Kelly McNulty Valenzuela
@ 9:36 AM
Three of my four grandparents came through Ellis island and now we are turning away immigrants.Don't these racist xenophobes realize how much better we will be when all the hard working poor of the world come here? Ive never met an immigrant whose on welfare or doesn't outwork white people by far.
I hope you comment on that racist Trump. Mexican ctime rate is almost zero. I think the storys that Mexican Americans for example have children out of wedlock are false if not hoaxes. And the idea that Mexicans mistreat women is evIL.Reason man
The Mexican American crime rate is not "almost zero." It is at least as high as the white and probably higher. The crime rate of Puerto Ricans and Domicans is around 3.5 times that of whites. The largest foreign born group in New York prisons is Colombians. The epidemic in crime in Europe is largely immigrant.These statistics are hard to come by, but if you do some searching you can find them.In addition, the goal of the left in Europe is to maintain permanent control through mass immigration. See this article on Greece.http://www.vdare.com/articles/what-financial-crisis-greeks-government-electing-a-new-people-anyway?content=that%20in%20the-Mr. A.
Crime is down in California even though there are now more Hispanics than whites. Not all Hispanics commit crime at same rates. High crime puerto ricans low crime Mexicans . . . It probably averages out to a rate roughly that of whites.I agree that Muslims are a problem in Europe but that's a case for better screening and ending the welfare state. We have nothing to fear from hard working Muslims.Reason Man
I read the Greece story. Yes the left loves immigrants because they go on welfare and then vote for parties that support the welfare state.But whose to say that if Greece didn't have a welfare state it wouldn't have bettsr immigrants. And if it did maybe they would vote for a free market party?I think the writer doesn't want Greece to become Muslim. Well that's what would happen under open immigration. I think to oppose that is racist. Reason Man
"Yes the left loves immigrants because they go on welfare and then vote for parties that support the welfare state." Maybe that's why the left thinks they like them, but that's a generalization and exaggeration. Most immigrants come here to work. Furthermore, immigrants do pay taxes, so why shouldn't they be able to take advantages of the same government programs that other taxpayers use? The problem is the government programs. "If you build it, they will come." A nation gets the immigrants it deserves.
Moslems in the UK vote labour and in France socialist. In thd short term at least they will tend to need more government services. And meixcans coming to the USA to give birth to anchor babies isn't an examlple of a taxpayer wanting to get services they have for. There are women from Africa who fly to London just to give birth.I agree that the solution is to end tbe welfare state but short term its a problem. Reason Man
Then stop providing welfare services to immigrants, and spare them the associated taxes as well, then start weaning other Americans off welfare too. I do not believe that some portion of people taking advantage of welfare is a good reason to violate all immigrants' rights.
Reason Man,Crime statistics can be tricky. For example, if you go to the most wanted pages of many police departments you'll see people with Spanish first and last names who are mysteriously called "white." And Hispanics tend to live in cities, where crime is underreported. So Hispanic crime is greater than whites by a lot, but certainly a lot less than blacks.And I'm not sure how you'd screen Muslims. It's not as if they are going to tell you that they believe in domestic abuse, for example. And a criminal background check from a country that doesn't prosecute domestic violence (many Muslim countries) is probably worthless.Mr. AMr. A.
Recent history suggests that large scale immigration into the welfare state entrenches the welfare state. Californiana for example just enacted free medical care for undocumented.I'm curious if you can find any examples where mass immigration has made a country more free market oriented.Reason Man
You keep responding as though I'm in favor of the welfare state. I do not support government welfare for anyone.
I just find it curious that you don't see immigration of prodominantly poor people from Third world countries as having no potential to increase the welfare state.RM
I support open immigration so long as there is no welfare state.Open immigration as it now stands is suicidal.RM
Kelly, If the USA adopted open immigration, its population would change drastically. Demographically, it would probably resemble Brazil. And yet everyone in Brazil is trying to leave that country.What country that is multicultural/multi-ethnic has been a success? Zimbabwe, South Africa, Mexico? The only country I can think of that is a success is Singapore. However, Singapore has restrictive immigration policies and makes sure that its immigrants are not representative of the countries they come from.Think of your house. It is the way it is because of the people who are there *and* the people you exclude. There are studies that indicate the more diverse a nation becomes, the less happy, charitable, etc. its people are. People in Finland and Iceland are happier than in multi-ethnic England and France. Since the results of open immigration are irreversible, the burden is on you to show that it is will lead to good results.Mr. A
I have this entire blog and a FAQ/Myths Busted section that backs up the case for individual rights as it relates to immigration, so I do not feel compelled to spell it all out again in the comments. My short answer is that no country on this planet has ever tried true capitalism. I believe immigration would not be a huge ordeal in a capitalist society. Furthermore, you will never stop bad people from doing bad things. There will always be someone who lies, steals, cheats, or kills to get what they want. Fortunately, they're not the majority of the population, and capitalism would not incentivize that sort of behavior.Our government needs to stop violating the rights of people. Period. You can keep coming up with reasons to violate the rights of others, but none of them are valid.
So do you concede that in the current situation (welfare state, birthright citizenship) that open immigration will lead to bad results?If your views are correct then you should be able to provide at least one example where mass immigration into a welfare state has made things better.Mr. A
Off the top of my head, America.
I don't think the USA is a good example. In fact, it was the arrival of large numbers of immigrants in the early 20th century that coincided with the rise and cementing of the welfare state. The Democrats were very adept in big citys in handing out government jobs and benefits to immigrants to secure votes.And the quality of immigrants that we are getting since the Immigration Act of 1965 is not what they were before. Before 65 immigrants tended to have higher education than the natives and be less likely to go on welfare. The opposite is the case now.Mr. A
Correlation is not causation. Lots of other things were going on in America at that time that caused an increase in the welfare state. I also disagree that immigration is causing problems now. Someone needs to work low wage jobs that Americans won't, and it keeps middle class lifestyles affordable.
Of course correlation is not causation, but is evidence of causation. Ancient man didn't know the principles of biochemistry but he knew that excess consumption of alcohol causes intoxication.But if you are going to conclude that large scale African immigration doesn't cause an increase in crime, then you should give us the evidence. Since African countries have high crime rates, why would you believe that Africans don't have high crime rates when they move to the USA or Europe?Mr. A.
Did it ever occur to you that the immigrants may be fleeing the crime you speak of? Also, the burden is on government to protect the rights of individuals. If someone wants to move to another location, no one should be allowed to stop them unless they're violating the rights of others. I don't know why you can't grasp such a simple concept. You can keep going around and around, but I will always come back to that. You do not have the right to violate the rights of others.
I guess my concern is that when Muslim's become a majority they would vote themselves in power. we could deny immigrants ths rright to vote.Reason Man
There is precedent and that's Lebanon. It was pro western when it was majority Christian. It was prosperous and called the "Paris of the Middle East." Due to immigration and higher birth rates of the Muslims, it became majority Muslim and the hell hold that it is today.Open immigration would result in Europe becoming Muslim. Let's remember that the UK and France have nukes, which would fall under Muslim control. The entire world would be subject to Muslim blackmail.A Muslim Europe is not something I even want to contemplate.Mr. A
Those are great examples of the problems with democracy, or mob rule, and why we need to fix our constitution. We're supposed to be a representative republic. In addition, people who violate individual rights, or threaten to do so, should be dealt with appropriately.
But any constitution will have a mechanism for changing it. And even so, numbers are a huge factor. Zimbabwe's constitution guaranteed rights for white, but the constitution was amended.I'm still curious about what historical exampel you'd point to indicating that a Muslim Europe wouldn't be so bad. As I pointed out, Lebanon went down the drain when, thanks to immigration (and birth rates) it became Muslim. Israel remains relatively successful because it has an immigration policy that you disapprove of.Criminals should be treated appropriately. But what happens when Muslims became the majority of judges and prosecutors?Mr. A
I don't recall saying that Europe becoming predominantly Muslim wouldn't be so bad. If I implied that, I apologize.I believe if we had a truly capitalist society, with a moral government, many (most? all?) of the issues you raise would not exist. As far as Muslims becoming a political majority, it shouldn't matter if we have the right government structure in place. I do not advocate a pure democracy or mob rule, so a majority wouldn't matter. The protection of individual rights would.
What if Europe had a truly capitalist society and a constitution that prohibited mob rule?Are you saying that a Europe that become 90% Islamic could prevent Europe from being like every other Islamic nation?What happens when the large majority of European military commanders, soldiers, judges, prosecutors and policemen are Muslim? Will Muslim prosecutors bring charges against parents who engage in female genital mutilation? Maybe the Muslim military leaders will announce a coup detat and establish Islamic nations?Ayn Rand taught us that principles must be evaluated in context. She was once asked if the world was threatened by disease and the one person who had the antidote refused to supply the cure, would it be appropriate to extract it by force. She said yes.Even if there is a right of immigration, it should be evaluated in light of the consequences. Since the consequences are disastrous (and irreversible) we should severely limit Islamic immigration.I realize you find Israel's immigration policies reprehensible (such as the law of return) but can't you at least admit that Israel would be a hell on earth if adopted open immigration? Muslims have said repeatedly that they will establish Sharia wherever they are a majority. -Mr. A.