The Finch Formerly Known As Gold

19 January 2006

The udderlying cause

There are times when I read something, write a link to it, and think "Maybe this isn't the time." And it sits out on the desktop somewhere — it's not even in the actual blog database — waiting for me to get off the dime and either run the damn thing or forget I ever saw it.

After four days, I've decided to opt for the former. From Arizona Watch, Benway's explanation of why we have an illegal-immigration problem in the first place:

We've voted ourselves all these safety nets and government benefits as citizens of this country, and we'll be damned if we're going to start giving these benefits away to someone new. It costs too much. We don't want to pay for it. Besides, we have a "right" to American jobs ourselves, even if we don't want them.

That is the immigration debate in a nutshell. Our lips are locked on the government teats, feeding on the milk of privilege, and we don't want competition.

There will be no solution to illegal immigration until the taxpayers stop rewarding themselves unearned benefits. Eliminating the welfare state removes many of the incentives to illegally immigrate. If you've got to pay for your kids to go to school and pay for your own healthcare, only the truly motivated are going to immigrate, and those who do will be valuable additions to our country. But if we're going to deny these incentives to immigrants, then we must also deny them to ourselves. The alternatives are either the current situation, or a slave state, with a second class of immigrant persons laboring to ensure a fat government teat upon which citizens suckle.

Okay, hardline and then some. Of course, we are paying for school — some of us are, anyway — just not directly. And I don't believe for a moment that the vast majority of immigrants will end up as parasites.

But given the choice between building a wall and tearing down the welfare state, which do you think will actually happen?

Posted at 9:08 AM to Political Science Fiction

Which do you think could actually work and not be a total disaster with regards to free trade and individual rights?

Cancer isnt cured with a bandaid.

Talk about political science fiction. If less people kowtowed to the "practical" and instead attacked the root of the problem we would actually solve our problems instead of making them worse.

Posted by: BridgetB at 2:29 PM on 19 January 2006

This, of course, presumes that people want problems solved. I suspect that a lot of them are perfectly content to endure the status quo so long as it doesn't endanger their own position — especially if they stand to profit from it. (Government departments are not known for calling for their own decommissioning, and there's a whole industry full of "advocates" whose business is gaming the system.)

Posted by: CGHill at 3:46 PM on 19 January 2006

That is the immigration debate in a nutshell.

For some, I suppose. Maybe even most. Thing is, it really doesn't address the distinction between legal and illegal immigration. If the reasons Benway cites are indeed the reasons for this issue, one would think it applies to all immigration, not just the illegal variety.

Posted by: McGehee at 10:27 AM on 20 January 2006