Dead Seriously.

Come on, Scott. Didn’t you know that extremism in the defense of whiteness, is no vice.

Here is what I don’t get. Reasonable suspicion is the constitution standard for searches under the 4th Amendment. It is against the law to be in this country illegally. So what is inappropriate about a reasonable suspicion standard for enforcing the laws of illegal immigration? Is the the Constitutional standard of reasonable suspicion that you reject? Do you believe that we should pick and choose which laws to enforce?

The problem is that failing to enforce federal immigration law leads to disrespect for the law, fosters unequal enforcement of laws so that one can choose just to enforce the laws one likes (a no-no for Democracy and under the 14th Amendment) and is unfair to those immigrants who spend the thousands and engage in the basic earning necessary to become citizens. Since the Feds refuse to enforce this law and feel that they can pick and choose which ones they will enforce based on the voting constituency, it seems that the states must move in.

Or is it the entire idea of immigration laws that you reject? Perhaps it would be fine to open the borders if our hospitals weren’t strained to the max, our schools vastly overcrowded and our economic infrastructure forced near collapse (witness California and its excesses). Just what is your beef? Are you suggesting that probable cause could be established just by asserting that a person had dark skin and was speaking Spanish. That is just a failure to understand the reasonable suspicion standard.

Should say: “engage in the basic learning necessary ….”

Are you suggesting that probable cause could be established just by asserting that a person had dark skin and was speaking Spanish. That is just a failure to understand the reasonable suspicion standard.

Ironically, Sir Thinkalot, that is exactly what this bill does. It equates brown skin with reasonable suspicion and grants law enforcement officials the right to question anyone they see fit based on nothing but the way he or she looks. It also grants them the right to arrest, without a warrant, anyone they have reasonable suspicion of breaking the law.

Christopher: No it doesn’t. This is an easy knee-jerk reaction without paying attention to what the bill actually states and how it will be administered as a matter of constitutional limitation. FYI you don’t need a warrant to arrest someone for whom their is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed. It is time to read the bill and see how it actually works rather than just pontificate. Why would you make these kinds of assertions without actually knowing what the bill states.

You also didn’t address the other issues that I raised.

Yes, Christopher. How dare you not address all of the issues raised by somebody making comments on a blog post.

Scott, you and I agree 100 percent on this. Can I appeal to your authority my discussions with others.

100% open borders sounds fairly libertarian and free-market, but it’s a pretty extreme position, IMHO, mostly because it doesn’t scale well at all.

Both Mises and Rothbard recognized that. See http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance164.html (the entire article is thoughtful).

Also, thinly-veiled accusations of racism don’t help.

On the new law: I hope the worries about racial profiling are eventually proven wrong, but I do share that concern.

Scott: Your position is so extreme that it isn’t really defensible. What of national security? Are you saying we have a duty to provide schooling for everyone in Mexico regardless of whether they pay taxes and contribute? I suggest that your approach is precisely what has reigned in CA for at least a decade and it has obliterated the educational system, decimated the health care system and ruined the housing market. It is like the empty-headed approach of giving all of your money away and making it so that you don’t even have the capacity to support yourself, let alone those to whom you gave all your money.

If racial profiling occurs, that can be dealt with under existing laws that protect against it. Further, you live in a Democratic society and you don’t get to pick and choose which laws should be enforced once they are passed. You can work for Democratic change, but your entire approach undermines the rule of law in the U.S. I’ll be fighting you the entire way.

Scott, I understand the moral observation you’re making, and I’m sympathetic to it, but are you seriously of the view that concerns about national security, costs to taxpayers of government benefits, etc., don’t inform your view of immigration policy at all?

AB

Scott,

I agree with you moral outlook.

I will disagree with you on one point. Both categories of “leeches” do pay sales taxes. On the local level sales taxes are significant. Additionally many pay rent to landlords who do pay property taxes. So they pay it indirectly.

Many undocumented wokers have taxes withheld by there employers but they do not file tax returns. As a result, they pay income taxes and social security taxes.

Anyways, you line of argument is one that resonates with me. We might have a lot more in common than my previous rhetoric may have indicated.

Wow. Bring on the new world order where the government makes all of our economic decisions for us and there are no countries or national security issues because there are no nations. Your approach is not merely radical, it is beyond extreme. It is so far beyond the pale that it isn’t within the realm of political feasibility. And you call Arizona extreme for a lot that attempt to address a pressing issue?

Very interesting discussion here. On a small tangent, there are some other, very interesting questions for governance not yet addressed by your conversation. For example, this bill was supported by a significant majority of Arizona residents. It could be argued that the state congress and the governor are merely representing their constituents with this action. So there are significant groups of people are upset at Jan Brewer for representing her constituents, but this is just after significant groups of people were (maybe still are) upset at the U.S. Congress and President Obama for acting against the will of the majority of their constituents when they passed the healthcare bill.

So if people will be upset either way, what is the standard for public leaders? What can we reasonably expect from them?

Sir Thinksalot,

It is now clear that the conversation has moved beyond your understanding.

Really? I’m libertarian too! I was addressing Chris and I should have made that clearer. He is no libertarian. He is for maximal government control with no borders to create a Rawlsian equity — go figure how that is supposed to work.

What kind of policy do you have regarding anonymous contributors? And what makes you think I’m Blake? However, I admit to not spending 10 minutes reading anything by outside this post. No slight intended — just haven’t had the opportunity to focus on your posts.

“He is for maximal government control with no borders to create a Rawlsian equity — go figure how that is supposed to work.”

I stand by my previous comment.

Chris: So? Are you under the impression that if you assert something that makes it so? I’d suggest that you are the one so far out-of-touch with political reality that there is no pragmatic possibility of your views being accepted. That gives me great comfort. Do you deny that you seek a new order without national borders where the goods of all individuals are evenly distributed by the government?

I have actually not said much on the thread. Me agreement with Scott is a moral one, and not political.

Anyways, like Rawls himself, I am not interested in a global government. My moral view is more cosmopolitian than Rawls, but I am not looking to abolish the nation-state.

I discuss this at length here:

http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/2009/07/cosmopolitanism-an-alternative-to-patriotism/

I apologize if I reacted too harshly to your comment. The only people who I know of who use the term “new world order” as a bogey-man are John Bircher or ant-Semites (or both).

Also, I do not think your 10:26 comment was addressed to me. I did not call Arizona extreme (though I agreed with Scott on the matter) and it is Scott who has been articulating the cosmopolitan moral view. My views and thoughts are public and I use my real-name. You get to hide behind you fake name. Get a spine.

I also have to live with my poor typing-skills.

Chris: Yeah, you’re not the only one that is key board challenged here. I’m no John Bircher — perish the thought! Given your moral stance, I don’t see how you can stop at distribution of goods within national borders alone. Indeed, your argument and Scott’s presumes that there cannot be a legitimate basis for distinguishing citizenship based on nationality.I have already read your stuff at FPR. That is where I got the notion that you were not friendly to nation-states and that you advocate for distribution of goods and obligations to provide for those who don’t provide for themselves without regard to national borders.

If all you are worried about is racism, then it is a legitimate concern — but I don’t believe that the issue is merely one of racism. That oversimplifies it too much. Arizona happens to not border Canada so that is a red herring comparison (I know Scott made that comparison and not you — just saying). It seems to me that there are legitimate law enforcement, national security and free-rider issues that need to be addressed. Whether Arizona addresses it the best way is debatable, but virtually any immigration reform, including that under scrutiny by the Obama administration, will include requiring aliens to carry papers to demonstrate legality, law enforcement and standards of reasonable suspicion as to whether a crime is being committed. In that light, what Arizona proposes looks a lot more reasonable.

I had a very good hispanic friend in college whose family was from California. From California prior it being part of the US. She doesn’t have papers proving proof of emigration for obvious reasons; what should happen to her if she has the misfortune of travellng to Arizona? Or is just having a lovely year-round tan, beautiful dark hair and a California spanish accent enough to condemn her to being thrown into a country that she knows nothing about?

How do you determine who is an alien, sir “Thinksalot?” Anyone without obvious native american blood?

djinn: Ever think of a birth certificate or driver’s license? Just like the rest of us when we want to prove we have appropriate ID.

Scott B., is your 100% open borders desire part of a libertarian idea of ending current welfare systems by making them completely unsustainable?

Trying to figure this out.

I served a mission in Europe (very liberal, socialized, etc). I was required to get a permit. I was required to register with the local police department every time I moved, with my address, etc.

If I wanted to work and live in Central or South America, I would also need a work visa, etc. If I was caught, I would be thrown in jail.

This is true for just about any country in the civilized world.

So, when we attempt to enforce the same laws that pretty much every other civilized country in the world enforces, why is everyone up in arms about it? If we don’t plan on enforcing our laws, why do we have laws?

This is not a Constitutionally sound argument at all. First, the Constitution’s equal protection clause forbids the government from differentiating between anyone, including illegal immigrant, on the basis of race. Under the Arizona law no one has suggested any other potential grounds for the police to reasonably suspect someone is an illegal immigrant besides the fact that they have Latin American-colored skin. Governmental racism is, bluntly, unconstitutional.

Secondly, being an illegal immigrant is a crime of status. There are no other real objective facts that would indicate that a person is here illegally, unless a police officer actually saw them sneak across the border. Without objective facts beyond skin color, any time a police officer stopped someone asking for proof of legal residency would be an illegal search under the Fourth Amendment.

This law is plainly unconstitutional and racist, and that is not just a knee-jerk reaction, a pontification, or any other platitude you can come up with to minimize the argument.

Scott B – this really stoked my curiosity:

So, from what I infer (could be wrong) you believe we should have no borders for any country, no border patrols, let people move literally anywhere they want, let people ignore laws in which they don’t believe, etc.

1) Do you honestly believe this will make a better, a more fair, and a more productive society?

2) If so, do you believe that such a state is even possible and by what mechanism do you propose the world gets to that point?

Private Property vs. Public Property makes sense. That is all.

“Don’t tell my BCC colleagues about that, or I’ll be put up against the wall”

lol.

Well, good thing you all didn’t add me. The persecution might have been more than you could handle. We all know that God would not want that to happen.

Scott, you are hands-down my favorite libertarian.

Despite being liberal in most regards I find myself agreeing more with SirThinksALot.

I’m intrigued by your idea, Scott, of no borders but, like Libertarianism, it sounds problematic and impractical. I would love to live in a land where I’m not compelled to do anything I don’t want to and where unicorns fetch me water from my well (because there’s no government to take my taxes to pay for municipal water), but I am not holding my breath on that working out very well.

Maybe you’re the kind of Libertarian who doesn’t object to a tax system that provides basic services like clean tap water. I think I’ve only talked to Libertarians who basically want everyone to be Amish. If you’ve already written an explanation of Scott’s Utopia, I would love to read it. If you haven’t, consider this a prompting? I would love to read someone’s explanation of how a Libertarian society could actually work. In this circumstance, how does a nation afford all the freeloaders who would flock to its open borders? What does your welfare system look like? How would one manage the chaos of sudden open borders?

See, I, too, have airy fairy notions of how the world should be. One day Christ will come and all will be as it should. However, I think I have a clear responsibility to choose philosophies and political leaders and policies that will actually work in the world we have now, with the people we’re forced to deal with. I believe that I have a spiritual responsibility to work towards influencing the world into becoming perfected in Christ but that it’s tempered by the spiritual responsibility to make choices that work the best for the welfare of society, particularly children who have little to no choices upon their environments.

For a political philosophy to work, it needs to be embraced by a large majority. That will NEVER happen with Libertarianism. Therefore I don’t see the point. I think it’s fine as an ideal, it’s fine to preach about and teach about, but to actually let it get in the way with allowing a society to function it’s kind of selfish and immature. (I really did try to think of a nicer way to say that but couldn’t.)

Please enlighten me. No one has been able to so far but I have a feeling that you da man. I really am open-minded and am not looking for an big argument/fight. I truly just don’t get it.

“I think I’ve only talked to Libertarians who basically want everyone to be Amish.”

WTF?

Natasha, please define libertarianims for me. I do not think your are using it is a way that I am familiar with. Please enlighten me.

I personally think that Scotts libertarianism is more a form of moderate mainstream conservatism. Jon Huntsman conservatism if you will. An educated sense of the role of markets (Scott is a professional economist), but not a Ron Paul-type crazy. In this sense, Scott is more Cato Institute than Van Mises Institute.

I do not see Scott anywhere (here, BCC, or BF) arguing for a libertarian utopia. He merely states that he has a libertarian perspective. Yet, even here Scott’s is a general perspective and not a zealous ideology. In a democracy, we need many voices and not unreasonable people demanding that all conform to their Utopia. Scott is very resasonable.

I think that ideas of small government, priviate property (in some form), and a respect for markets are embraced by many, if not most Americans. Not sure how Scott’s view is all that out there, particularly in the US.

Chris,

I’m only using the term in the way it’s been described to me by Mormons who profess to embrace it, which is to have NO government whatsoever. Wikipedia definitions don’t matter as much as the definitions of real people matter and these are real-people definitions that have been given to me.

I do know that Scott is an economist. That’s about all I know of Scott. That and this post. So. With that, I’m asking him to explain his philosophies.

The idea of open borders sounds pretty utopian to me. It’s my opinion that it’s completely “out there”. I like the concept. I’d love to be free to live where I want to live and to have my friends move to Canada for health care and to be near me. I’m asking him to explain how it could work.

If you reread my comment, you’ll see that I didn’t actually tell Scott what kind of libertarianism he professed to believe: I asked.

I should have said, “For a political philosophy to work, it needs to be embraced by a large majority. That will NEVER happen with the kind of Libertarianism that’s been explained to me by other Mormons.”

And that kind of libertarianism seems completely wacky to me. But because I trust that Scott is a more critical thinker than these other people with whom I’ve spoken, I trust that he could make it make sense. Libertarianism is not something we really speak about in Canada.

The term libertarianism is used wrong by those other Mormons. What they mean is extreme anti-government wackjob. That is not libertarian or Scott.

BTW, I wouldn’t trust the Wikipedia definition either, but am a snob. Luckily, Scott is more Christ-like than I and I will let him explain his own position.

THere is a difference between open-border and completely abolishing borders. I do not think the idea of open borders is all that different than what we or the Europeans have.

Okay, well, Chris. You said that Scott is a moderate libertarian. He said earlier that he was a “hard core” libertarian. I’ve met people who described themselves to me that way and they were anti-government, period. And not all were obvious whack jobs, some were apparently intelligent. (I do agree that the concept of no government whatsoever is whackjob, at least without Christ at the helm.) Scott also said that when it comes to immigration, that he’s “an extremist” and that he’s for “anyone and everyone” moving on in, “100% open border” and that scalability doesn’t matter to him. What the EU has is not 100% open border to everyone and passports are still required to move from country to country.

So, while I think I have a clearer idea of what you probably believe, Chris, I’m not any clearer on what Scott believes. Thanks.

Scott, all yours.

Scott B. :

The inner libertarian in me would say that I’d be fine if that were the outcome. Maybe even pleased.

I know what you mean.

Except, Scott, Mexicans have never contributed to the US tax system whereas many Americans currently on welfare have. Because of that, there is no arbitrary line. Even if the majority of people on welfare have never contributed to the work force, the idea is that they have. There’s no way to even pretend to ourselves that Mexicans have contributed to a tax system of a country they’ve never lived in. So, it’s not xenophobic. It’s logical.

And though it’s a bit of an aside, may I give you my thoughts on welfare? You have only said that you don’t believe in welfare without explaining further, so what I’m about to say may not be an argument to what you believe and would propose. But I have talked to quite a few other Mormons who would propose just eliminating a welfare system entirely and compelling people into the work force and letting what will happen happen. What I have to say is in response to that idea and if it’s your idea too, great. If not, excuse my presumptuousness.

I was raised by a teen mom who has been on welfare my entire life. I was in low-income neighborhoods where young single moms with only children– all daughters, strangely– were plentiful. I’ve seen the apathy first hand. Though my mother attempted college a couple of times and had part time jobs a couple of times, nothing stuck. When she was caught on welfare fraud, she was kicked off welfare, never to receive it again. So, she managed to get on disability, citing a knee problem and depression (which she was able to admit to enough to get on disability but not admit to enough to get treatment).

I find it difficult to not be disgusted and judgmental over people who not only contribute nothing to society but who value even their own lives so little that over a span of 30 years, they do nothing but atrophy in every way possible. Even worse, possibly, are people who value their children’s lives so little.

However. This obnoxious sense of entitlement, this easy abuse of generosity, do not mean that a welfare system should be scrapped.

Many times I have considered reporting my mother for disability fraud so that she will have no other choice but to finally take that step from adolescence into adulthood (except that now she actually is legitimately disabled with lupus). Except that it only seems to healthy, mature people that the work force would be her only choice. In reality, the kind of person who is content to live a stagnant life until death and the kind of person who is content to be very poor so long as no effort is required, is the kind of person who would seek out every other easier means of income first: theft, drug sales, prostitution, for example. I’ve seen it happen and my husband, who is a chief crown prosecutor (or D.A. in the US) can also testify to this. And if children are in the picture, these are people who will even resort to selling their children or selling pornography of their children. This is heartbreakingly common even without fear of starvation and homelessness. And then there are people who would just choose homelessness.

People who are content to be poor their whole lives and content to atrophy have something wrong with them. They are often from abusive homes, as my mother was.

When people are completely unable to take care of themselves because of physical and mental handicaps, we take care of them ourselves or we put them in homes and the government pays for their care. We don’t just kill them or send them out onto their own and chalk up the harm or death that will inevitably come to them as natural consequences.

Mental illness is still gravely misunderstood. People like my mother do not change out of fear. They cannot. Fear only exacerbates their pathologies. We still have more to learn about how abuse, neglect and lack of love and teaching in childhood and adolescence affects the brain. Resilience depends upon a number of factors, one which is inherent intelligence and other genetic factors.

We’ve come to accept depression, schizophrenia, and other disorders we can’t obviously see but which science has helped us to better understand. Just a generation or two ago there was far less compassion for depression.

What do we know about the welfare dependent mind? I suspect few in-depth non-economic studies have been done on this demographic because it’s so politically incorrect. But I also suspect that if studies were done, we would find that the brains of these people are disabled to a degree. I don’t think it’s irreversible. I don’t think these people are incapable of change. But I absolutely contend that fear that compels is very close to force and that it would uncommonly lead to positive outcomes in these people.

The welfare program needs to be more therapeutic, in a sense. It needs to be improved.

But just like we would never scrap the church welfare program because it’s divine and accomplishes the commandment to care for the poor and needy, so too should we not scrap governmental welfare.

I think it’s a grave spiritual mistake to do away with governmental programs just because they do not meet God’s standards and are therefore flawed. To do away with them would be to get farther from the models he’s given us, not come closer. The only exception would be if we were doing away with them because Christ’s government was in place.

Finally, I think practicality is one of the most important considerations in politics. What is practical should also be moral but at the same time what is impractical is immoral.

I haven’t proofread this and I’m sure it’s horrifically long. Tends to be my style.

Scott B. :
(also, i didn’t read the rest of your comment yet. It’s ridiculously long.)

Ya, I addressed that. Hee hee.

It’s not true that they’re never taken away. One has to qualify for welfare, show that they are seeking employment, and rights to welfare can be revoked. As far as I know, this is how it is in the US, as it is in Canada. As well, one contributes to unemployment and eventually those benefits run out. One gets a pension but not without contributing to a pension plan.

Immigrants can’t just move on in with the declared objective to go on welfare and die on welfare. And neither can Americans effortlessly obtain and remain on welfare.

So, I’m really not in agreement with what you’re saying on this issue. The idea that Americans will at some point have worked or at least that their parents would have is a relevant point in my eyes.

Scott B. :
The bottom line is that to me, any ethical or moral determination about how I’m going to treat a human being should be made before I know where they were born. No one gets to choose where they were born. As such, in my opinion, granting certain people privileges, rights, or benefits in a society for something no one had any control over is the very height of the worst form of discrimination. You seem to disagree with that opinion, and while I find that personally very objectionable, I understand your sentiment.

No, Scott, I don’t disagree with that opinion. I said earlier that I liked the idea of open borders, remember? I get what your basic premise is and it all sounds lovely and righteous. However, as I said, I think such things need to be practical or they are no longer moral. If a beautiful idea actually becomes an obstacle to the happiness of most people because it’s burdensome or chaotic or complicated or shocking, then it’s no longer a beautiful idea.

And the reason I went off on welfare was because you said, “I don’t really support the existence of most of those services, but really because–especially for welfare programs, which are often the focus of this issue–no one who is using them is paying for them.”

I’m sorry that I jumped on one point before you were finished replying to my other comment.

LOL. I knew that one would stop you. I didn’t elaborate because my comment was already so long.

What I meant by that was basically what I said in my last comment: “If a beautiful idea actually becomes an obstacle to the happiness of most people because it’s burdensome or chaotic or complicated or shocking, then it’s no longer a beautiful idea.”

I agree that everything should be just and fair. But your idea of what’s just and fair– open border– is not my idea of what is just and fair because I believe that it wouldn’t work. At all. I think it’s impractical and that impracticality means it would negatively impact people’s happiness and security. And if you’re negatively impacting people’s happiness and security, that is immoral, at least, if you’re doing it knowing it’s a possible and even likely outcome. Otherwise it’s just stupid.

Scott, you are my hero.

I am now going to bang my head on a wall.

Chris H. :
Scott, you are my hero.
I am now going to bang my head on a wall.

Aw, well I hope that’s on my account, Chris, because that’s so sweet of you to say.

No, I don’t only care about the happiness of people who would be displaced because of new folk movin’ on up. I am unconvinced that it WOULD be a better life for everyone immigrating into the country because they wanted to. I think that if you had open borders you would have such an influx of people, all kinds of people, and it would be so chaotic and disruptive and shocking (I don’t mean mere emotionally shock, like the Relief Society attending The Vagina Monologues as an activity, I mean it would be a shock to schools, to hospitals, to the welfare system, etc), that it would be bad for ALL. ALL, as in, even the people whose happiness you’re trying to improve by removing borders. These people who are born into a massive suckfest would be trading problems for problems. You think that it would be a boon to their happiness but I am not convinced that it would. It might be an improvement of life but I’m not sure the degree would be worth the upset it would cause everyone else.

And you used this idea of open borders to explain, in part, why the Arizona law upsets you. And I just don’t understand how an idea that would not work, that would not obviously lead to a greater result of an overall increase of happiness, should in any way be the basis for your protest.

No one gets to choose where they’re born and that sucks, yes. We don’t get to choose what family we’re born into either but that doesn’t mean we should be able to go insert ourselves into someone else’s family, either, just because it would make us happier. What about the people whose lives we’re disrupting? Why is my happiness more important just because I was born to horrible parents? My poor fortune does not increase my value as a person. I am not worth more just because I’m unhappy. Your life is just as meaningful as my life, your happiness just as meaningful as my happiness, and that is why it is NOT fair and right for me to essentially steal your happiness just because of the luck of the draw.

If you were creating a whole new world and starting from scratch I would say that there should be no country lines set up for the purpose of hoarding resources and therefore happiness.

But you’re talking about, at least in theory, of opening borders and creating a disaster. You haven’t explained to me how it could be anything other than a disaster, and I was especially interested in that but you got all philosophical so I am being philosophical in return. And, as I said, this philosophy of yours– that could only work with a brand new world– is a part of what you’re basing your Arizona protest on.

*correction: emotional shock, not emotionally shock.

P.S. I want to live in France. Can you make that happen?

I’m starting to be able to predict your responses. It was not an analogy fail because I was not making an analogy between the logistics. The analogy was NOT comparing private and public or even families and countries. I agree– dumb conclusion to draw. The analogy was to compare the value of one person’s happiness to another person’s happiness.

No, I don’t think there are “endless hoards” but nice use of exaggeration to try to make my point sound stupid. You can’t even compare the numbers of people who are trying to immigrate now with the numbers that would try to immigrate if there were no borders. Would most of Calgary move to Montréal? Of course not. Because the differences between the two cities are not substantial. The differences between the US and all of Africa, the middle east, Russia, Asia, etc. are substantial. You don’t need “endless hoards” to cause havoc. As for how so many poor people would manage to even make the journey, all you would need would be a few wealthy and well-meaning Scotts to sponsor their immigration.

“Steal” was not the best word choice, I concede. It doesn’t even reflect my actual belief about happiness. I subscribe to Victor Frankl’s ideas. Happiness is a choice, blah, blah, blah.

You said: “The only reason to leave for the US is a chance at economic improvement! If those gains are exhausted by incoming laborers, then the flow of people stops.” This is good point except for two things. 1. It doesn’t address my concerns about public services like schools. You’re addressing economics. Sure, there may not be any work available and that might prevent many people from coming but if millions have already come and in a short amount of time, you still have shock and awe in public services. 2. If the US suddenly announced open borders, you would have people coming from all over the world as quickly as they could so they could get at the jobs first. (Then shock and awe.) And there would be people who would come not knowing the status of the markets. If the job market got saturated, you would still have people coming because they would not know that the job market was saturated. There would be a period of overspill, for lack of better word, between when work was no longer available and when word of that made it back to these other countries.

As to your comment about my comment about Mexicans not paying taxes, I hope that was just something you wanted to get off your chest that had nothing to do with me because I was not referring to Mexicans not paying taxes once they are living in the US. I was talking about people living IN Mexico. Obviously. I don’t pay US taxes either.

Still interested in hearing– some day– why you’re against welfare, especially in response to the points I made. I don’t know about you but I’m tired now. I started out that way, though.

Scott.

“What about the people whose lives we’re disrupting? Why is my happiness more important just because I was born to horrible parents? My poor fortune does not increase my value as a person. I am not worth more just because I’m unhappy. Your life is just as meaningful as my life, your happiness just as meaningful as my happiness, and that is why it is NOT fair and right for me to essentially steal your happiness just because of the luck of the draw.”

I think I make it clear here there my INTENTION was to speak about happiness and rights and how far one could push for their rights. If it was actually possible to insert oneself into another person’s family, if there were laws allowing that and public land was EXACTLY like families, IT WOUDLN’T MATTER. The logistics stopping someone from doing with a family what they could do by way of immigration does not take away from what I’m saying. Whether or not something is possible, whether the two scenarios are on a level playing field, does not affect the rightness or wrongness of the basic premise, to me. Now, analogies are dicey at the best of times and frequently can be misinterpreted by people, and they’re always rife with fallacies of logic, because often, there just are no perfect comparisons. But you don’t get to tell me what I intended it to mean. I tell you that. And I did. And instead of saying something like, “Oh, I didn’t see that but if you say that’s what you meant, I’ll take you on your word then”, instead of that, you left out a bunch of what I said and then followed it with a challenge to find 10 people who don’t think it was a complete and utter fail, and… it just leaves you sounding like an ass. A completely lovable ass, I’m sure, maybe even a talking one like Balam’s, but an ass nonetheless.

“Chaos”, “disruptive”, “shocking” are not words of exaggeration. “Endless” IS. Because what actually IS “endless”? Um… eternity? This discussion? Pretty much nothing is “endless” is it? The only exaggeration I made was saying “ALL”. The other describer words were fair. Throw even 5 new kids into a classroom who don’t speak the language and don’t understand the customs and you have a disruption, likely some chaos, and it would be a shock. Mind you, kids are resilient so that’s not the best example but I was purposely choosing a mild example.

“The issue with your last big paragraph in #68 (starting with “You said”) is the apparent assumption that what I am suggesting is that we just fling open all borders immediately, without any warnings, planning, changes in infrastructure, educational systems, or anything else. I don’t know why you would assume that–”

I assumed that because this is the first time you’ve actually explained how you would propose open borders– which was one of my original questions, or at least implied. Until now you’ve been general. And I can’t read your mind and I don’t know you from a hole in the ground. You’ve had ample opportunity to say, “Okay, wait. Instead of arguing back and forth about all these little things, I should make it clear exactly how this picture looks in my mind. To answer your question, here is how I would propose for us to have open borders.”

Finally, *sigh* I did not say what I said about Mexicans not paying taxes in order to justify not giving them the opportunity. There were OTHER reasons I justified not giving them the opportunity. This little paragraph was in response to your argument that even if they want to come in and be on welfare, we should let them since Americans don’t contribute to the welfare fund via taxes anyway. So, it was a point about who deserves welfare, not who deserves the chance to pay taxes. You can’t just take a rebuttal for ONE point to your argument and attribute it to my main rebuttal. If you had said, “Mexicans should be able to eat as many strawberries as they want!” And I replied, “No, they shouldn’t, we should all share the strawberries and make jam and give it to orphanages.” And you replied, (go with me on this), “But Mexicans invented strawberries!” and I said, “Actually, the Chinese invented strawberries” YOU CAN’T GO AND SAY, “It’s circular and unfair for you to say that Mexicans shouldn’t eat as many strawberries as they want because the Chinese invented them!” That’s what you just did with your “But… but”. Don’t twist my arguments around. And to be clear, the analogy was NOT between strawberries and the US work force. Just to make that clear.

You know, I didn’t even take the opportunity to make my analogy clearer to you because that wasn’t the point I was emphasising. I was emphasising your snottiness. Or maybe snobishness. Whatever.

But it’s bugging me, so. To make it perfectly clear. It was partly a comparison between disruption and disruption. No, the disruption to a family won’t be the same as the disruption to a whole country but it can be similar as the disruption to a school or hospital. What IS a perfect comparison? There isn’t one. It doesn’t matter because the greater comparison was about morality. The morality of upsetting the lives of others to diminish one’s own upset. The details of the situation don’t matter. If two lives are of equal value, who has a greater right to happiness? The person who’s been more unhappy longer? My response is that neither have a greater right. Their rights are equal.

Natasha :

No, I don’t think there are “endless hoards” ….

Here I must object. One time Elijah blessed my little hoard of canned wheat, and now I have an endless hoard.

Okay, and apparently the square root of 2 is endless. I stand corrected.

Really, this is still going on? I guess I will add a comment just to make the comment section longer.

My bad. I wasn’t trying to say what you meant at all. I was just saying that, regardless of what you meant, there is no way you get more than 2 out of 10 people to get what you meant from what you said. That’s all.

I think you could easily be proved wrong.

And “ALL” was the part I was pointing at–not just “all” but all-caps ALL. Thou hypocrite!

The caps was overkill, the word was not. If it was a gross exaggeration then all the major philosophers are also gross exaggerators. Even still “all” didn’t paint a picture of panic and frenzy. Panic and frenzy could happen in a small setting or in a large setting like with “all” people. The amount of people does not determine the panic or the frenzy. So, we’re back to the point that I did not paint a picture of panic and frenzy. You did not like the OTHER words I used, which were not exaggerations. And so, you exaggerated to try to make my point, not ME, look stupid, (I know I ain’t stupid) and I did not do the same to you. And the ultimate point I’m making is that we’re playing by different rules here. You’re being snotty and I’m not. It must be why your other commenters feel comfortable being snotty at each other. That doesn’t happen over at MY blog.

(I’m only still here because you seem to be enjoying this so much. Next point!)

See, the thing is, I’ve explained that very thing so many countless times to so many people in so many forums on so many sites–including this one–that I’m sorry if you feel slighted on that. However, does it really seem logical or fair to automatically, in the absence of an explanation, assume the stupidest, most disruptive, chaotic scenario possible? Yeah, me neither.

Well. Remember early on when I asked if you could link me to anything you’ve written explaining your libertarian views? ‘Member that? And… you didn’t do that? And remember when you said you were an extremist when it came to immigration?

So, given that I don’t know you at all, what do I have to go on to assume that your views on this topic are not stupid? You didn’t take easy opportunities to explain how brilliant your ideas are (via linking). Just because I would think a scenario is stupid, disruptive, and chaotic, doesn’t mean that you would. And the more you continue to not give other explanations for how it could take place, and the more I debate with this extreme scenario, and the more you continue to court me in that instead of letting me know it’s all irrelevant anyway because that’s not what you had in mind, the more reasonable it is that I assume this extreme immigration scenario is exactly what you have in mind!

And remember when I asked you to excuse my presumptuousness in considering the possibility that your views on welfare could be the same as other libertarian folk to whom I’ve spoken about this? <– Therein was an apology for being presumptuous at all. That you could apply it to any other assumption I'm making is implicit.

And to apologise for me feeling slighted is not an apology at all. It's an extension of your snottiness by being patronising. It's like me saying, "I'm sorry that you couldn't make sense of my obvious analogy."

But…but…but…yes I can take that rebuttal, because it applies directly to every single bit of this whole conversation. If you think you can compartmentalize that rebuttal to only welfare, then you’re just not being logically consistent, because the same issue applies to education, DMV services, national defense benefits, financial stability, and labor markets. Sorry, chuck, but that’s a fact.

Sorry, hon, but that’s not how it works. You’re getting confused with specifics of the conversation. I am saying that argument can’t work the way you’re trying to make it work. If you make a point and I respond saying why I disagree and then to my disagreement you say something totally stupid and irrelevant about how much you wish you were born with bunny fur on your body and I reply to THAT, my reply to your bunny fur comment does not have to have ANYTHING to do with my original response to your comment. That is EXACTLY what you have tried to do here. And I know that all of our comments are connected but my original rebuttal is not dependent upon the subsequent rebuttals. The subsequent rebuttals ARE dependent upon the original one but not the other way around. So, if you were to want to continue to tell me why I’m wrong, you would have to go back to the original rebuttal. And you basically did that when you agreed that you wouldn’t want open borders to be open to everyone all at once.

Finally, your point about minors and Mexicans is a good point. I like it. Remember that I was wanting to be convinced from the very beginning. You just didn’t do a good job. I would like open borders, too. I just didn’t see it working.

This story on FMH is abhorrent: http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/?p=3101 I had no idea it was THAT difficult.

Come for dinner, Scott. I’m an excellent cook. It would be fun. Of course, you’ll need your passport to get past the border. HA HA HA.

Scott, if someone came to my blog and asked me if I had written anything about a certain topic, I would have a better idea than they which of my posts had best expressed my own views and I would be flattered that someone would be so interested in what I thought. I started out by expressing interest in your philosophies. If someone asking to read your thoughts on a topic is a burden or annoying, I think that says a lot. Why do you have a blog if you don’t want to share your thoughts and enlighten people or at least give them food for thought? Perhaps if we run into each other again and you ask me to explain what I mean, what my thoughts are on a topic, I will retort, “I have a whole blog full of posts with answers sprinkled in here and there. I’m not going to spoonfeed you, Scott. You must have loads of free time, so go read them yourself.”

I didn’t call you an ass. I said your comment made you sound like one. Slight difference. Your comment was rude, plain and simple, and rudeness deserves to be called out, whether by euphemism or not.

When you say things like,

“All better now?”

“Okay, you go fetch 10 people, have them read the above paragraph, and see if they don’t agree with my analogy FAIL. If even 2 of them agree with you, I’ll take it all back and buy you a doughnut.”

“Seriously. You want to use private families as analogy for public land and labor force participation? Analogy FAIL.”

“But…but…but…you said…” [I let you know that I found this rude and you kept doing it.]

“The first sentence is fine, sort of. I would prefer justice, truth, or fairness to “practical” I guess.

Your second sentence makes me scratch my head entirely. I might be misunderstanding what you’re saying, because taken at face value, the idea that morality and practicality are in any way tied to each other is absurd.”

“(also, i didn’t read the rest of your comment yet. It’s ridiculously long.)”

…as well as your consistent use of sarcasm, it ONLY sounds snotty and rude and dismissive. To put it another way, I challenge you to find even two people who think it sounds kind, fair, open, or respectful. I think most people I know would have felt hurt and embarrassed at the way you have spoken to me in this whole thread and just left, especially considering you don’t know me and we don’t have a rapport. Instead, I used humour, including self-deprecating humour, and then I just called you on your rudeness. Even then I tried to say it in a teasing way.

And you know from my private email to you regarding your about page that sounds like it delights in the elitism and snark of BCC that I find snark tedious. It’s not the way I roll unless someone keeps insisting on talking to me that way. So, that might have been a hint that I would not appreciate being spoken to with sarcasm and incredulousness.

I did not repeatedly call your adherence to your libertarianism selfish and immature because I don’t know what your libertarianism involves, despite much seeking. Reread what I said for accuracy.

The only hostage holding I think I did was trying to redirect you back to my original questions. And your repeated responses to little points, instead of just answering my original questions have done just as much to threadjack as my responses. I was under the impression that you wanted me to reply but I see now that maybe you just wanted me to tell you that you’re right, you’re totally right, I have no response to the points you just made, I’m just a dumb girl, Goodbye. You can argue back to what I say and that’s okay but when I do it with you, I’m threadjacking and holding you hostage? Okay, Scott. Whatever.

“It is now clear that the conversation has moved beyond your understanding.” “WTF? …Please enlighten me.” “I am now going to bang my head on a wall.”

These are from Chris, who seems to feel like he knows you so well that he can speak for you. Does he feel so comfortable being rude because he’s taking cues from your general tone? Not necessarily but it is suggestive. I’m sure you can see how I would be prone to wondering.

Bye, Scott.

Well today I decided I need to find a new blog to keep up with and decided a libertarian Christian blog was the way to go. Eventually found a Mormon one. Even better!

I live In Arizona, and I gotta say, I dont think this bill is racist of fascist. I havent read all your comments (It would take me an hour to do so I think). But this is what I think of the whole debate. First and foremost the issue youve got to come to grips with is whether or not immigration should be restricted at all. A true through and through Libertarian will say open the borders. I guess Im not one of those guys, even though I wish I could be. Phoenix is the kidnapping capitol of the U.S. and second in the world (Only behind mexico city). And it has everything to do with drug cartels. So before I can support open borders, I think we have to legalize drugs.

Second, the welfare state. We cant afford free loaders because we cant even afford those who are actually paying. So unless you believe that collapsing the economy quicker is better, we must restrict immigration. (Not a bad position actually. The sooner the collapse the better. I just dont want to be a total extremist)

As for the actual bill itself. The only time you get ‘carded’ is during a legitimate police stop (meaning youre probably breaking the law). I dont have a problem with that. 90% of the time anyone gets stopped by the cops, it’s in the car. In which case, youre going to have to show your ID no matter what or risk 48 hours in jail. In these cases, the color of your skin is completely irrelevant until after you get arrested.

All the other times you get stopped by the cops, youre probably going to be doing something a little worse than jay walking. Probably something related to drugs. And if you get carded then, well youre an idiot. You are breaking the law. You deserve to get caught. (Whether or not you support the drug war is irrelevant, youre still breaking the law)

The only things that worries me about the law is the national ID debate.

Its not that Im against immigration. Im actually quite for it. Immigrants know the American dream better than Americans. Its just that we cant afford it, and opening the borders will make the drug war a TRUE war. Also, we only have a limited amount of land and resources. We cant afford mass influxes. Nor are we helping the world by doing so. If we want to really help people in third world countries, we need to help third world countries.

I cannot believe I just read 95% of all that, it was pretty good though. Especially Natasha… but all of it was. Scott, I hope you eventually read through her first huge post, that was her best.

I just wanted to say a couple of things I was surprised weren’t mentioned:

1- I am so sick of people accusing people of being racist so freely. No proof whatsoever is needed, just the fact that it could stick and help your argument. Ticks me off.

2- I’m not 100%, but it seems to me that we did have some say as to where we are born. Think preexistence.

3- Nations, lines and borders are good for stability (there will always be someone wanting power, and they could be a lot more dangerous in a world without borders) and for cultural diversity and richness.

4- I thought it was funny that Scott eventually wanted Government to regulate a transition into open borders.

5- I’m so late. Sigh.

I don’t read the few comments that I’ve had come through my email from subscribing to this thread but I’m glad I read yours, Kevin. Thanks.

Kevin C,

re your #1, I agree entirely. Calling things that aren’t racist such is an evil and unhelpful practice. Fortunately for me, I’m quite comfortable calling this legislation, or more specifically, the underlying motivations, racist. I think it is actually quite blatantly racist; one of the truly most ugly pieces of legislation in memory. I can’t provide you a “proof” of such anymore than you can prove it isn’t racist, since I don’t even know what would constitute proof.

re your #2, I also agree that it is quite logical to think that, from an LDS perspective, we had some influence on where we would be born. However, such an idea is neither here nor there when it comes to public policy. Using that same logic, you should go back to Uruguay, Beatta should go back to Finland, and Natasha should make darn sure she never crosses that Canadian border into NYC. There are other things (thinking pre-existence) that would be bad public policy–such as casting all people who don’t worship God the Father through Jesus Christ out (into North Dakota, maybe) for Eternity. The fact is, no one knows what we were able to decide on in the pre-existence–it’s 100% speculation. Making public policy based on the speculative ruminations of a religious micro-minority is insane.

re your #3, I agree that lines and borders are super-duper. I just don’t think that membership in those lined-and-bordered-communities should depend on something none of us have any control over.

re your #4, I don’t follow either why it’s funny or why you said “eventually” since I have always wanted such a regulation. The government currently regulates it–I’d like that same government to change its policy and begin rolling itself back in this area, until it is non-existent.

Re Natasha’s first comment, which you hoped I’d read–Natasha wrote a lot of comments (Hi Natasha! Welcome back!), and some were better than others. Her first was by far the worst of the bunch, in my opinion. (Nothing personal, Nat–we still on for dinner?)

Oh, I know it’s not personal. But I fear if I knew your counter-opinions that I’d be heartbroken. We’d have to find something shallow to talk about over dinner.

re, re #1- The legislation says cops should check for ID when they pull someone over and that if they don’t have it, they are now able to look into it further. I don’t see any racism there. However, you just said you don’t have proof, so I rest my case. Also, you asked me to “prove it isn’t racist”… my friend the burden of proof is on you.

re, re #2- I agree with you, the preexistance doctrine and conjecture is hard to use for any argument. I just wanted to throw it out there. I do disagree with your statement: “Using that same logic, you should go back to Uruguay, Beatta should go back to Finland, and Natasha should make darn sure she never crosses that Canadian border into NYC”. I don’t know how that makes any sense.

re, re #3- Cool

re, re #4- I thought it was funny because after reading all the posts, you acquired the image that you did not want the government in the way of migration issues. At least in my eyes.

About Natasha’s first comment: I enjoyed her perspective on welfare and her experiences with it a lot. I still think minimizing welfare would decrease the number of people “falling mentally ill” with the dependence, but it is still the most illuminating post among many good ones in this thread. To me at least.

Oh, and sorry about using “eventually” in my original #4. Out of place.

Kevin,
That is simply not what the legislation says. I’m really sorry, but that’s just not even close. Regardless, the words on the paper alone are not sufficient to understand why this legislation is racism; it has to be seen in the whole context of its creation, the underlying motivations, and the history of Mexican/American border policy. We can argue until the cows come home about what the proper immigration policy is, but that is a different question. This legislation is racially/culturally motivated, and there just isn’t any question about it, honestly.

“Using that same logic, you should go back to Uruguay, Beatta should go back to Finland, and Natasha should make darn sure she never crosses that Canadian border into NYC”. I don’t know how that makes any sense.

Well, it goes like this: We’re talking about a law which regulates where people can and can’t live. You mention the pre-existence as a defense of such regulations. I mention that, if we are held to what we allegedly agreed upon in the pre-existence, then you and Beatta are clearly in the wrong countries, since you allegedly decided in the pre-existence that you should be born in Uruguay and Finland, respectively.

Re re re #4, I don’t want the government involved, in the final analysis. But the question about related to how to get the government out of the picture. Natasha (if I recall correctly) had picked up the impression that I was in favor of just throwing the gates open immediately, and was objecting to that because it would create chaos. I explained (and this is what you’re referring to) that I don’t advocate the government immediately pulling out; I advocate the federal government slowly pulling out over time, allowing for local communities to adjust and create their own border policies. In summary, I want the government to disappear from this issue, yes–but not immediately.

Natasha,

But I fear if I knew your counter-opinions that I’d be heartbroken.

Counter-opinions on what?

Scott,
The “underlying motivations.” Please, that’s just more of the same. I can’t stand it when “you’re racist” is flung out so easily.
The whole context is this: too many illegal immigrats, many problems, feds aren’t doing anything, let’s do something. Why are you reading so much more into it? Show me the proof!

Your logic still makes no sense: These decisions in the pre-existance wouldn’t have hinged on borders, they would have hinged on families. I would have chosen to be part of a family that had a Uruguayan father and an American mother currently in Uruguay. Beatta would have chosen to make her family with an American. We decided on families that happened to live in one place, but that had high probabilities of living somewhere else.

So really our decisions to be born in Uruguay/Finland were secondary.

Perhaps these were part of my thoughts back then:
“Yes, I’ll be a part of that family, regardless of the fact that they live in a second world country. Moreover, I’ll probably end up in USA anyways as I’d be a born US citizen.”

Others may have decided like this:
“I’ll step up to the plate and be the poor street kid that has to sell candy in Mexico City. I’ll provide others with a chance to serve. I’ll grow strong from the adversity. I’ll be a good tool in God’s work………. I’ll try to make it financially and use my experiences to help others. Perhaps I must go to the USA to do that.”

It makes no sense to me that I or this hypothetical kid that made it the US would have to go back to our respective countries because of what we decided in the pre-existance. We accepted situations, we didn’t sign a document stating we were never going to try to change those situations.

#4- Cool, but it still gave me a chuckle when I read it. sorry

The “underlying motivations.” Please, that’s just more of the same. I can’t stand it when “you’re racist” is flung out so easily.
The whole context is this: too many illegal immigrats, many problems, feds aren’t doing anything, let’s do something. Why are you reading so much more into it? Show me the proof!

Kevin, it would be wonderful if we could get the authors of the legislation to hold a press conference which says, “Yes, we are all racists. We hate Mexicans.” Sadly, such a thing would never happen, because racism is ugly and evil and it’s not exactly the kind of thing people generally admit to. That means that the only thing left to do is evaluate the context, the political lobbyists, and the underlying motivations behind our laws. It’s not “more of the same” at all–it’s called standard critical analysis of legislation, and it’s vitally important to do such so that we understand not only what our laws do, but what they are supposed to do and what they might unwittingly do through unintended consequences. Do some homework yourself, Kevin–go read through the political comments on right-wing blogs, forums, and online newspapers. Go read the letters to the editors in the Arizona, California, and Utah newspapers. See for yourself what people are defending this piece of garbage legislation, what they are saying, and then you decide if you stand with them. I’ve done those things, and I’m ashamed that so many people of my own faith hold such violent rage and hatred against another group of people on this Earth. It’s simply astounding.

To me, the mere existence of that law is a direct manifestation of racism and xenophobia–no proof required. It requires officers of the peace to detain and require documentation for any person they come across who they “suspect” may be in the country illegally. Kevin, think really, really hard about that. What criteria could POSSIBLY be used to arouse suspicion of being undocumented? Let’s make a list:

1. Speeding? Nope, American citizens are prone to traffic violations also.
2. Walking a dog in the park? I have understood that American citizens also do this from time to time.
3. Smoking pot? Nope, Americans love them some pot.
4. Purchasing a hamburger at McDonalds? Not only a Mexican activity, if I understand correctly.
5. Watching soccer? Oooh…that’s a decent criteria there!
6. Driving a low-riding vehicle with tinted windows? Getting warmer…
7. Having non-white skin color? DING! DING! DING! DING! We have a winner!

Look, we just clearly see the world very differently. I grew up in a small Mormon town in Southern Idaho, and although I didn’t recognize it much as a teenager, I’ve come to realize that much of what I heard on a regular basis about the immigrants there was racially motivated. I’ve seen it myself. There’s not much more I can say, I guess.

These decisions in the pre-existance wouldn’t have hinged on borders, they would have hinged on families. I would have chosen to be part of a family that had a Uruguayan father and an American mother currently in Uruguay. Beatta would have chosen to make her family with an American. We decided on families that happened to live in one place, but that had high probabilities of living somewhere else. So really our decisions to be born in Uruguay/Finland were secondary.

And what of all the illegal immigrants who plan on coming to the US because they want to marry an American? Your whole reasoning there applies 100% as well to people who are trying to enter currently and cannot.

Scott B. :
Natasha,

But I fear if I knew your counter-opinions that I’d be heartbroken.

Counter-opinions on what?

On welfare.

My opinions on welfare:

Less is more.

I’m tired of this post. I forgot it was still open for commenting.