Anyhow, what a lot of people interpret from your rants is Scots Irish are good, Hispanics are bad.

Please read up on geoism/ Georgism if you haven’t. Thanks

The problem we have created now is that we have injected a welfare state into the system. Furthermore, it has been deemed that immigrants have the “right” to access benefits of the welfare state when they come here. I do not consider this fair to the taxpayers (of course I do not consider the welfare state itself constitutional but that is a topic for a future discussion).

The other thing this situation does is skew the market for labor. By allowing immigrants to access benefits it allows them to underbid the going prices for labor thus putting tax paying citzens (going for the same job) at a competitve disadvantage.

So given this set of circumstances, I do not see any other choice but to limit the influx of immigrants until we square the welfare angle.

Please re-examine what has been written and note comments like “Mr. Boudreaux, Ms. Akers, and similar authors.” So the comments are not aimed specifically at Mr. Boudreaux but at the tactics used by his side of the debate. You are also assuming this is the only article Mr. Boudreaux has written on “anti-immigrant” opinions. He has done this repeatedly even though he has been redirected as to the stance of his opposition many, many times. He knows what he’s doing but he still does it.

Mr. Boudreux is using a common tactic by intentionally misrepresenting the opposition as being “anti-immigrant” not “anti-illegal-alien.” He knows this is a misrepresentation but he does it anyway and so do many authors with opinions similar to his such as Ms. Aker. My point about “educating” him is facetious because I know he is being disingenuous.

It is one thing to have a different opinion and debate it ethically. It is something else entirely to intentionally set up an prima facie straw man. That’s the definition of sophism.

If the opposition is truly wrong then there is no reason to misrepresent them. Fact speaks for itself. If you need to adjust fact to defend your stance then you’re probably wrong.

JBWrote: *Now those of you who think that property rights give you the right to say it is the same thing as owning the nation, I ask, can someone who owns property in this nation invite someone to come here and be with them if the visitor is in your terms “illegal”?*

Of course you can ask someone to come to the US to visit. You can come here as a tourist, you can get a work visa, a student visa, and many other kinds of visa to enter the US legally. You can even buy and own property without being a US citizen. You can also immigrate here.

Where your analogy fails is illegal-aliens are not invited. Crossing the border and getting an invitation after the fact is like someone breaking into your home, raiding your fridge, using your shower, napping on the sofa, then asking of it’s okay when you come home and find him reading the comics on the toilet in your bathroom. That’s not visiting. That’s breaking and entering. If you could provide some insight why the pro-alien side of the debate seems unable to recognize the difference I’d appreciate it.

On a broader scale, if you and I are owners in a condo complex we can invite guests onto the property but that doesn’t mean you get to turn your unit into a homeless shelter, use the community pool to bathe every vagrant that walks by, and let them sleep in the laundry room or club house. You have to follow the community rules so even when someone is invited onto the shared property by the owner you and your guests need to follow the rules.

However even this is flawed because illegal aliens are not invited. Illegal aliens cross the border illegally so they are not guests, they are trespassers. If someone climbs the fence of our gated community he is trespassing. The fact that you like trespassers because you can pay them less to clean your home than Association approved vendors doesn’t make them defacto “guests.” I have to follow the rules and so do you. Locke wrote “Life, Liberty, and Property” not “Life, Lawlessness, and Property.” Reading this magazine it seems many authors don’t see the difference between Libertarianism and Anarchism.

The difference between a guest and a trespasser is the first follows the rules for entry and the second doesn’t. The difference between an immigrant and an illegal-alien is one follows the rules for entry and the other doesn’t. Why is that so difficult for Mr. Boudreux’s side of the issue to grasp? He wouldn’t want to come home to an uninvited guest in his living room on principle alone so why does it become less clear when applied on a national level?

I searched his article and he never used the word “racist” and only used the word “illegal” two times. Both times referred to the number of alleged “illegal” immigrants. I think it is plain that he knows the difference and he argues lets make the illegal legal again. You don’t have to like it, but you who attack seem to be setting up the straw man.

Now those of you who think that property rights give you the right to say it is the same thing as owning the nation, I ask, can someone who owns property in this nation invite someone to come here and be with them if the visitor is in your terms “illegal”? If not you are taking away that owner’s property rights. Actually, I would say that your nationalism is tribalism and is in fact statist. You are the ones who want to take away the rights of those who have a different opinion, it seems. You wish to use the force of the State to prevent they who come here seeking to breath free but don’t have the political pull to gain that “legal” entry, and to oppress those who seek to shelter them. Hmm, seems like something from the past.

In any event, Mr. Boudreaux does not call anyone a racist nor does he indicate that he doesn’t know the difference between legal and illegal.

It wouldn’t be so bad but instead of addressing the issues presented by their opposition they intentionally misrepresent these issues as well as any other inconvenient truth.

Mr. Boudreaux, Ms. Akers, and similar authors know most of their opposition is not anti-immigrant. They are well aware some of the staunchest supporters of enforcing immigration law are legal immigrants. But Mr. Boudreaux doesn’t let this prevent him from painting everyone that supports immigration law with the “anti-immigrant” and “racist” paint brushes.

In the world of Mr. Boudreaux and Ms. Akers, people like me are “intolerant.” We are “anti-immigrant” or “racists.” We are “Statists” that want to prevent “free migration” from nation to nation. Of course the fact that every nation on the planet does the same thing doesn’t matter and will not be addressed. The fact I can’t cross the border into Mexico without facing an eight year prison sentence is irrelevant. So is the fact I can’t own property within 20 miles of any beach in Mexico without it being seized by the Mexican government. The effect of an excessive number of poor and uneducated on a nation is also ignored in their manifestos. Only purist Libertarian doctrine will be tolerated. Hybrid ideals are an abomination. .

This reminds me of debates with Young Earth Creationists. You point out dinosaurs and they tell you Diplodocus, Stegosaurus, and T-Rex were all on Noah’s Ark. You point out strata and the Law of Superposition and they tell you it is caused by hydrostatic sorting. Any fact that conflicts with doctrine is instantly replaced with a ready made fallacy that preserves ecclesiastical cannon.

The problem with being a purist is you become a victim of your own beliefs. You can have Socialist leanings without being a Socialist. I think certain things like roads are better controlled by a (limited) government due to economy of scale as well as the “tragedy of the commons” but this does not mean I think we should use Europe or China as a model or that Communism is practical. I support Capitalism and agree with much of what Smith wrote in “Wealth of Nations” but I also see the dangers in purist Laissez Faire Capitalism displayed in the greed of the Robber Barons of the late 1800’s. I see the wisdom of Locke in phrases like “Life, Liberty, and Property” but agree with Jefferson about the necessity of public education in a Republic.

The only litmus test I have in regard to any proposed economic or political idea is; “Is it practical?” If the doctrine is not practical then it doesn’t matter if the alternatives conflicts with purist doctrine or not. The US and Europe – can’t – carry around 5 billion people (and growing) on our back. Once you come to that conclusion the philosophical debate surrounding “free migration” is moot.

We all know it is simply the “Ruling Class” trying to broaden it’s power base by adding voters. The purpose is to increase the number of people dependent on the welfare state resulting in continued control of the individual. When will we learn the lessons of Europe.

I’m all for making the legal immigration process simpler. If we were operating truly under the Constitution each state could handle this illegal immigration challenge properly and the boarders would remain secure and we could welcome good people legally.