The Weekly Sedition

Thursday, 7 August 2008

America’s Borders Are NOT Open

Filed under: Politics — Tags: , , — weeklysedition @ 4:41 PM

America’s Borders Are NOT Open
by Mike Blessing [ ]

Back in April of this year, I wrote an article titled “Bring It On, Al-Qaeda!”  where I suugested that we should welcome the imaginary invasion that the Busheviks say is right around the corner if the American population stops supporting their ultra-left adventurism abroad in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

The points of the article were that if Al-Qaeda really wanted to commit more acts of terrorism against America, they would be over here doing it, and that such a campaign would be quite easily contained by Americans exercising their natural, civil, Constitutional, human right to own and carry weapons.

Anyway, a few days later (6 April), some doofus posts a comment that “WE’RE READY FOR YOU WITH OUR OPEN BORDER!!!”

If the border (I’m assuming that the poster is talking about the southern border with Mexico?) is “wide open” as suggested, then why do people coming north without permission from Washington DC have to sneak across that imaginary line in the sand? Why do they have to risk life and limb being crammed into a semi trailer with a hundred other people in 100-plus-degree heat, without water or sufficient ventilation, to cross that line if the border was “open” as suggested? Why don’t these people just walk or ride across in the open if the border is as “open” as posited by the border-closers?

The fact remains that America’s borders are NOT open as suggested – there’s whole agencies of the federal government devoted to patrolling them, i.e. the Border Patrol, U.S. Customs, among others. Governor Richardson has called for National Guard units to be posted on that same southern border.

What puzzles me about this “issue” is that people who are otherwise staunch advocates for Liberty call for the border to be sealed, physically. I’m not even sure if that’s possible. And one thing that they forget is that a government powerful enough to keep all of the lettuce pickers out is powerful enough to keep us in.

Monday, 30 June 2008

Open Borders vs. “Aztlan”

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , , — weeklysedition @ 2:08 AM

Open Borders vs. “Aztlan”
By Mike Blessing [ ]
First published in the February 2008 issue of New Mexico Liberty

A few years ago, I read an excellent book titled Enemies Foreign and Domestic, authored by former U.S. Navy SEAL Matthew Bracken. It’s about some private citizens who take on an out-of-control federal agency. The agency in question shoots some people at a crowded football game, blames the incident on “domestic terrorists,” and cites it as an excuse to outlaw “assault weapons.”

See to get a copy.

About two or three years after Enemies Foreign and Domestic was released, Bracken released Domestic Enemies: The Reconquista, which concerns the current situation with illegal immigrants from Mexico coming north into the United States.

I see a few problems with the premise that Bracken, the Minutemen, and others are crying about – that Mexican immigrants will take over state government, then have their proxies in the Legislatures secede from the Union and either have those states rejoin Mexico or form a new country called Aztlan.

First, this Aztlan “movement” doesn’t seem to have much if any credibility in the Hispanic community outside of college campuses and organiztions like the Green Party. A few years ago, a Hispanic truck driver making a delivery to a place where I was working was complaining about the idea of Bush-43 letting Mexican trucks on American roads, as per NAFTA. This guy said, “They won’t be able to read ‘STOP’ signs, how do you know if their brakes work . . . .” When I brought up the Aztlan idea to him, he said “I’ll shoot ’em all.”

Second, let’s say that the supporters of “Aztlan” did take over the state Legislatures of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Colorado, Nevada, and Utah, as the Minutemen point to as the Aztlan objective. Once they’re in power, they’ll have access to all sorts of federal funding from Washington DC, and they won’t want to give that up. The minute they seceded, that cash flow would be cut off.

Third, the last time that some states tried to secede from the Union was 1861. Four years and 620,000 dead people later, those states were once again Union territory.

What I just don’t get is why libertarians would jump on board the close-the-border bandwagon, when all of the “problems” with immigration are really problems created by domestic socialism and intervention abroad.

“The immigrants will come here and sign up for welfare, Social Security . . .”

So what? The answer to this isn’t a border lockdown, which just gives Washington DC another excuse to infringe upon human liberty, but to shut down the welfare state. Or are we simply reserving the handout system for the native-born?

“Terrorists and criminals will sneak across the border.”

From what I’ve read, none of the Al-Qaeda operatives who were active on 11 Sept 2001 came to the United States across the Mexican border. Rather, they came into the country through the airports via flights from overseas.

And even if they did cross the southern border, what ever happened to the Second Amendment? That’s the one that covers the right to own and carry weapons, listed in the Bill of Rights as a check by the population against the federal and state governments against domestic tyranny and foreign invasions. Keeping criminals in check is a very welcome side effect of the exercise of that right.

Oh, that’s right – bureaucrats in Washington DC have been telling us since 1934 that the Second is a “collective” right that only applies to the state governments.

Again, I ask – what is it about the immigration “problem” that another law, another spending program will fix that repealing ill-conceived and anti-Constitutional statutes will not?