Wednesday, February 08, 2012

"Immigration control"

Recently a post on the War on Guns blog gave me inspiration to re-address an old "problem". My comment:

The harder the govgoons make it for people to immigrate, the more it weeds out the good immigrants.

It's like "gun control" [sic]. The bad guys will always be armed, so the "laws" only disarm the good people (the dumb ones, anyway). Anti-immigration "laws" will only keep out those who really want to be "legal"; the gangsters will always get in.

I'm sure many otherwise rational people, particularly "Patriotic Gun Owners" of the sort that slobber on Shire Reave Joe Arpaio's rear end, don't want to see it in this light, but it will still always be the absolute truth.



  1. I think Joe A is doing a good job *under the circumstances*.
    Those circumstances are totally unjust and unconstitutional. We need border control because of our welfare, minimum wage, and drug policies. Without those factors, open borders would work like they did 100+ years ago....before we had all those ill-advised policies.

  2. Do you think more should be done to secure the southern border, or open it completely?

    I agree with your assessment, especially considering that the border is all but open anyway. No deterrent whatsoever to illegal "bad guy" types.

  3. "The" southern border? My southern border is on the street that borders the elementary school. My neighbor to the north, who is from Mexico, doesn't seem too worried about his southern border either. Those are the only southern borders that are any of my concern. Individuals have property lines; governments don't.

  4. For what it's worth, "illegal" immigrants use far less "welfare" and other gov't handouts per capita than do "legal" immigrants, and much less than poor citizens do-and in any event the money spent on those programs if far less than the amount spent on the police state built up to "deal" with it.

    Besides, the border DOES work like it did 100 years ago(though it really wasn't open then either, but for the sake of argument..)-the only difference is a bureaucracy intent on labeling people pointlessly, and preposterous windbags like Sleaziff Arpaio using a non-problem to build a reputation and bilk you for more and more money....while you cheer him.