Thong-Clad Lady Liberty To Illegals: "Kiss My American Ass!"

John Kasich, you've got your next guest for your Columbus, Ohio-based Fox News show From the Heartland. His name is Art Bollinger, he lives in Toledo, and he's just made a bold statment against illegal immigrants by putting a knockoff of the Statue of Liberty in his yard:

From the front, you can see the Statue of Liberty. From behind, it shows Lady Liberty's behind, in a thong bikini. The nearby sign says "Kiss my American Ass."

Bollinger tells News 11 he will accept anyone into this country as long as they come here legally, but he has no patience for those who sneak in. "You don't have rights. You are here illegally," said Bollinger of the people who cross the border without permission. "If I break the law, I go to prison. You break the law and the American government says they'll kiss your behind. No. That's ridiculous."...

Bollinger says his wife is from Russia and he had to jump through all kinds of hoops and pay for the process of her becoming a US citizen. He feels everyone else should do the same.

Whole thing here.

Bollinger's neighbors--indeed, the world--are doubtless waiting to see his take on this in-yer-face pose by Uncle Sam.

Comments

Clean Hands | May 31, 2006, 11:07am | #

So he's pissed that he had to pay for his mail-order bride, and some guy down the street picked up a Mexican for free?

the other Mark | May 31, 2006, 11:14am | #

What in the goddamn fuck are you spewing about?

Another Lurker | May 31, 2006, 11:19am | #

RE) III's post. I love these posts from folks who have no idea what a libertarian is.

Back to the issue at hand, I wonder if that guy knows that the Statue of Liberty is really a French ass. Gotta love idiots, the comedy just keeps on coming.

Tim Cavanaugh | May 31, 2006, 11:20am | #

Lonewacko, get some new talking points. That stuff's older than Chief Dan George, and it's all been worked over here a thousand times.

mediageek | May 31, 2006, 11:28am | #

Wow. Lady Liberty really needs to get on a Nautilus machine.

MArk | May 31, 2006, 11:40am | #

What in the goddamn fuck are you spewing about?

Other Mark wins today's prize for best post.

Dave W. | May 31, 2006, 11:46am | #

So he's pissed that he had to pay for his mail-order bride, and some guy down the street picked up a Mexican for free?

That one made me laugh, CH.

joe | May 31, 2006, 12:03pm | #

"Just 2% of Americans think immigration levels are too low. Yet, the powers that be force them to accept something they don't want. Force? Doesn't sound too "libertarian" too me."

Can I sue Lonewacko for making me dumber with this statement?

Mark | May 31, 2006, 12:03pm | #

I like the name Art Bollinger though. It sounds like the sort of name JD Salinger might have come up with for one his novels; a wisecracking loner who wanders the streets of 60's New York at night wearing a silly hat and smoking european cigarettes.

Yogi | May 31, 2006, 12:19pm | #

Clean Hands beat me to the punch. Nice work.

MikeP | May 31, 2006, 1:00pm | #

Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my skirt beside the crazy guy's house!

Falsely Accused Of Statue-tory Rape | May 31, 2006, 1:02pm | #

Another Lurker's got a point. What law-abiding American wants to see off-color political insults written on the derriere of some Jew-hatin', terror-appeasin', unemployment-ignorin' French mam'selle? He should have given her the kind of makeover that we Americans would like to see. Somebody like Pamela Anderson or Salma Hayek, for instance.

smacky | May 31, 2006, 1:07pm | #

Ahh, that's Toledo, Ohio for you. Classy, understated, and elegant all the way.


Wow. Lady Liberty really needs to get on a Nautilus machine.

mg,

I hope that was a snark. Her butt is hardly bodaceous or even curvaceous. In fact, it's rock hard! And I swear, if I cross paths with another bony-ass-lovin' white boy...no you di'in!

Inkstained Wretch | May 31, 2006, 1:20pm | #

As one person already noted, Lady Liberty is not actually an American woman but a mademoiselle. It's also worth noting that the French female posterior can be a glorious thing to behold. In fact, if it were in my power, I'd create a special visa express program just for them.

stubby | May 31, 2006, 1:41pm | #

I'm not real invested in the immigration debate either way - I live in Houston, in a part of Texas that used to be Mexico, and I just can't go with the stop-illegal-immigration-no-matter-what thing - it's not possible and it's not humane.

That being said, one thing that sticks in the anti-illegal immigration crowd's throat bugs me as well - the whole "rights" issues. Does a non-citizen, and a non-citizen who has entered the country illegally, have rights, aside from basic human rights? I don't think so.

And one other thing that pisses me off - Mexico's treatment of illegal immigrants, which makes the US look like a shining model of charity and compassion. Mexico's whinging and screaming about a hypothetical wall or any other obstacles to illegal immigration, while they treat illegal immigrants as shamefully and brutally as they do, is just the kind of hypocritical BS that encourages the right to treat all criticism of American policy as hypocritcal BS (as, indeed, it often is - cf France - civil rights, due process, prison conditions, race relations, foreign interventions; pick your ME nation - civil rights, due process, prison conditions, religous tolerance; etc etc etc.

Wintermute | May 31, 2006, 1:51pm | #

The open borders thing was adopted as a doctrine by the founders of the Libertarian Party long ago, but I never thought it flowed from first principles, as the Party's other positions do.

MikeP | May 31, 2006, 2:09pm | #

Does a non-citizen, and a non-citizen who has entered the country illegally, have rights, aside from basic human rights? I don't think so.

First, I would include the rights to travel where one wishes, to live where one can find agreeable accommodations, and to work where one can find an employer to be basic human rights -- rights that are denied people in the US who don't have the correct papers.

Second, I can enumerate exactly four rights that citizens have that noncitizens don't:

1. The right not to be deported
2. The right to vote
3. The right to hold elected office
4. The right to serve on a jury

Note that, as creations of government, those last three are actually entitlements or privileges, not rights. Rights exist before and outside of governments and are secured, not granted, by governments.

Clean Hands | May 31, 2006, 2:27pm | #

Wintermute, here's a "first principles" argument that might hold some water for you:

1. I own myself.
2. I recognize that each human being similarly owns him- or herself.
3. The gov't's sole legitimate role is to ensure that this right to self-ownership is not abrogated by the application of force or fraud.
4. Preventing immigration by those who have not committed acts of force or fraud does not serve to protect me from such abrogation.
5. Preventing immigration by those who have not committed acts of force or fraud does serve to abrogate the right to self-ownership of the immigrant.

SmokingPenguin | May 31, 2006, 2:27pm | #

And I swear, if I cross paths with another bony-ass-lovin' white boy...no you di'in!

smacky got back?

IllegalImmigrationIntroduction | May 31, 2006, 2:30pm | #

Tim Cavanaugh opines: it's all been worked over here a thousand times.

Actually, it was only fairly recently - and after this site posted dozens of proillegalimmigration threads - that Nick Gillespie admitted that illegal labor was massively subsidized.

Communist groups like ANSWER, WCW, ISO, etc. seem to have made the calculation that helping the Bush administration's backers by helping them import illegal aliens is worth it because it helps the Communists build a proletariat. I guess a similar calculation has been made by libertarians who support that massively subsidized labor.

the other Mark | May 31, 2006, 3:02pm | #

What the cocksucking hell are you talking about? You should try to square yourself away and start making some sense.

Pig Mannix | May 31, 2006, 3:22pm | #

The open borders thing was adopted as a doctrine by the founders of the Libertarian Party long ago, but I never thought it flowed from first principles, as the Party's other positions do.

Well, this libertarian doesn't think so...

Inkstained Wretch | May 31, 2006, 3:25pm | #

So, waitaminute, ANSWER is now secretly backing the Bush administration? Hey, I'll have what III's drinking ...

Pig Mannix | May 31, 2006, 3:26pm | #

...nor this one...

Pig Mannix | May 31, 2006, 3:29pm | #

...or this one.

MikeP | May 31, 2006, 4:18pm | #

Pig Mannix,

Let's quote the kernel of Rothbard's argument in your second tinyurl:

If every piece of land in a country were owned by some person, group, or corporation, this would mean that no immigrant could enter there unless invited to enter and allowed to rent, or purchase, property. A totally privatized country would be as "closed" as the particular inhabitants and property owners desire. It seems clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the U.S. really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors.

This argument is so very misguided.

The thought that a monolithic anti-alien mentality would rise as the essential regime over all property in a large territorial area is ridiculous on its face, extremely unlikely under ecomomic theory, and frankly unlibertarian. To then take that finding and extend it to a government's "control" over all rights of way and property in its dominion is even worse.

On the contrary, I think that under anarcho-capitalism the roads would be wide open to travel by anybody. The entities that own the roads couldn't care less what country the traveler was from, whose job he might take, what cultural influences he would bring, what language he spoke, etc. And any potential employer who wanted to bring that traveler across the road would be willing to compensate the owner of the road for any latent bigotry found on the price sheet.

Incidentally, it is precisely because properties adjacent to roads would be owned by such diverse interests that I think rights of way would not be actually owned in an anarcho-capitalist society. Customs of commons over the rights of way would evolve, with operators of the roads managing the improvements but allowing passage to all travelers.

Isaac Bartram | May 31, 2006, 4:21pm | #

I love the circular reasoning that Lonewacko and his ilk engage in.

"Illegal aliens" are illegal for no other reason than Congress made them so.

When we ask Lonewacko why admitting more of these aliens should be illegal they tell us "because it's bad".

When we ask Lonewacko why admitting more of these aliens is bad they tell us "because it's illegal".

Tell me Lonewacko, exactly why should we not just make it legal to admit more of these immigrants?

mediageek | May 31, 2006, 4:41pm | #

"Can I sue Lonewacko for making me dumber with this statement?"

Joe, talk to Dave W., he might be interested.

"I hope that was a snark. Her butt is hardly bodaceous or even curvaceous. In fact, it's rock hard! And I swear, if I cross paths with another bony-ass-lovin' white boy...no you di'in!"

Smacky, yeah, it was mostly a snark. While I used to be all about the super-waify girls, I have learned in the last couple of years that curves have an aesthetic and tactile delight all their own.

Pig Mannix | May 31, 2006, 5:11pm | #

The thought that a monolithic anti-alien mentality would rise as the essential regime over all property in a large territorial area is ridiculous on its face, extremely unlikely under ecomomic theory, and frankly unlibertarian.

Except he never stated any such anti-alien mentality would arise. He simply stated that there would be no inherent right to enter. Obviously, private property owners would be free to grant or deny access as they pleased. How much more of a libertarian conception of property rights would you like?

To then take that finding and extend it to a government's "control" over all rights of way and property in its dominion is even worse.

Why? "Public" ownership is merely a proxy for collective ownership. In this case, the legitimate owners are the people who pay for the upkeep and maintenance of the property - the taxpayers. And, yes, as a proxy for the owners, they have the just authority to restrict access on their behalf.

On the contrary, I think that under anarcho-capitalism the roads would be wide open to travel by anybody. The entities that own the roads couldn't care less what country the traveler was from, whose job he might take, what cultural influences he would bring, what language he spoke, etc. And any potential employer who wanted to bring that traveler across the road would be willing to compensate the owner of the road for any latent bigotry found on the price sheet.

Um, maybe. But I'd check with the road owners first, lest they decide to aggressively defend their property against unauthorized use.

MikeP | May 31, 2006, 5:50pm | #

Except he never stated any such anti-alien mentality would arise. He simply stated that there would be no inherent right to enter. Obviously, private property owners would be free to grant or deny access as they pleased. How much more of a libertarian conception of property rights would you like?

How much more? How about the recognition that if a single road owner allows entry of aliens and a single property owner allows residence and employment of aliens, and the road connects the outside world with the property, then those aliens have every right and allowance to travel the road to the property!

Since this condition is so incredibly much more likely than a monolithic block of nondefecting property owners preventing alien intrusion, I would say that it is the model that the public approximation should be following.

In the US today we already have property owners who are willing and happy to allow aliens to live on their property and work on their property. How can one possibly base an anti-immigration argument on anarcho-capitalist grounds while staring that fact right in the face?

Add on top of this that illegal immigrants today spend thousands of dollars to immigrate... That is a massive surplus available to any road owner who wants to take it.

It is frankly inconceivable that the regime in an anarcho-capitalist society would be anti-alien, as the argument claims the approximating government must be. There are simply too many different property owners and too many economic interests.

And if the argument then falls back to "the government owns the roads," well, you have given up on any argument based on anarcho-capitalism, libertarian first principles, or any concept of freedom or rights whatsoever... especially if the default regime of the roads is the restriction of travel!

MikeP | May 31, 2006, 6:05pm | #

I'd check with the road owners first, lest they decide to aggressively defend their property against unauthorized use.

You must have missed the paragraph about how roads in an anarcho-capitalist society would end up being effectively unowned...

If you need a hint at the argument, note that the number, power, and wealth of the property owners bordering the road dwarfs that of the owner of the road. It is completely in their interest to buy the road to guarantee that whoever they want coming to their properties can travel it. Highways between population centers will remain owned properties, like railroads. But roads within towns will end up commonly owned by those bounding the roads.

In the end, recognized rights of way will be effectively commons, with improvements and operations contracted out to a road company. But restriction of travel is neither in the interest of the road operator, nor in the interests of the many different businesses along the road. It will not happen.

Lowdog | May 31, 2006, 7:11pm | #

smacky - this whit boy likes a woman with some funk in her trunk, so don't kill me.

But you do realise you're teasing again, don't you? ;)

wayne | May 31, 2006, 7:24pm | #

I will take a crack at the "why is illegal immigration bad?" post above.

I offer a quote from an economist that I read regularly, and whose opinion I respect.


"- Congress is crafting an "immigration bill" that is the poster child for everything that is wrong with America. On the one hand, the Democrats are parading their bigotry and filthy racism by fawning over trespassing, border-jumping illegal Mexicans as merely darling wayward little brown children, who just need grown-up white people to take care of them.

Democrats forget completely that these Mexicans are fully-grown adults from a democratic republic, and these are the same people who have, decade after decade, deliberately elected a corrupt, economy-destroying government. It has now finally gotten so bad there that millions of them desperately want to escape the dysfunctional economic, political and social system they deliberately created. Talk about Americans underwriting moral hazard!

The despicable Republicans, on the other hand, also want an immigration bill, only one that will supply them with lots of cheap, disposable strong-back labor ("It's not slavery! Same wages and benefits, but they can leave anytime they like!"). Republicans further want employers to be allowed to pass the enormous costs of health care and the other crippling transfer costs (contained in the hundreds of welfare-type programs made available to these exploited working-poor) to the general public. Their argument is that this is desirable since a low cost of agricultural and manual labor keeps inflation low! Hahaha! Wrong, morons! Jeez! How morally and intellectually bankrupt can you be?

This is the same ridiculous argument that I get from my own kids. They say that they can easily live on a part-time, minimum wage, no-benefits, slave-labor job! No problem, as long as they can live free at my house forever, eat my groceries, stay on my health insurance plan, and maybe get a few bucks from me every once in a while. Hahaha!

What in the hell does this have to do with economics? Just this: Whatever happens, it will be expensive. Very expensive. And for a long time, too."

Yep, that is why illegal immigration is bad; very, very bad.

wayne | May 31, 2006, 7:27pm | #

Smacky... Hmmmm, Smacky...

Good name for a girl with a big ass. Take that as a compliment as I happen to "like big butts, and I can not lie..."

Pig Mannix | May 31, 2006, 7:46pm | #

How much more? How about the recognition that if a single road owner allows entry of aliens and a single property owner allows residence and employment of aliens, and the road connects the outside world with the property, then those aliens have every right and allowance to travel the road to the property!

A single road owner has no right usurp the rights of the other owners by granting that permission. Therefore, no such right exists. Period.

MikeP | May 31, 2006, 8:26pm | #

A single road owner has no right usurp the rights of the other owners by granting that permission. Therefore, no such right exists. Period.

Okay, which is it...

Obviously, private property owners would be free to grant or deny access as they pleased.

... or ...

A single road owner has no right usurp the rights of the other owners by granting that permission.

?

I should note that the latter statement makes a mockery of the concept of property rights. Therefore, any argument passing through this statement while imagining that it is based on libertarian first principles is hopelessly broken.

MikeP | May 31, 2006, 8:41pm | #

wayne quotes Richard Daughty:

Democrats forget completely that these Mexicans are fully-grown adults from a democratic republic, and these are the same people who have, decade after decade, deliberately elected a corrupt, economy-destroying government. It has now finally gotten so bad there that millions of them desperately want to escape the dysfunctional economic, political and social system they deliberately created.

What a lovely formulation of collective guilt!

I suppose it never entered the author's mind that the people who are fleeing are not the people who are profiting from the dysfunctional tendencies of the Mexican government.

In fact, the people who migrate to the US are the least politically powerful. They are, for all intents and purposes, the victims of the usurpations of the economic sphere by the political powers. To brand them with that blame as an argument against their fleeing their effective feudal lords is rather sad.

Pig Mannix | May 31, 2006, 9:21pm | #

Okay, which is it...

Obviously, private property owners would be free to grant or deny access as they pleased.
... or ...

A single road owner has no right usurp the rights of the other owners by granting that permission.
?

Both. In the case of a sole ownership, that owner has discretion over disposal of his own property. In the case of collective ownership, a consensus or controlling interest of shares among the owners is necessary to affect a decision, unless one of the owners or a trustee has been authorized to make that decision unilaterally.

I should note that the latter statement makes a mockery of the concept of property rights. Therefore, any argument passing through this statement while imagining that it is based on libertarian first principles is hopelessly broken.

Presumably, under your conception of libertarian first principles, my ownership of a few hundred shares of IBM stock ought to entitle me to allow anybody I choose access and use of IBM's facilities.

I don't think so.

Methinks it's your conception of libertarian first principles that's broken.

MikeP | May 31, 2006, 9:42pm | #

In the case of a sole ownership, that owner has discretion over disposal of his own property. In the case of collective ownership, a consensus or controlling interest of shares among the owners is necessary to affect a decision, unless one of the owners or a trustee has been authorized to make that decision unilaterally.

When I said "single road owner," I meant whatever individual, group, cooperative, company, or other entity owned a single road. I did not mean a single owner out of a collective of owners.

Please try again with this new understanding...

If the owner of a single road allows entry of aliens and the owner of a single property allows residence and employment of aliens, and the road connects the outside world with the property, then those aliens have every right and allowance to travel the road to the property!

wayne | June 1, 2006, 12:56am | #

"If I have to "subsidize" something, I'd rather have them here than subsidize lazy bigotry."

Ah, but that is the point, you have no obligation to subsidize "them". I have no objection to any of "them" who come here, but "they" need to pay their own freight, and schooling, and food, and lodging, and medical, and... everything else.

As for Richard Daughty assigning "collective guilt" in his essay, I say horse shit. Mexico is a lovely, but fucked up country, and I understand why the lower class wants out, but I don't want to be dragged down the crapper with them. America has no obligation to nurture the rest of the world, and we can not afford to do it.

And if you want to experience cruel hyprocisy, then take your America ass down to Mexico illegally, and see just how warmly you are embraced as an "undocumented worker".