Why does anyone believe they have a right to enter the US?

The story begins:

Hundreds of Central American migrants from a caravan that crossed Mexico reunited in Tijuana on Wednesday and planned to cross the border together this weekend in defiance of threats by U.S. President Donald Trump to repel them.

The timing of the migrants arrival could compromise a flurry of talks this week to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which Trump has repeatedly threatened to scrap if Mexico does not crack down on the flow of Central Americans through its territory.

Busloads of migrants began arriving on Tuesday at a shelter that was a five minute-walk from the border and within sight of a U.S. flag waving under an overpass connecting the two countries.

While many rested in tents after a month-long journey across Mexico, others wandered up to the border to contemplate the next stage in their journey.

“The wall doesn’t look that tall,” said Kimberly George, a 15-year-old girl from Honduras as she looked toward a stunted barrier a few feet away. “I really want to cross it.”

The question then becomes, why don’t they just stay in Mexico if they’re so worried about their own countries? As if we don’t know.

The left everywhere, utterly discredited and with no policies to offer of the slightest value if growth and prosperity are the aim, is trying to follow Brecht’s cynical advice by “dismissing the people and appointing a new one”. Once just meant ironically this is now the policy of every party on the left and the most immediate and present danger to the civilisation of the west.

And the aim of those who pursue these policies? Political power for themselves and absolutely nothing else.

This entry was posted in American politics, Cultural Issues. Bookmark the permalink.

67 Responses to Why does anyone believe they have a right to enter the US?

  1. MichelLasouris

    Right off topic, but did you read the latest on testosterone fuelled ‘female’ athletes?
    “Other athletes believe she has an unfair advantage because of the high levels of naturally occurring testosterone in her body. But, under the new rules Semenya will either have to take prescribed medication to compete at her event or move to longer-distance running. ”
    Semen ya? They’re kidding ,right?

  2. MichelLasouris

    The Mexicans really are pushing their luck by allowing/encouraging this blatant defiance. Ok let them in, define them as illegal immigrants and bang ’em up in a hot sparse detention compile the US dismantles the NAFTA

  3. MichelLasouris

    Oooops ” Camp, while” not compile

  4. Gary K

    Keep them on their bus for another 12-14 hours and dump them on the US-Canada border.
    Let Trudeau have them.

  5. Crossie

    The political class in US were shocked by Trump’s election because they did not believe the people were fed up with the illegal immigration situation. What will be their excuse in November when Democrats lose again?

    These crossings are not migrations, they are invasions. Most people can see what UK and Europe have turned into and don’t want it in their country and this is true of both US and Australia.

    The political and media class, who are virtually one and the same, wear the jackboots today.

  6. NuThink

    There’s the old adage about TWIMs (Third World Illegal Migrants) and the Left and the Right.

    The Right do not mind a TWIM living nearby as long as they don’t get uppity.
    The Left do not mind a TWIM getting uppity as long as they do not live nearby.

  7. Roger.

    These crossings are not migrations, they are invasions.

    Multikulti + Mass Immigration (legal or illegal) = Colonisation.

  8. mundi

    Gary has the right idea. Escort them North to Canada, and make him export them to the EU where they will be welcomed.

  9. H B Bear

    Maybe all these Mexicans are just Libertarians and have been talking to Lampeter? After all it is just like having someone move in down the street from you. Obviously that is no business of government.

  10. Iampeter

    Because rights are a freedom of action and the only thing that should be illegal in a rights protecting republic (like America) is rights violations which isn’t possible by the mere act of “entering the USA”.

    The left everywhere, utterly discredited and with no policies to offer of the slightest value if growth and prosperity are the aim

    If you think the government should be doing things other than protecting rights as you do if you think immigration requires regulation or banning then you are also of the left.
    “utterly discredited and with no policies” is a description of the conservative movement which is basically the politically illiterate and religious arm of the left wing.

  11. NuThink

    It is believed by many in the media and political class that as the USA and Australia are/were wealthy that they can take an unlimited number of migrants. David Marr said something very similar on Insiders that as Australia is a wealthy country it can take all that that arrive without permission. Well, wealth does not last long if spread around too much – Simples.

    I note that the faces on the ABC get paid a hell of a lot for what they do, but don’t offer to spread their wealth around, except to shout a few lattes to their mates and some even have time to go fox hunting and others have their Well Earned Breaks. Delusional. They should try real jobs that don’t depend on the taxpayer footing the bill.

    There is a Russian joke from the cold war era. Breznev and Gromyko are talking, and Gromyko asks Breznev why he does not just open the borders and let whoever wants to leave, leave.
    Breznev says, “Because there will only be the two of us left.”
    Gromyko queries “Oh, You and who else?”

    There was a funny comment by Olga one of the Russian women on the My Kitchen Rules after two females were ejected from the competition. Someone asked if they would be coming back and Olga said “In Russia, when someone goes missing, you don’t ask questions.”

  12. NuThink

    @Iampeter

    which isn’t possible by the mere act of “entering the USA”.

    Does that same principle apply to someone entering your property? After all the country is just the property of its citizens, so if they cannot prevent just anyone from entering then the same applies to anyone wanting to enter your property – or is that different?

  13. a happy little debunker

    Hells, we have supposedly expat refugee type Sudanese/Aussies claiming their ‘right’ to enter the US, when they only have a VISA (and therefore the ‘right’) to present themselves at US Borders.

  14. Percy Porcelain

    Because rights are a freedom of action and the only thing that should be illegal in a rights protecting republic (like America) is rights violations which isn’t possible by the mere act of “entering the USA”.

    What a load of illogical pretentious bullshit.

  15. yarpos

    because half the US tells them they can? Much the same as the liberal mentality here that see people that country hop over 15 countries to Australia, bypassing people waiting in real refugee camps, as somehow having a right to enter Australia

  16. anonandon

    As soon as one tries to cross, shoot himpour encourager les autres.

    Amazed that a country will not defend its own border.

  17. Iampeter

    Does that same principle apply to someone entering your property? After all the country is just the property of its citizens, so if they cannot prevent just anyone from entering then the same applies to anyone wanting to enter your property – or is that different?

    It’s different. A country is not just property of some collective named “citizens”, thats how a marxist might describe it. A country is a geographic location where a single government has jurisdiction. If you are living within the jurisdiction of a rights protecting government then you will have things like private property rights where you can determine who gets to enter.

    A legitimate govenrment protects rights, which makes things like property rights possible, it does not regulate what individuals can or can’t do or where they live or any other aspect of their lives if no rights have been violated.

  18. John Constantine

    Their left are recruiting mercenaries and cannon fodder for the godless commo side of their civil war, so they actively invite into the country anybody that will transform the polity into a lefty vote plantation.

    In Australia we have gone from not filling the Melbourne Cricket Ground in twenty years to filling it in three years with the base level flown in refugee intake as a policy position of shorten, with additional special intakes to lift intake so we could fill the MCG every two years if an emergency happens anywhere in the world.

    Every new import told that they are needed in Australia to fight racism and topple the racist colonialist outpost society.

    Comrades.

  19. John Constantine

    Their left have figured out that if they can branch stack the polity through mass importation of voters, then no government in the future can be legitimate unless it is a totalitarian Stalinist police state.

    That is why open borders does not mean godfearing non-commo South Africans.

    Comrades.

  20. Perth Trader

    Iampeter…I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with your argument, but have you ever had this debate with a indigenous Aust. seeking financial compensation for disposition of property & or land 300 years in the past?

  21. The Central American invasion is no different from the invasion of Europe by Africans. The immigrants perceive weakness in the resolve of the governments of both land masses.

    It was all so predictable when global communications and transport reached pretty much every corner of our planet. They see, they want, they go.

    If the West does not show a determination to stop this tide of humanity, only bullets will stop them at some point in the future. And I doubt if any western government would do that. Indeed, the head of the EU recently pronounced that within a generation Europe would have to accept a ballooning African population.

    The consequences to the fabric of western societies are immense. Those sanguine supporters of open borders seem incapable of actually envisaging the changes that it must bring to every aspect of society and daily life.

  22. EvilElvis

    Got tonight’s lotto numbers by any chance, HB?

    Surely a country’s governments biggest priority is the rights of those within its borders, not the rights of everyone on the globe? Iampeter?

  23. Rococo Liberal

    Poor old Iampeter has no idea about rights.
    Governments don’t protect rights, matey. Governments are designed to restrict rights.
    You see there is only one right. The right to do whatever we want whenerver we want.
    The government has to restrict that right.
    It has been agreed over the years (in the US case in writing) that there are certain parts of the right of the individual that the government cannot restrict. People have falsely called these remnants ”rights”. But that is really only a covenient shorthand.
    The government protects our privileges not our rights.

  24. anonandon

    That is why open borders does not mean godfearing non-commo South Africans.

    Precisely. It’s not actually about race wrt the the white South Africans. It is that they do not conform to the stereotype. They will actually integrate and become less reliant on government and will not vote for the left.

  25. Billy Boy

    I went to the local ANZAC Day service which had a few veterans march with many school children and associated groups. Apart from one Catholic college, most marching were children of overseas born parents. Someone remarked if this represented the new face of Australia then the European component of our population will be a minority before long

  26. Boambee John

    iampeter

    A legitimate govenrment protects rights, which makes things like property rights possible, it does not regulate what individuals can or can’t do or where they live or any other aspect of their lives if no rights have been violated.

    Long time since we had a legitimate government here.

  27. Boambee John

    From the open thread, for iampeter

    Came across two extracts from the UN Charter while reading Bobbitt’s Terror and Consent. The Charter was drawn up essentially by Westerners confident in tbeir culture, and still believing in freedom, so the words are less mealy mouthed than they would be if written today. I think they could easily be altered from an international to a national context.

    Article 2 (4): “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state …”

    This could de modified to read: “All nations shall refrain in their internal actions from the threat or use of force against the property or personal freedom of any citizen …”

    Article 51: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures to maintain international peace and security.”

    This could de modified to read: “No legislation shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an attack occurs against citizens or their property,until the government has taken measures to maintain internal peace and security.”

    After all, surely if it is good enough for the sacred UN, it is good enough for member states and their citizens? Constitutional amendment, anyone?

  28. Iampeter

    Iampeter…I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with your argument, but have you ever had this debate with a indigenous Aust. seeking financial compensation for disposition of property & or land 300 years in the past?

    If they could produce their equivalent of a deed then they would have a case but sadly indigineous cultures were not rights respecting republics.

    Governments don’t protect rights, matey. Governments are designed to restrict rights.
    You see there is only one right. The right to do whatever we want whenerver we want.

    No. Rights are a moral and political concept. They are about what you should do when living among other people not what you can do.
    Legitimate government protects your rights (your freedom to do what you should do in order to live your life while among other people) from things you shouldn’t do (violate rights).
    Again immigration is not a rights violation and so not an issue to those of us who support legitimate, rights protecting government.

  29. Kneel

    “Because rights are a freedom of action and the only thing that should be illegal in a rights protecting republic (like America) is rights violations which isn’t possible by the mere act of “entering the USA”.”

    “Entering the USA” (or any other country), should ONLY be done by those who have completed all the required documentation and have been approved. Everyone else should expect to jump through many hoops to even stay and fight the decission. That we currently pay for legal actions by foreigners against our own government would have to be one of the sillier things we do.

    In any case, illegal entry amounts to theft – the theft of resources not rightfully theirs.

  30. Could it be that this immigration is being deliberately inflicted upon us?
    Richard Nikolaus von Coudenhove-Kalergi, was a Mason and President of the Pan-European Union (founded in 1923 and subsequently financed by Max Warburg), who wrote the following passages in his book, “Praktischer Idealismus, (Practical Idealism)”
    “The man of the future will be a mongrel. Today’s races and classes will disappear owing to the disappearing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its outward appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.”
    This clearly advocates the abandonment of national borders and the melding of people and cultures into a nebulous mass.

  31. Perth Trader

    Iampeter….then I guess Marbo was the wrong decision in our high court, because in essence Marbo protected the land rights of the individual, plus the tribe,ie the whole island.

  32. Perth Trader

    Iampeter..native title, which is “the recognition by Australian law that Indigenous people have rights and interests to their land that come from their traditional laws and customs…Does’nt this give indigenous the right to defend there ‘rights’?

  33. Tim Neilson

    Iampeter
    #2696790, posted on April 27, 2018 at 10:27 am

    If someone has a highly infectious disease can the government refuse to let them enter?

    If so, why can’t the government (on behalf of the citizens of the nation) decide that there are other reasons why they may wish to refuse entry to some people?

    For example if someone was a known serial killer, would a government be obliged to let them in?

  34. Perth Trader

    Native title …’ this right can only be recognised over certain parts of Australia, such as unallocated or vacant Crown land and some areas already held by, or for, Indigenous Australians’……this right , with High court ruling , goes so far as you will need a govt. permit to travel thru these native titled areas. So..my point is even our High Court of Aust. recognizes the reserve of private land. Why not a whole country?

  35. Iampeter
    #2696674, posted on April 27, 2018 at 8:05 am

    Because rights are a freedom of action and the only thing that should be illegal in a rights protecting republic (like America) is rights violations which isn’t possible by the mere act of “entering the USA”.

    You obviously haven’t thought this through. You cited America, so let’s extend your hypothesis.
    * In the US, people have “rights” which includes carrying weapons, concealed or open.
    * By your logic 1000, 100,000 or more people armed to the teeth, could cross into an open carry state like Texas from the Mexican border, and you, a twat with a 2″ dick, would watch them stream in because they haven’t violated any “rights”.

    Only an utter, utter moron would believe the above, yet you do. It is utter morons like you who are encouraging other utter morons (the politicians of the day), to undertake this national suicide (that’s exactly what open borders is) which forces me and my family to suicide with you.
    That’s why I think you’re a piece of shit not worth pissing on.

  36. Iampeter's Mummy

    Peter, your lunch is on the table!

    And take off that bow-tie before leaving your bedroom or Mummy will be cross! You know what happened last time!

  37. Iampeter

    Well Baa Humbug, the topic of discussion here is immigration but you seem to be talking about some context-less military invasion of some kind, but I’m just guessing.
    Like many anti-immigrationists you are terrified to the point of sounding like an unhinged nut-job that makes triggered SJW’s look intelligent by comparison, by an issue you don’t even seem to have any understanding of.

    Maybe you should worry less about the size of my dick and more about the empty space filled with whistling air between your ears.

  38. Rococo Liberal

    No. Rights are a moral and political concept. They are about what you should do when living among other people not what you can do.

    Humbug
    You are mixing up reponsibilties and duties with rights.

  39. John Constantine

    The point is that we will one day be able, as their jon fainefilth assures us, be able to have legitimate elections held between labor and the greens to see which aspect of their left forms government.

    We will celebrate being able to worship the full diversity of ALL communal taxfunded Statist, leftist cults,creeds and mentalities.

    Until the purges.

    Comrades.

  40. jupes

    Because rights are a freedom of action and the only thing that should be illegal in a rights protecting republic (like America) is rights violations which isn’t possible by the mere act of “entering the USA”.

    Good grief the open-borders loon goes full retard.

  41. Tel

    If you are living within the jurisdiction of a rights protecting government then you will have things like private property rights where you can determine who gets to enter.

    OK, so you accept the idea that the owner of a private property can decide who enters. Let’s suppose someone wants to run a club and only allow gay men to enter… that would be a logical part of being the owner of the club.

    So the club could be run by a corporation, owned by a bunch of shareholders, and they have purchased a farm somewhere and built a small town on the farm. They have a wall around it (why not? it’s their land) and there’s a standard rule in place that only gay men are allowed on that land. The “rights protecting” government fully supports this, it must do else it would be violating the property rights of the private corporation and shareholders owning that land.

  42. Iampeter

    Yes Tel, your right to create a whites only, english speaking, racist “club” of idiots must be protected in a rights respecting republic.

  43. Mother Lode

    I am gonna toss it out there:

    Freedoms and rights are not quite the same thing.

    We have freedoms by virtue of being alive and intelligent. What we can think of and what we can do are out freedoms. The fact we can’t fly is not the denial of a freedom. If you were in a jungle you would be free, but if you were mauled by a lion it would be weird to describe that as some infringement on your freedom.

    Rights are bestowed by a community or a state. They are granted by the many to the one. We don’t have the right to simply take what we want because we grant the right to ownership. A government’s role should be to maximise our freedom in the form of rights – but once you step outside that community or state that guarantees those rights they just evaporate.

    If rights existed in nature then certain things would be impossible. But I can steal someone’s property. It is a separate action where a state overpowers me and extracts restitution.

    The American Founding Fathers, steeped as they were in the enlightenment, saw rights as proceeding from the almighty. They believed God wanted us to have the freedom to be good or evil because they believed people were inherently good. Looking at the history of the world (on the whole), building up is a stronger trend than tearing down and civilisation displaces barbarism (yes, I know about the ABC – I did say ‘on the whole’).

    Their genius lay in realising that government is merely a means for the people to maximise their own freedoms.

  44. Iampeter
    #2696900, posted on April 27, 2018 at 12:24 pm

    Well Baa Humbug, the topic of discussion here is immigration

    Well no dickhead, the topic of discussion here is foreigners just walking into another country. Like all dishonest open borders fvckwits you conflate immigration with no borders free for all.

    but you seem to be talking about some context-less military invasion of some kind,

    No dickhead, not military. I extended your logic about foreigners having the same rights as US citizens. If that were true, then foreigners have the right to bear arms as they dance across the non-existent border of yours.

    but I’m just guessing.

    NO, you’re doing what all dishonest bastards do. From AGW debates to refugee debates, you lot always conflate and disregard your own flawed logic.

    Like many anti-immigrationists you are terrified to the point of sounding like an unhinged nut-job that makes triggered SJW’s look intelligent by comparison, by an issue you don’t even seem to have any understanding of.

    I am an immigrant from Turkey, waited in line and came here in 1969. I have no problem with people coming here through those quaint artifacts called PORTS OF FVCKING ENTRIES like everyone did prior to recent times when cuckolds like you thought it’d be nice to let everyone who wants to come in, come in.

    Maybe you should worry less about the size of my dick and more about the empty space filled with whistling air between your ears.

    You really do need to worry about the size of your dick. Anyone who’d let uninvited strangers barge into their home is a small dick cuck who doesn’t have the courage to say NO, FVCK OFF.

    I love and adore this country and I’m not sitting back and let it turn into a dangerous shithole like the ones these gate crashers come from. You like those cultures so much, piss off live there. You have no right to despoil one of the best countries and people on Earth.

  45. Derp

    Right off topic, but…

    Yes, yes it was.
    Open fred, use it hey?

  46. Tel

    Yes Tel, your right to create a whites only, english speaking, racist “club” of idiots must be protected in a rights respecting republic.

    So therefore a rights respecting United Nations would of course fully support the “club” of Australians deciding who comes to their country… or any other national group also deciding who comes to their country, because it all exactly the same concept which is property rights.

    And if the UN ever grumbles, we know they are not rights respecting therefore we have a moral duty to ignore them and go ahead and do it anyway.

  47. Tel

    And calling people waaaaacist does not change property rights, nor does it have anything to do with who is “rights respecting” and who is not, nor for that matter does it contain any resemblance of an argument. It’s also outrageously rude of you to presume to decide my personal preferences for me, which pretty much makes it clear you never were interested in a reasonable discussion. But you and I both already knew that, I’m just making it clear in case there was ever a bit of confusion.

  48. Tel

    NO, you’re doing what all dishonest bastards do. From AGW debates to refugee debates, you lot always conflate and disregard your own flawed logic.

    That’s a bit harsh, but it does appear to fit all the available evidence.

  49. JC

    The left everywhere, utterly discredited and with no policies to offer of the slightest value if growth and prosperity are the aim, is trying to follow Brecht’s cynical advice by “dismissing the people and appointing a new one”. Once just meant ironically this is now the policy of every party on the left and the most immediate and present danger to the civilisation of the west.

    And the aim of those who pursue these policies? Political power for themselves and absolutely nothing else.

    I’d really hold onto that thought and perhaps wait a while instead of posting it.

    The Left is nowhere near done. The left also doesn’t care much about growth and prosperity and to some extent I also think a disturbing number of punters think that way too. Corbyn for instance looks like the next UK PM and it’s not a done deal Trump gets a second term or that he wants to run. We’re in a re-distribution phase.

  50. Iampeter

    So therefore a rights respecting United Nations would of course fully support the “club” of Australians deciding who comes to their country…

    No because you’re making the same mistake as at the beginning. Countries are not individuals, the UN is not a govenrment of some make-believe globe sized country, etc. There’s no issue to which the answer is “well an individual can do such and such on his property therefore the government should…”.
    A government is organized force and it can either be used to protect rights or violate rights. That’s it. If you live within the borders of a rights protecting government you’re property rights are protected and that means you can form all male, white only, english only, clubs. Christians bakers can’t be forced to bake cakes for gay weddings. The state cannot ban gay weddings. Churches cannot be forced to officiate a gay wedding. YouTube does not have to host any conservative content, immigrants cannot be banned etc.

    In a rights protecting society EVERYONE WINS.
    This is what those of us who are actually right wing advocate for.

    But you have to stop comparing government (organized force) with individuals exercising their rights within the jurisdiction of a particular government. They are not analagous. In fact you need to stop thinking in terms of groups completely and start thinking in terms of individual rights. Just let go of collectivism already.

  51. JC

    Peter

    Your reply doesn’t answer to Steve Kates’ point.

    It’s like Steve was talking about cats and you’re talking about prawns.

  52. Tel

    Countries are not individuals, the UN is not a govenrment of some make-believe globe sized country, etc.

    A corporate gay dance club is not an individual either and you were happy to accept that premise and allow the club to have property rights (well, legally the corporation IS an individual, but let’s ignore the legal fiction which could be changed).

    So explain to me, as the club gets larger, exactly what size does it get to when it loses all property rights? What causes this to happen?

  53. Tel

    In a rights protecting society EVERYONE WINS.
    This is what those of us who are actually right wing advocate for.

    So you believe that if Kim Jong-un woke up one morning and decided not to be a dictator, hold free and fair elections and allow North Korea to operate a parliamentary democracy then he would be better off?

    Just checking… this is what you truly believe, not something you will have forgotten in the next thirty minutes?

  54. Tel

    But you have to stop comparing government (organized force) with individuals exercising their rights within the jurisdiction of a particular government. They are not analagous.

    OK, let’s say the gay club employs some bodybuilding bouncers who do UFC on weekends and pack Uzis. They reserve the right to use force against anyone who will not leave their property when asked. That’s rights protecting, yeah?

  55. Iampeter

    Your reply doesn’t answer to Steve Kates’ point.

    My very first post in this thread directly answers Steve’s point.

    So explain to me, as the club gets larger, exactly what size does it get to when it loses all property rights? What causes this to happen?

    You keep talking about a country as if its a private corporation or property but its not. I don’t know what else there is to say on this other than you want to keep insisting the world is such where you can advocate leftist anti-immigrant policies but not consider yourself a leftist.

    So you believe that if Kim Jong-un woke up one morning and decided not to be a dictator…

    No, I was pretty clear that I said everyone wins in a rights protecting republic. I have no idea why you’ve gone of on this tangent. Its like you’re responding to someone else’s posts.

    They reserve the right to use force against anyone who will not leave their property when asked. That’s rights protecting, yeah?

    No they can’t take the law into their own hands.

    Sorry tel, but your questions are so profoundly hopeless that I’m at a loss as to where to even begin. You simply don’t get it and have no hope of getting it and I frankly don’t know why you would spend any time on a political blog.

    I’ve never met progressives, as totally wrong as they are, who are completely confused about absolutely everything as posters at the cat.

  56. Tel

    You keep talking about a country as if its a private corporation or property but its not.

    OK have it your way, I choose not to live in a country, I choose to live in a private corporation that happens to be the same size and shape as a country. All the citizens are renamed shareholders and they hold one non-tradeable share each. The national Constitution is not the articles of incorporation, and everything else follows from the contents thereof.

    Now can I have my property rights?

  57. Tel

    Sorry tel, but your questions are so profoundly hopeless that I’m at a loss as to where to even begin. You simply don’t get it and have no hope of getting it and I frankly don’t know why you would spend any time on a political blog.

    Well you are not putting much effort into explaining anything. How about starting with what makes a club run by a corporation with articles of incorporation different to a country with a constitution?

  58. Tel

    No they can’t take the law into their own hands.

    What does that mean? Who’s law are we talking about?

    Surely not the law that imposed by the United Nations, those guys aren’t even elected.

    Oh wait, you mean that no one ican ever be allowed to defend their own rights, they must sit around waiting for a bunch of government goons to show up… hey what could go wrong? And then you have the complete lack of self awareness telling other people to let go of collectivism.

    So basically you want helpless individuals qith pretend property rights that they can’t defend and if you happen to dislike them you get to call them waaacist and take their property rights away when it suits you but hey EVERYONE WINS! Yeah, pull the other one.

  59. Paul

    It’s not just the right of entry, but rights to welfare, health care, education, all paid for by white privilege .
    White people will be forced into slavery to provide for all these tribes.

  60. max

    Immigration Control: Federal Social Engineering
    Gary North – December 22, 2014

    Central planning by the federal government is officially opposed by conservatives until you show them a marker that says “United States” on one side, and “Mexico” on the other. Then: “Congress needs to build a fence!”
    The believers in fences offer many arguments. Some of them say this: “Those people want to get free government welfare. We cannot afford it.”
    The defender of liberty replies in two ways: “First, these programs should be abolished. They are based on government planning and coercive wealth redistribution. They are the main problem, not any immigrants who may sign up. Second, the sooner they go bankrupt, the better. Let immigrants sign up.” The problem is this: most conservatives approve of these welfare programs in theory and practice. The big ones are Social Security, Medicare, and tax-funded education. Conservatives do not want these programs de-funded. They see them as part of the American way of life.
    Second, the conservative says this: “These immigrants will undermine our social way of life. They’re just too different. The American way of life cannot survive open immigration. Change will overwhelm the American way of life.”
    The defender of liberty responds: “The free market changes America every day. Innovations undermine our way of life, moment by moment. Innovation makes our lives better.” Second, he replies: “Why do you think Congress can pass a law restricting freedom of travel and freedom of contract, and thereby preserve the good parts of our way of life? Why do you trust the federal government’s good judgment in matters social and economic? Why have you become an apologist for central planning? Why have you become an advocate of social engineering by federal politicians and bureaucrats?” Conservatives remain silent. They have never thought of this, and they don’t want to have to re-think what they say they believe in, namely, that Congress cannot safely be trusted on matters economic. They are saying that Congress can provide a Goldilocks solution: not too much social change, but not too little. The defender of liberty asks: “When has Congress ever legislated a Goldilocks solution? When has the federal bureaucracy ever enforced it as written, let alone as justified by members of the voting bloc in Congress that passed it?”
    Third, the conservative says this: “Immigrants will get jobs here. They will take jobs away from Americans.”
    I want to focus on this argument, for it is the most common one. It invokes nationalism over liberty. It equates nationalism with restrictions on the freedom of contract. It says: “Not everyone should have the legal right to bid on jobs inside our borders. Only those who are legally inside our borders already, or who will be born to those already inside our borders, should possess this right.” It says: “Our ancestors got here before there were any immigration laws. We deserve the right to bid. Outsiders don’t. It’s first come, first served.”

    The fundamental economic principle of immigration control is that service must be made illegal in order to protect the above-market incomes of producers inside a nation’s borders, thereby reducing the availability of services to customers inside the borders. The job holders form a cartel with a goal: to keep out competitors, thereby keeping their wages above market. The job holders prevail on Congress to post this sign facing outward on the border: “No help wanted.” Not wanted by whom? By members of the job holders’ cartel. It is now illegal for customers to post this sign: “Help wanted.”
    The earliest manifestaion of this mindset in America was the retailers’ hostility to Chinese immigrants in California. It started with the gold rush of 1849, the year after the federal government completed President Polk’s theft of one-third of Mexico, which included California. Chinese workers worked long hours at far lower wages. They were price competitive. This hostility by retailers got worse over the next quarter century. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was the first example of a federal law excluding specific nationals. It was not repealed until 1943, when China was an ally in the Pacific war. The President who signed the 1882 bill into law was by far the most appropriate President in American history to have done so: Chester Arthur. Before becoming Vice President, and then President after the assassination of Garfield, Arthur had the been the head of the Port of New York, the government’s most lucrative customs house. It was known at the time as being a major source of political kickbacks to the Republican Party. The stink got so bad that President Hayes removed Arthur from the position.
    We are not taught the following in history courses. Not until 1948 was it legal in California for whites or blacks to marry Asians. The California State Supreme Court overturned the law. The vote was 4 to 3. That was the first state to overturn laws against inter-racial marriage: by one vote. We look back, and we are amazed. Why would anyone have believed that state politicians had the wisdom to assess accurately the collective social benefits and liabilities of inter-racial marriages? This was social engineering by state politicians. Most conservatives today — but not in 1947 — reject such a suggestion. Yet most conservatives believe today that federal bureaucrats can be trusted with this same power with respect to immigration.
    Conservatives quote Ronald Reagan. “A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation.” Conclusion: from 1788 to 1882, the United States was not a nation. Silly, isn’t it? Then why do conservatives quote it?
    “Your papers, please!” World War I brought us that grim phrase.
    The conservative tradition in America, 1788-1882, was open borders. So was the liberal tradition. The Constitutional tradition in America was open borders. Only in 1882 did this begin to change. It escalated in 1924.
    If you listen to the proponents of immigration restriction today, you would think the George Washington and James Madison in 1787 persuaded the Constitutional Convention to authorize congressional restrictions on immigration. You would think that this was part of the American constitutional tradition. But the U.S. Constitution has no reference to any such restrictions.
    Anytime somebody says that there have to be some sort of social criteria beyond non-criminal judicial status, in order to gain residence in the United States, he is saying that politicians in Congress, and permanent tenured bureaucrats in the executive, are competent in understanding what America needs today, and what America will need in the future.
    Conservatives don’t believe this in many areas of life, but with respect to two things — imported goods and imported people — they believe that Congress knows better, and the tenured executive bureaucracy knows best. This is the default mode of thinking for most conservatives. They believe with all their hearts that Congress can be trusted, and tenured executive bureaucrats protected by Civil-Service laws are in effect a kind of priesthood. “These people know what America needs.”
    Why should anyone believe this?

    https://www.garynorth.com/public/13246.cfm

  61. Tel
    #2697114, posted on April 27, 2018 at 5:46 pm

    NO, you’re doing what all dishonest bastards do. From AGW debates to refugee debates, you lot always conflate and disregard your own flawed logic.

    That’s a bit harsh, but it does appear to fit all the available evidence.

    Not harsh enough. The bastard called you a racist.
    I know you know what I’m on about because you’ve also been debating these bastards for 10 years or more as I recall you from the Jo Nova blog.

  62. truth

    IamPeter:

    Would you give us your scenario of how things should play out…in Australia…with open borders ….unregulated arrivals of all-comers…..and the potential at least …for a version of Raspail’s Camp of the Saints scenario…potentially millions arriving once it becomes known that ALL MAY COME?

    Australia comprises private property, government land and Native Title land.

    You agree that we have a right to keep the uninvited out of our private property…so may/should we build huge walls around our homes?

    Presumably a government or non-government of your persuasion would make all of the other lands …Commonwealth and Native title…available to the uninvited…since a government that just lets the world wander in…isn’t likely to round them up and herd them anywhere.

    This would shrink our functioning country inexorably at whatever pace the uninvited arrived and squatted in whatever lands were not walled off.

    So what is your scenario for what follows?

    Presumably our taxes would feed clothe and shelter them …but with the freedom to TAKE… that you would have signalled to them ….would the basics be enough?

    Do we arm ourselves and wait for the worst?

    Do we become prisoners within our walls…because many schools workplaces etc would be on Commonwealth or other government property…and once the numbers of uninvited grow exponentially—[plenty of potential for that]…free as birds … would they not start to covet our homes and everything we have …that which our ‘open-borders’ government hasn’t been able to quickly enough provide for them?

    With their open-borders mindset ….and that having worked for them…. might they not …once in…naturally feel entitled to just take what they want?

    You could be a Pollyanna and say the potential hordes of criminals and those who hate us for whatever reason would stay away…would just watch the success of wave after wave and say NO to the opportunity.

    On the Mediterranean such people just eliminated the regular folks at sea…into the sea….to make more loot ..space..whatever …for them!

    I don’t know what the preferred country for a strict anarchist or libertarian looks like.

    You can usually never get a LW person or an enthusiastic theoretical libertarian to get down to facts…scenarios…the mechanics…outcomes and impacts for real people in their golden lands.

    You’d think they want to put us right and show us how it wouldn’t be dystopia on steroids.

    Will you be the first to describe it in detail to us, IamPeter?

  63. mh

    I don’t know what the preferred country for a strict anarchist or libertarian looks like.

    You can usually never get a LW person or an enthusiastic theoretical libertarian to get down to facts…scenarios…the mechanics…outcomes and impacts for real people in their golden lands.

    You’d think they want to put us right and show us how it wouldn’t be dystopia on steroids.

    Will you be the first to describe it in detail to us, IamPeter?

    It’s up there, just on the other side of that dark cloud that you can see– there it lies, Sugarcandy Mountain, that happy country. In Sugarcandy Mountain it’s Sunday seven days a week, clover is in season all the year round, and lump sugar and linseed cake grow on the hedges.

  64. Crossie

    Does that same principle apply to someone entering your property? After all the country is just the property of its citizens, so if they cannot prevent just anyone from entering then the same applies to anyone wanting to enter your property – or is that different?

    I hear security at the ABC studios in Ultimo is tighter than at Fort Knox. You would think people who do not ascribe to borders or doors would be welcoming of everyone who wants to enter there.

  65. Crossie

    Legitimate government protects your rights (your freedom to do what you should do in order to live your life while among other people) from things you shouldn’t do (violate rights).
    Again immigration is not a rights violation and so not an issue to those of us who support legitimate, rights protecting government.

    Lamepeter, a company that operates in a country has an obligation to employ that country’s citizens and permanent residents. American companies would rather employ illegal immigrants whom they pay far less than citizens or legal residents.

    The other consideration is that you can have open borders or a welfare state, you cannot have both. It has been estimated that illegal immigrants cost the US about 200 billion dollars annually in services. That is big money even in the US. What this means is that companies are getting really cheap labour while the taxpayers are slugged double, first when their pay is lowered due to illegals working for less and then having to pay for the illegals’ welfare benefits.

Comments are closed.