The Mexican States of America

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
102

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
So if I own a lawn care company and my truck dies, I cannot make money to feed my family. I steal YOUR truck so I can keep working.

Hey, just trying to feed my family. Even though it FUCKS you over, it’s ok right?

What is the difference with an illegal stealing somebody’s identity to get a job?

[/quote]

One difference is that–assuming they aren’t actually using the identity to steal credit, goods, or services–they would be paying into the “victims” SS account for the purpose of determining benefits, and wouldn’t receive any SS benefits in return. So they aren’t stealing the victim’s truck and fucking them over, they are actually making an anonymous donation to their retirement account. [/quote]

They broke up a ring of mexican gangbangers in Salt Lake City that had been selling other peoples identities so that illegals could get jobs.

I’m sure all of them took great care to keep their stolen identities credit scores high.

And to take it a step further…if you think this is secretly a good thing for the person who got ripped off…maybe you should sell your identity to an illegal and fortify your SS account.[/quote]

I don’t disagree that identity theft is a problem, especially in the specific example you just gave. My response was to your generic hypothetical and potential ways to distinguish the two examples.

The bigger question I am struggling with is the justification to deny individuals the basic freedom to move and enter into contracts based solely on their place of birth. The libertarian side of me has a real problem with this. The pragmatist in me is sympathetic to Chushin’s concern that simply opening the borders would cause bad things to happen, and Beans’ concern about logistics, at least in the short run, but this isn’t really a great answer when dealing with any particular individual’s basic human rights/natural rights. Also, the biggest reason people point to for a “bad things” prediction is having to provide benefits to immigrants; but that’s really a problem with living in a welfare state, and not an answer to the question of an individual’s basic human rights/natural rights and whether freedom to move is one of their basic rights.

Do you believe in natural rights? If so, do you disagree that freedom of movement is one of them?

[/quote]

What I believe is that there is a finite amount of resources in this country. We are broke.

With waves of illegal immigrants putting more pressure on already overtaxed local/state/federal programs, hospitals and schools…they fail, our country fails.

[/quote]

I confess I am sympathetic to your sentiment. But I am still pretty conflicted on this one and its hard for me to simply shrug off the issue simply because its not my fundamental right that’s being infringed without it leaving a bad taste in my libertarian-leaning mouth. [/quote]

I honestly don’t mean this to be as smart ass ( nor as simple-minded) as it may sound, but does your inability to go walking around your neighbor’s yard anytime you want leave that same bad taste?

Is private ownership of land also an issue for you?[/quote]

No, private property isn’t an issue with me and I generally favor strong private property rights.

Do you think the Government has a right to tell me I can’t invite my cousin to come live with me on my property that I own solely because she was born in another country? I know it has the power to tell me I can’t do this, but does it really have the right?
[/quote]

If you think of the country as jointly owned by the citizens, who elect representitives to administer it, then yes. Your cousin will have free access to land and resources that I and millions other share ownership of.

We should have some voice in who gets in.

I don’t see how you can favor private ownership but advocate open borders. [/quote]

That sounds exactly like the opposite of “private” ownership as by definition its a “collective-ownership” model. “Collective ownership of the country” and utilitarianism is the model the left uses to justify pretty much all their policies. Ceding the right to decide “who gets in” to national “administrators” is the way it also works in China, and “administrators” decide this at the womb-level based on their concept of what is best for the collective good.

At some point, you have to decide where and when “collective” rights trump basic human/individual rights.

The guy who runs this site is a Libertarian economist at George Mason:

http://openborders.info/collective-property-rights/

I’m not posting this link necessarily as an endorsement of him or his ideas, but he lays out the arguments for open borders from a number of perspectives and this link provides a couple counterarguments to the collective-ownership argument.

However, the author below is also a Libertarian who shares your view on immigration and who uses the private-property analogy, but he argues that migration/entrance rights should be determined at the local–not federal or state level–because federal authorities just want voters who support the welfare state at any cost (CountingBeans?).

I’m personally concerned about “swamping” and associated “assimilation” problems if there is a mass migration and the fact that we live in a welfare state. But the left uses “fiscal burden on the welfare state” to justify pretty much every restriction on liberty imaginable, and again, the main problem is the welfare state, not open boarders.

Welfare state/fiscal burden objection | Open Borders: The Case

104

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

I’ll shoot back another… We are supposed to follow the avenues of the law and what is right, well we have been trying to do that for nearly 200 years. To us, we look at history and see the same, when you want us, we are your heroes. All other times, we see fingers pointing at us, being called lazy, dirty, freeloaders. Same shit has been going on, so how am I supposed to take a proposition about following laws that beans highlighted seriously? If we had followed laws, we would have been Bracero’s! Forget that noise! That’s more of the same hero when you need us, dirty beaner when the crops are picked. Given this history, how are people supposed to take propositions of following the law seriously? Fingers still point at the weak, rather than those pulling the knobs on the machine which created the predicament in the first place? Had we followed laws in the past we would have been boned, so please, tell me how you trust an entity it has established quite clearly it isn’t trustworthy? [/quote]

You touch on the very crux of the issue here. It is the law that is broken, well rather facilitation of law that is completely broken.

So government (mainly democrats) are taking failures of government that are by all accounts at least 50% their own fault, and using their failure to buy illegals’ votes once granted the ability to exercise their rights, many of whom happen to be from Mexico.

If the Democrats (or Republicans for that matter) actually cared about the immigrant population, they would fix the laws, not grant amnesty every 30-40 years in order to booster voting stock.

AT some point being a representative means actually caring for the people and the country, and not just who they vote for.

We need term limits. [/quote]

My sentiments exactly, we need our limits. When I look at the history of America, I look at it for what it is, not fairy tales. Answer this question for yourself, when has America ever actually had fair labor of any sort? Plymouth Rock days prior to having slaves?

The way I see it, we have always had some sort of crappy labor and people to exploit. It’s part of what America is founded on, it’s something we still depend on, it’s the stuff of free market that nobody likes to talk about. Just think about things like slavery, the industrial revolution and child labor, Irish Labor… All things we look back on and shake our heads at, and some of us can even sigh and be thankful it’s over.

I’m saying that it never stopped. Crops needed to be picked, railroads had to be built, animals had to be butchered and the employers were looking for cheap labor. We have our history on the West Coast using Chinese immigrants on railroads, dealing with dynamite. Mexican immigrants in the fields dealing with pesticides and whatever housing and hopefully running water, food the Bracero program provided.

These days the entities that take advantage find other ways… Like exporting labor and operator jobs to places like China and India. Where people also complain of exploitation, where standards and safety are laxed and people die from things like pesticide plant leaks, go bankrupt and hungry from failed designer crops by Monsanto. This is a particular machine within the machine that we need to acknowledge has been the cause of much profit, but also the instrument of greed and immorality. It’s a demand for cheaper labor for the sake of increased profit or savings/ same thing. Cheap labor is a simple resource, but too often we forget there are desperate people attached to it.

It seems convenient to look at American history. Some of you, including myself can look back at German, Irish and Italian Ancestors who built the East Coast. You were exploited back then but you earned your keep right? Well there’s similar story on the West Coast but nobody gets credit for doing such. While the Irish Micks, the Italian Spics got to shed the ugly racist labels and generalities assigned to them, we are now called Spics, beaners, parasites, and of all things LAZY… Lol.

Mexicans, Lazy? And the funny thing is it sticks!

105

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
As long as business can make money hand over fist, this problem will NEVER be solved.

There are too many people making money with an open border, so if you want to close it, you make it clear to businesses that it will cost them more to keep it open than to close it.

With increasing Latino populations, come higher taxes, and more Liberal policies. When business sees its too costly to do business in a place like California for example, they leave. And the downward spiral then begins.

If you people knew how bad hostile policies toward job creation have killed this state, you would fall over.

Union janitors making $70k, tax brackets being adjusted downward, Global Warming taxes, a 2-year minimum wait to open a fast food chain restaurant…

Cheap labor is not so cheap when you look at the costs associated with illegal immigration, it’s much more costly to deal with them once they have arrived.

Severiano - no offense, but no other immigrant populations struggle the way your people do. Asians, Europeans, and middle easterners seem to do just fine adjusting and thriving here. We spend more on your people with the smallest return on investment. I am tired of paying for your people because they don’t habla. [/quote]

In the big picture, Asians in general you are correct. But there are also many Asian groups that don’t manage so well in the U.S. To include groups like the Hmong, Mokes/ Pacific Islanders, Cambodians, Sri Lankans. If you really get into it you will see many Asians culturally value education, specifically science and mathematics above all else. There are even cultural norms and stereotypes about dragon mothers that have been established… There are articles about how much more difficult it is for Asians to get into Ivy League schools… There are so many with insane gpa’s and extra curricular tasks like being piano viruoso’s etc that smarter Asians get passed on, where just as intelligent whites still get in… This is Harvard we are talking about.

Many West Asian folks, Persians especially who are here usually come from families with money. I know, my cousin Married a Persian lady and is loaded, luckily he likes being a firefighter and has a sense of duty… But, they have money because their ancestor had a lot of money… Not Father or Grandfather, it’s old ass money which his father in law turned into a business of selling industrial appliances.

So many of those people start off in a higher place on the socio economic ladder due to culture and coming here with aspirations to be educated, rather than to simply a better life through labor. Others come wealthy with aspirations to open up their own businesses, and then there are those who don’t fall into the stereotypes at all… Imagine being an Asian kid who sucks at math and science. I ran into quite a few of these in college myself.

The worst part of it is, since Asians are categorized a certain way when enrolling in schools, if you are Cambodian, and amongst Camodian’s you are the best, have an insane GPA of 4.0 and play the electric guitar like a champ, you are up against 100 Japanese kids with a 4.2 who play violin, chello, piano… Cambodian kid has nothing culturally in common with the Japanese kids but has to compete against them and wont get into Harvard.

Meanwhile if I had applied to Harvard or Berkeley for grad school as a Latino, I’m pretty sure my chances would have been pretty good.

107

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

I don’t see how you can favor private ownership but advocate open borders.

[/quote]

You can’t and it’s silly if not downright disingenuous to suggest otherwise especially if one is a libertarian.
[/quote]

Libertarians are split on this issue. Immigration policy is complicated given the fact of a welfare state, but the official platform calls for open borders, and, like many issues, many libertarians disagree with the official platform:

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Libertarian_Party_Immigration.htm

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/03/rand-pauls-un-libertarian-immigration-reform/

I think reasonable people can disagree without a “disingenuous” label getting tossed around.

110

[quote]pushharder wrote:
…and I think the anarchy end of the pool is full slimy, gooey poo poo.[/quote]

So I take it you disagree that freedom of movement/travel is a fundamental/natural/individual/human right?

111

If you were born in Somalia, for example, and wanted to leave, do you think all the other states would have the right to imprison you there by denying you access to the rest of the world?

114

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I do not believe unrestricted freedom of movement/travel between countries is a fundamental/natural/individual right anymore than I believe unrestricted freedom of movement/travel into your backyard and kitchen and bedroom is a fundamental/natural/individual/human right as per Chushin.

Only the lunatic fringe of libertarians believe in the elimination of all political entities and their requisite borders. In fact a political entity with some teeth is absolutely necessary in order to establish and protect libertarianism.

[/quote]

I agree with you 100% regarding paragraph 2, but disagree that paragraph 2 is the necessary consequence of recognizing a basic right to freedom of movement.

116

[quote]pushharder wrote:
In fact a political entity with some teeth is absolutely necessary in order to establish and protect libertarianism.

[/quote]

Correct, you need order to have freedom. Sounds weird and like doublespeak, but you need order because man is fallible. We do this naturally.

The idea of a country having truly open boarders becomes less and less a conversation about reality and more and more one of philosophical belief the larger the population and complex the society.

117

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I do not believe unrestricted freedom of movement/travel between countries is a fundamental/natural/individual right anymore than I believe unrestricted freedom of movement/travel into your backyard and kitchen and bedroom is a fundamental/natural/individual/human right as per Chushin.

Only the lunatic fringe of libertarians believe in the elimination of all political entities and their requisite borders. In fact a political entity with some teeth is absolutely necessary in order to establish and protect libertarianism.

[/quote]

I agree with you 100% regarding paragraph 2, but disagree that paragraph 2 is the necessary consequence of recognizing a basic right to freedom of movement.

[/quote]

Wow.

Just how would that work?[/quote]

When you are in the United States, do you need to show papers when you cross from California to Nevada? There is a border there, and you are moving from one sovereign state to another, but people are allowed to move freely between them. Nobody claims this is a state of Anarchy.

119

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I do not believe unrestricted freedom of movement/travel between countries is a fundamental/natural/individual right anymore than I believe unrestricted freedom of movement/travel into your backyard and kitchen and bedroom is a fundamental/natural/individual/human right as per Chushin.

Only the lunatic fringe of libertarians believe in the elimination of all political entities and their requisite borders. In fact a political entity with some teeth is absolutely necessary in order to establish and protect libertarianism.

[/quote]

I agree with you 100% regarding paragraph 2, but disagree that paragraph 2 is the necessary consequence of recognizing a basic right to freedom of movement.

[/quote]

Wow.

Just how would that work?[/quote]

When you are in the United States, do you need to show papers when you cross from California to Nevada? There is a border there, and you are moving from one sovereign state to another, but people are allowed to move freely between them. Nobody claims this is a state of Anarchy.
[/quote]

You’re joking, I hope.

That is only possible BECAUSE the US has protected borders![/quote]

No, its because the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of movement within the 50 states even though the 50 states are separate sovereign political entities and because the Founders viewed freedom of movement as a fundamental right.