Saturday, 3 August 2019

"One of the principal costs of abandoning libertarian principle on immigration is an immigration police state.' #QotD

"One of the principal costs of abandoning libertarian principle on this particular issue [of immigration is] an immigration police state, one consisting of highway checkpoints for travellers who have never left the United States, roving Border Patrol checkpoints, warrantless searches of farms and ranches within 100 miles of the border, body-cavity searches of Americans returning from overseas vacation, warrantless searches of cell phones and mandatory disclosure of passwords, violent raids on private businesses, forcible separation of children from parents, squalid conditions in immigrant concentration camps, and boarding of private buses to examine people’s papers.
    "What is the real argument that these libertarians are using in support of [abandoning their principles and joining up with the statists on this particular issue]? They are saying that if we have open borders and a welfare state, foreigners will come to the United State and get on welfare, which will mean that Americans will have to pay higher taxes. That’s the core of their argument—that libertarians should abandon their principles because open borders and a welfare state will mean that people will have to pay higher taxes.
    "Of course, that’s not necessarily true..."
   ~ Jacob Hornberger, from his post 'Open Borders Are Compatible With a Welfare State'


  1. I agree with this .... up to the point of - if my Twitter feed is to be believed - the increasing appalling level of violence, and barbaric violence via knives, now swords (Frankfurt) etc, and also in Scandinavia, Germany, etc, sexual violence, in which migrants seem way over-represented.

    Doesn't give you pause for thought at all? Some of these cultures, or at least their men, are not well acquainted with peaceable and civilised behaviour, and Europe, Scandinavia, etc, seem to becoming more dangerous places to live, especially for women. We're undoing a lot of what has been achieved surely?

  2. Mark, you may be right, but I suspect you are less right and more Right.

    Can you provide verifiable statistics to back up your claims?

    If your only news sources are Breitbart, Faux News, and The Daily caller, you will see an "immigrant crime wave". But too often, it is highlighting of crimes by a small demographic and obscuring other crimes.

    Some people carry on as though there would be no crime if we would just end immigration. This is patently untrue.

    1. That is my point: I don't follow Brietbart or any of those accounts, but there's still enough footage, including just yesterday the Syrian migrant killing the driver in Frankfurt with his sword: there is video of it, plus plenty of verification in MSM.

      I would simply like to know what the truth is: I do believe however there is more likely a problem - a dreadful one - than not.

    2. And of course there would still be crime without immigration, that's a stupid point, frankly: the important thing is reliable stats on migrant crime on whatever useful base as a comparison.

    3. You know what Sweden has done in response to the inconvenient proportion of crimes committed by immigrants with Sharia values?

      They've stopped reporting the racial/cultural background of offenders!

      If that's not evidence of a very real problem that's only going to get worse (because you don't solve problems by putting your head in the sand) I don't know what is.

  3. Point taken, mark.

    The only reliable indicators I have seen come from the USA where, regardless of the Blowhard squatting at 1600 Penn, immigrants, including illegal immigrants, commit crime at a far lower rate than native born Mercans. Trouble is, that does not a sensationalist headline make.

    1. Yes. But I wasn't referring to US: there immigration is from Mexico and South America; cultures of which are wholly dissimilar, plus the US does still control its immmigration. My reference point is solely UK, Europe (particularly Germany) and Scandinavia which have all allowed pretty much indiscriminate and number free immigration.

      Or to be more blunt Sth American immigration into US is basically Christian (Catholic) - hence cultural similarities - but my reference countries the immigration has been Moslem, many of whom have very different values that don't appear compatible.

      So to state my prejudice: I have no time for any religion (the NZ Christians against euthanasia are annoying the hell out of my); but I particularly don't like Islam. For too much of the time, for too many of its adherents, it's bloody awful.

    2. Shit typo: ... cultures of which are not wholly dissimilar ...

    3. I love it when libertarians can tell us all about the benefits of open borders in Countries they don't live in. And Economists in paid up concrete towers can tell you that opening the American Continent will mean all the Mexicans can support the low IQ, religiously barbaric antagonistic criminals who arrive. You people really are away from where reality exists.

  4. The sensible libertarian answer to this is that if you have undesirables migrating to enjoy the generous welfare in Europe and Scandinavia, then perhaps the generous welfare is the problem. People with a job are often too busy to go rampaging and the consequences would have negative effects on their lifestyle.

    1. And in fact (as I've posted here before) figures show that immigrants there and elsewhere are generally, as a whole, paying more in tax than are non-immigrants, and receiving less in welfare than are non-immigrants. And as Australia has shown with NZers, it's not impossible (even if the welfare state were to continue) to ring-fence welfare from non-citizens.
      That these objections still persist, however, despite these facts, suggests the objections to new immigrants are not based on facts.


1. Comments are welcome and encouraged.
2. Comments are moderated. Gibberish, spam & off-topic grandstanding will be removed. Tu quoque will be moderated. Links to bogus news sites (and worse) will be deleted.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say it, it's important enough to put a name to it.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.