Let's say you run an apartment complex, or another rentable living space. There's several duties involved in this, not limited to:
- You'll need to hire groundskeepers and maintenance technicians
- You'll need to fill apartments with tenants
- You can't initiate aggression against your tenants, nor can they do so unto you, or to other tenants
- You need to protect yourself against any mishaps, unless you're willing to run the risk of losing your property, safety or wealth.
Point four is in bold. It is the most important aspect, and is the reinforcement and guiding point behind the first three points. The burden of safety falls upon the endorser. In this hypothetical, it's you. How might you protect yourself from these mishaps?
Insurance is an obvious answer, but it's not the end all be all. The goal is to avoid a problem in the first place. There's a lot of different people involved, each with their own backgrounds, experiences, and predilections. The only resource you have is to vet and interview.
A history of violence or delinquency for one of these individuals you're vouching for? You're not likely to let them in, or at least I'd hope not. What about burglary, robbery, or petty theft? Or, what if they committed what could arguably be the greatest violation of property rights, and have a history of sexual assault?
Are you willing to subject your tenants and co-workers to these possibilities?
Lets consider that a potential participant in this community passes all of this criteria, but is without the means to sustain. Who shoulders the burden of keeping them clothed, fed, and sheltered? Do you look to other members of the community, who did not vouch for anybody, to shoulder this burden? Do you let them wither and die, providing for a bleak and withering community?
If not, what do you do when any of the above drains on resources are thrust on you? What if you already have a problem sustaining the community as it is?
Maybe for the folly of your judgement, you are held responsible. Maybe the delinquent in question, now that said delinquent is here, is considered wholly a part of the community, and the damage is done. The burden may fall on you to compensate the victims of a delinquent that didn't just come in, but one that you've welcomed with open arms and an endorsement.
Maybe, if you know you're going to be held responsible, you won't be so quick with the welcome wagon.
Contrast this with a bloated governing body, who rules only by demand. The same government that boasts a large surveillance project, yet couldn't decipher the information that could have prevented the massacres in Paris, or at the Boston Marathon. Still yet, the same government whose operatives admit can't determine who's who that's coming in. Imagine if Pelosi's justification for Obamacare was used here.
"We have to let them in to see what all they are and what they'll do!"
I don't take issue to politically correct Statists advocating a "come on in" border. I expect them to, even when reality flies in the face of their delusions. Europe is suffering dearly for the multicultural convictions of it's decision makers. A casual google search reveals a crisis of rape, displacement of current residents, re-purposed churches (into shelters or toilets ), and a new and improved class of welfare parasites, ever ungrateful to it's host.
I do, however, take issue with alleged libertarians that insist I'm obligated to roll out the welcome wagon, or trust the gate keeper - especially after the disastrous results in Europe. Pair this with the grand plan of their Basic Income Guarantee, and it's grossly apparent who will shoulder the burden of their delusional fantasies.
I am inclined to ask - to anyone who wants our borders open to everyone, will you be donating your living space, clothing, food, safety and labor to these efforts? Or will you be donating mine?