From the American Freedom Party website:
As we approach the New Year, our nation’s youth face challenges from every possible direction. Immigration is at an all time high, lowering the number of jobs available in the labor market. Colleges and universities openly disenfranchise White students, while allowing every other ethnic group to freely represent themselves.
We are forced to be tolerant of intolerant people. We are forced to support those who refuse to support themselves.
As a generation we are facing Islamification though massive legal immigration from nations whose people are incompatible with us and our values. Our government is out of touch, our borders are nonexistent, our parents have put us into 18 trillion dollars worth of debt, we face massive unemployment, never ending wars, and a complete failure of coexistence. As Americans we must defend our nation’s honor. As the youth we must protect our future from those who wish to push us aside.
With the eminent violence and persecution that we face, we must not let go of our pride. We must respect our ancestors who built this country for us, not to be given away by our parents in their foolishness and cowardice. There has been a lack of nationalist spirit in our youth, a lack of pride for ourselves and our people. If we are to survive we must embrace its ideals with a zealousness. It is imperative to reject socialist and antiwhite agendas. To refute and shame feminist ideologies that cripple the integrity and pride of a man and pit our sexes against each other.
We must come together under one banner. A banner that preserves our inheritance, that recognizes our rights as the descendants of those who built this nation. We must maintain professionalism while not abandoning the day to day struggle. We must break out of our comfort zones and take back our communities. Take back our schools, our jobs, and our borders. Actions speak louder than words. We must make 2015 a year of activism, uniting to renew the struggle for our rights. Demanding a say in our own lives. We must boldly stand up as one movement and tell the world THIS IS OUR NATION!
This New Year join with us as we launch a movement that is not afraid to say enough is enough. Keep your eyes forward and your head up. Never betray the integrity and honor found inside you. This my friends is victory.
(Name removed by site owner 10-30-2017)
Chairman, National Youth Front
To all persons ages 18 to 35,
I urge you to join the American Freedom Party. You can do so through the National Youth Front – (www.nationalyouthfront.com).
You may join AFP directly, but if you join through the National Youth Front, you will receive additional support and benefits. Please note that the National Youth Front is designed to support the younger generation.
Sincerely,
William Johnson
AFP Chairman
Not deflections. One step at a time. And I’ve also posted in past threads about the rise of parallel voluntary institutions that take on tasks usually associated with the state, the rise of secessionist and local control movements worldwide, etc.
pf: And the USSR had modern weapons, yet somehow dissolved relatively peacefully.
me: Yes, but it didn’t become a nonarchy.
pf: The weapons of absolute monarchs (or relatively more absolute, as in the case of the American Revolution) were not the weapons of today, but they were defeated by people with relatively more primitive weapons and far less military force to bring somewhat limited government to many countries.
me: True statements, but deflections. Progress was made in limiting governments with less sophisticated weapons. “Progress” to enact statelessness was not, nor was the US experience a call for statelessness. It was rather a call for representative government, which was achieved. The goal was far less “ambitious” as yours, Langa’s, and Pasoli’s.
Say the crown represented 70% state/30% free. The Revolution was not about 0%/100%, it was more like 50/50. BIIIIIIIG difference. D’ya see?
Similarly, BIIIIIG difference between between one musket and another when we are talking about nukes and ICBMs, which are pulverizing for many square miles. D’ya see the difference?
pf: This included nuclear powers such as the UK and France in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. The Soviet and US militaries were driven back by guerilla forces in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Somalia, despite the nukes and everything else the Soviets and Americans had.
me: Also true. This gets closer to being relevant. Apparently some in the US did want to nuke Vietnam, but cooler heads prevailed. 2 obvious reasons why they didn’t:
1) It wasn’t the US citizenry demanding anarchy at home, it was a semi-colony that wasn’t all that vital to the US state.
2) Doing so risked an escalating worldwide nuclear war, so again Vietnam was not worth blasting the entire globe over.
We have other longstanding concepts such as devolution of power, growth of individual rights, voluntary civic society that overlaps the supposed functions of government, etc. None of it is loopy and all of it can grow over time.
Absolute monarchy is no longer universal. And the USSR had modern weapons, yet somehow dissolved relatively peacefully. The weapons of absolute monarchs (or relatively more absolute, as in the case of the American Revolution) were not the weapons of today, but they were defeated by people with relatively more primitive weapons and far less military force to bring somewhat limited government to many countries. The colonialists and imperialists who occupied the Americas, almost all of Africa and most of Asia have similarly been driven out by guerilla armies and revolutionaries. This included nuclear powers such as the UK and France in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. The Soviet and US militaries were driven back by guerilla forces in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Somalia, despite the nukes and everything else the Soviets and Americans had. So the weapons are not necessarily some trump card like you think they are. The human mind is the ultimate weapon.
PF, as you may recall, I am a theoretical asymptotic anarchist, so I DO favor steps in the direction of statelessness.
There is no irony, in my mind. I draw a distinction between theory and practice. In theory, maybe statelessness could work some day. In practice, it sounds loony tunes.
NAPsolutists seem to think that they can elevate large numbers of people to think WAY outside the box, and I see no evidence of that. Nonarchy Pods is a purely theoretical concept, but I would say it’s not THAT loopy, even for the Normals, given that we already have a longstanding concept of conscientious objector status. Maybe it’d of been a good thing if the Unabomber declared himself a separate nation! 😉
And, actually, even in theory, I think that statelessness IS much, much more difficult now than ending monarchy (which, btw, has still not happened). Why? The weapons, of course. They have them, LOTS of them. Unlike human institutions, which DO evolve, the weapons extant today have nothing to do with prevailing philosophies and everything to do with physics and engineering.
Now, maybe we can re-assess after the Frankel Singularity, but for now, the nukes and their owners seem likely to be with us for the foreseeable future.
It probably seemed impossible at one time to end absolute monarchy (which was universal for many centuries), chattel slavery, terroristic patriarchy, or to dissolve the USSR relatively peacefully. I wouldn’t presume that the regime or any aspect of it is something we’ll have to live with forever or for a long time. And it’s particularly ironic that you turn so short turn pragmatic when that possibility is even mentioned in the same discussion where you bring up things like “nonarchy pods,” your bizarre mental exercise scenarios, etc.
L: What good are slaves, if they’re all dead?
me: Well, in the HIGHLY unlikely event we get to the point where everyone except the “regime” is anarchist worldwide, you are correct, but you would also be applying absolutist, all-or-nothing thinking to the situation, it appears. The regime would likely use demonstrations to re-herd the slaves.
I observe this propensity to think all-or-nothing rather frequently among NAPsolutists. My observation is that the world doesn’t work that way, that it tends to make slight deviations from the mean, edging in one direction or another, almost never in a straight line.
Do you perceive things otherwise?
mp: Sounds like a good reason to quarantine these dangerous sociopaths and their deadly weapons.
rc:: Might be. And you plan to do this how, exactly?
Haven’t you heard RC, according to Passoli, if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, you baffle them with bullshit!
Jill Pyeatt wrote: “I wish people would point out to immigration haters that a mass exodus of immigrants, which seems to be their goal, would profoundly affect retail and services in already economically challenged communities.
Jill, there cannot possibly be “a mass exodus of immigrants”. If they are LEAVING the country they would be considered “emigrants” But you did :”SPELL” it correctly! :>)
RC @ 8:38 – are you referring to RC @ 8:29?
OK. Seems like a highly generalized opinion. How does that help?
You have a virtual pod of your own of concepts you have invented which you seem to think somehow relate to reality.
43. Right, though, Pods ARE far fetched. It’s a game I play to expose the absurdity of nonarchism.
Don’t get me wrong, I would sincerely vote for Nonarchy Pods as a means to satisfy the 10s of thousands of refuseniks who so hate the state and the rule of law that they would be willing to risk all domestic tranquility on an unworkable construct, NAPsolutism.
Doesn’t sound any more farfetched than your pods, and I would say probably less than 45.
45 years. 15,000. Not much of trajectory.
Persuade as many people as possible until we reach a tipping point.
mp: Sounds like a good reason to quarantine these dangerous sociopaths and their deadly weapons.
me: Might be. And you plan to do this how, exactly?
“Have you forgotten that many regimes have ICBMs, extensive air forces and navies, etc., enough to incinerate us all many times over?”
Sounds like a good reason to quarantine these dangerous sociopaths and their deadly weapons. Allowing them amongst the rest of us sounds like a recipe for disaster.
Any reason to believe that “everyone else” wants nihilism?
We’ve been over this before. You’re the only one here who embraces nihilism.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nihilism
Have you forgotten that many regimes have ICBMs, extensive air forces and navies, etc., enough to incinerate us all many times over?
What good are slaves, if they’re all dead?
mp, interesting thought experiment. Have you forgotten that many regimes have ICBMs, extensive air forces and navies, etc., enough to incinerate us all many times over? Sometimes, reality is a very real gating item.
Most people just go along with whatever is happening. Instead of putting the burden of proof on individuals to withdraw from the meddling of the nanny state, make the meddlers justify why anyone needs them. And no one here has suggested nihilism, least of all me.
mp, maybe. At the moment, though, I see no path for that, nor do I see precedent or reason to believe that a stateless civil society would replace it.
Any reason to believe that “everyone else” wants nihilism?
Maybe it wold be better if the regime seceded onto its own property and left everyone else alone.
dt: So, WHY BOTHER??? [establishing Langaland as a Nonarchy Pod]
me: I neglected to address this earlier. Anarchists have a pretty good point from at least Spooner on that they never agreed to the terms of civil society that a State offers. In fact, it’s less of an “offer,” and more of an edict.
And, frankly, this sucks for them. It’s not especially great for anyone, actually, although most accede to the “terms.” Anarchists DON’T. They object, fundamentally so.
So, while they are likely in the thousands or so, I feel it is compassionate to allow the anarchists to individually secede onto their own property, subject to certain conditions. In this way, they have the option to opt out of civil society. Also, the State may choose to fence them onto their property, since the anarchist refuses to obey the rule of law, which I believe they should be as a precautionary measure AND in fairness.
Notably, if they decide that it’s better for them to be part of civil society despite the laws and actions the state takes that they object to, the anarchist would be explicitly consenting to the rules of the “co-op.” IOW, all citizens would consent, not just the vast preponderance of them.
I can assure you all I’m not the war-declaring type!
dt: Remember the LAST time that part of America seceded from the Federal Republic.
me: Yes, I’d say the Confederate Elite Insurrection didn’t work out too well.
Nonarchy Pods would probably need to be added to the Constitution, giving conscientious objectors to the very notion of a State the option to opt out completely onto his or her property. Now, if the would-be Podist was attempting to enslave another human being on his or her Pod, I would encourage that the Amendment and enabling legislation make clear that such enslavement would be an unacceptable quid pro quo.
I’m sure other reasonable restrictions could be placed on the would-be Podist as well. If they engaged in or possessed inherently dangerous materials, for ex., the US could demand entry to the Pod to take possession of said materials. Military weapons, for ex., might be banned in the Pod.
You don’t need to know DT personally to realize this about him. Just seeing a few of his disoriented comments here or anywhere else is more than enough.
Not that this is new or anything, but DT can’t follow anyone else’s train of thought, so trying to follows his is just an exercise in futility.
Mr. Banks, do I know you personally? I DO know that the minute ANY train leaves the station,
you immediately become disoriented!
RC> “There’d be no need to take up arms, but if Langa declared war on the US, s/he would be put down in seconds, would be my guess.
I wasn’t suggesting that “Langa” might declare war on the U.S; I WAS suggesting the the U.S.
would VERY likely invade Langa. Remember the LAST time that part of America seceded from
the Federal Republic.
RC> ” s/he would be put down in seconds, would be my guess.
CORRECT! especially if no one in Langa is willing to defend it.
So, WHY BOTHER???
“I’m not sure I follow.”
Don’t try to follow Dave Terry (or his train of thought). You’ll only get misled.
dt: how does one claim ‘conscientious’ objector status as to defending the U.S. and then take up arms to defend “Langaland” against the U.S.
me: I’m not sure I follow. I see Nonarchy Pods as an accommodation for those citizens who refuse to abide by (conscientiously object to) the rule of law in a particular civil society. There’d be no need to take up arms, but if Langa declared war on the US, s/he would be put down in seconds, would be my guess.
We have various degrees of federalism and local control now. They can be expanded as well. And I’m all for expanding conscientious objection.
Well, if it’s something small like a condo association, it’s easy to get out of it and get your own house that is not part of a condo association. Much harder to do that with nation-states. Also, check-in at the gate in a gated community doesn’t involve cavity searches or other things that go on at international borders. When kids get old enough, if they don’t like the condo rules, they don’t stay in the condo and yet they can still easily see their parents and friends. And the ability to leave easily also makes it easier to leverage changes. That’s why I say that such rules are much more justifiable and acceptable at a very small scale, far less so at a large one.
As far as breaking up nation states, it will most likely be a gradual process of degrees and levels. Increased home rule by cities and counties at the same time as states gain more independence, and so on. Eventually the ties could be dissolved completely. But I still wouldn’t want international-style border controls anywhwere.
So Robert, how does one claim ‘conscientious’ objector status as to defending the U.S. and then take up arms to defend “Langaland” against the U.S.
pf: It’s pretty easy for me to leave a condo building or neighborhood that I find too restrictive, certainly as compared to moving from country to country. So if I don’t like the rules in a larger scale entity it’s a lot harder for me to either change them or remove myself from them.
me: Yes, that’s true. But, as adults, we recognize that NO condo and NO nation are going to match what we believe to be the ideal.
Your micro-nations concept is charming, truly, but it has a science fiction feel to it. They for the most part don’t exist, and at this point, nation-states have built tremendous military and infrastructures that makes it hard for me to imagine them breaking up, short of some cataclysmic event. (Is there a current nationstate that meets your standard of smallness?)
Yes, a few in say VT or TX want to secede as states, but even those are WAY to big by your standards. It’s such a fringy idea, advocating it seems counter-productive.
OTOH, we do have conscientious objector status now. I could imagine it being expanded over time, so that Langa’s grandchildren might be able to finally establish Langaland.
L, there was no provision for Koresh to secede as a conscientious objector. There should be.
PF, no, you may be thinking of Luxembourg. Lichtenstein is more Swiss than Switzerland.
This sorry situation inspired me to advocate Nonarchy Pods, where you can establish a stateless Langaland on 10 acres somewhere east of Demopolis, AL, next door to Frankelvania. Y’all might even trade and such, maybe tell tales of first millenial Iceland ’round the campfire.
I kind of doubt that the Feds would be willing to go along with your idea. Just ask David Koresh.
It’s an important one. It’s pretty easy for me to leave a condo building or neighborhood that I find too restrictive, certainly as compared to moving from country to country. So if I don’t like the rules in a larger scale entity it’s a lot harder for me to either change them or remove myself from them.
Well, at least if you do leave, you can go to South Korea, which has the same language and culture. But it’s still far too large scale to compare to something like a condo association.
My point was, that you are more likely to be stuck with regulations that you have little or no say in, and have to take much more extreme measures to remove yourself from, at the nation-size level than the condo level.
Why is it any less creepy at a larger scale?
Yes, but I don’t want them to have border enforcement at any size or level.
Does it? I thought it was part of the European Union. If so, you wouldn’t be stopped at the border unless they have an airport that you are flying in to.
And for you, Langa, government IS just like the Mafia. Since self-identified anarchists are rather rare, it appears most don’t see it the way you do.
This sorry situation inspired me to advocate Nonarchy Pods, where you can establish a stateless Langaland on 10 acres somewhere east of Demopolis, AL, next door to Frankelvania. Y’all might even trade and such, maybe tell tales of first millenial Iceland ’round the campfire. 😉
Government is kinda like a condo association, setting the groundrules for appropriate behavior on the grounds.
I’d say it’s much more like your local Mafia, offering to provide you with “protection”, regardless of whether you want it or not, and threatening to break your legs if you don’t accept their offer.
Most don’t explicitly consent to government’s domestic tranquility keeping role, but do tacitly consent.
Only in the same way that business owners who agree to pay for the Mafia’s “protection” are giving their “tacit consent” to the Mafia’s extortion racket.
pf: People can leave a smaller scale operation much more easily, for example just move down the street.
me: The ability to leave is just one consideration, and a rather extreme one. Regardless, is NKorea easier to leave than the USSR was?
pf: It’s a lot harder to get anything like a consensus from a larger, more spread out population of people who may have little in common, and aggregate decision making with more far removed representatives and more layers of bureaucracy introduces additional problems that don’t exist with small communities or condo associations.
me: Gaining consensus may be good, and may be bad. Aggregate decision making is likely more a function of organizational structure. Some of the best pro-liberty decisions in the US are made by the Supremes, for ex.
pf: Should we then make gated communities mandatory?
me: No.
pf: Mandatory border checkpoints at *all* neigborhood entrances (and all building lobbies in big cities with high rise buildings). Think of all the jobs for security/border guards that this would create!
me: Seems a bit creepy when you put it that way! Then again, isn’t it YOU who wants tiny nations going to no nations? Apparently, Liechtenstein requires a check in…
It’s both. People can leave a smaller scale operation much more easily, for example just move down the street. Leaving thousands of miles away to a place with a different language and culture, having to get new jobs, and having to go a long way to even see friends and family from back home makes it a much bigger deal. It’s a lot harder to get anything like a consensus from a larger, more spread out population of people who may have little in common, and aggregate decision making with more far removed representatives and more layers of bureaucracy introduces additional problems that don’t exist with small communities or condo associations.
Which is why I say that less and less workable or justifiable as you scale up.
Let’s assume that it’s lower in the gated community.
Should we then make gated communities mandatory?
After all it’s for our children’s safety.
Mandatory border checkpoints at *all* neigborhood entrances (and all building lobbies in big cities with high rise buildings). Think of all the jobs for security/border guards that this would create!
pf, I generally also think the issue is more scope than scale. I’m not convinced that a territorially large condo is so much the challenge as what is done within the territory. Totalitarianism can happen at either size, although it seems to collapse more quickly in a large nation (USSR) vs a small nation (NK).
I’m OK with that. Get the ball rolling in the correct direction and see how far it goes. Or “let freedom grow” – although too many people assume that just means pot, I think it’s actually a great larger concept.
pf, might be. Hence, my lessarchism, to test the bounds of how few rules are needed to maintain a semblance of domestic tranquility.
Again, “condo rules” becomes less and less workable or justifiable as you scale up. But I’m OK with archy pods.
JZ, glad we agree. I too find immigration far too restrictive as a general proposition.
PF, yes, it might just be theater. Laws are often theater, signalling what is appropriate and inappropriate in a given civil society. And I surely agree that probably most of the US “condo board’s” laws are pretty friggin’ ridiculous, actually. Some of them seem reasonably serviceable to me, until after the Frankel Singularity, when they too will no longer be necessary.
The condo board and residents are not always as wise as you are. I think that, like in the condo, where would-be criminals can get on the grounds by bypassing security, the fact that there IS security serves as a signalling deterrent, I suspect.
It’d be interesting to see if the crime rates in gated communities are higher or lower than, say, an inner city street with complete access.
I think allowing “condo rules” becomes less and less workable or justifiable as you scale up. But I’m OK with archy pods.
Government efforts to exclude the contagious and criminal are at best useless security theater, and I have yet to hear why they are any less reasonable at state, county, city etc lines than at international ones. Government efforts to control the numbers of people immigrating for normal reasons (better jobs, escaping persecution) are actually counterproductive to keeping out the contagious and criminal, as they get lost like needles in a haystack.
I still don’t see any parallel between a condo complex & a country’s government. Condos are a free market enterprise, there is a supply of living space and a demand of the people, with the money to afford the cost of living, for shelter. A government is (supposed to be) a construct of the people designed to protect the lives & liberties of its inhabitants from threats to such. It is not a construct of market forces, it is in theory a creation by & of the people operating with the consent of the governed. I do not see mere immigration as a threat, I see it as a benefit. If you want to make the case that those with highly contagious & fatal diseases, known criminals, and people with known ties to terrorist groups & organizations should be kept out, I will cede that point, but the current mess is unacceptable.
more…
btw, some people are born into condos as well. Liberate the infants being held hostage in condos, coast to coast! 😉
JZ, I see your point. The merry-go-round has been turning for millenia.
It’s a bummer, but it’s reality. At this stage, were there a plausible alternative, I’d love to hear it.
That’s why I advocate Nonarchy Pods, for conscientious objectors.
Robert, one chooses whether or not to own & live in a condominium. One does not choose his or her country of birth. Your analogy literally makes no sense.
pf: Then you would still have the practical problem.
me: Recall the fallacy of the excluded middle, and such. No one that I know of would expect government to be 100% capable of excluding the contagious and the criminal. Prudent screens for such visitors seems like a reasonable thing to me, and at the last condo board meeting, we had near-unanimity! 😉
This argument that MA and JZ make doesn’t work. If the condo is 4 buildings, the condo rules say there’s no problem for condo-owners to pass freely among the 4 buildings.
Guests to any of the 4 buildings do need to check in, though.
The states are not the condo association. The feds are. The states are sub-committees.
L: The alternative viewpoint rests on the absurd and dangerous notion that the government is the true and rightful owner of every square inch of the territory that it claims jurisdiction over.
me: Well, I can understand what you are saying, as a former NAPsolutist. However, I think there’s another way to look at it. Government is kinda like a condo association, setting the groundrules for appropriate behavior on the grounds.
The big difference is that all condo owners explicitly consent to the condo rules, even if they don’t like some of them. Most don’t explicitly consent to government’s domestic tranquility keeping role, but do tacitly consent.
Respectful of those who explicitly do NOT consent to government’s peacekeeping function, I advocate Nonarchy Pods. You, Langa, should be able to secede onto your property, IMO.
States have borders, different laws & governments exist within the different states, and people may cross freely.
Countries have borders, different laws & governments exist within the different countries, and travel & immigration is restricted.
This makes no sense.
Robert asked:
>Are you saying that you believe there’s an absolute right to immigrate? Would this include those with communicable diseases and violent convicted felons?
Yep, even the ones who come from California.
I am heavily biased, but I like the debate in this show on the immigration issue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0h6A6JVTzA
How’s the economy in Postville these days now that we kicked all those people back to Equador?
Correct, and if we do accept the absurd notion that government is the rightul owner or part-owner of everything within the borders it claims, it then follows logically that it has all the customary rights associated with ownership, including telling anyone to leave at any time, charging “rent” (taxes), regulating behavior and speech, establishing a dress code, and so on.
Then you would still have the practical problem. Due to incubation period of contagious diseases, you would have to hold up not just every immigrant but also every ship, plane, car, truck and boat, every tourist or person visiting on business, and every good entering the country by land, sea or air from any direction at the point of entry for weeks to thoroughly check for infectious diseases. The cost of doing so would be unrealistic, and trade and business would suffer to the point of collapsing the whole economy. What’s more, both people and goods manage to get into the country on a daily basis without government permission – perhaps thousands of people, and thousands of tons of contraband of all sorts, every day, sneaking across thousands of miles of border, coastline, and many busy airports. Certainly violent felons and desperate people with contagious diseases would be among the first to risk an umpermitted crossing, and with so many people sneaking across regime lines in the sand just to do regular thing like get jobs and get their kids out of war zones, it becomes a lot easier for the really dangerous folks to get lost in that crowd.
Are you saying that you believe there’s an absolute right to immigrate? Would this include those with communicable diseases and violent convicted felons?
I don’t know why you seem surprised. As an anarchist, I consider borders to be little more than meaningless lines on a map. Of course, when it comes to private property, the owners always have the right to exclude whomever they choose.
The alternative viewpoint rests on the absurd and dangerous notion that the government is the true and rightful owner of every square inch of the territory that it claims jurisdiction over.
L: trying to provide some sort of “libertarian” justification for restricting immigration.
me: Talk more about this. Are you saying that you believe there’s an absolute right to immigrate? Would this include those with communicable diseases and violent convicted felons?
I’m sure you know AFP is far from libertarian, despite the name…
Yes, I’ve often suggested they change their name to the Caucasian Racial Advancement Party (CRAP).
It’s certainly true that a disturbing number of libertarians oppose immigration freedom, but while there aren’t as many, there are some who support trade protectionism as well.
I should have said “almost all” of them. I was actually referring to certain right-leaning libertarians (even some “anarchists”) who are quite well-versed in economics, and would (rightly) scoff at the idea of any sort of protective tariffs, etc., but insist on trying to provide some sort of “libertarian” justification for restricting immigration. For example, I find it quite amusing to see someone like Hoppe engaging in all sorts of mental gymnastics, in a vain attempt to concoct “libertarian” arguments against immigration — and in his case, it’s all the more ironic, given that he himself came to this country as an immigrant!
No human being is illegal, and undocumented workers pay lots of taxes – many have FICA taxes taken out of their pay under fake SSNs, but since the SSNs are fake can’t collect “benefits” down the road. They also pay sales, exise and other such taxes, etc. And you are correct, many more than already do would pay income taxes if not for fear created by the immigration edicts.
It is interesting to me that people wish to keep immigrants out of because of some non-0 non-100 % probability that they will take welfare, but no one suggests deporting welfare recipients, who, after all, have a 100% chance of taking welfare. In other words, just what is the connection supposed to be? Non-immigrant welfare recipients have paid taxes? In many cases, that isn’t true, and it certainly isn’t a requirement. Plus, as much as I hate to point it out, the reason illegal immigrants do not pay taxes is that they’re illegal immigrants. If you legalize them, they’d probably end up paying taxes – at least until we get rid of taxation. In other words, all the supposed problems tend to be results of the laws in the first place.
Take cheap labor, for instance. Why would an illegal work cheaper than a citizen? Well, they work under threat of being reported and deported, they can’t claim protection of minimum wage laws and work in unionized shops – now, I’m against minimum wage, but that doesn’t change the economic fact that it’s the minimum wage making certain citizens less employable then illegals.
That argument fails. You could likewise say for example that we can’t make drugs legal while we have government welfare, because addicts will just make the public pay for their inability to carry out regular job tasks, show up on time and make themselves presentable (true of some addicts, not of others). Oh, and while drugs are illegal, we have to have gun “control,” or there will be too much “gun violence” to control the contraband market. There’s literally an endless number of ways in which you can make support for one liberty policy contingent on another happening first which creates closed loops and makes any actual progress towards liberty logically impossible unless it is all in one fell swoop on every issue at once, and that never actually happens.
On the practical side the welfare argument also fails since fewer immigrants actually get on welfare than native born citizens.
Anti-open immigration “libertarians” love to cite Milton Friedman, who famously said that open immigration is not feasible (don’t know his exact word) in a welfare state.
Friedman apparently believed that while open immigration benefits everyone in a free market, a welfare state attracts welfare recipients who will then drain the economy.
I’m sure you know AFP is far from libertarian, despite the name, since you are here often, but for the benefit of anyone who is only here rarely – they are a lot more fascist than libertarian. It’s certainly true that a disturbing number of libertarians oppose immigration freedom, but while there aren’t as many, there are some who support trade protectionism as well. I had this argument with a long time MA Libertarian activist on my FB, for instance.
It always strikes me as odd that there are some self-described libertarians who are against open borders. All libertarians claim to be against protectionism, and restrictions on immigration are obviously just protectionism of the labor market.
http://openborders.info has more than enough information to make a decisive case, for anyone who is willing to read it.
DT: By seeing towards what ends they apply their ignorance (or lies.)
I wish people would point out to immigration haters that a mass exodus of immigrants, which seems to be their goal, would profoundly affect retail and services in already economically challenged communities. It seems like many of the remaining small businesses are run by and cater to immigrants.
>”Immigration is at an all time high, lowering the number of jobs available in the labor market.”
>” This entry was posted in Right-wing minor parties”
How is one supposed to differentiate between “Right-wing parties” and “Left-wing parties”, when they exhibit the identical ignorance of basic economic principles.
Economics is NOT a ‘zero-sum game’. Private sector jobs create NEW jobs.