— SteemCN

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.

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."

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.

RE: Tear-Gassing Children (It's Bad)

You are viewing a single comment's thread from: