Open Borders + Welfare State ≠ Libertarian Outcome

Courtesy of the Center for Immigration Studies:

Ruiz explained that he takes Cuban migrants to the Health and Human Services offices to get access to TANF (cash welfare), SNAP (food stamps), and Medicaid. During our visit he also showed us two envelopes with Social Security cards ready to be picked up by newly arrived islanders. Additionally, Ruiz gave us a checklist that he gives the migrants, which notes all the documents they need to have in order to acquire a work permit. While the Cubans wait for all their benefits to be in order, Ruiz provides them a place to stay.

Until open border advocates address the perverse incentives for people to immigrate to the United States and live off the stolen wealth of others as described above, I really don’t want to listen to their whining about Trump and his wall or the “xenophobia” of Americans who resent this kind of behavior.

Personally, my anger is directed at the state, not the people who take advantage of the freebies they give out. They’re pawns. My focus is on the kings who manipulate them.

If this was taken care of properly Herr Trumpfueher would still be telling people they’re fired on the Apprentice while fixing his toupee.

Want open borders? There has to be equilibrium on both sides in this regard.The greater the inbalance here, the more border restrictions are justified.

The only thing people should benefit from when they cross borders are greater property rights and economic opportunities.

Sooner or later the producers are going to leave this country en masse, or try. That’s when the same people who advocate open borders right now for all and sundry will scream for the same damn wall as Trump to keep “the wealthy” in so they can pay their fair share and maintain this farcical scheme.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in borders, Immigration, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Open Borders + Welfare State ≠ Libertarian Outcome

  1. Tab Spangler says:

    “Until open border advocates address the perverse incentives for people to immigrate to the United States and live off the stolen wealth of others as described above, I really don’t want to listen to their whining about Trump and his wall or the “xenophobia” of Americans who resent this kind of behavior.”

    Unless you are talking specifically about extreme left liberals and their hypocrisy, libertarian principles about open boarders or nonaggression don’t change because of some bad governmental policy. I like your blog, but your thoughts on the boarder always make me think it should be the minarchist notebook.

    Like

    • The Question says:

      libertarian principles about open boarders or nonaggression don’t change because of some bad governmental policy.

      No, but the application of those principles do. Having open borders to a welfare state is akin to anarcho-tyranny like what we’re seeing in Sweden and Germany.

      If I call the police on someone the reason for why matters when deciding if my call violates the NAP. If I’m calling because they’re smoking weed on their property, it’s a violation. If they’re trying to steal my money on my property, of course not. The fact that I’m using the state to do so is not the issue, because I am being coerced into doing so by the state since they lay claim to the exclusive legitimate use of aggression.

      What’s the recourse for people who don’t want immigrants coming in and living off of welfare? Watch Stefan Molyneux’s video on the numbers. Is this not a massive violation of the NAP?

      I would add that the people who will actually pay for all this welfare consumption are not even born yet.

      And what’s the recourse for libertarians like me who don’t want immigrants coming in and voting to increase the size of the state? I understand current citizens do all the time; my point is libertarians don’t need more to make it harder for us to get anywhere.

      Try this thought experiment: Imagine you’re a big government guy. You want the size of the state and its power to grow.

      Under our current situation, what kind of border and immigration policy would you want to accomplish this?

      Like

      • Tab Spangler says:

        “And what’s the recourse for libertarians like me who don’t want immigrants coming in and voting to increase the size of the state”

        You don’t get to use violence against individuals. Short answer is that I recommend agorism. Stop trying to use the state to fight/fix the state, and spend your time improving your life and those around you. The welfare state will be its own downfall, regardless of whether you cheer on hoardes of new boarder patrol agents and wall constructors.

        Like

      • The Question says:

        Please read my other articles on immigration and borders. You’ll find I’m not in favor of Trump’s wall or his calls for more border agents. When the welfare state falls it’s going to be that wall and those agents who will be used to enforce emigration restrictions to keep people from leaving.

        My point is that those who support or turn a blind eye to the problem have no right to complain when someone proposes a flawed solution. If we would rectify the situation the discussion wouldn’t even be happening.

        Like

      • Tab Spangler says:

        True enough. Like in most cases, the Right sealing the boarders is just them accepting the Left’s bad ideas and doubling down to protect them. Plus it’s an excuse for more national security.

        The fact that most people don’t even understand the root problem is all the more reason for agorism. Have you read any Sam Konkin?

        Like

      • The Question says:

        I haven’t really done much reading on agorism. Understanding libertarian philosophy and figuring out how to apply it to the real world is a challenge unto itself.

        Like

  2. Tab Spangler says:

    Agorism is the application of libertarian philosophy. Some are big into encryption and Bitcoin, others are into homeschooling and farming their own food, sometimes it’s house churches that aren’t 501c3. It is people recognizing that while the state has guns, it’s dictates do not directly affect the way that we choose to live our lives.
    As someone who spent a lot of time shaking my head at how f’d up things are, this very application has been a far more productive use of my time. I still keep an eye on the news, but I spend less time worrying about defending political solutions that do not line up with my values.

    Like

    • The Question says:

      Sounds like something I wrote a few weeks back. 🙂

      I’ve also given up on political solutions aside from some overall realistic goals such as state nullification. I spend most of time doing other things like those listed in the above post. I’ll discuss ideas with like-minded people but I spend zero time debating.

      Like

      • Tab Spangler says:

        I would say definitely say that agorists are some of the new barbarians. I may start to use that. That was a good post and a solid video by Jack Donovan.
        I think we even agree on the cause and effect of open boarders and a welfare state, we are both just looking at different timelines. My short term pessimism and long term optimism is why I refuse to support closed boarders in order to defend a welfare state that I detest. Let the non-barbarians figure out how to reconcile the two. I’m busy figuring out my own ways to create a better life in spite of the state.

        Like

      • The Question says:

        Let the non-barbarians figure out how to reconcile the two. I’m busy figuring out my own ways to create a better life in spite of the state.

        Yes. I find it sad people still waste their time campaigning for presidential candidates and attending primaries. I did it for Ron Paul in 2007 and 2012 and if there was a lesson learned there it’s that the right person is never getting elected and our problems are not going to be solved in D.C. Political spectating is much like sports; it’s a good outlet for people who want to live vicariously through others because they don’t have much going on in their own life. I’m generalizing, but you get the idea. I enjoy it for entertainment purposes only.

        My prediction is that we will have more emigration restrictions in the future. That doesn’t seem to draw any protests or divisiveness like immigration does. It’s also much easier to enforce. The people who want to leave have something to take with them. Those who come here tend to not have much.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s