Borders and the "War on Terror"

Posted by $ Abaco 5 years, 11 months ago to Politics
15 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

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?


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by freedomforall 5 years, 11 months ago
    Because the government's real goals are to control us and loot us, not to accomplish the few things that they are explicitly, constitutionally authorized to do. They can't compete with us successfully, so they must lie, cheat, and steal our production to survive and live lives of luxury, while dictating what we can legally do.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 5 years, 11 months ago
      The purpose of our government is to protect and expand ITSELF and its minions. Anything good that comes out of it to benefit us citizens is just a side effect.

      Might be true of all governments that I am aware of actually. Maybe in the nature of government.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 5 years, 11 months ago
      The purpose of our government is to protect and expand ITSELF and its minions. Anything good that comes out of it to benefit us citizens is just a side effect.

      Might be true of all governments that I am aware of actually. Maybe in the nature of government.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 5 years, 11 months ago
      The purpose of our government is to protect and expand ITSELF and its minions. Anything good that comes out of it to benefit us citizens is just a side effect.

      Might be true of all governments that I am aware of actually. Maybe in the nature of government.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 5 years, 11 months ago
    A sizable part of our population doesn't believe that terrorism is a big enough threat to warrant tightly controlled borders. The progressive argument for this is to point out that far fewer Americans have been killed by terrorists than by other Americans. In other words, we should get used to the "new normal," with occasional deaths from terrorist acts.

    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 5 years, 11 months ago
    I think that one of the problems today is that people from other cultures dont always respect individual rights of the indigenous people, and therefore the local residents resent the influx of those cultures. I certainly feel that with a number of other cultures, and I think its OK to feel that way. The idea of a border is to keep OUT people who dont respect or want to be a part of the culture inside the border. That way the people in the country can feel secure. Otherwise, why have a border at all?

    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?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 5 years, 11 months ago
    I've been questioning the same since GWB was in office talking tough on the WOT. How could he be serious and leave the southern border so porous?
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years, 11 months ago
    Trading is the key to value creation. That means as open borders as possible. "Terrorism" and "hate crimes" are just ordinary crimes with motives that are aimed at affecting more than just the original victim. To want to close borders (which is not something the OP said) but keep the benefits of trade is like China wanting to keep the benefits of an open society while being authoritarian about everything not associated with economic growth. I whole-heartedly reject the notion we're at "war" with "terrorism", "hate crimes", "drugs", or any undesirable aspect of human behavior. Such "wars" are just rationalizations for statism. We need to do everything we can to let people, ideas, merchandise, and capital flow freely. Most people want the benefits of that, and we want good law enforcement and fair and open trials for people who violate others' rights.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 5 years, 11 months ago
      You seem to equate controlled borders with a lack of free trade. I don't see any correlation there because the problem isn't the borders or a wall, but vast cultural differences. Take China for example. Their history since becoming communist has been the wholesale slaughter of tens of millions of their own people, ruthless intolerance of political or religious dissent, extensive cronyism within their own government, open theft of intellectual property, currency manipulation, and subtle belligerence toward their neighbors - especially in the South China Sea. That got worse - not better - since President Clinton granted them Most Favored Nation trade status and entry into the WTO. I don't object to free trade, but free trade is based on both parties respecting individual rights.

      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years, 11 months ago
        Your comments make me think of the extreme example of trading with a country that had out-and-out slavery. Would it make sense for a free country's gov't to prevent its citizens from trading with an entire country because some of the things they're selling were made my slaves? Actually it would. I do not think China has slavery, but they are not nearly as free as the US. I do think they'll get more free as a result of trade, but as you say they've increased trade but not gotten freer. You have me thinking about a hypothetical purely free country. To what extent should they use force on their citizens to keep them from trading with people who are less free?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ blarman 5 years, 11 months ago
          "To what extent should they use force on their citizens to keep them from trading with people who are less free?"

          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.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 5 years, 11 months ago
      I have been leaning to the side that terrorism is a sham - conjured up to allow for greater statism and totalitarianism. - That, in fact, the threat is greatly overstated. Then, just today, I heard an interview of a border control agent who stated that 70% of those apprehended sneaking through our southern border are "NFM" (not from Mexico). Where are they from? They are from the middle-east. Now...that doesn't mean they are terrorists, of course. But, it is a material fact. Strange days....
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo