Read the response by the Antiwar.com Staff.
The other day, the head of security for the Mexican state of Michoacán was ambushed in her car: she escaped with non-life threatening injuries, but four people were killed and ten wounded in a well-planned attack that featured the throwing of hand grenades. In Ciudad Juarez, seven Mexican police were attacked and killed by assailants. The attacks were the work of Mexican drug cartels, who have long been at odds over turf, but the latest attacks may be an indication that the cartels are increasingly turning to targeting the Mexican government itself as their principal enemy.
Mexico’s governing class has long been one of the most venal and corrupt in the world. For many years, the ruling Institutional Party of the Revolution (PRI) dominated national and state politics, dispensing favors to the privileged, repressing any and all signs of dissent, and generally living off the fat of the land. This ended in 2000, when the candidate of the conservative opposition, Vicente Fox, captured the presidency, but the breakup of the PRI’s political monopoly did little to liberalize Mexican society, which remained sunk in poverty, corruption, and spiraling violence. The violence is generated primarily by the rising drug cartels, which have grown to the point where they threaten the authority of the governing structures, until today, when they are attacking government convoys, and no one – not even the head of security for a major state – is safe.
And that goes for the Americans, too, who are finding that the violence is spilling over the US-Mexican border. As a 2009 news report put it:
"Homes are being invaded by gunmen, people raped and tortured, and bodies dumped in the Arizona desert as violence from the Mexican drug wars spills into the American Southwest. Illegal immigration and drug smuggling have always been issues in this border state, but warring Mexican cartels are carrying violence to levels that have shocked law enforcement and government officials.
"There are more than 1,000 safehouses used to corral illegal immigrants after they are smuggled into the country at any given time in Phoenix, according to Lieutenant James Warriner of the Arizona Department of Public Safety. Illegal immigrants are taken to so-called drop houses, stripped naked, blindfolded, and held for ransom. If they’re naked, there is less chance of them fleeing. A bucket in the room serves as a toilet.
"’Next door in the other room is the torture/rape room,’ [Arizona state Senator Jonathan] Paton said. ‘They say, "Hey we need another 2,000 dollars or we’re going to torture and rape so-and-so."’
"Arizona state police have found 30 to 40 people crammed into rooms the size of a child’s bedroom. Paton recently visited one in a Phoenix neighborhood. …
"Home invasions and kidnappings are so prevalent now that the Phoenix Police Department has formed a special squad just to deal with them. Men hired by the Sinaloa drug cartel – the most active in Arizona – wearing body armor and tactical gear identical to American SWAT teams kick in doors, zip-cuff the inhabitants, then kill them. Several bodies were dumped in the western Phoenix suburb of Buckeye last year, according to Warriner."
Talk about terrorism – this is the real McCoy. So what is the federal government doing about it? The answer is: nothing. The US-Mexican border is just as porous as ever, and any attempt to seal it is denounced as "racist" and the equivalent of setting up a "police state."
While I don’t approve of the recent legislation passed by the Arizona state legislature, which empowers police to check anyone who might "reasonably" suspected of being in the country illegally, opponents of the bill – particularly the professional victimologists and weepy-eyed liberals – refuse to recognize that the effort was spawned, not by hate but by the rising violence of a nearly-failed state – Mexico – which is seeping across the border and threatens to become a torrent of criminality and chaos.
What I would like to know is this: what country on earth fails to guard its borders this way? We are often told by liberals and "progressives" that the US needs to be more like Europe, with cradle-to-grave security and government-run health care, but what about when it comes to immigration? Precisely because the Europeans have extensive welfare states, the demand to see "Your papers, please" is a common request made by law enforcement agencies in those countries. And no one would think of questioning their right to do so.
An estimated six million illegal immigrants have flooded the US in recent years – in sheer quantitative terms, this represents the biggest single threat to our national security. And yet the merest suggestion that something ought to be done about it is met with cries of outrage by the liberal media and the usual suspects, i.e. the Big Business lobby, which thrives on a pool of unlimited cheap labor, the "La Raza" crowd, which is basically arguing for a policy of open borders, and the Roman Catholic Church, which seeks to replenish its fast-emptying churches with a fresh crop of congregants.
Nothing enrages our liberal elites like the suggestion that we need to control immigration from our southern neighbor. In response to the Arizona law, the legal affairs editor of the New York Times says she is boycotting the state where "breathing while undocumented" is a crime. Notice the phraseology: they’re not illegal immigrants, they’re just "undocumented." Try telling the IRS that all those home office deductions aren’t illegal, they’re merely "undocumented," and see how far it gets you. The point being that illegal immigration is – gasp! – illegal, i.e. against the law. So why isn’t the law being enforced?
While we’re expending tremendous resources in trying to introduce some sort of order to the wilds of Afghanistan, the wilds of Arizona, New Mexico, and the entire American Southwest are under siege by criminal gangs, the drug cartels, in effect extra-state actors with malign intent – with no discernible response from the Feds. The Arizona state legislature is merely filling a void left by Washington, which refuses to face a very real and growing problem.
Okay, you might ask, so what’s your solution to the problem, Mr. Smarty-pants? A logical question, with an inescapably logical answer: stop trying to protect Afghanistan’s border with Pakistan and start protecting our own border with Mexico. Make the border airtight. In short, start using the resources of the federal government to carry out its one-and-only legitimate function: securing and protecting our borders.
Mexico is a seething cauldron that is already overflowing onto American soil; the national government in Mexico City appears to be losing control, even in popular tourist areas. The drug cartels are successfully challenging its monopoly on the use of force in every area of the country. When the whole place starts to come apart at the seams, do we really want a policy of open borders in place?
I had to laugh when I read about the "travel advisory" issued by the Mexican government, which warns Mexicans "it should be assumed that any Mexican citizen could be bothered and questioned for no significant reason at any moment." When I visited Mexico in the early 1970s, I was stopped by Mexican soldiers en route to Puerto Vallarta.
They had set up a checkpoint at the Sinaloa border, and ordered us out of the car. The friend I was with was outraged, and kept protesting. "Banditos!" he shouted. I winced, and kicked him under the seat. As I stepped out, and looked down the barrel of a submachine being pointed at me, I wondered if this was The End. I was determined, however, that it would not be.
However, it didn’t look good at that particular moment: there we were, in the middle of the desert, with not a soul around but me, my dumb-ass friend, and a dozen mean-looking Mexican soldiers – not cops, but military dudes, one of whom was staring at me and caressing his submachine gun with an apparently itchy trigger finger.
They searched the car, and found what they were looking for – something to steal. Pancho Itchy Finger held my portable typewriter aloft, triumphant. His fellow thugs grunted appreciatively. As my excitable friend started up with the "Bandito" refrain, I told him to STFU and then turned to face the Mexicans: "Go ahead and take it," I said, "it’s all yours."
A few minutes later, I was back in the car, sans typewriter, the wind drying the sweat off my brow as we sped toward Puerto Vallarta.
That the US State Department hasn’t issued a travel advisory warning Americans against the growing lawlessness that threatens visitors to Mexico is just another indication of government failure. Our government is so busy carrying out tasks it has no constitutional authority to involve itself in that it has no time, energy, or interest in doing what it is supposed to be doing, in this case protecting the physical safety of American citizens.
Read more by Justin Raimondo
- Antiwar.com vs. the FBI – May 21st, 2013
- Two Cheers for ‘Isolationism’ – May 19th, 2013
- Our Civil Liberties, RIP – May 16th, 2013
- Raping the World – May 14th, 2013
- The Price of Peace – May 12th, 2013





MoT
April 28th, 2010 at 4:37 am
It really is so absurd when you stop and think about it. That's the part that's hard to swallow… our government will expend blood and treasure half a world away for the most evil of reasons and yet in its own back yard not do a damn thing but… but… wait a minute…. Decide that all "honest citizens" be tagged, like cattle, with a new State Security Organ concocted internal passport… an all encompassing ID that Leviathan, Big Brother, what have you, can then dictate whether or not you are worthy of work, food, housing… you name it! This is their response to illegals and it's mind boggling. Hollywood couldn't put a candle to the script that's playing itself out before our very eyes. Cutting all the freebies and you'll see many if not most illegals disappear. It isn't difficult at all and certainly doesn't require Uncle Sam to know anything about the rest of us.
Chris Baker
April 28th, 2010 at 5:00 am
This might be one of the worst articles you've ever written here, Justin. You write about "drug cartels." You make no mention of the one and only solution–LEGALIZE ALL THE DRUGS! That is the libertarian solution.
Samuel
April 28th, 2010 at 5:07 am
It's estimated that illegal aliens are now 15-20 million strong in the United States. Those numbers represent an INVASION, not mere immigration. The population of the United States has doubled over the past 50 years and the country is now the third most populous in the world after China and India. How many more people do we need? How many more people can we afford?
It is furthermore outrageous that the government continues to import millions of foreign workers while unemployment for native Americans is at historic highs. As another writer has noted, 5 million Americans have lost their jobs in this recession, while the government continues to hand out work visas to foreigners at a clip of 1.1 million per year.
David Bensinger
April 28th, 2010 at 5:29 am
Those Americans who object to the new law in Arizona need to get behind the push for putting U.S. troops along the border. You can't blame Arizona for trying to solve a problem the federal government has created and is not refusing to address.
E. A. Costa
April 28th, 2010 at 6:13 am
Is this a new "Libertarian" and Neo-Rothbardian constellation of doctrines by any chance?
Sounds so strange-fortified borders, illegal drugs, and after Confucius, etc. etc. etc.
When is the border with Canada going to be sealed tight by the way?
E. A. Costa
April 28th, 2010 at 6:13 am
Is this a new "Libertarian" and Neo-Rothbardian constellation of doctrines by any chance?
Sounds so strange-fortified borders, illegal drugs, and after Confucius, etc. etc. etc.
When is the border with Canada going to be sealed tight by the way?
paulBass
April 28th, 2010 at 6:15 am
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=009/llsl009.db&recNum=975
E. A. Costa
April 28th, 2010 at 6:17 am
Bush's Neo-Con Homeland Security Director Chertoff paid Boeing $3,000,000 per mile to build his ERUV against Mexico,
And he gave a multimillion dollar contract to an Isaeli Company to build an electronic battlefield behind it, no doubt to be patrolled by Blackwater/Xe that is trying to get into Border Patrol.
E. A. Costa
April 28th, 2010 at 6:17 am
Bush's Neo-Con Homeland Security Director Chertoff paid Boeing $3,000,000 per mile to build his ERUV against Mexico,
And he gave a multimillion dollar contract to an Isaeli Company to build an electronic battlefield behind it, no doubt to be patrolled by Blackwater/Xe that is trying to get into Border Patrol.
E. A. Costa
April 28th, 2010 at 6:24 am
The real irony is that the Neo-Cons and the Corporatists built that ERUV not to keep Mexicans out but to keep their increasingly captive audience of Americans in.
paulBass
April 28th, 2010 at 6:27 am
my suggestion is to actually read the whole thing…
Frank
April 28th, 2010 at 6:36 am
1) The US issue travel warning for Mexico on a regular basis. The last one was 2 weeks ago. See:http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_47…
2) Decriminalize drugs and the problem disappears overnight. The US's laws and use of US taxpayer dollars to subsidize the drug war in dozens of countries created this mess.
3) I travel to several regions of Mexico on a regular basis and, while many of those regions sport police in military garb and carry fully automatic weapons, I trust them no less than the law enforcement in the US. I also know that my rights are no more protected here than in Mexico. Yes, I avoid the war zones as I avoid Compton when I'm in LA and South Orange Ave when I'm in Newark, NJ.
4) I'm an American citizen that would not be mistaken for a Mexican and I won't be visiting Arizona. Good cops are almost non-existent these days and they already exercise these "new" powers on a regular basis in all 50 states without a "law" to justify it.
The only borders that can be justified are borders created by property rights.
Dimitry
April 28th, 2010 at 6:39 am
I assume, as a libertarian, Justin is in favor of legalizing drugs. Drugs are coming into the United States because of the demand by those "law abiding Americans", that are standing strong against illegal immigration.
These same Americans, however, appear to be eager and willing to hire illegals for less than minimal wage, to care for their kids, clean their houses and do their yard work. Business is business.
So why are these dastardly, violent, dangerous and downright uncivilized Mexicans and assorted South American hoi-paloi flooding into our fair country? Why it is the demand for their services by the same "law abiding" Americans, our friend Justin is so eager to protect! He is even berating our "do-nothing" government from not "protecting" its helpless charges from their own business decision.
Antiwar has finally lost any kind of coherent political structure, and is more akin to a rudderless ship, swaying wildly from right to left at the erratic steering hand of its main editor.
Dimitry
April 28th, 2010 at 6:44 am
==WE CANNOT AFFORD A FAILED STATE SOUTH OF US==
Should we invade and "fix them up", like we are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Frank
April 28th, 2010 at 6:47 am
Definitely top 3. His writing is good though, as usual. :)
Frank
April 28th, 2010 at 6:48 am
If we can't afford a failed state south of us, we should stop spending so much money to turn create a failed state south of us.
Dimitry
April 28th, 2010 at 6:51 am
Invasion? Highly unlikely.
The illegal immigration phenomenon is really much more like a response to a widely decimated "workers needed" advertisement. The illegals are here at our own request – Americans have long found the work that the illegals do – manual farming, gardening, baby care – much below them, your cries of "unemployment for native Americans" notwithstanding. True, one has to pay American at least the pitiful minimal wage, while Mexican will do it for less – but we have long voted for cheapest food and domestics, so we have no leg to stand on in our righteous cries of "criminality" and "illegality".
And the "skill visas"? They are a mixture of skilled foreigners who are willing to work for less and skilled foreigners who fill the shortage left by our broken school system, that continues to "graduate" illiterate dummies into an economy that is built on more and more complexity.
Dimitry
April 28th, 2010 at 6:51 am
Invasion? Highly unlikely.
The illegal immigration phenomenon is really much more like a response to a widely decimated "workers needed" advertisement. The illegals are here at our own request – Americans have long found the work that the illegals do – manual farming, gardening, baby care – much below them, your cries of "unemployment for native Americans" notwithstanding. True, one has to pay American at least the pitiful minimal wage, while Mexican will do it for less – but we have long voted for cheapest food and domestics, so we have no leg to stand on in our righteous cries of "criminality" and "illegality".
And the "skill visas"? They are a mixture of skilled foreigners who are willing to work for less and skilled foreigners who fill the shortage left by our broken school system, that continues to "graduate" illiterate dummies into an economy that is built on more and more complexity.
Dimitry
April 28th, 2010 at 6:56 am
==Cutting all the freebies and you'll see many if not most illegals disappear==
What be those "freebies" paleface? Perhaps manual field work at below minimal wage? Or the semi-paid construction work, where the Mexicans have an equal chance of being paid a pittance or not being paid at all? Or maybe you are referring to our world famous social net, SO MUCH better than the rest of the world – people flock here to get on our welfare rolls…
Go do your bit to stop the "illegal invasion" – get hired to pick oranges at the local CA farm and deprive a Mexican from his ill-gotten good luck!
Dimitry
April 28th, 2010 at 7:00 am
I actually have to travel to Tucson on a fairly regular basis and I would have to bring my naturalization certificate – I do look kind of foreign. I have to find out if I need to have the original with me – I would hate to lose it or have it taken away from me – it's kind of precious to me and impossible to replace except for an official copy.
Frank
April 28th, 2010 at 7:19 am
If anyone is interested, check out Fred Reed (another antiwar.com contributor) who, like me, spends a lot of time in Mexico (I think he lives there now)….
Meddling Where We Oughtn't http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed174.html
His archive:http://www.fredoneverything.net/
E. A. Costa
April 28th, 2010 at 7:43 am
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo is an old acquaintance. Many future lawsuits against states such as Arizona hinge on its not being observed or enforced, and there are legal items that pertain even to such issues as "English Only" Home Schooling laws as far away as the Midwest.
E. A. Costa
April 28th, 2010 at 7:43 am
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo is an old acquaintance. Many future lawsuits against states such as Arizona hinge on its not being observed or enforced, and there are legal items that pertain even to such issues as "English Only" Home Schooling laws as far away as the Midwest.
Wolfgang
April 28th, 2010 at 8:03 am
Isn't it so that illegal aliens can serve at the military?
And isn't it so that they are provided citizenship posthume?
So there is abviously a need for it?
W.
Mark W. Stroberg
April 28th, 2010 at 8:10 am
Justin,
Odd that a "libertarian" such as yourself worships raw government violence on this one issue.
Let's just suppose I am a businessman or landlord (native born US citizen) who owns a business or apartment complex on the US side of the border. What business of yours is it if I rent to or hire an "illegal" Mexican immigrant. Are you pro-socialist, anti-capitalist on this one issue, Justin?
The problems are caused by the laws, by government violence, and as a "libertarian," you should know that.
When brandishing the catch all phrase "illegal," one should first ask the question, "Is the law just and moral?" How do you feel about "illegal" medical marijuana use? Your defense of state violence on the issue of immigration is a prescription for tyranny. Live free or die!
marko
April 28th, 2010 at 8:12 am
Justin, really… "the liberal media"? Did you really say that? How much of what follows can I believe after that howler? Exactly which liberal media would that be? The one's who've been incessantly beating the war drums, the ones who've endlessly pushed for and cheered on unquestioningly the loss of privacy and massive increase in domestic surveillance and general corporate influence over domestic politics for the last decade? 'Cause what I see is the same corporate outlets spewing the same old shit. So how come that's now suddenly "liberal" since its the same shit they were spewing during the Bush regime? I don't recall you call them the "the liberal media" back then. Why not? What's so different about what they say now? And what's with conflating drug cartels and the illegal immigration problem? True, if there wasn't so much money in drugs and people smuggling for the US market the cartels wouldn't be buying up military gear to fight over it (or having a need to, for that matter). But it's not the thirst for illegal immigrants that has the Sinaloa cartel busting into homes kidnapping and executing people. It's drugs and the corrupting influence of Empire. And your response is not to demand a return of Arizona's National Guard to do their proper duty, but instead to further federalize the problem by dispatching the US military? Who historically have no business being there in the first place and no connection to the local populace and would therefore more easily dehumanize them? And they'd just contentedly watch the border and no one would ever exploit that situation and have them do anything crazy, right? Like say, be used to institute martial law for some bogus "crisis" that already has the legislation in place and response set up? Just go ahead and link up DHS and the Pentagon directly with the telco's super snoop phone ops. Sure, why not – it's worked great every where else. We can see the smashing success of the War On Drugs so let's get some real soldiers out there killing some real innocent US civilians for a change? Nah, no worries. In the extremely unlikely case of a military screw-up (not) we'll just say they were guilty of possessing marijuana. After all, nobody's innocent, right? Let's have the troops do night raids, Afghanistan style, against the immigration insurgents. Do you really think it would be any different from that? Is that really what you want to see here? How do you envision that ending? Or did you mean using "resources" like Blackwater or whatever they call themselves these days for that job. Now there's some securtiy for you. If you happen to work for them and you're male, anyway.
While I don't dispute the point about illegal immigration, it really is America's dirty open secret that the reason many illegal immigrants are able to get jobs is because the jobs are jobs Americans won't do. How much of our fruit is back-breakingly harvested by hard-working legal Americans, for one example, as opposed to Mexican illegals? Have you ever heard of an outcry over "legals" not being allowed to work with a spine-wrecking short hoe in the strawberry fields? Who do you suppose gets sun-scorched and suffers heat stroke from affordably harvesting all those wine grapes in the Dry Creek Valley vineyards near where you live, Justin? But we don't talk about that, we're way too good at being victims to even consider that kind of angle. It isn't the whole story, but it sure is something we rarely confront ourselves with.
The US has played no small part in stoking the fires under that "seething cauldron" of Mexico for any number of reasons, pretty much all of them domestic. If the whole thing wasn't so damned lucrative and of use to so many of the wealthy, connected and powerful (as well as the cheap-buying and accustomed to it), it wouldn't be happening. But you know that already, Justin. I mean, that's your own thinking applied to this situation. Why aren't you doing that yourself? You ask why the law isn't being enforced but purely rhetorically, when really that is the actual point. What is the reason the law isn't being enforced? You never try to answer that, you just guess and blame. It's much easier to go ahead and blame "The Liberals" I suppose, and of course scream for Big Daddy State to come save you. But it's cheap and empty and lazy and you know it is. Or at least you should.
uberVU - social comments
April 28th, 2010 at 4:48 am
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by swatcrisis: South of the Border – Antiwar.com http://bit.ly/b9HkM9 #swat…
Jim Way
April 28th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Precisely!
Jim Way
April 28th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Precisely!
gary
April 28th, 2010 at 5:24 am
I LIVE IN S.F. AND THE CITY IS DEBATING A BOYCOTT OF ALL THINGS ARIZONIAN….A BIT SILLY I THINK…I AM A LIBERAL BUT I SEE JUSTINS POINT..WE CANNOT AFFORD A FAILED STATE SOUTH OF US…LEGALIZING DRUGS WILL HELP BUT IT WON'T SOLVE THIS VERY COMPLEX PROBLEM
Ron Johnson
April 28th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Justin, you're treating the symptom, not the disease.
There is no way to "secure" the Mexican/American border without shoot-to-kill orders, and there is no way of finding illegals already in this country without a national ID.
The problem with illegals in the U.S. is they are underground. If they could live openly without fear of arrest and deportation, and access our justice system for their protection, the abusive gangs you write about would have far fewer fearful victims to take advantage of.
David Bensinger
April 28th, 2010 at 6:00 am
Correction: You can't blame Arizona for trying to salve a problem the federal government has created and is NOW refusing to address.
Pantagruel
April 28th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
I myself would prefer an open border with a friendly neighbor.
Having previously paid punishing penalties for pernicious policies pertaining to prohibition and slavery, the U.S. once again sails proudly on as the flagship of human stupidity, fueled by a limitless supply of greed and gullibility.
Demonizing Latin Americans, or anyone else for that matter, is just propaganda.
Frank
April 28th, 2010 at 7:38 am
Good luck with that. If it's for a job, maybe you should ask for hazard pay. :)
Connestee
April 28th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
I believe Justin caved in a while back on the war on drugs issue because he thinks it hurts the cause of libertarians. A bad move on his part imo, but he's entitled to his own opinion.
It is one of his worst articles, and he has written some doozies lately, especially in regard to the tea baggers.
MvGuy
April 28th, 2010 at 3:33 pm
MMMMMMMM this a HOT potato…!! I too have been stopped at the internal state borders in Mexico.
We came upon their checkpoint around 10: PM. They were obviously enjoying some taquilla and they were already walking not so straight.. One was wearing a Grateful Dead tee shirt and sporting an Uzi.. As they were going through our belongings, whenever they would find a camera or a cassette they would ask "for me"? Needless to say dealing with intoxicated Federalies with machine guns late at night is no fun, but it IS part of their "border security".. Days later at one of these checkpoints, we witnessed a couple WITH TWO [6 TO 9 yrs. old] CHILDREN HAND CUFFED NEXT TO THEIR VAN.. Be very careful in Mexico!
Today, I am a closed borders national healthcare libralterian of the Ronald Reagan logic of allotment.
He wanted to spend our tax money on the military to bankrupt the social services by refurbishing antique destroyers and building complex ICBMs and running secret [illegal] wars in C.A. I want to spend the money on social services to bankrupt the military, go figure.. Of course a better solution would be to tame these monsters and only tax for bare minimum of absolutely necessary function! But please explain how WE decided to invade a country half way round the planet because some Saudis who MAY HAVE flown planes into our buildings probably vacationed there?? Why are we building infrastructure over THERE while the one here is in a state of collapse and we are in debt beyond comprehension?? Why are we patrolling the border of Afghanistan, but surrendering our Southern border here.. I fear human evolution/nature needs to be guided towards constructive endeavor, away form destructive activity.. Not likely though, the boys find shooting people FUN.. "Apparently pussies around the world are pissed off that a US Marine General spoke honestly about the awesomeness of shooting motherfuckers up." Conducting live persons video games??? See……. [http://bullshit-detection.com/2005/02/so-shooting-people-is-chore-now.html] Just not here.. Well unless it's our [trained in a war zone] police….I'm for more doctors, less police, less law.. less intervention all around our cities and towns..and the WORLD!! Get rid of the drug laws too please.. Alcohol is NOT that fun… [Please disregard this paragraph!]
Frank
April 28th, 2010 at 3:44 pm
You can't be a libertarian and support drug laws because supporting drug laws is supporting an act of aggression. Somone that supports acts of aggression and calls themselves a libertarian hurts the cause of libertarians, not the other way around. See Neal Boortz.
This is much worse than the Tea Party piece (if I'm thinking of the same one). That article mainly attacked the establishment left for there statist alarmism.
Frank
April 28th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
Like I said above (not that it matters), Justin was wrong about this. I even linked to the latest travel warning.
Justin Raimondo
April 28th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
Legalizing drugs won't eliminate the drug cartels, and that isn't the only criminal enterprise they're engaged in.
E. A. Costa
April 28th, 2010 at 9:06 am
US oil is after denationalizing Pemex, and getting rights to drill offshore. They were behind the attempted referendum on denationalization.
US corporations, like the US pig factory where the swine flu epidemic broke out, are wreaking economic and ecological havoc.
Meanwhile Obama appoints Cubano as ambassador, formerly in the Ukraina, and an expert on failed states while subsidizing Mexican security and a new political security database.
It is not that far off to guess that the US is trying to start a civil war in Mexico so it can intervene.
It is a lunatic idea and will backfire, leading also to massive bloodshed in the US as well, but then the lunatics, including selected Neo-Cons, are still in charge aren''t they?
Nadorn
April 28th, 2010 at 4:09 pm
When we see the mounties coming in and raiding houses in Wisconsin.
Frank
April 28th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
And alcohol wasn't the only criminal enterprise that Capone was involved in during prohibition but a soon as alcohol was made legal (cutting off organized crime's biggest source of income – by far), the piece of the pie became so small that organized crime became a non-issue.
I'm not sure what you mean by "eliminate" but it will stop said cartels from exporting drugs and violence to the US. Maybe the cartels will adjust their business model to compete with all the new US suppliers but I doubt it. The price would fall too much. We don't see a black-market for cigarettes, aspirin or alcohol. However, if drugs are no longer their thing, I don't think it's fair to call them drug cartels. The cartels might not be eliminated but they'd no longer be "drug" cartels.
marko
April 28th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
Hmm, interesting… Looks like my non-liberal, non-humanitarian critique of what passes for "thought" in Justin's little effort here didn't pass the website censorship test. I guess antiwar.com is keeping up with the times. Ah well. Just goes to show ya, the more things change…
So long antiwar.com… you took a fair amount of my money just to come to this.
MoT
April 28th, 2010 at 4:58 pm
Stop being an ass hat. My family were and are farmers so your comments mean little to me. And palefaces happen to make up a very small portion, but a portion none the less, of illegals so get off your high horse. I've lived overseas myself and my wife was once a green card holder. The hoops we had to jump through to be "legal" were incredibly time consuming, inconvenient, costly bull shit. Still, we did it. We did it out of respect for the nation we live in and its PEOPLE. On one foray to El Paso, as "required" by our illustrious governmental poobahs and waiting in a rather dank smelling waiting area we were ushered into an interview room. We had all the paperwork, marriage certificates, you name it and the the interviewer ( a Hispanic woman ) for all intents and purposes made us feel lower than dirt. She essentially accused me and my wife of having a marriage of convenience possibly so my wife could enter the country illegally. Now think about that one Mr. Nimrod! My wife was "brown" too! Get it?! But not the right kind of brown for her. Or you? After some time we were "released" and told everything was OK… but the two of us were so pissed we were shaking. We've been married now for over twenty years… some marriage of convenience, eh? And, to top it all off, she got her citizenship swearing in ceremony in El Paso near the scene of all that offensiveness. Why she chose to do so remains a mystery but she worked and studied like a dog to prove something to herself and her family. I don't believe in giving out "goodies" to corporations or individuals for whatever reason. Why? Because it comes out of someones pocket. And empowers a corrupt government. You on the other hand believe someone has to subsidize you. Why? I don't owe you or anyone else anything but simple respect. Not a job, not cradle to grave medication, not an education… nothing. These are things that can be acquired but not at the point of a gun which you advocate. Again… simple respect but you've already shown you don't deserve any.
Watson
April 28th, 2010 at 4:59 pm
Only legal immigrants can serve in the US military. And yes, they can be given citizenship during their service if they have met the requirements, or in some cases, posthumously. Illegal aliens are barred from serving.
Miles Gloriosus
April 28th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
The primary duty of EVERY government EVERYWHERE and EVERY TIME in history is and has been to protect the lives and welfare of its citizens. ALL other duties and responsibilities are secondary. A government of any nation that has effectively abrogated that primary responsibility is no longer the legitimate government of that nation's citizens. Our "leaders" in Washington are now nothing but a bunch of thugs and highway men.
Is it any wonder so many are now speaking seditiously?
Lloyd G.
April 28th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
Latin Americans are not streaming across the border to sell drugs. They're coming to take low wage jobs. Ending drug prohibition would not stop illegal immigration. There are other reasons to support an end to prohibition, but this ain't one of them.
F.A. Hayek Fan
April 28th, 2010 at 5:23 pm
Don't worry MoT. Haven't you heard? Everything will be all better once the Democans are voted out of office and the Republicrats are voted in!
Lloyd G.
April 28th, 2010 at 10:26 am
Touchy issue. You'll get a lot of crap for this one, Justin.
Like you say, white progressives/liberals shout down anyone who opposes open borders as 'racist'. Of course for white progressives/liberals, the question of immigration policy is academic. It doesn't affect them. No low skill Latin immigrant will replace the current legal affairs editor of the NYT.
Black Americans, on the other hand, bear the burden of the competition for low-wage employment, and the violent crime of Latin gangs. And they're not for open borders.
http://conversations.blackvoices.com/rant/575e203…
Heathcliff_Maw
April 28th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
Lloyd, liberals like me don't believe we should have unconstrained immigration. What we object to is the race-baiting exploitation of the issue for political gain. Remember: it was Bush's own party that shouted him down when he broached the subject of immigration reform in 2007. The only "solution" the Republicans would consider was to seal the borders. Good luck with that.
Californians will have the opportunity this November to take a step towards abating the violence south of the border. There is a proposition on the ballot to legalize marijuana possession for all. I suspect that most of the opposition to that will come from conservatives, not liberals. If the measure passes, then I am confident that California's experience will disprove all the fear mongers' arguments that are used to continue counterproductive prohibition policies. Then we might have more sensible drug laws nationwide.
Of course, immigration reform must be addressed as well.
MoT
April 28th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
LoL… Silly of me for jumping off the partisan bandwagon oh so many years ago. Irony is ironic.
MoT
April 28th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
LoL… Silly of me for jumping off the partisan bandwagon oh so many years ago. Irony is ironic.
Jim
April 28th, 2010 at 5:44 pm
Come on, guys. Calm down. I'm from South America, and I have a fair proposal. How about giving back the Mexicans what you took from them by force? That is, California, New Mexico, etc, etc (The land taken from Mexico is 14.9% of the total area of the current United States territory).
MoT
April 28th, 2010 at 5:47 pm
Seeing as I got distracted with other things I do need to chime in and agree that decriminalizing drugs to be one of the best things that could ever be done. That Leviathan would peacefully relinquish its strangle hold on us all through the police AKA internal Security Forces and the Prison-industrial complex is a thin hope indeed. I still hope for it.
E. A. Costa
April 28th, 2010 at 5:47 pm
Even the "illegal" in "Illegal alien" is tendentious when it pertains to Mexicans and in some instances Canadians.
The manipulators, Bernaysian and other, well understand the Whorf Thesis just as US oil and Finance Capital well understand the collapse of USD in August, 2008.
Lloyd G.
April 28th, 2010 at 5:47 pm
Both parties exploit hot-button issues. It's not just the Republicans. I think part of the reason the Dems haves embraced the immigration issue is because they don't want people talking about Obama's AfPak adventure this year.
Californians just voted on Proposition 5 in the last election. This was a measure that would have lessened the penalties for drug offenses. You might not have heard about it because everyone was screaming about Prop 8.
Among the best known faces leading the fear campaign against the measurre: Diane Feinstein. Conservatives are typically against decriminilzation, but lots of liberals are opposed as well. Turns out police and prison guard unions (and prosecutors, etc.) opposed it, so pro-union Dems had to step on that bandwagon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H59WDY_5OyI
E. A. Costa
April 28th, 2010 at 5:50 pm
After Gianfranco Sanguinetti, only Communism can save US Capitalism now.
E. A. Costa
April 28th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
It also must be pointed out how the war in Afghanistan was gradually redefined, from eliminating "Bin Laden" to helping the tribes overthrow the Taliban to "nation-building" to a "Drug War".
My, doesn't nine years and trillions of dollars just fly by?
Strangely enough in this "Drug War" about the only thing the US military is sure of recently is that they do not want to destroy poppy fields.
The US is trying to engineer the same "Drug War" bit in Mexico, though in a much different mode and with–so far–much different means.
It's enough to wonder why Abbie Hoffman, a brilliant mind and the closest to Tom Paine Redivivus the US has had, didn't decide to learn Spanish and become a founder of FARC rather than committing suicide in a fit of depression.
E. A. Costa
April 28th, 2010 at 6:09 pm
Ah, "illegal" Canadian cabbies in Minneapolis or "illegal" Poles all over Chicago don't count? Chinese "slaves" in NYC then?
The Nativist White Racist faux "Anglo-Saxon" Know-Nothing agenda of some Arizonans is transparent.
It will be the end of them soon enough.
Colin Patrick Barth
April 28th, 2010 at 6:17 pm
Usually I find something to like in Justin's articles, but "conservative" American libertarians often fall down on immigration. Take the two extraordinary factual omissions in this crap article: 1) as a libertarian should say, drug war violence is only spilling over from Mexico because the US has spent billions making drug gangs powerful due to drug prohibition, and 2) the historical perspective that European countries have actually had borders open to transit, before WWI, during the most prosperous period in European history.
It's also an occasional libertarian who accept the idea that it's the proper role of government to empower customs thugs. Life's petty dictators aren't the solution to anything. Why is the "border" some sort of exception?
E. A. Costa
April 28th, 2010 at 6:19 pm
"Money" under Finance Capital is two-tiered, which apparently many "Libertarians" can't grasp.
In fact, Finace Capital is interpretable as a meta-economic system grafted on the real economy which, in the name of "Capitalism" and "free enterprise" and the rest–it eventually destroys.
A Rothbard, one is sure, would be capable of a serious useful discussion of Lenin on the subject, but apparently those kinds of "Libertarian" thinkers have gone the way of the Paulistas and the Teabaggers.
Frank
April 28th, 2010 at 6:26 pm
Did you read this article before you commented? It's specifically talking about the mexican drug cartels.
Frank
April 28th, 2010 at 6:26 pm
Did you read this article before you commented? It's specifically talking about the mexican drug cartels.
liberranter
April 28th, 2010 at 6:45 pm
We don't see a black-market for cigarettes…
Oh, yes we do! You obviously haven't read about the extensive cigarette smuggling that has been going on for well over a decade between Canada and New York, or between the Carolinas and other states (ESPECIALLY New York) where cigarette taxes are nearly 100 percent of the product's retail price.
Bottom line: ANY good or service that is banned, excessively controlled, or excessively taxed by any level of government will be an irresistible target for organized crime, with all of its attendant violence and disruption. "Illegal" drugs are certainly no exception. While Justin is correct in that legalization will not eliminate the cartels, it will seriously reduce their power, wealth, and influence, at least until they find a new "illegal product or service" (most likely something arbitrarily designated as such by the government for purposes of consolidating its own power).
Justin Raimondo
April 28th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
A multi-billion dollar enterprise doesn't go away overnight, and this one won't either. If Phoenix, AZ, is being invaded by an army of criminals, what would you say to the people of that city? Or what about the people who live very near the border — do they have rights?
Sal
April 28th, 2010 at 7:16 pm
Justin,
Thank you for this. I appreciate your patriotism. We need more of you.
Justin Raimondo
April 28th, 2010 at 7:17 pm
If you were al-Qaeda, and you wanted to smuggle a "dirty bomb" into the US, wouldn't you use the already existing criminal networks that smuggle human beings into the US, rather than set up your own? Yeah, yeah, all you have to do is legalize drugs and the world's problems will be solved: unfortunately, it isn't that easy….
liberranter
April 28th, 2010 at 7:17 pm
Well said, Mark. The only tenable libertarian view is that it doesn't matter on which side of an artificially-created (by that organization with a monopoly on coercive violence called "the State") border one lives and works. The only time anyone is an "illegal alien" is if they are trespassing on private property owned by someone else, without the owner's permission. This applies, in the case of Arizona in particular, to [natural] law-abiding Mexicans who are here to seek a better future for themselves, or to violent, gun-toting "cartelistas" and "coyotes" engaged in the (narcotics or human) smuggling business.
Where the former is concerned, these individuals are only committing a crime if they occupy, trespass upon, or steal the property of a resident of Arizona or commit a violent crime against their person. On the other hand, that person is engaged in mutually beneficial and voluntary exchange of commerce with an Arizona resident (i.e., Maria cleans Susan's house once a week in exchange for a sum of money both agree to without threats of coercion or force), that is no one's business but the two parties involved, as no third party is injured by or derives direct benefit from the transaction, removing it from the definition of the term "crime" under natural law (the ONLY law that matters). As for the second group (the "cartelistas"), they derive their wealth and power –and the ability to project and inflict militarized violence– only because of the positivist U.S. and international laws that render by fiat some drugs (usually those not manufactured by politically-connected pharmaceutical firms) "illegal" and that lead desperate Mexicans to enter the U.S. illegally because the U.S. government has declared freedom of movement across certain arbitrarily-created geographical boundaries to be a crime. Unable to travel openly and freely on PUBLIC land and unable to use legal, peaceful means to settle "trade disputes", the violence practiced by all of these groups, including the enslavement of "illegal" immigrants under the appalling conditions Justin describes, is an inevitability that of course will adversely affect innocent, peaceful, otherwise law-abiding people. Legalize freedom of movement on public (i.e, not under private ownership of another as provable by legally -conferred title) land and decriminalize and ultimately legalize the possession of arbitrarily-designated "illegal drugs", along with the elimination of the welfare state, and the problems Justin describes become non-existent overnight. (And by the way, as a Tucson resident I am right in the proverbial "thick of things", so I'm fully qualified to offer these solutions as both completely realistic and reasonable.)
Of course it is obvious that the powers-that-be on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border, as well as the criminal cartels themselves, are determined to keep the status quo in place. The USG and various state governments seize more extra-constitutional power by the letting this self-inflicted crisis continue, the military-industrial-security-prison complex gets wealthier, and the criminal cartels continue to expand their wealth, power, and influence by trading in artificially expensive products and services , products for which THERE IS CLEARLY A HUGE MARKET, that could be traded peacefully, legally, and at reasonable prices absent government banning and/or regulation.
Ira Epstein
April 28th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
I agree with Frank that alot of the problems in Mexico concerning the violence of drug cartels is blowback from the decision of the government of the United States to make drugs illegal. Legalize drugs; take the excessive profit out of the trade, and the violence will dissapear almost overnight. When there are so many laws that the government could repeal that could go along way to help control the bad type of immigration (immigrants who come to the United States to go on welfare or engage in criminal behavior) it makes no sense to hire a bunch of brand new jacked booted government thugs to patrol the border between the United States and Mexico. That would be like replacing one criminal gang with another criminal gang. First, decriminalize the drug trade, repeal the welfare state, and amend the constitution to end birthright citizenship before rewarding the government for its failure with more power in the form of an expanded border patrol bureacracy. Anytime there is a problem the first question a good Libertarian should ask is what is the government doing to cause the problem and what laws and government programs can be repealed to help correct the problem?
liberranter
April 28th, 2010 at 7:31 pm
Criminal networks that, again, either wouldn't exist or wouldn't be in the business of smuggling were it not for the current positivist laws on the books. As for "smuggling" anything across our southern border, that already regularly takes place even where border security is supposedly "ironclad and airtight" under our Heimatsicherheitstaat, the agency in charge of which has a notoriously abominable performance record, despite its billions of dollars in funding.
And as far as Al Qaeda specifically is concerned, I won't even get into the fact that it wouldn't even be a threat at all were it not for this country's criminally aggressive foreign wars…
Ron Johnson
April 28th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Justin, you're treating the symptom, not the disease.
There is no way to "secure" the Mexican/American border without shoot-to-kill orders, and there is no way of finding illegals already in this country without a national ID.
The problem with illegals in the U.S. is they are underground. If they could live openly without fear of arrest and deportation, and access our justice system for their protection, the abusive gangs you write about would have far fewer fearful victims to take advantage of.
Judy
April 28th, 2010 at 7:40 pm
Jim,
You're from South America, you say? How about giving back to the indigenous peoples there the land you took from them by force?
Hypocrite.
DavidZ
April 28th, 2010 at 7:50 pm
Justin,
How is this "the real issue"? Arizona and Texas aren't Palestine. "Mexicans" were not forced across the border into Mexico once Arizona and Texas became part of the United States. This is in contrast to what Israelis did to non-Jews. There is no refugee issue regarding Mexico and the Southwestern states. Nor are ethnic "Mexicans" who were born in Arizona and Texas denied rights of citizenship in the United States. This is also in contrast to the situation in Israel, where most non-Jews are denied to citizenship in Israel. (Compare the rights enjoyed by Jews in the West Bank to the disenfranchisement of Muslims and Christians.)
The illegal aliens that are invading the United States come mostly from central and southern Mexico. Their ancestors were Mayans and Aztecs mainly, not different ethnic groups from northern Mexico. So how is this "blowback"?
These alliens are mostly good, hardworking people, to be sure. But mass immigration is not good for the American nation and it is not in the interests of the Americann people.
E. A. Costa
April 28th, 2010 at 8:01 pm
Phoenix, Arizona is an organized crime to begin with. Now they have competition.
E. A. Costa
April 28th, 2010 at 8:05 pm
Yes, the Spectacle–to distract, to confuse, to cover the real deal, which is war.
E. A. Costa
April 28th, 2010 at 8:12 pm
Ah yes, "Al Qaeda"–in 9-11 didn't a good many of these phantoms supposedly enter through Canada?
Not one through Mexico.
E. A. Costa
April 28th, 2010 at 8:12 pm
Ah yes, "Al Qaeda"–in 9-11 didn't a good many of these phantoms supposedly enter through Canada?
Not one through Mexico.
Henrietta
April 28th, 2010 at 8:13 pm
The Mexican president's comments about U.S. immigration laws make it seem like he sees Mexicans in the United States as an invading force, a beachhead to conquest of Mexico's northern neighbor.
Here's Mexican president Felipe Calderon:
"We know the severity of this law, SB 1070, but I also think that such an adverse circumstance has to be a spur, it has to be one more incentive to fortify and to increase the unity and organization of the Mexicans in the United States and of the Mexicans in the United States with the Mexican government."
Calderon is counting on Obama:
Mexico’s ambassador to the U.S., Arturo Sarukhan—who has openly described the network of Mexican consulates in the U.S. as "beachheads"—called SB 1070 "racial discrimination".
http://www.vdare.com/indexb.asp
E. A. Costa
April 28th, 2010 at 8:17 pm
There's an idea the Paulistas and Teabaggers haven't expanded upon yet: "Libertarians For The Patriot Act."
No doubt "Libertarians For Nuking Iran" will follow soon enough.
Gera Rosy
April 28th, 2010 at 8:22 pm
I agree with Chris Baker. This is one of the worst, perhaps THE worst, article written by Justin. Sounding like something one would expect from the KKK, it reeks of blaitant racism against Mexicans, regardless of where they live or where they were born- all this out of one negative experience in Mexico. I can't help wondering if Justin has lost it.
hoct
April 28th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Justin I don't think that the US State Department not issuing a travel advisory warning Americans against the growing lawlessness that threatens visitors to Mexico is a government failure. There is nothing in the constitution saying issuing travel advisory warnings is something the government should be doing.
Anyway TAC had a feature the other month where they said Hispanics do not do any more crime than whites (when adjusted for age and gender).
TonyJoseph
April 28th, 2010 at 8:48 pm
What other country on this green Earth would allow itself to be INVADED by 20,000,000 people from its next door neighboring country?
A primary responsibility of the Federal Government is to secure and protect our country's borders and to protect our citizens from such an INVASION. The Feds are NOT fulfilling their responsibility.
How can we have a "War on Terror" with completely open borders? There are ONE MILLION violent drug dealing gang members in America – ALL just walked freely across our borders.
'Political correctness' refers to it as "illegal immigration" – it is an INVASION by people who are CRIMINALS by virue of breaking the law by coming here illegally.
Let all of those Washington D.C. living members of Congress – idiots and morons ALL; TRAITORS to America ALL; crooks and thieves ALL; with all too many perverts – let them all move to Arizona and live among the 460,000 INVADERS.
Anyone see an American flag flying? – oops – it has been replaced by the Mexican flag by all of the INVADERS.
Andrew
April 28th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
What a particularly fact-free column. Anyone who does a few minutes of google searches knows that the idea of a "spillover" of the violence from Mexico is a pernicious myth (see Radley Balko today on El Paso, one of the safest cities in America, and directly across the border from Ciudad Juarez). And what an incredibly weak critique of the Arizona law, he can't say anything more forceful about a law which empowers any police officer to demand of any person their proof of citizenship on demand?
But worst of all, he falls into the demonstrably false "immigrants cause crime" camp. WRONG. Read this, Justin.http://www.amconmag.com/article/2010/mar/01/00022… I thought libertarians were supposed to fear the power of the state more than the people!
Dorean
April 28th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
Here's a partial solution to the supposed problem- legalize currently illegal drugs in the US and tax it. That'll get drugs for all the dopers and tax money for the govt.
Frank
April 28th, 2010 at 9:13 pm
Of course people with property near the border have rights. They have the right to allow or deny entry to their property to any individual they choose (regardless of where that person came from).
What if I lived near the border? Do I not have the right to invite a Mexican to my property? What if Jose and I decided it would be mutually beneficial to both of us if he stayed? Would you infringe upon my property rights and tell me I could only do so if some men with guns gave me permission?
Your comment is also uncharacteristically close to many of the arguments torn apart on these very pages. Whether it's… women in Afghanistan are being denied rights so… or Saddam, his sons and the Baath party are kidnapping and raping people so… what would you say to them?
Don't get me wrong, IMO, this site is one of the most important on the web. I will continue reading it daily and supporting it monetarily whenever I can but you're at your best when you're making an argument based on principle. Your opinion on this issue fails on both the non-aggression axiom and property rights.
Frank
April 28th, 2010 at 9:17 pm
Yes, I'm aware. Thanks for nitpicking my attempt at making point and elaborating. :)
And you can bet if a federal law was created that banned tobacco, the cigarette cartels would be as dangerous and cause as many problems as the drug cartels (they'd probably be the same groups).
Andrew
April 28th, 2010 at 9:19 pm
What are you talking about? Of course they wouldn't instantly vanish, but if you took away their primary source of income they sure as hell would shrink, and shrink drastically at that. There is simply no substitute for the market in illicit drugs to which the cartels could turn to replace the lost income. And lacking any means to pay their members, or bribe government officials, their influence would decrease significantly with the passage of time.
Andrew
April 28th, 2010 at 9:19 pm
What are you talking about? Of course they wouldn't instantly vanish, but if you took away their primary source of income they sure as hell would shrink, and shrink drastically at that. There is simply no substitute for the market in illicit drugs to which the cartels could turn to replace the lost income. And lacking any means to pay their members, or bribe government officials, their influence would decrease significantly with the passage of time.
Frank
April 28th, 2010 at 9:20 pm
Watch: Judge Jim Gray on The Six Groups Who Benefit From Drug Prohibition http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6t1EM4Onao
john
April 28th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
And don't you just love those liberals who are having their children raised by nannies, and who have a cook preparing three meals a day, with the cook and the nanny being paid less than minimum wage and the social costs being absorbed by the taxpayers. Oh how they lament, the State of Arizona at least trying to control the border,;although the recent law will be counterproductive by wasting police time.
And why the churches and the demagogues don't organize the Mexicans within Mexico to demand that their own government confront poverty there instead of dumping the problem onto The United States brings their motives into question.
A good solution would be to grant work permits that would give the protection of labor law to the illegals, force the employers to pay at least minimum wage while contributing to Social Security; and demand the social costs be paid by the employer or send the bill to the Mexican Government. In the meantime these guest workers can get in line to apply for citizenship.
Only when they have to pay fair wages and provide benefits will the hypocritical open borders crowd reveal their true motives.
Frank
April 28th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
If drugs were legal in the US, al-CIA-da would have to find another source of income to fund their dirty bomb attack since poppy plants would no longer do it. Maybe the US gov't could just transfer some newly printed fed notes via the ISI. I've got to imagine that, somehow, this leads back to Iran… lets bomb em.
Andrew
April 28th, 2010 at 9:42 pm
Yeah we're the third most populous country on earth, but what the hell does that matter? If you measure by population density, which is what really matters, we rank 178th in the world, not so alarming. So yes, I think we can handle some extra people.
Dimitry
April 28th, 2010 at 10:18 pm
Again, to the initial premise of you post.
What are the "freebies" these illegals are coming here for? That's why they are here – robbing you blind with their "welfaire" and their ill-gotten govenrment largesse.
Tell me what is it they are getting here that is coming out of your hate-field pocket? Below minmum wage employment that American no longer want to do because it offers a life style of a slave? A great medical system that is offered to the illegals?
They are coming here because you are a cheap bastard and want to hire people on the cheap to cut your lawn, repair your roof, raise your baby and generally be an all around cheap labor.
Want so stop the "illegal" aspect of immigration? Easy – offer a legal way to go that can acommodate the American demand.
Dimitry
April 28th, 2010 at 10:18 pm
Again, to the initial premise of you post.
What are the "freebies" these illegals are coming here for? That's why they are here – robbing you blind with their "welfaire" and their ill-gotten govenrment largesse.
Tell me what is it they are getting here that is coming out of your hate-field pocket? Below minmum wage employment that American no longer want to do because it offers a life style of a slave? A great medical system that is offered to the illegals?
They are coming here because you are a cheap bastard and want to hire people on the cheap to cut your lawn, repair your roof, raise your baby and generally be an all around cheap labor.
Want so stop the "illegal" aspect of immigration? Easy – offer a legal way to go that can acommodate the American demand.
abiman
April 28th, 2010 at 10:21 pm
Its ramifications are immnese.It will galvanize White and Blacks to the opposite side of the Latinos. It will create fissure among Orientals,Blacks,Asians,and Spanish speaking people.Democcrats will try to buy time by distarction/shibboleth/war/studpidities. Conservative will be forced to become more fanatics and racist. Effects of this will be decided in illegal ballot and election engineered by both sides. Military and police will experience strains. Pope-Bishop will find a new agenda to divert attention from ongoing scandals.Higherr institution will see communal politics in the campus and in recruitment and admission. Business community willl become more corrupt and repressive.
But are these all that bad for rest of the World?
Dimitry
April 28th, 2010 at 10:24 pm
These "INVADERS" are tending your gardens, picking your fruit, caring for your baby and cooking your food and repairng your garden. You pay them next to nothing and hate and bad mouth them at every opportunity. You sound like a real freak, man.
liberranter
April 28th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
In short, this law is having exactly the effect that the Reigning Establishment wants – the balkanization of the people, in this case the sub-population concentrated in the State of Arizona. The more energy that the sheeple focus on stoking their mutual ethnic hatreds and persecuting each other based on the flimsy pretexts concocted by the Ruling Classes, the less able they'll be to realize that all of them –white, black, "Native American", Hispanic– are being sold into slavery and poverty by said elites.
liberranter
April 28th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
In short, this law is having exactly the effect that the Reigning Establishment wants – the balkanization of the people, in this case the sub-population concentrated in the State of Arizona. The more energy that the sheeple focus on stoking their mutual ethnic hatreds and persecuting each other based on the flimsy pretexts concocted by the Ruling Classes, the less able they'll be to realize that all of them –white, black, "Native American", Hispanic– are being sold into slavery and poverty by said elites.
liberranter
April 28th, 2010 at 10:40 pm
Most of them, I believe, entered the U.S. directly -LEGALLY- on tourist/student visas.
Jeremy Sapienza
April 28th, 2010 at 11:32 pm
Man are you hive-mind or what. You think Mexicans are here to take the country for Aztlan? They're here to work and make better lives for themselves and their families. They don't care about your or Mexico's particular national mysticisms. They come here to work, and only work, because they do not get welfare. In fact, the worst of it is that they pay every tax you pay with the exception of the income tax, and get a fraction the services you receive. Some actually even pay income tax with false SSN, which means they do not get the refund they would be due if they were documented.
I hope you now realize that illegal immigrants are not a drain but a net gain for the state's coffers which you seem so eager to protect, though they bleed dry from war anyway.
The Malthusian view of population belongs in the 18th Century from whence it came. Only econuts and other socialists think more people equals less means to take care of them.
Colin Patrick Barth
April 28th, 2010 at 11:57 pm
It's patently absurd to suggest without evidence that Mexican drug cartels have connections to or common cause with al Qaeda, certainly more absurd than claiming Saddam did. Pure abstract fearmongering. And Justin, you should be well aware that WTC attackers entered the country through legal visas. And this is the same government you suddenly want to trust to play your border goons. Why? Suddenly you expect government to do a good job, and become trustworthy? Since you injected a personal anecdote, I will say I've dealt with border goons, who were hilariously incompetent as well as officious and threatening, and I want less of that mentality, not more power given to it.
Also, if I were a person living in the real world, I would admit that if someone wants to "smuggle a dirty bomb" somewhere along a long, long border, they will find a way. The only sensible defense strategy lies in giving them no reason to want to do this. Since you spend most columns harping on concepts like an aggressive imperialist foreign policy and blowback, I can only assume that the Mexican Menace holds some special terror which prevents your usual logic from taking hold.
A straw man argument about legalization which I never said doesn't negate the point I actually made: those drug gangs have the power they do because of the drug war. You won't solve the world's problems by legalization, but you'll certainly solve the problem of drug gangs with extraordinary power to profit from controlling traffic through vicious acts. I realize Chicago prohibition gangs were not Mexican, but it seems to me the analogy is obvious.
For that matter, how is national territory a libertarian concept? In what way does is have anything to do with real property, or individualism, to claim "we" own the country and can exclude individuals who happen to be Mexican by birth?
Not to mention, I think it is quite strange to forget that the territory in question was considered Mexican once, before its annexation. Who's "invading" after all?
Conflating peaceful immigration with criminal acts here is as intellectually disingenuous as claiming "Americans" kill people in foreign wars when the government does it whether they like it or not. The biggest "threat" most Mexicans present up north is working hard enough to make the native-born look bad. It's all the same fears that formerly surfaced about integrating the New Orleans French, and then the Irish, and the Italians, et al. (You know, those dangerously-emotive foreign peoples.) Yes, some Irish have been in gangs, and some Italians have been mobsters, and some Mexicans are in gangs now. And?
Ari
April 28th, 2010 at 11:59 pm
Why is Israel allowed to build a wall (at U.S. taxpayer expense) on conquered territory and the United States isn't even allowed to secure its existing borders?
Miles Gloriosus
April 28th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
The primary duty of EVERY government EVERYWHERE and EVERY TIME in history is and has been to protect the lives and welfare of its citizens. ALL other duties and responsibilities are secondary. A government of any nation that has effectively abrogated that primary responsibility is no longer the legitimate government of that nation's citizens. Our "leaders" in Washington are now nothing but a bunch of thugs and highway men.
Is it any wonder so many are now speaking seditiously?
Colin Patrick Barth
April 29th, 2010 at 12:15 am
What is this, a complaint that the US can't even be as awful as Israelis can to their neighbors?
The US government agencies involved claim to have been securing borders already. Calls for more "security" can only and will only be met with more massive appropriation of funds, further incompetence, more of a police state than is already in place to monitor and hunt down immigrants, and a reinforcement of bigotry to divide the population against each other, with the effect that it is easier to rule everyone. All of which, of course, is advantageous to authoritarian statists, but anyone purporting to be a civil libertarian here should look themselves in the mirror.
Colin Patrick Barth
April 29th, 2010 at 12:18 am
Excellent, thanks for posting that.
MoT
April 29th, 2010 at 12:19 am
same could be said for Mexico/Spain and what it did to the indigenous Indians. Or the natives upon one another. How far back must we go before things are set straight?
F.A. Hayek Fan
April 28th, 2010 at 5:23 pm
Don't worry MoT. Haven't you heard? Everything will be all better once the Democans are voted out of office and the Republicrats are voted in!
liberranter
April 29th, 2010 at 12:26 am
The word "allowed" doesn't really fit here, but to answer your question: Israel's domestic xenophobic fascism is at a more advanced stage than Amerika's, so it's building its "keep-them-filthy-ferners-out" wall first. Don't worry, though; Amerika will soon spend what few dollars it has left that it hasn't given to Israel as tribute on building its own Great Wall of China/Berlin Wall across its southern border. I predict too that it will be even less successful than those two historical predecessors.
Justin Raimondo
April 28th, 2010 at 7:14 pm
This is actually the real issue, which I did not cover: just because the US "won" the Mexican-American war, doesn't mean zip. The Mexicans, with a much higher birth rate, are indeed taking it back. The problem on the "border" is slow-motion "blowback."
guest
April 29th, 2010 at 3:32 am
America hasn't seen a character like Sheriff Joe since Huey Long of the Great Depression era.
Jim
April 29th, 2010 at 3:36 am
Judy,
Before writing idiocies, you should first find out who you are talking with. I have Indian blood so I fully support your opinion. The barbaric Spaniards and their descendants should return OUR land. The problem with you guys is that you are so fair, democratic, peace loving, enlightened until… somebody rubs you the wrong way. Then you become so intolerant, violent, and yes, HYPOCRITES.
Tom Mauel, WI
April 29th, 2010 at 3:47 am
Raimondo a big part of the problem: NAFTA. Didn't see anything about NAFTA redneck.
Tom Mauel, WI
April 29th, 2010 at 3:47 am
Raimondo a big part of the problem: NAFTA. Didn't see anything about NAFTA redneck.
Tom Mauel, WI
April 29th, 2010 at 3:47 am
Raimondo a big part of the problem: NAFTA. Didn't see anything about NAFTA redneck.
Tom Mauel, WI
April 29th, 2010 at 3:47 am
Raimondo a big part of the problem: NAFTA. Didn't see anything about NAFTA redneck.
egarris
April 29th, 2010 at 5:07 am
The rest of the Antiwar.com staff has just posted a response to Justin's article. Read it here:
http://original.antiwar.com/anthony-gregory/2010/…
egarris
April 29th, 2010 at 5:07 am
The rest of the Antiwar.com staff has just posted a response to Justin's article. Read it here:
http://original.antiwar.com/anthony-gregory/2010/…
abiman
April 28th, 2010 at 11:24 pm
The man is dead when his ideology becomes more important than its senses.
Colin Patrick Barth
April 28th, 2010 at 11:57 pm
It's patently absurd to suggest without evidence that Mexican drug cartels have connections to or common cause with al Qaeda, certainly more absurd than claiming Saddam did. Pure abstract fearmongering. And Justin, you should be well aware that WTC attackers entered the country through legal visas. And this is the same government you suddenly want to trust to play your border goons. Why? Suddenly you expect government to do a good job, and become trustworthy? Since you injected a personal anecdote, I will say I've dealt with border goons, who were hilariously incompetent as well as officious and threatening, and I want less of that mentality, not more power given to it.
Also, if I were a person living in the real world, I would admit that if someone wants to "smuggle a dirty bomb" somewhere along a long, long border, they will find a way. The only sensible defense strategy lies in giving them no reason to want to do this. Since you spend most columns harping on concepts like an aggressive imperialist foreign policy and blowback, I can only assume that the Mexican Menace holds some special terror which prevents your usual logic from taking hold.
A straw man argument about legalization which I never said doesn't negate the point I actually made: those drug gangs have the power they do because of the drug war. You won't solve the world's problems by legalization, but you'll certainly solve the problem of drug gangs with extraordinary power to profit from controlling traffic through vicious acts. I realize Chicago prohibition gangs were not Mexican, but it seems to me the analogy is obvious.
For that matter, how is national territory a libertarian concept? In what way does is have anything to do with real property, or individualism, to claim "we" own the country and can exclude individuals who happen to be Mexican by birth?
Not to mention, I think it is quite strange to forget that the territory in question was considered Mexican once, before its annexation. Who's "invading" after all?
Conflating peaceful immigration with criminal acts here is as intellectually disingenuous as claiming "Americans" kill people in foreign wars when the government does it whether they like it or not. The biggest "threat" most Mexicans present up north is working hard enough to make the native-born look bad. It's all the same fears that formerly surfaced about integrating the New Orleans French, and then the Irish, and the Italians, et al. (You know, those dangerously-emotive foreign peoples.) Yes, some Irish have been in gangs, and some Italians have been mobsters, and some Mexicans are in gangs now. And?
Roger
April 29th, 2010 at 9:50 am
It's all very simple really.
The American government is not a government for the American people, but a government that is hostile to the American people. The American government is in fact conducting a not-so-hidden war against the American people.
The war in Afghanistan is not a war against the Afghanis but a war against the American people. The American people are bleeding white because of the war in Afghanistan.
The Open Border-policy conducted by the American government is also a war against the American people.
Tom Mauel, WI
April 29th, 2010 at 3:48 am
Raimondo a big part of the problem: NAFTA. Didn't see anything about NAFTA redneck.
Chris Mallory
April 29th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
"Jobs Americans won't do!" is a myth. Nothing but a slogan used to try and justify the invasion of the US by the third world.
Freedom cannot and will not stand in a "diverse" nation, culture matters.
Chris Mallory
April 29th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Culture matters and bringing the culture of Mexico to the US will lead to the loss of liberty for us all.
Chris Mallory
April 29th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
No business of mine at all till your tenants or employees clog and shut down the hospitals I use. No business of mine at all until your employees get drunk and crash their car into my family. One death or crime caused by an illegal alien is one too many.
Chris Mallory
April 29th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Eisenhower was able to send quite a few of them back where they belonged, all without a national ID.
Chris Mallory
April 29th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Eisenhower was able to send quite a few of them back where they belonged, all without a national ID.
jcp
April 29th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
If not for today's piece on this site answering Raimondo's, I was writing off antiwar.com.
Raimondo went far off the deep end. Immigrants, even if 'illegal,' are "the biggest single threat to our national security"? Can he really believe this? People are human beings first, not 'citizens,' and our sisters and brothers trying to live and support their families are not a 'threat.'
Along with Philip Giraldi's support of the US-backed coup in Honduras, this piece was the least 'anti-war' of any of the pieces I've seen on this site. Bad news, Justin.
jcp
April 29th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
If not for today's piece on this site answering Raimondo's, I was writing off antiwar.com.
Raimondo went far off the deep end. Immigrants, even if 'illegal,' are "the biggest single threat to our national security"? Can he really believe this? People are human beings first, not 'citizens,' and our sisters and brothers trying to live and support their families are not a 'threat.'
Along with Philip Giraldi's support of the US-backed coup in Honduras, this piece was the least 'anti-war' of any of the pieces I've seen on this site. Bad news, Justin.
stevieb
April 29th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
I consider myself a progressive – an 'aggressive progressive' if you like. But I fully support the state of Arizona on this one. This is a unique and dangerous situation, and as Raimondo says, this is real terrorism the feds are doing nothing about this.
Jeremiah
April 29th, 2010 at 3:05 pm
I would certainly be interested in knowing just what sort of connections the American state—or, more particularly, the deep portions thereof—have with Latin American drug cartels. In any case, the war on drugs and other examples of US interventionism south of the border (a considerable amount of it probably covert) have no doubt worsened the situation in Mexico. In this sense, the spillover of violence can at least partially be read as blowback.
The hypothetical (and, in the near future, unlikely) cessation of the war on drugs and other species of US interference in Latin America *might* ease the problem. But such speculation does little to mitigate the plight of Americans now experiencing a rise in criminal violence in the southwest. But what sort of solutions should we entertain? I seriously doubt more statism and militarism on the border will make life any more bearable or liberty more secure in affected areas. What, then, are proper *pro-liberty* solutions to the problem? Or are there any? Must law-abiding US citizens eventually abandon the region? Is this one manifestation of a reconquista by demographics? Are the bitter fruits of 1848—nurtured by a century and a half of growing statism and imperialism, and by concomitant social and economic destabilization on both sides of the border—almost ripe for harvest?(*)
A lot of folks have been put into high dudgeon because Mr. Raimondo has broached this controversial topic. But whether or not one agrees with him, it is a topic that ought to be discussed.
(*)It is interesting to note here that the Israelis are facing their own demographic reconquista. Indeed, the consequences of 1948 have been much swifter in arriving than those of 1848. And the Israeli response—oppressive police statism with walls, jackboots, razor wire and all the classic accouterments—has only compounded the problem.
Jeremiah
April 29th, 2010 at 3:05 pm
I would certainly be interested in knowing just what sort of connections the American state—or, more particularly, the deep portions thereof—have with Latin American drug cartels. In any case, the war on drugs and other examples of US interventionism south of the border (a considerable amount of it probably covert) have no doubt worsened the situation in Mexico. In this sense, the spillover of violence can at least partially be read as blowback.
The hypothetical (and, in the near future, unlikely) cessation of the war on drugs and other species of US interference in Latin America *might* ease the problem. But such speculation does little to mitigate the plight of Americans now experiencing a rise in criminal violence in the southwest. But what sort of solutions should we entertain? I seriously doubt more statism and militarism on the border will make life any more bearable or liberty more secure in affected areas. What, then, are proper *pro-liberty* solutions to the problem? Or are there any? Must law-abiding US citizens eventually abandon the region? Is this one manifestation of a reconquista by demographics? Are the bitter fruits of 1848—nurtured by a century and a half of growing statism and imperialism, and by concomitant social and economic destabilization on both sides of the border—almost ripe for harvest?(*)
A lot of folks have been put into high dudgeon because Mr. Raimondo has broached this controversial topic. But whether or not one agrees with him, it is a topic that ought to be discussed.
(*)It is interesting to note here that the Israelis are facing their own demographic reconquista. Indeed, the consequences of 1948 have been much swifter in arriving than those of 1848. And the Israeli response—oppressive police statism with walls, jackboots, razor wire and all the classic accouterments—has only compounded the problem.
salvador
April 29th, 2010 at 4:09 pm
HELLO FROM MEXICO
S T O P smoking weed you bastards….kick the illegals out anyway you wan't , just not the illegal canadians, australians etc. They're white like you and will make great citizens.
Use you're army and high tech on border security and shut up…………but start picking your own lettuce and such, you americans need the jobs, right??
Dimitry
April 29th, 2010 at 6:16 pm
It's always "unique and dangerous", isn't it? There is always some fear that can be whipped up for the population to support one form of repression against some "target" or other.
What is an "aggressive progressive"? Someone who is a "progressive" until scared enough?
Judy
April 29th, 2010 at 7:23 pm
Jim,
You're a hypocrite. By the fact you are even writing on this website evidences your status as a South American elite. So what is you have a little bit of Indian blood. You aren't fully indigenous so go the f**k back to Europe.
Ira
April 29th, 2010 at 7:24 pm
Excellent post, TonyJoseph
ziggy
April 29th, 2010 at 7:26 pm
How soon should we expect your embedded reporting, on patrol with the Minuteman Project, Justin?
http://www.minutemanhq.com/
LMZ
April 29th, 2010 at 7:26 pm
Thanks for outing yourself as anti-American, Eric. Any future columns of yours I will read with your agenda in mind.
egarris
April 29th, 2010 at 7:31 pm
In what way do you find me anti-American? Is it too much to ask for specifics?
I admit that I am anti-US government, but I agree with our founding fathers that this is not the same thing.
JamieZ
April 29th, 2010 at 7:33 pm
Let Israel welcome back its Muslim and Christian refugees before the United States permits one more immigrant into the natoin. Unlike the illegal aliens trying to milk the United States cow, the Muslim and Christians of the eastern Mediterranean actually lived in Israel and have a legitimate stake there.
Let those "progressives" (but Zionists) who call for mass immigration into the United States apply their purported principles first in their "ancestral homeland."
Guest commentator
April 29th, 2010 at 7:35 pm
Justin's article is causing me to consider increasing my donations to Antiwar.com
Dianne Foster
April 29th, 2010 at 7:36 pm
Coming from Southern California as I do (but now living on the East Coast), I was familiar with the situation where all the agricultural labor was done by Mexicans. Their kids came into our classrooms and some small effort was made to integrate them. Unfortunately they sometimes fell asleep at their desks, and often came in dirty: they had been up since dawn working the nearby fields. Later, I knew illegals in the restaurant business, and assumed they were in every kitchen in Southern California. LA's sweatshops used them. My dad's plastic factory hired guys who had been here a bit longer, maybe they had green cards, maybe not, but they went on to start their own businesses, like donut shops (yes, not taquerias all the time). We would go to Baja sometimes, without fear, except of the comically corrupt cops. If you bought insurance on the way in, you would not be held as a criminal in a car accident. Pretty tame stuff compared with now. I wonder what monstrous forces have been let loose.
Chas
April 29th, 2010 at 8:11 pm
If that were the case then why is this flow of illegals into AZ, CA, NM, TX at all-time highs? I mean your average Israeli is every bit as eager to avail himself of cheap Palestinian labor as is your average American (according to Dima, above). Their border remain relatively secure, at least compared to our own
Chas
April 29th, 2010 at 8:11 pm
If that were the case then why is this flow of illegals into AZ, CA, NM, TX at all-time highs? I mean your average Israeli is every bit as eager to avail himself of cheap Palestinian labor as is your average American (according to Dima, above). Their border remain relatively secure, at least compared to our own
Lani
April 29th, 2010 at 8:35 pm
It took a lot of courage for Justin to publish this. Witness the Wall of Silence effort by the rest of the Antiwar staff to censure him.
Chas
April 29th, 2010 at 8:40 pm
Mauel's point(s) is dead on. Illegal immigration, and, I may add, drug traffic really spikes with the implementation of NAFTA. This is not to say it wasn't big to start with but an order of magnitude or two less than what it would become after Clinton's NAFTA. Most of the illegals are displaced tenant farmers driven off the land by the new multinational landlords. Land ownership or at least management of the land has been largely transferred from the upper classes who happily floated away awash in their new liquidity to their new digs in Florida. The multis have ended or are rapidly ending subsistance farming not just in Mexico but around the world, driving families away from the way of life that was all they throughout the ages. The resulting exodus is really whats fueling much of all that terror business we hear about, and soon wil be experiencing more directly, I'm afraid.
Dimitry
April 29th, 2010 at 1:52 pm
Then why don't Americans do them?
Isn't it the pay offerred to them for these jobs by other Americans?
Which gets into a long discussion of labor protection, freedom of movement and wage disparity.
Americans want Mexican labor. They vote with their walltes to import it illegally. Blaming Mexicans for "invading" is ridiculous – they are answering your want ad, you want them here, you invited them here and you are paying them to come.
Chas
April 29th, 2010 at 9:37 pm
Unrestricted immigration not a problem ?
It should be self-evident that it is.
That, in itself, should not take away from the fact that the problem has been self-made. Clinton's NAFTA created the dispossessed poor out of a largely self-sufficient subsitence economy, and shoved them into the duty-free sweat-shop maciladoras which have now been shut down due to parasitic finance capitalism and even more enticing labor markets in China and India. The problem would be solved in time by eliminating the WTO, World Bank, G7 ( or what-ever the number is now) as well as NAFTA and the likes of it. That just does not fit with the strategy of the ruling class, just as legalization of drugs doesn't.
PS odd how the "original" article restricts the ability to respond to it, directly.
James Gerardo Lamb
April 29th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
It just shows in the hierarchy of values the libertarianism is fake and below a good old fashioned blood-and-soil racism, hence the immediate descent all the way into begging for a police state.
The Government to help us Stop the INVASION of BROWN PEOPLE.
Libertarian my ass.
Check out a real, non-racist one.
http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2010-04-14.asp
James Gerardo Lamb
April 29th, 2010 at 9:50 pm
Open Borders Are Not Controlled Borders
by Jacob G. Hornberger
As longtime supporters of The Future of Freedom Foundation know, as libertarians we have long called for open borders. One of the first books we ever published, in fact, is entitled The Case for Free Trade and Open Immigration.
The arguments for open borders are based on the principles of freedom as well as pragmatic principles. As Jefferson stated in the Declaration of Independence, all people (that is, not just Americans) are endowed with natural and God-given rights, which include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Such rights encompass the rights to travel and move, sustain one’s life through labor, engage in economic enterprise, enter into mutually beneficial economic arrangements with others, accumulate unlimited amounts of wealth, and decide for one’s self what to do with one’s own money.
Government has no legitimate authority to interfere with this entirely peaceful activity, especially through the initiation of force.
Consider, for example, the United States, which has no trade and immigration controls between the various states. The reason for this phenomenon is not simply the Constitution, which the Framers wisely used to bar public officials from enacting border controls between the states. The reason also has to do with freedom: Americans have the moral right to freely cross borders between the respective states not because they’re Americans but because they are human beings with the natural, God-given right to go wherever they want without governmental permission.
That the United States has the largest free-trade and free-movement zone in history is a major cause of the economic prosperity that has historically characterized America. When people are free to cross borders to engage in mutually beneficial exchanges with others, they improve their respective economic position simply through the act of exchange. In each trade, both sides are giving up something they value less for something they value more.
These principles are no different with respect to international activity. Rights are inherent and fundamental, as Jefferson pointed out. They transcend governments and borders. People have the fundamental, God-given right to travel, trade, and move without governmental interference.
Does the exercise of such rights means that borders disappear, as advocates of controlled borders often suggest? Of course not! That’s a silly suggestion. When people from Maryland freely cross into Virginia, the border between the two states does not disappear. It simply means that those people crossing into Virginia remain Marylanders but are now subject to the laws of Virginia.
The same principle applies internationally. When people from France, Nigeria, or Mexico freely come here, either as tourists or to work or whatever, that doesn’t mean that America’s borders disappear. Those people simply become foreigners touring, traveling, or working in America and become subject to state and federal laws.
Some libertarians wax eloquent about the benefits that immigrants bring to a society, but then call on the government to control the borders. They cite two reasons: first, to make sure that only “good” immigrants come into the United States and, second, to protect us from the “terrorists.”
Both arguments are fallacious.
James Gerardo Lamb
April 29th, 2010 at 9:50 pm
Open Borders Are Not Controlled Borders
by Jacob G. Hornberger
As longtime supporters of The Future of Freedom Foundation know, as libertarians we have long called for open borders. One of the first books we ever published, in fact, is entitled The Case for Free Trade and Open Immigration.
The arguments for open borders are based on the principles of freedom as well as pragmatic principles. As Jefferson stated in the Declaration of Independence, all people (that is, not just Americans) are endowed with natural and God-given rights, which include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Such rights encompass the rights to travel and move, sustain one’s life through labor, engage in economic enterprise, enter into mutually beneficial economic arrangements with others, accumulate unlimited amounts of wealth, and decide for one’s self what to do with one’s own money.
Government has no legitimate authority to interfere with this entirely peaceful activity, especially through the initiation of force.
Consider, for example, the United States, which has no trade and immigration controls between the various states. The reason for this phenomenon is not simply the Constitution, which the Framers wisely used to bar public officials from enacting border controls between the states. The reason also has to do with freedom: Americans have the moral right to freely cross borders between the respective states not because they’re Americans but because they are human beings with the natural, God-given right to go wherever they want without governmental permission.
That the United States has the largest free-trade and free-movement zone in history is a major cause of the economic prosperity that has historically characterized America. When people are free to cross borders to engage in mutually beneficial exchanges with others, they improve their respective economic position simply through the act of exchange. In each trade, both sides are giving up something they value less for something they value more.
These principles are no different with respect to international activity. Rights are inherent and fundamental, as Jefferson pointed out. They transcend governments and borders. People have the fundamental, God-given right to travel, trade, and move without governmental interference.
Does the exercise of such rights means that borders disappear, as advocates of controlled borders often suggest? Of course not! That’s a silly suggestion. When people from Maryland freely cross into Virginia, the border between the two states does not disappear. It simply means that those people crossing into Virginia remain Marylanders but are now subject to the laws of Virginia.
The same principle applies internationally. When people from France, Nigeria, or Mexico freely come here, either as tourists or to work or whatever, that doesn’t mean that America’s borders disappear. Those people simply become foreigners touring, traveling, or working in America and become subject to state and federal laws.
Some libertarians wax eloquent about the benefits that immigrants bring to a society, but then call on the government to control the borders. They cite two reasons: first, to make sure that only “good” immigrants come into the United States and, second, to protect us from the “terrorists.”
Both arguments are fallacious.
James Gerardo Lamb
April 29th, 2010 at 9:50 pm
First, controlled borders violate libertarian principles, in that they involve the government in central planning. Central planning is an aspect of socialism, one in which the government plans and directs the economic activity in a particular sector of society.
As with all socialist schemes, central planning in immigration always ends up with all sorts of distortions and perversions. The reason that the immigration arena is such an enormous mess is because of this socialist central planning. For a good summary of the immigration mess, see “Don’t Let Obama Touch Immigration Reform” by Shikha Dalmia at reason.com.
Moreover, why should government officials be trusted to select the “good” immigrants. How can a team of bureaucratic central planners make that determination? As Friedrich Hayek pointed out, they lack the necessary knowledge to make that complex determination. Better to leave such a determination to the free market, that is, to the choices that consumers and producers make in a free market.
Second, controlled borders inevitably entail enforcement, which means force and violence. Libertarian advocates of controlled borders are left with no principled argument against the various enforcement mechanisms that the state brings into existence to control its borders. The Border Patrol, Customs and Immigration Enforcement, passport checkpoints, Berlin Fences, raids. They are all part and parcel of controlled borders.
Third, there is no way that controlled borders can protect against terrorists, unless perhaps there is a totally sealed border like that which exists in North Korea, which is not exactly a libertarian paradise. If someone wants to do America harm, he can easily figure out a way to get in, whether he’s a terrorist, rapist, murderer, thief, or whatever. After all, if poor illegal aliens from Mexico can enter the United States, so can prospective terrorists. Moreover, prospective terrorists with no criminal record can always come in legally as tourists on visas.
Infringing on the natural, God-given rights of people for the sake of safety from terrorists makes no sense. Better to strike at the root of the problem by dismantling the U.S. government’s military empire and bringing all the troops home from overseas, discharging them into the private sector, where they can be citizen soldiers.
Finally, some people say that as long as America has a welfare state, borders should be controlled and regulated. But should libertarians ever make such an argument? Perish the thought because then it places libertarians in the odd position of using the welfare state as an excuse for calling on the state to violate other people’s rights. In other words, libertarians should never permit statists to manipulate us into violating our principles. Anyway, the welfare state is immoral and destructive. Maybe the best way to persuade statist Americans into abandoning it is to terrify them with the thought that they might be forced into supporting the poor, tired, huddled masses from abroad.
Three great books providing the case for open borders are FFF’s book The Case for Free Trade and Open Immigration, Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them by Philippe Legrain (a liberal), and Let Them In: The Case for Open Borders by Jason L. Riley (a conservative).
Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
James Gerardo Lamb
April 29th, 2010 at 9:56 pm
amen.
this was disgusting.
Jim
April 30th, 2010 at 2:35 am
Judy,
Cannot a person who has a native Peruvian background speak English? Cannot such a person want to be enlightened reading Antiwar? I suppose you just ran out of arguments or insults. Think hard, squeeze that little brain of yours, and when you can offer arguments, you write back. By the way, my mother tongue is Runa Simi (Quechua), and the elites here would never think of speaking it.
egarris
April 30th, 2010 at 3:17 am
Justin was not censured. He is and has always been essential to Antiwar.com. We simply disagreed and presented an alternate view.
Sorry I've been too busy working on the website to get into the frey.
Eric Garris
Webmaster and Co-Founder
egarris
April 30th, 2010 at 3:17 am
Justin was not censured. He is and has always been essential to Antiwar.com. We simply disagreed and presented an alternate view.
Sorry I've been too busy working on the website to get into the frey.
Eric Garris
Webmaster and Co-Founder
tz1
April 30th, 2010 at 5:43 am
Which laws do you suggest I could violate and still live openly without the fear of arrest and imprisonment? Since you are suggesting blanket amnesty, how is that equitable to everyone else – especially citizens who have broken similar laws? Other parts of the underground economy.
You already have someone who by definition has no respect for the law (they are not here out of civil disobedience), and given how many come in, private property. Somehow overnight someone who is either greedy or desperate and willing to break laws and take dangerous risks will somehow become the paragon of obedience if they got amnesty? I don't think so.
There are many people in prison. Some if released wouldn't do any further crime. Others would return to fraud and violence.
I'm all for immigration but the the line forms at the US consulates in Mexico.
tz1
April 30th, 2010 at 6:09 am
Al Capone also "sold insurance".
I despair of libertarians who do not believe that men are capable of evil, but then where do the evils of government you do believe in come from? Why would the evil enforcers not become brigands if their official capacity disappeared? In the earlier eras when there was no law on the oceans, we didn't get floating factories, we got pirate ships. Some people prefer evil to honest work. Irrationality and passion to reason. Society is made of real human beings and most would be ISO9000 rejects. But that is what you have to deal with, not some fairytale land where no one ever does anything bad.
"The only sensible defense strategy lies in giving them no reason to want to do this". Therein lies the problem. For the last few decades we have been giving them reason after reason, and worse inflamed their passions so they desire venageance – even irrational vengeance. How do you reason with someone so angry and despairing that they will kill themselves as long as they can take out enough americans with them. The Iraqui children who starved to death will not magically be ressurected if we stopped the sanctions. Who will volunteer to go there and be killed until their thirst for vengeance is sated?
Or did I miss something about time-travel?
Were we to repeal every drug law today, the cartels would not disappear tomorrow. Maybe eventually but not fast enough.
tz1
April 30th, 2010 at 6:10 am
Al Capone also "sold insurance".
I despair of libertarians who do not believe that men are capable of evil, but then where do the evils of government you do believe in come from? Why would the evil enforcers not become brigands if their official capacity disappeared? In the earlier eras when there was no law on the oceans, we didn't get floating factories, we got pirate ships. Some people prefer evil to honest work. Irrationality and passion to reason. Society is made of real human beings and most would be ISO9000 rejects. But that is what you have to deal with, not some fairytale land where no one ever does anything bad.
"The only sensible defense strategy lies in giving them no reason to want to do this". Therein lies the problem. For the last few decades we have been giving them reason after reason, and worse inflamed their passions so they desire venageance – even irrational vengeance. How do you reason with someone so angry and despairing that they will kill themselves as long as they can take out enough americans with them. The Iraqui children who starved to death will not magically be ressurected if we stopped the sanctions. Who will volunteer to go there and be killed until their thirst for vengeance is sated?
Or did I miss something about time-travel?
Were we to repeal every drug law today, the cartels would not disappear tomorrow. Maybe eventually but not fast enough.
tz1
April 30th, 2010 at 6:26 am
Sorry for the duplication, but the javascript here doesn't properly recognize a second press on the same button on a slow connection doesn't mean it should not post twice.
Just one more thing about "giving them a reason not to". In the case of the monsters of our own creation who wish to destroy themselves and us, the only "reason" has to be something along the line of MAD. Either that they will not succeed and their failure will cause greater losses, or that even if they do succeed, we will impose an even greater atrocity on whatever they hold most dear. There are no good options, but I would rather have strong protections at the border than have a nuke aimed at Mecca and Medina as deterrence.
tz1
April 30th, 2010 at 6:49 am
This is something you do very infrequently – I cannot remember another case since I've been reading this site (>5 years), so it cannot appear to be anything but censure.
What I think Justin got at but put badly is that we have incited a war – a 4th generation war – which is causing all the evils we see in Iraq to occur in Arizona and our southern border in general – but not on the Potomac. And that this fire won't stop simply because we remove the charred remains of the matches (though that would be a good idea). But to be anti-war is to call to stop this violence in the fastest and most effective way possible, not discuss history and causal chains. In Iraq you call for an immediate stop to the violence and a withdraw of the invaders.
Maybe you should just think of our army and whomever is replacing blackwater these days as merely illegal immigrants over there and the violence only happens because of evil taliban government policies and if they would just repeal a few laws we could stay over there and everyone would be happy Is that any less absurd?
The response to our evils is to bring the US to justice, not start yet another unjust war against us, for war can never be about justice because it is a sword, not a scalpel.
tz1
April 30th, 2010 at 7:06 am
One other point. "The border" is not some abstract line but consists of the edges of many parcels of property and a lot of them are private property, not public (think commons) or government owned. There was a rancher murdered because he tried too hard to defend his own property. But the illegals cross, trespass, trash the property, defecate, vandalize and otherwise are something far worse than a mere nuisance. All across the border for several miles. They show no respect for the law by crossing the border illegally, and then continue with other – usually petty – illegal acts.
Not that the limousine libertarians would actually defend private property in the real world, the defense is limited to making points in theoretical arguments.
But they think having someone for the government – federal or state – that would prevent this destruction and violence – violations of the rights of citizens – is a bad thing. Can I come over, kick in your door, trash your house, and say I was just passing through looking for a job? You might shoot me, but what if I bring more "friends" with me than you have bullets, or have my own weapon?
John
May 6th, 2010 at 11:35 pm
"As it stands now, without State interference, private property owners would be able to defend against intruders on either an individual basis or in a voluntary cooperative manner where defense is negotiated through private agreements and private companies. This means that individuals could freely defend their neighborhoods; landowners could forcibly remove violators; business owners could legitimately discriminate, hire, and fire; and private contractors – and not the collective police State – could provide legitimate protective and retribution services."
Karen DeCoster wrote this,
An argument for private property and against "open borders", urlhttp://www.lewrockwell.com/decoster/decoster59.ht…