Showing posts with label Illegal Immigration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Illegal Immigration. Show all posts

Thursday, May 8, 2014

Taxpayer-Funded Benefits for Undocumented Immigrants

The following was written in April 2014, as part of a response to the Campaign for Liberty's 2012 survey questionnaire for candidates running for federal office.



17. Will you vote to oppose all taxpayer-funded benefits for illegal immigrants?

     Yes, I will vote to oppose all taxpayer-funded federal benefits for undocumented immigrants.
     Although race discrimination in employment practices and the eVerify program are, undeniably, obstacles to undocumented immigrants obtaining the means of survival and a decent standard of living, there are additional obstacles; namely, the increasing monopolization of the public sector over the distribution of welfare services.
     Government departments and bureaus which prohibit the private sector and the non-profit voluntary sector from competing to provide welfare services deny people who entered this country through illegal methods the ability to obtain their needs through earning money and paying for those goods and services with cash or credit, and through receiving voluntary mutual aid given interpersonally and via charitable organizations.
     Such individuals have already been denied the legal right to work, and so – with no remaining legal alternatives - they often find themselves in need of goods and services which the government has limited the ability of non-governmental actors to provide. They cannot attempt to make use of many of such services, because they would risk revealing their immigration status to the government in order to do so, thereby risking deportation.
     When undocumented immigrants cannot either work to obtain, or receive for free, services which are typically provided by governmentgovernment overreach is to blame. If ever a government requires its citizens to present sufficient documentation of their identity whenever they needed food or water, then we would be asking whether undocumented immigrants even have the right to eat and drink - hence survive – and survival will be considered a right granted by government, to an even greater degree than it is already. But when welfare provision is not exclusively done by government, it cannot be cut by legislators who cut services in order to satisfy taxpayers.
     If the public sector continues to monopolize the provision of welfare, then when State-run markets collapse - and/or when governments become unable to sufficiently provide welfare - people's basic needs will not be met. That is, unless a thriving underground market featuring gift-giving, bartering, sharing, and trade between voluntarily cooperating individuals is permitted to function; absent price controls, purchase mandates, citizenship requirements, and barriers to participation and competition in markets.
     The federal government should neither require states to provide taxpayer-funded benefits to undocumented immigrants, nor prohibit them from doing so. I will urge states to allow such individuals to freely access and/or purchase any and all ordinary consumer goods and services – whether health services, education, or items which require minimum age for purchase – without presenting documentation or registering with a government administration.
     Additionally, I will vote to repeal the D.R.E.A.M. (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) Act because of the manner in which it was implemented; President Obama implemented it via an executive order after the bill had been rejected by Congress. But I also support repealing the Act because of the choices it offered undocumented immigrants as a condition of staying; to study in college or serve in the military. Most of such individuals come to the United States to work, not to study or to fight the federal government's enemies; without the option of apprenticeship in one's field as an alternative, such legislation amounts to little more than a threat to temporarily derail the kind of life desired by the immigrant.
     I will urge states to implement generous guest worker programs for undocumented immigrants, allow people to work while on welfare and transition from one to the other with a smooth transition by enacting negative income taxes, pass state-level D.R.E.A.M.-Act-type legislation that includes apprenticeship as a condition for citizenship, and consider having separate licenses for driving and car insurance versus for travel and security purposes.




For more entries on borders, immigration, and territorial integrity, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/social-policies-for-2012-us-house.html

For more entries on social services, public planning, and welfare, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-general-welfare-clause.html

For more entries on taxation, please visit:

Sunday, April 20, 2014

On Immigration

Written on September 6th, 2011



General

   If elected, I would oppose the Real ID Act, and the declaration of English as the national language.



Birthright Citizenship

   Persons born in states are subject to their jurisdiction, and - as such - are automatically eligible to become citizens of their state.

   I oppose the 14th amendment because neither the states nor the federal government have the authority to compel people to become citizens, nor to submit to their statutes.

   Illegal immigrants should only be prosecuted for committing crimes if those crimes are against persons and their property, and only if such victims press charges against them (as per corpus delicti).



Welfare for Illegal Immigrants

   I understand the perceived need for the federal DREAM Act (due to the international jurisdiction which would would appear to apply).

   However, I oppose Obama's use of an executive order to make it law.

   I would prefer that either welfare to illegal immigrants be granted on a state-by-state basis, or that private citizens institute independent enterprises in order to provide such benefits to illegals.



Immigration as Part of Other Social Issues

   I would vote to abolish the federal minimum wage and to support the 2nd amendment.

   I would also vote to end the federal war on drugs, and cease to send federal money to the law enforcement agencies of Mexico and of Central America for the purposes of supporting our war on drugs.

   I believe that this would make the assessment of the credibility of threats (in terms of "taking American jobs" and issues pertaining to the hiring of illegal immigrants, border violence, and the trafficking of prohibited drugs) which may be posed by illegal immigrants less likely to be clouded by such issues.




For more entries on borders, immigration, and territorial integrity, please visit:

Thoughts on Illegal Immigration

Written on August 14th, 2011



   I agree with Ron Paul and Gary Johnson that it should be easier to immigrate legally. But I wouldn’t offer incentives to break the law. Like I said, immigrants who come here when they are children (when they cannot give consent) are not intentionally breaking the law, nor are they even aware of the law. So there is no incentive for them, because they are not aware of those incentives.

   I think it would be acceptable to give them aid (whether funded by states or by the federal government) as long as they have clean criminal records, speak English fluently, and are pursuing some sort of higher education or service to our country (i.e., military).



   The Constitution does not explicitly authorize the federal government to provide aid to illegal immigrants. But if majorities of both houses of congress vote that way (or if the president orders it), it happens. No value judgments, just the way the legal process works.

   But I can see that a libertarian Supreme Court would decide that the General Welfare clause would invalidate the DREAM Act because it serves the interests of particular people, and not of the general welfare, and I agree.

   But I think that illegal immigration is inherently a legal issue, and that it is inherently one which is between countries (states cannot sign treaties with foreign countries), and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government, and not the states.

   After all, government agents determine the salaries of government agents. Does that promote the general welfare, or the welfare of individuals? If the latter, then the Constitution does not authorize government agents to get paid at all. Maybe that’s the way it should be, maybe all public service should be voluntary and charitable. It would certainly help budgets.

   On another note, I can also see that a free market in charity to illegal immigrants might bring about a more efficient and enthusiastic delivery of funds to those who need them.

   Now, if you and I and some other people decide to use our right to freely associate to pool our money and resources to house illegal immigrants and send them to college, and we think we can do it more efficiently and less expensively than the government can do it, that remains to be seen, and is another issue entirely.



   I said I believed it would be acceptable and reasonable for the federal government to get involved in aid to illegal immigrants. I don’t mean to say that just because I believe something is authorized, acceptable, and reasonable, it should be done. I can’t even say with certainty that, if elected, I would ever vote for anything. I feel like I would abstain on any and all votes, because I don’t even believe in the legitimacy of the federal government (or of any government which has implemented secret-ballot voting or which practices monopolistic protection-service provision) in the first place.

   The problem we have as a country now is that government takes up so much of our economy, it’s hard to get anything done (including affecting social change) without government. I can only hope that by some miracle private individuals start taking it upon themselves to pool their funds to affect social change on the face-to-face, direct-action level, and in so doing prove the government unnecessary.

   But in the meantime, we’re going to have to deal with the Obama administration trying to push through some sort of comprehensive immigration reform. And, as with Obamacare, they’re going to try to push it through as quickly as possible, with little transparency until the very last moment, and with ways-and-means maneuvers which seem unreasonable and illegal. Then, once the law will have passed, anyone seeking to de-fund certain aspects of it will be dealt with as racists and as people who hate the less-advantaged.

   I would favor keeping our free-market options open. If only our money weren’t falling apart and we could afford to affect the social change we wish to see effectively, efficiently, affordably, and in a way that makes it obvious to everybody that using the government approach is a waste of time and money.




For more entries on borders, immigration, and territorial integrity, please visit:

My Criticism of Ron Paul

Written on May 3rd, 2011
Edited in April 2014



   1. Ron Paul opposes social welfare for illegal immigrants, even those whose parents brought them to the U.S. without their knowledge or consent.

   2. Ron Paul supports policies that would make it more difficult for gay couples to receive the same legal benefits when they move to different states.

   3. Ron Paul rightfully supports the overturning of Roe v. Wade, but for pro-life reasons and not pro-choice ones (the illegality of partial-birth abortion has been upheld by the Roe v. Wade precedent).

   4. Ron Paul has refused to take a consistent position about whether the Bush administration had foreknowledge of the September 11th attacks.

   5. Ron Paul advocates maintaining an alliance with Israel, and appears to be unaware of the anti-Zionist tendencies within ultra-Orthodox Judaism, and unphased by the role which American Christianity has played in enabling Israel's militarism.

    Nevertheless, I support Ron Paul for president in 2012.



   [Note: I voted for Ron Paul in 2008 and Gary Johnson in 2012.]





For more entries on enterprise, business, business alliance, and markets, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/enlightened-catallaxy-reciprocally.html

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Immigration and Borders Policy


I believe that there is an urgent need for comprehensive immigration reform which is humane and tolerant; as well as conducive to the freedom of travel, the openness of trade, and the normalization of commerce. As such – and given that the constitutional clause which had denied the Congress the power to prohibit the states from enacting migration policies which they deem proper has expired – I feel that it is desirable and appropriate to pursue passage of federal legislation prohibiting all agencies of the federal and state governments from constructing or maintaining fencing along our international borders.

                Although a system permitting federal jurisdiction over immigration policy would seem to have authorized the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (D.R.E.A.M.) Act, I would vote to support a repeal of that legislation on the grounds that it was enacted through an executive order, which I feel is an inappropriate, expansive exercise of presidential power. I would urge states which have passed similar legislation to transition the responsibility to provide D.R.E.A.M.-Act-type goods and services to the county- and municipal-level governmental agencies within them, as well as to private-sector agencies; and I would urge states which have not passed similar legislation to allow local governments to do so, and to allow the widespread provision of such goods and services to come into being organically through the efforts of private-sector agencies.

                As the forms of compensation which are procured through employment are the most productive form of welfare, such private-sector agencies should include places of employment. I would support the right of immigrants – documented and undocumented alike – to negotiate with their employers to obtain the compensation which they deem appropriate for their own subjective purposes, irrespective of federal and state minimum wage standards. I would also voice opposition to mandates on employers – by governments at any level – to participate in the eVerify system, which has been described as obligating hirers to police illegal immigration. Additionally, I would oppose all existing and proposed laws providing for mandatory identification documents for all persons, such as the REAL ID Act.

                In order to help provide a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, I would urge the president and the governors of the several states to grant pardons to all non-violent transgressors, especially to minors who did not have intent or informed awareness of the illegality of the actions of the parents or guardians who accompanied them into the country. Punishment – and law-enforcement requests for the identification documents – of suspected illegals should be contingent upon their conviction for either physically harming or threatening to harm persons; stealing, damaging, or otherwise diminishing the utility of their property; or trespassing on their occupied landed property; provided that some victim claiming that direct harm has occurred has pressed formal charges by filing a Verified Criminal Complaint.

                I would assert that deportation and extradition of non-violent illegal immigrants would only be permissible were the status of a transgressor as a foreign subject entered-into with informed consent and without duress, and that the pertinent foreign country has laws explicitly prohibiting illegal emigration. I would also defend the position that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not automatically grant federal citizenship to the native-born, but that it merely makes the extension of an offer of citizenship permanent and irrevocable.

                I feel that opponents of illegal immigration would have less justification for their personal and legal views were they to become aware that the federal government has conducted cross-border weapons-for-drugs programs and arms-trafficking-and-tracking operations (such as Project Gun-Runner and Operation Fast-and-Furious) which have destabilized and undermined the sovereignty of Mexico, and caused death of American border personnel. Voting to stop – and investigating to uncover the facts about – such operations is crucial for restoring America’s reputation and credibility abroad; ameliorating artificial antipathy towards minority groups and improving race relations; and saving lives of American civilians, law enforcement officers, and politicians alike.

                Additionally, I would work to restitute government theft of immigrant property; sponsor legislation which would prohibit government agencies at the state and federal levels from making English the single official language; and urge governments at all levels – including the governments of Mexico and Central America – to uphold rights to bear arms and rights of the accused which are either on-par with or more protective than the 2nd and the 4th through 8th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.



For more entries on borders, immigration, and territorial integrity, please visit:

Saturday, January 29, 2011

Immigration and the Minimum Wage

The U.S. (Right) - Mexico (Left) Border



Many socialists complain that the minimum wage law is a capitalist institution. The late economist Milton Friedman, who seemed oddly caught between the worlds of Austrian economics and Keynesianism, believed that the minimum wage law is an unfair, anti-capitalist trade barrier which contributes to unemployment and poverty, and that it is biased against the young, and also against under-skilled, which, under current societal conditions, means it is effectually racist.

Friedman once said, “the minimum wage law is most properly described as a law saying employers must discriminate against people who have low skills,” and, “what you are doing is to assure that people whose skills are not sufficient to justify that kind of a wage will be unemployed”. He also said that to require employment of a person at a wage rate higher than one he deserves is to force employers to engage in charity, and that the minimum wage law’s purpose is to “reduce competition for the trade unions and make it easier for them to maintain the wages of their privileged members higher than the others”.

However, it’s not only rich, dead, white Jews like Milton Friedman who oppose the minimum wage; it is also opposed by Orphe Divounguy, a black economic student from England. Divounguy says that the minimum wage is “government intervention in the marketplace for labor,” calls it a restriction on the freedom to contract, and compares it to cutting the bottom rungs off a ladder.

It should be noted that many companies which have revenue below a certain amount and / or are confined entirely within a state, are exempt from having to pay the minimum wage.

The 1950s and the last several years of the Bush administration saw sudden, drastic increases in the minimum wage. From 2006 to 2009, the federal minimum wage increased over 40 percent from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour. Divounguy claims that it “plays a key role in creating joblessness… except when the minimum wage is below the market rate for entry-level jobs”.

Fourteen U.S. states, the vast majority of which are currently majority-Democrat, have state minimum wage laws which are higher than the federal minimum wage. Four states have lower minimum wage laws, and five states, mostly majority-Republican, have no minimum wage laws at all. The other 27 states have a minimum wage which is the same as the federal wage. This begs the question: if states can pass laws which run contrary to the federal minimum wage law, what is the point of even having this ineffective federal law in the first place? 

That should cover capitalist criticism of the minimum wage law. Now, on to socialist arguments.



Earlier, I said that Milton Friedman criticized the minimum wage law. In fact, he once called it “the most anti-Negro law on the books.” It is an unfortunate problem in our country today that some of the most poor, uneducated, and disadvantaged people happen to be African-Americans and Hispanics. What is perhaps equally unfortunate is that many liberals believe that the disadvantaged do not know what is in their own best interest, and so, need to be protected and advocated for, and their own wages dictated for them by the rule of law.

The minimum wage was first established in a dozen or so of the states throughout the 1910s. In 1933, the minimum wage became a federal law, until it was found unconstitutional in 1935, but then in 1938, it was re-established under the Fair Labor Standards Act, at the rate of twenty-five cents per hour.

The condition of labor in the society of those days was that certain ethnic, national, and racial groups, as well as immigrants of different generations, tended to each have their own standards when it came to the value of their labor. When white workers would strike, employers would break strikes with blacks. When black workers would strike, employers would break strikes with Chinese or with eastern European immigrants.

Under such conditions, to enact a law which would impose a wage floor would make competition in the labor market more difficult for non-whites and non-English speakers, and easier for well-established white citizens. This is crucial to understanding why any sound socialist labor theory must reject the minimum wage.

In the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx wrote, quote, “let the ruling classes tremble at a communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains; they have a world to win… working men of all countries, unite.” This quote appeals to the internationalist tendencies of socialism, which advocate simultaneous worldwide communist revolution.

This runs contrary to the social-chauvinist and vanguardist tendencies, which advocate that citizens faithful to the populist revolutionary forces within their own country should seek to overthrow that single country’s government if they are able to. The point I am trying to make is that minimum wage laws undermine worker solidarity, taking advantage of and deepening the economic class divisions between the races and ethnicities.

That should cover socialist criticisms of the minimum wage. Earlier, I mentioned that I would discuss immigration, and that two of the groups most hurt by the minimum wage law in the early 20th century were Chinese and eastern European immigrants. In an earlier video, I discussed outsourcing to India and Mexico, as well as protectionism. For those not familiar, protectionism is the imposition of a tax on foreign-made goods, commonly referred to as a tariff. George W. Bush often used the phrase “bariffs and terriers,” by which he meant, “tariffs and barriers.” This is to point out that a tariff can be an impediment to trade. Some even go so far as to label the minimum wage law a barrier to trade, calling it a tariff on labor.

For as long as I can remember, rednecks have been bitching about Mexicans stealing their jobs. To paraphrase stand-up comedian and brief 2008 presidential candidate Doug Stanhope, those rednecks are only complaining because they’re humiliated that a guy with no shoes who doesn’t even speak English yet is more qualified for their job than they are themselves. While appearing as a guest on a radio show in Britain, a caller complained to Stanhope that Polish immigrants were taking Britons’ jobs. Stanhope asked the caller what he did for a living, to which the caller replied, “I pack things in boxes,” later adding, “I’m quite good at it.”

Another important issue in America today which relates to immigration is the issue of illegal immigration across the U.S.-Mexico border. A significant number of these illegals include refugees from Central America. Lately, there has been increased drug violence in towns on both sides of the border.



In this year’s State of the Union, President Obama voiced a desire to deal with, once and for all, the issue of comprehensive immigration reform. U.S. Senator from Illinois Dick Durbin is a prominent advocate of the failed DREAM Act, which stands for Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors. The bill, which passed the House toward the end of the 111th congress, would provide housing and education assistance for children of illegal immigrants who attended American public schools and are in good standing with the law, and it would give them the opportunity to earn conditional permanent residency upon completion of either two years of military service or two years at an institution of higher learning.

U.S. Senator from Arizona John McCain said he would only support the DREAM Act if it were coupled with legislation that would increase border security. Outspoken musician and gun rights activist Ted Nugent, who happens to not do any drugs at all, once said that border security agents should shoot any armed person coming across the border on sight, because it indicates that that person is most likely involved in drug trafficking. But Ted Nugent also believes that people should be able to have guns to protect themselves.

A border agent was recently fired for expressing the opinion that the drug war is what is causing a lot of the border violence. Being that Mexican gun laws are some of the strictest in the world, anyone caught possessing either a gun with greater fire power than a .22, possessing illegal drugs, and / or crossing the border illegally, would be in big trouble with the law.

But I, of course, believe that if anti-drug and anti-gun laws were repealed, at least, for the most part, we would see a dramatic decline in violence, especially near the border. I also believe that illegal immigrants whom are not trafficking in large amounts of dangerously addictive illicit narcotics or have tendencies towards committing acts of aggressive violence should be permitted to carry weapons while venturing across the desert, because they may encounter such violent people, and have to defend themselves and / or their family. Those people should be confronted by border security agents, have their threat level assessed based on their possessions and whether they are with their families, and then they should be promptly let go… So as you can see, I agree with Senator McCain’s proposal (wink).



Back to the minimum wage for a moment. Besides the negative impact of the minimum wage law on low-skilled immigrants, there is an even more direct comparison I would like to make between the U.S.-Mexico border and the minimum wage law. Imagine for a moment, if you would, that Oaxaca is eleven dollars an hour, Mexico City is ten dollars an hour, Ciudad Valles is nine dollars an hour, Ciudad Victoria is eight dollars an hour, Matamoros is seven dollars and twenty-six cents an hour, the U.S.-Mexico border is the minimum wage, and Brownsville, Texas is seven dollars an hour.

The minimum wage is like the U.S.-Mexico border: it is an artificial barrier created by government, causing the most dismal conditions to sidle up against one edge, and when a low-skilled Hispanic emigrant attempts to cross that barrier in order to attempt to achieve the freedom and income he deserves - despite what others tell him is in his own best interest - government must return that individual to the side of the barrier on which he does not feel it appropriate, wise, or beneficial for himself to be located.

This minimum wage cannot stand. If we agree there should be a minimum wage at all, it should be just under the going market rate for entry-level labor, and adjusted as often as that value undergoes a significant change. The federal minimum wage law undermines the authority of the states, and it drives laborers apart based on ethnicity and abilities. It is a scourge to free-market capitalism, localized communal social democracy, and the strength of the labor movement, and at its current rate, it contributes to poverty and unemployment much more than it solves either of those problems.

Liberals and libertarians both believe in liberty and equality, it’s just that they want different kinds of each of those things. Liberals want liberty for the public from the tyranny of individuals and business, and they want equality of economic outcome. Libertarians want liberty for the individual and businesses from the tyranny of the masses and the government, and they want equality of economic opportunity. So, you see, true capitalists do care about the poor. It just doesn’t look that way to the untrained eye.


For more entries on borders, immigration, and territorial integrity, please visit:


For more entries on employment, unemployment, the minimum wage, and Right-to-Work, please visit:

Links to Documentaries About Covid-19, Vaccine Hesitancy, A.Z.T., and Terrain Theory vs. Germ Theory

      Below is a list of links to documentaries regarding various topics related to Covid-19.      Topics addressed in these documentaries i...