Skip to content

Category: Immigration

Democrat Warmongers, Socialism, and the Need for an American Brexit

Glenn Greenwald features polling data that suggest Democrats now are the new warmongers, while Republicans tend to agree with Donald Trump in Trump’s getting the military to begin withdrawal from Syria (and, let’s hope, Iraq, Afghanistan, and all those other territories that are not U.S. territories where U.S. government military do not belong!). Greenwald notes how the change in party-warmonger association occurred after the 2016 election. Like, “we hate Donald Trump, so if he wants to get troops out of foreign war zones, then we want them in there,” is what today’s Democrat voters seem to be saying.

Meanwhile, across the pond the besieged and embattled-axe Theresa May is doomed as Prime Minister of the U.K. because her clinging Brexit plan is going down to defeat in Parliament. She may very well be replaced by the far-leftist Jeremy Corbin. Why is it that there can only be the choice of left-wing statists or “rightists” conservative nationalists? Libertarians no longer exist, either in U.K. or in the U.S., it seems.

If it is a war between private property advocates and collectivists, socialists and nationalists, the private property advocates are in a teeny-tiny minority.

And here in the U.S. we have the young people attracted to socialism, even though they have no idea what it really is. It sounds nice. And no, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Sweden and the Nordic countries are not “socialist” countries, because they are generally “free-market” economies with privately-owned industry and means of production but with a welfare state, just like in the U.S. and the U.K.

Socialism is not Sweden, Norway, Denmark, et al. No, socialism is Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela.

But because those who advocate for socialism are ignorant of what it is and of the history of its murderous, destructive effects throughout history, they advocate for it, because “socialism” sounds nice.

The advocates for continued government central planning in immigration in Amerika, so-called nationalists like Donald Trump, want a Government Wall on the border. They are unified in that. So, not much difference between those guys and the people on the left who want government central planning in other areas. And yes, the controls that the U.S. government has over immigration are examples of socialist, government central planning. As I wrote before, The Donald is himself a diehard socialist. And so are his ignorant followers, apparently. Socialism is all about a criminal police state over the people, in immigration, and all other areas.

Besides the hysterical cheerers-on for immigration socialism central planning police state Government Wall, the other more overt socialists want the government to run just about everything else. What they, too, want is a police state. What do they do if people don’t want to submit to the socialists’ plan for funding and participating in a government-run health care scheme? The socialists send the armed police after the people. What do the socialists do if people don’t obey their government edicts and diktats on firearms ownership, or financial regulations or continuing to use cash, gold or bartering against the rules? The socialists send the armed police after the people. That’s their police state.

But contrary to today’s proud self-proclaimed socialists who want to control every aspect of the lives of the people, and throw the serfs in jail if they don’t comply, or today’s not-so-self-proclaimed socialists in immigration who want to arrest and jail “illegal” immigrants who neglected to get a bureaucrat’s permission to travel or move to a better area, the true purpose of America was supposed to be FREEDOM!

And centralization such as in Soviet Union, European and United States always goes against freedom. Decentralization promotes freedom.

For example, in a free society people are free to come and go as they please, without anyone’s authorization. As long as they are peaceful. If you don’t suspect some individual of violating the person or property of others, then you leave him alone. Don’t punish peaceful, innocent people for the actions of others. The American Revolutionaries, so-called Founding Fathers, would never have wanted a Government Wall on the border of their new “America.”

Besides the freedom to come and go as one pleases, a free society also means the freedom to own and possess whatever material property one wants, as long as one is peaceful and acquires the property honestly, including any kind of weapons or means of defense one wants. No permission from bureaucrats, no registration, no license.

I could go on and on, but the free society that was envisioned by the American Revolutionaries was with respect to self-ownership and the non-aggression principle, private property rights, freedom of contract, freedom of association and freedom of non-association, freedom of movement, and so on.

But those guys didn’t realize what a mistake they made by empowering a centralized government in Washington over the people of the states. The Anti-Federalists were right to be skeptical. If today’s Trump-worshiping nationalists were around at the time of the Revolution, they would never have even considered the Anti-Federalists’ skepticism and their views against centralization of power.

And now, America is too big to be one single country with one single culture, from coast to coast and border to border. It’s just too big. So, we need our own Brexit, too. We need to decentralize, just as the European Union needs to do, just as Soviet Union did.

But I don’t have that much hope for that, for any return to freedom because too many people among the population reject that freedom, on the left and the right, and all points between. Just look how juvenile the Democrat voters are, drooling with hatred of Donald Trump, as well as the nationalist Trump followers, drooling with hatred of foreigners. They are all in agreement that government central planning should continue, and they oppose private property and free markets.

Nationalists Love America So Much, They Want to Turn It into a Soviet Police State

So, Donald Trump is insisting on fulfilling his big campaign promise of putting up a government wall on the southern border. He wants to keep the government shut down or else.

Well, such a socialist government obstruction and police state on the border is a very short-sighted solution and, quite frankly, un-American.

Police state and government walls are not what America is all about. No, America is about freedom. It is also about private property and private property rights. Is is also supposed to be about free markets and voluntary exchange. Not so, say the nationalists, the national socialists Trump and his followers.

The nationalists and conservatives’ hysteria is telling, in which I am hearing on talk radio, “How many more Kate Steinles do there have to be?” Oh, how many more?! They are like the hysterical anti-gun activists, with “How many more kids have to die, how many more school shootings do there have to be…(until we finally disarm peaceful, law-abiding citizens)?” and so on.

And we can know that these hysterical nationalists are really just anti-foreigner and anti-immigration (and not just anti-“illegal” immigration), because every day it’s the same thing with the Limbaughs and the Hannitys and their caller ditto-heads, they are obsessed with “illegal” immigrants killing or assaulting Americans, even though many more Americans are getting killed or assaulted by their own fellow American citizens. The hystericals don’t seem to care about those victims. It has to do with shutting out foreigners. The talk radio crowd is just as irrational, ignorant and short-sighted as the college campus snowflakes, in my view.

And there’s a mysticism about these nationalist fanatics. They are mystical about this “America” thing, and really believe the myths, too. Like many long-indoctrinated people who believe in myths, the nationalists have this mythical belief that there is some kind of joint ownership of the territory as a whole. That “citizens” (or, as Hans-Hermann Hoppe would say, the “taxpayers”) are the owners of the territory and have a right to block outsiders from getting in.

But they don’t seem to understand that America, this territory, is a place of many, many parcels of private property, and the property owners have a right to invite whomever they want onto their own property (whether it’s their homes, churches or businesses, etc.). Employers have a right to hire anyone they want. And no one, morally, would be obligated to have to have a government bureaucrat’s permission to employ, to work, move about, whatever. As long a someone is peaceful, and isn’t suspected of violating the person or property of another, then you leave him alone. That’s the American way.

But no, no, no, say the hysterical nationalists. You MUST get a bureaucrat’s permission and authorization to do this or that. Nationalists love and worship the government and the ruling bureaucrats. Don’t believe otherwise.

So the border wall, or barrier, or whatever, is short-sighted. Why don’t the hysterical ones try to find out exactly what’s causing people to be fleeing from those Central American countries, or what’s causing the drug trafficking, and so on?

First, there is the drug war, which has been futile from the very beginning, going on for 50 years and people still get their drugs. The war on drugs causes an underground market in drugs, it incentivizes the more low-lifes of society to profit from people’s vices by pushing the drugs to get people addicted. The drug war motivates the exploiters to traffic in drugs. Even the CIA is getting into it. So not only is the drug war itself a socialist policy that is wreaking havoc on society but it is involving the “national security” state as well.

And, speaking of the national security state, another reason why refugees are fleeing those countries is that the interventionist imbeciles in the U.S. government have been wreaking havoc in those countries. Besides ending the drug war, why not tell the U.S. government to get itself out of those countries?

But regarding Donald Trump’s sudden obsession with insisting on the government wall on the border, I don’t really believe his sincerity in that. He had two years with a Republican Congress to begin the Great Trump Wall, but he did nothing. But now right after the 2018 elections when Democrats take over the House Trump is sounding the alarm of how “urgent” a crisis this “national emergency” is. He is even threatening to get the military down there, that he knows he can’t do. So not just the un-American police state that’s already there, but military martial law on the border. So he’s full of you-know-what. Trump is a “New York liberal,” with “New York values,” as Ted Scruz would say. Trump has donated mostly to Democrats, not Rethuglicans. So, I don’t really believe his sincerity.

And by the way, a government shutdown is what America needs. Almost all of what the U.S. government does is not authorized by the U.S. Constitution, and it should all be shut down. People who are employed by the government should find honest work in the private sector. And all those in law enforcement and “security” who are enforcing unjust laws: it is the enforcers who are the criminals when they criminally violate the lives, liberty and property of innocent, peaceful people. The armed and badged uniformed goons are the ones who should be dismissed. (And then everyone else!)

News and Commentary

Jacob Hornberger on the welfare statist, pro-taxation conservatives. No different from the leftists.

Timothy Sandefur comments on Tucker Carlson’s anti-free market, anti-capitalism views. No surprise there. And this goes with Carlson and his fellow Trumpistas’ anti-immigration, anti-foreigner, anti-private property and Build-The-Wall stuff, quite frankly. I’ll have more to say about all that soon. But the truth is, socialists build government walls to obstruct markets and freedom, while true capitalists don’t build government walls and instead promote free enterprise, free markets, and private property.

Alex Nowrasteh criticizes the government’s own immigration and crime data.

J.R. Dunn on Mark Felt and the “collusion” conspiracy.

Laurence Vance asks, How long should the work day be?

Gideon Levy says that in 2018, Israel’s mask finally came off.

And Adam Hudson discusses Guantanamo FBI-CIA cahooting.

News and Commentary

Ray McGovern says, Send the Mad Dog to the corporate kennel.

Jacob Hornberger on Maria Boutina’s prosecution: a disgrace.

Ryan McMaken on governments targeting private religious schools.

Jack Burns on child slavery in Amerika: kid gets arrested, handcuffed, thrown in jail for missing school.

Lawrence Reed says that C.S. Lewis saw government as a poor substitute for God.

Laurence Vance says that no one should receive federal grants for college.

Thomas Knapp on a GoFundMe campaign to privately finance Donald Trump’s border wall.

And Richard Ebeling asks, The Brexit dilemma: markets or politics?

Walter Block on Immigration

Walter Block, sometimes known as “Mr. Libertarian,” has a post on the LewRockwell.com blog, giving some hypotheticals on how conservatives might take an even more radical view on immigration. Dr. Block lists some suggestions that the more collectivist minded of conservatives might advocate, such as deporting all Pakistanis if a Pakistani individual bombs and kills innocents, or deporting all Libyans if a Libyan person kills, etc. On dealing with immigrants, he states that “there is no way to protect the recipient country that is fully compatible with libertarianism.”

He concludes with links to articles and papers (I have removed some of them whose links were not working, and found working links for others whose links were not working):

For further reading on this claim, see the following:

Block, Walter E. 1983B. “Protect Canadian Jobs From Immigrants?” Dollars and Sense. February 7; reprinted in Block, Walter E. 2008. Labor Economics from a Free Market Perspective: Employing the Unemployable. London, UK: World Scientific Publishing; https://www.amazon.com/Labor-Economics-Free-Market-Perspective/dp/9812705686
Available for free here: https://archive.org/download/labor-economics-from-a-free-market-perspective-walter-block/labor-economics-from-a-free-market-perspective-walter-block.pdf

Block, Walter E. 1988. Dollars and Sense: “Migration patterns tell real story.” January 12;

Block, Walter E. 1990. “Immigration,” Fraser Forum, January, pp. 22-23.

Block, Walter E. 1998. “A Libertarian Case for Free Immigration,” Journal of Libertarian Studies: An Interdisciplinary Review, Vol. 13, No. 2, summer, pp. 167-186; https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/13_2_4_0.pdf?file=1&type=document

Block, Walter E. 2004. “The State Was a Mistake.” Book review of Hoppe, Han-Hermann, Democracy, The God that Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order, 2001May 25. https://mises.org/library/state-was-mistake

Block, Walter E. 2011A. “Hoppe, Kinsella and Rothbard II on Immigration: A Critique.” Journal of Libertarian Studies; Vol. 22, pp. 593–623; https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/22_1_29.pdf?file=1&type=document

Block, Walter E. 2011B. “Rejoinder to Hoppe on Immigration,” Journal of Libertarian Studies Vol. 22: pp. 771–792; https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/22_1_38.pdf?file=1&type=document

Block, Walter E. 2013. “Rejoinder to Todea on the ‘Open’ Contract of Immigration.” The Scientific Journal of Humanistic Studies, Vol. 8, No. 5, March, pp. 52-55

Block, Walter E. 2015. “On immigration.” December 21;
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2015/12/walter-block-on-immigration.html

Block, Walter E. 2016A. “Contra Hoppe and Brat on immigration.” Management Education Science Technology journal, Vol 4, No. 1, pp. 1-10; http://mest.meste.org/MEST_1_2016/Sadrzaj_eng.html; http://mest.meste.org/MEST_1_2016/7_01.pdf; (1333)

Block, Walter E. 2016B. “A response to the libertarian critics of open-borders libertarianism,” Lincoln Memorial University Law Review; Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 142-165; http://digitalcommons.lmunet.edu/lmulrev/vol4/iss1/6/;
http://digitalcommons.lmunet.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1071&context=lmulrev

Block, Walter E. 2017. “Immigration and Homesteading.” March. The Journal Jurisprudence. Vol. 35, pp. 9-42; http://www.jurisprudence.com.au/juris35/block.pdf

Block, Walter E. and Gene Callahan. 2003. “Is There a Right to Immigration? A Libertarian Perspective,” Human Rights Review. Vol. 5, No. 1, October-December, pp. 46-71; http://www.walterblock.com/publications/block-callahan_right-immigrate-2003.pdf

Deist, Jeff. 2018. “Block on immigration.” September 4;
https://mises.org/library/immigration-roundtable-walter-block

Gregory, Anthony and Walter E. Block. 2007. “On Immigration: Reply to Hoppe.” Journal of Libertarian Studies, vol. 21, No. 3, Fall, pp. 25-42; https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/21_3_2.pdf?file=1&type=document

Hysterical Nationalists and Collectivists on Immigration

Alex Nowrasteh addresses Donald Trump’s hysterical assertion that his government wall on the border will protect us from terrorists, who apparently are sneaking through the border into the U.S.

Nowrasteh points out that there is no evidence to verify that assertion, and says the Trump Wall is “the anti-terrorist version of the Alaska bridge to nowhere. It’s big, expensive, and a waste of resources.” And Nowrasteh also says, “All of the people murdered by foreign-born terrorists on U.S. soil since 1975 have been killed by those who entered legally.”

On the terrorism issue, this phenomenon of Islamic terrorism has mainly been sparked by the U.S. government’s invasions, occupations, and bombings of mostly-Muslim countries overseas, especially since 1991 when George H.W. Bush started the first war of aggression on Iraq and imposed sanctions and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians by the year 2000. As I wrote in my post on the recent passing of the dearly departed George H.W. Bush, there wouldn’t have been a 9/11 had he not started that war of aggression.

Nowrasteh also made reference to the recent terrorist murders in France, which probably were also blowback for western governments’ including France’s aggressions in the Middle East. “When will we learn?” Hmm.

But why exactly are the pro-Trump Wall people so short-sighted and simple-minded? Are they just ignorant of the fact that most of the undocumented immigrants in the U.S. are here because they violated their visas or some kind of bureaucratic restriction, and not because they snuck through the border? How will a government wall on the border prevent those people from being here?

As I have written quite a bit here, the collectivist-minded anti-immigration crowd believe in this myth that the territory as a whole is commonly owned by U.S. citizens. This is a most anti-private property, anti-free market view. They might as well be communists. Being collectivists, they see the American people as “One Big Family,” and this whole territory is “our home,” and “outsiders are breaking in.” They just don’t get what America is all about, quite frankly.

Thomas Jefferson et al. were individualists and they believed in private property and voluntary exchange, not collectivism and government controls over private economic and social activity. They wanted immigrants to come here and spend their money at the locals’ businesses, provide labor services for businesses, and even open new businesses and employ people here.

In fact, in one of their complaints against the King in their Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote:

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

But now, the anti-market nationalists like Donald Trump are using terrorism fears to put up this government wall that won’t protect us, and in fact could then be used by future administrations as another Berlin Wall. Very short-sighted, these people.

More Very Important Articles

Jacob Hornberger explains the U.S. national security state and how it came to existence after World War II, a system of authoritarian rule that the American Founders had not intended to exist.

The Future of Freedom Foundation has republished The Sanctifying of Plunder, an excerpt from Leonard Read’s book, Castles in the Air.

Becky Akers still doesn’t like the TSA.

Don Boudreaux on Trump’s wall, a wall of disgrace.

Zero Hedge with an article on Mueller destroying messages from anti-Trump FBI agent’s iPhone; OIG recovers 19,000 “FBI lovebird” texts.

And Tho Bishop says the State is influencing Big Tech’s “unpersoning” — Now imagine if the State takes over health care.

More Articles

Thomas Knapp on doing justice to Donald Trump’s “invasion” claim.

Chris Calton writes about Let There Be Light: The documentary the Army suppressed.

Jacob Hornberger uncovers yet another unconstitutional U.S. government propaganda scheme.

Rod Dreher discusses the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.

Ryan McMaken on immigration: give the private sector a bigger role in deciding who comes here.

And Robert Wenzel analyzes Day 9 of Paul Krugman’s Masterclass: How to justify hating the rich.

Nationalists Prefer Socialism in Trade and Immigration

Donald Boudreaux has this article on free trade and the false idea of “trade deficits,” and says that the “American economy” is not a single economic entity to be compared to a household or a corporation. “Americans do not work for America, Inc. And there are no goods or services that we Americans are managed as workers to produce for sale to non-Americans. America is not a business that operates according to a shared, unitary plan the success or failure of which is recorded on a meaningful budget.”

But those who seem to have this authoritarian nationalism stuff drilled into them see things otherwise. Many of them are with Donald Trump on government-controlled trade, rather than free trade which would be a part of free-market capitalism. The Trumpies are opposed to the ideas of individualism and economic freedom, in which people have the freedom as consumers to do whatever they want with their own money, trade with whomever they wish and from wherever, and as producers to buy whatever capital goods they need to run their businesses and from anyone they want anywhere in the world.

The Trumpies are also opposed to economic freedom in the immigration issue. They have this irrational view that workers and employers must get a government bureaucrat’s permission to work wherever or hire whomever they determine to be best for them.

Free-market capitalism and free trade — including people trading their labor with employers, customers and clients — are not impeded by government borders. If so, they are no longer free markets and free trade. The nationalists say otherwise. They prefer government restrictions on labor and trade, i.e. socialism. But I doubt that the Rush Limbaugh talk-radio ditto-heads would admit that (if they could actually understand the difference).

The “unalienable rights” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence coincide with the free market and free trade. The nationalists’ utopia of socialist, central-planning economic controls in immigration go against the people’s unalienable rights. ALL human beings have “unalienable rights,” not just “citizens.” Right?

So the nationalists also seem to be obsessed with “citizenship,” like an individual must be “authorized” by the gubmint to live some kind of life and earn a living. What kind of life is that? It isn’t freedom, for sure. But sadly we have authoritarians who look to government as their god whose permission and authorization we must have to live.

The nationalists have this mentality that foreigners are “invading” America, invading “our” country, and “breaking into our home,” because they reject the concept of private property. In the same way that no one “owns a culture,” as Robert Higgs wrote just recently, no one “owns a country.” This territory of America is a territory, that consists of many parcels of private property. Each parcel of private property is individually owned, it is not owned by the community, by the entire population, or by the government.

But sadly, whether they are willing or able to admit it to themselves, the nationalists reject the idea of private property, and they consider the property within “America” to be ultimately owned by the collective. So to the nationalists the collective of the population has the right to determine (via their beloved government rulers) what privately-owned business owners may or may not do with their businesses, whom they may or may not hire, based on the whim of the collective and the diktats of the beloved government rulers (and based on anti-foreigner sentiments especially).

So really the nationalists and Trumpies really believe in a communal ownership of everything, and thus they are certainly closer to the communists than to the libertarians who believe in private property rights.

Now, regarding “public property,” which is supposedly owned by the “public” (although some people say it’s owned by the “taxpayers,” which I don’t agree with), as Jim Davies noted, “public property” is not legitimately owned by the government, but is unowned (although occupied by the government illegitimately).