FREE
IMMIGRATION OR INVASION

BY Michael
Gaddy

In the month of
April 2005, I traveled to the Arizona border and worked as a volunteer with the
Minuteman Project. Upon returning I wrote an article that appeared at LRC. For several days that
followed I received many emails, including fellow writers at LRC who took issue
with my stance on protecting our borders. I understand the issue this raises
with those who believe in the open border policy advocated by many
Libertarians. My question is: can we live with the theory of open borders when
obviously what we are experiencing is not people immigrating for a better way
of life, but an invasion?

The one
question that I never received an answer to from all those who wrote me in
opposition to my position was: with the current open border policy and the
welfare state how do we protect the private property of not only those who live
on the U.S. side of the border, but others whose private property is being
destroyed by the criminal element that constantly flows across our porous
borders?

While one of my
most respected writers at LRC, Anthony Gregory,
touches briefly on the objections to free immigration in a welfare society by Hans-Hermann Hoppe in
his work, I believe there was absent a delving into the meat of Hoppe’s
argument in which he addresses what he believes to be an invasion as opposed to
free immigration.

In Hoppe’s work
On Free Trade and
Restricted Immigration, he states:

“In
light of steadily mounting immigration pressure from the world’s low-wage
regions, three general strategies of dealing with immigration have been
proposed: unconditional free immigration, conditional free immigration, and
restrictive immigration. While our main concern will be with the latter two
alternatives, a few observations regarding the unconditional free immigration
position are appropriate, if only to illustrate the extent of its intellectual
bankruptcy.”

As for
unconditional free immigration, Hoppe’s words are certainly relevant if one is
a close up observer of our basically unprotected borders today, and the
millions here illegally who demand their share of welfare
“entitlements,” and politicians who seek votes by insisting these
immigrants receive the fruits of the labor of others.

“Since unconditional free immigration must be regarded as a
prescription for national suicide, the typical position among free traders is
the alternative of conditional free immigration. According to this view, the
U.S. and Switzerland would have to first return to unrestricted free trade and
abolish all tax-funded welfare programs, and only then should they open their
borders to everyone who wanted to come. In the meantime, while the welfare
state is still in place, immigration would have to be made subject to the
condition that immigrants are excluded from domestic welfare
entitlements.”

Here Hoppe
draws a distinction between free trade and free immigration.

“There
is no analogy between free trade and free immigration, and restricted trade and
restricted immigration. The phenomena of trade and immigration are different in
a fundamental respect, and the meaning of “free” and
“restricted” in conjunction with both terms is categorically
different. People can move and migrate; goods and services, of themselves,
cannot. Put differently, while someone can migrate from one place to another
without anyone else wanting him to do so, goods and services cannot be shipped
from place to place unless both sender and receiver agree. Trivial as this
distinction may appear, it has momentous consequences. For free in conjunction
with trade then means trade by invitation of private households and firms only;
and restricted trade does not mean protection of households and firms from
uninvited goods or services, but invasion and abrogation of the right of
private households and firms to extend or deny invitations to their own
property. In contrast, free in conjunction with immigration does not mean
immigration by invitation of individual households and firms, but unwanted
invasion or forced integration…”

Hoppe
elaborates on the view that illegal immigrants are nothing more than foreign
invaders, forcing themselves on those who have no choice but to receive them.

“…with
respect to the movement of people, the same government will have to do more in
order to fulfill its protective function than merely permit events to take
their own course, because people, unlike products, possess a will and can
migrate. Accordingly, population movements, unlike product shipments, are not
per se mutually beneficial events because they are not always —necessarily and
invariably—the result of an agreement between a specific receiver and sender.
There can be shipments (immigrants) without willing domestic recipients. In
this case, immigrants are foreign invaders, and immigration represents an act
of invasion. Surely, a government’s basic protective function includes the
prevention of foreign invasions and the expulsion of foreign invaders. Just as surely
then, in order to do so and subject immigrants to the same requirement as
imports (of having been invited by domestic residents), this government cannot
rightfully allow the kind of free immigration advocated by most free
traders.”

In my view,
Hoppe could not be more correct in his belief that the government should
protect its citizens from the foreign invasion of those who enter our country
illegally. In fact our Constitution demands it.

“The
United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of
Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion…” ~ Article 4
Sec. 4 of the U.S. Constitution

I understand
how one can idealistically look at free immigration and believe that to place
restrictions on the free flow of people is inconsistant with liberty. Those who
support this view should travel to the border and see first hand the
destruction being wrought on the private property of our citizens; slaughtered
livestock, water lines dug up from the ground and left running in an
environment where water is as valuable as gold, fences destroyed, homes invaded
and burned, citizens literally afraid to walk to the mailbox unarmed, private
property owners who have actually deserted their property to avoid the constant
harrassment, threats and violence and the refusal/inability of our government
to protect them from this destruction.

In fact, many
of our politicians, including Congressman Raul Grijalva of Arizona, have sought
federal intervention against those private property owners who seek to protect
their property from these invaders. His words on the subject speak volumes.

“An
atmosphere exists in southern Arizona that threatens to ignite in a flashpoint
of violence. The words and actions of these groups (read private property
owners) are evidence of an armed racial movement intent on taking the law into
their own hands. We cannot allow the complex issues in U.S.-Mexico border
policy to be hijacked by individuals who have chosen to break faith with our
government and take matters into their own hands.”

In my view,
this issue is one of national security more than any other. Our run away
government’s reckless foreign policy has created a plethora of enemies who seek
our destruction, not just of our government but of the citizens as well.
Allowing those who wish to destroy us unfettered access to our property and our
lives is ridiculous in the extreme.
Our insane policy concerning those who are invading our country and seek to do
us harm is most obvious in the following: when natives of Mexico are
apprehended after crossing illegally into this country, they are fingerprinted,
given food and water, medical attention if needed and then transported back to
Mexico, but an illegal from any other country, including those with whom we are
at war, even though these wars are illegal and immoral, are taken to a city
such as Tucson, processed, given a trial date to appear in court and then
released! Should it come as a big surprise that less than 5% ever return to
honor their court date?

To doubt the
millions crossing our border and the millions already here constitute an
invasion is baffling. Immigrants migrate for a better way of life while
invaders come to dominate and control. One need only listen to the words and
writings of the invaders and their supporters, many of who are teaching in our
institutions of higher learning here in the United States.

“California
is going to be a Hispanic state and anyone who doesn’t like it should leave.
They should go back to Europe.” ~Mario Obledo

“The
border remains a military zone. We remain a hunted people. Now you think you
have a destiny to fulfill in the land that historically has been ours for forty
thousand years. And we’re a new Mestizo nation. And they want us to discuss
civil rights. Civil rights. What law made by white men to oppress all of us of
color, female and male. This is our homeland. We cannot—we will not—and we must
not be made illegal in our own homeland. We are not immigrants that came from
another country to another country. We are migrants, free to travel the length
and breadth of the Americas because we belong here. We are millions. We just
have to survive. We have an aging white America. They are not making babies.
They are dying. It’s a matter of time. The explosion is in our
population.” ~Jose
Angel Gutierrez, Professor and Attorney, University of Texas Arlington.

“The
ultimate ideology is the liberation of Aztlan. Communism would be closest [to
it]. Once Aztlan is established, ethnic cleansing would commence: Non-Chicanos
would have to be expelled — opposition groups would be quashed because you
have to keep power.” ~Miguel Perez of Cal State-Northridge’s MEChA (Movimiento
Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan) chapter.

“As an
academic mission I’m proposing it (El Norte) as a thesis. But I’m also an
advocate of the idea, I myself-through the way I teach my classes and to the
students I help form in the classroom-that’s my activism. The main incentive
would be so people of the same culture, language, and identity could develop
their own nation-state under the principal of self- determination.” ~ Chicano Studies
Professor Charles Truxillo at the University of New Mexico who advocates that
California, Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, and Arizona secede from the United
States to form the Chicano republic of El Norte.

Professor
Truxillo, is a self-described disciple of Chicano-Marxist terrorist Reies Lopez
Tijerina. Tijerina and his terrorist group have been advocating retaking the
southwest since the mid ’60s. In June 1967, Tijerina led his gang in an assault
on the courthouse in Tierra Amarilla, New Mexico. During the attack, he proved
that his violence was non-discriminatory. They shot fellow Mexican-American
jailer Eugolio Salazar in the face, pistol whipped fellow Mexican-American
Undersheriff Dan Rivera, and killed fellow Mexican-American Deputy Sheriff
Nicainor Saizan.

Professor
Truxillo claims that the new nation of El Norte should be established “by
any means necessary.“

“These
are the critical years for us as a Latino community. We’re in a state of
transition. And that transformation is called ‘the browning of America’.
Latinos are now becoming the majority. Because I know that time and history is
on the side of the Chicano/Latino community. It is changing in the future and
in the present the balance of power of this nation. It’s a game – it’s a game
of power – who controls it. You (to MEChA students) are like the generals that
command armies. We’re in a state of war…What this means is a transfer of power.
It means control.” ~ Armando Navarro, Prof. Ethnic Studies, UC Riverside.

Are the above
the words of those who seek only economic opportunity?

While I am in
complete agreement with Anthony Gregory and others that the State will only use
this issue to pass more oppressive legislation against its citizens, I hardly
see how allowing the free flow of immigrants who are determined to colonize the
Southwestern United States will stop this oppression. If the ignorant among us
show an unwillingness to buckle to the desires of the State, there will always
be another “New
Pearl Harbor.”

I was asked on
two separate occasions this past week to be a guest on talk radio out of Mexico
City. During my appearance, I asked the host if he locked the doors of his home
at night and when he was away. He finally, after repeating the question until
he answered, said that he did. When I asked him why, he said to keep unwanted
people out of his home—people who might steal his property or harm his family.
My question to him and to others is: Why should we not control our borders for
the same reason?

 

What happened to the disappearing
middle class in Arkansas?

 

Arkansas is overrun with illegal
aliens, we have already lost life as we knew it, and we continue to support
illegal aliens with our tax dollars.  Our
educational system is in the toilet because of bilingual education (which
is not provided in any language other than “Mexican Spanish”), the welfare system no
longer exists for Arkansans who need assistance, Social Security has been
depleted to the point of “pay as you go” because the “fund” has been misused,
and population growth has encroached on our wild lands.  Food, water, gas,
and electric energy are at an all time low. 
We have depleted the fossil fuels that power our cars, and provide us
with heat in the winter.

 

Now
Arkansas’ Senators Pryor and Lincoln have decided the situation is not dire
enough, and they support another amnesty for illegal aliens to reward them for
breaking our laws. It appears that Pryor
and Lincoln will only be satisfied when this country is barren and its citizens
demoralized. We cannot even sustain the current population of Arkansas.

 

Please call Senators Pryor and Lincoln (CALL 1-866-340-9281) and demand “No Amnesty.” Demand
that they support enforcement of existing immigrtion laws.

Liz D.

America Has an Immigration Problem

But Liberals Have a Problem With the Problem

Do
we have an immigration problem? Yes, we do. But that depends of what the
meaning of “we” is, if you know what I mean. If by “we” you mean we Americans,
then yes, there is an immigration problem for America. If you are a
conservative and you say “we” have a problem and that “we” means we Americans,
then yes, there is a problem in America. Now comes the hard part. If you are a
liberal – like, say, Katie Couric – and you say “we” have a problem you don’t
mean we Americans…you mean we liberals.

In
our politics today, the invasion of America by criminal aliens is not what is
always meant when the phrase “immigration problem” is used. To our liberal
friends the problem is not stopping the invasion, but stopping those who want
to stop the invasion. Let me explain:

Liberals
do not think of America in the same light as others. While most of us think of
America as a country that is great, and that it is great due to our commitment
to the rule of law, individualism and, most significantly, to the freedom and
extraordinarily high standard of living that Capitalism has produced, the
liberals think of America as a country that is not great, just lucky. Liberals
do not like Capitalism because it encourages individualism and individualism
allows the common man to become uncommon. In the liberal mind, allowing the
unwashed to be left to their own devices is dangerous. To do so, in the mind of
a liberal, is to take the risk of inequality. The last thing a liberal wants is
for some person who, just because she or he wants to reach their full
potential, will break the liberal caste system.

Now,
how liberals can make the leap from seeing the greatness surrounding them to
thinking that Capitalism has been bad for America is beyond me. But they do. I
think their thinking goes something like this: “America is missing a great
opportunity to become a better place and would be if we replaced this horrible
Capitalism with Socialism. Then everybody would be equally wealthy and nobody
would be unequally wealthy.” In simpler terms, they think that getting rid of
the lead in pencils would provide everybody with an equal writing ability.
“Let’s make everybody poor and then we will have equality”, they say.

The
problem for the liberals is that most people do not want to vote for a kind of
government that would confiscate the tools they use to build an independent
life in order to make them “equal”. But the problem for America, indeed, the
world, is that there are some people that would fall for this empty promise.
Bowing to political correctness I will pretend sensitivity and refer to these
people as the politically untutored.

And
that brings us back to the immigration “problem”. As I stated above, the
liberals do not consider an onslaught of politically untutored voters a
problem. Indeed to the liberals a growing caste of politically untutored people
means more votes they can tally. As we have seen throughout history, the lower
the political sophistication of the voter the more likely that voter will fall
for false and unrealistic promises. The only way the liberals can gain and keep
the power they need to crush individualism and replace it with forced
plebeianism is to find enough of the politically untutored to take advantage
of.

And
when enough of the politically untutored are running around the United States
and stealing into the voting booth, the liberals will gain control of the
country. “Ignorance…we need more of that” is the liberal cry.

With
enough ignorance (oops, I mean politically untutored) migrating to America, the
liberals will have the votes to bring the same kind of government to America
that these politically ignorant (dang it, I meant to say untutored there…beg
your pardon) migrants are breaking the law to escape in their own country.

Then
the only problem the liberals will have is deciding which one on them gets to
be the next Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, or better yet, Kim Jong Il.