Freedom, freeloaders, and Federal folderol

Tim asked good questions in a previous comment thread, so, like Ricky Ricardo, it appears I "have some 'splainin' to do."

First, my "notion of sovereignty." The Declaration of Independence recognizes the inherent worth of every individual by virtue of being created by a Creator. Societies and nations, however, are human constructs, not divine ones, and a quick look at world headlines confirms they are not equal in dignity, justice or legitimacy. The restraint of evil governance and counterproductive social norms requires drawing borders.

Within those borders, notions of what constitutes "freedom," "opportunity," "responsibility," etc, develop very differently, depending on a host of social, religious, geographic and historical factors sociologists earn PhDs dissecting. The point is, what people expect from their society and expect to give to their society varies widely. And while Tim notes the "pursuit of happiness" might lead someone to immigrate to the U.S., that same pursuit of happiness by a present American also involves the right and responsibility to ensure those "joining the family" are willing to abide by the house rules. The mass migration of populations around the world today (i.e. Hispanic to the U.S., Muslim to Europe) is historic in volume, and has created competing subsets of culture within long-established nations (the term "multicultural" is not as innocuous and academic as some would assume). The wider the disparity of belief and expectations of the population, the more authoritarian the governance has to become to keep a common lid on things. When and if that center collapses, you get the Balkans--violent devolution. Can anyone argue the development of more such tinderboxes is a good thing?

Tim's most recent question:

...is it really more likely that someone born in Mexico will be a "freeloader"? Surely some people born in Alaska turn out to be freeloaders, too ... why should you deal differently with freeloaders born outside the USA?

Let me be clear: there are plenty of native-born freeloading Americans, with Uncle Sam subsidizing their fecklessness. That's a separate, but related issue--the explosion of the entitlement mentality. What distinguishes mass immigration now from the much-vaunted "melting pot" years of the 19th Century is today there is almost no expectation or pressure for new arrivals to adopt common standards (the local language being the most obvious example) and fend for themselves. The same is true for the local-born--witness the decline of education, civic respect and self-restraint. We encourage people to aimlessly scrape along, which only breeds jealousy and resentment of those who do more.

I don't mind people moving here to pursue a better life as part of our existing society. But under cover of that emotional appeal, we've thrown wide our borders to both future family members AND barbarians, all while allowing freeloading to become an acceptable lifestyle for those born here in the first place. This creates a huge demographic in support of larger (tax-funded) government programs and multicultural intervention, all of which undermine the historic structure of our particular society. I'm not alone in saying that doesn't support my "pursuit of happiness." If that now trite phrase justifies letting anyone in without discretion, why can't it also justify my right to ensure fellow citizens (native AND naturalized) contribute as least as much as they consume...instead of expecting me and others like me to make up the difference?

I'll be mostly offline today and tomorrow finishing up some earlier "transition business," but look forward to continuing the conversation. Thanks, Tim. You gave me such a good topic I broke my self-imposed 500-word-per-post limit for once. :)