Comments on: Updated: In Defense Of The Fence

By: Steven Stipulkoski

Steven Stipulkoski — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 20:24:30 +0000

If the international border of a country is considered the "common" property of its citizens, then I see no libertarian objection to the right to control immigration. And if the citizens choose to allow immigration, then why not limit new citizenship to those who have been assimilated, such as the children (or grandchildren) and later descendants of new immigrants? [Actually, if assimilation is your criterion, then fewer and fewer immigrants ought to be allowed in to the US: the policy in schools—primary, secondary, and tertiary—is NOT to assimilate. The melting pot is no longer. Welcome to official multiculturalism.—IM]

By: Henry Bowman

Henry Bowman — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 19:58:31 +0000

I have been a bit surprised for some time by the percentage of libertarians who think that countries should have open borders. There are usually two reasons quoted for this attitude. First, that the right to move unimpeded from country to country should be regarded as a natural right and second that open trade in both material and people is economically sound policy. I simply disagree with the first cited reason, as countries are by nature political entities and not clearly related to natural rights. The second might be true if the situation responsible for migrations wasn't simply the clear result of enormously asymmetric political and economic policies. I'm confident that you've written on the topic in the past, and would welcome any pointers to your previous writings. [The arguments I’ve rehashed over and over again all in the Immigration Archive.—IM]

By: June

June — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 22:02:54 +0000

Excellent column, Ms. Mercer. It came at just the right time. An hour ago, I returned home from a shopping foray, shaking with anger. A new store, whose opening I had looked forward to, has gone politically correct. We stopped to read the store layout and in letters as large of the English equivelant, was the Spanish translation. I guess it will continue to gall me as long as I live that this once-proud nation has bowed down to a third world country by the astonishing act of their just walking in and taking over. What has happened that we have allowed it? I heard very few conversations in passing that were in English. I felt as though I’d wandered into a foreign country and this is just what we’ve been prepared for by our leaders to welcome the NAU.

By: Theodor Lauppert

Theodor Lauppert — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 10:40:37 +0000

Well, so much for “the world’s only unfortified frontier”.*) The times really are a-changing.

*) Rose Wilder Lane, The Discovery of Freedom, p. 248

By: Martin Berrow

Martin Berrow — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 02:43:08 +0000

I enjoyed the article. I also was tickled by what ILana said about McCain being a “new convert to conservatism”. Isn’t that the truth! I have said before, so I will say it once more: the USA has little hope on this “homeland security” when two border patrol agents are rotting away in federal prison for doing their job, and the drug trafficker is currently suing the US even though he is an illegal alien!
Martin Berrow

By: Barbara Grant

Barbara Grant — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 21:42:50 +0000

Ilana’s article correctly fingers the “environmental lobby” for its hypocrisy when it comes to the environmental damage done by illegal border crossers into the U. S.. If “greens” refuse to be consistent in addressing the causes of environmental damage, they should not be listened to, at all. That includes “Christian environmentalists” such as Pastor Rick Warren, who, to my knowledge, has never made a statement regarding damage to the U. S. environment caused by illegal border crossers.

By: John McClain

John McClain — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 12:47:32 +0000

As a citizen who cares about our future as a nation, I have to say that this is about time! If it is purely for political purposes, that’s fine, we just have to keep agitating until the lawyers in D.C. realize they have to do it. One of the primary ways of deciding the “reasonable nature” of a principle in science is to use its extremes to test it. On this basis, the environmentalists are shown to be ridiculous. The extremes are easy, if we have too many people on earth, the only right number would be the extreme of zero. If a man’s life is “right”, the extreme is also easy, there is no tree, shrub or moss that should be saved at the expense of a man’s life. This is not to say the environment is of no value, but that all our actions much be taken with the consideration of what it will mean to “the people”. There were never extreme wild fires in California while the ranchers were leasing National land. They burned the accumulated detritus each year as they backed down the high parts as winter proceded. In so doing, there was never a build up of brush and burnables. It is because the ranchers were stopped, because cows change the landscape, that there is no one to burn out the waste, and it now accumulates sufficiently to cause hundreds of wild fires each year.

By: gunjam

gunjam — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 07:03:09 +0000

Great piece, Ma’am — as usual! I nominate you as the next Secretary of DHS!