Donald Trump wall is a tall order, but migrant issue is heating up

Today in The Australian

Lost in the shouting match over the partial shutdown of the US government were the striking findings of a study released late last year. The study, carried out by demographers from Yale University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, concludes that the number of illegal migrants in the country has been greatly ­underestimated.

 

About Henry Ergas

Henry Ergas AO is a columnist for The Australian. From 2009 to 2015 he was Senior Economic Adviser to Deloitte Australia and from 2009 to 2017 was Professor of Infrastructure Economics at the University of Wollongong’s SMART Infrastructure Facility. He joined SMART and Deloitte after working as a consultant economist at NECG, CRA International and Concept Economics. Prior to that, he was an economist at the OECD in Paris from the late 1970s until the early 1990s. At the OECD, he headed the Secretary-General’s Task Force on Structural Adjustment (1984-1987), which concentrated on improving the efficiency of government policies in a wide range of areas, and was subsequently Counsellor for Structural Policy in the Economics Department. He has taught at a range of universities, undertaken a number of government inquiries and served as a Lay Member of the New Zealand High Court. In 2016, he was made an Officer in the Order of Australia.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

50 Responses to Donald Trump wall is a tall order, but migrant issue is heating up

  1. Mark M

    Scott Adams @9.15 offers some observations about the ‘wence’ …

    https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1080842402166845441

    @16.15, Adams quotes President Trump;

    “If walls don’t work, you better tell the Pope, because the Vatican has walls.”

    The laughs at the 97% elites expense ensues. Winning.

  2. Iampeter

    Yes, America has out of control spending, regulations and incompetent foreign policy.
    With control of every branch of government, conservatives couldn’t repeal Obamacare or pass a single de-regulatory bill.
    But the issue on which the Trump administration is doubling down, is the regulation of immigration. Something the democrats have always supported.

    You couldn’t make this stuff up.

  3. Tom

    So why are the Dems so maniacally opposed to orderly legal immigration and committed to maximising the flood of illegal immigrants through the southern border? When it comes to tactics, the Dems aren’t stupid: illegal immigrants are welfare-dependant and will naturally vote for the party that gave them their ticket to the promised land.

    Illegal immigrants are a replacement electorate that — with enough of them — will guarantee permanent political power for the Democratic Party. What is hard to understand about that? It’s just that it can never be admitted: it’s just tactically superior to try to condemn orderly legal immigration as waaaaacist.

    So it’s really about political power — just like it is in Australia, where the incoming ALP-Greens regime will re-open the floodgates of illegal immigration to make it virtually impossible for the LNP to ever regain political power.

    It’s not hard to understand at all — but the truth can never be admitted when the vast majority of voters oppose illegal immigration and therefore must be hoodwinked into thinking its a social justice issue opposed only by waaaaaacists.

    Ordinary people aren’t stupid, but the left insists on treating them like idiots. For the left, voting and democracy are obstacles in the way of political power that must be overcome whatever it takes.

    And nothing matters more to the left but political power.

  4. manalive

    Illegal immigration is at least trespass; libertarians don’t advocate trespass much less unilateral arrogation of property and a democratic nation state is a commonwealth a ‘political community founded for the common good’, the common good “… refers to either what is shared and beneficial for all or most members of a given community, or alternatively, what is achieved by citizenship, collective action, and active participation in the realm of politics and public service …” (Wiki).

  5. Rusty of Qld

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/fbi-record-number-of-illegal-immigrants-tried-to-buy-guns
    Nearly 8 million illegal immigrants tried to buy guns in 2018. How many more are out there who didn’t try to buy guns? If there is 24 million illegals then 1 in every 3 tried to buy a gun, I reckon there is probably shit loads more than they like to admit.

  6. struth

    It’s only western borders that must come down and only western CO2 that causes climate change.

    Why?

  7. Iampeter

    Manalive, just to clarify, I’m not a libertarian, who are often just anarchists and can be even worse than conservatives in opposing the left.
    But no, “illegal immigration” is not trespass because its not anything.
    Those of us who are actually right wing, support a rights protecting government. This means only rights violations should be illegal. Since merely being an immigrant is not a rights violation, it should not be illegal, no more than any other activity, individuals undertake that don’t violate any rights.
    In other words, the term “illegal immigrant” is nonsensical, leftist, nonsense. It would be like declaring “illegal travelling to work” or something.

  8. JC

    Illegal immigrants are a replacement electorate that — with enough of them — will guarantee permanent political power for the Democratic Party. What is hard to understand about that? It’s just that it can never be admitted: it’s just tactically superior to try to condemn orderly legal immigration as waaaaacist.

    I’ve never understood that argument. Illegals will not be allowed to vote, so why would the D’rats want to piss off their voting blocs?

  9. Indolent

    Since merely being an immigrant is not a rights violation, it should not be illegal, no more than any other activity, individuals undertake that don’t violate any rights.

    So, you’re basically saying that an invasion is not illegal and protecting your sovereignty, safety and culture is not a right. Interesting point of view with which every single aggressor in history would agree.

  10. Indolent

    Illegals will not be allowed to vote, so why would the D’rats want to piss off their voting blocs?

    Millions of them voted last year, not to mention an unknown number of dead people. One of the battle Trump is fighting is enforcing proof of identity when voting. For some reason, the Dems are fighting it tooth and nail. I wonder why.

  11. Bruceof Newcastle

    I wonder if this will be the spark for the Wall to be built?

    Central American Countries Are Helping Middle Easterners Illegally Enter The United States (2 Jan)

    It turns out the Qoordheen case was only one of other such episodes about which the American public was never told, where terrorist suspects were discovered migrating through Latin America to the U.S. border.

    A Costa Rican immigration service official whose jurisdiction includes the Golfito camp disclosed that at least several other U.S.-bound suspected terrorists also were pulled from this camp since Qoordheen’s March 2017 arrest, likewise based on significant derogatory U.S. counterterrorism intelligence. The Costa Rican official declined to provide specifics of the intelligence beyond that it involved terrorism, offering only that: “Most are good, but some are bad.”

    The American public was never told that Qoordheen and other suspected terrorists were pulled off U.S.-bound migrant routes in distant Costa Rica and Panama because such information is usually classified or not disclosable, in line with standard practice to protect ongoing investigations and operations.

    I’ve mentioned previously the thousands of Bangladeshis that have been caught trying to cross the border into Texas.

    It seems clear to me that if Congress wont act then Trump in his capacity as head of the military can order the engineers to build the wall in response to a clear and present danger.

  12. dover_beach

    But no, “illegal immigration” is not trespass because its not anything.

    Nonsense. If a polity cannot regulate temporary or permanent entry over their own sovereign territory than they only enjoy a pseudo-sovereignty over said territory. And since in a previous discussion you’ve already admitted that it is perfectly within a state’s right to restrict entry if they have a communicable disease then you have admitted that a state can restrict entry for the common good. Further, you’ve never, in fact, demonstrated that people have a right of entry into states they are neither citizens of or have the necessary visas for entry. All you’ve done is make the bald assertion that they do, as well as make the bald assertion that the analogy between private property and sovereign territory is false without providing any satisfactory reason that it is.

    Since merely being an immigrant is not a rights violation,…

    This is a common evasion by leftists. They deny the distinction between legal and illegal immigration. No one has argued that being an immigrant per se is illegal, what is illegal is a person entering a territory of which they are not a member without the necessary permissions. Just as it is trespass to enter the property of another without the necessary permissions.

  13. Bruce of Newcastle

    I wonder if this will be the spark for the Wall to be built?

    Central American Countries Are Helping Middle Easterners Illegally Enter The United States (2 Jan)

    It turns out the Qoordheen case was only one of other such episodes about which the American public was never told, where terrorist suspects were discovered migrating through Latin America to the U.S. border.

    A Costa Rican immigration service official whose jurisdiction includes the Golfito camp disclosed that at least several other U.S.-bound suspected terrorists also were pulled from this camp since Qoordheen’s March 2017 arrest, likewise based on significant derogatory U.S. counterterrorism intelligence. The Costa Rican official declined to provide specifics of the intelligence beyond that it involved terrorism, offering only that: “Most are good, but some are bad.”

    The American public was never told that Qoordheen and other suspected terrorists were pulled off U.S.-bound migrant routes in distant Costa Rica and Panama because such information is usually classified or not disclosable, in line with standard practice to protect ongoing investigations and operations.

    I’ve mentioned previously the thousands of Bangladeshis that have been caught trying to cross the border into Texas.

    It seems clear to me that if Congress wont act then Trump in his capacity as head of the military can order the engineers to build the wall in response to a clear and present danger.

  14. Iampeter

    I’ve never understood that argument. Illegals will not be allowed to vote, so why would the D’rats want to piss off their voting blocs?

    Because they are slowly shedding their old-school, nationalist/union voting bloc and are embracing the new, multi-culti/silicon valley bloc instead.
    Since republicans are picking up their crumbs and working to implement the leftist ideas democrats are slowly abandoning, they actually get to have their cake and eat it too.
    Because alternative ideas to leftism are virually non existent in mainstream political discourse, it’s actually better for democrats to remain out of office, as its easier to “get things done.” When democrats are in office, token opposition from conservatives, slows down leftist policies, but when conservatives are in office, all they do is implement old school leftist policies anyway, allowing democrats to play all the angles and get their way with conservatives doing their work for them.

  15. tgs

    Very well worded post, Dover.

    Look forward to the reply.

  16. dover_beach

    Illegals will not be allowed to vote, so why would the D’rats want to piss off their voting blocs?

    How many formerly illegal immigrants that have now been provided amnesty are voting? The D’rats and Cucks are and will continue whitewashing millions of illegals and turning them into majority D’rat voters. How many currently illegal immigrants have driver’s licenses and other state ID, receive benefits, and vote in municipal/ state/ or federal elections? Someone in another thread pointed to a recent MIT/Yale survey of illegals in the US which indicates that the official figures underestimate the number by 50%. They suggest the number is about 20M, not 11M. It is simply unstainable to have about 7% of your population, just over 10% of your labour force, and almost a quarter of your unskilled labour, in your country illegally.

  17. dover_beach

    It is simply unsustainable

  18. Muddy

    There is no rational, polite, fact-based conversation that will ‘win’ this argument. If there was, you’d think that someone would have come up with the right formula after all of this time, and applied it, and bingo! No more debate required.

    The realistic options are 1). subvert, undermine, propagandise, infiltrate; or 2). lift the shirt, flop out the belly, and welcome disembowelment with a warm smile.

  19. stackja

    Open borders allow too many wrong people in.

  20. Tel

    With control of every branch of government, conservatives couldn’t repeal Obamacare or pass a single de-regulatory bill.

    They killed Obamacare by the back door, knocking out the cornerstone which was taxing individuals at a higher rate if they don’t have a private policy. The arch will now crumble as compliant insurance costs skyrocket and people are forced to find alternatives to the very broken US health insurance system. Not the prettiest job, but effective none the less.

  21. Tel

    It is simply unsustainable to have about 7% of your population, just over 10% of your labour force, and almost a quarter of your unskilled labour, in your country illegally.

    Bypasses the unions… and avoids a bunch of inconvenient union-inspired labour laws like minimum wage, certification, etc.

    The Democrats got access to a new voter base by quietly undermining their original unionized working clientele. As you say, they pull people in illegally, then work hammer and tongs to hold onto them and gradually get them votes by whatever means necessary. The California motor-voter system being one method, and various amnesties being another method, and complete lack of any ID making it impossible to check who voted anyway. The union bosses don’t have anywhere to go because traditional Republicans don’t like them and Democrats have sold them out, so the leaders quietly get themselves wealthy and tiptoe towards the exit while telling the members, “This is fine!”

    The first rule of politics is there are no rules. Second rule is pretend like there are rules but you aren’t really telling lies because see rule 1.

  22. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    It is not racist to exercise sovereign control over a country’s borders.
    End of story.
    The Democrats clearly are seeking voteherds, tricking them up as victims.

  23. Iampeter

    Dover, we’ve been over this a few times now and you’ve just ignored, or more likely, simply not understood what’s being explained to you. I’ll respond to you again here for the record, but I’m not doing it again, so I encourage you to really try and understand, because what I’m saying is very, very basic.

    Nonsense. If a polity cannot regulate temporary or permanent entry over their own sovereign territory than they only enjoy a pseudo-sovereignty over said territory.

    This requires a proper definition of “sovereignty” which to those of us who are not leftists does not include randomly regulating peoples lives, who are going about their business, without violating anyone’s rights.

    And since in a previous discussion you’ve already admitted that it is perfectly within a state’s right to restrict entry if they have a communicable disease then you have admitted that a state can restrict entry for the common good.

    No, a government should never act for the leftist notion of a “common good”, but to protect rights. This means if there is a disease outbreak, whether someone is an immigrant, citizen, whatever, the government has the right to prevent movement. Even within a country. Your issue here is no definition of what a “government” is and no political ideology, so no idea what a government does.

    All you’ve done is make the bald assertion that they do, as well as make the bald assertion that the analogy between private property and sovereign territory is false without providing any satisfactory reason that it is.

    You mean aside from the reason I’ve repeatedly provided and will restate here for a final time?
    What someone does with their property is not analogous to what policies a government should have because the policies a government has, will determine what rights the people within its jurisdiction will enjoy, if any. You are trying to reverse cause and affect and resorting to failed analogy because of no political ideology and therefore no idea of how to approach the question of what a gov should or should not do and why.
    On the other hand, those of us who are right wing, support rights protecting government and such a government doesn’t regulate immigration. It’s. That. Simple.
    If you think a state can regulate people going about their business without violating anyone’s rights, like immigration, then you have no basis to support or defend anyone’s property rights anyway. Welcome to leftism.

    This is a common evasion by leftists. They deny the distinction between legal and illegal immigration.

    No, I’ve given you a clear explanation of why those who are right wing, reject the leftist, nonsense term, “illegal immigrant”. “Immigration” by definition of the proper role of government, as described above, cannot be illegal.

    So, to sum up, you need to learn what ALL the words you’re using actually mean. Words like “government”, “sovereignty”, “rights”, etc. You also need to learn what politics is even about and what the differences are between left wing and right wing. Once you’ve done all that only then should you begin debating anyone on the subject.
    Until then, your posts, like most things written by conservatives today, are self-contradictory and confused, leftism.

  24. Iampeter

    They killed Obamacare by the back door, knocking out the cornerstone which was taxing individuals at a higher rate if they don’t have a private policy.

    Obamacare needs to be repealed with a clear alternative argument presented. Conservatives cannot do this because they have no arguments against socialized medicine.
    Crippling Obamacare will help it fail, faster and harder, which is what it was ALWAYS designed to do.
    Once it implodes, their will be hysterical calls for nationalized healthcare and that’s what we’ll get, because conservatives have no arguments against it, as can be seen by no ability to repeal Obamacare.

    Nationalized Healthcare might be a big achievement of a second Trump term, but we’ll see.

    The first rule of politics is there are no rules. Second rule is pretend like there are rules but you aren’t really telling lies because see rule 1.

    Conservatives and many libertarians may need this to be true, but this is because they don’t know anything about politics.

  25. John Constantine

    Australias property Ponzi needs another leg up, rapidly.

    Their turnbullites stretched it out with two million property consumers on visas, flown in an airlift like the Berlin one.

    Where will the next million renters come from?.

    Providing extended family visas, pretending they are short term and dealing with voting rights after is the australian elite way.

    Comrades.

  26. Tel

    Obamacare needs to be repealed with a clear alternative argument presented.

    That would be central planning.

  27. Iampeter

    That would be central planning.

    *facepalm*
    By “alternative” I mean explain WHY THE GOVERNMENT SHOULDN’T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH HEALTHCARE.

    Obviously.

    Conservatives cannot do this, because they don’t really oppose government run healthcare, nor do they really have any clear political ideology. Just random positions, on random issues.

  28. Iampeter

    I mean you think the alternative to Obamacare is “central planning”?
    The idea that government shouldn’t be involved in healthcare didn’t even occur to you and I had to clarify it.

    Can we stop pretending you’re not a complete leftist?

  29. Tel

    … because they don’t know anything about politics.

    That’s a bit of a joke, coming from the guy who struggles with the concept that groups of people can make agreements amongst themselves, form clubs, tribes, churches, corporations, and nations (which are all the same thing on different scale) and work together for mutual defense of their culture and beliefs.

    Maybe if you started with the basics, you wouldn’t have such difficulty with borders being intrinsic to property rights.

    Put differently, while someone can migrate from one place to another without anyone else wanting him to do so, goods and services cannot be shipped from place to place unless both sender and receiver agree. Trivial as this distinction may appear, it has momentous consequences. For free in conjunction with trade then means trade by invitation of private households and firms only; and restricted trade does not mean protection of households and firms from uninvited goods or services, but invasion and abrogation of the right of private households and firms to extend or deny invitations to their own property. In contrast, free in conjunction with immigration does not mean immigration by invitation of individual households and firms, but unwanted invasion or forced integration; and restricted immigration actually means, or at least can mean, the protection of private households and firms from unwanted invasion and forced integration. Hence, in advocating free trade and restricted immigration, one follows the same principle: requiring an invitation for people as for goods and services.

    https://mises.org/library/case-free-trade-and-restricted-immigration-0

  30. Tel

    WHY THE GOVERNMENT SHOULDN’T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH HEALTHCARE.

    So you agree they should let it fall in a heap and don’t need to legislate any alternative.

    People can find their own alternatives, and are already doing so.

    https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2013/08/dr-josh-umbehr-explains-how-to-get-quality-economical-health-care-and-undermine-obamacare/

    Trump done good, even if not entirely by design.

  31. This requires a proper definition of “sovereignty” which to those of us who are not leftists does not include randomly regulating peoples lives, who are going about their business, without violating anyone’s rights.

    The regulation here is not random, it is focussed on people who have no right of entry in a territorial jurisdiction.

    No, a government should never act for the leftist notion of a “common good”,…

    There is nothing ‘Leftist’ about the common good, properly understood. You could not justify the minimal state without there being a common good.

    What someone does with their property is not analogous to what policies a government should have because the policies a government has, will determine what rights the people within its jurisdiction will enjoy, if any.

    Nothing you say above prohibits regulating entry to people from another territorial jurisdiction seeking entry if that is what has been decided by the citizens of this territorial jurisdiction. Again, people do not have a right to travel wherever they may, they have a right to persue certain goods but not to enter my property or visit Italy. They are certainly free to seek permission to do so but just as they are required to seek my permission to enter my property so are they required to seek permission of the Italian polity or its authorized agents to enter Italy. To deny this of states is effectively to say that this or that polity enjoys no custodial rights over their territorial land.

    No, I’ve given you a clear explanation of why those who are right wing, reject the leftist, nonsense term, “illegal immigrant”. “Immigration” by definition of the proper role of government, as described above, cannot be illegal.

    Nonsense. And this is obvious to everyone reading your ‘arguments’.

  32. Iampeter

    The regulation here is not random, it is focussed on people who have no right of entry in a territorial jurisdiction.

    Yes but why? That’s what makes this random. Clearly it’s not because any rights have been violated, because crossing a border can’t do that by definition, so you don’t oppose rights violating government, which makes you a leftist.

    There is nothing ‘Leftist’ about the common good, properly understood. You could not justify the minimal state without there being a common good.

    Yes I can and did. It’s called a rights protecting government.
    It attains the common good, but that’s not WHY it’s good. It’s good because it protects individual rights.
    Starting from the point of view of “common good”, whatever that means, and trying to work inwards, is called collectivism and collectivism is leftism.

    Nothing you say above prohibits regulating entry to people from another territorial jurisdiction seeking entry if that is what has been decided by the citizens of this territorial jurisdiction.

    Yea mean, everything I said, demonstrates why a state regulating entry to it’s border is nothing like a property owner restricting access to his property. It’s apples and oranges and you need to re-read what I’ve said.

    Nonsense. And this is obvious to everyone reading your ‘arguments’.

    I’m sorry, but you literally don’t know anything about politics and are not in a position to debate anything with anyone. You are contradicting yourself with almost every sentence and you don’t even see it.
    You need to go to the effort to learn something about the subject and THEN you can start debating.
    Until then, you need to be learning from what I’m saying, not deluding yourself that you’re debating something, because you don’t know anything.

  33. mh

    I can’t believe you guys still argue with bubble boy.

    I hope you enjoy doing it.

  34. Iampeter

    mh, is it quiet day at InfoWars today or something?
    Have you figured out who was behind 9/11 yet?

    Piss off you cretin of cretins.

  35. mh

    Ouch!

    Bubble Boy not happy!😡

  36. Stimpson J. Cat

    On the other hand, those of us who are right wing, support rights protecting government and such a government doesn’t regulate immigration. It’s. That. Simple.
    If you think a state can regulate people going about their business without violating anyone’s rights, like immigration, then you have no basis to support or defend anyone’s property rights anyway.

    Give this man a Bowtie and a position in academia.
    He’ll fit right in.

  37. Iampeter

    Give this man a Bowtie and a position in academia.
    He’ll fit right in.

    Please.
    If bowtie wearing academics, were teachings these basics properly, then we wouldn’t be in the situation we are in.
    We wouldn’t have mainstream politics be the spectacle of leftists vs the even more confused leftists of conservatism, racing to the bottom.

  38. Dr Fred Lenin

    All this fuss from the left bout building a wall to cut the entry of future decromat voters ,they have forgotten their comrades walls in EGermany and i[of course the Iron Curtain though they were designed to keep people in not out . Hypocricy the mantra of the left global fascist communists the creatures of the new stalin schwartz(soros)

  39. Yes but why? That’s what makes this random. Clearly it’s not because any rights have been violated, because crossing a border can’t do that by definition, so you don’t oppose rights violating government, which makes you a leftist.

    Why? For reasons of peace and order. If polity A decides to regulate entry for the reasons of maintaining peace and order within their territorial jurisdiction they are within their rights as a self-governing people to do so. Moreover, since people don’t have a right to travel anywhere polities are perfectly entitled to refuse entry without violating any rights.

    Yes I can and did. It’s called a rights protecting government.
    It attains the common good, but that’s not WHY it’s good. It’s good because it protects individual rights.

    No one is arguing the a ‘rights protecting government’ is good because it attains the common good. What is being suggested is that a ‘rights protecting government’ serves the common good, as opposed to, the private good, of citizens.

    Yea mean, everything I said, demonstrates why a state regulating entry to it’s border is nothing like a property owner restricting access to his property. It’s apples and oranges and you need to re-read what I’ve said.

    No, you’ve demonstrated this nowhere.

    I’m sorry, but you literally don’t know anything about politics and are not in a position to debate anything with anyone. You are contradicting yourself with almost every sentence and you don’t even see it.
    You need to go to the effort to learn something about the subject and THEN you can start debating.

    As CL said in another thread: Whatever they’re accusing you of, they’re doing …. That sums you up to a T.

  40. mh

    _|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|__
    ___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|__
    _|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|__
    ___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___BUILD IT!___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|__
    _|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|__
    ___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|__
    _|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|__
    ___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|_

  41. Iampeter

    Why? For reasons of peace and order.

    “Peace and order” is a rights protecting government and such a government doesn’t regulate immigration. You’re advocating for authoritarianism.
    You need to stop saying random political sounding phrases you don’t understand, as if you’re making an argument.

    What is being suggested is that a ‘rights protecting government’ serves the common good, as opposed to, the private good, of citizens.

    Well, that makes you a leftist.
    Those of us who are right wing, support the individualist private good of individuals not a collectivist and therefore leftist, common good.

    No, you’ve demonstrated this nowhere.

    Except for right here:
    What someone does with their property is not analogous to what policies a government should have because the policies a government has, will determine what rights the people within its jurisdiction will enjoy, if any. You are trying to reverse cause and affect and resorting to failed analogy because of no political ideology and therefore no idea of how to approach the question of what a gov should or should not do and why.

  42. “Peace and order” is a rights protecting government and such a government doesn’t regulate immigration. You’re advocating for authoritarianism.

    Not at all. Peace and order is what is maintained by the state by means of law and policy. This does not exclude refusal of entry because no one enjoys a right of entry to every point on the planet.

    Well, that makes you a leftist.
    Those of us who are right wing, support the individualist private good of individuals not a collectivist and therefore leftist, common good.

    Not at all. The orientation of law is neutral towards the various private goods of individuals; in other words its orientation is to the common good rather than towards the private good of this or that individual. So, for example, when building roads or making rules it isn’t orientated toward A’s private good getting to X in the most direct route or providing the most scenic route to B, but with simply providing a safe and orderly means of travel to all while not destroying the amenity of those nearby.

    Except for right here:
    What someone does with their property is not analogous to what policies a government should have because the policies a government has, will determine what rights the people within its jurisdiction will enjoy,

    No, this does nothing of the sort. Also, you’ve moved from what ‘one does with X’ to what a government should do within their territory. No, no, the analogy hinges on what one is authorized to do with one’s property or within the territorial jurisdiction a government has custody over. So just as a owner can refuse entry so can the government refuse entry to foreigners when auhorized by its polity to do so. To deny this is to deny self-government to a polity.

  43. Iampeter

    Not at all. Peace and order is what is maintained by the state by means of law and policy. This does not exclude refusal of entry because no one enjoys a right of entry to every point on the planet.

    You’re a like a beauty contestant answering a political question by throwing random words around because you don’t know what you’re saying. Tee-hee, world peace, tee-hee.

    Not at all. The orientation of law is neutral towards the various private goods of individuals; in other words its orientation is to the common good rather than towards the private good of this or that individual.

    You must love North Korea and hate the USA.

    No, this does nothing of the sort.

    Well, you’re either too stupid or too dishonest, intentionally evading clarity on the issue.
    In any case, the reason it’s a false analogy is secondary to the fact that you don’t need an analogy if you had an actual political argument which you don’t, because you don’t know anything about politics.

  44. dover_beach

    You’re a like a beauty contestant answering a political question by throwing random words around because you don’t know what you’re saying. Tee-hee, world peace, tee-hee.

    No. Again, you are simply projecting as is the wont of Leftists. Since no one enjoys a right of entry to every point on the planet, no one currently a citizen of Lithuania has a right of entry into Australia or Argentina or Austria, and so the polities of each can either grant entry or refuse entry to a citizen of Lithuania without violating the rights of Lithuania citizens.

    You must love North Korea and hate the USA.

    I’ve lived in the United States, dummy, and I loved it there. The Founders had a sound grasp of the difference between private and common goods and the implications of this to sound government.

    Well, you’re either too stupid or too dishonest, intentionally evading clarity on the issue.
    In any case, the reason it’s a false analogy is secondary to the fact that you don’t need an analogy if you had an actual political argument which you don’t, because you don’t know anything about politics.

    More projection. I provided you with the analogy because you failed to grasp the argument I presented earlier. I even presented it again in my first paragraph above. Unless you can demonstrate that people enjoy a right to settle or visit every point on the planet you cannot conclude that a polity’s refusal of entry to foreigner A constitutes a rights-violation. It’s that simple.

  45. Iampeter

    I’ve lived in the United States, dummy, and I loved it there. The Founders had a sound grasp of the difference between private and common goods and the implications of this to sound government.

    The Founders identified that men have individual rights and that a government is instituted to protect these rights. Not the other way around, like you’re suggesting because you’re a collectivist. You might live in America, but you are profoundly anti-American.

    More projection.

    Sigh. You don’t know what projection is and as always are guilty of the logical fallacies you randomly accuse others of.

    I even presented it again in my first paragraph above.

    Wait, wait, wait. Are you saying that the reason you think people should be regulated when they haven’t violated any rights is “because no one enjoys a right of entry to every point on the planet?”
    Well, then what can’t you regulate based on that?
    You could outlaw all churches because no one enjoys a right of entry to every point on the planet.
    You could seize all your property and wealth because no one enjoys a right of entry to every point on the planet.
    You could nationalize industries because no one enjoys a right of entry to every point on the planet.
    I mean, if all that’s required to determine what a government can do is based on the true statement that no one enjoys a right of entry to every point on the planet, then there’s nothing the state can’t do. Welcome to socialism.

    I’ll just finish by saying this: despite going over this topic repeatedly together, you still haven’t figured out what a political argument even sounds like.

    I think I’ve indulged you waaaay more than can be reasonably expected. I can’t imagine why someone like you is even on a political blog. Any further discussion with you is basically like wrestling a pig in the mud.
    The pig will enjoy it, etc, etc.

    I won’t be responding to anymore of your posts.

  46. Win

    Border walls and boat turn backs and the UK government watch impotent as the flotillas start across the Chanel.

  47. The Founders identified that men have individual rights and that a government is instituted to protect these rights. Not the other way around, like you’re suggesting because you’re a collectivist. You might live in America, but you are profoundly anti-American.

    You’re attacking a strawman here, I’ve never argued what you are calling ‘the other way around’. Further, the Founders believed as the Declaration states: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,… You must hate that part and the reference to Nature’s God.

    Sigh. You don’t know what projection is and as always are guilty of the logical fallacies you randomly accuse others of.

    Even more projection.

    Wait, wait, wait. Are you saying that the reason you think people should be regulated when they haven’t violated any rights is “because no one enjoys a right of entry to every point on the planet?”
    Well, then what can’t you regulate based on that?
    You could outlaw all churches because no one enjoys a right of entry to every point on the planet.
    You could seize all your property and wealth because no one enjoys a right of entry to every point on the planet.

    How does that even follow? What could possibly be the second premise that leads to your several absurd conclusions so that they compromise premise 1, “because no one enjoys a right of entry to every point on the planet”? You really are bad at syllogisms. BTW, it is not regulating people, but territory, just as the private property owner that refuses entry as he may is not regulating people but entry to his property. Don’t you dare think I will miss dishonesty of that sort.

    I’ll just finish by saying this: despite going over this topic repeatedly together, you still haven’t figured out what a political argument even sounds like.

    I think I’ve indulged you waaaay more than can be reasonably expected. I can’t imagine why someone like you is even on a political blog. Any further discussion with you is basically like wrestling a pig in the mud.
    The pig will enjoy it, etc, etc.

    Again, more projection.

    I won’t be responding to anymore of your posts.

    Only because you cannot counter premise 1 above without fatally compromising your view re private property. That is why your slinking away and licking your wounds, but sadly they are fatal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.