Wednesday, July 23, 2014

A light goes on in my head- "immigration"

I just had a revelation. It's so obvious that I'm ashamed at how slow I was to see it.

There is not only no such thing as "illegal immigration"... in fact, there's no such thing as "immigration" at all!

For "immigration" to be a real thing you'd be claiming that borders and the "tax" farms they surround have legitimacy. You'd be claiming there is something "above" private property to "immigrate" to.

All there is with regards to this is migration and trespassing. Each individual who is moving on the surface of the planet is either within their rights to be where they are, or they are trespassing on private property.

If property is privately owned, you either get permission to enter, or you are a trespasser if you enter it anyway.

Government- the State- can own no property or anything else, since it possesses nothing it did not either steal or "buy" with stolen money, and thieves don't own the stolen property they possess. Government has zero "authority" to control who you let on your property.

So, "immigration" is a non-issue. You either trespass or you don't.

I am against trespassing. I am also against government pretending it has authority over other people's property (which is theft). I might choose to allow people to enter my property. I might not. Where they were born doesn't figure into that at all, and certainly not whether they have State permission.

If private property rights prevent individuals from going where they want to be, that is just too bad. (That also applies if your private property is surrounded by private property whose owners refuse to let you cross to get things you need to survive. I see that as very unneighborly, but it's just the way it is. UPDATE: I was wrong about this. There is the natural concept of "right-of-way" to keep you from being imprisoned by unpleasant neighbors. This doesn't include the "right" to damage the property you cross.) If private property rights prevent government goons from stopping "immigration", that is also just too bad.

I'll need to remember that next time the topic of "immigration" comes up.


  1. The coolest thing is that you practiced this principle before you recognized it. I call that real virtue.

  2. “Illegal immigration” is nothing more than runaway slaves moving from one tax plantation to another. Anyone who believes in “immigration law” would therefore also enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, if it were still around.
    Statists/loyalists need to learn that this “illegal” problem will continue until “borders” are turned into property lines. Meaning, abolition.

    But I believe most statists will reject this solution as they will no longer have a king to bow to, nor a war rag to wave.

  3. I love trying to imagine life without the monopoly thieves and their stupid OCD rules and turf boundaries.

    An "immigrant" suddenly becomes a new neighbour, perhaps a new tenant in my investment property, a new colleague or employee, a new customer.

    He or she has been a customer for filling stations, camp grounds, motels, greasy spoons etc on the way and has paid tolls to help maintain the private roads to get here.

    What useful and unusual skills, ideas and interesting stories will he or she bring with them.

    A bunch of new neighbours want a Mosque; Great! someone will sell them a building plot, others will sell them building materials, work as builders, painters, decorators, electricians etc.

    I've also got some small milk fed lambs to sell them, straight off their mothers and suitable for Ramadan evening meals (with the crap going off in Ukraine, the Euro has dropped in against the pound stirling and the usual outlet for milk fed lambs in southern Europe don't want to pay for them - I'd happily do a good deal with anyone else who'd like them).

    People want to move here? - they're welcome.

  4. Just a comment - you have the right to egress/ingress your property, regardless of who owns the land around it. A few years back some diva (who will remain nameless) wanted a nice piece of property out West. The owner didn't want to sell, so she bought all of the land around it to "lock him in". The courts very quickly came to his rescue. You don't have to accommodate people with the easiest/nicest path to their property, but you have to let them get to it.

    1. By definition, if you homesteaded a patch of ground without tresspassing to get to it, you also homesteaded your way in and out.

      Frank van Dun (who's a fantastic anarchist thinker, based in Belgium) did a very nice piece on just this subject a few years back:

    2. Daniel- That may be a "legal" requirement, but it's one even the government rejects when it suits their purposes. Just look at the cases of people who have been blocked from access to their property when it is surrounded by "federal land", or even when they aren't allowed to plow the snow off of roads to their house because they live beyond where the roads are "allowed" to be plowed in winter. Sure, in that last case they can snowshoe in, or snowmobile, but it's still a case of not letting them get to their home with their property (car, groceries, etc.).

      Keith- that is a very interesting article. I'll need to ponder that for a while. It actually seems to dovetail very nicely with "my most unpopular idea"- the "bubble of personal property rights". Thanks for bringing that one to my attention.

    3. Thanks Kent,
      I'll be watching that again a few times and thinking it through and playing with the idea over the next few days.

      My initial reaction is that it would seem ridiculous to claim otherwise.

      Frank van Dun comes up with some very interesting thoughts. He generally puts a new essay up on his site every couple of months or so. In a nice quiet way he seems to be a very influential thinker in Dutch language libertarian circles.

      The late Michael van Notten, a successful lawyer who moved to Somalia after the central government was dismantled, married into one of the clans and went on to write "The law of the Somalis"(a really interesting read) - seems to have been inspired in his anarchism and legal philosophy by Frank van Dun.

      here's his site:

    4. Youtube comes up with some strange link suggestions. I don't know how it associates property rights with the neurotic crap that some guys borderline personalitied, ex girlfriend used to come out with :-/}

    5. Some have said that in claiming a "bubble" of personal property rights, I am just saying I really, really want to carry a gun where I'm told I can't, so I just made up a way to justify it. I don't think so, since I apply the same standard to other people who come on to my property. And, I also think it seems ridiculous to claim otherwise. But who am I to say so?

      I read (and enjoyed) "The Law of the Somalis".

    6. Sorry if this reads like I'm a Randroid (I'm not).

      If our rights derive from our objective nature

      that nature doesn't change because we move accross an ownership boundary, or from one extortion gang's turf onto turf where a different gang is operating.

      Our basic needs, and the basic reciprocal process of the golden rule or categorical imperative don't change as a line on a map is crossed, or the threshold of a private boundary is crossed.

      A gang can claim that warm is cold, and piss is beer, they might choose to beat up, cage, or even kill people who don't repeat the claim to their satisfaction - but they can't change the objective nature of what they deny.

      I think that you are right, certainly within the boundary of your clothes or your personal space, your rights are always there.

    7. I'm going back to this topic, especially about having homesteaded a way in and out, because of something in the "news" these days: the Israeli State and it's walls around the Palestinian individuals (whom it keeps bombing).

      All States are evil, because the only way they continue to exist is through theft and aggression. Any government the Palestinians have is also evil. However, here you have an example of a large number of individuals caged where they lived by a State which declared "ownership" over the land which surrounded them (by stealing it from other individuals). And now, the thugs working for that State are systematically trying to kill off the people still on that land, in order to take the rest of it.

      Then, because the trapped people fight back, some people claim the aggressors with the Israeli State are justified in their brutality and murder.

      I'm sure some religious people would disagree with my synopsis and analysis of this ongoing event. But that's how I see it.

    8. With very few exceptions (Quakers and Witnesses are the exceptional ones who spring to my mind) most churches /religions are eager to offer their blessing for war, and to claim that their particular "god" supports the local gang's aim - just like their "god" supports the the latest popularity buying scam and the local sports team (bread and circuses).

      I don't know how many Jews remained in the area after the Roman empire finished its punitive Judean wars in the 70s AD

      There's a good chance that the descendants of any who did survive and stayed on, got converted one way or another when Islam came allong 800 years later. thre's also a good chance that there was plenty of genuine homesteading of lands where the owners had been murdered by the killers sent by the gang in Rome.

      I have huge difficulties with the collectivist idea of "area of land belongs to aggregated collective" which abstracts away individuals and individual ownership claims.

      Little bits that I've picked up in my reading (I've never studied zionism directly) suggest that the zionists were a pretty nasty bunch of thugs who used to go door to door, basically extorting from productive Jewish households - I'm not sure whether their threats were implicit or explicit.

      I'm guessing that the modern zionist movement had its origins in the romantic socialist / nationalist era of the mid to late 19th century, where all sorts of "national costmes" and "national traditions" were being dreamt up (a lot of the Welsh ones were dreamed up by a pair of English spinsters living near Llangollen)

      The zionists first big break seems to have come when Britain France and Russia were trying to finance WWi - how to get those banks that were Jewish owned - to finance the military exploits of Russia - THE ANTI-SEMITIC POWER, that's pogroms had forced most of our Jewish neighbours to flee west (It's interesting, an Irish Jewish guy told me that almost all had bought passages to America, and happily got off the boats thinking they were in America, everyone was speaking English - it was only later that they found out they'd been screwed, they were in England or even worse in Ireland).

      To sweeten that bitter Pill, British politician, Balfour (himself a Jew) declared that part of the Ottoman empire, with people living there, could be a "Jewish Homeland"

      There were some alternatives offered first, for example the Kenyan Highlands (the British Planters and colonists organized a big display of savage natives to scare the zionists...).

      The next big break is highly contentious. I tend to think it's true. One set of segregationist racists found common cause with another set of segregationist racists. This link has been doing the rounds recently. the UCC in the url is university college cork (Ireland)

      how to get a you herd of tax cattle.

      If that is what the zionist gangsters are willing to do to the "chosen people" in order to further their statist ambitions - no wonder some poor bloody palestinians are willing to embrace a different bunch of thugs and fight.

      I'd better add too, about the Arab tax feeding gangs that keep "palestinian" people in camps, for forty years, on UN aid, rather than allowing the individuals to find their own ways to peacefully integrate.

  5. Great insight: the State as a "tax farm."

    1. I'm not the originator of that term. I don't have any idea who came up with it, but it is very accurate, isn't it.