Options,
A, tear gas the parents, who chose to bring their kids as a bargaining stock,
Looks good on the newspapers and gets the sympathy.
A wash afterwards and the kid is ok.
B, use deadly force, the now dead parent and child are dragged away and disposed of
Any small, short children are now orphans, they will starve to death, be sold on the child market.
C, allow mob rule, where if enough people decide to do something they can, need some money? Rob a bank. Need food, rob a store,
Gix the reason WHY the people are marching and the problem of teargassing kids is solved.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
D. Stop pretending government borders promote civilization, and recognize the natural right to migrate. National borders are not analogous to the boundaries of your property, the walls of your business, or the front door to your home.
You missed the point.
WHY are they maching? fix that and they won't march. therefore there will be no tearjerking reports in the newspapers.
the old "fence at the top of the hill, or, the ambulance at the bottom"
If I'm not mistaken, the US gov't arrogantly trying to "fix stuff" played a significant role in why they ARE marching NOW. Their march isn't a threat in the first place though. It isn't really a problem to be fixed. The economy is not a zero-sum game, and more players in the economy means more opportunity for everyone. Immigrants are statistically less prone to crime and less likely to use the welfare state system. They don't steal jobs from US workers.
From the deep south, the word correct, truthful news is claiming the marchers approaching the Southern borders are leaving their homes because they have no food, the USA has food, lets go there. they cant shoot all of us.
if 10% for a number, of the excess crop was sent there, free, delivered by USAF C130s , issued by the US Army, or Marines, so that everybody gets the same ration, people wouldn't have to march anywhere, no teargas, no outrageous front page news.
the cost would be covered by the less amount of USAF and Army involved in manning the borders. no great expense in razor wire, posts etc
there would be a lack of graft, it is food being given direct to the people, not money for the locals to pocket.
That level of "charity" fails on two fronts. First, it robs the taxpayers and skews the market prices here, and then it wipes out any attempts to start a successful agricultural economy there. Interventionism always has unintended consequences.
Meanwhile, immigration is still not fundamentally a problem in the first place.
The US has always stood on the side of capitalist exploiters in Central America. The rougher the people have it, and the safer the profits are, the happier the US has been.
This has been the case since the early days of American imperialism, when we used our military to support fruit companies installing governments into Central American countries. That's why they were called "banana republics". (They were not even republics. They were more like virtual slave plantations.)
We were beyond "fixing stuff". The United States was helping to break stuff down there to make money in bananas, pineapple, and coffee. The businesses created a state capitalist government, creating extreme poverty, where the masses of people didn't own land, and were often dispossessed of their indigenous land.
The last incident was the Honduran constitutional crisis, when the left-leaning president Zelaya was pushing to revise the constitution. It was a leftward tilt revising a pro-business constitution. The military were undertaking a coup, the US knew about it, and didn't intervene to preserve the government.
After the coup, the government began attacking protesters. Opponents of the coup were beaten, killed, and tortured.
https://phr.org/honduras-constitutional-crisis-and-coup/
Have you read Smedley Butler at all? War is a Racket.
I've read some excerpts and some pages. I found a link to a copy so might read the whole thing soon. https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html#c1
Read it. Smedley Butler exposed the military-industrial complex and the corruption within US foreign policy the way John Taylor Gatto tore away the veneer of legitimacy from the education system. Both were decorated and renowned within the system, but stepped away to reveal the inside story when they could stomach it no longer.
Just because the state performs a function, it does not automatically invalidate the function. There are good reasons to keep these people out of the country. This caravan was organized by hardcore Marxists and is in fact being funded by George Soros and the Ford Foundation. They know that all, or most, of these people will end up on welfare (they will likely even teach them how to get on welfare if they have not done so already), and if these people were to become American citizens, every statistic indicates that there is an extremely high likelihood that they will vote in increase the welfare state and enact more gun control laws. This is why the leftists and globalists want to bring them into this country. It is a divide an conquer strategy. Sure, maybe there are a few decent people in the mix who are being used as pawns, but I'd bet money that the political leanings of the people in this caravan lean heavily to the left, as in that these are people who Marxist wealth redistribution, government healthcare, and gun control. They will also be more accepting of global government. It has also already come out that some of the people in the caravan are criminal thugs. Also, some of these people could be carrying communicable diseases (especially given that they are from a third world country which are known for spreading diseases).
The fact of the matter is that the government has a monopoly over the borders and immigration policy, and the government also has a monopoly on managing all of the taxpayer funded public property and infrastructure. The private sector is prohibited from "regulating" property borders. We live in a democratic welfare state with forced association laws.
Given this reality, granting these people access to the country increase the level of force and fraud a lot more than shutting them out does (and I would argue that shutting them out is an act of defense).
"Just because the state performs a function, it does not automatically invalidate the function."
Agreed. Bastiat discussed this in 1850.
However, you lose the plot as soon as you continue your argument. National borders are not analogous to property lines. Other people are not your property. Government does not represent you. Whether the allegations of immigrant criminality are true or not (and statistically it appears they are less likely to be criminal than 'MURKANS) the fact remains that government is inherently criminal in every aspect of its operation. And if you reject the legitimacy of all usurped centralized power, there is no danger of marxists siezing it.
The allegations that they will be welfare whores are not supported by statistics at all, and the root problem of the welfare state is the same state apparatus that claims we need to fuss about its borders.