Sunday, September 10, 2017

SENSE AND IMMIGRATION



I've said this before, and it seems that I have to say it again, because so many supposedly-educated people insist on believing that ideals are more real than facts.



These are facts: the United States today has the third largest population in the world, and overpopulation is not a good thing.  The country with the largest population on Earth, of course, is China – with one and a half billion people.  The second largest is India, with one and a third billion.  Both those countries are desperately trying to cut their populations down, using methods that wouldn’t be tolerated in the US, and their human rights standing is a growing embarrassment.  The US trails them with a mere 325 million, but even so, our physical, social, political and economic resources are straining at the seams.  The last thing we need is immigration.  If anything, we should revive the use of Exile as a legal punishment. 

I can predict the usual reactions to any such statement, and when you look at them, none of them are reasonable.  First, America is not just “a nation of immigrants”, as any “Native American” can tell you.  (Isn’t it ironic how people who sneer at “Nativism” claim to love the “Natives”, but won’t learn from them?)  Other things the Indians could tell you are that open borders and unchecked immigration are not good ideas, and no, you cannot trust the government.  Second, no, a constantly growing population is not required for an “expanding economy”;  growing technology and innovation are.  Third, and most important, not everybody who wants to come here wants to be like us.  The difference between immigrants and invaders is how much they’re willing to assimilate and how much they simply want to conquer us and take everything we have. All humans may be born equal, but all cultures are not.  And yes, there are whole cultures in the world who believe it’s their duty to be invaders, and conquer the world.  I’ll name no names, but you can tell who the invaders are by peculiarities of their culture;  among other things, they believe it’s their duty to use all women as breeding machines and to outbreed their neighbors.  These are people whom we absolutely do not need, and should not take in, no matter how good their excuses. 

Right now there’s a great wailing about the “Dreamers”— children brought into the US illegally by their parents and allowed to stay under the DACA act, who have grown up in the US and know little to nothing of any other country – close to a million of them.  Surely these kids (many of them no longer minors) are assimilated Americans, aren’t they? 

No, as a matter of fact, there’s no guarantee right now that they are.  But there is a way to be sure;  revive the old law which allowed foreigners of any status to join the US military and, if they served a minimum tour and earned an honorable discharge, to gain citizenship with their discharge.  Anyone who wants US citizenship enough to risk life and limb to gain it pretty clearly deserves it.  Also, US veterans who have been denied citizenship for any reason short of committing felonies or not completing their tours must be lawfully reinstated no matter how they started out.  That should take care of the “Dreamer” problem.

But continuing the usual business of letting illegal immigrants stay has got to stop, and there’s really just one way to do it. 

Congress must declare a ten-year moratorium on all immigration, period.  And order the border patrol, INS, and all related agencies to concentrate their efforts on letting nobody across the border except legal tourists and wild animals.  Yes, use the drones, and yes, build The Wall.  As for all those “asylum seekers” and “compassionate” cases, the US government can pay for compassionate plane-tickets to any compassionate country that’s willing to take them – and their relatives too.  But they can’t come here.  We simply can’t afford this invasion anymore.


--Leslie <;)))><      

4 comments:

Oakes Spalding said...

In an "ideal" anarchist or anarcho-capitalist society, would the population of a particular area have the right to keep non-aggressor people (non aggressor, in the sense of not initiating force, at least proximately at that time) out of their area? If so, how or why? And how would that be any different from quasi-statism?

Technomad said...

Your solution strikes me as eminently fair, and I think a lot of the "Dreamers" would jump at the chance. Something like that was one way to get Roman citizenship back in the Goodoledays...you joined the legions as an auxiliary (the legions had a lot of auxiliary forces, since Romans themselves did not tend to have some skills like horsemanship or slinging or archery) and, after your term was up, you were now a Roman citizen.

And service in the French Foreign Legion, if honorably completed, gets one French citizenship, as does being wounded while in the Legion ("French by spilled blood.") This is one of the things I like about the Legion. The neat hats and neat marching songs are icing on the cake. *wink*

Leslie Fish said...

Hi, Oakes. Anarchists recognize the existence of over-population, and threats of potential harm thereby. Suppose (a very real problem here in the Great Desert State) your local spring puts out only so much water, and you're at the maximum population that it can provide. Just one more human drinking off that spring, willingly or not, will be cutting into the water everybody else needs. Yes, under conditions like that, the people already there do have a right to say "Keep on traveling". They also have a right to encourage some of their existing population to leave. It doesn't take a govt. to do this: just a town meeting and consensus.

Leslie Fish said...

Hi, Nomad. IIRC, it was the Romans who invented that system, and smart countries afterward continued it. The French simply put together a particular regiment for the purpose. In my not-so-humble opinion, it was one of the better ideas the French govt. ever had. How do we sell our thick-headed politicians on the idea?