LP.org: DHS announces plans to deport Salvadorans who have 192,700 US-born children

LP.org:

Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.

Temporary Protected Status (TPS) allows immigrants to live and work legally in the United States if they would face extreme hardship after being forced to return to their countries of origin. Immigrants from El Salvador, which has been ravaged by natural disaster and poverty, have been TPS-eligible since 2001, and today there are 262,500 Salvadorans with that status in the United States. Collectively, they are the parents of 192,700 American-born U.S. citizens. On Jan. 8, the federal government announced that it would end the TPS program for Salvadorans by September 2019, forcing immigrants who have built a long-term life in the United States to return to a poor and violence-wracked El Salvador or join the ranks of unauthorized U.S. immigrants living fearfully in the shadows.

When asked whether DHS proposes that Salvadoran parents must leave their U.S. citizen children behind, a senior administration official replied, “We’re not getting involved in individual family decisions.” There’s no question, though, that the policy will tear countless families and individual lives apart.

“The deportation of hundreds of thousands of Salvadorans — as well as Sudanese, Nicaraguans, Haitians, and Hondurans — is objectionable on multiple levels,” said Libertarian National Committee Chair and Phoenix, Ariz., mayoral candidate Nicholas Sarwark. “Salvadorans are exceptionally well-integrated into American society, with 85 percent speaking some English and 48 percent speaking English very well or exclusively. Their labor force participation rate is 88 percent compared to the U.S. average of 63 percent, and 45,000 Salvadoran TPS holders have mortgages. They are not part of the problem of welfare dependency. They are part of the solution. People who are obviously contributing members of society should be welcomed with open arms. The comparatively few who have criminal backgrounds should be dealt with separately.”

In her announcement, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen argued that the 18-month delay before deportations become effective will allow Congress to come up with a “permanent solution.” Immigration isn’t a problem in need of a solution, though. Immigration is an asset to the United States, one that grows the economy and improves the lives of not only those people who move here, but also those who were already here. Ultimately, the only way to deter immigrants is to destroy the market economy that draws people here from throughout the world.

The United States had no quantitative immigration laws until 1921, and no qualitative laws until 1875 when convicts and prostitutes were barred from entry. “Mental defectives” and Chinese were prohibited in 1882 for blatantly racist reasons. One of the complaints in the Declaration of Independence for the revolt against King George III was that “He has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for the Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither.”

The U.S. economy suffered not at all from our acceptance of the huddled masses yearning to breathe free. Immigrants made this country great in the first place, and they continue to do so today. We need to move in the direction of more open, legal immigration, not in the direction of militarized borders fit only for a police state.

“The entire debate about immigration results from a misapplied concept of property rights,” said Sarwark. “When we refer to ‘my car, my clothes, or my toothpaste,’ few would argue that the word ‘my’ does not imply a property right. But we also use the word ‘my’ in the context of ‘my street, my neighborhood, and my country.’ We obviously don’t have a property right in the entire country, but opponents of immigration use arguments that imply we all do have a collective right to our country — and, therefore, a right to exclude foreigners. We don’t. We each have an individual moral right to hire, do business with, or sell a house to any willing person from anywhere. We also have the moral obligation not to interfere with our neighbor’s right to do or not do the same.”

The issue of immigration has been obscured by layers of cynical campaign rhetoric, but it comes down to whether individual liberty applies only to native-born Americans or to everyone. If freedom works for us — and it does — what possible moral reason do we have to say it applies to people born in San Diego, but not to those born inches away in Tijuana?

The Libertarian Party plans to field more than 2,000 candidates for public office in 2018. You can count on Libertarian officeholders to champion the common-sense policies of fairness and individual rights for all, no matter where they were born.

22 thoughts on “LP.org: DHS announces plans to deport Salvadorans who have 192,700 US-born children

  1. Andy

    How many of these people hold Marxist ideologies? How many of them are on welfare and/or are using a disproportionate amount of tax payer funded services?

    I bet high percentages for both questions.

  2. Andy

    The real agenda here is to bring in more foreign people who will support the expansion of the welfare state, restricting gun rights, and ushering in global government (the statistics clearly show this if you take the time to examine them). This is why it is pushed by Marxists and globalists. It is part of the New World Order agenda.

    This has nothing to do with libertarianism. It is actually being pushed to move the country further away from libertarianism.

  3. Andy

    Acting as though today’s statist migration has anything to do with immigration in the 1700’s and 1800’s, or that today’s statist migration would be supported by the founders of this country, is intellectually dishonest.

  4. DJ

    Andy
    January 14, 2018 at 02:44

    Acting as though today’s statist migration has anything to do with immigration in the 1700’s and 1800’s, or that today’s statist migration would be supported by the founders of this country, is intellectually dishonest.
    ……………..

    How is it intellectually dishonest? Indians would likely agree with you though.

    I didn’t notice in the Constitution of the 1700’s any reference to immigration. That said, the times have changed, but, truth is constant. Knowledge evolves. The bottom line is all anglo’s are interlopers on the western (compared to eastern countries) continents, and Islands. That alone makes your demands disingenuous.

    You seem to believe restricting people’s actions will actually improve liberty for others. That kinda reflects the conversation in the other thread about demanding from ‘your’ guy you will get the other guys actions whether you like them or not. Forcing one’s will on others is the root of all conflict.

    Now, I don’t disagree with your premise about a world gov’t., but, I guar-on-tee, being against migration ain’t gonna stop it. People have been migrating since they discovered the grass was greener over there.

    I think the property rights issue is non-sense as well. The arguments made are too esoteric (read complicated) and will never be implemented. You see where it got the Indians here, and that is what you’re advocating.

    I’m not one to tell others what they should do, but, I will suggest when I see an opportunity: You’d be a better representative of libertarian if you’d address civil liberty/personal freedom as a whole. When you throw in caveats your ideology gets questioned and you get referred to in unflattering tones. It might make you feel better, but, in the end it serves no useful purpose and alienates (turns people off) to libertarian beliefs, unless they’re ignorant racist, which doesn’t help gain traction ‘nationally’ which seems to be important to you (and a few others here).

  5. Bruce Smith

    Well as my grandmother told me, the greatest generation on the face of this earth voted for FDR four times… so Marxist ideas have been a long traditional values instilled before I arrived on the crime scene 1952.

  6. Andy

    “Bruce Smith
    January 14, 2018 at 19:31
    Well as my grandmother told me, the greatest generation on the face of this earth voted for FDR four times… so Marxist ideas have been a long traditional values instilled before I arrived on the crime scene 1952.”

    No shit that some people voted for FDR.

    The key here is statistical trends. I am astounded at the number of so called “libertarians” who are unable to comprehend statistical trends. Democratic and Republican party political consultants do not ignore statistical trends. Perhaps libertarians ignore this data since most libertarians are not serious about winning elections, or accomplishing anything productive. The average libertarian is more interested in sitting on their rear ends posting messages on some online forum that hardly anyone other than fellow libertarians read, or on sitting at a monthly supper club preaching to the choir, or debating among themselves, than they are in doing anything in the real world that advances the cause they claim to support.

    If you would bother to examine statistical data, you’d find that super-majorities of modern day immigrants (and their offspring), use government welfare programs and other government services, at a rate that is higher than the rest of the general population. Also, if you look at political issues and voting patterns, you will find that super-majorities of modern day immigrants (and their offspring) support expanding the welfare state, enacting more gun control laws, and favor global government, all at rates higher than the rest of the general population.

    This of course does not mean that all modern day immigrants fit these trends. There are of course exceptions, but exceptions do not make the rule, and given that we live in a democratic welfare state, exceptions do not win elections.

    Any sane person who examines these statistics ought to be alarmed by the fact that current government policies are acting as a magnet to entice people who hold these hostile ideologies to come here, and they should be even more alarmed by the fact that these people are being added to the voter rolls.

  7. Andy

    Don’t believe me? See what the Washington Post has to say.

    The NRA will fall. It’s inevitable.
    Just look at the demographics.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/19/the-nra-will-fall-its-inevitable/?utm_term=.5ac9ad15747a

    From the article: “The fastest-growing minority group in America is Latinos. Between 2000 and 2010, the nation’s Latino population grew by 43 percent. Hispanics, which make up 17 percent of the population today, are expected to grow to 30 percent of the population in the coming decades.

    Gun control is extremely popular among Hispanics, with 75 percent favoring gun safety over gun rights.

    Asian Americans also represent a growing anti-gun demographic. Although only about 5 percent of the population today, the Asian American population is predicted to triple over the next few decades. A recent poll of Asian American registered voters found that 80 percent supported stricter gun laws.”

  8. Andy

    DJ said: “How is it intellectually dishonest? Indians would likely agree with you though.”

    Have you read the 1790 Naturalization Act? This was one of the first laws passed after the American Revolution.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790

    The founders of the country did not offer citizenship to just anyone. Was this policy racist? Sure, but the same could be said today of lots of countries, from Japan to Mexico to Israel, just to name a few.

    “I didn’t notice in the Constitution of the 1700’s any reference to immigration. That said, the times have changed, but, truth is constant. Knowledge evolves. The bottom line is all anglo’s are interlopers on the western (compared to eastern countries) continents, and Islands. That alone makes your demands disingenuous.”

    Yes, the times have changed. We live in a country that has a welfare state, and forced association laws. This was not the case back in the 1700’s and 1800’s, and not until several decades into the 1900’s.

    The Europeans who showed up in early America were not immigrants. They were pioneers/settlers. Yes, there were some tribes of American Indians here, but their population was very sparse. The fact of the matter is that most of the continent was empty. Yes, there were some cases of European pioneers/settlers stealing land from American Indians, and that was an injustice, but mankind has been fighting over land for since the dawn of time, and the various American Indian tribes fought among themselves prior to the arrival of lots of European pioneers/settlers.

    Comparing the pioneers/settler era to today is absolutely ridiculous. The European pioneers/settlers were not moving in with the American Indian tribes. The American Indian tribes had little to no infrastructure built anyway. It is not like today, where immigrants show up and move into cities/towns that have already been long established. Pioneers/settlers from places like England and France did not move into American Indian villages and sign up for food stamps and SSI and enroll their children in American Indian public schools. The European pioneers/settlers came to land that was mostly unoccupied, and they built their own cities/towns. There were no welfare programs back then, so the European settlers/pioneers had to make it through their own hard work.

    Comparing the European pioneers/settlers who came to land that was mostly unoccupied, and who literally built the country, and the later immigrants from Europe, especially pre-welfare state, to immigration today, is extremely disingenuous.

    Today we live in a country that already has over 325 million people, which has basically morphed into a democratic welfare state.

  9. Andy

    DJ said: “Now, I don’t disagree with your premise about a world gov’t., but, I guar-on-tee, being against migration ain’t gonna stop it. People have been migrating since they discovered the grass was greener over there.”

    I’m not opposed to immigration, I support a reasonable immigration policy, I am opposed to invasion. I do not consider socialists, communists, theocrats, welfare seekers, and criminals (like MS-13 gang bangers, etc…), to be peaceful people, so I don’t think that these people deserve to be called immigrants. This is an invasion, and it is being facilitated by people who want to destroy what is left of having any semblance of limited government and Western Civilization.

    It would be one thing if the only people coming here were libertarians (in which case, there would not be a problem), but this is clearly not what is happening.

  10. Bondurant

    What about the Koreans that defended their stores with guns during the LA riots? I will also add that I live in a border state. Brown people are working jobs no one else wants. They will also work for money whereas the white people collect welfare, false SS claims or beg for money at street corners.

  11. DJ

    Andy
    January 15, 2018 at 03:58

    DJ said: “How is it intellectually dishonest? Indians would likely agree with you though.”

    Have you read the 1790 Naturalization Act? This was one of the first laws passed after the American Revolution.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790
    …………………

    Me: That doesn’t change what I said. The Constitution of the 1700’s said nothing about immigration, and I’m sure Indians would agree with you about controlling migration, and, consider it “intellectual dishonesty”. Hind sight is 20 – 20.
    ………………..

    Andy: The founders of the country did not offer citizenship to just anyone. Was this policy racist? Sure, but the same could be said today of lots of countries, from Japan to Mexico to Israel, just to name a few.
    …………………

    Me: The US is not any of the countries you mentioned or didn’t mention. The countries you mention (and the ones you didn’t) are ethnic in their make up, and small by comparison in geographic mass and numbers (except China and Russia geographically and numerically), and it could be said they are racist, in their own way. So, are you suggesting we follow their racist example? Or our own racist example(s)?
    Make no mistake, that’s what it is.
    ………………..

    Andy: Yes, the times have changed. We live in a country that has a welfare state, and forced association laws. This was not the case back in the 1700’s and 1800’s, and not until several decades into the 1900’s.
    …………………

    Me: Forced association. Have you read about how Indians were forced (and still are) to be like the white man by taking their kids away and putting them in schools segregated from their families and made “civilized”? Is welfare not considered civilized? Indians have been on welfare since before it was cool. Forced into it, I might add, by broken promises (Treaties) and out right lies. Can you say “forced” onto reservations? ‘Given’ stipends – after they were picked over by the alleged Christian society ‘disbursement’ officers. Is that not “welfare” officiated by the corrupt?
    ………………….
    Andy: The Europeans who showed up in early America were not immigrants. They were pioneers/settlers.
    ………………….
    Me: Showed up? How? Divine intervention? I swear, I thought moving to a country other than where you are borne was immigrating, a derivative of migrating; i.e., putting one foot in front of the other to go where the grass is greener- since the beginning of time.
    …………………
    Andy: Yes, there were some tribes of American Indians here, but their population was very sparse.
    ……………….
    Me: Immaterial in what we’re discussing.
    …………………
    Andy: The fact of the matter is that most of the continent was empty. Yes, there were some cases of European pioneers/settlers stealing land from American Indians, and that was an injustice, but mankind has been fighting over land for since the dawn of time, and the various American Indian tribes fought among themselves prior to the arrival of lots of European pioneers/settlers.
    ………………….
    Me: You’re moving the goal post. But, to address this; I did make the assertion of “civilized”, did I not? Is committing near genocide “civilized”?
    What was done prior to Anglo insurgence is immaterial.
    What is material is the manner (lies and murder and starvation) the insurgency (immigration) was implemented and the attitude used to implement it. Manifest Destiny. “The only good Indian is a dead Indian”. Anglo moral superiority “invading” continents pretending they had some moral high road to exterminate the “savages” and make them (forced association) Christian servants who weren’t allowed to exercise the double standard exercised by the practitioners who believed themselves morally superior and proved it with mass slaughter and starvation because- Manifest Destiny sold with fear.
    The same thing you’re doing with your obvious posts about migration. The knowledge curve is evolving and the ‘original’ settlers here (dark skinned) are pushing back. The same “curve” could be said about the marijuana issue. The ‘original’ selling point against it was “lies” selling fear getting it out lawed. But, now the Truth (which is constant) is coming out allowing truth based knowledge to evolve.

    This is exactly what dl and I were talking about. You demand something from gov’t to get what you want, you will have to take what you don’t want (at some point) in return. That is NOT constitutional. (which is a different subject I will be happy to discuss any time)
    Can you say “War on Terror”? Which is almost exactly the same ideology (moral superiority) -saving/spreading “democracy” (with a Christian(?) bent) by invading and occupying sparsely populated areas populated with dark skinned “savages”.

    Using the “he did it first momma” tactic is “disingenuous,” at best.
    ……………………..

    Andy: Comparing the European pioneers/settlers who came to land that was mostly unoccupied, and who literally built the country, and the later immigrants from Europe, especially pre-welfare state, to immigration today, is extremely disingenuous.
    ……………………..

    Me: I beg to differ. Come to Houston and see how many ‘dark skinned’ people are building roads, houses, offices, etc., and BTW let me see you swing a weed eater all day, every day like the ‘dark skinned’ people I see doing it. Or washing cars at drive thru car washes….. or serve Mexican food after having cooked it and clean the mess away. We are “densely populated” no doubt, and ‘dark skinned’ people and helping us be that way.

    What happened with immigrants in the past. How about the Chinese who built the railroads?

    There is no ‘reason’ to try and stop immigration. There are many ‘excuses’, and they are all sold from a fear perspective. In fact, it could be argued- Manifest Destiny- or, chickens coming home to roost.
    Hypocrisy (and hyperbole) used to instill fear are what politicians thrive on.

  12. DJ

    Andy
    January 15, 2018 at 04:13

    DJ said: “Now, I don’t disagree with your premise about a world gov’t., but, I guar-on-tee, being against migration ain’t gonna stop it. People have been migrating since they discovered the grass was greener over there.”

    Andy: I’m not opposed to immigration, I support a reasonable immigration policy, I am opposed to invasion. I do not consider socialists, communists, theocrats, welfare seekers, and criminals (like MS-13 gang bangers, etc…), to be peaceful people, so I don’t think that these people deserve to be called immigrants.
    …………….

    Me: who defines “reasonable”? Gov’t? LOL, really? The same gov’t you think wants to make a one world gov’t?

    Andy: This is an invasion, and it is being facilitated by people who want to destroy what is left of having any semblance of limited government and Western Civilization.
    …………….

    Me : Andy, look at what you’re saying. Western civilization? We’re being invaded? How did we get here? Are you kidding me? What makes US civilized? Our ability to invade pretending a moral high ground? Laws? Restrictions on freedom? Corruption? Lies? Murder? The ability to cover them up? The fed reserve? being enslaved to a central bank? Serving the elected servants desires?

    There will always be misfits. That’s what you’re describing above. If they commit a harm to another they are to be punished. Personally, I would prefer the punishment meted out by the harmed, but, that’s just me. However, IF, and that’s a big IF, justice were served as it should be there would be fewer problems. But, and that’s a big BUT, our system is “heavily populated” with less than honorable people, and that, I believe, reflects on our “education system” that didn’t educate with Truth.
    ……………………

    Andy: It would be one thing if the only people coming here were libertarians (in which case, there would not be a problem), but this is clearly not what is happening.

    Me: (1) If it were easy it wouldn’t be worth the trouble. (2) If it’s as good as we believe (being libertarian) then it should be an easy sell.

    I’ll admit selling libertarian views aren’t easy. IMNSHO opinion that is due, in no small part, to our illustrious education system that doesn’t teach “why we are” or where it came from or where it could lead.

    I’m an advocate for The Declaration of Independence and the philosophy of “all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights, ENDOWED (read inherent long before they were ‘officially’ recognized)…. not granted on installed on an assembly line. I believe in The Constitution as written (originally) and how it could IF adhered to would solve most of the problems faced today. I believe in the Individual. “I” will Survive. “I” is the first letter in Individual and coincidentally(?) the first letter in Independence/Independent. And there in lies to the secret (if there is one) to “selling” the idea of being libertarian. Education. Educating. Fighting unjust wars (immigration, terror, drugs, poverty) will sell nothing but more restrictions and laws against freedom. The best salesmanship demonstrates advantage (using examples) to prove the worthiness of a product.

    Question: What example are we using to the rest of the world?
    Answer: Believe what we tell you or we’ll “force” you to.

    ALL conflict begins when one “forces” his will on another. Period.

  13. Andy

    Bondurant, you are talking about exceptions rather than statistical norms. If you read what I posted above from the Washington Post, you will find that it said that 80% of Asians support strict gun control laws. This means that 20% do not. I am happy that that 20% exists, but when it comes to influencing election results, 80% squashes 20%.

    Some of you people must live in cocoons, or walk around wearing blinders, or you just have a hard time confronting reality. Have you ever been to a gun show? I have been to 6 gun shows in Pennsylvania. 2 gun shows in Maryland, one gun show in Virginia, one gun show in North Carolina, 4 gun shows in Alabama, 5 gun shows in Ohio, 7 gun shows in Indiana, one gun show in iowa, 3 gun shows in Arkansas, one gun show in Texas, 4 gun shows in Oklahoma, one gun show in Nebraska, 2 gun shows in North Dakota, 2 gun shows in New Mexico, 6 gun shows in Arizona, and 4 gun shows in California. I also attended 3 pro-gun rights rallies in Pennsylvania. There was not a lot of diversity at any of these events. The crowd at every gun show or gun rights rally I have attended has been around 90%-100% white, and mostly male. Most of the people at gun shows would be described as “rednecks” by a lot of people (this includes gun shows in California, or in major cities in northern states, like Philadelphia, PA, or Columbus, OH). Yes, there are some pro-gun females at these events, but most of them are there with their husbands, boyfriends, or fathers. Outside of whites at gun shows, the next group you see the most of is blacks, and it is mostly men (the same situation with women as with whites). You see very little of any other group at gun shows/events (it is an extreme rarity to see Asians at gun shows).

    A survey a few years ago indicated that the average pro-gun rights supporter in this country was a 55 year old white male. What is going to happen when those 55 (probably older average now, since that figure is from a few years ago) year old white male gun rights supporters start dying off? Who is replacing them in the population statistics? Keep in mind that support for gun rights in this country only has a narrow margin of support in its favor right now, and with all of the kids being indoctrinated into a socialist mentality, and the vast influx of foreigners who do not come from a culture that values gun rights or limited government, the pro-gun rights margin for victory may not last much longer.

    Also, you brought up the argument of foreign “Brown people” doing jobs that nobody else will supposedly do. Like I said on here before, start kicking Americans off of welfare and eliminating useless government jobs and there would be mire than enough people to do these jobs, not to mention that emerging robot technology could end up eliminating the need for humans to do some of these jobs.

    Also, even if a foreign worker is brought into the country, the foreign worker does not have to be offered any welfare, and they do not have to be offered American citizenship (nor does any offspring they have while here). Switzerland brings in foreign workers. but they do not offer all of them citizenship.

    You make it sound like it is impossible for these jobs to get done without a mass influx of foreigners (which you called “brown people”). How did these jobs get done before modern mass immigration happened? How do these jobs get done in parts of the present day USA that do not have that many foreigners (like New Hampshire)?

  14. Andy

    ” I have been to 6 gun shows in Pennsylvania.”

    It was actually 8 gun shows in Pennsylvania.

  15. DJ

    Andy: It was me you’re referring to with “brown skinned” and I said “dark skinned”. The lack of their being somewhere to ‘even’ the tables, or level the playing field, is what markets are for, and will take care of if left alone. I’ll also ask what is the unemployment rate in NJ where they don’t have (according to you) the help of “browned skin” people? Is that the fault of the “brown skinned”? Or is that the fault of Anglo superiority? Are there Anglo’s doing those jobs? If so, why the high unemployment?

    The anecdotal evidence (gun shows) doesn’t change the fact that education founded in Truth is what will turn the tide, though not immediately. Forcing one’s will on another, no matter the context, is the root of all conflict.
    The path of a dynamic (society) cannot stand abrupt change, or stopping, (which is the ultimate change) without a catastrophic event, in fact it will ’cause’ the catastrophe. The North used “force” (abrupt change) to allegedly end slavery. Do you recall how many catastrophes happened to make that happen? I’ll point out ‘conscription’ for starters. Is that what you’re ‘shooting’ for? Then I’ll point out how many died. Why? Many say it was because there wasn’t a ‘level playing field’, and the idea used to correct a market problem was to “force” the will of a few on the many.

    There is a difference between altruistic and altruism. The former being The Declaration of Independence, the latter being filtered with emotion. Emotions, like knowledge, change with time. Truth is constant.

    Look, Andy you’re a sharp guy with a lot of drive and determination. Using your tenacity and those traits to educate, founded in Truth, is very rewarding.

    I’ll agree with the welfare fiasco, but, that too can be changed with education founded in Truth.
    Sow seeds. They will bear fruit.

  16. Deran

    My goodness, that racist nutter “Andy” is still allowed to comment freely?

    I know I’ve been told “Andy” is not a racist, but imo – if it waddles like a duck and quacks like one …

  17. Deran

    And besides, the “Founders” of our republic in all honesty, if they had thir druthers, would have only ever given US citizenship yo other white male propert owners. Thus the origins of our nation’s long history of Know-Nothingism is, imo, intimately tied to the very original Articles of Confederation and the original unamended federal constitution. imo

  18. Andy

    I think that it is a fair question to ask what percent of the people in question are using welfare, Affirmative Action, and/or advocate in favor of Marxist political policies.

    If say a bunch of white Americans showed up in Japan, let’s say they were “white trash” Americans (as in bottom of the barrel kind of white people), and while there, they squeezed out a bunch of babies, do you think that the Japanese people would want to make them Japanese citizens, or do you think that the Japanese would throw their asses out of the country?

    A bunch of Africans migrated into Israel. Did the Israelis greet them with open arms and make them citizens? No. they threw them out. Some of those that are still there, the Israelis are actually offering them $3,500 and a plane ticket to leave the country, with the hope that this will encourage them to leave voluntarily, rather than the Israelis having to go to the trouble to throw them out.

    It is in the Mexican Constitution that it is illegal to have an immigration policy that alters the demographics of Mexico.

    Would the above situation fly in any of these other countries? Would this above situation fly if we lived in a private property anarcho-capitalist society? I think that the answer is a clear no on both counts (as in the people in question would be thrown out).

    Say a man and a woman sneaked into Disney World, or they sneaked into a movie theater, and they brought their kids with them. Would the security guards says, “Oh, it is the dream of these kids to go to Disney World (or to see this movie), so even though their parents sneaked in here, we are going to let the kids stay.” I suppose that it is theoretically possible that they could say that, but realistically speaking, the far more likely scenario is that the parents and their kids would get kicked out of Disney World or a movie theater if they got caught after sneaking inside.

    The only reason that this is even considered to be a controversy is because there are Marxists and globalists who want to use these people as pawns to push their agenda, because they know that statistically speaking, this is how the majority of these people will vote.

Leave a Reply

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