Friday, April 25, 2008

Each American OWNS His Citizenship But Assisted Immigration Degrades The Value Of It

and that of his own share of the government, in the same way. When foreigners enter in a way which increases the level of aggression here, that takes away from the value of the citizen's share of freedom-from-aggression, such as subsists here. It takes away from the value of the citizen's loyalty to the net taxpayer of our nation, which is worth a lot, as he is our true bounden ally against foreign aggression, and the one with the means to provide for the defense of our freedom.
Craig Biddle however, insists that "No one owns America" and that "Since there is no principle governing the use of 'public' property, there can be no principled argument for excluding immigrants from using such property." Isn't there a contradiction-in-terms there, though, for it to be property and yet somehow no one owns it, at the same time and in the same respect? If the unreason of that claim is not apparent, Biddle also says we should "Exclude immigrants from receiving welfare and from using government schools—", but doesn't that contradict his claim that "there can be no principled argument for excluding immigrants from using such property"? Is the public revenue after having been collected, not public property, which shouldn't be regarded as something like seawater on the open ocean, that any foreigner might take at his convenience? Isn't this a contradiction-in-terms as well, or reducible to one, to claim as Biddle does that America's border " properly a boundary designating the area in which the U.S. government must protect rights." That is, if it also true that "Individuals possess rights not by virtue of their geographic location ...". The contradiction being that the prospective immigrant is said to have a right enforceable on our government, to move here, while there is also claimed a limitation on the geographic domain in which it "must protect rights". Another contradiction is here: if American "society is inimical to human life" because it uses force to restrict immigration, and has been this way since the federal government took over this responsibility in the mid-19th century, how is it that the prospective immigrant is losing by not getting an immigration visa, to a society which then would have to be considered "inimical to human life", unlike perhaps some stateless zone in Somalia? More arguments are to be found here: The Citizenry Is Not Known To Be A Juridical Person Of Penal Responsibility Relative To The Prospective Immigrant
Also related, a pragmatic consideration of contemporary politics, from an earlier post:
Mass Immigration Of Undesirables Brings Censorship Of Political Publication...
with high probability in behind it. This tends to occur because the right-wing or patriotic political organizations can split off the lower-income of the incumbent population from their usual home in the leftward, and internationalistic, factions. Those defections from the left are easily induced by drawing attention to the outrages of net public subsidy and special tolerance for the immigration cohorts. Proposing to reduce those subsidies and unaccountabilities, threatens the left in such a dire way, that they move quite often to impose censorship on political publication. This is what is happening to Brigitte Bardot, at the hands of bestial dhimmis in the French government. Multiply examples: the inductive generalization will be seen to hold up rather well.

No comments: