The Background Noise Of Illegal Immigration



And I will absolutely guarantee that the borders will be easier to patrol against real criminals and terrorists sneaking in when the background noise of millions of peaceful and non-threatening people are removed from the picture and routed through legal border crossings.

-- Warren Meyer

I never thought about it this way before, but it sounds right. By treating good guys as bad guys, the real bad guys are harder to spot.

Share this

Sounds simple! Except, I

Sounds simple!

Except, I assume the "guest" worker scheme will have limits, right? What happens to the millions of people who aren't allowed to be "guests"? Won't they become new "noise"?

And, hundreds of thousands of "peaceful and non-threatening people" made a show of force recently, marching in our streets demanding rights to which they aren't entitled.

Let's let in several million more, so next time millions of "peaceful and non-threatening people" will make shows of force in our streets.

Say, what would happen if we refused to do what those "peaceful and non-threatening people" demand?

Aren't two of the Prime Directives of libertarianism national defense and no subsidies? Aren't libertarians violating both with their support for massive legal or illegal immigration?

Routing people through legal

Routing people through legal crossings is still treating them as bad guys.

It will never be very difficult for a determined person to sneak into America.

Which is why we should

Which is why we should combine open immigration with lots of terrorist/criminal/nastyperson checks.

I have no problem with aggressively screening people in addition to an open immigration policy -- I love and applaud immigrants.

If you can convince the "bad guys" that they will be caught trying to get in legally, then we know that anyone trying to sneak across illegally is probably someone we should nab. An argument against this is of course "well, how good can we rationally expect that screening to be?" To which I answer: we have to let SOME people in, just for normal travel and business -- if we can't screen them, we're screwed either way -- even if we have 0% immigration.

TLB: I don't generally

TLB:

I don't generally believe that the Government provides us with rights, men "are endowed ... with certain unalienable Rights..." and it is the Government's charge to protect those rights and provide an environment in which men can be free. (Most governments do not do a laudable job at this)

We will not suffer hordes upon hordes of migrant workers, many, yes, but tens of millions is unlikely: With each wave of immigrants who arrive here, the marginal value of "moving to the US to find work" decreases.

As far as your question re: subsidies - I think the better way to look at the question is: Isn't preventing able-bodied workers from obtaining jobs an artificial restriction on the market for labor? It should come as no surprise that Organized Labor is one of the strongers opponents of an open (more open) border policy. Removing a harmful restriction, even though it may cause immediate, proximate harm to a certain interest group, is nevertheless, the removal of a harmful policy. Opening the borders is allowing men the freedom to choose whom to employ, for whom they will work, in what occupation, and under what jurisdiction of government.

Caliban, I have no problem

Caliban,

I have no problem with aggressively screening people in addition to an open immigration policy...

How about if my catspaws agressively screen you wherever they choose? Doesn't my right to security entitle me to have you agresively screened wherever and whenever I want?

Mexican are not American.

Mexican are not American. They have not right or freedom and they don't deserve any. The problem with the US system is that there is no uniform documentation system. People are not just economical - it is fine to import them if we can keep them just economical, but sooner or later they became a cultural disease. The economical benefit do not outweight the cultural and national devastation they bring. Built to big walls (we are a thousand year more advance that the Chinese when they but their wall, we can wall in both the southern and northern border), but machine guns and mined the space in front, not gate needed. We do want any more fifth in.

Anh - I'd suggest you find a

Anh - I'd suggest you find a better forum for your hatred. Check out Stormfront.org, I'm sure it will be much more to your liking.

Can you explain the contradiction between our vehement opposition to the wall in Germany, and the desire to erect one of our own?

Mexican are not American.

Mexican are not American. They have not right or freedom and they don’t deserve any. The problem with the US system is that there is no uniform documentation system. People are not just economical - it is fine to import them if we can keep them just economical, but sooner or later they became a cultural disease.

This is the sort of attitude that I consider a cultural disease I'd prefer not to be exposed to. If I had my druthers, I'd trade you for any randomly selected Mexican sight unseen.

I don't normally come to

I don't normally come to this site, and just found my way here through baseballmusings.com Seems pretty cool though. Anyway did anybody else read Anh's post up there and start laughing? I mean if you're going to complain about America's culture being tainted by immigrants and other garbage like that, at least have some marginal command of the English language.

John T. Kennedy: "How about

John T. Kennedy:

"How about if my catspaws agressively screen you wherever they choose? Doesn’t my right to security entitle me to have you agresively screened wherever and whenever I want?"

No, just on citizenship application process. Once you're in, (and I'd want something far less stringent than the current status quo) all the normal privacy restrictions apply -- I'd even support destruction of any "research" after acceptance. We support the right of the government to restrict the rights of those who have violated the law in our country, surely we should check to see if incoming individuals are in a similar category?

Is there anything morally or constitutionally offensive about confirming the non-dangerous nature of potential citizens? (Not at all a rhetorical question)

No, just on citizenship

No, just on citizenship application process.

Why? Plenty of crimanls here. You might be one. I have a right to be safe from you.

Doinkicarus, This is a

Doinkicarus, This is a selling point?

We will not suffer hordes upon hordes of migrant workers, many, yes, but tens of millions is unlikely: With each wave of immigrants who arrive here, the marginal value of "moving to the US to find work" decreases.

Anh, As a matter of fact

Anh,

As a matter of fact Mexicans do have rights and freedoms. What the hell do you mean by that? Mexicans are no more a cultural desease than the millions of tax freeloaders that are already here. Hell, I've know Mexicans I'd rather have here than many of the "natives". Some might need aculturation but no more so than many people already here.

As for your desire to keep liquor out of the country, well I'm against that to. Sometimes I like a good fifth.