no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

Giuliani the Xenophobe

August 14th, 2007

The man just gets scarier and scarier. First it was energy independence, now its illegal immigration.

“We can end illegal immigration. I promise you, we can end illegal immigration,” [Rudy Giuliani,] former New York mayor said at a community center — the first of the day’s two stops in this early voting state.

You see, you’re either with the xenophobes, the closeted bigots, or you’re not. And if you’re with them, then you’re anti-freedom. If you’re not already an American, you must be an enemy – no matter how badly you’d like to become an American, or work for Americans, or buy from Americans. Then again, Rudy gave us this charmer, too:

“What we don’t see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.”

Ah, yes. Freedom through slavery…

Giuliani is certainly not the first person who thinks he can eradicate a concept. But he certainly won’t be the first person to win such a war. We can’t win the war on drugs, on obesity, on crime, on poverty or on racism – no matter how many confiscated tax dollars we pile on the problems. Hell, we can’t even win a war against a bunch of backwards, cave-dwelling, third-world militants who actively want to destroy our way of life. There is no way we can win a war against people who want to contribute to it.

And this – this is without even mentioning the liberal arguments in favor of open borders, in favor of human freedom, in favor of allowing people to leave shit-hole countries if they can muster up the strength and temerity to do so. To work long, unappreciated hours at backbreaking labor so that one day your children can have a better life than you did. Set aside the fact that there are demonstrably bigger threats to America than illegal immigration – not to mention the serious economic consequences of prohibiting immigration, and the perverse incentives that prohibition always has, whether we’re dealing with marijuana, or Mexicans.

Not Enough Doctors

July 30th, 2007

Last week (or maybe longer ago than that), Yahoo! News reported a frightening trend in the United States – that being a shortage of doctors, specifically in rural areas. A shortage of doctors, not in Kenya, Laos, or even the U.K., although I’m sure those countries have their own problems. A large part of the problem in the U.S. is onerous restrictions on immigration:

Doctors recruited from places such as India, the Philippines and sub-Saharan Africa to work in underserved areas like the Mississippi Delta and the lonesome West already face an arduous and expensive gauntlet of agencies, professional tests and background checks to secure work papers and permanent residency.”

This is nothing new, and as Aaron Kinney explains, it is not a problem local only to doctors (or engineers, or landscapers, or busboys), there is a genuine shortage of workers:

If there wasn’t, then there wouldn’t be so many immigrants flocking here! The main reason that there are so many immigrants coming to the US year after year, decade after decade, is because there are still so many human resource shortages in the US.

But Dr. Sampatkumar Shivangi, despite his own experiences – according to the article, “He once tried unsuccessfully to help a J-1 physician find a position with a rural Mississippi clinic,” maintains that the federal government can’t be blamed for the problem.

Some of the physicians in that community didn’t want a physician to come and practice there because it would take away patients.

And who’s in charge of licensing? Oh, right. People who are already Doctors. Hiding behind the force of law, backed by government guns. I’m curious to know who else there is to blame? Do you think this problem will just go away, if we replace what’s left of a private health-care market with a single-payer system?

Previous knowledge drop on immigration (not Doctor-specific).

An Exchange

June 14th, 2007

 

Gustave de Molière wrote some satire back in the day – the quality of which I cannot hope to touch, probably ever. That said, I participated rather actively on a Detroit Free Press discussion forum for the article which inspired my post, “Jobs Americans Won’t Do”. Now, I try to stay away from public forums like this, because they are usually populated by idiots. Anyhow, what follows is a transcription of the discussion I had. For continuity’s sake, I have mildly re-ordered some of the thread, but I believe I have not omit or changed the implication of my opponent’s position. My portion of the debate began with a simple question regarding the nominal (and completely arbitrary) “illegality” of immigration. The response that followed started with something like, “Here, let me give you the definition of ‘criminal’…”

Again, it’s true. I couldn’t write better satire if I tried.


People used to say the same thing about slave harborers and run-away slaves. So by your logic, you *must* believe that slavery was right, up until that point it was abolished, at which juncture it became immediately wrong – and – at any point in the future, with one stroke of a legislative pen, slavery might once again be “right.”

Big2Supplier: Big difference between then and now. Those immigrant’s you described [pre WWI-era] entered legally. They did not suck off the taxpayer trough either.

I already addressed the tax-leeching that you mention, although I doubt it’s as big a problem as you want it to be. [note: I’ve been informed that this sort of thing was severely restricted back in 1996, but still, the idea persists] There’s a reason for this inequity: they don’t pay taxes, because you won’t let them pay taxes. Give them a legal job, and voila – they’re taxpayers, just like me, and presumably, you. The poor and the elderly suck off the taxpayer trough, too. Any complaints about them?

And I addressed the dubious claims of “legality” that you bring up, too.

Sit tight, I’m waiving my “fairy job wand” as we speak.

Am I to understand that you think slavery was right – until 1865?

Totally uncalled for. I’m second generation legally.

It’s not uncalled for – it follows from the logic of your argument.

Where’s Reggie White?

“It’s not uncalled for – it follows from the logic of your argument.” Not so my young friend. It follows YOUR logic. Entering the United States of America illegally, is illegal, period. I would chip in my hard earned money to build the bus that can ship 12 million illegal aliens out of here. Do I want people to have a better life, yes, legally. Pulling a Carl Lewis across the border is criminal.

Remember my key word: Illegal.

I have not lost sight of this, which is why I keep asking (and you keep dodging) the question of slavery. [Note: case-in-point, below…]

What is wrong with you?

I haven’t failed to examine the morality of my principles.

You keep asking a question that has nothing to do with this. Just as relevant: 87 octane or 89?

87, please.

Seriously, it’s actually relevant (my question.)

You’re saying that an action is wrong merely because the law says it’s wrong. Slavery wasn’t said to be wrong until 1865, from which it follows that slavery was right, until Lincoln delivered the emancipation proclamation. In the Third Reich – a democratically elected government, I might add – being Jewish was punishable by death. Does that make being Jewish a “criminal act,” and does it make all Jews “criminals?”

No – these arguments are patently retarded. And so is any other law which brands people criminals merely by the unfortunate accident of where they were born.

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics