Conservative Commies

I recently watched a Youtube video by Channel 5 with Andrew Callaghan named “Defend the Border Convoy”. The video takes place in Eagle Pass, Texas. This city in particular because it has become a political pawn for the federal and state government. The tension escalated when Texas Governor Greg Abbott deployed the Texas National Guard to the area, citing the need to secure the border. This move included the installation of physical barriers like razor wire and a floating barrier system in the Rio Grande to deter migrants, which the federal government argued was done without appropriate federal authorization. This led to federal courts ruling that federal agents are allowed to cut down razor wire along the border of Eagle Pass, TX. This conflict led hundreds of conservative/christian nationalists to organize a convoy to come to Eagle Pass and secure the border themselves. While watching these interviews I noticed two words that were iterated by these anti-immigration advocates: “Our” and “Communism”. Right into the first interview, “ it's important we protect OUR border I think it's important we protect the US citizens.” Another interview, “the thing I mean if the government's not going to take care of us and secure OUR borders, states have the right to be able to do it.”

These arguments provided by anti-immigration bring up a good point. Who owns the land at the southern border? Conservatives will say that we need to secure OUR country by securing OUR border, while liberal will say to not secure OUR country and not secure OUR border. 

It seems like the conservatives are arguing for communal ownership.

Or, most commonly, conservatives argue for private property rights. Private property gives the owner complete jurisdiction over how to use the property, no one else can tell someone how to use the property or use it themselves because that would constitute theft. If conservatives say who they are, freedom loving individuals, they shouldn't have a problem with someone using their land to allow another person onto their land. And conservatives shouldn't have a problem with someone on the imaginary southern border of the United States allowing an “immigrant” (you wouldn't call a friend or person coming to your house an immigrant) onto their privately owned land, which happens to be in the US. An immigrant crossing the “border” onto someone else's land (which accepts them) is no different from you allowing a friend into your house. Within this video, many of the border wall supporters had "Don't Tread On Me" flags. It's quite ironic that they are the ones treading on other people's right to private property.

Some other conservative arguments that need some work:

Argument: It is unfair to the legal immigrants who had to wait a long time to enter into the country!

Response: “I had it hard, so you also have to have it hard”.  This is the equivalent of saying all sexual assault victim should get raped because it would be unfair to rape victims who suffered more. 

Argument: They come here and use up all the welfare!

Response: Ok, then get rid of the welfare. If you see a baby eating Tide Pods, you don't get rid of the baby, you remove the detergent from the baby’s hands. Plus welfare should not exist due to it being funded through theft.

Argument: They come and take our jobs!

Response: That's a great thing. The free market is at work! Employers have a greater selection of laborers, which increases competition among workers, driving down labor costs, and ultimately driving down costs for consumers. This is what freedom looks like! Conservatives love, and I mean love to bash Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) practices. When a company hires someone based on race or gender and not merit, conservatives say that those people are getting something they don't deserve. They say the DEI hires should have competed for the job and not just get the job because they are a certain race. So why do conservatives employ the same DEI standards when it comes to hiring an illegal immigrant versus a US citizen. Shouldn't both people compete to get the job? Shouldn't it be based on merit!? Or should we give the job to someone because he is American? And it's quite apparent that illegal immigrants win this labor competition as they are willing to work for less and work longer hours.

I wonder what other inconsistencies are within a conservative line of argumentation?