They will be coming here to escape socialism, so a far smaller percentage of immigrants than citizens will be likely to be socialists.
Like Mark pointed out a few shows ago, the Massholes moving north aren't subject to instant conversion on I-93...
The "Massholes" are citizens. They are entitled to state funded health, education and welfare and they have the right to vote for more of the same. If NH was an independent country and immigrants were exempted/barred from these programs and naturalization, they would make good neighbors or at least the ones still willing to come would be.
Those who are socialists will be unable to vote anyway.
You still don't get it. Giving people the vote and letting them vote themselves into socialism was done in self-defense to prevent violent revolution.
People who are not oppressed by the laws, regulation and corruption of the state and who have the right to private property do not start violent revolutions. A violent revolution is infinitely more likely to come from an oppressed citizenry.
A free society is only possible when you have lots of well-educated, armed middle-or-upper-class people and as little poor people around as possible. The more poor people you have around, the more socialism you need to keep them content.
Poor people are citizens who are indoctrinated in statism, oppressed by the state, who are kept on welfare or state employment and kept by monopolistic regulations from starting businesses and accumulating wealth, property or any form of dignity or independence. They are not upwardly mobile, hard working immigrants, no matter how disdainfully you view their meager origins.
By being free of subjection to socialist programs and indoctrination, those immigrants that started off with socialist beliefs will soon learn the relative advantage of living with individual responsibility as compared with the hapless citizen who is bred to be a slave. They will be the first to reject socialism and the citizens will learn from and, I hope, follow their example.
Yes, history is filled with examples of majority-poor societies working hard to lift themselves out of poverty, which often takes several generations, with neither colonialism nor socialism nor any other form of violence what-so-ever. Just look at how well it works in Africa, Latin America, Eastern Europe, South Asia, etc! </SARCASM>
You cannot even give one example of a poor society that has protection of property rights, but then you're off topic anyway, since the subject is immigration. (Your slight of hand trickery isn't working for you.
)
Each person's freedom is not yours to share or withhold. Every person who pursues freedom without the expectation of state welfare and is able to establish an economic foothold for himself, is more worthy of freedom than someone who has done nothing but get born to the right parents.
Yes, but the entire 6.5 billion (and growing) mob of humanity cannot achieve freedom by coming to America!
No one ever said they could. The optimal level of immigration is not predictable. It would be regulated by market incentives. It's the only rational and moral way to regulate any market, be it the flow of goods or people.
It is in the best interests of those already living here to let the best of would-be immigrants compete for this privilege, and only let in a reasonable amount every year. All other first-world countries are doing that, to varying degree of success, and for America to be the only first-world country to open itself to an endless flood of third-world refugees (who don't necessarily love the concept of property rights as much as we do) would be suicide!
I've already explained what a disaster that would be, but you still want us to continue to follow the rest of the world toward socialistic suicide, just as much of the rest of the world is finally giving up on socialism as an unmitigated disastrous mistake.
By erecting a great wall?
If we do enforce immigration limits, the question of the physical wall isn't all that crucial - maybe like 200,000 a year will get in if we have the wall and 300,000 a year if we don't. If we have open borders, on the other hand... After a while, the biggest red spot on he population density map would be in North America:
Again, you fail to consider the self regulating effect of market incentives to maintain an optimal balance. These kinds of predictions, like the predictions of all statist panic mongers from population control advocates to global warming doomsayers, are all baseless speculation and conjecture for the purpose of empowering the state.
The failure of socialistic immigration policy is what leads to illegal immigration and the war against this is what will result in requiring permission of the state to seek employment, a place to live or the right to travel.
I hope you enjoy the slavery that you seek.