Miscellaneous
1. Please explain your views on U.S. immigration policy, including any measures you would support to reform current laws.
I am pro-immigration, and my views are inscribed on the base of the Statue of Liberty. Alexis de Tocqueville pointed out the benefits of voluntary associations which met immigrants at the docks and Americanized them. These efforts are what's needed, not a militarization of the border:
http://KevinCraig.us/missions.htm
The Constitution gives the federal government no power at all over who can visit the U.S., for how long, and who can hire them. The only power given to the federal government in the Constitution is the power to determine standards of citizenship for people who want to stay.
Immigration benefits the U.S. economy. I have examined contrary claims here:
Immigration Overview
Immigration in a Division of Labor Economy
Why Immigration Enhances Our Culture
Why Immigration Increases Our Technology
Positive Effects of Population Growth through Immigration
The Case for Free Immigration
Refutation of the Arguments Against Free Immigration
Why Immigration Increases Capital
Why Immigration Raises Real Wage Rates
Legalized Immigration Does Not Destroy Our Culture
A Biblical Discussion about Immigration with Chuck Baldwin
Downward Shift In Libertarian Party Platform
Why Immigration Laws are Unconstitutional
Controlling Immigration without government coercion
See also comments on the Farm Bureau Policy Statement:
Foreign Policy
This is one in a series of blog posts answering questions posed to candidates in the 7th District by the Missouri Farm Bureau. Here is the list of mofb blog posts in this series.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query immigration. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query immigration. Sort by date Show all posts
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Greene County Libertarians: Immigration
At the monthly meeting of the Greene County Libertarians we had a stimulating discussion on strategies for newly-elected Springfield Councilman Doug Burlison's appearance at an upcoming meeting of the "racists aren't welcome" Minutemen. (I linked to Doug's campaign website. Now we need www.CouncilmanBurlison.com.)
Doug made a great point about what rights are possessed by anyone who has human DNA. Those rights include the right to travel, visit, or immigrate. On the other side of the border, those rights include the right to hire the worker with the lowest bid for labor costs. But Doug's a politician now, so he has to be careful not to alienate voters with a pure libertarian position on why all immigration laws should be abolished. He should follow the strategy on my website:
immigration.KevinCraig.us
On that page I suggested three topics to explain the immigration issue to people like the Minutemen. Good immigration policy, I said, will:
Preserve the American Identity
Protect American Sovereignty
Promote the American Economy
I'm convinced these issues can only be sorted out through vigorous debate. Dialogue works better than monologue. It also requires a good deal of patient study.
Those who claim that an "open borders" policy (abolition of immigration laws) would destroy American sovereignty need to become aware of the fact that American sovereign is already dead meat, and giving the butcher power to enforce existing immigration laws will only hasten the rotting of the corpse. What we need is not a strong government to protect us from immigrants we don't like, but the freedom to do so ourselves. Giving Washington D.C. more power only makes us more powerless. Bush claims on one day to want to strengthen the borders, and the next day he's proposing amnesty. (He's actually consistent once you realize that his agenda is not your agenda.) The best way to protect the values of liberty and the Constitution is to work for the abolition of U.S. federal sovereignty:
www.AbolishtheUSA.org
This is the most effective way to prevent the Bush-Clinton regime from abolishing what's left of the Constitution and replacing it with a regional North American Union:
www.STOPtheSPP.us
Will open borders lead to a flood of immigrants and the destruction of our economy? Not if the government welfare system is abolished first. If that would happen, a flood of immigrants and the proliferation of free trade (or "globalization") would drive our standard of living to unimaginable heights. The proof is in the work of Pepperdine Economics Professor George Reisman as well as other free market economists. I have cited Reisman's work profusely on my campaign website -- which has a 10-part series on immigration -- as well as on a new website I'm working on:
www.ChristianGlobalism.com
Unfortunately, Doug is only going to have a few minutes to completely re-educate the Minutemen -- a daunting task. Many of them believe that they will lose their jobs if uneducated immigrants are allowed to compete with them. Friend, if your job can be done by an uneducated peasant from Mexico, then you need to sharpen your job skills. Failure to do so, and success in preventing your boss from hiring an immigrant, means forcing me and the rest of America to pay too much for your services. You're increasing our costs and that hurts our economy.
Immigration is a huge issue. It requires at least an hour to study the basic economic issues involved, and several minutes to sort out the reason why the immigration rhetoric of the Bush Administration is so deceptive.
Doug made a great point about what rights are possessed by anyone who has human DNA. Those rights include the right to travel, visit, or immigrate. On the other side of the border, those rights include the right to hire the worker with the lowest bid for labor costs. But Doug's a politician now, so he has to be careful not to alienate voters with a pure libertarian position on why all immigration laws should be abolished. He should follow the strategy on my website:
immigration.KevinCraig.us
On that page I suggested three topics to explain the immigration issue to people like the Minutemen. Good immigration policy, I said, will:
Preserve the American Identity
Protect American Sovereignty
Promote the American Economy
I'm convinced these issues can only be sorted out through vigorous debate. Dialogue works better than monologue. It also requires a good deal of patient study.
Those who claim that an "open borders" policy (abolition of immigration laws) would destroy American sovereignty need to become aware of the fact that American sovereign is already dead meat, and giving the butcher power to enforce existing immigration laws will only hasten the rotting of the corpse. What we need is not a strong government to protect us from immigrants we don't like, but the freedom to do so ourselves. Giving Washington D.C. more power only makes us more powerless. Bush claims on one day to want to strengthen the borders, and the next day he's proposing amnesty. (He's actually consistent once you realize that his agenda is not your agenda.) The best way to protect the values of liberty and the Constitution is to work for the abolition of U.S. federal sovereignty:
www.AbolishtheUSA.org
This is the most effective way to prevent the Bush-Clinton regime from abolishing what's left of the Constitution and replacing it with a regional North American Union:
www.STOPtheSPP.us
Will open borders lead to a flood of immigrants and the destruction of our economy? Not if the government welfare system is abolished first. If that would happen, a flood of immigrants and the proliferation of free trade (or "globalization") would drive our standard of living to unimaginable heights. The proof is in the work of Pepperdine Economics Professor George Reisman as well as other free market economists. I have cited Reisman's work profusely on my campaign website -- which has a 10-part series on immigration -- as well as on a new website I'm working on:
www.ChristianGlobalism.com
Unfortunately, Doug is only going to have a few minutes to completely re-educate the Minutemen -- a daunting task. Many of them believe that they will lose their jobs if uneducated immigrants are allowed to compete with them. Friend, if your job can be done by an uneducated peasant from Mexico, then you need to sharpen your job skills. Failure to do so, and success in preventing your boss from hiring an immigrant, means forcing me and the rest of America to pay too much for your services. You're increasing our costs and that hurts our economy.
Immigration is a huge issue. It requires at least an hour to study the basic economic issues involved, and several minutes to sort out the reason why the immigration rhetoric of the Bush Administration is so deceptive.
Thursday, July 17, 2014
Bojidar Marinov on the Immigration "Crisis"
Immigration and The Sabbath (Session 1) by Bojidar Marinov
July 12th, 2014 · Download MP3 - This is the first lecture in a series of 3 lectures that Bojidar Marinov gave at Church Of The King about the recent border immigration issue in America.
History of the Immigration Laws in the U.S. and the West (Session 2) by Bojidar Marinov
July 12th, 2014 · Download MP3 - This is the second lecture in a series of 3 lectures that Bojidar Marinov gave at Church Of The King about the recent border immigration issue in America.
Logical and Theological Analysis of the Anti-Immigration Ideology of Modern Conservatives (Session 3) by Bojidar Marinov
July 12th, 2014 · Download MP3 - This is the third lecture in a series of 3 lectures that Bojidar Marinov gave at Church Of The King about the recent border immigration issue in America.
Immigration Conference Q&A by Bojidar Marinov
July 12th, 2014 · Download MP3 - This is the Q&A session following a series of 3 lectures that Bojidar Marinov gave at Church Of The King about the recent border immigration issue in America.
Sermons - Radio Spots - Church of the King - Faith of our Fathers
July 12th, 2014 · Download MP3 - This is the first lecture in a series of 3 lectures that Bojidar Marinov gave at Church Of The King about the recent border immigration issue in America.
History of the Immigration Laws in the U.S. and the West (Session 2) by Bojidar Marinov
July 12th, 2014 · Download MP3 - This is the second lecture in a series of 3 lectures that Bojidar Marinov gave at Church Of The King about the recent border immigration issue in America.
Logical and Theological Analysis of the Anti-Immigration Ideology of Modern Conservatives (Session 3) by Bojidar Marinov
July 12th, 2014 · Download MP3 - This is the third lecture in a series of 3 lectures that Bojidar Marinov gave at Church Of The King about the recent border immigration issue in America.
Immigration Conference Q&A by Bojidar Marinov
July 12th, 2014 · Download MP3 - This is the Q&A session following a series of 3 lectures that Bojidar Marinov gave at Church Of The King about the recent border immigration issue in America.
Sermons - Radio Spots - Church of the King - Faith of our Fathers
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Constitution Party Alternative
I received a letter from the Chairman of the Constitution Party in McDonald County:
Mr. Craig:
Since the Constitution Party does not have anyone running for the 7th District, I am searching for someone to vote for in the General Election besides the Dems/Repubs. Please answer the following questions:
1. Are you Pro-Life with no exceptions?
Yes.
There are some who would say I'm pro-choice, for two reasons:
First, I do not believe that abortion is a federal issue. I don't believe the framers of the 14th Amendment intended to give the federal government power to order states to prohibit abortion, which logically entails the power to rewrite all the criminal and civil codes of the states.
Second, if a pregnant woman is pressured to get an abortion by her abusive so-called "boyfriend," by her status-conscious parents, and by a greedy abortionist, I do not believe the woman should then be locked up in prison with a carjacker and a prostitute. Nor should she be executed.
Stopping Abortion begins by abolishing the government's compulsory secular education system.
But I do believe that abortion is murder in every case.
The unborn child is a human being from conception.
The unborn child is a "person" within the meaning of the law.
No person should be put to death because her father is a rapist, or has committed incest.
It is never necessary to intentionally kill a person to protect the life of the person's mother. Such a claim is a truly weak foundation for truly evil public policy.
2. Would you support Ron Paul's H.R. 1146 to get us out of the United Nations?
Yes, without having even looked at that bill, but knowing Ron Paul and knowing the United Nations.
3. Do you support Arizona's and Missouri's efforts to stem illegal immigration?
When I first considered running for office ten years ago, I had to decide whether I would run as a Libertarian or with the Constitution Party (because getting on the ballot without party support is nearly impossible). One of the reasons I chose the Libertarian Party is because I believe the position of the Constitution Party on immigration is both unChristian and unconstitutional.
Immigration is a major theme in the Bible. The Hebrews were oppressed by a corrupt government that would not allow them to emigrate. God gave them a mighty Exodus and told them that they should henceforth treat aliens with compassion, now that they know what it's like to have their rights denied in a foreign land.
The Declaration of Independence says that our rights come from God, not the government. This means that Canadians, Mexicans, and Americans all have the same rights, because they are all created in His Image. This means that if I live on the Arizona/Mexico border, my neighbor on the Mexican side of my property has the same rights I do. I have the right to invite my Mexican neighbor onto my property without a government passport, visa, or other "documentation." My Mexican neighbor has the same right. I have the right to hire my Mexican neighbor to work in my home business.
The Constitution gives the U.S. federal government no power to interfere with the rights of property or any such contractual arrangements.
The Constitution gives the U.S. federal government no authority to "seal the border" or prevent me from allowing Mexicans on my property.
Funny that the "Constitution Party" doesn't know the Constitution.
The Declaration of Independence criticized the British government for impeding immigration into America. The Statue of Liberty expresses the pro-immigration American view.
There is no such thing as an "illegal alien." If the government passed an unconstitutional law banning church attendance on Sunday, I would not speak of those in church on Sunday as "illegal worshipers."
Federal immigration laws are unconstitutional. If I raise my right hand toward heaven and take the oath of office, "so help me, God," I will observe the laws of God and the Constitution, and therefore oppose all federal restrictions on immigration.
Arizona does not have problems caused by hard-working immigrants who love their families and do quality work on construction sites, agricultural fields, restaurants, etc. Immigration is always good, economically speaking.
The problems in Arizona are caused by the federal government's unconstitutional "War on Drugs," which requires drugs to be sold by Mexican Drug Cartels rather than peaceful corporations in a Free Market. (The Constitution Party also supports this blatantly unconstitutional and harmful public policy.)
The problems are also caused by the fact that the federal government no longer respects private property. The destruction of property is seen in the government's redistribution of wealth through welfare programs (which claim to "benefit" immigrants, but merely enslave them and make them dependent on the government), the socialist curriculum of compulsory public schools (another so-called "benefit" for immigrants), and the fact that the federal government -- a notoriously bad landlord -- claims to own more than 50% of the state of Arizona.
Libertarians
.• champion private property,
.• denounce socialist schooling,
.• reject the "War on [some] Drugs," and
.• call for the selling off of unconstitutionally-held federal lands and other assets.
The Libertarian program is the true and complete answer to the problems erroneously and stereotypically blamed on [all] immigrants.
4. Does the Second Amendment (in your opinion) outline an Individual right to keep and bear arms? Should the Brady Bill be rescinded?
Yes to both questions, but both questions miss the Big Picture.
The "Big Picture" is that Americans are slaves, and the federal government is a tyranny which ought to be abolished, according to the Declaration of Independence. Americans "enjoy" a highly-restricted "right" to bear arms, but not anywhere near adequate to overthrow the Bush-Obama regime, which is the real purpose of the Second Amendment.
The Framers of the Second Amendment were not worried about the so-called "individual right" of hunters, gun collectors, and those concerned about home invaders, any more than they were worried that the federal government would seize the plows of farmers. The purpose of the Second Amendment was to guarantee the right of individuals to form militias and overthrow tyrants.
Republicans often talk about being pro-Second Amendment, while giving us a children's right to guns, and expanding government tyranny ten times as rapidly. Republicans do not believe in any part of the Spirit of '76.
Even without the Second Amendment, the Constitution never enumerates any power of the federal government to even ask for a Yahoo email address from a suspicious fellow who wants to buy a truckload of bazookas and machine guns. (No Republican candidate would ever say such a thing.) Libertarians are far more consistent in their opposition to gun control (government control of your guns) than any other political party.
Although I oppose government control of guns, I repudiate the Second Amendment, in that I repudiate the "right" to use violence against "the powers that be."
5. Can the U.S. spend its way into prosperity with grants, bailouts, etc.
No. Every dollar spent by the government is a dollar confiscated from Americans, and after the poilticians and bureaucrats take their cut, leaves less than a dollar to "invest," which is never "invested" as wisely as the private sector would have invested it. Government is the enemy of prosperity.
Government spending by a bankrupt government is not just absurd, it is immoral, an act of theft.
6. Should Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac be abolished?
Yes. Or at least privatized.
7. Should we lease foreign aid?
The phrase "lease foreign aid" is not familiar to me. It brings to mind "Lend-Lease" (Public Law 77-11), which was the name of the program under which the United States of America supplied the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, China, France and other Allied nations with vast amounts of war material between 1941 and 1945.
I oppose all government-to-government foreign aid.
I especially oppose the aid the federal government gave Saddam Hussein and, before that, the Soviet Union. The U.S. federal government is the single largest and most dangerous financier of communism, socialism, fascism, totalitarianism, terrorism -- and now, Islamic Theocracy -- on the planet.
Conclusion
If voters in Southwest Missouri repudiate the Republican candidate and elect the first Libertarian to the U.S. House of Representatives, this will be the most notable and talked-about election in the nation.
Kevin Craig will then have powerful opportunities to promote "Liberty Under God."
Members of the Constitution Party should support Kevin Craig in Missouri's 7th Congressional District. They should email their friends, tell their friends to email their friends, and by electing Kevin Craig, send a message to Washington D.C. as well as the rest of America.
Other members of the Constitution Party are invited to ask additional questions in the comments below.
Mr. Craig:
Since the Constitution Party does not have anyone running for the 7th District, I am searching for someone to vote for in the General Election besides the Dems/Repubs. Please answer the following questions:
1. Are you Pro-Life with no exceptions?
Yes.
There are some who would say I'm pro-choice, for two reasons:
First, I do not believe that abortion is a federal issue. I don't believe the framers of the 14th Amendment intended to give the federal government power to order states to prohibit abortion, which logically entails the power to rewrite all the criminal and civil codes of the states.
Second, if a pregnant woman is pressured to get an abortion by her abusive so-called "boyfriend," by her status-conscious parents, and by a greedy abortionist, I do not believe the woman should then be locked up in prison with a carjacker and a prostitute. Nor should she be executed.
Stopping Abortion begins by abolishing the government's compulsory secular education system.
But I do believe that abortion is murder in every case.
The unborn child is a human being from conception.
The unborn child is a "person" within the meaning of the law.
No person should be put to death because her father is a rapist, or has committed incest.
It is never necessary to intentionally kill a person to protect the life of the person's mother. Such a claim is a truly weak foundation for truly evil public policy.
2. Would you support Ron Paul's H.R. 1146 to get us out of the United Nations?
Yes, without having even looked at that bill, but knowing Ron Paul and knowing the United Nations.
3. Do you support Arizona's and Missouri's efforts to stem illegal immigration?
When I first considered running for office ten years ago, I had to decide whether I would run as a Libertarian or with the Constitution Party (because getting on the ballot without party support is nearly impossible). One of the reasons I chose the Libertarian Party is because I believe the position of the Constitution Party on immigration is both unChristian and unconstitutional.
Immigration is a major theme in the Bible. The Hebrews were oppressed by a corrupt government that would not allow them to emigrate. God gave them a mighty Exodus and told them that they should henceforth treat aliens with compassion, now that they know what it's like to have their rights denied in a foreign land.
The Declaration of Independence says that our rights come from God, not the government. This means that Canadians, Mexicans, and Americans all have the same rights, because they are all created in His Image. This means that if I live on the Arizona/Mexico border, my neighbor on the Mexican side of my property has the same rights I do. I have the right to invite my Mexican neighbor onto my property without a government passport, visa, or other "documentation." My Mexican neighbor has the same right. I have the right to hire my Mexican neighbor to work in my home business.
The Constitution gives the U.S. federal government no power to interfere with the rights of property or any such contractual arrangements.
The Constitution gives the U.S. federal government no authority to "seal the border" or prevent me from allowing Mexicans on my property.
Funny that the "Constitution Party" doesn't know the Constitution.
The Declaration of Independence criticized the British government for impeding immigration into America. The Statue of Liberty expresses the pro-immigration American view.
There is no such thing as an "illegal alien." If the government passed an unconstitutional law banning church attendance on Sunday, I would not speak of those in church on Sunday as "illegal worshipers."
Federal immigration laws are unconstitutional. If I raise my right hand toward heaven and take the oath of office, "so help me, God," I will observe the laws of God and the Constitution, and therefore oppose all federal restrictions on immigration.
Arizona does not have problems caused by hard-working immigrants who love their families and do quality work on construction sites, agricultural fields, restaurants, etc. Immigration is always good, economically speaking.
The problems in Arizona are caused by the federal government's unconstitutional "War on Drugs," which requires drugs to be sold by Mexican Drug Cartels rather than peaceful corporations in a Free Market. (The Constitution Party also supports this blatantly unconstitutional and harmful public policy.)
The problems are also caused by the fact that the federal government no longer respects private property. The destruction of property is seen in the government's redistribution of wealth through welfare programs (which claim to "benefit" immigrants, but merely enslave them and make them dependent on the government), the socialist curriculum of compulsory public schools (another so-called "benefit" for immigrants), and the fact that the federal government -- a notoriously bad landlord -- claims to own more than 50% of the state of Arizona.
Libertarians
.• champion private property,
.• denounce socialist schooling,
.• reject the "War on [some] Drugs," and
.• call for the selling off of unconstitutionally-held federal lands and other assets.
The Libertarian program is the true and complete answer to the problems erroneously and stereotypically blamed on [all] immigrants.
4. Does the Second Amendment (in your opinion) outline an Individual right to keep and bear arms? Should the Brady Bill be rescinded?
Yes to both questions, but both questions miss the Big Picture.
The "Big Picture" is that Americans are slaves, and the federal government is a tyranny which ought to be abolished, according to the Declaration of Independence. Americans "enjoy" a highly-restricted "right" to bear arms, but not anywhere near adequate to overthrow the Bush-Obama regime, which is the real purpose of the Second Amendment.
The Framers of the Second Amendment were not worried about the so-called "individual right" of hunters, gun collectors, and those concerned about home invaders, any more than they were worried that the federal government would seize the plows of farmers. The purpose of the Second Amendment was to guarantee the right of individuals to form militias and overthrow tyrants.
Republicans often talk about being pro-Second Amendment, while giving us a children's right to guns, and expanding government tyranny ten times as rapidly. Republicans do not believe in any part of the Spirit of '76.
Even without the Second Amendment, the Constitution never enumerates any power of the federal government to even ask for a Yahoo email address from a suspicious fellow who wants to buy a truckload of bazookas and machine guns. (No Republican candidate would ever say such a thing.) Libertarians are far more consistent in their opposition to gun control (government control of your guns) than any other political party.
Although I oppose government control of guns, I repudiate the Second Amendment, in that I repudiate the "right" to use violence against "the powers that be."
5. Can the U.S. spend its way into prosperity with grants, bailouts, etc.
No. Every dollar spent by the government is a dollar confiscated from Americans, and after the poilticians and bureaucrats take their cut, leaves less than a dollar to "invest," which is never "invested" as wisely as the private sector would have invested it. Government is the enemy of prosperity.
Government spending by a bankrupt government is not just absurd, it is immoral, an act of theft.
6. Should Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac be abolished?
Yes. Or at least privatized.
7. Should we lease foreign aid?
The phrase "lease foreign aid" is not familiar to me. It brings to mind "Lend-Lease" (Public Law 77-11), which was the name of the program under which the United States of America supplied the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, China, France and other Allied nations with vast amounts of war material between 1941 and 1945.
I oppose all government-to-government foreign aid.
I especially oppose the aid the federal government gave Saddam Hussein and, before that, the Soviet Union. The U.S. federal government is the single largest and most dangerous financier of communism, socialism, fascism, totalitarianism, terrorism -- and now, Islamic Theocracy -- on the planet.
Conclusion
If voters in Southwest Missouri repudiate the Republican candidate and elect the first Libertarian to the U.S. House of Representatives, this will be the most notable and talked-about election in the nation.
Kevin Craig will then have powerful opportunities to promote "Liberty Under God."
Members of the Constitution Party should support Kevin Craig in Missouri's 7th Congressional District. They should email their friends, tell their friends to email their friends, and by electing Kevin Craig, send a message to Washington D.C. as well as the rest of America.
Other members of the Constitution Party are invited to ask additional questions in the comments below.
Friday, May 02, 2008
Immigration: Where in the Constitution?
Chuck Baldwin, Constitution Party nominee for President, has released a column entitled, "If I Were President." On immigration, he says:
If I were President, I would immediately seal our borders. I would also see to it that employers in America who knowingly hire illegal aliens are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. In plain language: any employer who consciously hires illegal aliens would go to jail. They would not pass Go; they would not collect $200; they would go straight to jail.
By sealing the borders and by cutting off the money supply to illegal aliens, the problem of illegal immigration would dry up. As it is, we have no idea how many potential terrorists--not to mention violent gang members such as MS-13--have snuck (and are sneaking) through our borders.
And speaking of illegal immigration, as President, I would enforce our visa rules. This means anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law is immediately deported. There would be no "path to citizenship" given to any illegal alien. That means no amnesty. Not in any shape, manner, or form. I would not allow tax dollars to be used to pay for illegal aliens' education, social services, or medical care. As President, I would end birthright citizenship for illegal aliens. There would be no "anchor babies" during my administration.
The Constitution Party claims to be both Christian and Constitutional. This position on immigration is neither.
Where in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to punish someone for giving work to a citizen of another country?
It's not there.
Where in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to punish someone for being a member of "a gang."
It's not there.
And what exactly is Baldwin's problem with "anchor babies?" Doesn't this concept go back to Blackstone?:
The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.
Does Baldwin propose to take us back to the glorious days when the king of France could seize all the property of anchor babies upon their death?
Where does the Constitution give the federal government the power to issue visas and passports?
It's not in there.
Baldwin's nationalist position is contrary to a libertarian position of a global gold standard and free movement of people and capital.
Globalization and Monetary Policy (Southwest Economy, July/Aug 2005 - Federal Reserve Board Dallas) (see the quote at the bottom by John Maynard Keynes)
Unfortunately, Baldwin's perspective has been picked up to some extent by the Libertarian Party.
Immigration and the LP Platform
Downward Shift In Libertarian Party Platform
Above all, Baldwin's anti-immigrant position is unChristian.
If we're facing a judgment, it's because we have repudiated the original ideals of America, as well as clear Biblical principles.
America's laws were built on God's Laws: The Ten Commandments and "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" sum up the whole of America's foundation: the Bible. The immigration policies of all the major parties -- including third parties like the Constitution Party -- ignore America's Biblical foundation. Immigration is a huge theme in the Bible.. You may remember it from your Sunday School class: Israel emigrated to Egypt during a famine, had favorable status under one Pharaoh, but was oppressed by a later Pharaoh "who knew not Joseph," and Israel became in a sense "illegal aliens" in Egypt. There was a great Exodus, after which God reminded Israel:
Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt.
Exodus 22:21
The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 19:34
So show your love for the alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.
Deuteronomy 10:19
So you shall divide this land among yourselves according to the tribes of Israel. And it will come about that you shall divide it by lot for an inheritance among yourselves and among the aliens who stay in your midst, who bring forth sons in your midst. And they shall be to you as the native-born among the sons of Israel; they shall be allotted an inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel.
Ezekiel 47:21-22
Many more passages could be cited throughout the Bible. Evangelical treatment of aliens is a major Biblical theme, and even the Constitution Party misses it! David Chilton, in his book Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators, has done a fine job of summarizing Biblical law on this issue. Baldwin probably should read that link.
America's Founding Fathers abolished the king. In principle, the "consent of the governed" abolished the nation-state. The ultimate in "consent" is a Free Market, "laissez-faire capitalism," where everyone votes with his wallet or his feet. The "New Order of the Ages" was a Christian world of international liberty; globalization in which every one dwells safely under his own vine & fig tree.
Isaac Watts, whose hymnal shaped America, understood this vision of Christian globalism, and set Psalm 72 to meter and paraphrased it as follows:
Jesus shall reign where'er the Sun
Doth his successive journeys run;
His kingdom stretch from shore to shore,
Till suns shall rise and set no more.
The heathen lands, that lie beneath
The shades of overspreading death,
Revive at his first dawning light;
And deserts blossom at the sight.
The saints shall flourish in his days,
Decked in the robes of joy and praise;
Peace, like a river, from his throne
Shall flow to nations yet unknown.
With power he vindicates the just,
And treads the oppressor in the dust:
His worship and his fear shall last
Till the full course of time be past.
Notice that this time of global Christianity is not in eternity, but in time, in history, as the sun still journeys. This is our goal now, not after we've been "raptured."
James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," said a legislator should vote NO on any bill if
the policy of the bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift, ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of (revelation) from coming into the Region of it; and countenances, by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them. Instead of levelling as far as possible, every obstacle to the victorious progress of truth, the Bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe it, with a wall of defence, against the encroachments of error.
Madison would say that The Constitution Party position on immigration reeks of an "unChristian timidity" where it should be bold, as well as a fascist boldness where it should be "bound down by the chains of the Constitution."
Why Immigration Laws are Unconstitutional
The Constitution Party is to be praised for not buckling under the pressure to secuarlize all things. I admire its desire to be explicitly Christian. But the Constitution Party is also hostile to globalism, and is willing to empower the federal government to stop it. I alluded to this here. The Libertarian Party does not claim to be Christian, but it empowers the State with fewer unconstitutional obstacles in the path of the global reign of Christ than the Constitution Party does. For this reason, I am a Libertarian.
Ozarks Virtual Town Hall - June 23, 2007
If I were President, I would immediately seal our borders. I would also see to it that employers in America who knowingly hire illegal aliens are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. In plain language: any employer who consciously hires illegal aliens would go to jail. They would not pass Go; they would not collect $200; they would go straight to jail.
By sealing the borders and by cutting off the money supply to illegal aliens, the problem of illegal immigration would dry up. As it is, we have no idea how many potential terrorists--not to mention violent gang members such as MS-13--have snuck (and are sneaking) through our borders.
And speaking of illegal immigration, as President, I would enforce our visa rules. This means anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law is immediately deported. There would be no "path to citizenship" given to any illegal alien. That means no amnesty. Not in any shape, manner, or form. I would not allow tax dollars to be used to pay for illegal aliens' education, social services, or medical care. As President, I would end birthright citizenship for illegal aliens. There would be no "anchor babies" during my administration.
The Constitution Party claims to be both Christian and Constitutional. This position on immigration is neither.
Where in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to punish someone for giving work to a citizen of another country?
It's not there.
Where in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to punish someone for being a member of "a gang."
It's not there.
And what exactly is Baldwin's problem with "anchor babies?" Doesn't this concept go back to Blackstone?:
The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.
Does Baldwin propose to take us back to the glorious days when the king of France could seize all the property of anchor babies upon their death?
Where does the Constitution give the federal government the power to issue visas and passports?It's not in there.
Baldwin's nationalist position is contrary to a libertarian position of a global gold standard and free movement of people and capital.
Globalization and Monetary Policy (Southwest Economy, July/Aug 2005 - Federal Reserve Board Dallas) (see the quote at the bottom by John Maynard Keynes)
Unfortunately, Baldwin's perspective has been picked up to some extent by the Libertarian Party.
Immigration and the LP Platform
Downward Shift In Libertarian Party Platform
Above all, Baldwin's anti-immigrant position is unChristian.
If we're facing a judgment, it's because we have repudiated the original ideals of America, as well as clear Biblical principles.
America's laws were built on God's Laws: The Ten Commandments and "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" sum up the whole of America's foundation: the Bible. The immigration policies of all the major parties -- including third parties like the Constitution Party -- ignore America's Biblical foundation. Immigration is a huge theme in the Bible.. You may remember it from your Sunday School class: Israel emigrated to Egypt during a famine, had favorable status under one Pharaoh, but was oppressed by a later Pharaoh "who knew not Joseph," and Israel became in a sense "illegal aliens" in Egypt. There was a great Exodus, after which God reminded Israel:
Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt.
Exodus 22:21
The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 19:34
So show your love for the alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.
Deuteronomy 10:19
So you shall divide this land among yourselves according to the tribes of Israel. And it will come about that you shall divide it by lot for an inheritance among yourselves and among the aliens who stay in your midst, who bring forth sons in your midst. And they shall be to you as the native-born among the sons of Israel; they shall be allotted an inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel.
Ezekiel 47:21-22
Many more passages could be cited throughout the Bible. Evangelical treatment of aliens is a major Biblical theme, and even the Constitution Party misses it! David Chilton, in his book Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators, has done a fine job of summarizing Biblical law on this issue. Baldwin probably should read that link.
America's Founding Fathers abolished the king. In principle, the "consent of the governed" abolished the nation-state. The ultimate in "consent" is a Free Market, "laissez-faire capitalism," where everyone votes with his wallet or his feet. The "New Order of the Ages" was a Christian world of international liberty; globalization in which every one dwells safely under his own vine & fig tree.
Isaac Watts, whose hymnal shaped America, understood this vision of Christian globalism, and set Psalm 72 to meter and paraphrased it as follows:
Jesus shall reign where'er the Sun
Doth his successive journeys run;
His kingdom stretch from shore to shore,
Till suns shall rise and set no more.
The heathen lands, that lie beneath
The shades of overspreading death,
Revive at his first dawning light;
And deserts blossom at the sight.
The saints shall flourish in his days,
Decked in the robes of joy and praise;
Peace, like a river, from his throne
Shall flow to nations yet unknown.
With power he vindicates the just,
And treads the oppressor in the dust:
His worship and his fear shall last
Till the full course of time be past.
Notice that this time of global Christianity is not in eternity, but in time, in history, as the sun still journeys. This is our goal now, not after we've been "raptured."
James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," said a legislator should vote NO on any bill if
the policy of the bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift, ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of (revelation) from coming into the Region of it; and countenances, by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them. Instead of levelling as far as possible, every obstacle to the victorious progress of truth, the Bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe it, with a wall of defence, against the encroachments of error.
Madison would say that The Constitution Party position on immigration reeks of an "unChristian timidity" where it should be bold, as well as a fascist boldness where it should be "bound down by the chains of the Constitution."
Why Immigration Laws are Unconstitutional
The Constitution Party is to be praised for not buckling under the pressure to secuarlize all things. I admire its desire to be explicitly Christian. But the Constitution Party is also hostile to globalism, and is willing to empower the federal government to stop it. I alluded to this here. The Libertarian Party does not claim to be Christian, but it empowers the State with fewer unconstitutional obstacles in the path of the global reign of Christ than the Constitution Party does. For this reason, I am a Libertarian.
Ozarks Virtual Town Hall - June 23, 2007
Thursday, May 27, 2010
KSPR Interview
Joe Daues Q&A with Kevin Craig is on the KSPR website.
I was asked to answer several policy questions. Here are the answers I submitted:
1) HOW SHOULD WE HANDLE THE IMMIGRATION PROBLEM WITH MEXICO? WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE ARIZONA LAW?
The "immigration problem" is actually a federal government problem.
Immigration is good. The federal government is not.
Immigration always raises the national standard of living.
The Declaration of Independence criticizes King George III for restricting immigration.
The Constitution gives the federal government no authority to restrict immigration. It only provides that immigrants in Arizona would have the same requirements to become citizens as immigrants in California. The Constitution gives the federal government no power to build a fence or "secure the borders."
• Mexicans are endowed by our Creator with a right to travel, to work, and to live in America.
• Americans are endowed by their Creator with a right to hire Mexicans and make our businesses more competitive by lowering production costs.
• Consumers have a God-given right to benefit from lower prices.
All the problems experienced in Arizona in connection with immigrants are the result of unconstitutional federal laws.
• Government welfare lowers our national standard of living.
• Laws requiring drugs to be sold by criminals lower our standard of living.
• Laws requiring immigrant children to attend atheistic schools lower our standard of living.
http://KevinCraig.us/immigration.htm
2) HOW CAN THE CONGRESS PROMOTE ECONOMIC GROWTH AND JOBS?
By getting out of the way of the Free Market.
Congress has no constitutional authority to try to "promote economic growth."
Congress can only impede economic growth.
If Congress shut down and went home, economic growth would begin.
• Minimum wage laws make it illegal to give a job to unskilled workers who cannot produce more than the minimum wage.
• Licensing laws make it illegal for consumers to hire the worker they want to employ, and stifle economic growth.
• Corporate taxes and regulation compete for the resources needed to create jobs.
http://KevinCraig.us/unemployment.htm
3) WHAT CAN CONGRESS DO TO MAKE OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM MORE EFFECTIVE?
Get the federal government out of education.
The Constitution gives Congress no authority to tinker with education. We need "the separation of school and state."
Education, like groceries, computers, and clothing, should be produced by the Free Market, not the government.
If parents want Christian schools, they should be able to choose them. If parents want schools that don't teach morality, they should be free to choose such schools.
Most parents want their children to be taught that God says "Thou shalt not steal." The federal government denies them their choice.
When our current Congressman, Roy Blunt, was first elected to Congress in 1996, the Republican National Platform promised to abolish the federal Department of Education. Not only did Republicans fail to do this (when they controlled all three branches of government), they doubled federal education spending from what it was under Bill Clinton.
http://KevinCraig.us/education.htm
4) EARMARKS… WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THEM AND WHY?
"Earmarks" is a red herring.
Every penny of Congressionally-appropriated funds should be earmarked.
But Congress should not appropriate funds for unconstitutional projects.
If Congress (including representatives from Missouri's neighboring states) passes an unconstitutional transportation bill, Missouri's representative has a duty to earmark the funds in a way that does the least harm to Missouri. Otherwise, the earmarking is done by the executive branch, which is even more unconstitutional, and serves political interests rather than the general welfare of Missouri.
I will vote against all unconstitutional spending, and to increase transparency will clearly earmark as many as possible of the funds unconstitutionally appropriated by Congress.
http://KevinCraig.us/earmarks.htm
5) HEALTHCARE… WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE NOW THAT THE U-S HAS REFORMED HEALTH CARE?
The federal government has not reformed healthcare, but has further DEformed it.
All federal laws regulating health care should be repealed. They are unconstitutional.
States should "nullify" unconstitutional infringements of the Free Market by refusing to enforce unconstitutional federal mandates.
The Free Market gave us the best healthcare system in the world, until the goverment began meddling with it. More people get better quality healthcare under capitalism than under socialism.
http://KevinCraig.us/healthcare.htm
6) DRILLING FOR OIL IN NATIONAL PARK LAND… AND HOW DO YOU PREVENT ANOTHER GULF OIL SLICK?
Congress has no constitutional authority to attempt to prevent oil slicks.
Oil slicks are best prevented by protecting private property and holding polluters liable for the damage they inflict on the private property of others.
Socialist governments have had a far more detrimental effect on the environment than capitalist businesses.
The federal government should stop subsidizing the oil industry and let a Free Market choose the clean energy it wants.
http://KevinCraig.us/environ_risks.htm
7) DISCUSS THE BALANCE BETWEEN PERSONAL PRIVACY AND INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS VERSUS PROTECTION FROM TERRORISTS
For example- government monitoring email and cell phones / full body airport scanners / patriot act
Do we really have to choose between living in a Muslim state where women are forced to wear Burkas, or living in an Orwellian state where women can be seen naked by government airport screeners?
How about a nation of "Liberty Under God" where we enjoy the Fourth Amendment and the government does not invade and terrorize Muslim nations in order to pave the way for multinational oil pipelines?
Terrorism is "blowback" from unconstitutional U.S. foreign intervention.
The answer to terrorism is not more unconstitutional domestic intervention.
When Osama bin Laden declared a "fatwah" (holy war) on the U.S., he did so because the U.S. was killing Muslims. The U.S. should repent of its unconstitutional imperialism, even as Muslims should forgive the U.S. for its sinful acts, rather than take vengeance on us.
http://KevinCraig.us/security.htm
8) HOW CAN OUR GOVERNMENT REALISTICALLY CUT THE FEDERAL DEBT?
Cut federal spending.
Abolish unconstitutional programs.
Voters must stop demanding that the federal government steal from others and redistribute to the voters.
This isn't rocket science.
http://KevinCraig.us/bankrupt.htm
http://KevinforCongress.blogspot.com/2008/08/obamas-investment-advice.html
The National Debt is also increased by the ability of the Federal Reserve System to engage in the "monetization of debt." This is a fancy phrase meaning "create money out of thin air." The new money is created into the hands of borrowers, whether private or public. The Constitution says that no state shall "make any thing but gold and silver a legal tender in payment of debts." It is more difficult to create a gold debt than to create a paper debt.
We must abolish the Fed.
http://KevinCraig.us/fed.htm
http://KevinCraig.us/inflation.htm
http://KevinCraig.us/money.htm
9) HOW CAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REFORM SOCIAL SECURITY?
It can't.
Abolish it.
A Ponzi Scheme cannot be reformed.
It is an evil system, unethical and immoral.
If a private corporation administered its pension program the way the federal government administers Social Security, corporate officers would go to prison.
The Social Security system is Bernie Madoff on steroids.
Just like the last level of investors in a Ponzi Scheme are going to get ripped off, so an entire generation of Americans who expect Social Security benefits are going to lose. It is inevitable. Planning is better than denial.
http://KevinCraig.us/socialsecurity.htm
Submitted links to my website don't appear on the KSPR website: kind of a cul-de-sac off the Information Superhighway.
I was asked to answer several policy questions. Here are the answers I submitted:
1) HOW SHOULD WE HANDLE THE IMMIGRATION PROBLEM WITH MEXICO? WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE ARIZONA LAW?
The "immigration problem" is actually a federal government problem.
Immigration is good. The federal government is not.
Immigration always raises the national standard of living.
The Declaration of Independence criticizes King George III for restricting immigration.
The Constitution gives the federal government no authority to restrict immigration. It only provides that immigrants in Arizona would have the same requirements to become citizens as immigrants in California. The Constitution gives the federal government no power to build a fence or "secure the borders."
• Mexicans are endowed by our Creator with a right to travel, to work, and to live in America.
• Americans are endowed by their Creator with a right to hire Mexicans and make our businesses more competitive by lowering production costs.
• Consumers have a God-given right to benefit from lower prices.
All the problems experienced in Arizona in connection with immigrants are the result of unconstitutional federal laws.
• Government welfare lowers our national standard of living.
• Laws requiring drugs to be sold by criminals lower our standard of living.
• Laws requiring immigrant children to attend atheistic schools lower our standard of living.
http://KevinCraig.us/immigration.htm
2) HOW CAN THE CONGRESS PROMOTE ECONOMIC GROWTH AND JOBS?
By getting out of the way of the Free Market.
Congress has no constitutional authority to try to "promote economic growth."
Congress can only impede economic growth.
If Congress shut down and went home, economic growth would begin.
• Minimum wage laws make it illegal to give a job to unskilled workers who cannot produce more than the minimum wage.
• Licensing laws make it illegal for consumers to hire the worker they want to employ, and stifle economic growth.
• Corporate taxes and regulation compete for the resources needed to create jobs.
http://KevinCraig.us/unemployment.htm
3) WHAT CAN CONGRESS DO TO MAKE OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM MORE EFFECTIVE?
Get the federal government out of education.
The Constitution gives Congress no authority to tinker with education. We need "the separation of school and state."
Education, like groceries, computers, and clothing, should be produced by the Free Market, not the government.
If parents want Christian schools, they should be able to choose them. If parents want schools that don't teach morality, they should be free to choose such schools.
Most parents want their children to be taught that God says "Thou shalt not steal." The federal government denies them their choice.
When our current Congressman, Roy Blunt, was first elected to Congress in 1996, the Republican National Platform promised to abolish the federal Department of Education. Not only did Republicans fail to do this (when they controlled all three branches of government), they doubled federal education spending from what it was under Bill Clinton.
http://KevinCraig.us/education.htm
4) EARMARKS… WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THEM AND WHY?
"Earmarks" is a red herring.
Every penny of Congressionally-appropriated funds should be earmarked.
But Congress should not appropriate funds for unconstitutional projects.
If Congress (including representatives from Missouri's neighboring states) passes an unconstitutional transportation bill, Missouri's representative has a duty to earmark the funds in a way that does the least harm to Missouri. Otherwise, the earmarking is done by the executive branch, which is even more unconstitutional, and serves political interests rather than the general welfare of Missouri.
I will vote against all unconstitutional spending, and to increase transparency will clearly earmark as many as possible of the funds unconstitutionally appropriated by Congress.
http://KevinCraig.us/earmarks.htm
5) HEALTHCARE… WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE NOW THAT THE U-S HAS REFORMED HEALTH CARE?
The federal government has not reformed healthcare, but has further DEformed it.
All federal laws regulating health care should be repealed. They are unconstitutional.
States should "nullify" unconstitutional infringements of the Free Market by refusing to enforce unconstitutional federal mandates.
The Free Market gave us the best healthcare system in the world, until the goverment began meddling with it. More people get better quality healthcare under capitalism than under socialism.
http://KevinCraig.us/healthcare.htm
6) DRILLING FOR OIL IN NATIONAL PARK LAND… AND HOW DO YOU PREVENT ANOTHER GULF OIL SLICK?
Congress has no constitutional authority to attempt to prevent oil slicks.
Oil slicks are best prevented by protecting private property and holding polluters liable for the damage they inflict on the private property of others.
Socialist governments have had a far more detrimental effect on the environment than capitalist businesses.
The federal government should stop subsidizing the oil industry and let a Free Market choose the clean energy it wants.
http://KevinCraig.us/environ_risks.htm
7) DISCUSS THE BALANCE BETWEEN PERSONAL PRIVACY AND INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS VERSUS PROTECTION FROM TERRORISTS
For example- government monitoring email and cell phones / full body airport scanners / patriot act
Do we really have to choose between living in a Muslim state where women are forced to wear Burkas, or living in an Orwellian state where women can be seen naked by government airport screeners?
How about a nation of "Liberty Under God" where we enjoy the Fourth Amendment and the government does not invade and terrorize Muslim nations in order to pave the way for multinational oil pipelines?
Terrorism is "blowback" from unconstitutional U.S. foreign intervention.
The answer to terrorism is not more unconstitutional domestic intervention.
When Osama bin Laden declared a "fatwah" (holy war) on the U.S., he did so because the U.S. was killing Muslims. The U.S. should repent of its unconstitutional imperialism, even as Muslims should forgive the U.S. for its sinful acts, rather than take vengeance on us.
http://KevinCraig.us/security.htm
8) HOW CAN OUR GOVERNMENT REALISTICALLY CUT THE FEDERAL DEBT?
Cut federal spending.
Abolish unconstitutional programs.
Voters must stop demanding that the federal government steal from others and redistribute to the voters.
This isn't rocket science.
http://KevinCraig.us/bankrupt.htm
http://KevinforCongress.blogspot.com/2008/08/obamas-investment-advice.html
The National Debt is also increased by the ability of the Federal Reserve System to engage in the "monetization of debt." This is a fancy phrase meaning "create money out of thin air." The new money is created into the hands of borrowers, whether private or public. The Constitution says that no state shall "make any thing but gold and silver a legal tender in payment of debts." It is more difficult to create a gold debt than to create a paper debt.
We must abolish the Fed.
http://KevinCraig.us/fed.htm
http://KevinCraig.us/inflation.htm
http://KevinCraig.us/money.htm
9) HOW CAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REFORM SOCIAL SECURITY?
It can't.
Abolish it.
A Ponzi Scheme cannot be reformed.
It is an evil system, unethical and immoral.
If a private corporation administered its pension program the way the federal government administers Social Security, corporate officers would go to prison.
The Social Security system is Bernie Madoff on steroids.
Just like the last level of investors in a Ponzi Scheme are going to get ripped off, so an entire generation of Americans who expect Social Security benefits are going to lose. It is inevitable. Planning is better than denial.
http://KevinCraig.us/socialsecurity.htm
Submitted links to my website don't appear on the KSPR website: kind of a cul-de-sac off the Information Superhighway.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
300 posts
I've now posted over 300 times to this blog. This may not be of any benefit to anyone else, but I want to download a copy of all my posts, so here they are:
- Welcome To The Site
- 32 Tuesdays
- The Big Picture: "Vine & Fig Tree"
- The Big Picture: "Liberty Under God"
- "Winners" and "Losers"
- The Libertarian Pledge
- More on the Libertarian Pledge
- Libertarian Morality
- The Immigration Issue Takes to the Streets
- The Benefits of 40 Million Illegal Aliens
- The Criminal Culture of Immigrants
- Immigration and the War on [Some] Drugs
- Take Two
- Congressman Ron Paul
- Happy Birthday Booker T.!
- Federal Education Promises Never End
- Is the Republican Party a Cult?
- The Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Bush
- Acheson and MacArthur
- April 12: A Triumph of "Voluntary Effort"
- April 13, 1743 - Thomas Jefferson born
- Good Friday
- An Al-Queda Easter
- The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere
- Oklahoma City - April 19, 1995
- Unions vs. the Free Market
- A Catholic Worker Seder
- Catherine Morris, Public Servant
- Immigration and Health Care
- The Company I Keep
- "Your Papers Please"
- National Day of Prayer
- Trouble for Ron Paul?
- The Death of Wisdom
- Branson Democrats
- Letter from Iran
- Gas Prices in Perspective
- Teach Republicans a Lesson
- U.S.: Defender of Freedom?
- Happy Mothers' Day
- Alligators and Environmentalists
- "Minuteman" Founder Jim Gilchrist
- Constitution Party, Part 2
- Iraq and the Constitution Party
- Minuteman Founder on UN, Sodomy, Draft, and more
- Are Unbelievers Believable?
- They Died in Vain
- Democracy Assassinated the Family
- Phyllis Schlafly's Goose and Gander
- Marriage Amendment
- The 4th of July
- 4th of July
- Congress Perceived as Unethical
- Pink Pistols Survey
- A Libertarian Manifesto: July 4th, 1776
- 9-11 in the News
- Nobody Believes in the 4th of July Anymore.
- 16 Tuesdays
- Who Creates Your Vote?
- Flight 800 - July 17, 1996
- Stop The SPP
- Abolishing "Vital Government Services"
- Apple Pie and Torture
- Christianity and Capitalism
- The Cult of Social Security
- The Cult of "National Security"
- I'd Push the Button
- On Pushing the Button
- Hiroshima / Nagasaki
- Stiff Competition
- There is no Button
- Campaign Wiki
- Why Incumbents Always Win
- The SPP Coup d'Etat
- Canadians Against SPP
- SPP Deception
- More SPP Deception
- A Neglected Anniversary
- Jim Rutz on Democide
- Rep. Ron Paul on SPP
- More Canadian Opposition to SPP
- SPP = European Union
- Freeman's Journal Candidate Survey
- CAGW vs. WHTI
- The Meaning of 9-11
- The Meaning of 9-11
- The Real Enemy: Bush or al-Qaeda?
- Bush's Transportation Secretary and NASCO
- Global Supply-Chain Fascism
- SPP Destroying Evidence?
- Anti-SPP Resolution in Congress
- Tell me what Blunt thinks
- Kupelian on 9-11 Conspiracies
- The Foley Scandal
- A Thank-You Note
- Is it a SIN to vote for Roy Blunt?
- Secular Education and the War on Drugs
- NO on Amendment 2
- Saddam Will Hang
- Post-Election Spin
- Send the Marines?
- Elton John: "Ban religion"
- Nobel Prize-Winning Libertarian Dies
- Rendition
- Pearl Harbor and 9-11
- Libertarian Party Anniversary
- Ramsey Clark: Three Reasons to Impeach
- Gerald R. Ford, Mass Murderer
- A Libertarian's New Year's Resolutions
- Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them
- Robert E. Lee
- LP Flash Needed
- Death to Valentine!
- George Washington
- MEK
- North Korea
- St. Patrick: Christian Libertarian
- Happy Birthday Tom!
- April Violence
- Ozarks Virtual Town Hall
- Greene County Libertarians: Immigration
- Libertarian Candidate Filters
- Immigration and Gun Control
- Welfare and Immigration
- Immigration and the LP Platform
- Jerry Falwell, 1933-2007
- 9-11 and School Shootings
- Would Jesus Celebrate Memorial Day?
- On Overthrowing Governments
- Ann Coulter on Immigration
- America's Psikhushka for 9/11 Truthers
- Josef Mengele Released from Prison
- Phillies, Falwell, and Goldwater
- Do Communists Make Better Spouses?
- Sibel Edmonds and Valerie Plame
- Second Cold War
- Global Warming and the G8
- The Surgeon General
- Conservative Christians for Hillary
- Response to Jason
- I am a Bigot
- The Latest Laziness
- How Big is America?
- Al Capone and the Zetas
- Apology accepted, Dr. Kuznicki.
- Advertising under God
- Providence and "The National Malaise"
- Iraq: Lexington and Concord for Today
- Lexington, Concord, and Plainfield
- Stem Cells Endowed by Their Creator
- What Would the Signers Think?
- U.S. Ready for a Third Party?
- Shunning Government Down
- 1776-Style Radical Transformation
- 1776-Style Theocracy
- Who is more "Radical?"
- Hindu Prayers in the Senate
- Vengeance vs. Self-Defense
- "The Lust of the Eyes"
- Letters of Marque and Reprisal
- Can Charity Solve Poverty?
- More on Poverty
- No Free Exercise of Religion
- Hiroshima - Gulf of Tonkin
- Bridges One Week Later
- Nagasaki, August 9, 1945
- IRS and the Rule of Law
- Inventions and "National Security"
- "Suspicious Behavior"
- Secret Military Intelligence
- Abolish the USA!
- "Corruption" is Inescapable
- Corruption in the Military
- More on Military Corruption
- 9/11 - Six Years Later
- Family Research Council on 9/11
- Petraeus: America Safer? "I don't know."
- Constitution Day?
- War and Public Relations
- Two Manifestos, Two Different Nations
- "Do Violence to No Man"
- Eminent Domain Sociopaths
- McCain and "Christian America"
- Columbus and Civilization
- "Media Bias"
- Holocaust Denial in the Service of War
- Conservative Christians for Hillary
- Government Theft Admitted
- Update on Government Theft
- Cheney's Victory in Iraq
- Conservative Christians Reject Huckabee
- Wilberforce: Role Model for Anarchists
- Veterans' Day Weekend 2007
- Thanksgiving 2007
- Zogby: "Voters in a nasty frame of mind"
- Pearl Harbor, 1941-2001
- Winter of Our Discontent
- Spitting in the Wilderness
- Heisman Career Nearly Ended
- Holiday Hypocrisy
- Advertising Milestone
- Sound as a Dollar
- John McCain vs. Al Gore
- The 12 Days of Liberty
- Day 1: Incarnation and Liberty
- Day 2: I'm Dreaming of a Large Christmas
- Day 3: The Birth of the Anti-King
- Day 4: Defeating the Enemies
- Taking Year-End Inventory
- Day 5: Peace on Earth
- Day 6: Peace on Earth, Goodwill Toward Capitalists
- McCain Leads in Rasmussen Poll
- Day 7: Kingmas: Christ = King
- Big Resolutions for 2008
- Day 8: Let's Keep Christmas Commercialized
- Day 9: A Christmas Nagocracy
- Denver Talk Show Host Slanders Ron Paul
- Denver Talk Show Host Responds
- Day 10: Christmas for the Lowly
- Day 11: "All Flesh Will See the Salvation of God"
- Day 12: The Christmas Millennium
- Torture: Stereotyping vs. Analyzing
- Liberal Fascism
- Choosing Slavemasters
- Ron Paul: Racist?
- 1776 and the Plantation
- Allegiance: Obama's Hand and Heart
- Secularist Questions
- Ron Paul, 1924
- Martin Luther King
- Roe v. Wade 35 Years Later
- Reasons to be "Pro-Choice"
- John Mark Reynolds vs. Huckabee
- 1.Hillary; 5.Giuliani; 6.Huckabee; 8.Obama
- God and Huckabee, part 2
- Obama's Big Changes
- The Beheading of Obama
- Ron Paul Book Bomb
- Iraq: A Chinese View
- Garfield and Gore
- The Rogue Co-President
- "Cookie" and America's Founding Fathers
- Charles Thornton: American Archetype
- Terrorist Anniversaries
- Obama's "Economic Plan"
- The Myth of the "Senseless Killing"
- 1,000 Words on Global Warming
- An Affordable Ferrari
- George Washington's Birthday
- Federal Reserve Video
- Rationing Ferraris
- More on Presidents' Day
- I've often wondered myself
- Candidate Filing and Interview
- The Cult of the Omnipotent State
- More Lies from Bob Enyart
- Naomi Wolf: "The End of America"
- The End of Impeachment
- The $2 Trillion Nightmare
- The State vs. Society
- Unilateral Disarmament
- Would God Bless This?
- Client 9: Elliot Spitzer
- Tax Relief At Last!
- Spitzer Conspiracy?
- Happy St. Patrick's Day!
- St. Patrick for Today
- Holy Week
- Republican Rallying Cry
- Spitzer Conspiracy Pt. 2
- Good Friday
- An Uninspiring Easter Message
- Patrick Henry Was Wrong
- Gore-Clinton or Gore-Obama
- Government as Criminal Syndicate
- Government Health Care
- Ron Paul is a Warmonger
- MLK Murder
- Yoder and Pierce
- Rachel's Educator
- Rachel's Messiah
- Bob Barr and Ross Perot
- Christmas on the Potomac
- Pay Your Taxes!
- War Tax Refusal
- Battle of the Cults
- Mormons and Davidians
- April 19, 1775, 1993, 2008
- Video Interview
- Jill Lepore's America
- The Money Tree in Kinder's Garden
- McCain's Murder of 1st Amendment
- Chuck Baldwin - Constitution Party
- Mary Ruwart's "Child Porn Scandal"
- National Day of Prayer
- Immigration: Where in the Constitution?
- Who Owns the Holy Land?
- Buy American? U.S. Concentration Camps
- Mother's Day Town Hall
- Slavery, Capital Punishment, and the Bible
- State Pension Fraud
- The Masks of Hollow Men
Sunday, January 04, 2009
San Diego and Tijuana?
Suppose you live in an area like Detroit, where automobile plants are closing. Imagine that in your area, jobs are being lost, stores are closing, services are dwindling, and the cost of living at the standard to which you are accustomed is increasing.
You decide to move to an area which you hear is much more prosperous, and the government less corrupt.
As you are about to arrive there, you are stopped by a group of what appears to be bandits. They are armed with automatic weapons. They wear similar looking clothing, which you take to be gang related. They start looking through your car.
Your initial fear of losing your life softens into curiosity, as it becomes evident that they are not going to kill you and your family, or even steal from you. As the questioning and conversation continues, you learn that at least one of the gang members believes in the same God you do. But before you can challenge his actions in terms of his professed religion, the gang leader tells you that you have to turn around and go back home.
Back home, you learn that many other people have had this same experience.
Now suppose that your home is Tijuana, Mexico, and you were trying to get a better job and live in a nicer home in San Diego, and the gang was the U.S. "immigration authorities."
Imagine further than many people who have been stopped by these armed "immigration authorities" are outraged at the initiation of force against them and the prevention of their being hired by employers who want to hire them and their purchase of homes by builders who want to sell to them.
Immigration laws are a violation of "rights" with which we have been endowed by our Creator.
Angry opponents of immigration laws start launching rockets into government facilities in San Diego, sometimes missing and hitting innocent civilian targets. Some radical groups intentionally target innocent civilians on the grounds that they are not innocent, but complicit in the armed denial of human rights by their government.
Is violence on the part of pro-immigration forces justified?
Of course not.
Now imagine the government starts launching rockets from San Diego into Tijuana against the pro-immigration radicals, occasionally hitting schools, hospitals, etc. in Tijuana.
This is how I understand current events in Gaza. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Some have suggested that the U.S. government is unwittingly subsidizing terrorism in the Middle East. Perhaps it's more than unwittingly. In any case, it is certainly unconstitutional.
Pictures of human beings not allowed to cross an arbitary political border to be with their families.
[video of an unexpected opening of the border]
Select Commentary
View these photos and tell me why Israel is not guilty of using "weapons of mass destruction."
The Other Side of the Story! - Palestinian Mothers
Keep in mind that the Bush-Cheney Regime will describe hand grenades [pdf] as “weapons of mass destruction” when it suits the state's purpose.
Of course, this is not to deny that Hamas also uses “weapons of mass destruction.” (And the use of quotation marks is not meant to imply that these weapons are not horrifically anti-Christian in their moral character.)
Orwell, blinding tribalism, selective Terrorism, and Israel/Gaza - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com
A conservative declares:
All of this talk of "innocent civilian casualties" is utter nonsense anyway. There are no more innocent civilians in Gaza than there were innocent Nazis in Germany. They are all Palestinians. They all voted for Hamas socialism and rule. They all defend and support Hamas in one way or another. They are all a part of the terrorist machine that Hamas represents (kind of like the people of Chicago supporting their corrupt political machine).
Mary Mostert points out that
There are only about 5.5 million Jews living in Israel, and 1029 of them have been killed by [Palestinian] terrorists (along with thousands of Jews wounded by terrorists).
Any U.S. criticism of Israel would have to be pretty hypocritical, since "That is approximately 20 times the equivalent percentage of people killed in the World Trade Center in the USA, with our 305 million population, when 3000 died on September 11, 2001." But at least Israel is aiming its rockets in the direction of the attackers. Not a single 9-11 terrorist came from Iraq, the nation that the U.S. destroyed after 9-11.
Lost in the Rubble Chris Hedges
"Top 5 Lies About Israel’s Assault on Gaza" Jeremy R. Hammond - Foreign Policy Journal
You decide to move to an area which you hear is much more prosperous, and the government less corrupt.
As you are about to arrive there, you are stopped by a group of what appears to be bandits. They are armed with automatic weapons. They wear similar looking clothing, which you take to be gang related. They start looking through your car.
Your initial fear of losing your life softens into curiosity, as it becomes evident that they are not going to kill you and your family, or even steal from you. As the questioning and conversation continues, you learn that at least one of the gang members believes in the same God you do. But before you can challenge his actions in terms of his professed religion, the gang leader tells you that you have to turn around and go back home.
Back home, you learn that many other people have had this same experience.
Now suppose that your home is Tijuana, Mexico, and you were trying to get a better job and live in a nicer home in San Diego, and the gang was the U.S. "immigration authorities."
Imagine further than many people who have been stopped by these armed "immigration authorities" are outraged at the initiation of force against them and the prevention of their being hired by employers who want to hire them and their purchase of homes by builders who want to sell to them.
Immigration laws are a violation of "rights" with which we have been endowed by our Creator.
Angry opponents of immigration laws start launching rockets into government facilities in San Diego, sometimes missing and hitting innocent civilian targets. Some radical groups intentionally target innocent civilians on the grounds that they are not innocent, but complicit in the armed denial of human rights by their government.
Is violence on the part of pro-immigration forces justified?
Of course not.
Now imagine the government starts launching rockets from San Diego into Tijuana against the pro-immigration radicals, occasionally hitting schools, hospitals, etc. in Tijuana.
This is how I understand current events in Gaza. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Some have suggested that the U.S. government is unwittingly subsidizing terrorism in the Middle East. Perhaps it's more than unwittingly. In any case, it is certainly unconstitutional.
Pictures of human beings not allowed to cross an arbitary political border to be with their families.
[video of an unexpected opening of the border]
Select Commentary
View these photos and tell me why Israel is not guilty of using "weapons of mass destruction."
The Other Side of the Story! - Palestinian Mothers
Keep in mind that the Bush-Cheney Regime will describe hand grenades [pdf] as “weapons of mass destruction” when it suits the state's purpose.
Of course, this is not to deny that Hamas also uses “weapons of mass destruction.” (And the use of quotation marks is not meant to imply that these weapons are not horrifically anti-Christian in their moral character.)
Orwell, blinding tribalism, selective Terrorism, and Israel/Gaza - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com
A conservative declares:
All of this talk of "innocent civilian casualties" is utter nonsense anyway. There are no more innocent civilians in Gaza than there were innocent Nazis in Germany. They are all Palestinians. They all voted for Hamas socialism and rule. They all defend and support Hamas in one way or another. They are all a part of the terrorist machine that Hamas represents (kind of like the people of Chicago supporting their corrupt political machine).
Mary Mostert points out that
There are only about 5.5 million Jews living in Israel, and 1029 of them have been killed by [Palestinian] terrorists (along with thousands of Jews wounded by terrorists).
Any U.S. criticism of Israel would have to be pretty hypocritical, since "That is approximately 20 times the equivalent percentage of people killed in the World Trade Center in the USA, with our 305 million population, when 3000 died on September 11, 2001." But at least Israel is aiming its rockets in the direction of the attackers. Not a single 9-11 terrorist came from Iraq, the nation that the U.S. destroyed after 9-11.
Lost in the Rubble Chris Hedges
"Top 5 Lies About Israel’s Assault on Gaza" Jeremy R. Hammond - Foreign Policy Journal
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Immigration and the LP Platform
I just finished another "Ozarks Virtual Town Hall," responding to the President's Saturday Morning Radio Address focusing on Immigration.
In the few minutes I had to prepare, I compared the 2004 LP Platform with the 2006 Platform, and was stunned at how un-libertarian the newer Platform had become. After 9-11, many Libertarians were afraid of appearing unreasonably pro-liberty and insensitive to public insecurity about terrorism. These Libertarians came out in favor of federal military intervention in Iraq, and suppression of liberties at home in the name of "security."
In earlier platforms, "immigration" was just another individual right, and the platform was libertarian. Now immigration is a matter of "foreign policy," that is, the "war on terror," to which individual rights must take second place.
I have compared the two platforms side-by-side here:
http://KevinCraig.us/immigration12.htm
Notice that this is part 12 of a series of webpages on immigration. It has taken that many pages to refute fascist thinking on this issue, with which too many of us have been infected.
Part 13 will be on citizenship vs. travel. This page should have been the first. The Constitution (Art I, sec. 8, cl. 4) gives power to Congress to determine citizenship requirements, not to restrict travel. For generations after the Constitution was ratified, there wasn't even any such thing as passports; people were allowed to travel freely. Most Americans today think like East Germans before the fall of the Berlin Wall. They think nothing about the government demanding "Your papers, please." We are no longer Americans, we are Nazis and Communists.
We need a libertarian platform on immigration that is so old it appears radically new.
In the few minutes I had to prepare, I compared the 2004 LP Platform with the 2006 Platform, and was stunned at how un-libertarian the newer Platform had become. After 9-11, many Libertarians were afraid of appearing unreasonably pro-liberty and insensitive to public insecurity about terrorism. These Libertarians came out in favor of federal military intervention in Iraq, and suppression of liberties at home in the name of "security."
In earlier platforms, "immigration" was just another individual right, and the platform was libertarian. Now immigration is a matter of "foreign policy," that is, the "war on terror," to which individual rights must take second place.
I have compared the two platforms side-by-side here:
http://KevinCraig.us/immigration12.htm
Notice that this is part 12 of a series of webpages on immigration. It has taken that many pages to refute fascist thinking on this issue, with which too many of us have been infected.
Part 13 will be on citizenship vs. travel. This page should have been the first. The Constitution (Art I, sec. 8, cl. 4) gives power to Congress to determine citizenship requirements, not to restrict travel. For generations after the Constitution was ratified, there wasn't even any such thing as passports; people were allowed to travel freely. Most Americans today think like East Germans before the fall of the Berlin Wall. They think nothing about the government demanding "Your papers, please." We are no longer Americans, we are Nazis and Communists.
We need a libertarian platform on immigration that is so old it appears radically new.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
The Benefits of 40 Million Illegal Aliens
I wouldn't call immigration my favorite issue. But it is certainly a pivotal issue. A lot of assumptions come to the surface in a discussion of immigration, and that presents an opportunity for clarification of thought.
When I decided to run for Congress, I debated over which Party to run under, whether the Libertarian or the Constitution Party. I like the pro-Christian rhetoric of the Constitution Party; the Libertarian Party is secular, with some strong anti-Christian elements among its supporters (e.g., the Objectivists). But in my opinion the Libertarian Party is more Christian in its policies than the Constitution Party, and the immigration issue was the issue that shifted the balance in favor of the Libertarian Party.
The Constitution Party is anti-immigrant. This stands in stark contrast to the Biblical position. It's a huge theme in the Bible: Israel emigrated to Egypt during a famine, had favorable status under one Pharaoh, but was oppressed by a later Pharaoh, becoming in a sense "illegal aliens" in Egypt. After the Exodus, God reminded Israel:
http://KevinCraig.US/issues/immigration/chilton.htm
Socialist thinking runs deep on this issue. Every Candidate for office in the CP (and the LP) should be required to complete George Reisman's home study course in capitalism.
http://capitalism.net
Reisman's treatise on Capitalism is gigantic (1000 8x11 pages with two columns of 10-point [or less!] type) but eminently readable. One of my all-time favorite books. The retail price of $100 is worth the investment. A pdf version of the book is available for free on Reisman's website:
http://www.capitalism.net/Capitalism/CAPITALISM_Internet.pdf
Essential reading on this issue is in chapter 9, "The Influence of the Division of Labor on the Institutions of Capitalism," Part C, "Economic Competition," Section 6, "The Population Question," and Section 7, "Free Immigration."
Competition benefits everyone, even the one who is out-competed. Henry Ford out-competed the horse-and-buggy manufacturers. Obviously we all benefited, but even the displaced workers in the horse-and-buggy industry ended up living in a better world. They benefited from decreased transportation costs, and other benefits provided by their competitors. Unions and anti-immigrant forces are competition-phobic. They want their Big Brother the government to protect them from those mean ol' competitors.
More people is good. Hard-working aliens are good for America, as long as America follows God's Law with respect to aliens (which we are not at present). More aliens means more jobs can be created. More human potential will be unleashed. Specialization and economic development will increase. Reisman shows that arguments about America being unable to absorb immigrants into the economy reflect a crippled and stagnant view of capitalism. In 1880 there were 50 million people in America. Ask the anti-immigrant crowd in 1880 if America could possibly absorb four times as many people, and they would have said "absolutely not." But 100 years later, our population was four times as great (200 million). And our economy is 100 times larger. By 2080 the population will be 500 million. And if our economy isn't 1000 times larger than it is today, it will be the government's fault -- and the fault of socialist-thinking anti-immigrants, seeking government protection against growth and change. Christian Capitalism should give us clean, nuclear-powered cars, genetic engineering should make food almost free . . . who can even imagine the possibilities? And if we have immigrants mowing our lawns and hammering the nails, the rest of us can develop our specializations: curing diseases, programming computers, discovering free energy, and developing the capital infrastructure that will dramatically increase production and lower prices on everything. And the next generation of immigrants moves up the ladder of the division of labor as well.
La Raza claims there are 40 million immigrants in the U.S. In terms of capitalist economics, this is not a problem. It could be a cultural problem, and I'll discuss that in the next post.
When I decided to run for Congress, I debated over which Party to run under, whether the Libertarian or the Constitution Party. I like the pro-Christian rhetoric of the Constitution Party; the Libertarian Party is secular, with some strong anti-Christian elements among its supporters (e.g., the Objectivists). But in my opinion the Libertarian Party is more Christian in its policies than the Constitution Party, and the immigration issue was the issue that shifted the balance in favor of the Libertarian Party.
The Constitution Party is anti-immigrant. This stands in stark contrast to the Biblical position. It's a huge theme in the Bible: Israel emigrated to Egypt during a famine, had favorable status under one Pharaoh, but was oppressed by a later Pharaoh, becoming in a sense "illegal aliens" in Egypt. After the Exodus, God reminded Israel:
I could cite many more passages. It is a major Biblical theme, and the Constitution Party misses it! The CP's thinking is based on numerous unBiblical socialist and collectivist assumptions. David Chilton, in his book Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators, has done a fine job of summarizing Biblical law on this issue:Exodus 22:21 Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt.
Leviticus 19:34 The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God.
Deuteronomy 10:19 So show your love for the alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.
http://KevinCraig.US/issues/immigration/chilton.htm
Socialist thinking runs deep on this issue. Every Candidate for office in the CP (and the LP) should be required to complete George Reisman's home study course in capitalism.
http://capitalism.net
Reisman's treatise on Capitalism is gigantic (1000 8x11 pages with two columns of 10-point [or less!] type) but eminently readable. One of my all-time favorite books. The retail price of $100 is worth the investment. A pdf version of the book is available for free on Reisman's website:
http://www.capitalism.net/Capitalism/CAPITALISM_Internet.pdf
Essential reading on this issue is in chapter 9, "The Influence of the Division of Labor on the Institutions of Capitalism," Part C, "Economic Competition," Section 6, "The Population Question," and Section 7, "Free Immigration."
Competition benefits everyone, even the one who is out-competed. Henry Ford out-competed the horse-and-buggy manufacturers. Obviously we all benefited, but even the displaced workers in the horse-and-buggy industry ended up living in a better world. They benefited from decreased transportation costs, and other benefits provided by their competitors. Unions and anti-immigrant forces are competition-phobic. They want their Big Brother the government to protect them from those mean ol' competitors.
More people is good. Hard-working aliens are good for America, as long as America follows God's Law with respect to aliens (which we are not at present). More aliens means more jobs can be created. More human potential will be unleashed. Specialization and economic development will increase. Reisman shows that arguments about America being unable to absorb immigrants into the economy reflect a crippled and stagnant view of capitalism. In 1880 there were 50 million people in America. Ask the anti-immigrant crowd in 1880 if America could possibly absorb four times as many people, and they would have said "absolutely not." But 100 years later, our population was four times as great (200 million). And our economy is 100 times larger. By 2080 the population will be 500 million. And if our economy isn't 1000 times larger than it is today, it will be the government's fault -- and the fault of socialist-thinking anti-immigrants, seeking government protection against growth and change. Christian Capitalism should give us clean, nuclear-powered cars, genetic engineering should make food almost free . . . who can even imagine the possibilities? And if we have immigrants mowing our lawns and hammering the nails, the rest of us can develop our specializations: curing diseases, programming computers, discovering free energy, and developing the capital infrastructure that will dramatically increase production and lower prices on everything. And the next generation of immigrants moves up the ladder of the division of labor as well.
La Raza claims there are 40 million immigrants in the U.S. In terms of capitalist economics, this is not a problem. It could be a cultural problem, and I'll discuss that in the next post.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Immigration Hypocrisy
Most of those who support Arizona's recent and controversial law regarding immigrants would consider themselves supporters of the Tenth Amendment. They oppose, for example, the federal mandates of "Obamacare." They say the Constitution does not give the federal government authority to build a health-care industry.
Ironic, then, that these same people want the federal government to build a fence between Arizona and Mexico. Nowhere does the Constitution give the federal government authority to build such a fence. Nowhere does the Constitution give the federal government authority to prevent Mexicans from entering Arizona. Nowhere does the Constitution give the federal government authority to "secure the border."
The only authority "We the People" gave to the federal government was to make sure that someone from Mexico who wanted to become a naturalized U.S. citizen would have the same requirements in Arizona that he would have in California. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution empowers Congress "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," not to build fences, not to prevent immigration.
Becoming a resident of the United States means moving your body across the border and living here. Becoming a citizen of the United States is a very different thing. (Something that should be highly-prized.)
If Arizona wanted more immigrants from Mexico, a federal fence would be a federal offence. In 1776, The Declaration of Independence complained that King George III "has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands."
All human beings are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights, according to the Declaration of Independence. These rights do not come from Congress. All human beings have these rights because they are created in the Image of God, not because of their citizenship. You have the God-given right to hire a Mexican who is hard-working and willing to work for a competitive wage. I do not have the right to maintain my uncompetitive wage by using the federal government to prevent you from hiring an immigrant at a lower wage and forcing you to hire me at an uncompetitively high wage. The Mexican has a God-given right to work for you so he can feed his family. "We the People" gave Congress no authority to meddle in the exercise of these rights under contractual arrangements like this. Congress has no Constitutional authority to prevent any Mexican from traveling into Arizona, getting a job, buying a house, and living in Arizona. Even if she does not become a U.S. citizen.
The current policy of the federal government is to ensure that only those willing to break a law will enter the U.S. A more sensible policy would be to allow those who don't like to break laws to enter the U.S. These law-abiding immigrants certainly outnumber law-breaking immigrants, and would, like "salt" and "light," have a healthy effect on the Mexican-American community, especially in our cities.
Immigration expands the beneficial effects of the division of labor. There should be no federal laws restricting immigration of Mexicans into the U.S.
In 1776, there were no federal welfare programs which rewarded (and attracted) immigrants who did not work, or wanted something for nothing. In 1776, the federal government did not claim ownership of nearly half the land in America. An immigrant to America had two choices: live on land that was not owned by anyone, or live on someone's private property, with the consent of the owner. As a Libertarian I defend the liberty of any human being to move to America and take up residence on unowned property. (Good luck.) As a Libertarian, I defend the property rights of those who own land in America. If an immigrant and an American can strike up a deal, so that the immigrant can live and work in America without trespassing on anyone's private property, the federal government has been given no authority in the Constitution to prevent the exercise of these God-given rights.
Last time I checked, the federal government claimed to own 56.8% of all land in Arizona.
The Federal Government is a far, far greater threat to my rights and my economic well-being than hard-working immigrants. The federal government takes my money and gives it to immigrants who don't work, through federal welfare programs. The federal government allows me to sell a mind-altering leafy plant called tobacco, but prohibits law-abiding people like me from selling a leafy plant called marijuana, forcing buyers of marijuana to buy from criminals, increasing the profits of organized crime. Most of the crimes in Arizona connected to immigrants are the result of unconstitutional federal laws.
But today's immigrant-bashers bash the tired, the poor, the "huddled masses yearning to breathe free," "the homeless, tempest-tost," and those willing to work -- rather than Washington bureaucrats who ought to get a real job.
The Borders Are Closing In - Pro Libertate
Gulags American-Style: Where People Disappear - John W. Whitehead
"Unfortunately, in our zeal to halt the estimated 800,000 plus illegal aliens flooding across our borders annually--an undeniable problem that needs to be resolved, we risk undermining our own rule of law and rendering our Constitution null and void. After all, if government agents can detain citizens like Mark Lyttle and Hector Veloz, what's to stop them from snatching you up and locking you away, without the ability to contact your loved ones or your lawyer?
"Moreover, national ID cards aren't a solution, either. They're a monstrosity, according to FOX commentator Judge Andrew Napolitano. Especially since the Bush presidency, there has been an intense push for a national ID card, and as Napolitano points out, the Arizona immigration law may be the slippery slope toward requiring these invasive tracking devices not merely of immigrants but all Americans."
Ironic, then, that these same people want the federal government to build a fence between Arizona and Mexico. Nowhere does the Constitution give the federal government authority to build such a fence. Nowhere does the Constitution give the federal government authority to prevent Mexicans from entering Arizona. Nowhere does the Constitution give the federal government authority to "secure the border."
The only authority "We the People" gave to the federal government was to make sure that someone from Mexico who wanted to become a naturalized U.S. citizen would have the same requirements in Arizona that he would have in California. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution empowers Congress "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," not to build fences, not to prevent immigration.
Becoming a resident of the United States means moving your body across the border and living here. Becoming a citizen of the United States is a very different thing. (Something that should be highly-prized.)
If Arizona wanted more immigrants from Mexico, a federal fence would be a federal offence. In 1776, The Declaration of Independence complained that King George III "has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands."
All human beings are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights, according to the Declaration of Independence. These rights do not come from Congress. All human beings have these rights because they are created in the Image of God, not because of their citizenship. You have the God-given right to hire a Mexican who is hard-working and willing to work for a competitive wage. I do not have the right to maintain my uncompetitive wage by using the federal government to prevent you from hiring an immigrant at a lower wage and forcing you to hire me at an uncompetitively high wage. The Mexican has a God-given right to work for you so he can feed his family. "We the People" gave Congress no authority to meddle in the exercise of these rights under contractual arrangements like this. Congress has no Constitutional authority to prevent any Mexican from traveling into Arizona, getting a job, buying a house, and living in Arizona. Even if she does not become a U.S. citizen.
The current policy of the federal government is to ensure that only those willing to break a law will enter the U.S. A more sensible policy would be to allow those who don't like to break laws to enter the U.S. These law-abiding immigrants certainly outnumber law-breaking immigrants, and would, like "salt" and "light," have a healthy effect on the Mexican-American community, especially in our cities.
Immigration expands the beneficial effects of the division of labor. There should be no federal laws restricting immigration of Mexicans into the U.S.
In 1776, there were no federal welfare programs which rewarded (and attracted) immigrants who did not work, or wanted something for nothing. In 1776, the federal government did not claim ownership of nearly half the land in America. An immigrant to America had two choices: live on land that was not owned by anyone, or live on someone's private property, with the consent of the owner. As a Libertarian I defend the liberty of any human being to move to America and take up residence on unowned property. (Good luck.) As a Libertarian, I defend the property rights of those who own land in America. If an immigrant and an American can strike up a deal, so that the immigrant can live and work in America without trespassing on anyone's private property, the federal government has been given no authority in the Constitution to prevent the exercise of these God-given rights.
Last time I checked, the federal government claimed to own 56.8% of all land in Arizona.
The Federal Government is a far, far greater threat to my rights and my economic well-being than hard-working immigrants. The federal government takes my money and gives it to immigrants who don't work, through federal welfare programs. The federal government allows me to sell a mind-altering leafy plant called tobacco, but prohibits law-abiding people like me from selling a leafy plant called marijuana, forcing buyers of marijuana to buy from criminals, increasing the profits of organized crime. Most of the crimes in Arizona connected to immigrants are the result of unconstitutional federal laws.
But today's immigrant-bashers bash the tired, the poor, the "huddled masses yearning to breathe free," "the homeless, tempest-tost," and those willing to work -- rather than Washington bureaucrats who ought to get a real job.
-----=====******O******=====-----
Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt.
Exodus 22:21
The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 19:34
So show your love for the alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.
Deuteronomy 10:19
So you shall divide this land among yourselves according to the tribes of Israel. And it will come about that you shall divide it by lot for an inheritance among yourselves and among the aliens who stay in your midst, who bring forth sons in your midst. And they shall be to you as the native-born among the sons of Israel; they shall be allotted an inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel.
Ezekiel 47:21-22
-----=====******O******=====-----
The Borders Are Closing In - Pro Libertate
-----=====******O******=====-----
Gulags American-Style: Where People Disappear - John W. Whitehead
"Unfortunately, in our zeal to halt the estimated 800,000 plus illegal aliens flooding across our borders annually--an undeniable problem that needs to be resolved, we risk undermining our own rule of law and rendering our Constitution null and void. After all, if government agents can detain citizens like Mark Lyttle and Hector Veloz, what's to stop them from snatching you up and locking you away, without the ability to contact your loved ones or your lawyer?
"Moreover, national ID cards aren't a solution, either. They're a monstrosity, according to FOX commentator Judge Andrew Napolitano. Especially since the Bush presidency, there has been an intense push for a national ID card, and as Napolitano points out, the Arizona immigration law may be the slippery slope toward requiring these invasive tracking devices not merely of immigrants but all Americans."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)