The thought crimes of Donald Trump

[screwtape]

Very relevant to the subject I think....

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07 ... d-several/

This man had been deported 5 times already. ICE had him in custody again but returned him to the S.F. police who ultimately let him go.

[Pointedstick]

Here's the thing… IMHO there's actually no reason why Mexicans and Latin Americans shouldn't make great Americans who vote Republican most of the time. They're hard-working. They like big families. They're Christians. They're socially conservative. They like to shoot guns and drive trucks. But for the drug war, welfare, conservative xenophobia, and liberal race agitation, they should assimilate extremely well.

[Pointedstick]

I get that few hispanics are small-government libertarians. But neither are Republicans. The majority of second-generation or older hispanics I know here in New Mexico have a wide variety of extremely conservative tendencies. They're employed full-time or more. They go to church every week. They own guns, drive trucks, and go hunting. They're weirded out by all this focus on gays and transgendered people. They look down on lazy people who don't work. They send an awful lot of their sons to the military and support foreign interventionism. This kind of stuff is the bread and butter of the Republican party. The fact that the state is not solidly Republican is entirely due to the white liberals in Santa Fe and Taos in the northern third of the state.

[Pointedstick]

I agree with you. I guess my point is that the situation may be salvageable with hispanics. The kids and grandkids of current immigrants are going to be a lot more American than their forefathers, and what parts of their ancestral culture they retain will actually be largely conservative. This is in distinct contrast to poor Muslims, refugees from African warzones, etc. That's not the case with hispanics.

My wife used to tutor a Mexican refugee who was fleeing drug violence. She was legal, but borderline illiterate and had a lot of difficulty with English. She tried really hard, but just couldn't make a ton of progress and was working as a janitor at a hospital last I knew. Not a high-value immigrant by any means, and undoubtedly displaying some poor undereducated American. But she loves America, has a lot of American values, and her daughter is pretty much American at this point--and is excelling educationally. The generational difference is stunning. While maybe this situation wasn't optimal in the first place, it isn't looking like it will be a permanent disaster. I suspect that that's going to be the general result of this, in much the same way as with the waves of Irish and Italian immigrants.

[WiseOne]

It is tempting to make an analogy between the current Hispanic immigration wave and the European immigrants of the early 20th century, but there are some VERY notable differences.  A big one is that the European immigrants knew they needed to speak English here, and did not expect to be catered to in their native language.  Another is that welfare was non-existent, and it was a given that they'd have to work hard to succeed and live only on what they earned.

My dad used to tell us repeatedly, "The world doesn't owe you a living."  I detect the converse of that attitude in the majority of recent immigrants.  In the Medicaid clinic at my workplace where about 99.9% of the patients are from the Dominican Republic, the sense of entitlement is just breathtaking.

[WiseOne]

Some are illegal, but most are legal via the birthright clause.  Parents/mothers often come up from the DR (e.g. on a visiting visa) to have their kids in the US specifically so they'd be able to migrate legally later.  I don't know how widespread that practice is or whether this has ever been measured, but I see it in action so often that I suspect it's on the same order as or even greater than the flood of cross-border illegal migration.

I see very little difference between this and what we usually consider as illegal immigration.

[Greg]

Some are illegal, but most are legal via the birthright clause.  Parents/mothers often come up from the DR (e.g. on a visiting visa) to have their kids in the US specifically so they'd be able to migrate legally later.  I don't know how widespread that practice is or whether this has ever been measured, but I see it in action so often that I suspect it's on the same order as or even greater than the flood of cross-border illegal migration.

I see very little difference between this and what we usually consider as illegal immigration.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby

Anchor babies seems like a good idea for how to get into the country. Can't say I agree with it though.

[MachineGhost]

My dad used to tell us repeatedly, "The world doesn't owe you a living."  I detect the converse of that attitude in the majority of recent immigrants.  In the Medicaid clinic at my workplace where about 99.9% of the patients are from the Dominican Republic, the sense of entitlement is just breathtaking.

If they come here specifically for the security of the entitlements, it's understandable that there would be a congruency in their thinking and behavior before and after.

Do these anchor babies eventually contribute to society or are they perpetually on welfare entitlement also?

[Pointedstick]

Just read a story in the local rag about two owners of a local restaurant who were convicted of illegally harboring aliens and violating various employment laws (minimum wage and overtime pay for their illegal immigrant employees). They've been fined $120k and lost their house where the illegal immigrants were living. So it looks like this kind of thing does occasionally happen.

[dragoncar]

Then I would deny the use of any state driver's license that grants them to illegals for any Federal identification purpose. Consider those licenses tainted for opening bank accounts, air travel, etc. That will force states that made that decision to withdraw those laws when their legal citizens can no longer board planes, etc. with those IDs. Think now pissed CA residents will be when they need a Passport as the only officially recognized ID to fly go Vegas.

There are many ways to address these issues with existing federal legislation. But again, nobody wants to do it.

You don't need an ID to fly.  Does wanting to create a "papers please" nation give you any cognitive dissonance?

[Pointedstick]

Yeah you do. We're already a "papers please" nation. I have to show my papers government-issued ID to a police officer anytime he wants while I'm driving on a public road. I have to do it when I buy alcohol or firearms, rent a car, stay in a hotel room, or pay by check for anything. And I'm sure there are a lot more situations I'm forgetting.

[MachineGhost]

Yeah you do. We're already a "papers please" nation. I have to show my papers government-issued ID to a police officer anytime he wants while I'm driving on a public road. I have to do it when I buy alcohol or firearms, rent a car, stay in a hotel room, or pay by check for anything. And I'm sure there are a lot more situations I'm forgetting.

Picking up online orders at big box stores.

Showing up for medical appointments.

Going into most government buildings.

Getting on a Greyhound bus.

Boarding Amtrack.

It's beyond annoying and it is nothing but security theatre.  Any terrorist with half a brain can get fake ID.  It's just stupid make-work for the police and bureaucrats.

[dragoncar]

Yeah you do. We're already a "papers please" nation. I have to show my papers government-issued ID to a police officer anytime he wants while I'm driving on a public road. I have to do it when I buy alcohol or firearms, rent a car, stay in a hotel room, or pay by check for anything. And I'm sure there are a lot more situations I'm forgetting.

1) Regardless of whether or not we are already a "papers please" nation, Craig seems to be supporting an expansion.

2) No, you don't need papers to fly.  (http://blog.tsa.gov/2013/04/tsa-travel- ... u-fly.html)

3) In order to drive, you need to show a license.  The identification aspect of your driver license is ancillary to showing your competence to operate a motor vehicle on public roads.  And so on.

[Pointedstick]

2) No, you don't need papers to fly.  (http://blog.tsa.gov/2013/04/tsa-travel- ... u-fly.html)

The TSA says that one of the following documents is required:

U.S. passport
U.S. passport card
DHS trusted traveler cards (Global Entry, NEXUS, SENTRI, FAST)
U.S. military ID (active duty or retired military and their dependents, and DoD civilians)
Permanent resident card
Border crossing card
DHS-designated enhanced driver's license
Driver's licenses or other state photo identity cards issued by Department of Motor Vehicles (or equivalent) for the sole purpose of identification
Federally recognized, tribal-issued photo ID
HSPD-12 PIV card
Airline or airport-issued ID (if issued under a TSA-approved security plan)
Foreign government-issued passport
Canadian provincial driver's license or Indian and Northern Affairs Canada card
Transportation Worker Identification Credential

Those all seem like "papers" to me.

3) In order to drive, you need to show a license.  The identification aspect of your driver license is ancillary to showing your competence to operate a motor vehicle on public roads.  And so on.

That's splitting hairs. I think it still falls under the category of "papers." It's a government-issued permission slip. Without it, you're not allowed to do something normal and routine.

[MediumTex]

3) In order to drive, you need to show a license.  The identification aspect of your driver license is ancillary to showing your competence to operate a motor vehicle on public roads.  And so on.

For most middle class Americans outside of a few very large cities where mass transit is used by all segments of society, we have constructed our communities around transportation primarily by personal automobile.

In other words, most people need a car and simply not driving isn't a realistic option.

In order to operate an automobile, you typically need four things:

1. Proof of liability insurance
2. Current registration of the vehicle
3. A valid drivers license
4. A current inspection sticker

If you are missing any of these items, you can be detained and even arrested and your automobile can be confiscated and you must pay a hefty fee to get it back even if you have done nothing wrong and all charges are dropped.

So I would say that for most people simply leaving your house to do your daily business subjects you to a "papers please" request at any time.

The good news is that while anyone can be stopped for a traffic violation (or just because you don't look right to a police officer), there are not typically roadblocks set up to check papers of ALL people who wish to pass.  There are, of course, the Border Patrol checkpoints that are often 50-100 miles away from the border with enforcement objectives only vaguely related to stopping illegal immigration (they would need to be at the border to stop illegal border crossings, right?), but if you live in a city you aren't going to be encountering such checkpoints in your daily travels.

The liberty opportunity here lies in understanding how essential it is to keep your vehicle in good operating condition with the proper tags and stickers, and most importantly, understanding that being a good driver is a matter of both personal safety and personal freedom.

There probably isn't a better investment of time and energy than to try to become a better driver.  As some of you know, I spent some time driving an over the road truck in the past.  I drove in all conditions, carried HAZMAT loads, carried $100 million loads for the military, and had a lot of fun, but the need to operate your vehicle safely and responsibly is always on your mind when the margin for error is so much smaller, as it is when you are in a big truck full of some mixture of explosive/toxic/heavy/expensive cargo.

[dragoncar]

Yeah you do. We're already a "papers please" nation. I have to show my papers government-issued ID to a police officer anytime he wants while I'm driving on a public road. I have to do it when I buy alcohol or firearms, rent a car, stay in a hotel room, or pay by check for anything. And I'm sure there are a lot more situations I'm forgetting.

1) Regardless of whether or not we are already a "papers please" nation, Craig seems to be supporting an expansion.

No I'm not. I'm pointing out, rightfully, that bad immigration policy has necessitated many of these laws. Many ID laws are in place specifically to prevent problems created by bad immigration policies.

Try to wiggle out of it, but you are happily hoping that CA residents will need to use passports to fly domestically:

Think now pissed CA residents will be when they need a Passport as the only officially recognized ID to fly go Vegas.

If you were against a papers please nation, you would be saying the opposite.

Those all seem like "papers" to me.

But you don't need any of those papers, if you read the link.

3) In order to drive, you need to show a license.  The identification aspect of your driver license is ancillary to showing your competence to operate a motor vehicle on public roads.  And so on.

That's splitting hairs. I think it still falls under the category of "papers." It's a government-issued permission slip. Without it, you're not allowed to do something normal and routine.

It's really not the same.  There's a very big difference between making a driver show their license and making a passenger show their license.

[Pointedstick]

3) In order to drive, you need to show a license.  The identification aspect of your driver license is ancillary to showing your competence to operate a motor vehicle on public roads.  And so on.

That's splitting hairs. I think it still falls under the category of "papers." It's a government-issued permission slip. Without it, you're not allowed to do something normal and routine.

It's really not the same.  There's a very big difference between making a driver show their license and making a passenger show their license.

I'm not sure I see much of a difference. Can you explain your thinking?

[dragoncar]

The fact that I'd like to see the states that started issuing driver's licenses to illegals punished first and the most doesn't make me the bad guy. I think people that made bad decisions should face consequences and states that don't issue licenses to illegals should be left alone. But that's not how it works. What will happen is everyone is punished with compromised IDs issued by some states. They will be used for fraud, identity theft, cons, voter shenanigans, and other drama. The government will crack down on everyone. Watch and see.

It may not make you a "bad guy," but it makes you kinda a jerk to want to punish, say, me (a lawful US citizen) because I happen to live in a state that issues driver licenses to "illegals" (widely considered a derogatory term).  Automotive licenses do not confer lawful immigration status so, when presented at an airport as identification, they won't keep anyone from being deported.  I'm not sure what "consequences" you are referring to.

That's splitting hairs. I think it still falls under the category of "papers." It's a government-issued permission slip. Without it, you're not allowed to do something normal and routine.

It's really not the same.  There's a very big difference between making a driver show their license and making a passenger show their license.

I'm not sure I see much of a difference. Can you explain your thinking?

You can travel all over the US without having to show an ID.  Freedom of movement is a fundamental right.  But that doesn't mean I can just hop in a helicopter/plane/car and operate it myself.  This kind of thing:

We have previously held that burdens on a single mode of transportation do not implicate the right to interstate travel. ? See Monarch Travel Servs., Inc. v. Associated Cultural Clubs, Inc., 466 F.2d 552, 554 (9th Cir.1972) (“A rich man can choose to drive a limousine; ?a poor man may have to walk. ? The poor man's lack of choice in his mode of travel may be unfortunate, but it is not unconstitutional.”); ?City of Houston v. FAA, 679 F.2d 1184, 1198 (5th Cir.1982) (“At most, [the air carrier plaintiffs'] argument reduces to the feeble claim that passengers have a constitutional right to the most convenient form of travel. ? That notion, as any experienced traveler can attest, finds no support whatsoever in [the Supreme Court's right of interstate travel jurisprudence] or in the airlines' own schedules.”). ? The Supreme Court of Rhode Island in Berberian v. Petit, 118 R.I. 448, 374 A.2d 791 (1977), put it this way:
The plaintiff's argument that the right to operate a motor vehicle is fundamental because of its relation to the fundamental right of interstate travel is utterly frivolous. ? The plaintiff is not being prevented from traveling interstate by public transportation, by common carrier, or in a motor vehicle driven by someone with a license to drive it. ? What is at issue here is not his right to travel interstate, but his right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways, and we have no hesitation in holding that this is not a fundamental right.
- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circu ... f5cKF.dpuf

[MediumTex]

It may not make you a "bad guy," but it makes you kinda a jerk to want to punish, say, me (a lawful US citizen) because I happen to live in a state that issues driver licenses to "illegals" (widely considered a derogatory term).  Automotive licenses do not confer lawful immigration status so, when presented at an airport as identification, they won't keep anyone from being deported.  I'm not sure what "consequences" you are referring to.

So who's the bigger jerk, me for bringing these issues up or the people letting in illegals while making taxpayers foot the bill and giving them government IDs which undermines confidence in state issued drivers licenses?

A valid ID is like printing money. Think about what it would mean for instance to allow all Americans to basically get another ID with an unconnected alias on it whenever they wanted. Don't you think that could cause problems? Now what is the difference between that and allowing an illegal with no birth records to just state who they are and get that same ID that you and I had to present all manner of proof to get? It's the keys to the kingdom in many ways. One step below having a passport.

Lastly, why should I care what an illegal thinks of what I call them anyway? I don't care what they think any more than they care about coming in uninvited.

I wonder if in Mexico they are turning themselves inside out to ensure Central Americans coming through their country have housing, food, living assistance, healthcare, and driver's licenses? I bet not.

It seems to me that in the same way that there is a state residency requirement to get a state-issued drivers license, there should also be a requirement that you be a legal resident of the U.S. to get a state-issued drivers license. That's not unreasonable, is it?

To clarify my earlier comments about Mexican immigrants, I was only speaking about legal immigrants.  It seems to me that if a person is willing to enter the country illegally, what will make them want to start following the laws once they get here, especially since they know that one wrong move might get them deported?  In other words, an illegal immigrant basically lives an outlaw life the entire time he is in the U.S., which IMHO doesn't make for a strong citizenship foundation.

It's true that the illegal immigrant who sneaks into the country and has a child here who is therefore a citizen often sees that child grow into a thoroughly American person, but the question is whether immigration policy should be based on anecdotal Gonzalez and Martinez-flavored Horatio Alger stories.

It just seems to me that the U.S. already provides countless ways to enter the country legally, whether you are a person with certain skills and a supporting U.S. employer, a political refugee seeking asylum, an interpreter in a combat zone who assists U.S. troops, a wealthy person from almost anywhere in the world, or maybe just a lucky winner of the 100,000 or so visas given every year in the international visa lottery deigned to promote diversity in the immigrant population (sounds stupid I know, but all of those State Department employees have to have something to do I guess).

The ultimate question is whether a person wishing to enter the United States has enough respect for the laws of the U.S. that he will put in the work necessary to enter and remain in the country legally.  If he believes his own economic situation precludes him from obeying the law, how is that different from someone who steals because he thinks that his own needs supersede the rights of the property owner he steal from?

As far as border walls, fences and barriers go, I am not optimistic about that type of U.S.-Mexico border enforcement.

As far as Israel and its wall goes, the U.S.-Mexico border is five times longer than the border that the Israel wall protects, and trying to follow a natural waterway for the Texas portion of the border is a nightmare because you can't erect the barrier in flood plain areas, which means you end up building the wall in some cases far from the actual border, which leaves areas of U.S. soil on the Mexico side of the border.  This problem springs up in the news from time to time in Texas when some Texas rancher complains that he has been walled off on the Mexico side of the border, even though he's still in the U.S.

The fact that the U.S.-Mexico border has the most LEGAL crossings of any border in the world also makes erecting and managing an effective border barrier that much harder because simply managing 300 million legal border crossings a year consumes an enormous amount of Border Patrol resources.  Adding a project equal in scale to almost half the Great Wall of China seems like an enormous undertaking.  The Border Patrol currently employs about 21,000 agents to secure an overall U.S. border of about 19,000 miles.  It seems to me that it would require another 80,000 or so agents to provide the kind of border security that Trump seems to want.  It could certainly be done, but hiring an additional 80,000 government employees along with a gaggle of outside contractors to work on one of the largest engineering projects in the history of the world sounds like the way we talk about what went into building the pyramids in Egypt.  In other words, it would be one of the biggest government programs ever conceived, and it's coming from people who call themselves Republicans.  That's kind of weird to me.

Simply decriminalizing marijuana would reduce a lot of the problems associated with the U.S.-Mexico border because an enormous stream of illegal revenue would suddenly dry up and all of that drug money that is currently going into the pockets of Mexican drug lords would instead start going into the pockets of U.S. entrepreneurs and U.S. taxing authorities that currently take a portion of every sale of products like cigarettes and alcohol.  It would be a huge loss for the prison-industrial complex, but it would be a huge gain for farmers, wholesale/retail pot distributors, and excise tax collectors.  All of the unemployed prison guards, probation officers and drug court judges could just go to work for the pot farmers, upscale smoke shops and state tax collection agencies.  It would be a redistribution of wealth with probably a net overall gain for society because we would see an immediate reduction in crime and associated violence, as well as a huge new domestic industry that would create a lot more new wealth than a bunch of government employees conspiring with prison construction and maintenance companies to round up citizens to make sure that the prisons remain at maximum capacity at all times.

To give you a sense of what a stunning success the prison-industrial complex has been, take a look at this:



Here is what it looks like on a per capita basis:



The U.S. has about 4.5% of the world's population, but has 22% of the world's prisoners.  The U.S. prison population of around 2,300,000 people basically living like animals (or worse) to me is sort of sad and embarrassing.  The U.S. prison population is about 500,000 larger than the prison population in China, even though China has over three times the overall population of the U.S.

The U.S. prison and jail population today is about five times higher than it was in 1980.  Are the streets five times safer today than they were in 1980?  Of course not, though the streets are a little safer than they used to be:

 

It seems like we are well past the point of diminishing marginal returns on locking up more people for non-violent crimes, but the prison contractors still have bills to pay so they should be expected to do everything in their power to see that more new prisons get built.  They've been VERY successful thus far, and like any prudent industry, they have plowed some of their profits back into making sure they get the best political representation money can buy:



A prison-industrial complex investment has been a good one in recent years.  Note how these two companies provided investors with a four bagger and a five bagger in the 2002-2012 period, even though this period covered a secular bear market for stocks overall.



For anyone who is familiar with that psycho Steve Ballmer's "Developers" speech at an internal Microsoft event, I'm imagining some Judge Dredd-looking CEO of a prison construction and maintenance firm giving a similar speech to his people, except the mantra would be "Incarcerate, Incarcerate, Incarcerate, Incarcerate!!!"

If you haven't seen the original speech and the various remixes of it and you like to smile, please check it out.

This is my favorite remix here:

(I suggests using headphones and turning it up for maximum effect.)

https://youtu.be/KMU0tzLwhbE?list=RDe8M6S8EKbnU

I have no idea how they talked Bill Gates into doing this "Night at the Roxbury" bit with Ballmer:

https://youtu.be/IY2j_GPIqRA?list=RDe8M6S8EKbnU

Ballmer scoffs at new Apple device called the "iPhone":

https://youtu.be/eywi0h_Y5_U?list=RDe8M6S8EKbnU

The Ballmer Zune ad that never ran:

https://youtu.be/ZIk4qTKmKzE?list=RDe8M6S8EKbnU

Wall Street was about as impressed with Ballmer as people were with Microsoft products under his leadership:

[Mountaineer]

To give you a sense of what a stunning success the prison-industrial complex has been, take a look at this:



Here is what it looks like on a per capita basis:



The U.S. has about 4.5% of the world's population, but has 22% of the world's prisoners.  The U.S. prison population of around 2,300,000 people basically living like animals (or worse) to me is sort of sad and embarrassing.  The U.S. prison population is about 500,000 larger than the prison population in China, even though China has over three times the overall population of the U.S.

The U.S. prison and jail population today is about five times higher than it was in 1980.

I see a strong correlation between the availability of highly effective birth control methods in the early 1960s and the exploding prison population beginning in early 1980s.  "High class" women just stopped having babies that would have diluted that huge incarceration rate spike.  Only the "low class" women continued to reproduce and gave birth to those who murder, steal, do drugs, rape, and chase rainbows. 

Partly in jest, partly not.  Very un-PC. 

... M

[Lowe]

Why is the incarceration rate going down now?  That can't be a good thing unless that's non-violent drug offenders being let go.

Are people going soft on crime?

[MediumTex]

Why is the incarceration rate going down now?  That can't be a good thing unless that's non-violent drug offenders being let go.

Are people going soft on crime?

I think that some states are just running out of money to continue increasing their prison populations.

That's probably why spending on lobbying by the prison construction and management industry has tripled in recent years.  If the size of the pie is contracting, they probably want to make sure that they protect their slice of it.

[screwtape]

Assuming this information stands up to fact-checking I would be very curious to know how anybody can possibly defend this kind of immigration policy.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... ge-in-u-s/

"In 2013 the Obama administration released 36,007 criminal immigrants who had nearly 88,000 convictions. Those convictions included 193 homicide convictions, 426 sexual assault convictions, 303 kidnapping convictions, and 1,075 aggravated assault convictions."

My stepson has a green card but hasn't yet applied for citizenship even though he's been here for over 10 years. I used to warn him not to get caught driving drunk because he would be automatically deported (which is the law, btw), but now I'm thinking that was a really big joke (although maybe the law still does apply to those who come here legally, with illegals being a special protected class).

[screwtape]

So ultimately the one form of ID that has been used unofficially for years to show citizenship and eligibility to be in the country has been undermined.

What that means is the next step for the government to require proof of legal citizenship/residency for certain items (like buying a gun), may be to demand Passports be used. I also wouldn't be surprised to see heavy biometrics used as well.

Essentially, driver's licenses for illegals has likely made carrying passports for everyone in the future mandatory.

When trying to cross the Canadian border a few years ago I found out that my wife's U.S. green card was an acceptable form of identification but my Florida Driver's license was not.

[MediumTex]

So ultimately the one form of ID that has been used unofficially for years to show citizenship and eligibility to be in the country has been undermined.

What that means is the next step for the government to require proof of legal citizenship/residency for certain items (like buying a gun), may be to demand Passports be used. I also wouldn't be surprised to see heavy biometrics used as well.

Essentially, driver's licenses for illegals has likely made carrying passports for everyone in the future mandatory.

When trying to cross the Canadian border a few years ago I found out that my wife's U.S. green card was an acceptable form of identification but my Florida Driver's license was not.

If I was in charge of any international border and I found out that my very friendly neighbor to the south was issuing drivers licenses to illegal immigrants I would never accept a drivers license from that country again as proof of ANYTHING.