Borders and the "War on Terror"
I asked this question again in a conversation yesterday. For a few years I've been saying it: If we are are war with terrorists, why don't we control our borders? Either we want to be attacked or we really aren't at war with terror. Any other explanations?
Might be true of all governments that I am aware of actually. Maybe in the nature of government.
Might be true of all governments that I am aware of actually. Maybe in the nature of government.
Might be true of all governments that I am aware of actually. Maybe in the nature of government.
The Democrat party has become more Marxist over the last few decades, realizing that they have few fresh ideas to appeal to enough long time Americans. The approach they appear to be following is to induct a supply of voters new to the country, unfamiliar with our principles of individual freedom, and more willing to agree with collectivist policies. Tight border control and strict enforcement of immigration law is anathema to Democrats who see this as cutting off the supply of collectivist voters they need.
Government tries to ram all the cultures together for their own gain, not OURS. I dont see the need to be forced to live around cultures that you dont particularly like, or in fact fear, if you dont want to. Isnt it our choice to live where we want and feel safe and accepted?
The crime and destruction from south of the border in places like Phoenix Arizona is very real and, sadly, a longtime and ongoing fact of life. Its better now than it was when Napolitano was governor but its still very bad.
Evidence has been found of middle eastern border crossers. To date I can't cite anything specific related to the WOT that may have stemmed from these folks entering unknown and illegally.
I've been actively on this topic (illegal immigration), watching, listening and remembering for 15+ years. Today illegal immigration and its stain is quieter but its still there, very real, and perhaps more deadly because of its silence.
Mexico is similarly problematic. Without their government oil cartel, they wouldn't have enough money to run their country. And they depend heavily on US aid to control the drug cartels and warlords who own many of the local politicians. Their refusal to respect American immigration law to the point of advertising to their own people to come here and their refusal to make improvements to their own nation encourages the population drain.
"We need to do everything we can to let people, ideas, merchandise, and capital flow freely."
No, we don't. This is a self-defeating attitude that assumes the posture that we should allow others to take advantage of us. We should absolutely require that our trading partners ALSO promote individual rights, respect property rights - especially intellectual property rights, respect freedom of thought, etc. ONLY then is the free flow of people, ideas, and merchandise true in the benefit of both parties.
A great question, and I'd upvote you +100 if I could for it, because it does address a conundrum between freedom of the individual to pursue their own interests and the coercion of the State.
That being said, I don't believe it is in the individuals' best interest (nor in the interest of the nation itself) to do business with someone else who does not respect basic human rights. At the heart of any true value proposition must be the welfare of both parties. I would then note the following two items:
1. The trading partner from a non-free-trade nation is not engaging in trade out of their own interest, but as an actor of the State. Thus to do business with a foreign national in such a case is to do business with the State.
2. If it is not in the interest of the individual citizen of a free trade nation, it can not be in the interest of the nation as a whole, and vice-versa. If trading with a foreign agent continues to perpetuate a state in which trade is not free on both sides, then the free trade nation absolutely may - as an extension of the value placed on real free trade - impose duties, sanctions, or even outright bans on trade of its citizens with citizens of the offending nation and not abrogate the interest of either.