Guest Post by The Zman
In all times and all places, the people in charge have certain primary duties, obligations that come before anything else they like to do. It does not matter what form of government is in place, the rulers, for example, have to maintain public order. Being the tribal chief is useless if your people and lands are in chaos. For that matter, having a tribal chief is useless if it means living in chaos. Therefore, one of the primary duties of all rulers in all times and all places is to maintain public order by enforcing laws and local customs.
There are other primary duties of the ruler, like organizing the common defense that are universal to all people and forms of government. Then there are primary duties that are peculiar to a people or to a form of government. If the ruler is understood to be a god, then the ruler and his people have a duty to maintain that myth. A central part of that social order is the transcendent nature of the order itself. In modern western countries, protecting property rights and enforcing contracts is counted as a primary duty of the state.
One of the more destructive things to happen to America over the last half century is the sacralizing of immigration by the followers of Emma Lazarus. The endless repetition of the nonsense phrase “nation of immigrants” has turned a temporary necessity a century ago into an essential element of the nation’s founding mythology. The fact that immigration is a violation of the state’s primary duty to the people is excused, because the immigrant now has a superior place in the moral order. The state is now in service to foreigners.
In a nation like America, one that allegedly is built on consensual government, citizenship has great value. In fact, the most valuable thing to a citizen of a representative democracy is his citizenship. The reason for this, is that citizenship is an ownership stake in the nation itself. In theory, the American government was voluntarily founded as an agreement among individuals, invested with the right to secure mutual protection and welfare and to regulate the relations among its members. In short, we are shareholders in America.
If you had the option of selling your citizenship, let’s say at some sort of auction, where you get money for your place as an American citizen, there would be no shortage of bidders. For example, there is no shortage of buyers for the EB-5 visa, which costs $500,000. That’s right, you can buy citizenship from the US government. Your citizenship is something of value and therefore, the state has a duty to protect it, just as they have a duty to protect your property rights. This is a primary duty of government.
When the American government willy-nilly hands out citizenship papers to millions of foreigners every year, it is, in effect, stealing the value of your citizenship and giving it to someone else. This is no different than a company diluting the value of its shares, by selling additional shares. It’s why open borders fanatics swear that immigration makes us all richer, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary. They know it is essential that people believe this as even the sacred immigrant is not enough to justify theft.
Now, the argument from open borders people and libertarian loons is that immigration is not just holy and beneficial, but that the duly elected officials are passing these laws, so it is legitimate. The trouble is, we don’t live in a democracy. When 50% plus one vote to rob the 50% minus one, it is still theft, even if it comes after an election. This is why America is not a democracy and it is also why democracy was famously called two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch. The very nature of democracy makes it an immoral form of rule.
Additionally, a primary duty of the modern state is the maintenance of equality before the law. In fact, this is what makes the law legitimate. Not only do all citizens have a say in what laws are passed, but those laws apply to all citizens equally. The very nature of immigration violates this principle. Immigration steals from some citizens for the benefit of foreigners and the benefit of a small number of connected citizens. This is true for quasi-immigration schemes like guest workers, as well as for permanent settlement.
If the primary duty of the state is to safeguard the citizens, including the value of their citizenship and maintain equality before the law, then immigration by its very nature is a direct violation of the social compact. It makes a mockery of the very idea of consensual government and sows distrust among the people. It is why all mass immigration quickly leads to a breakdown of order, because it erodes the legitimacy of the ruling authority, as the people see they are no longer willing or able to fulfill their basic duties as rulers.
That does not preclude all immigration. It’s just that the bar is is extremely high. In order to justify that which is naturally and always immoral, the offset must exceed the cost of the deed. Since this is impossible in the modern age, the followers of Emma Lazarus have been forced to turn morality on its head, claiming the first duty of the state is to foreigners at the expense of its own citizens. It has turned America into a bust out where everything of value, including citizenship, is sold for the benefit of a few.
The European people are finally getting some brains and backbone to oppose their Tyrants and Useful Idiots but it is to late. If there had been a Wall here, there would not have been a huge illegal immigration problem on our side of it. There are only about 6 billion people wanting to come here. Enough Barbarians are already inside our gates.
Probably after it is too late, the same as with the majority of Europeans. Only a few that haven’t already been overrun are stopping it before it dominates them, and the rest of Europe (through the EU) is threatening them for doing it.
We’re getting dangerously close to having the same thing happen to us later this year and no one seems to be concerned with it or even wants to mention it.
https://dailycaller.com/2018/06/22/mexican-candidate-immigration-speech/
By 2100, it will be 11 billion. If things don’t change, the whole world will be a “shit hole.”
” That’s right, you can buy citizenship from the US government.”
An EB-5 Visa grants a permanent resident “green card”, not citizenship. Citizenship has to be achieved through the normal process of naturalization as specified by Congress, it is not simply granted.
Anonymous,
So then, someone who shells out 500 k to obtain a green card will politely leave if some set of circumstances arises that requires revocation of said green card prior to citizenship being “achieved through the normal process of naturalization as specified by Congress.” Right? Also, I’m sure said green card buyer won’t use his/her official status to begin the process of bringing over every shirttail relative back in the old country. Nor will any “permanent residents” ever tap into the welfare system or disappear into the national woodwork should some problem arise concerning they’re “normal process of naturalization.”
I’m unclear on whether your comment is intentionally obtuse, or just a display of intellectual dishonesty. At any rate, thanks for pointing out the technical difference between “permanent resident” status and citizenship. Always nice to clarify a distinction without a difference.
I commented on buying citizenship.
What are you trying to make it out to be instead? And why?
Give them a free ride to the northern border just like Mexico does with those fleeing Central America. Truduea would welcome them, right?
I think Trudeau mostly favors Muslims, Mexican and Central Americans coming in a distant second.
At least from recent statements about the Muslims he seems to be in love with.
I enjoyed this very good article. Just need to nitpick this comment …
“Not only do all citizens have a say in what laws are passed …”
I have a say in what laws are passed? BWAAHAHAHAHAHA! Twice in my life I wrote to my Senator expressing concerns …. twice I basically got a thanks-but-fuck-off computer generated letter.
Our “leaders” listen to lobbyists and those with lots of money/power. We, The Peons, are largely ignored.
All political discussions about immigration (as it relates to the United States) should start with this question posed to the participants:
Does the US have a moral right to decide who may immigrate to the US?
All those on the left – no matter what they say – believe the answer is no. As Michael Moore recently tweeted “no one is illegal on stolen land”. Arguing about the niceties of border enforcement is a mere farce to those (about 1/3 of the country) who believe that borders shouldn’t exist.
The owners of the country want cheap, docile labor that never asks questions. They’re flooding the place with ignoramuses for the same reason they don’t really want a functioning school system.
In 1922 the country put its foot down and said no more, until Teddy Kennedy (who will soon see John McCain) opened the floodgates again in 1965.
I blame Neil Diamond with his overwrought, cheesy, moralizing, “Coming to America” song.
A country full of imbeciles who go into diabetic shock while exerting themselves playing Skee-Ball at Chucky Cheese would never understand the disastrous consequences of this policy. This place won’t be a magnet for much longer.
The author of this article bases his premise on an artificial construct in man made law rather than the universal nature of natural laws of the universe.
Among other things in nature man is a plant among many in the biosphere. A plant seeks nutrition from the soil and the sun. In that respect plants migrate and become invading species upon other plants seeking nutrition from the same nutrients in the same soil, biosphere and hydrosphere under the sun. They function in the law of the jungle which means the biggest dog gets the biggest bone. There is no morality in this law.
Immigrants seeking to come into this country or any other country are consciously and unconsciously following the laws of nature. Legality or illegality being of an artificial construction have no effect on natural laws. So people moving to immigrate seeking a better life are doing a natural thing.
The problem we are having presently with immigration is the same we all have with invasive weeds and plants in our own yards and farms. In the case of our own yards we have either roundup or much time and work in the physical removal of the invasive species. In the case of people we don’t seem to want to use roundup so we are stuck with the physical removal of the invasive species.
So what is the solution we can live with? This is a deep question for contemplation. Think back on the cultivation of America using the invasive species of Europeans into the lands of the American Indian. Did we not overrun them and place them in reservations? In the process the hard work and innovations of the European immigrants created the wealth (nutrients) for growth of the economy so everyone could benefit in a productive and comfortable life. The plants are thriving on the nutrient rich soil. So it is natural that invasive species are chomping at the bit to get to the benefits of our rich land.
So what happens to a rich land where invasive species come upon on it from all sides? It becomes a jungle so thick with vines that begin to choke off the majestic plants and trees of the ecosystem leaving a chaos of tangled plants choking to survive. Culture descends to a dog eat dog world of multiple species fighting for survival. Isn’t that the situation where people are coming from seeking to immigrate here?
There are no good solutions to this problem without pain. We can either let everyone in and ruin our own nutritious soil, build a great wall like China did and kill the invaders trying to scale the wall, or become proactive going into the invaders countries and clean up the mess causing these people to immigrate.
Anyone got a better idea? The problem in this country of people crying foul with our current methods of immigration control is these same people have no sense of history. And therefore we need not listen to them. They are naive. President Trump talks truth. Emotionally charged people talk nonsense without substance.
The world is not nice. It never has been. In life everything eats everything else to live and sustain itself. This is what life is about. Morals come from a higher form of thinking. Most people do not develope that higher form of thinking. I suppose it will take thousands of years for that to happen. In the meantime I am for preserving our way of living in America. So we must protect what we built up for ourselves. This means limited immigration so as not to upset our special circumstances. Politicians who condemn what we are presently doing are naive self serving idiots that need to be voted out.
Notice those that criticize the current status quo have no ideas? They act like a lot of hungry baboons in a zoo looking for something to eat.
Anyone got any painless solutions?
When referencing law, customs, and chaos, Z is correct to engage the debate in terms of morality.
I’m of the opinion that many today are throwing the “baby out with the bathwater” when they claim the conservative versus liberal (right vs. left) construct to be phony, or bogus.
Conservatives have lost political ground because they have accepted the moral premises of the left. However, liberals use deception to hide their real motives while, simultaneously, blackmailing conservatives by means of conservative values.
In the gun control and immigration debates, liberals don’t really care for the children. In truth, they use the “children” as a means to consolidate political power. In other words, the political left weaponizes the morality of conservatives against said conservatives; and whenever those on the right of the political spectrum accept the moral premises of the deceptive left, the progressive agenda moves “forward”.
However, the value systems of conservatives and liberals are separate. This is why words like “freedom” hold different meanings for each. In the example of the former, freedom manifests as an outgrowth of natural law (John Locke). In the latter, freedom is processed in terms of the secular “self” (will to power?).
The more I meditate on the concept of morality the more I seem to fall back into the old philosophical constructs.
Could the preferences truly be spiritual in nature? Could it actually be that?
The ancient prophet Jeremiah, by way of King James, phrased it thusly:
@ Uncola: “However, the value systems of conservatives and liberals are separate. This is why words like “freedom” hold different meanings for each. In the example of the former freedom manifests as an outgrowth of natural law (John Locke). In the latter freedom is processed in terms of the secular “self” (will to power)?”
Yes Will to power! As in the case of the Bolshevik Revolution. Perhaps the conservatives and liberals can come together for another revolution in Mexico thus freeing the people there from the gangs and thugs that control their government. And let’s go a little farther south to central america to free those people of their oppressive gangsters. We can incorporate their lands into the United States thus giving the people the chance for better lives. The people of these lands already have the Christian values we have. They just need a chance to break out of their chains and create a better life for themselves.
With this path we won’t need to build a wall. We did this once before in the Mexican war of 1846/47 and it was successful. Why not again?
@ Thunder –
Actually, I was thinking Nietzsche; or rather the totalitarian’s interpretation of Nietzsche.
But, besides giving new meaning to the Deep South, you have raised an interesting point. That is the commonality of gangsters, thugs, neocons, corrupt politicians, and tyrannical collectivists. They abrogate timeless moral principles for their own benefit and tell us it’s for ours.
[img
[/img]
@uncola
Do you think there would be much resistance if we invaded Mexico and central america?
No. Because….
[img
[/img]
But I would not be onboard, unless the plan was El Coyote approved.
Why El Coyote? El Coyote is of service to self. He eats the rabbits until they are gone and then he starves.
Do you mean El Coyote on this blog? Ask him. A discussion needs to be started. A sane one.
Hey El Coyote,
Would you mind overly much if Trump militarily conquered Mexico and Central America? Thunderbird and myself would like to have a sane discussion with you on that topic.
Personally, I see very little downside with such an initiative but figured you might have some perspective on the matter since you are a Californian.
What say you?