Desperately Seeking Desperadoes In Diapers

First they came: thousands of unaccompanied illegal minors rushing the South-Western border. Then came the theories as to why they came. Determined not to miss a trick, America’s traitor elite—open-border interests and enemies of private-property rights—called the arrivals refugees, victims of nativist Know-Nothings who want invaders turned away. The desperadoes in diapers were also said to have fallen victim to a sudden deterioration in conditions in Central America. No proof has been advanced for the claim that, all of a sudden, things in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador have worsened. Because they reason in circles, no-border advocates deploy no logic to justify their claims. Only this did these Aristotelians say:

That Central American minors are arriving, hat-in-hand, is in itself proof that their homes have become uninhabitable. Quod erat demonstrandum (as Erik Rush likes to say); Q.E.D.; case proven.

Having been given the go-ahead by media mogul Rupert Murdoch—he came out for de facto limitless importation of third-world immigrants—his employees at Fox News cued the violins. Shepherd Smith was weeping and gnashing his teeth: “Not politics, but the disgusting conditions in their countries have sent these kids to our shores,” he asserted. “What is a caring nation to do? Their parents love them so much; they gave them to smugglers for a better life.”

However poor, this here mother would never have handed over her daughter to a smuggler. But what do I know about parental love? No more than the nation’s first president knew about the glue that was meant to keep America together.

In his Farewell Address, George Washington presented what historian Paul Johnson calls “an encapsulation of what [he] thought America was, or ought to be, about.” America, said Washington, “is a country which is united by tradition and nature. ‘With slight shades of difference, you have the same Religion, Manners, Habits and Political Principles.'” What a dummy!

“The children, the children,” wailed Fox News’ Megyn Kelly. “It’s all about the children. We are the United States, what do we do about the children?” Such showy “humanitarianism” invariably means the following: Working people in the U.S., with children of their own to mind, will be roped into supporting the children of the world. Enslave one set of people to whom American politicians are beholden by law, for the benefit of another.

Where’s the humanity for the non-consenting host population?

Bastiat’s “What-Is-Seen-and-What-Is-Not-Seen” principle is relevant here. While open-border libertines love Bastiat’s elegant argument, they seldom apply it to mass immigration, where these implacable enemies of America choose to see only benefits. Thus, for every mound of cheap strawberries, there are crops of criminals, failing schools, folding hospitals and environmental despoliation.

In 2011, only 6,560 unaccompanied minors marched across the U.S. border. Following Barack Obama’s reelection, in 2012, and once he was ensconced as open-border enforcer—the numbers increased more than tenfold (90,000 and counting). Still, the submissives who pay the bill are told, in no uncertain terms, that these numbers no more correlate with Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals permisos than does criminal wrongdoing coincide with the voiding of all emails from hard drives belonging to IRS Dominatrix Lois Lerner and her bandidos.

The DACA delayed—more like halted—the deportation of children who had entered the U.S. illegally. The fact that, strictly speaking, the current crop of kids is ineligible for DACA privileges does not mean that they understand this. Despite what Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg thinks of the economic potential of this pool of dependents—the kids and their caretakers likely do not comprehend the finer points of the law. Their instincts, however, are better than good. President Camacho, supreme ruler of the American “Idiocracy,” is famous for flouting the law. The migrants are sufficiently savvy to bet on their chances of being allowed to stay.

My money is on the minor migrants.

Word about America’s free-for-all immigration policies has reached the untapped pool of potential dependents across Central America. Channel 5 News, an ABC affiliate, is but one of many sources to have seconded what Central Americans are reporting, which is that “news reports in their countries are encouraging them to make the journey north to the United States. A mother and child told Channel 5 News that the message being disseminated in their country is, ‘Go to America with your child, you won’t be turned away.’ … Bercian Diaz said she has no family in the United States. Her hope of staying here relies on her little girl. She said the message in her country is that America’s borders are open to all families.”

There is a very good reason Facebook free-loader Zuckerberg can promise the world to “young undocumented immigrants,” or “Dreamers”; that he can pretend that by lobbying to let them stay in the USA, he is tapping into endless possibilities; that he can make like they’re God’s gift to the American high-tech industry (when they’re not), and generally carry on like a filthy rich tool. The objects of his affection—young, illegal migrants—live at the expense of the taxpayer.

Legalization of low-skilled or no-skilled migrants amounts to a transfer of wealth from American taxpayers to big business and big government. Barricaded in well-protected mansions, the first get to feel good about themselves, and are accepted into the smug, self-satisfied, D.C. establishment. (Cheap labor is, in my opinion, secondary to the powerful pull of liberal conformity.) The second band of looters has purchased future voters with money mulcted from the politically disemboweled taxpayer.

This very corruption, resulting from “great importations of foreigners,” was addressed by another dummy, in “Notes on Virginia” (Q.VIII, 1782. ME 2:118):

“… They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty.”

Good God, what a fool was Thomas Jefferson.

In 1819, John Quincy Adams gave voice to the policy and philosophy of self-reliance, one that was expected from all arrivals to America’s shores: “The American Republic invites nobody to come. We will keep out nobody. Arrivals will suffer no disadvantages as aliens. But they can expect no advantages either. Native-born and foreign-born have equal opportunities. What happens to them depends entirely on their individual ability and exertions, and on good fortune.”

Protest as they do over any impediment to the free flow of people across borders, even libertarians must concede that Adams’ reality is anathema in today’s America. The U.S. is a welfare-warfare state, in which Zuckerberg, Murdoch and John McCain have their snouts in the trough and can reach deep into … our pockets for their naturally illicit projects.

In part, the meandering case for open-borders is based on the positive, manufactured right of human kind to venture wherever, whenever. No such thing! Whether they’re armed with bombs or bacteria, or guilty of the intent to commit welfare—stopping weaponized individuals from harming others, intentionally or unintentionally, falls perfectly within the purview of the “night-watchman state of classical-liberal theory.”

I’ll go so far as to say that telling a kid, “No, you can’t go there” comports perfectly with, anarcho-capitalism; it is an absolute good no matter who does the deed—a voluntarily neighborhood watch, a state militia, or a private protection agency in a stateless society.

For the same reason, it matters not why they came and continue to come. The right thing to do is to send the kids back whence they came, and invite bleeding-hearts stateside to send their own funds to support the kids in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador.