Immigration: A Conservative Win-Win Scenario

Conservatives like Kim DuToit are under fire hereabouts for their immigration-control schemes, but as you’ll soon see, there really aren’t any problems – just exciting new opportunities.

For instance: how does DuToit suppose that the American border guards tell illegals from legals? Well, it would seem that some sort of identification documents would be required. Good thing we have those, right? One problem is that there’s already ten-jillion wetbacks inside the borders, but all we have to do about that is to have the border guards stop and search people at random. Now that by itself will lead to a massive increase in the size and intrusiveness of the American government’s law enforcers, but social conservatives have never cared about that particular issue as long as it’s the reds/wetbacks/negroes/gays/foreigners that are getting the whip. In fact, it’s job creation.

So no problem, right?

Except, oops, it turns out that there’s an enormous demand for illegal (read: market rate) labor, a massive in-place illegal population, and thousands of US counties that issue the fundamental citizenship document, the birth certificate. The only thing that’s preventing the illegal population from obtaining the best papers that money can buy is simply that they have better things to do with their money. DuToit’s scheme would change that overnight.

Once Mexicans start buying themselves identity documents, the conservatives will have to turn to Plan B. And Plan B is…

A National Identification Card, issued by one central agency, complete with biometrics, and backed up by draconian “must carry and present on demand” regulations. Sure, a few civil libertarians, religious fanatics, and homeless kooks are going to refuse to comply and thus get swept up and stuffed into the gulags, but let’s face facts: they probably weren’t voting Republican anyway.

And there’s many more uses for a National ID that just keeping union wages high (or “protecting America for Americans”, as you will). As long as you have a perfect form of ID, you might as well use it to conduct instant background checks for gun purchases. A national drug offender registry? No biggie, the framework’s already in place. Folks with tax “issues” won’t get beyond the next random highway FreedomStop(tm). Criminal background checks would be as easy as sliding the barcode under the scanner, and would come with the added bonus of tracking who was wanting to work where. “Carding” for booze and smokes becomes foolproof, and since computer data storage is virtually free, the fact that you both purchase firearms and use tobacco can be kept in your permanent file, awaiting the dawn of the inevitable National Health Care Plan. “No treatment for you, Mr. Lopez – you’re just too high risk for AmeriCare.”

Hell, with employers footing the bill for the premiums, you’d never even get hired.

And thus the circle is complete: social conservatives get to kick out the foreigners, create millions of new government jobs, and at the same time find a brand new source of cheap agricultural labor: all of the now-unemployable drug users, smokers, and other “uninsurables” that could no longer hide behind some sort of “right to privacy”.

24 thoughts on “Immigration: A Conservative Win-Win Scenario”

  1. I think you give conservatives too much credit for diabolical machination; skin color would probably be the dominant method for determining legal status.

  2. For years, I’ve been arguing that immigration controls are unenforceable without compulsory national ID cards. I’ve yet to meet an advocate of immigration controls that’s willing to admit this.

  3. ID cards necessary? Nonsense.

    We already know the identity of US employers.

    If the govt. enforced the current immigration laws and collected steep fines directly from the prinicipals of firms that employ illegals, then the “wetbacks” would lose a major incentive for jumping the border. No supply, no demand.

    We also know the identity of politicians who advocate the dissolution of our nation through open borders. They should be persuaded to preserve the nation and cease their traitorous activities. A mere reduction in social services provided to illegals would remove another major reason for their border-breaking. Again, no supply, no demand.

    A nation is a racial stock of people, not a clearinghouse for carpetbaggers. As the invaders make clear, the choice is either-or: Aztlan or America; their “raza” (“raza” means “race”) or our “raza.” I don’t intend doing what the Mexican- and Puerto Rican-flag wavers on my soil suggest that I do, which is “go back to Europe.” Even though that is precisely what you jewish advocates of no borders would like to see happen. Dumb brown people are so much easier to control and exploit than “low-class” White people are, aren’t they?

    For more details, see http://www.govnn.com

  4. No supply, no demand.

    Really? I must have missed this lesson in Econ 101. So demand for cocaine would be eliminated if the government cracked down even harder on drug dealers? And what better evidence in support of your economic theory than the stellar success of Prohibition?

  5. If the govt. enforced the current immigration laws and collected steep fines directly from the prinicipals of firms that employ illegals…

    In other words, the state ought to decide who a businessowner can hire, ultimately grounded in the fear or actual use of police violence to force compliance.

    Mr. Taylor, whomever you are, you are not a friend of freedom.

    Notice, too, that you did not voice opposition to national ID cards per se, but rather you said the tracking ability afforded by the state’s current grip on private commerce would do the job of a national ID card. So you aren’t really against the dangers of a national ID card…perhaps just the stigma associated with it?

  6. Back to the main article: Well, it looks like you understand very well where this [and every other] collectivist program to “save America” is heading.

    Yept, I sure want to be “protected” from those men and women who are so interested in working hard to support themselves and their families that they are willing to walk 60 miles across a desert in summer for the opportunity, and who [silly them] don’t want to be made felons for such aspirations.

    Maybe I’ll become a good contempory American, go get a nice armband and a black and silver uniform and join the neo-Minutemen that are so worried about these sorts. [Whatever happened to this country, anyway? Where did all these stupid racist rabidly collectivist and jingoistic people come from?]

  7. [Whatever happened to this country, anyway? Where did all these stupid racist rabidly collectivist and jingoistic people come from?]

    Nothing happened, because those people’ve always been here. They just pick a new group to focus their feeble brains on every generation or so. Irish, Blacks, Chinese, Mexicans, Okies – every one of them was at one time or another going to destroy this country, according to the fine upstanding citizens of the day.

    DuToit and his ilk would’ve been eagerly denying Chinese gold claims (along with sometimes killing the Chinese miners) back in 1800’s California, using the same illogic that they’re applying to illegal aliens today.

  8. Yah, well someone said something, once upon a time, about Americans actually growing up and no longer acting like juveniles on the gradeschool playground looking for someone to pick on this week. Guess not.

  9. Hey guys, I’m been over at Tom Palmer’s blog trying to make some kind of coherent argument about the problems with the Rule of Law, but I don’t feel like I’ve got a firm grasp about what exactly is wrong with Tom & Co.’s understanding of such. My thoughts are kinda rambly, and that’s usually a bad sign. If ya’ll could come over and help me out I’d appreciate it.

    http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/038473.php

  10. Inevitably? No.

    Logically? Yes.

    See, either A) social conservatives are willing to implement a full-on police state (which is the only way to throw out and keep out all the illegal immigrants) or B) they aren’t. If B), then it means that they aren’t really serious about throwing out and keeping out illegal immigrants, they just want the supposed problem to somehow magically disappear without any reference to reality.

    Option B seems awful likely, doesn’t it? But copping to that chain of reasoning means that conservatives would have to admit that they want the government to deliver to them, on demand, things that simply aren’t possible (in this case, no wetbacks and no police state).

    And who does that sound like? Why, their “enemies” over there in the “reality-based community”, of course. And what Republican is going to admit, right out in the open for everyone to see, that he’s no different in root principle than the cheapest May-Day-parading Commie?

    That’s right, not a one of them.

  11. Database Cluebat: gun registration is nothing to worry about, since 80% of the database will be ignored. A national identification card is nothing to worry about, since 80% of the database will be ignored.

    Just like at the grocery store.

    It’s just a tad bit fallacious for Kim DuToit to make a direct comparison between a database maintained by the fucking Piggly-Wiggly and one maintained by a Federal Agency that was once so secret that the government denied it even existed. Suppose the motives and powers of the two might be just a touch different?

    Well, when the ATF demands that DuToit register all his pretty bangsticks, we can just point him back to his own words. Nothing to worry about, Citizen.

  12. Does it occur to these gunnies how much more interesting they’ll seem if the next major terrorist is a distant cousin of McVeigh rather than Bin Laden? Especially to President Clinton?

    Fools.

  13. Just for fun, here’s Du Toit specifically addressing gun registration databases (2003-02-26):

    One of the basic disadvantages of the State knowing who is armed and who isn’t, is that the State knows who has to be disarmed, if they are to impose any kind of tyranny. …

    As we saw earlier in the case of Nazi Germany, by giving the State the ability to identify gun owners, we give the State the ability to disarm us.

    This is not a situation of “Trust us, we’ll never do that.” We would be incredibly naïve to fall for that nonsense. In all of history, assumption of government benevolence has been betrayed, sooner or later, and the greater the power of the State, the sooner comes the betrayal.

    Gun owners know the underlying motives behind gun registration, and we are not reassured or fooled by the weasel denials of politicians. Licensing and registration constitute infringement, and that’s prohibited by the Second Amendment. Anyway, we know the progression.

    Good thing that freedom of speech and association aren’t important rights like gun ownership is, or else we might have a real problem here.

  14. He’s against national ID too:

    Oh yeah. National ID cards. Sorry, but the Constitution says nowhere that the State can tag us and brand us, just to make their bureaucrats’ lives easier. Here’s my thinking on the matter.

    I think we should double-check the constitution though, maybe the national ID thing is in the same article that gives the president the power to require everyone’s phone records.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *