No good can possibly come of this. I have a horrible feeling that before this is over, we're going to see something like an armed volunteer opening fire on and killing either 1) an American citizen who happens to be hispanic, or 2) a group of women and children that from a distance didn't look like women and children. Problems are especially likely because the sorts of people who volunteer for this sort of thing are those who respond to overheated rhetoric about an "invasion" in the first place.

There's a reason that law enforcement, military operations, and the like are done by professionals.

Yup. But what if you were convinced that the professionals weren't doing the job, for whatever reason? And that it mattered - i.e. the consequences of that lapse are serious and sustained?

I understand the concerns behind this action. We'll see how it plays out.

Robin,

This works to put pressure on Congress to fund and hire those border agents. When the public becomes aware that volunteers are policing the borders, they will begin to ask: why do volunteers need to patrol the borders? Where is the government?

No doubt this is part of the purpose of the MMProject.

I agree, Bill - the pressure will be on Congress and on the Administration both, I suspect.

The border problem is real. A country that cannot control its borders loses national sovreignty - and this is particularly an issue with Islamacist terror networks not only seeking to enter the US but also reportedly teaming up with Latin groups to facilitate entry.

The question of the rate of immigration we want / can aborb well is a different issue, but one that inevitably is linked to border control. This one brings out the racist moonbats as well as more thoughtful people and I hope we all make a point of squelching the white supremacists hard so that we can have the debate we need to have.

Andrew Reeves

They said the same thing about Woodstock in 1969.

I'm with Robin on this one we'll have to wait and see how it plays out.

A country that cannot control its borders loses national sovreignty...

Maybe or maybe not. Whether a fluid border is a danger to sovereignty or national security depends on the factual predicates at hand. We've long had a very fluid border with Mexico after all; we only get perturbed by this fact when some danger like terrorism arises.

And aggressive border control carries its own dangers; such as calls for internal passports and the like (we already see legislation for a National ID card winding its way through Congress).

The question of the rate of immigration we want / can aborb well is a different issue, but one that inevitably is linked to border control. This one brings out the racist moonbats as well as more thoughtful people and I hope we all make a point of squelching the white supremacists hard so that we can have the debate we need to have.

Of course it does, since the issue is inherently tinged with racism and lot of other unpleasantries.

Not inherently, Gary. There are some serious tradeoffs with regard to immigration that deserve thoughtful debate. They include the impact on social services, wages and infrastructure of relatively unskilled workers, for instance. That's not a racist issue, it's a practical one.

A second issue has to do with the role of immigration into the US from Mexico as a safety valve which postpones pressure for change there. That's one I have mixed feelings about, but it is a subject that can be legitimately raised.

You may feel that neither of these considerations holds much weight, on the grounds that equity requires we share our wealth or on the grounds that the impacts are overstated or on some other grounds. But that needs arguing - an "of course" doesn't cut it.

And aggressive border control carries its own dangers

I agree.

such as calls for internal passports and the like (we already see legislation for a National ID card winding its way through Congress).

That's another wild leap on several grounds. First, the bill in question sets federal standards for drivers licenses - it does not mandate a national ID.

And second, the rhetorical assertion that a national ID equates to internal passports is outrageous.

Robin, let's also add in the demographic benefits of immigration, as long as the native-born population aren't reproducing themselves, and we don't make a national decision to robotize a la Japan. To be sure, the first generation of under-educated border crossers are a net loss, but there is a futures element here as well. Now, how do we value it, and how do we give effect to that valuation?

Sorry, but these people need to go back to their homes. We don't need private militias in this country; it's why we have a government.

"the issue is inherently tinged with racism and lot of other unpleasantries"

I can only speak for myself, but there isn't a tinge of racism inherent in my thoughts on border security. This is simply an issue of controlled, safe and secure borders, and the prevention of using the United States as a relief valve for Mexico's failed government.

If you support open and unmonitored borders with Mexico, then surely you have no problem with eliminating customs and immigration at international airports.

The bludgeon of racism should not be used to prevent the discussion of such a vital national security issue.

It’s not such much that “white supremacists” are heavily involved in the issue but more so that anyone who wants to shut down debate on the issue screams “white supremacist” rather than try to address some very real and legitimate concerns about our lack of border control.

Robin, let's also add in the demographic benefits of immigration

I agree, Tim. Economic and other valuations need to take both the pluses and the minuses into account.

Praktike, I don't think that the Minutemen (or at least the leaders) want to play militia. I think they feel - rightly or wrongly - that the government has been unwilling or unable to do that job.

Not inherently, Gary.

Yes, inherently. There has got to be a perception something is wrong with new immigrants to assume that limits must be placed on their entry; that perception can be racist in construction or it can be made of other unpleasant notions.

They include the impact on social services...

If the government got out of that business that wouldn't be a problem. Of course, in light our current socialist government, that's unlikely to happen.

...wages...

Yeah, we'd see an actual free market. I have no problem with that.

...infrastructure of relatively unskilled workers...

They would adapt.

That's not a racist issue, it's a practical one.

Note that racism wasn't the only unpleasant rationale I mentioned. As you've just illustrated, protectionism and anti-capitalism are other unpleasant attitudes.

A second issue has to do with the role of immigration into the US from Mexico as a safety valve which postpones pressure for change there.

So we should punish individual Mexicans for our own foreign policy concerns regarding Mexico? Wow, where the hell have I seen this policy before? Could it be the forty plus year embargo of Cuba?

The free flow of labor is as an important consideration to a capitalist as the free flow of goods are.

...the bill in question sets federal standards for drivers licenses - it does not mandate a national ID.

Yeah, that's what the scumbags keep on telling us. (a) No state can afford to opt out of it. (b) The bill has no limit as to the level of information that might be demanded on this I.D.

And second, the rhetorical assertion that a national ID equates to internal passports is outrageous.

A mandated national ID is short distance from an internal passport. As we have already seen from a recent Supreme Court decisions, one may not refuse to present I.D. to a cop. Also, we already have internal checkpoints within the U.S.; I have been through them before.

Bill Roggio,

I can only speak for myself, but there isn't a tinge of racism inherent in my thoughts on border security.

Like Robin you have of course ignored the language which follows my use of the term racism.

If you support open and unmonitored borders with Mexico, then surely you have no problem with eliminating customs and immigration at international airports.

Nice strawman. :)

The I.D. standards law is a backdoor National I.D. in light of the practical realities of DL acquisition. To deny this is to deny reality.

Robin,

I do find it interesting that your concerns are largely protectionist in nature. Given that immigration law is currently driven in part by protectionist concerns (a brief perusal of the statutes that inform it readily reveals this) this is not surprising.

You misread my comments, Gary. I wasn't giving my personal opinion, but rather laying out the concerns that many people do have.

Here's my bottom line: I am concerned about the fact that border security has become a major issue for people willing to take direct action. I want to see serious conversation about this problem and I find assertions like "Of course it does, since the issue is inherently tinged with racism and lot of other unpleasantries." and phrases like internal passport to be counterproductive to that dialogue if they are thrown out casually.

Bill Roggio,

This is simply an issue of controlled, safe and secure borders...

That's easily attainable without the current system of protectionist inspired immigrational law. I find it interesting that folks who likely argue that the TSA should stop targetting 80 year old women from Duluth or Sparta, Miss. appear to argue for a system of immigration regulation whose is largely on individuals who are merely coming to the U.S. for economic oppurtunity. The current system of immigration regulation encourages illegal immigration by creating incentives for it and loses sight of the real national security problems.

...and the prevention of using the United States as a relief valve for Mexico's failed government.

This policy only presents you with the same problems of encouraging illegal immigration. When you criminalize markets you almost invariably create a host of unforseen problems. Bastiat and Hayek have much to say on this issue.

As Gary takes up the cause of allowing free economic migration, let's not lose sight of the fact that there are two issues here. The other is the security problem that the U.S. cannot control entry from the south very well - and cannot track people well after they've entered (legally or illegally). It's an overstatement to suggest that all who enter illegally do so to find work - although that is certainly true for many.

Robin,

I wasn't giving my personal opinion, but rather laying out the concerns that many people do have.

I read them as your own because you did not explicitly indicate otherwise.

I am concerned about the fact that border security has become a major issue for people willing to take direct action.

De-criminalize most of the aspects of immigration and you won't have these problems.

I want to see serious conversation about this problem and I find assertions like "Of course it does, since the issue is inherently tinged with racism and lot of other unpleasantries."

Par for the course you continue to ignore my arguments on the matter.

...phrases like internal passport to be counterproductive to that dialogue if they are thrown out casually.

If you don't see the inherent dangers in aggressive immigration control then I can't help you.

There are some serious tradeoffs with regard to immigration that deserve thoughtful debate. They include the impact on social services, wages and infrastructure of relatively unskilled workers, for instance. That's not a racist issue, it's a practical one.

BTW: in condemning the “white supremacists” perhaps you should have included for condemnation the equally idiotic and offensive “open border moonbats” who try to insist that these issues don’t matter or fail to provide a reasonable alternative.

The other is the security problem that the U.S. cannot control entry from the south very well...

That's because most are denied legal entry into the country. Create an open, fair, non-protectionist system for legal immigration and you would see the problem fall rapidly away in importance. Our immigration law criminalizes the aspirations of most immigrants to this country, that in turn creates the oppurtunity for for all the illegal behavior folks bemoan.

...and cannot track people well after they've entered (legally or illegally).

Wow, tracking, I wonder where that will lead? :)

Thorley Winston,

I just presented a reasonable alternative. You'll of course continue to ignore it I am sure.

Of course, "open borders" is a mischaracterization of the position to begin with. But you continue to try to erect ever higher barriers, hire more border guards, get more dogs, etc. and you'll see that in twenty-thirty years you'll have the same problem that you have today.

Gary Gunnels wrote:

I just presented a reasonable alternative. You'll of course continue to ignore it I am sure.

Actually you’ve offered nothing that even addresses a single one of the issues of concern I raised.

Thorley Winston,

Sure I have.

...public health...

Criminalization of immigration merely enhances this problem by driving illegal immigrants underground and creating incentives for travel services that are unsavory at best. When you create a fair, non-protectionist oriented system of immigration you'll see this problem dissapate.

...law enforcement...

Criminalization creates the problems that ever more resources have to be poured into stopping. It becomes an unvirtuous circle.

...national security...

I've already directly dealt with this issue with my TSA analogy.

A fair and open system of immigration which gets rid of the current quota system will go a long away to ending the problems associated with border control. Continuation of the current system of border patrols, fences, etc., will only encourage a black market in immigrational services. Why folks have such a problem with market dynamics I cannot say, but it seems that for a blog devoted to human freedom and choice you are decidely against it in any number of areas. This attitude reminds me of the environmental whack jobs I meet from time to time who scream to high heaven about capitalism, yet fail to realize that capitalism is the greatest agent for environmental protection around.

The current system and any incarnation like it creates perverse incentives just like the drug war does. Indeed, they are almost exactly analagous.

Gary

"I just presented a reasonable alternative. You'll of course continue to ignore it I am sure."

How does your alternative provide for security from terrorists threats? As was stated these are two separate issues that are tied together at the hip. That tie makes it a single issue.

Okay lets put the security issue aside for a moment and look at a free and open border. Once people are allowed to travel freely between the US and Mexico what do you believe would be the initial response? Do you think people would travel from Mexico to the US then back or do you think they would settle where ever they find the best benefit for themselves? Given the opportunity how many would cross the border 100,000, 500,000 a million? I don't know. What would Mr. Fox say then good riddance and BTW here have my country I have no one or not enough to lead? How many Americans would cross the border to Mexico 100,000, 500,000, a million? Would you move? Sure all of this sounds great from a business capitalist economic perspective. Or does it really? Could it be we would suffer another Dust Bowl in our history? From a free borders perspective these are concerns I don't think people have really thought through.

Oh hell, let's just invade Mexico. After all they have unleashed weapons of masses destruction upon us. Then, let's force a socialist government on them and force them to take care of their own people. They can borrow lots of money from the IMF to take care of their folks.

I can't believe that Democrats defend an illegal immigrant culture in which Mexicans are exploited like cattle - to the point of actually perishing like cattle, in the back of a truck somewhere.

It's time for them to admit that they support illegals because the illegals do something else that they're not supposed to be doing (besides entering the country illegally and working for slave wages) - they VOTE.

The economic and demographic benefits of immigration are real, which is why we allow legal immigration. The only rationale for illegal immigration is political and economic exploitation.

Andrew Reeves (#1) is right: citizen militias on the border are bad news. A similar arrangement preceded the war between Honduras and El Salvador in the last century - brought about by the failure to stem illegal immigration from El Salvador to Honduras. Eventually the shooting started, and immediately got way out of hand.

Our own situation has been brought on by the fact that some people - acting on bad faith and political motivations - are effectively sabotaging our borders.

Say can we get the mobs to work on the drug problem? That will fix it for sure.

Perhaps they can do race as well.

No wait. We already tried that.

But I see a Silver lining. After the mob kills the wrong guy by accident they will get sued to death or at least poverty.

We need to think of integrating economies and here we have a bunch of folks incapable of seeing how to profit from the current situation.

I predict this will work as well as drug prohibition. Fortunately.

Which is the best thing for the USA economy - letting Mexicans come to America to lower wages or outsourcing jobs to Mexico to lower wages?

You think it is hard separating a man from his drugs? Wait till you try separating a man from his food.

USMC,

Okay lets put the security issue aside for a moment and look at a free and open border.

When have I actually ever used the term "free and open border?" How many times do I have to write "fair, non-protectionist oriented system of immigration?" You are jumping to assumptions about my positions because Thorley Winston made his original jump.

Once people are allowed to travel freely between the US and Mexico what do you believe would be the initial response?

I am discussing the issue of immigration and not the issue of cross-border temporary employment, visitation, etc.

Do you think people would travel from Mexico to the US then back or do you think they would settle where ever they find the best benefit for themselves?

Well, if you want to discuss all these issues, fine. I would suspect both depending on the circumstances. Indeed, if you look at the practical realities of illegal immigration, that is exactly what is occuring right now - some come and stay, while others come, make money, and return home (either forever or seasonally).

Given the opportunity how many would cross the border 100,000, 500,000 a million?

About the same as cross now. Its not like our border control efforts put a dent in the effort. And of course crossings would change over time as the economies of the U.S. and Mexico change.

How many Americans would cross the border to Mexico 100,000, 500,000, a million?

Depends on the nature of oppurtunities.

Would you move?

Depends on the nature of the oppurtunities. However, I've lived outside the U.S. before, so living outside the U.S. again doesn't bother me particularly.

Could it be we would suffer another Dust Bowl in our history?

We suffer "dust bowls" all the time. As I recall, there was a "dust bowl" in a portion of Colorado in 2002.

Gary

So in other words you are saying we need border control? If so what border controls are you speaking of as it relates to immigrants? Maybe I'm being dense here (wouldn't be the first time) but you haven't explained to me in terms I can understand exactly what it is you are trying to accomplish.

The last sentence of your post was the best and most important. Bury them as deep as you can.

GG, we share similar policy preferences: immigration rules that match reality and are not inherently protectionist. However effective border control is separable. Even if essentially anyone was allowed in to work, we would need to ensure that they were who they say they were and not carrying any dangerous material. We would need to control the border.

Stupid, counterproductive, and essentially unconstitutional drug laws make the border problem worse, just as immigration restrictions do. Refusing to deal with the issue until drug prohibition is repealed would be idiotic.

Let's wish the minutemen good luck, and remember that the country was founded on citizens getting together to defend the common interest. Untwist those panties leftists!

hey

"Stupid, counterproductive, and essentially unconstitutional drug laws make the border problem worse, just as immigration restrictions do. Refusing to deal with the issue until drug prohibition is repealed would be idiotic."

Now I get a better understanding of where you and Gary may be coming from. How do drug laws translate any differently to say foods, weapons, exotic animals, plants or any of host of banned or controlled substances in the US? Would these not be just as much of a problem concerning your drug prohibition scenario? Should we legalize all these things as well?

USMC, there is no scientific evidence that foods, weapons, exotic animals and the like cause physical addiction.

Joe A

At the risk of getting off topic here again. What does physical addiction have to with immigration or border control? After all I thought that's what this subject was about and not personal habits.

Now if I missed Gary's, hey, and your point I'm sorry. But as I see it the argument is legalize drugs people will choose border crossings at check points (border control). This would reduce the amount of resources required for border control due to criminals attempting to obtain entry into the country illegally. Is that not the thrust of this conversation or am I being dense again? Again I ask someone explain to me in terms I can understand exactly what this is going to solve and why.

USMC, it is related to the way a health (drugs) or economical (inmigration) problem is turned into a public safety problem. An example is the prohibition.

as a us citizen are we allowed to make citizens arrests. if we think an know that a elegal person is not here legal . is that one of are rights to make citizen arrest. it is a crime to be here elegal. so they are commiting a crime.

The Minutemen just want an excuse to fondle their guns Red necks..... hahaha

---------------------------------------------
"Text to display"http://www.SucksBBS.com/ - Rant & Rave Forum