I did not want to write this post. Mirriam finally made me do it. She didn’t twist my arm or anything, although I suspect if she were in California and she wanted to, I might let her.

No, she added her voice to that of several others who have written about Arizona’s new law written by idiots to stop the unstoppable: immigration.

Legal or not, immigration is unstoppable. It’s how almost all of us got here.

And, if you really think about it, almost none of us got here legally. At least, not if you’re white.

But as to stopping immigrants, Norm Pattis said it best:

Go ahead and buil[d] a new Hadrian’s wall, this one along the border to Mexico. My prediction is that people will still find a way into this country. All that we will have accomplished is spending lavishly on law enforcement. One of the prime forces making for historical change is the movement of peoples. You can’t stop history.

History.

I listen to a lot of books in my car. My favorite subject is early American history. Particularly the kind that will help me understand the minds of those who founded this once-great nation. I don’t remember which one it was, but I recall recently a book I was listening to noting that many of our earliest Presidents, starting with George Washington and continuing on through (at least for the portion I was listening to) Andrew Jackson, all had to deal with the illegal immigration problem.

You see, the United States had treaties with various large Native American nations, or (more accurately) federations. Although by “Native” Americans, I cannot possibly mean “white people,” still, we’re not talking about small “tribes” of uncivilized savages here: we’re talking about huge numbers of tribes which had banded together.

As I recall, there were at least two distinct federations — one bordering the north and west of the then-nascent United States of America; another, larger one, west and south of us — and there was some indication that these two separate federations were willing to cooperate, if necessary, to stop the illegal white immigration into their lands. Between the former colonies, the Spanish, the British and the French, they’d learned quite a bit about how to fight a war.

They were prepared to fight one against us. It was something our first Presidents understood and feared.

Interestingly, the solution bandied about today is one that these earlier Presidents considered as well: sending troops to defend the borders. Only, of course, the troops would have been required to fire on white people, invading Native American lands.

Ultimately, though, it was not the concern about having to fire on white people that stopped the government from acting. It was a combination of factors including lack of money and that it was just too late. The number of troops required would have broken the bank; the numbers of “settlers” who had broken through the borders, looking for a better life, was already too great.

You might call it “Manifest Destiny.” Readily apparent and inexorable.

Ultimately, this Invasion of the Bounty Snatchers grabbed up everything from one coast to another and, having disposed of the Native Americans, even started a War with Mexico. The end result of President James K. Polk’s creative exercise of the concept of eminent domain was that Mexico accepted the Rio Grande as its northern border and gave us the territories of California and New Mexico (we’d already grabbed Texas — that’s what started the war) for $15 million.

Hey, it beats $24 worth of beads.

At any rate, having stolen them fair and square, the United States now “owned” these territories. And in September of 1849, California held its first constitutional convention in Monterey.

Oh, my, does anything bad ever come out of Monterey?

There was one problem, though.

A practical problem facing the delegates was the fact that all documents for consideration had to be translated into Spanish since approximately a third of the delegates could only read and speak Spanish. (Hon. Gregory M. Caskey, Judge (Ret.), California Search and Seizure (2010 ed.) p.2.)

Yeah. One-third. They didn’t speak English. Only we couldn’t really tell them that if they couldn’t learn English they should go back to their own country. They were in their own country. Or, at least, it was theirs before we stole it.

Fast forward to today. The moccasin, el zapato, the shoe is on the other foot. Americans — by which, from watching the news, we almost always mean “white people” — are none-too-happy about all these people streaming across our borders, looking for a better life. Like their predecessors — I’m talking about the white people — their greed and ignorance knows no bounds. Hell, I read these ignorant fucks writing Letters to the Editor of the Fresno Bee almost daily. It’s frankly disgusting that they’re unable to recognize that the problem with the law isn’t that it allegedly targets illegal aliens.

The problem is that there’s no way to tell, merely by looking, whether or not someone is an illegal alien! Nearly 40% of Californians, for example, are Hispanic, but a large number of them are here legally. Nationwide, there were 45 million Hispanic people, or 15% of the population in 2008. Again, a large number of those are here legally.

This, of course, doesn’t even touch the problem of illegal white immigrants. Shall we just have the police stop everyone and ask for papers? Should we require them to ask the question in German? I doubt that’s what we want.

So, inevitably, the rights of numerous U.S. citizens will have to be violated to find the fraction of the population — and, mind you, it is a fraction of our Hispanic population — that might be here illegally.

Even those who should know better, as Brian Tannebaum points out, have capitulated. After all, 66% of these people think Arizona done a gud thing. As stupid as some of these people may be, it’s possible that some of them might be smart enough to vote. So the politicians capitulate. This time it’s not because we don’t have the money for troops. Hell, there’s no shortage of troops. (That’s why we have a budget problem, by the way. It’s not “illegal aliens.” It’s too goddamn-many troops.)

So there’s a war on, of sorts. Us against them. These people streaming across our borders. The difference is that we spend most of our money these days on maintaining a standing army.

The problem is, as I’ve said, that the standing army we’ve built and maintain has no really lawful way — at least not under our Constitution — of finding out who is here legally and who is not.

So, what the hell? Who needs a Constitution anyway? I mean, after all, as just about any criminal defense lawyer can tell you, we weren’t really using it anyway.

Still, there is this one small problem.

You could call it “Manifest Destiny.” The same thing that caused us to wipe out the Native Americans and started the Mexican-American War. The problem is people looking for a better life. They’re coming here, hoping to find it. That is readily apparent.

It’s also inexorable.

Maybe we should try something different. Maybe we should try to learn to live together.

After all, la linea is just a line. I’d rather see people cross that one than the one Arizona has picked.

33 comments

  1. 1) Where can one find statistics relating to how much illegal immigrants cost in Arizona per year versus how much they pump into Arizona’s economy?
    2) The importance of NAFTA as a contributing factor in illegal immigration can’t be overestimated. When the American corporations built factories just over the border in Mexico to cut costs it was very profitable for them. These factories attracted poor rural Mexicans looking for a better life. Then along comes China offering even cheaper, more profitable opportunities and one after another the American corporations closed their factories, moved to China, and left the Mexican workers stranded. What would you do if you were a Mexican under those circumstances?

  2. 1) Where can one find statistics relating to how much illegal immigrants cost in Arizona per year versus how much they pump into Arizona’s economy?
    2) The importance of NAFTA as a contributing factor in illegal immigration can’t be overestimated. When the American corporations built factories just over the border in Mexico to cut costs it was very profitable for them. These factories attracted poor rural Mexicans looking for a better life. Then along comes China offering even cheaper, more profitable opportunities and one after another the American corporations closed their factories, moved to China, and left the Mexican workers stranded. What would you do if you were a Mexican under those circumstances?

  3. Obviously, you have not read the law. Before police can question a person’s legal status, there has to be a detention based on some other offense, which must be based on the same probable cause that any other legitimate police stop is based on. After that initial burden is met, the officer must have reasonable suspicion to question the person’s legal status. Unlike what you say and what our stupid semi-literate president says, people can’t be pulled over just because they are brown or taking their children for ice cream. And stopping someone for a traffic offense who is Hispanic, has no driver’s license, and does not speak English in a van with others who have no id, and don’t speak English sounds like reasonable suspicion to me. Even the most liberal court would uphold it. If its good enough to detain and question American citizens over, its good enough for illegals.

  4. Obviously, you have not read the law. Before police can question a person’s legal status, there has to be a detention based on some other offense, which must be based on the same probable cause that any other legitimate police stop is based on. After that initial burden is met, the officer must have reasonable suspicion to question the person’s legal status. Unlike what you say and what our stupid semi-literate president says, people can’t be pulled over just because they are brown or taking their children for ice cream. And stopping someone for a traffic offense who is Hispanic, has no driver’s license, and does not speak English in a van with others who have no id, and don’t speak English sounds like reasonable suspicion to me. Even the most liberal court would uphold it. If its good enough to detain and question American citizens over, its good enough for illegals.

    1. If I could afford to, I would, if for no other reason than to be able to live in a nation not filled with people like you.

    1. If I could afford to, I would, if for no other reason than to be able to live in a nation not filled with people like you.

  5. ok, i was being flippant, obviously repealing NAFTA won’t stop illegal immigration, only cut down on a major factor in illegal immigration, but you get me right?

  6. ok, i was being flippant, obviously repealing NAFTA won’t stop illegal immigration, only cut down on a major factor in illegal immigration, but you get me right?

  7. Thanks Rick for posting this! Its frustrating to me how little anti-immigration folks know about the context of immigration, and I’m tired of uninformed, knee-jerk reactions based on the fallacies of Fox Entertainment News. Large numbers of people immigrating generally happens for a reason and if the hordes of white supremacists (i.e. average Amerikans) calling for an Amerikan Berlin Wall would think about that for a sec they’d notice something very very important: people immigrate BECAUSE of Amerikan economic policies. Amerikan corporations can move capital freely south onto Mexican land (thanks to NAFTA) to build factories and plantations which pay their workers very little to produce products for Amerikans, stealing any possibility of a sustainable livelihood from decent, honest, hard working folks. Why shouldn’t ECONOMIC REFUGEES be able to come here and scratch out a meager existence??

    And lets be real here. They aren’t coming here and stealing our jobs or living off the system. They are coming here to work dead-end jobs that keep the lives of Amerikans very cushy. They pick our food in the fields, prepare and serve it in restaurants, maintain our wasteful and luxurious yards, fix our cars, clean our houses and watch our children….the list goes on! They are taxed just like anyone else, they give to our community just like anyone else. How can middle class and upper class Amerikans tip their noses at the masses of low-income folks and immigrants who they pay to maintain and provide the privileges of wealth?? Who are the lazy ones???

    Crap policies like AB1070 and the Amerikan Berlin Wall are means to regulate where Mexicans will work for Amerikans. Apparently we only need so many here, the rest can stay a little further south to work in our factories.

    Wanna stop illegal immigration? Repeal NAFTA and all free trade agreements. When our economic policies stop debilitating the livelihoods of Mexicans, they will stop immigrating here as ECONOMIC REFUGEES.

    I realize AB1070 and other anti-immigration laws are about more than just Mexicans, but clearly Mexicans are the main target so I referred solely to them for the sake of brevity. Please don’t think I meant to belittle or homogenize non-Mexican immigrants. But really, we all know AB1070 is not about Canadians or the British. This is about regulating our Third World supply of labor and controlling the movement of those who would infringe on the myth of the Great White Amerikan Dream.

  8. Thanks Rick for posting this! Its frustrating to me how little anti-immigration folks know about the context of immigration, and I’m tired of uninformed, knee-jerk reactions based on the fallacies of Fox Entertainment News. Large numbers of people immigrating generally happens for a reason and if the hordes of white supremacists (i.e. average Amerikans) calling for an Amerikan Berlin Wall would think about that for a sec they’d notice something very very important: people immigrate BECAUSE of Amerikan economic policies. Amerikan corporations can move capital freely south onto Mexican land (thanks to NAFTA) to build factories and plantations which pay their workers very little to produce products for Amerikans, stealing any possibility of a sustainable livelihood from decent, honest, hard working folks. Why shouldn’t ECONOMIC REFUGEES be able to come here and scratch out a meager existence??

    And lets be real here. They aren’t coming here and stealing our jobs or living off the system. They are coming here to work dead-end jobs that keep the lives of Amerikans very cushy. They pick our food in the fields, prepare and serve it in restaurants, maintain our wasteful and luxurious yards, fix our cars, clean our houses and watch our children….the list goes on! They are taxed just like anyone else, they give to our community just like anyone else. How can middle class and upper class Amerikans tip their noses at the masses of low-income folks and immigrants who they pay to maintain and provide the privileges of wealth?? Who are the lazy ones???

    Crap policies like AB1070 and the Amerikan Berlin Wall are means to regulate where Mexicans will work for Amerikans. Apparently we only need so many here, the rest can stay a little further south to work in our factories.

    Wanna stop illegal immigration? Repeal NAFTA and all free trade agreements. When our economic policies stop debilitating the livelihoods of Mexicans, they will stop immigrating here as ECONOMIC REFUGEES.

    I realize AB1070 and other anti-immigration laws are about more than just Mexicans, but clearly Mexicans are the main target so I referred solely to them for the sake of brevity. Please don’t think I meant to belittle or homogenize non-Mexican immigrants. But really, we all know AB1070 is not about Canadians or the British. This is about regulating our Third World supply of labor and controlling the movement of those who would infringe on the myth of the Great White Amerikan Dream.

  9. When you write “..not all of either number is Hispanic” says a lot. You have let slip that you believe the reason people object to illegal immigration is they are prejudice against Hispanics. Do you think 70% of Americans dislike anyone Hispanic regardless of the “content of their character”? That a pretty pessimistic outlook. Even if there was evidence this is even partially true it is beside the point. We are discussing whether the law is fair and justified. Even if they are wonderful people, does that give them the right to steal into our country and make a mess of things? I’m a nice guy. (Been told that by countless women . Can I break the law? If I am caught speeding I have consequences. If I rob a bank, I go to jail. Break the law and you pay consequences. That’s fair isn’t it?
    “The U.S. Justice Department estimated that 270,000 illegal immigrants served jail time nationally in 2003. Of those, 108,000 were in California. Some estimates show illegals now make up half of California’s prison population, creating a massive criminal subculture that strains state budgets and creates a nightmare for local police forces.” http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/27/114208.shtml
    On the argument they are poor, you are partially right, “On average, the costs that illegal-immigrant households bear on the federal government are less than half that of other households and that many of those costs relate to their U.S.-born children.” And wrong in that “It also pointed out that tax payments by illegal-immigrant households constitute one-fourth those of other households because of low-income jobs.” And “With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services,” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33783-2004Aug25.html And everyone gets benefits by living in this country. There’s the police, the military, the roads, the courts, etc. They just don’t put in as much in taxes because the dropped out of high school and their income is low.
    Why can’t we stop illegal immigration? If we send them back as we catch them, if we fine the employers, if we build a fence/wall whatever and beef up the border patrol it can be slowed way down. It’s way worth doing.
    It seems like it should be constitutional if it is basically just a copy of the Federal law. And I have been asked for my ID hundreds and hundreds of times by cops of all kinds and civilians. Was that unconstitutional? We’ll let the courts tell us what is and isn’t constitutional and amend the law, if necessary. But the solution is not to give in to anarchy. We are a country of laws.
    Can you tell when someone is an illegal? I can. It’s not hard at all. And color is just one of the clues. The main clue is they don’t speak English. If a white person gets pulled over and has no ID, guess what, same thing. The law says specifically – no profiling. You sound like a post modernist. You can’t know anything! Use a little common sense. Some citizens will be asked for ID. Have you ever been pulled over and asked for ID? Everybody has. No biggie, unless you have an agenda to keep the border open. In other words you don’t like the fact that it is illegal to sneak into the US. Too bad. We the People say “no!”.
    Show me a country without borders where you don’t have to have ID.
    Half the cops in AZ are Hispanic. They are going to harass Hispanics? When I was a kid in the 60s I got REALLY harassed because of the way I dressed and my hair. Big deal. Do you get pissed when you get “harassed” to get on a plane or go to another country, or go into a rock concert or buy a 6 pack?
    No. We will stick with the constitution please. The constitution is about law, not Anarchy, which is what you want.
    You had to resort to insult’s like all liberals you can’t stand on reason and facts so you call names. For you information I have a high IQ and two fine boys, one in college (NOT a high school drop out) and one with a masters in Aerospace.

    1. I love it when someone, in wonderfully non-grammatical prose, says, “You had to resort to insult’s like all liberals you can’t stand on reason and facts so you call names,” in the same post where they’re a) calling me a liberal and b) impliedly calling me a post-modernist (in a way clearly intended as an insult, notwithstanding the fact that I actually know what a post-modernist is, and that I’m not one). I’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader to find the errors. At any rate, earlier I said you could be stupid; now I’m fairly certain you are, at least judging from what you write. My calling you names isn’t for lack of an argument — I’ve made it more than once — consider helping you find yourself my free gift to you.

      But, more importantly, you again missed the point(s) of my post. For one, you can’t stop immigration. It’s going to happen. To the extent anyone thinks this isn’t right and we should be able to keep it from happening, I say we will have as much luck with that as the Native Americans did at keeping us out. So the question becomes how can we build a better society that incorporates people from other countries.

      The second point was that even if there were a way to slow the influx, or deal with the people coming here, Arizona’s law is not the solution. To use one of your examples, not being able to speak English does not provide reasonable suspicion that someone is in the United States illegally. When I was a student, several of my best friends were from Germany. Parents occasionally came to visit them. They did not do so well with English — they certainly could not speak it well enough to become citizens. But they were not in the country illegally. In fact, not even all U.S. citizens speak English, as your posts demonstrate. (I am assuming you are a citizen.) Speaking English is a requirement for becoming a U.S. citizen — with exceptions. There are U.S. citizens who do not speak English; and quite a few who (like you) do not speak it well. See http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/language/ACS-12.pdf.

      As for your examples of how you can tell someone isn’t a citizen:
      I sometimes go out of the house without my I.D. (My I.D., by the way, does not prove that I am a citizen, so I never have proof of citizenship with me, even when I have my I.D.)
      Have I ever been pulled over so someone can ask for my I.D.? No. Never. I doubt I ever will be, since in California that would be considered a violation of the United States Constitution. (Have I ever been pulled over for some other reason and then asked for my I.D.? That’s a different question; but see above about what it proves.)
      Do I get pissed when I get “harassed” to get on a plane, etc.? The answer is “yes.” That’s why I don’t get on planes anymore. I hope I’m never in a situation where that’s the only way to get where I’m going. If I am, though, I expect not to be hassled. But, then, I almost got tazed last year for refusing to allow myself to be searched on entering the County Fair, but the officer was so distracted arguing me about the Constitution he let me through without remembering to check inside the bag. Although we exchanged words, he didn’t taze me and he did let me enter.

      The Constitution is about the law. If only those were not just so many words to those who constantly lift their robes to wipe their asses on it! And I don’t want anarchy: I want my country back. The same one I inherited from the thieves who preceded me. I’m sorry for what they did to the Native Americans, but I’m glad for what they left me. I’m also sorry that people like you are hell-bent on destroying it.

      I’m not at all sure that completely open borders will work. Maybe they would; maybe they wouldn’t. (Again, they didn’t work out so well for the Native Americans.) But I never called for completely open borders. I simply noted that we can’t stop immigration and that we should find a better way to integrate people into our society, like we used to do before we all got scared and started looking in the wrong places to find someone to blame for our fears.

  10. When you write “..not all of either number is Hispanic” says a lot. You have let slip that you believe the reason people object to illegal immigration is they are prejudice against Hispanics. Do you think 70% of Americans dislike anyone Hispanic regardless of the “content of their character”? That a pretty pessimistic outlook. Even if there was evidence this is even partially true it is beside the point. We are discussing whether the law is fair and justified. Even if they are wonderful people, does that give them the right to steal into our country and make a mess of things? I’m a nice guy. (Been told that by countless women . Can I break the law? If I am caught speeding I have consequences. If I rob a bank, I go to jail. Break the law and you pay consequences. That’s fair isn’t it?
    “The U.S. Justice Department estimated that 270,000 illegal immigrants served jail time nationally in 2003. Of those, 108,000 were in California. Some estimates show illegals now make up half of California’s prison population, creating a massive criminal subculture that strains state budgets and creates a nightmare for local police forces.” http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/27/114208.shtml
    On the argument they are poor, you are partially right, “On average, the costs that illegal-immigrant households bear on the federal government are less than half that of other households and that many of those costs relate to their U.S.-born children.” And wrong in that “It also pointed out that tax payments by illegal-immigrant households constitute one-fourth those of other households because of low-income jobs.” And “With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services,” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33783-2004Aug25.html And everyone gets benefits by living in this country. There’s the police, the military, the roads, the courts, etc. They just don’t put in as much in taxes because the dropped out of high school and their income is low.
    Why can’t we stop illegal immigration? If we send them back as we catch them, if we fine the employers, if we build a fence/wall whatever and beef up the border patrol it can be slowed way down. It’s way worth doing.
    It seems like it should be constitutional if it is basically just a copy of the Federal law. And I have been asked for my ID hundreds and hundreds of times by cops of all kinds and civilians. Was that unconstitutional? We’ll let the courts tell us what is and isn’t constitutional and amend the law, if necessary. But the solution is not to give in to anarchy. We are a country of laws.
    Can you tell when someone is an illegal? I can. It’s not hard at all. And color is just one of the clues. The main clue is they don’t speak English. If a white person gets pulled over and has no ID, guess what, same thing. The law says specifically – no profiling. You sound like a post modernist. You can’t know anything! Use a little common sense. Some citizens will be asked for ID. Have you ever been pulled over and asked for ID? Everybody has. No biggie, unless you have an agenda to keep the border open. In other words you don’t like the fact that it is illegal to sneak into the US. Too bad. We the People say “no!”.
    Show me a country without borders where you don’t have to have ID.
    Half the cops in AZ are Hispanic. They are going to harass Hispanics? When I was a kid in the 60s I got REALLY harassed because of the way I dressed and my hair. Big deal. Do you get pissed when you get “harassed” to get on a plane or go to another country, or go into a rock concert or buy a 6 pack?
    No. We will stick with the constitution please. The constitution is about law, not Anarchy, which is what you want.
    You had to resort to insult’s like all liberals you can’t stand on reason and facts so you call names. For you information I have a high IQ and two fine boys, one in college (NOT a high school drop out) and one with a masters in Aerospace.

    1. I love it when someone, in wonderfully non-grammatical prose, says, “You had to resort to insult’s like all liberals you can’t stand on reason and facts so you call names,” in the same post where they’re a) calling me a liberal and b) impliedly calling me a post-modernist (in a way clearly intended as an insult, notwithstanding the fact that I actually know what a post-modernist is, and that I’m not one). I’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader to find the errors. At any rate, earlier I said you could be stupid; now I’m fairly certain you are, at least judging from what you write. My calling you names isn’t for lack of an argument — I’ve made it more than once — consider helping you find yourself my free gift to you.

      But, more importantly, you again missed the point(s) of my post. For one, you can’t stop immigration. It’s going to happen. To the extent anyone thinks this isn’t right and we should be able to keep it from happening, I say we will have as much luck with that as the Native Americans did at keeping us out. So the question becomes how can we build a better society that incorporates people from other countries.

      The second point was that even if there were a way to slow the influx, or deal with the people coming here, Arizona’s law is not the solution. To use one of your examples, not being able to speak English does not provide reasonable suspicion that someone is in the United States illegally. When I was a student, several of my best friends were from Germany. Parents occasionally came to visit them. They did not do so well with English — they certainly could not speak it well enough to become citizens. But they were not in the country illegally. In fact, not even all U.S. citizens speak English, as your posts demonstrate. (I am assuming you are a citizen.) Speaking English is a requirement for becoming a U.S. citizen — with exceptions. There are U.S. citizens who do not speak English; and quite a few who (like you) do not speak it well. See http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/language/ACS-12.pdf.

      As for your examples of how you can tell someone isn’t a citizen:
      I sometimes go out of the house without my I.D. (My I.D., by the way, does not prove that I am a citizen, so I never have proof of citizenship with me, even when I have my I.D.)
      Have I ever been pulled over so someone can ask for my I.D.? No. Never. I doubt I ever will be, since in California that would be considered a violation of the United States Constitution. (Have I ever been pulled over for some other reason and then asked for my I.D.? That’s a different question; but see above about what it proves.)
      Do I get pissed when I get “harassed” to get on a plane, etc.? The answer is “yes.” That’s why I don’t get on planes anymore. I hope I’m never in a situation where that’s the only way to get where I’m going. If I am, though, I expect not to be hassled. But, then, I almost got tazed last year for refusing to allow myself to be searched on entering the County Fair, but the officer was so distracted arguing me about the Constitution he let me through without remembering to check inside the bag. Although we exchanged words, he didn’t taze me and he did let me enter.

      The Constitution is about the law. If only those were not just so many words to those who constantly lift their robes to wipe their asses on it! And I don’t want anarchy: I want my country back. The same one I inherited from the thieves who preceded me. I’m sorry for what they did to the Native Americans, but I’m glad for what they left me. I’m also sorry that people like you are hell-bent on destroying it.

      I’m not at all sure that completely open borders will work. Maybe they would; maybe they wouldn’t. (Again, they didn’t work out so well for the Native Americans.) But I never called for completely open borders. I simply noted that we can’t stop immigration and that we should find a better way to integrate people into our society, like we used to do before we all got scared and started looking in the wrong places to find someone to blame for our fears.

  11. Didn’t I read that the Governor of CA wanted to build, at taxpayers cost, jails in Mexico. Illegal immigrant criminals would be transferred to those jails. The expense of housing illegals who commit crimes in CA is so great there would be a net cost savings even paying for the prisons if the Mexican government ran the prisons. What does that tell you? 1) Lots of these people are criminals. 2) It costs a fortune to keep them off the streets. Look up what percentage of the prison population are illegal immigrants.
    Everyone agrees illegals are poor. It seems pretty obvious poor people take more from the government that they give. Welfare, food stamps, etc..
    Teenager’s jobs are being taken by illegals. Illegals working for less than minimum wage drive down teenagers and poor citizens. And don’t tell me they won’t do the work immigrants do. My whole generation grew up doing the same work.
    Poor people don’t pay as much in property taxes because they don’t usually own a house, and they have more children than citizens. Paying the education of these kids is enormous.
    Illegals don’t generally have health or auto insurance. Who do you think pays for the repairs to cars and the emergency room visits? It’s certainly not illegals!
    Why is it AZ passed this law? Because they are a bunch of bigots? A large portion of the population is Hispanic. I doubt they are bigoted against other Hispanics. AZ passed the law because they are losing money as well as experiencing more crime. Why else??? What are their motives? Are they all bigots and you in the minority of fair people. “FAIR’s new breakdown shows that illegal immigrants take $1.6 billion from Arizona’s education system, $694.8 million from health care services, $339.7 million in law enforcement and court costs, $85.5 million in welfare costs and $155.4 million in other general costs.”
    Look up Cognitive Dissonance on Wikipedia and take an honest look at yourself.

    1. The governor did, indeed, say he wanted to send “illegal immigrant prisoners” to Mexico. He estimated that there were 20,000 such prisoners. The problem, of course, is that he counted all illegal immigrants as if they were Mexican, which isn’t the case. Furthermore, the percentage of illegal immigrants in California in 2000 was estimated at 6.5 percent; estimated number of illegal immigrants in California prisons in 2000 is 4.6%. Not all of either number is Hispanic, to my knowledge. Additionally, it’s not as “obvious” as you indicate that “poor people take more from the government.” For one thing, illegal immigrants don’t get benefits, except possibly for their children if their children are citizens.

      Aside from all that, it is nevertheless entirely possible that illegal immigrants cost more money than they provide to the State in benefits.

      But as with other readers, you missed the point. And I’m not saying you’re a bigot. You could just be stupid.

      The point wasn’t that people are not justified in being upset about illegal immigration. The point (there were actually two key points) was that 1) we aren’t going to be able to stop immigration and therefore should try to find a better way of integrating immigrants into the population and 2) the Arizona law is unconstitutional, because it requires the police to do something that they actually can’t do. No one can tell by looking at somebody whether they are here illegally, or not. It is possible for white people to be here illegally. It is also possible for brown people to be here legally.

      Whether someone is brown does not give any indication as to whether they are here illegally. Whether someone is brown and speaks with an accent doesn’t give any indication as to whether they are here illegally. Whether someone is brown, speaks with an accent, and cannot produce a driver’s license or other documentation does not give any indication as to whether they are here illegally. In fact, when it comes down to it, even whether someone is brown, speaks with an accent, can’t provide a driver’s license and has a van full of other people who are brown, speak with accents and don’t have driver’s licenses — that, also, does not tell you if the driver (or any of the others) are here illegally.

      The end result of the law is that lots of legal people — including mostly United States citizens — are going to be stopped and “checked” by the police without reasonable suspicion. Because there is no way to have a reasonable suspicion just by looking at the color of someone’s skin, or listening to them talk, as to whether or not they are legally in the country.

      The police already harass the crap out of non-white United States citizens. The Constitution was meant to prevent our government from doing that. We don’t need a law that says, “Screw the Constitution. Let’s do it anyway.”

      Thinking that having such a law is a good thing is what makes you a stupid person. I can only hope that you are too stupid to reproduce, but I would be willing to bet that you’re better at that than just about anything else. Because there sure are a helluva lot of you out there.

  12. Didn’t I read that the Governor of CA wanted to build, at taxpayers cost, jails in Mexico. Illegal immigrant criminals would be transferred to those jails. The expense of housing illegals who commit crimes in CA is so great there would be a net cost savings even paying for the prisons if the Mexican government ran the prisons. What does that tell you? 1) Lots of these people are criminals. 2) It costs a fortune to keep them off the streets. Look up what percentage of the prison population are illegal immigrants.
    Everyone agrees illegals are poor. It seems pretty obvious poor people take more from the government that they give. Welfare, food stamps, etc..
    Teenager’s jobs are being taken by illegals. Illegals working for less than minimum wage drive down teenagers and poor citizens. And don’t tell me they won’t do the work immigrants do. My whole generation grew up doing the same work.
    Poor people don’t pay as much in property taxes because they don’t usually own a house, and they have more children than citizens. Paying the education of these kids is enormous.
    Illegals don’t generally have health or auto insurance. Who do you think pays for the repairs to cars and the emergency room visits? It’s certainly not illegals!
    Why is it AZ passed this law? Because they are a bunch of bigots? A large portion of the population is Hispanic. I doubt they are bigoted against other Hispanics. AZ passed the law because they are losing money as well as experiencing more crime. Why else??? What are their motives? Are they all bigots and you in the minority of fair people. “FAIR’s new breakdown shows that illegal immigrants take $1.6 billion from Arizona’s education system, $694.8 million from health care services, $339.7 million in law enforcement and court costs, $85.5 million in welfare costs and $155.4 million in other general costs.”
    Look up Cognitive Dissonance on Wikipedia and take an honest look at yourself.

    1. The governor did, indeed, say he wanted to send “illegal immigrant prisoners” to Mexico. He estimated that there were 20,000 such prisoners. The problem, of course, is that he counted all illegal immigrants as if they were Mexican, which isn’t the case. Furthermore, the percentage of illegal immigrants in California in 2000 was estimated at 6.5 percent; estimated number of illegal immigrants in California prisons in 2000 is 4.6%. Not all of either number is Hispanic, to my knowledge. Additionally, it’s not as “obvious” as you indicate that “poor people take more from the government.” For one thing, illegal immigrants don’t get benefits, except possibly for their children if their children are citizens.

      Aside from all that, it is nevertheless entirely possible that illegal immigrants cost more money than they provide to the State in benefits.

      But as with other readers, you missed the point. And I’m not saying you’re a bigot. You could just be stupid.

      The point wasn’t that people are not justified in being upset about illegal immigration. The point (there were actually two key points) was that 1) we aren’t going to be able to stop immigration and therefore should try to find a better way of integrating immigrants into the population and 2) the Arizona law is unconstitutional, because it requires the police to do something that they actually can’t do. No one can tell by looking at somebody whether they are here illegally, or not. It is possible for white people to be here illegally. It is also possible for brown people to be here legally.

      Whether someone is brown does not give any indication as to whether they are here illegally. Whether someone is brown and speaks with an accent doesn’t give any indication as to whether they are here illegally. Whether someone is brown, speaks with an accent, and cannot produce a driver’s license or other documentation does not give any indication as to whether they are here illegally. In fact, when it comes down to it, even whether someone is brown, speaks with an accent, can’t provide a driver’s license and has a van full of other people who are brown, speak with accents and don’t have driver’s licenses — that, also, does not tell you if the driver (or any of the others) are here illegally.

      The end result of the law is that lots of legal people — including mostly United States citizens — are going to be stopped and “checked” by the police without reasonable suspicion. Because there is no way to have a reasonable suspicion just by looking at the color of someone’s skin, or listening to them talk, as to whether or not they are legally in the country.

      The police already harass the crap out of non-white United States citizens. The Constitution was meant to prevent our government from doing that. We don’t need a law that says, “Screw the Constitution. Let’s do it anyway.”

      Thinking that having such a law is a good thing is what makes you a stupid person. I can only hope that you are too stupid to reproduce, but I would be willing to bet that you’re better at that than just about anything else. Because there sure are a helluva lot of you out there.

  13. Maybe Ricks’s people got here by simply crossing the border, but did they depend on everybody else to pay for them? We spend billions on ILLEGAL immigrants in a sour economy where only 49% of the people pay taxes. Do we need more people on the gov. payroll? And obviously you do not have illegals hiding in your back yard or approaching your house 2-3 times a week as my 78yr. old sister does in South Texas. Our Gov. should not pick and choose which laws to enforce-can I choose which ones to obey? Good for Arizona-they value their citizens. You are dead wrong, Rick.

    1. Billions, eh? And where are the stats to back this up? Not only is there no evidence of this, but you fail to account for the fact that immigrants without documentation have taxes withheld from paychecks, but many will never collect benefits because either they had to use someone else’s identity to get a job, or they don’t need benefits.

      I realize rascists don’t require logic or facts in their arguments since they are based on hatred, but you also missed the point of my article: our efforts to stop immigration will not — cannot — succeed. Human beings have been moving around the planet simce before we were human beings in search of what they need to survive. Laws and artificial boundaries have never stopped them.

      These things did not stop the ancestors or predecessors of current citizens and they won’t stop anyone now.

      Trying to stop them wrecks economies and helps create police states, as Arizona is going to help demonstrate.

  14. Maybe Ricks’s people got here by simply crossing the border, but did they depend on everybody else to pay for them? We spend billions on ILLEGAL immigrants in a sour economy where only 49% of the people pay taxes. Do we need more people on the gov. payroll? And obviously you do not have illegals hiding in your back yard or approaching your house 2-3 times a week as my 78yr. old sister does in South Texas. Our Gov. should not pick and choose which laws to enforce-can I choose which ones to obey? Good for Arizona-they value their citizens. You are dead wrong, Rick.

    1. Billions, eh? And where are the stats to back this up? Not only is there no evidence of this, but you fail to account for the fact that immigrants without documentation have taxes withheld from paychecks, but many will never collect benefits because either they had to use someone else’s identity to get a job, or they don’t need benefits.

      I realize rascists don’t require logic or facts in their arguments since they are based on hatred, but you also missed the point of my article: our efforts to stop immigration will not — cannot — succeed. Human beings have been moving around the planet simce before we were human beings in search of what they need to survive. Laws and artificial boundaries have never stopped them.

      These things did not stop the ancestors or predecessors of current citizens and they won’t stop anyone now.

      Trying to stop them wrecks economies and helps create police states, as Arizona is going to help demonstrate.

  15. I want to see la linea on the border like the iron curtain and/or BERLIN wall and for at least as many days as they existeded.

    1. In other words, just long enough for you to live out the rest of your cowardly life and then they can come down, right?

Leave a comment:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Posts

Topics

Archives