Boat People In Distress - Oh My

Today we hear of "Boat People" in distress around the world.
And some nation is expected to host these immigrants in dire need
in judgment by the "world community".

From the Mediterranean to the straits of Indonesia/Malaysia (what's the diff)
why should the working Joe of receiving nations have to "pick up the tab"?

Instead, receiver nations might just set up townships, with infrastructure and jobs
illegally by & in the nation of their departure and settle them, there for less.
A Just Do It Policy.


BTW the Cubans as Boat People never deserved the entry they achieved
compared to other illegal Latins of that time. But, the Cubans got it.
And look how that benefited the least State of La Florida

Ideas.
Solutions.
Comments.​

Moi
Settle Them In Vatican City
per Pope Francis generosity.

View attachment 35364
Settle 'em there​

 

Can I be a "boat person" and go live permanently in Japan?

Hey, on second thoughts, I can get a permanent visa everywhere by arriving on a crappy boat with some vague story about "oppression".

Hmmm, all these people come from a messed up hellhole, what to do? I know, let's let them all come and live here.

 

As a libertarian I favor the abolition of borders, but that's dangerous when welfare programs provide incentives for people to change their location and mooch. We need to abolish all government spending - at least all welfare. Then immigration is only of benefit.

 

While I don't favor abolition of borders, I agree immigration being beneficial only if we abolish welfare. Interestingly, private charities tend to work in "other" countries to make the lives of the people there better - and - those people stay there. Our government rewards them for coming here.

 

What about returning them to their nations, promptly
and housing them in some humane setting with the
addition of the means to earn.
Growing crops or basket weaving factories.

It would be cheaper than the current programs of absorption.


Moi


r > g

No ​

 

How about

 

Cultures cant mix.

 

I agree, it would be cheaper and far better to help these people where they already are, instead of making them take a boat across the ocean to get the free handouts.

 

That is beside the point. I reyliate against coercion and leave peaceful individuals alone. Immigration is not coercive, therefore I have no beef with them.

The issue is public land. I support stringent trespass protections (such as shot on sight policies, etc). The abolition of public property should be the goal, then you can exclude whoever you want from your property, and I can hope t whoever iI want onto mine.

So, in short, I don't so much support the abolition of borders as I support the border being your property line.

 

If you abolish welfare to people who actually need it, you must do the same to corporations. No more subsidies.

 

Yea, attacking innocent civilians in small boats. That would not cause the entire world to turn on us.




Plus we need to remember that most of these people come from countries that are only (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up because of US intervention. We spent years arming and funding terrorists and drug cartels in central and south america, and now we are supposed to be surprised that there are refugees fleeing those countries?

 

I emphatically agree. I'll do you one better: no more cartelized monetary policy that allows corporations first dibs on easy credit, not a cent of subsidies, no collusionary regulation to force competitors out of the market, no more barriers to market entry (licenses, etc), no more limited liability except that which they negotiate with their customers voluntarily.

Deal?

 

So you are alright with ethnic diversity and basically the freedom of everyone to come into your country?

- - - Updated - - -

Good point, but do you agree with diversity?

How does diversity benefit us?

 

Yes. Abolish welfare and public property, and the only way they can come without trespassing is by obtaining the consent of someone with property, or by obtaining property themselves. This would apply to everyone within the country as well.

I agree with you in part - I just think the proper place for borders is at your property boundary.

National borders are mostly arbitrary. People rightly complain about EU regionalism allowing people to migrate from Eastern Europe to France, the UK, etc - well the same argument applies equally to the US. California is just as ethnically different from Vermont as Romania is from France - why is it wrong that people can move from Romania to France, but not from California to Vermont?

Its a mistake of history that the US states confederated 200 years ago, but that the EU states are just beginning to. Perhaps in 200 years nationalists will have no problem with the Eu :S

 

America has proved that is false.

 

All land ownership is grounded in violent appropriation. Basically someone stuck a gun someone else's face and either pulled the trigger or threatened to pull the trigger; while claiming ownership of what nature provided for all living things. Since this is how landowners came to own their land, is it okay in your world if the landless use the same tactics as the current batch of landowners used in aquiring their landholdings? You say that trespassers can be shot on sight, but if the trespasser is quicker on the draw is he the new “legitimate” owner of the land?

 

Your proposal is no better. The only way to not allocate the land is to not attempt to homestead it, AND to refrain from preventing others from doing the same. Using force to prevent people from putting the land into their ownership IS de facto ownership. Geoists claim ownership to property just as much as anyone else - more so, they monopolize ownership in the state, who then leases it out to individuals.

 

I wouldn't say can't. With the world as small as it is today, air travel, immigration, tourism, even wars all over the place, business practices and a lot of other things, original cultures and traditions are slowly being replaced by a more global one. Cultures adopt and adjust as time goes bye. Taking bits and pieces of other cultures and traditions and mixing them into their own.

To keep one's original culture and traditions one would have to live on an Island and keep away any visitors and not have any interactions with anyone outside of the Island. As soon as someone from someplace steps foots on the Island, change begins.

 

You didn't really answer my question … but moving on.

The state can be the representative of the people and could be legally forced to return the rent collected from the land back to the people in the form of a citizens dividend. It would be like a corporation, everyone would pay land rent to the corporation and everyone would receive dividends from the corporation. Every citizen would be an equal owner and those who use the land would receive secure tenure in exchange for the rent which they pay. If the word “government” or “state” freaks you out then just think of that organization as a corporation and the community as the shareholders.

 

In a globalized world, our countries are seen like a massive "oasis" in the middle of the desert 5000 years ago for nomadic tribes.
Why would they stay and starve in the middle of the desert when "freedom", the perception of "unlimited" clean water and food is just a couple of hours away?

Now we have to make a choice: since we are nearing 7 billion humans on the planet, it is quite clear no one can afford to live like an average american or a french. There simply aren't enough resources.
So either we continue with our current model: extract raw resources from the poorest countries of the world not giving a damn about the people there so long as our economic interests are safe and struggling to live up to human rights ideals by being as politically correct about migration from the poorest countries but covertly diverting or preventing as many migrants to enter our countries, stack up the migrants in ghettos thereby isolating them and ensuring that even after a few generations their children still don't speak the language and do not "feel" like a citizen of that country, letting them take up the jobs nobody wants (garbage collector, house maid...) and using tax money to put in prison or send away any delinquent migrant.

Or, we try to genuinely help fix the mess in their countries that we have created:
- in Africa, the arbitrary division of territory by a bunch of white colonists regardless of ethnicity or historical territory control, the corrupt governments that replicate blindly the "tribal" political organisation of pre-colonial times, the wars for resources that are located in a neighbouring country (like in Congo) etc.

We have already done this for strategic countries like Japan, because of their key position in the Pacific against Communism. We have left them violate and infringe all our intellectual property rights and patents so they could re-industrialize themselves after WWII and become a US pawn in the Pacific... They copied all of our products, sent Japanese students all over the planet to our universities in order to innovate and surpass us.
I wonder what would happen to an African or a Latin American country that would try to do the same... We would probably quash them at the WTO with economic sanctions and law suits.

 

Then that organization would be asserting ownership of the land.

 

Overkill, just put a few 50 caliber below the water line.

 

Don't you see that you country will literally be invaded by the third world? Abolishing welfare is not enough. People will keep coming until the bring down the economy to be equal to the country that they are immigrating from.

Diversity is undesirable.

How do you handle social problems?

Okay that is clear but what about public property?

We are assimilated Americans speaking the same language. Romanians are a different culture and speak a different language.

Because the immigrants from Romania will abuse it and come in large numbers and literally invade France. But there is nothing wrong with it, it just needs to be controlled.

 

so you now oppose European immigrants moving to the USA, if they don't speak English?

 

No, they will assimilate. But if they didn't assimiliate I will be against them too.