James Leroy Wilson's blog

Friday, March 31, 2006

Who Is This Guy and What Country Is He From?

This is William Norman Grigg, editor of the John Birch Society's magazine The New American.

On his great Birch Blog, Grigg writes:
As a large brown male of Mexican ancestry, I have passed as an Egyptian, Iranian, and Saudi. This process can certainly work in reverse. The illegal immigrant stream from Mexico has almost certainly been seeded with radical Islamists who would have no difficulty blending in among the radical Chicanos until they're called into action. If their supervisors are smart – and nobody has ever accused them of stupidity – the next terrorist strike may well be designed to capitalize on the growing ethnic tension between Mexicans and Aglo-Americans, which would leverage the incident's impact dramatically.

There is no quick and tidy fix to our immigration imbroglio, but the “Well, duh” element of the solution involves a serious effort to reclaim control over our borders. Yet the same jut-jawed Dear Leader who never ignores an opportunity to pose as our heroic Protector is perversely determined to tear the screen door off its hinges and usher in as many desperate people as Vicente Fox sees fit to send through our back door.

This “Mi casa es su casa” approach to border enforcement would be disastrous even in normal times. These aren't normal times, of course. Washington has been whacking at every middle eastern hornet's nest it can find, and now it's making sure that the hornets have unimpeded access to their potential victims in this country.

It's been said many times that the State is an artificial construction and that the borders are essentially imaginary. Maybe so, but then so are the property boundaries created by the State's zoning laws. It doesn't make a trespasser any less of a trespasser.

It is against both Politically Correct dogma and Libertarianism to authorize the State to control its own borders. But ultimately, the problem is not in the coercion of keeping people out, because individuals are free (or at least should be free) to do that on their own property. The real libertarian complaint against immigration enforcement is really a complaint against the State itself. The final answer to everything is to abolish the State.

But if that is the case, then the State is out of line even when it prosecutes a murderer. It would violate principle to suggest the State should protect us at all, from anyone or anything, even in the absence of alternative forms of security. Because the State is so evil, it shouldn't even repel invasions.

In contrast, I am inclined to support the State's efforts to protect the territorial status quo - if indeed the State makes the effort. Mass migration to an already-populated area depresses wages and drives up rents. The border is meant to stop this from happening. And the border is also intended to keep undesirables - such as terrorists - out. The State's refusing to guard its borders is akin to the State refusing to investigate a murder. It is the abandonment of a responsibility the State claims for itself, one that it denies individuals from taking on themselves. It leaves the people without any protection at all.

1 comment:

  1. Jim - follow the money. In whose interest is it to keep up the supply of cheap, non-organized, expendable labor? Who does not mind seeing wages depressed and rents driven up? My guess is, all the President's friends in the Texas elite.

    If a few terrorists get through the border, that will only 'justify' further our never ending state of war and loss of rights, and no one in charge will be held responsible anyway (GWB does not believe in personal responsibility for neo-cons).