Harry Binswanger on Open Immigration


Roger Bissell

Recommended Posts

Not up to your usual standard of humor, Brant.

It's not your fault. I don't think there's any aspect of our immigration disaster that's funny.

About that black Objectivist in the corner, if he’s smart he too would see the advantage of a predominantly white America. It would be safer and more prosperous for him as well as for me. Anyway I care more about me and mine than being politically correct.

You can't get there from here. That's where we came from--sort of--and where we're going apropos this concern we cannot stop. It all has to do with who is wielding the political power and why, not the racial breakdown. The Founding Fathers were replaced by Andrew Hoi Polloi Jackson and the Revolutionary War replaced by increasingly ignoble endeavors fulminating in the unCivil War. Etc. Reductions in excessive Federal power only came after that war and WWI and to some lesser extent WWII, followed by its continued upward march. Seeking salvation in race is seeking salvation in a leader on top of a collectivist pile. Americans, still mostly white, are the most fearsome warriors on the planet. How many wars has Mexico started, fought in or won? That's all I see--the war advantage. Keeping it or losing it is problematical either way. Wishy-washy inbetween is the most dangerous.

--Brant

peace is my profession

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As current policy, I think people should be able to go back and forth across borders to work but get no benefits including citizenship for babies born here. The Social Security taxes they pay could be diverted for health insurance. No legal permanent residency. No voting. Putting up a bond may be valuable.

--Brant

but the conservatives have the ball in their court; this is beyond libertarianism for the same reason it is beyond Binswanger: there's too much disjunction between theory and where we all are politically and culturally--doesn't mean we can't take care of our selfish selves

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Little Dick Durban, you remember him, he accused our troops of being like Nazis and Pol Pot's Killing Fields mass murdering thugs, stated today.that Oberfuhrer O'bama will "borrow the power"!

"I don't know how much more time he thinks he needs, but I hope that Speaker Boehner will speak up today," Durbin said. "And if he does not, the president will borrow the power that is needed to solve the problems of immigration and he shouldn’t be sued as a result of it."

I'm sorry, can someone direct me to where in the 4,400 words of the US Constitution the Aricle II section 1-4 Executive can "borrow the power" from other brances?

A...

Here is little dick Durban's despicable statement, cowardly made on the floor of the Senate where he can't be touched.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama is the immigration anarchy president.

About two years ago Congress defeated the "Dream Act" so Obama got it anyway by executive order, exempting from immigration law about .8 million young adults. Now he’s letting in any and all children, mostly teenagers -- 60,000 for starters, hundreds of thousands soon to come, then millions via family reunification.

Mark

ARIwatch.com

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope nitwit lowlife Binswanger is celebrating all these new immigrants over at his closely-censored discussion forum. The short-term and long-term cost to America -- financial, political, and cultural -- is going to be enormous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to want to live in America.

Now I get nervous sharing a border.

Canada repelled the United States before and it can do it again.

--Brant

just change Canada's name to "Freedom"--stops us dead in our tracks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HB seems to be working off an imagined "should be" instead of a hard-nosed understanding of what is going on--right now. Philosophers who don't get a true liberal arts education--good college (where?) is only a start--end up spouting worthless or dangerous policy recommendations. For instance, I was against the invasion of Iraq in 2003 based on my understanding of the general extant situation, not just my philosophy, though part of that philosophy was don't do dangerous, expensive, unsustainable, worthless stupid. Now? I might support sending in a division or two, not to wipe out those crazy jihadists, but just to stop them and block them and trap them and keep the government forces from collapsing. Etc. The country should be broken up into three pieces, too.

--Brant

the question of the American geo-political footprint in the world is another question--I only know it's much, much too big and should be and can be greatly reduced out of present-day context--then the powers that be or would be powers that be can go from there after knowing, after understanding, the effects of what had been done to that time

It seems that everyone is a realist when it comes to policies they don't like, and an idealist when it comes to polices they do like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Binswanger would flood America with socialists, altruists, religiosos, and third-world barbarians. He favors virtually limitless trespass and invasion by merciless and powerful enemies -- by hordes of freedom-haters, America-haters, and ruthless destroyers of civilization. Nice!

river-valley.jpg
"Destroyers" of civilization.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Ohio-Mississippi river system was the second greatest blessing by nature on the United States. The first was it's distance from the equator and North Pole. The third was being bounded by the water of two great oceans.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Binswanger would flood America with socialists, altruists, religiosos, and third-world barbarians. He favors virtually limitless trespass and invasion by merciless and powerful enemies -- by hordes of freedom-haters, America-haters, and ruthless destroyers of civilization. Nice!

I missed this.

Kyrel, this is a bit much.

--Brant

you can come up with something rational off Binswanger . . .--not this gut-felt atavistic nativism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Binswanger would flood America with socialists, altruists, religiosos, and third-world barbarians. He favors virtually limitless trespass and invasion by merciless and powerful enemies -- by hordes of freedom-haters, America-haters, and ruthless destroyers of civilization. Nice!

Well, in fairness to Binswanger, he thinks immigrants have better values than the natives and are very unlikely to have the qualities Kyrel attributes to them.

Immigrants are the kind of people who refresh the American spirit. They are ambitious, courageous, and value freedom. They come here, often with no money and not even speaking the language, to seek a better life for themselves and their children.

The vision of American freedom, with its opportunity to prosper by hard work, serves as a magnet drawing the best of the world's people. Immigrants are self-selected for their virtues: their ambitiousness, daring, independence, and pride. They are willing to cast aside the tradition-bound roles assigned to them in their native lands and to re-define themselves as Americans. These are the people our country needs in order to keep alive the individualist, hard-working attitude that made America.

I have it on good authority that Binswanger was shocked when he learned that Moslem immigrants from Chechnya were behind the Boston Bombing. He thought it was much more likely that this crime was committed by members of the Daughters of the American Revolution or the Mayflower Society.

-NP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clever sarcasm, Neil.

Snippets from an article on the website Vdare.com,

"What I Saw at the Naturalization Ceremony — More Immigration Means Welfarism, Crime, and the End of America"

by Nicholas Stix, October 5, 2013

Five years ago, my son and I accompanied The Boss [Nicholas Stix’s wife] to her naturalization ceremony ... at the Federal Courthouse in downtown Brooklyn.

...

We got to witness the big swearing-in ceremony. Every Citizenship And Immigration Services (CIS) worker was herself an immigrant -- they bragged about it, while promoting the "America is a nation of immigrants" myth.

...

Afterwards, The Boss was enraged. During the hours while we waited for her, the immigrant immigration workers had brought out forms for every welfare program under the sun, which they promoted to the candidates, and for which they proceeded to sign them up.

This strikes me as illegal as hell. Doesn’t U.S. Immigration law clearly state that an immigrant may not be a public charge?

I am also convinced that the citizenship process was lousy with fraud by the CIS workers.

The Boss had studied hard for the citizenship exam, learning about who the first president was, about the U.S. Constitution, three branches of government, etc. But it was given by a CIS worker with no written, video or audio record of it. I believe that those workers passed everyone, whether they knew the answers to the questions, or even could speak English.

...

S.744, the Schumer/ Rubio Amnesty/Immigration Surge Bill, would fatally tip the balance of taxpayers to taxeaters, since virtually all of the people being amnestied would be taxeaters.

... [And] Every one of the new tech workers that people Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg would import under H-1B and other "non-immigrant" visas would displace a qualified American worker.

...

... The refugee racket has been a magnet for frauds, many of whom are also violent criminals from the world’s most uncivilized countries, like Somalia.

...

... although America’s immigration disaster is dominated by Third Worlders, it’s not just non-whites who have the rip-off-America mentality. ...

During the early 1990s, I once went on a date with a pretty young Jewish girl from the Ukraine. She said that all of her young friends from back home worked off the books, while sponging off disability or welfare, and thought Americans were idiots for not doing likewise.

...

S. 744 passed the Senate but fortunately not the House.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Immigrants are the kind of people who refresh the American spirit. They are ambitious, courageous, and value freedom. They come here, often with no money and not even speaking the language, to seek a better life for themselves and their children.

The vision of American freedom, with its opportunity to prosper by hard work, serves as a magnet drawing the best of the world's people. Immigrants are self-selected for their virtues: their ambitiousness, daring, independence, and pride. They are willing to cast aside the tradition-bound roles assigned to them in their native lands and to re-define themselves as Americans. These are the people our country needs in order to keep alive the individualist, hard-working attitude that made America.

In principle, stirring words by HB. Friends who've emigrated there way back would attest to this.

It is a vision of your nation that is worth aiming for once again.

But the principle has been overtaken by reality, seemingly - in between what was, and what will come again - seems Binswanger is out of touch with now. God bless America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a vision of your nation that is worth aiming for once again.

But the principle has been overtaken by reality, seemingly - in between what was, and what will come again - seems Binswanger is out of touch with now.

This is what Binswanger said a few months ago on Forbes.com:

Immigrants are a natural constituency for the Republican Party. Yes, the Republican Party–because foreigners come here to participate in the American dream. It takes independence and courage to leave the familiar hearth and home and venture to a new land. Republicans, not the “You didn’t build that” Democrats, have at least some appreciation for the American can-do spirit and the self-made man.

Where does Binswanger get his ideas on the values that immigrants hold? I've read that Hispanics have a negative opinion to the concept "capitalism" and 2/3 support affirmative action.

-NP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"... foreigners come here to participate in the American dream."

-- Harry Binswanger

From Immigration Enthusiasts:

Far more often than not the foreigner’s dream is a socialist one. Though he might come here to escape the consequence of socialism, namely poverty, typically either he fails to understand the cause-effect relation and even though productive votes socialist, or – and it’s very frequent – he is a looter on the receiving end of socialism, and votes socialist.

The first part is worth repeating, No matter how nice and hard working they are, statistically immigrants from backward or socialist countries overwhelmingly vote socialist. Not only from voting records, I know from personal experience talking with some of the better immigrants -- friendly, honest, hardworking, and stuffed full of Marxist ideas even if they've never heard of Marx. I've argued with them ad nauseum yet nothing takes. According to the Pew Research poll of Hispanics quoted in a footnote of "Immigration Enthusiasts," the second generation isn't much better. And they vote the way they think.

We're talking averages, there are exceptions, but they are a small minority. ARI likes to repeat that innocents get killed in a war. This is war. Except vetted whites from Europe and Australia keep them all out. See the testimony of Dennis Michael Lynch (successful businessman, movie producer) on why not give drivers licenses to illegal aliens:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xpi3IxQX6Jk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Open immigration is like putting the cart ahead of the horse. Too much, too soon. "Vetted whites" won't work and strongly implies racism. That's because they are full of socialist proclivities too. The real, immediate problem, is the sudden, pending, legalization through executive fiat of 8-10 million illegals from Mexico and Central America who are already here.

I do think we could have open borders for workers who come but do not stay, apart from all this hypothetical moon-gazing on the part of the likes of Binswanger, all bottled up in California with no feedback allowed.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Binswanger's argument is utilitarian and fanciful. Pretty easy to demolish. Less easy is the question of rights.

"I am particularly eager to uphold and defend the fundamental right of innocent liberty, which implies unrestricted immigration and some public property (roads and rights-of-way) to get from point A to point B unhindered." [COGIGG, p. 61] "Few enjoy actual liberty (freedom to travel), while most are indentured beyond hope of ever escaping a crowded, disease-ridden slum in Brazil or Bangladesh." [p.71]

"In previous writing, I suggested that the only thing a person owns outright is his or her liberty. If mankind are truly free, in a de facto sense, then no property claim can be absolute or legally negate the liberty of others. The most we can do is to possess and defend "property" by force. Indeed, this is descriptive of the world, ancient and modern." [p.73]

"The right of property is contingent on responsibility — to be a reasonable, fair player in the community, reluctant to destroy the happiness of others and eager to promote human dignity and liberty. One of the simplest ways to achieve this is to offer employment, reward your employees, and quit playing Monopoly." [p.85]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I am particularly eager to uphold and defend the fundamental right of innocent liberty, which implies unrestricted immigration and some public property (roads and rights-of-way) to get from point A to point B unhindered." [COGIGG, p. 61] "Few enjoy actual liberty (freedom to travel), while most are indentured beyond hope of ever escaping a crowded, disease-ridden slum in Brazil or Bangladesh." [p.71]

"In previous writing, I suggested that the only thing a person owns outright is his or her liberty. If mankind are truly free, in a de facto sense, then no property claim can be absolute or legally negate the liberty of others. The most we can do is to possess and defend "property" by force. Indeed, this is descriptive of the world, ancient and modern." [p.73]]

So, "actual liberty" is all about Wolf's "freedom to travel" anywhere he wishes and the "right" to use others' property against their will, and to force them to pay for and provide "public roads" for his convenience? Why stop there? Why not define "actual liberty" as Wolf's having the "right" to be fed by other people against their will, and sheltered and sexually gratified?

"The right of property is contingent on responsibility to be a reasonable, fair player in the community, reluctant to destroy the happiness of others and eager to promote human dignity and liberty. One of the simplest ways to achieve this is to offer employment, reward your employees, and quit playing Monopoly." [p.85]

So, if people don't let Wolf use their property as he sees fit, they are guilty of "destroying the happiness of others" and are therefore in violation of the requirement that they be "responsible," "reasonable," and "fair," and therefore they must surrender their property rights so that Wolf can do as he pleases so that he can be happy? Fuck them for wanting to use their property to produce a livelihood for themselves; Wolf wants to play and dance and travel, and, since Wolf has defined "liberty" as the "freedom to travel" because he really likes to travel rather than produce, his "right" to use all property for playing and dancing and traveling trumps their right to use it for production?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I am particularly eager to uphold and defend the fundamental right of innocent liberty, which implies unrestricted immigration and some public property (roads and rights-of-way) to get from point A to point B unhindered." [COGIGG, p. 61] "Few enjoy actual liberty (freedom to travel), while most are indentured beyond hope of ever escaping a crowded, disease-ridden slum in Brazil or Bangladesh." [p.71]

"In previous writing, I suggested that the only thing a person owns outright is his or her liberty. If mankind are truly free, in a de facto sense, then no property claim can be absolute or legally negate the liberty of others. The most we can do is to possess and defend "property" by force. Indeed, this is descriptive of the world, ancient and modern." [p.73]]

So, "actual liberty" is all about Wolf's "freedom to travel" anywhere he wishes and the "right" to use others' property against their will, and to force them to pay for and provide "public roads" for his convenience? Why stop there? Why not define "actual liberty" as Wolf's having the "right" to be fed by other people against their will, and sheltered and sexually gratified?

"The right of property is contingent on responsibility to be a reasonable, fair player in the community, reluctant to destroy the happiness of others and eager to promote human dignity and liberty. One of the simplest ways to achieve this is to offer employment, reward your employees, and quit playing Monopoly." [p.85]

So, if people don't let Wolf use their property as he sees fit, they are guilty of "destroying the happiness of others" and are therefore in violation of the requirement that they be "responsible," "reasonable," and "fair," and therefore they must surrender their property rights so that Wolf can do as he pleases so that he can be happy? Fuck them for wanting to use their property to produce a livelihood for themselves; Wolf wants to play and dance and travel, and, since Wolf has defined "liberty" as the "freedom to travel" because he really likes to travel rather than produce, his "right" to use all property for playing and dancing and traveling trumps their right to use it for production?

J

Well, J, what would you say if you shucked your default ad hominem approach to analysis?

Wolf seems to be arguing for eminent domain.

Wolf wants all others to have the freedom of travel and work he has.

I can't get my brain around this conflict between property rights and liberty he seems to posit--and some nebulous social contract.

I can see some anarchy approaching. "Morbius! Morbius! It's your monster from the ID!" "Stop it Robby! Stop it!" "It's no use, Morbius. Can't you see it's you? These machines will supply all the power it needs to burn through that Kyrel metal!" (If this is confusing to you, I assure you it's confusing to me too.)

I don't see the foundations for his conclusions so I can't see theory. I think rational theory leads to delimited government and therefore . . . ?

--Brant

I'm interested in this sexual gratification you found in your logical hash--should we go to the diner first or straight to the whorehouse?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now