Hundreds of children coming “in the dead of night” into Chattanooga have caused alarm. They have been temporarily and housed by a charity in dorm rooms rented out by Redemption to the Nations Church. The sense among local conservatives and Christians — such as Clint Cooper at the Times Free Press, Brad Barton “The Lil Talk Show w/ Brad” and Ashley Kaye “the Unsilent Patriot” — is that they are helplessly standing by, watching an invasion of the country, an overthrow of the American way of life, liberty and property. Much of the coverage focuses on turf-battles of those entities that have made pawns of the children, separated from their families south of the U.S. border, vulnerable to parties who brought them into the country, and now captured by U.S. department of defense and U.S. health and human services officials and put in ward via Baptiste Group, a nonprofit contractor. “They act like any normal children. They are kind of scared at first because you know they have no idea what’s going on. Hardly any of them speak English, so they’re scared,” says one observer, quoted by Fox News. See “‘They are just getting ramped up’: Migrant children flying, riding buses into Tennessee.” Denying care for these boys and girls as made in God’s image, critics of the children appear to follow a distinctly statist and anti-Christian thesis about liberty, freedom of movement and the capital value of children from other lands coming into this country. — DJT
“If you are decent person, you will comply with Obamacare.” How does that sound? Or, “If you were a decent person, you will comply with the gun control laws.” Or, better yet, “If the Founders were decent people, they would have complied with the King’s laws.” “If Cory Ten Boom was a decent person, she would have complied with the Nazi laws.” “If Soviet dissidents were decent people, they would have complied with the laws of their Communist state.”
By Bo Marinov / Reconstructionist Radio
What should be the reaction of a Biblical Christian or of a true conservative when we hear such an argument. It will be this: “No, if the law was a righteous law, it wouldn’t make criminals out of people whose only crime is their desire to find a job and provide for their children. If it was a righteous law, it wouldn’t give the government so much power over individuals. If it was a righteous law, it wouldn’t deprive the employers of the liberty to hire whomever they want.”
And then, as is the good old American Patriot tradition, the conclusion would be: If it is an evil, unrighteous law, I have no moral obligation to obey it, and those immigrants have no moral obligation to obey it. Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.
The reality is, by the stroke of a pen, Congress created a new legal category of a “criminal,” an artificial category supported by neither the Constitution nor the Bible: the illegal alien. Conservatives have cheered for it and have transformed that artificial legal category into a moral category: “Illegal aliens are bad people.” And then the same conservatives are surprised that Congress creates other artificial legal categories of criminals: for example, “uninsured American,”
who must be fined for his refusal to get health insurance. Reality is, once Congress imposes unjust laws on foreigners, it will inevitably end up imposing unjust laws on US citizens. God is not mocked.
Not to mention the practical issue of, “Who exactly decides who gets in legally and who doesn’t?” Isn’t that the same Federal bureaucrats who, as we know, have a very different idea of what America’s interest is compared to our ideas. Would you trust a Federal bureaucrat with finding you a job? Deciding your healthcare? Educating your children? Deciding what to do with your money? If not, how come you suddenly trust those leeches when it comes to immigration? Are
those Federal bureaucrats in the consulates less corrupt than the rest of them? Less bribeable? I know of hundreds of cases where decent, hardworking, independent, entrepreneurial people were not given even business visas to visit and meet business partners, while we know of multiple cases of outright criminals who get visas. How’s that immigration control working for ya? Isn’t it much better to disband that bureaucratic army and let people travel freely, for in this way we have a better chance to have decent people come in?
As we saw, for over 1,500 years Christian Europe, and for over 300 years Christian America knew these obvious truths. That is why the American Patriots denied the civil government power over the immigration of people. And that’s why George Washington didn’t have to include any political considerations in his talk about hiring immigrant workers. Liberty was liberty.
Thus, politically, a conservative shouldn’t be against immigration. If anything, if conservatives in America were really conservatives – and if Christians in America were really Christians – they would be demanding the repeal of all immigration laws, immediately, as the solution to the fake immigration crisis today. The crisis is not real; it is artificially created by laws that shouldn’t be there in the first place, if America stood faithful to the original intent of the Founders.
But about the economic consequences of uncontrolled immigration? Wouldn’t the economy collapse under the pressure of so many immigrants pouring in? When it comes to economic issues concerning immigration, Christians are just as unable to think clearly and employ common sense. The picture formed in their minds when they think “open borders” is millions of immigrants who are entrepreneurial enough to cross several borders and into the US, only to remain passive for the rest of their lives and only live on welfare, destroying the American economy in the process. Such picture is the fruit of fears instilled by two decades purposeful liberal propaganda, and its origins can be traced back to the trade unions and their socialist propaganda techniques in the early 20th century. But it has no precedent nor confirmation neither in the history of the US, not in the history of the world. In fact, a thorough study of the facts of history reveals that only positive things can come out of “uncontrolled immigration.”
First let me say this: There is no such thing as “uncontrolled immigration.” Immigration, like any other human action, is always controlled by some factor or another. It is controlled primarily by economic conditions but it is also controlled by religious, cultural, and linguistic factors. In general, if left free of government interference, immigration will depend on the market forces: People will calculate the cost of immigrating, and will compare it to the perceived benefits.
This balance between perceived costs and perceived benefits will always be the controlling factor of immigration, if the government is not included in the equation. When the government intervenes, though, the information from the market is twisted, and immigration now depends on the government, not on the natural development of the market.
So immigration is always controlled, the question is who controls it, the market or the government. When the government controls it, the market suffers, as is with everything else.
Historically, we don’t have a single instance in history when economic immigration has destroyed a country or a civilization. We do have examples when mass immigration actually helped accelerate the economic growth – and America of late 19th and early 20th century is the most perfect example of it. In fact, for countries with aging population – like the US, Canada, and Western Europe – and low birth rates – or high level of abortions – mass immigration may turn out to be the only tool for preserving the economic growth. Let’s not forget that the US alone has killed more than 55 million human beings in the holocaust of abortion. These are 55 million workers, entrepreneurs, innovators, engineers, production organizers, etc. The chicken are coming home to roost in our day, as 70+ million baby boomers are entering retirement age, and given the increased average life expectancy, will need senior care for another 20 years, at least, after retirement. (The average life expectancy after retirement at the time they were born was about 5 years.) Germany, Britain, and the Scandinavian nations are facing the same crisis; the presence of “guest workers” is important for the survival of the whole system. Even Hitler’s Germany, for all the racism and xenophobia of the Nazis, had to import millions of foreign workers to keep their economy going. China and Japan are in a much worse condition than the US and Europe, chiefly because there isn’t a large demographic contingent that is willing to immigrate to those countries; and the Chinese themselves tend to leave their country at first opportunity, rather than stay.
The picture of millions of lazy immigrants who only wait on welfare is a false picture, and it has nothing to do with reality. To the contrary, in any place where immigration is freed from restrictions, the industrious, active, entrepreneurial immigrants outnumber the lazy and criminal elements by a large margin. It is to be expected, because immigration is an undertaking of significant cost to the individual immigrant, and when allowed the liberty to immigrate, it is usually the future-oriented, entrepreneurial type of person who is willing to pay the price. In fact, it is partly for this reason that the socialists in the past – and Marx himself – have always been firm opponents of open immigration, because open immigration never changed the political landscape in their favor. Karl Marx himself admitted that the policy of open borders of Britain was a reason why his ideology couldn’t spread in Britain.
As improbable as it may sound to you, it is possible that the current change in policy of the liberals – in favor of immigration instead of their traditional hostility to immigration – is caused by the realization that their economic policies don’t work, and therefore they need more immigrants to keep the economic growth. (Remember, for all their xenophobia, the Nazis imported millions of workers to keep their militaristic-welfare state going.) The welfare state in the US is a step from
collapse, and since America has no means to naturally replace the needed workers, the fastest measure to prevent economic collapse is to import workers. In this, they have finally returned to economic common sense; but now the conservatives have adopted the old liberal policy and the culturally suicidal ideology of closed borders.
Restricting immigration has other economic, often invisible consequences. The major one of them is outsourcing. The connection is seldom made but it is real, and it has to do with the distorted economic environment created by government control over an area that is purely economical.