Category Archives: The State

The “Mañana” Mentality: US Immigration Policies & Prescriptions Select for Low Moral Character

English, IMMIGRATION, Morality, Republicans, States' Rights, The State

While demonstrating clearly why neoconservative columnist Charles Krauthammer is no great shakes at all, Mark Krikorian—who nevertheless insists CK is a rigorous and independent scribe—demolishes the neocon’s contention that “inside each Latin American immigrant there’s a Republican waiting to get out.”

Sixty-two percent of whites voted for Romney. Ninety percent of black voters and 71 percent of Hispanic voters broke for Obama.

Latinos do not “go Democratic” because of the plight of illegal immigrants under Republicans. The reason Mexican immigrant families seldom vote Republican is that, “Two-thirds of [these] families are in or near poverty and fully 57 percent use at least one welfare program.”

But there is more to the legal/illegal distinctions made by Krikorian and Krauthammer. “Please, Can My Sister Become An Illegal Immigrant?” (and many other columns) demonstrated how America’s immigration policies carefully weed out people of early American probity (to paraphrase Mary McGrory). Our immigration policies, in fact, select for low moral character by rewarding unacceptable risk-taking and law-breaking.

An example should clarify what I mean by “select for low moral character”: Most of our South-African friends, highly qualified, upstanding family men and women, have opted to go to Australia or the UK. Why? Well, legal immigrants to the U.S. don’t “wait their turn,” as the uninformed pointy-heads keep chanting. It is usually their qualifications that, indirectly, get them admitted into the country. The H-1B visa, for one, is a temporary work permit—and also a route to acquiring legal permanent resident status. However, if one loses the job with the sponsoring company, the visa holder must leave the U.S. within ten days. What responsible, caring, family man would subject his dependents to such insecurity and upheaval? As I say, most of the people we know would never contemplate breaking the law by remaining in the country illegally. And not because they’re dull or unimaginative (an “argument” I’ve heard made by Darwinian libertarians, who praise immigration scofflaws for their entrepreneurial risk-taking, no less). But because they have the wherewithal—intellectual and moral—to weigh opportunity costs and plan for the future, rather than say “mañana” to tomorrow and live for today. Unhip perhaps, but certainly the kind of people America could do with.

If Republican Carlos Gutierrez has his way, English will become just one among many official tongues babbled in the Tower of Babble that is the US. (So I guess there is no point fussing about the language in which America’s founding documents were written, and asking scribblers to quit “verbing” the amnesty noun. “Amnestying” is as awful as “verbing.”)

What I find particularity loathsome about the Republican turncoats is that they are blasting Romney for staking out a hardline on immigration, and other arguably state-rights issues, the legitimacy of FEMA, for example. (Incidentally, to call them Republican turncoats is a redundancy; a Republican is a turncoat by definition.)

Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that’s even better … We cannot—we cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids. It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids.

For the above, Mitt Romney was bad-mouthed by eager-to-win Republican establishmentarians.

UPDATE II: The D-Bomb Has Dropped

Democrats, Elections, IMMIGRATION, Private Property, Republicans, The State, The West, Welfare

The current column, now on RT, is “The D-Bomb Has Dropped.” Here’s an excerpt:

“…People with higher incomes constitute a minority, an economically dominant minority (to paraphrase Amy Chua). People with low incomes are in the majority, a politically dominant majority.

The rich are politically impoverished; the poor politically rich. The rich dominate the economy, the poor dominate the polity.

When elections roll around, the politically powerful exact their revenge against the economically powerful.

What kind of a right gives one man control over another man’s life? In a democracy, the right to vote does just that.

As for demographics; they have become destiny. They were not necessarily so. Demographics have been the excuse central planners have advanced to persevere with immigration policies that destroy civil society and shore up the welfare state.

The now-waning West became great not because it outbred the rest of the world. The West was once great because of its human capital—innovation, exploration, science, philosophy; because of superior ideas, and the willingness to defend such a civilization, not because it was more populated than the rest of the world.

America doesn’t need more people; it needs better people.

Making nice with constituencies that vote repeatedly and habitually for the candidate who promises them more stuff is tantamount to sleeping with the enemy. The only voters who could be swayed by the promise of the free market are the Democratic Party’s Asian supporters, since they enjoy higher incomes and stabler families than the party’s Hispanic and black devotees.

Ultimately, elections are about perception—the way in which the people perceive the political planks of the two parties. …”

Read the rest of “The D-Bomb Has Dropped,” on RT.

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.”

UPDATED I: Facebook THREAD: In reality, voting Republican does not shrink the state. On the contrary; Republicans are a reliable engine of government growth. But with the importation of constituencies that want stuff, the two parties are competing to satisfy that demand. Importing third-world dependents has only helped grow the welfare state.

UPDATE II: I needed a laugh. A friend needed one. We all need one. Here is Patrick J. Buchanan in one of his finest moments.

UPDATED: Libertarians And The Vote

Canada, Democracy, Elections, Ilana Mercer, libertarianism, Paleolibertarianism, The State

New American columnist Jack Kerwick is blasting non-voting libertarians. (I have an excuse: I have chosen to decline citizenship of Police State USA. I’m a permanent resident, but not a US citizen. I am, however, an American patriot. I don’t need Uncle Sam’s imprimatur or papers to be a patriot.)

I think Jack is making an argument that is similar to the one made in “LIBERTARIAN WRANGLING”:

From the fact that many libertarians believe that the state has no legitimacy, …they arrive at the position that anything the state does is illegitimate. This is a logical confusion. Consider the murderer who, while fleeing the law, happens on a scene of a rape, saves the woman, and pounds the rapist. Is this good deed illegitimate because a murderer has performed it?

Writes Jack:

“Romney, along with his fellow partisans, has pledged to repeal ObamaCare. “Would that be evil? [NO] He also wants to make America more energy independent. [Note: Libertarians want energy production, not necessarily energy independence, for the latter would imply a rejection of the logic of trade. It’s “drill AND trade, baby, trade.”] Would this be evil? A Romney administration would engender an environment dramatically more business-friendly than any that we could ever expect from an Obama administration. Would this be evil?”

The answer is no.

Basically, Jack Kerwick wants to shatter the pretense of ideological purity that allows libertarians (like myself) to stand outside of politics.

It’s a good debate. We should have it. (If I were cleared to vote, I doubt I would vote for the loopy Gary Johnson.)

UPDATE: Joseph Farah feels the same urgency that Jack Kerwick does: “It’s a matter of self-defense and self-preservation,” he says. MORE.

‘Bronco Bamma’: A 4×4 Force For The State

Barack Obama, Classical Liberalism, Elections, Paleolibertarianism, Political Philosophy, Politics, Private Property, The State

On voting defensively:

I listened to a young (24), fiercely individualistic, libertarian friend speak about casting his vote for Mitt Romney. My pal may not be finely tuned to every philosophical nuisance, but he lives and breathes individualism. His backbreaking work as a proprietor of a small business means, moreover, that local politics are vital to his bottom-line. My friend explained to me why he would be voting to keep the toxic Dems out of office in our state, and why he supported Romney.

Although wedded to reality, columnist Jack Kerwick is “finely tuned to philosophical nuisance.” As mentioned in “On Living In Sin: The Sin of Abstraction,” Jack and I parted company over his decision to vote Romney. However, I admire Jack for “mixing it up”—for his commitment to arguing the issues and making pragmatic decisions in the rigorous and vigorous Rothbardian tradition.

But then Jack’s a scrappy New Jerseyan.

The entrepreneur (my young friend) and the philosopher (Jack Kerwick) are aligned in this instance.

I will say this unequivocally: “Bronco Bamma” (little girl tires of him and his rival, whose name at least she can pronounce)—Barry Soetoro Frankenstein, spawn of the state—is trash. Mitt Romney, however, is a patrician.

His individual achievements outside politics show that Mr. Romney is nothing like “Bronco Bamma,” who has always been at full throttle for the distributive state.