Tuesday, February 6, 2018

Deporting Refugees and Asylum Seekers?

Wait until the open borders types get their hands on this one.  Watch the venom and vitriol start to fly.

Which country would do such a dastardly deed?  Is it the United States?  No.  Is it Germany?  Nein.  Sweden?  Nej.  France?  Non. 

Israel has started issuing deportation notices to African asylum seekers from Eritrea and Sudan.

Woops.  This might be a problem.

The 20,000 people who are not held in the country's open detention facility will be expected to leave within 60 days, or risk being imprisoned indefinitely.

Twenty-thousand?  That’s it?  Israel can’t even absorb 20,000 refugees?  Don’t they understand the value of cultural diversity, the economic gains, the liberty of those seeking asylum?

But wait – the Israeli government isn’t cold-hearted; the refugees will not be sent to the countries from which they fled.  The Israeli government cut a deal:

During visits to detention centres, government representatives provided refugees with a letter that listed Rwanda - and in a previous occasion, Uganda - to relocate to.

Except there is one problem:

Shortly after, Rwanda and Uganda rejected claims of signing a controversial deal to take in African migrants from the country.



Let’s add this to the list for open-borders libertarians to address when it comes to applying their scheme to the State of Israel.

Never mind…what a hopeless and spineless bunch.


  1. B..b..but Jacob Hornberger said that Israel can have open borders when they have completely dismantled the state!

  2. Is this undefendable? Block knows..
    It would definitely take someone of his stature and know-how, to defend it in maybe his third and last DUD (Def the Undef).

  3. Pure laissez faire capitalism was Rothbard's ultimate goal. All the talk about non aggression was merely to fabricate its philosophical justification. Jude Wanniski, one of the first to popularize Rothbard, wrote a great book called the Way the World Works demonstrating that the degree to which societies had been a success was the degree to which they were laissez faire. The Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire were all a success to the degree they reduced what Wanniski termed the ‘government wedge’, regulation and taxation, in territories brought under their administration.

    Now during the medieval era Jews fared far better in the Ottoman Empire than in Europe. In fact, Jews suffering oppression in medieval Spain [ and because the socialist concept of national security and border control had not yet arisen ] were free to leave Spain and immigrate to the Ottoman Empire where they were consciously integrated into Ottoman society. There was thankfully no immigration control ‘government wedge’. Ottoman open border policy made it possible for so many Jews to come to Palestine in the first place, a policy continued under the British Empire following WWI. Conflict only arose when, in the aftermath of WWII, a fringe minority of radical Zionists sought to forcibly impose a ‘government wedge’, to make of Palestine a ‘state’, to set up the socialist concept of border control, national security, so on and so forth.

    1. "Conflict only arose when, in the aftermath of WWII..."

      Victor, you are disqualified from writing about this history.

    2. Bionic, you passed up the opportunity to say "henceforth" before saying "disqualifed". It would have sounded so much more regal.

    3. IpseDixit,

      The royal "we" thanks you for this most fruitful suggestion. You are truly worthy.

      "Dilly dilly."

  4. Open borders is such a lazy position to hold. Unless you plan on taking in some immigrants and actively helping them to assimilate, it is just a form of socialism. You want to take in immigrants, but someone else's neighborhood must do the heavy lifting and deal with any cultural or economic consequences (good or bad). I would respect some of these open border clowns (including Block) if they would seriously attempt to address cultural differences and how to bridge them or at least acknowledge that it is a significant issue.

    I come from what would be called a third world country in the Caribbean. No one in their right mind here would advocate taking in African refugees in any significant number. Asylum laws are strict and very few cases get approved as it is recognized that most are simply economic migrants. We are also well aware of the cultural differences between us (half the country is black) and African migrants. Why such a policy in the USA is seen as racist or inhuman is beyond me.

    1. The muddled middle, otherwise known as reality. The USG isn’t going away anytime soon, and neither isn’t its border management program. However, by Block pointing out “increased” border controls (wet dream of Trump) is really an increase in the heavy hand of the incompetent state, doesn’t that draw us back to a more reasonable system than “show me your papers”.

      Peggy Noonan once stated on the 12-inch ruler of politics the Rs start negotiating from the “reasonable” position of 3 and the Dems start basically at 12. In this case, the ruler is somewhat reversed, but Block starts at 0 (or 12). That’s really the advantage of the anarchist position: I have found a place where I can start at 0 on every issue, knowing maybe the compromise will be 3 rather than 9 or 10.

      But yes, BM has pointed out this is a weird issue where 0 (open borders) without 0 on full private property is actually 12.

    2. Hi VfPI,

      "However, by Block pointing out [..] a more reasonable system"

      The mention of Mr. "Libertarian case for Israel/Liberty destroying open borders for the rest" Walter Block and "reasonable system" in one sentence is telling, as is framing the analysis of this hazardous hypocrisy as "fear" for open borders.

      I noticed the quasi-disclaimer and the end ("weird issue"?), so don't bother. The issue is not "weird," nor is the issue about open borders advocacy in absence of a full PPS. The issue —of the last couple posts here— is Block advocating entrance to people with full knowledge of the fact that they bring a liberty-destroying doctrine with them.

      Cheers from Amsterdam,

    3. Hi Richard,

      Of course we should bother about it—otherwise I wouldn’t be!

      I guess my issue is do we really know that those coming are better or worse than the current occupants? I posted the wiki crime and immigration page on another thread and it really isn’t clear. I think the evidence demonstrates that welfare, minimum wage, and job licensing destroys culture and family—which is a negative for liberty as BM has done the best job recently of demonstrating. I personally fear show me your papers as much or more than open borders, partly by the fact despite the incompetent attempt at closing them in the US now they are in many ways practically open.

      Cheers from Flyover Country in the US of A,

      Eric Morris

    4. Eric, I won't say better or worse. I am not even sure how much I would say "different."

      The current citizens in the US do not offer a model of decentralized, limited government desire - this is certainly correct; many cheer on war and other depredations of the state.

      Yet, what of immigrants that come from cultures and traditions or come with philosophies (e.g. Block's commies) that are incompatible with freedom. Sure - we already have plenty of these...what's a few more?

      Well...a few more is a few more.

      I know a couple of things: first, that it was in this western, Christian tradition where liberty best came to fruition, and second, that there is little reason for hope to believe that western society - or some portion of it - will find its way back to some semblance of this tradition.

      Like I said..."little hope." I didn’t say “zero hope.” But we move closer to “zero hope” the more that the balance is purposely skewed further - as I have often mentioned: do we really believe that those advocating for open borders (e.g. Soros and various internationalists) are interested in increasing my freedom...or yours...or Richard's?

      I understand that reducing war is your objective and desire – and in the political arena, few (or no) objectives are more desirable. Yet how does this happen if all social fabric is destroyed, leaving nothing to bind men together other than a common flag?

      Oh, and football!

    5. Rothbards thesis is that laissez faire, and laissez faire alone, makes society prosperous and peaceful. So what if theres no common language, no nationalistic bond ? Take German immigration. From 1820 to WWI Germans poured into Milwaukee, Cincinnati, St Louis, and Chicago. Their fantastic level of success is dramatized in the shimmering marvel of the 1904 St Louis World Exposition - yet Germans had their own public schools where German was the language and their own newspapers written in German.

    6. Here in Indy, there is a radio show called “Chicks on the Right”. I still have hope since one-half of the duo was adamantly against the Trump military parade.

      They speak of common culture and tradition. There is still plenty of hope, but unfortunately a decline of the dollar is one of the best ways toward freedom.

      Lots of latent freedomists would probably focus less on football and more on building civilization again if it weren’t so cheap to purchase pale imitations thereof, like the NFL. At least in my neighborhood ...

      Soros will be dead before the dollar dies, but also long before he can kill what is good here—which is still much.

    7. "Rothbards thesis is that laissez faire, and laissez faire alone, makes society prosperous and peaceful. So what if theres no common language, no nationalistic bond ?"

      Was that before or after Rothbard starting hanging out with David Duke?

  5. Israel = Jews? At least in general sense because 1/4 of Israelis are goless, and 10% are Christians or Muslim Arabs. But, at the end of the day Israel is diverse since its inhabitants are from varied countries of Europe, and ME. So, why Israel is against absorbing some Africans as they are forcing Western Europe to do ? The answer is because no one is allowed to question them, and if you do, your opinion will not be widely viewed or supported.

    1. The Jew cries out to deport Africans from Israel (to random African counties that they didn't even come from) as he opens your borders.

  6. Jews are thinkers, and aivists, however, whatever they come up with is almost always selfish, and devastating to others. The Bolshevik Revolution for example is a goo case in pint, the neocon movement is another, the open border / multiculturalism is another.

    1. Oh for Christ Sake. Ludwig von Mises was a Jew as was Murray Rothbard. The Bolshevik Revolution was funded by the Americans and Wall Street, the British, and the Germans to prevent Russia from developing into a free enterprise society explained Antony Sutton who pointed out that already by 1900 crony capitalism had begun replace the laissez faire capitalism that made the US so prosperous in the 19th century.

    2. Of course, Christ was a Jew as well. I think I would like to tone this conversation down a bit.

    3. Jesus being a Jew depends on the definition of Jew. Jesus followed the Law Of Moses And the Prophets but He certainly did not care for the Talmud.

    4. Jesus was a Jew in the sense that he was a Judean, which was the meaning of Jew at the time.

      The people called Jews today are the literal descendants of the Pharisees. Jew, in the modern context = Pharisee. Jesus definitely is not a Jew in this sense.

    5. It's perhaps a minor issue, but Christ was never really regarded a Jew by the Jews themselves. This changed dramatically after WW2, when Christ was "rediscovered" or reinvented as a Jew for reasons that have little to do with theology (or it should be this horrid Küngian Ecumenical Theology as a catalyst for "Interfaith Dialogue" and so on).

  7. Open-borders-libertarians are apparently in favor of complete unrestricted immigration. But Dems and Repubs who want a liberal immigration policy at least give lip service to some limitations. What's wrong with this picture? Well the open-borders-libertarians are not fanatics. They realize there are exceptions to their rule. Did I say exceptions? Sorry, meant to say an exception.

  8. Embrace the Narrative. Better yet, turn a blind eye to the Narrative. If you embrace the Narrative, you risk subjecting the Narrative to critical analysis. There's no telling what happens to the Double Standard then.

    Rabbi Sharon Brous explains it well. She never marked
    "white" on those equal opportunity sheets. Whites weren't her people. Her people were getting chased by Cossacks.
    That's not her history.

    There are history's Victims. There are history's Victimizers. Never the twain shall meet.


  9. Meanwhile, all over Europe, women have gotten the advice from the powers that shouldn't be, to erect their own private borders, when going outside.

    - Use stiff arm to keep r̶a̶p̶i̶s̶t̶s̶, sorry.. cultural enrichers (Cologne, 2015/16) "at arm's length". Laughable as it sounds, this actually was official advice.
    - Always go out in groups.
    - Have a 120db alarm on your person to scare away "refugees".

    That last item has been the reason for a number of women in Germany to start some kind of resistance under #120dB

    These women identify the threat as "young men that come from archaic societies". So there's still a reluctance to call a spade a spade, but hey..

  10. Oh and on a somewhat related note and to stay on topic (deportation); Germans will be deporting themselves, so to speak, provided that Poland stays firm:

    German Feminist SJW Rebecca Sommer Reveals ‘It’s Too Late For Germany’