South-of-the-Border's Gonna Do It Again

The Chicago Tribune's Steve Chapman has written a sharp column about the recent marches for immigrants' rights. My favorite part comes after some march-bashing quotes from Trent Lott and Pat Buchanan, one of whom complains that some of the demonstrators carried "foreign flags":

Conservatives defend the Confederate flag as a legitimate way for Southerners to honor their heritage. It doesn't occur to Lott and Buchanan that maybe immigrants brandish the flags of their mother countries for similar reasons, not out of contempt for America.

(Minor caveat: Chapman seems confused about who raised the foreign-flag complaint, Lott or Buchanan.)

Comments

[joe]

Every Spring, a bunch of anti-American troublemakers march through the streets of Boston, Chicago, and New York flying a foreign flag, and the politicians suck up to them like you wouldn't believe.

Even going so far as to partake of green beer, in a demonstration of their willingness to the America "colored" by foreign influence.

Wake up, America!

[Pro Libertate]

joe knows the menace. He speaks the truth. When I lived in Chicago, these foreign fiends even dyed the Chicago River green.? And made other ethnic groups drink too much through their insidious influence.

?Though, as astutely noted in The Fugitive, how can you tell when the Chicago River's been dyed green?

[Thomas Paine's Goiter]

Joe,

The country would be MUCH better off if those people were deported.

[Karen]

I wonder what they'd say about the Mexican flag cookies my agency had at its Cinco de Mayo party last week. "Cinco de Mayo" party is bad enough, of course, but there we were, serving almond-flavored symbols of subversion. We sold enchilada lunches to raise money for a local scholarship fund. 5 Mayo provided a convenient excuse, and everyone in Texas likes enchiladas.

[SR]

"Though, as astutely noted in The Fugitive, how can you tell when the Chicago River's been dyed green?"

Actually, that's not exactly correct. The deputy marshall asked why, if the city could dye it green one day a year, it couldn't be dyed blue the other 364.

[Timothy]

Anyone who isn't some sort of horrible communist likes enchiladas.

[R C Dean]

There are reasons people feel threatened by Mexican immigration and not, say, Irish immigration:

(1) The number of illegal Mexican immigrants and our apparent inability to regularize and control the flow of Mexican nationals coming to the US.

(2) The apparent unwillingness of many Mexicans to assimilate into US culture, as evidenced most prominently by their lack of English and the insistence by many of their more vocal advocates that not speaking English is just fine and dandy.

(3) The presence of a militant anti-American "reconquista" ideology.

(4) The apparent insistence of large numbers of Mexican immigrants that the US allow uncontrolled immigration from Mexico and not expect any assimilation (if this wasn't the message of the recent marches, I don't know what was).

You can have open borders, or a multicultural society, or a welfare state, but I don't think you can have all three. I'm not even sure you can sustain any two of these for long.

[fyodor]

RC,

Of course joe was not comparing Mexican immigration to Irish immigration. The issue raised by the blog post is whether waving a Mexican flag is an expression of contempt for the US, or as Lonewacko would surely claim, reconquista (sp?). The point of joe's and Chapman's comparisons is that there are clearly other possibilities, and that those who are most critical of waving the Mexican flag are often in the camp most supportive of others waving flags every bit as "foreign."

[Jason Ligon]

"(2) The apparent unwillingness of many Mexicans to assimilate into US culture, as evidenced most prominently by their lack of English and the insistence by many of their more vocal advocates that not speaking English is just fine and dandy."

Doesn't this disappear after a generation?

[fyodor]

(4) The apparent insistence of large numbers of Mexican immigrants that the US allow uncontrolled immigration from Mexico and not expect any assimilation (if this wasn't the message of the recent marches, I don't know what was).

Yikes!! Well, advocating reform of immigration policy is one other possibility of what "the message" was.

I will agree on one thing. As I've said before, mass protests are largely Rorshach (sp?) tests in terms of their supposed "message", both for participants and viewers, which is why I'm loathe to participate in them, and your reaction is a good example of that. But to say that the point of the marches is that there be no immigration policy at all and to stand up for non-assimiliation is rather presumptuous. Oh, I'm sure you can find someone to back that view, but I really doubt that was the point of most marchers. But again, ultimately who knows, and that's the problem with such displays.

[Isaac Bartram]

The country would be MUCH better off if those people were deported.

That's what I think when Pat Buchanan goes of on one of his anti-immigration rants.

[Jason Ligon]

"(3) The presence of a militant anti-American "reconquista" ideology."

Meh. What is the prevalence of this ideology? It is the sort of thing that gets a lot of attention even if its five mexicans meeting in a garage.

[Chris]

If Buchanan or Lott were complaining about the Mexican flag during a Cinco de Mayo celebration, then Chapman's comparison would be appropriate. You can bet that Buchanan doesn't complain about wearing orange and green on Saint Patrick's day. But this is not a case of ethnic pride.

Right or wrong, nationalism is heavily involved in the immigration debate over this issue. And its not just the xenophones in this country who have made that an issue. Nor is it only the xenophones who see nationalism as part of the debate. Further, when the nationalism issue is coupled with the victimology rhetoric being spouted by too many idiots, leading a parade with a foreign flag adds to the "us vs. them" attitude of the whole matter. And this attitude annoys the hell out of the people in the "them" category.

[Jersey McJones]

Well folks, I think RCD summed up the real problem we have with immigration - some people just detest Mexicans.

JMJ

[Oliver Cromwell]

"The country would be MUCH better off if those people were deported."

But this one wouldn't!

[fyodor]

Doesn't this disappear after a generation?

Gillespie has posted links to various articles and surveys that purport to show that Mexican immigrants assimilate just as well as any others. I don't know if I buy it 100%, but I don't think there's really an assimilation problem. Maybe the reason there seems to be one is that there's such a large recent influx of immgrants that we're seeing a lot more of the "1st generation" at one time than most of us remember seeing in any other immigrant group. I don't doubt the survey that says that in the second generation only 7% of Mexican immigrants speak Spanish as their dominant language and 0% in the third generation.

My mother's parents came over on the boat and my mother only spoke Yiddish till she was 5. Then she went to school.

[thoreau]

joe-

Don't forget that some of "those people" actually send money to terrorist groups run by members of their religion.

I have a modest proposal for dealing with them...

[Thomas Paine's Goiter]

You can have open borders, or a multicultural society, or a welfare state, but I don't think you can have all three. I'm not even sure you can sustain any two of these for long.

The world needs open borders, and the US setting an example is the way to go.

[Mr. F. Le Mur]

What RC Dean and Chris said.

What is the prevalence of this ideology?
Dismiss first, then find out later.

When I was an "undocumented worker" in one o' them furrin countries full o' funny tawkin' furriners, the last thing I would've thought of doing was waving the American flag and demanding rights.

[fyodor]

Chris,

If you're saying it's not a good idea to wave Mexican flags at immigration rallies, I agree with you. That's because it enables the Buchanons and Lotts of the world to score points. But that doesn't stand as a justification for Lott or Buchanon or their ilk to make their unfounded charges. To say it's legitimate to complain about Mexican flags at immigration rallies because the ralliers should know that people might complain about them carrying Mexican flags is a circular argument. The point still remains that the message those carrying the flags intend to send is most often not what those complaining about say it is, and they should know bettter.

[Mike]

(2) The apparent unwillingness of many Mexicans to assimilate into US culture, as evidenced most prominently by their lack of English and the insistence by many of their more vocal advocates that not speaking English is just fine and dandy.

The only reason this wasn't a problem for the Irish is they spoke English already. Every wave of immigration results in large enclaves of foreign speakers in American cities.

My grandfather moved to a town in Vermont, half of which spoke French, the other half spoke Polish. I eat lunch once a week in Chinatown here in Philly. And every day I walk by a group of little old ladies who, as far as I can tell are speaking Russian or Ukranian or Klingon or something.

Same as it ever was.

[fyodor]

When I was an "undocumented worker" in one o' them furrin countries full o' funny tawkin' furriners, the last thing I would've thought of doing was waving the American flag and demanding rights.

So?

[Those guys that shot Ceaucescu]

"Open borders" means that I can buy up Pemex stock, demand a real audit and jail the people we found stealing from Pemex? (You'd need a pretty big jail, granted)

And open borders means I can buy beachfront property in Mexico, right?

And we can jail (or better yet, shoot) the Mexican politicians who intentionally discourage the formation of small businesses that would create jobs in Mexico?

[MarkV]

YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED...RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!

[R C Dean]

Well folks, I think RCD summed up the real problem we have with immigration - some people just detest Mexicans.

Fuck you, Jersey. I'm a quarter Mexican myself, by ancestry. Read what I write. Did I say that I agreed with these views? Did I opine on the prevalence of reconquista or the actual lack of assimilation? Or did I couch everything with "apparently"s?

With the sole exception of what I thought the takeaway from the marches was.

Well, advocating reform of immigration policy is one other possibility of what "the message" was.

And just what reform were they advocating? I didn't hear anything that didn't boil down to "amnesty and open borders." Did you?

[Phileleutherus Lipsiensus]

Heh. In South Alabama people fly the flags of the USA, the CSA, Spain, France, etc. Why? Because all of those entities are or were sovereign over the region at one time.

[AML]

When I was an "undocumented worker" in one o' them furrin countries full o' funny tawkin' furriners, the last thing I would've thought of doing was waving the American flag and demanding rights.

Yeah. You see, the problem is that these uppity furriners ain't afraid of us anymore, what with their flag wavin' an' insistin' on their bein' as good as any native-born. We need to get out our hoods n' crosses an' put these nig... I mean, furriners, back in their place.

Who besides Le Mur is with me on this one?

[Warren]

You can have open borders, or a multicultural society, or a welfare state, but I don't think you can have all three. I'm not even sure you can sustain any two of these for long.

I don't disagree. So let's open the borders, and stop supporting the other two.

[Mexican cops that shake down C]

How am I supposed to make a living under "open borders'?

[R C Dean]

I don't disagree. So let's open the borders, and stop supporting the other two.

First we will need to repeal the welfare state and re-establish a culture of assimilation, then we can talk about opening the borders. Certainly of the three (multi-culti relativism, the welfare state, and open borders) the only one I support even in isolation is the last.

Combine it with the other two, though, and my fear is that we will see an increasingly balkanized and divided country.

[FatDrunkAndStupid]

You know, I just don't really buy this, "people just don't like Mexicans" theroy. The crowd I run with is about as lily white as it gets, and I can report with relative confidence that if it weren't for the Asians, Mexicans would be the most beloved minority in America. Sure they might not be great at math, but they're hard working, have strong family and moral values, and keep to themselves.

[Madog]

Pedro's South of the Border is awesome.

[Jesse Walker]

they're hard working, have strong family and moral values, and keep to themselves.

Yeah, well, just wait til they're assimilated.

[VM]

Jesse - i think his post was to verify the third part of his name 🙂

[joe]

fyodor writes, "Maybe the reason there seems to be one is that there's such a large recent influx of immgrants that we're seeing a lot more of the "1st generation" at one time than most of us remember seeing in any other immigrant group."

Another reason is that immigrants no longer settle into ethnic ghettos nearly as much as they did for the first 200 years of this country's history, when there were neighborhood business districts in which one could go an entire career without needing English. Today, permanent immigrants (not the seasonal laborers who go back and forth each year) are more likely to live, work, and play in predominantly English-speaking neighborhoods, stores, and workplaces.

The fact that we see people trying to get by with broken English in supermarkets and sub shops is actually good news for those concerned about cultural assimiliation, because we are witnessing the assimiliation process in action.

[joe]

RC writes, "I didn't hear anything that didn't boil down to "amnesty and open borders." Did you?"

And then, from the message, "amnesty and open borders," you jumped to "The presence of a militant anti-American "reconquista" ideology.

(4) The apparent insistence of large numbers of Mexican immigrants that the US allow uncontrolled immigration from Mexico and not expect any assimilation"

Because they don't want to be dragged from their homes, held in a cell, have their livelihoods taken away, and be deported, and because they want other people to be allowed to move here, you conclude that they are hostile to America, and a threat.

That's quite a leap.

[Jersey McJones]

RCD, are you for real? What "welfare state?" YOu idiot. Immigrants don';t get welfare, goofus.

JMJ

[R C Dean]

And then, from the message, "amnesty and open borders," you jumped to "The presence of a militant anti-American "reconquista" ideology.

joe, are you denying that there is a militant anti-American reconquista ideology floating around out there?

Or are you denying that the message of the marches was "amnesty and open borders"?

Not sure how I "leaped" from one to the other, I merely observed that both were reasons for the increasing unease of many Americans with current Mexican immigration patterns and practices.

you conclude that they are hostile to America, and a threat.

I said no such thing. Christ, joe, if you're going to lie about what I say, you shouldn't do it in the exact same thread. Too easy to check.

Immigrants don't get welfare, goofus.

Sure they do.

http://www.nilc.org/ciwc/nwsltr/caup4-04.htm

[It's a semitic communist plot.]

History records that "Karl" Moses Mordecai Marx Levy (1818-1883) was born on May 5, 1818, in the city of Trier in the Rhine Province of Prussia (now Germany). His mother, Herietta Pressburg, was from Holland and like Karl's father, was Jewish and also a descendent of a long line of rabbi's. Marxists view the family as the primary obstacle to dismantling nation-states and thus establishing a collectivist Utopia. The social and political health of a nation-state is inversely proportional to the degree of racial, lingual, and religious diversity within it. In other words, the greater the "diversity" in a nation-state the less stable and enduring it is - a principle well understood by Communists everywhere. Marxism is less an economic theory, than it is a state of mind from which certain theories and practices have evolved. This state of mind is maternal and group-centered, and includes the view that Man's natural state is collectivist, or communal. Individual needs and wants must be subjugated to the needs of the community or state - to the needs of a borderless world or "Global Village." -Ray Novosel

[jp]

Anecdote: I got a warm fuzzy a few years ago when I stopped at an ATM in a town in PA with a lot of immigrant farmworkers. In front of me at the machine was an older lady struggling to use it, while a 8-10 y.o. girl (her granddaughter?) was trying to help her along.

After a few minutes, the girl asked me if I could help. I explained to her what each screen meant, and she then passed on the explanation to Mama in Spanish, and Mama pushed the buttons.

The girl's English was perfect.

[Karen]

It seems to me that one thing that would help the discussion is a good definition of 'assimilation.' I presume this means replacing certain aspects of the immigrant's native culture with aspects from the host country. Learning the host country's language is one, but what else? Anyone have any ideas?

[fyodor]

And just what reform were they advocating? I didn't hear anything that didn't boil down to "amnesty and open borders." Did you?

I confess I didn't listen to any speeches and am relying mostly on second hand info. From that I heard a great variety of things that the rallies were supposedly about. One was that they were protesting against a bill in Congress to felonize illegal immigration. I also heard that it was to garner more respect for immmigrants, and a general show of immigrant solidariy (not just Mexican or Latino immigrants participated). There's a variety of reform bills before in Congress that stop well short of full amnesty and totally open borders.

[MarkV]

I followed RCD's link above, which leads inevitably to the following question:

JMJ, why are you both stupid and arrogant?

[Jersey McJones]

RCD posts are both stupid and wrong.

The state of California may provide some welfare, but the feds do not.

JMJ

[StupendousMan]

"Because they don't want to be dragged from their homes, held in a cell, have their livelihoods taken away, and be deported, and because they want other people to be allowed to move here, you conclude that they are hostile to America, and a threat."

Why do they care if others can move here? My guess is it's the age old propensity for people to want to be surrounded by others who look like them. Admirable, inspiring, heroic even.

Wait- isn't that called racism when a person of European decent feels that way?

To those who advocate open borders- can't you think of any downsides? Or is it a position taken on principle? If so who will pay for any issues that crop up? Certainly not the, I'm assuming middle class, posters on Hit and Run. Do you have the courage of your convictions or will someone else have to step up?

[Smappy]

Ever hear of Six Flags amusement parks? The "Six Flags" in question are the flags of the nations that have at one time governed Texas: Spain, France, Mexico, Republic of Texas, CSA and USA.

Four of those flags represent either countries that refused to fight or abandoned our righteous campaign in Iraq, are flooding our pristine lands with swarthy job stealers, or rebelled against the just and omnipotent hand of our Federal Government.

No red-blooded American could support such a haven of anti-patriotism! Once we've got these furriners all sorted out it'll be time to take on these purveyors of over-priced multinational good times!

[Pig Mannix]

But up close, that side was nowhere to be found. The mood in Chicago was cheerful, and the behavior was peaceable. Despite the influx of nearly 400,000 people, Chicago police reported no arrests and only one minor scuffle.

This illustrates one of the biggest problems with understanding and arriving at a concensus with this issue - immigration doesn't effect all of country in the same manner, nor are all the immigrants remotely all the same class of individuals.

Chapman is in Chicago. So am I, and I agree illegal immigration doesn't cause us any problems here.

Unfortunately, not every region of the country is experiencing immigration as seamlessly as Chicago is, and in some areas of the country those demonstrations were far from peaceful. And having also lived in the Southwest, I understand perfectly well that the residents of areas that are close to the border have some perfectly valid complaints.

Trying to make a general statement about the current immigration situation based on your annectdotal experiences in your own region or with your grandfather from the old country is misleading. Not everybody is necessarily experiencing the same effect you are.

[MikeP]

I'm serious, was there a message coming out of the marches that didn't boil down to "amnesty and open borders"? Anyone?

To be frank, I expect that many of the organizers and backers of the marches are for amnesty but not for open borders. In particular, supportive labor unions would like to recruit a batch of newly legalized members, but would like to see stronger immigration measures in the future to protect what they believe their interests to be.

I would guess that the message being conveyed by most marchers was indeed amnesty and open borders. But then I am for amnesty and open borders, so maybe I'm just exhibiting viewer bias.

[Pro Libertate]

Well. Back in the Colonial era when my ancestors came over, we formed a new nation founded on libertarian principles. All of you people who came over since then obviously messed that up. Please leave 🙂

[joe]

RC, "joe, are you denying that there is a militant anti-American reconquista ideology floating around out there?"

"Floating around out there?" No. Substantial enough to be of any relevance to a discussion of immigration? Yes, I am denying that. For every Mexican who buys into such lunatic fantasies, I would guess there are 1000 Americans who are flat out bigots in their views of Mexicans, and I consider those bigots to be little more than a fringe. Cripes, you might as well talk about Naziism as a reason to oppose the immigration of Germans.

"Why do they care if others can move here?" Maybe because those "others" are often the rest of their families? Or maybe because they actually believe immigration is a good thing, that people should be allowed to do? Somehow, StupendousMan, your post tells us a lot more about your own feelings that those of the immigrants whose minds you try to read. You find the desire to be surrounded by people with the same skin color heroic? Really?

[fyodor]

was there a message coming out of the marches that didn't boil down to "amnesty and open borders"? Anyone?

I've already described to you what I've heard others saying the message was.

[fyodor]

was there a message coming out of the marches that didn't boil down to "amnesty and open borders"? Anyone?

I've already described to you what I've heard others saying the message was. Once again, I think different people took away a variety of different messages. And if "open borders" means no quotas or numerical limits and if "amnesty" means those already here are not automatically ruled out of citizenship, I have no problem with that message anyway.

[joe]

Pig Mannix,

The harms caused by the black market in immigration, a black market created like all black markets by prohibitionist laws, are one of the biggest reasons I support the repeal of those laws. I'm not ignoring the problems residents near the border have to face because of illegal immigration; I'm trying to solve them, by dismantling their cause.

Highly capitalized gangs of smugglers.

Distrust of legitimate authority among immigrants.

Litter and damage to land committed by people sneaking across the countryside.

Like the reign of violence in Chicago during the 20s, all of these problems are caused by the laws banning what would otherwise be a peaceful, orderly process.

[Pro Libertate]

Immigration, especially the illegal variety, is a tough issue. I'm not sure what the right answer would be even if I could get what I wanted by snapping my fingers. A free nation should have liberal immigration and entry rules; on the other hand, there's nothing particularly wrong with having limits on immigration and visas. I sometimes worry about diluting our economic and political values--for instance, a large influx of people from a totalitarian regime might not share our liberal views. However, I do tend to agree that getting all draconian with illegal immigrants will likely result in some nasty criminal activity--like with most prohibitions.

[jasno]

RC Dean Wrote:They are still giving aid and support to the wackos by marching with them. If you don't want to give aid and support to wackos, DON'T MARCH IN THEIR PARADES! How hard is that?

Come on, are you kidding? So if a couple wacko's show up at the next RC Dean Appreciation Day Parade we should shut the whole thing down? We don't want people to think RC Dean supports them, do we?

For what its worth, I immigrated my white ass to the great nation of California from the monocultural paradise of rural Washington State way back in 1993. I've lived in predominately 1st generation Mexican neighborhoods(ahhh Pomona.. how I miss your cheap tacos and fruit stands...) for part of that, and I can't say anything but good about the folks I've met. I can't count the 2nd and 3rd generation Mexican-American friends I've had and as far as I'm concerned the assimilation process is going just fine. I've also never met anyone who even remotely thought California somehow belonged to Mexico. Mexicans who come here generally like the way things are - why in the hell would they want to turn California into Mexico?

[Chris]

Fyodor,

First, Pat Buchanan's complaints are not a reason to stop flying the Mexican flag. Pissing off humorless assholes of every ilk is reason enough to do so.

Second, its not an issue of circular logic creating some confusion in my mind. The rhetoric leading up to May 1 created the problem, presuming that there really was a problem.

Waving the Mexican flag is not necessarily a bad idea. However, if the message of a conversation between two relatively intelligent people is confusing, then its incumbent upon the messenger to fix the problem. May 1 was a day when the immigrant rights groups decided to flex their muscles to the rest of United States--specifically with the work boycott. This is a confrontational act. And in my city, the confrontational act was puncuated with a march behind a ten foot Mexican flag. The marchers were also waving many more Mexican flags than American flags (Oddly enough, one gentlemen was waving a Puerto Rican flag).

If someone is marching to demand an easier path to citizenship, marching behind a prominent American flag would convince someone like me of their sincerity. If someone wants greater rights as a guest worker, then I get vicerally angry when they DEMAND that I change my rules to accomodate them, no matter what flag they are marching under.

An example of when someone protested effectively:

Early in his life, Gandhi held a rally regarding the unfair treatment afforded by the British to Indians in South Africa. British officials attended to keep tabs on the event. Gandhi amde a speech--and presumably so did others-- regarding the rights that should be afforded everyone living under the British crown. At the end of the rally, the protestors/delegates stood and sang "God Save the King." The message was that the protestors demanded civil rights not as Indians, but because they were British subjects (even though they weren't white protestants).

(Please note, I got this history lesson from the David Attenborough movie. If not historically accurate, I still stand by my point.)

It was not necessary for a similar event to happen at the May 1 rallies. But the prominent display of the Mexican flag sent a message of separation and not of unity with the rest of this country. I don't think that the rally organizers were so dillusional to think that the opposite meaning would be conveyed. If that's the case, then they had no intention of having a message of unity, only one of confrontation. The prominent display of the flag only emphasised the point.

[Pro Libertate]

Chris, I think that's a fair point. However, I'm wondering which Sir David Attenborough movie you're referring to. Perhaps The Private Life of Plants? 🙂

Don't be embarrassed because I fell into the same trap before watching a Nova episode on amber, hosted by David Attenborough. Since I was expecting his brother Richard (you know, with the amber-Jurassic Park tie-in), I had to sit for a minute to remember that there were two Attenboroughs. Anyway, Dick's the one who does all the acting and directing. He's also quite cool in having been made a life peer (a noninheritable baronage) as opposed to a mere knight. That's Lord Dick to you 🙂

[StupendsouMan]

Joe;

"You find the desire to be surrounded by people with the same skin color heroic? Really?"

I was being sarcastic.

[Chris]

Pro Libertate,

I actually think it was "Life of Birds." I did find it a bit out of place at that point in the film, but that did not take away from the rousing presentation. In fact, it was so moving that his brother Richard stole it completely and spliced it in his own movie "Gandhi". Unfortunately, David was never credited for this scene.

[R C Dean]

So if a couple wacko's show up at the next RC Dean Appreciation Day Parade we should shut the whole thing down?

Did you miss the part where its the wackos from ANSWER that are organizing both the anti-war and the immigration protests?

If ANSWER organized an RC Dean Appreciation Day Parade, I would certainly boycott it, as much as I support the cause of appreciating RC Dean.

If you don't want to give aid and support to the likes of ANSWER, don't march in their parades. If you do march in their parades, don't be shocked if people think you agree with them.

[Pro Libertate]

Chris, you're doubtlessly correct. I saw clear ornithological references in The Great Escape, too.

[Responsible Freedom]

Are there any Libertarians older than say 40 here?

[Isaac Bartram]

Yes.

[Pro Libertate]

Responsible Freedom, I'm almost forty, if that counts.

[Responsible Freedom]

Maybe that is why Pro seems to make sense. Isaac hasnt said much.

I've had libertarian leanings for awhile but for too many of these apparently young bucks logic seems to escape them.

An example, Amnesty shows disregard for people that go through the process legally and encourages more illegal behavior.

Open borders will only go one way with the rest of us forced to fix and take care of all the resulting problems.

The problems are people uneducated about the Constitution and resulting in demands for govt support, which the rest of us must pay for. Other problems are the result of unskilled workers that will take the jobs of skilled Americans. Anybody who has worked in the construction trade in California can see this. Unfortunately, the result is poor quality construction. As a job inspector I see this all the time and we have little recourse except to keep trying different contractors until we find one that really knows what they are doing.

[R C Dean]

RF, I am fast coming up on 44.

[bubba]

The Irish and Confederate flag references are dumb. If the Irish or Crackers were waving these flags while demanding policy reforms, they'd be very poorly received.

How well does the Confederate flag go over when waved by the KKK?

[Responsible Freedom]

RC seems to make a lot of sense too.

The reconquista is actually very prevalent among all latinos. Like most blacks that feel wronged because of what happened to their ancestors, some of the most conservative latinos feel deep down that this land (CA) belonged to them and they have every right to demand it back or at least become large enough of a population to help get it back, albeit peacefully. They dont understand the Constitution or its principles.

[The Wine Commonsewer]

When I responded to the many emails I received urging me to boycott Cinco Deny-O I pointed out that Cinco de Mayo is an American holiday and isn't celebrated with much fervor in Mexico except by Americans vacationing there. Heck, Mexican schools aren't even closed on Cinco de Mayo.

Conservatives defend the Confederate flag as a legitimate way for Southerners to honor their heritage. It doesn't occur to Lott and Buchanan that maybe immigrants brandish the flags of their mother countries for similar reasons, not out of contempt for America.

Yes, but that hasn't stopped the eradication of the symbols of the old Confederacy from any and all public places by many of the very people who defend the right of people to wave the Mexican flag. And absent the Amendment Uno, displaying the Stars and Bars would be a felony. 🙂

It is pure Pollyana to conclude that there were no Mexican flags waved in defiance, as a show of contempt, or in support of the Reconquista. And that is just so much libertarian reductionism, as absurd as the conservative claim that all participants in the immigration parades were illegal.

The usual disclaimer: I'm a better friend of immigration than almost anyone in the US.

[The Wine Commonsewer]

Hey, Responsible, I am WAAAAAYYYY over 40. Not telling how much though.

Tim, I hate enchiladas, except at El Ranchito Taco Shop.

[The Wine Commonsewer]

See a picture of Milton Friedman celebrating Cinco de Mayo here.

[Responsible Freedom]

RCD, are you for real? What "welfare state?" YOu idiot. Immigrants don't get welfare, goofus.
JMJ

The state of California may provide some welfare, but the feds do not.
JMJ

Example of idiocy.

The figures are about $2,000 per illegal immigrant that it costs the state in services because most illegal immigrants do not pay any taxes but use many services including education and medicine.

In case you want to make the argument that they do pay taxes-- most, if not all, claim enough dependents to get all their money back. And most illegals spend a disproportionate amount of their money on food, which is not taxed in CA.

[The Wine Commonsewer]

All illegals pay consumption taxes like sales tax. They also pay property taxes indirectly through rents. If they work under a fake social security number they also pay those taxes which are not recoverable by them. Granted, that money is going to the feds and the localities are picking up the costs of medical care.

Don't get me wrong, I think they should be cut off--and so should you, and your grandparents, and my sister-in-law who gets rent subsidies to the tune of $600.00 per month even though she earns over $35,000.00 a year.

[MikeP]

Are there any Libertarians older than say 40 here?

If you're not a libertarian when you're twenty, you have no heart. If you're not an anarchist when you're forty, you have no brain.

[Anal Johnson]

Look, I'll say it again...

We'll take the blacks, the Mexicans and the Chinese...

But..WE DON'T! WANT! THE! IRISH!!!

[jp]

"All illegals pay consumption taxes like sales tax. They also pay property taxes indirectly through rents. If they work under a fake social security number they also pay those taxes which are not recoverable by them. Granted, that money is going to the feds and the localities are picking up the costs of medical care.

"Don't get me wrong, I think they should be cut off--and so should you, and your grandparents, and my sister-in-law who gets rent subsidies to the tune of $600.00 per month even though she earns over $35,000.00 a year."

Agreed. If we're going to go down the road of looking only at what direct cash payments people make to the government versus what direct cash payments they receive or will likely receive from the government, then probably 80-90% of Americans take out more than they pay in. Those of us in the top percentiles are carrying the rest of your lazy @sses.

Yeah, I went there.

[Responsible Freedom]

Is there a difference between anarchy and mob rule?

[MikeP]

Is there a difference between anarchy and mob rule?

Of course there is, just as there is a difference between government and totalitarianism. The latter is a subset of the former.

[Responsible Freedom]

If we're going to go down the road of looking only at what direct cash payments people make to the government versus what direct cash payments they receive or will likely receive from the government, then probably 80-90% of Americans take out more than they pay in.

For example?

The bridge to nowhere in Alaska? Doesn't benefit me. Dept of Indian Affairs- Doesn't benefit me. Dept of Edu.--Doesnt benefit me. IRS--Doesn't benefit me. ETC.
I'll give you a couple, Dept of Defense and the FAA, but I do pay taxes so...

[Responsible Freedom]

So Mike P,

No drivers licenses right?

What about stop signs?

[Responsible Freedom]

MikeP

No democracy?

[Responsible Freedom]

MikeP

What about the Constitution?

[SelfProclaimedMathGenius]

RF = 1/JMJ ???

I haven't seen so much bear-baiting since my ancestors were raising dogs for it.

[MikeP]

What about the Constitution?

What about it? Just a few posts ago you listed a whole bunch of unconstitutional activities of the US government.

I would have a lot more faith in government and the Constitution if it was worth the paper it's written on.

[MikeP]

No drivers licenses right?

Presumably either the owner or insurer of the roads or the insurer of the driver will require the driver to have a license or otherwise demonstrate an ability to drive and to be identified in the event he causes damage.

What about stop signs?

Stop signs would find themselves wherever the owners or operators of the roads thought they were useful.

No democracy?

No democracy in the sense that some set of people can make decisions for others who have not asked to have those decisions made for them. But if you belong to a bridge club or trade union that democratically chooses its officers, well, you chose to belong to that organization.

[MikeP]

Responsible Freedom,

It sounds like you are not at all familiar with libertarian theories of anarchism. I haven't read the lengthy Wikipedia article on anarcho-capitalism, but it's probably a good place to start.

Suffice it to say that libertarian theories on anarchy are not revolutionary: they are evolutionary. The idea is to replace the functions that government performs with private mechanisms until you look around one day and find that there is nothing the government has left to do.

Also, anarchy is not a wacky idea. The difference between someone who is a libertarian minarchist and a libertarian anarchist is not a large one, and it exists only at the limit. Most anarchists would back away from the abyss if they found that the final reforms caused more harm than good. And most minarchists would follow the anarchists over the cliff if by that time things were going swimmingly.

At its heart libertarianism is not a theory of government: It is a theory of society. And some libertarians believe the best way to guarantee that society is not to have a government around at all.

[aaron]

It seems to me that one thing that would help the discussion is a good definition of 'assimilation.' I presume this means replacing certain aspects of the immigrant's native culture with aspects from the host country. Learning the host country's language is one, but what else? Anyone have any ideas?

I live in a very hispanic neighborhood in Chicago. Their not all Mexican, there is also a large contingent of PRs and a handfull of other misc Central Americans. My suggestions for them on how to assimilate?

1. LEARN THAT YOUR FUCKING CAR HORN IS NOT A DOORBELL!

2. LEARN THAT YOUR FUCKING CAR HORN IS NOT A DOORBELL!

3 If you are going to drive around with 6-10 people hanging out of the car windows, you must take the flag off your windshield.

As long as we're on the subject of irritating behavior, I'd also appreciate if you'd get your son off the corner. He and his buddies keep throwing gang signs at passing cars and you know that's going eventually lead to gunfire.

[The Wine Commonsewer]

no drivers licenses

Huh? Anybody here not know how to drive?

No? So what is the purpose of the drivers license if we all know how to drive?

At least Arizona had the good sense to make your drivers license good until your 65 unless you have too many tickets or accidents.

[StupendousMan]

Aaron,

Would you happen to live in Humboldt Park?

[Sean Healy]

Everyone here knows that the Irish government is working furiously behind the scenes to secure an amnesty for the tens of thousands of illegal Irish in the US, right? Why the near-exclusive focus on Mexicans and disloyalty when the Irish have enlisted the support of a foreign government to advocate their position?

[Responsible Freedom]

Licenses are for keeping those that dont know how to drive off the roads.

What if a group of people decide to get together to form this club. Everyone gives up a little land and they make their club rules so that anyone that lives there must pay x$ every month so that they can make some rules for everyone. Later on when people move there they are bound by those rules since they bought there. Some of these rules are speed limits since previously people were given the right of way and cars kept hitting them. Other rules might be, lets get together and treat our waste with one system so as to avoid an entaglement of pipes and extra expense.

[MikeP]

Everyone gives up a little land and they make their club rules so that anyone that lives there must pay x$ every month so that they can make some rules for everyone.

That sounds like a homeowners association. It's a good solution for those who wish to govern their immediate residential community. I would think it would start to get a little unwieldy if there were many businesses also situated on the land -- that is, if the occupants were less homogeneous in their wants and needs.

And, of course, if it starts annexing other people's land or claims powers of governance over unowned properties, rights of way, or commons, it's just become yet another belligerent state.

To bring this back to the immigration discussion... The state has every right to make the requirements on who can be a citizen, that is, who can be a voting member of its club. The state does not have the legitimate right to prevent people who are not members of the club from using accepted rights of way to travel across the territory claimed by the state, or to voluntarily associate with residents of the territory claimed by the state.

The exception, of course, is that the state can legitimately prevent entry at the borders it controls to soldiers, foreign agents, terrorists, and other criminal or health threats.

[Responsible Freedom]

And, of course, if it starts annexing other people's land or claims powers of governance over unowned properties, rights of way, or commons, it's just become yet another belligerent state.

So if this club calls itself a city and cannot annex unless the owner wants to then that is okay?

Pardon me if I stay on this topic because I cannot find libertarians that either know what they are talking about or will answer my questions.

Then you say... The state has every right to make the requirements on who can be a citizen,... As soon as you make this statement then you contradict your anarchist stance.

[MikeP]

So if this club calls itself a city and cannot annex unless the owner wants to then that is okay?

I would see three issues with an organization the size of a city.

1. There will likely be prior rights of way within the several square miles of a city. The city cannot block them.

2. Just how much of your property rights can you legitimately sign over to the city? Relevant to immigration, can you sign over the right to hire someone from a suburb?

3. As a special case of (2), how can you secede from the city? It's similar to the question of whether you can sell yourself into slavery. Note that many (most?) neighborhood rules set up by deed expire within a few decades. Conditions change through time. Contract law recognizes this fact. Governments are reluctant to.

These are all debatable points. But if you can put together a voluntary association of this size with unanimous approval, then it may well be legitimate.

[MikeP]

Then you say... The state has every right to make the requirements on who can be a citizen,... As soon as you make this statement then you contradict your anarchist stance.

The state has every right to make the requirements on who can be a citizen. It does not have the legitimate right to say who can be a resident. --Or, for that matter, a traveller, a laborer, a property owner, etc.

There is no contradiction. Imagine for a moment the powers the government would be limited to given that it could not tell you what you could or could not do with yourself or your property or prevent anyone else from trade with or travel to you and your property. The limited powers left over are the government's legitimate functions. And those powers include the powers to define who can vote or be an elected official of the government or serve on a jury -- that is, who can be a citizen.

[Responsible Freedom]

anarchy
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order

Do you still not see a contradiction?

[Responsible Freedom]

If there are no public roads then everyone could be landlocked and what if certain neighbors did not like another they could stop access whenever they liked.

[MikeP]

The contradiction you bring up may be that I'm talking about the state while talking about anarchy. That probably sounds unusual.

As I was saying upthread, the move toward anarchy would be an evolotionary one. At some point there would still be a state, but it would have no recognized powers that were special to it and not to any number of other organizations that might want to take them on.

Looked at the other way, if some organization in an anarchist society wants to call itself a state, who's to say it can't. Unless and until it tries to impose its will on others without their consent, it isn't behaving as a traditional state, and it isn't violating anyone's rights.

I find modeling the maximum legitimate powers of a state-like organization in an anarchist society to be instructive of what the proper powers of a state in a governed society are as well. My apologies for bringing that thinking into this thread without explanation.

[MikeP]

Your point about roads is why talk of rights of way appeared so prominently in my comments. In fact, I take it from your use of the term "public roads" to mean those for which right of access cannot be blocked by an owner that you would agree with my notion of rights of way.

There are some who argue that preventing free immigration is a legitimate power of government because the government owns the roads and can deny access to such trespassers as it wishes. You stand pretty solidly against that position with your comment.

[Responsible Freedom]

So I gather you are not for the Constitution.

...which right of access cannot be blocked by an owner that you would agree with my notion of rights of way.

So how would you establish rights of way?

There are some who argue that preventing free immigration is a legitimate power of government because the government owns the roads and can deny access to such trespassers as it wishes. You stand pretty solidly against that position with your comment.

I think that immigration should only be allowed for those comming in that understand the constitution and current laws and uphold it/them and cannot begin receiving welfare type services or tailored services like education.

[MikeP]

So I gather you are not for the Constitution.

I am not against the Constitution. It would be nice, however, if the US government actually followed it.

As written, it is a pretty good attempt to organize a government. But it clearly wasn't good enough to prevent the leviathan that the US government has become.

So how would you establish rights of way?

An anarchist society will have organizations that represent people's interests and institutions that arbitrate those interests. Rights of way would come out of these arbitrations of interests and would take into account prior use as well as access requirements that make a property have any value at all. The Coase theorem pretty much tells you that right of way will be figured out.

[Responsible Freedom]

This arbitration would result in people giving up their rights. A RoW would have to be permanent unless everyone else involved agrees to any desired changes from the owner of the land.

As written, it is a pretty good attempt to organize a government. But it clearly wasn't good enough to prevent the leviathan that the US government has become.

A piece of paper is only as good as the people that desire to follow it. There would also need to be some sort of police force that would protect my rights, right? Or is all that on me too? If I cant afford to pay someone to protect me against a large and or corrupt organization that wants my land or property...

[MikeP]

Commonly used rights of way would likely be more or less permanent -- replaceable only if suitable accommodation were made. Rights of way that simply accessed a single parcel would be part of the bundle of property rights of that parcel -- the parcel has little value without them -- and could be modified or eliminated by later renegotiation of those property rights.

Police spending at the federal, state, and local levels amounted to $70 billion in 1999. That's $250 per capita. Adding in all spending on courts and corrections doubles that number. In other words, these services don't cost that much now. There is no reason to think that they'd cost a lot in an anarchist society.

Might I suggest my favorite introduction to libertarian anarchy: David Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom. There are even a few chapters online, including "Police, Courts, and Laws -- on the Market".

[Responsible Freedom]

$250 per capita translates to $600 when you take out children, etc.

A police force witnessing a crime would not have to do anything if the victim is not his client or it would work sort of like insurance companies do for accidents but insurance companies would resort to only servicing good clients. So we would contract out a lot of coverage for all sorts of things or do nothing since young people could not affford all this coverage. This would in turn speed up the tendency to not reproduce since everything would cost so much more and I dont know if you have seen what is happening in Europe with 50% replacement rates.

So what about "the common defense". I'm reaching the conclusion that some libertarians at least are not for the constitution since it does not limit govt as much as you would like.

What about a court system? What would you do with thieves? gangs? murderers? More out of pocket insurance?

[Responsible Freedom]

I went to the link and can see that it would require a lot of high tech equipment, so this would all not be possible before say 20 yrs ago. Without cameras or judges how do you convict someone? If there was and camera and it happened to catch the crime who has the right to put that person in jail that again I have to pay for at say another $600 per year?

[Responsible Freedom]

It sounds like the Mad Max movies are great examples of libertarianism.

Most people given the choice of cash for healthcare, police, etc. choose not to pay for these types of things. Not because they have been conditioned to expect someone else to pay for them but because material things and fun tends to win over drudgery if there is no immediate need.

[MikeP]

You balk at the price of justice as it comes out of taxes now? Of all monies spent by state and local governments, only 3.3% goes to police protection. And of course the fraction of the federal budget going to police protection is much lower than that.

If you balk at the price of the actual protection of you and yours, what do you think about the other 98% of things the government spends money on?

I will also note that the per-capita amount spent in the US on police increased 20% from 1982-1999 after accounting for inflation. I question the value the citizenry is getting for its money.

(Incidentally, my numbers are coming from a Department of Justice report.)

[MikeP]

Most people given the choice of cash for healthcare, police, etc. choose not to pay for these types of things. Not because they have been conditioned to expect someone else to pay for them but because material things and fun tends to win over drudgery if there is no immediate need.

If you really believe that most people are clueless about their long term interests -- even if they are swimming in a society full of institutions designed to protect them -- then I doubt anything I can say could convince you that an anarchist society is possible.

The State is Mother. The State is Father.

[Responsible Freedom]

Which state would that be? The anarchist kind or the Meriam Webster kind? The only reason why we have so many of these kinds of institutions is because everyone is not paying for them out of pocket.

But I would like to severely limit the nanny state. That would be like instead of the state providing health care they would instead allow everyone to have an MSA (Medical Savings Account) and for those that could not afford their medical care rely on grants from private institutions or govt as the last resort.

[MikeP]

The only reason why we have so many of these kinds of institutions is because everyone is not paying for them out of pocket.

That is an argument for anarchism. The only reason the US has a drug war is that no one is paying for it out of pocket. The only reason the US has Social Security is that the money simply disappears from your paycheck -- the stub of which only shows you half the money that actually disappeared. If people had to sit down every month and write a check for their Social Security contribution, they would wonder why they couldn't put it in their own savings account instead.

And you can have something you are free to call an MSA right now. Your statement about the state "allowing" one simply means you'd like not to pay taxes on such an account. Well, under an anarchy -- or even under a minimal libertarian state -- the tax burden would be so low that such write-offs would be meaningless and such specialized programs unnecessary.

[Responsible Freedom]

It is even possible in a constitutional state. But what I would prefer, because it seems to be the smartest thing to do, is that instead of businesses providing health care they put that money directly into a personal fund reserved for this. In a perfect world if these sorts of moneys were lumped into one paycheck amount we would all divide it up into our own funds on our own, but since I believe that most people are not that capable to either earn enough or put it away for later...