Cain Advocates Execution for a Misdemeanor

The net traffic of unauthorized workers from south of the border has dropped to zero. But that has not prevented the discussion among GOP presidential candidates, trying to out-tough each other, from taking a really chilling turn. (Spare me your wrath, nativists, for not using the term illegal immigrants. There is nothing inherently illicit with people wanting to work in this country in order to provide Americans with cheap apples and houses. But there is something inherently illicit with a government of an allegedly free people refusing to give them the papers to do so and then persecuting them—and Americans who want to hire them—for not having the papers.)

Michele Bachmann was on the stump last week condemning unauthorized workers as an economic and security threat. She promised to spend billions of dollars to build not a single but a “secure double fence” on the border, the New York Times reports. Oh, and she’ll also eliminate “taxpayer-funded benefits” for them and declare English as the official language.

That’s all too wussy for Herman Cain. He has been going around the country promising to build an electrified fence that would kill people who try to cross it on the border with Mexico. What’s more, he is even mulling deploying military troops “with real guns and real bullets to stop intruders.”  Given that entering the country without proper papers is a misdemeanor, Cain is essentially advocating execution—without due process—for a misdemeanor.

Why, then, stop there, Mr. Cain? If you are going to execute paperless workers in the name of the rule-of-law, then won’t a consistent enforcement of that same rule-of law require you to execute people engaged in other, even more dangerous, misdemeanors. Here is a list of the most common ones for your consideration:

  • driving under the influence (DUI)
  • driving without a license
  • trespassing, and disorderly conduct. (Watch out Occupy Wall Street protesters)
  • vandalism, public fighting, assault, and battery

The NYT reports that Cain responded to anyone who might consider his remarks “insensitive,” by noting that the real fault lies with illegal immigrants. “It’s insensitive for them to be killing our citizens, killing our border agents,” he said.

But El Paso and Arizona that have the highest concentration of unauthorized foreign workers also have the lowest rates of violent and property crimes, as I reported here. Why let facts spoil a good execution, however?

They didn’t in Salem.

Question for Cain: You have been worrying about an eye-for-an-eye Sharia law seeping into the government. But a government that wants to take away a life for the lack of a document doesn't bother you one bit?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Suki||

    Some people don't get jokes.

  • sarcasmic||

    A joke must contain at least a grain of truth to be funny.

  • Bill Maher||

    Does not.

  • sarcasmic||

    Like I said...

  • Suki||

    Obama is a joke and he never says anything truthful.

  • o2||

    poor joke. practice at the nearest comedy club

  • I||

    I laughed at: "They didn’t in Salem." Twice!

  • sarcasmic||

    Nor does he say anything funny.

  • Spencer||

    Shikha,

    Surely this is "rally the base" talk. Don't we really need to address the fact that this talk helps candidates GAIN popularity?!

  • o2||

    in the primary w wingnutz

  • Maxxx||

    This could be your first 1,000 comment piece of drivel, Shikha.

  • robc||

    The LP presidential candidate in 2004 suggested the same thing.

    With Badnarik, it was part of a wide gate/tall fence (metaphorical, not a real electrified one) policy. When you have an open immigration policy, anyway crossing at somewhere other than a checkpoint is a foreign invader, and one of the possible military solutions (as that is a military problem) is shooting on sight.

  • Spencer||

    Was there something that made you call this drivel? What do you think was nonsensical about it"

  • ||

    What do you think was nonsensical about it"

    Let's just start with the title. The building of an electrified fence does not equal execution, on any planet. Probably not a good idea, hardly "execution".

    Then, in the very first sentence, she claims that the number crossing is "zero". So according to the claim in the first sentence machine-gun towers with orders to shoot on sight wouldn't equal execution, because according to her, there isn't anyone to shoot.

  • ||

    Where does she claim the number crossing is "zero"? Nowhere, under any serious reading. She says that the net border traffic is zero. There's an obvious difference there.

  • Spencer||

    And wanting a fence that will kill people who try to climb it is not that far from killing people who try to cross.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I thought it was drivel as well. Something I would expect to see on huffpo. If you die because you were climbing an electric fence that would no doubt be marked as such, we call that natural selection, not execution. Electrical fences exist. I'm not sure how many people die from them but lack of media outrage over it would make me think that it's not a high number. Also, he want's the border security to have "real guns with real bullets" , as opposed to what? Fetaher dusters like most security checkpoints use? I'm not advocating for either of these things but saying Cain wants to murder illegal immigrants based on those statements is no better than Godwinning. I like a lot of Shikha's articles but this was drivel.

  • AlmightyJB||

    or Feather Dusters.

  • Federal Dog||

    "The building of an electrified fence does not equal execution, on any planet."

    It's Shikha Dalmia, who has a long history of intentionally misrepresenting the difference between legal and illegal aliens. No representations by her can be trusted without independent proof.

  • MJ||

    "There is nothing inherently illicit with people wanting to work in this country in order to provide Americans with cheap apples and houses."

    Nice straw man. Of course that mere desire is not making people illegal immigrants. What we are objecting to is the sophistry that illegal immigrants and immigrants are the same group and wanting to stem illegal immigration is anti-immigration in general. Don't whine about people objecting to your propaganda.

    " Given that entering the country without proper papers is a misdemeanor, Cain is essentially advocating execution—without due process—for a misdemeanor."

    Nice logic there, so anyone killed in the commission of a crime has been executed without due process? Is that really what you want to say?

    Get Dalmia off the immigration issue, she is clearly too invested in it personally to come with arguments that do not come off as unhinged.

  • Spencer||

    What about the part that the government denies them papers and then prosecutes them for not having the very thing they were denied?

  • Fatty Bolger||

    That's a separate (and valid) point from Shikha's defense of her euphemism. Right or wrong, it's SOP for government at all levels. If you're denied a license to practice medicine, you go to jail if you practice medicine. If you're denied a license to drive, you will be prosecuted if you drive anyway. And so on.

  • Spencer||

    But you have a path to get a license to drive or practice medicine. There is NO path for them to get immigration papers. (well, there is, but the wait is 3 times their average life expectancy.) If they made it to where you had to wait 100 years on average to be a doctor, I bet you you'd see a lot more back alley doctors/lawyers/unlicensed drivers.

  • ||

    If you're denied a license to practice medicine, you go to jail if you practice medicine.

    Reeaaaallllyyyy. And which law are you referring to that sends unlicensed "doctors" to jail?

  • Mensan||

    I don't know about other places, but in Florida it's s458.327. It's a felony, so I would assume jail time is likely.

  • ||

    The immigration/guest worker quota the US government has set for mexico is woefully inadequate to meet the needs of farmers. It in itself was created to rally the nativist base and help drive alot of the problems we have. If it was realistic with the demand/supply, illegal immigration would plummet and coyotes (the human ones) would find it harder to find applicants looking to sneak across, which would reduce their profitability and put them out of business, leading to less supply for experienced border crossers for terrorists looking to get across.

    Its the US policy that's created this mess and only US policy is going to solve it.

  • Brian||

    Maybe the relatively safe and easy profits made smuggling works across the border is the only thing keeping the coyotes from taking on terrorists as customers. Just saying, unintended consequences and all.

  • ||

    Smuggling's smuggling Brian. They may be wary about taking a terrorist laden with bombs across, but I doubt they have any qualms with taking a person of a terroristical nature across the border. The risk is the same to them.

  • ||

    Actually it was the labor unions (Cesar Chavez notably) that ended the Bracero guest worker program back in the 60s. Now, they technically are nativists but it's not the Right that's to blame.

  • ||

    I didn't think it was a left-right issue, but its Cain who happens to be on the right, spitting out nativist rediculousness, so my argument is against him and the bunker mentality policies he is representing.

  • ||

    But you're not advocating a return to the guest worker program...you're advocating open borders which is an entirely different policy.

  • ||

    But you're not advocating a return to the guest worker program...you're advocating open borders which is an entirely different policy.

  • o2||

    "Nice logic there, so anyone killed in the commission of a crime has been executed without due process? Is that really what you want to say?"
    _
    no he wrote " Given that entering the country without proper papers is a misdemeanor, Cain is essentially advocating execution—without due process—for a misdemeanor."

  • MJ||

    Dalmia is suggesting that any use of deadly force in repelling criminal activity is a violation of due process.

  • Cabeza de Vaca||

    So if you are speeding the police can shoot you dead?

  • MJ||

    So if you are breaking and entering, you should not risk being shot dead?

    What Dalmia wrote has more far reaching implications than you think.

  • MWG||

    Yes, because this great country of ours is just like one big private home or business. We"re all just one big happy collective.

  • Federal Dog||

    She is obviously no lawyer. She has no clue what she's talking about.

    Which doesn't stop her form running her mouth.

  • JohnD||

    I am begining to have serious doubts about the "journalistic" integrity of the staff at reason. Some of these articles border on idiotcy. Dalmia is a first class fool for his statement that there is nothing wrong with coming into this country illegally. Try going into Mexico without papers and see what happens to you.

    Of course many of you people on this site are for open boarders so I guess you are ok with this crap.

  • I||

    But...
    "They didn’t in Salem!"

    In Salem! Get it?

  • Spencer||

    Yep, try going to Iran without them. Or North Korea. Or Zimbabwe. Let's all live up to the standards set by those great and shining beacons.

  • ||

    You left out East Germany and the Belin wall,let's just be like them and shoot them.Hell it's not our fault the drug war is killing 10's of thousands.

  • Spencer||

    +1

  • Surly Chef||

    This is one issue I don't understand libertarians can seem to consistently support: "border security".

    Even when arguing from a minarchist perspective there is nothing inherently wrong with open borders. Nativists claim and validate with circular logic that illegal immigration is illegal. They quote Friedman, taking an indictment of the welfare state and as to mean that Mexicans shouldn't come here because some use welfare benefits they never paid for in taxes. They hold up as the letter of "the law!" what we openly mock the statists for, creating more ill conceived legislation to fix the side effects of ill conceived legislation. When it is finally said and done they accuse SD of being emotional on the issue.

    Either this issue just brings out the conservatives to comment or a large portion of libertarians get a logic fail when you add the word "Mexico" to discussions of the drug war and welfare state.

  • Joe R.||

    I also don't understand it. This is a large group of people who would scream if forced to give up an individual right to a collective right in any other situation, but when it comes down to these certain specific employment and/or private property decisions, they are perfectly willing to submit to the collective.

  • Spencer||

    YES! Why should these people submit authority to the government to tell them who they can and can't hire/sell property to?

  • MJ||

    "Even when arguing from a minarchist perspective there is nothing inherently wrong with open borders."

    We do not have open borders. Perhaps we should, but few people are making that argument because it is likely to be a non-starter. Since Dalmia and the other open borders people cannot have what they want, they instead seem content to have the worst of all worlds, keep the current laws on the books but not enforce them, which put illegal aliens in a legal limbo.

  • Joe R.||

    That's because if you mention the word "amnesty" people start foaming at the mouth with rage. "It's not fair!" Whatever. Even though it is in principle no different than releasing non-violent drug offenders from prison if/when cannabis is legalized. I can't imagine these "libertarians" thinking it would be fair to keep people in prison for something that had since been made legal.

  • Bee Tagger||

    Of course many of you people on this site are for open boarders

    I always tell potential customers that if they want room and board at my establishment, they better be open to some freaky stuff.

  • Spencer||

    Even if they pay? I could see an "open to freaky stuff" policy if the room was free, but...

  • Zeb||

    Yes, we should be just like Mexico. Then everything will be fine.

  • ||

    Granted Mexican prisons will probably kill you from some sort of plague or violence, but the penalty for illegally crossing into mexico is the same as it is here ostensibly, namely, expulsion.

  • ||

    "Dalmia is a first class fool for his statement"

    Shikha had a sex change?!

  • Mensan||

    +1

  • freeforall232||

    Why is it illegal for a non-American to be in America?

  • JohnD||

    I am a supporter of executing Dalmia without due process for the drivel he or she (or it) writes.

  • Spencer||

    so, drivel is now a code word for something you don't understand/disagree with irrationally?

  • STEREOTYPE||

    ILLEGAL IS ILLEGAL

    RRAWAAAAAWWWWRRRRRRR!!DROOL!!!CURSE YOU UNAMERICAN IMMIGRANT LOVERS!!! FREEDOM ONLY POSSIBLE BY KEEPIN PEOPLE OUT!!! FUCK EMMA LAZARUS SHE MADE NEW YORK A SHITHOLE!! WE SHOULD HAVE LOCKED THE DOOR AFTER PLYMOUTH ROCK!! NO IMMIGRANT IS A GOOD IMMIGRANT!! WHO ARE MY ANCESTORS YOU ASK?? UNCLE SAM AND DOLLY MADISON, MOTHERFUCKERS! I BLEED RED WHITE AND BLUE!!! SOVEREIGN!!! KING!!! BORDERS!!!!

  • ||

    I'd like to know what 'jobs' Mexicans are taking,well,we know.Low pay and hard work.Their on the bottum of wage earners and yes ,they are need in many places.Of couse,we need to keep the scary drug mules out and this is the main reason fo most pols.The WOD's,a gift that keeps on giving,like herpes.

  • ||

    Yes, they do the jobs no one here wants to do, at least for what they pay. Someone here in GA came up with a half-baked idea to use probationers, or county jail inmates, to provide agricultural labor in place of illegal immigrants who have left due to fear of the authorities. (The inmates and probationers were not required to work--it was optional--but one can see where this might lead). According to news accounts the inmates and probationers all quit before lunch time because the work was too hard.

  • Spencer||

    If I was in jail, there's no way I'd break rocks all day. I'd do as little as humanly possible. Most of my time would be spent on strengthening my anal sphincter- for obvious reasons.

  • Sidd Finch||

    But El Paso and Arizona that have the highest concentration of unauthorized foreign workers also have the lowest rates of violent and property crimes, as I reported here.

    Not being an idiot, I suspected the Arizona factoid was made up and in 10 seconds of googling found:

    2008 violent crime per 100,000
    Arizona: 478.6
    US: 467.2

    2008 property crime per 100,000
    Arizona: 3805.5
    US: 3248.0

    http://www.census.gov/compendi.....2s0308.pdf

  • Spencer||

    Didn't post the El paso numbers? She linked to them in the article she referenced. Also, she explains the Arizona crime rate drop.

    You'll look up census data but won't click through 2 links to check the source behind a claim before you jump it?

    Poor form, Sidd Finch. Poor Form.

  • Sidd Finch||

    I see you're infected with the same retard virus as Shikha.

    Arizona's crime rate has been dropping since the 70's, which says nothing about whether it has "the lowest rates of violent and property crimes." That should be obvious based on the statistic showing it, in fact, has higher than average crime rates.

    As for El Paso, I know that city does have really low crime rates. Shikha's bullshitting habit suggests that it doesn't actually have the lowest, but I don't care enough to look it up.

  • Spencer||

    Yes, she should have clarified and qualified, but the point is, in the then, the same.

    Illegal immigration does not mean higher crime. Broad brush strokes? yes. Wrong on the point? NO.

  • Sidd Finch||

    Illegal immigration does not mean higher crime ... Wrong on the point? NO.

    I interpret "lowest" to mean lower than "not higher." But that wouldn't make any sense either when one thinks of all the other places with high immigrant populations. Occam's Razor says she's just bullshitting.

    BTW, if you want to read a real article on Hispanic crime rates, check out His-Panic by Ron Unz.
    http://www.theamericanconserva...../01/00022/

  • Chris||

    But El Paso and Arizona that have the highest concentration of unauthorized foreign workers also have the lowest rates of violent and property crimes

    Like most of that article, it was poorly written and thought out. We can assume the comparison is with the US as a whole, but she never states whether or not that is what she explicitly meant.

    I'm pretty much in agreement that the problem is greatly exaggerated, but I found her tone to be very off putting. I would not want to print it up in a flyer if I were an immigration reform activist.

  • Spencer||

    The article she linked to explains the statement further. The crime rate in AZ has dropped even while the illegal pop has grown.

  • ||

    Since when did illegal immigrants ever trust the police enough to call them? I doubt there is much validity in a statistic that doesn't account for this variable.

  • Spencer||

    People still call the cops that aren't illegal- regardless of who the criminal is. So, if we were to accept your premise, then the only crimes they would be committing are against each other.

  • Virginia||

    Look, we're not saying we're voting for Cain b/c he's a good candidate, Shikha. Only that nominating him would make blood spurt out our Dem partisan friends & in-laws' ears. Pyrrhic victory? Perhaps, but that's how we lolz.

  • ||

    I'd copt to that.

  • ||

    Not to be a gelatinous ball of goo here, but can you imagine the ton of carnage that would be left from wildlife, who didn't get the memo, bumping into the electro-fence? Mind-boggling.

  • Spencer||

    I'm sure we have the technology to only allow it to kill humans.

  • ||

    Only brown humans,and no Texas cattle.I'm sure ranchers will love it

  • Spencer||

    I don't know if we have the proper technology to discern between the good brown shades and the bad ones.

  • ChrisO||

    It'd be bad enough that it would probably short the damned fence out every day. Which would, of course, create many new jobs for American electricians. See, it's really a jobs plan after all.

  • ||

    Illegals ARE Illegal. They break the law by being in the country ILLEGALLY. Why D-bags insist on coming up with "cute" names for it is beyond me. "Slightly non-law conforming immigrant agriculturalists" Doesn't make them any less ILLEGAL.(Don't like the term, change the system,.. until then screw you.

    I mean I prefer calling them "Vegitarian challenged Tigers" as opposed to "Man eaters" But I guess I'll have to live with the facts no matter how bruised my little feelings might be.

    I hate Cain, but I hate people who come up with any stupid BS to further their position even more.

  • Spencer||

    Yes,

    and all pot smokers are CRIMINALS, right? So we should just refer to them as criminals. As a matter of fact, all speeders are criminals too.

    man, seems like everyone is a criminal- let's shoot em.

  • ||

    Look dumbass.I tried to be nice,but,killing people for a non-violent offense is crazy,inhumane.Let's kill drug users like Moa did ,same thing dumbass.DUI,shoot by the sid of the road.Theft ,cut off the hand.Idiot

  • Maxa||

    Help me understand how having an electrified fence translates into certain loss of life? Has Cain dictated that it be a very high voltage/current fence? Or could it be a lower voltage/current that just makes it reeealll uncomfortable to be holding onto it for very long? Doesn't someone have to first decide to touch the fence before it can do it's dirty work? Or has Cain suggested that we throw the border crossers onto the electrified fence? Do you know much about electricity or electrified fences

  • ||

    Angry Nativist is angry

  • Zeb||

    Well, they have done at least one illegal thing, crossing the border without proper permission. But I don't think that that is really sufficient to call a person "illegal". I'm sure everyone here has broken the law in some way in the past. Is not everyone an "illegal" then?

  • MJ||

    "Illegal" is a modifier for "immigrant" or "alien".

    Don't pretend to be obtuse.

  • o2||

    everyone illegal? nah, only the brown ones zeb.

  • GILMORE||

    Barth|10.17.11 @ 10:54AM|#
    Illegals ARE Illegal.

    Holy shit, really???

    Why didn't you SAY so!!?

    ........

    I can't believe people are still resorting to the reflexive/tautology thing, and expecting people not to laugh in their faces.

    The "position", muchacho, is that there's no reason for these people to be 'illegal'. Just because you say, "but... teh law!@!" doesn't make the law a good one by de-facto Legalishisness.

    But don't let you stop repeating the "ILLEGALS IS ILLEGAL!!" as though you're delivering some intellectual coup de gras. Its fucking hilarious.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    Cain Advocates Execution for a Misdemeanor

    I'm starting to like this guy! Best idea I've heard all morning!

  • MWG||

    Hey Slappy!

  • Maxa||

    ---RE: Given that entering the country without proper papers is a misdemeanor, Cain is essentially advocating execution—without due process—for a misdemeanor. ---

    Geeeezzzz, guys. I expect more from the folks at reason.

    Cain has said lets secure the border in a way that people decide to stay on the other side. As for the guns, perhaps you guys need to study up on the number of killings those border crossers (drug couriers and human traffikers) are doing as they meander into the US. Murder and drug running aren't misdemeanors guys.

  • ||

    The solution to that is to end the idiotic drug war, not to blame people looking for work and a better life.

  • ||

    partial solution. The real solution is to come up with a realistic guest worker/immigration quota number to reflect the demand of work in the southwest.

  • MJ||

    Agreed, unfortunately what we are getting effectively from Dalmia and such ilk we simply should not enforce our current law at all.

  • ||

    Bullshit. The argument was never framed about how many people we should let in, it was should we build an electric fence to zap them furriners.

  • ||

    As for guns,the US needs to quit giving the Mexican Arny so much stuff that ends up in the hands of the drug cartels.By the way,put a fence like that around your home and see what happens when someone dies.Hell,let's just close all border,including Canada and ports and eliminate trade.Oh what a place we'll have

  • Maxa||

    Michael, you forgot to mention how dangerous it is to build high walls on the border that someone might try to climb - and subsequently fall off of and hurt them po' job seekin' selves. Too dangerous. Much too dangerous!

  • Maxa||

    I am with you on ending the drug war.

    As for the people looking for work, we DO offer avenues for legal entry into our country. Let's encourage the border crossers to take advantage of our generous programs for coming to the US or even becoming a US citizen. Rest assured the US is FAR more generous in how many people we allow into our country than any other country.

  • Spencer||

    Maxa-

    We actually DO NOT offer an alternative for nonwhite, noneducated laborers from mexico. well, on paper we do, but in reality they would die of old age before they could come in here legally.

  • Spencer||

    La esposa de mi padre es de Teguc, Honduras.

    Even being married it took for EVER to get her legal- and she was a lawyer (well, a lawyer in Honduras).

  • MWG||

    You know very little about the legal immigration process.

  • Tony||

    From what I've read, the poor economic conditions in the US have done more to stem immigration than any fence (and who could have guess that it would never be a big enough fence for anti-immigrant people?). That combined with draconian anti-immigrant laws in some southern states has produced a new problem: a lack of cheap labor for the hard work immigrants used to do. One thing is absolutely certain: we can't expect reasonable immigration policy from people who clearly approach the issue from a place of xenophobia first.

  • ||

    My goodness,I agree with Tony.Has hell forzen?

  • ||

    yes, so why do you hate capitalism so much?

    or is this not the Tony we're looking for?

  • ||

    As a donor to Reason I'm embarrassed that you wrote this piece. I'm sure there is an opening over at HuffPo for this type of critical thinking.

    Seriously, you can advocate proper immigration policies without compromising your critical thinking abilities to that of a 6th grader.

  • ||

    Pllllleeeeeeaaaaaaasssseeeeee....threaten to cancel your subscription.

  • Spencer||

    +1

  • Kristen||

    Should threatening to cancel your subscription/membership/further financial support be added to the drinking game? Or is it on the list already?

  • ||

    Already there...

  • Cliché Bandit||

    come on guys, in MST it is still 10:45am...and I went out last night. My liver is wavering here.

  • ||

    And if he had done one of those things, this would be relevant.

    Drinking game creep is a sad thing to see.

  • ||

    unfunny poster is still goddamned unfunny.

  • ||

    the funny I can't control. The correct I can, though.

  • Montani Semper Liberi||

    Well.....bye.

  • ChrisO||

    It's a little too early in the day to start the drinking games, isn't it?

  • Spencer||

    It is 5 o'clock somewhere...

  • MWG||

    "I'm sure there is an opening over at HuffPo for this type of critical thinking."

    Maybe you'd be more comfortable with a subscription to the Weekly Standard.

  • ||

    Notice that he didn't say anything about disagreeing with Ms Dalmia's general position, just her presentation. Which is, and has been for some time, terrible and an embarrassment to Reason and the entire libertarian community. Insult-spewing, melodramatic titles, facile logic, etc.

  • MWG||

    So he agrees with her, but he just doesn't like her bitchy attitude.

  • ||

    That's what I gathered.

    I'm less conflicted because I both disagree and don't like her presentation, but it's good to see that even people who agree with her have the same reaction to her presentation. So it's not just me letting my disagreement contaminate my views.

  • MWG||

    See, I gathered the exact opposite.

  • ||

    You must have been skimming this three-line comment.

    Seriously, you can advocate proper immigration policies without compromising your critical thinking abilities to that of a 6th grader.

    He clearly states that he agrees with the policy she is attempting to advocate. If he disagreed with the policy position he wouldn't be making this contrast.

  • ||

    Trading Balko for Dalmia has turned out almost as bad as my trading of Cam Newton for Peyton Hillis in the H&R fantasy league.

  • Spencer||

    Didn't you see the pregame show? Nobody cares about your fantasy team.

  • J_L_B||

    The issues with immigration are obvious.

    First, the issue with how easily millions of people can walk across a desert border and few of them are prevented from doing so. The biggest fear from this is that the generic Ahmed of Al Qaeda can walk across with his equipment and place a bomb any place of his choosing.

    Second, the serious complaints are not of guest workers who have an employer readily available to hire them (that's more of a bureaucratic cumbersome issue, and changing the supply of visas to meet employer demand), but of those who decide to come here without available work and drift around looking for employment.

  • Cabeza de Vaca||

    You don't think the Mexicans are going to care that terrorists are roaming their country with WMD's?

  • J_L_B||

    They may care, but as their dealings with the cartels show, their efforts may not be enough to stop it (or a nice bribe might turn them into jihadists themselves).

    Also, seeing as how a portion of illegals here come from countries south of Mexico, it seems that their attempt at controlling their border has been something less than a complete success.

  • ||

    Spare me your wrath, nativists, for not using the term illegal immigrants.

    Since I'm not a nativist, this doesn't apply to me.

    Why the heck are you intentionally avoiding the term "illegal immigrant"?

  • Libertarian Boys Club||

    What’s more, he is even mulling deploying military troops “with real guns and real bullets to stop intruders.” Given that entering the country without proper papers is a misdemeanor, Cain is essentially advocating execution—without due process—for a misdemeanor.


    I see a big future with the National Enquirer, Shikha

  • ||

    Given that entering the country without proper papers is a misdemeanor, Cain is essentially advocating execution—without due process—for a misdemeanor.

    (sigh) I'm well aware of your melodramatic style, Ms Dalmia, but this is not the case. He's not talking about rounding up people within US territory who have previously crossed the border and putting them up against the wall. He's talking about shooting people in the process of entering our territory without authorization, which every nation has the right to do, cosmotarian citizen-of-the-world sympathies notwithstanding.

    Now, I don't particularly like Cain, and would never support this policy as it's unnecessarily inhumane; if you can shoot them, you can just as easily arrest them upon entering US territory. But it's not "execution for a misdemeanor".

  • ||

    Pedantic asshole is pedantic.

  • ||

    Not pedantic at all. I'm not commenting on some obscure throwaway line buried in the article somewhere.

    The intentional blatant misrepresentation is in the headline and smeared all over the article. It's no mistake; she clearly deliberately chose this language to be as inflammatory as possible, to hell with the truth.

    If Ms Dalmia doesn't want people to correct her misstatements and elisions she shouldn't emphasize them so much.

  • ||

    Or to sum it up, "insulting argumentless guy is insulting without an argument."

  • Bradley||

    "See, an electric fence is not necessarily lethal. And just because there are troops with real guns and bullets, doesn't mean they'll actually use them. Take THAT, Sheika."

  • MWG||

    "which every nation has the right to do"

    Nations don't have rights.

  • ||

    Of course they do. Not the same as human rights, but rights nonetheless.

  • MWG||

    See Gilbert's argument below. I disagree with it, but he at least argues from the perspective of government authrority and not collectivist rights.

  • ||

    I mean "rights" in the sense of legally-granted rights, not inherent ones. National governments are recognized to have the right to control movement into their borders.

    You probably don't have a hissy fit about contracts purporting to give corporations, or school clubs, or married couples "rights" as collective entities, even though none of these are individuals.

  • MWG||

    "National governments are recognized to have the right to control movement into their borders."

    Recognized by who? The only recognition of AUTHORITY given to the US government is outlined in the Constitution and it says shit about immigration and the movement of persons (Your attempt below to suggest the commerce clause gives such authority is a stretch at best.), so much so that the first laws regarding immigration didn't even appear to more than a 100 years after the constitution was created. Those laws had nothing to do with commerce and a helluva lot to do with fears of teh Asians.

    "You probably don't have a hissy fit about contracts purporting to give corporations, or school clubs, or married couples "rights" as collective entities, even though none of these are individuals."

    The voluntary association of individuals to form corporations and other private entities is not at all analogous to governments. Individuals have the right to form any sort of group they want so long as those groups don't infringe on the individual rights of others.

  • Hitler to Poland||

    See, I'm not the only one that thinks that.

  • MWG||

    Nations do not have rights; only individuals do. In the case of the US we give the government POWER to defend against foreign armies. It may seem pedantic, but the difference is important.

    Individual rights exists independent of government. We created a government to protect individual rights. Collective rights are meaningless in that they're nothing more than what the majority wants at any givin time (might makes right).

    Tulpa's belief that the nation has a right to shoot individuals crossing the border does not trump the right to free association and movement.

  • J_L_B||

    right to free association and movement

    This right is not in contention, Mexicans are free to travel here and associate with whomever with little bureaucratic interference.

    The right in contention here is the right to residency or citizenship, no such right exists.

  • MWG||

    Implicit in the rights of free association and movement are the rights to do what you will with you property (Why is it any of your business who I rent my home to?) and to live where I want to (Why is it any of your business who lives where?)

    Citizenship, OTOH, is not a right as it's conferred upon us by a government that has been given the authority to do so.

  • J_L_B||

    Why is it any of your business who lives where?

    There are certain people who want to kill certain people because they fall on the wrong side of the infidel/non-infidel T-chart. Allowing them to live somewhere where they have free reign to do harm puts the safety of their targets in jeopardy. If they can be verified to not be a threat, then I don't care who you rent to.

    There's also an argument to be made about having four billion people show up for whatever reason, and having the infrastructure to support 10% of them.

  • MWG||

    Teh terrorists!!!!!!!!!!11!!1!1!!!!!

  • J_L_B||

    Yeah they do pretty bad stuff.

    See Spain, Russia, United Kingdom, United States, Pakistan, India, Northern Ireland, Egypt, Israel, Afghanistan, Malaysia, Jordan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Uganda.

    Not the type of people I want on this side of an immigration checkpoint.

  • MWG||

    Because of Chechnya republicans are freaking out about our border with Mexico.

    In case you didn't already know this, 9/11 had shit to do with our southern border.

  • ||

    You can rent your property to someone in jail, on active duty in Afghanistan, or on probation in another state. That doesn't mean the govt has to remove every obstacle to their traveling to take residency.

    If it helps, I don't think landlords or employers or such should be required to check immigration status. You should be able to contract with anyone you want if you have a bona fide belief that they are legally permitted to fulfill the contract.

  • MWG||

    "You can rent your property to someone in jail, on active duty in Afghanistan, or on probation in another state. That doesn't mean the govt has to remove every obstacle to their traveling to take residency."

    Those in prison and on probation give up certain rights to movement and association when they commit crimes against other individuals (this idea is not at all controversial amongst libertarians). In the case of active duty soldiers; last I checked we had an all volunteer military.

    "You should be able to contract with anyone you want (FULL STOP)"

  • Saddam Hussein||

    What the hell were all those no-fly zones for?

    Damn westerners, curse you George Bush... both of you!!

  • BILL3||

    Hey Shikka, you need to go back to Pakistan, England, or wherever the hell you came from. By the way, when Reason hired you I'm sure you had to show a greencard or transfer your h1-b, right? So why a different standard for the tomato-pickers?

    There are LEGAL aliens/immigrants and ILLEGAL aliens. The very word "immigration" refers to a LEGAL process.

    If I rob a bank, I'm a bank robber, I'm not an unauthorized withdrawer. If I rape you, I'm a rapist, not an unauthorized penetrator. And if Speedy Gonzalez enters America by using a coyote or overstays his visa (if he has one), guess what? He's an illegal alien.

    And don't give the the lie about Mexicans doing the jobs we don't want to do. What about Japan? Japan has no problem deporting illegal aliens doing the jobs the Japs won't do. Mexico, Israel, Colombia, France, Germany, Switzerland, and pretty much every country deports people who cross their borders illegally.

    Will you use the "nativist" label on them? And for the record, that label is inaccurate since nativism had nothing to do with illegal immigration. I don't hate rich and middle class Mexicans that come here LEGALLY. I don't hate the foreign investor that comes to America to start a business. But I do hate the illegal alien that comes here, breeds here, and expects my already bankrupt government to raise his kids and give them healthcare at the ER.

    Real libertarians either support the law or change it. What's next? Saying that there's nothing illicit about robbery when you steal to feed your family? Nothing illicit about being late on your mortgage because you'd rather buy a big plasma TV? Sorry Shikha, if something is against the law, IT IS ILLICIT!

    You're a fucking commie, Shikkah. It's a damn shame a respectable publication like Reason would employ you.

    FIRE HER, REASON! That bitch doesn't deserve a job here. Let her peddle her propaganda at The Huffington Post.

    Oh and Shikkah, please take off that burka, it makes you look fat.

  • ||

    Do you, perhaps have a newsletter or pamphlet I could subscribe to. I find the racist diatribe an underappreciated art form.

  • BILL3||

    Hey, nobody's hating Shika for being brown, I'm hating her for being a pro-illegal alien loving bitch.

  • MWG||

    So much stupid in one post.

    "The very word "immigration" refers to a LEGAL process."

    No it doesn't. It merely means the movement from one's place of origin to another.

    "If I rob a bank, I'm a bank robber, I'm not an unauthorized withdrawer. If I rape you, I'm a rapist, not an unauthorized penetrator. "

    Notice your examples both involve a victim and a violation of his/her individual rights.

    "What about Japan? Japan has no problem deporting illegal aliens doing the jobs the Japs won't do. Mexico, Israel, Colombia, France, Germany, Switzerland, and pretty much every country deports people who cross their borders illegally."

    What's your point. Most advanced countries have universal healthcare too.

    "But I do hate the illegal alien that comes here, breeds here, and expects my already bankrupt government to raise his kids and give them healthcare at the ER."

    So theft is ok as long as the parents are citizens, right?

    "Real libertarians either support the law or change it. What's next? Saying that there's nothing illicit about robbery when you steal to feed your family? Nothing illicit about being late on your mortgage because you'd rather buy a big plasma TV? Sorry Shikha, if something is against the law, IT IS ILLICIT!"

    Screw those escaped slaves! Teh law is teh law! Actually that's more of a conservative argument.

  • BILL3||

    "What's your point. Most advanced countries have universal healthcare too."

    ---Mister, don't talk oranges if I'm discussing apples. We're talking IMMIGRATION here.

    "So theft is ok as long as the parents are citizens, right?"

    ---No, theft is always a crime, so is illegal immigration. Of course, commies like Shikka love their illegal aliens. Who knows, maybe she has some paki grandfather she'd like to smuggle across the border.

    "Screw those escaped slaves! Teh law is teh law! Actually that's more of a conservative argument."

    ---Slaves were brought here AGAINST THEIR WILL. Don't compare a slave to an illegal alien, in fact, why don't you go to Miami and ask the blacks there how they feel about illegal aliens, I'm telling you, their answers ain't gonna be pretty.

  • MWG||

    "Mister, don't talk oranges if I'm discussing apples. We're talking IMMIGRATION here."

    Slow down there grego, you're missing the point. Arguing, as you did, that because other countries do X, and therefore so should we is a lame argument hence my universal healthcare example.

    "No, theft is always a crime..."

    So why don't you hate citizens who use the government to steal for their children's education?

    "Slaves were brought here AGAINST THEIR WILL. Don't compare a slave to an illegal alien..."

    Way to miss the point again champ. Arguing 'teh law is teh law' is pretty lame in light of some of the pretty bad policies defended under the law. Ever hear of Jim Crow?

    Finally, GREGOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "(Spare me your wrath, nativists, for not using the term illegal immigrants. There is nothing inherently illicit with people wanting to work in this country in order to provide Americans with cheap apples and houses. But there is something inherently illicit with a government of an allegedly free people refusing to give them the papers to do so and then persecuting them—and Americans who want to hire them—for not having the papers.)"

    So what you're saying is that is essentially no such thing as national sovereignty.

    Sorry but we do not have a one world global government and there is no such thing as some global "right" to be anywhere on the planet that you happen to want to be.

    If you want to make an immigration argument on an economic basis, go right ahead.

    But don't try to tell me that nation states - including ours - do not have any legitimate authority to keep out anybody on the planet who shows up and decides that they want to move in.

  • ||

    But don't try to tell me that nation states - including ours - do not have any legitimate authority to keep out anybody on the planet who shows up and decides that they want to move in.

    I think there can be no argument but to say "he who has the guns makes the rules".

    However, I would not think it is beneficial to the world to impose all the artificial boundaries to movement of non-criminals. Only acceptance of the argument of zero-sum makes it important to not let certain people in. (and strangely only communists make the arguments about not letting people out).

    If you accept that people are productive and create net gains, then countries should welcome people, especially if your economy is based on continuous growth and the most ambitious people are the ones who leave everything they know to start something in an unfamiliar place with an unfamiliar people. They should be welcomed wholeheartedly for that.

  • BILL3||

    Artificial boundaries? Tell you what, try crossing from San Diego to Tijuana and tell me you're not entering a totally different world.

    Boundaries are not artificial, they are real you globalist f-ck!

  • ||

    globalist f-ck!

    that's a new one, meanwhile when I'm crossing from buffalo to toronto the biggest difference I see is the prevalence of Tim Hortons.

  • MWG||

    "But don't try to tell me that nation states - including ours - do not have any legitimate authority to keep out anybody on the planet who shows up and decides that they want to move in."

    The only authority the US government has is what's outlined in the constitution and you'll find nothing in there regarding the authority to keep out migrant workers.

  • J_L_B||

    Article IV, Section 4

    The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion

    Also,

    invasion (n)
    in·va·sion [ in váy'n ]
    arrival in large numbers: the arrival of large numbers of people or things at one time

    Seems pretty straightforward. I would say that they do have the authority to keep out migrant workers, or, more appropriately, ensure that a large number do not arrive illegally.

  • MWG||

    Do you have a link where you got that definition? I think this one is better.

    Definition of INVASION

    1: an act of invading; especially : incursion of an army for conquest or plunder
    2: the incoming or spread of something usually hurtful

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invasion

    Mexican migrant workers have not stolen anything by force. They don't occupy anything in any meaningful sense that would constitute an 'invasion'.

  • J_L_B||

    http://www.bing.com/Dictionary.....ORM=DTPDIA

    I just think the prospect of allowing billions of prospective lower class workers into a country doesn't bode well for said country. It's reasonable to control the flow to match the need.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    It is reasonable to control the flow of medicine to match the need.

    It is reasonable to control the flow of food to match the need.

    It is reasonable to control the flow of guns to match the need.

    It kills me when libertarians lose their principles of free market economics when faced with labor as opposed to goods.

  • J_L_B||

    People can choose to emigrate for reasons other than employment. Keeping out those who are a threat and ensuring an oversupply doesn't have an adverse effect on the current population is reasonable (and adverse effects can be non-economic); and no, an oversupply of people is not the same as an oversupply of inanimate objects.

  • MWG||

    Billions will come!? I think that's a pretty 'bold' assertion (also a common one) given the fact that, as the article points out, net illegal immigration to the US is about 0. You see, migrant workers tend to hold to the laws of supply and demand.

  • J_L_B||

    The cost is pretty high for those in countries not in close proximity to the US. When you reduce that cost to amount of a plane ticket AND make it legal, you can only expect one outcome.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    ...you can only expect one outcome.


    Adequate supply meeting market demand? Less deadweight loss and compliance/transaction costs providing a more efficient economic benefit?
    Excellent, let's do that then.

    If I am to understand what you imply then you are saying that without the immigration laws as they are today (or even more strict) in place then we would be overun with criminals and layabouts. It never ceases to amaze me that people think that a person who uproots their life, takes enourmous risk, works very hard to make the move and to obtain work here, can be some sort of drain on our economy. If only our overpriveledged 99% douchebags down at OWS had the same work ethic.

    But I digress, I can't do these imigration threads anymore. Everyone is either (in general) a Tony (utilitarian social justice arguments) or a LoneWacko (xenophobic nativist arguments) and the principled position is neither.

  • J_L_B||

    As the Mariel Boat Lift showed, once those controls were momentarily lifted we were overun with criminals and layabouts in addition to the those that work very hard to make the move and to obtain work here. Can we stop the fantasy that only plane-loads of nuns and amish farmers and carpenters would head over?

  • MWG||

    You clearly know shit about what immigration entails. As someone who is married to an immigrant and is considering moving overseas, I can assure you, the decision involves a helluva lot more than the price of a plane ticket.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "The only authority the US government has is what's outlined in the constitution and you'll find nothing in there regarding the authority to keep out migrant workers."

    Even if that were the case, the border states themselves would still have the power to do it if they so chose.

    As the 10th states, any powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the states are reserved to the states and the people respectively.

    And there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the states from barring entry to foreign nationals.

  • ||

    A1S8

    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

  • Real reason||

    Slow news day? Nothing else to write about?-he said it was a joke he's said it before and he'll say it again. I bet ur voting Colbert huh dalmia?

  • ||

    Yeah, I don't think he'll be building an electrified fence, but its still a shitty way to get the point across that he'll be tough (however that's defined) on illegal immigration.

    I hate politicians playing to the pundits.

  • ||

    “with real guns and real bullets to stop intruders.” = execution?

    Maybe we should place retired grandmas with cookies at the boarders to stop highly armed drug lords known to kill boarder agents. I support a real immigration policy, but a secure boarder isn't going to happen with "happy thoughts".

  • GILMORE||

    Yes... the border is constantly being crossed *by highly armed drug lords seeking to assassinate american border patrol agents*...

    Everybody knows that!!

    Then they run off to wash dishes and pick peaches and do landscaping work... Every single one of them!! Armed drug lords, who after their murder-sprees, seek out minimum wage occupations...

    THE THREAT IS REAL, PEOPLE

    On June 2010 , a 15-year-old Mexican citizen was shot to death on the Mexican side of the border near El Paso, Texas. The U.S Border Patrol reported that the officers responded to a group of suspected illegal immigrants who were throwing rocks at them

    They were sending mexican rocks across the border!! Smuggling! The 15 yr old was going to grow up into a Drug Lord!

    We must wet our pants in irrational fear!!!

  • ||

    Across the border can be a very short distance. It doesn't have any width.

    And you can easily kill a person throwing rocks at their head or vital organs. It's absolutely cause to use lethal force to defend yourself, particularly if you can't flee (as the officer in question couldn't, as he was attempting to subdue a suspect at the time).

  • GILMORE||

    Michele Bachmann was on the stump last week condemning unauthorized workers as an economic and security threat. She promised to spend billions of dollars to build not a single but a “secure double fence” on the border...

    I knew it was only time before they double-dog dared the fence into being 200ft high, electrified, with machine gun turrets and a moat with sharks...with lazer beams....

    I think it was when Bachman was accusing Perry of being Soft on Mexicans for letting them attend college... I predicted The Fence would get bigger and bigger as each candidate tried to out-Nativist the next guy.

    To the immigration pants-wetters/SOVERIGN NATION!!-idiots= please remember that the reason politicians make such a big deal about Mexican boogeymen takin' yer jobs and killing yer wimmin...is because they *want* you think about that and not about the fact that they have no particular policy ideas about *anything else*...

    Seriously. You're being played.

    But whatever, form a pinata lynch mob in the meantime.. its funny to watch.

  • ||

    Sharks in the Rio Grande = more cost effective than a border fence.

    (Un?)like Herman Cain, I'm completely joking, of course.

  • ||

    Proprietrist,

    You've never seen the Rio Grande, have you?

  • ||

    Alas, I live in Texas but have never been to the border so have no idea what I'm telling bad jokes about. Are piranhas more realistic?

  • ||

    Think of a vicious animal that inhabits slightly damp sand and you'll be there.

  • ||

    How about some combination of komodo dragons and poison dart frogs? Make the border a huge wildlife refuge for ferocious and/or venomous endangered animals - it will make the Left AND the Right happy.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    Obviously, cause freshwater sharks arent that big or dangerous.

  • Guest||

    "That’s all too wussy for Herman Cain. He has been going around the country promising to build an electrified fence that would kill people who try to cross it on the border with Mexico. What’s more, he is even mulling deploying military troops “with real guns and real bullets to stop intruders.” Given that entering the country without proper papers is a misdemeanor, Cain is essentially advocating execution—without due process—for a misdemeanor.

    Wow! Silly, pure partisan drivel.

    Shikha, does a Creator allow freewill?

    Do you believe that concept?

    Just curious.

  • Mr. Mark||

    Hiring writers from OWSers, I see.

    Why does Reason continue to include the deluded, nonsensical crap written by this Dalmia twit?

    Hey, numbskull, check this out.

  • ||

    ^^^ Hahahahahahahahaha.

    Shikha, go back to Zucotti Park, you smelly hippiester!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement