tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204289.post113781670835201245..comments2024-03-28T12:12:45.202-05:00Comments on Independent Country: Fascism, Islam, and ImmigrationAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11620822221586726516noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204289.post-1138040033960609392006-01-23T12:13:00.000-06:002006-01-23T12:13:00.000-06:00What would happen if 500 million Martians wiith IQ...What would happen if 500 million Martians wiith IQs of 150+ moved to earth? The average IQ of both planets would go up.Vache Follehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14942494955243643381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204289.post-1137988924649159612006-01-22T22:02:00.000-06:002006-01-22T22:02:00.000-06:00The State can violate our rights when investigatin...The State can violate our rights when investigating a murder, too. And The State can violate our rights when it tries to clear an area form an environmental disaster.<BR/><BR/>While we'd be better off without the State, there are also things that are necessary for our protection, and The State prevents other agencies besides The State from doing them. So, I suggest that the State should do them.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11620822221586726516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204289.post-1137985272894239862006-01-22T21:01:00.000-06:002006-01-22T21:01:00.000-06:00Well, federal judges should put a stop to these ha...<I>Well, federal judges should put a stop to these harrassments taking place. </I><BR/><BR/>They should, but they don't. Why not?<BR/><BR/><I>Congress should provide actual oversight and prevent money from being spent on border patrols so far away from the border.</I><BR/><BR/>It should, but it doesn't. Why not?<BR/><BR/>And what parts of the answers to those Why nots? are not inherent flaws of those institutions?<BR/><BR/>I wish a steady diet of chocolate ice cream and rootbeer wasn't bad for me, but it is. And just saying that icecream and rootbeer should reform themselves and become nutritious hasn't really gotten me anywhere so far.Kirstenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03208426146271950172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204289.post-1137899364681637662006-01-21T21:09:00.000-06:002006-01-21T21:09:00.000-06:00Well, federal judges should put a stop to these ha...Well, federal judges should put a stop to these harrassments taking place. Congress should provide actual oversight and prevent money from being spent on border patrols so far away from the border. Admittedly imperfect measures, but as I said in my reply to August, these are problems with The State. Even so, if we stuck with The State, I'd rather it focus on things its actually supposed to do, like protect the country. If that happened, on balance rights violations will decline.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11620822221586726516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204289.post-1137893530060858102006-01-21T19:32:00.000-06:002006-01-21T19:32:00.000-06:00No, James, that does not answer my question. That...No, James, that does not answer my question. That IS my question. Given that this is how government operates- that by its very nature it expands beyond what it was meant to do without regard for people's rights- how can government be used to secure the border without curtailing the liberties of Americans? What sort of program could government conduct that was inherently self-limiting to avoid the very sorts of expansions that Terry has documented and that I experience everyday when I drive to and from town?Kirstenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03208426146271950172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204289.post-1137879271977039142006-01-21T15:34:00.000-06:002006-01-21T15:34:00.000-06:00The link Kirsten gave itself points to some answer...The link Kirsten gave itself points to some answers:<BR/><BR/><I>Given that SR86 is well over 40 miles North of the border, you may ask yourself why so many Border Patrol resources are directed against the traveling public miles away from the nearest border absent individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. Why aren't these resources being used on the border instead where there's little question as to who is entering the country unlawfully? Given that the Border Patrol spends so little time actually patrolling the Border and so much time promoting unlawful searches and seizures along public highways - the name 'Border Patrol' no longer appears representative of the agencies mission.</I>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11620822221586726516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204289.post-1137878055523805782006-01-21T15:14:00.000-06:002006-01-21T15:14:00.000-06:00Terry Bressi did an excellent job of documenting t...Terry Bressi did an excellent job of documenting the side effects of beefing up border security here:<BR/><BR/>http://www.terrybressi.org<BR/><BR/>Specifically see the sections entitled "Homeland Security?" and "TOPD Roadblock".<BR/><BR/>I'd be interested in hearing how government could be used to beef up border security without curtailing the liberties of Americans.Kirstenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03208426146271950172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204289.post-1137877585700531442006-01-21T15:06:00.000-06:002006-01-21T15:06:00.000-06:00Any means of protection, and any "public good," ca...Any means of protection, and any "public good," can potentially be used against the very people they were initially designed to serve. Armies can kill their own people. Police can block the public roads. And, I admit controlling the borders can also potentially serve to keep Americans in, not just foreigners out. These are all problems with <I>The State</I>, and I appreciate this concern being raised. In fact, I don't really have an answer for it, other than that The State is the means we have at our disposal. If you ask me if we'd be better off with private fire departments, I'd say yes. But I'd also say that in our day and age the State should put out fires because it says it will, and it better do a good job of it too. What I'm suggesting would actually reduce the role of the State in our lives, rather than increase it. It would shift away from the military offensive and regulation of American lives, to one of actual defense.<BR/><BR/>The point Fleming was driving at was, "what do you mean by country?" Is there more to it than economics? Does shared history, geography, and culture count for anything? What if these Martians wanted to impose Sharia law? Does that still not matter?<BR/><BR/>The backdrop to the Moslem question isn't just one of terror, but of demographics. It is very plausible that by the end of the century Europe will be majority Muslim. Muslims make up under 1% of the American population and most of that is from recent immigration; in much of Europe the figure is well over 10%. Europe's gamble is that before they become politically dominant, their faith will dilute, they will culturally assimilate, and they will become good liberal democrats. The problem, it seems to me, is that the contradiction between Islam and Western liberalism is glaring, whereas most devout Christians do not see the contradiction between Western civil law and their faith. Trifkovic's argument is that pious Moslems can not embrace both.<BR/><BR/>I only advocate a pragmatic immigration policy that takes into account a)the Islamic terror threat and long-term cultural threat, and b) mass migration of economic refugees from south of the border, who drive up rents and depress wages for the native population. I don't have a problem with open migration for non-Moslems from economically free countries. That's the frustration. Your case, and I know several others like it, should have been very easy to process. But I don't see a problem with using immigration law to protect America and Americans.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11620822221586726516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204289.post-1137866327012368182006-01-21T11:58:00.000-06:002006-01-21T11:58:00.000-06:00While I agree with your distinction between fascis...While I agree with your distinction between fascism and intolerance, I have a few counterpoints to your argument.<BR/><BR/>It occurs to me that beefing up coastal and boarder security could keep us in the country as well as keep others out. Consider if the scenario you described above occurs, in which the President declares marshal law, suspends habeas corpus and ignores the Posse Comitatus Act. Many Americans would just go about their business as if nothing happened; some would fight the regime, while others refusing to live under such conditions would try to leave. However, upon arriving at the border, those who chose to flee would find an electric fence and other beefed up security measures preventing them from leaving. The State already has control of most of the guns; do we want to give it more control over the exits?<BR/><BR/>Without freedom of movement, government gains more leverage. Tyrannical governments understand this better than anyone does. For example, the USSR severely restricted immigration, because the Soviet elites knew that if their productive citizens left the country, the system would fall apart. Government elites need productive citizens to subsidize their power, without subjects the State is nothing.<BR/><BR/>Regarding Thomas Fleming’s question, whether it would be good for the country to import 500 million Martians with IQ of 150 and terrific work habits, the answer is it does not matter. If these Martians exist and Americans are incapable of matching them, the Martians will supplant American industry and workers regardless of where they live. Americans earn higher wages only by providing more value. If they cannot provide more value, companies will find less expensive labor either in the US or in other countries. Attempts to slow this process lead directly to subsidies, high tariffs and other protective policies (closed borders qualify as a protective policy). <BR/><BR/>Why are naturalized devote Muslims such a threat, but American born devote Muslims are not? Why do American-born Muslims not face the same issue? Can a truly devout Christian accept “the Constitution of the United States as the source of his highest loyalty?” <BR/><BR/>I agree that the US is not responsible for people in other countries and that the US should not try to save the world. However, borders are merely artificial boundaries of civic jurisdiction. People on the other side of the border are no more or less trustworthy than people on this side. Closing or regulating our borders inevitably infringes on the liberties of Americans by curtailing our freedom of movement and association. In my case, when I wanted to marry a woman from another country, I had to ask permission from the US government. Mine is only a small (albeit demeaning) example of the restrictions to liberty brought on by regulating borders.August Ecklundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11277795402549261163noreply@blogger.com