Thursday, May 06, 2010

Steve King Debates Illegal Immigration


Congressman Steve King from Iowa's 5th congressional district was a special guest last night on Libertarian Politics Live.  Congressman King entered the debate in the second segment, which was begun by Dan Gainor of The Business and Media Institute and Dee Dee Blase of Somos Republican.

The discussion was heated and emotional, and you can listen to it here en toto. Congressman King was very civilized and tried to bring rationality and clear headedness to a topic that seems to polarize many: The Arizona Bill SP1070.

The crux of the argument when congressman King entered the fray was what is reasonable suspicion? Dee Dee Blase seemed to think that there is no reasonable suspicion as she believed that anyone of color would be pulled over for that very reason, regardless of their citizenship status. Congressman King told the audience of his expertise and how it relates to his support of the law:

"Well, I have some experience with reasonable suspicion for one thing I drafted the work place drug testing  legislation in Iowa and it's been law since 1998. It's got reasonable suspicion in it and since that period of time we didn't rely on law enforcement officers to require that employees undergo a drug test, we just required that the employers set someone up that was educated in the standards that we had and for all these years now, it's 12 years it's been in place, we haven't had a single constitutional complaint or a single piece of litigation on reasonable suspicion...I am comfortable on the standards on reasonable suspicion."

Mr. King continues:

"As I read the Arizona law, it mirrors federal law, it supports federal law". "I cannot imagine a society functioning if local law enforcement just simply ignored or refused to enforce federal law of all kinds including immigration law...There's nothing about this that is draconian, but I do see that the intensity of the opposition to it is causing a problem with regard to race.  They are doing this on purpose. The left is ginning this up on purpose for political purposes. They are driving wedges between people and they are undermining America's unity and our unity should be behind the rule of law".

The argument ensued as to whether probably cause or reasonable suspicion is necessary to inquire about someone's immigration status. Dee Dee asked the congressman "What an illegal alien looks like" in regards to what reasonable suspicion or probable cause is when pulling someone over. She talked about beliefs, but not of the law, which she and the Mr. King obviously disagreed. Congressman King asserted that "this is not about race, but about the rule of law".

Dee Dee insisted it was about race, talking over the congressman. She wanted an example of how a police officer could ascertain someone's legal status without involving race. She wouldn't respond to his answer and he reiterated through continuous interruptions by ms. Blasé: "If an officer pulls someone over for speeding, a tail light out, for some activity that is clearly illegal, and that individual,  when asked for their identification, have probable cause at this point (the police. ed.), when asked for their identification, if their identification is not the identification of the typical of an american citizen, if it happens to be as I said earlier, a metricular counselor card, I say that's probable cause and goes above reasonable suspicion".  Dee Dee's response was "He  can't even articulate what an illegal immigrant looks like either".  He then asked her if she considered a matricular counselor card reasonable suspicion or probable cause or both. At this point, the air went dead and we actually thought that either she dropped dead, or was apoplectic at having to answer the question. May be it's just seminar caller tactics.

Touché.

What happened then was that she feigned, in my opinion, not hearing the question and asked the congressman to reiterate it.

Basically, she eventually said that she did not agree with the officer asking me,  based on reasonable suspicion, my immigration status". She then asked what should happen if she got pulled over as an american, but left her license home and only offered a matricular counselor card (such cards are not given to American citizens, but foreign nationals) as she goes back and forth to Mexico all the time. Forgive me here, but don't you need a passport to enter Mexico and then enter back into the US?

At this point it became a matter of personal opinion on the part of Dee Dee Blasé and informed opinion on the part of the congressman. Being a co-host on the show and being part of it and witness to the conversation, the a priori nature of ms. Blasé's position had become apparent: No matter what, anyone that is not white can and will be pulled over to check their immigration status. Since the hosts are white and the law doesn't affect us, obviously we can't understand. It's another version of the race card. What was is surprising to me, is that these types of arguments I heard from ms. Blasé are the typical emotional strawman arguments we hear from the left. I am surprised she calls herself republican and honestly, may be the tent is too big.

No long after this, because of being talked over by Dee Dee, congressman King left the show abruptly, as he felt Dee Dee was being rude. So did I.

Thank you for reading this blog.

19 comments:

William said...

Dee Dee Blase was an embarrassment by bringing her shrill amateur presentation to the table. It's not that I completely disagreed with Mrs. Blase, but if you are going to present your ideas to a public forum, you should at least be civil and composed. Her rants mirrored the same style leftists use every time their ideas are challenged.

Just when Libertarian Politics has brought a higher caliber of people with cogent ideas, along comes a hysterical woman with an ability to diminish the potential of a high quality debate. I thought how sad it was that Mr. King had to be subjected to Mrs. Blase's ineptness.

The Right Guy said...

Will:
While I would agree that some police will pull people over solely on appearance, and may be they are correct in their assumption, the majority of police will be careful and try to do things by the books. At least that is my opinion and furthermore, while I don't want anyone's rights trampled, and I would be behind them in any law suit if they were, does this mean we cannot do anything because if we try to limit illegal immigration in any way, it's racist? I have to wonder of Dee Dee is part of La Raza or something like that. She certainly has a chip on her shoulder and her arguments are a priori and emotion based and it is a disservice to her point of view, whatever that is, as I do not think she was being completely honest. If I had to guess, and it's purely conjecture, that she probably would support completely open borders, if not a North American Union. Just my opinion.

The Right Guy said...

As to Dee Dee's specious argument about a metricular counselor card: From

All Americans traveling by air outside of the United States are required to present a passport or other valid travel document to re-enter the United States. This requirement was extended to sea travel (except closed-loop cruises), including ferry service, on June 1, 2009. Starting June 1, 2009, all travelers entering the U.S. by land, sea or air were required to present a Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) compliant document such as a passport or a passport card. While passport cards and enhanced driver’s license are sufficient for re-entry into the United States, they may not be accepted by the particular country you plan to visit; please be sure to check with your cruise line and countries of destination for any foreign entry requirements. U.S. legal permanent residents in possession of their I-551 Permanent Resident card may board flights to the United States from Mexico.

A WHTI compliant document is:

A Passport or Passport Card

Trusted Traveler Cards (NEXUS, SENTRI, or FAST)
State Issued Enhanced Driver’s License (when available)
Enhanced Tribal Cards (when available)
U.S. Military Identification with Military Travel Orders
U.S. Merchant Mariner Document when traveling in conjunction with official maritime business
Native American Tribal Photo Identification Card
Form I-872 American Indian Card

Anonymous said...

I am an American who has not yet got her passport and I refuse to do so. I have a drivers license and a birth certificate and have been able to cross the border back and forth with just that.

I do, however, not carry my birth certificate with me, nor do I carry my social security card with me because those are important documents that I leave at home when I am in the US so that they won't be lost or stolen.

Dee Dee Blase's point is a valid one. If you perceive them as rants, maybe it is because this law will not directly affect you. In Arizona, the majority of the population is white. The majority of the undocumented immigrants in Arizona are Mexican. Do you honestly think that they will be stopping a white person to ask for proof of citizenship?

Now, the law does not specify that one must be driving. One may be walking around and a police office may have suspicion, not probable cause (they can invent that later) that I am an illegal alien because I look Hispanic. What will happen to me when I cannot readily prove my citizenship? The law says I will be detained until I can prove my citizenship. Is it fair that I should lose my job because I was detained for looking Mexican?

Again, this just opens the door to racial profiling especially, like I said before, because probable cause can be invented. A cop can pull me over with the excuse that I failed to stop (something that has happened in the past), when really he is just racially profiling me. How can someone argue with that? How can someone say that is fair? Why should valuable time from MY day be taken away due to racial profiling just because it doesn't affect YOU directly?

As to Dee Dee Blase's question: What does an illegal immigrant look like?

In Arizona they look Mexican. So watch out all you Mexican looking Americans traveling through Arizona. Your rights are about to be violated.

The Right Guy said...

If all illegal immigrants or most are Mexicans, doesn't it follow that they are the ones that will probably be found in violation of the law? Yes, Dee Dee was shrill, her arguments were a priori and emotional. The law is the law. You cannot ignore it because a certain demographic will be impacted because people in that demographic are the ones breaking the law. That's like saying since most people that speed are men, if they get caught speeding it is irrelevant because they were profiled and pulled over because they were men. No, it's because they were speeding. They just happened to be men. You don't have the right to be here illegally, just as you don't have the right to exceed a posted speed limit, or kill someone without just cause. A police officer has the right to ask you for ID in the course of investigating any violation of law, which means he had better have reasonable suspicion and just cause to ask you in the first place. If he doesn't, it will come out in the wash as they say, and the case will likely be thrown out. It happened here in Des Moines where a black couple were pulled over, beaten and arrested. The officers involved were fired and I am sure there is quite a lawsuit.

If you try to go to Canada that way, you will not make it. Canada requires a passport,this I am sure of, and based on the information I posted, A driver's license is acceptable to Mexico, but it has to be an enhanced version. Matricular consular cards do not work.

Lastly, if you are going to post here, have the cojones to use your real name. I am sure you understand the words I use.

And real lastly, just like Dee Dee, you offer no solutions, and just whine about it. If you want to be hassle free, may be come up with a solution where there wouldn't be a need to adjudicate illegals, and I don't mean amnesty.

William said...

First of all, Anonymous, Mrs. Blase did rant. She presented her argument from an emotional based, hysterical woman point of view. I would indeed call that ranting, plain and simple.

Secondly, I seriously doubt that I would ever be "profiled" as an illegal immigrant in Arizona, or anywhere else in America. Canada, yes! Let me explain: About fifteen years ago, my ex wife and I took a ferry from Port Angeles Washington, to Victoria, British Colombia. Both my wife and I had passports with us. She looked exactly like her passport photo, while I did not. My hair was cut short, and face was clean shaven, while the passport photo showed another character all together. My hair was longish, and my full beard was red. Many people who have seen that photo say it looks like either a biker's mug shot from Folsom prison, or an IRA gun runner of some sort. And that is exactly what Canadian officials thought, as they interrogated me. They took me in a room and asked over and over if I was bringing guns into their country. Obviously I passed their battery of questions, but after thinking about it on the ferry back to the states, I reasoned that what they did was for for the safety of their people, therefore I was not offended.

Also, I clearly stated that I didn't disagree with everything Mrs. Blase said, only her tone and overly emotional method. But that doesn't mean I agreed with everything either.

Look, I understand why a person would want to leave their shit hole third world socialist regime, in search for a better life. Every single one of us has someone in our lineage who did the exact same thing. I truly do have empathy for these folks, and relate to them a lot more than lazy liberal snots who complain about taking out the trash on Sunday evening. On the other hand however, I have much more empathy for those who wait years in advance to enter legally. I would dare say that those who wait to enter legally, will contribute highly for the growth and prosperity of our nation. I'm not saying that all illegals will not contribute, but take a look at California and Arizona to see where government services are aimed at. And of course intellectuals and politicians who implement these legislative measures only do so to shore up their base to gain more power. It is all about power and control with these miscreants.

I always wonder why people post their name as "Anonymous." Could it be in this particular incidence that Mrs. Blase is posing under that non-name?

The Right Guy said...

Will, I pretty much agree with everything you said. My paternal grandparents came from Italy and weren't that much different in skin color than Dee Dee and did a lot of the same type of work Mexican immigrants do today. I will also say they didn't whine, they didn't take handouts, they didn't try to form socio-political constituencies to get over, they learned the language and customs and moved up the socio-economic ladder. Immigrants today could learn a lot of the immigrants of the early 20th century, and the secrets to their success.

Anonymous said...

@TheRightGuy

If I do not use my real name it is only because I blog here too and I do not want to be the target of hate comments in my blogs as has been in the past. Certain people who read my post think I am pro-illegals and want open borders, which is not the case. However, if you must know my name, it is Maime.

Now, you claim "if they get caught, it was because they were speeding, not because they were men" as an example. You continue to use a traffic violation as a probable cause. You fail to understand that THAT is probable cause, not reasonable suspicion. The Arizona law states that ANYONE can be stopped because the officer has "reasonable suspicion" to believe that person is illegally in the country. Those are two very different animals. So, let's say I am not speeding or doing anything wrong, Dee Dee Blase's question should have been "What does an illegal immigrant look like that would give an officer "reasonable suspicion" to stop someone without "probable cause"?" Like I said, in Arizona they would look Mexican, and that my friend, is racial profiling which goes against our constitution and has more authority than the AZ law.

Now, don't get me wrong. The law would have been a good idea if there had been a way to target only illegal aliens without racially profiling Hispanics. If they can come up with one that does that, then I would not have a problem with it.

Now, I encourage you to see a recent example of what happens when driving while brown in AZ. Here is the link:
http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/Man-says-he-was-racially-targeted-forced-to-provide-birth-certificate-91769419.html

Now, this guy provided a drivers license and a social security card as proof he was in the country legally because he is a US citizen. He was detained anyways, and had he been illegally in this country that would have been good. But he wasn't. He could have lost his job. I know I would have. If this guy files suit, and many others like him file suit every time they are racially profiled, who do you think is going to foot the bill?

You claim the law is the law and that cannot be ignored. You are right, but they can be challenged if they are deemed unconstitutional which this one very clearly is.

As far as me not providing a solution, if you had wanted one you should have asked for one. I was merely replying to your blog. However, if you want my opinion as to what a solution would be, then I'd say make it as easy for others to come into our country as it is for American's to go into other countries. I can't believe that for me to go into Mexico I can get a free 7 day pass or a $30 6 month pass with no hassle, no long lines, and no need for an attorney. It should be the same for people who come from Mexico to do the same. I use Mexico as an example because it is the only country I am familiar with, but I have heard that America is the only country that makes it hard to come here legally. If we could focus on that, then those with a real need to come here will be able to do so legally leaving only the bad guys to cross illegally. THOSE are the people that we need to focus on, not families seeking a better life or to reunite with loved ones.

Lastly, the last thing you should say is that we should learn from immigrants in the past unless you want to open up a whole new can of worms. The whole reason for immigration laws was BECAUSE of immigrants in the past who were coming into this country speaking different languages and isolating themselves in their community, and those were not Mexican. Let's not mention the very first immigrants that came here and refused to learn the language and the culture. Instead, they killed all the Indians and forcefully claimed citizenship. If you are asking immigrants to learn from THAT, maybe you should reevaluate your comment and research your history on immigration a little better.

The Right Guy said...

Here's the deal: I favor legal immigration period. I think it is reasonable and justified for a law enforcement official to ask for identification in the process of doing his or her job when he has had reasonable cause to pull some one over for even violation of the VTL. If the person is not a citizen, he then can be adjudicated based on that. What I do not support is cops pulling people over and checking people randomly, I do not support checking people only based on what they look like (As I responded, many of my relatives from Italy weren't that much different looking than Dee Dee). For police to interdict someone it has to be based on behavior and actions, not race, gender, creed, etc. Hitler, Stalin and Mao had a lot of expertise in that. If the law indeed allowed police officers to ask for ID just as a suspicion that they are mexican illegal aliens alone, I would be against that. My position is rational, and not based on an emotion. For the record, I am against The Patriot Act. I am also for increasing quotas on legal immigration and streamlining the process so people can get it done more expediently. On the hand, I am also for eliminating the draw for illegal immigration, whether it be penalizing companies for hiring them, and holding countries responsible for encouraging it and abrogating their responsibilities. There in lies the crux. Mexico and other central and South American countries are oligarchical in nature and opportunity for the common man does not exist as it does here. Anyway, that's my opinion, and until I know more, I am sticking to it.

Anonymous said...

I could not even get through to when Mr. King came on. The first person, Mr. Gainor disgusted me with his clearly racist remarks towards Latinos in general. What the hell does "changing culture" mean anyway? I am Hispanic, and I have my cultural differences from my Asian, Indian, Muslim, or African American friends. They do not influence my cultural ways nor do I influence theirs. This great country was built by immigrants of varying cultures. It is why you have "Chinatowns" and "Little Italy's" in so many US cities. Is Mr. Gainor going to ask that we dismantle these "little" cities within cities also? Like so many conservatives, he is blinded by hatred. It is sad to see, especially as Mr. Obama appears happy to hand us (GOP) the keys to the House and Senate this year, and perhaps the White House in 2012. White Republicans appear just as willing to say "Thanks but no thanks Mr. President, we would rather piss off an entire generation of Hispanics who will remind their children and grandchildren how poorly they were treated in 2010 and the years just prior to that". Once again, just like the GOP blew it when we were in control, now that we have a chance to get the keys back, we are going to blow it again by scapegoating an entire race just to appease a few hateful white GOPers who do not have any sense of humanity in them. Instead of embracing the mostly industrious hard working folks who cross our borders often risking life and limb just to work menial jobs, we instead will highlight only the bad apples in the bunch and brand any immigrant as a "criminal". Instead of talking about how we can work to keep the hard working ones here who actually help the economy and pay taxes and add to the social security fund knowing full well they will never see any of that money, Mr. Gainor would rather kick them all out thinking that this action will somehow help our economy.

From what I heard from Dee Dee, she was passionate about her position regarding the children of those who are taken by law enforcement, and Mr. Gainor's only response was "They are criminals". He should be ashamed. He looked like an insensitive jerk without a heart, and that is exactly the problem with the GOP. They are unfortunately very good at doing that dance. God do we ever need another Ronald Reagan. He was a staunch conservative with a big heart who understood that immigrants from our neighbors to the South were mostly hard working and they were a net plus to our economy, not a drag. But more importantly, President Reagan understood the power of giving people the ability to dream. Mr. Gainor can learn a thing or two from the ole gipper. He can learn to dream of the shining city of the hill instead of having nightmares about our "changing culture".

The Right Guy said...

The bottom line is that if anyone come here illegally, they are criminals. Dee Dee was passionate, but she also used emotional straw man arguments that were elicited to do just that: stir emotions and not use rational thought to solve a problem or even analyze it. I am sorry you didn't get though, as you would have been put on the show. You could have used to the chat feature from the show page and texted your questions too, or held on until you got on.

I will ask you this:
Given Mexico's laws, what would be that government's response if the immigration was the other way for whatever reason? Mexico has just as restrictive if not more, particularly when it comes to property ownership. Shit, we have illegal aliens owning property in this country, whereas I wouldn't be able to buy water front property in Mexico...

I will also say this:
You seem to have a sense of entitlement. Why do you think you illegal aliens should be able to come here and presto, they are made citizens? Even my grandparents had to come through ellis island and be documented. I agree that the immigration process needs to be changed, but just opening the door unrestricted wouldn't serve us well. Look at Europe with the immigration of muslims. They are having a hell of a time with such lax rules. Mexicans aren't muslims, but the Europeans are ill equipped to handle the clash of cultures.

What needs to be done is to one, slow down the flow of illegal immigration considerably. I don't like a fence at all. My idea would be to fine employers $1,000,000 per illegal they hire for whatever reason.

Secondly, we do need to find away to get the illegals we have here documented, and in a process to wither citizenship, of some sort of resident status that is temporary until they go back home if they do not want to be citizens.

Thirdly, we need to have different policies with counties south of the border such that we do not promote this problem to begin with. We tend to support governments that feign democracy while not creating any opportunities for their own citizens, just for a homegrown oligarchy supported by despots. Calderon should have policies that supports entrepreneurship and education at home, not sending his problems here.

The bottom line is that countries do have a right to defend their sovereignty, but I wouldn't characterize the crime as one that is on the same level as a felony, it isn't, but it still is a crime and a problem that obviously needs to be corrected. I will also say that a large percentage of the population in our prisons are illegal aliens. While I haven't researched the breakdown of the crimes they committed, it indicates a problem there as well. We aren't getting the cream of the crop as it were, not will all of them.

Lastly, with organizations like La Raza, I have to be suspicious of anyone proposing open borders as yourself. Also, like dee dee, you haven't proposed a damn thing that will work, other than ignore the problem. Until you have a concrete solution, you are just a whiner.

Anonymous said...

Where do you get that I have a sense of entitlement? You seem to be the one getting emotional Mr. Right. You have managed to call me an "illegal alien", and a "whiner" in just one post. How do you expect people to take you seriously with such a condescending attitude? If anyone is whining, it is you and those that bash immigrants, the vast majority of whom are working hard and paying taxes not to mention living peacefully and respectfully here. You talk about illegals in prisons and yet you yourself admit you have done no research on the subject. Isn't that using emotion to try and sway public opinion?

While I agree that the border needs to be better controlled, we need to address this issue in a humanitarian way so that real human beings don't suffer needlessly. Embracing hard working immigrants will do much more for the conservative movement in the long run than scapegoating them for political purposes. You would do yourself well to pick up a book about population growth and demographics as it related to the US population 30-50 years from now. You will see my point then.

The Right Guy said...

I never called you an illegal alien, whiner yes. As you don't offer any solutions, just complaints. My argument mainly stems from the fact that there are negative impacts to illegal immigration. As far as prisons go, I have read about it and the figures are disproportionate to the number of illegals here or even Mexicans. My argument is not emotional at all. If it was, I'd use the culture war ideology that many on the right do. What I do not like is that there are negative impacts to the illegal immigration that is here, like the toll on social services and education. As far as paying taxes, how can an illegal pay taxes? They don't have a social security #, certainly not one that belongs to them, often they use the emergency rooms of hospitals as a doctor's room for minor things whose cost is never recouped, and many billions go back to Mexico never to be spent here. Those fare facts, not emotions.

Now, if you had the cajones, you would post your real name here instead of hiding behind anonymous. A person with conviction would do that.

I think we can find common ground that a problem exists and there needs to be immigration reform. I would also say that I am not in line with many social conservatives, but more libertarian. I understand the need for immigration and welcome it, but it needs to be fixed to be fair for everyone around the world that wants to come here, not just people that live across the border.

Lastly, you didn't answer any of my questions. As far as entitlement goes, do you think that one, their should be a border at all and do you believe that both Mexico and the US have a right to their sovereignty, equally? Very lastly, what do you propose to fix this?

If you really doubt my intentions, talk to Hector Portillio. He's not difficult to find and he's a friend of mine.

Anonymous said...

Actually, you did in fact call me an illegal alien Mr. Right. Check out the 3rd paragraph in your first response to me when you said this:

"Why do you think you illegal aliens should be able to come here and presto, they are made citizens?"

You speak about negative impacts but you fail to mention the m,any positive impacts, like lower inflation as a result of lower wage costs to businesses who utilize their labor for mostly menial jobs that most if not all Americans have no interest in performing. I will give you some examples. I have traveled the USA quite frequently. I have been to most major US cities and I can tell you this, most hotel maids are immigrants not Americans. In Florida it is mostly Jamaican immigrants. In New York there are many Russian immigrants. In the Western US it is mostly Hispanic from not only Mexico, but El Salvador, Nicaragua and other South American countries. The same can be said of many other labor intensive jobs in America. The agricultural industry employs many, as well as the landscape and construction fields and other service oriented businesses like car washes and small maid services businesses. Maid service, car wash, construction and landscape businesses are all without exception small businesses. They depend greatly on the hard working people that help them service all of us. And the point you make about paying taxes I addressed when I told you that they put into the SS fund knowing they will never see the money. Yes they have to use a fake number, but that is what they have to do to get employment. After all that is why they are here. For the opportunity.

So they do in fact pay taxes and they also spend money on goods and services while here which they also pay a tax on like you and I. So it is a bit disingenuous for you to completely ignore these facts, don't you think?

To answer your question, yes I believe in borders, but I also understand the basic human instinct to survive. It is unfortunate that the Mexican economy is not a thriving or fair system where a citizen can get educated and then go out into the world and create real wealth for themselves. I respect the fact that these folks are risking their very lives just to get here so that they can work and take care of their families.

As for fixing the problem, I think we need to have a system that provides access to the US job market so long as the need exists. I think if people are needed, then we should allow them in and provide a path to citizenship so long as they do not have a criminal record and are working and paying taxes.

As far as entitlements go, I can tell you one way to fix a major drain on our system. Get rid of SS. That is an entitlement. Do you believe that every American is entitled to anything other than freedom?

The Right Guy said...

Using a fake or stolen SS # isn't legal, but neither is them being here. Yes there are positive aspects, but do they outweigh the negaitives? As far as paying taxes, SS# is used as an ID for all federal taxes. I would also say when you have 14 people living in an apartment, the local property taxes aren't accounted for evenly. Lots of problems thee too.

I am not for big taxes and government, In fact, I would want SS to go away or make it an option and also invested in other instruments. It yields 1-1.5%. I can do a little better in CDs.

I disagree it's about survival or some primal threat that these people from Mexico and other countries come here. It's because they want a better life. There is a difference. It is relatively convenient as the US is right next door. If the US economy went away and China was the best, would they be floating rafts to china? I doubt it.

As far as accusing you of being an illegal alien, that was a question, not an accusation. I was trying to illicit where you stood on the issue, not where you came from. I know plenty of american born liberals that believe in open borders and a NAU.

What you are saying is that life is very hard south of the border and people there what better opportunities for themselves and their families. These people believe the risks do not outweigh the rewards. Ok. I think we agree on that.

I Do however believe that necessity is the mother of invention and market forces. If there were enough illegal aliens to fill construction jobs and other jobs they do, Americans would do it, but would rase the cost of those products as Americans would demand higher wages. Reverse the tables, and imagine if Mexicans and other immigrants were under cut by some other group? That would be an interesting scenario.

Still, I do think that no matter what, people from many places will want to come here. The important thing is to make it fair for anyone, not just those from adjoining countries. We do need to streamline the process as I have said. Rules that make people wait 10 years for relatives to come in this country, years for spouses, and the deportation of parents who now have american children does not make sense.

To answer you last question, I will leave it to Thomas Jefferson:

Jefferson believed that each individual has "certain inalienable rights." That is, these rights exist with or without government; man cannot create, take, or give them away. It is the right of "liberty" on which Jefferson is most notable for expounding. He defines it by saying "rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." Hence, for Jefferson, though government cannot create a right to liberty, it can indeed violate it. And the limit of an individual's rightful liberty is not what law says it is but is simply a matter of stopping short of prohibiting other individuals from having the same liberty. A proper government, for Jefferson, is one that not only prohibits individuals in society from infringing on the liberty of other individuals, but also restrains itself from diminishing individual liberty.

No, I don't believe in SS or any other implementation that makes us like Farm Animals.

Still, at the end of the day, we are left with the same problem. What will we do? Right now I don't think either party has the right answer.

I would hope that you appreciate the dialog we are having here. As far as I can tell it has been civil, and unrestricted. Thank you for commenting on this. I also wanted to say in the beginning that is anyone made threats to you because of your opinions. I would be the first to defend you, even though we do not agree on everything.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Right,

I appreciate the civil dialogue, but can we please get past this issue "legality". If you keep coming back to that, then we will just go around in circles. I am not clear on what point you are trying to make regarding the scenario of "14 people living in an apartment". You said that taxes aren't accounted for evenly. Can you clarify that statement, because it sounds to me like you are saying that people who happen to live in apartments should be regulated as to how many people live under one roof. I would imagine that the condition you described probably exist out there since many of these people are extremely poor and have no other choice but to share the burden. I think that is better than living on the streets like I see many lazy Americans doing. Wouldn't you agree? As for the taxes, I believe that the tax burden on apartments is on the property owner, not the dweller, so that further diminishes your point. Whether there is 1 person or 10 living in an apartment, it does not change the tax on that property.

You mentioned something about "reversing the tables". If somehow it would be possible get willing people to do any job at all regardless of the pay, I see no problem with that. I am a true believer in the free market, and that is what is creating this so called problem. I live in a state that has a very large immigrant population, and I can honestly say it has not affected me in any negative way. In fact it has actually been a positive for me. They are the ones that mow my lawn, and I can promise you they are not in shackles while doing it. They are there of their own free will unlike the 600 slaves that Jefferson owned at Monticello. Im sure you can appreciate the irony in using a slave owner as a person to speak so eloquently of "certain unalienable rights".

As far as other people coming here, I have absolutely no problem with that. If China wants to pay the cost of sending a few hundred thousand Chinese citizens to America to do these jobs, then let them. Diversity is what makes America strong, we ought not to discourage it, but rather embrace it.

The Right Guy said...

No matter where you stand, legality is the issue here. If it weren't, there would be no SB1070.

As far as Jefferson goes, presidents then didn't get pensions. He had to have an income and he was in debt. If I am not mistaken, he will said to let them free after his death.

Actually, the # of people living in rentals is regulated in some municipalities. My brother is a building inspector and has to deal with these complaints from time to time. Renters don't often pay the same share of property taxes that go to schools, but receive services the same. In other words, if an average household was 5 people, those 14 in an apartment would be renting 3 domiciles, which changes the ration of taxes paid, which does come indirectly from rent. Many of the landlords buy houses to rent out in such fashion or rent through section 8. Like I said, it is regulated in some places and usually it's for health reasons, as some municipalities do not have sewers and with septic systems for instance, cannot handle the load and shit floats on the property. May be the tenants are used to that, but it is a health risk.

As far as people living in the streets, many of them are mentally ill, no matter their immigration status, and present a separate problem.

As for having a true free market, that would require changing not only the mentality of the GOP and Democrats, but a lot of law as well, getting rid of many of them. Obama is clearly going in the wrong direction in that regard. That being said, it also doesn't make sense to have a complete open door policy. Would you allow anyone in your home, night or day? No, you'd like to have a say who comes in, and who should not. Once you accept someone in your home, you treat them as a guest, so long as they respect their hosts. That is not too much to ask. While my issues aren't to do with straw man arguments with culture, they are about making sure we one, don't let criminals in, if possible, two, that we don't have more people coming in than we have work and services for, and two, that when they come here, the respect the laws and integrate like anyone else would.

Right now, we have problems that won't be solved by SB1070, not by open borders, nor by doing things the way we have been doing them. I also do not think the situation is served well when Calderón comes here and "takes the piss", as brits say. His government is as culpable as any.

At the end of the day we are at the same place.

Thank you for your comments. You are always welcome here, and if you wish to contact me offline, you may email me, because I wouldn't mid knowing who you are. You remind me of Hector.

Anonymous said...

Dee Dee Blase is an Embarassment to herself, Mexican & Latinos dont stand behind her Republikkkan Strategies to get Mexicans to not vote Democrat or Liberal.... most people dont get it. including her own republikkkan party, not that they could, lol but she is a gold digger. ask her husband hes white too. http://conservativecorporatism.blogspot.com/2011/05/somos-republican-s-attack-mexican.html

The Right Guy said...

We never took Dee Dee serious as a republican. She isn't From what we can tell she's a democrat plant to make the GOP look bad. That and she's fucking nuts, which she demonstrated.

The only reason's mexicans support democrats is that one, the dems support illegal immigration and two, mexicans must be looking to feed off the tit of government. Res ipsa loquitur.

You also might like:

Related Posts with Thumbnails