२२ एप्रिल, २०१३
Rand Paul demands that the immigration debate focus on terrorism.
"I believe that any real comprehensive immigration reform must implement strong national security protections. The facts emerging in the Boston Marathon bombing have exposed a weakness in our current system. If we don't use this debate as an opportunity to fix flaws in our current system, flaws made even more evident last week, then we will not be doing our jobs.... [N]ational security protections must be rolled into comprehensive immigration reform to make sure the federal government does everything it can to prevent immigrants with malicious intent from using our immigration system to gain entry into the United States in order to commit future acts of terror."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
९१ टिप्पण्या:
There has never been enough emphasis on this aspect of immigration. The 9/11 terrorists were here legally. KSM went to graduate school here.
Maybe we should suspend student visas for those from Muslim countries for a decade.
Well, that's just crazy talk.
A bit of a conundrum, since "illegal immigrants" have already demonstrated their willingness to violate our laws to serve their own purposes by default.
Break an immigration law, break a few citizens, at this point, what does it matter?
Democrat staffers, acting like good little brown shirts, will not allow debate at these immigration hearings.
Why isn't Paul demanding that the surviving bomber be given the Miranda rights he's entitled to as an American citizen?
At this very minute, as I look out the window, I can see a bunch of terrorists mulching my neighbor's flower beds.
Oooooo... he's good.
Part of Bush's "guest worker" proposals were to get the people coming across the border for work out of the "system" where they obscured the criminals, drug runners, and terrorists.
HA wrote:
Why isn't Paul demanding that the surviving bomber be given the Miranda rights he's entitled to as an American citizen?
Why aren't the anti police state lefties demanding the same thing?
HA said...
Why isn't Paul demanding that the surviving bomber be given the Miranda rights he's entitled to as an American citizen?
4/22/13, 11:18 AM
He should be. There is no valid reason he is not given his rights. Whatever immediate danger has passed.
A few citizens getting blown up now and then is a small price to pay for the benefits of diversity and social justice and cheap lettuce.
A naturalized citizen can have his citizenship revoked. It has happened to mob guys and Nazi fugitives.
There has never been enough emphasis on this aspect of immigration.
Absolutely.
HA said...
Why isn't Paul demanding that the surviving bomber be given the Miranda rights he's entitled to as an American citizen?
a better question is why isn't Obama? I assume this is a federal prosecution since Massachusetts is useless as far as giving this guy the death penalty.
Actually, HA, an American citizen isn't entitled to "Miranda rights". See Orin Kerr's explanation here but basically if the government doesn't "read you" the Miranda warnings then they can't use your statemetns against you in a court of law. That's your "Miranda rights".
If he is not read his rights, then what he says may not be used against him. He now can't incriminate himself further by talking. Big deal, he is on camera planting the bomb. Nobody is taking away his rights, it is a sacrifice of government rights in order to hopefully gain more information.
In the case of the would be Christmas bomber, he was read his rights immediately, even though there was nothing to be gained for the govt by it, and plenty to be lost. He was clearly convictable based on information available.
People who want to pretend that an act of war is the same as the shoplifting their mother did are deluding themselves.
Even if they don't get this guy on the bombings they get him on killing Sean Collins, the MIT Police officer, on attempted murder of the MBTA officer, attempted murder of the police that chased them into Watertown, the car jacking, etc., etc. I'll trade the bombing convictions for information, this guy is going away forever anyway.
Note: In the comment above, I meant the mother of the bombers is a convicted shoplifter. I was not calling out the mothers of people who disagree with me.
Good for him.
This is just what Chuckie and the Gang of Four do not want.
The more Paul screams about this, the better.
Oh, and the fork that was stuck in Toomey?
Get it ready for Rubio. He's just about done
AprilApple said...
Democrat staffers, acting like good little brown shirts, will not allow debate at these immigration hearings.
Just like ObamaTax.
Look how well that turned out.
Rand Paul is the right person to ask this question because he and his father have systematically asked why our government has lead us into a situation where we are a target for these kinds of attacks, which is the bigger and more important part of the equation.
It seems to me that the State department needs to start focusing on something that has been seen in Europe for some time now; young men of Islamic extraction who are ostensibly assimilated into U.S. culture but go back to a majority Islamic country for an extended period of time. Even if they have innocent motives for going, it seems that they are targeted by extremist groups for recruitment for the objective of having someone who can act as an agent for terror in the U.S. once they return.
That's too commonsensical to get much attention in D.C.
His filibuster was based on the notion that no American citizen is a greater threat to security than a democratic state. This is one way to patch the hole blown into that assumption.
Smart pivot but it's easy to see which way the wind is blowing when it's full of smoke.
America can supply its own shoplifters and terrorists.
I would agree that questioning him would not violate his rights. One of the commenters here (I'm sorry I don't remember which) explained the exception.
My understanding was that the public exception would allow them to use his statements in court. Maybe I'm wrong.
If they just want information, and will not try to use that against him, then I have no problem with the questioning. My problem is with the constant erosion of rights. First it's a exception because of drug dealers, terrorist, or mob. Then the next thing you know the freaken Department of Education has a SWAT team.
Rand Paul is proving to be a playa! He apparently has a gift for asking questions that resonate across ideological divides.
mccullough said...
Maybe we should suspend student visas for those from Muslim countries for a decade.
particularly for student pilots who don't care much about landings...
Marco Rubio dbag
He should be. There is no valid reason he is not given his rights. Whatever immediate danger has passed.
You can't possibly know that, can you?
A gentleman who works with ICE was at one of these immigration hearings last week. He asked a question and a democrat staffer erupted in anger and called the capitol police to have the ICE agent escorted out.
The ICE agent was polite and respectful the entire time.
Luckily for the ICE agent, film crews followed him out. The ICE agent asked the police - was he going to be brought in? or arrested? What was the charge? The police had nothing.
so far I am convinced that creeps like Chuck Schumer and Michael Bennet have Rubio swindled and hoodwinked.
NOTICE: PROP ALERT
"If it saves just one child..."
HA said...
Why isn't Paul demanding that the surviving bomber be given the Miranda rights he's entitled to as an American citizen?
4/22/13, 11:18 AM
I know this might be difficult for you but the bomber independent of the Miranda warning (hint it isn't the Miranda right) already has a constitutional right not to talk at all to anyone especially the police. Thats why if you are ever arrested you have the right to politely and respectfully tell the cops that you will be happy to talk to them when your lawyer is present but only then. It appears civics isn't being taught anymore.
There is no valid reason he is not given his rights.
Actually, there is, "valid", but still debatable: Younger Tsarnaev is not been advised of his right to remain silent in order to harvest as much actionable intel as possible before said intel becomes useless. Any intel/ testimony/evidence obtained during the non-advisement period expressly forbidden from being used against him in court.
Why isn't Paul demanding that the surviving bomber be given the Miranda rights he's entitled to as an American citizen?
And the relevance of this to the issue at hand is ...?
Oooooo... he's good.
The second club (after Machin-Toomey's failure in the Senate) of Obama's 2014 Flip-the-House strategy now at risk.
I'm not sure how immigration reform would work on two people who came here as kids. How do you tell when they are very young what they will do as adults?
As far as Miranda is concerned, it's my understanding that young Mr. Terrorist cannot talk anyway, so the interrogation would be long and _drawn_ out.
I just looked at the FBI website. This is waht they say.
"the Supreme Court has recognized only one exception to the Miranda rule—the "public safety" exception—which permits law enforcement to engage in a limited and focused unwarned interrogation and allows the government to introduce the statement as direct evidence."
"This article discusses the origins of the public safety exception and provides guidance for law enforcement officers confronted with an emergency that may require interrogating a suspect held in custody about an imminent threat to public safety without providing Miranda warnings.
So yes. I'm sure that any "imminent" threat has passed.
As I said upthread. If they want to question him about his activities -- fine. Just don't use the statements against him in the future.
"Younger Tsarnaev is not been advised of his right to remain silent in order to harvest as much actionable intel as possible before said intel becomes useless. Any intel/ testimony/evidence obtained during the non-advisement period expressly forbidden from being used against him in court."
I don't think so. Police may always choose not to inform suspects of their Miranda rights. However, if they do, any statements made prior to the advisory are inadmissable at court.
That there is a publicly stated "emergency exception" to the Miranda warnings in the case of the Boston bomber means anything he says prior to his being advised of his Miranda rights--assuming he ever is--will be admissable at court. Otherwise, why have (or declare) an "emergency exception?"
We should all be very afraid of the "lockdown" imposed on Boston during the manhunt for the bomber.
Tons of good stuff off Drudge:
Regarding immigration, our little Saudi in medical Limbo was on the Terror Watch list
HA said...
Why isn't Paul demanding that the surviving bomber be given the Miranda rights he's entitled to as an American citizen?
Maybe because he doesn't want to look as stupid as this lawprof claiming the cops were mean to Tamer but Lame and Joker.
PS and not all that OT: Joker will not be tried as enemy combatant
But if Tsarnaev is classified as an unlawful combatant, aren't concerns with civilian due process beside the point?
During WWII Germany sent a team of saboteurs to the US who were captured. Two of them were American citizens. After they were captured, they were all tried under a military tribunal, found guilty and sentenced to death, including the Americans.
Crazy talk.
I would like the Repubs to pick 100 illegal adults at random and report on how long they have been here, their country of origin, do they have a soc sec number, how do they make a living, where do they work, do they pay taxes, own a car or a home, how many kids do they have and what govt benefits have they used and what is their approximate net worth. Then I'd like to see the Repubs check and see how many have registered to vote, committed a crime and gotten fake credentials, etc.
IOW, give us a nice robust summary of life in America for 100 random illegals before we legalize 11 million of them.
RonF said...
[ threadjack ]
Ann, what's this about a huge slush fund in the UW system while they're hiking tuition and proclaiming a lack of money? Is there anything to this?
[ /threadjack ]
4/22/13, 11:41 AM
Did you see this post from the 20th?
I hope Drudge has a succession plan. he's an invaluable resource.
BPM:
Aint that the truth. My news world will suck without places like Drudge and Instapundit.
As a group Muslims have proven themselves to be pretty violent on the terrorist side. Do the multi-culturalist/PC rights of being an "innocent" non US citizen Muslim trump the safety of Americans?
It's time to stop all Muslim entry into this country, get off ME oil by developing our own resources, and expend energy to remove the virulent poison in some sects of Islam. Then we can engage in the fairness luxury of MCism and PCism.
Hear that sound? That's the sound of Harry Reid taking Rand Paul's common sense suggestions-- crumpling them into wad and wiping his ass with it.
Althouse said in the previous thread...
I tend to think people are responsible for their own choices.
But, if you look at this scheme by Rubio and others, so called Immigration Reform, isn't just a reward to law breakers?
Your antiquated? notions of making people "responsible" for their actions, do not appear to be carrying the day... professor.
Kudos to Rand Paul for at least repurposing some of the attention generated by the question... After all the rearrangement of the deck chairs, following 9/11, how the fuck is it possible that these losers are still able to hit us?
I was wondering how the bombing would play out in terms of immigration "reform" after it was determined that the bombers were immigrant Islamic terrorists. And, now I think we see how things are likely to play out.
I think that the legislation will pass in the Senate with most or all of the Dems and maybe a handful of the Republicans voting in favor of it. And, then expect it to go down in flames in the House. Why? Partially political - immigration "reform" is seen by many Republicans as an easy way for the Democrats to mint a lot of Dem voters. But, they can't be seen as opposing it for that reason, since they need as many Hispanics as they can get. What Rand has done is given them national security cover for voting against the legislation. And, the legislation has already been set in stone by the Gang of Eight and Harry Reid, so I think that there is little likelihood at this point that it can be amended, at least in the Senate, to satisfy these concerns.
We shall see.
The Dems warn the Republicans to not use the Boston bombing in the immigration debate but we know how they exploited Newtown/Sandy Hook families for their gun control.
So yes. I'm sure that any "imminent" threat has passed.
And again, I say: You cannot know this. You may suspect it, you can assert it, but unless you are privy to the investigation you are just speculating.
AprilApple said...
Hear that sound? That's the sound of Harry Reid taking Rand Paul's common sense suggestions-- crumpling them into wad and wiping his ass with it.
And that sound of rushing water is Chuckie Schumer's bill going down the tubes as people agree more with Rand Paul than anyone else.
I'm not sure how immigration reform would work on two people who came here as kids. How do you tell when they are very young what they will do as adults?
Paul seems to be wondering out loud why the FBI hasn't developed the ability to see future crimes, ala "Minorty Report".
Sal:
Anybody who knows anything about Islamic terrorism knows Chechens are f-ing nuts. After the Beslan school attack- there was even more evidence of that. Putting 2plus 2 together, law enforcement shoudl have known the white Muslim Chechens would be recruited to do crap like this. Not saying these two were recruited but what are the odds it was totally their idea?
I hope Drudge has a succession plan. he's an invaluable resource.
Cemeteries are full of irreplaceable people.
The Senate is having a one day hearing tomorrow on this legislation. Or an hour or two. I'm sure they will consider all of this carefully.
"How about freezing muslim immigration, Senator Paul?"
"Oh no no no, we mustn't give in to hate."
The Dems warn the Republicans...
And it always works on the "Oh please can we have a seat at the table" party.
"I'm not sure how immigration reform would work on two people who came here as kids. How do you tell when they are very young what they will do as adults?"
Assimilation was the norm and the proven method for creating citizens with national pride and patriotism until the liberals decided multiculturalism was the better way and that patriotism was actually a bad thing. Remember how Katie Couric and other liberals were ashamed of and offended by their fellow patriotic Americans after 9/11 for flying the US flag. The liberal USA residing citizens of the world look down on the provincial patriotic Americans.
Liberals just aren't as smart they think they are and too easily disregard tradition and history. Again, they have been shown to be wrong and again they refuse to to learn.
The Dems warn the Republicans...
Don't mess with the mob. We dems will hand 11 million people who came here illegally, against our laws, a spot at the front of the line. We democrats are the party of illegals.
Sad that the Republicans cannot seem to articulate that they should be the party of legal immigration. Stand shoulder to shoulder with Hispanics and others who are here in this nation legally, and who are tired of getting pushed to the back by those who came here illegally.
MadMan: I'm not sure how immigration reform would work on two people who came here as kids. How do you tell when they are very young what they will do as adults?
You can't, but you might tighten up the current no-holds-barred refugee racket, and exercise a bit more scrutiny with people like these guys' parents. That is, with people who come from populations with demonstrated hostility to the West, who swan back and forth between the U.S. and the "dangerous" place they supposedly had to leave in fear of their lives, and who could have settled down (and often did settle down) in safe, closer, more culturally compatible countries before making a claim for asylum (from what?) in the awful awful corrupt fleshpots of the West. Which, once arrived, they never stop bitching about and insist need to be changed to be more like the shitholes they "fled" from. (Yeah, I know, sounds like progressive Californians. I suspect a lot of Americans would like to restrict their right to migrate to other states, too.)
Do the children of these types have a higher probability of, ahem, acting out? This appears to be the pattern for many "home grown terrorists" of late. (See Minneapolis-Mogadishu) Could be. If so, why not just keep the parents out in the first place?
Before anyone says "but you can't punish the children for the parents", nobody has the "right" to emigrate to America, people like those described above (and the brothers' parents appear to be among them) have no legitimate claim on a limited, sought-after resource (residency in the U.S.), their children are no more "punished" than the billions of children who don't get to live in nice, Western countries, either, and they can always join the queue with everybody else if they decide as adults that they'd like to emigrate here.
Of course, this would be ordinary prudence (particularly when resources for genuine refugees have long since been stretched beyond the breaking point). But given the choice between doubling down on stupid and risking the chance that some ethno-hustler or retarded ideologue might find some way to call the policy "racist", our brilliant immigration services will no doubt plump for the former.
but that would interfere with ramming amnesty down the country's throats against our will.
While we're noodling exceptions and immigrations...
BBC News: Canada foils 'al-Qaeda inspired' terror attack on train
--Apr 22, 2013.
...the bad guys are probing and testing.
There was no connection between the plot and last week's Boston Marathon bombings, a US justice department official was quoted as saying by the Associated Press news agency.
Phew!
AReasonableMan said... "Rand Paul is the right person to ask this question because he and his father have systematically asked why our government has lead us into a situation where we are a target for these kinds of attacks, which is the bigger and more important part of the equation."
WHY DO THEY HATE US??!?!
I have read that the older brother was registered to vote in Massachusetts, even though he was not a citizen.
And we wonder how Choom "won" the "election".
aREsonaBleMaN
I thought the election of Obama would prove, once and for all, that...
THE WORLD CAN STOP HATING US NOW!
[N]ational security protections must be rolled into comprehensive immigration reform
"Comprehensive immigration reform" -- The Washington boss class' euphemism for amnesty for illegals.
Mr. [Ayn] Randy Paul is still intent on amnesty for illegal aliens.
Seems to me whatever the Senate passes will not survive in the House. I suspect the Senate effort is political posturing, much like the gun control bill. And I have to say I am disappointed in Senator Rubio's posturing in this matter. Looks to me like he is pandering for votes with Hispanic voters for a future run at the presidency.
The Dems warn the Republicans to not use the Boston bombing in the immigration debate but we know how they exploited Newtown/Sandy Hook families for their gun control.
Of course, the Dems don't want the GOP to use this as a weapon. It would be so unfair to use it to point out problems with our immigration policies. And, there are probably Republicans who are willing to unilaterally disarm in order to curry favor with their enemies in the media. Never mind that that is grossly disingenuous on the part of the Dems making that request - they would never disarm unilaterally. Just pretend to do so, which is all that is important to them. I find it plain silly.
I don't understand how you can pander for votes by telling the legal community that the illegal community is more important.
So Rand Paul doesn't really want to be president after all. This notion that immigrants are a threat to national security is going to be taken as an insult by an awful lot of immigrants. If Paul gets the nomination, he will lose the general election for the same reason Romney did. He'll lose the Hispanic vote overwhelmingly, and there aren't enough xenophobic white voters to make up for that. You can rage about it all you want, but them's the demographic facts.
The really stupid bit of this is that Paul is most likely hoping to get the anti-immigrant vote in the primaries, but he has no chance of doing that anyway. The people who don't like immigration also don't like libertarians, and they're not going to vote for Rand Paul no matter how much he insults immigrants. And even if he does get a few votes from the anti-immigrant folks, he'll lose votes from people like me who remember why Romney lost.
Marco Rubio, on the other hand, is playing this very smart. He's going to get the Hispanic vote in the general election if he can just get the nomination. He can make a few libertarian noises over the next couple of years to take some of Rand Paul's support, while still maintaining his appeal to the pro-defense primary voters. He is a more polished speaker and debater than Rand Paul. What he really has to watch out for are the more conventional Republicans like McDonnell of Virginia.
Jeff: Marco Rubio, on the other hand, is playing this very smart. He's going to get the Hispanic vote in the general election if he can just get the nomination.
If he switches parties, yeah, he might have a chance in the future. "Hispanics" vote Democrat. End of story. And contrary to Stupid Party mythology, which tries to descry some "voice of the 'natural conservative'" in the occasional pathetic 30-40% vote share, they don't vote Democrat because Republicans just haven't pandered enough. They vote Democrat because they overwhelmingly prefer Democrat welfare-state policies to the limited-government model. All the "outreach" in the world, short of just becoming more socialist than the Democrats (which I guess I shouldn't put past the dumb whore Republicans) isn't going to change that. Also contrary to Stupid Party misapprehensions about demographics (which they apparently swallow whole from Democrat propagandists), pissing off the alleged "xenophobe" vote will, and does, cost elections.
But I don't expect people who trot out the brain-dead "xenophobe" line to understand that. (But it's all OK, because the Republican Party needs to be burned to the ground and ground salted.)
Seems to me whatever the Senate passes will not survive in the House.
That was the WH's intent with Manchin-Toomey -- pass it in the Senate, have it fail in the House, use as wedge/club in mid-terms to flip the House.
Same here -- WH endgame isn't to sign an immigration bill into law (would have done that before '10 midterms) but to create a wedge in order to fire-up/turn-out base in '14.
So Jeff, do you think continuing to receive immigrants from Muslim countries is good for our country?
"So Jeff, do you think continuing to receive immigrants from Muslim countries is good for our country?"
Yes. Nor am I afraid that gay Mexican Muslims are going to take over our country.
We are all immigrants or descendants of immigrants here. If current immigration laws were on the books back in the early 20'th century and before, most of us, including me, wouldn't be here today. Just what is it that makes you and I so much better and more deserving than our great-grandparents?
Because our culture and constitution didn't pop out of the ground ex nihilo.
Jeff: We are all immigrants or descendants of immigrants here.
Everyone on earth is a descendent of immigrants from somewhere at sometime. Your point?
If current immigration laws were on the books back in the early 20'th century and before, most of us, including me, wouldn't be here today. Just what is it that makes you and I so much better and more deserving than our great-grandparents?
Just what is it about this topic that makes people disengage their brains such that they are incapable of thinking about the obvious ways in which conditions in the country, and the world, have changed since our great-grandparents' day, knowlege of which should inform any sane persons views on immigration? (Btw, I'd recommend acquainting yourself with the actual history of immigration and immigration law in the U.S. The facts differ significantly from what you apparently believe they were.)
Again, your point? "The U.S. has no right to ever again restrict immigration as its citizens see fit, once it let my great-grandparents in"? A remarkably daft line of reasoning that would suggest that perhaps the U.S. made a huge mistake in letting our great-grandparents in in the first place.
But I guess it's easier to just keep bleating "we're a nation of immigrants!" like some blank-eyed Maoist slogan-slinger. That and lame-ass emotionalist crap like "you're just afraid of gay Mexican Muslims, hater!" (Ooh, burn! So witty!) doesn't give your interlocuters much confidence in the quality and depth of your thinking on the subject.
Anglelyne: From the tone of your comments, it seems to me as if you are fearful of gay Mexican Muslims. Or at least you're afraid of freedom.
It always seems to come down to freedom and ownership.
You don't own this country and neither do I. Nobody does. Not individually, not collectively. A free country can't be owned.
Land can be owned. So far as I know, pretty much all of the land in the U.S. is owned by some entity or the other. So far as I am concerned, those owners can mostly do whatever they please with their land. If they want to keep some people off of it, it's none of my business. But they, and you, don't have the right to tell me that certain people are not allowed on my land.
That's what you're doing with your immigration restrictions. You're limiting my freedom to allow whoever I want on my land, to sell my land to whoever I want to sell it to, and to employ whoever I think it best to employ. You're also limiting the freedom of the potential immigrants. And I ask you: What gives you that right? Just where do you get off telling the rest of us how to live?
Freedom means freedom for everybody, not just a chosen few. Otherwise it's not freedom, it's privilege.
Rand Paul's libertarianism is incompatible with restricting immigration. The real reason why he won't get many votes by trying to appeal to people like you is that you don't really like freedom. I don't know you, but from your rants against immigration, I think it more likely than not that you don't favor libertarian positions on legalizing drugs and prostitution, or getting rid of most licensing requirements, even for doctors.
So Rand Paul isn't going to get your vote unless he completely changes his beliefs. But if he does that, you probably (and rightly) won't trust him anyway.
The problem is, Jeff, is that very few immigrants selected by our current system are actually interested in freedom. Quite a dilemma.
Æthelflæd: The vast majority of people already here aren't all that interested in freedom either. So what? Does that mean they shouldn't be free?
Milton Friedman once said something to the effect that you can open borders or you can have a welfare state, but you can't have both. Too many people will come just to freeload.
He may have been right about that. I say "may" because it's never been tried. What we see with the current system is that the vast majority of immigrants, legal or not, come here to work, not freeload. Maybe that's because illegal immigrants aren't eligible for some programs, or maybe they're afraid of becoming visible to the INS if they apply.
Whatever. The fact is that the percentage of immigrants who are actually trying to work is at least as high as it is for non-immigrants. But if you want to restrict most benefits to legal immigrants and citizens, with a waiting period before the immigrants become eligible, I can go for that.
Heck, I'd be even happier to just get rid of all government-run and government-funded welfare programs.
Would that solve the problem for you? Or is your reluctance to accept immigrants based on something else?
I agree that the welfare state is at the root issue of our problems. I would rather have open borders and no welfare state. I do wonder, though, wild-eyed libertarianism aside (my husband agrees with you on this issue btw - we have lots of fun arguments about it), what would happen if you got 30 million immigrants from Iraq in all of a sudden. Travel is easier now than when it was the Scots-Irish braving the frontier. The fact is, libertarian, classic liberal, and similar ideas are all based on Judeo-Christian and European history, culture, religion, and law. What happens when that culture is not shared by the majority of people anymore? I think we are already seeing it.
Jeff: Maybe that's because illegal immigrants aren't eligible for some programs, or maybe they're afraid of becoming visible to the INS if they apply.
It is now completely obvious that you know squat about this issue.
Heck, I'd be even happier to just get rid of all government-run and government-funded welfare programs.
Yes, your libertopia is very pretty, Jeff. But it's irrelevant to real-world considerations of the cost of illegal immigration.
Would that solve the problem for you? Or is your reluctance to accept immigrants based on something else?
Ah, as I thought. You're not actually interested in the subject, you're just here for the cheap moral posturing. Why take the trouble to learn about something when it's much easier and a lot more fun to run around squealing "racist!"? (Hey, I can get on board with displacing lazy-minded natives like you with thinking immigrants.)
If I thought culture mattered as much as you do, I would argue that in the age of global television and movies, cultures differ less now than they used to. And I would ask you why, if history is so important, classical liberal ideas have less currency in Europe than they do in, say, mainland China.
But I don't think it matters very much. Economics trumps culture. Everybody responds to incentives. Even Muslims and Mexicans want to feed their families.
I see "Judeo-Christian culture" arguments as identity politics for white people. The identity politics scams have become so ingrained in our culture that even people who know better try to get in on the game.
You mention the Scots-Irish immigrants. They were were widely detested at the time by people who were already here. Scots-Irish came from a relatively backward part of Europe, and the areas they settled (like Appalachia) are relatively backward today. I don't think that means they should have been forced to stay in the old country and starve. Do you?
Anglelyne: You keep on saying that immigration is horribly costly. What is your evidence? Every study I've seen says that, on the whole, immigrants contribute more in taxes than they consume in government benefits. The effect of immigration on wages is positive for all but the least-skilled natives, where the effect is both negative and small.
So what is this great cost of which you speak?
"I see "Judeo-Christian culture" arguments as identity politics for white people. The identity politics scams have become so ingrained in our culture that even people who know better try to get in on the game."
Well, that's a nice way to get an otherwise interesting conversation to come to a screeching halt.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा