Federal Judge Blocks Obama Immigration Amnesty

[moda0306]

Moda, I agree with you 100%.  I bet all of these guys who like to call them "illegal" immigrants, don't call themselves "illegal" drivers when they drive 31 mph in a 30 mph zone.  That's just so you can get to your destination 30 seconds sooner, but when somebody who has absolutely no future in their homeland wants to make a better life for themselves and their family, and is willing to work jobs that most Americans won't work anyway, suddenly the law becomes sacrosanct.  The onus is on our government to enforce the rules keeping people out (good luck with that; it will never work).  A guest worker program would be great, but the Democrats won't go for that, because it doesn't help them increase their voter rolls.  So, my advice would be to get used to the situation.  It's not going to change.  But don't blame the immigrants.  You would do the same thing in their shoes.  Sure there are a few criminals among them, just like any group of humans.  They'll get dealt with in the criminal justice system hopefully.

There is a big difference between driving 1 mph, or even 10 mph, over the speed limit and entering a foreign country illegally. And then using services which you have not contributed to the cost support of.

If you enter Iran or North Korea without permission, you will find yourself jailed in a goolag-type prison or dead. Obviously, we don't want to emulate that type of behavior here, but, just sayin'...

Why are we even talking about N. Korea or Iran?  I never have understood those analogies.  I think it's some sort of will to think that ALL lefties are trying to dog the U.S.  Plenty do.  I'm not.  Since I'm a citizen, I'm a lot more interested in our policies than those of Sudan, India, North Korea, or Iran.  It's natural.  NFL players don't worry about the rules of Brazilian soccer.  Not because they think football is inherently more dysfunctional than Brazilian soccer.  It's just not in their sphere of concern as football players.

There is a difference between driving a slightly more unsafe than the legal speed and moving onto land of which you are not a citizen (even though these are made-up institutions, I'll live in them for this debate).  But we're not talking about a cop ripping someone out of his car at the point of a gun, and driving him back to his home, never to be able to drive again.  We're talking about a speeding ticket.  A speeding ticket almost any conservative would be FURIOUS to receive.

Our government sets up areas of the law where there is wiggle room in enforcement.  Sometimes, that wiggle-room goes on for SO long that it sort of becomes a problem, because to enforce the law would be catastrophic to the system, or to the individuals who've been seeing and acting on the wink/nudge for some time.  For instance, many companies that should be collecting & remitting sales tax do not, over time.  The state governments technically have the RIGHT to go back and collect (if we obey the letter of the law).  Similar to citizenship, whatever your feelings are on taxation, they are NECESSARY to maintain even the most commonly agreed-upon government services... absolutely vital.  So it is a BIG DEAL when enough people avoid paying taxes (at the state/local level).  However, if the government were to ask for back-sales tax on ALL these companies, it would have put every single one of them out of business.  So these states create amnesty programs.  It allows people to come out of the sales-tax shadows in a sort of compromise that they'll start behaving going forward.

Conservatives LOVE these things (and so do I).  They solve a problem in a stable, pragmatic manner.  They don't drag people through the mud on an under-enforced yet IMPORTANT societal requirement.

So while the 31 mph car might be a stretch of an analogy in some areas, sales tax amnesty is almost identical in the fundamentals we're talking about.

[MachineGhost]

Conservatives LOVE these things (and so do I).  They solve a problem in a stable, pragmatic manner.  They don't drag people through the mud on an under-enforced yet IMPORTANT societal requirement.

Except Boehner and Tea Party wingnuts.

[Pointedstick]

Borders delineate a country. A country is a government that rules over a society with a distinct culture. A government that does not enforce its borders is inviting non-members of the country to enter it, for good or ill. That leftists do not understand why people already living in the country might find this controversial or objectionable is something I must admit I do not fully understand, given that they personally behave in a manner consistent with wanting to live within their own culture (urban cosmopolitanism) and protect it from outsiders (rural conservatives).

You can easily ask, why not for a state, then? Why not for a city? A neighborhood? And there are many people living in those cities and states and neighborhoods who would ask the same thing. It's all about cultural similarity. People don't mind accepting and living in close proximity with people who are like them. They highly mind for people not like them. It's just human nature. Anyone who claims they don't do this is deluding themselves.

[moda0306]

PS,

If we build a solid border against Mexico, but come up with some sort of amnesty program, do you think the "message" that would send (that you can come cheat our system, or whatever) would really be actionable?

I agree with you that too many liberals "don't understand" the importance of borders.  That's why I'm in favor of building a wall... well-enforced.  I think most people here are in agreement with that, but perhaps I'm assuming too much.

Even though you might peg me as a liberal in general, I think I'm giving credit to the importance of the utilitarian aspect of this and the incentives it gives when I say "build the damn wall."  Do you disagree?

[stuper1]

In theory, I'm in favor of building a "wall".  In practice, I think it would be a terrible waste of money, because it wouldn't work (no matter what form it takes).  Humans are smart.  Desperate humans are especially smart.  They will find a way to get past the "wall".  Think of the wall as a permeable membrane with a desperation-concentration-gradient pushing the desperate people through to the other side where they have at least a little hope, rather than no hope whatsoever.  A guest worker program, and various other incentives/disincentives, would be much better.

[MachineGhost]

In theory, I'm in favor of building a "wall".  In practice, I think it would be a terrible waste of money, because it wouldn't work (no matter what form it takes).  Humans are smart.  Desperate humans are especially smart.  They will find a way to get past the "wall".  Think of the wall as a permeable membrane with a desperation-concentration-gradient pushing the desperate people through to the other side where they have at least a little hope, rather than no hope whatsoever.  A guest worker program, and various other incentives/disincentives, would be much better.

You mean like this?

[align=center][/align]
[align=center][/align]
[align=center][/align]

[moda0306]

stuper1,

You're probably right.  I'm not very studied on the topic.  But this is what I want:

1) Significantly lower the inflow of new illegal immigrants.

2) Respect somewhat the dignity of people who consider the U.S. home by not starving/transporting them out of the country.

a not entirely unrelated problem is that the legal immigration system bureaucracy is so bad, it makes the standard whipping boy for government incompetence "the DMV" look like a combination of Henry Ford and Albert Einstein for efficiency and intelligence..
build a wall, fix legal immigration, eliminate anchor baby rules, prosecute those that hire illegals, create easy to use and enforce guest worker rules and visas..
sadly tackling only one aspect of illegal immigration will never fix the problem..

[MachineGhost]

1) Significantly lower the inflow of new illegal immigrants.

2) Respect somewhat the dignity of people who consider the U.S. home by not starving/transporting them out of the country.

We had a comprehensive bipartisan solution like that.  There's no more need for discussion.  Boehner (Speaker of the House) refused to allow it to come up for a vote.  So, I strongly suggest voting for a ReformoCon.

[Pointedstick]

In theory, I'm in favor of building a "wall".  In practice, I think it would be a terrible waste of money, because it wouldn't work (no matter what form it takes).  Humans are smart.  Desperate humans are especially smart.  They will find a way to get past the "wall".  Think of the wall as a permeable membrane with a desperation-concentration-gradient pushing the desperate people through to the other side where they have at least a little hope, rather than no hope whatsoever.  A guest worker program, and various other incentives/disincentives, would be much better.

It's all about increasing the marginal difficulty. As an example, no house is totally securable. Doors can still be kicked in, windows broken, garage doors cut open, the dog poisoned, a hold cut through the ceiling from the attic. But the more you take away the easy avenues, the more people will decide it's not worth the trouble and look elsewhere.

Personally, I think the best way to end Latin American immigration would be to end the drug war, but that's a decade or two off, if it ever happens at all. And in an interesting development, most illegal immigration to the USA actually comes from Asia now, not Mexico or Latin America. I'll admit I'm not really sure how they get here or what the major draw is (other than the obvious one that the USA is awesome )

[dragoncar]

Yeah, but the law is whatever "they" say it is or wants it to be, so how can you take the moral high ground over what is barely enforced and isn't all that important on the grand hierarchy of subjective criminality?  I

Did I give you PERMISSION to speak?

When did this become 'pile on MangoMan'?
There are laws because there needs to be laws. You have turned that into a morality discussion.

Yeah I wasn't responding to you.  Everyone here has broken the law, used resources unpaid for, and so on.  You are the one turning it into a morality discussion by implying that breaking some laws is worse than others.  I agree, but not necessarily with the spectrum of immorality that you ascribe to.

[MachineGhost]

And in an interesting development, most illegal immigration to the USA actually comes from Asia now, not Mexico or Latin America. I'll admit I'm not really sure how they get here or what the major draw is (other than the obvious one that the USA is awesome )

Human trafficking in locked cargo containers.  If they survive alive and get here, they have to pay off their debt by working in sweat shops as slaves (and dishonest owners never let it happen).  It's a terrible calamity.  The allure of America is more mythological than reality at this point.  I mean, how the hell bad is poverty now that technology is atomizing?  But, whatever.  I guess you've got to go through the Hedonistic Treadmill to first get over it.

[stuper1]

stuper1,

You're probably right.  I'm not very studied on the topic.  But this is what I want:

1) Significantly lower the inflow of new illegal immigrants.

2) Respect somewhat the dignity of people who consider the U.S. home by not starving/transporting them out of the country.

Sounds good to me.  The problem is that neither the left or right political types wants #1 to happen, as explained earlier by craigr.

[stuper1]

I recently finished an entertaining novel called "The Barbarian Nurseries" by Hector Tobar, which deals with immigration issues, more from an immigrant's perspective.  I recommend it, especially since it's one of the rare novels that didn't leave me depressed by the end.

I still say, "keep them out, if you can".  But I don't really think you can, unless we have some really big changes, which is very unlikely and maybe not even desirable.  It's really just basic economics.  If things look bleak in the south, and look better in the north, guess which way people will be moving?

[Pointedstick]

I never thought I'd agree with moda and disagree with you, but lots of things happen that I never would have predicted. :-)

I'm afraid you are committing a logical fallacy here, although I'm not sure of its name ("fallacy of composition", maybe?). The land mass currently referred to as the "USA" is not anyone's house, and is not owned by one entity, unless you are of the (quite non-libertarian) opinion that the US government owns it.

I am of that opinion; the U.S. government does own it. You can see this for yourself whenever you pay your property tax bill. OK fine, so technically my house and land are owned by the county government, not the federal government, but the point is that some government entity or other owns everything and everybody (that's how they tax us). I oppose this state of affairs and wish to alter it as much as you do, but I don't think it makes any sense to deny the present state of reality. The government is a giant property monopolist that has claimed ownership of all the land within its borders and all the people born on that land. I would be surprised if you disagreed with this assessment.

So the actual situation is that some people ("illegal immigrants") want to relocate from one place (e.g., "Mexico") to another place ("USA"). There is nothing wrong with this, so long as they do not commit violence or fraud. There IS, however, something wrong with people with guns ("Border Patrol") forcibly interfering with this free movement.

Would it make any difference if there literally was a gigantic private company that owned a huge parcel of land and permitted people to buy the right to use bits of it how they saw fit? Wouldn't this big company have the right to deny entry to people of their choosing?

[Pointedstick]

You are confusing "might" and "right". Yes, the federal government claims the power to do absolutely ANYTHING it wishes, including murdering American citizens in the US. So obviously it also has the power to forbid (or require) anyone to stay in (or leave) the landmass usually referred to as "the US". However, we have now left the arena of rights and are smack in the arena of arbitrary, absolute power, where your question is irrelevant.

Right is simply a veneer we apply over might so we can pretend it doesn't apply… but it always does. So in that sense, I suppose I can see how in that context the question is irrelevant; the federal government is so powerful as to possess the capability to destroy every human on the earth, so of course it can keep out some Latin Americans… or let them in.

But from the perspective of what it has the right to do… well, if it owns the whole country, doesn't it have the right to control entry? Whether it should own the whole country is another question, but given that it does…

[MachineGhost]

I never thought I'd agree with moda and disagree with you, but lots of things happen that I never would have predicted. :-)

Soon you will come over to the dark side and no longer be an anarchist as PS and I once were! <insert Cryptkeeper laugh here>

[Pointedstick]

I never thought I'd agree with moda and disagree with you, but lots of things happen that I never would have predicted. :-)

Soon you will come over to the dark side and no longer be an anarchist as PS and I once were! <insert Cryptkeeper laugh here>

[MachineGhost]

No. It has stolen that property and therefore has no rights with respect to it.

You're walking into a trap here, my friend.

[Pointedstick]

No. It has stolen that property and therefore has no rights with respect to it.

Okay, so the house I'm sitting in right now I purchased from the federal government (HUD house). The land that this house was built on was stolen from Mexico 150 years ago, who had stolen it from Spain 30 years before that, who had 250 years earlier stolen it from the Native Pueblo peoples who settled the area in cities that they had built and who themselves had moderately advanced institutions of property rights (and of course they had previously stolen the land from someone else).

Given that the history of human societies is in large part summarized by groups of people stealing other people's land for their own use, I am wondering how you think there are any legitimate land-based property claims at all. Virtually every piece of land that is currently owned was stolen from a previous owner by someone at some point in time--some relatively recently. I assume you would agree that the sale of stolen property is as illegitimate as the original theft; if so, how can we possibly untangle this and grant legitimacy to property with such troubled histories of theft?

[MachineGhost]

While this may seem unfair, note that the rightful previous owner still has a cause of action against the thief (or their heirs and assigns), which in this case means that the Indian tribes could sue the US government for stealing their land. However, this cause of action does not apply to the current landowner.

Are you in favor of slavery repatriations?

[Pointedstick]

That's awfully convenient.

Party A has property.
Party B has no property and steals Party A's property.
Party C buys the property from party B for, say, its going market value.
Party A sues Party B, and, and gets Party A's money.

Party A has lost his property but gained its market value in money, minus lawyer's fees.
Party B is right back to where he started.
Party C has gained property he might not have been able to purchase on the open market if Party A was not willing to sell.

This clearly favors party C at the expense of party A.

[Libertarian666]

While this may seem unfair, note that the rightful previous owner still has a cause of action against the thief (or their heirs and assigns), which in this case means that the Indian tribes could sue the US government for stealing their land. However, this cause of action does not apply to the current landowner.

Are you in favor of slavery repatriations?

Of course. All slaves are entitled to recourse against slave-owners and their heirs, to the extent that the slave-owners did not pay full market value for the slaves.

[Pointedstick]

It's not perfect, but what is your (better) solution? Clearly the alternative of just saying "screw the person whose property was stolen; the thief is the new owner" is a lot worse.

It's a fine flawed-though-good-enough system for individuals. But it's naive to apply to governments. We'd have the pueblos suing the Spanish, either in Spanish court or international court. A Spanish court would obviously rule in Spain's favor, and if the international court ruled against Spain, Spain would simply say, "screw you. We're not paying a penny." And then, what, Spain Sues Mexico? Mexico sues the USA?

This simply isn't the way things work. Governments only understand violence. They don't play by civilized rules, especially when there's no more powerful government above them to kick them. They do as much as they can bounded only by other peoples' capacity to bloody them if they try. They respect agreements, treaties, and rulings only inasmuch as there are benefits to doing so and enforceable consequences for failing to.

What I guess I am suggesting is that illegitimate or not, governments can be assumed to be total owners of all land, property, and people within their borders. This is certainly more of a "might" than a "right" explanation, but when it comes to governments, well, might makes right. So it always has been, so it will ever be.

[Mountaineer]

While this may seem unfair, note that the rightful previous owner still has a cause of action against the thief (or their heirs and assigns), which in this case means that the Indian tribes could sue the US government for stealing their land. However, this cause of action does not apply to the current landowner.

Are you in favor of slavery repatriations?

Of course. All slaves are entitled to recourse against slave-owners and their heirs, to the extent that the slave-owners did not pay full market value for the slaves.

Are you really serious or was that a joke?

... Mountaineer

[Libertarian666]

Are you in favor of slavery repatriations?

Of course. All slaves are entitled to recourse against slave-owners and their heirs, to the extent that the slave-owners did not pay full market value for the slaves.

Are you really serious or was that a joke?

... Mountaineer

Joking, because of course that issue is much more complex than the one we were discussing.