me to pay for it. You keep arguing against dismantling the socialized burdens on productive people in the USA before allowing in anyone and everyone and that means you want to take even more from me and people like me. That's why it matters to me Torres.

      "is getting rid of E-Verify"

      E-Verify is wholly irrelevant to my point and you know it. Get rid of the socialism here first then you can have your wide open borders. But you won't get rid of it first and there's no getting rid of it after because those who arrive will vote for it and more of it. Anyway E-verify is about as effective as Nixon's 55mph NMSL. It's a joke. Widely ignored and selectively enforced. Easily worked around anyway. Sure get rid of it. Get rid of the TSA and their checks while you're at it. Of course it's not big brotherism that's your concern for raising the issue, you just wanted to play the racism card.

      Delete
  5. Why cant the border patrol handle it? Too busy checking for fruit in granny's bags and stopping cars at interstates that dont cross a border?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Those ID cards that tell people what tax farm you belong to (passports) haven’t been around that long. Borders seem to be much more important to States with the existence of income taxes.
    I do love how funny it is when people object to immigrants in relation to welfare.
    They get mad at the immigrant for getting the welfare, and NOT at the actual thieves that took it and give it away in the first place.
    They don’t see the immigrants as legitimate, but the taxation (theft) they do, just disagreeing on the varying degrees or amounts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who here is seeing the government and taxation as legitimate? I just don't want an alien invasion on top of everything else. We, the tax payers, will be footing the bill, by force. I don't want any more criminals, layabouts, and MS-13 thugs around, on top of all we have now. Is that really so much to ask? Closing the borders, ending welfare for all, and reducing government to 1/1000th of its present size would be a good start.

      Delete
    2. Re: Chubba Dog,
      ── Who here is seeing the government and taxation as legitimate? ──

      Whoever presumes the legitimacy of the State's role to put itself between Americans who want to hire, trade with, rent to, sell to, buy from and even marry immigrants, and immigrants, implicitly states the legitimacy of the State's power to tax, considering the incontrovertible fact that wholesale thuggery of such nature doesn't come free, and the State doesn't produce anything.

      ── I just don't want an alien invasion on top of everything else. ──

      You watch too many movies. These are people, not green men from Mars.

      ── We, the tax payers, will be footing the bill, by force. ──

      That's a lie. No one is footing the bill in such a way, provided the State does not unduly impose itself between the peaceful and voluntary transactions between Americans who want to hire these immigrants and the immigrants themselves.

      ── Closing the borders, ending welfare for all, and reducing government to 1/1000th of its present size would be a good start. ──

      While ending welfare is a worthy and moral goal, "closing the border" entails a bigger, not a smaller, State. Herein is the eternal contradiction that befalls so-called "small-government conservatives" who want an all-powerful state that secures a political border (which was placed in the map by conquerors) while at the same time wanting the state to be small enough not to bother them. Well, sorry, that's not how it works.

      Delete
    3. Nice try, Torres, but when thousands of people are threatening to cross into your country, that is by definition an invasion. We are dealing with reality here, not science fiction. And guess what, people like me do and will be forced to foot the bill. Did you just crawl out from under a rock? The State will force us to pay for their benefits. We've already covered that. Your method of dealing with an out of control government is akin to pouring gas on a fire.

      Delete
    4. Re: Chubba Dog,

      ── Nice try, Torres, but when thousands of people are threatening to cross into your country, that is by definition an invasion ──

      They haven't threatened anyone. There's a caravan of people, they are walking on a road towards the border, presumably, but that's it. If and when they reach the border, then we can see if they attempt to cross the border without the State's say-so or not. But right now, you are engaging in slander by calling them 'invaders.'

      ── people like me do and will be forced to foot the bill. ──

      You must be very unlucky. Like, very. The most unlucky person on this good Earth.

      Delete
    5. Torres, that was a foolish response. Why must you have such a problem with the facts? They are marching towards our border and have it made it abundantly clear that they intend to cross into the U.S. Mexico has offered them housing, jobs, and other forms of assistance, yet most refused. You know why? Because the U.S. has mucho generous welfare programs, and that is why they continue marching.

      Any one that pays taxes is unlucky, like very. Our taxes will pay for these layabouts, for which we have no choice. You must be the most ignorant, or the most shameless person on this good Earth.

      Delete
  7. "Any undocumented person arriving at any border of the United States, regardless of age, sex, or country of origin, must immediately be refused entry. No courts involved. End of discussion."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re: The Lab Manager,
      ── Any undocumented person arriving at any border of the United States, regardless of age, sex, or country of origin, must immediately be refused entry. ──

      That would include Americans whose passports and wallets were stolen or misplaced. Your statement (or wish, however you want to put it) is further evidence that anti-immigrant zealots are willing to place people's individual rights below the needs of a few jingoists and xenophobes merely for political reasons.

      Delete
    2. So be it. They could at least prove their provenance unlike these crap invaders flying their Honduran poophole country's flag. Anyway Torres, we know how much you hate white patriarchy with electricity 24/7, gasoline, medical care, and good organization overall and like the left you wish to see this destroyed. As usual, you have added nothing of value to the discussion except some silly easily debunked talking points which have no rational basis in the real world.

      Delete
    3. Re: The Lab Manager,
      ── They could at least prove their provenance ──

      Why are you imposing such a burden on them -as mentioned above, Americans who may lose their passports or wallets? Who are you to even suggest such a thing?

      ── we know how much you hate white patriarchy with electricity 24/7, gasoline[...] and like the left you wish to see this destroyed.──

      Leaving aside the nonsense, the fact is that, so far, the only commenters who are making appeals to collective ownership (instead of individual ownership) are DJT devotees such as yourself. AS for this 'debunking' you allude to, you haven't provided anything that would debunk any of the principles of liberty (individual rights, self-ownership) and only made some of us chuckle at the incredible attempt to deny a basic economic law, i.e. Comparative Advantage, through linking to a website handled by some crackpot.

      Delete
  8. Immigrants are global warming for republicans.Republicans.

    ReplyDelete
  9. No one makes mention that this whole caravan is a construct based on hostile intent. This isnt about sanctuary or asylum or anything like that! Its about blowback and as such should be treated as a hostile action.

    Simply put the world owes no one nothing. And in this case we owe these people even less. IF people come her for work they better already have jobs and carried a notarized document that says as much and details who they work for. You got that come right in.

    ReplyDelete