Little Alex and Sayyid’s joint response to an editor of AntiWar.com’s stance against open borders.

The drug war in Mexico is not just a problem of nation-states, but also that of warring cartels with one another. The terrorism is real as the methods of coercion and domination extend past ‘inner-industry’ violence, but the trafficking of people of all ages, corruption of international government agents as collaborators and home invasions on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border.

Justin Raimondo, editorial director at AntiWar.com, suggests to “start using the resources of the federal government to carry out its one-and-only legitimate function: securing and protecting our borders”. This is wrong—legally, ethically, morally and rationally speaking—regardless of the fact that one cannot consistently legitimize the government’s possession of the land that consists of said borders.

Even with his conservative approach to the blind assumption supporting the legitimacy of government, Mr. Raimondo’s points hack branches without coming near striking the root.

The violence and government corruption of the drug cartels is based upon the strength it derives from oligopolizing contraband. The cartels are not violent because they’re drug dealers. They’re violence has been radicalized with drug laws, domestic and international, forcing all methods of dispute resolutions underground. A conservative approach to governance would be to provide the civil service as a final arbiter and not criminalize non-violent arbitration agreements.

The legalization of drugs, not decriminalization, would break down the prime barrier of statutorily legitimate dispute resolutions among the cartels: that contracts involving illegal acts are null and void. More relevant to the drug industry is that the scarcity of the oligopolized product is exponentially affected by the criminalization of drugs because of its relatively low overhead. In other words, the an uninhibited drug industry would break the cartels by the very nature of the uncanny D.I.Y. capacity to manufacture and distribute the product.

Enhanced abundance only creates the enhanced market difficulty of acquiring a customer base. This is the terrorists’ fear—a diminished web of customers. Market competition in the cartels’ largest market wouldn’t eliminate violence within the industry, but instead of being dependent on it, violence would go from being overhead to becoming a net-loss liability. Someone with a history in among libertarian activists and economists—as Mr. Raimondo has been—knows this.

Mr. Raimondo’s ‘libertarian credentials’ on drugs are not meant to be on trial in the echo chamber of the ‘libertarian movement’. We’re not accusing him of being pro-drug war. But not striking the root is what leads to the knee-jerk reaction of morally hazardous policies of military coercion.

With all due respect to Mr. Raimondo, it’s philosophically bankrupt.

Even if, as he states, the border violence “represents the biggest single threat to our national security”, the threat is that of the prohibition-induced drug wars between international terrorists—those in and out of costumes with flags and letters of the alphabet—not the “estimated six million” people who “have flooded the U.S. in recent years” born on that dirt, instead of this dirt.

The Mexican government and its agents are at high-risk. Even more-so are the people within Mexico caught between this violence and their oppressive government. These conditions create the rise of migration to the U.S. The illegality of this migration, like drugs, create the human rights abuses of the human trafficking industry. At the risk of being trite: open borders would make this industry non-existent overnight.

Mr. Raimondo voices opposition for Arizona’s recent bill requiring police to ‘Your papers, please!’ anyone, but only the method of establishing probable cause because it “empowers police to check anyone who might ‘reasonably’ suspected of being in the country illegally”—which we can only assume is because, in practice, no matter what the precautions to minimize it, the bill overtly encourages racial profiling. The bill subjectivity reforms the definition of ‘probable cause’ to such an extreme that it creates a de jure caste system as “reasonable” amounts to police officers and agencies being immune from liability when they harass people. Jamal Dajani compares it to “every day in Apartheid Israel“, which Mr. Raimondo also criticizes regularly.

Mr. Raimondo rightly identifies the hypocrisy of ‘progressives’ opposed to this bill who rationalize “that the U.S. needs to be more like Europe, with cradle-to-grave security and government-run health care”, who ignore that: “Precisely because the Europeans have extensive welfare states, the demand to see ‘Your papers, please‘ is a common request made by law enforcement agencies in those countries. And no one would think of questioning their right to do so.”

We think to—because a moral agent who accepts the sovereignty of individuals scrutinizes any and all forms of authoritative demands against any individuals’ will. This scrutiny ought not stop at demanding an employer not hire a specific worker, a landlord not rent to a specific tenant or landowner exchange his property with a specific buyer. Where the authoritative intervention can meet the minimal burden of proof that it is defending individual rights, the authoritative institution—regardless of the illegitimacy of the institution itself—may still be able to justify its actions. But immigration laws violate the principle of rights as inalienable. This violation delegitimizes the irrational laws; and the tolerance for their existence ought not be interpreted as anything more than collectivized passionate whims or ignorance.

Mr. Raimondo objects to the “phraseology” that “they’re not illegal immigrants, they’re just ‘undocumented'”. This typical objection is little more than clever dehumanizing diction by institutions of power and those lobbying it to dehumanize certain groups of people.

Here’s a news flash for Mr. Raimondo: the illegality of “illegal immigration” isn’t the illegality, it’s the lack of being documented as ‘authorized by the federal government to be on this dirt’.

The immigrants are not illegal; their actions are and the illegal action is migrating while undocumented. The Newspeak makes one disregard abuses to immigrants’ humanity and governments never abuse one group and stop. It uses the rationalization for the abuse to justify expanding the demographic to be abused; hence, a deplorable immigrant jail in New York City where uncharged captives’ lack of access to legal representation is  being called “a good model”—while people are detained indefinitely like roaches, or in solitary confinement, and committed to slave labor.

To add, Mr. Raimondo follows up his ‘Hey! Hey! Look! The liberals are violating their own so-called principles!’ example of being more like Europe with an insane rationale of his own: “Try telling the I.R.S. that all those home office deductions aren’t illegal, they’re merely ‘undocumented’, and see how far it gets you. The point being that illegal immigration is—gasp!—illegal, i.e. against the law. So why isn’t the law being enforced?”

Would someone like to inform Mr. Raimondo the existence of the I.R.S. doesn’t legitimize that justifying one’s home office deductions won’t get you very far with the I.R.S. just because laws to the contrary exist?

Try telling the powers-that-were during Jim Crow that fucking a White woman while being Black wasn’t illegal, but merely “love”, and see how far it would get you. Does this mean such people were illegal lovers? The crimes of interracial couples during Jim Crow weren’t being born different colors. The lovers were not illegal; their actions were illegal and the illegal actions were their affection.

No sane, rational person is in favor of criminalizing mutual affection, but the criminalization of undocumented migration is akin to criminalizing pre-marital sex as undocumented affection.

RELATED:

Comments
  1. […] column from yesterday calling for harsher enforcement on illegal immigration that Sayyid and I immediately jumped on. We applaud it and maintain our respect for the group affiliated with the site that never ceased. […]

  2. […] Little Alex and I wrote a response to an op-ed advocating against free migration that the “illegality of this migration, like […]

  3. […] in their reactive shove of the problem. The reactionism has cause the public to briefly forget the immorality of all immigration law, the torturous human trafficking industry it creates and the earlier-mentioned Draconian conditions […]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s