New at Reason

December 22, 2005

'Tis the season to thank an immigrant. Nick Gillespie and Jesse James DeConto explain why.

Comments

|12.22.05 @ 1:56AM|#

the House of Representatives began debating legislation that would, among other things, make living illegally in the United States an aggravated felony, tighten borders and hike fines for paperwork violations by employers of legal and illegal immigrants by as much as 2,500 percent.

This'll keep those illegal immigrants from shoving their low wage labor down our throats.

|12.22.05 @ 2:12AM|#

I think you're wrong that most Americans wouldn't do the work for any amount of money. You'd have no trouble finding plenty (although perhaps not a majority so I suppose you could be right in saying "most") of Americans willing to do the work for say $20-25 an hour instead of the $6-8 the illegal immigrant makes. Then again Christmas tree prices would go through the roof and imported artificial trees would become much much more attractive, putting out of work the US citizens who are involved in the less backbreaking aspects.

Speaking of backbreaking, if Brokeback mountain took place today, would those hot gay cowboy jobs likely be filled by illegal immigrants? Because I wouldn't mind seeing a sequel to that with some Latin heat.

|12.22.05 @ 2:27AM|#

Ah Ha! So it's the right wing religious conservatives who insist on everyone celebrating "Christmas" (with a "Christmas" tree) who are fueling illegal immigration! I knew it.

|12.22.05 @ 5:21AM|#

Well lets ship those trees back to Mexico then. I hear they could use more trees down there anyways.

This is a pretty ridiculous thread so far, so I just add this.

|12.22.05 @ 8:43AM|#

Look, all that the immigration foes want is for government agents to round up the millions of people who grow our food and ship them across the border.

What could possibly go wrong with that?

Warren|12.22.05 @ 8:46AM|#

[Slightly off topic]
I just want to thank everyone that made yesterday such a glorious solstice. I started off posting a comment that was deemed "fucking brilliant" by no less an authority than Thoreau. Later I was moved to haiku, and other commenters helped make the day memorable by introducing me to an ancient Chinese Machiavelli and a gut busting internet funny by the same people that brought us 'the gallery of regrettable food'.

All in all a great day
Now hunker down for the long winter ahead, but take hope. The days are getting longer.

|12.22.05 @ 8:54AM|#

"It is grueling, backbreaking work, the sort that most of us born in the United States would never do, for any amount of money. The typical worker makes between $6 and $8 an hour to cut, stack and haul trees on a mountainside. During the harvest season, they routinely pull shifts that last 16 hours, often in harsh weather."

Grueling? Backbreaking? You guys must be a bunch of pussies! Were talking Christmas trees, for Chris'sake...not the logging industry of the Northwest! Yeah, it's work, but it's not any worse than cutting brush, trimming trees, or doing landscaping. The hours are long, because it all has to get done in the space of a month or so. You can't very well harvest Christmas trees in July. The conditions are harsh, because...well jeez! it's OUTSIDE...in the fall and winter!
No, most people born here are not going to do that kind of work,...not for $6 to $8 an hour and not if they don't have to. It's easier to go hire a truckload of "wetbacks" for that kind of money while sitting back collecting $25 to $50 an hour as a "contractor" or "businessman". And most Americans are not going to "work"(read:work with their hands) for $6 an hour while their fellow Americans make $25 an hour for working with their "minds", 'though most of their callouses seem to be on their fat asses. (Anyone who thinks one can do physical work without using one's head has never tried it, or else is a friggin idiot!)

The reason (or one of them) that illegals are willing to work for that kind of money is that it is five to ten times what they can make in the countries (not only Mexico) from which they come. The question to ask is why that should be so. Another one to ask is how they can live on what we consider to be such low wages, yet we can not.

Oh, and one other question (for all you "bleeding hearts" secretly lusting after a cheap, subservient laboring class) why is it that if they are "just here to work" that they are concerned with getting green cards or other permanent resident status? Looks to me as though they want to stay and live here.

|12.22.05 @ 8:57AM|#

I kinda wish I could wave a magic wand and send all the undocumented immigrants back home. Not because of any will towards them but to teach Americans a lesson. It would just thrill me to no end to see everyone's reaction when they go to Safeway and don't see the aforementioned potatoes, corn, oranges, etc.
And those farmers. Jesus are they a whiny lot. They'd have to pay significant wages and, maybe, the market would require them to, gasp, provide benifits.
Merry Chistmas to all those who've risked thier lives through the Sonoran desert, paying off violent expensive coyotes, to do hard, thankless work to provide me with cheap vegatables.

|12.22.05 @ 9:02AM|#

why is it that if they are "just here to work" that they are concerned with getting green cards or other permanent resident status? Looks to me as though they want to stay and live here

They are here to work. But it's easier to work somewhere if you don't have to commute a thousand miles every day.

Robert Cote|12.22.05 @ 9:06AM|#

The -reason- the work is grueling, backbreaking and ill paid is -because- of illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is a push product not a pull product. We should be harvesting Christmas trees with robots run by technicians, designed by engineers, programmed by SW and GIS scientists from technology developed at UC Davis and Texas A&M and controlled by satellite. Why should farmers invest in technology like every other industry when there's huge publically subsidized exploitable labor class available?

In case anyone doubts the drag illegal immigration has on our quality of life let me relate my experience at a high school parents night. The principal's remarks were about 5 minutes long with a few pauses to let the sign language interpreter catch up. Then as about 800 parents sat in the basketball stands 6:30 at night after a long day of being doctors and engineers, biotech scientists and the like, the entire speech was repeated in Spanish which took about 8 minutes but felt like 8 hours. No money in the budget for computers but plenty for the $80,000 interpreter.

Afforbable housing for the worker class. This is the big "problem" where I live now. You cannot purchase a SFR for less than $500k that you would let your child live in. This months' (Sept '05) MEDIAN (not average): $635k.
http://www.dqnews.com/ZIPLAT.shtm {Ventura County at the bottom]

Supposedly this is going to mean our housekeepers and gardeners and even bookkeepers are going to be "lost" and we idle rich will be helpless. Quite the opposite. Instead we will buy Roombas, Rainbirds and Quicken thereby employing robotocists, Landscape Architects, electrical engineers and software programmers who can afford to live here. This IMHO is "A Good Thing."

What's this got to do with illegal immigration? A lot through a connection most people see in reverse. I'd much rather pay for a civil engineer, GIS coordinator, software vendor and robot technician each getting a living wage rather than tolerate the barely better than slave wage illegal immigration promulgating handpicking system we use now. The problem is we are subsidizing the slave worker market and taxing and regulating the technology fields mentioned above.

Let's not mistake a push market where the jobs attract illegals for the actual case of a pull market where a pool of exploitable workers preserves an otherwise antiquated system. One need only ask why we still grow strawberries the same way we did 100 years ago but we wouldn't dream of making cars by hand as we did that same 100 years ago. The only reason there are still crummy jobs in the workplace is BECAUSE there are potential workers available for exploitation. Besides all this the real evil of illegal immigration is that it siphons off the most ambitious and talented people those impoverished regions need to advance their own economies.

Warren|12.22.05 @ 9:20AM|#

why is it that if they are "just here to work" that they are concerned with getting green cards or other permanent resident status? Looks to me as though they want to stay and live here.

You make several good points, but this is not one of them. There are many (and obvious) reasons it is better to have legal status. One reason is that it would allow immigrants to return home without having to worry about reentering the US. This is not to say, that there aren't hundreds of thousands of people who would prefer to be US citizens. Only that illegal immigration, like illegal drug use, is mostly a problem because it's illegal. People are coming here to work, not forcing them into the shadows will have many benefits. Among them will be the emigration of people who want to go home and needn't fear that they can't get back in when they want to return for work.

|12.22.05 @ 9:37AM|#

Warren:

You hit it on the nail. If we opened up more legal immigration, we would lesson the problems that come with illegal immigration.

|12.22.05 @ 9:42AM|#

The following have governments declaring war on them:
drugs
terror
guns

The following has governments protecting it:
borders

None of the above efforts are working. In fact they are causing great harm... like that mean, old Grinch.

|12.22.05 @ 9:42AM|#

I live in a neighborhood that is fifty to seventy-five per cent immigrants. These people are buying homes and as much property as they can and bringing their families here to live. My neighbor even wanted to buy my place though it's never been for sale. That doesn't sound to me like they are planning on leaving anytime soon.
Frankly, most of them are a helluva lot better neighbors and PEOPLE than the "Americans" that used to live around here.

I have another question for people to kick around: Why does a dollar buy so little in this great land of plenty and yet it will buy so much in all those impoverished third-world countries south of our border and elsewhere? One would think that the opposite would be true.

|12.22.05 @ 9:49AM|#

Robert:

I agree we shouldn�t maintain a welfare state to supplement low wages, because it perpetuates low wages and inefficiencies. However, I think you get the same problem whether you give welfare to native born Americans or immigrants. If an immigrant wants to come here and pull his own weight, we should welcome him.

The example problems you cite are caused more by incompetent governments than by immigration. The school could get a volunteer from the PTA to translate, and even schools without immigrants are notorious for wasting money. Houses are over priced because of regulations, zoning, and open space initiatives that make building new houses costly or impossible. Yes, immigration to the US means other countries lose valuable talent, but why should the individuals who immigrate here be forced to stay in messed up countries? Many immigrants send money back home, which gives their home countries the investment money they need to move up the economic ladder. Besides, massive emigration from a messed up country could put pressure on the country to reform.

|12.22.05 @ 9:50AM|#

Ruthless-

You forgot about the war on poverty.

Robert Cote|12.22.05 @ 9:51AM|#

What do illegal immigrants bring to the US besides a willingness to work and a desire for the American Dream? Drug resistant TB and now; Whooping Cough.

Please try to remain focused on the illegal part of illegal immigration. This is not an immigration issue any more than bank robbery is about financial regulation.

Warren|12.22.05 @ 9:51AM|#

This months' (Sept '05) MEDIAN (not average): $635k.

Hey is that a nit I see? Yep sure is, guess I better pick it.

The median is an average. The median is not the mean, which is what most people think the average is. Statistically there are three types of average; the mean, the median, and the mode. The more familiar mean is calculated by summing and dividing. The median is the fifty percentile, i.e. the score that half the population falls below. The mode is the most popular score.

The median is often a superior average to the mean because it is not as susceptible to outliers. As in this example, the median price of a new home is $635k. That means that half the people in that area paid more for their home. However if the area has just one or two estates that cost in excess of $10meg, that could drive the mean price up, but would halve little effect on the median.

The median; tells you how much is more (and less) than half the population, insensitive to a few extreme cases, often forsaken for, but more useful than, the mean, it's an average too.

|12.22.05 @ 9:54AM|#

jw:

I think the dollar buys so much more in other countries because labor and rent is cheaper. Even thought a dollar buys more, the wages are so low that the typical person an impoverished world can�t afford a fraction of what the typical US citizen buys.

|12.22.05 @ 9:57AM|#

Robert:

I would support a stop to illegal immigration. Breaking the law is wrong. At the same time, we have to greatly loosen up the restriction on legal immigration.

Mike|12.22.05 @ 9:58AM|#

Yeah, it's work, but it's not any worse than cutting brush, trimming trees, or doing landscaping. The hours are long, because it all has to get done in the space of a month or so.

And there is the reason illegal immigrants do this work: when you're 2000 miles from home, it's reasonable to work a month in Wisconson cutting Christmas trees, a month in Washington picking apples, a month in California picking strawberries.

Yes, the pay is poor, and the work is hard. But there are alot of low paid hard jobs done by citizins. But low paid, hard, *migrant* work is worse.

|12.22.05 @ 10:01AM|#

"Speaking of backbreaking, if Brokeback mountain took place today, would those hot gay cowboy jobs likely be filled by illegal immigrants? Because I wouldn't mind seeing a sequel to that with some Latin heat."

Could Selma Hayek and Penelope Cruz make a movie about lesbian cowgirls?
Hooowee!

Robert Cote|12.22.05 @ 10:09AM|#

Wow, I always thought the median was an ordered ranking and that average always meant arithmetic average unless modified such as weighted average or geometric mean or harmonic mean. I guess it just shows that when there are nitpickers around it pays to say precisely what you "mean" or they are liable to get mean.

|12.22.05 @ 10:12AM|#

the House of Representatives began debating legislation that would, among other things, make living illegally in the United States an aggravated felony,

One complaint I've often heard people make about illegal immigrants (with some justification, perhaps) is that they cost us mucho bucks in government services. Okaaaaaay. . . so how much will it cost the government (meaning, taxpayers) to try, convict and imprison all these people on aggravated felony charges? Or will we not imprison them, but simply ship them back to Mexico, same way we do now, only with the added expense of a trial first? Either way, I fail to see how we'll save money.

|12.22.05 @ 10:12AM|#

"Breaking the law is wrong. At the same time, we have to greatly loosen up the restriction on legal immigration."

jtuf,
Why define into existence "crime" that should not be crime?
It's like the old Saturday Night Live skit where the two guys would poke toothpicks into their eyelids, and say, "I hate it when I do that."

Warren|12.22.05 @ 10:16AM|#

Why does a dollar buy so little in this great land of plenty and yet it will buy so much in all those impoverished third-world countries south of our border and elsewhere?

I'm not sure that's true. What does it mean to say that a dollar buys more in Freedonia. Does that mean you can buy a big house with lots of land for a handful of Benjamins? Perhaps, but that house is in Freedonia, where the electricity is out half the time. You have to worry about revolutionaries coming down the road one week and the feds 'nationalizing' your house the next. Does it mean you can buy a month of groceries for the price of lunch at the Olive Garden? Perhaps, but how much is that hard cheese and moldy bread worth anyway? Even the bananas at the local market are rotten, all the best ones are shipped to America. Does it means you can get DVD player and IPod for less than bargain bob's internet sales? That's funny, cause I heard that durable goods are so valuable there that the natives will trade you their daughter for a pair of Levi's.

|12.22.05 @ 10:23AM|#

So if illegal aliens are really just un-documented workers does it follow that bank robberes are just un-documented un-depositors?

The Mexican illegals are part of an invasion to re-conquer territory, as Mexican politicians say in plain language.

|12.22.05 @ 10:26AM|#

Breaking the law is wrong.

Like when Rosa Parks refused to give her seat to a white man.

Rich Ard|12.22.05 @ 10:28AM|#

The Mexican illegals are part of an invasion to re-conquer territory

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[gasp]

AAHAHAHAHAHA!

Robert Cote|12.22.05 @ 10:33AM|#

[The Mexican illegals are part of an invasion to re-conquer territory]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[gasp]

AAHAHAHAHAHA!

http://www.illegalaliens.us/aztlan.htm

|12.22.05 @ 10:45AM|#

I have no doubt that there are some people who would like to do a Reconquista of the Southwest.

I have no doubt that they have some scary rhetoric on their websites and claim vast support.

And I have no doubt that they can get some sympathy from other immigrants when they air grievances about the US. (Cuz, you know, immigrants are the only people who bitch about this country. We native-borns never do....)

But I wonder how many heads continue to nod when they say "And we want a merger with the corrupt, impoverished shit-hole that we just came from!"

Let's not mistake vocal idiots for a dangerous movement.

Rich Ard|12.22.05 @ 10:47AM|#

Thanks, Robert - that was a great read.

whoo!

|12.22.05 @ 10:50AM|#

Even if the illegals do want to reconquer America, so what? We have guns--they have farm equipment.

Don't bring a hoe to a gunfight. Or a ho, either.

I'm still wishing an apologist would explain how imprisoning a bunch of illegals will save us any money.

Robert Cote|12.22.05 @ 10:50AM|#

Quebec.

Rich Ard|12.22.05 @ 10:52AM|#

The Free State Project.

VM|12.22.05 @ 11:02AM|#

jw:

what do you mean by the question about what one can purchase with "a dollar"?

"a dollar" is not a guarantee that you get a fixed amount of goods and services. so what are you asking? is that even in the ballpark of what you're asking? are you asking why things have different prices elsewhere? are you somehow linking your preceived "value" of this dollar with immigration or other countries?

and why do you think the opposite would be true?

|12.22.05 @ 11:03AM|#

Jennifer:

There is a difference between civil disobedience and regular crime. Rosa Parks publicly broke a bad law, and that resulted in its repeal. If 1,000 Mexicans publicly marched across the boarder and said they would stay to protest immigration laws, then they would have a strong case. I don�t have too much sympathy for people break the law and hope no one finds out.

I�m not saying we should lock up illegal immigrants for life. I would put illegal immigration without the intent to cause other crimes on the same level as speeding. We should try to stop it at the boarder and impose a fine on those who get through. We should also make legal immigration easier and available to many more people.

|12.22.05 @ 11:05AM|#

My parents emigrated here in the 1920s from rural Ireland,they worked like dogs at shit immigrant jobs and died with nothing.Their offspring have all done well and the subsequent generations even better.I live in California and come in contact with illegals all the time.They want nothing more than my parents had and they are willing to work for it.

Rich Ard|12.22.05 @ 11:06AM|#

There is a difference between civil disobedience and regular crime.

And it's not up to the witness of the crime to decide - I consider growing certain plants in the basement civil disobedience, but it's not something that the grower likely advertises to the feds.

fyodor|12.22.05 @ 11:07AM|#

jw,

Why don't you answer your own rhetorical questions. Then we'll know what you're actually saying and we can have a great ol' debate over it.

|12.22.05 @ 11:09AM|#

There is a difference between civil disobedience and regular crime. Rosa Parks publicly broke a bad law, and that resulted in its repeal. If 1,000 Mexicans publicly marched across the boarder and said they would stay to protest immigration laws, then they would have a strong case. I don�t have too much sympathy for people break the law and hope no one finds out.

Who determines the difference--the government?

Depending on the law, I DO have sympathy for those who break it and hope no one finds out. For example, in previous historical periods I would have had much sympathy for those people who secretly smuggled escaped slaves into Canada, despite the huge property losses suffered by the slave owners. I sympathize with illegal medical marijuana users who hope to God the DEA never finds out what they're up to. And I sympathize with illegal immigrants who want to come here and earn enough to support their families.

I also distrust any situation wherein someone says "These people are harming Society!" Because usually, the accusation "You are harming society" is bandied about when your accuser can't find a specific human being who is being harmed.

|12.22.05 @ 11:09AM|#

That last post by "Asshole Government Apologist" was me. Dammit, every time I make a joke post somewhere I always forget to change my name back!

Rich Ard|12.22.05 @ 11:11AM|#

You're not much of an apologist, Jennifer.

VM|12.22.05 @ 11:11AM|#

fyodor:

maybe it's that asshole clothier trying to debate "comparative advantage" like that one time

(he was frothing about trade, but didn't know what "comparative advantage" was. snicker)

:)

and AGA: shame on you for that pathetic rendition of what you imagine is a midwestern way of talking. phui. shame. shame.

|12.22.05 @ 11:12AM|#

Check me out on the illegal immigration thread, Rich Ard. I totally kick freedom's ass!

Rich Ard|12.22.05 @ 11:12AM|#

Hm, maybe I should preview before I post. :)

|12.22.05 @ 11:13AM|#

and AGA: shame on you for that pathetic rendition of what you imagine is a midwestern way of talking. phui. shame. shame.

My dad and uncle and their whole family were Midwesterners, Ah reckon, VM. Hoosiers, no less.

|12.22.05 @ 11:13AM|#

"Could Selma Hayek and Penelope Cruz make a movie about lesbian cowgirls?
Hooowee!"

How do you expect me to work for the rest of the day?

Today's immigrants bring a strong work ethic, family values, tuberculosis and a Lifetime Membership in the Mara Salvatrucha.

|12.22.05 @ 11:15AM|#

"I also distrust any situation wherein someone says "These people are harming Society!" Because usually, the accusation "You are harming society" is bandied about when your accuser can't find a specific human being who is being harmed. "

http://www.escapingjustice.com

|12.22.05 @ 11:15AM|#

No, THIS is the illegal immigration thread. I kick freedom's ass on the WARRANTLESS SEARCH thread.

Goddammit. I need more coffee.

Rich Ard|12.22.05 @ 11:16AM|#

I figured I'd just wait until you caught that yourself. :) To the coffeepot!

|12.22.05 @ 11:16AM|#

Indiana, you say? I've heard that some parts of Indiana have a very Southern sound.

But in da upper Midwest, hey, we sound like a milder version of da people in dat movie Fargo.

VM|12.22.05 @ 11:17AM|#

then the rendition shoulda been better :)

|12.22.05 @ 11:19AM|#

I've heard that some parts of Indiana have a very Southern sound.

I can't really tell the difference between the accents of my paternal relatives (especially Uncle Steve) and the accents of the Southerners where I grew up. Except that Southerners don't generally say "Ah reckon," and Hoosiers don't say "y'all."

VM|12.22.05 @ 11:20AM|#

T:

kinda. you actually can hear the difference. central/western ohio has the same thing.

and it also depends on chicagoland indiana, or whereever.

and the industrial cities (cleveland, detroit, chicago) sound... well... hrumph.

and don't ferget how rural accents muddy things up.

|12.22.05 @ 11:35AM|#

Jennifer:

I would say public law breaking with the intent to change the law is civil disobedience, while other law breaking is just law breaking.

I agree with the examples you brought up. I wouldn�t expect someone to live in slavery or die for the sake of obeying the law. Judges should take mitigating factors into account. If someone breaks the speed limit to get a dying person to the hospital or immigrates illegally to escape persecution, I would wave the fine.

Still, in most cases people should obey the law even if they disagree with it, unless the law requires them to violate some one else�s rights or they are publicly protesting the law with civil disobedience. If you don�t believe in that principle, what criteria do you use to determine when someone should or shouldn�t obey the law?

|12.22.05 @ 11:37AM|#

Deputy March--

For some reason I can't get onto the Website you linked to; it will not load. But based on the name, 'escaping justice,' I would guess it has something to do with illegal immigrants on the lam from the police in their own countries? Well, being a fugitive from justice is a crime distinct from illegally immigrating. It's like people who complain "illegal immigrants broke into my house and stole stuff!" Breaking and entering is a totally different crime.

|12.22.05 @ 11:41AM|#

Still, in most cases people should obey the law even if they disagree with it, unless the law requires them to violate some one else�s rights or they are publicly protesting the law with civil disobedience. If you don�t believe in that principle, what criteria do you use to determine when someone should or shouldn�t obey the law?

So what person's rights are violated by the illegal immigrants for the simple act of immigrating? (As opposed to immigrants who come here and THEN commit actual crimes against people.)

And the criteria I use to determine whether or not to break the law is simple: if someone else will be harmed, don't do it. So obey the laws against theft and assault and murder, for example. But I'm not impressed by laws like "Don't take medication unless we say you can" or "whether or not you were born in this country is a very important aspect of your personality; if you were born elsewhere you probably don't deserve to be here."

Also, the "don't do harm" bit is waived in cases like "Helping a slave escape will harm the slaveowner."

fyodor|12.22.05 @ 11:49AM|#

If you don�t believe in that principle, what criteria do you use to determine when someone should or shouldn�t obey the law?

No offense, but this is one of those philosophical questions that only vaguely, indirectly, maybe have anything to do with reality. That's cause whatever WE decide the answer is, no one else is likely to care. The person faced with the decision whether or not to break the law isn't likely to give a whit what criteria we come up with. Well, maybe if enough people say something, then it might creep into the culture and into someone's conscience. Maybe. But yeah, I'd agree with Jennifer, if it hurts someone else, best defined in terms of violating someone's rights, then don't do. The same criteria a lot of us here use for defining what should and shouldn't be legal to begin with. I guess I'd go a little further and say if it might hurt someone, then maybe you should think twice about it. Like driving dangerously. Even though we all know that speed limits are largely arbitrary (and a good example of people ignoring the law when it suits them), considering that one's own cavalier attitude behind the wheel could potentially affect others besides oneself is...noble.

|12.22.05 @ 12:01PM|#

jtuf,
I agree that we should abide by laws, but, in a democracy, laws get made by majority opinion. What we're up to here on H&R is whittling away at many a majority.

|12.22.05 @ 12:07PM|#

Jennifer:

Let me clarify my position. My earlier paragraph was a bit wordy. For me, there are a few morals that are more important than obeying the law. These include:
1) Save dying people
2) Stop slavery
3) I shouldn?t harm others

If the law says I have to violate these morals, I would violate the law.

Otherwise I would either follow the law or protest it. People have different ways of judging right and wrong. I believe in libertarian principles, but I know many people who believe good ends justify violent means. If they judged for themselves which laws are worth following many would suffer at the hands of a few extremists. Some extremists would steal from them and give the stuff to ?more deserving? people. Others would force them to obey different religions ?for their own good?. Most people act fine even without laws, but I think we need strong laws to keep the few extremists from harming many people. So, I work within the legal system, because that same legal system tempers the extremists.

Besides if laws aren't enforced, there won't be any presure to change bad laws.

|12.22.05 @ 12:10PM|#

Anyway, at least we can all agree we need to change immigration laws to allow more legal immigrants.

|12.22.05 @ 12:13PM|#

Otherwise I would either follow the law or protest it.

But this forces people into two choices, neither of which may be acceptable to them: follow the law, or suffer legal consequences.

Think of, for instance, draftees who chose to flee to Canada rather than go to Vietnam. I don't see how I, or anyone else for that matter, would have to right to tell this person, "No! You must either go to Vietnam or go to jail (presumably, as opposed to taking a third option which would enable you to considerably reduce the amount of suffering you must endure)." Or tell a twenty-year-old, "Either don't drink alcohol at all, or else drink in full view of the cops and face the legal consequences!"

If you are willing to suffer to protest an unjust law, good for you. But I can't bring myself to mandate it.

Rich Ard|12.22.05 @ 12:17PM|#

See: Rational Anarchism.

Timothy|12.22.05 @ 12:24PM|#

I have no doubt that there are some people who would like to do a Reconquista of the Southwest.

Thoreau: Yeah, they're called MEChA and they exist on every major college campus in America. POR LA RAZA, TODO!

|12.22.05 @ 12:25PM|#

being a hoosier is a serious insult in this part of the midwest. that nasal-y sound drives me nuts. fourty = farty.

"go west on I-farty-far"

arrgh.

oh, and immigration should be easier.

The Wine Commonsewer|12.22.05 @ 12:25PM|#

Nick, great piece. Thanks.

On another note, you can follow the law, or protest it, or there is a third option, ignore it.

Like many of my bretheren I feel no guilt about ignoring unjust or stupid laws. We need more of it. There's no percentage in shoving it up some politicians ass, because then you're inviting grief with no gain for anyone.

Putting in a water heater without a permit isn't very romantic but it has a real effect on your well being and deprives the locals of some paperwork and a little cash that you can then use to take your kids to the movies.

Timothy|12.22.05 @ 12:29PM|#

TWC: That sounds like my feeling that it is never immoral to evade taxes.

|12.22.05 @ 12:29PM|#

Putting in a water heater without a permit isn't very romantic but it has a real effect on your well being and deprives the locals of some paperwork and a little cash that you can then use to take your kids to the movies.

TWC had a great example. For those of you who say "Either follow the law or protest it," do you think TWC should call City Hall and say "Ha ha, guys, I installed a water heater without asking you for permission first!" Is he somehow contributing to the injustice of the law by not doing so?

Rich Ard|12.22.05 @ 12:33PM|#

If he does, I think he should most certainly record the conversation and distribute it.

|12.22.05 @ 12:35PM|#

it may sound strange, and i haven't totally hammered out this theory - but i think that many laws are not really meant to be followed. not in an orthodox observant sort of way. people jaywalk in front of cops all of the time - but they don't really do anything about it.

the water heater is a great example too.

i don't think anyone really cares if anyone else observes or enforces many of the laws. i think they are there only to establish some sort of fault if something were to go wrong.

(say the water heater explodes in a fireball and burns down an entire city block and everyone sues the city because there shoulda been a law about installing hot water heaters - well now they can say they had one and it was ignored.)

that's my tentative theory anyway.

|12.22.05 @ 12:38PM|#

"Also, the "don't do harm" bit is waived in cases like "Helping a slave escape will harm the slaveowner.""

Just a quibble - the slaveowner committed the first act of aggression in your scenario, and is therefore in the wrong. You, as an individual moral agent, have every right to rescue the slave from the physical aggression initiated by the slaveowner, up to and including physically harming the slaveowner (of course you are individually responsible if you're mistaken about the circumstances and the slave actually turns out to be a voluntary employee).

What you don't have is the right to force others to fight the fight for you, whether by drafting them or taxing them. In either case, you become nothing more than the slaveowner yourself. Nor do you have the right to harm an innocent third party in your actions.

Warren|12.22.05 @ 12:59PM|#

Re: ignoring vs complying with bad law.
I'm torn. On the one hand, I just know there is no way on Zog's green earth I'm going to; drive the speed limit, withhold social security from the baby sitter, stop smoking pot.

On the other hand; The lottery tax (read speeding tickets) has sent my (state required) auto insurance premiums sky high. My neighbor's nanny got deported, her kids had to quit soccer and band. And my dealer, who was like this really cool guy with a totally awesome 150 gal. saltwater tank, is serving 5-10.

Bad laws need to be changed. Ignoring them lets me get on with leading my life. I vote Libertarian, hell I've even run for congress as a Libertarian, I comment on Hit and Run, that's about all I got in me. I'd like to do something more effective, but I don't see any opportunities. I'm going to go on ignoring the laws I don't like. I just think too many people don't understand the difference between what they don't bother to arrest you for and what's legal.

fyodor|12.22.05 @ 1:05PM|#

If they judged for themselves which laws are worth following many would suffer at the hands of a few extremists

You either missed my point or my entire post.

They do this ANYWAY!!!

Otherwise there'd be no law breakers and no extremists.

Best we can do is make and enforce laws so that people have some incentive to follow them. But they're still going to break them when it suits them. What you and I and Jennifer say about it is so much hot air. Except when we're either talking about ourselves or when we're talking about what laws to pass or not pass. Talking about when people should or shouldn't follow the law is about as futile and pointless as it gets. You just can't stop people from thinking for themselves and deciding for themselves what laws to follow and not and why, etc. Part and parcel of why we should only pass laws that should really be followed. Cause dumb laws get ignored the most and create criminals out of good people as well as creating zones of criminality where the laws that should be followed are more likely to be broken. But then, you know all that part....

|12.22.05 @ 1:07PM|#

You cannot just allow people into the US without significant restraint while still maintaining the huge welfare state apparatus. Libertarians should leave free-immigration to the end of the to-do items list.

fyodor|12.22.05 @ 1:10PM|#

Maybe we should pass a law defining under what circumstances people can ignore the law! :-)

VM|12.22.05 @ 1:11PM|#

;) outlining of course, when the law can't be ignored.

|12.22.05 @ 1:14PM|#

Libertarians should leave free-immigration to the end of the to-do items list.

I see your point, but opposition to rounding up millions of people should be very high on the list of priorities. So, if we strongly oppose rounding up millions of people, we have to decide what to do with them: Keep them underground, or bring them into the open? If kept underground, they are much less likely to call the police when robbed or beaten. They are much less likely to report thieves and rapists and other criminals in their midst. They are also more limited in their employment options, which means a bunch of people who are much poorer than they might otherwise be. Poverty tends to be associated with many other social ills.

Keeping people underground is decidedly un-libertarian, and tends to cause considerable pathologies for society.

|12.22.05 @ 1:17PM|#

And as far as the risk of immigrants bringing in disease: They're coming regardless. Even a lot of low-paying, low-skilled jobs have at least minimal health benefits. I'd rather not limit their employment options to jobs with no insurance benefits.

And if you think you can seal the border and keep them out, then I invite you to do an experiment: See if you can purchase some illegal drugs.

fyodor|12.22.05 @ 1:18PM|#

Dave,

Yeah, people make that argument a lot. But y'know, rights is rights. So it's partly a matter of whether you believe in rights for their own sake (or because you think extending rights to others creates a society or polity that helps to protect your own rights ultimately) or whether you only defend rights whose defense present you with a tangible or immediate benefit. Cause if people have the right to free movement, they have it whether there's a welfare state or not. By your logic we should never have extended the vote to blacks or women cause they're more likely to vote for welfare programs.

All that said, note that I said "partly." Restricting immigration is a bad thing for many of the same reasons welfare programs are bad. Because government programs generally create more problems than they solve. Notice that immigration restrictions do not stop immigration, they just make most immigrants illegal, which causes a lot of problems that wouldn't be there were they legal. So restricting immigration only adds to the problems we have with the welfare state.

|12.22.05 @ 1:22PM|#

Right, thoreau...making war on something that isn't really fightable in a war sorta way is about as un-libertarian as you can get. There are so many cost saving benefits both to legalising drugs and loosening immigration restrictions so these people can come and work here legally.

Of course, those cost saving benefits don't really benefit anyone but the marginalised, for the most part, which is why you won't see them realised easily. Unfortunately, benefitting the marginalised will eventually benefit everyone, but if you're greedy and already getting huge benefits from something (ie cheap illegal labour or a booming business seizing property from drug users/dealers), you're not going to be too interested in losing that advantage, even though it might be harmful in the long run.

fyodor|12.22.05 @ 1:27PM|#

;) outlining of course, when the law can't be ignored.

Well, I'd just ignore that!! :-)

|12.22.05 @ 1:28PM|#

I agree, Lowdog. And good to see you here again.

Another thought on immigration and crime: I wonder if immigrant communities would have as many criminal problems if more immigrants could do the following:

1) Come here without having to associate with smugglers.

2) Call the cops to report a crime without fear of deportation.

3) Enjoy a wider range of job opportunities, so they aren't stuck in the crappiest neighborhoods.

4) Legally purchase firearms to defend their homes against thugs in the neighborhood. (That's a little tricky if you have to fill out paperwork and you're here illegally.)

I threw in the last one because I know what a popular issue it is here.

The Wine Commonsewer|12.22.05 @ 1:29PM|#

There are two interesting things about the whole reconquista thing.

1. There weren't any Mexicans in Alta California or elsewhere in the southwest way back when. Otherwise Mexican food wouldn't be an ethnic food it would be standard fare like it is in, well, Mexico.

2. The proponents of the reconquista (including MEChA) ignore the fact that they are Mestizos (Viva la Raza) and that a big chunk of blood flowing through their veins is Anglo blood of the Conquistadors.


Two Cents Waiting For Change Regards, TWC

The Wine Commonsewer|12.22.05 @ 1:33PM|#

Downstater, you have a point. Or it may be that coupled with the average government worker's realization that some stuff is just plain petty, so they ignore it.

But there was that time when the city sent the dog catcher door to door looking for unlicensed dogs. As I was denying dog ownership my little dog wandered up to me wagging her tail. Pretty petty. I got them back though, they issued a three-year license for the price of a one-year license and then demanded I pay more the following year. I won.

The Wine Commonsewer|12.22.05 @ 1:36PM|#

Thanks guys, enjoyed all of your comments.

RichArd, I think a video would be better because then you could see the veins pop out on the code enforcement officers forehead when you chanted nanny, nanny, nannny, I put in a water heater and you can't stop me.

|12.22.05 @ 1:36PM|#

For me, there are a few morals that are more important than obeying the law. These include:
1) Save dying people
2) Stop slavery
3) I shouldn?t harm others

We're all slaves to the system! Frrrreeeeeddoooooommmmmm!!!!!!!!!! eh...yeah.

Warren|12.22.05 @ 1:37PM|#

thoreau,
Just so. The more I think about it the more similarities I find between our failed drug policy and our failed immigration policy. By making X into a crime, you turn everyone who does X into a criminal. All the money that changes hands over X could be boosting our economy but instead is financing organized crime. Not to mention all the other crimes the people who do X will now commit because you've turned them into criminals for doing X, but wouldn't have committed if they the could do X legally.

The Wine Commonsewer|12.22.05 @ 1:38PM|#

Warren, you make a good point as well. Part of the reason that things slide is because we're all busy. It is hard work to keep the grab-assing government out of your life and out of your pocket. Those people get paid to mess with you. And they are in that business because they want to mess with us. And we're busy with out jobs, families, and our lives.

The Wine Commonsewer|12.22.05 @ 1:42PM|#

Warren, the other comment, not the drug comment (...see the three trees?)

And it should have said busy with OUR families, jobs, and lives.

|12.22.05 @ 1:44PM|#

Warren, major thumbs up for running in an election. I�ve lead some political discussions and protested, but running for office is more than I can do. No one can commit 100% of their lives to fixing the government. We all have other commitments. Following my view on laws is one way I help. Other people help in other ways.

fyodor|12.22.05 @ 1:44PM|#

TWC,

Regarding your first point, I sure don't know enough about the history of the geography in question to say yay or nay. But I do hope you're joking about your explanation. Obviously the inhabitation of California has occurred primarily since the US takeover of the land. Thus US Americans are the majority and get to decide, culturally speaking, what's "ethnic" food or not. There were certainly Mexicans residing in much of what's now the US state of Colorado back when it was part of Mexico, but I don't think that keeps Mexican food from being looked at as "ethnic" by the majority of people currently living in those parts of the state.

Regarding your point #2, I don't know whether or not it's relevant to "reconquista" since that's a matter of political boundary rather than ethnic nationalism, but it is an interesting phenomenon that a people descended from BOTH a conquering group AND the group the aforementioned conquered would have such a strong sense of nationalism versus a neighboring group. I guess that's humans for ya.

Warren|12.22.05 @ 1:57PM|#

jtuf,
Running a zero-dollar, paper candidacy is no work. The week after 9/11 I showed up at the monthly meeting of the local LP and said "I'm afraid. I'm not afraid of terrorism, I'm afraid of my own government" and they said "Super, how'd you like to be treasurer". The following year was an election year. Our chairman was committed to having a candidate in every race, so pretty much everyone in the Party was running for something. Some guys didn't do anything but lend their name, but I filled out a questionnaire or two and showed up when invited (got my pic in the paper and was in a radio debate). Oh and one guy emailed me after reading my responses posted online by some informed voters organization. He was like "Are you serious, cuase that's just crazy" and I wrote him back with "I was being flip, but I'm not kidding. Check out more thorough and thoughtful elaborations on this at LP.org and Cato.org"

|12.22.05 @ 1:58PM|#

Here's a much longer version of DeConto hanging out with tree-farming immigrants in NC that ran a few weeks back in my local Creative Loafing.....

http://clnlb.us.publicus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051207/CHACOVER/512070373/-1/CHA&template=printart

|12.22.05 @ 2:13PM|#

"By making X into a crime, you turn everyone who does X into a criminal."

Warren,
Politicians have so much time and busybodiness on their hands, they have nothing better to do than create "crime" out of thin air.

|12.22.05 @ 2:14PM|#

Warren - my point exactly re: immigration and drugs (the illegal kind of both).

Unfortunately, people just don't seem to get it.

Ruthless - how right you are. And I hate them for it.

nofollow breaks blogs|12.22.05 @ 2:14PM|#

How to help immigration reform

It's important that liberals, libertarians, and business-friendly conservatives join forces on this issue.

Please support immigration reform!

Probably the best way to do that is to join with Mexico in their attempts to stop the building of the wall. Mexico has pledged to make sure that anyone in Mexico who wants to come here can do so.

Plus, they've got lots of money and they've already hired one American company to promote their plans. So, Reason and others might be able to get a piece of the pie. Contact your local Mexican consulate and tell them you want to help!

Support Mexico! Support immigration reform!

|12.22.05 @ 2:29PM|#

Americans would take those "backbreaking" jobs if their only two options were starve or work. Our welfare system promotes illegal immigration. Would the jobs exist for them if we actually made our own citizens work?

Timothy|12.22.05 @ 2:32PM|#

700 miles of wall won't do anything. It's purely a PR move to try and excite constituents.

The Wine Commonsewer|12.22.05 @ 2:57PM|#

Fyodor, course my comments are flippant, which likely annoyed somebody and now I'll likely be tagged as a racist.

I still think that if Mexican nationals had been the predominant ethnic group that their food would be the standard fare as it is in other places where latinos are the dominant group.

As I recall my history, prior to the gold rush there wasn't a whole lot of anybody anywhere in California or the rest of the SW. But, there were more Americans in Calfornia than Mexican nationals at the time of the acquisition. I think it was like 80 Americans, 10 Mexicans, 2 Canadians, a couple of thousand Indians, and a bunch of ababdoned missions. Mostly everybody got along.

My dad lives in a former gold rush town called Sonora. You can probably guess why it was named that. Then the Anglos got tired of competition from the Mexican miners so the town enacted a tax on foreigners. It didn't last long because the Mexicans sort of went on strike. Since they were the business class and the Anglos were mostly just miners, it pretty much shut the town down.

Amazing what market pressures can do about racism. Then again, it may not have even been racism, maybe it was just as simple as eliminating the competition by knee-capping them in the wallet.

|12.22.05 @ 2:57PM|#

Here I was, feeling snug in my blanket of libertarian moral superiority, when a true patriot came along and reminded me that our true enemy lies to the south. He waits. He plans.

"They will all eat refried beans soon," the Mexican snarls ...

The Wine Commonsewer|12.22.05 @ 3:13PM|#

Lonewacko, that story is going to piss people off, as well it should. However, Mexico's reaction to the wall isn't appropriate either.

The article claims that we in the US don't realize how much the idea of the wall pisses off Mexico. Hello, let's wake up and smell the coffee, Mexico doesn't realize how much mainstream America hates illegals. It is a caustic and near-universal hatred that crosses all socio-economic and racial lines and even extends into mainstream Mexican-American ethnic communities. I have worked with many ethnic Mexicans who don't like illegals. At best they see them depressing the wages scales because they are willing to work cheap. At worst they assign them to the untouchable caste.

Disclaimer, I'm one of 12 people in my state who is fine with open borders. Love to tie that to no social services but that ain't gonna happen.

The war is coming and it ain't going to be with Islam.

|12.22.05 @ 3:13PM|#

All the more reason to celebrate Festivus instead ! Bare Aluminum Poles smelted by Americans, drawn by Americans and sold by Americans.

But, seriously. . . make it pay more than bare-minimum wages, and you'll have American Citizens lining up for the job. OTOH, I'm sure that we can also build a machine to replace Buca, that WON'T be bringing illegal alien wives along having "anchor" children.

We don't need UNSKILLED labor, we need SKILLED Labor. . .

The Wine Commonsewer|12.22.05 @ 3:25PM|#

Fyodor, just one more beating on this dead horse. I do think the Atzlan movement (reconquista) is exactly ethnic nationalism. It is only a matter of political boundary because the proponents feel that the land was stolen from it's rightful owners a century and a half before they were born. I'm afraid that the Atzlan movement isn't open to those of Danish heritage, which makes it all the more a matter of ethnicity.

|12.22.05 @ 3:28PM|#

Illegal immigrants are the way out of setting an arbitrary minimum wage, below which no job could possibly be worth doing by real Americans. We've defined by law certain jobs to be beneath us. Uh. Hooray?

The Wine Commonsewer|12.22.05 @ 3:33PM|#

Sal,

We don't need UNSKILLED labor, we need SKILLED Labor. . .

I'm very passionate about immigration. Every person alive today in the US is here because at some point in the near or distant past a forebear immigrated here. We are a nation of immigrants.

Part of your comment is valid but the truth is we need skilled and unskilled labor. That's the pragmatic.

The moral is this: No government has the right to deny any person the opportunity to better his or her existence because he only knows how to pick strawberries.

Jesus Chrysler man, when my Old Man came to California the best job he could find was picking oranges. Should he have been denied entrance to this grand state because he wasn't a rocket scientist?

Yes, I guess I am shouting. Sorry.

The Wine Commonsewer|12.22.05 @ 3:35PM|#

Actually Jason, illegals are typically paid more than minimum wage. In my area the going rate is about $10.00 an hour plus lunch.

|12.22.05 @ 3:44PM|#

Most of us have evolved to the point where we know it's wrong to despise people for their race or gender or other such factors over which they have no control, yet many people will still discriminate against people based on where they were born.

I'm glad I'm an American, but I do not delude myself into thinking I am a superior being just because my mom's legs happened to be in this country when I emerged from between them.

|12.22.05 @ 3:52PM|#

"Mexico doesn't realize how much mainstream America hates illegals."

Rev. Commonsewer,
There's an additional issue: The lifeboat syndrome, namely the folks most up-in-arms about the legality of immigrants are the most recent immigrants.

grylliade|12.22.05 @ 4:19PM|#

i don't think anyone really cares if anyone else observes or enforces many of the laws. i think they are there only to establish some sort of fault if something were to go wrong.

I think that's how a lot of evangelicals, at least the ones I grew up with, look at sodomy laws. They want it to be illegal, because society shouldn't accept homosexuality, but they'd be pretty horrified if gays started actually going to jail for being gay. They don't think about the consequences of the law; they just think that what they think is wrong should be illegal, just on principle.

I'm certain that there are many, many people out there who wouldn't at all mind seeing gays go to jail. But I'd bet that the vast majority of evangelicals (and many fundamentalists) wouldn't want to see homosexuality be an imprisonable offense.

|12.22.05 @ 4:32PM|#

grylliade,
I declared myself an absolutist. That means I especially hate unenforceable laws.
Evidently we absolutists are a small minority.

|12.22.05 @ 5:49PM|#

It is actually fairly easy to fix our illegal immigration problem. The problem is not that "they are taking our jobs". The problem is that they are bankrupting us with infrastructure support for them. In California where I live, for example, many hospital emergency rooms have simply closed their doors because they have become the clinics for illegals who pay nothing for treatment. The schools are overcrowded because they are filled with the children of the illegals, and the bleeding hearts insist on bilingual education with the result that nobody really learns anything... etc, etc.

The US should deal with this issue in the exact same way that Mexico does: In Mexico, non-Mexicans, legal or not, are not treated in the "free" clinics, and children of non-Mexicans are not taught in Mexican public schools. All non-Mexicans have to pay their own way. This seems fair to me. The US should do the same thing.

The US should crack down on employers who hire illegals. If there were no free lunch here then the endless supply of impoverished immigrants would dry up.

|12.22.05 @ 6:11PM|#

If there were no free lunch here then the endless supply of impoverished immigrants would dry up.

you are operating on the assumption that a "free lunch" is the impetus for illegal immigration. as illegal immigrants contribute more to our institutions than they ultimately consume, it is a false assumption at that.

|12.22.05 @ 6:13PM|#

Maybe I'm just sappy, but I like the idea expressed in Lazarus' "The New Colossus":

"Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Jennifer's point about how much we wouldn't save by rounding up all of the "illegals" was good. But to nit-pick on another of her many excellent points, I think there is an indirect way that "illegals" harm the rights of our current residents: when they make claims on our welfare system. That's money the government stole from us. But that's not really an immigration problem, it's a welfare state problem.

Anyway, we like open borders, we need the immigrants and migrants, and it's wrong and hypocritical to try so hard to keep them out. So we favor change. Good. But, as botched up as our current immigration laws are, we shouldn't forget that under them, thousands of people have been figuratively standing on the INS's lines for years trying to get here "by the book." Somehow, I want these people to get in first, before all of the current "illegals."

Whatever we do, the paperwork had better be minimal, because the INS can't keep up with the moderate flow of "legals" now. As long as we have a welfare state here, it seems reasonable that there sould be some way to ensure that our new residents, like the rest of us, won't be able to defraud the govt. out of duplicate benefits. They should need as much ID as the rest of those who now make claims.

I agree with Dave's observation that open borders are incompatible with a welfare state. The borders have to be closed enough that you pretty much know who's here, don't they? Or do we hope that the welfare chaos ensuing from open borders would finally bring the welfare programs to their knees? And how much money would be wasted until the bureaucrats got the message?

|12.22.05 @ 6:20PM|#

I'm glad I'm an American, but I do not delude myself into thinking I am a superior being just because my mom's legs happened to be in this country when I emerged from between them.

Jennifer, you talk mighty pretty sometimes.

That kind of reminds me of a neat quote from Rose Wilder Lane, although she waxes geographical rather than OB/GYNical:

(For those unfamiliar with Lane, she uses "Revolution" to refer to the revolution in freedom and prosperity.)

"On Patriotism: I do not go into rhapsodies about `my country,' its rocks and rills, its super highways and wooded hills.... This whole world is almost unbearably beautiful; why should I love Oak Creek Canyon or California's beaches or Washington's Sea Island counties any more than the Bocca di Cattaro or Delphi or the Bosphorus? Because *I*, me, the great RWL, was born in the Dakota Territory? The logic seems weak, somehow, don't you feel? My attachment to these USA is wholly, entirely, absolutely to The Revolution, the real world revolution, which men began here and which has -- so to speak -- a foothold on earth here. If reactionaries succeed in destroying the revolutionary structure of social and political human life here, I care no more about this continent than about any other. If I lived long enough I would find and join the revival of the Revolution wherever it might be in Africa or Asia or Europe, the Arctic or Antarctic. And let this country go with all the other regimes that collectivism has wrecked and eliminated since history began. So much for patriotism, mine."

|12.22.05 @ 6:33PM|#

Stevo, the more contemptuous I am, the more vulgarity I use. At least here.

Believe it or not, I can be an amazing diplomat when I so choose.

The Wine Commonsewer|12.22.05 @ 6:33PM|#

stevo, that's a keeper, just cut and pasted to my quote file. Thanks.

|12.22.05 @ 6:35PM|#

"you are operating on the assumption that a "free lunch" is the impetus for illegal immigration."

No, actually I think most immigrants, legal and illegal are not coming here for the free lunch, it is just that they help themselves when it is there for the taking. That is our problem though, and as I said we should close the diner. What is fair for Mexico is fair for America.

"as illegal immigrants contribute more to our institutions than they ultimately consume, it is a false assumption at that."

My guess is that you are not from California, or anywhere in the southwest where all those "contributions" are being made. Oh geez, I just looked out my window and realized that we are rich from all those contributions. What was I thinking?

The Wine Commonsewer|12.22.05 @ 6:37PM|#

Cracker & Downer, yer both right. The primary benefit illegals contribute is to the feds while the costs are incurred by local government. The problem is overplayed of course, but it still exists. It also looks worse because most people assume that any poor person with dark skin in the waiting room at the county hospital is illegal when, in fact, they mostly aren't.

|12.22.05 @ 6:48PM|#

I think there is an indirect way that "illegals" harm the rights of our current residents: when they make claims on our welfare system. That's money the government stole from us. But that's not really an immigration problem, it's a welfare state problem.

Plus it's kind of icky for a libertarian to use the exact same argument that's used to outlaw smoking and proto-meth cold medicine and Everything For The Children.

Icky, icky, icky.

|12.22.05 @ 7:17PM|#

Here is one of the few areas that I think Libertarianism is off its rocker.
Perhaps it is my sociological training but I think culture is very important, and that it is somewhat delicate. To have mass immigration threatens our culture, which has as much a right as any culture to thrive, exist and protect itself. All the cultural institutions we grew up will change. If we as a people want that we should vote accordingly. But I don't, and I think most don't. Remember, we are not talking about imposing American culture on Mexico, just keeping American culture distinct from being changed.
I also think immigration damages the poor, for it is they that they undercut.
Lastly, I think if we have laws against illegal immigration we should enforce them. Sillly me.

|12.22.05 @ 7:44PM|#

Culture and borders are twins of straw. I do not worry my pretty head about either. They are beneath me as a concern, things I am unable to do anything about or both.

|12.22.05 @ 8:37PM|#

Pardon my taking a few liberties with Ken's post but reading it I couldn't help but wonder what the principal difference would be between what he wrote and the following: (my very few alterations in [brackets and bold]).

Here is one of the few areas that I think Libertarianism is off its rocker.
Perhaps it is my sociological training but I think culture is very important, and that it is somewhat delicate. To [abolish Jim Crow laws] threatens our culture, which has as much a right as any culture to thrive, exist and protect itself. All the cultural institutions we grew up will change. If we as a people want that we should vote accordingly. But I don't, and I think most don't. Remember, we are not talking about imposing [Southern] culture on [the North] , just keeping [Southern] culture distinct from being changed.
I also think [abolishing Jim Crow] damages the poor, for it is they that [blacks] undercut.
Lastly, I think if we have [Jim Crow laws] we should enforce them. Sillly me.

So, on the one hand we have people who, purely through chance, were born black instead of white and we recognize that it is wrong to treat people differently based on such a trivial difference.

On the other hand we have people who, purely through chance, were born on one side of an arbitrary and imaginary line instead of the other, but in this case that trivial difference allows us to discriminate in order to save our culture?

I say it is immoral to treat people differently based on accidents of birth. Consequentialist arguments, such as Ken's, that claim something will destroy our culture are no more valid when used against people born in another country than when used against African Americans because even if true, maintaining the culture is immoral. Culture must give way to basic morality. Moreover, the mere fact that the identical argument he makes is so unquestionably wrong in terms of African Americans, even if it were true, logically proves that it is worthless in the present case. In other words even if we totally accept the (dubious) premises as absolutely true, the argument still fails to convince us in the case with African Americans so it cannot succeed in the case with immigrants. What is needed is non-consequetialist reason for why immigrants should be treated differently - or a principled difference.

In the end, that argument fails for the reason that culture is not some entity to be preserved - it is the sum total of our individual behavior, beliefs and interactions with each other on a macroscopic scale. Simply saying culture is worth protecting is utterly wrong because it ignores the very individual behavior, beliefs and interactions that create it. The examination of the morality of that behavior cannot be glossed over and avoided by appealing to the desire to "protecting our culture." It didn't work in South Africa, it didn't work in Nazi Germany, it didn't work with slavery or Jim Crow laws, it shouldn't work in the Middle East with regards to the treatment of women, and it won't work here.

|12.22.05 @ 8:38PM|#

Ken,

Cultures don't have rights. Persons have rights. I think cultures are more governed by markets. And I wouldn't want to live in a place where the majority was *always* able to vote for and get what it wants. (Although sometimes, I wonder if we're headed toward such a place.)

CrackerBarrel

|12.22.05 @ 9:50PM|#

Jennifer:

Stevo, the more contemptuous I am, the more vulgarity I use. At least here.

Yes. But I was sincerely admiring. That was nicely put.

Believe it or not, I can be an amazing diplomat when I so choose.

I suspect you can apply sweet or sour as judiciously as any Chinese chef.

(I stole that metaphor from somebody; I foget who.)

|12.22.05 @ 10:02PM|#

(I stole that metaphor from somebody; I foget who.)

foget who almost so good dim sum. Not so good poo poo platter

Robert Cote|12.22.05 @ 11:18PM|#

Hey, this is so cool. Can I have everybody's address that thinks property rights are morally indefensible so I can come over and share "our" mutual possessions? What? Cannot societies have a commons? You know as in tragedy of the...? Great, making progress. Now, what about granting special access to those commons? Like say letting some people use/abuse those commons by virtue of their stated and revealed disdain for the rule of law? That's what we do now. There are census blocks in Los Angeles were 90% of the vehicles are either uninsured, unregistered or operated by an unliscienced driver or some combination thereof. Think about the injustice of having to pay for uninsured motorist coverage next time you write that check. Illegal immigration is the broken window syndrome of crime prevention. Just as letting broken windows and grafitti go unanswered illegal immigration sufficiently erodes societal values to the point where the secondary impacts are unacceptable even if the original crime was "minor."

|12.22.05 @ 11:34PM|#

Can I have everybody's address that thinks property rights are morally indefensible so I can come over and share "our" mutual possessions?

Sure, I'd be glad to help you out. Below I have listed the names and addresses of everyone here who thinks property rights are morally indefensible:

|12.23.05 @ 12:01AM|#

"(I stole that metaphor from somebody; I foget who.)"

foget who almost so good dim sum. Not so good poo poo platter

ROR!

fyodor|12.23.05 @ 1:35AM|#

illegal immigration sufficiently erodes societal values

Blah, blah...

Aside from the fact that people have been moving around the world from time immemorial and we still have plenty of societal values left, once again I point out (as others have) that the vast majority of problems associated with illegal immigration is due to the 'illegal' part, not the 'immmigration' part. Thus the simplest way to address those problems is to allow more immigration to be legal.

Lastly, I think if we have laws against illegal immigration we should enforce them. Sillly me.

Perhaps so. But the problem is that the current quotas are so low compared to the demand that they are unrealistic and largely unenforceable. Again, the best solution is to allow more folks in legally.

That said, I realize that does not address your desire to protect the 'rights' of our culture. Ha ha ha, the rights of our culture. You have the inalienable right to practice whatever culture you damn well choose to. Just as everyone else does. You have no right to disallow people to come near you because they practice a different culture. Any questions?

Robert Cote|12.23.05 @ 2:19AM|#

illegal immigration sufficiently erodes societal values

Blah, blah...

See? Exactly, you don't even see the need to remain civil when merely talking about the subject. Classic eroded social values. Imagine the decadence in the streets when exposed to the real thing.

|12.23.05 @ 2:42AM|#

"I also think immigration damages the poor, for it is they that they undercut."

Assuming that immigration does hurt the poor Ken, it only hurts relatively poor Americans while helping foreigners who are actually poor. So if you're for helping those that are truly poor (and not just engaging in a petty tribalist type argument against immigration) then you should favor letting all poor foreigners into the country that want to come and work.

|12.23.05 @ 4:25AM|#

My guess is that you are not from California, or anywhere in the southwest where all those "contributions" are being made. Oh geez, I just looked out my window and realized that we are rich from all those contributions. What was I thinking?

Funny, I look outside my CA window and see a vibrant economy and a relatively high standard of living. Glass half empty/full?

The primary benefit illegals contribute is to the feds while the costs are incurred by local government. The problem is overplayed of course, but it still exists.

This plays out a lot like the Wal Mart issue. A new Walmart kills small mom and pop businesses, but offers better prices overall. Similarly, the cost of illegal immigration isn't zero. However, consider the cost to business, passed on to customer, of damn near every good and service touched by illegal labor.

It also looks worse because most people assume that any poor person with dark skin in the waiting room at the county hospital is illegal when, in fact, they mostly aren't.

And there are a LOT of dark skinned folks in places like CA of different legal status. Also consider how many folks of legal status don't have medical insurance, for which the county hospital becomes Primary Care.

Here is one of the few areas that I think Libertarianism is off its rocker.
Perhaps it is my sociological training but I think culture is very important, and that it is somewhat delicate. To have mass immigration threatens our culture, which has as much a right as any culture to thrive, exist and protect itself. All the cultural institutions we grew up will change. If we as a people want that we should vote accordingly.

Don't get all French on us now. ;)

|12.23.05 @ 8:21AM|#

I wonder, with the holidays coming up, will those who believe the nation is an arbitrary line give as many presents to complete strangers as you do your family? I mean, the fact that some people JUST HAPPENED to be born outside the arbitrary line that is your family and friends should not hamper them...Silly me, but I think we should take care of the poor members of our national family before we take care of the poor of other families. Not that the latter are not as important, but the former are ours.
Perhaps cultures do not have rights, but perhaps those individuals who live in and create them have the right to preserve them. This does not mean they should preserve elements of their culture like Jim Crow that are evil. But they have the right not to have their culture obliterated, which is what immigration is doing now.
Someone brought up broken windows. Excellent. There are other sociological reasons to think that people are not atomistic individuals with no use for common culture.

Rich Ard|12.23.05 @ 8:42AM|#

"Illegal immigration is the broken window syndrome of crime prevention."

Maybe we'd better make a door than a window?

|12.23.05 @ 9:13AM|#

Ken,
Culture just happens.
Anything you do to try to make it happen in a way that appeals to you will only fuck it up.

|12.23.05 @ 10:14AM|#

My guess is that you are not from California, or anywhere in the southwest where all those "contributions" are being made.

i wasn't aware that one must reside in the southwest in order to benefit from the contributions made by illegal immigrants. i also wasn't aware that illegal immigrants stop moving when they get to california. nope, no illegal immigrants in cities like chicago or in rural midwestern chicken plants. the whole "you gotta be here to understand" stance is just b.s.

Oh geez, I just looked out my window and realized that we are rich from all those contributions. What was I thinking?

good question. i have never said that illegal immigration is not without costs, but shecky says it best in that it's a glass half empty/half full situation in which the costs are such a hang up for some that they are willing to eliminate the overwhelming benefits just to stop incurring them.

the idea that eliminating welfare will eliminate illegal immigration is specious since it is not the welfare that they are here for. if you agree and that they just take it because it's offered, well, we can say that for anyone on welfare and i really don't see how that is pertinent to immigration other than to serve as a diversion on the issue.

|12.23.05 @ 10:18AM|#

A century ago, two illiterate shoe makers from southern Italy, a father and son, were let into this country. The son had a son, who finished high school, served his country as an Army officer in WWII, and then went to college.

During the war, that son met a woman from the Pacific Northwest. She was a nurse and commissioned officer in the US Army. During the Depression, her parents moved back and forth between the US and Canada, going where ever they had to go to find work. They didn't respect the sovereignty or cultural integrity of either country, they simply went to whatever town had work. Some of their kids were born subjects of the Queen, and some were born citizens of our Republic.

The woman who married that soldier was actually born a subject of the Queen, but the US was more than happy to accept her as a citizen when she volunteered to serve in the Army.

Those people were my grandparents on my mother's side. That's right, I'm the product of, on one side, illiterate immigrants who didn't know a word of English, and on another side people who didn't give a shit about borders and only cared about finding work.

Maybe America would be better off if I was deported. Clearly it was a bad idea to let my ancestors in.

|12.23.05 @ 10:19AM|#

I wonder, with the holidays coming up, will those who believe the nation is an arbitrary line give as many presents to complete strangers as you do your family?

i spent $190 on family this year and $150 on adopted families and charities.

i spent more on my wife, but my marriage is not an arbitrary relationship.

|12.23.05 @ 10:29AM|#

The "illegal immigrants destroy our culture" is one of the funniest arguments yet. I could maybe see that coming from someplace like France, i.e., a place that actually HAS had a relatively continuous, homogenous culture for a long time, but America? No. Other countries are like solid-color blankets; America is a giant patchwork quilt. And every generation new pathces in cool shapes and colors are added.

Every aspect of our current culture that you want to protect right now was considered a threat to our culture a generation or so ago. The only thing consistent has been the Constitution, and when it comes to the possible destruction of the Constitution, illegal immigrants frighten me far less than those who would propose draconian measures to deal with them.

VM|12.23.05 @ 11:22AM|#

hear hear, Jennifer.

And Thoreau, my friend: that is one helluva story. have you visited the place in It.?

"Maybe America would be better off if I was deported. Clearly it was a bad idea to let my ancestors in."

why? did your grandparents hate america as much as you?

(but that is an amazing tale! wow!)

but how about this: we keep the grandparents and deport you to michigan. is that hokae?

:)

|12.23.05 @ 11:30AM|#

VM-

There's nothing particularly amazing about my tale. We are a nation of immigrants, and most people in my generation have grandparents who served in WWII.

My family's story is a typical one. My ancestors came looking for better jobs, just like anybody else's. I can think of no reason to keep out people like my ancestors.

|12.23.05 @ 11:31AM|#

Actually, looking at some of my cousins, maybe there are good reasons to keep out people like my ancestors....

:)

Robert Cote|12.23.05 @ 12:13PM|#

Jennifer, please cite the instance you QUOTE as "illegal immigrants destroy our culture." It is the lowest form of rebuttal to mischaracterize the opposing viewpoint. Immigrants of all variety add to our culture, alter our culture but no one is claiming destroy. Mere hyperbole to bolster your attacks on the person rather than respond to the content. I sit in traffic exacerbated by persons who do not have insurance, registraion, licienses. I pay more in insurance as a consequence. My healthcare is more expensive, slower and of lower quality because necessary emergency services are misused by people immune to the consequenses of their behavior. The money I pay for my children's education is misdirected to preferentially enhance their general quality of life. The Feds don't do anything because California gets 78 cents back for every dollar they send to D.C. Much of the difference being "free" federal money obviously.

Opening the door to legal immigration won't help. That would involve lowering the standards of self sufficiency, health and such. Are you honestly advocating we welcome TB carriers? Even the healthy hard working honest arrivals will proceed to violate our basic laws such as zoning. Oxnard, CA is one of the most overcrowded cities in the nation. Make no mistake the overcrowding affects everyone not just those doubling up families in a single garage. There are 10,000 Mixteca in the city that are worse than illiterate. Meaning they don't even speak Spanish! Suddenly our county healthcare network is employing 20 interpreters. Remember that when paying taxes or medical premiums. My life is directly, blatantly and negatively impacted by a deliberate flouting of laws designed to protect me. Your answer appears to be that since the laws are not being enforced get rid of the laws. Or maybe you wish to lead by example and pay the uninsured motorist coverage portion of my next auto insurance bill? I know, the St. Johns Regional Medical Center is always looking for patrons. Would you like the address to where you can send your tax deductible contribution? Oh, I see... the light begins to dawn. You like the laws that protect -your- property and you like the ignoring of laws that purportedly advance -your- condition. This is about being generous with other peoples' assets. You, you... you Democrat!

|12.23.05 @ 12:20PM|#

Jennifer, please cite the instance you QUOTE as "illegal immigrants destroy our culture."

Here ya go:

Perhaps it is my sociological training but I think culture is very important, and that it is somewhat delicate. To have mass immigration threatens our culture, which has as much a right as any culture to thrive, exist and protect itself. All the cultural institutions we grew up will change. . . . . Remember, we are not talking about imposing American culture on Mexico, just keeping American culture distinct from being changed.

Comment by: Ken at December 22, 2005 07:17 PM

Of course, you were right in a way about my misquote; it wasn't illegal immigrants, but just "immigrants," period, who are supposedly destroying our culture.

Robert Cote|12.23.05 @ 1:48PM|#

And Jennifer, the difference between "destroy" and "threaten" is? Come on, be an adult. You got caught. Fess up. You provided a quote with hot button word that no one has used. You wouldn't stand for it if it happened to you. Now, with your attempt at hyperbole dispensed with what happened to your reply to the other 95% of my comments? We don't allow the mentally ill to wander the streets unsupervised because they are a threat to themselves and society. These people, these illegal immgrants are equally ill equiped to function in our society. The rate of pedestrian traffic injuries in Oxnard is one of the highest inthe nation. Same for railroad accidents. Sexually transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancies, whooping cough run rampant because these people are unable to avail of the existing infrastructure in place for public health issues. It is a moral imperative to remove them from these dangers and at the same time reduce the danger to society in general.

|12.23.05 @ 2:05PM|#

And Jennifer, the difference between "destroy" and "threaten" is?

Christ, talk about hairsplitting, Robert. When Ken said immigrants "threaten" our culture, what do you think he meant? They're threatening to make out culture better? When Ken said our culture should "protect itself," what do you think he wants protection against?

As for other bits of your rant:

My healthcare is more expensive, slower and of lower quality because necessary emergency services are misused by people immune to the consequenses of their behavior.

Yes, like American citizens who smoke cigarettes, ride motorcycles, climb trees, eat junk food. . . . it's not just illegal immigrants who run up such costs. And using force of law to drive these costs down is antithetical to freedom.

Sexually transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancies, whooping cough run rampant because these people are unable to avail of the existing infrastructure in place for public health issues

Wait a minute--I thought you were pissed off because they were availing themselves of the public-health infrastructure? Which is it?

Are you honestly advocating we welcome TB carriers?

Where did I say that?

I sit in traffic exacerbated by persons who do not have insurance, registraion, licienses. I pay more in insurance as a consequence.

There are plenty of American citizens who also lack car insurance. However, if the illegal immigrants became legal, then they would have the option of buying insurance, and presumably your premiums would go down.

Even the healthy hard working honest arrivals will proceed to violate our basic laws such as zoning. Oxnard, CA is one of the most overcrowded cities in the nation. Make no mistake the overcrowding affects everyone not just those doubling up families in a single garage.

I don't support residential zoning laws, only laws to zone certain types of dangerous businesses, so the fact that they're violating said laws does not bother me.

|12.23.05 @ 2:13PM|#

And Jennifer, the difference between "destroy" and "threaten" is?

Not much in this case. What do you think "threaten" and "protect itself" implies? Protect itself from what? Do you think he meant protect itself from being enhanced by all the talent and creativity brought by the new immigrants? Besides, "change" in culture implies "destroy" in the way it was used. If our culture changes to be something radically different, as those anti-immigration people imply, do you think they will not believe that is was destroyed? We all know what that paragraph meant. Come on, don't be obtuse.

|12.23.05 @ 2:22PM|#

There are 10,000 Mixteca in the city that are worse than illiterate. Meaning they don't even speak Spanish!

We should require all immigrants to learn Spanish!

:)

|12.23.05 @ 2:23PM|#

Come to think of it, my Italian ancestors didn't even speak Spanish either.

If not speaking one of the two major languages of CA constitutes a reason to bar somebody from entering the country, should we bar other immigrants whose native language isn't Spanish or English?

Adios, Arnold.

|12.23.05 @ 2:39PM|#

I wonder, with the holidays coming up, will those who believe the nation is an arbitrary line give as many presents to complete strangers as you do your family?

That is just silly. When you know someone personally, whether it is family or friends or coworkers or even just acquaintances, and you know something about them, it is not immoral to prefer to be around, help, give gifts to, have sex with (well in the case of friends - family, besides a wife/husband, not so much) etc. etc. that person to the exclusion of others. If however, you were handing out presents to strangers and you only handed them out to whites and skipped African-Americans, you would be acting immorally. The same is true if your choice of which strangers to shower with your generosity was based on any other accident of birth.

The point of the argument is that when the only difference between person A and person B is an accident of birth and they are otherwise strangers to you personally, to create a policy that favors person A over person B based solely on that accident of birth is immoral.

This does not mean they should preserve elements of their culture like Jim Crow that are evil But they have the right not to have their culture obliterated, which is what immigration is doing now.

But you have given no reason why treating blacks differently is distinct from treating someone born in another country differently so you are just undermining your own argument. If the argument does not work in case A and you can offer no meaningful distinction between case A and B, it won't work in case B. So repeating an appeal to "protecting culture" after that argument has been destroyed isn't going to help the case.

|12.23.05 @ 2:44PM|#

Jennifer, please cite the instance you QUOTE as "illegal immigrants destroy our culture."

Oops, I see from above that Jennifer did a better job fine job of defending her use of "destroy" before I posted. But to add to it here is another quote from Ken:

But they have the right not to have their culture obliterated, which is what immigration is doing now.

Hey Robert, is "obliterate" close enough to "destroy" for you?

|12.23.05 @ 4:53PM|#

Look, all that the immigration foes want is for government agents to round up the millions of people who grow our food and ship them across the border. What could possibly go wrong with that?

If it's okay for people to be brought to this country to work in the fields, then why was there such an uproar against slavery in the 1860's?

|12.23.05 @ 5:21PM|#

Brian-I think we should treat strangers well, and that includes immigrants. However I don't let strangers drive my car and sleep in my house either. We owe foriegners decency, not citizenship in our nation. Blacks in the South were citizens, second class ones for no good reason. Apples and oranges here Brian (or as you put it A and B).I also happen to think that nations that do not have a common culture simply will not do well.
Jennifer-Actually our nation has had a fairly homogenous tradition. Up until the 1965 tinkering with the immigration laws the nation was about 90%+ Christian and culturally 'Western.' Even today vast pockets of America are about 95% homogenous.

|12.23.05 @ 5:21PM|#

If it's okay for people to be brought to this country to work in the fields, then why was there such an uproar against slavery in the 1860's?

Well, the slaves weren't free to leave the country if they didn't like their working conditions, and the illegal immigrants don't generally come here against their will.

But you're right in your implication as to why this guest-worker program for manual laborers is a bad idea: I don't think it would be healthy for a democracy or "free" country to have a legally mandated worker-class of disposable non-citizens. A lot of European countries tried that, and it's causing them serious problems.

|12.23.05 @ 5:24PM|#

Actually our nation has had a fairly homogenous tradition. Up until the 1965 tinkering with the immigration laws the nation was about 90%+ Christian and culturally 'Western.

Even assuming this is so, are you saying that Catholic Mexicans of Spanish cultural descent are non-Christian and non-Western?

However I don't let strangers drive my car and sleep in my house either.

Nobody is asking you to let illegal immigrants into your house, car or anything else you own.

|12.23.05 @ 5:34PM|#

If it's okay for people to be brought to this country to work in the fields, then why was there such an uproar against slavery in the 1860's?

I'll give you a huge benefit of the doubt, though it is probably not justified, and assume you misunderstood thoreau's point. Please tell me you don't think anyone is talking about people being "brought to this country to work in the fields." He was criticizing the idea that those millions of hardworking people should be rounded up and deported back to their country of origin and pointing out that such a policy could have terrible consequences for all of us who benefit greatly from the immigrants work (sorry thoreau for attempting to explain your perfectly clear point - hope I did it justice).

|12.23.05 @ 5:47PM|#

Brian, I thought Tom was referring to Bush's proposal to allow immigrants in to work the shit jobs Americans won't do for such low wages?

|12.23.05 @ 6:04PM|#

Brian, I thought Tom was referring to Bush's proposal to allow immigrants in to work the shit jobs Americans won't do for such low wages?

Jennifer, well perhaps but it didnt' seem that way because he was responding to thoreau's point:

Look, all that the immigration foes want is for government agents to round up the millions of people who grow our food and ship them across the border. What could possibly go wrong with that?

But maybe I misunderstood him and/or there's a double misunderstanding in there somewhere.

|12.23.05 @ 6:24PM|#

Jennifer-I think my country more important than my car and house.
Yes, Mexicans are Christian and somewhat Western. But Spain was always a little different than the rest of Europe and is still considered so today. I mean, Spain just adopted democracy and such a little while ago...And how much Spain westernized Mexico is something of a doubt.
Brian-As to the slave South, I would think having non-citizens living in your nation permantly is rather absurd, and I think Americans saw that and thus extended citizenship to slaves. After that the moral thing to do was to extend full citizenship rights to them.
I think citizenship is rather important and not arbitrary. I would say citizenship reflects a respect for a nation's laws, traditions, and culture. Thus a person becomes part of the social compact that makes a society. This is easier when nation=culture (what we used to mean when talking about a "people"). Illegal immigrants strike me as violating respect for the first of the trio of values I mentioned by their very definition. And I would doubt how many people are coming here out of respect for our laws, traditions and culture.
Certain values must be shared for our experiment in limited government, checks and balances, rights, etc. to work. Take a look south of the border and see if these values have been realized. Methinks thats a warning sign...
Lastly, why is a family less arbitrary than a nation? You did not choose your cousins and brothers, yet I bet you think you owe them more than others.

|12.23.05 @ 6:34PM|#

"(In recent times it has been fashionable to talk of the levelling of nations, of the disappearance of different races in the melting-pot of contemporary civilization. I do not agree with this opinion, but its discussion remains another question. Here it is merely fitting to say that the disappearance of nations would have impoverished us no less than if all men had become alike, with one personality and one face. Nations are the wealth of mankind, its collective personalities; the very least of them wears its own special colours and bears within itself a special facet of divine intention.)"
Alexandr Solzhenitsyn
Having culturally distinct nations gives us a rich and great heterogenity, one which I should think would be more popular with Libertarians. Unrestricted immigration would mean an end to that. Instead we'd all live in Blade Runner.

|12.23.05 @ 6:35PM|#

You did not choose your cousins and brothers, yet I bet you think you owe them more than others.

I have some cousins that I don't give a flying fuck about. I never see them, and, to be honest, I don't want to see them. I also have some cousins who I like a lot.

Meanwhile, I have a friend whose wife is barred, by law, from working. She's a talented artist and graphic designer. But she was born in China and hence needs to jump through a bunch of hoops before our government will permit her to work. To be honest (and I don't give a flying fuck if the INS is reading this), if I needed some graphic design work done (say, for personalized Christmas cards) I'd probably hire her under the table. She's talented, I like her as a person due to the time I've spent hanging out with her, and it's my money.

Maybe I'll do that next year, in fact. Just my way of fighting The Man.

What harm will befall you if I pay my friend's wife to design some Christmas card? If you can show me what harm will befall you, and how that harm will disappear after she gets a work visa, I won't hire her to do any work until she gets permission. I wouldn't want to hurt you, after all.

|12.23.05 @ 6:37PM|#

I think citizenship is rather important and not arbitrary. I would say citizenship reflects a respect for a nation's laws, traditions, and culture. Thus a person becomes part of the social compact that makes a society.

Oh, really? So what exactly did you do to demonstrate that you had the proper respect to get your citizenship?

Yes, Mexicans are Christian and somewhat Western. But Spain was always a little different than the rest of Europe and is still considered so today.

Holy Christ. You realize that back in the nineteenth century anti-immigration people were making similar observations about the Irish and Italians, right? And a lot of our Pure American Culture you want to protect comes from those people who were viewed as dangerously alien a century or so ago.

Certain values must be shared for our experiment in limited government, checks and balances, rights, etc. to work. Take a look south of the border and see if these values have been realized. Methinks thats a warning sign...

Take a look inside the Beltway and see if those values have been realized these past few years. That argument makes no sense; it's not the Mexican corrupt government officials who are coming here, to run the government for low wages.

I think my country more important than my car and house.

You do not own your country the way you own your car or house, and I wish you'd stop making these specious comparisons, as though there's no difference between a Mexican working on a farm and a Mexican breaking into your house.

This is easier when nation=culture (what we used to mean when talking about a "people").

Please explain exactly what are the details of this American culture of which you speak? What type of music do we listen to? What kind of food do we eat? What are our common living arrangements?

No, wait, don't bother, because for every answer you give there are a thousand more answers possible, thousands of different little funky subcultures and ethnicities and everything thrown together. We can absorb more--we always have, and our culture has always been in the habit of morphing into something bigger and richer every generation.

|12.23.05 @ 6:43PM|#

You know, Ken's argument seems to boil down to "Those Mexicans will just ruin this place. We'd better make them jump through a bunch of hoops before we let them in."

And why will they ruin this place? "Um, because they're Mexican."

Got it. I have nothing more to say to you on this matter.

|12.23.05 @ 7:10PM|#

Would you guys believe that one of my mother's co-workers was recently talking smack about Irish Catholics?

My mother simply said "My son married an Irish Catholic." The co-worker fell all over herself to explain that she's not actually a bigot, she just meant that....you know the rest.

|12.23.05 @ 7:17PM|#

Your mother's co-worker isn't a bigot, Thoreau; she's just trying to protect our Pure American Culture. I mean, don't get me wrong--I have nothing against the Irish, but you know that Ireland hasn't had much of a history in terms of being a peaceful, self-governing democracy. So it follows that an Irish person can't possibly have a clue how to behave in a peaceful, self-governing democracy, and if we let too many of 'em in our country will fall.

|12.23.05 @ 7:20PM|#

Come to think of it, maybe my one-eighth-Irish part of me is why I keep flouting the drug laws.

|12.23.05 @ 7:47PM|#

I think citizenship is rather important and not arbitrary. I would say citizenship reflects a respect for a nation's laws

No it doesn't You are a citizen not because you demonstrated some hallowed respect for the United States, but because you were extraordinarily lucky to be born here. Citizenship is just a proxy for the accident of being born here. Changing the discussion from birth to citizenship and claiming that makes my argument a case of "apples and oranges" is just bizarre. It's more like apples and apple trees - one implies the other.

Yes, Mexicans are Christian and somewhat Western. But Spain was always a little different than the rest of Europe and is still considered so today.

Jesus. What the hell does that have to do with anything? As an atheist am I unworthy of citizenship too? I think I see what is really at work here. To me, worrying about that is simply racist bullshit. Judging an individual based on group membership is just as immoral as, and the very foundations of, racism. Each individual should be judged according to his behavior towards his fellow human. If he comes to this country and does harm to another person then he should be tried and convicted and punished the same way we would if you or I harmed someone else (and no, don't fall back on immigration laws since that is the very law in question in this debate - I claim anyone should be able to come here as an individual and pursue a life just like you or I, so saying they are breaking an immigration law is question begging).

Just to reiterate my point I think it is appropriate to juxtapose a couple quotes from Ken with mine from a previous point:

Ken: Yes, Mexicans are Christian and somewhat Western. But Spain was always a little different than the rest of Europe and is still considered so today.

Up until the 1965 tinkering with the immigration laws the nation was about 90%+ Christian and culturally 'Western.' Even today vast pockets of America are about 95% homogenous.

Me: It's interesting though how all throughout history these complaints about culture seem to fit so nicely into a racist view of the world. At some point I start to wonder if it is any coincidence that this cultural argument is always raised when the people being considered seem so different from "us?"

(And why do I get the urge to rewrite that as "Up until the 1960's tinkering with Jim Crow laws… I feel like we're going in circles)

Thinking along the lines of groups and group identity has throughout history been the source of so much evil we should resist it and denounce it at every opportunity, even when it is motivated more by ignorance than malevolence. Nevertheless it is grossly immoral to base any kind decision about who should be allowed to pursue a life here based on reasoning such as "Spaniards are different." Every individual should be treated the same whether they are a Mexican or a Spaniard, an atheist or a Christian, black or white, male or female (and note my use of he and his for the gender-neutral pronouns English lacks should not be taken in a sexist way) etc..

But since I see Ken and I are coming from radically different worldviews, there is simply no point in continuing this discussion. If you think you shouldn't have to live near someone who is "different" because it might hurt our homogenous Christian culture then there is not much I can say except I think such views have no place in polite company much less being incorporated into government policy.

|12.23.05 @ 8:02PM|#

All I know is that I'm descended from hard-working but uneducated Catholics with dark complexions. So I feel like I can identify with the people crossing out border today.

I'm also descended from a guy who didn't give a shit about borders, he just went back and forth across the border depending on the work. The great-grandfather who moved back and forth between countries eventually wound up owning a ranch in Montana. That's right, I have solid right wing blood in my veins! And it comes from a guy who didn't give a shit about ranches.

So, as far as I'm concerned, all this worrying about immigrants is a bunch of bullshit.

Another interesting story: I know an MD who's in the middle of her residency. She's an Iranian citizen but a few months away from swearing the oath of US citizenship. She took a year off from clinical work to do laboratory research. After spending a few months working in Baltimore she recently came to my research group to collaborate on a project. She has a valuable skill set, she is in the US legally (she's close to citizenship, as I said before), and she has her own research grant so she doesn't even need any money from my research institute.

But, due to some bureaucratic snafu, the administrators say that her immigration status makes her ineligible to work in our institute. All she wants is the right to come into the building every day and help us with our projects. She won't even need supplies, because she isn't conducting new experiments, just helping us analyze some data that's already been collected. She'll cost nothing, she'll contribute a lot to our research, she'll learn a lot, and maybe when all is said and done we'll have a better method for diagnosing certain types of tumors.

And immigration paperwork is holding her back. Those bastards!

|12.24.05 @ 7:49AM|#

I guess you guys will have to kick Milton Friedman out soon too, as he has said that respect for limited government, markets, etc., seems to be an "Anglo-Saxon" thing (his words, not mine). The idea that some people's cultures are more conducive to our values here in the US is nothing new, it goes back to the work of Max Weber who tried to show why Spain remained a despotic regime with no capitalism while the Dutch flourished. Currently economists, like Tom Sowell, have been working with the thorny problem of why some cultures, such as Latin America, just cannot seem to go this route. People live in cultures, and to not take them into account leads to the kind of foolishness we got when they attempted to meld 'rational' schemes on places like Russia and Iraq. You can't just assume folks have the kinds of values that would make these schemes work.
This does not mean we should not let in immigrants. There are individuals from any group who value these things. It does mean though that we have to slowly absorb such people, working toward assimilation (of course this, thankfully, goes both ways and they will influence our culture some, but it will slowly assimilate rather than Balkanization).
In my subdivision we recently fought an attempt by a developer to build low rent apartements next to us. We knew that while some of the individuals who would live there would be great folks that the average rates of crime, litter, cars without wheels parked out front, etc., would go up and that our neighborhood would be changed forever. So we fought it. This is no different than what immigration opponents are doing. So Thoreau, while I actually know some immigrants, one in particular a friend from Russia working towards citizenship, I also know that in general mass immigration will bring more costs to this nation than benefits, including the death of our unique culture. As for Jennifer, I wonder have you read the postings on Reason recently about the wonderful Muslim practices that the Dutch et al are being asked to absorb: women forced to wear headscarves who are beaten if they do not, gang rapes of women who act 'wrong', threatening those who critique Islam with death, etc.. Wow, I hope our culture can absorb such rich tradtions ;). So get off the high horse fellas and ladies, all of you want immigrants to get with some program, you just want them to get with a different program than I do.

|12.24.05 @ 9:33AM|#

As for Jennifer, I wonder have you read the postings on Reason recently about the wonderful Muslim practices that the Dutch et al are being asked to absorb: women forced to wear headscarves who are beaten if they do not, gang rapes of women who act 'wrong', threatening those who critique Islam with death, etc.

Translation: if the Dutch have problems with their Muslim immigrants, then America is guaranteed to have problems with its Mexican ones.

Remember all those news stories about rampaging gangs of immigrants forcing women at gunpoint to do the Hat Dance? And the less said about Taco Bell, the better.

mass immigration will bring more costs to this nation than benefits, including the death of our unique culture.

You still haven't said what this unique culture is, let alone how much of this unique culture comes from the immigrants who were despised in previous years. I'm picturing your great-great-grandfather in the 1850s: "If we let all these Eye-talians in, our unique culture will change! Next thing you know, America will be some crazy place with a pizza restaurant on every corner! And once that happens, you can kiss our culture good-bye."

|12.24.05 @ 3:43PM|#

"i wasn't aware that one must reside in the southwest in order to benefit from the contributions made by illegal immigrants. i also wasn't aware that illegal immigrants stop moving when they get to california. nope, no illegal immigrants in cities like chicago or in rural midwestern chicken plants. the whole "you gotta be here to understand" stance is just b.s."

Actually, I grew up in Chicago in a mostly (90%) Mexican neighborhood. We were all immigrants there, my family emigrated from Kentucky; we were hillbillys. So, I actually speak with great experience on this particular subject. I have no ill feelings toward Mexicans, or anybody else for that matter.

Illegals come here for a better life, and I don't begrudge anybody that. The US is making a terrible mistake though in providing "free" services to non-US citizens. We ought to end that practice immediately. If the US did stop providing social services (food stamps, education, medical services... the whole enchilada) then the flow of illegals would mostly dry up, and that would be a good thing. Yes, your lettuce would cost more and you would have to pay more to have your car washed, but well, tough shit.

"i wasn't aware that one must reside in the southwest in order to benefit from the contributions made by illegal immigrants." No, you are right, it is mostly the southwest states that are paying the social services bill so the rest of you soft anglos in Indiana can reap the "benefits".

|12.24.05 @ 3:46PM|#

"My family's story is a typical one. My ancestors came looking for better jobs, just like anybody else's. I can think of no reason to keep out people like my ancestors."

I could not agree more. Were your ancestors on welfare when they came over?

|12.24.05 @ 8:14PM|#

"Having culturally distinct nations gives us a rich and great heterogenity, one which I should think would be more popular with Libertarians."

Ken,
Look up (in the daytime).
Is it prettier to you if the clouds at any given time are all "horse tails," or all cumulus, or all stratus?
Can you direct the landscaping of the sky?
Do you want all cumulus in the SW quadrant, all nimbus in the NE quadrant? Or what?
What we're trying to say to you is, "Give up, man." It's beyond your control. Get a new obsession.

Did anyone else "get" what Stevo Darkly meant by ROR, above?
I think it was Raugh Out Roud, which is pretty funny--no surprise. (He was speaking oriental.)

|12.24.05 @ 8:29PM|#

If the US did stop providing social services (food stamps, education, medical services... the whole enchilada) then the flow of illegals would mostly dry up, and that would be a good thing. Yes, your lettuce would cost more and you would have to pay more to have your car washed, but well, tough shit.

wayne,
You cannot predict what would happen if US citizens were suddenly relieved of the tax burden of the War on Poverty. If the end of that war were like the fall of the Berlin Wall--a cascade effect--and we could suddenly have the money back that is being squandered on the various wars to which "Western" governments are addicted--terror, drugs--Bill Gates alone, thanks to his windfall, could easily arrange for daily lettuce take-out for every home in Mexico, and still come out ahead.

|12.24.05 @ 8:54PM|#

"You cannot predict what would happen if US citizens were suddenly relieved of the tax burden of the War on Poverty."

The War on Poverty is a war on poverty in the US, not a war on poverty in the entire world. The US taxpayer has no obligation to feed, clothe, house, and medicate the rest of the world. I am not totally opposed to providing some sort of welfare for US citizens, but I see no percentage in it for me to support the citizens of other countries. Example in point: In California, illegal aliens are allowed to attend state universities at "in state" tuition costs. All of you non-Californians reading this will be charged tuition at a rate about 6 times the residents of California. We should not do this, it is stupid.

|12.24.05 @ 9:03PM|#

"Translation: if the Dutch have problems with their Muslim immigrants, then America is guaranteed to have problems with its Mexican ones."

Face it, we ARE having problems absorbing VERY LARGE numbers of immigrants, most of them illegal. They are mostly uneducated, and poor and this has put an unsupportable burden on the taxpayers of California at the very least. Maybe the federal government ought to levy a surcharge on the US taxpayer and distribute those funds to the SW states to pay for all of those marvelous "benefits" that you easterners keep talking about.

|12.24.05 @ 9:07PM|#

Face it, we ARE having problems absorbing VERY LARGE numbers of immigrants, most of them illegal

The problems to which Ken was referring, and I alluded to here, involved Muslim fanatics murdering people who don't follow their religion or adapt to their culture. And no, were are NOT having such problems with our illegal immigrants.

|12.24.05 @ 9:07PM|#

were are NOT having

Translation: WE are not having

|12.24.05 @ 9:09PM|#

I actually think I can control immigration into the nation but I don't think I can control the sky. I have to say I missed the point here.
Cultural importance of citizenship aside, I can say More on the importance of citizenship: citizens pay taxes for various services. Even hard core libertarians think government must do something (think police, army, roads, enforcing contracts, etc). Illegals get the benefits but did not pay. That's called free riding. Secondly societies have to have laws, at least some, even for arch-libertarian societies. But since people organize themselves in nations, each nation has varying laws. What laws are soveriegn over you? On the flip side, what is owed to you by society? Why, the ones of your nation, that you are a citizen of. And if people just got up and went willy nilly from nation to nation it would be chaos, so each nation restricts this. The alternative would be a one world government. Would'nt that be fun?
And Jen, do you think America does not have unique culture? Why then does the rest of the world bitch about our culture, through Hollywood and other US entertainment, dominating theirs? They see a US culture, shame you can't!
My ancestors probably did not worry about "Eye-talians"; they were German immigrants. I can also see why the US did not just open the floodgates to Germans like my anscestors, and why they pressed them to assimilate. Noone in my family speaks German now. We speak English.
Englands influence has been very dominant on the US, its language, its legal and governmental institutions, its literature and arts...Sorry, our culture is way more homogenous than you would obviously like. So I can say "Merry Christmas" and I imagine you know what the heck I am talking about :)

|12.24.05 @ 9:21PM|#

I can say More on the importance of citizenship: citizens pay taxes for various services

Non-citizens also pay taxes. And not all citizens are taxpayers.

And if people just got up and went willy nilly from nation to nation it would be chaos, so each nation restricts this. The alternative would be a one world government

Or multiple governments, with people choosing which one they wish to live under. But I think Thoreau and Brian were right--your whole argument still boils down to "those people are fundamentally different from us," and there's no point in trying to reason with a racist.

Enjoy your continued belief that your American citizenship is due to your inherent superiority, rather than the fact that your mom was here when she went into labor.

|12.24.05 @ 9:22PM|#

"I actually think I can control immigration into the nation"

Delusion city.

Murray xmurs

wayne,
You are whacked, but who am I to talk?

|12.24.05 @ 9:29PM|#

You're as whacked as Wayne, Ruthless, but I love you anyway. Have a good holiday.

|12.24.05 @ 9:52PM|#

Shivver me timbers.
Dance me a jig.
Yonder comes the rock-a-billy dancing pigs.
They're the best, by test.
I'm sure you've heard.
The Rock-a-Billy pigs are
Jacob's preferred.

And the same, double back at you, excellent Jennifer.

|12.24.05 @ 11:49PM|#

Merry Christmas to everyone of you crazy, atheist bastards, especially you IDiots. May you each find a beady eyed illegal alien under your tree. :-)

|12.25.05 @ 12:02AM|#

Another parallel between my ancestors and the people crossing our border today:

My grandfather grew up in a high crime neighborhood. Anybody care to guess why crime was so high in an Italian neighborhood during the 1920's? What it (1) the result of a grotesquely failed policy or (2) because those damn Italians are crazy and go around killing each other?

Now, can anybody guess why people who have to be smuggled across borders might wind up in neighborhoods with a lot of violence? Is it (1) the result of another grotesquely failed policy or (2) because those damn Mexicans are crazy?

Any takers?

|12.25.05 @ 12:15AM|#

2 and 2. especially for the greaseball, garlic eaters.

|12.25.05 @ 6:54PM|#

I don't think for a minute that someone who points out the fact that people from different cultures often think and act differently (in the aggregate) is 'racist'. Thomas Sowell, Max Weber and others have pointed out that different cultures have differing values, social capital, tendencies. I myself do not think that these differences are biological in origin, but cultural. I'm curious how you fellows that do not think culture exists or is important think these differences come about...Bad policy? I wonder why then Southern Italy is so less successful than Northern Italy (as documented by Robert Putnam's work). They have the same national policies...
A lot of what I, and others, worry about with current immigration has to with the fact that the vast majority of them are very poor. I'm no rich man, but we are talking about severe poverty here, with all the pathological values and subcultures that correlate with it. Why any society would invite that is beyond me!

Robert Cote|12.25.05 @ 8:23PM|#

I'm disappointed that no one has offered to pay my uninsured motorist coverage in a state with mandatory insurance requirements. I'm shocked to discover that those claiming to have benefited are not investing in their self interest by requesting the donation informatin for the local hospital. I'm perplexed that there hasn't been a groundswell for national responsibility taking over the Mixtecan translator program here locally. I'm perplexed by the uniform reluctance to list addresses where open door policies are practiced as an example to the rest of us. Anyone out there got a website for guidance on purchasing socially responsible agricultural products? Anyone ready to name a charity responding to Whooping Cough? I've yet to see a list of the laws it is proper to ignore. No one has volunteered a checklist for expanded legal immigration. We can infer from the replies to date that literacy, familiarity with safety, health or human rights are not among those tests. No one to date has managed to respond to a one word parallel example to the current US situation; Quebec. No one has denied the undeniable truth of broken windows law enforcement polices.

I suggest that those advocating relaxed borders are the classic examples of liberals. As we all know liberals are people who haven't been mugged personally.

|12.25.05 @ 10:55PM|#

"Any takers?"

thoreau,
Please transpose your answer to another thread. Robert Cote is substituting for Stevo Threadkiller (with less verve and panache) on this one.

|12.25.05 @ 11:25PM|#

I'm disappointed that no one has offered to pay my uninsured motorist coverage in a state with mandatory insurance requirements.

I'm perplexed by your apparent belief that illegal immigrants are the only uninsured motorists.

I'm shocked to discover that those claiming to have benefited are not investing in their self interest by requesting the donation informatin for the local hospital.

I don't need the donation information for my local hospital; I've made donations there in the past. So?

I'm perplexed by the uniform reluctance to list addresses where open door policies are practiced as an example to the rest of us.

I'm perplexed by your continued insistence that a Mexican coming into this country to work ono a farm is no different from a Mexican breaking into your house and steal your property.

Anyone out there got a website for guidance on purchasing socially responsible agricultural products? Anyone ready to name a charity responding to Whooping Cough?

What the fuck are you talking about?

I suggest that those advocating relaxed borders are the classic examples of liberals. As we all know liberals are people who haven't been mugged personally.

I suggest anyone who thinks "liberal" is a useful and informative shorthand for "people who disagree with me on immigration issues" need not be taken seriously.

|12.26.05 @ 1:12AM|#

I wonder how many illegal immigrants would be willing to purchse insurance if they didn't have anything to fear from leaving a paper trail.

I'm not here to defend mandatory insurance, but the fact that people are uninsured may be due, at least in part, to the fact that they fear leaving a paper trail. And it's easier to buy insurance if you have more employment opportunities.

Once again, a harm of illegal immigration that wouldn't be nearly as significant if the people in question were given amnesty.

Robert Cote|12.26.05 @ 12:21PM|#

RC: I'm disappointed that no one has offered to pay my uninsured motorist coverage in a state with mandatory insurance requirements.

J: I'm perplexed by your apparent belief that illegal immigrants are the only uninsured motorists.

That's worse than not answering. You are advocating that no crime should be prosecuted as long as there remain any unsolved crimes. You inadvertently acknowledge that there exists a problem generated at least in part by illegal immigration that has general negative impacts.

RC: I'm shocked to discover that those claiming to have benefited are not investing in their self interest by requesting the donation informatin for the local hospital.

J: I don't need the donation information for my local hospital; I've made donations there in the past. So?

The point remains that your defense of the current situation has immediate negative consequences in my area. You are clearly unwilling to take responsibility for your actions.

RC: I'm perplexed by the uniform reluctance to list addresses where open door policies are practiced as an example to the rest of us.

J: I'm perplexed by your continued insistence that a Mexican coming into this country to work ono a farm is no different from a Mexican breaking into your house and steal your property.

Your stubborn insistence for ignoring the obvious is becoming legendary. The illegal immigrants are not "working." They are "laboring" and then they are consuming. They do not participate in the workforce in the traditional sense. They undercut the checks and balances and disrupt the normal ability to plan for societal needs.

RC: Anyone out there got a website for guidance on purchasing socially responsible agricultural products? Anyone ready to name a charity responding to Whooping Cough?

J: What the fuck are you talking about?

Outbursts of incivility are yet another negative consequence of even talking about illegal immigration. The denigration we see here is paralleled by the equal disdain in society illegal immigration induces. The resurgence of whooping cough is not an immigration issue, it is an illegal immigration issue. Another case where your advocacy is having negative societal consequences. You need to step up and start paying for your actions. Start paying to address the rise in Whooping Cough that you are causing.

RC: I suggest that those advocating relaxed borders are the classic examples of liberals. As we all know liberals are people who haven't been mugged personally.

J: I suggest anyone who thinks "liberal" is a useful and informative shorthand for "people who disagree with me on immigration issues" need not be taken seriously.

You suggestion is dismissed as the backhanded insult that it is. You won't take responsibilty for your position and you lash out in frustration for having it thrown in your face.

|12.27.05 @ 3:11AM|#

Jennifer, you do an awful lot of posting. Don't you have a job?

|12.27.05 @ 3:12AM|#

Jennifer, you do an awful lot of posting. Don't you have a job?