The filter selects for rule breakers

Of all the statist arguments that I can kind of understand while disagreeing completely with them, the "borders" thing may be the biggest.

I've even seen a lot of otherwise "libertarian" folk get confused about this one. Even those I admire.

I get it. "More criminals" is a bad thing. 

But, statists can't see how their "border rules" select for people who are willing to break counterfeit "laws", and are then more likely to break real Laws because they don't understand the difference.
Just like prohibition selects for violent criminals to enter the freelance drug market. 

Both "border controls" and prohibition are filters; selecting for rule breakers who don't understand the difference between rules that are valid ("don't violate life, liberty, or property") and rules that are illegitimate ("government says don't do this thing you have a natural human right to do").

It can't be otherwise.

If the State would stop violating your right to defend life, liberty, and property from ALL violators, the issue would go away. Maybe this is why they don't stop. They are using migrants, your fear, and your reasonable and rightful response to being violated as excuses to crack down harder on liberty. Liberty is what government hates and fears the most.

It's been going on for a long time. This isn't a Trump thing, although Trump has used it to his advantage and to get support from borderists.
Back in 2010, I was forwarded an email along those same lines. An email that missed the point. It began like this:

BUTTE, MONTANA

Shotgun preteen vs. Home Invaders : Illegal alien Butte,
Montana, November 5 , 2009

Two illegal aliens, Ralphel Resindez, 23, and Enrico Garza, 26,
probably believed they would easily overpower home-alone 11 year old
Patricia Harrington after her father had left their two-story home... read the rest of the story, along with my commentary.

I have no idea if the story is true. Or if it happened when it supposedly happened, where it supposedly happened, to whom it supposedly happened. It doesn't really matter.

I'm always glad when archators are permanently"taken out". I don't care who the archators were, where they were born, why they decided to do what they did, or how they might have been mistreated by someone else in the past. I don't care who took them out or how it was done. I also don't care that they didn't ask a criminal gang for permission to be somewhere.
I care only that they decided to violate life, liberty, or privately-owned property (the only kind). That's what a criminal is.

So, when archators get nabbed by archators, or even "deported", it's "Not my circus; not my monkeys". I have a hard time getting too worked up over it.
On the other hand, I don't believe the liars in government when they tell me anyone is guilty of anything. They tell the story they believe will move you in the direction they wish you to be moved. And it's always in the direction of giving government more power over something or someone.

I am also aware that when the government archators get away with doing things like this, it emboldens them to do more of it. And when a large percentage of the population is asking them to do it, even though it's wrong, they'll do more of it with enthusiasm.

The ethically correct position is "property lines, not government borders". But it's a hard sell to people who have been trained to be unable to think about things clearly; without assuming government has "rights" or "authority".

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.