no, crawford, you’re not “arguing that someone’s rights should be taken away.” but then, neither am i.

Actually, you are. You are arguing that because of the country immigrants happen to be born in, they should be barred from our country when they come here to find work unless they receive the okay stamp of the government. You’re arguing that their movement, even when what they’re doing is not harming anyone else (which immigration isn’t) should be restricted. The freedom to go where and do what you like so long as you commit no harm against another person or their property are rights…fundamental rights anyone in a free society should enjoy. And your pro-immigration stance would deny those rights to others.

And why? Because you think for some reason that because you’re a “citizen” you are therefore more entitled to human rights than people who aren’t. You’re simply wrong, and unless you happen to be pure-blooded native American (since being otherwise would mean that you’ve got immigrants in your family tree) your position is blatant hypocrisy. And it doesn’t take any sort of expertise in “pop-psychological analysis” (whatever the hell you’re referring to) to point that out.

“why is it *Wrong* for dope pushers and brutal cops to not follow the law, but a-ok for illegal aliens not to?

Actually, I’ve never argued that drugs laws are legitimate. They’re not. In fact, they’re just as illegitimate as immigration laws in my opinion. As for brutal cops, they’re actually committing harm against people and their property when they abuse their position of authority. Unprovoked violence and the threat of violence are the brightline between a criminal and non-criminal act. Drug dealers who are merely restricting their activity to non-violently selling drugs to a willing customer aren’t committing a crime. Illegal immigrants who are coming to America to find a job aren’t committing a crime. Cops who beat the crap out of prisoners who merely annoy them are committing a crime. Cops who smash down peoples’ doors because they’ve got the wrong address are committing a crime. Cops who fabricate evidence when they’ve shot the wrong person are committing a crime. See how that works?

As for your personal problems with what I’m saying, these are very basic libertarian arguments I’ve been throwing out at you and you seem to be completely unfamiliar with them. Have you actually read anything by Milton Friedman or Ayn Rand? Because if not you need to go crack a few books by libertarians before you start accusing anyone of being childish simply for using libertarian arguments. Or perhaps go review your own debating tactics to weed out some of those pretty blatant inconsistencies and logical fallacies in your arguments. Otherwise don’t whine whenever someone makes you feel out of your depth…since it’s pretty clear that you are right now.

and if doing so hurts the feelings of or inconveniences illegal aliens,

It’s not a matter of hurting their feelings or inconveniencing them…it’s a matter of a lot of people dying as a result of our laws, for committing no harm against anyone else and doing nothing more than what any of us do on any given day.

well …. tough shit for them. they’re not citizens.

Like I said, I haven’t met a single person who’s staunchly against immigration who, once you scratched beneath the surface, wasn’t either a racist or a hypocrite. I think your comments have demonstrated pretty conclusively that your position is rooted in both personal failings.

See you around.

that’s the 3rd time you’ve used a hysterical and childish debate tactic in your last 3 posts. you pulled the tired old ‘unflattering pop psychoanalysis of your opponents’; and you’ve arbitrarily assigned positions to your opponents that have no basis in fact: what i referred to as “you defining reality”.

until you can answer the same question i’ve been asking for awhile now - “why is it *Wrong* for dope pushers and brutal cops to not follow the law, but a-ok for illegal aliens not to?” - in a cogent and somewhat linear manner, i think i’ll just go back to ignoring you.

“the burden of proof is on the anti-immigrationists”, crawford? why, because you say so? who says you get to define reality?

Because I’m not the one arguing for a position that’s going to take someone else’s rights away. Because before any new law is drafted I think it should be conclusively shown with objective evidence that the law is necessary and that there is a high probability will have the desired effect with minimal negative consequences. And because not one of the staunch anti-immigrationists I’ve come across has ever presented a case that, once someone seriously pressed them on it, didn’t ultimately boil down to “I hate wetbacks” and “The government must preserve my culture and/or save my job and I don’t care if it screws everyone else”. That’s why.

the “burden of proof”, logic tells us, is on the folks who want those duly-enacted laws to be ignored.

Only if you operate from a perspective that freedom and prosperity derive from state action and that individual rights are merely a subordinate enhancement to the laws to be done away with the moment we find it inconvenient. Since I, and most other libertarians, operate from the perspective that it’s the other way around, that individual rights are the basis for freedom and that it’s the laws that are the enhancement and that should be constantly re-evaluated and then disposed of once their existence can no longer be justified, the burden of proof will always be on the people who are either pushing for new laws or trying to justify old ones that aren’t working.

how you figure that? the (evidently immoral and psychologically stunted) anti-immigration crowd is merely calling for existing law to be enforced and upheld.

I agree with your “immoral and psychologically stunted” assessment. I’d also add that they’re not particularly logical or wise, since the reason immigration laws usually aren’t enforced or upheld is either a) the most effective methods for doing so are un-Constitutional or b) it’s simply impossible to do so. Hell, the government might as well make a law stating that all rivers will now run south to north…they’ll have as good a chance of enforcing that as they ever will “fixing” immigration. And they’ll probably do less damage to our rights wasting time and money on that.

so - aside from “because that’s how i *feel*” - how you figure that? the (evidently immoral and psychologically stunted) anti-immigration crowd is merely calling for existing law to be enforced and upheld. the “burden of proof”, logic tells us, is on the folks who want those duly-enacted laws to be ignored. because the “feel” those laws are mean and (i guess) immoral, just as teacher told them to.

how’s that work for *you*?

LOL…nothing like an appeal to pity to get people to abandon objectivity. That was pretty good

The burden of proof is therefore on the anti-immigration crowd to prove that immigration itself is a crime that causes harm

Not really, all they have to do is say…

They took ‘er jobs!!!!!

Too-kourderb!!!!!!!

Here’s a better suggestion…why don’t you either provide or put together an comprehensive analysis of how laws restricting immigration have made our country a better place than in the time before immigration restrictions (since the burden of proof is on the anti-immigration lobby)? If you can show any more than anecdotal evidence or cherry-picked and compromised stats I’ll consider objectively whether your problems with immigrants should override everyone else’s individual rights.

How does that work for you?

well, that’s enough of that. now can we all talk about how immigration law makes us **feel**??

I wouldn’t put stock in either sets of data analysis because there is no way you can convince me that either one of them set out to do a truly objective study

There’s some validity to that, but if you’re operating from a pro-liberty perspective the default position must be that people have a right to do that which causes no harm to others, so the only people the state has a right to punish are those who have actually committed such a crime. The burden of proof is therefore on the anti-immigration crowd to prove that immigration itself is a crime that causes harm, therefore when they fail to do so, or when they submit compromised evidence their argument must be discounted. There is no burden of proof required for the pro-immigration side because they’re not demanding that anyone else subordinate their property rights or personal freedoms or create new laws…only to repeal laws that have shown no demonstrable benefit.

It’s the difference between believing that freedom stems from the individual or the state really.

However, the reduction of the welfare state, along with massive government spending cuts would not only curb the market, but also make us so prosperous that we wouldn’t really care about them anyway.

I think that rather than curbing the market welfare and government spending cuts would probably allow the economy to expand more rapidly, so that we wouldn’t really care about immigrants coming here to work. We’re not really that far apart on this one.

There is no doubt in my mind that much of the animosity (mis)directed toward immigrants is due to people that are having a hard times making ends meet, and don’t know who (or what) to blame.

I agree…social class and prosperity (or the lack thereof) are often major components in racism. It’s kind of like Gene Hackman’s character said in “Mississippi Burning” when he told the story about how his father killed his prospering black neighbor’s mule because he wasn’t going to be seen as being lower than a black man…it wasn’t the neighbor being black that was the problem, it was Hackman’s family being poor. But how you feel about yourself is still not an acceptable reason to punish somebody else for your insecurities. They’re usually not the ones at fault when you’re not doing well.

Yes, but when you dig into the anti-immigration crowd’s statistics you’ll usually find either glaring holes in their methodology, that they’ve misread the statistics they cite, or that they’re simply making things up. And being as pro-liberty people operate from the principle that the government shouldn’t regulate anything until there’s been a conclusive case made that it needs regulation, and since the anti-immigration people haven’t come close to making their case, I don’t consider their suggestions for “fixing” the immigration “problem” to be remotely acceptable.

There you have it. I wouldn’t put stock in either sets of data analysis because there is no way you can convince me that either one of them set out to do a truly objective study. Each side has a position that they’re passionate about, and they work the numbers until they appear to support what they want.

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on what creates the market for illegal immigrant labor (I think it would exist even if we didn’t have a welfare state)

Oh, I imagine as long as things are better here than in Mexico, some people will want to leave there and come here. However, the reduction of the welfare state, along with massive government spending cuts would not only curb the market, but also make us so prosperous that we wouldn’t really care about them anyway.

There is no doubt in my mind that much of the animosity (mis)directed toward immigrants is due to people that are having a hard times making ends meet, and don’t know who (or what) to blame.

Actually, above your post someone did respond to your question. And earlier I suggested that the U.S. should process immigrants in queue and then see whether we need more people.

Yep, one person responded in the affirmative while I was writing my post. And yes, we need more people, tens of millions more, if we are to keep going with SS and Medicare as currently formulated.

The reason that illegal aliens often get a better deal than citizens is that if a citizen defaults on a debt or skips bail, it’s usually possible to track him down. If an illegal alien skips out, he’s gone. How does one track down a person who doesn’t officially exist?

Please, they’ve gone to extreme lengths to get here…so they are going to suddenly bail at the possiblity of being in debt collection? I doubt it.

As noted, this is a major problem with U.S. health care even with American citizens. Why? Because if you are young, healthy, and have few or no assets then getting health insurance is a suckers game. In the event you do need health care you will get it even if you can’t pay. I’d even go so far as to say that some percentage fo the 40+ million people without insurance have made that decision rationally–i.e. they made the decision after looking at all the costs and benefits.

What is wrong with requiring that aliens be at least as traceable as citizens, and requiring that aliens acclimate themselves to the country they’re visiting, rather than trying to conform the country to their own expectations?

They would be tracable if:

A. They were allowed in legally.
B. They were made citizens if they are here illegally.

If the U.S. sent a bunch of people southward to take over some towns in Mexico, how do you think the Mexican government would react? Why should we not react the same way when Mexico sends people northward?

1. Mexico is not sending people here. People are coming out of their own free will.
2. They aren’t taking over anything, they are trying to make a better life.

Next non-sequitor.

One is what you’re saying… If it weren’t immigrants causing crime and mayhem and eating up welfare, someone else would be doing it. Just look, poor native born U.S. citizens are involved in crime too, see?!?

With regards to crime I have not made that argument. However, I do think some of the immigrants cause crime arguments are BS. For example, the prison study data, is there a problem with holding illegal immigrants in custody because of flight risks vs. citizens? Another is the anecdote of the garbage truck driver. In that case, the persons immigrant status strikes me as being totally irrelevant. My guess is there’d have been a tragedy if the guy had a license, had come here legally, etc. Usually we call these things accidents–i.e. we view them differently than murder, rape, assault, etc.

Of course the answer boils down to statistics, and that just depends on whos numbers you believe.

Yes, but when you dig into the anti-immigration crowd’s statistics you’ll usually find either glaring holes in their methodology, that they’ve misread the statistics they cite, or that they’re simply making things up. And being as pro-liberty people operate from the principle that the government shouldn’t regulate anything until there’s been a conclusive case made that it needs regulation, and since the anti-immigration people haven’t come close to making their case, I don’t consider their suggestions for “fixing” the immigration “problem” to be remotely acceptable. People should have a right to peacefully relocate where they wish without having to get the government’s approval.

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on what creates the market for illegal immigrant labor (I think it would exist even if we didn’t have a welfare state), but I apologize for misreading your comment earlier.

If we already have a bunch of scumbags floating around our society, how does it improve matters by having more scumbags move here from Mexico?

Because most of the people who come here from Mexico aren’t scumbags and criminals. They’re not really different from us. Most of them are simply coming here to find work…and they’re workers that the market shows we need. They drive the cost of labor down, therefore they drive the costs of goods and services down. They add more consumers to our economy, they add more tax revenue (without the government needing to raise taxes on everyone else), they add new ideas and experiences. Immigration has always been a net positive for us. The only reason it’s a “problem” now is that the government is trying to restrict it for a variety of bogus reasons, and in the process are violating the rights of many people besides immigrants as they’re futilely trying to keep them out (employers, property owners, citizens).

Actually, a great number of the criminal problems we have with immigrants are a result of the existence of immigration restrictions or from factors that don’t have anything to do with people wanting to come here. The GAO survey that James noted pointed out that a large number of illegal immigrants arrested were grabbed for drug crimes. Many anti-immigration folks love to harp on the idea that illegal immigrants traffick drugs. Well, the violence associated with the drug trade are a result of drugs being illegal. Legalize drugs and the illegal immigrant population trafficking drugs pretty much disappears (because the industry is then taken out of the hands of criminals and smugglers). Or driving violations by immigrants…the anti-immigration crowd often harps on the idea that illegal immigrants are a threat because they’re unlicensed. The reason they’re unlicensed, however, is that they’d be arrested and deported if they tried to get a license so therefore the immigration laws are what’s causing that problem, not the immigrants simply being here. If you dig down into the issue, you’ll often find that the problems with immigrants the anti-immigration crowd usually cite are caused by the laws that the anti-immigration crowd supported. Except for the racism, of course…that’s entirely on the xenophobes (and it’s what the hardcore anti-immigration crowd are really all about).

As for where selective memory comes in, I might have misread your comment somewhat but the impression I got from your remark was that you felt crime was worse with immigrants around than before they got here. I was just pointing out that there are plenty of Americans who are just as scummy as the worst immigrants, but that we tend to forget about or fail to notice what they do because they’re not as different from us than the immigrants are. Dislike for “the other” often tends to skew our perceptions so that they don’t reflect reality.

No, my remarks were to add counterpoint to the initial blog post and those that repeated the same sentiment about how wonderful all of the immigrants they’ve encountered are.

My contention is that we need to curb the welfare state, not so much because we’re giving benefits to illegals, but because we’re paying our native citizens not to work, thereby creating the market for the illegals in the first place. Thus illegal immigration is a symptom of a much greater problem.

Just to argue a bit more for arguments sake though. If we already have a bunch of scumbags floating around our society, how does it improve matters by having more scumbags move here from Mexico? Of course the answer boils down to statistics, and that just depends on whos numbers you believe.

As for your other two sources, the Rubenstein report is published by Dr. John Tanton, a racist who founded FAIR, an anti-immigration group funded by white supremacists. Here are a couple of quotes from him about immigrants and minorities:

“Can homo contraceptivus compete with homo progenativa…perhaps this is the first instance in which those with their pants up are going to get caught by those with their pants down!…As whites see their power and control over their lives declining, will they go quietly into the night? Or will there be an explosion?”

“In California 2030, the non-Hispanic Whites and Asians will own the property, have the good jobs and education, speak one language and be mostly Protestant and ‘other.’ The Blacks and Hispanics will have the poor jobs, will lack education, own little property, speak another language and will be mainly Catholic”

So I reject his literature as a reputable source.

The City Journal article you linked to wasn’t statistical analysis. It was cherrypicked data (again), mainly using vague outstanding warrant numbers and anecdotal evidence. Not a reputable source if you want to claim statistical analysis is on your side.

At least you didn’t try to claim Glenn Jones and the John Birch Society as reputable sources. They were two more of the top ten in your suggested search.

Did you actually read the GAO study that you linked to? About half of the arrested immigrants they studied (45%) were arrested for victimless “crimes” (immigration and drug offenses). 28% were arrested for traffic violations (which include things like speeding, having a gun in the car, possibly seatbelt violations). The violent and property crimes they listed seem about in line with non-immigrant criminals anywhere else

And they clearly caveated their remarks and said it can’t be applied in the manner you tried to apply it, on page 12:

Results of our analysis pertain only to our study population [a select group of arrested immigrants]. Results cannot be generalized to all illegal aliens that may have been arrested and therefore cannot be interpreted as representing arrest or offense rates for all illegal aliens.

Your own source states that it’s not an appropriate source for your argument.

Actually, above your post someone did respond to your question. And earlier I suggested that the U.S. should process immigrants in queue and then see whether we need more people.

That idea might make sense…if we were a centrally planned economy where the government determined how many jobs were created and who should get them. We’re since we’re not communists, thank God, it’s a terrible idea. Our economy is a fluid, fairly free market economy so we don’t need the government to tell us how many people we need or to determine who is deserving of work. The market will tell us that…and it will do a better job than the government would even if it were competent to carry out the task.

The reason that illegal aliens often get a better deal than citizens is that if a citizen defaults on a debt or skips bail, it’s usually possible to track him down. If an illegal alien skips out, he’s gone. How does one track down a person who doesn’t officially exist?

You hire a debt collector or a bounty hunter, respectively. Don’t you watch A&E?

While it would be possible for a criminally-inclined citizen to adopt the techniques that are used by illegal aliens (fake IDs and addresses, etc.) such techniques are a matter of routine for illegal aliens.

As long as they’re not committing a crime against property or people, so what? Who the hell cares who comes here as long as they’re just here to work peacefully?

What is wrong with requiring that aliens be at least as traceable as citizens,

Because the government does a terrible job with it on citizens and I can’t imagine that they’d do a better job with the other 5.5 billion people in the world. And because it’s a huge waste of time and money.

and requiring that aliens acclimate themselves to the country they’re visiting, rather than trying to conform the country to their own expectations?

Ah…the inevitable “we must preserve the culture” argument. Dig deep enough and the anti-immigration argument always boils down to this.

It’s not the government’s job to preserve culture in a free society. When government tries to preserve culture, all they’re really doing is giving favoritism to a desired ethnic, cultural, or economic group…which inevitably leads to oppression and tyranny. Frankly, I’d prefer a free, open diverse society to a strict, controlled one full of people who look like me. But then I’ve actually travelled to other countries, tried to keep an open mind, and I’m secure in my beliefs, so foreigners and different cultural ideas don’t scare the bejeezus out of me like they do some people.

Not that it really matters anyway…eventually every ethnic group that’s come to the U.S. has adapted to our multicultural environment (while we’ve often adopted some of their traits), the Hispanics are no different, so the fears about a Mexican invasion are ultimately ridiculous anyway.