Sunday, June 3, 2007

Dissecting Diversity

Musing on the US Immigration Reform Bill:

Of course when rich liberals want the border protected, they’re not being racist. They actually like having lots of illegals around. They just want the illegals serving their dinner and mowing their lawns. Then they expect that the illegals will go back to their houses in your neighborhood … where they belong.


Jay Jardine said...

Poor Jason. Another one of the "Life, Liberty, Property" crowd succumbs to Dobbsian fever over unauthorized moving.

Lisa said...


I'm not in favour of government dictating the movements of the herd either, but the welfare state is a ugly reality and a tantalizing temptation to escape responsibility.

Anonymous said...

but the welfare state is a ugly reality and a tantalizing temptation to escape responsibility.

You should dismantle the welfare state, not use it as an excuse to make government even bigger.

Many of the industries in which illegals work are already rat's nests of government interference. Agriculture (subsidies), house construction (credit bubble) ... and in all industries in which illegals are paid under the table you will find that taxes of all forms are so high that domestic, above-the-table labor is unaffordable.

There's another factor which I never thought of before, but which came up in an interview with a black baseball player the other day. He said baseball teams prefer Hispanic players because it's easier to "control" them. What that means is that Hispanics have a more humble attitude and are more likely to do what their boss asks them to do, and less likely to stand up for their (fake, government-invented) "rights" to minimum wages, job security, racial hiring quotas, etc.

hayzhold said...


Just noticed your comment. Thanks for the concern, but it is sadly misplaced.

Since I am in the process of "moving" my wife (a Canadian) to the U.S., I cannot rationally accept the notion that there is any problem with people moving.

I can, however, argue -- even under a libertarian framework -- that the government has a duty to protect the property rights of its citizens.

Since many of the illegal immigrants that are flooding into the U.S. demand that I pay for their children's education and their family's medical bills (along with countless other social services), I am making an imminently rational and reasonable argument that we begin to protect our borders.

It is also imminently rational that I expect businesses that hire illegal immigrants to actually cover the costs of their employees as part of their costs of doing business. Hiring people and then offloading the costs of their education, health care, child care, insurance, etc. onto me and other taxpayers cannot be described as a "free market" approach.

I understand, and agree with, the comment that says that is an argument to get rid of the welfare system. However, we live in the here and now. It's nice to work toward a 'utopia,' but the reality is that the welfare state is going nowhere anytime soon. So, as long as the welfare state exists and as long as illegals are pouring across the border and then getting "free" education and "free" health care services at my expense, I will argue that the system needs to be corrected.

Certainly we should allow movement to and from various countries and locales as market demands require more workers. (That's why I'm here and why I am trying to LEGALLY bring my wife along as well.) However, that movement should be constrained by governments who have a duty to protect the property, moral, and legal rights of their current citizens.

It is also reasonable for government to address the issue of illegal immigration when many of the illegals exist in the legal gray areas addressed in the last comment. Having a permanent underclass of pseudo-slave labourers is hardly something that a reasonable libertarian could support.

Lastly the point that I was making in that post was that many of the so-called elite exist in a state of denial. They are quite happy having the already noted pseudo-slave labourers around to fix their drinks and prune their trees. However, when those people become their next door neighbours, all bets are off. For them, having illegals is fine, so long as those illegals "stay in their place" and don't try to do anything crazy like move into their neighbourhoods.

So, once again Jay, thanks for the concern but you'll have to come up with a better ad hominem, or actually read my posts. Don't bother with trying to tag me with another "ism," or paint me with the same broad brush as you do anyone else who might be opposed to illegal immigration, the epithets don't stick very well.

Jason Hayes