President Trump said in a tweet Monday night that U.S. immigration agents are planning to make mass arrests of millions starting “next week.”
If Trump follows through on his threat, it would result in one of the greatest round-ups of people in history.Next week ICE will begin the process of removing the millions of illegal aliens who have illicitly found their way into the United States. They will be removed as fast as they come in. Mexico, using their strong immigration laws, is doing a very good job of stopping people.......— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 18, 2019
It would result in a torrent of government coercion and evil for no reason other than hate, and throw the parts low-level economy dependent on undocumented immigrants into turmoil.
. -RW
That's a nice way to start his official reelection campaign: by throwing some red meat to his ghoulish supporters and also by removing the element of suprise from an operation that relies on surprise to reduce the risk of human tragedy and cost.
ReplyDeleteThe total number of people currently incarcerated in the US is about 2.3 million. Trump talks about rounding up "millionS" (emphasis on the plural mine) as if the country had 50% more holding facility space, with the staffing such facilities would require. So, of course, the guy is lying, again. His supporters will eat it all up, because it's their porn. The rest of us will simply continue on, mildly amused by the sad spectacle of the nitwitted being manipulated by a transparent charlatan, on national Tee Vee.
Don't worry, Jared Kushner won't let this happen. You and the rest of your family will still get section 8 housing and an EBT card at the expense of US citizens.
DeleteAll hail Jared Kushner, the paranoid xenophobes' lizard person.
DeleteIf people are taxed, then they have partial ownership of government lands and they get to decide who is allowed on that land. Therefore when the illegals come in, the taxpayer may elect someone who will deal with the illegals as trespassers. This is the privilege that taxpayers get to enjoy if they are forced to pay taxes.
ReplyDeleteYeah, so I am a taxpayer and I want them to have access to the land. Do I get to decide?
Delete"Coercion has its privileges."
DeleteDumbfounding.
If you are forced to pay taxes you have certain rights? Taxation is theft, correct? So when a thief holds you up and steals from you, you think you should have a say on how the thief spends it?
DeleteYou have partial ownership? What?
This is simply the mistaken belief in the myth of the state being somehow legitimate. Ridiculous.
Why would you do this when you know for sure that their entry will cause the government to increase taxation (to provide them benefits)? You can't put the blame solely on the government because you are aiding and abetting the government when you advocate to allow the invaders in. You are part of the initiation of force. (By the way I learned this concept of aiding and abetting from Walter Block).
DeleteIf government is a manager of the commons and taxes are a fee for the care and use of the commons I don't see how that works out wrt immigration. It seems to be an issue with regards to things like recreational land, air pollution, water, etc. So long as people pay the fees then it really wouldn't matter where they are from or how they got here.
DeleteThe issue is of course the order of operations. If we achieve a libertarian society then immigration as an issue simply evaporates. But when we have a statist society with a welfare state and many socialized services then immigration will be a huge issue. The pro immigration side of debate should be to make immigration a non-issue, but instead it's 'let everyone in, we'll discuss the costs foisted on you later'. But later never comes.
And it can't come later because now these are all these people who would be in desperate straits should suddenly the government schools were gotten rid of or the welfare stopped.
The idea that immigrants uproot themselves and spend time, sweat and sometimes blood to be here just to get some government benefits is so beyond anything one learns about economics that it proves the fact that anti-immigrant zealots are ecomomically clueless.
DeleteImmigrants are not invaders. They're invited in by a willing Market. The fact that you hate them doesn't mean it is true you pay for their benefits. Your paranoia delusions are your problem; don't make them mine, or Robert's or anyone else's.
limelemon:
Delete"...the taxpayer may elect someone who will deal with the illegals as trespassers."
-- The notion that majority rule is just is indefensible, and its enforcement against the minority is a violation of the NAP. Imagine if, out of the blue, your neighbors came to you and said that you have to pay for their gardens from now on, or else they'll lock you in a cage. Hey, majority rules.
"...because you are aiding and abetting the government when you advocate to allow the invaders in."
-- How can you "aid and abet" by advocating that someone not to do something? You're aiding and abetting nothing. Also, by your logic, aren't you aiding and abetting the government when you advocate to keep "the invaders" out?
to Old Mexican: These mexican invaders always vote for less liberty and more government, therefore you should be against their entry. Since you're not against them, you're not a libertarian.
DeleteHello, limelemon,
Delete"to Old Mexican: These mexican invaders always vote for less liberty "
Oh, from which of the several Mexicos(*) would they be, limelemon?
(*) Per Fox News.
"therefore you should be against their entry"
I don't subscribe to your paranoid fantasies about people you don't know. You can't say they vote invariably for more government. You can't say they're all lubertarians. You can't, because you can't read minds.
Old Mexican, you know as well as I do that the number of people showing up would drop dramatically if it wasn't for all the tax funded services and wealth transfers. The lefties know this too. Not only would the numbers drop but the kind of people who show up would be those who have absolutely no need of government in their lives.
DeleteThat would be a wonderful thing would it not? But it's always open borders first, libertarian society second. It doesn't work that way. You can't get rid of the state that way. It only grows stronger doing things in that order.
The welfare wall has and will always be the real deterrent Jimmy!! A few simple policies - such as no services except for those granted genuine asylum as a start.
DeletePerhaps an employment program where if you come here and have employment you can enter and stay as long as you have work (similar to H1B) Its not rocket science.
It really is pathetic to see all the wimps roll over and cheer on the police states because they're afraid of Mexicans. What a bunch of chuds. I'm afraid of Feds.
ReplyDeleteDonxon, I agree. It’s one thing I don’t understand about some libertarians that I hold in high regard.
DeleteWe supposedly don’t believe in the State. But they want the State to curb immigration. So they are calling on State action. Unreal.
Do you Hate the State, or not?
Do you think the state would sit by and allow in millions of people who hated the state? Of course not. Such people would be labeled as dangerous threats and kept out.
DeleteIt is in the state's interest to allow as many people who love the state in as possible. That grows the state. More wealth redistribution, more roads, more schools, more police, more social programs, more judges, more people at odds with each other politically over the plunder, more of so very much that grows the state.
The state and those who it to grow will exploit your libertarianism to destroy liberty. This is why we should work to become a nation to where immigration is an irrelevant issue rather than allow the state to carry out its formula for growth.
You are being played for a fool. It is in the state's interest to establish mechanisms interfering in every voluntary arrangement. Immigration is just the excuse they use because it's the excuse you will fall for.
DeleteImmigration is just global warming for republicans.
Hello, Jimmy Joe Meeker,
DeleteYou say "It is in the state's interest to allow as many people who love the state in as possible."
And of course the state knows what's in people's hearts and minds.
Gosh, you Trumpists are paranoid.
Donxon, The state and its owners want a cashless society for the very purpose to establish mechanisms intervering in every voluntary arrangement. The state is always finding new ways to press its nose further into everything everyone does. Every interaction, every transaction. What it doesn't want a piece of it wants control of and vice versa or both. Global warming is just one of the cons to get there.
DeleteOld Mexican, There is no need to know every individual, only the prevailing trend. The democrat party knows that status quo immigration is changing the voting mix in its favor. It will grow the state faster than having the controlled opposition to progressivism around. Accusing me of being a Trumpist doesn't change that.
Again, if you want immigration to be a non-issue get the state out encouraging it. Not acting against immigration but simply to stop encouraging it. That's all. Of course that's considered horrid. That's worse that what Trump is doing. Children can't be denied $13K/yr of taxpayer funds for government school now can they?
Save your breath Jimmy. There is no comprehension of underlying dynamics that dont fall in line with cookie cutter libertarianism. If its not the text book approach its invalid to many here.
DeleteThe outcome of unchecked immigration is not good no matter how you look at it. RW thinks his beloved bay area is full of shit now??? Just wait.
Hello, Shegottawideload,
Delete──"The outcome of unchecked immigration is not good no matter how you look at it."──
Yes! Look at what happened to the United States after all those Irish came over! Boatloads! Hell in a handbasket!
──"RW thinks his beloved bay area is full of shit now??? Just wait."─‼
I lived in the Bay Area for three years and the shit wasn't going on because of immigrants. All those junkies and colorful homeless people were as white as snow, so please stop making a fool of yourself.
The Irish still vote in the interest of their ethnicity first (no vice), and overwhelmingly vote for anti-liberty policies (huge vice). They still identify as Irish over American, and have presuppositions antithetical to the spirit of the Anglo revolutionaries in early America. Yes, I place part of our current political situation (which is Hellish) at the feet of the boatloads.
Delete"actions against those he hates"
ReplyDeleteIsn't it the leftist approach to assign an emotion to someone in that manner? It sounds like leftist language to me. Accusing those who disagree on policy, role of government, etc as hating others.
Also it is used in reverse, again by the left, where talking to someone means the person is their agent or puppet or loves them. See the left's attacks on Tulsi Gabbard wrt Syria or when Trump still was going to talk with the leaders of Russia and North Korea.
Why would a libertarian be fine with these people coming in when you know that they are anti-liberty? These people never vote for less government. So this goes against the interest of a libertarian.
ReplyDeleteFirst, we don't know how each individual thinks or acts. That's a very collectivist -- unlibertarian -- mindset, to say that "they all" do this or that.
DeleteSecond, you're advocating for a larger, more expensive, and more intrusive state -- read Jacob Hornberger's stuff on what it means to have the state active in border management -- so how is that different from someone who never votes for less government? I'm more worried about the current residents who want the state to take action than I am about immigrants.
These people have a track record of voting for more services. They don't understand liberty because of their low IQ. Import them and you get bigger government. Do you research.
DeleteHello, limelemon,
Delete"Why would a libertarian be fine with these people coming in when you know that they are anti-liberty?"
I can't know that. Neither can you, unless you presume to know how to read minds.
---"So this goes against the interest of a libertarian."---
DeleteDon't presume to say what is in the interest of a libertarian. Being against the state does not confer a person the right to visit his paranoid, racist, bigoted, ignorant and idiotic attitudes on people engaging in peaceful trade, on the odd chance that one or two of them are more sympathetic to the state. I am against the state; I am also against people like you who want to limit my choices. You can go to hell for all I care. You're no one.
The answer is simple. Cut off the socialized tax funded services and the welfare programs first. Then you know nobody is showing up for such things. Oh but we can't do that.
DeleteThink of this way, if I could buy a Illinois government employee's pension it would be tremendous windfall. Roughly $3.5 million in exchange for less than $100K. That would be a great deal now wouldn't it? What does the low productivity person get if he can get into the USA with his family? How much can he get in services, cash payments, and so forth for his family? It's not as good as the Illinois government employee pension but it's still pretty damn good and way better than staying where he is. With very rare exception his productivity won't be able to buy anything remotely close to that in a free market, well at least until we have one for awhile.
So why don't we work on establishing free markets and driving costs down so low productivity people can purchase all sorts of nice things and services on their own? Then we don't have to worry about immigration.
limelemon:
DeleteThe US government grew massively well before immigrants came from Latin America. That's all on the account of those Americans of western European heritage. Look at how the state crowded out liberty under Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, and LBJ. We don't have to "import them" to get bigger government; the locals, demanding more state power (such as border management), are doing just fine in that regard.
"These people have a track record of voting for more services. They don't understand liberty because of their low IQ. Import them and you get bigger government. Do you research"
DeleteNone of the things immigrants are supposedly guaranteed to vote for is more detrimental to my freedom than the police state that is conjured by these asinine pleas for help from the feds.
It's such a stupid trick, I do not understand how anyone falls for it.
The state gains power over you by offering to fix something you're worried about. Like duh? You sound like a dumb liberal who can't figure out how turning the feds loose on gun owners might inhibit EVERYONE's freedom.
Illegal immigrants are the real Americans. There is nothing more American than climbing over a government fence. There is nothing more unamerican than cheering on the state while it stomps on freedom. You sound European.
Hello, Jimmy Joe Meeker,
Delete──"The answer is simple. Cut off the socialized tax funded services and the welfare programs first."──
No one here has ever advocated for providing immigrants with welfare programs, but the argument that welfare programs should be enough justification to curtail or stem the flow of immigrants (who are merely responding to Market signals) lacks serious analysis. keep in mind an unavoidable fact: Welfare is just another political tool the state uses to increase its power. As with all other tools, Welfare is focused on where it'll have the more bang for the buck, i.e. where it'll help get voters on its side. Immigrants are not eligible for benefits precisely because they can't legally vote and don't vote. Consider that the two items in the federal budget that represents the highest chunk──Social Security and Medicare──focus on the block of people that show up to vote the MOST: the elderly.
The so-called 'socialized programs' you allude to include the type of things that immigrants already pay for with their tax dollars (sales taxes, property taxes, fuel taxes) like school and other state-sponsored assistance that affect mostly children. Those programs are not going away any time soon barring a total catastrophe. The impact on those programs that immigrants ostensibly have has been overblown by immigration-hating think tanks.
So: the call to end social programs and welfare as a prerequisite to a more open immigration policy is mostly a non-serious exercise in arguing for perfection. I call it the "That's Why We Can't Have Nice Things" argument.
──"So why don't we work on establishing free markets and driving costs down so low productivity people can purchase all sorts of nice things and services on their own?"──
That's exactly the kind of thing that economic nationalists don't want, even if you think their intention is to achieve what you ask. They don't want the added competition from immigrants, they're suspicious of markets and they harbor a Mercantilist view of economic activity. In other words: They really DO want people pay higher prices for basic goods and services if it means that their preferred groups get the benefit: Unionized blue-collar workers, especially the low-melanin kind.
I’m am neither pro immigrant or anti immigrant. I am against the state.
ReplyDeleteTo keep people out requires the State that I see as illegitimate using forc e against other people. I won’t condone that. The State should not exist. This argument “oh but the state does exist so we need to advocate that’s it does this or that”... what??
“Resolve to serve no more” doesn’t mean unless you need it for something.
Wenzel: Yeah, so I am a taxpayer and I want them to have access to the land. Do I get to decide?
ReplyDeleteSure. Until we dismantle the state in the proper order (and that is not open borders tomorrow), you can change the immigration laws. Or you can stand at the border and screen out the murderers, thieves, rapists, drunk drivers and free-loaders. Do you have time for that?
Hello, Mister Spook,
Delete──"Until we dismantle the state in the proper order [...]"──
That sounds a lot like saying 'when pigs fly'.
──"Or you can stand at the border and screen out the murderers, thieves, rapists, drunk drivers and free-loaders"──
That's kind of boring. Not much of those never mind the paranoid nightmares that dimwitted Trumpists harbor about those awful brown people who are coming to get YOUUUuuuuuuu!
It's more fun to separate the children from their parents and watch them cry. Oberführer Steven Miller would certainly approve.
Mister Spock, those libertarians who favor an enlarged, powerful, intrusive state to manage borders always talk about the "proper order." That sounds an awful lot like there is some central plan sitting on the shelf that we can easily implement under the wise guidance of our rulers. But no one can ever produce that plan.
DeleteOM: "Hello, Mister Spook,
ReplyDelete──"Until we dismantle the state in the proper order [...]"──
"That sounds a lot like saying 'when pigs fly'."
If you are saying we are not going to be able to dismantle the state, then taking the minarchist position that the purpose of government is to protect life, liberty and property, I have no problem with keeping the illegals out.
"──"Or you can stand at the border and screen out the murderers, thieves, rapists, drunk drivers and free-loaders"──
"That's kind of boring."
Yeah, thousands of homicides, rapes, crippled drivers, etc., IS boring when you have no concern for human life. Sad you have such little sympathy for white people. You know what that makes you, don't you?
"Not much of those"
Thousands and thousands.
"never mind the paranoid nightmares that dimwitted Trumpists harbor"
I am neither dimwitted nor a Trump supporter. But I'm not surprised that you use the ad hominem approach as you defend murderers and rapists. You are a pathetic person with no character. And while I believe there is only one race (we all came from Adam and Eve), based on your screen name, your ad hominem, your excusing criminals that should be executed for capital offenses, etc., if I used the vernacular, I'd be real tempted to call you a racist (even recognizing that Mexican is not a race.) If I could think of a better epithet that I could use, I would.
Hello, Mister Spook,
Delete──"[...] taking the minarchist position that the purpose of government is to protect life, liberty and property, I have no problem with keeping the illegals out."──
You have a remarkable predilection for the non sequitur. It does not follow that in order to meet the mandate of "protecting life, liberty and property" it means keeping "illegulz" out. The State does trample on property and liberty whenever it raids chicken farms to look for those despised "illegulz", so your contention reeks of a lack of serious thought.
──"Yeah, thousands of homicides, rapes, crippled drivers, etc., "──
"How many thousands? Thousands upon thousands!" and other paranoid fantasies.
You hear one or two stories promoted on Fox News and you extrapolate that to mean "thousands and thousands" in your mind.
──"But I'm not surprised that you use the ad hominem approach as you defend murderers and rapists.──
Speaking of Ad Hominem, which you misused with glee when referring to my comments, you just engaged in one by claiming I'm protecting rapists. How cute is that?
──" I'd be real tempted to call you a racist"──
You can do whatever you like. The difference between me and you is that when I call someone a racist is because there's clear cause to call the person a racist: his or her appeals to a collectivist ideal based on race. You'll do it because you want to use a tu quoque argument.
──"I am neither dimwitted nor a Trump supporter."──
Yeah, that sounds too much like a Stuart Smalley affirmation: "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me!"
Keep saying that to yourself. At one point, maybe even you'll believe it.
The NAPster: "Mister Spock, those libertarians who favor an enlarged, powerful, intrusive state to manage borders"
ReplyDeleteWho would you be referring to? Certainly not me.
"That sounds an awful lot like there is some central plan sitting on the shelf that we can easily implement under the wise guidance of our rulers."
Appealing to my namesake's usual argument, that is very illogical. Where would you get the idea that the state would ever voluntarily reduce its size, scope, power, taxation, control, regulation, etc.?
"But no one can ever produce that plan."
Well, I know it wouldn't include painting the kitchen while your house is on fire.
Depressing to see libertarians argue passionately for more State power over immigrants.
ReplyDeleteYet, it shows why liberty will win (albeit slowly) despite people not understanding it.
Liberty is so moral and efficient that people naturally choose that outcome (often for their self-interest) despite not understanding the liberty framework - immigrants come in search of better opportunity, people directly relying on cheap labor support immigration and then some people support for humane reasons.