So perhaps you would not object to the 1.2 million illegals that are currently draining the state of Texas of $4.7 BILLION a year for services to all be sent to live in your state?
What is it about the term "illegal" that you liberal bleating hearts don't seem to understand?
Here is a suggestion: don't pay your taxes for 5 years and then demand amnesty promising not to ever fail to pay them again. See how far you get.
retire05:
1) Get rid of the services, and neither the illegals nor anyone else will "drain them." Naturally, you leave out the payments the illegals make for services they never GET (such as Social Security). And, in fact, most studies indicate that illegal immigrants pay more in net per capita taxes, and consumer less in net per capita "social services," than "native" Americans, which means they're subsidizing us.
2) I don't believe in "sending" people anywhere. But Missouri already has immigrants, and I don't object to more coming.
3) "Liberal bleating heart," eh? I'm not the one whining about my bennies being endangered.
4) I have no intention of seeking any amnesty, or making any promises, regarding taxes.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
Yea, that's the ticket! It's the citizens of the good ol US of A's fault for this chaotic immigration mess. Yea, we should applogize to all of these undocumented poor souls. How dare we consider enforcing laws controlling who enters the United States. Let me be the first: To all undocumented migrants, I am so sorry. Please forgive me. Please, take my country, take my job, take my house, take my taxes...hell, take my wife.
It is my understanding that one way to achive citizenship is to sign up, and be accepted for military service on US soil. I like this method of becoming a citizen.
I agree with you that thinking you can prevent immergration with a big border and lots of airports is silly.
I also think it is silly that people who have done nothing special to contribute to the USA belive that they are entilted to citizenship by virtue of being born to the "right sort of people". I would actually support some sort of limited citizenship for everyone and then sufferage and other benifits only upon service.
So perhaps you would not object to the 1.2 million illegals that are currently draining the state of Texas of $4.7 BILLION a year for services to all be sent to live in your state?
I live in Texas and I don't object. The 5-6 million angry anti-immigrant guys in the state drain $20 BILLION or so using similar "math". Now that's a problem.
What is it about the term "illegal" that you liberal bleating hearts don't seem to understand?
But that's Knapp's point...open up the rules and they're legal. What part of "legal" don't you understand?
Here is a suggestion: don't pay your taxes for 5 years and then demand amnesty promising not to ever fail to pay them again. See how far you get.
Fine, if you insist, no amnesty. They can sneak out of the country some weekend and then come back across the bridge clean and legal.
Wow. Of the dissenters, only one out of three actually made an intelligent response.
As Dennis Miller put it... we don't mind if you come here, but at least sign the f'in guest book first.
Tom -
Excellent piece....
-J
The folks complaining about the supposed drain on the welfare state are the same folks who sit around and complain about the welfare queens, trailer trash and crack babies. The "illegals" are just their latest complaining point. This too shall pass...as soon as the media runs out of steam and the anti-immigration pimps start to lose funding.
Knapp's right..dismantle the welfare state and these complainers would only have the lack of welfare for themselves to complain about.
All this fretting about terrorists blending in with the wetbacks is highly theoretical. I've done a little research on how terrorists have gotten into the U.S., and I haven't found a single such case.
I haven't found a single example of a terrorist either:
1. Sneaking across a land border between checkpoints.
Or
2. Entering via Mexico at all.
The ones who crossed a land border came via Canada. They passed through a checkpoint with a passport and visa, usually real, sometimes faked.
David,
The problem with your findings is that you'd only find terrorists who were, um, caught, and whom the government actually admits were caught, and who actually are terrorists (as I'm sure you've noticed, that word gets thrown around a lot about people who don't necessarily meet the actual definition).
I know of at least one case in which an alleged terror operative (Mahmoud Youssef Kourani, who pled guilty to providing material support to Hizbollah) has been described as having entered the US via the Mexican border with the aid of "coyotes." The source for the claim as to his mode of entry into the US was testimony by FBI Director Robert Mueller before congress.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
"The Libertarian Guy":
"As Dennis Miller put it... we don't mind if you come here, but at least sign the f'in guest book first."
Why should they?
Do you notify the government of your whereabouts and plans at all times? Do you think that you should be forced to?
Last year, about 135,000 "other than Mexicans," or OTMs, were apprehended in Texas. Most were released on their own recognizance pending deportation hearings. But many failed to show up for their hearing dates, disappearing into the U.S. interior. ( http://www.dallasnews.com/
shared...n2.ca5875b.html )
Are they terrorists? We don't know because they were released.
Personally, I think this has more to do with the drug war than with terrorism. It will be easier for Mexican cartels to bring drugs across once the border is opened officially -- which is what the US drug cartels (aka CIA) would like to happen.
Check this one out if you haven't seen it yet:
http://stopthedrugwar.org/
chroni...fectstorm.shtml
well since we are a nation of laws to have one come across the border in a manner that resembles the laws of the nation they are fleeing to should and would be expected. I'm sure if I snuck into Mexico I could demand all the services that are forced upon the taxpayer,here by the state and federal governments,and receive them with no questions asked.
Shoot I bet I could get my own national day of celebration while I'm there as well.
Tom,
You write:
"well since we are a nation of laws to have one come across the border in a manner that resembles the laws of the nation they are fleeing to should and would be expected."
If we're going to be a nation of laws, it also behooves us to consider whether or not those laws achieve the results we had in mind when we passed them.
The law as it has been implemented so far has not protected the national security (as a matter of fact it's harmed the national security), and the law as it has been implemented so far has not succeeded in artificially pumping up US wages (because the competing workers are getting in anyway). Those seem to be its main goals, and they are not being accomplished.
We can argue all day long over whether the law "ought" to be obeyed or not, but the bottom line is that it's not being obeyed and that it doesn't work. The two choices, given those facts, are to either radically change the law, or to throw more money at it and hope it magically starts working. I support the former choice. Your mileage may vary.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
Wendy Terry: Last year, about 135,000 "other than Mexicans," or OTMs, were apprehended in Texas. Most were released on their own recognizance pending deportation hearings. But many failed to show up for their hearing dates, disappearing into the U.S. interior. ... Are they terrorists? We don't know because they were released.
Good.
What, did you think that systematic government searches and surveillance without probable cause are something that ought to be efficiently and successfully carried out?
Rad...
If you're not a citizen, you damn well SHOULD notify the government you're here.
That same government has no damned business knowing MY business, however.
That's b/c I'm an American citizen. Someone who sneaks in from elsewhere, is NOT a citizen.
Big difference there. The Constitution applies - in theory - to me, whereas it does not cover those who are not American citizens. Or shouldn't, anyway. If they come in LEGALLY, go through the hoops to gain citizenship, then they're covered. As it should be.
But it won't matter, if the "Guest Voter Program" goes into effect...
"The Libertarian Guy": If you're not a citizen, you damn well SHOULD notify the government you're here.
Why?
"The Libertarian Guy": That same government has no damned business knowing MY business, however.
Why not?
Why do you think the government is justified in making this distinction solely on the basis of nationality? Why has it got more of a right to demand, without probable cause, to know the whereabouts and intentions of (say) Mexican immigrants, than it has to know yours?
Or, in other words, why do you make distinctions as to whether blanket surveillance is or isn't justified based solely on nationality?
Please note that I'm asking a moral question, not a question of constitutional law. So set aside arguments about what the U.S. Constitution does or doesn't allow for the moment, and put it in your own words.
Libertarian Guy,
You write "The Constitution applies - in theory - to me, whereas it does not cover those who are not American citizens. Or shouldn't, anyway."
It's not quite like that, and never has been. The Constitution per se doesn't apply to citizens or not-citizens. It applies to the government and what the government can or cannot do.
Where it DOES distinguish between people as citizens or not, etc., it makes two distinctions: "The people," which the Supreme Court (in US v. Verdugo-Urquidez, opinion by Rehnquist) has held is comprised not only of citizens, but of anyone with a "longstanding association" with the country (i.e. permanent residents and such); and "persons," who may be citizens or non-citizens. For example, the 2nd Amendment recognizes a right of "the people" to keep and bear arms, where the 5th Amendment says that "no person" shall be subjected to certain inequities as part of a criminal prosecution.
All of which is an aside -- I did not argue that US immigration policy is unconstitutional. I simply argued that US immigration policy is stupid and subversive of national security. Those are two entirely different arguments.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
Edited By Siteowner
I don't really understand how you can keep close survaliance on one group of people (non-citizens) without also survaling a group in which they are mixed (citizens).
The only way that I could possibly see it happening is 1) Radio tacking or 2) Ghettozation. Radio tracking would also end up with incidenal survaliance of citizens anytime a non-citizen was on their property. I don't think my guest lists should be serchable without cause just because a non-citizen is included.
Ghettos are just ugly, I don't think I even need to explain why limiting non-citizens to areas with other non-citizen is a really bad idea.
I also don't buy the agrument that citizens and non-citizens are fundimentally different. I happened to be born in the right place, to the right parents. The fact that such an even confers privlages upon me is morally problematic and smacks of aristorcy
Tom, let's say I'm even more pro-immigration than you are, but:
The US has somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 miles of border and coastline.
That doesn't make sense. The length of the equator is only 25,000 mi.
Cf. wiki
More substantively, Libertarian Guy is just wrong about the Constitution only applying to citizens. It carefully distinguishes between the category of citizens and the category of persons, and predicates some rights of only the former but some rights of both. The 14th Amendment is the most prominent example of this: equal protection under law is accorded to all persons under US jurisdiction.
Dan,
According to the NOAA, there's 95,500 miles of coastline. Yeah, it does sound like a lot, but it's there in all the little coves and sandbars and such that form the perimeter of the US (including the Hawaiian and Aleutian islands, the Floriday Keys, etc., which are going to have a larger coastline to area ratio).
Regards,
Tom
How about the fact that the Advocates For Self-Government list Ms. Malkin as a "libertarian" or "friend of liberty" or whatever???
Like I say, forget the pledge--the real job for LP reformers is to pourge the right wing for its midst.
anarchist,
There was a time when Malkin was considered a libertarian enfant terrible ... but like many nominally pro-freedom folks, she went completely batshit insane (or, perhaps, got dollar signs in her eyes) after 9/11.
Regards,
Tom
Please, EVERYONE - Pray for the Bush twins safe return from their dangerous mission in Baghdad!
Commenting by HaloScan
