Category Archives: libertarianism

UPDATE II: Desperately Seeking Immigrants Who Qualify For Welfare (In Other Words, ‘Undocumented Democrats’)

Ethics, IMMIGRATION, libertarianism, Welfare

“Desperately Seeking Immigrants Who Qualify For Welfare” is the current column, now on WND. An excerpt:

“Number 69, number 69,” called an officer of the US Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Number 78, yours truly, was sitting in line at the ASC (the Application Support Center), in Washington State. I was there to renew my green card, the much-coveted US permanent residency permit.

The woman to my left was clutching note number 69. Despite having been summoned time and again, she stayed put. She did not understand English. Like her, the room was packed with applicants who were talking in tongues.

Although a longtime champion of American freedoms, I have decided, for now, against accepting US citizenship, for which a green-card holder is illegible after five years.

Uncle Sam’s foot-soldiers assault me whenever I take to the unfriendly skies. And should I leave the US, after taking the Oath of Citizenship—IRS agents will fulfill their oath of office and hunt me down.

As the chorus lyrics to that haunting rock classic by the Eagles goes, “You can check-out any time you like, but you can never leave!” In the evocative words to “Hotel California,” Americans who try “running for the door,” soon discover that they “are all just prisoners here …”

Prisoners of Uncle Sam’s device.

If he can tolerate TSA assaults as he departs the country, a US citizen who chooses to live and work overseas cannot escape the Internal Revenue Service. The United States is perhaps the only country “to tax its citizens on income earned while they’re living abroad.”

Although the government’s citizenship stamp of approval is meaningless, there are risks in rejecting it.

While a US citizen cannot be denied entry whenever he leaves the country and returns home; a green-card holder is essentially asking for permission to re-enter. This, as millions of members in a favored outlaw fraternity stroll across the southern border, giving border patrol the finger (as the other finger dials the ACLU).

Besides, have you ever heard a member of America’s low-brow glitterati and literati advocate for immigrants who are not poor, not brown, and not uneducated? I have not—with the exception of Tucker Carlson, a libertarian-leaning rightist. …”

The complete column is, “Desperately Seeking Immigrants Who Qualify For Welfare.” Read it on WND.

If you’d like to feature this column, WND’s longest-standing, exclusive paleolibertarian column, in or on your publication (paper or pixels), contact ilana@ilanamercer.com.

JOIN THE DISCUSSION, AND DO BATTLE FOR LIBERTY BY:

• Using the content-sharing icons on Barely a Blog posts.

• At the WND and RT Comments Sections, and on Facebook.

• By clicking to “Like,” “Tweet” and “Share” WND’s “Return To Reason” , and RT’s “Paleolibertarian Column.”

UPDATE I: Jay Leno on “Undocumented Democrats”:

“And in a groundbreaking move, the Associated Press, the largest news gathering outlet in the world, will no longer use the term ‘illegal immigrant.’ That is out. No longer ‘illegal immigrant.’ They will now use the phrase ‘undocumented Democrat.’ That is the newest – ‘undocumented Democrat.’ ”

UPDATE II (4/5): About “Non-Sycophantic Libertarians,” Todd writes on WND’s Comments:

I’m with you and Tucker on the immigration issue. I don’t know if this is still the case, but it wasn’t that long ago that if you wanted to immigrate to Australia, you had to show proof that you either a) had enough assets to support yourself long term or b) possessed a
skill that was needed there. That would never happen here though..it makes too much sense.
Sometimes it takes a non-citizen to offer real perspective on what it is to be an American, not to mention shining light on some of our more dopey policies (Daniel Hannon is another who comes to mind in that regard). I actually don’t blame you at all for not taking the plunge and becoming a citizen, especially in these times (I’ve heard that even if you
renounce your citizenship the IRS could STILL come after you).
It’s nice to hear some sound perspective from a non-sycophantic libertarian (unfortunately sycophants come in all stripes, including some who cloak themselves in logic and reason). You do make remarkable sense. There’s not enough of that going around.

Decoding North Korean Foreign Policy And … Ours

Foreign Policy, libertarianism, Military, Politics, The State

“The antics of North Korea’s rulers are a perfect illustration of the principles” Antiwar.com’s Justin Raimondo calls “’libertarian realism,’ i.e. a theory of international relations that attributes the actions of states in the international arena entirely to the internal politics of the actors.”

“Instead of responding to real events abroad,” avers Raimonodo, “policymakers are chiefly concerned with responding to pressures from various lobbyists and domestic power brokers. This is because their one overriding goal is to maintain and expand their own power – a goal the rulers of North Korea share with our own. It doesn’t matter what kind of system we’re talking about: dictatorships, democracies, and everything in between – all foreign policy is determined by internal political conditions, and is only peripherally concerned with what goes on outside of that context. If you wondered how it was possible that US foreign policy has become so disconnected from reality – well, now you know.”

The rhetorical hysteria coming out of North Korea is par for the course: this is, after all, the country’s chief (and only) export. Washington knows full well Pyongyang has neither the means nor the intention to attack the United States, in spite of the comic-opera threats – and yet we’re acting as if the threat is real. In response, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel announced that we’re beefing up our missile defenses on the West Coast – “just in case.” Scheduled US-South Korean military exercises featured nuclear-capable jets “mock bombing” North Korea – a provocation that ignited a sulphurous response from Pyongyang.
The US has stood squarely in the way of all real peace efforts on the Korean peninsula: when it looked as if the South Koreans were taking the prospect of reunification with the North seriously, Washington put the kibosh on the process. Now that the daughter of a former South Korean dictator has been elevated to the South Korean presidency, prospects of a renewal of the initiative are remote. In this context, Washington’s routine provocations have a much bigger effect on the North, which sees itself in an impossible situation. The Hermit Kingdom is poorer, and more isolated than ever, and this has produced the internal dynamics that are driving the actions of the North Korean elite.
Little is known of internal political developments in the North, but the transition from one Supreme Leader to the next is surely problematic in any authoritarian system – and doubly so in a “communist” monarchy. There has long been tension between the ruling Korean Workers Party and the North Korean military, and apparently this ratcheted up to an unusual degree last year with reports of an assassination attempt on Kim Jong Un, culminating in a gun battle in the streets of Pyongyang.
The atmosphere of crisis generated by the North Korean media, and the government’s wildly belligerent pronouncements, in all likelihood have to do with the internal political situation, and bears little if any relation to events outside the country. North Korea’s “military first” policy, which puts military procurement ahead of economic development, has been costly: there are reports of a looming famine this month. As economic conditions worsen, the stability of the regime may be put at risk, in which case Kim Jong Un will need the military to back him up. The recent fall – and sudden rehabilitation – of Gen. Kim Yong Chol, head of the increasingly important Reconnaissance General Bureau, may be a clue to the regime’s murky internal conflicts. Another clue is the position of

MORE @ Antiwar.com.

UPDATED: Thankful For BBC World News (Bang-Up Job On Same-Sex Marriage & More)

Bush, Family, Gender, Journalism, libertarianism, Media, Political Philosophy

Federalism, the right of individual states to decide, a case that should not have been brought before the Supreme Court of the United States for adjudication—these points of political philosophy should inform the American media’s reports on the case currently before the SCOTUS. They don’t! For such fleshed-out and nuanced reporting on California’s ban on same-sex nuptials, watch BBC World News.

BBC News’ Washington correspondent Jonny Dymond does a bang up job of not only answering every What, Where, When, Why and How journalists are obliged to address in a lede—but of providing a substantial level of abstraction and analysis, after discharging his duties as a correspondent.

All this without a hint of opinion. From his American counterparts expect the furrowed brow, the tsk-tsk, the clucking, the pouting and the noggin nodding—all to convey that the idiot anchor is on the side of the angels at all times, on all issues.

That’s when America’s news men and women aren’t openly opining.

I’m thankful for the much-maligned broadcaster. In general, BBC World News is a refuge from the anti-intellectualism and plain piss-poor news reportage you find on CNN, Fox News, Fox Business, MSNBC, and most other American cable and news networks.

UPDATE: Ideally, government should divorce itself from the nuptial business, heterosexual and homosexual. Ideally, religious institutions ought to act as the ministers of marriage. If marriage were thus privatized, conservatives would have to accept that some liberal churches and synagogues (the mullahs would resist) would wed homosexuals.

Rand Paul’s Goofy ‘Case’ For Amnesty

IMMIGRATION, Labor, libertarianism, Reason, Republicans, Ron Paul

Not so long ago I wondered whether Rand Paul was “Action Hero, Or Political Performance Artist?” “Like most Americans,” the column ventured, “I like an action hero. I am just incapable of telling whether Rand Paul is such a hero, or whether he is no more than a political performance artist.”

Soon a determination will be possible. A picture is emerging of a deft political player.

Rand’s dad, Ron Paul, called for an “End [to] Illegal Immigration”:

A nation without borders is no nation at all. After decades of misguided policies America has now become a free-for-all. Our leaders betrayed the middle class which is forced to compete with welfare-receiving illegal immigrants who will work for almost anything, just because the standards in their home countries are even lower.
If these policies are not reversed, the future is grim. A poor, dependent and divided population is much easier to rule than a nation of self-confident individuals who can make a living on their own and who share the traditions and values that this country was founded upon.

The Center for Immigration Studies paints “A Bleak Picture” of high “unemployment and non-work” among “American citizens, especially less-educated citizens (those with no more than a high school education). The less-educated are the most likely to compete with illegal immigrants,” say the Center’s scholars.

Rand Paul, however, has joined the Gang of Eight (Gof8), in whose states the plight of low-skilled Americans is especially dire. Now Rand is on the offensive, defending against allegations from Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh:

In an appearance on Fox News Channel’s “America Live” on Thursday, Kentucky Republican Sen. Paul told host Bill Hemmer that Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are wrong to criticize him for working to provide legal status to illegal immigrants.

Rand Paul’s apparently goof-proof “case” for amnesty appears to be that “de facto amnesty” must give way to amnesty de jure—that given the reality on the ground, legislators must take action to turn it into a legal reality.